I read from spoilers regarding the summer movie that it is stated that the Jamato seeds are something that already exist independently, the DGP merely take them from the future and used/manipulated them in order to create the Jamato as we see them in the series. The seeds already existed in the future, they weren't created by the DGP, just used by them, which seems to be what the upcoming V-cinema seems to tackling. What were these seeds originally for, where did they come from, and why do they exist? Since the way the Jamato appear in the series is because of the DGP not the seeds themselves inherently.

More doesn't inherently mean better though. Keep in mind that Gai is already middle-aged, the setup is history to him and this is why it's plausible how he can have so many crimes, whereas Mitsuzane is a typical Rider age and the scary part is that he commits everything onscreen. Gai had basically no friends to support him after he gave up Thouzer, for 30 years, nobody to challenge his increasingly warped sense of morality, until he met Aruto. But Mitsuzane had friends who cared about him, yet he still acted like a depraved psychopath towards them. Not limited to them either, as he also stole the Watermelon Lockseed from behind his brother Takatora's back (Urobuchi loves theft for some reason), which is early foreshadowing for the start of his crime career and shows his lack of concern with actually living up to Takatora's moral standards. I believe that Mitsuzane had no concept of loyalty to any of these people, as the only absolute to him was his obsession with Mai. Even Takasugi himself admitted that Mitsuzane deserved much worse than what he got, but Urobuchi had other plans.

No, I'd consider Masamune opposing Kuroto in Another Ending as the reverse case of Kuroto (and pre-redemption Parado) opposing Masamune in the show. It's simply fighting evil with evil, since Kuroto's and Masamune's goals are opposed and their goals are both bad. While the temporary truces benefit the heroes, they'd still have to take care of the surviving enemy once the main threat is taken care of. From a practical perspective, Cronus is a lot easier for them to take care of than Level 1000000000.

Daichi ("four-glasses", you mean four-eyes right?) was using evil means to accomplish a complicated goal, but now he has a different goal that can be accomplished through good means, so that's like, an antihero now, I guess. It has a good outcome for the friendly Jyamatos and a neutral outcome for the humans who are no longer at risk of being killed by him for their memories. At least, I'm glad Takahashi didn't make him totally good now, which is still more sensible than Urobuchi. Daichi's redemption or whatever you want to call it might've worked better with more episodes.

Killbus wanted to kill-bus everything. Evolt didn't want to be kill-bused. So Evolt had a selfish (neither good nor evil) reason for opposing Killbus and he even claimed to Ryuuga at the end that he'll come back to screw with Earth again after a vacation. Honestly, if someone called Evolt a good guy, he'd be offended by the accusation, seeing it as the opposite of glorifying. Like we discussed regarding Mikhail and Topeng Besi, bad guys fighting each other are still bad guys. Their intentions should be considered.

Sounds logical.

Here I would like to quote the classics: "I am part of that force that, while doing only evil, creates only good". In fact, this is a very interesting question, who is the greater evil: the one who does evil out of good intentions (in my opinion, there is such a villain in almost every show since Agito) or who does good out of evil (there is no such thing in its pure form, but even Asakura has a saved girl to his credit). In my opinion, it all depends on the point of view. That is, for those whom Kaixa saved, he will be the best rider, regardless of all his meanness and lies.

Of course, having this view would mean that any corrupt politicians' words in media about doing things for people's sake in are to be believed? Though it doesn't only apply to them, just an example, can apply to far more things than it, like many authority figures (e.g. teachers, cops, etc.) throwing their weight around and explaining their atrocities as something to "shape you"? Or abusive parents (oh right, something Geats has) claiming that the shitty things they do are "for your own good" and out of "love" (and the view that they're fine if they do "love" their kid)? Or government covering up their mistakes by hailing the public service workers they neglect/dispose as "heroes"? Politicians do already have bad reputation (albeit there are some sheeps), but being in denial about "made it all up to sound righteous" can apply to other examples there (with moves like victim-blaming) which, yeah, just further leads them or those general actions to never get addressed.

True.. doesn't sound like it negates the DGP's culpability in creating problems themselves with Jamatos. This'd be what I expected, the secrets/origins of Jamatos would be how they're discovered, not something to negate the DGP's responsbility. It was told that the DGP created them but, not the process of how they were created - which'd be what I expect regarding origins, not Takahashi forgetting to explain or such. Like Orphnoch genes being something natural in certain humans, but Smart Brain works in exploiting that to make Orphnochs master races by invading and exterminating humanity. Or Gaia Memory being a natural part of Earth, but Museum exploits that to further their schemes.

