[Sh Ranger]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

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.

I might've rolled with it and replied, "Saa, koko kara wa highlight da!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

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.

Type 5 antihero.