Can you help we understand the world of Housepets?

[Keeperixx]

Hi there, I just got into reading Housepets last night and while I can safely say I like the characters and the writing of more than a few of the story arcs I've read so far. There are some things regarding the premise and world of Housepets I found... distractingly concerning. And I hope some of you can help me reconcile and better understand the comic and its intentions.

With all that in mind, am I the only one who finds the way the Pet characters live with humans kinda... ethically disturbing?

I mean, I get some of it in a way, Pets being raised and treated as children by their human owners is an adorable concept on paper. But the way it's executed seems to raise quite a few ethical and moral red flags that comic rarely, if ever, addresses. Here are some examples;

(I'm going only by what comics I read so far as I haven't finished yet, but I hope it still makes my point)

this comic has a human casher say they're not allowing to sell catnip to pets, yet no one in or out of universe ever called speciesism or civil rights violation on that? I know I would if I was a Pet in that universe. If was an age requirement thing I can accept that, but sapient animals having more limited freedoms or rights to purchase than humans?

https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... things-up/

Some questions can be asked for this comic where Pets are expected to be put on leashes in some public places, despite being sapient.

https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... ll-travel/

This comic shows a dog wearing a shock collar. Now, regardless of what the dog might've done for the owner to put the collar on him. I know I wouldn't put a shock collar on a human child regardless of how badly they behaved, so why should I treat a sapient and anthropomorphic dog, and one that's also a child, mind you, any differently?

https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/2009/03/09/bzzt/

The only animals I've seen so far (not counting a certain shape-shifting griffin but I'll get to him in a minute) that seem to live independent from humans is The Wolf Pack, who still had to label themselves as pets to Keene Milton, a ferret. And Tarot, who I have yet to confirm doesn't live independently.

Why are so few animals calling out this social bias their world seems to lean against them? And why is it so few humans seem bothered by this whole deal despite obviously knowing animals in their world are sapient? What are humans afraid might happen if they had to share complete equal rights with their animal neighbors? Even the "Good" pet owners seem to have funny ways of raising their "kids" that obviously wouldn't fly with raising human kids.

And the appearance of an aforementioned shape-shifting Griffin implies that there are animals with god-like powers, unless Pete is only one of his kind, you'd think someone similar to him in power would be appalled by this and stage some divine intervention.

And why, aside from what Keane Milton seems to be doing, aren't there more activist groups rallying against thing or, heaven help us, armed rebellions rising against humans over this? And we all know PETA doesn't count for obvious reasons.

The only Pet I've seen trying to protest this whole deal is King, yet the writing of the arc where he gets transformed indicates we're not supposed to side with him in calling out not being able to live like a human.

And why are even so few Pets seem bothered by all this despite knowing even human children seem to have more rights than they do?

I'm sorry, I know I'm supposed to take this comic too seriously, but a big reason why we humans treat animals the way we do in real life is because most of them aren't sapient (unless you count certain other primates like chimps as an exceptions but that's another story).

My suspension of disbelief couldn't stop me from asking these questions and I'm still reading through just to try get some answers and so far I'm rarely find any.

Did this pro-human bias not bother you when you read Housepets? If so, can you help me understand why? I want to enjoy this comic the way I'm supposed to. But what else am I supposed to make of the comic's world-building and lore aside from it being darker than most of characters want to admit?

And if you have to give me spoilers to help me understand all this, please go ahead. I'm still gonna keep reading through it, but I want some resolution for some of the concerns I brought up. I seriously lost sleep trying to make sense of this.

[D-Rock]

Not sure I can adequately answer any of this, but some pointers.

Yes, they’re sapient, but they’re still animals, running on instinct. They can still, for example, attack without training, chase things they’re not supposed to, or be violent for no real reason.

The reason none of the animals have “rebelled” is because they’re perfectly willing to settle. Food and shelter is a really big deal.

Regarding Pete, he’s not an empowered animal, he’s a demigod who took the appearance of a griffin. And the deities we’ve seen aren’t so keen on upheaving the natural order in such a drastic way.

I recall ChaokoCartoons brought up the issues with sudden human rights as well. Suddenly you have a MASSIVE increase in competition for important resources. Besides, animals like Fox have initially stated that they don’t want to deal with all of that responsibility.

[Keeperixx]

Not sure I can adequately answer any of this, but some pointers.

