Character Discussion - Suzaku

[evil|plushie]

At which point, I wonder if Nanalis memories have been tampered with too.

[Triple_R]

This is my first post on the Code Geass forum having just recently watched the anime up to episode 2 of Season 2. Of all the characters in the series, Suzaku is probably the one that has impacted me the most... and, admittably, in a negative way.

To be frank, I consider him to be the Japanese version of Benedict Arnold... on steroids. Yes, I consider him a traitor to the Japanese, and my take on him has soured considerably over time.

With that in mind...

Originally Posted by Juvyniled

Hehe, this single line really got me there. It's more of opinionated comment with applications of factual statements.

Unfortunately, while you try to maintain an unbiased attitude, you're still adopting Lelouch's perspective (or more specificly, one greatly in favor of Lelouch's objective and greatly opposed to Suzaku's).

At this point, there's nothing wrong with being biased. If you can be biased but maintain a reasonable argument, or contend against other arguments with your own evidence, then it's perfectly fine.

For one particular point that you mentioned, you stated that Suzaku became a traitor to the Japanese people. If Suzaku being in opposition to Japanese rebellion is treachery, then by that line of thought, he has already been a traitor.

I don't think that oppossing the Japanese rebellion, in and of itself, makes Suzaku a traitor. For example, before the Mao arc, I didn't consider Suzaku a traitor.

At that point, I considerred his stance on which approach (his, or Zero's) would improve the lot of the Japanese people to be defensible, and genuinely debateable (i.e. I could see Suzaku possibly being right, and Zero possibly being wrong). Also, at that point, Suzaku's stance struck me as being born out of a slightly warped pacifistic idealism (i.e. Suzaku was willing to kill and be extremely violent, but only if doing so would result in fewer total lives lost than what would otherwise be the case). There was a genuine carm, and streak of goodness, to the character.

However, two things cemented Suzaku being a traitor in my view. They are...

1) Mao's revelation concerning what Suzaku did to his father.

The fact that, during the Britannia invasion of Japan, he killed his own father/assassinated the Head of State of Japan, precisely because he wanted the war to end quickly and with Britannia winning. In any conflict between two nations, the killing of the Head of State of one nation in order to hasten the end of the war and see the other nation winning the war and conquering the nation of the slain Head of State, would unquestionably be considerred a traitorous act. The fact that this act also involved a boy killing his own father only makes it even worse, of course.


2) In episode 22, Suzaku had a front-row seat for the brutal massacre of numerous innocent Japanese people all due to the seemingly bizarre actions of Princess Euphemia. If Britannia placed even the slightest value on the life of a Japanese/11 citizen, they would have dragged Princess Euphemia off-stage to have her psychologically checked out immediately... especially since Zero had just had an one-on-one meeting with Euphemia, and could have concievably somehow manipulated/twisted Euphemia into doing what she did. But no, the Britannian soldiers, true to their largely racist nature, just started engaging in borderline ethnic cleansing... of the ethnicity that Suzaku belongs to.

I would hold that for any Japanese person to fight for Britannia in the immediate aftermath of the events of episode 22 would constitute that Japanese person being a traitor of the highest order.

Mind you... there has essentially been no treachery (if we must refer to defintion of it: one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty).

I would consider the killing of one's father, when he is the Head of State of your country during defense against a foreign invasion, to be an act of betrayal and treachery.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by evil|plushie

At which point, I wonder if Nanalis memories have been tampered with too.

That would have been entirely possible, except the blind Nunnally is likely still immune from the Emperor's powers because he needed direct eye contact.

This is so convenient plot-wise that I believe Sunrise intentionally scripted Nunnally's blindness for that purpose; If Nunnally could be Geassed into fighting against her own brother, Lulu would be doomed. He would likely kill himself rather than retaliate.
GameOver, man.

