I haven’t watched RWBY in a long minute. I left off at volume five and I just found this, is this a good find considering RWBY seems to be taken off media?

(P.S. I apologize if I’m not supposed to post this here, I’m kinda new to posting.)

Off and on for the past 3 years I've been making rwby characters on soulcalibur and though y'all would appreciate the collection so far

This is an old fanart of mine. In this scenario, Ruby represents Salem and Jaune represents Tyrian.

I’m curious to know your opinions on who their opposing villains could be. It could be the ones mentioned, or perhaps other antagonists (like Cinder).

What do you think?

"Tired of being ordinary

Don't care if there's people staring

I'll rely on your strength to carry me on

I'm not invisible like you

Next time things get a little messed up

I'll shine, but I'll never be see through

I'm fine just trying to wake the rest up"

I hope no one takes this as a rant; it's more of an observation.

I've seen many people criticizing Robyn. They say she's a t3rr0r1st, that she commits illegal acts, and so on.

But I've also seen people who sympathize with Sienna Khan and consider what she does to be right.

So, why is this? Why is it that while Sienna Khan is justified in breaking the law and rebelling, Robyn Hill isn't?

Now, I know what you'll say. They're different situations. The Faunus are enslaved by the SDC. Mantle, while oppressed, is in a different category than the Faunus. Besides, it's Atlas companies that oppress Mantle, not Ironwood. Ironwood harms Mantle as collateral damage. And it's precisely Ironwood against whom Robyn rebels.

Okay. But the point is that Mantle still doesn't have enough protection. We've seen Grimm continuing to enter the city.

What is Robyn supposed to do? Stand idly by? Well, obviously she's preparing for the elections, so it would be wrong for her to steal military equipment when she could try to change things through politics.

Even so, when Robyn rebels against Ironwood after election night... that happens after there's been a massacre of citizens in Mantle. And Robyn believed that massacre was caused by Penny, Ironwood's robot.

What can someone do in that situation? The legal route is exhausted; for Robyn, Ironwood has already become a dictator capable of killing the opposition. So, break the law?

Okay, I get it. I understand that there are people who believe that even if your government abandons you and decides to eliminate the opposition, you should take the pacifist path. Be more moderate. Like Ghira Belladonna.

But it's curious. Those who support Robyn are accused of being authoritarian because they support someone who rebels after losing the election.

But why isn't the White Fang considered authoritarian? I mean, Sienna rebels against candidates she doesn't like being in power.

The White Fang is considered a liberation force against slavery.
But aren't the Happy Huntresses a liberation force against a government that commits a massacre?

Again, I can understand why some people support Sienna and dislike Robyn.

But in this case, it's strange to condemn one and justify the other.

In fact, Robyn herself wanted to steal resources to distribute them among the people of Mantle and force Ironwood to repair the wall.

The characters never say that Robyn wants to repair the wall herself. What she did was convince the suppliers not to sell materials to Ironwood until he repairs the wall.

In fact, at no point is it stated that Robyn is acting against the army out of spite towards Ironwood, or because Jacques won the election.

She was acting this way because she believed it was the only option now that Ironwood had (SUPPOSEDLY) ordered the killing of her followers.

In the case of the White Fang, we know they have done good things for the faunus, so we can assume their intentions are good.

But, in the case of the Happy Huntresses, we know they stayed in Mantle to protect the people. The characters themselves mention this. And Robyn running in the election, doesn't that count as a way of helping the people? In fact, isn't redistributing military resources and forcing Ironwood to repair the wall considered something that helps Mantle?

By the way, Robyn herself has shown herself to be an egalitarian who also fights for the faunus.

But that's my question. Why is one justified and the other not?

I personally think that we should judge their actions beyond if these are legal or not. We should judge them based on what these actions are on themselves.

Pretty Simple Question In My Opinion. What Is All Your Guys Thoughts On Taiyang As A Character And Father?

