Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood - Episode 54 Discussion/Poll

[lonewolf777]

Originally Posted by Slave0fLife

I have got to say, I think this is a very entertaining discussion.

Reading the posts, I was wondering what peoples ideas on Kenshin Himura, from the Rurouni Kenshin story, in comparison to Roy. Would making a comparison be off-topic?
Kenshin also slaughtered many people, for the sake of a new Era, and later on kept living. In the Enishi parts, he says that, although he has wronged many times, he can't die yet since he can do good to others; his life is not his anymore, and untill he is unable to make people smile anymore, he will still fight against death and for others.

I would say Kenshin is quite a bit different. First and foremost, when Kenshin was younger and more naive, he sincerely believe that what he was doing was the right thing. It wasn't until he realized the extent to which neither of the two sides were right or wrong that he began to realize the extent of his remorse. Mustang, on the other hand, had a clear idea that torching civilians who didn't do anything was wrong from the very beginning. Also, Kenshin was a soldier in an army fighting another army. Mustang was a cavalry unit for an army being used against a civilian population. What Kenshin did was fight in battles against armed opponents (with the exception of the political assassinations he carried out earlier); what Mustang did was genocide.

[Slave0fLife]

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

I would say Kenshin is quite a bit different. First and foremost, when Kenshin was younger and more naive, he sincerely believe that what he was doing was the right thing. It wasn't until he realized the extent to which neither of the two sides were right or wrong that he began to realize the extent of his remorse. Mustang, on the other hand, had a clear idea that torching civilians who didn't do anything was wrong from the very beginning. Also, Kenshin was a soldier in an army fighting another army. Mustang was a cavalry unit for an army being used against a civilian population. What Kenshin did was fight in battles against armed opponents (with the exception of the political assassinations he carried out earlier); what Mustang did was genocide.

But Kenshin, in the middle of the revolution, thought that killing people was wrong, but continued doing whatever he was ordered to do (didn't matter who he killed, age/sex/beliefs - at least from what I gather from the OVAs) by the people he believed were deserving of obtaining power. Roy thought, from the beginning (at least it was my understanding), that what he was doing was wrong, but continued so he could also put who he believed was righteous at the top, so he could change the way things were. The difference here would be that Roy decided he was the best option to rule, and Kenshin just helped lead the way. The "after" of Roy is uncertain, but what if he did what Kenshin did?

I guess I would like to know if people who condemn Roy, forgive Kenshin.

[Kirarakim]

Yes Roy knew what he was doing was wrong but he was following orders. Roy decided not to run away because he wanted to change the country for the better and he could not do that if he could not rise to the top. So yes you could argue that Roy's rise to the top was tainted but you can also argue that he was being realistic about the situation.

Roy could not stop the Ishval war. If he pulled an Armstrong and ran away the Ishval extermination campaign would have happened anyways and Roy's ambitions would have been for naught.

So I guess the argument is in this case "does the end justify the means"? It's true that Roy can never bring back the Ishvalans he killed so maybe what he did can never be justified. But I guess he felt that if he didn't bloody his hands during Ishval he could never set things right in the future & actually prevent these type of things from happening again.

[lonewolf777]

Originally Posted by Slave0fLife

But Kenshin, in the middle of the revolution, thought that killing people was wrong, but continued doing whatever he was ordered to do (didn't matter who he killed, age/sex/beliefs - at least from what I gather from the OVAs) by the people he believed were deserving of obtaining power. Roy thought, from the beginning (at least it was my understanding), that what he was doing was wrong, but continued so he could also put who he believed was righteous at the top, so he could change the way things were. The difference here would be that Roy decided he was the best option to rule, and Kenshin just helped lead the way. The "after" of Roy is uncertain, but what if he did what Kenshin did?

I guess I would like to know if people who condemn Roy, forgive Kenshin.

Actually, I think they were very different.

Kenshin fought for what he believed in until he realized it was wrong - he continued doing so because, as he stated 'if I stopped now, it would make the people I've killed up to this point meaningless.' Kind of flawed logic, but I guess he meant if he was going to fight in that war, he would see it through to the end for better or worse, because only fighting halfway through it would mean having killed for no reason, whereas fighting to the end would mean killing for the end result. I don't completely agree, but he, at least initially, was well-intentioned.

Mustang knew Ishval was wrong from the very beginning. Then, for his own ambitions, decided to stay there. If he quit like Armstrong, he would never have been promoted. Apparently, him being Fuhrer was worth the blood of innocents. Kind of hard to relate to an ideology like that.

Originally Posted by Kirarakim

Yes Roy knew what he was doing was wrong but he was following orders. Roy decided not to run away because he wanted to change the country for the better and he could not do that if he could not rise to the top. So yes you could argue that Roy's rise to the top was tainted but you can also argue that he was being realistic about the situation.

Roy could not stop the Ishval war. If he pulled an Armstrong and ran away the Ishval extermination campaign would have happened anyways and Roy's ambitions would have been for naught.