[zerron]

I thought that it might be possible that Suzaku wanted to become the Emperor to change the world. If this was the case, then I could understand his actions to some point and it would be worth it. However, after I watched episode 2, I saw that this was not the case - he just betrayed everyone and can sacrifice anyone or kill anyone. Damm the moment when Lelocuh said to him "Live" using geass. Cooperating with Emperor - damm you Suzaku


How can someone become the Emperor ? They must wait until the Emperor dies ? And who is the next Emperor - the first Prince or what (noob question ) ?

[TheRainbowConnection]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

That would have been entirely possible, except the blind Nunnally is likely still immune from the Emperor's powers because he needed direct eye contact.

For that matter, who are we to say that the Emperor simply didn't force her eyelid open, much like how Suzaku forced Lelouch's eye open for mindrape? We've seen that direct eye contact is necessary, but is vision a pre-requisite for geassing?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by TheRainbowConnection

For that matter, who are we to say that the Emperor simply didn't force her eyelid open, much like how Suzaku forced Lelouch's eye open for mindrape? We've seen that direct eye contact is necessary, but is vision a pre-requisite for geassing?

I'll say yes for Geass that require eye contact. The fact that even sunglasses could block Geass means the signal can be easily blocked from the brain if there is interruption.

And as I said before, Nunnally's blindness is far too convenient not to be intentional. If Nunnally could be Geassed by the Emperor, then it is checkmate for Lulu.

[Juvyniled]

Triple_R, I understand you're confirmation of the technicality of the word and idea. Following all possible definitions of the words (traitor, treachery, treason, etc.), I agree that his act of killing the Head of the State is an act of treason.

However, I must address some of your comments and ask some questions in response. What constitutes the nature of him killing his own father worse than the act of treason? There is nothing to say that his father was abusive or neglectful to him, so I cannot compare the situation of his to that of an abusive parent. However... of the many times it would be seemingly inappropriate to raise the matter, I must follow the doctrine of Godwin's Law. If instead, Hitler was your father, do you think it would be wrong to kill him? Keep in mind that this is in the context of the time period and not your own current values/ideals, but that of a boy who might be in opposition to the idea of killing people based on their ethnicity. This is completely disregarding the matter of treason.

Now mind you, Suzaku's father does not hold the same ideology as Hitler, but it can all be associated relatively. Many people may share the same ideal as the individual in focus, but does that necessarily make it acceptable? Now with regards to Geass, Suzaku's father wanted everyone to essentially fight to the end... many of the people certainly did agree with him, but of those that did not want to? Who is to address the voices of the minority group when all decisions are based on majority rule?

For now, I'll just list out the negatives and positives of the result:
Negatives:
1) Suzaku betrayed the trust of many (I have no doubt there would be a handful of dissidents) Japanese people wanting to continue their struggle.
2) As a result of the surrender, the Japanese people are forced to relinquish their rights/freedoms and have to endure Britannian occupation.

Positive:
1) They are still alive (and if they opted to, they could still defy Britannian rule).

Now, however you choose to judge the matter, one outcome would've been more preferable in your own respective views (by you, I'm referring to any particular person reading this).

However, I ask anyone this: Japan opted to surrender after the death of its leader. Now... I'm quite certain they weren't a monarchical country, so why is there no succession of command? And if there was a second in command, why did they not continue through with the original leader's objective? Delving further into the matter, I'd assume either (a) the Head of the State had not communicated it to the rest of his "cabinet members" (so to speak, since I do not know what type of governmental system they adopted) or (b) there are no other "members"/advisors with whom he may discuss the matter. (If any of you hardcore fans can explain the background of the workings of the government at the time, I would like to understand the situation better so I know what to base my comments on)

In either case (assuming that it is in fact one of those two), the Head of the State is making quite a massive decision on his own, which is not to say that it is completely uncommon as it is expected of most leaders. What I am trying to get at is this: For such an extreme decision, which was apparently popular among the populace, why was this sentiment not shared by the people who opted to surrender? Now if I recall some of the background of that time frame, there were apparently factions vying for power as they learned of the Head of the State's death. Still, that doesn't appeal to the idea that they would all just surrender simply because the "leader" is no longer present. In that outcome, that would therefore mean that they did not all share the same sentiment as the Head of the State, elsewise, they would've continued to fight regardless.

