Kamen Rider Gotchard Episode 11- "Catch A Spy- Rider Disqualified?!" Discussion
 

The Alchemy Academy is warned of a mole within their ranks, while the Dark Sisters prepare a ritual with a powerful Chemie.

This episode begins with the narrator straightforwardly stating that a terrifying plot courtesy of The Sisters is about to move.

UFO X manages to escape confinement in The Sisters' hideout, yet was able to be easily captured by Clotho without her breaking a sweat. And funnily, Clotho and the other 2 sisters don't even attempt to recapture it. They just stand there freezing as it escapes. Atropos says that it's due to a Chemy rule that states that Level 10 Chemies dislike being dominated. If UFO X is a proud creature (like hippogriffs) that dislikes being dominated, then why did it allow itself to be easily captured by Clotho at the end of episode 10? Moreover, Isaac states @ 11:11 that Level 10 Chemies are the strongest one in each category. The logic just doesn't add up. It's also able to create a dimensional portal to teleport itself to a different place. Can this ability be used by Houtarou to visit the worlds of the previous series? It has a great potential for crossover stories.

Finally, the second mention of Glion's name. Atropos says that Glion is "waiting for you" as she's looking at the new Driver. Does this person he's waiting for refer to Clotho, or the user of the new Driver? If it's the latter, then it could mean that the user of the new Driver may be Glion's puppet. Is Glion somehow incapacitated that he needs a direct puppet to do his bidding? A special puppet assigned with a crucial task that even none of The Sisters can do it.

The scene of the AA students capturing Stagvine looks like the scene of elementary students capturing beetles during a hot summer. Rinne looks cuter when she ends up being the last person to leave the scene and has to pick up Houtarou's capture net.

As I predicted here and here, Spanner finally voices his suspicion about how The Sisters have managed to get hold of RCC's. Minato also finally mentions the fact that a huge number of Blank RCC's have been disappearing from AA's storage and his suspicion that someone from inside the AA/AU may have been stealing and distributing them to The Sisters. I thought that Spanner was gonna use the Dragonfly Malgam fragment to augment his Valvarad suit, but it turns out he only reports it to Minato.

So far, this episode is probably the one with the highest number of transformation when Houtarou transforms into 7 (!) different forms in total: 6 forms during his random maneuvers when he fights the original Spider Malgam (Steamhopper, Bakuontelevi, Stagmirror, Greatsasori, Doctorhebi, and Bunnyparka), and 1 new form debut (Lightningjungle) when he fights the new Spider Malgam at the second half of this episode. Maaannn. So many forms appear, yet only two are actual suits. So many forms appear that I lost count after three. Haha.

The Driver that Atropos has been working on is finally completed @ 09:46. Clotho and Lachesis immediately offer themselves to be the user, but Atropos tells them to take their time. Atropos says that she has to do something "fun" first: A "fun" experiment. The scene then immediately changes to Houtarou curiously watching a seemingly fun experiment being done by... Sabimaru. It's an experiment to create Sabi Riser, a special variant of Chemy Riser to hunt UFO X. Could this be a foreshadowing of Sabimaru being selected as the user of the new Driver? After all, Sabimaru gets heightened focus in this episode, in a quite low-key manner. Furthermore, Houtarou mentions @ 11:30 that UFO X is Sabimaru's Gotcha, similar to Hopper1 being Houtarou's Gotcha. Another important scene is @ 12:41 when Sabimaru compliments Houtarou for his ability to understand Chemies, yet Isaac (which often creates artistic interpretation of Sabimaru's words) doesn't say anything at all and only creates a beeping sound. It seems like Mesnick's hypothesis in the episode 10's thread that Isaac the AI is a silent/passive villain is very likely correct. Could it be that Isaac has been manipulating Sabimaru all along? If Sabimaru's indeed the user, then this could be a very interesting, unpredictable plot development. From a geeky, socially-awkward, Chemy-loving nerd... To a dark Rider who uses (and probably also manipulated by) a Driver created by the villains. Now, I didn't see that coming at all. Nice. Very nice. Very well-played. I'm definitely looking forward to it.

If the Driver does indeed require a human user, then this could also mean that The Sisters do lack something vital that normal humans possess. What is it? If Atropos can create powerful weapons, then why don't she or Clotho or Lachesis use them themselves? Why do they need a normal human as a puppet user? Why don't they take matters into their own hands and immediately get rid of Houtarou and Spanner themselves? It looks like The Sisters have their own severe limitations as well.

Kajiki finally has another chance to see UFO X and gleefully runs to tell Hijiri about it. Will she actually be a recurring character? This also marks his second realization about the important memories that have left holes in his mind. Will he be Neuralyzed again in episode 12? Is there a trick to circumvent Minato's Neuralyzer spell?

Licht Kugimiya has a funny habit of rubbing his Ring with a brush. It seems like he's the kind of a stern person who values excellence, cleanliness, elegance, efficiency, rigor, logic, and discipline above anything, as he points out @ 14:32 that Houtarou's fighting style is inefficient and wasteful and his optimistic view of Chemies is naive and meaningless, much to Houtarou's dismay. Could he be an actual mentor for Houtarou? He also knows that Houtarou got the Gotchardriver from Fuga. This could mean that the AU elites do know about the existence of Gotchardriver, even before being stolen by Fuga and then given to Houtarou. It seems like the top brasses at AU were the ones who created the Gotchardriver, in cooperation with Glion/The Sisters' boss. Quite unpredictably, Spanner voices his suspicion about Licht being the spy and having an ulterior motive, right in front of his face.

Again, Atropos appears at a public place, this time at Houtarou's & Rinne's school, and manages to not attract anyone's attention, despite looking like a creepy child. It seems like she does have mind manipulation ability when it's shown that she's able to make people go away and make them look like walking corpses. She says that she has never had any interest in humans before, so Rinne is very probably the very first human that piques her interest. She also raises a very important question @ 17:03 about who is influencing the change, and immediately states that her pondering makes her wants to destroy "it". Who and what is she referring to? What is the change she's pondering about? Does she mean she's pondering about who (or what) controls the life, the death, the fate of humans? It sounds like she's speaking quite metaphorically, although I think she's asking an open question about the nature of life, death, fate, and change. It seems like her nihilistic response to humans inability to control fate is by destroying lives through chaos. It seems like the questions about life, death, and fate is beyond anyone's understanding and thus a final, satisfying answer will never be found, so she responds to those questions by destroying lives altogether. Her nihilistic mantra for getting up in the morning is very probably "If I can't control it, then I destroy it" or "If I can't make it perfect, then I destroy it with chaos", haha, which is kinda paradoxical, as the intention to destroy is actually identical to the intention to control, only mirrored. Her intention is planting seeds of doubt into Rinne's mind by blurring the very boundary of life and death, the most fundamental tenet of alchemy. Her goal is making Rinne abandon her values as an alchemist that she's strongly held since she was very young. She's not only scheming to make Rinne her ally. I strongly suspect that she could be preparing Rinne for a role even waaay bigger than being a mere Rider, who The Sisters derisively call hounds, very probably an allusion to enforcers, inferiors, tools, or even slaves.

