#patton discourse

Me: Patton is a great character, but what makes him a great character isn't that he's kind hearted and accepting but that he's flawed and capable of making mistakes.

Me: Patton is a great character because you're able to interpret him as someone who's bumbling through life or someone who's purposely messing up to get his own way and both interpretations are valid.

Me: And actually people who don't like Patton are allowed to not like him and like other characters, people who bully others for their own interpretations of the characters are not people I want to associate with.

Me: And while I'm here people who love Patton and prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt and make him a good person are just as valid as people who don't like him.

the reason I haven’t yet is that I enjoy seeing genuine in depth character analysis including criticism, and even (and maybe especially?) with characters that I love

but lots of it is just... idk, not true? 

I made a rant recently about how people criticise him for pretty much not being a mind reader 

and if he was people would probably use that against him too somehow idk

and tbh, most of the criticism I see is very similar to that

When Deceit was initially revealed, it was all-or-nothing. He was either a horrible, manipulative and abusive figure or completely kind and trying his best. There was no in-between, even though I am of the strong opinion that he’s just morally gray and interesting, not... bad.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I’m not here to dictate your fandom experience. If Deciet makes you uncomfortable or triggers you, I 100% understand. If you don’t like characters, I don’t mind that, either- you don’t need to justify yourself to me.

But what I’m mainly commenting on is not people’s personal preferences in characters- I’m more concerned with how, at the vaguest hint of doing something morally complex, people seem to go from “sweet baby child” to “horrible manipulative monster” in an instant.

And... no??? Like I said, if this is what you want to write about and explore, all the power to you- but I beg you to stop trying to convince the fandom that a previously loved character is awful because they came to a resolution you do not agree with. Patton is allowed to be moral to a fault- that’s what makes him an interesting character. It feels like half of the point of this video was that- that if you let your morality and selflessness dictate everything you do, you won’t be happy.

And that’s what Thomas allowed to happen.

It’s the same with anxiety, romanticism, logic, and deceit. If given complete control, the results are often self destructive and, well, shitty for others as well. The point of Sanders Sides is finding that balance, as we saw with Virgil’s arc, and a little bit with Deceit’s first episode. The fact that people are immmediatly labeling a good character ‘manipulative’ and ‘abusive’ because he was given too much control is just... wild to me. What happened to a happy medium, or being able to enjoy a flawed character?

If any of you have seen my react video (link is here: https://youtu.be/t38KiRcRfGc), once Patton tells Thomas, "You don't mean any of this. I'm your morality. I wouldn't be here if you did." I said quite instantaneously, "That doesn't sound like something Patton would say."

It sat with me wrong and it still does today. But I can't just over look this because I enjoy Patton as a character. There's a reason that hit me the wrong way and analyzing why and maybe realizing Patton took the wrong course of action doesn't mean I like him any less.

Patton has always had the most open, purist of hearts to me. He was emotional, sentimental, self sacrificing, and accepting of all. He proved that with Virgil. Even if he disagreed how Virgil did things, he would still go out of his way to say that Virgil was just doing things the way he knew. He accepted Virgil had a different way of seeing things and just moved on from it.

But when it comes to Deceit, he can't do that. And a lot of people will shout "That's because Deceit is a liar! That's because Deceit manipulates people!"

Sure, that's one perspective. But the other is also that Patton knows that Deceit is self preservation. He said it himself in Deceit's premiere episode "Can Lying Be Good?":

Self-preservation is defined as: the protection of oneself from harm or death, especially regarded as a basic instinct in human beings and animals.

That could mean that Deceit is both truths and lies. He helps based on how the situation affects Thomas' self preservation and self worth overall. He helps Thomas get what he truly wants, even if he doesn't know it.

A lot of people, including myself, said at the end of the video that we "agreed with Deceit" and that "Thomas should go to the callback" but those are two different things.

Deceit didn't care either way if Thomas went to the callback or to the wedding. He wanted Thomas to admit he wanted to go to the callback.

In my mind that leads me to believe that Deceit would've supported Thomas if he actually had wanted to go to the wedding and probably would've never said anything. But because Thomas was lying to himself he showed up to reveal that. If Deceit actually is self preservation, that means Deceit is looking out for Thomas's self worth here. Choosing his own needs (because a callback is an audition for a job in the grand scheme of things and a job is something Thomas needs to live and support himself) over his friends wants (because getting married is a want, not something needed) will help with his self-worth, especially if he wins the callback.

Overall, I just wanted to point this out. If you wanted Thomas to go to the callback and not the wedding, that means you were looking out for Thomas's self-worth and wanting him to succeed. If you wanted Thomas to go to the wedding, you were looking out for Thomas's connection to his friends. Neither one is wrong in this scenario.

me: that’s great! i kinda look up to him! :)

also the fandom: Patton is manipulative and toxic and problematic and fake-