So I guess the argument is in this case "does the end justify the means"? It's true that Roy can never bring back the Ishvalans he killed so maybe what he did can never be justified. But I guess he felt that if he didn't bloody his hands during Ishval he could never set things right in the future & actually prevent these type of things from happening again.

Certainly, but if Roy is a realist, then by necessity he is also immoral. And that is the debate at hand here. The fact that he put his ambition above the blood of innocent people is detestable, regardless of the envisioned end result of that ambition. It's a matter of opinion; imho, I don't think his staying in Ishval and continuing an unjust genocide for the possibility of advancing his political career, thereby 'guaranteeing' another Ishval wouldn't happen justifies anything. If anything, in fact, I think that it shows more hypocrisy and selfishness than anything.
I see the train of thought as follows:

Killing innocent people is wrong, but -----> if I keep doing it, I can called a hero -----> and if I'm called a hero ------> I can possibly become Fuhrer ------> and if I can become Fuhrer ------> I can stop (the) killing (of) innocent people.
.
.
.
Err....... you killed innocent people so you can stop killing innocent people?

[Darklord_bg]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

I'm not saying Mustang is the moral equivelant of the homonculi, or Kimblee. But I just don't see any way I can think of him as good. If anything, he's a necessary evil - a guy who's taken it on himself to do the dirty work, sometimes for good ends and sometimes not.

Yes, he's willing to do the dirty work. He supposedly torched an innocent woman in order to save her. He kidnapped Bradley's wife and by doing this he also saved her. He's willingly playing the part of the villain in order to do what is right. Yes, someone has to do the dirty work and be sometimes hated because of it. Doesn't that make him even more admirable? For me what he's doing is far more noble than someone who just keeps their hands clean and does nothing.

Also, you said "sometimes for good ends and sometimes not" - what exactly are you referring to by "sometimes not"? Can you think of an example after Ishval when he did something for "bad ends"? I cannot.

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

He's loyal, corageous and smart - but hasn't shown that he can truly differentiate right from wrong when the chips are down. The ends don't always justify the means, and I can't accept the goodness of a man who believes they do.

I disagree here - he has shown that he can differentiate between right and wrong. Even back in Ishval he knew what he was doing was wrong. Again, I'm not trying to absolve him of his sins, but back then he was young and naive. He could not figure out a way of this complicated situation he was in - all he could do is try to save the lives of his own soldiers - and he did. If he couldn't tell right from wrong, why would he feel bad about murdering Ishvalians?

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

That's a fundamental conflict here - Ed and especially Al have learned the hard way the wrongness of that belief, and they've tried to live their lives on a path directed by doing the right thing rather than the expedient thing. Think about it - Al continues to inhabit a suit of armor rather than attempt to restore himself using a philosopher's stone. Surely the restoration of his body is a good end, isn't it? Yet, they choose to pursue a much harder path. This is the core of the story - equivelant exchange doesn't just exist in alchemy, it exists in life. For Mustang, living the life of "achieve the ends at all costs" has demanded an equivelant exchange - the taint on his soul that can never be cleansed.

Ed (and to a lesser extend - Al) and Roy are actually pretty similar. They both did something very wrong in the past (human transmutation, genocide) and now they are trying to set things right. They both have to make some tough choices along the way and I can say they are doing a good job. IF you are trying to tell me that Ed is taking "the high road" while Mustang is taking the easy way out, I couldn't disagree with you more. Mustang goes out of his way to save his comrades (e.g. Maria Ross) and jeopardizes his position in the military and his own life in order to do the right thing. I don't see this "ends justify the means" philosophy - what bad means has he used?

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

Respectfully, I certainly haven't forgotten. I understand your point, but as a student of history I can't help but see the irony of it. "I don't want power for myself - once my new country is established, I will gladly hand over power to another." But somehow, though that line has been used countless times, it usually doesn't work that way. The thought process is easy enough to imagine - "Hmmm. There doesn't seem to be anyone else to unite the country. No one else can rule it as effectively, and do as much good, as I can. The people have rallied around me, the hero of the revolution - who else can they unite behind? Maybe I'll accept power - just for a little while, until I can groom someone else to replace me. It's what the people want, after all. And I'll only use that power for good..."

You paint a convincing picture, but you can't judge a person on what he might do in the future just because others in his position have done it in the past. You are effectively condemning him of something he hasn't done.

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

Yet though clearly Scar has commited many horrendous acts at least he has, in many ways, accepted and begun to atone for his sins much more than Mustang has. Roy is living in denial - using his quest to remake the country as a way to deflect the past. In terms of forgiveness, Scar again provides a good illustration - both in terms of himself and others. He abandoned his path of revenge when it became clear that it would lead the world to a bad end, and joined forces with the ones who ravished his country. And Scar was forgiven by Ed, Al and even Winry - whose parents he killed - because it was clear that it was the act of forgiveness, not revenge, that offers a hopeful path both for themselves and the world.

