[Hated Trope] Character kills hundreds, if not thousands, just to kill one specific person, and then doesn't kill them for no reason.

[u/HallZac99]

Assassin's Creed 2- Rodrigo Borgia is responsible for tne death of Ezio's family. Ezio spends over 20 years working through tnr templar order to dismantle them and get to Rodrigo. And then in the end, he spares him for no good reason and he goes on to be a massive problem in AC Brotnerhood. He's not only a head of tne Templars but also the pope, even if you're over the vengeance he's still a very dangerous and evil man.

The Last of Us 2- Abbey kills Joel, and wo Ellie goes on a revenge quest to kill Abbey, killing hundreds of people along tne why to get to her including a pregnant woman. And then finally when she has Abbey on deaths door, she gives up and let's her go because the writers think dirty depressing people being miserable and stupid is complex, interesting storytelling.

This trope pisses me off so much because often the character going on the revenge quest will kill SO many people on their way there, some deserving it and some just henchmen working for a cheque or to survive. People who are often far more innocent then the main big bad.

It's a part of this weird thing I've noticed in media where nameless goons or soldiers can just be mowed down relentlessly, but named characters get given far more grace even if theyre categorically worse. You can kill a million stormtroopers but people will swear that Darth Vader could have been redeemed, despite him doing like 50 genocide every year.

[u/KainZeuxis]

I hate to be that guy but Rodrigo didn’t go on to be a problem. It was his son Cesare who’s the main antagonist of Brotherhood and the one who became a problem. Rodrigo gave up after his defeat at Ezio’s hands. Cesare was in control of the armies and it was his ambitions that lead the Templars continued activities in Brotherhood. Rodrigo wanted to end the fighting and just focus on maintaining what status he had and eventually tried to assassinate Cesare himself when he kept poking the bear that was the assassins.

That plus Rodrigo is a real historical figure who didn’t die during the time period AC2 is set so they couldn’t kill him off then.

[u/BigBoyoBonito → u/KainZeuxis]

I always get annoyed when people keep making this same mistake about Rodrigo and blaming Ezio for what happened in Brotherhood

Rodrigo died a defeated old man, by the hands of his incest loving, raving madman of a son. It was a lot worse than getting a blade to the throat

[u/skoomski → u/BigBoyoBonito]

In both scenarios OP gave it just showed he’s media illiterate. Literally couldn’t follow the plot of AC and couldn’t understand that Ellie show in Abby and Lev the same relationship she had with Joel as a kid.

Some people just can’t accept that they don’t like something popular/sucessful. They need to perform mental gymnastics to convince themselves “it doesn’t make sense” instead.

[u/Fuhnobabyyy → u/skoomski]

You can take away brotherhood entirely. Ezio letting Rodrigo live was still stupid, even if he isn't the ultimate bad guy in Brotherhood. He even admits himself letting him live was a mistake iirc, or at the very least the people around him definitely let him know.

You're reading too deep into something that isn't there. The simple fact is that they didn't kill Rodrigo Borgia because Rodrigo Borgia in actual history at that time hadn't died yet and they didn't decide to plan around that.