Yes, they’re sapient, but they’re still animals, running on instinct. They can still, for example, attack without training, chase things they’re not supposed to, or be violent for no real reason.

And they strictly need to be owned by humans to help manage these these instincts? How do you explain the Wolf Pack or the "ferals" that Zach encountered in that forest? From what I've read they seem to control themselves just fine. Maybe it's because I haven't read all the way through yet, but the whole instincts things doesn't seem to be presented often or consistent enough to justify it.

And last I checked, animals on instinct don't "attack without reason" there's usually context behind it like needing to eat or they feel threatened.

Even then, from writing perspective, if you're gonna write sentient animal character yet give them instincts that hamper their ability to be civilized, why make them sapient at all? unless Rick Griffin went the route of Beastars where the anthros have instincts but can control them to a reasonable extent. It would come across as trying to get away with inconsistency as mentioned above.

The reason none of the animals have “rebelled” is because they’re perfectly willing to settle. Food and shelter is a really big deal.

I recall ChaokoCartoons brought up the issues with sudden human rights as well. Suddenly you have a MASSIVE increase in competition for important resources. Besides, animals like Fox have initially stated that they don’t want to deal with all of that responsibility.

If it was just the 'kid' pets it would kinda make sense, but aren't there any adult pets that feel differently? Aren't there more animals that look at how humans are living and feel they could or should have better lives than second-class citizens? The existence of the Wolf Pack seems to suggest "yes" to that.

And what do you mean by "MASSIVE increase in competition for important resources."? Humans still already compete with each other on everything, adding sapient animals to the mix by all practical would be moot concern, not to mention hypocritical.

[D-Rock]

Like I said, there are probably better people to explain it. That last point, however, Is not a moot addition. Any increase in demand will be noticed.

[Keeperixx]

Like I said, there are probably better people to explain it. That last point, however, Is not a moot addition. Any increase in demand will be noticed.

Noticed? maybe, but I still see no reason human's shouldn't be willing to welcome it, I'm sure there's plenty of businesses and suppliers who's be perfectly happy with a million more cats and dogs buying their products.

[D-Rock]

I was talking things like jobs.

[Keeperixx]

I was talking things like jobs.

In a way same thing applies, there are likely at least some businesses that welcome animals with open arms as employees if only for a gimmick or to come across as inclusive.

Humans already complain about other humans taking jobs, adding sapient animals to that mix would arguably be irrelevant.

[Amazee Dayzee]

Everybody here has been reading the comic for a long time and I'm sure that there are still some things about it that people will have questions about.

[Keeperixx]

Everybody here has been reading the comic for a long time and I'm sure that there are still some things about it that people will have questions about.

I see, but the point behind me opening this topic is to help me get some answers, if not on the logically and ethically questionable things regarding the comic's lore. At least on how other readers don't seem as bothered by them as I am.

[D-Rock]

Many of us are aware of these implications if we scratch just a bit below the surface.

[Keeperixx]

Many of us are aware of these implications if we scratch just a bit below the surface.

Except some of it wasn't below the surface, again, "No Pets allowed to buy Catnip" and we saw a sapient dog shocked by his collar. I'd punch that poor dog's owner if I could.

[D-Rock]

After everything, they’re still animals.

What about predation of sentient animals. That’s surface level.

[Keeperixx]

After everything, they’re still animals.

What about predation of sentient animals. That’s surface level.

You're welcome to send links to comics that confirm that happens, assuming those happen frequently and consistently enough to be considered justified and not simply moments of weaknesses on the part of the characters.

Sentient animals are still sentient, species is largely irrelevant.

[D-Rock]

Grape ate a mouse on-screen, she and Max were arguing over who could eat a bird they found, Grape, Fox, and Max were almost fed to an alligator, Gale had a lot of animal skulls in her den, the wolves were perfectly willing to eat Zach and even threatened to do the same to Pueblo, Fido once threatened to leave Spo with a cat that wasn’t Sabrina, a Bigglesworth tried to eat Squeak, Peanut stated that the horses looked delicious, Lois and Falstaff both threatened to eat Marion.

