Code Geass - Spoilers & Speculation (ver 2 old)

[morbosfist]

His methods work just fine, he just has a bad habit of reaching out to people who get his ass caught.

Lelouch won't be caught by the silly grunts. It'll take the Emperor himself to bring Lelouch down a second time.

[Jestersage]

Originally Posted by morbosfist

His methods work just fine, he just has a bat habit of reaching out to people who get his ass caught.

Lelouch won't be caught by the silly grunts. It'll take the Emperor himself to bring Lelouch down a second time.

Or the other candidate for emperor... his brother.

[morbosfist]

That would work, too.

[Aquaman OS]

Originally Posted by KrimzonStriker

I hope he takes a good sized number of those damn traitors down with him... >_>

A mistake that will be rectified with new Tamaki skinned boots, Ougi's skewered heart served on a silver platter and a side serving of vintage Chiba and Todoue blood wine !!

And yet people used to love these characters. Christ why does everyone that dares defy Lelouch deserve death? He's not that great of a person. In fact he outright sucks lately. If anything this situation can finally smack him upside the head and get him to get his act together and become a leader that people can follow proudly, and not out of desperation, since as the last few eps have shown us, doesn't work very well.

[KrimzonStriker]

Originally Posted by Aquaman OS

And yet people used to love these characters. Christ why does everyone that dares defy Lelouch deserve death? He's not that great of a person. In fact he outright sucks lately. If anything this situation can finally smack him upside the head and get him to get his act together and become a leader that people can follow proudly, and not out of desperation, since as the last few eps have shown us, doesn't work very well.

Because he's the messiah!

And he does not suck lately, Turn 15 showed he has very strong fundementals and compassion. And I don't know, but them turning against him seems a little late in order for him to finally act like the leader they would want to follow seeing as how he'd have basically no one left to lead anyway

[Var]

Originally Posted by KrimzonStriker

Because he's the messiah!

And he does not suck lately, Turn 15 showed he has very strong fundementals and compassion. And I don't know, but them turning against him seems a little late in order for him to finally act like the leader they would want to follow seeing as how he'd have basically no one left to lead anyway

When your bridge is built of corpses, stopping one person from becomming another piece in the bridge is hardly significant.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Aquaman OS

And yet people used to love these characters. Christ why does everyone that dares defy Lelouch deserve death? He's not that great of a person. In fact he outright sucks lately. If anything this situation can finally smack him upside the head and get him to get his act together and become a leader that people can follow proudly, and not out of desperation, since as the last few eps have shown us, doesn't work very well.

It's not that they defied Lulu; it's that they acted against the interest of those people who counted on them to free Japan from Tyranny.

In essence, Lulu didn't need them anymore because the other countries he allied with can offer better men and women to work with. But Lulu kept the original BK because they followed him when he needed them, and he is returning the favor.

From speculation, it appears most of these former members are prepared to throw it all away and join up with Britannians for some stupid reason. Such people don't deserve pity; they are trash.

[JellyJelly]

nooo~ Not rolo, he's too... he's too much of an undeveloped character to die! they didn't give us enough of him! Before his death, i want him to do something meaningful that will make Lelouch realize how much he meant to him. .

[Aquaman OS]

He's basically played a bunch of dirty tricks with his Geass and passed them off as miracles. So far he's completely misunderstood Nunnally his so called most important person in the world, his methods of manipulation got a close friend killed, and he vented his rage by assaulting a bunch of noncombatants (the possible danger non withstanding they weren't acting against him then), and the faces in ep 15 outright told him he wasn't doing what he really wanted and his current victories were meaningless. He's no messiah. It's time for him to grow up.

[KrimzonStriker]

Originally Posted by Var

When your bridge is built of corpses, stopping one person from becomming another piece in the bridge is hardly significant.

Though it saving one person may not change the world, it means the world to that person that you save. Besides, he's not a total asshole, he has his principals and his beliefs, and its not like anything he did wasn't completely unjustifiable... >_>

Originally Posted by Aquaman OS

He's basically played a bunch of dirty tricks with his Geass and passed them off as miracles. So far he's completely misunderstood Nunnally his so called most important person in the world, his methods of manipulation got a close friend killed, and he vented his rage by assaulting a bunch of noncombatants (the possible danger non withstanding they weren't acting against him then), and the faces in ep 15 outright told him he wasn't doing what he really wanted and his current victories were meaningless. He's no messiah. It's time for him to grow up.

Hey, you tell me if you could pull off everything he even if you had Geass. Geass is only half of the formula at least.... and this is more then just about Nunnally now as Turn 7 demonstrated, he tried to keep her as safe as was possible, and the noncombatants were caring out pretty immoral experimentation if Rolo is anything to go by with a power that is a legitimate danger to the world. And as if the faces could know everything about him or who he truly is. Yes he's made mistakes, yes he's done questionable things, but can you suddenly condemn them as wrong. What should he have done in the end do you propose? He'll grow up in due time (or go further down the deep end) it just won't be with the Order, because they will face the consequence of awakening him.

