The problem is flawed from the start, as it means having to assign arbitrary quantitative value to something as inherently qualitative as human life. If Ace is wrong for playing God, then by the same logic, of course Takatora would also be wrong for making detached judgments about people he's never even met. Everybody is important to somebody, even bad people, which means there are no expendable human beings. Game theory is never a substitute for heroism. There is no substitute for heroism, ever.

Anyone except Yoko, who he was willing to victimize personally. I still think Shinji is a better example of this kind of heroism, with his strong will to fight against the odds to do what's right, even if it ends in failure. Like his refusal to sacrifice Yui allowing monsters to continue hunting humans. There's an attempt to guilt him for this, like Atropos to Rinne, but of course the reality is that Kanzaki is the one facilitating this and only he can be held responsible for the loss of life. Even though Shinji is an idiot, he only ever does his best to protect everybody's interests, even those unworthy of his kindness like Asakura and Kitaoka. That's what makes Shinji a true hero.

Like the conflict between Houtarou and Riku's father, with the latter claiming that it's not Houtarou's business, despite Chemy involvement. Some people are too quick to accuse of unnecessary meddling without trying to understand the reason for them getting involved. Everybody lives in the same world after all, so it's a mistake and lack of foresight for someone to assume that what started as their personal business wouldn't eventually become someone else's.

This reminds me of your comparison between Heure saving Another Ghost's life and Shocker creating their own arch enemy, to make a good point that villains accidentally causing good outcomes doesn't make them good, as the intention to cause bad outcomes was the catalyst and so villains should be judged based on the motivation for their actions. Therefore, the "faux villainy" that Zolda keeps talking about holds no tangible value. Someone who intends to commit severe bad deeds is a villain (antivillain in Takatora's case) and will continue to be a villain until they see the error of their ways.

The store would probably recall the line of products to check them for contamination, while the customer should keep their receipt so they can prove the time of purchase.

Well, this approach completely justifies all sorts of berserkers, werewolves, madmen and other chaotic antagonists. And also divine entities that accidentally cause disasters by their very presence. Plus, I'm sure you can find a few cases where the main riders intentionally and knowingly did bad things, but the "three-episode-long villain" tag was avoided.

No, cause even if they're compelled by spell or instinct, they still fulfill the role of a villain, or at least an antivillain. That's why I assigned the villain label to Medic and Gentoku, as they were originally good people who were tragically turned evil by corrupting elements and they later reverted to good after being cured. Chihiro was a victim of addiction and although he wasn't quite a villain, he was on the brink and might've become a villain if he had survived, without receiving some kind of therapy. Which makes it similar to Kouta having to kill Kaito after failing to redeem him.

And yeah, like my example from before of Kouta victimizing Yoko, there are definitely times when a hero does bad things. I can probably name many of them from Revice! However, when this isn't being used to challenge the hero's morality, then this is a failure of the writer, story and character for ignoring the bad deed in favor of making the villains even worse. Furthermore, I specified severe bad deeds, as this can often be another distinguishing factor between a villain/antivillain who kills and an antihero who maims. But for a hero in this position, the distinction should be their regret and willingness to repent, such as Sougo seeing his future self as the evil demon king and choosing not to become him, but the greatest kindest demon king instead. Probably the upcoming arc for Kazama Jin in Tekken 8, following his tenure as chaotic antivillain.

You should direct this to Zolda, as I'm now have been insulted (various name calling that is seen for my response) for objecting against making judgments like this.

Whataboutism though for this, I bring up Kouta because ofc Takatora is the one brought up there, and he's the main one who objected to that plan in the series (like, can't bring up Mai because she doesn't confront Takatora), regardless of similar goal. Otherwise true, I think it's one of the primary evaluation on how heroic someone is, like how wide they're going to extend their kindness for, like not having selective justice for only loved ones/certain people. Even for my example above, to have one or few people that are their "victims", it's an exception not the rule (e.g. Haruto hating Sora). And for Shinji too, if you refer to Kagawa for allowing monsters to continue by protecting Yui, Kagawa got things wrong (just saying this to not take extremist's words at face value), killing Yui doesn't stop the monsters, as at least Episode Final shows. It'd make Shiro reset the war again.

