AnimeSuki Forums

roriconfan · 2010-05-16, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurcus

Maybe that's not realistic, but it's what seemed to be happening as the scene was ending, and well Code Geass isn't always as realistic as it could be. It's not the real world, so I wouldn't try to push a real world situation on it and expect the exact same result.

It's because the masses have no mind of their own in this series.
...or importance
...or value
Who cares about them anyway?

Har0 · 2010-05-16, 16:38

You have a point Laurcus. That is more of what they were trying to show.
It's to awful to think they'd do that to him anyway.

Kittenlady · 2010-06-13, 11:24

From the Shirley thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordy Lechance

Wanted to get this out of my system before getting TOO off topic.

Refreshing to FINALLY see somebody else agreeing with this.

The way Lerouch saved the world was not only cowardly and dishonorable in the short run, but also DEEPLY damaged the moral fiber of the world.

What sort of a martha-fudging example is he setting for the children of the next generation? That one is allowed to be as ruthless, cowardly and worst of all dishonorable as long as the final results are noble?

A true savior unselfishly bears the weight of the world's sadness on his shoulders and his own shoulders alone, and never sinks to the depths of the evil he fights by facing it with courage and HONOR, so NOBODY else but him alone will ever need to cry ever again. And Lerouch actually finds time to LAUGH at the destruction and misery he caused just so his baby sister can smile, that bastard!!

Take notes from THIS man Lerouch. THIS is how

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqDoh...elated#t=6m40s

a world should be saved (1:37 - 4:04)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0MpG...=related#1m37s

NOT through your selfish, blood-drenched lies, thank you very much.

Better that a world is destroyed than have it be saved without honor.

Let's hope the protagonist of the next series (The Japanese Warrior in the upcoming sequel/sidequel) does a more heroic job than you did.

Cowardly, dishonourable... You keep using these words, I don't think they mean what you think they mean. How was he cowardly? How did he deeply damage the moral fibre of the world (wut?)? How was he dishonourable (by your definition of the word, anyway)?

And why is being dishonerable the worst thing anyway? I don't think Lelouch gave a fuck about honour, and, considering how intangible and useless it is, I tend to agree. Pride and dignity, sure, Lelouch was pretty big on them, not so much honour.

One of the things I liked about Lelouch was that he didn't prioritise being able to live with himself over what ~~he thought~~ needed to be done. Somebody has to make those hard decisions and do the nasty things, and an awful lot of 'honourable' characters just end up pushing those hard decisions on someone else.

Lelouch wasn't trying to be a hero or a 'true saviour', and at the very very best, he was an anti-hero. If he was portrayed as the second coming of Jesus, then you'd have an argument, but he's not.

bladeofdarkness · 2010-06-13, 11:37

there IS one way in which it can be argued that he damaged the moral fiber of the world, or at least the moral fiber of the show.

Lelouch showed the world that no evil is too great for good to overcome
he showed that good can triumph over evil, and that a hero can free the world from tyranny...

Lelouch lied

Because the truth about the events of the final arc shows, that there ARE evils too great for good to overcome
it shows that something Like the Damocles couldn't possibly have been stopped by good people who actually CARE about loss of life
and that the only way to defeat it, was by becoming evil yourself
if the black knights tried to stop it, all shnizel would have to do is POINT it at japan, and they would surrender
and Lelouch was only able to defeat it, because there was nothing shnizel could threaten to destroy that would give him pause
it showed that Lelouch, who spent the entire show trying to defeat evil, without abandoning his sense of morals, and without using geass to turn people into slaves, was able to conquer the entire world within a MONTH of doing so
in all, the ending message rings loud and clear:

"evil would always win, and a world in which heroes CAN defeat villains, is only an illusion"

Chupps · 2010-06-13, 12:13

"Suppose there is an evil that justice cannot bring down, what would you do? Would you taint your hands with evil to destroy evil? Or would you carry out your own justice and succumb to that evil?"

I think that certain speeches Lelouch makes explain his fundamental ideals & justifications for his actions. He chose to destroy evil with evil, something that was unavoidable once he obtained and decided to use Geass in such a way that he did. Other heroes in other animes are gifted with other abilities & traits that allow them to avoid evil, however, Lelouch was given Geass & a power that is fundamentally evil as it forces people to succumb to his will.