Spider Malgam reappeared @ 19:19, with a different host. Houtarou is sure that Catchula (what a funny name) RCC is inside his Gotchardraw Holder, but when he opens it, he suddenly realizes that it's not there. How come? Houtarou manages to fight it with Lightningjungle, his newest suit. It looks quite nice, although not as nice as Goldmechanicer was. His electric whips remind me of Whiplash from Iron Man (2008). The funny thing is when Houtarou tells UFO X to run (or fly), it dismisses his command and chooses to stay put, although it does help Houtarou defeat Spider Malgam when he (?) tries his (?) luck by attempting to restrain both Houtarou Lighningjungle and UFO X at the same time. Houtarou finally manages to recapture Catchula. Oh, and the "Argh!" voice made by Spider Malgam as it explodes @ 22:06 is kinda unintentionally funny, haha. What happens to UFO X? Well, it casually teleports away after Spider Malgam is defeated.

And the identity of the new Spider Malgam is... Shiori Harima aka the spy, aka the new cutie, who reveals her rotting left hand, probably signaling that she's a member of The Sisters' death club/organization, and proceeds to using her Dimension Cab-clone bangle to casually re-steal the Catchula RCC that Houtarou recaptured just moments ago, directly from his right hand. No wonder she can effortlessly steal RCC's from AA's storage. And of course Houtarou responds to that new piece of information by making a loud scream in full-scale perplexion mode that ends this episode, haha. It's funny and unbelievable at the same time. Is Shiori the only spy inside AU? I don't think so. Glion/The Sisters must have executed their Plan B or even Plan C.

Next episode: The debut of the new Driver and the new foe, Kamen Rider Dread. Dang it, man. Everything about Dread is cool. Everything. The Driver looks cool. It's like a more minimalistic, lower-profile version of Demons/Vail/Destream Driver. It's definitely a P-Bandai release. It seems like the Driver only requires one RCC to transform. The design and color scheme of the Rider is even cooler. It has this somber, dark, sinister, yet artistic aura, which is very nice. It fits the dark alchemy trope perfectly. It tends toward a more organic design, like a fuse of Guyver, Guyferd/Deathferd, and Cooler. Aesthetically, it's the complete opposite of Gotchard that has a more robotic/mechanical look.

I'm not sure what the motif is. Skeleton? Hydra? To my eyes, it looks like a fusion of skeleton and hydra, especially the face that looks like a hydra. If hydra is the motive, then he will use Jamata no Orochi RCC (Occult 8). Yamata no Orochi is an eight-headed, eight-tailed serpent in Japanese mythology. Interestingly, in Ancient Greek mythology, hydra is a multi-headed serpent that can regenerate its head and is very hard to kill. In real life, any dismembered body part from a hydra will grow into a new, separate organism. A hydra is virtually immortal. A hydra perfectly symbolizes something that blurs the boundary between life and death. It symbolizes the death of death itself, haha. Another interesting thing: If you rotate the number 8 90 degrees, it becomes the symbol of infinity (∞).

Some people say that it's a redesign/recycle, but I don't see it, apart from the circle in the chest armor that looks like Zero-One Assault Hopper/Vulcan Assault Assault Wolf. It's a top-tier design. A serious contender for the best design in Reiwa era KR, along with Horobi/Jin, Buster, Vail, and Geats IX. Heck, even the mere name Dread is just too cool. Dread... SHF... Must... Buy...

Judging from the posture, it's obviously a male, so Rinne is definitely out of the question. He's also definitely not Spanner, as it's shown @ 23:13 that it's fighting ValvaSpanner. Then the only remaining candidates are Sabimaru and Minato. Is he Minato? Minato hasn't had any build up, so I'm more inclined to dismiss this possibility. Then it leaves Sabimaru as the only possible candidate. Is the anguished male voice @ 23:08 Sabimaru's? Could he be deep down secretly wishing for confidence and strength all this time? Whose right hand is @ 23:11? I think it's Houtarou's, when he begs Dread for mercy, in shock, disbelief, and sadness after getting his butt kicked by Dread and utterly defeated. From the very brief scene @ 23:16, it seems like Dread has absorption/nulllifying ability that can weaken Gotchard's and Valvarad's power, similar to Genm Level 0 that can decrease any Bugster's power. Oh, and is Dread actually a puppet Rider, albeit a very powerful one, similar to KR Leangle when Mutsuki was a weak-willed teenager? Is Dread somehow connected to Glion through Atropos? Given that mind manipulation is Atropos' forte, and her christening Dread's new "character" (and thus name) the destroyer of darkness @ 23:13, it could very likely be the case. Hmmm... Noice. Very very noice.

Clotho will finally get serious in the next episode. It seems like she's only been in easy/beginner mode all this time. When she gets serious, she's actually more than capable to give even the likes of Minato real pain and hell.

I'm afraid I got a little carried away. This episode 11 review has almost turned into a short story. Anyway, sooo stoked for episode 12. Bring it on, Mr. Kamen Writers!

Cool episode. I love that Chemies is getting creative with fishing again, this time turning it into some friendly fun with nets. Also, is Sabimaru a UFO-X fan? If it weren't for the memory erasure rule, he might have become friends with Kajiki. By the way, in the topic of the last episode, many were worried about his relationship with Hijiri. At the very least, this episode shows that the show is definitely not going to forget about her.
As for the inspectors, I was afraid that they would turn out to be boring adults in suits with one bright character trait (or even an object) that had nothing to do with the plot and their role in it. Fortunately, this did not happen. Kugimiya resembles a stern veteran, originally from, if not Showa, then definitely from the early 2000s. He didn't like Gotchard's fight, although, in my opinion, Houtarou showed himself to be cool in the classic confrontation between rider and spider-kaijin. I guess this is a little meta-commentary from the part of the fanbase that doesn't like too many forms. My opinion: yes, there could be fewer forms, but it’s great that Gotchard uses them.
The twist that Malgam turns out to be the benevolent Harima is predictable. Honestly, this story should have been made into a two-parter because the plot is rushed again. However, she is effective in a villainous role and her ability can be very annoying for Gotchard. It also turns out that all the conscious villains in the show so far presented are women.
And given the rumors that Dread will be a puppet of Atropos, as well as Rinne's recruitment attempts, this gives the Abyssal sisters a resemblance to a witch coven, as opposed to the more fantasy-magical alchemists. I wonder if Gilion is also a woman? It's also the first time we've seen Atropos in action since the pilot, although she wasn't fighting at full strength. It seems that flaming arrows are her weapon of choice.
P.S. Hotaro and Hopper are incredibly cute!