[evil|plushie]

Why must Hitler always come up in discussions about Suzaku -_-

As for the minority, it seems to me that you're saying that what Suzaku did gave voice to the minority that wanted the war to end which wasn't bad in of itself. But what about the majority whose hopes and dreams Suzaku cruelly dashed in that one instance? Should the minority rule the majority then? Should the majority rule the minority then? In instances where minority and majority clash, where should the decisive power lie with? Which side should be chosen? After all, there needed to be a choice, even if the choice was choosing neither.

As for Suzakus fathers murder, didn't Todou and the rest cover it up as a suicide? Imagine the moral this would do to the troops. Your leader which had been advocating resistance towards the invasion suddenly ends up committing suicide. What do you think they're going to think about that? They'll probably think it was over the futility of fighting on and their moral would sink like a stone. It's probably because of the impact from Suzakus patricide that whoever was 2nd-in-command decided not to fight on.

[Masterkeyes2]

However, I ask anyone this: Japan opted to surrender after the death of its leader. Now... I'm quite certain they weren't a monarchical country, so why is there no succession of command?

The one main reason that comes to mind because it was abrupt, sudden, and without warning that he died. For all we know they may have been entering a descive battle at the time that could of cost them the war. What I mean is that with an enemy like Brittinian you can't afford to make a signle mistake or lost. It was also said that the Japanese Government was thrown into confusion and calamity at the sudden lost of their leader. They probably didn't contiunue because they had no idea what was going on, so they surrendered in order to save them the trouble. I have no doubt that some groups at that time (like the JLF) started to form and fight but I imagine the national heads who took over after Kurugi's death wanted to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.

[Aquaman OS]

For all the people hating Suzaku for forcing the Japanese to submit have their ever been any Japanese characters in the show that have said "I wanted to fight to the death dammit, I never got that chance"?

Every one I can think of has begrudgingly agreed to the opinion of apparantly everyone that surrendering was the best choice as it prevented widespread death and destruction, the split of the nation between the 3 powers and gave the oppertunity for armed resistance at a later date as the Japanese military power was able to retreat and regroup while it still had strength left.

The alternative was getting wiped out as their was no way Japan could win that battle without losing 98 percent of its population in the process.

Of course many seem to wish they were never in that position in the first place buts its their own leaders fault for making it that way. They can't have their cake and eat it too.

[evil|plushie]

Really? In which episodes did which people begrudgingly admit that, because I honestly don't remember.

[Juvyniled]

Originally Posted by evil|plushie

Why must Hitler always come up in discussions about Suzaku -_-

As for the minority, it seems to me that you're saying that what Suzaku did gave voice to the minority that wanted the war to end which wasn't bad in of itself. But what about the majority whose hopes and dreams Suzaku cruelly dashed in that one instance? Should the minority rule the majority then? Should the majority rule the minority then? In instances where minority and majority clash, where should the decisive power lie with? Which side should be chosen? After all, there needed to be a choice, even if the choice was choosing neither.

As for Suzakus fathers murder, didn't Todou and the rest cover it up as a suicide? Imagine the moral this would do to the troops. Your leader which had been advocating resistance towards the invasion suddenly ends up committing suicide. What do you think they're going to think about that? They'll probably think it was over the futility of fighting on and their moral would sink like a stone. It's probably because of the impact from Suzakus patricide that whoever was 2nd-in-command decided not to fight on.

I'd reserve hopes and dreams for goals wherein life and death are not outcomes. Then again, it all falls into the debate of greater good. What is the greater good? It's certainly ambiguous. In this case, it's either preserving the honor of their nation or maintaining life. I suppose this would all be based upon preference. I just find this matter difficult to accept when it comes to issues of life and death, seeing as how in any other non-life/death decision, the outcome affects the minority but not to the extent of completely affecting or unaffecting them (all or nothing).

And to your second paragraph, I can only ask you this: Do Todou's actions denote that his views do not coincide with the leader's or was he unaware? I believe that EVERY SINGLE person wanted to fight and make a stand... but the value of fighting to the death was the sole decision of the leader. I should dare say that this is by no means a conservative, or moderate, or even liberal idea. This is extremism/radical. But I certainly do agree that hearing a leader committing suicide sparks concern in an individual's mind.