I fail to see how Scar is more worthy of redemption than Mustang when Mustang has done so much work trying to remedy the situation in Ishbal the best way he could.

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

In a sense this could be portrayed as a battle of altrusim vs. practicality, though I think that's too simple a view. My biggest gripe with Roy in the end, other than his ruthlessness, is that he's a hyprocrite. He seeks to judge others ("Sentence: Death!") while escaping judgment himself. I admire him in many ways - his fierce loyalty, his cunning, his resilience in the face of much despair. But I'm disgusted by him too - when he was torching Envy it wasn't just the act of a wounded friend - he was clearly enjoying it. So you'll forgive me if I'm suspicious of the piety of his motives as he brutally eliminates rivals and gathers power to himself. And my skepticism of the idea that, once he has that power, he'll willingly surrender it to others and allow himself to be judged for his sins. That's the sort of promise that usually doesn't get kept, if history is any judge.

How the hell is he a hypocrite? He is willing to face judgment for his crimes after he abolishes the militaristic state. He is exacting judgment on the criminals who instigated the whole war. Yes, he was enjoying torturing Envy, but that was only because Envy killed Hughes. He was consumed by hatred and revenge. He is human after all for crying out loud. You are willing to forgive Scar for killing state alchemists but you are not forgiving Mustang for almost killing a criminal monstrosity. I mean...really...I think you could have only reached this conclusion if you are deeply prejudiced about Roy. In the end, Mustang realized what he was doing with Envy was wrong. It doesn't matter that he couldn't reach the conclusion by himself - and he needed his friends to set him straight. It doesn't matter one bit - because, that's what friends are for - to set you on the straight path when you are wrong.

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Mustang knew Ishval was wrong from the very beginning. Then, for his own ambitions, decided to stay there. If he quit like Armstrong, he would never have been promoted. Apparently, him being Fuhrer was worth the blood of innocents. Kind of hard to relate to an ideology like that.

Why? It's pretty easy to relate? Hard to follow (I would never do it) but easy to understand. If King Bradley remains Fuhrer genocides like the one from Ishbal will keep happening. Someone else has to reach the position of Fuhrer in order to stop that from happening. So Mustang could either take on the job or find somebody else to do it...and he felt that since he clearly did wrong in Ishbal - he had to take responsibility by striving to the Fuhrer position and remaking the government. Think about it - his ambition to become Fuhrer has very little personal benefit for him. It carries great risks to him and his subordinates. If he ever manages to achieve it, he is willing to give up all the power and face trial.

Do you really think it would be better if he just quit like Amrstrong and never did anything about it? Would someone else challenge Bradley? Would they be able to pull it off?

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Mustang knew Ishval was wrong from the very beginning. Then, for his own ambitions, decided to stay there. If he quit like Armstrong, he would never have been promoted. Apparently, him being Fuhrer was worth the blood of innocents. Kind of hard to relate to an ideology like that.

Actually even Armstrong came to the conclusion that "running away" from Ishval did absolutely nothing. Did running away prevent anyone from being killed? It didn't. The extermination campaign happened anyways.

Mustang also came to the conclusion that if he ran away from the battle and does not do what is ordered of him the only thing that would happen is Mustang's own hands would be clean. However the Ishvalans would still have been slaughtered. There are others who would have taken Roy's place.

Killing innocent people is wrong, but -----> if I keep doing it, I can called a hero -----> and if I'm called a hero ------> I can possibly become Fuhrer ------> and if I can become Fuhrer ------> I can stop (the) killing (of) innocent people.
.
.
.
Err....... you killed innocent people so you can stop killing innocent people?

Actually Roy's logic is not flawed at all. Roy's logic is that only from the top can he stop the bad things from happening in this country. From the bottom Roy can do absolutely nothing. During the Ishval war Roy was near the bottom of the chain. You are right he could have decided to walk away from Ishval and not kill any innocent people.

However, if he had made that decision those innocent people would still have been killed by others and according to Roy's logic Amestris would have stayed rotten. So basically by not taking part in Ishval, Roy would have accomplished absolutely nothing. He would not have prevented the tragedy of Ishval or later tragedies either.

Yes Roy does know to reach his ambitions he had to do something immoral that is why he decided to rise to the top with idea that once he changed the country into a democracy he will be executed for his war crimes in Ishval. So Roy is fully aware what he did was wrong and he has no qualms with paying the price in the end for his crimes.


Now as I said in an earlier post I don't think he will pay the ultimate price in the end but I also do not think he will end up ruling the country. But that's obviously for a future discussion since I am only theorizing.

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

In a sense this could be portrayed as a battle of altrusim vs. practicality, though I think that's too simple a view. My biggest gripe with Roy in the end, other than his ruthlessness, is that he's a hyprocrite. He seeks to judge others ("Sentence: Death!") while escaping judgment himself. I admire him in many ways - his fierce loyalty, his cunning, his resilience in the face of much despair. But I'm disgusted by him too - when he was torching Envy it wasn't just the act of a wounded friend - he was clearly enjoying it. So you'll forgive me if I'm suspicious of the piety of his motives as he brutally eliminates rivals and gathers power to himself. And my skepticism of the idea that, once he has that power, he'll willingly surrender it to others and allow himself to be judged for his sins. That's the sort of promise that usually doesn't get kept, if history is any judge.

