Godwinson
"Well, I've got nothing."
If the shades were capable of being confirmed as giving their informed consent of their own will, then her retaining that shade is alright. The issue isn't even her power being used to create shades, it's the way she's used it that's morally repugnant in the extreme.We absolutely want to convince her to let go of all of her shades, for moral reasons. The catch is that we're totally willing to help her with whatever her problem is before she lets them all go.
Even if her shades can't be confirmed as giving their informed consent of their own will, then for the examples where there is a clear reason for deferring authority on the matter to Rionna (example being a relative or close friend who was incapacitated, but clearly would have consented if they could have) there's no real moral issue. It's not quite as formalized as Power of Attorney is in various legal systems, but we have a clear framework we can take inspiration from for dealing with the gray uses of her power.
So I'd say that if her sister is one of her shades, there's certainly grounds where even without an proper interview with her sister's shade, it being entirely acceptable to go "No, I don't have any problem with this".
The main issue I can see with checking with the shades is, well, how much could Rionna control their responses.
But no, speaking as one of the apparent hardliners, the issue isn't Rionna's power, it's how she's used it. I'm not going to argue that she needs to give up her sister, screw that.
EDIT: No, seriously, if that's what anyone thought was being argued for, then no, that's not the case. Hell, I'd spite-vote against someone who was arguing for that, because that's fucked up.
Last edited: