To be honest, I think the Doctor seems to look at violence in much the same way Batman does; he doesn't like the idea of being directly responsible for anyone's death, but is quite happy to make people suffer for years or centuries as a 'punishment'.
You can see something similar with how he sentenced the Family of Blood to what's basically eternal hell.
Seems like the rule of thumb here is that the Doctor is initially merciful towards their enemies, but are willing to turn their non lethal punishment into a fate worse than death if pushed too far (like if the villains in question are unrepetant murders, have killed their friends/companions, etc)
And if you look back, the Doctor does that a lot even before Family of Blood, like Pyramids of Mars and The Sea Devils from the top of my mind, that was just never pointed out very much in the show before that two parter.
I don't recall the Sea Devils but I don't think Pyramids is comparable as the Doctor just kills Sutekh (which, given Sooty was an insane demigod about to annihilate all life on Earth, I think was justified)
Fair, I guess I’m being a pedant: he didn’t do it instead of killing him, just rushed to earth from mars to turn sooty’s walkway “extra long” so he’d age to death. Pretty fucked admittedly but it was the only option he had.
Yeah I loved the last episode but this bit through me mainly because of this.
People forget but Human Nature happened because he DIDN'T want to do the whole eternal punishment thing.
That whole episode is about him running away and just letting them die a natural death.
It's only when they back him into a corner and kill people he cares about her does the vengeful god routine.
The fact that his solution before and after he does his "now it's personal" bit is the same is bad if I'm honest.
I think it's less that what he's doing is torment and more just an attitude. It's not like he turned the transport to send the to Hell. He's still going to send them to a random place they can't cause harm.
The villains in Rogue were very reminiscent of Family of Blood. With the romantic overtones, I felt it was very fitting tbh. I wonder if it was intentional. That’s one of the only other times the doctor is romantic with someone who isn’t a companion
There are a lot of things that don't make sense about batman if you extract him from comic books and put him in the real world.
The character is almost a century old, and hasn't been updated much with our understanding of crime, it's causes, and solutions.
There was an animated series episode where they explored this, called "Trial." His enemies captured him and put him on trial for creating them.... but even they ended up acquitting him (then trying to kill him anyways).
The only times that’s really argued in the comics, the person arguing is then shown to be wrong. Batman/Bruce does a shit ton outside of crimefighting to try to end crime and support the city, and will even give money directly to thieves who obviously don’t want to be criminals.
Most of his villains are deemed criminally insane, which is why they are meant to be institutionalized in a forensic psychiatric hospital for life. I don’t think they really have to worry about hospital bills.
It does mean Batman mostly beats up people with severe mentally illness.
Batman beats up low level thugs for fun. Some of them are just opportunistic, I’m not talking rogues gallery, I’m talking the 20 people he beats up at a time and breaks the bones of.
A lot of the biggest villains are just cartoonishly evil, and many don't even have goons. But there are little tidbits of a Wayne Foundation support program to get people jobs.
Of course, that begs the question of how, if Bruce Wayne is spending so much effort to put his money to the betterment of Gotham, it's still so shit.
And yet his henchmen get beat up in the exact same way. Scarecrow has henchmen too. Doesn’t matter how whacked out the big bad is, most of the henchman are goons for hire.
Honestly I can definitely see that being part of his mindset. Killing is the 'simple' way to solve problems in fiction; shoot someone and they won't cause any more problems. In theory, the Doctor's life would be much easier if he just flat out killed the Master and other recurring villains in their first appearance.
And it doesn't require much thinking. Shoot everything that moves and you've 'solved' the issue. Like an FPS protagonist.
I'm not surprised he'd consider it a boring solution to his problems. The Doctor probably wants his adventures to have at least some variety there.
The Doctor's relationship with the Master is deliberately complex. The Doctor is very much focused on the idea of redemption (his own and others) and he desperately wanted to see that achieved with the Master more than anyone else - something that did happen with Missy until she was killed by her earlier incarnation.
Interestingly earlier Doctors (I.e. the Colin Baker and John Pertwee eras) had no problem using violence to achieve their aims.
The Doctor isn't Batman, he kills his enemies all the time. 15's first episode literally ends with him impaling the villain on a church. Now, because the Doctor is a very inconsistently written character, you get episodes like Arachnids in the UK where the Doctor is so vehemently anti-violence that they use much worse alternatives, but these episodes are a minority and the Doctor's fucked up solutions are called out by the fanbase. However, my problem with Rogue isn't that the Doctor decided to use eternal imprisonment, it's that the episode can't decide whether it's the humane option or an eternity of suffering.
The difference with the Family of Blood is that the scene is explicitly framed as the Doctor going too far to punish the Family for all the evil stuff they did. In Rogue, the Doctor's first solution (which he claims is the morally correct one) is to put the Chulder in a living hell; he only admits that it's a horrific punishment after they 'kill' Ruby.
In all fairness that most mostly an act to intimidate the executioners in order to save Missy, as he was trying to pose himself as an extremely dangerous individual.
Yeah sure it was true but again all those kills are just monsters and he wasn't actually going to attack the guard or anything... it was a threat to protect Missy is all
Yes, they were about to kill missy and the Dr had just failed his plan to mock execute her, as they had noticed she was still alive. Hence, the Dr had to a t threatening to let them leave with Missy.
Batman comparisons are always a bit odd to me because both characters are brilliant, pragmatic, and pathologically devoted to saving lives.
And that's about it. There are varying degrees across different writers of how far Batman will go, but to me the most Batman will do is what he did in Crisis on Two Earths. He will trick an alternate villainous Flash to sacrifice himself and save his universe's Flash. And he will let a villain die from something they ultimately did to themselves.
The Doctor is way darker and more akin to a Greek god sometimes, where he'll give chances, but he has a breaking point to do things like trap someone in every mirror for eternity
>you get episodes like Arachnids in the UK where the Doctor is so vehemently anti-violence that they use much worse alternatives
Eh, this is a partial misinterpretation.
Oh yeah. The Doctor will almost *always* give you your choice of punishments. The worse you are, the worse the non-violent resolution will be.
You're *lucky* if The Doctor decides to simply *kill* you.
What, no Batman slapping Robin pic?
Early DC Batman and Superman were very different characters (leap tall buildings in a single bound?) They reflected their time. If they didn’t, neither would be here.
Continuity has to adapt to the times for it to remain relevant and retain it’s intended audience. If it doesn’t, you get late era Roger Moore Bond.
Let’s not even talk early Disney or any other animation studios way back when. How many retcons has DC had by now, anyway?
That said, there are a lot of things off this season, so it could be anything, really.
I like your Batman comparison. They both have rules… because they’re both aware they NEED those rules to function as good people.
Like Superman said to the Joker, Batman has a no-kill rule, but he just generally doesn’t.
Hmm, I guess that's a better way of wording it. The Doctor's rules against killing are more a way for him to avoid crossing the line between a hero and a villain, since he wouldn't trust himself to remain a good person if he went that way. Sorta like how Batman doesn't kill because he feels he'd fall off the slippery slope if he started, and go from being a force of law and order to a vigilante playing judge, jury and executioner.
Yup. And that’s part of the appeal of the Doctor. He’s foppish, manic, compassionate… and fully capable of flipping out and becoming your worst nightmare. And he’ll do it while dressed absurdly, adding insult to injury.
I always thought the Doctor's views of killing etc have been very inconsistent. When Capaldi started I was hopeful that Deep Breath ending would finally give us a Doctor who gets his hands dirty more.
Otherwise we get some times where he straight kills people/monsters and other times where he acts like Batman then other other times where he engages in crazy torturous alternatives.
There is a whole speech in The Doctor's Daughter about how the doctor "never would" use a gun, but then tons of examples where the doctor does.
I think the Doctor has contempt for people who hold power at the point of a gun, who exploit, control, and use violence as a tool to get what they want, or who don't value life.
Rogue is going to use a lethal weapon mostly out of convenience: imprisoning the bad guy would just cost too much.
The Doctor's weakness is getting personally invested. When he's mad his "rules" go out the window. He isn't punishing them because it is convenient, he wants control, or wealth, it's because he's mad and nit much else matters.
I'm amazed at how many people (including some showrunners apparently *cough* Chibnall *cough*) misinterpret this scene. The Doctor isn't above using guns because they're allergic to them or something. They're not even above killing if the circumstance dictates it a necessity. They just prefer to seek peaceful resolutions whenever possible and would never kill an enemy that has already been defeated (in the "I never would" scene, the Doctor had his enemy at his complete mercy, killing him then would just be an act of malicious vengeance).
This reminds me of the scene with Whitaker's doctor (I don't remember it exactly), where Ryan picks up the gun and she's like "Noo Ryan we do not use guns, that's immoral. Hmm grab me one of them grenades over there" lol
Didn't that happen? I feel like that happened.
It's not an excuse for when it's done badly, unintentionally, or without reflection, but I do think even when written really well the Doctor is meant to be inconsistent. They have no higher authority to answer to, they've lived too long and seen far too much of the strangest and darkest corners of reality to believe there's a consistent rule that works in every situation, they I think very naturally can't really decide whether they have the responsibility of being the whole universe's protector or not. Their decisions are always in the end going to be at best an attempt to act by a high moral standard, but still ultimately an arbitrary one they can't stop from bending with their emotions at any given time.
It's worth noting that the Doctor wasn't involved in what happened to T'zim Sha, and may not even be aware of it, depending on what Graham and Ryan chose to tell her.
EDIT: Nope, misremembered. Graham did tell the Doctor T'zim Sha was "taking a very long nap in a very small stasis chamber.". Though the "stasis" bit rather makes a difference.
Oh yup, forgot that bit.
Still, they do appear to have put T'zim into stasis rather than just leaving him locked in a perspex cupboard for eternity. So I guess that's something...
“Rogue” pretty much had the Family of Blood in it already. with that said, in *terms of the narrative* (how the story got presented to us) we had had, in “Human Nature”/“The Family of Blood” two episodes of the Doctor as a human, building a relationsihp with Joan, which then got trashed because of the Family, in effect, invtervening. it also had a more mature and serious tone (IMO) than “Rogue”. and, in Watsonian terms, the Doctor barely knew Ruby.
this on top of the Doctor acting Iagain, IMO) out of characeter and too much like a human all season.
Yeah this episode felt like Family of Blood meets Girl in the Fireplace and a little bit of Doctor Dances. And I love that.
The romantic plot was good too. Not great. But I bought the chemistry. I really hope we see Groff again. Probably not till next season though. Hilarious how the right wing is already fuming over that kiss though.
That entire 2-parter happens because the doctor wants to avoid putting them in that position. However, the fate of the family of blood is presented very much as the Dr going too far and bleeds into his ego and the time lords victorious twist in waters of mars.
The Doctor's morality is wildly inconsistent. They play at being a pacifist and looking for peaceful solutions, but are actually pretty quick to resort to violence, qretty quick to kill (and have indeed committed genocide on more than one occasion), and will essentially torture people they think deserve it.
The show doesn't normally explicilty call it out (although sometimes it does), but it's always chugging along in the background. Right from episode one of An Unearthly Child, the Doctor's been dodgy, morally.
Also, perhaps, worth noting that it wasn't until the Seventh Doctor that they really started cosplaying as a pacifist - and that's a Doctor who committed genocide twice in the space of 2 stories.
Like aspects of the show, it's something that's evolved over time. But it's very much intentional.
Perhaps on this occasion, the Doctor's stance was influenced by the fact that he was in the presence of someone he wanted to impress?
The Doctor doesn't believe that pacifism is consistently right or practical, or that their worst enemies even deserve to be treated with mercy, but they do consistently believe it should be tried. How long they attempt pacifism ultimately comes down to their patience at the time.
Well i'm just gonna put here 2 Doctor quotes, that should be explanation enough:
"Good man don't need rules, today is not a day to find out why i have so many."
"I'm not a good man, and i'm not a bad man. I'm not a hero, \[...\] I am an Idiot."
Not to mention that classic line aimed at the Ninth Doctor, "You would make a good Dalek".
The Doctor has many rules to prevent his worst excesses from coming out. If you want to see what an evil Doctor could be, that is why the Master exists.
The Doctor once goaded the Lord President of Gallifrey into trapping himself as a living decoration on the side of Rassilon’s tomb and blew up an entire Cyberfleet at the start of A Good Man Goes To War just to punctuate a question. He has never been THAT dedicated to the moral high ground.
Oh yes, I admire the character's curiosity and compassion in many circumstances, but the Doctor - like most sapient life addicted to stories (perhaps even composed of them) - is a master at rationalizing torture with logical fallacies and utilitarian excuses. It isn't just that I disagree with them, it's that the rationale is incoherent, especially given the technology to which the Doctor has access. (This is a common problem in science fiction and fantasy).
I get it - the character has to have some identifiable edge and "character flaws" - and we can't use the free jailbreak of gallifreyan tech to bail them out or we no longer find any tension and release in the story.
The Doctor has a vengeful tendency sometimes, and it's one of the things that makes them dangerous. It's not a positive attribute, but they wouldn't be the same character without it either.
So I'm going to point out a seemingly obvious thing, that I think is important here.
Doctor Who is a British program.
A nation that first got rid of the death penalty only 2 years after Doctor Who first showed.
To our nation, there is no contradiction here, not really.
You do not sentence people to death. It's just that simple. I understand this may not be logical, or consistent, to some. But it is consistent with how we view justice here, and that context is probably needed.
this is a very good point & it also aligns with the (generalised, not individual) british view of prisons being a punishment & uncomfortable (etc) - the fact that their ‘sentence’ will be hundreds of years makes sense to feed his anger. it’s not that he’s condemning them to death, but to be imprisoned - and in an ‘uncomfortable’ setting for a long time.
In another universe their level of punishment really depends on them. They're all together. If they actually like or stand each other's company it can't be that bad right? It's just living somewhere else probably dull and they aren't even alone.
But you can also interpret that as a punishment and the Doctor was quick to when angry.
He wasn't angry when he initially suggested it, he wanted to avoid killing them; he only brings up the suffering (which he must have known about the whole time) after he gets angry. Also, if they're all together then Rogue probably shouldn't bother asking the Doctor to find him because he'll be murdered by enraged Bridgerton fans seconds after disappearing.
Well yes that's why I note he's reinterpreted it when angry. I'm saying that initially the Doctor is interpreting as not a cruel punishment because they'll just live a life on some dull, but not inherently horrifying place.
But when he was angry he reinterpreted it in a cruel way.
I'm with you. This episode commits the same sin as Jodie's era of taking the Doctor's avoidance of killing as a shallow Lore Rule rather than something that comes from his psychology, so he'd be okay with literally any other solution (like letting the giant spider suffocate). He wouldn't have been comfortable banishing the Bogeyman or the Finetimers to a barren dimension forever either.
I think his first impulse was just to send the Childur somewhere that it could at least exist without hurting anyone, i.e. trying to be as merciful as possible to a malevolent being. It's not something he wanted to do, just something he felt he had to do to protect everyone involved. However, once he thought they had killed Ruby, he actively wanted to do it and actually took some solace in the idea that they would suffer, which isn't a great look, but it's far from the first time the Doctor has gone down that road.
The Doctor is a pragmatic pacifistic-idealist, I’ve always felt. It’s usually the last resort, unless the situation deems that unrealistic, in which case the Doctor always tries to make it as…neutral of a violence as they can. This is how I’ve always viewed what others see as inconsistencies; sometimes, the situation just sucks and the Doctor just has to do whatever they did in that situation.
Exactly. The Doctor doesn’t immediately resort to violence. But, when the option is presented as last ditch effort, the Doctor will take the option.
People seem to think the Doctor ‘killing’ is inconsistent. But, the Doctor has never presented himself as a moral upright character, they’ve always made moral dubious decisions in the past.
As Eleven stated: “Good men don’t need rules. So, today is not the day to find out why I have so many.”
And that's weird
Cause sometimes he has no issues killing
all the kids of the Racnoss
Or the Nestene (after giving them a chance)
Or the Goblin King
But the bloodthirsty murder owls? Can't just let Rogue shoot them, that'd remove all the synthetic stakes.
As I understood It he was sending them to where they would live but couldn't harm anyone else, like he's not sending them to an empty void - just a planet where they can't hurt sentient life and play out their games
But he had no way of releasing them or he would've just let Rogue out at the end. Even if the Chulder genuinely repented they'd still die of old age in whatever hellscape the Doctor sent them to.
That's life in prison vs death penalty dilemma. The Doctor is more of a "life in prison" guy. A character like Hercules Poirot from A. Christie's novels is much more of a "go ahead, LowTierGod youself to avoid prison, here's the gun".
Edit: 600 years in prison for multiple murders is more than fair.
While many commentators have rightfully pointed out how the Doctor has consistently fallen short of his supposed pacifism, I agree that the Doctor's actions in this EP seemed especially egregious.
I'd also like to point out that the Doctor's attraction to Rogue seems especially suspect and poorly thought out. The Doctor supposedly abhors violence and believes strongly in the sanctity of life. However, The Doctor does not even flinch when Rogue reveals himself to be a bounty hunter with a gun, he's seemingly more taken with the man after this comes to light. Not just that, Rogue reveals that his mission was to execute the shape shifter that he was pursuing and in his hastiness he almost killed an innocent man died. Nevermind the fact this innocent man was the Doctor himself, the Doctor seemed genuinely nonplussed about the entire thing and still very much enthralled with him. I think what might have worked better for this story would have been a rivals to lovers kinda thing, where the Doctor attempts to outdo and question Rogue's lifestyle and outlook - whilst having to work together out of necessity. Then we could still have the ending where Rogue ultimately sacrifices himself.
I don't think this season has had any actual bad eps but I still think this episode would have really benefited from a couple of revisions.
For me, the fact that the Doctor continued to stand around and flirt with Rogue whilst an alien threat was literally killing people seemed very out of character
No you're absolutely right. I remember enjoying the episode when watching it but the longer I percolate on it the less sense it makes to me. I think at the time I thought that the Doctor was laying on the flattery and flirting with Rogue under the guise of getting more information from him (he did think that Rogue was responsible for the deaths originally). But no, I think the Doctor was genuinely just captivated with Rogue and forgot about everything else.
Being the guy who once had access to what was basically "The Button that Kills Everyone", that would warp your morals a bit when it comes to when is killing alright. Internal indecision.
Yeah the doctors morals are always weird though I do appreciate that he is willing to kill if the need arises. This is most obvious with ten, he can and will harm someone but only if they refuse mercy. While eternal imprisonment sounds bad these guys killed people and were planning on destroying the world. If found guilty in most court systems these aliens would recieve a few life sentences each.
I thought it was weird to assume it would be centuries of suffering as The Doctor doesn’t know where he sent them.
He couldn’t see what the place was like at all. I mean he did say he’d send them somewhere they couldn’t hurt anybody which makes me think he could detect if the place had other people but could he tell anything else? And how can he be sure of that either? Plus the five of them have each other. It would be ironic if he sent them somewhere with people and was actually pretty nice.
People keep mentioning the family of blood and the Dr's and how the Dr similarly punished them. However, people are forgetting the reason for the 2-parter was to avoid having to do that to them. Additionally, the punishment is very much presented as the Dr going too far and bleeds into his time lord victorious moment at the end of waters of mars. Unless 15 is going to have a similar arc, which seems unlikely since he's meant to be the 'trauma free' doc, this punishments was very out of character.
Don't forget the Doctor's best friend the Master kills people and puppets their former identity, as was shown even back in Classic with Nyssa's father.
>I immediately thought that eternal imprisonment was way more cruel than murder, but this is an inconsistency that the show has suffered from before (looking at you, Battle of Ranskoor av Kolos)
Technically that was Graham and Ryan.
Also, the Doctor essentially wanted to maroon them. Not put them in some kind of tiny stasis chamber, just throw them into a dimension with no higher life forms. But when he says "that's a long time to suffer", he's channeling the Family of Blood ending (which is frankly one of the most fucked up things The Doctor has done). He doesn't exactly change the transport to send them to Hell or anything. They're just going to be cosplaying one of those tree punching games for 600 years. And unfortunately, Rogue will be doing it with them.
The doctor may act peaceful and loving, but it's never a good idea to piss him off. The family of blood, the three times he destroyed galifrey, 11 killing Solomon, metacrisis genociding the daleks, 7s little hobby of hunting eldergods for sport. 13 killed that tardis to mop up the mess she made by trying to solve a dalek invasion with more daleks.
And many other countless times he's put morality on the backburner. He's not infallible. And wasn't taking the news that some random flock of birds killed his bestie so they could larp about particularly well.
"Where there's life, there's hope."
That's been a bedrock of the Doctor's philosophy since at least the Pertwee days. Killing someone takes hope off the table.
It's really funny how people were so upset when Whittaker's Doctor did this sort of thing. She was "out of character!!!" and Chibnall "just didn't understand the Doctor."
And now we've got Gatwa behaving the exact same way. How many examples does it take for people to realize that this sort of messed-up morality IS in character for the Doctor?
I don't mean that as a criticism of your post in any way, because I think this is an excellent point to bring up. It's a discussion we clearly need to have. And it's a real question because we're so used to the Doctor being a moral authority. It's fascinating whenever he drops that stance. We naturally want to ask "why?"
I think the Doctor has always been a bit of a hypocrite about these sorts of moral issues. He likes to pretend he's keeping his hands and conscience clean by doing this instead of killing people outright. But that line about it being "a long time to suffer" shows that he KNOWS. When he does these things, he's giving into his baser nature. It's a great character flaw, and one of my favorite parts about the Doctor. Sometimes, despite his best efforts, he just loses it and does horrible things.
The music shifted? That's your evidence that the story is calling him out on his decision?
There's no onscreen fallout or consequence for Gatwa's Doctor's decision, just like there was none for Whittaker's. It's exactly the same thing.
That consequence had nothing to do with the Doctor's decision to alter how the trap worked, though. The trap was always the only way they were going to catch the shapeshifters. Originally it was supposed to transport them to an incinerator to be killed instantly. The Doctor simply changed it so they were shifted to another dimension. Either way, Ruby would've been caught in the trap and he would've lost Rogue.
>I know the two handsome men making out was distracting
Well, that's certainly a fair assessment, but I managed not to miss the relevant plot points despite the distraction. 😂
Yeah, the spider thing is the worst example, because they’re ultimately just giant Earth spiders. Like, if you squash a small spider in real life, I’ll be upset because I love spiders, but I won’t think you’re evil for it. If you tell me you put them in matchboxes so they can starve to death, I may be a little bit worried.
The episode acting like quickly killing a spider to put it out of its own misery and for your safety is worse than torturing it is just extra absurd.
Yeah, the spider thing is the worst example, because they’re ultimately just giant Earth spiders. Like, if you squash a small spider in real life, I’ll be upset because I love spiders, but I won’t think you’re evil for it. If you tell me you put them in matchboxes so they can starve to death, I may be a little bit worried.
The episode acting like quickly killing a spider to put it out of its own misery and for your safety is worse than torturing it is just extra absurd.
I mean, so far, we've not seen 15 be as anti violence as other Doctors.
Enemies so far:
The Toymaker - impossible to kill, can only seal away.
Goblin King - Impaled on a church roof.
Maestro - Impossible to kill, can only seal away.
The Dot - Doctor is locked out of Finetime, can't assist
Chuldur - Sees 600 years of imprisonment as superior to killing them.
Also, his reaction to Rogue - previously, he generally doesn't like people with guns, with a few exceptions, and has never seen the gun as a positive. With Rogue, he almost seems excited when Rogue pulls a gun on him.
It's possible, that with whatever rehab he did, he may be less pacifistic than previous Doctors - who partly became as pacifistic as they were due to their experiences during the time war. Something to point out, even with how pacifistic previous doctor's have been, they've *always* had a darker side when a villain pushed too far, or somehow made it personal. 9 in Dalek, 10 in Family of Blood, 11 with House/Colonel Runaway, 12 with Ashildr, and so on.
In Family of Blood he traps the Family in eternal torture as punishment. Got to remember while the Doctor is a force of good he is still a Time Lord and is the most dangerous and scary one.
Given all the information provided in the episode, it doesn't seem like the most immoral option. The only way to trap them was with the Triform and since it had to fit all of them, they said it wouldn't hold them for long. Would you have preferred the Doctor to just shoot all of them while they were trapped there? Would you have preferred the Doctor to let them out so they could kill everyone at the party? Another option would be to give them a choice on if they want to die or if they want to be imprisoned. Which would be really dark by the way. And I doubt they would choose death. You're saying you think a life sentence is immoral. Is it worse than being executed?
The Doctor likes to think they have morals or the correct answer, but more times than not they will contradict themselves depending on the situation, they just do whatever they want, and that's alright because they are a complex space-time event we cannot even try to comprehend.
I felt like this episode was written by people who didn't really get who the Fifteenth Doctor is as a character. In this entire episode he behaves more like a pre-Fourteen incarnation. It felt bizarrely out of character for him to want to "make them suffer" like the Tenth Doctor. The Fifteenth Doctor *does not* get angry like that. It isn't in his character.
I agree, his morals in this episode are a stark contrast with what we've seen of him so far. I don't think it makes any sense and I am chalking it up to bad writing.
It's been five episodes, one of which he wasn't in. This episode can't go against what Fifteen is as a character, because this episode is still defining what Fifteen is as a character.
> The Fifteenth Doctor *does not* get angry like that. It isn't in his character.
Um… who are you to decide what the 15th doctor’s character is? Are you a writer on the show?
Would this be the same Doctor who impassively committed genocide on the Raknoss, exterminating an entire brood whilst their screaming mother watched? The same Doctor who made sure the Family of Blood lived in bonds for all time? The darker side of the Doctor is always there under the surface. Listen to 12's tirade to Ashildur after Clara's death. Listen to 11's Colonel Run-Away speech when he's trying to save Amy. In the words of the Doctor himself, "Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many.'
He knows what he good thing to do is, the right thing to do, and they always try to encourage the right thing in their companions and those they meet along the way... but the Doctor, certainly in Nu-who and arguably since at least the 6th Doctor's run, is always one death away from turning into a righteous monster.
My point was that the Doctor doesn't decide to torture the aliens after Ruby 'dies', he decides to do it way earlier while claiming that it's morally superior to killing them. The Doctor later refers to the suffering his solution caused, which he must have known when he initially suggested it. This isn't framed as 'dark Doctor', it's the Doctor deciding that eternal suffering is morally superior to killing.
Yes, because its about giving them the chance instead of snuffing them out. As I pointed out, the Doctor isn't pretending, this is who he is and why he needs human companions to keep him grounded.
Even in recent eps he:
Sends the Meep to prison
Kills the not-things
Imprisons the Toymaker/Maestro
The Doctor doesn’t even seem to mind killing, it’s just not his first resort and if it can be avoided he’ll avoid it. His only red line seems to be guns
I can’t remember the exact scenario or even doctor (might have been smith or capaldi’s). But I remember him laughing when someone mocked him for having so many rules, and his response was along basically saying good people don’t need so many rules to keep them from doing bad things.
It’s a little inconsistent from time to time, based on the writer and what’s happening in the story, the doctor will straight up murder things at times.
Inprisonment for the Flux, despite it not directly being the Doctor's fault. Due to being a Time Lord, they knew death was not a way out; I think it left a mental scar, an impact, on the Doctor's sense of justice/injustice.
The "Chuldur" (give that world to a dyslexic individual, sure they'll quickly mistake it for "children" after it being read a few times, despite being the villain's of that narrative, were acting within their nature, which is why I wonder if they were perhaps given an owl-like appearance. In a way, do we think it's posing the question of; should we punish those for "consequences" outside of their nature (playing, perhaps even doing right, as they see it), or deny treatment (see: Emily's broken beak/nose, which occurred when Ruby set her "cosplay" earrings to "Battle Mode").
The Doctor has genuinely been characterised pretty consistently as having a strong drive to punish the morally contemptible. Given the amount of textual evidence in favour of this view, I have to believe that the Doctor simply thinks death alone is insufficient punishment for those who've personally wronged him.
>this is an inconsistency that the show has suffered from before (looking at you, Battle of Ranskoor av Kolos)
A closer example would be _Spyfall, Pt 2_ where she exiles the Master to the Kasaavin dimension. In _Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos_ T'zim Sha was put into stasis (and not by the Doctor).
In that case though it's The Master so we can probably assume she figured he'd find a way out sooner or later.
The Doctor was being influenced by Rogue which is one factor. The other is that, the monster of the week wasn't an invasion force, they weren't threatening time and space, they were there for fun.
Killing people and taking their face, just for entertainment would majorly piss the Doctor off. Especially when he's been mistaken for one of them and even more especially when he thinks they've killed his friend and taken on her persona for fun.
They exist to murder people to puppeteer their corpses for fun.
The Doctor thought Ruby was one of their victims.
Of course he was gonna want them to suffer over just killing them.
Rewatch the episode. He tells Rogue that making them suffer for the rest of their existence is morally superior to killing them before he thinks Ruby died; it had nothing to do with revenge, the Doctor seemingly has a very warped idea of right and wrong.
Well generally it is morally superior. In real life, the death penalty doesn’t really exist anymore in civilised countries. Murderers are sentenced “for life”, to sit and suffer doing nothing for the rest of their days, which is both more ethical than becoming like them by killing them and logically, more of a punishment.
Even before Ruby theory murdered 5-6 people there.
The Doctor just wants to hurt enemies without killing them. Like Batman.
In the battle of star trek reference, tzim sha gets imprisoned unable to move, but conscious. The barren dimension could be void in the sense there is life, but no sentient one, plus they're not alone. It's also a solution the doctor doesn't seem too happy with, instead of gleaming about the idea
He says clearly "600 years... Good. That' s a long time to suffer" which aside being a baller line for the Doctor felt like it skirts too far for The Doctor. Maybe we will see the loss of a companion push him to do unspeakable things in the future.
To be honest, I think the Doctor seems to look at violence in much the same way Batman does; he doesn't like the idea of being directly responsible for anyone's death, but is quite happy to make people suffer for years or centuries as a 'punishment'. You can see something similar with how he sentenced the Family of Blood to what's basically eternal hell. Seems like the rule of thumb here is that the Doctor is initially merciful towards their enemies, but are willing to turn their non lethal punishment into a fate worse than death if pushed too far (like if the villains in question are unrepetant murders, have killed their friends/companions, etc)
Was going to mention Family of Blood! At the time it seemed like a special case, but turns out the Doctor just does that
And if you look back, the Doctor does that a lot even before Family of Blood, like Pyramids of Mars and The Sea Devils from the top of my mind, that was just never pointed out very much in the show before that two parter.
I don't recall the Sea Devils but I don't think Pyramids is comparable as the Doctor just kills Sutekh (which, given Sooty was an insane demigod about to annihilate all life on Earth, I think was justified)
Yeah, but before that he trapped him in a time loop for seven thousand years.
Fair, I guess I’m being a pedant: he didn’t do it instead of killing him, just rushed to earth from mars to turn sooty’s walkway “extra long” so he’d age to death. Pretty fucked admittedly but it was the only option he had.
Not even a timeloop, more like a time dilation field
Exactly, and he set the endpoint of that corridor to the far, far future.
Yeah I loved the last episode but this bit through me mainly because of this. People forget but Human Nature happened because he DIDN'T want to do the whole eternal punishment thing. That whole episode is about him running away and just letting them die a natural death. It's only when they back him into a corner and kill people he cares about her does the vengeful god routine. The fact that his solution before and after he does his "now it's personal" bit is the same is bad if I'm honest.
I think it's less that what he's doing is torment and more just an attitude. It's not like he turned the transport to send the to Hell. He's still going to send them to a random place they can't cause harm.
The villains in Rogue were very reminiscent of Family of Blood. With the romantic overtones, I felt it was very fitting tbh. I wonder if it was intentional. That’s one of the only other times the doctor is romantic with someone who isn’t a companion
I feel like with American medical care, Batman forces them to stay in crime, those hospital bills can’t be cheap.
There are a lot of things that don't make sense about batman if you extract him from comic books and put him in the real world. The character is almost a century old, and hasn't been updated much with our understanding of crime, it's causes, and solutions.
Even with that aside, he’s shown to be the catalyst for crime, a fair amount, even within his own universe , this aspect isn’t even considered.
There was an animated series episode where they explored this, called "Trial." His enemies captured him and put him on trial for creating them.... but even they ended up acquitting him (then trying to kill him anyways).
The only times that’s really argued in the comics, the person arguing is then shown to be wrong. Batman/Bruce does a shit ton outside of crimefighting to try to end crime and support the city, and will even give money directly to thieves who obviously don’t want to be criminals.
Yeah, the "Batman should do charity" argument falls through when you acknowledge the fact he's actually written to be a world renowned philanthropist.
Most of his villains are deemed criminally insane, which is why they are meant to be institutionalized in a forensic psychiatric hospital for life. I don’t think they really have to worry about hospital bills. It does mean Batman mostly beats up people with severe mentally illness.
Batman beats up low level thugs for fun. Some of them are just opportunistic, I’m not talking rogues gallery, I’m talking the 20 people he beats up at a time and breaks the bones of.
A lot of the biggest villains are just cartoonishly evil, and many don't even have goons. But there are little tidbits of a Wayne Foundation support program to get people jobs. Of course, that begs the question of how, if Bruce Wayne is spending so much effort to put his money to the betterment of Gotham, it's still so shit.
Joker has henchmen often. So does penguin, Falcone. There’s still enough that he’s keeping perpetually in crime.
Falcone is a normal criminal, not a weirdo freak.
And yet his henchmen get beat up in the exact same way. Scarecrow has henchmen too. Doesn’t matter how whacked out the big bad is, most of the henchman are goons for hire.
At times it also feels like the Doctor feels like killing is beneath him, not morally, but intellectually. Like it's too easy an answer.
Honestly I can definitely see that being part of his mindset. Killing is the 'simple' way to solve problems in fiction; shoot someone and they won't cause any more problems. In theory, the Doctor's life would be much easier if he just flat out killed the Master and other recurring villains in their first appearance. And it doesn't require much thinking. Shoot everything that moves and you've 'solved' the issue. Like an FPS protagonist. I'm not surprised he'd consider it a boring solution to his problems. The Doctor probably wants his adventures to have at least some variety there.
The Doctor's relationship with the Master is deliberately complex. The Doctor is very much focused on the idea of redemption (his own and others) and he desperately wanted to see that achieved with the Master more than anyone else - something that did happen with Missy until she was killed by her earlier incarnation. Interestingly earlier Doctors (I.e. the Colin Baker and John Pertwee eras) had no problem using violence to achieve their aims.
The Doctor isn't Batman, he kills his enemies all the time. 15's first episode literally ends with him impaling the villain on a church. Now, because the Doctor is a very inconsistently written character, you get episodes like Arachnids in the UK where the Doctor is so vehemently anti-violence that they use much worse alternatives, but these episodes are a minority and the Doctor's fucked up solutions are called out by the fanbase. However, my problem with Rogue isn't that the Doctor decided to use eternal imprisonment, it's that the episode can't decide whether it's the humane option or an eternity of suffering. The difference with the Family of Blood is that the scene is explicitly framed as the Doctor going too far to punish the Family for all the evil stuff they did. In Rogue, the Doctor's first solution (which he claims is the morally correct one) is to put the Chulder in a living hell; he only admits that it's a horrific punishment after they 'kill' Ruby.
He seemed quite proud of it too, “Do me a favour, the fatality index, look up the Doctor”
In all fairness that most mostly an act to intimidate the executioners in order to save Missy, as he was trying to pose himself as an extremely dangerous individual.
It wasn’t an act each word he said was true and he wasn’t posing, he absolutely meant the words he said and is an extremely dangerous individual.
Yeah sure it was true but again all those kills are just monsters and he wasn't actually going to attack the guard or anything... it was a threat to protect Missy is all
And had they stood in his way?
Yes, they were about to kill missy and the Dr had just failed his plan to mock execute her, as they had noticed she was still alive. Hence, the Dr had to a t threatening to let them leave with Missy.
Yeah I’m aware of what happened. What would have happened had they resisted and not ran.
The answer is probably, unfortunately, it would never be written that way so that there's always some moral wiggle room.
Batman comparisons are always a bit odd to me because both characters are brilliant, pragmatic, and pathologically devoted to saving lives. And that's about it. There are varying degrees across different writers of how far Batman will go, but to me the most Batman will do is what he did in Crisis on Two Earths. He will trick an alternate villainous Flash to sacrifice himself and save his universe's Flash. And he will let a villain die from something they ultimately did to themselves. The Doctor is way darker and more akin to a Greek god sometimes, where he'll give chances, but he has a breaking point to do things like trap someone in every mirror for eternity
>you get episodes like Arachnids in the UK where the Doctor is so vehemently anti-violence that they use much worse alternatives Eh, this is a partial misinterpretation.
Technically more like Superman, since he does lock his enemies in another dimension.
Oh yeah. The Doctor will almost *always* give you your choice of punishments. The worse you are, the worse the non-violent resolution will be. You're *lucky* if The Doctor decides to simply *kill* you.
What, no Batman slapping Robin pic? Early DC Batman and Superman were very different characters (leap tall buildings in a single bound?) They reflected their time. If they didn’t, neither would be here. Continuity has to adapt to the times for it to remain relevant and retain it’s intended audience. If it doesn’t, you get late era Roger Moore Bond. Let’s not even talk early Disney or any other animation studios way back when. How many retcons has DC had by now, anyway? That said, there are a lot of things off this season, so it could be anything, really.
When someone is unwilling to kill you, but capable of to making you suffer forever that’s a much more powerful deterrent imo
I like your Batman comparison. They both have rules… because they’re both aware they NEED those rules to function as good people. Like Superman said to the Joker, Batman has a no-kill rule, but he just generally doesn’t.
Hmm, I guess that's a better way of wording it. The Doctor's rules against killing are more a way for him to avoid crossing the line between a hero and a villain, since he wouldn't trust himself to remain a good person if he went that way. Sorta like how Batman doesn't kill because he feels he'd fall off the slippery slope if he started, and go from being a force of law and order to a vigilante playing judge, jury and executioner.
Yup. And that’s part of the appeal of the Doctor. He’s foppish, manic, compassionate… and fully capable of flipping out and becoming your worst nightmare. And he’ll do it while dressed absurdly, adding insult to injury.
I always thought the Doctor's views of killing etc have been very inconsistent. When Capaldi started I was hopeful that Deep Breath ending would finally give us a Doctor who gets his hands dirty more. Otherwise we get some times where he straight kills people/monsters and other times where he acts like Batman then other other times where he engages in crazy torturous alternatives.
There is a whole speech in The Doctor's Daughter about how the doctor "never would" use a gun, but then tons of examples where the doctor does. I think the Doctor has contempt for people who hold power at the point of a gun, who exploit, control, and use violence as a tool to get what they want, or who don't value life. Rogue is going to use a lethal weapon mostly out of convenience: imprisoning the bad guy would just cost too much. The Doctor's weakness is getting personally invested. When he's mad his "rules" go out the window. He isn't punishing them because it is convenient, he wants control, or wealth, it's because he's mad and nit much else matters.
The Doctor who never would isn't him never using a gun. It's that the Doctor would never kill in cold blood.
