[DreadBringer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kamen Rider Die

It is so weird to hear this description of the Ikki/Daiji conflict, because we as fans should already have a grounding for what each character is saying -- this is 100% the Kento/Touma debate from the end of Saber. Like, 1000%. Daiji is saying that the only hope lies in doing something morally reprehensible, but the "heroes" are selfishly standing in his way; while Ikki is saying that a) what everyone else is doing is noticeably working, and b) there's no point to winning if victory is a choice between two horrible outcomes. Like, this is just the end of Saber! Which is a different problem, sure, but I don't remember people being as down on the end of Saber as they are on the end of Revice?

Putting that aside, I'd also argue that Ikki treating Daiji's arguments as thin cover for unresolved angst is exactly the right move from Ikki. Daiji's arguments focus on defeating/destroying his brother to such a disturbing level that they're clearly the focal point of Daiji's fixation. Daiji has a problem with Ikki, and resolving that is way more important to Ikki than winning some philosophical argument. I feel like that's not a new part of the show?

This happens in a lot more than just Ikki/Daiji conflict here, that people also insist that the heroes are just selfish for being standing in the one actually thinking realistically and just making things worse to prevent them from "solving problems" - of which villains are usually viewed as that by the audience, especially if they have a point. And if they don't get that, they'd complain about the writing being suck and not making sense, as if they think it's wrong for the show to paint villains as in the wrong? Many seem to think in moral relativism, there's nothing such as righr or wrong only perspective, and ironically they also impose their view on others as the realistic and mature view - the only right view to process the world, want the show to cater to them for "both sides having a point" and complaining if the villain is clearly wrong....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

I think this is an unfair comparison for Kento, who at least checked Kurayami's despair visions to see if he could save everybody, before succumbing to the lonely path of Calibur. Furthermore, his ultimate goal had not changed, as he and Touma were both fighting the same enemy. It's one book with two writers, envisioning the same conclusion but with two different journeys to reach it.

Ikki and Daiji are not writing the same book, barely even the same genre. Ikki opposes Gif to protect people. Daiji sides with Gif to protect cattle. And for what? Daiji does not have any convenient excuse of despair-inducing clairvoyance, so his claim that his actions are "justice" isn't at all plausible and only makes him look like a self-righteous coward who would bend the knee to Gif after a little loss streak.

Coming from above too, I felt that if the show insist that the villainous side (anti-villain ofc for wanting the best) is right and that they've made an effort, the heroes can get more shit for standing in their way, and that the conclusion of Touma proving him wrong can just come across as the show favoring the heroes biasedly to convince the audience (who usually think the heroes only get ahead due to plot armor). Also, I thought Daiji sides with Giff to protect people? But Daiji's only concerned about how they live, not taking into regard of actually giving fulfilling lives.