[Var]

Originally Posted by KrimzonStriker

Though it saving one person may not change the world, it means the world to that person that you save. Besides, he's not a total asshole, he has his principals and his beliefs, and its not like anything he did wasn't completely unjustifiable... >_>

Philosophy? Interesting choice.

A single person on that bridge, even if you save them, is doomed to become a part of the bridge. It doesn't matter what you do with them, because they are already there and eventually they too will become another stepping stone. And who the hell cares about one person, when the world is at stake?

What he did may have been justifiable, but then, so were countless massacres in the past. So...

[KrimzonStriker]

Originally Posted by Var

Philosophy? Interesting choice.

A single person on that bridge, even if you save them, is doomed to become a part of the bridge. It doesn't matter what you do with them, because they are already there and eventually they too will become another stepping stone. And who the hell cares about one person, when the world is at stake?

What he did may have been justifiable, but then, so were countless massacres in the past. So...

Meh, I dabble

I believe nothing is determined as inevitable, just as nothing can be said that they must ultimately become a part of the bridge. At the same time, where does the world begin if not with the first person you save?

Well, give me some examples. Was this close to say the Serbian ethnic cleansing, the holocaust, Stalins paranoid purges all of a sudden? A massacre is still a massacre, but just as a butcher and a hero are interchangeable terms its simply a matter of ones own interpretation on whether it should become something praised or condemned. I lean toward the former, as something necessary to continue, convince me that I should put it as the latter.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Var

Philosophy? Interesting choice.

A single person on that bridge, even if you save them, is doomed to become a part of the bridge. It doesn't matter what you do with them, because they are already there and eventually they too will become another stepping stone. And who the hell cares about one person, when the world is at stake?

What he did may have been justifiable, but then, so were countless massacres in the past. So...

But then, your argument completely missed the point.

The BK started as a terrorist group. They had no morals to speak of before Zero showed up and set them straight. And now they are going to throw him out because he is supposedly immortal?

Those who are mutinying are dooming the chances of a free Japan. That's what they were fighting for, and now they have lost the plot. Those who lost the plot are fated to become terrorists again with no goal, like what they started out as.

[Var]

Originally Posted by KrimzonStriker

I believe nothing is determined as inevitable, just as nothing can be said that they must become a part of the bridge. At the same time, where does the world begin if not with the first person you save?

Death is inevitable. If you dabble in philosophy then you should know not you use those kinds of words.

If you paid attention to what I said, I was objectifying everything, therein the person is not important as an idea. They are no different from a pebble from the bridge that you decided not to kick.

If you wish to argue about where the world begins, for someone who built a bridge of corpses, the world began at themselves. Greed, desire, etc, all are where the world started.

Originally Posted by KrimzonStriker

Well, give me some examples. Was this close to say the Serbian ethnic cleansing, the holocaust, Stalins paranoid purges all of a sudden? A massacre is still a massacre, but just as a butcher and a hero are interchangeable terms its simply a matter of ones own interpretation on whether it should become something praised or condemned.

A hero is defined by the winning side. If Hitler had won World War II he'd have been the hero. If the USSR had won against Capitalism Stalin would have been a hero. Etc. A butcher and hero are distinguished only by who wins.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

But then, your argument completely missed the point.

The BK started as a terrorist group. They had no morals to speak of before Zero showed up and set them straight. And now they are going to throw him out because he is supposedly immortal?

Those who are mutinying are dooming the chances of a free Japan. That's what they were fighting for, and now they have lost the plot. Those who lost the plot are fated to become terrorists again with no goal, like what they started out as.

And you missed that that wasn't my point either. I'm not talking about the OoBK, I'm talking about Lelouch.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Var

A hero is defined by the winning side. If Hitler had won World War II he'd have been the hero. If the USSR had won against Capitalism Stalin would have been a hero. Etc. A butcher and hero are distinguished only by who wins.

Then those in BK who abandon Zero are butchers. Because they are more doomed than Rollo right now.

[Var]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Then those in BK who abandon Zero are butchers. Because they are more doomed than Rollo right now.

Again, I'm not talking about the OoBK, but yes, they are butchers.

[KrimzonStriker]

Originally Posted by Var

Death is inevitable. If you dabble in philosophy then you should know not you use those kinds of words.

If you paid attention to what I said, I was objectifying everything, therein the person is not important as an idea. They are no different from a pebble from the bridge that you decided not to kick.

If you wish to argue about where the world begins, for someone who built a bridge of corpses, the world began at themselves. Greed, desire, etc, all are where the world started.

I thought this was about building a bridge on corpses, not the concept of death itself. In this case, the builder is Lelouch, but why was it that you chose to infer that suddenly no matter what he did or who he saved they'd become a part of his bridge. I think you were the one who was a little confused about word selection here >_>

Where does an idea begin, how does it have concept if there is no one there to conceive? Does the tree make a sound when it falls if there is no one to listen? Bridges are built on the first pebble, each stone placed on from there is essential to the whole because they are the whole. It begins with the first act, continues with ones actions, every atrocity and every blessing and that is true of anything. How can one say that a certain action had no meaning if that is the case? All actions have meaning in the end, it is what enables the world to continue, for bridges to hold, or be torn down and built anew.

