[@Calle]
[hider=My response]
[quote]What I had in mind for my story is that it could be told by someone, either by someone who witnessed it or someone who heard about the events and tells the tale to an audience. This is why the story is not told from the viewpoint of the Herovillain and why the filler pauses are there. The teller wants to situate the audience first. 'This is the city, this is how it got rich, and here is the one we will be talking about'. 
[/quote]
The end of it certainly didn't sound like it was from a normal person's perspective. Would a normal person use so many positive descriptions of the psychopath? Or be able to say how Morgan saw children thieves and or his mindset? That's very odd.

But let me ask the obvious follow up rhetorical question. Why does telling your story with that filler and from a 'nobodies' perspective make the story stronger?
[hr]
[quote]I know that Pickpockets, Purse snatchers and Thieves are pretty much the same thing, but they all steal in a different way. This is more to illustrate that pockets were picked, purses were cut and things being stolen. And I thought it gave it more of a 'told story feeling'.[/quote]

Still very much consider changing that sentence. If you liked it because of the exact specification. Eliminate the vague term of "thieves" because that doesn't fit your explanation and intention. And you can leave the other two instead. If you must have the list of three. Make each word specific, preferably about entirely different aspects of criminality.
[hr]
[quote]The purpose of the tale is more to discuss morals, do people agree or disagree with sir Morgon, do they think he did good or evil. Is he still a hero or is he a villain?[/quote] 

Like I said, the story isn't really written with impartiality in mind. There's plenty of positive and negative descriptors used that would favor Morgon and 'other' all who oppose him. If it was meant purely to be a description of the events, the better or more emotive lines wouldn't be there.
[hr]
[quote]The 'it' when referring to the boy was intentional. Showing, as you said, the dehumanizing sir Morgon goes through. They are criminals, not people, and he will not stand for lawlessness.
[/quote]

Yeah, it was showing Morgan's perspective. Most average "tellers" or any normal person wouldn't dehumanize a child right? How would they be able to assume Morgan thought this? If he spoke these lines instead, it would be more believable.
[hr]
[quote]It's great you liked the last sentence, I'm pleased with the ending myself. I usually don't do endings well, I've had feedback before stating 'if you had stopped here it would have been a more powerful ending', which is another reason why I didn't elaborate on the events after that. I wanted to end strong.[/quote]

Fair enough.
[hr]
[quote]You wrote "the main streets were filled with tailors, goldsmiths, glassblower, artists, pastry bakers and everyone had ample choice (...)", it gives the impression there are tailors, goldsmiths, etc, walking on the street, instead of being in shops located at the main streets.[/quote]

[i]*Shrug*[/i] I think it could work. But I suppose to eliminate that possibility you could just add 'filled with [color=39b54a]shops of[/color]'. I'd recommend doing that instead of what was there previously.
[hr]
[quote]And with your suggestion to remove 'at' and 'itself'  from "At the junction itself was the oldest inn of the city," you will get "the junction was the oldest inn of the city", which you incorporated in your suggested edit. But, it suggests the name of the inn is [i]the junction[/i]. Using 'at' places the inn at the junction.[/quote]

I can see that. You could add 'At' back to the sentence in that case. And if you still wanted to eliminate words it could be, [color=39b54a]"At the city's junction was the oldest inn,"[/color]
[hr]
[quote]Your suggestion of "The good people of Ostagon had fewer travelling there and trading or buying goods" feels a bit off, and Grammarly also gave it a red line, with the explanation: [/quote]

I've used that program too. But Grammarly tends to be a bit ass, I'm afraid. Least it certainly was for me. (Travelling isn't a/the noun in that sentence.) But I agree that the sentence is off. Replace 'AND' in-between there and trading with a comma. How's that?

[color=39b54a]"The good people of Ostagon had fewer travelling there, trading or buying goods and most didn’t know how to grow their own food or make their own clothes."[/color]

(Or maybe this.)

[color=39b54a]"The good people of Ostagon had fewer travelers trading or buying goods, and most didn’t know how to grow their own food or make their own clothes."[/color]
[hr]
[quote]That being said, I will consider all the changes you suggested and I thank you for your detailed feedback.[/quote]

I also appreciate the feedback. Thanks for giving me the time.
[/hider]