[DreadBringer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

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.

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.