[Keeperixx]

Grape ate a mouse on-screen, she and Max were arguing over who could eat a bird they found, Grape, Fox, and Max were almost fed to an alligator, Gale had a lot of animal skulls in her den, the wolves were perfectly willing to eat Zach and even threatened to do the same to Pueblo, Fido once threatened to leave Spo with a cat that wasn’t Sabrina, a Bigglesworth tried to eat Squeak, Peanut stated that the horses looked delicious, Lois and Falstaff both threatened to eat Marion.

Most those Predations were conscious decisions given the context of those arcs, not this "animal instinct" you're still pushing. And if it was instinct, they wouldn't have bothered threatening their 'prey'.

Whatever instincts they have, it's clearly not hampering their sapience.

[NHWestoN]

Grape ate a mouse on-screen, she and Max were arguing over who could eat a bird they found, Grape, Fox, and Max were almost fed to an alligator, Gale had a lot of animal skulls in her den, the wolves were perfectly willing to eat Zach and even threatened to do the same to Pueblo, Fido once threatened to leave Spo with a cat that wasn’t Sabrina, a Bigglesworth tried to eat Squeak, Peanut stated that the horses looked delicious, Lois and Falstaff both threatened to eat Marion.

Couple other gustatory references: Zach greets a group of ferals with "Hope you don't get eaten"; Natalie mentions Bruno the Bear snatching a bird off a high tree limb; the wolves make references to eating and preparing deer (who are sentient); Skip the Hawk mutters about catching and eating mice; In the "Guys and Dolls" Imaginate, Grape makes a gesture that causes her mouse audience to feel threatened; Rufus presents Peanut with a dead chicken (cause of demise unknown); Grape hollars "I'm gonna eat your innards" at an aloof cow; One of the Milton Ferrets (Simon?) offers Fido a bribe if he lets him eat Spo (Fido, apparently, declined); Coyote and Crow threaten "Kitten Maxwell" with being lunch; Tiny Tum jumps Trinket the Magpie and Trinket's long absence led some reader's to worry about the bird's fate.

[Keeperixx]

Grape ate a mouse on-screen, she and Max were arguing over who could eat a bird they found, Grape, Fox, and Max were almost fed to an alligator, Gale had a lot of animal skulls in her den, the wolves were perfectly willing to eat Zach and even threatened to do the same to Pueblo, Fido once threatened to leave Spo with a cat that wasn’t Sabrina, a Bigglesworth tried to eat Squeak, Peanut stated that the horses looked delicious, Lois and Falstaff both threatened to eat Marion.

Couple other gustatory references: Zach greets a group of ferals with "Hope you don't get eaten"; Natalie mentions Bruno the Bear snatching a bird off a high tree limb; the wolves make references to eating and preparing deer (who are sentient); Skip the Hawk mutters about catching and eating mice; In the "Guys and Dolls" Imaginate, Grape makes a gesture that causes her mouse audience to feel threatened; Rufus presents Peanut with a dead chicken (cause of demise unknown); Grape hollars "I'm gonna eat your innards" at an aloof cow; One of the Milton Ferrets (Simon?) offers Fido a bribe if he lets him eat Spo (Fido, apparently, declined); Coyote and Crow threaten "Kitten Maxwell" with being lunch; Tiny Tum jumps Trinket the Magpie and Trinket's long absence led some reader's to worry about the bird's fate.

Again, most of these were conscious acts, too few of these moments give any indicator that animal instincts took over.

[D-Rock]

Not sure how a need to eat isn’t instinct.

Well, there’s when Marion rushed up a tree. He questioned how he did it so fast once he had time to breathe, and seemed to have a handle on it when climbing down.

[Keeperixx]

Not sure how a need to eat isn’t instinct.

Well, there’s when Marion rushed up a tree. He questioned how he did it so fast once he had time to breathe, and seemed to have a handle on it when climbing down.

Talking about wanting to eat someone doesn't sound like instinct, does it? Neither is threatening to eat someone before making an attempt.

And climbing up a tree hardly sounds like something that hampers one's ability to think like a sapient being.

[D-Rock]

I don’t know what you want, then.

[Amazee Dayzee]

If you think too hard about it then no it won't make any sense. So you probably shouldn't. Just enjoy the comic.

[Sir Chestnut]

Just repeat to yourself "It's just a comic, I should really just relax"

[Keeperixx]

Just repeat to yourself "It's just a comic, I should really just relax"

I know, and I'm still reading it while trying to do that.

And when I'm reading arcs that show only the animal characters interacting and dealing with lighthearted scenarios, I enjoy myself pretty well.