Yeah, if objecting to a bad deed is "moral policing", I really wonder what's the supposed reaction, in my question, against those people Zolda claims to be ok to oppose, if they guilt trip you and accuse you as meddling for trying to stop their crimes. But again, I've been insulted and name-called for bringing this up.

Ofc, this should be brought up more, albeit I got insulted for doing so in this case. For you bringing up Tekken below, there are some people who claim if Heihachi's T5 ending is canon, he'd do good because he's saving the world from war criminals before they can start wreaking havoc.

Ofc they'd strive to correct them, but still my point is that, it's not that they're former bad guys who seek to get redemption due to commiting that mistake, they're always good even if the outcome for their good deeds isn't what they want. The police may think like that, but can be brutal type to be really judgmental, unwilling to hear out, and are the type to "torture" people in their interrogations until they confess or such. Or course they don't know the full story and has lack of foresight unlike the viewers, which explains their reactions, but doesn't mean their accusations or threats are gospel.

Bruh, the divine entities that accidentally cause disaster by their presence isn't doing anything bad or wrong, their power is just something beyond their control, it's an unfortunate outcome not deliberately committing severe bad deeds, like a comment said above. It's a case of a bad power, not the person. There are stories that involve bad powers in a good person, like if someone who is noble has a power that can run wild if unchecked (or even get ostracized and being targeted for murders due to having that). For KR, not exactly paragon of goodness, but in Blade there's Hajime who is Joker Undead and his very existence can threaten the world, it's nothing of his fault that his power is like that where he tries to holding on his humanity by using Human Undead.

I think what distinguishes between a villain/anti-villain and anti-hero is that, the latter primarily only targets bad guys, they still fight against evil, though they can go a bit too dark in the methods to do so, so obviously it'd be able to involve killing too. Villains/anti-villains primarily target innocents in an attempt to reach their goal, even well-intentioned ones, treating them as just collaterl damage for greater good, they're terrorizing common folks. Context still weigh even actions like killing to either direction. I guess for example, in revenge-filled characters, anti-heroes would be those who target a primarily bad group though they'd kill anyone associated with it rather than trying to reason them for leaving said group (e.g. if they serve bad but for paycheck). Anti-villains/villains would target a normal group that isn't actually wrong other than their personal vendetta (e.g. based on species, country, stereotypes, for having power), and keep going to kill the people there even if they've known/learned that the group isn't inherently bad, thus they regularly attack innocents.

And of course, someone can have occassional moments when they goes against their innate nature, an aberration (though this is easier to view in fictional stories), but it wouldn't count on each people's redeeming or corrupting factors. Someone who is forced to kill at certain circumstances is different to those who regularly peform pay evil unto evil in fighting evil (actual anti-hero). And that, said anti-villain/villain who actively target innocent, isn't being redeemed or performing good in a moment where they target a "deserving" one, like another bad guy, that it'd bring benefit if they eliminate said guy.

And, though there can be failure of the story not addressing those wrongdoings, it'd be a black and white view, to immediately treat even the slightest failure as a mark of terrible person at the earliest opportunity, regardless of personal disappointment, and ignoring all their huge amount of good deeds done, and that, even if not addressed, there'd be an inevitable return to the right path, if they aren't underdoing heel turn. Like, if one can have a mistake in answering test, that doesn't mean that they can't do the test atall, it can be 9/10 rather than 10/10, not that a mistake equals 0/10. This view isn't even only about morality, but can be applied on performance, like if they have one or few failures in an athlete season performance, and is otherwise outstanding, they can be mocked as "error-prone" and it's just unfair judgment. I think this'd be the place for those who are largely very kind, but has a few unaddressed wrongdoings. For disappointment, I'd also count if someone is a jerk, rude, cruel, and mean to others and mistreat them or being insensitive.

I already wrote (it seems, even in this thread) a quote: ?In a personal sense, it is very important whether they harm you from good intentions or from evil ones. But in practical terms, this does not matter.? The same applies to accidental harm. As for Hajime, it`s not just his nature. In the scene on the yacht, he says with his own lips that he wants to destroy the world. So not only is he a damn cutie, but he's still the same changed villain. Plus, in Blade's case we're dealing with Kenzaki, who, due to the loss of his parents, has a Jesus complex and a desire to sacrifice himself to save others. Even though this makes him better than most people in some aspects, I think it is still a bad role model. In fact, 90% of the other main riders in his place would have chosen the Tachibana`s option with Hajime captured in the card. Most likely, with the right to "take a walk" quite often.


