Tate no Yuusha/Shield Hero Anime General Discussion Thread

[felix]

Originally Posted by Kuroageha

Whatever buddy. I guess you read the LN so you know the contents.

She's still in shackles even in the "happy" parts of the ending.

Images

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

Her older version is also still in shackles...

Images

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

-

Regardless of source material it's still entirely possible for the anime to just not keep the slave seal on her. But at this point all evidence points to the slave seal staying on, so until proven otherwise (maybe she doesn't have the seal shown on her chest) you can all stop throwing this excuse already every time an argument to discussion is brought up.

Originally Posted by AD3LF0N53

Am I the only one who thinks the slave trader has been spying on Shield Bro prior to their first meeting?

Originally Posted by Kuroageha

His timing was too good, of course he was.

It's not really that good. Doesn't everyone in the kingdom know about him by now?

[Shinji103]

Originally Posted by felix

...against anyone for calling out flaws in it.

Nice try.
The haters absolutely get louder the more popular a series gets. It doesn’t matter if anybody opposes them. Your still going on about this proves it.

But having read the manga, it’s also funny watching you go on about this.

[Go0gleplex]

There is a reason she still wears the irons...but again, that is future reveal. Good grief. I've seen fly paper that is less stuck on a point.

[Forsaken_Infinity]

Originally Posted by felix

This has been done. In the series "The Good for Nothing Seventh Young Lady" (protagonist is female) she purchases slaves. And she immediately frees them, and pays them for their work. When I read it, didn't find that part too spectacular. After reading enough comments here, guess I was wrong.

It's very easy to say "but if he/she just purchases slaves and they work for her/him, whats the difference between them just being hired by him/her" because outside of pay and owning property there's not much of a difference in the scenario where everyone is happy with the arrangement. The problem is the slaves have no choice in not being happy with the arrangement:

• if they disobey they can get punished, or even killed
• they don't have any choice in what work they do
• they don't have a choice in where to go and how to live their lives
• dreams? too bad you're a slave, your dream is the owners dream; you don't have the right to other dreams (unless it's dreams about helping the owner of course)
• in most slavery systems your children are also slaves
• because you don't have actual income, all your things are just things the owner gave you and you have little choice (other then begging) for getting anything else
• your relationships are limited to what the owner allows you to have; fundamentally you are not allowed to have any other relationship other then "slave to the owner" with out permission (permission you likely won't get since it creates all sorts of complications)

In summary, yes as the owner purchasing in a system that legally has slaves, you are still an asshole, because your happiness is based on the misery and dehumanization of others.

...against anyone for calling out flaws in it.

You're conveniently forgetting the other part of the question though -- what if the purchase is to save the slave from immediate harm from others? Yes it's still true under the system that the slaves aren't going to be free from the owner, but is the owner evil for saving the slaves from immediate danger by purchasing them, and then giving them as best a life as they can afford?

There are real world examples of this by the way. Even today, child labor is in use in many parts of the world and many a people employ kids from rural areas or orphans or other unfortunate kids in cities. Kids who would otherwise die in the street. Many of these employers aren't living the best of lives themselves, and do their best to accommodate the children as best as they can. Of course, abuse is rampant as well. Many kids are however employed for less taxing jbos such as a restaurant, or housekeeping, and are provided accommodations they otherwise wouldn't have, leading to their attaining a better future than they otherwise would have. I am not sure if I can insist that the people who employ these kids are evil even if their future is tied to their employers by and large until they attain adulthood at minimum. The governments in these countries are too poor to provide a social safety net for kids. I certainly don't have a better solution. I also can't commend the system and recognize the dangers with it and wish for humanity to improve past it. But to label people with genuinely good intentions -- and more importantly, genuinely productive results, as evil for some abstract sense of morality also feels hypocritical at best and counterproductive at worst.

[felix]

Originally Posted by Forsaken_Infinity

You're conveniently forgetting the other part of the question though -- what if the purchase is to save the slave from immediate harm from others? Yes it's still true under the system that the slaves aren't going to be free from the owner, but is the owner evil for saving the slaves from immediate danger by purchasing them, and then giving them as best a life as they can afford?