Hmm... interesting. Usually I find people tolerating kids or younger people more than grown ups, because the younger ones are still in part of growing up, expected to be more immature, and make mistakes or outright doing bad for not knowing better (less people challenge their warped sense of morality), while grown-ups already have more total control of their life, and is expected to less/not make these kinds of mistakes or have emotional capacity of a teaspoon, particularly if they're professionals. But here it's the other way around of Gai being more tolerable due to older age to the kid-ish Micchy.

But otherwise, I hope I won't sound like downplaying his crimes to you (if it's Gaim that is brought up), but you were the one asking for that in this case (tragic upbringing talk) thus I gave explanation (not excuse) of Micchy's actions and change, and I agree with Takasugi that he deserves much worse (but same may go for Gai). It's true that, Micchy doesn't care about his friends as people, he cares about them as his own emotional satisfaction (as his escapism from his pressure), thus he'd only save those that pleases him and dispose those who displease him (Kouta, Rat, Rica), and he learns the hard way that he won't get to keep that happiness and joy by being a scheming depraved ass that just makes things worse. If you'd think what eases up Micchy is his friends, would you think that, his father's expectations and pressure aside, Gai seems to have everything in life, like wealth, power, publicity + loyalty from his staff? I thought those'd be what support him, albeit I know there may be difference between actual friends to business people/masses.

Yes, this still very much applies here - I view both Kuroto vs Masamune and Evolt vs Killbus similarly as the evil vs evil examples... other than Evolt, a number of people also depict Kuroto as being redeemed (Anyone who is on the same side as the good guys/benefit them = redeemed. And true, intentions should be considered... but it happens too that what they said are dismissed as only "being tsundere"). And no, it's not always glorifying, claiming characters as being redeemed can be very much a complaint for a series/writing too (particularly Takahashi's rep like for Kuroto there too).

Otherwise, with you refering to Evolt's goal of survival as neither good/evil, I think many villains have 'selfish' goals like that rather than pure malevolence. Many villains have a goal of gaining advantage, like wealth, personal image, win over someone, comfort or pleasure in life, survival, etc. Those villains are evil because they have no qualms to screw over people if needed, but their primary motivation isn't screwing over people (though they can enjoy it), and each of those also can be done without being evil like using legitimate means for wealth/image, or never stop learning to be smarter (Daichi's old goal), etc. So yeah.... with their primary motivation being said selfish one, they'd have capability to do something benefical for others or neutral if it'd serve their interests towards said goal of advantage (like Evolt's survival or Daichi's interest in human thinking) - thus to make them "inactive", create a situation to make that approach done not one-time but recurring. I think redemption is if you realize you're wrong and vows to abandon your bad traits to be more morally upright, but these cases would be "retired" from active villainy instead - mainstream media example would be Atomic Flounder from SpongeBob.

The people Kaixa saved may put Kaixa on pedestal, but their view shouldn't be necessarily viewed as valid one, they may just have biased judgment, particularly if they'd still want to prevent Kaixa getting punished which had their bias veer tocallousness to Kaixa's victims. Which'd be why I'm against using point of view to evaluate someone's morality, because of these biases, they should only be judged by them alone (if there's enough info, and fictional series have the characters easier to evaluate rather than the more unknown real life). The ones who do good out of evil, though consequentialist view will applaud that, it shouldn't be applauded tbh, because while the outcome is good, supporting said person's act is consequentially bad since it causes more acts done with bad intentions or creates utilitarian approach (e.g. torturing an innocent person if it'd bring pleasure to many).

Late reply, found a reply that got cut when copying.

I thought Parado was brutally beaten and killed by Emu to prove his views and actions wrong (he also died to take down Gamedeus). I mean he's the type who gets second chance, the ones given second chances means keep on living, to stop doing bad things or to atone for their feelings of guilt (usually done by joining the team to make up). For those who claim these type of villains don't face any repercussions, what counts as repercussions to them, those who make attempt to change for the better? Dying (with one final good deed) because “you did bad things, you are beyond saving, die”? It doesn't undo all the damage they had done. It wouldn't make their atrocities better and they wouldn’t have to face their crimes anymore.