u/DemonHunter34

Let's get one thing straight. we all initially thought the protagonist was the good guy growing up. This popular misconception stemmed from the fact that we were used to consuming lighter, children's narratives that often painted the protagonist as the white knight in shining armor and the antagonist as the diabolical, evil doer.

The main reason why we tend to associate these two roles with this structure, stems from the fact that we are often drawn to narratives that provide clear moral positioning and positive conclusions, since this reflects how we want to picture the world in real life.

But do all stories need happy endings? The simple answer is no and honestly, it's a good thing that some stories end on a tragic, downer conclusion, given these stories reflect the reality that the world isn't all sunshine and rainbows.

Coupled with the fact that morality isn't black and white but exists on a spectrum, since individuals whether morally righteous or corrupt are often products of their given environment, circumstance and personal choices.

Adolf Hitler for instance is often regarded as a sociopathic tyrant of popular simplification, and while he did do many awful things, he also had a surprising number of redeeming qualities that make him far from the complete monster he's often made out to be. For starters he actually banned smoking, was against animal cruelty, (despite all the deaths he was responsible for) and the fact that he did genuinely care for his wife from what I believe.

Even if these qualities might not excuse all of the death, and suffering he caused it's a clear reminder that we all contain both light and dark.

Which is why narratives that feature morally ambiguous or even downright villainous protagonists, who's actions aren't softened by the "evil vs evil" buffer challenge our desire for clear moral positioning and our own morality.

When we see a villainous lead character's motivations explained through a tragic backstory, it makes us question (what would we do if we were in their position)? Are we really as virtuous as we like to believe or are we simply lucky to not have experienced the things that would drive us to make selfish decisions?

This also relates to the fact that while being virtuous is important it's not always ideal for every given situation. Especially in a world that prioritizes survival over selfless decisions like a post-apocalyptic environment.

I and others have been talking recently about how Ed Edd N Eddy has often ended with the Eds getting their comeuppance for their usual greedy antics, often established by Eddy who is painted by many as a villain due to his obsession with money and taking his friends loyalty for granted at times.

This is especially evident in the episode "Brother Can you Spare an Ed" where Eddy resorts to desperate measures by pressuring Ed into misusing Sarah's money on jawbreakers, while using Ed and Edd/Double D as cover to pay Sarah back, before getting his own fate at the end.

I've tried to defend Eddy for situations like this given I personally believe he gets way too much hate in this episode and while his actions are definitely much more selfish than in previous episodes, people tend to hold him to adult like standards, believing he's deliberately doing these things out of genuinely malicious behavior, when these behaviors stem from insecurity, and an obvious cry for help, due to a toxic family upbringing.

It might not excuse his given behavior but also means proper guidance and constructive consequences are needed to address troublesome behavior, which is why I always thought that Ed and Double D forcing Eddy to pay Sarah back on his own without their help, even though it's technically a parent's job to correct their child's behavior.

Plus Sarah kinda brought it on herself by entrusting Ed with her money knowing very well that Eddy would intervene, even though Tv Tropes would disagree with me on this saying Ed was initially loyal to his sister and only gives in due to Eddy's constant pressure, which while they may have a point, I still don't believe Sarah was entirely in the right given even though she knows Ed is a genuinely good hearted brother who will do anything for her, also knows he's naive and easily influenced. Coupled with the fact that giving her allowance to Ed when she knows Eddy will get some funny ideas and do anything to get his precious jawbreakers was still a bad move on her part.

Then again it doesn't really matter who's fault it is considering the fact i've come to realize that the consequences in Ed Edd N Eddy, along with other shows like Dexter's Lab, and Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy are used as moral lessons, that are played for comedic effect to teach kids about behaviors we want them to avoid in real life.

It's not like Game of Thrones where actions carry over to future seasons or Attack on Titan where Eren's actions lead to wiping out 80% of humanity's population and he ultimately becomes worse than the enemy he despises.

Plus! Eddy probably realized he was wrong in this particular episode and finally apologized and made up with his friends after learning his lesson the hard way, and the fact that getting his head slammed repeatedly into a tree is nothing, considering he's survived much, much worse like falling from space twice, unscathed, having an entire house dropped on top of him by Ed and surviving all of the Looney Tunes, esque challenges with Rolf in "The Good, The Bad, The Ed".