There are real world examples of this by the way. Even today, child labor is in use in many parts of the world and many a people employ kids from rural areas or orphans or other unfortunate kids in cities. Kids who would otherwise die in the street. Many of these employers aren't living the best of lives themselves, and do their best to accommodate the children as best as they can. Of course, abuse is rampant as well. Many kids are however employed for less taxing jbos such as a restaurant, or housekeeping, and are provided accommodations they otherwise wouldn't have, leading to their attaining a better future than they otherwise would have. I am not sure if I can insist that the people who employ these kids are evil even if their future is tied to their employers by and large until they attain adulthood at minimum. The governments in these countries are too poor to provide a social safety net for kids. I certainly don't have a better solution. I also can't commend the system and recognize the dangers with it and wish for humanity to improve past it. But to label people with genuinely good intentions -- and more importantly, genuinely productive results, as evil for some abstract sense of morality also feels hypocritical at best and counterproductive at worst.

It is subtly different. The children you speak of are "employed" a slave isn't. They or their families chose for them to go work there. Albeit it's all terrible one way or another.

But getting back to the initial premise. Let's put the argument to the test:

If you pick up a girl off the street and stick her in your basement as your property, are you a saint?
You feed her, give her shelter and are a "good person" in this scenario. And lets assume she doesn't have a family and was homeless.

The obvious choice would be to find some place where she can be taken care of, notify authorities in case she ran away from home, or become her guardian (official or otherwise) with her consent; not for her to become your property.

[moridin84]

Naofumi is an anti-hero. He does bad things but "the ends justify the means". Bad things include threatening shopkeepers with slimes, buying slaves and being falsely accused of rape.

I feel that the above statement is something that everyone will agree on. So what exactly are people arguing about?

I think the answer to "is Naofumi acting morally by buying a slave" is no.

The question "is Naofumi buying a slaver justified" is a different question. It's a very standard anti-hero question.

[felix]

Originally Posted by moridin84

Naofumi is an anti-hero. He does bad things but "the ends justify the means". Bad things include threatening shopkeepers with slimes, buying slaves and being falsely accused of rape.

I feel that the above statement is something that everyone will agree on. So what exactly are people arguing about?

I think the answer to "is Naofumi acting morally by buying a slave" is no.

The question "is Naofumi buying a slaver justified" is a different question. It's a very standard anti-hero question.

Buying a slave, in a world where slavers aren't illegal, is actually not morally wrong. It's just a transaction. It's keeping her as a slave, after buying her that's iffy.

With regard to the question of is him buying a slave is justified, I believe the answer is yes it is.
However if we focus on that question there's also the issue that, it's justified if he buys a "useful" one given his circumstances.
However I already provided a loophole to that.

Also I agree with your first sentence.

[Lex79]

Originally Posted by Metaneo

While many people, myself included, believe that slavery is inherently evil, to label every slave owner as evil would be wrong. In any society that allows legal slavery, there will always be those who would fight against it, some loudly and proudly, while others would prefer to be a silent detractor.

So my question to all of you would be: If someone, in a land that legally allows slavery, purchases slaves and puts them to work, but not because he sees them as property, but to protect them from the fates of worse slavers and eventually free them, is he evil?

In a world where slavery is a legal and accepted practice I wouldn't necessarily consider a slave owner evil and wicked even if he consider the slaves his property, as long as he doesn't treat them with gratuituos cruelty. As you said, I consider slavery an evil thing, but that's because my ethic is build upon a set of values that evolved over millennia.

[Sacredus]

Originally Posted by felix

Buying a slave, in a world where slavers aren't illegal, is actually not morally wrong. It's just a transaction. It's keeping her as a slave, after buying her that's iffy.

With regard to the question of is him buying a slave is justified, I believe the answer is yes it is.
However if we focus on that question there's also the issue that, it's justified if he buys a "useful" one given his circumstances.
However I already provided a loophole to that.

Also I agree with your first sentence.

Well, technically you're kinda right in that post, but that's not all to it. Anime simply skipped most slave choosing part.

