it's one thing to have preferences and explaining them but telling people they shouldn't like a character because they're "bad" or have done bad things feels like fandom policing and i don't like it. and i've seen some posts especially in our fandom about javik and they never sit right with me because the argument is somehow linked to the idea that he should have been good but he's not, and we can't like a character who's that bad if we're good ourselves
but javik not being "good" as people see it is why he's so interesting. he's from a different time with different rules, and that's the entire point! he's there so we can see how it was done before, and why this current cycle has a chance.
we wouldn't understand the importance of uniting very different and unique people if javik wasn't there to say that the prothean empire failed by forcing people under one people, one rule. and this epic failure happened despite the prothean believing themselves so superior to others!
we also get this lesson about idolizing previous civilizations and cultures as liara has to come to terms with the fact that the protheans aren't as wise and/or as benevolent as she wanted them to be. surely it's not that distant from irl where people tend to idolize empires from before, and learn almost nothing from history.
and it's not just on a larger scale that javik has a purpose in the story. he's also a character who believes there is no honor in war and who has lost everything. symbolically, he can be seen as a ghost, but also a great warning for shepard and their future.
so i find him genuinely important to the story. but even if he wasn't useful, why would we want all characters to be good? it would be boring. there's also a difference between liking a character, appreciating their presence in the story and approving what they do. They're three different things!