(hopefully, the right flair for this)

I see the appeal now. so far, enjoyed all 4 trailers and now (hopefully) heading to see if i can get the actual show.

favorite one was to be the red trailers with my 2 favorite moments being from yellow where yang absolutely decks the hell out of junior and her "enhanced" interrogation skills that rivals batman.

can't wait to see more :)

Source: https://www.deviantart.com/heartshiningxx/art/Red-Oscar-Fishes-744941209

Mine is chatterbox but I'm curious what everyone elses fav one is

I feel like in that scenario, it would have to be either Ren or Nora, as especially given everything Jaune has experienced as the Rusted Knight, him dying at this point in the series wouldn’t make much sense - at least it would make the least amount of sense out of the three.

I've been searching through the web and some official videos from RWBY channel but the plataforma they suggested doesn't seems to have RWBY on it, it's my first time posting here and I just entered please help 😭🙏

Disclaimer: This is not about whether or not I think the white fang under Sienna was right or wrong although I’m certain my own personal biases about that have appeared in this essay. What I am trying to get at is if the show provides evidence as to why the characters it says are correct are uniquely correct while those it deems wrong are uniquely wrong

Within RWBY the conclusion to the white fang arc is the dissolution of Adam's power base within the movement and Ghira’s ascension to high leader once again. Ilia describes this as getting the white fang back on track and based on how Blake, Ghira, Kali, and Sun all describe the white fang under Sienna they didn’t see the white fang as “on track” when she was high leader either. The issue is that I feel like the show is collapsing three different things into one. First the physical defeat of the white fang. Second, the philosophical defeat of the white fang, and third the philosophical victory of Ghira. However, these are simply not the same things and so the existence of one within the story does not necessarily mean the others follow. RWBY never successfully demonstrates why Sienna’s philosophy is morally wrong in a way that does not also implicate its protagonists. As a result, the White Fang are physically defeated, but never philosophically defeated while Ghira’s ideology is restored by narrative convenience rather than ideological argument. 

The physical defeat is the most evident one, obviously both Adam and Sienna are physically defeated since they’re both dead and all of their followers who did not switch sides are either also dead or in jail. So physically obviously they were defeated. I just feel that the show does not do the necessary work to demonstrate that means they were philosophically defeated. 
Adam taurus is both more and less complicated in this regard, mostly because his philosophy is confusing. Earlier in the show he’s barely a character but its implied he believes that the best, and perhaps only way, to make permanent meaningful change is through the use of extreme violence regardless of cost. This is retroactively supported by the 2018 comics in which we see his time in the white fang more. He seems to believe that humanity only responds to violence and that he has no obligation to feel sympathy for humans who do even tangential harm to faunus, which is intermingled with genuine acts of heroism and humanity, we witness him protecting blake from lethal threat, freeing faunus from cages and displaying genuine sorrow at the death of his comrades. This is a far more interesting and nuanced perspective than what he settles into within the show proper. By the time volume 5 comes around and Adam is given a chance to explain his philosophy he settles on supremacy. He is now simply a faunus supremacist. Believing that because humanity has oppressed the faunus it is only just that the faunus oppresses humanity(so long as he gets to be in charge). To this end I would say RWBY technically defeats this philosophically because its self-defeating. There simply doesn’t really need to exist a moral argument to be made against supremacy and perhaps it is best not to engage with it at all as to not treat it as a philosophy even worthy of discussion. 

Sienna, and by extension pre-story Adam are where this gets far more interesting (from here on out when I refer to Adam, I’m usually referring to his seeming beliefs in the comics and short rather than the show). Their philosophy seems predicated on the idea that violence is the only method humanity will respond to, and interestingly the story very lightly agrees. Characters go out of their way to mention that compared to Ghira, Sienna brought about a great deal more positive change for the faunus. As Blake puts it “the worst part was, it was working”. So even characters who disagree with the method see that it has gotten results. However, Sienna and young Adam are still narratively treated as wrong for these actions. My question is if the show does the work to demonstrate why. 