But then I run into an arc that presents the clear zoophobic bigotry humans inflicted upon the anthros. I just find the contrast too off-putting and mean-spirited to overlook. If those moments were omitted from the comic or at least presented as part of the drama rather than something I'm supposed to okay with, I probably wouldn't be calling it out as much.

I think it's a bit like asking me to 'just relax' at that scene in Captain America: Steve Rogers where Cap at the end says "Hail Hydra"; it just clashes too much with everything else I'm supposed to follow.

As of this post I pasted the arc where The Wolf Pack visit the zoo, so I take some comfort knowing at least knowing there's some committed effort against this status quo. As well as some indicator that I'm not supposed to be okay with the zoophobia going on. So my views of comic are improving, I just wish this much was established earlier.

(Oh, and just as a side note, D-Rock, that alligator that tried to eat Fox, Grape, and Max? it showed no signs of sentience that the likes of Peanut and Grape have, so the gator can't even count towards the "instinct overpowering sapience" claim you were trying to push)

Bottom line, I am enjoying this most for the most part, but don't be surprised if I find myself rooting strictly for the anthros and their antics and have no sympathy for any of the humans, not even the 'good' humans that act like they know what's best for sapient beings who can clearly match them in intelligence and skill.

[Amazee Dayzee]

Except that for the most part, the pets DON'T know what is best for them and need their owner parents to help guide them because if they don't they could end up making a lot of huge mistakes. If Peanut and Grape went around unchecked eventually they would run into an issue they couldn't solve. So they do need guidance if only a little bit.

[NHWestoN]

Just repeat to yourself "It's just a comic, I should really just relax"

I know, and I'm still reading it while trying to do that.

And when I'm reading arcs that show only the animal characters interacting and dealing with lighthearted scenarios, I enjoy myself pretty well.

But then I run into an arc that presents the clear zoophobic bigotry humans inflicted upon the anthros. I just find the contrast too off-putting and mean-spirited to overlook. If those moments were omitted from the comic or at least presented as part of the drama rather than something I'm supposed to okay with, I probably wouldn't be calling it out as much.

I think it's a bit like asking me to 'just relax' at that scene in Captain America: Steve Rogers where Cap at the end says "Hail Hydra"; it just clashes too much with everything else I'm supposed to follow.

As of this post I pasted the arc where The Wolf Pack visit the zoo, so I take some comfort knowing at least knowing there's some committed effort against this status quo. As well as some indicator that I'm not supposed to be okay with the zoophobia going on. So my views of comic are improving, I just wish this much was established earlier.

(Oh, and just as a side note, D-Rock, that alligator that tried to eat Fox, Grape, and Max? it showed no signs of sentience that the likes of Peanut and Grape have, so the gator can't even count towards the "instinct overpowering sapience" claim you were trying to push)

Bottom line, I am enjoying this most for the most part, but don't be surprised if I find myself rooting strictly for the anthros and their antics and have no sympathy for any of the humans, not even the 'good' humans that act like they know what's best for sapient beings who can clearly match them in intelligence and skill.

Not a problem - very little seems to surprise folks on this forum.

[Keeperixx]

Except that for the most part, the pets DON'T know what is best for them and need their owner parents to help guide them because if they don't they could end up making a lot of huge mistakes. If Peanut and Grape went around unchecked eventually they would run into an issue they couldn't solve. So they do need guidance if only a little bit.

Anthros like Peanut and Grape needing guidance I can buy, but that's because they're still considered children by the standards of their species. If 'huge mistakes' would be made, they'd be no worse than any human children having to get by without parents.

Also following that argument would imply that the Sandwich owners don't teach their 'children' many skills in autonomy or adaptability for when they aren't around. If I'm supposed to view Peanut and Grape's owners as good parents, this hardly seems like a point in their favor.

And even then, how would you explain the likes the K-9 units and the Milton Ferrets? who clearly are given positions of adult responsibility and authority yet don't chaft under having them? (at least no more than any humans would in their position) or the Wolf Pack and Itsuki? Who are able to get away with living autonomously from human ownership?

[D-Rock]

Regarding reptiles, there was a sapient snake at the zoo, and there’s later mention of Kathy from the reptile house, a viper. Insects and small fish are supposed to be non-sapient.