Probably the start of a new arc.

Other than finding his gotcha, Hotaro strive to help others find or achieve their gotcha, such as Sabi's UFO enthusiasm. This is ofc to be expected of a boy scout who understands other living being's hearts and strive to help them.

Atropos claims that Rinne wasn't the type to care about bystanders before, while changing for the better now. Though it may be a case in Hotaro softening her up to partly regain her childhood persona (albeit she still mocks his help above as being poet), I guess I still shouldn't take Atropos' words at face value, like what Kyuun did to Neon before in their first meeting.

Kugimiya is Supana, but even worse, both share the belief that Chemies are only tools, and look down on Hotaro for having different belief. Hotaro's companions do care enough for him to stick up for him. Him being worse than Supana is shown in even Supana calling him out, to not focus on looking on the spy. This time, it seems that the fanbase don't take authority's words at face value of Hotaro being incompetent, usually the boy scouts got viewed as incompetent while being carried by plot armor, though this can lead into writing complaint about what's the deal with Kugimiya.

Gotta accept more that sometimes authority figures are just control freaks (like Tasuke in Revice) who impose their will on other people, and that they shouldn't be elevated as who knows best. Applies too to characters like more experienced assholes or villains who look down on the "naive" heroes. Or this may be caused by the show deliberately showing Hotaro utilizing the Chemies like Ghost throwback with BountyBunny + PanpakaParka. Kugimiya's infighting with Hotaro over different belief would be also unreasonable move though to insist that he knows best and take out potential valuable ally and view.

The actual spy is Harima though. Now I'm getting Revice vibe with this, in the middle Fenix arc, if Kugimiya isn't a bad guy, feels as if Kugimiya would be Tatsuhiko, who looks down on the hero (Hotaro, Hiromi), though he's well-meaning, while Harima would be like Chigusa seems to be kinder and more reasonable, to be more concerned about others' well-being, but they're the two-faced ones.

I guess a Level 10 Chemy can be temporarily captured using a stealthy approach, as Clotho did from offscreen, but will always flee when alerted. Seems like Atropos only needed a little Level 10 essence to complete the DreaDriver anyway. Sabi mentioned that Houtarou might be capable of capturing one effectively, as he respects UFO-X's sense of individuality rather than only seeing him as an errant tool. If Houtarou succeeds, this might be enough to make Kugimiya see the error of his ways.

Regarding the hypothetical use of UFO-X's teleportation to visit other worlds, I don't think that's necessary for crossovers, as the actions of Decade and Build basically put most Riders in the same world. Maybe for Sentai, as Twokaizer's crocodile spaceship has this ability.

I think the "it" Atropos wants to destroy is referring to the natural order, represented by the Ouroboros. Alchemy is the science of transmuting one thing to a different thing, but this is limited by the natural order, hence why the failures of alchemy are more common than the successes, why there are still blanks in the periodic table and why some elements combust no sooner than they're synthesized. Seems like there are things that only dark alchemy can manifest, things that break the order, but also things that would be potentially beneficial to Rinne, such as turning death to life.

Therefore, I wouldn't be so quick to peg Atropos as another nihilist, despite her resemblance to Storious. She seems to have some kind of twisted ideal for the future, albeit one with severe consequences for humanity. Similar to how Alain was scared of his mortality, since he had lived a long time with an immortal Ganma body to survive under the harsh red sky of Ganma World, so he had to learn how to be okay with being human and weak.

Proof that humanity has Infinite Potential!

If Sabi isn't in control, then maybe Dread's pilot is actually the new Chemy, Darkliner, presumably using his own Ride Chemy Card to access this form, considering the title of next episode.

Yep, his favorite Chemy.

For sure, good to hear acknowledgement of Hijiri to show that even offscreen, Kajiki is still in regular contact with her.

The good cop in a good cop/bad cop routine secretly being evil cop does feel like a cliche here, so at least they didn't drag it out. Based on her creepy arm, Harima looks like she's also a practitioner of dark alchemy, thus no longer human. Could've been an interesting hint at Catchula Malgam's identity if she merged with a second Chemy like Lachesis does (maybe Bakuonzemi as a reference to Tarantula Knight), which should be easy to obtain with her ability to Connect Please any Ride Chemy Cards in her line of sight.

Reminds me of some Showa and early Heisei Tokusatsu that have many female villains, like Sun Vulcan, Spielvan and Jiban.

Confirmed by Producer Minato.

Since we know Houtarou as a person, whereas Kugimiya only knows Gotchard and judges him based on skill alone without trying to get to know him better. Unlike Spanner, Kugimiya doesn't even bother to explain his reason properly, only telling Houtarou that he sucks at being Gotchard rather than suggesting advice for improvement or even an alternative user to replace him. Totally justified why the other alchemists and even Isaac angrily call him out for his snobby behavior and misplaced priorities.

Premium Bandai even made merchandise for BunnyParka. You can now wear a Kamen Rider if you want to!

Kugimiya's and Tatsuhiko's actors have both portrayed Rider villains as well: Isaka and Unicorn Zodiart respectively.

This makes sense. Seems like Dread will finally meet his match when Houtarou gets his Super Gotchard forms.

I agree. The "it" didn't necessarily refer to a sentient, omniscient, omnipotent creator, but rather to the laws of nature that govern the world. The Ouroboros itself is still mysterious af. I'm not sure whether it's a parallel world that is the manifestation of natural order or natural disorder, or whether it should be maintained or destroyed. It could be either way. It seems like the philosophical core of the story is not the destruction of "it", but rather the consequence of changing or destroying "it". "It" can be changed into anything, with their own possibilities and consequences. The most important question to ask is: Are you ready to accept the consequences of the choices you've made? I think it fits nicely with Houtarou's backstory as a high school senior who has no idea of what he's gonna do after graduation.