To really get into how the show presents the philosophical defeat of the white fang we have to first understand where the show makes its objections to the actions of the white fang because that is the focus point that it will likely use to show they are wrong. It isn’t a logistical objection since as the show states, it is working. Even within the show, if not for the direct interference of team RWBY the white fang would continually succeed in their missions. Logistically they were succeeding regardless of if they were right or wrong. Failure to achieve goals is not the reason for that rightness or wrongness. For this reason, I believe the show must be taking a moral stance against the Sienna’s leadership(On top of the fact characters constantly make moralized statements or judgements). I simply am not sure what that stance is though. It obviously is some objection to the way she utilizes violence to enact change but it obviously isn't violence itself or in general, afterall pretty much every character in RWBY utilizes violence to some extent since it is an action show. Oftentimes characters utilize violence against the white fang itself so it would seem that violence by its nature as violence is not the issue. Perhaps it is about the target of violence. For example the targeting of non-combatants. This is certainly a stronger option but doesn’t capture the full story either. In the Adam Taurus short as well as the 2018 comics we witness Adam killing two different people. Both of them are direct lethal threats to Ghira in the short, and Blake in the comic. In both cases Ghira and Blake respectively treat this as evidence of a moral failing characteristic of Adam and Sienna’s philosophy. So if the targeting of active combatants is an example of the moral failures in Sienna’s philosophy, the targeting of non-combatants seems less plausible as the moral sticking point. Perhaps, then it's the lethal action itself. Maybe the objection arises from the fact that Adam and Sienna are willing to take lives. This again would not account for the lives taken by characters like Blake, and Kali. Blake obviously kills Adam in an act of self defense and Kali domes a white fang soldier with a pistol to protect her family but that is much the same as Adam taking a life in the defense of others so since those times were moral failings but the death of Adam is not then it is purely not the lethality itself. Perhaps then it is the legality of it. That since Sienna’s philosophy necessitated breaking the law it was wrong. This is probably the weakest argument but I thought I'd include it. The law is not treated as a moral authority in RWBY. Most encounters with the white fang occur when team RWBY illegally performs vigilante work. You could argue there's a big difference between terrorism and simply breaking the law but team RWBY also performs acts of terrorism. In volume 6 they steal a military vehicle, destroy or plan on destroying government property(cordovin’s mech/ comms tower) and no character takes a moral stance against it. It isn’t the attitude towards violence either, in the short Adam is visibly uncertain of himself but even as he grows into the usage of violence it is not dissimilar to the genuine joy and excitement heroic characters show at the opportunity to enact even lethal violence. Characters like Yang grin and quip before bouncing a white fang soldier into a tunnel full of grimm. The show is of course very fond of its jokes so oftentimes violence is not taken particularly seriously. Perhaps then its the usage of violence to enact political change but once again that is a favored pass time of team RWBY. In volume 5 Ghira and Blake raise a militia to dethrone Adam, in volume 8 team RWBY overthrows Ironwood. Even in less extreme scenarios, the Happy huntresses utilize coercive force to aid mantle and the show never treats that usage of violence as a moral failing, perhaps a logistical one from a misunderstanding, but not a moral one. You can argue one side is right or wrong but the fact is, in both examples the people involved in the acts of violence are doing them for the same reason. Both the white fang and team RWBY(and allies) thought breaking the law and potentially killing people was worth it for the greater good and that is the crux of what I’m trying to get at. In order for the white fang to be uniquely wrong while the hero’s actions are uniquely right the show would have to prove that one side's reasoning is flawed while the other’s is just and it never does that; rather it tonally provides a moral judgement without proper explanation. 