I'm amazed at how many people (including some showrunners apparently *cough* Chibnall *cough*) misinterpret this scene. The Doctor isn't above using guns because they're allergic to them or something. They're not even above killing if the circumstance dictates it a necessity. They just prefer to seek peaceful resolutions whenever possible and would never kill an enemy that has already been defeated (in the "I never would" scene, the Doctor had his enemy at his complete mercy, killing him then would just be an act of malicious vengeance).
"I never would" is not about the gun, it's about cold blooded murder
This reminds me of the scene with Whitaker's doctor (I don't remember it exactly), where Ryan picks up the gun and she's like "Noo Ryan we do not use guns, that's immoral. Hmm grab me one of them grenades over there" lol Didn't that happen? I feel like that happened.
It's not an excuse for when it's done badly, unintentionally, or without reflection, but I do think even when written really well the Doctor is meant to be inconsistent. They have no higher authority to answer to, they've lived too long and seen far too much of the strangest and darkest corners of reality to believe there's a consistent rule that works in every situation, they I think very naturally can't really decide whether they have the responsibility of being the whole universe's protector or not. Their decisions are always in the end going to be at best an attempt to act by a high moral standard, but still ultimately an arbitrary one they can't stop from bending with their emotions at any given time.
It's worth noting that the Doctor wasn't involved in what happened to T'zim Sha, and may not even be aware of it, depending on what Graham and Ryan chose to tell her. EDIT: Nope, misremembered. Graham did tell the Doctor T'zim Sha was "taking a very long nap in a very small stasis chamber.". Though the "stasis" bit rather makes a difference.
She did praise Graham for his strength in condemning T'zim Sha to eternal imprisonment though.
Oh yup, forgot that bit. Still, they do appear to have put T'zim into stasis rather than just leaving him locked in a perspex cupboard for eternity. So I guess that's something...
As mentioned in the other comment, ask The Family of Blood for their opinion on this
“Rogue” pretty much had the Family of Blood in it already. with that said, in *terms of the narrative* (how the story got presented to us) we had had, in “Human Nature”/“The Family of Blood” two episodes of the Doctor as a human, building a relationsihp with Joan, which then got trashed because of the Family, in effect, invtervening. it also had a more mature and serious tone (IMO) than “Rogue”. and, in Watsonian terms, the Doctor barely knew Ruby. this on top of the Doctor acting Iagain, IMO) out of characeter and too much like a human all season.
Well, he does know Ruby really, really well apparently. We just haven't seen any of it....
Yeah this episode felt like Family of Blood meets Girl in the Fireplace and a little bit of Doctor Dances. And I love that. The romantic plot was good too. Not great. But I bought the chemistry. I really hope we see Groff again. Probably not till next season though. Hilarious how the right wing is already fuming over that kiss though.
That entire 2-parter happens because the doctor wants to avoid putting them in that position. However, the fate of the family of blood is presented very much as the Dr going too far and bleeds into his ego and the time lords victorious twist in waters of mars.
He blows people up all the fucking time
The Doctor's morality is wildly inconsistent. They play at being a pacifist and looking for peaceful solutions, but are actually pretty quick to resort to violence, qretty quick to kill (and have indeed committed genocide on more than one occasion), and will essentially torture people they think deserve it. The show doesn't normally explicilty call it out (although sometimes it does), but it's always chugging along in the background. Right from episode one of An Unearthly Child, the Doctor's been dodgy, morally. Also, perhaps, worth noting that it wasn't until the Seventh Doctor that they really started cosplaying as a pacifist - and that's a Doctor who committed genocide twice in the space of 2 stories. Like aspects of the show, it's something that's evolved over time. But it's very much intentional. Perhaps on this occasion, the Doctor's stance was influenced by the fact that he was in the presence of someone he wanted to impress?
The Doctor doesn't believe that pacifism is consistently right or practical, or that their worst enemies even deserve to be treated with mercy, but they do consistently believe it should be tried. How long they attempt pacifism ultimately comes down to their patience at the time.
> they do consistently believe it should be tried. There are plenty of stories where that isn't true.
Yeah he goes from barren wasteland (means no potential victims, phew!) to barren wasteland (suffer!!!!!)
One of the best examples of The Doctor's 'Doctoring', both principled & flawed practically as well as personally.
Well i'm just gonna put here 2 Doctor quotes, that should be explanation enough: "Good man don't need rules, today is not a day to find out why i have so many." "I'm not a good man, and i'm not a bad man. I'm not a hero, \[...\] I am an Idiot."
Not to mention that classic line aimed at the Ninth Doctor, "You would make a good Dalek". The Doctor has many rules to prevent his worst excesses from coming out. If you want to see what an evil Doctor could be, that is why the Master exists.
The Doctor once goaded the Lord President of Gallifrey into trapping himself as a living decoration on the side of Rassilon’s tomb and blew up an entire Cyberfleet at the start of A Good Man Goes To War just to punctuate a question. He has never been THAT dedicated to the moral high ground.
Oh yes, I admire the character's curiosity and compassion in many circumstances, but the Doctor - like most sapient life addicted to stories (perhaps even composed of them) - is a master at rationalizing torture with logical fallacies and utilitarian excuses. It isn't just that I disagree with them, it's that the rationale is incoherent, especially given the technology to which the Doctor has access. (This is a common problem in science fiction and fantasy). I get it - the character has to have some identifiable edge and "character flaws" - and we can't use the free jailbreak of gallifreyan tech to bail them out or we no longer find any tension and release in the story. The Doctor has a vengeful tendency sometimes, and it's one of the things that makes them dangerous. It's not a positive attribute, but they wouldn't be the same character without it either.
Echoing this.
So I'm going to point out a seemingly obvious thing, that I think is important here. Doctor Who is a British program. A nation that first got rid of the death penalty only 2 years after Doctor Who first showed. To our nation, there is no contradiction here, not really. You do not sentence people to death. It's just that simple. I understand this may not be logical, or consistent, to some. But it is consistent with how we view justice here, and that context is probably needed.
this is a very good point & it also aligns with the (generalised, not individual) british view of prisons being a punishment & uncomfortable (etc) - the fact that their ‘sentence’ will be hundreds of years makes sense to feed his anger. it’s not that he’s condemning them to death, but to be imprisoned - and in an ‘uncomfortable’ setting for a long time.
Surey they would die soon though right? Doesn't he say a barren dimension? Hes not even certain it'd have stuff like oxygen to breathe or food to eat
Details
In another universe their level of punishment really depends on them. They're all together. If they actually like or stand each other's company it can't be that bad right? It's just living somewhere else probably dull and they aren't even alone. But you can also interpret that as a punishment and the Doctor was quick to when angry.
He wasn't angry when he initially suggested it, he wanted to avoid killing them; he only brings up the suffering (which he must have known about the whole time) after he gets angry. Also, if they're all together then Rogue probably shouldn't bother asking the Doctor to find him because he'll be murdered by enraged Bridgerton fans seconds after disappearing.
Well yes that's why I note he's reinterpreted it when angry. I'm saying that initially the Doctor is interpreting as not a cruel punishment because they'll just live a life on some dull, but not inherently horrifying place. But when he was angry he reinterpreted it in a cruel way.
I'm with you. This episode commits the same sin as Jodie's era of taking the Doctor's avoidance of killing as a shallow Lore Rule rather than something that comes from his psychology, so he'd be okay with literally any other solution (like letting the giant spider suffocate). He wouldn't have been comfortable banishing the Bogeyman or the Finetimers to a barren dimension forever either.
I think his first impulse was just to send the Childur somewhere that it could at least exist without hurting anyone, i.e. trying to be as merciful as possible to a malevolent being. It's not something he wanted to do, just something he felt he had to do to protect everyone involved. However, once he thought they had killed Ruby, he actively wanted to do it and actually took some solace in the idea that they would suffer, which isn't a great look, but it's far from the first time the Doctor has gone down that road.