Spoiler for it was in this ep but I will put that in spoiler just in case:

He was checking many slaves, but many of them were in bad state, unable to fight and just sick, and ones on higher level and able to fight, cost just way too much for him (like 80 gold).

Also see one of problems there.

so presumably he wants her because even with out the slave seal he's confident of beating her.

Being anti-hero is not same as being evil character. Naofumi can't fight, don't have any attack power, is hated by all people in kingdom, and he hates them back. But. He need to fight waves, he need to level up, so he need someone who will fight for him. He need party member that he can trust (and he get that from slave seal since slave can't lie and betray their master). This is point of buying slave here. I can't post any spoilers from future events but Forsaken_Infinity don't have any reason to be worried about Raphalia.

[LG-MAX 2.o]

My God, I disappear some time from the topic and the same discussions continue ....

I honestly think this discussion is fruitless. People do not usually change their ideals easily even if there is evidence that they are wrong, if that were so, there would be no racism in the world even after the various scientific evidence that we all belong to the same human race.

But now I would really like to see what the Western world's reaction would be like if by some chance Volume 4 of classroom of the elite was adapted into anime. Whether villains doing evil things or creating a situation where the protagonist needs to resort to nothing heroic means to survive generates so much controversy. I wonder what the reaction would be like when is the protagonist doing things like that, acting calmly and taking every aspect of his plan into account to create a parasite and host relationship with a character of the opposite sex.

God, I'm going to laugh a lot if by some miracle that day comes.

Anyone know if there is any information about the dubbed version? I'm really curious to know if there was any change.

[Keila]

At the risk of being spoilery (and possibly upsetting a few people from using a real life example), is there any fundamentally differences between 'slavery' and 'military conscription'?

Both 'slaves' and 'conscripts' (as per a general understanding without getting into specific example cases)

○ Are forced to serve a 'person of authority' and do not have 'freedom' to do as they please (must obey commands, do as they are told, else, consequences)
○ Are (generally) unable to refuse instructions of said authority (can't exactly 'reject' a suicide mission, assuming they have the foresight to realise they're being sent to their deaths)
○ etc.



Many people would probably want to 'avoid being in jail', and yet there are plenty of cases (at least there are in places like Australia, UK) where people would rather be in jail than not. Granted these people may otherwise be homeless/living on the street, but 'giving up their freedom' actually affords them a better quality of life than they would otherwise have.

[LG-MAX 2.o]

I wonder if Naofumi was a woman and Raphitalia a boy, would there be such a controversy?

There would probably be many people defending their relationship as two victims of the circumstances ....

Taking into account that nobody will complain on twitter when a man is raped or a victim of violence of any woman. It shows how the world is today.

[Sheba]

Before I drop my 2 cents, I am against slavery.

Now here I drop it. It seems that a lot in this topic seems to project the pre-American Civil War type of slavery, where basically the slaves are at the mercy of their masters' whims who have right of life and death over them. But there is other civilizations where being a slave is not as dire as their situation is. Roman civilization or those like the Ottomans are among those, or the Pre-French Revolution French colonies of the Carribeans when Le Code Noir have been implemented. They have some rights, masters cant kill them as they please, those slaves even have the possibility to be freed, enjoy social ascension. In the case of the French colonies from before the Revolution, slaves were allowed to rest on Sundays and holidays, can marry and their masters have had the obligation to feed them and dress them.

What I mean is that , from the first episode, anime-only viewers have literally NO way to know what are the status of slaves, AND semi-humans, what they can and cannot, and what a noble or a free man of the kingdom can do to a slave or a semi-human. Especially a semi-human who is a slave or is not.

[Tong]

You bois doing it again, and this is why I said that!

Originally Posted by Sheba

What I mean is that , from the first episode, anime-only viewers have literally NO way to know what are the status of slaves, AND semi-humans, what they can and cannot, and what a noble or a free man of the kingdom can do to a slave or a semi-human. Especially a semi-human who is a slave or is not.

They either are a marginalized group in that kingdown (or even world) or other Demi-humans sell them to slave traders as spoils of war, it happened many many times throughout history.

Demi-humans also probably have their own land or/and live separately from civilization and in the wilderness.

But like you said, WHO KNOWS, as anime watchers we dont have this information yet. Speculating is fun.

