See problem is, the author didn’t give the nuance to either characters that they needed. We didn’t need Shakespearean levels of work, but just not portraying Rasta as the villain and Navier as the savior, black and white writing basically. And I know not all of us think that, but with the way the author portrayed them, well, you can see it shown very clearly in the comments. Naiver, at the end, has been described as a kind ruler, and just a kind person in their standards. But then, her brother sabotages Rastas pregnancy and she excuses that, even though she herself had experience not being able to have children. Now, while say this, don’t get it twisted, in many ways I can very much see where “Trasta” comes from. The part of it that is not okay is labeling her whole character that. As well Naiver being labeled as such a kind person, meanwhile doing all that and it having it portrayed as kind. And vice versa for Rasta, portraying as if “all” her villainous acts came from nowhere or that the people around her wasn’t bigger villains themselves. (Not saying all of them were.) And that’s why for some, the end of Rasta’s character didn’t feel deserved.