He could have easily enslaved the world, commanding everyone he see's to serve him. Instead he chose to use his evil as justly as he could. And in the end destroyed the world, bearing all it's hatred, and created it anew with no acknowledgment. Evil prevailed but was manipulated to destroy a greater evil & be destroyed itself.

bladeofdarkness · 2010-06-13, 12:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chupps

"Suppose there is an evil that justice cannot bring down, what would you do? Would you taint your hands with evil to destroy evil? Or would you carry out your own justice and succumb to that evil?"
.

C.C says best whats WRONG with that statement
"either way, evil still remains"
...and justice is helpless to stop it.

and evil did NOT destroy itself
Z-R is FUNDAMENTALLY evil, and its continued success, is just a testament to how evil prevails
there's a saying : "evil prevails when good men do nothing"
the overall message of Code geass is : "evil prevails"

Revolutionist · 2010-06-13, 13:11

Hell must be freezing over...we agree on something lol ^_^

bladeofdarkness · 2010-06-13, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revolutionist

Hell must be freezing over...we agree on something lol ^_^

i better go get my jacket then

Chupps · 2010-06-13, 13:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness

C.C says best whats WRONG with that statement
"either way, evil still remains"
...and justice is helpless to stop it.

and evil did NOT destroy itself
Z-R is FUNDAMENTALLY evil, and its continued success, is just a testament to how evil prevails
there's a saying : "evil prevails when good men do nothing"
the overall message of Code geass is : "evil prevails"

C.C didn't point out what was 'wrong' with the statement. The statement was intentionally contradicting to point out the obvious which was all she said. The message i got was that "Good & Evil exist alongside free willed human nature". Also, when i said evil destroyed itself, i didn't mean evil as a whole, just the evil Lelouch created which died along with him. Only Suzaku, C.C and i suspect Kallen know what Lelouch did completely.

Kittenlady · 2010-06-13, 15:55

^ Jeremiah, Lloyd and Cecile were definitely in on it, if the second to last picture drama is anything to go by, and Sayoko and Nina probably were too. And possibly Anya. And Milly and Rivalz were told in my headcanon.

Personally, I always took his "evil vs evil" speech to mean that when taking on an enemy like Britannia, you'll have to lower your morals if you want to win, which also goes along with his 'ends justify the means' view. I tend to agree, since I can't quite see Britannia reacting positively to peaceful protest.

Chupps · 2010-06-13, 16:03

Ah yes i'm sure they were included in the events otherwise the 'assassination' wouldn't have gone so smoothly. I'm not aware of anything linking Anya, Milly or Rivalz to the plan.

Rising Dragon · 2010-06-13, 16:14

Kittenlady was making a joke about Rivalz and Milly being in on it--only in her headcanon. Anya, though, she's saying there's a possibility due to Orange-kun Canceling her.

Xander · 2010-06-13, 17:16

I'm not going to debate this all day, even if I wanted to, so let's cut straight to the point.

This show and its protagonist are intentionally meant to be morally ambiguous.

Look, this isn't trying to be a straightforward story where pure "good" triumphs over "evil" or where pure "evil" triumphs over "good"....such descriptions are disingenuous. There's no real use in trying to paint a simplistic black and white picture when so much of it is made of varying shades of gray.

The entire premise is built on the fact that an ostensibly "good" man is willing to engage in "evil" acts for the sake of achieving a greater "good" and defeating a greater "evil"...no matter the costs for himself or for those surrounding him.

Lelouch's personal sense of morality is what makes him feel guilty about taking the "path of carnage" but it's also what motivates him to go further...even if that leads him to damnation. In hindsight, Lelouch himself admits this more than he actually gloats or boasts about anything. There's even an undercurrent of fatalism about where this will lead him.

That was established many, many times during both seasons long before Zero Requiem ever came into being.

The ultimate resolution of Lelouch's inner conflict wasn't to embrace "evil" without any moral concerns. No, the outcome was to remove himself from the world -an act that is mandated by his personal morality and consistent with his beliefs - but only after fulfilling his objective. To put it another way, Lelouch recognized that he was unworthy of the world he was trying to create.

