[DreadBringer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

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?

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?