Originally Posted by Masterkeyes2

The one main reason that comes to mind because it was abrupt, sudden, and without warning that he died. For all we know they may have been entering a descive battle at the time that could of cost them the war. What I mean is that with an enemy like Brittinian you can't afford to make a signle mistake or lost. It was also said that the Japanese Government was thrown into confusion and calamity at the sudden lost of their leader. They probably didn't contiunue because they had no idea what was going on, so they surrendered in order to save them the trouble. I have no doubt that some groups at that time (like the JLF) started to form and fight but I imagine the national heads who took over after Kurugi's death wanted to avoid as much bloodshed as possible.

I would agree with the second line if not for the fact that they stood no chance. Episodes clearly showed Japan's outdated weaponry compared to the newly designed Frames. It's not even an uphill battle; the hill takes more of the shape of a vertical asymptote.

[evil|plushie]

Perhaps, but then again, you can not deny that there is a very strong realistic backing for people whose hopes and dreams have been to die, particularly in fights or battles or wars. Even now, there are probably no doubt people who would not mind sacrificing themselves if it meant that they could benefit someone/their country/etc. It's something that's very prevalent in asian history.

Todous actions? I believe he saw that with a defeated morale, whatever hopes of victory they had just effectively went to Zero. -_-

[KrimzonStriker]

Literally whatever hopes he had for victory does indeed go to Zero

[evil|plushie]

Ah, good. someone caught my pun ^_^

[Juvyniled]

Originally Posted by evil|plushie

Perhaps, but then again, you can not deny that there is a very strong realistic backing for people whose hopes and dreams have been to die, particularly in fights or battles or wars. Even now, there are probably no doubt people who would not mind sacrificing themselves if it meant that they could benefit someone/their country/etc. It's something that's very prevalent in asian history.

Todous actions? I believe he saw that with a defeated morale, whatever hopes of victory they had just effectively went to Zero. -_-

Nice pun.

I do believe as well that many people have the desire to sacrifice their own well-being to protect the ones they love. But I can't imagine the leader wanted to simply have his soldiers fight to the end... but every single person, civilians included. He was intense mind you (I believe the scene depicted him with quite a maniacal disposition).

Todou did not have to say that the leader committed suicide; a better lie to motivate the soldiers would have been saying that he was assassinated. I would believe this would, while not increasing soldier morale, would intensify the soldiers' desires to fight.

[squaresphere]

I was under the impress the Japanese Military did fight and with the exception of Todou, were completely out done by the Britianian military.

Regardless, I get the vibe that Suzaku fights for no body but himself now. It's just that Empire is currently the only force willing to let him fight.

From a general 11 population i'm sure many of them see him as a traitor now because of the failed rebellion and his subsequent elevation to Knight of the Round.

Regardless, I think Suzaku's character will be not be redeemed before the end. He'll have moments of remorse but he's probably completely irredeemable in the eyes of the japanese.

[evil|plushie]

I'm not sure because I don't remember the scene where Suzakus father wanted every civilian to fight to the death. Which episode was that cause I think Suzakus dad only showed up in 1 instance, the flashback when Suzaku killed him.

And it's true, Todou could have said he was assassinated. Why he didn't, I don't know. Maybe it didn't occur to him. Although technically, it was true -_-, since he was killed by his son for a political purpose. Maybe it struck too close to the truth for him.

[KrimzonStriker]

Attempted to adopt a do-or-die resistance according to Lelouch and Mao, so that pretty much sums up what Genbu was planning >_>

And Todou didn't say Genbu committed suicide, he was talking about that commander of the JLF he didn't know that Zero had blown up

[evil|plushie]

Ah. Probably guerilla tactics then when the military lost. Kinda like now actually...

Hmm, I thought Suzaku mentioned to Kallen that Todou covered up his fathers death by saying it was a suicide? Either way, it was covered up, but I'm not sure how.