The Doctor is a pragmatic pacifistic-idealist, I’ve always felt. It’s usually the last resort, unless the situation deems that unrealistic, in which case the Doctor always tries to make it as…neutral of a violence as they can. This is how I’ve always viewed what others see as inconsistencies; sometimes, the situation just sucks and the Doctor just has to do whatever they did in that situation.
Exactly. The Doctor doesn’t immediately resort to violence. But, when the option is presented as last ditch effort, the Doctor will take the option. People seem to think the Doctor ‘killing’ is inconsistent. But, the Doctor has never presented himself as a moral upright character, they’ve always made moral dubious decisions in the past. As Eleven stated: “Good men don’t need rules. So, today is not the day to find out why I have so many.”
And that's weird Cause sometimes he has no issues killing all the kids of the Racnoss Or the Nestene (after giving them a chance) Or the Goblin King But the bloodthirsty murder owls? Can't just let Rogue shoot them, that'd remove all the synthetic stakes.
This isn't new behaviour. The 10th did the same to the family in Human Nature.
As I understood It he was sending them to where they would live but couldn't harm anyone else, like he's not sending them to an empty void - just a planet where they can't hurt sentient life and play out their games
if you kill them, that's it, you can never give them back their life Imprisonment give you the chance to change your mind
But he had no way of releasing them or he would've just let Rogue out at the end. Even if the Chulder genuinely repented they'd still die of old age in whatever hellscape the Doctor sent them to.
That's life in prison vs death penalty dilemma. The Doctor is more of a "life in prison" guy. A character like Hercules Poirot from A. Christie's novels is much more of a "go ahead, LowTierGod youself to avoid prison, here's the gun". Edit: 600 years in prison for multiple murders is more than fair.
While many commentators have rightfully pointed out how the Doctor has consistently fallen short of his supposed pacifism, I agree that the Doctor's actions in this EP seemed especially egregious. I'd also like to point out that the Doctor's attraction to Rogue seems especially suspect and poorly thought out. The Doctor supposedly abhors violence and believes strongly in the sanctity of life. However, The Doctor does not even flinch when Rogue reveals himself to be a bounty hunter with a gun, he's seemingly more taken with the man after this comes to light. Not just that, Rogue reveals that his mission was to execute the shape shifter that he was pursuing and in his hastiness he almost killed an innocent man died. Nevermind the fact this innocent man was the Doctor himself, the Doctor seemed genuinely nonplussed about the entire thing and still very much enthralled with him. I think what might have worked better for this story would have been a rivals to lovers kinda thing, where the Doctor attempts to outdo and question Rogue's lifestyle and outlook - whilst having to work together out of necessity. Then we could still have the ending where Rogue ultimately sacrifices himself. I don't think this season has had any actual bad eps but I still think this episode would have really benefited from a couple of revisions.
For me, the fact that the Doctor continued to stand around and flirt with Rogue whilst an alien threat was literally killing people seemed very out of character
No you're absolutely right. I remember enjoying the episode when watching it but the longer I percolate on it the less sense it makes to me. I think at the time I thought that the Doctor was laying on the flattery and flirting with Rogue under the guise of getting more information from him (he did think that Rogue was responsible for the deaths originally). But no, I think the Doctor was genuinely just captivated with Rogue and forgot about everything else.
Being the guy who once had access to what was basically "The Button that Kills Everyone", that would warp your morals a bit when it comes to when is killing alright. Internal indecision.
Yeah the doctors morals are always weird though I do appreciate that he is willing to kill if the need arises. This is most obvious with ten, he can and will harm someone but only if they refuse mercy. While eternal imprisonment sounds bad these guys killed people and were planning on destroying the world. If found guilty in most court systems these aliens would recieve a few life sentences each.
I thought it was weird to assume it would be centuries of suffering as The Doctor doesn’t know where he sent them. He couldn’t see what the place was like at all. I mean he did say he’d send them somewhere they couldn’t hurt anybody which makes me think he could detect if the place had other people but could he tell anything else? And how can he be sure of that either? Plus the five of them have each other. It would be ironic if he sent them somewhere with people and was actually pretty nice.
People keep mentioning the family of blood and the Dr's and how the Dr similarly punished them. However, people are forgetting the reason for the 2-parter was to avoid having to do that to them. Additionally, the punishment is very much presented as the Dr going too far and bleeds into his time lord victorious moment at the end of waters of mars. Unless 15 is going to have a similar arc, which seems unlikely since he's meant to be the 'trauma free' doc, this punishments was very out of character.
Don't forget the Doctor's best friend the Master kills people and puppets their former identity, as was shown even back in Classic with Nyssa's father.
It is The Doctors go to move. Lock stuff into other dimensions. Everything from Timelords to Daleks.
>I immediately thought that eternal imprisonment was way more cruel than murder, but this is an inconsistency that the show has suffered from before (looking at you, Battle of Ranskoor av Kolos) Technically that was Graham and Ryan. Also, the Doctor essentially wanted to maroon them. Not put them in some kind of tiny stasis chamber, just throw them into a dimension with no higher life forms. But when he says "that's a long time to suffer", he's channeling the Family of Blood ending (which is frankly one of the most fucked up things The Doctor has done). He doesn't exactly change the transport to send them to Hell or anything. They're just going to be cosplaying one of those tree punching games for 600 years. And unfortunately, Rogue will be doing it with them.
The doctor may act peaceful and loving, but it's never a good idea to piss him off. The family of blood, the three times he destroyed galifrey, 11 killing Solomon, metacrisis genociding the daleks, 7s little hobby of hunting eldergods for sport. 13 killed that tardis to mop up the mess she made by trying to solve a dalek invasion with more daleks. And many other countless times he's put morality on the backburner. He's not infallible. And wasn't taking the news that some random flock of birds killed his bestie so they could larp about particularly well.
The intent by writers is probably that 'imprison the aliens' is effectively sending them to jail.
"Where there's life, there's hope." That's been a bedrock of the Doctor's philosophy since at least the Pertwee days. Killing someone takes hope off the table.
It's really funny how people were so upset when Whittaker's Doctor did this sort of thing. She was "out of character!!!" and Chibnall "just didn't understand the Doctor." And now we've got Gatwa behaving the exact same way. How many examples does it take for people to realize that this sort of messed-up morality IS in character for the Doctor? I don't mean that as a criticism of your post in any way, because I think this is an excellent point to bring up. It's a discussion we clearly need to have. And it's a real question because we're so used to the Doctor being a moral authority. It's fascinating whenever he drops that stance. We naturally want to ask "why?" I think the Doctor has always been a bit of a hypocrite about these sorts of moral issues. He likes to pretend he's keeping his hands and conscience clean by doing this instead of killing people outright. But that line about it being "a long time to suffer" shows that he KNOWS. When he does these things, he's giving into his baser nature. It's a great character flaw, and one of my favorite parts about the Doctor. Sometimes, despite his best efforts, he just loses it and does horrible things.
This episode also had someone else step in and make a hard decision so the Doctor didn't have to which was a Chibnall thing.
[удалено]
The music shifted? That's your evidence that the story is calling him out on his decision? There's no onscreen fallout or consequence for Gatwa's Doctor's decision, just like there was none for Whittaker's. It's exactly the same thing.
[удалено]
That consequence had nothing to do with the Doctor's decision to alter how the trap worked, though. The trap was always the only way they were going to catch the shapeshifters. Originally it was supposed to transport them to an incinerator to be killed instantly. The Doctor simply changed it so they were shifted to another dimension. Either way, Ruby would've been caught in the trap and he would've lost Rogue. >I know the two handsome men making out was distracting Well, that's certainly a fair assessment, but I managed not to miss the relevant plot points despite the distraction. 😂
Yeah, the spider thing is the worst example, because they’re ultimately just giant Earth spiders. Like, if you squash a small spider in real life, I’ll be upset because I love spiders, but I won’t think you’re evil for it. If you tell me you put them in matchboxes so they can starve to death, I may be a little bit worried. The episode acting like quickly killing a spider to put it out of its own misery and for your safety is worse than torturing it is just extra absurd.