Arguing that "evil" prevailed seems to be missing the point. Lelouch's goal was never to become a model of virtue or to reform humanity by example, it was to change the existing status quo through the use of force. And that's what he did. "Good" and "evil" will continue to exist in the "new" world, naturally, but I would say that neither of them "triumphed" in the grand scheme of things nor in the strictest possible sense. If anything, I'd rather speak of a bloody tie.

While everyone is free to think differently, discussing the morality of specific acts without enough context leads nowhere.

Kittenlady · 2010-06-13, 17:24

^ Seconded! People should stop trying to make it all so black and white, when the show itself was very very grey.

I think Anya was told because it'd seem strange for her to cooperate with the most evil emperor ever's last command otherwise, or his loyal knight. And Milly and Rivalz (and kallen though she worked it out herself) purely because it'd be fucking depressing if the only freind that knew was Nina, of all people.

Chupps · 2010-06-13, 17:38

Agreed. I've always seen it as grey, good intentions soaked in evil deeds. A variable mixture of white & black throughout the series.

I think Anya just stayed loyal to Orange, but i can imagine how her being clued in wouldn't be a problem at all. I can see your point, seemed like he wanted less of his close friends knowing as possible though. They might have tried to intervene, certainly Kallen would have. I don't think Rivalz or Milly worked it out because they didn't know about Zero being Lelouch so only saw him get power hungry & die in the end. It is pretty depressing that only Nina was clued in out of all his Ashford friends... They were hardly close at all, pretty much enemies due to the Euphie incident.

azul120 · 2010-06-13, 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xander

I'm not going to debate this all day, even if I wanted to, so let's cut straight to the point.

This show and its protagonist are intentionally meant to be morally ambiguous.

Look, this isn't trying to be a straightforward story where pure "good" triumphs over "evil" or where pure "evil" triumphs over "good"....such descriptions are disingenuous. There's no real use in trying to paint a simplistic black and white picture when so much of it is made of varying shades of gray.

The entire premise is built on the fact that an ostensibly "good" man is willing to engage in "evil" acts for the sake of achieving a greater "good" and defeating a greater "evil"...no matter the costs for himself or for those surrounding him.

Lelouch's personal sense of morality is what makes him feel guilty about taking the "path of carnage" but it's also what motivates him to go further...even if that leads him to damnation. In hindsight, Lelouch himself admits this more than he actually gloats or boasts about anything. There's even an undercurrent of fatalism about where this will lead him.

That was established many, many times during both seasons long before Zero Requiem ever came into being.

The ultimate resolution of Lelouch's inner conflict wasn't to embrace "evil" without any moral concerns. No, the outcome was to remove himself from the world -an act that is mandated by his personal morality and consistent with his beliefs - but only after fulfilling his objective. To put it another way, Lelouch recognized that he was unworthy of the world he was trying to create.

Arguing that "evil" prevailed seems to be missing the point. Lelouch's goal was never to become a model of virtue or to reform humanity by example, it was to change the existing status quo through the use of force. And that's what he did. "Good" and "evil" will continue to exist in the "new" world, naturally, but I would say that neither of them "triumphed" in the grand scheme of things nor in the strictest possible sense. If anything, I'd rather speak of a bloody tie.

While everyone is free to think differently, discussing the morality of specific acts without enough context leads nowhere.

It's not that he saw himself as unworthy, but that he had given up on life following R2 19. As I've said before, if the former truly were the case, he missed a few spots.

Had the betrayal not happened, or at least Nunnally's apparent death, Lelouch wouldn't have went through what was even more destructive than anything he had done up to that point.

Nogitsune · 2010-06-13, 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by azul120

It's not that he saw himself as unworthy, but that he had given up on life following R2 19.

Actually, the Mutuality stories indicate that Lelouch felt the need to take responsibility for his actions and the blood he shed by giving up his own life, and Okouchi himself said that ZR can be explained by Lelouch's "pride".

I believe Lelouch didn't want to die any more than Suzaku wanted to live - the desire was there, but not overwhelming, and both of them were giving up something that, to them, was important. I also believe that Lelouch saying that living on "just wouldn't feel right" suggests that in a way, he really felt unworthy, though probably not in the sense that he thought the world would be better of without him.