On second thought, I may be wrong. That particular conversation seemed like it was deliberately written as ambiguous, so I could be misreading the context there. The context was probably simpler than I thought it was. That conversation could actually refer not to Atropos and her philosophy, but to a change that had happened to Rinne since she knew Houtarou and the others, and Atropos was merely curious about what the cause was. I focused too much on Atropos' long-term scheme that I lost sight of the simpler, more obvious possibility and forgot to apply Occam's razor. Haha.

This guy says hi.

https://www.tokunation.com/forums/at...1&d=1700950406

Darkliner? A new Chemy outside of the 101 ones? Well, here I am, being proven wrong again. Haha. It'd be nice if Dread actually uses Yamata no Orochi, because I can't un-see the hydra motif from his helmet, haha.

Darkliner could be the evil version of Steam Liner when it's exposed to and corrupted by Dread's power. Or, it could be one member of the whole new (!) group of Chemies created by The Sisters' death club. Although it's been said that there are 101 Chemies, there could be other factions/splinter groups that are still creating new Chemies. It's only a problem of law enforcement within the alchemy society. It doesn't violate the internal logic of the story so far.

Kajiki, Hijiri, and Sabimaru should be given a happy ending where they enjoy UFO-ria together.

I also prefer the spy trope to conclude in this episode and not dragged out, since it's been hinted since 3 or 4 episodes ago.

I think perhaps it's Shiori who will conveniently use her dimension-bending ability to unexpectedly put the new Driver on the desperate Sabimaru and turn him into the Driver's puppet. She can easily steal stuffs from inside a secure, closed storage, so this kind of feat is easy to her. Her left hand is rotting probably due to the overuse of her dimensional-bending alchemy power. In real life, it looks like what happens to a human's limb when exposed to constant heavy pressures. Characters, especially toku ones, who wear gloves on only one hand or never remove the gloves are usually suspicious, haha.

Licht could be this season's Oren Pierre Alfonso, an antihero/starter villain that become a mentor in later episodes.

And is Isaac actually sentient? Isn't he just an AI-assisted speech synthesis program that creates an artistic interpretation of Sabimaru's words? It seems like Isaac is not a harmless program as I previously thought.

It seems that many people also think only mocking someone/something without suggesting advice is a valid move to push others to be better. Such as people mocking "useless" characters being waste of space. For some reason, constructive criticism like advice would be sugarcoating... relentless mocking would be a better push for improvement or such, which is how people being awful can be justified.

Yet you show bleak view of humanity if it's regarding Geats, that humans being selfish and destructive or life being unfair (e.g. give and take) should be accepted and excused as cold fact in life rather than trying hard enough to achieve something better and reach more ideal possibilities. "Life is unfair" (+ "deal with it") is often what people abuse to go out of their way to make things unfair and rationalize their insensitive and unsympathetic behavior, what makes people normalize shitty behavior for those who buy their BS.

Common anti-hero term misuse to conflate that with villainy.

I don't think it applies to this particular case because Kugimiya doesn't even consider the possibility of Houtarou remaining a rider. He saw him in battle and was dissatisfied with what he saw. That is, it is more likely to be a dismissal than a failure of a test that can be retaken.

Starter villains aren't necessarily actual villains. They're often shown as major antagonists who foil the protagonists journey in earlier arcs. They can develop into anti-heroes (Heart, Horobi, etc) or even heroes (Chase, Alain, Parad, Gentoku Himuro, etc).

It was clear from the beginning that Oren was a disgruntled old man who thought that Beat Riders were just deadbeat kids who contributed nothing to society. He didn't oppose Kouta and the others out of malice. The actual starter villain in Gaim is Sid.

That could be the case with Licht here. His opposition toward Houtarou could be due to his position as an AU top brass. His philosophy of excellence and his high standards don't fit well with Houtarou's naive optimism, which is displayed in his attitude toward Chemies and fighting style. If his attitude and actions are put into context and combined with Spanner's and Minato's suspicion about the existence of a spy or spies inside the AU, then his attitude and actions do look villainous and more suspicious, for example when he straightforwardly demanded the Gotchardriver from Houtarou. His attitude and actions don't look villainous if there's no suspicion about spies.

Whaaattt??? When and where did I say that "humans being selfish and destructive or life being unfair (e.g. give and take) should be accepted and excused as cold fact in life rather than trying hard enough to achieve something better and reach more ideal possibilities"? Show me exactly where I made that statement. I've never made the statement you mentioned, be it explicitly nor implicitly.

Of course I will help those who can't help themselves.
Of course I will help my families or friends when their rights are violated by criminals.
Of course I will do everything I can possibly, humanly do to help the society oppose a totalitarian dictator.
How did you come to the conclusion that I would let bad things happen to people and just stand here and do nothing? Smh. What a faulty reasoning.

I believe every person has the strength to fight for themselves. I will give help to those who do need help. I will give help to those who can't help themselves. I will give help when it's actually needed. If I give help to those who don't even need help, then it means I'm insulting their ability to stand for themselves. It means I'm treating them like I'm treating weak toddlers who can't defend themselves. An unneeded, unsolicited "help" is the ultimate insult to a person's agency. Normal, decent people have a high standard of ethics, thus they need to consider the whole context before intervening in other people's problems. Normal, decent people don't intervene in other people's petty, mundane problems.

Humanity already has laws to deal with and punish its members who cause problems. Humanity is strong. Humanity can regulate itself. Humanity doesn't need a divine, all-powerful, yet nosy, moralistic, self-righteous busybody like Ace Ukiyo to regulate their behavior and solve all their problems. See the difference? See the stark difference between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying?

So far, many of your comments exhibit a severe inability to understand context. It seems like you have this naive, childish, petty, I'm-the-hero/protagonist, me-against-the-world, black-or-white mentality. You should watch Kamen Rider Fourze episode 23-24 to see how this type of mentality is not only detrimental to society, but to yourself as well.

If you choose to live your life in accordance with such an extreme, rigid, context-blind, black-or-white mentality, then go ahead. Your life, your choice, your consequence. Let time do its work and let reality be the judge. See for yourself whether society commends you or shuns you. See for yourself whether people are attracted to you or are avoiding you. Don't be surprised when one day, reality comes knocking on your door and gives you a very rude awakening. When it happens, you won't be able to say "Nobody warned me!" because that schmuck Zolda over at Tokunation had warned you several times.