There was one moment in the show where Riza came to be recruited in Mustang's group (episode 30 of the anime I believe) and he gave her permission that the moment he strays away from what set out to do after the war. And we see that Riza was perfectly willing to shoot Roy the moment he would've done so in this episode.

I know that episode 30 (Vol. 15) while is the one that shows the horrendous acts of the Ishbal War and it is the root of many peoples dislike of Roy for the things he has done in it, but there were many moments in there that made me respect the guy regardless. From the start, we see him confronting his master about why he joined the military and how he believed he would make his country better for his fellow man. And even during the War with his talk with Kimblee, or at the end where he branded himself a failure or how he wanted to claim the position at the top to change the whole structure of the country, and even when he told Riza to shoot him in the back if he ever went back on his word. His thoughts/speech to Huges & Riza about how he wants all of them to live and work with him to change the nation together and make sure such conflicts never happen again in the future.

Now that doesn't make what he has done right. But it does show that, unlike the dictators you listed who had in there manifestos and tag lines things such as genocide and were by nature megalomaniacs, Roy has taken upon himself to follow down this path to fix things in the country, and even in case he abandons that dream, that he will face repercussions for that. Sure, you can think of it as him eluding any serious attempts to redeem his crimes, but I genuinely think that he does in fact see something wrong and wants to fix it.

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

And Scar was forgiven by Ed, Al and even Winry - whose parents he killed - because it was clear that it was the act of forgiveness, not revenge, that offers a hopeful path both for themselves and the world.

They didn't forgive him. They came to terms with him and stopped seeking revenge from him (and thus he remembered his master's(?) old teachings about forgiveness and endurance in the world, as he put it, they are two different things and people should endure in order to break the chain of hatred and all that).

Originally Posted by Slave0fLife

I have got to say, I think this is a very entertaining discussion.

Indeed. I just wish I had more time to participate more in the overall discussion

Originally Posted by Slave0fLife

Reading the posts, I was wondering what peoples ideas on Kenshin Himura, from the Rurouni Kenshin story, in comparison to Roy. Would making a comparison be off-topic?
Kenshin also slaughtered many people, for the sake of a new Era, and later on kept living. In the Enishi parts, he says that, although he has wronged many times, he can't die yet since he can do good to others; his life is not his anymore, and untill he is unable to make people smile anymore, he will still fight against death and for others.

I think it should be fine if we keep it to just comparison without going into too much detail about Rurouni Kenshin.


It has been a while since I last read it, but from what I recall, Kenshin had the same goal in mind when he went into the army: helping his country. The end result, however, ended up being different. Kenshin became very scarred from his experience and swore to never kill again by becoming a rounin and in the end realised the importance of human life and all, while Roy shifted his dreams into becoming Führer to help insure that nothing like Ishbal happens again. I can't discuss fully Kenshin's decision to do so because I can't remember the details now (I think he was offred a job at the new government but refused, so that makes him less like Roy)

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

I would say Kenshin is quite a bit different. First and foremost, when Kenshin was younger and more naive, he sincerely believe that what he was doing was the right thing. It wasn't until he realized the extent to which neither of the two sides were right or wrong that he began to realize the extent of his remorse. Mustang, on the other hand, had a clear idea that torching civilians who didn't do anything was wrong from the very beginning. Also, Kenshin was a soldier in an army fighting another army. Mustang was a cavalry unit for an army being used against a civilian population. What Kenshin did was fight in battles against armed opponents (with the exception of the political assassinations he carried out earlier); what Mustang did was genocide.

You are comparing different stages here. Both of Roy and Kenshin entered the army thinking that they were both helping their country. Also, what exactly made it okay for Kenshin to kill his fellow man? His side wasn't exactly shining white if I remember correctly.

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Kenshin fought for what he believed in until he realized it was wrong - he continued doing so because, as he stated 'if I stopped now, it would make the people I've killed up to this point meaningless.' Kind of flawed logic, but I guess he meant if he was going to fight in that war, he would see it through to the end for better or worse, because only fighting halfway through it would mean having killed for no reason, whereas fighting to the end would mean killing for the end result. I don't completely agree, but he, at least initially, was well-intentioned.

Funny enough, I gathered as much from his talk with Kimblee that this was also the case with Roy

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Mustang knew Ishval was wrong from the very beginning. Then, for his own ambitions, decided to stay there. If he quit like Armstrong, he would never have been promoted. Apparently, him being Fuhrer was worth the blood of innocents. Kind of hard to relate to an ideology like that.

No he didn't. He only began to suspect that something was wrong when he met Huges again in the battlefield, and it was from that moment that he began to want to change the government.