It's all right to assume that Zero Requiem wouldn't have happened without the Black Knights' betrayal - in fact, I think it makes sense under the given circumstances. However, it's by no means a fact that Lelouch's main motive for ZR was him being suicidal.

azul120 · 2010-06-13, 21:00

His pride could also be himself unwilling to accept any other solution exactly because he no longer wanted to live.

It occurred to me that I'd have a whole lot of questioning to do if I were to bring it up to the creators.

Nogitsune · 2010-06-13, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by azul120

His pride could also be himself unwilling to accept any other solution exactly because he no longer wanted to live.

Hum, in combination with Lelouch's "the only ones allowed to shoot are the ones prepared to be shot" line, which also appeared in this context?

"However, Lelouch says in the first episode: 'Only those prepared to be shot are allowed to pull the trigger themselves.' If you were to think of that as his pride, then I think his getting shot (killed) in the end was a logical end."

That's what Okouchi said. I really can't read that as Lelouch having been suicidal, especially with him having told Suzaku that it "just wouldn't feel right" to continue living.

azul120 · 2010-06-13, 21:32

That flashback was invoked only because he was going to die. He had always consigned himself to the possibility, but didn't accept it as a sure thing... until he wanted to die following the Black Knights betrayal.

Besides, the fact that other characters with blood on their hands got off scot-free in the end kills that aesop.

2010-06-13, 11:37	Link #7224
bladeofdarkness Um-Shmum Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts Age: 39	there IS one way in which it can be argued that he damaged the moral fiber of the world, or at least the moral fiber of the show. Lelouch showed the world that no evil is too great for good to overcome he showed that good can triumph over evil, and that a hero can free the world from tyranny... Lelouch lied Because the truth about the events of the final arc shows, that there ARE evils too great for good to overcome it shows that something Like the Damocles couldn't possibly have been stopped by good people who actually CARE about loss of life and that the only way to defeat it, was by becoming evil yourself if the black knights tried to stop it, all shnizel would have to do is POINT it at japan, and they would surrender and Lelouch was only able to defeat it, because there was nothing shnizel could threaten to destroy that would give him pause it showed that Lelouch, who spent the entire show trying to defeat evil, without abandoning his sense of morals, and without using geass to turn people into slaves, was able to conquer the entire world within a MONTH of doing so in all, the ending message rings loud and clear: "evil would always win, and a world in which heroes CAN defeat villains, is only an illusion" __________________

2010-06-13, 13:11	Link #7227
Revolutionist Puppet Master Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Behind You	Hell must be freezing over...we agree on something lol ^_^ __________________ I cannot give you back your homes, or restore your dead to life, but perhaps I can give you justice, in the name of our King. ~ Ned Stark

2010-06-13, 16:14	Link #7232
Rising Dragon Goat Herder Author Join Date: Jun 2008 Age: 36	Kittenlady was making a joke about Rivalz and Milly being in on it--only in her headcanon. Anya, though, she's saying there's a possibility due to Orange-kun Canceling her. __________________

2010-05-16, 16:38	Link #7222
Har0 Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Florida Age: 30	You have a point Laurcus. That is more of what they were trying to show. It's to awful to think they'd do that to him anyway.

2010-06-13, 12:13	Link #7225
Chupps Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: UK Age: 32	"Suppose there is an evil that justice cannot bring down, what would you do? Would you taint your hands with evil to destroy evil? Or would you carry out your own justice and succumb to that evil?" I think that certain speeches Lelouch makes explain his fundamental ideals & justifications for his actions. He chose to destroy evil with evil, something that was unavoidable once he obtained and decided to use Geass in such a way that he did. Other heroes in other animes are gifted with other abilities & traits that allow them to avoid evil, however, Lelouch was given Geass & a power that is fundamentally evil as it forces people to succumb to his will. He could have easily enslaved the world, commanding everyone he see's to serve him. Instead he chose to use his evil as justly as he could. And in the end destroyed the world, bearing all it's hatred, and created it anew with no acknowledgment. Evil prevailed but was manipulated to destroy a greater evil & be destroyed itself.

