I do find it interesting how people who look upon Pike as the Savior of Star Trek ,tend to dismiss any blanches on his character as illogical writing despite how consistent the character was over the course of the season. His fetish for self-sacrifice that he exhibits from day one of the season is ignored when he just nods when Airiam demands to be sacrificed, when Michael says she must die to attract the Red Angel angel in a particularly horrible way and when he doesn't take extraordinary efforts to save Admiral Cornwell. This is your guy, people. The man who loves the idea of the noble sacrifice so much that he practically encourages it, even when not exactly necessary or prudent.
You know what? I'm actually completely with you on this part, though I come to a completely different conclusion.
Pike
is too soft. When Saru questioned his authority in front of everyone, he should have restored order immediately, instead of letting everything play out. He did the right thing - but very late. And this really wasn't a flub by the writers - he is very consistent with this. He is very definitely a more laissez-faire/democratic leadership type of guy.
And you know what? This is
awesome. This is a serious character flaw that he has. And a consistent one at that, so it even encourages stuff like "character arc" and "development". Because this flaw isn't
critical, but it's
consistent. It's also very human. But he need to get better at situational awareness in some situations.
This is also a personality trait extremely rare - and thusfore so much more valuable - on the current television landscape. Everyone always seem to lean
haaard on the
"tough guy, tough choices" tropes. Just look at Lorca. And genuine good guys always get shafted, or proven wrong (Eddard Stark from GoT anyone?). It's really re-freshing to see such a different approach, faults included, but still successfull, especially since it IMO much better fits with the stance "Star Trek" was founded on regarding these issues.
I would disagree though that he has a thing for self-sacrifice. That is much more Michael Burnham's thing - but for her, the universe always turns out for her sacrifice to be necessary, so there is really not much for her to learn. She's been right all the time. Wheras for Pike's thing is more that he really wants to lead from within, not from the top. Which is the right approach for many situations, but not all, and I genuinely want to see him grow as a character.