[lonewolf777]

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

I fail to see how Scar is more worthy of redemption than Mustang when Mustang has done so much work trying to remedy the situation in Ishbal the best way he could.

Scar killed less innocent people than Mustang. He only intentionally killed military personnel; Mustang, as we all know, killed people who had no weapons, including women and children. And Scar was provoked into doing it. Even if his logic wasn't completely correct, he had a much more valid justification for his vendetta than Mustang's killings. Mustang did it cuz someone told him to.

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

Why? It's pretty easy to relate? Hard to follow (I would never do it) but easy to understand. If King Bradley remains Fuhrer genocides like the one from Ishbal will keep happening. Someone else has to reach the position of Fuhrer in order to stop that from happening. So Mustang could either take on the job or find somebody else to do it...and he felt that since he clearly did wrong in Ishbal - he had to take responsibility by striving to the Fuhrer position and remaking the government. Think about it - his ambition to become Fuhrer has very little personal benefit for him. It carries great risks to him and his subordinates. If he ever manages to achieve it, he is willing to give up all the power and face trial.

Hard to relate to because it involves murdering innocents. Regardless of the end, I don't think anything justifies that. Especially not when that end is political power.

Let's be frank here. Mustang murdered a bunch of people. Then, because he thinks it's wrong, he deems himself a worthy successor to set everything right. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit arrogant? How is it that a morally compromised man like Mustang has the moral standing to judge who should and shouldn't lead the country to be more moral? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

Do you really think it would be better if he just quit like Amrstrong and never did anything about it? Would someone else challenge Bradley? Would they be able to pull it off?

Yes, I do. Because if a man kills innocent people and compromises his morals for political reasons, I wouldn't want him to lead my country, regardless of how grand his intentions seemed.

Originally Posted by Arabesque

No he didn't. He only began to suspect that something was wrong when he met Huges again in the battlefield, and it was from that moment that he began to want to change the government.

If that's what it took for him to realize that killing a civilian population for an unknown reason was wrong, then I don't see how he can even be mentioned in the same breath as Kenshin, who as a 15-year old boy, came to that realization alone.

[Darklord_bg]

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Scar killed less innocent people than Mustang. He only intentionally killed military personnel; Mustang, as we all know, killed people who had no weapons, including women and children. And Scar was provoked into doing it. Even if his logic wasn't completely correct, he had a much more valid justification for his vendetta than Mustang's killings. Mustang did it cuz someone told him to.

Less innocent? You are either guilty or innocent of something - not more or less innocent. For all we know Scar went on a murderous rampage killing military officials and state alchemists sometimes without knowing how guilty they were at all.

Scar killed people in order to satisfy his lust for revenge.

Mustang killed people in order to protect his soldiers.

See, I can also spin it like that!

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Hard to relate to because it involves murdering innocents. Regardless of the end, I don't think anything justifies that. Especially not when that end is political power.

Let's be frank here. Mustang murdered a bunch of people. Then, because he thinks it's wrong, he deems himself a worthy successor to set everything right. Doesn't that strike you as a little bit arrogant? How is it that a morally compromised man like Mustang has the moral standing to judge who should and shouldn't lead the country to be more moral? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Mustang is fit to lead the country because he knows best of the atrocities committed in the war and he will make sure something like that never happens again (he might not succeed but he certainly will give his all). He is also suitable because he is willing to give up the power he attains. It's not arrogance - it's called taking responsibility?

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Yes, I do. Because if a man kills innocent people and compromises his morals for political reasons, I wouldn't want him to lead my country, regardless of how grand his intentions seemed.

Then you would rather do nothing...

Some people before me have already pointed out that Mustang quitting would change nothing - the Ishvalians would get massacred anyway. He did not have the power to stop it then. He has it now (or at least he is close to it).

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Scar killed less innocent people than Mustang. He only intentionally killed military personnel; Mustang, as we all know, killed people who had no weapons, including women and children. And Scar was provoked into doing it. Even if his logic wasn't completely correct, he had a much more valid justification for his vendetta than Mustang's killings. Mustang did it cuz someone told him to.

So when he tried to kill Ed, that was justified? Even though he had nothing to do with the War? So he can kill anyone related to the military and it would be just as valid?

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

If that's what it took for him to realize that killing a civilian population for an unknown reason was wrong, then I don't see how he can even be mentioned in the same breath as Kenshin, who as a 15-year old boy, came to that realization alone.

Uh, Kenshin began his idea about ''never killing again'' when the new era comes after losing a certain individual, before that he was apathetic to the whole killing thing. to him it was like any other night. I think you are placing him a bit too high on that pedestal. He is really no better or worse than Roy in what he had done and what he wanted to do to redeem his acts.

[lonewolf777]

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

Less innocent? You are either guilty or innocent of something - not more or less innocent. For all we know Scar went on a murderous rampage killing military officials and state alchemists sometimes without knowing how guilty they were at all.