Oh, and that sentence you quoted should be accompanied with an attached picture of Takeru Tenkuji (https://www.tokunation.com/forums/at...1&d=1700950406). I'm not sure why it disappeared. It's probably because I uploaded the attachment in another tab. Let me repost it below.

https://www.tokunation.com/forums/at...1&d=1701270269
https://i.imgur.com/TyVKgus.jpg

Sugarcoating implies that sugar is only on the outside, like the garnish on a dish. However, a dish needs to be delicious in both taste and presentation. The opposite problem is also true, that a dish with good taste will be dismissed if the presentation is weak or lacking. While there's some truth to the phrase, "don't judge a book by its cover", I also believe that the book has an obligation to itself to have a cover that properly represents the quality of its content. Ideally, constructive criticism should give advice for improvement, while using tact to make the person more receptive and likely to act upon it. Unfortunately, Kugimiya decided to serve Houtarou a dish with neither taste nor presentation, so it's totally worthless. Malnutritious even, as he expresses no actual intent to make Houtarou a "better" Gotchard, like Mesnick said above.

That probably sounded way better in your head.

We've been told that Isaac is "merely" an AI with artistic language. However, you know what else can be defined as AI? Something that's both artificial and intelligent? Chemies! There are already parallels with HumaGears, considering the "tools or comrades" argument. I feel like Isaac's outputs are a little too quick and independent for the few inputs he receives from Sabi, especially in this episode, which makes me wonder if there's some alchemy involved, not only conventional programming.

A character who commits mostly bad deeds for non-malicious reasons is called an antivillain. They may see themselves as heroes and appear sympathetic in their motivations, but their actions still align them with the villain side of the morality axis. Whether they can be swayed to the side of heroism depends on how conflicted they feel concerning their moral beliefs. In Gentoku's case, he was originally a total villain, until the increasing Hazard Level dispelled the brainwashing effect of nebula gas and he turned antivillain then hero. Moral alignment exists in a state of flux, with many variables mixing to encourage or force change.

I would easily recommend these episodes just for the cute Tomoko/Ryusei interactions.

So an anti-hero is someone who does mostly good deeds for malicious reasons?What are the names of those who have equal amounts of good and evil at the end of the work? I think the individualistic approach is to blame here. In the Soviet Union after World War II, the realization came that the enemies in the Civil War were not so bad and this resulted in the creation of books and films where the White Guards were portrayed as likable. And then for ambiguous heroes the terms were used: "one of our own among strangers" and "a stranger among our own" emphasizing that their was an exception to the rule. In general, Lewis spoke about this even earlier in the last book about Narnia: ?If you do good in the name of evil, then you serve good. If you do evil in the name of good, then you serve evil.

Well yeah, an antihero's reasons are malicious at worst, opportunistic at best. For people with equal amounts of good and evil actions, I think they'd either be an extreme antihero or an extreme antivillain, defaulting to the side that's closer to their motivation. It's true that sometimes there's a difference of perception, as evil people who rely on good publicity will depict themselves as good and their enemies as evil, which is of course called propaganda. This can be seen from Lyon Arkland in 01hers, where he points out that "malice" isn't hip and that "justice" is a more sympathetic word and thus more successful in manipulating the good-identifying civilian majority to support an evil cause. A euphemism is a powerful weapon.

The statements "don't judge a book by its cover" and "appearance matters" are both correct. The conundrum of life. Haha.

This makes sense, yet it still doesn't close the logical gap. If Isaac is actually an alchemically-enhanced AI, then Sabimaru as its creator should've had total control and knowledge in how it'd behave. So, if Isaac's strange behavior has been due to his inadequate programming/alchemy skills (although he's shown as very skilled in both fields), then at least he should've been aware that what he made could've been a faulty product. Isaac could be a proto-Chemy of some sort, hence why it behaves more random and uncontrollable than what he thought it'd be. Or, someone secretly tampered with Isaac and altered his alchemical programming to include spying and psychological manipulation activities.

I concur. A friend of mine joked that antiheroes and antivillains were heroes and villains with thicker makeup.

Ethical alignment can also be static. In this case, the antiheroes' and antivillains' true selves, motivations, and ethical alignments are often masked by their actions. A person's ethical alignment can be anywhere within the ethical axis (completely benevolent or completely malevolent), yet when put into context, his actions often result in outcomes that don't necessarily align with his ethical alignment, or even result in outcomes that are the complete opposite. A person with good intention can create a bad outcome, and vice versa. A text should be interpreted within a context. Very often, the context matters more than the text itself.

Stories often initially show a character as a hero or a villain, and then gradually reveal his true self through conflicts and choices he has to make. One of my favorite (anti)villains is Ozymandias from Watchmen (2009), who was revealed near the end of the story to be the mastermind of the plot of the film. His motivation was pretty simple and selfish and often categorized as villainous, yet when put in the context of the story, the final outcome that resulted from his actions did prevent the greater catastrophe. Another character with static ethical alignment is Takatora Kureshima/KR Zangetsu from KR Gaim, who was initially shown as a ruthless villain/manipulator, then was gradually revealed as anti-villain, then anti-hero, then hero. His motivation was actually as heroic as Kouta's, yet when its put into the context of his limited knowledge about Helheim, he was forced by situation to take extreme measures that to an outside observer did look villainous.

Like I stated in the previous paragraph, the age-old adage "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" doesn't exist for no reason. I strongly believe that the true direction of a person's moral compass is mainly determined not by what he thinks is right or wrong, but what is right or wrong in a particular context. Outcome must also be taken into account to determine the direction of a person's moral compass. In other words, risk is an inherent, inseparable component of ethics.

This. This quote pretty much sums up my points above about the relationship between ethics and risk.

Yeah. There was something very genuinely charming and chill about Fourze. Everything, from the characterizations, to the interactions between the characters, to the conflicts, to the humor, felt genuine without even trying. It was probably because it didn't take itself too seriously. I believe that Fourze is the Napoleon Dynamite of the KR franchise, haha.

Well obviously these are good things to do, though these seem to be all something reactive to visible bad. Other than stopping what's already bad, trying to prevent bad things to happen again is also important though, what causes those criminals to emerge, or the creation of that totalitarian dictator. Examining and addressing the root cause in a flawed system where society may create its own monsters. Though of course the method used to do this shouldn't be an extreme one.

Also about a visible bad, there may be bad things which is subtle and perpetuated because it's normalized over time by people who do not think about things from the standpoint of others - evil becomes commonplace; it becomes the everyday. Ordinary people going about their everyday lives become complicit actors in systems that perpetuate evil. Such as for example, abusive parents, teachers, or other authoritarian figures who excuse their actions as giving "tough love" and have the public buy their words, or undermining bullying and depicting it as "passage of life", or getting mental issues like depression stigmatized, making those bad actions swept under the rug.

