Honestly I disliked that whole plot point too for the same reasons you listed. The entire thing just put a bad taste in my mouth and I do think the director doesn't deserve to die in the slums. The entire bit was far too cartoonishly evil and also quite classist. It didn't anything to the story either aside from making Ennid the son of 2 nobles and messing up the themes of the story. Honestly, the orphanage could have been a great story point by talking about education as a means of social mobility and how supporting such institutions is very important but they went for cheap, nonsensical drama that made Ennid the saddest, most unfortunate victim of horrible men again. He really comes across as special Gary Stu underdog who rose without anyone supporting him instead of someone who had a community in his fellow impoverished and disenfranchised folks who looked out for each other.
I feel like the director should have kept a certain amount of money for the kids, and should have used the rest to help others,like maybe 60-40, should have used some portion of that 60% for their education and the rest kind of like fixed deposit they will get after they become adult.
We see Ennid's perspective,he was talented and turned out to be great but what about the others, maybe they needed it at some point, because its not just education and basic amenities, sometimes there could be unforseen misfortunes.
Also, not making them aware is depriving them of a choice.like if someone is rich but doesn't donate ,you might criticize them but forcing them at gunpoint to donate is also extreme , Here the kids are not even aware, isn't it a scam?kindness and 'how much kindness' should be a choice ,not a forceful thing
OK, but I think the most important part is it was never the directors money and the only reason he used it for saving children was for being called a good person. I feel like Ennid would have given money to him as he got older. I would always have supported the orphanage, but he never got that choice.
I agree with your line of thought but I still think it's a rather contrived plot point that didn't really add anything meaningful to the story and instead subtracted from the themes the story is trying to go for.
I'm sorry but the story of the orphanage director taking the inheritance money was such a terrible choice. The Will must had been on some lawyer's possession, not the director. And you can not have Ennid being that angry and yelling "you stole from orphans" if the director actually used the money to save and help hundreds of other kids and when Ennid had the privilege of a great education and natural inmesurable power. Now Ennid looks like the hole. The accusation of it being done for "honor" is very dumb, it is only Ennid's assumption if we are not given any evidence of it and it doesn't matter when other kids were given safety. And Glunns revenge ruins the directors reputation, the orphanage could not get more donors, the orphans become unsafe again.
You can argue Ennid has a right to be angry because the money could had saved him from the bullying at school but it is still very selfish and it plays into the systemic oppression of the commoner class, you stop bullying by educating the classists not by becoming rich and elitist yourself.
And up until that point Ennid had no interest on being mega rich, he lived humbly and was very naive about his water spell patent.
The Orphanage Arc should had been left as a comfort memory for Ennid where he was safe and loved explaining why he didnt became evil with so much power. And he should had been the son of poor normal people, he did not needed rich successful parents to explain why he is rich and successful too, poor peolple can be talented and successful on their own if given the chance, the inherited traits idea is basically childish and classist, at worst eugenics.
A common mistake is to favor drama and victimhood over coherence. Sorry for the rant but Ennid's OoC behavior took me out of the story which was very good so far