But those are subjective desires, if one sought to change can they not? Can not the meaning of the bridge of the materials that make it up not also take on new form? Greed, desire, etc make up only half of the equation to where the world started, there is also compassion, honor, etc. as well.

A hero is defined by the winning side. If Hitler had won World War II he'd have been the hero. If the USSR had won against Capitalism Stalin would have been a hero. Etc. A butcher and hero are distinguished only by who wins.

Victory comes with interpretation, the losing side would still demean it nonetheless. Its up to an individual take to really define what certain actions meant. The massacre was a massacre, cold, bloody cruel, against a complex concerning inhumane experimentation with one of the most dangerous powers in the world under the heel of a sworn enemy. Where's the right and where's the wrong? It's all there probably, and only judged based on ones own reasoning, but nonetheless it was there. Dose praise or condemnation suddenly change what happened in the massacre? It is what it is though in the end, and from there we push forward nonetheless no matter how we may feel about it, we have nothing else save continuing onward.

[Var]

Originally Posted by KrimzonStriker

I thought this was about building a bridge on corpses, not the concept of death itself. In this case, the builder is Lelouch, but why was it that you chose to infer that suddenly no matter what he did or who he saved they'd become a part of his bridge. I think you were the one who was a little confused about word selection here >_>

You completely missed. What is that you should not use words like 'nothing is inevitable' when something are clearly, inevitable.

Originally Posted by KrimzonStriker

Victory comes with interpretation, the losing side would still demean it nonetheless. Its up to an individual take to really define what certain actions meant. The massacre was a massacre, cold, bloody cruel, against a complex concerning inhumane experimentation with one of the most dangerous powers in the world under the heel of a sworn enemy. Where's the right and where's the wrong? It's all there probably, and only judged based on ones own reasoning, but nonetheless it was there. Dose praise or condemnation suddenly change what happened in the massacre? It is what it is though in the end, and from there we push forward nonetheless no matter how we may feel about it, we have nothing else save continuing onward.

You're being biased. If Britannia were to, say, win the war. Lelouch's actions would be that of a butcher. It doesn't matter who does what against who, evil is a subjective idea. I, for example, do not see Britannia as evil, or some dangerous power. No moreso than Lelouch and the Order.

All you did here was spout nonsense about right and wrong, it has nothing to do with what I said. I said that heroes are defined by who wins, and if Lelouch loses, so to does he lose the justification for his actions and becomes nothing more than a butcher. It doesn't matter if he butchered children, nuns, or Hitler's SA, if he loses, he is the 'bad guy', the butcher, or the unjustified.

[KrimzonStriker]

Originally Posted by Var

You completely missed. What is that you should not use words like 'nothing is inevitable' when something are clearly, inevitable.

I was talking about in terms of ones actions, and I thought this was about the bridge! I think you were the one who missed the point but whatever, let's just drop it <_<

You're being biased. If Britannia were to, say, win the war. Lelouch's actions would be that of a butcher. It doesn't matter who does what against who, evil is a subjective idea. I, for example, do not see Britannia as evil, or some dangerous power. No moreso than Lelouch and the Order.

All you did here was spout nonsense about right and wrong, it has nothing to do with what I said. I said that heroes are defined by who wins, and if Lelouch loses, so to does he lose the justification for his actions and becomes nothing more than a butcher. It doesn't matter if he butchered children, nuns, or Hitler's SA, if he loses, he is the 'bad guy', the butcher, or the unjustified.

On the contrary I'm being as objective as I possibly can. Did the Japanese suddenly slump into the dust and just give up after they lost, what of Lelouch after the failure of the first Black Rebellion. No matter what, victor, loser, whatever, the definition of subjective ideas continues to remain subjective, there is no definitive answer of interpretation despite whatever one does.

People still believed in him when he lost the first time, people still believe the actions they committed were suddenly just even after they lose, and they still strive within their confines to reemerge from it. Britannia is the most dominant power in the Code Geass World and yet people still condemn it. Being the victor defines nothing, its all subject to interpretation at one point of another, and nothing can be said to be justified and unjustified, its up to ones own individual judgment in the end and what that meant to them. Britannia's not evil as far as I can tell, arrogant, decadent, bloated, and domineering, but at the same time a major empire, a world developer, a leading force in scientific advancement neither is Lelouch's cold callous and ruthless streak, but possessing both compassion and vaules, win or lose it doesn't define them in the least. Being in charge does not suddenly make one right, having power is not equal to say what one defines as justice as Lelouch himself demonstrates.

Regardless, I contest that individual pieces can indeed have significant consequences, while at the same time seeking to dis-spell the notion of what I had believed you were labeling the actions Lelouch took as either insignificant or in the absolute negative.

Dear Lord, we're doing it again, let's just stop it on that note alright? >_>

[Freya]

Wow lol. So this is where everyone went on the forums. The episode threads died...so does the spoilers indicate anything of Cornelia?