[Keila]

I'm just wondering what the 'pacing' is going to be like, I'm assuming we're never actually going to get to the 'good stuff'.

[Sheba]

For all we know, Bitchface may have been the kind of hunt semi-humans for sport, she looked like a spoiled girl who have been allowed to get away with anything. A female Joffrey with a manipulative streak.

[Tenzen12]

Originally Posted by Metaneo

While many people, myself included, believe that slavery is inherently evil, to label every slave owner as evil would be wrong. In any society that allows legal slavery, there will always be those who would fight against it, some loudly and proudly, while others would prefer to be a silent detractor.

So my question to all of you would be: If someone, in a land that legally allows slavery, purchases slaves and puts them to work, but not because he sees them as property, but to protect them from the fates of worse slavers and eventually free them, is he evil?

Problem is that it doesn't solve issue, it certainly improve lives of these purchased slaves which is by no means wrong... BUT by doing it you also create demand for more slaves and becoming part of problem itself.

On other note I really love Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, where main character help slave escape, but feel guilty and thing of himself as bad person for "stealing someones property", which showing that treating slaves as property is indeed not necessarily sign of being evil but rather matter of cultural standards.

Originally Posted by Shinji103

Nice try.
The haters absolutely get louder the more popular a series gets. It doesn’t matter if anybody opposes them. Your still going on about this proves it.

But having read the manga, it’s also funny watching you go on about this.

I am reading manga too (tried novel, but it was terrible) and majority critics here on this board are legit.

[AC-Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Before I drop my 2 cents, I am against slavery.

Now here I drop it. It seems that a lot in this topic seems to project the pre-American Civil War type of slavery, where basically the slaves are at the mercy of their masters' whims who have right of life and death over them. But there is other civilizations where being a slave is not as dire as their situation is. Roman civilization or those like the Ottomans are among those, or the Pre-French Revolution French colonies of the Carribeans when Le Code Noir have been implemented. They have some rights, masters cant kill them as they please, those slaves even have the possibility to be freed, enjoy social ascension. In the case of the French colonies from before the Revolution, slaves were allowed to rest on Sundays and holidays, can marry and their masters have had the obligation to feed them and dress them.

What I mean is that , from the first episode, anime-only viewers have literally NO way to know what are the status of slaves, AND semi-humans, what they can and cannot, and what a noble or a free man of the kingdom can do to a slave or a semi-human. Especially a semi-human who is a slave or is not.

While not outright wrong, the Roman situation was a bit more complicated. I'm pretty sure the pater familias could kill them as they pleased though. (unless there was a longer period of peace because slaves were rare at that point)
The prospect of freedom was also used as an incentive for the slaves to work their peculium properly.

[~Yami~]

Originally Posted by felix

Buying a slave, in a world where slavers aren't illegal, is actually not morally wrong. It's just a transaction. It's keeping her as a slave, after buying her that's iffy.

With regard to the question of is him buying a slave is justified, I believe the answer is yes it is.
However if we focus on that question there's also the issue that, it's justified if he buys a "useful" one given his circumstances.
However I already provided a loophole to that.

Also I agree with your first sentence.

Please don't forget that Naofumi has trust issue after he got betrayed
He literally... didn't trust anyone beside himself in order to survive the wave and go home

so it's hard to blame him if he created slaves army as his meat shield in order for his survival... He doesn't trust anyone from that world... and doesn't care if it is destroyed or not.. he just want to stay alive and go home

I don't know about people's morality.. but if I'm in his place, I'll do exactly like Naofumi did..

[Metaneo]

Originally Posted by Tenzen12

Problem is that it doesn't solve issue, it certainly improve lives of these purchased slaves which is by no means wrong... BUT by doing it you also create demand for more slaves and becoming part of problem itself.

In one sense yes, in another no. Any country that uses slaves labor as a driving force is economically doomed in the long run. Short term, yes it would appear to bolster the slave economy, but in the long run you would actually be exasperating the long term problems. Slavery fell out of practice not just because people started realizing it it was immoral, but also because business owners started to realize it was better for the economy to have a paid working force rather than slave force.