Dealing with kinds of above one may need to have someone challenge the principles those people have inherited, to ensure they stand up to their individual scrutiny, becoming more aware of biases and learned behaviors? But this may be what's seen as "moral policing", unless this is also what you also have in mind and maybe have other ideas to deal with. There are also people who'd dismiss and shut up those who bring up about something terrible being normalized, which'd further let these f*cked up stuff perpetuated as the one who brought that point up is the one who takes blame.

A help being "needed" or not can really vary between person, circumstances, etc. Like one may excel through a quiz while someone else struggles with it. It can't be known if a help is needed (including their response afterwards) or not unless someone shows concern and tries to offer help. I'm also someone who don't like being helped and want for my abilities to be acknowledged, but then again, still I can't really hold it against those who display concern on me, and I shouldn't discourage that good deed even if I personally don't like it. If one don't want help, I think it's fine if they relent their offer and acknowledge it, but that can be known by offering them.

Regulating and solving all their problems... actually there can be complaints that feel Ace does too little to utilize his powers to make everything better, such as only providing some assistance (e.g. to Kousei) while watching over rather than directly intervening to save Neon and eliminate Beroba, describing that as being cold and unfeeling. Dunno if regulating behavior is exaggeration here, as it seems that what he did other than fighting parts, was only to return the memories of each person deprived by the DGP, because brainwashing is wrong, and the 'policing' was only done once to Keiwa who lost his way, not others like Michinaga or Win.

As you said, the sugar is on the outside, and sugarcoating term is usually used to refer when someone lies about something a person have being bad to prevent hurting their feelings, praising them (sugar/garnish) instead of addressing their problems (bad taste), which leads to them being stagnant in doing those mistakes. And by this it's common for people to elevate rude assholes, particularly if they're "proven", as being just "brutally honest" and "speaks their mind" without mincing words, which seems to just practically encourage people to be toxic to others with aformentioned excuses. I've brought up "honesty without tact is cruelty" in this website but it got shot down. There are also cases when the book's cover is something outside their control though, like for instance, a person's physical looks, like them being "ugly" or short, which can get people to look down on them if they're shallow.

There can be characters with equal amount of good and evil and they may be those who constantly change alignments, but I'm just being wary of these assessments because many just cherry pick and/or exaggerate good or evil stuff in each character depending on who they're and treat both sides as equal when they're not, typically to make a hero look bad or a villain look good. Otherwise, being heroic or villainous is determined by action first, then characterization afterwards (not that they're unimportant though), which is why doing evil in the name of good is still being (anti-)villainous, because as said there, your actions are evil, regardless if people'd support "good intentions" more, and many can't differentiate between good intentions or good actions, likely thinking that for those having good intentions, anything they do is good by default. And organizations shouldn't be valued over people (as shows like Saber teaches), it really varies between each person, there can be those who are not so bad, but there also can be those who truly believed in twisted, sickening ideologies and propaganda, not merely following orders while being conscience-stricken.

A hero or villain fitting anti category isn't necessarily about reasons though. Anti-hero is a hero with unheroic traits, and anti-villain is a villain with redeeming traits, and what fits those can be more than reasons. Being overly violent, doing pay evil unto evil stuff in dealing with villains would also count as unheroic traits in a hero that makes them anti-hero even if their intention is altruistic. A villain can be anti-villainous if they have honorable traits or lines they won't cross even if their goal is self-serving such as to satisfy bloodlust in fighting. Dunno what kind of 'malicious' reason you refer here, because fighting a bad guy doesn't make someone good, there can be cases of evil vs evil like Eternal vs Eyes Dopant, bad guys can fight each other.

While it's important for someone to think about long-term consequences in how their actions may impact others, outcome is still a circumstance out of your control. Sometimes good things can come out of a bad situation or a bad thing, or even due to someone doing something knowing full well it's wrong and will cause harm. However, people should not misconstrue that just because something good was born out of something bad/evil, does not make that something good, just because the end result was good does not mean that the bad guys did something good. The opposite is also true- you can act with the intention of trying to make things better but because of things you cannot change, what you did actually make things worse, that does not make you a bad person.

People's alignment can change, not that they're always "misunderstood" if they have good traits and aren't all bad. Takatora is one of the redeemed (anti-)villains. Regardless of his intentions, his planned action is to commit genocide the rest of 6 billion human race (other than 1 billion saved with Sengoku Driver) with Scalar System in the name of 'saving them', though better than Helheim, it's still the lesser evil to it to kill most vs Helheim's kill all. He stops being villainous when he abandons that and agrees to work with Kouta in negotiating with Overlords instead and cleaning up what Yggdrasill has done in the end.

Continuing this topic, I was reminded of Lenin’s quote: “In a personal sense, it is very important whether a person harms you from evil motives or from good ones. But in practical terms, there is not much difference.” Transferring this from reality to the show, we can conclude that the prefix “anti-” is the prerogative of important and/or interesting characters for the plot/viewers. That is, no one would call an anti-villain a kaijin for an episode of the Showa era, even if there are reasons for this in his motivation. Therefore, different viewers may have different views on some characters. That is, it is obvious that Takatora was a villain at the beginning of Gaim and became a hero at the end, but his intermediate stages may not have been noticed by everyone.

Whaaattt??? Since when could Takatora's intention be disregarded? Since when did he do everything he did to commit genocide? He did what he did out of necessity. He did what he did out of an ethical dilemma that resulted from his limited logistic, and more importantly, his limited understanding of Helheim, NOT out of a malevolent intention to commit genocide on 6/7th of the Earth's population. The resulting depopulation (which you labeled as genocide) was a known, expected, necessary consequence that resulted from the very limited amount of the rare metals required to manufacture the generic version of Sengoku Driver, and probably also after taking Yggdrasill's manufacturing capabilities into account. He knew very well the good and bad consequences of his actions due to the aforementioned limitations.

If he had access to higher amount of the rare metals, then he'd have definitely planned and done things differently. If he had known that Helheim wasn't just a virulent, supernatural flora, then he'd have definitely planned and done things differently. If he had known about the existence of Overlords and that Helheim could be controlled by Overlords, then he'd have definitely planned and done things differently. If he had known that Helheim would give the ultimate control to the sole challenger who managed to be the victor, then he'd have definitely planned and done things differently. He was willing, but unable. If he had had access to sufficient logistic and knowledge, he would've saved all humans, and the majority of events in Gaim wouldn't have happened. It would've become humans vs Helheim/Overlords war, not humans vs humans infighting with Helheim invasion looming behind the scene. What kind of villain do you think Takatora was? A Geats villain? LOL.