And I, as I also already wrote, believe that the prefix "anti" is a sign of increased attention to the character.

Since we have moved away from the discussion of Gotchard and riders in general in this topic, I’ll ask you something else. Now in my part of the world the series “The Boy’s Word. Blood on the Asphalt” is very popular (perhaps too popular?). It tells the story of teenage gangs in Kazan in 1989. And there is the character Denis (perhaps he can be considered one of the antagonists, although the structure of the series is such that the viewer chooses his favorites. In fact, all the characters are very dark), the head of the local branch of the Komsomol, decides to eliminate the threat of gangs. With his Komsomol members, he protects people from robberies and beatings, strengthens the ranks, recruiting those expelled from gangs, and pits criminals against each other. In fact, his motives, his actions, and even their results are good. Even the pitting of gangs against each other occurs without deception and simply accelerates the inevitable. But Denis and his team are shown as disgustingly as possible in character, behavior, and appearance.
Here's an example. The girlfriend of one of the main characters, Marat, was offend by guys from another gang, a showdown began, but the conflict was hushed up. After this, Marat was supposed to break up with his girlfriend, but he refused. He was kicked out of the gang and severely beaten. He lay there and actually died because no one helped him. But Denis helped. Afterwards, it was the Komsomol members who found the girl’s offender, allowed Marat to beat him, but did not allow him to kill him, instead handing him over to the police. Well, after everything that happened, Marat joined them. And everything would be fine, but this is interspersed with Komsomol members drinking, orgies, detailed scenes in the toilet and lies about and without. Moreover, everything is shown not cool or brutal, like those of the same bandits, but rather as disgusting as possible. So the whole story looks not like Marat’s salvation from a criminal path, but like a fall even lower.
It's clear why this is done. First of all, there are no unsullied heroes in these shows. Secondly: the author needs to promote a certain narrative. In general, I wanted to find out if there is a name for such “correct, but vile,” characters, and where they are located in this heroic-villainous spectrum.
Well, I’ll drop the theme song of the series because it’s cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbjJyTms0x0

Fair enough for Hajime used to be villainous Joker. Still my point stands that Hajime changes for the better to blend with humanity albeit as hostile asshole, due to Human Undead's compassion and Mantis' fighting spirit, and even at the end when he softens more, he still retains that power to destroy the world. No relation for power/capability and actual character/personality.

Dismissing that as Jesus complex? The thing is, all life is precious and invaluable, and that means, the many isn't necessarily more valuable than the few. The well-beings of the few should not be treated as expendable in the face of many, of this case, about Hajime and especially, his human family. Hajime is someone important to them. So if possible, one should try to save both, not just the many, which Kenzaki does, to sacrifice himself so that, both humanity and Hajime still lives.

It's about how not everything is purely black and white, but doesn't mean that grey is just one single middle spot (everything grey view is opposite extreme), there's sliding scales.

I don't know the full context of that (and I don't get enough from searching, or even some names you mentioned there, dunno considering you like to insist using wrong terms/names to write). I can say though that, protagonist or antagonist doesn't correlate to morality, protagonist only means main/central character, antagonist is their opposition. There can be full on villain protagonists (e.g. Joker movie, because he's the main character), and also hero antagonists (if they actually are good and do good, not someone performing monstrosity and justifying their actions as good, like ). Favorite doesn't matter about actual roles, ofc everyone can have their personal favorites in each show not just this type.

Again don't get the full context about said disgusting character/behavior, or how the gang pitting is done, but someone's goodness don't take away their severe vileness if it exists, like if they're an accomplished public servant, but is abusive over their family, they'd still be abusive - it'd be how they have terrible traits outside of their successful benefit on their actions.

Dunno about how extreme here, but if the outcome of an extreme measure is good, is it REALLY the only solution to achieve that? It's often what well-intentioned extremist villains claim to justify their methods as "the only way", is everyone else just supposed to shut up and fall in line, even if the solution is morally unacceptable? Just because there's a time crunch, they're just supposed to resign themselves to having to doom some to save others, without considering and trying to find another way and strive for best case scenarios regardless of how "naive" it sounds?