Certainly. But not all crimes are equal, so you can be more or less innocent. A serial murderer, for example, is more guilty than a shoplifter, even though both are at fautl. As I said in that post and in previous posts, Scar's scope for this vendetta was flawed, but I agree with the basic gist of it. I think that he had the right to kill anyone involved in the genocide of his people, but not others (like Ed and all State Alchemists, regardless of involvement, and random military personnel).

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

Scar killed people in order to satisfy his lust for revenge.

Mustang killed people in order to protect his soldiers.

See, I can also spin it like that!

You sure can. But even in that case, I think Scar is more justified than Mustang. Reason being, Scar has a right to his revenge, in my opinion, but Mustang has no right to kill anyone.

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

Mustang is fit to lead the country because he knows best of the atrocities committed in the war and he will make sure something like that never happens again (he might not succeed but he certainly will give his all). He is also suitable because he is willing to give up the power he attains. It's not arrogance - it's called taking responsibility?

Taking responsibility would be apologizing to the Ishvalans, doing something for them to show remorse, refusing to murder innocents, etc., not deeming oneself morally worthy of just and peaceful rule after having committed genocide, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

Then you would rather do nothing...

Some people before me have already pointed out that Mustang quitting would change nothing - the Ishvalians would get massacred anyway. He did not have the power to stop it then. He has it now (or at least he is close to it).

No, actually, though this is a hypothetical situation, I would rather a person who was in higher moral standing than a war criminal do something. A coup d'etat isn't the only type of revolution. Just cuz someone who ran away from Ishval wouldn't have the political clout to make the right thing happen, doesn't mean nobody else could. Hell, I think the Ishvalans deserve to rule more than the Amestrians. If you really want peace, who was more peaceful than the Ishvalans before the Amestrians started a war on them?

Originally Posted by Arabesque

Uh, Kenshin began his idea about ''never killing again'' when the new era comes after losing a certain individual, before that he was apathetic to the whole killing thing. to him it was like any other night. I think you are placing him a bit too high on that pedestal. He is really no better or worse than Roy in what he had done and what he wanted to do to redeem his acts.

Well, it seemed like that in the anime OVA, although even then, it wasn't the case. In the OVA, he was visibly shook by everything he was doing, though he was so stoic, you couldn't tell if he was being cold or depressed, and even Katsura commented on how he could tell the boy was being eaten up inside. However, in the manga, it's even more evident; there, even when he was hitokiri, his personality was much like that of the Rurouni in the animated series; kind, slightly goofy, somewhat reserved - however, he was killing at the same time. In that context, it was much easier to see and realize the pain he was going through and the remorse he felt. It wasn't until Tomoe died that he found his answer, but he knew it was wrong fairly quickly.

Originally Posted by Arabesque

So when he tried to kill Ed, that was justified? Even though he had nothing to do with the War? So he can kill anyone related to the military and it would be just as valid?

Actually, I didn't give Scar a 100% free pass; I said his vendetta was 100% justified, but not everyone he took it out on deserved it. See above.

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

Less innocent? You are either guilty or innocent of something - not more or less innocent. For all we know Scar went on a murderous rampage killing military officials and state alchemists sometimes without knowing how guilty they were at all.

Scar killed people in order to satisfy his lust for revenge.

Mustang killed people in order to protect his soldiers.

See, I can also spin it like that!

And let's not forget that while he didn't kill Ed (circumstances prevented it) Scar had been willing to kill a 15 year old boy just because he was a state alchemist (even though Ed had nothing to do with the Ishval campaign). I would say that is taking your revenge too far.

Also while Scar targeted State Alchemists he had no qualms of killing someone who got in the way of his revenge.

[Darklord_bg]

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Certainly. But not all crimes are equal, so you can be more or less innocent. A serial murderer, for example, is more guilty than a shoplifter, even though both are at fautl. As I said in that post and in previous posts, Scar's scope for this vendetta was flawed, but I agree with the basic gist of it. I think that he had the right to kill anyone involved in the genocide of his people, but not others (like Ed and all State Alchemists, regardless of involvement, and random military personnel).



You sure can. But even in that case, I think Scar is more justified than Mustang. Reason being, Scar has a right to his revenge, in my opinion, but Mustang has no right to kill anyone.

As far as I know in any civilized country revenge killing is always condemned as a crime. Scar's vendetta while clearly justified (I can understand how he feels) isn't morally correct at all. Killing people in cold blood can never be morally right!

On the other hand, killing in self-defense is somewhat justified. It's true that Mustang did not only kill people who attacked him, but I certainly believe he had the right to protect his life and the lives of his soldiers.

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

Taking responsibility would be apologizing to the Ishvalans, doing something for them to show remorse, refusing to murder innocents, etc., not deeming oneself morally worthy of just and peaceful rule after having committed genocide, in my opinion.

What good will an apology do? Saying "I'm sorry I killed your people. I really did wrong. I promise not to do so in the future". Really, would it make you feel any better. No, what Amestris did is beyond any apology. An apology is good like when you hit someone or break something of theirs or something on that level. No, in order to take responsibility he has to do something way more radical - like uprooting the whole foundation of the system that caused the massacre to happen and then standing trial.