Just because people can change doesn't mean that everyone changes. Some people change, while some other never change. Takatora was never a villain at heart. He never had any malevolent intention. His intention was heroic, but in the context of the situation at the time (his limited knowledge and logistic), it resulted in bad outcomes. He's what I call an apparent villain/faux villain. His villainy was only an apparent one that arose out of necessity due to an ethical dilemma, not a true villainy that arose out of malevolent intentions. Even then, a malevolent intention, when put in the right context, can sometimes results in a greater good, like what I explained in regards to Ozymandias. This is what I meant by putting intentions in the context of a situation.

Oh, and have you noticed the striking similarity between Gaim's and Zangetsu's designs? From the motif of the undersuits, to the transformation scenes of the Orange and Melon armors, to how strikingly similar the shapes of their helmets were. Those were the visual clues that show that both Kouta and Takatora were actually two people with similar intentions and ideals in two different contexts and vantage points. It took several moments of conflict until they realized and uncovered how similar their goals actually were.

Things aren't always what they seem.

As I expected, you view yourself as some kind of moral warrior who has the authority to fix all root of all problems and imperfections in the world. You view yourself as the white knight, the messiah, or the savior who can save humanity from itself. You view your one-size-fits-all solution as the ultimate moral panacea that can cure all ills of the society. You think you're in some kind of crusade to realize a grand, moralistic utopia of some kind. You view yourself as the real world version of Ace Ukiyo. No wonder you idolize him.

Like I stated before: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". You better tone down your white-knightism/hero syndrome, unless you want the society to shun you and view you not as a hero, but alas, a villain. That's why I said that you should watch Fourze episodes 23-24. If you choose to be the real world Ace Ukiyo and continue your moralistic crusade, then go ahead. It's your life. Just wait until reality comes knocking on your door. It seems like only the severe pains of real life can knock some sense into your head.

If you're not naive, you can often tell which one is which. And, more importantly, it's one thing to offer good deeds, it's another thing to enforce good deeds. What a nosy, moralistic, self-righteous busybody moral warrior/white knight is doing is virtually enforcing good deeds. You basically view yourself as a moralistic god who has the authority to enforce good deeds on others and enforce the same rule on society. An offer is vastly different from an enforcement. See the simple difference there, Ace Ukiyo? Smh.

Can't you see it already? The majority of those Redditors probably have the same white-knightism/hero syndrome that you do. That's why they wanted everything to be better. That's why they wanted Ace Ukiyo to create a world where everyone could be happy.

To say that Ace Ukiyo's moral policing was behavior regulation is a very very very severe understatement. What he ultimately created was a world where he had a total control as a God. No, not just a god, but a literal God with a capital G who could manipulate everything without exception. He ended up as a God that exerted his divine, absolute powers on mere mortal humans (aka the Sims/the inhabitants of DGP's world simulation). A God that exerts his powers on puny, weak humans is just a weak, coward God that deserves no worship. He was a villainous, totalitarian God. He ended up as an even bigger villain than Sueru had ever been. That's the ultimate irony that seemed to go waaaayyyyy over the writers' heads.

Perhaps Yuuya Takahashi has never heard of this famous adage by Lord Acton:
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Don't worry. It's not all bad news though. A real human from Sueru's real world can simply press a button to reset or turn off DGP's world simulation, and Ace Ukiyo's reign of moralistic terror will end in an instant that no one inside DGP's world simulation can even realize what's happening, including Ace Ukiyo The God himself. Gigantic LOL @ Geats. Haha.

Whaaattt??? Outcome is still a circumstance out of your control? *facepalm* Some things are out of anyone's control, but NOT everything is out of control. Some things are within control. Know which one is which and don't conflate each other. You must take full responsibility of all the consequences of your actions, be it good or bad, whatever your initial intention is. You can't bask in your self-righteous, moralistic light of glory, and yet when it comes the time to assess your accountability, you run away and shout "Outcomes are out of my control!" as an excuse. That's pathetic. Avoiding responsibility and accountability is the main sign of cowardice, weakness, and ethical immaturity.

You seem to have some kind of victim mentality where you view everything is outside your control. If you do think that outcome is out of your control, then you'd be more cautious and prudent in your actions, NOT recklessly and mindlessly applying your extreme moralistic mentality on everything. If outcome is out of your control, then you should be more careful, NOT careless. Smh.

If the bad things that result from your naive good intentions only happen once or twice and or have minor negative consequences, then you could probably use your favorite "I'm not a bad person."/"I'm just a person that wants to do good deeds."/"It's a coincidence."/"The outcome is beyond my control."/etc lines as excuses. On the other hand, if your naive good intentions often result in frequent screwups and or create major, serious, irreversible negative consequences, then I bet that no one in their right, sane mind will ever buy your favorite excuses.

Robert Hanlon postulated Hanlon's razor aka his famous adage that stated: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." In real life, however, malice is often hard to distinguish from stupidity. If you screw up several times and is still unable to read between the lines and is still unable to connect the dots from your intentions to your actions to your consequences, then only one conclusion can be taken: Your stupidity equals malice. This is what people mean when they ask "Is he a crook, or is he just a fool?" every time a screwup happens. This is just a reworded explanation of my previous points about the relationship between ethics and risk.

It seems like your main (or perhaps, only) motive to do good deeds is to be seen as a good person by other people, not because you want to do the right thing. It seems like you gain some kind of gratification or pleasure from being viewed as a good person by other people. Yet, when it comes the time for evaluation of the actual consequences of your seemingly good deeds done out of seemingly good intentions, you avoid it by using your favorite excuses above. It seems like, to you, the end is achieved by doing good things, not doing the right things. That's why you avoid responsibility and accountability at all cost. Maaannn... Doing good things is not necessarily doing the right things.

See? This is what I meant by your severe inability to understand context and nuance. Just because I said that consequences matter, doesn't mean that you can easily disregard intentions. Put intentions and consequences into their own contexts. Smh. It seems like you're living solely inside your head. It seems like you've never experienced unintended negative consequences in real life. Of course in your imagination everything is always perfect, simple, and straight forward. Of course in your imagination all problems in the world can always be solved with good intentions and good deeds. Real life, however, is not perfect. Real life has 10 ways to turn your one good intention into 100 royal screwups. Real life has real consequences which can vastly differ from what you think inside your head. Never assume that what's inside your head will always congruent with what's outside your head, ever. In real life, a line from point A to point B is often not a straight line, but an ultra-curved, ultra-tangled line that can also give rise to other ultra-curved, ultra-tangled lines, and create a positive feedback loop that a small input in the name of good intentions can be amplified and give rise to huge, unexpected, negative outcomes that can destroy the whole system. In the real world, there's no Goddess of Creation. In the real world, there's no Power of Creation.