2010-06-13, 15:55	Link #7230
Kittenlady Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: UK Age: 31	^ Jeremiah, Lloyd and Cecile were definitely in on it, if the second to last picture drama is anything to go by, and Sayoko and Nina probably were too. And possibly Anya. And Milly and Rivalz were told in my headcanon. Personally, I always took his "evil vs evil" speech to mean that when taking on an enemy like Britannia, you'll have to lower your morals if you want to win, which also goes along with his 'ends justify the means' view. I tend to agree, since I can't quite see Britannia reacting positively to peaceful protest.

2010-06-13, 16:03	Link #7231
Chupps Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: UK Age: 32	Ah yes i'm sure they were included in the events otherwise the 'assassination' wouldn't have gone so smoothly. I'm not aware of anything linking Anya, Milly or Rivalz to the plan.

2010-06-13, 17:16	Link #7233
Xander Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008	I'm not going to debate this all day, even if I wanted to, so let's cut straight to the point. This show and its protagonist are intentionally meant to be morally ambiguous. Look, this isn't trying to be a straightforward story where pure "good" triumphs over "evil" or where pure "evil" triumphs over "good"....such descriptions are disingenuous. There's no real use in trying to paint a simplistic black and white picture when so much of it is made of varying shades of gray. The entire premise is built on the fact that an ostensibly "good" man is willing to engage in "evil" acts for the sake of achieving a greater "good" and defeating a greater "evil"...no matter the costs for himself or for those surrounding him. Lelouch's personal sense of morality is what makes him feel guilty about taking the "path of carnage" but it's also what motivates him to go further...even if that leads him to damnation. In hindsight, Lelouch himself admits this more than he actually gloats or boasts about anything. There's even an undercurrent of fatalism about where this will lead him. That was established many, many times during both seasons long before Zero Requiem ever came into being. The ultimate resolution of Lelouch's inner conflict wasn't to embrace "evil" without any moral concerns. No, the outcome was to remove himself from the world -an act that is mandated by his personal morality and consistent with his beliefs - but only after fulfilling his objective. To put it another way, Lelouch recognized that he was unworthy of the world he was trying to create. Arguing that "evil" prevailed seems to be missing the point. Lelouch's goal was never to become a model of virtue or to reform humanity by example, it was to change the existing status quo through the use of force. And that's what he did. "Good" and "evil" will continue to exist in the "new" world, naturally, but I would say that neither of them "triumphed" in the grand scheme of things nor in the strictest possible sense. If anything, I'd rather speak of a bloody tie. While everyone is free to think differently, discussing the morality of specific acts without enough context leads nowhere.

2010-06-13, 17:24	Link #7234
Kittenlady Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: UK Age: 31	^ Seconded! People should stop trying to make it all so black and white, when the show itself was very very grey. I think Anya was told because it'd seem strange for her to cooperate with the most evil emperor ever's last command otherwise, or his loyal knight. And Milly and Rivalz (and kallen though she worked it out herself) purely because it'd be fucking depressing if the only freind that knew was Nina, of all people.

2010-06-13, 17:38	Link #7235
Chupps Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: UK Age: 32	Agreed. I've always seen it as grey, good intentions soaked in evil deeds. A variable mixture of white & black throughout the series. I think Anya just stayed loyal to Orange, but i can imagine how her being clued in wouldn't be a problem at all. I can see your point, seemed like he wanted less of his close friends knowing as possible though. They might have tried to intervene, certainly Kallen would have. I don't think Rivalz or Milly worked it out because they didn't know about Zero being Lelouch so only saw him get power hungry & die in the end. It is pretty depressing that only Nina was clued in out of all his Ashford friends... They were hardly close at all, pretty much enemies due to the Euphie incident.

2010-06-13, 21:00	Link #7238
azul120 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008	His pride could also be himself unwilling to accept any other solution exactly because he no longer wanted to live. It occurred to me that I'd have a whole lot of questioning to do if I were to bring it up to the creators.

2010-06-13, 21:32	Link #7240
azul120 Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008	That flashback was invoked only because he was going to die. He had always consigned himself to the possibility, but didn't accept it as a sure thing... until he wanted to die following the Black Knights betrayal. Besides, the fact that other characters with blood on their hands got off scot-free in the end kills that aesop.