[Keeperixx]

Regarding reptiles, there was a sapient snake at the zoo, and there’s later mention of Kathy from the reptile house, a viper. Insects and small fish are supposed to be non-sapient.

That still doesn't detract from how the aforementioned alligator wasn't sapient. If anything this just implies some species of reptile are sentient and some aren't.

[D-Rock]

I believe Rick has stated that non-sapient animals are indeed just bugs and small fish.

[Keeperixx]

I believe Rick has stated that non-sapient animals are indeed just bugs and small fish.

Then why didn't the alligator talk, walk on its hind legs, or do anything to even vaguely imply it was ever sentient?

Either Rick didn't input that rule until well after the comic with the alligator was posted, he overlooked a contradiction in his own lore, or he established that rule early but changed his mind later.

Either way, we still can't count the alligator as an example of instinct overtaking sentience.

[D-Rock]

Horses, camels, deer, and as we see, alligators, are all still quadrupeds.

[Keeperixx]

Horses, camels, deer, and as we see, alligators, are all still quadrupeds.

Nice, I can concede that part, but it still doesn't explain why the alligator didn't show any signs of sentience before it tried to eat our heroes.

[D-Rock]

Not all the pets we see have speaking roles, either. And it did say something in response to what it’s owner said.

[Keeperixx]

Not all the pets we see have speaking roles, either. And it did say something in response to what it’s owner said.

I'll grant you I missed that detail.

But even still, "Aww!" implies conscious eagerness to chew on prey and possibly sadism. Which would further detract from your "instinct-overtaking-sapience" theory.

[D-Rock]

I still don’t see how a physical need/desire to eat means there’s no instinct involved. I don’t think instinct and sapience are mutually exclusive.

[Keeperixx]

I still don’t see how a physical need/desire to eat means there’s no instinct involved. I don’t think instinct and sapience are mutually exclusive.

Sapience is consciousness, involves self-awareness and self-control, when you do something consciously and you know why you're doing it. you're able to think before you act.

Instinct is unconscious action, doing only what your body wants you to do while not being able to take stock of consequences.

Take me for example, if I get hungry, I could eat my landlady's pet corgi or goldfish or munch on plants in her garden.

If I was strictly under instinct, I likely would have done so while being neither unable to see it as wrong nor recognize any consequences in doing so. And I'd likely be evicted from the room I'm renting out

But because I'm sapient (and I see myself as a moral person), I choose not to as I know I shouldn't do so because not only is it morally wrong and I'd never forgive myself for doing it, but I know I'll suffer consequences like criminal charges and alienation from family and friends.

The Gator knows it can get away with eating our heroes because it knows they are gifts from its owner. Therefore it knows it doesn't need to worry about consequence, and thus knows its trying to eat other sentient beings and simply doesn't care. Which comes across not as animal behavior, but willing, if sociopathic, intent.

[D-Rock]

Well, with that in mind, there is still the fact that predation is a very real thing in-universe.

[Keeperixx]

Well, with that in mind, there is still the fact that predation is a very real thing in-universe.

Which would mean the predations are all conscious decisions and thus instinct doesn't hamper their sapience. They can take stock of consequences when necessary.

And thus, there's no reason to not to hold the sapient animals in the same regard as we're supposed to with their human counterparts.

Edit: I just got past the arc where the nature of Pete and Dragon's conflict is revealed and sorry to say I'm siding with Keene and Pete. Since the 'consequences' Tarot and Sabrina are worried about aren't explained at all, I have to think they're part of the problem.

[Obbl]

You're allowed to side with Keene. He has a point after all.
Everything you've brought up is in fact being actively explored in this comic. Mammals, avians, and reptiles are sapient in this universe. They also prey on each other because many are still obligate carnivors. They have less of an instinctual drive to change the circumstances around them compared to humans and thus tend not to push for change themselves. Humans treat animals as lesser than them. Humans literally raise cattle for consumption. And I believe this is all meant to catch your attention to some degree. It is the way things are, so Rick includes it in his world. There's a lot of fridge horror to be uncovered if you look at it closely.
People have also indeed advocated for animal rights in the past. This can be seen with Fido quoting Terryson v. Florida to support his right to read the Miranda. Grape even mentions with sad disgust the time when a wolf actor had his tail surgically removed to play the part of a werewolf in the 30's (and that things similar to that still happen). Social reform on this level is extremely recent even in the real world, so why would it be surprising that things have not progressed much in Housepets!? Especially given that most pets see to be more or less like Fox in that they don't really want the responsibility that comes with being an independent person rather than a pet. Fox even gets to join the K-9 force as a working dog while still remaining a pet. Best of both worlds as far as he is concerned.
If it distresses you to see the pets being second class (non-)citizens, then don't read the comic and put yourself through that. Otherwise, recognize that that is where we are and root for whoever you think is most likely to set things right in that regard