"Welcome to the real world, Ace Ukiyo."
~ Morpheus, probably. LOL.

I don't think that you're unable to understand my points. It's more like you're unwilling to understand my points. So, I better stop my response here. Let me end it with one sentence:
Good luck with your (real) life, Ace Ukiyo.

I agree, especially with the quote. In real life, it's often very hard to discern between good and bad intentions, especially when a screwup happens. When something is screwed up, people usually do their best to save their faces and transfer responsibility and accountability to anyone they can sweep under the bus. It's every man for himself. Not a fan of Lenin though. Haha.

Takatora is what I call an apparent/faux villain. His villainy didn't result from malice, but from a situation he was in that was completely beyond his control. His faux villainy was gradually deconstructed, layer by layer, as the story progressed and revealed new informations about the nature of Helheim and Yggdrasill's plans as necessary responses. I don't think that he became a hero. He was already a hero, in the sense that he made the right choice out of a common ethical dilemma, and carried all the ethical burdens by himself. He made the right decision in a situation rife with limited (and hidden) informations, and more importantly, under uncertainty. His decision was rational. And of course, like any rational humans would do, he changed his view of Helheim once he gained new informations from Kouta.

This kind of ethical dilemma is actually quite common in real life. What Takatora did was basically what a decent, rational human would do in real life if he's forced by situation to make a decision under uncertainty. Takatora's trope was basically a personification of the idea that the average people's heroism often means making the best decision in a bad situation, and accepting the burden of responsibility of any bad outcomes that may result from it. Noblesse oblige, as he said.

Cool motive, still murder. As have been stated before, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

What do you think the Scalar System is for? Takatora plans to distribute 1 billion Sengoku Drivers to people, then kill the rest to reduce the risk of them becoming Inves in the face of Helheim. I guess I shouldn't use the term genocide here then, but I meant for it as him wanting to do mass killing (thought genocide is for that but I'm mistaken perhaps), of 6 billion humans.

Two things can be awful at once, even if one of them is more bad than the other. Either all humans perish due to Helheim, or majority of humans killed off due to Project Ark. Not to mention, there's the complicated matter of deciding which people "deserve salvation" and which ones get screwed over, which is usually part of such extreme solutions. Implementing a solution where you have to decide who gets sacrificed, what gives Takatora a right to decide for the rest of humanity?

Explains about the misuse of anti-hero term before, to refuse to call out those that don't have malevolent intentions. Yes, anti-villain is for those who aren't villain at heart (their redeeming qualities), but they still perform actions like villains. Bad actions aren't solely driven by malevolent intentions, and moreover, there can be those who deny their malevolent intentions and make excuses. And is everyone else just supposed to shut up and fall in line against people like Takatora, even if the solution is morally unacceptable to them? Just because there's a time crunch, they're just supposed to resign themselves to having to doom some to save others?

If you think that good intentions absolve them from their actions as it'd be only about necessity, let's say, for your examples before of opposing a criminal that hurt your friend/family, or a totalitarian dictator, if they're claiming they do what they do for good, like the criminal claiming they want to get you prepared in dangerous situation, or the dictator claiming they do things like that to preserve peace, then would they still be worth opposing or they're heroes already?

If you'd insist that these well-intentioned extremists aren't bad because they wouldn't have done that if they know better way.... They can also choose to refuse to accept that anyone suffering is a viable option, that there is always another way if they try hard enough, that something better can be achieved if they fight hard enough for those ideals. To not accept whatever cards reality/fate/destiny/etc handed to them. People like Kouta are being like that, to refuse anyone being victimized, be it few, or many, not that few/many lives can be treated like a cattle in the face of many/survival. It'd may be what's called as naive, by in-universe people or fanbase, but dunno why the well-intentioned extremists are believed to guarantee making things better.

Even the criminal or dictator you mentioned as the example of who to oppose, can also make claim like that, where if you'd oppose their actions, they can also claim that you're meddling in other people's (their) business. What to do if the ones who you can act against is the one making claims like that? If it works they'd be free due to them feeling conflicted to intervene or not, it can be also used to gaslight and guilt trip someone.

Creating something doesn't mean one has total control of it? Humans also can create something and their creations can be those that are inanimate objects which control is only about the person who is using it, not its creator. And... the creation is done as a response against Suel trying to erase the world via Grand End. What is supposed to be done then?

Just full of your accusations on me in this part on bad faith. To talk about the consequences being out of one's control, I'm using event scenarios for examples not my personal experiences. Like for example, if a pupil of a martial artist master turns out to using his skills to commit crimes after he trained there, particularly if he has long left said place. There can be room of improvement for the master to take countermeasures to prevent that but doesn't mean that the master is similar to someone who deliberately raised and groomed someone to be a criminal doing their dirty work. Or if someone generously feed a homeless and unknowingly made them sick due to the food being actually expired (e.g. a mistake in the clerk shop). While they can improve by double checking things more, doesn't mean that they're similar to someone who deliberately harmed others, regardless of reason.

Both are the cases of someone trying to do good but unwittingly cause bad outcomes, doesn't mean they're doing bad stuff. For opposite case, there can be cases when someone ends up causing something good, like if someone bombs a building which explosion radius caught a criminal on the run, knocking him down and allowing him to be arrested. Doesn't mean that the bomber did something good, it's unexpectedly accomplishing good by pure chance of a criminal happening to be nearby.

Well, as far as I can judge, in the stories the heroes perceive such cases as their responsibility and strive to correct them. "The Hunted" with Tommy Lee Jones and Benicio del Toro is the first thing that comes to my mind. In real life, too many people are involved and, by and large, everything is decided individually. One teacher feels responsible for his students throughout their lives, another forgets their names immediately after graduation. But in the example with food, I am sure that if you bought the food, and a homeless person was poisoned, then the police will have complaints against you until there is evidence that the food was poisonous even before the purchase.

*facepalm*

My final response:

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.

I think Tachibana suggested this when there were two or three unsealed undead left. Plus, in Shima's case, wasn't it explained that he was kind of helping Mitsuki maintain his humanity? In short, the situation there is quite vague.

I agree with this. Like I said, my main problem with Kenzaki and Hajime's friendship is that it's one-sided even at the very end. So I think OOO handled it better because it showed more clearly that Eiji's kindness paid off.