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

No, actually, though this is a hypothetical situation, I would rather a person who was in higher moral standing than a war criminal do something. A coup d'etat isn't the only type of revolution. Just cuz someone who ran away from Ishval wouldn't have the political clout to make the right thing happen, doesn't mean nobody else could. Hell, I think the Ishvalans deserve to rule more than the Amestrians. If you really want peace, who was more peaceful than the Ishvalans before the Amestrians started a war on them?

It's not hypothetical lat all - those Ishbalians would die, you can be pretty sure. Also, Mustang is doing what he is doing so that a morally right person will lead the country after he liberates it from King Bradley. You do bring an interesting point though - I'm curious to see how Ishbalians will be compensated after the coup is successful.

[Vicious108]

Wow again I don't really get the point of the discussion... >_> Do you have to see everything in black and white terms and are only capable of liking idealized and 'pure' heroes? Flawed ones who have dirtied their hands with blood for the sake of their goals are like, so much more interesting to read about.

[lonewolf777]

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

As far as I know in any civilized country revenge killing is always condemned as a crime. Scar's vendetta while clearly justified (I can understand how he feels) isn't morally correct at all. Killing people in cold blood can never be morally right!

It's a matter about which there is a vast debate (whether or not it's morally correct, that is). It's for that very reason you see some people for capital punishment and others against it. It's a matter of opinion, not a universally held maxim. As it happens, we had this discussion a few pages back in the thread.

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

On the other hand, killing in self-defense is somewhat justified. It's true that Mustang did not only kill people who attacked him, but I certainly believe he had the right to protect his life and the lives of his soldiers.

I agree to an extent. But putting Mustang in that category is like starting a fight, beating the hell out of the other person for fighting back, and then saying you were defending yourself. Mustang and the rest of Amestris had no place being there, so imho, regardless of their circumstances, they were all unjustified.

Let's flip the scripts. Any number of things are being put forth at Mustang's defense, such as his remorse and his alleged intentions to make things right for the future. Ok, then why isn't anyone holding that same standard for Scar? Putting aside who was more justified in the lives they took, both killed a bunch of people, both eventually came to the realization that it was wrong, and both are taking different methods to fix it. Why, then, is everyone talking about Scar like he was wrong back then and he's still wrong now, but Mustang is untouchable? Why isn't anybody applying that same level of understanding to Scar?

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

What good will an apology do? Saying "I'm sorry I killed your people. I really did wrong. I promise not to do so in the future". Really, would it make you feel any better. No, what Amestris did is beyond any apology. An apology is good like when you hit someone or break something of theirs or something on that level. No, in order to take responsibility he has to do something way more radical - like uprooting the whole foundation of the system that caused the massacre to happen and then standing trial.

You say that because you agree with Mustang. Personally, I still see flaw with a mass murderer being the source of any kind of moral authority.

Originally Posted by Darklord_bg

It's not hypothetical lat all - those Ishbalians would die, you can be pretty sure. Also, Mustang is doing what he is doing so that a morally right person will lead the country after he liberates it from King Bradley. You do bring an interesting point though - I'm curious to see how Ishbalians will be compensated after the coup is successful.

Lol. By hypothetical, I meant it's not a real life situation. But anyways, that logic sounds to me like you're saying 'well, they were gonna die anyway..... so it's not as bad if I'm involved.' The fact here is that we're analyzing Mustang's innocence/guilt/moral standard. The fact that he chose to be a part of that genocide to the level that he was, regardless of the eventual outcome, puts him on shaky ground morally, so I would shy away from any 'justice' that he would deem fair.

[Slave0fLife]

Originally Posted by lonewolf777

No, actually, though this is a hypothetical situation, I would rather a person who was in higher moral standing than a war criminal do something. A coup d'etat isn't the only type of revolution. Just cuz someone who ran away from Ishval wouldn't have the political clout to make the right thing happen, doesn't mean nobody else could. Hell, I think the Ishvalans deserve to rule more than the Amestrians. If you really want peace, who was more peaceful than the Ishvalans before the Amestrians started a war on them?

I left the whole paragraph, but the bold part is what I wanted to respond. I understand the problem that you are pointing out, as I also have thought about this many times (due to the fact that I lived in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil for a few years). If I understood correctly, the solution you are looking for is for someone who can change the ideals of most people in a military country, making them change their radical shoot-traitor-on-site ways, without hiding his/her intentions and ideals, and all this in a peaceful way. This would surely prevent him from being a hypocrite, I agree. But, you must see that this person, although I won't say impossible, is extremely unlikely to both exist and survive through his attempt to change the country. I think even if Jesus were to try and do something (I am not religious, just using the idea), he would be either locked up or shot dead for being crazy/traitor - and I don't mean only in FMA world.