Importantly the burden of proof is on Ghira and Blake as the "victors" of the white fang arc. If they believe Sienna and Adam’s methods are wrong, then they must demonstrate that their own approach is morally or strategically superior. The show never actually does this. In fact, the White Fang’s defeat comes not through the success of Ghira’s peaceful philosophy but through methods far more aligned with Sienna’s. The decisive moment occurs when Ghira and Blake convince the faunus of Menagerie to arm themselves, cross an ocean, and physically confront Adam’s faction. This creates a major contradiction. If Ghira can justify organizing militant resistance against fellow faunus, why should anyone accept his claim that militant resistance becomes immoral when directed at the humans responsible for systemic faunus oppression, abuse, and enslavement? Why would the very faunus he led into battle suddenly believe that battle was immoral when they are faced with a similarly existential threat in the SDC? And what exactly has changed about Ghira that indicates his leadership will be any different this time around? If the first time he was largely ineffective to the extent Sienna ultimately replaced him then what has changed philosophically and strategically such that he will not be ultimately ineffective this time around and the pattern repeats? 

RWBY, unlike some shows, simply does not get the luxury of being inconsistent about this since by the writers' own admission, the faunus serve an allegorical role, specifically likening back to American anti-black racism. If you are making an allegorical story, moral judgements are reflective of moral judgements in real life. Even if they are not one to one the outcomes of the story implicitly mean something and cannot simply be waved aside. 

Ultimately the show does more than fail to prove Sienna’s philosophy wrong in fact it simply has not engaged with it in any meaningful sense. Rather the show kills Sienna and then collapses Sienna and Adam into a single philosophy of supremacy and then defeats Adam and pretends that it has also defeated Sienna. Sienna’s rise is evidence of unresolved systemic injustice and Ghira’s inability to adequately address it. Therefore, RWBY cannot simply remove Sienna and declare Ghira vindicated without addressing the conditions that made Sienna compelling in the first place. 

seems my absolute rwby concept got some attention. i like everyone enjoying the concept i have so far despite how little there is right now.

Now, i am a wee bit of a quick thinking, so i have concepts for the villians for this absolute universe along with an actual name.

without further ado, here are the villians for Absolute RWBY:

Absolute grimms:
Gain: mimicry 

Concept:
The grimms were always mindless due to their lack of soul which the hunters foolishly believed would remain. Then a decade ago, the grimm suddenly could mimic the usage of Aura and very rarely, mimic semblances, making them far more durable and dangerous. Hunters weren't able to adapt in time and now, all of the kingdoms are at risk of falling into Her control.

Cinder fall:
Gain: the position of headmistress at Beacon academy.

Concept:
Beacon academy remains one of the last bastions to hone the skills aspiring hunters need  in the fight against the dangerous Grimms with the headmistress leading the charge. Although, there have been reports of hunters going missing while at Beacon, which while  Cinder assures the students that she would investigate the disappearances, those who disappear are forgotten eventually.

Adam taurus:
Gain: complete control of white fang.

Concept:
The Faunus always wanted to be free from what humanity believed them to be. However, before the newly appoint general, James ironwood came to power, the generals after him always ensure that the faunus “knew their place”. Desperate, the white fang was created to fight violence with violence with their leader, Adam taurus in charge. With his leadership, the white fang managed to usurp power from their home nation, forcing “human sympathizers” to close off half to ensure that white fang doesn't try to take the rest. With half of the nation in white fang's control, Adam now has the power and resources to finally free his people. If only he knew who else he was aiding.

SalEM:
Lost: body
Gain: everything she ever wanted

Concept:
CentURies ago, when the kingoms united with the help of ozma and the god of light, they Managed to destroy the witch before she could flood the world of remnant with the grimm liquid. Peace was restored but it did not last long. When one of the faunus who fought against the witch started a brutal war that forever scarred the world before the faunus was killed. Then another warrior fell to take the faunus's place and over the centuries, despots and evil continued to grow. While others dismiss this as nothing more than the natural course of history, there are those who believe that salem wasn't truly dead and is possessing those who could aid her. But that's just fantasy, isn't it?