It can be about their personal arrogance, whenever they admit or not, it's arrogant to implement a solution where you have to decide who gets sacrificed for who and that no one would beg to differ, they would simply accept the solution as "the only way", that everyone else would be alright making those sacrifices (particularly on massive scale). Why do they even think they're the ones who know best anyway?

Precisely, including the life of Kenzaki. To which he, at least partially, sacrifices. Plus, again, we've seen that the end of the world in Blade is a slow and reversible process. I think if Hajime had gone to the card once every three days, then everything would have worked out. Although, of course, it would be troublesome for him and Mutsuki.
The Jesus complex may have been overdone, but the show clearly shows that Kenzaki is burdened by false guilt over the death of his parents. So he strives, if not for sacrifice, then for feat. But as for me, even if an unhealthy tree bears healthy fruit, this is still not a reason to use its seeds.

Yes, I know it. The main characters there are the already mentioned Marat, his older brother and gang leader Volodya and Andrei, a newcomer to the group, needed to be a reason to explain to the audience what is happening. Other gangs, the police, the Komsomol and ordinary citizens, respectively, are their antagonists.

This is understandable, but then the character still harms someone. What if he does only good things, but is portrayed as negatively and disgustingly as possible? Again, I understand how and why this is done. My question is more whether there is a special term for this.

I might've rolled with it and replied, "Saa, koko kara wa highlight da!" :p

True, killing Yui just gets the world Time Vented again, so not only is it immoral, but also totally pointless. Kagawa got a lot of things wrong. Even as a mentor, his poor explanation of heroism made Tojo decide to kill him, which is more proof that morals need to be conveyed clearly to prevent them becoming twisted. He pushed his ideal of heroic sacrifice to such an extreme that it ultimately only escalates the tragedy of the Rider War, with Shinji having to be the actual hero who saves his family when Kagawa rejects Kanzaki's ultimatum.

Haruto did try and see the good side of Sora, like Rinko also did for Phoenix, but that was before the serial killer reveal proving that Haruto was right to lump Phantoms together as generally evil and making sure to protect Chiaki from becoming another victim. Every Phantom in the material world has canonically killed at least once when they killed their host in despair, while Sora's persisting personality was due to him already being evil before Gremlin and thus was never truly human, as Haruto called out.

The downside of this ending is that it removes any major opposition to the Zaibatsu, so Heihachi could probably take over the world with little resistance.

Depends on the test though. In a driving test, you could do all the correct checks and maneuvers on the road, but still get failed for simply forgetting to buckle the seatbelt. Likewise, you could spend your entire life doing good deeds like solving pollution and reducing human casualties in wars, only to end up destroying the world with robots in a single act of stupidity, like Ted Faro. The severity of the deeds do matter, as well as how the character feels about those deeds. Not everything can be easily undone, like taking a life is mostly permanent, so heroes should strive to make sure the sum of their good deeds outweigh the bad, not in numbers, but in the overall outcome for the world and humanity. And anything they can't undo, they should seek atonement for their sins by continuing to act honestly in the name of good.

I think an accident can be forgiven, especially if there's no way for the culprit to know the consequences of their actions, like Dread's example of poisoned food. Both the intention and means are good, but the result is just a tragic misfortune. When there's a conscious decision to cause harm, whether out of malice or for "the needs of the many", then that's when they should be held responsible. As mentioned above, many or few is irrelevant. If somebody is suffering unfairly and without consent, then that's not okay.

Doesn't seem like Undeads can be unsealed after the winner of the Battle Royale is determined, as they tried to unseal Shima so the result would be undone, but it didn't work. So all Undeads would probably have had to stay sealed until the Sealing Stone decides to restart it in the distant future. Kenzaki's choice is tragic, but it's also quite genius, when you consider that it keeps the Battle Royale in a permanent stalemate. He couldn't change fate, so he just paused it indefinitely. The Sealing Stone can't do a damn thing about it.

You estimate that 90% of Primary Riders would choose sealing, but at least in the sample of the Reiwa Era, I think only Touma might consider that, due to his "I'll decide how this story ends!" catchphrase and refusal to sacrifice either himself or Kento. Even then, he wouldn't just leave it at sealing, he'd keep going until everybody got a happy ending. However, these are different heroes with different powers. Kenzaki can't actually change fate, but Touma does it constantly. I think Kenzaki made the choice that was appropriate for him.

Type 5 antihero.