>>96520616
>The Red Lotus was conceptually an interesting idea
Were they really? "What if we took a mediocre concept and made it EVIL?" feels lazy and contrived to begin with, but taking it further, the idea of an organization of big thinkers who have honed a philosophy is at odds with the entire theme Avatar's setting is practically built for and around: Growth.
Ask yourself this: What makes someone a bad guy in ATLA? What trait do they tend to share and emphasize? If you ask me, it's being incomplete, lacking personal growth and introspection. It's not understanding themselves or others and not being able to (Or not wanting to) grow up in some way. Zhao has this flaw, Zuko has this flaw, Azula has it, Ozai has it.
Zhao never grows up and remains rash and selfish.
Azula just has something fundamentally wrong with her brain.
Ozai straight up has no desire to listen to others, nor to accept anything but might makes right and force that view upon all others.
And Zuko - Do I even need to bother? We all know his arc.
This even factors into power wanking. The other three never get "stronger" (Unless you count the comet). They're always portrayed at their peak, because they never actually grow. I think part of the reason the ending works at all (Because it's honestly kind of botched) is because Ozai's fate is pretty poetic: He's perhaps the least capable of growing and changing as a person, so he loses his bending entirely.
This would not work if Ozai had some coherent and well-reasoned out explanation for his views. If he was some nationalist who was purely interested in imperial conquest for the betterment of the Fire Nation, he'd just be a guy you either agree or disagree with depending on your interests.
And yeah, Sozin does sorta get portrayed in that way. I think it's a rare instance of bad writing because his given reasons for starting a war and actual actions of literally wiping out entire cultures are in direct conflict with one another.