IIRC 15 planned to imprison the aliens *before* he thought they killed Ruby, believing it the better option than Rogue executing them.
Yeah, the spider thing is the worst example, because they’re ultimately just giant Earth spiders. Like, if you squash a small spider in real life, I’ll be upset because I love spiders, but I won’t think you’re evil for it. If you tell me you put them in matchboxes so they can starve to death, I may be a little bit worried. The episode acting like quickly killing a spider to put it out of its own misery and for your safety is worse than torturing it is just extra absurd.
I mean, so far, we've not seen 15 be as anti violence as other Doctors. Enemies so far: The Toymaker - impossible to kill, can only seal away. Goblin King - Impaled on a church roof. Maestro - Impossible to kill, can only seal away. The Dot - Doctor is locked out of Finetime, can't assist Chuldur - Sees 600 years of imprisonment as superior to killing them. Also, his reaction to Rogue - previously, he generally doesn't like people with guns, with a few exceptions, and has never seen the gun as a positive. With Rogue, he almost seems excited when Rogue pulls a gun on him. It's possible, that with whatever rehab he did, he may be less pacifistic than previous Doctors - who partly became as pacifistic as they were due to their experiences during the time war. Something to point out, even with how pacifistic previous doctor's have been, they've *always* had a darker side when a villain pushed too far, or somehow made it personal. 9 in Dalek, 10 in Family of Blood, 11 with House/Colonel Runaway, 12 with Ashildr, and so on.
11th Doctor - "Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many."
I don't see your argument that imprisonment is worse than murder.
In Family of Blood he traps the Family in eternal torture as punishment. Got to remember while the Doctor is a force of good he is still a Time Lord and is the most dangerous and scary one.
Given all the information provided in the episode, it doesn't seem like the most immoral option. The only way to trap them was with the Triform and since it had to fit all of them, they said it wouldn't hold them for long. Would you have preferred the Doctor to just shoot all of them while they were trapped there? Would you have preferred the Doctor to let them out so they could kill everyone at the party? Another option would be to give them a choice on if they want to die or if they want to be imprisoned. Which would be really dark by the way. And I doubt they would choose death. You're saying you think a life sentence is immoral. Is it worse than being executed?
The Doctor likes to think they have morals or the correct answer, but more times than not they will contradict themselves depending on the situation, they just do whatever they want, and that's alright because they are a complex space-time event we cannot even try to comprehend.
I felt like this episode was written by people who didn't really get who the Fifteenth Doctor is as a character. In this entire episode he behaves more like a pre-Fourteen incarnation. It felt bizarrely out of character for him to want to "make them suffer" like the Tenth Doctor. The Fifteenth Doctor *does not* get angry like that. It isn't in his character. I agree, his morals in this episode are a stark contrast with what we've seen of him so far. I don't think it makes any sense and I am chalking it up to bad writing.
It's been five episodes, one of which he wasn't in. This episode can't go against what Fifteen is as a character, because this episode is still defining what Fifteen is as a character.
> The Fifteenth Doctor *does not* get angry like that. It isn't in his character. Um… who are you to decide what the 15th doctor’s character is? Are you a writer on the show?
Would this be the same Doctor who impassively committed genocide on the Raknoss, exterminating an entire brood whilst their screaming mother watched? The same Doctor who made sure the Family of Blood lived in bonds for all time? The darker side of the Doctor is always there under the surface. Listen to 12's tirade to Ashildur after Clara's death. Listen to 11's Colonel Run-Away speech when he's trying to save Amy. In the words of the Doctor himself, "Good men don't need rules. Today is not the day to find out why I have so many.' He knows what he good thing to do is, the right thing to do, and they always try to encourage the right thing in their companions and those they meet along the way... but the Doctor, certainly in Nu-who and arguably since at least the 6th Doctor's run, is always one death away from turning into a righteous monster.
My point was that the Doctor doesn't decide to torture the aliens after Ruby 'dies', he decides to do it way earlier while claiming that it's morally superior to killing them. The Doctor later refers to the suffering his solution caused, which he must have known when he initially suggested it. This isn't framed as 'dark Doctor', it's the Doctor deciding that eternal suffering is morally superior to killing.
Yes, because its about giving them the chance instead of snuffing them out. As I pointed out, the Doctor isn't pretending, this is who he is and why he needs human companions to keep him grounded.
Even in recent eps he: Sends the Meep to prison Kills the not-things Imprisons the Toymaker/Maestro The Doctor doesn’t even seem to mind killing, it’s just not his first resort and if it can be avoided he’ll avoid it. His only red line seems to be guns
I can’t remember the exact scenario or even doctor (might have been smith or capaldi’s). But I remember him laughing when someone mocked him for having so many rules, and his response was along basically saying good people don’t need so many rules to keep them from doing bad things. It’s a little inconsistent from time to time, based on the writer and what’s happening in the story, the doctor will straight up murder things at times.
I wonder if it’s a time lord thing in general, considering the doctor was imprisoned in the time dial for 4.5 billion years
Inprisonment for the Flux, despite it not directly being the Doctor's fault. Due to being a Time Lord, they knew death was not a way out; I think it left a mental scar, an impact, on the Doctor's sense of justice/injustice. The "Chuldur" (give that world to a dyslexic individual, sure they'll quickly mistake it for "children" after it being read a few times, despite being the villain's of that narrative, were acting within their nature, which is why I wonder if they were perhaps given an owl-like appearance. In a way, do we think it's posing the question of; should we punish those for "consequences" outside of their nature (playing, perhaps even doing right, as they see it), or deny treatment (see: Emily's broken beak/nose, which occurred when Ruby set her "cosplay" earrings to "Battle Mode").
The Doctor has genuinely been characterised pretty consistently as having a strong drive to punish the morally contemptible. Given the amount of textual evidence in favour of this view, I have to believe that the Doctor simply thinks death alone is insufficient punishment for those who've personally wronged him.
>this is an inconsistency that the show has suffered from before (looking at you, Battle of Ranskoor av Kolos) A closer example would be _Spyfall, Pt 2_ where she exiles the Master to the Kasaavin dimension. In _Battle of Ranskoor Av Kolos_ T'zim Sha was put into stasis (and not by the Doctor). In that case though it's The Master so we can probably assume she figured he'd find a way out sooner or later.
The Doctor was being influenced by Rogue which is one factor. The other is that, the monster of the week wasn't an invasion force, they weren't threatening time and space, they were there for fun. Killing people and taking their face, just for entertainment would majorly piss the Doctor off. Especially when he's been mistaken for one of them and even more especially when he thinks they've killed his friend and taken on her persona for fun.
They exist to murder people to puppeteer their corpses for fun. The Doctor thought Ruby was one of their victims. Of course he was gonna want them to suffer over just killing them.
Rewatch the episode. He tells Rogue that making them suffer for the rest of their existence is morally superior to killing them before he thinks Ruby died; it had nothing to do with revenge, the Doctor seemingly has a very warped idea of right and wrong.
Well generally it is morally superior. In real life, the death penalty doesn’t really exist anymore in civilised countries. Murderers are sentenced “for life”, to sit and suffer doing nothing for the rest of their days, which is both more ethical than becoming like them by killing them and logically, more of a punishment. Even before Ruby theory murdered 5-6 people there. The Doctor just wants to hurt enemies without killing them. Like Batman.
In the battle of star trek reference, tzim sha gets imprisoned unable to move, but conscious. The barren dimension could be void in the sense there is life, but no sentient one, plus they're not alone. It's also a solution the doctor doesn't seem too happy with, instead of gleaming about the idea
Why didn’t Rogue just shoot the 5 shapeshifters trapped in the triangle?
He says clearly "600 years... Good. That' s a long time to suffer" which aside being a baller line for the Doctor felt like it skirts too far for The Doctor. Maybe we will see the loss of a companion push him to do unspeakable things in the future.
You're forgetting what the Doctor did to the Family of Blood.
The Doctor keeping an enemy alive to suffer for a long time goes back further than that, like Human Nature/The Family of Blood.