Edit: That said, things like this

Since the 'consequences' Tarot and Sabrina are worried about aren't explained at all, I have to think they're part of the problem

are an extremely shallow read and will get some pushback from fans. If the consequences of suddenly giving animals all the rights and freedoms and responsibilities as humans with little to no transition period are not clear and obvious to you, just note that they are clear and obvious even to Pete and Keene (Pete just thinks that after the chaos settles, those who make it through will be better off, so it's fine). You can't just label everyone as "part of the problem" who doesn't believe that everyone should do whatever it takes to make animals equal right this very second

[Keeperixx]

You're allowed to side with Keene. He has a point after all.
Everything you've brought up is in fact being actively explored in this comic. Mammals, avians, and reptiles are sapient in this universe. They also prey on each other because many are still obligate carnivores. They have less of an instinctual drive to change the circumstances around them compared to humans and thus tend not to push for change themselves. Humans treat animals as lesser than them. Humans literally raise cattle for consumption. And I believe this is all meant to catch your attention to some degree. It is the way things are, so Rick includes it in his world. There's a lot of fridge horror to be uncovered if you look at it closely.
People have also indeed advocated for animal rights in the past. This can be seen with Fido quoting Terryson v. Florida to support his right to read the Miranda. Grape even mentions with sad disgust the time when a wolf actor had his tail surgically removed to play the part of a werewolf in the 30's (and that things similar to that still happen). Social reform on this level is extremely recent even in the real world, so why would it be surprising that things have not progressed much in Housepets!? Especially given that most pets see to be more or less like Fox in that they don't really want the responsibility that comes with being an independent person rather than a pet. Fox even gets to join the K-9 force as a working dog while still remaining a pet. Best of both worlds as far as he is concerned.
If it distresses you to see the pets being second class (non-)citizens, then don't read the comic and put yourself through that. Otherwise, recognize that that is where we are and root for whoever you think is most likely to set things right in that regard

Edit: That said, things like this

Since the 'consequences' Tarot and Sabrina are worried about aren't explained at all, I have to think they're part of the problem

are an extremely shallow read and will get some pushback from fans. If the consequences of suddenly giving animals all the rights and freedoms and responsibilities as humans with little to no transition period are not clear and obvious to you, just note that they are clear and obvious even to Pete and Keene (Pete just thinks that after the chaos settles, those who make it through will be better off, so it's fine). You can't just label everyone as "part of the problem" who doesn't believe that everyone should do whatever it takes to make animals equal right this very second

Let's explore some of the points you brought up, shall we?

Mammals, avians, and reptiles are sapient in this universe. They also prey on each other because many are still obligate carnivores.

Yes, obligate carnivores that are capable of conscious thought and choice. I don't get why this isn't getting through.

They have less of an instinctual drive to change the circumstances around them compared to humans and thus tend not to push for change themselves.

That's debatable, considering I've seen humans both in-universe and real life that don't seem interested in improving themselves either.

Especially given that most pets see to be more or less like Fox in that they don't really want the responsibility that comes with being an independent person rather than a pet.

If that's how those pets truly feel, okay, that's their prerogative, I won't contest that.

If the consequences of suddenly giving animals all the rights and freedoms and responsibilities as humans with little to no transition period are not clear and obvious to you, just note that they are clear and obvious even to Pete and Keene (Pete just thinks that after the chaos settles, those who make it through will be better off, so it's fine).

Then maybe I said it wrong, I'm not expecting an instant change, and I'm sure humans would respond to such sudden change with violence.

but the way Sabrina vaguely brought up a catastrophe in regard to Keene's endgoal and how she talked to Keene implies they're gonna be obstacles in any effort toward improvement.

How can I paint such opposition in any degree of benevolence aside from maybe Sabrina is being misguided by a paranoid, callous, overly-cautious, and arrogant deity?