If there is someone who can make a revolution like that, I truly respect him/her, because I can not see how to do that. BUT - and here is a second point I would like to make - I don't think that it is right to stand still and do nothing hoping that someone will do something. I believe this is what Mustang must have thought: "I may not be the perfect person, but someone has to try and make things better. If there is someone better, and I fail to stand down for whatever reason, my friends would surely make me see reason or knock me out."

[lonewolf777]

Originally Posted by Endless Twilight

Wow again I don't really get the point of the discussion... >_>

I would assume the point of the discussion is that a group of us find it interesting, and are, as such, discussing..... if you don't, there's no need for you to participate.

Originally Posted by Endless Twilight

Do you have to see everything in black and white terms and are only capable of liking idealized and 'pure' heroes? Flawed ones who have dirtied their hands with blood for the sake of their goals are like, so much more interesting to read about.

I assume this is directed at me. If that's the case, I reply as follows: I think you're misreading my points. I'm not completely disqualifying any good that Mustang did, nor am I completely disqualifying any bad that Scar did, etc. Rather, I look at things as a balance. In the case of Mustang, I think the murders he executed outweigh any ostensible good deeds he's put forth, and as such, I speak about him negatively. As for Scar, I didn't ignore the bad things he's done; I merely believe that he's more in the right than the wrong, so I speak about him as such. I made that very clear in each of my posts. Nobody during the course of this discussion said anything about the series not being interesting or anything negative at all, for that matter. I don't see why you think expressing opinions is equatable to complaining about the series.

Originally Posted by Slave0fLife

I left the whole paragraph, but the bold part is what I wanted to respond. I understand the problem that you are pointing out, as I also have thought about this many times (due to the fact that I lived in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil for a few years). If I understood correctly, the solution you are looking for is for someone who can change the ideals of most people in a military country, making them change their radical shoot-traitor-on-site ways, without hiding his/her intentions and ideals, and all this in a peaceful way. This would surely prevent him from being a hypocrite, I agree. But, you must see that this person, although I won't say impossible, is extremely unlikely to both exist and survive through his attempt to change the country. I think even if Jesus were to try and do something (I am not religious, just using the idea), he would be either locked up or shot dead for being crazy/traitor - and I don't mean only in FMA world.

If there is someone who can make a revolution like that, I truly respect him/her, because I can not see how to do that. BUT - and here is a second point I would like to make - I don't think that it is right to stand still and do nothing hoping that someone will do something. I believe this is what Mustang must have thought - I may not be the perfect person, but someone has to try and make things better. If there is someone better, and I fail to stand down for whatever reason, my friends would surely make me see reason or knock me out.

History is rife with examples of people similar to what you described (though it's not completely what I was going for, it's close enough). The problem is that the modern world is infinitely more cynical, self-serving, and apathetic to morality, so it seems impossible for us to believe that such a person can exist or such a thing can happen. Without going into too much more of a tangent, I actually believe it can and has, even in the last century, it's just been overshadowed by all the negative things we're all used to.

But actually, I don't necessarily mean someone who can do it peacefully. I don't think Bradley and the rest of those bastards deserve that. Rather, what I meant is someone who is strong physically, mentally, and morally - a strong leader who people can look up to who is also a person of good character. Mustang fits some of these criteria, but since he's a self-admitted war criminal, I wouldn't take him. I think Ed, if he were a little older and a little more willing to use violence on those who clearly deserve it, or someone like him, would be a closer example of what I was thinking of.

[GaimeGuy]

Originally Posted by Slave0fLife

I have got to say, I think this is a very entertaining discussion.

Reading the posts, I was wondering what peoples ideas on Kenshin Himura, from the Rurouni Kenshin story, in comparison to Roy. Would making a comparison be off-topic?
Kenshin also slaughtered many people, for the sake of a new Era, and later on kept living. In the Enishi parts, he says that, although he has wronged many times, he can't die yet since he can do good to others; his life is not his anymore, and untill he is unable to make people smile anymore, he will still fight against death and for others.

it's the same thing with roy now actually. everyone here seem to forget the 150 cenz promise he made w/ ed, and what the whole point of that exchange was

[Guardian Enzo]

Originally Posted by Slave0fLife

I have got to say, I think this is a very entertaining discussion.

Reading the posts, I was wondering what peoples ideas on Kenshin Himura, from the Rurouni Kenshin story, in comparison to Roy. Would making a comparison be off-topic?
Kenshin also slaughtered many people, for the sake of a new Era, and later on kept living. In the Enishi parts, he says that, although he has wronged many times, he can't die yet since he can do good to others; his life is not his anymore, and untill he is unable to make people smile anymore, he will still fight against death and for others.

I certainly think Kenshin is a valid character to bring into this discussion, though I consider his situation quite different. As to the question earlier raised, "Can anyone be truly forgiven for acts of great evil?" Kenshin is a great test case. He certainly hasn't forgiven himself, that's for sure. But Kenshin took responsibility for the evil of his actions in the best way he knew how - trying to undo as many wrongs as he could by living, rather than surrender his own life by way of atonement.

Kenshin is the mirror opposite of Roy, in many ways. Rather than fall on the "just following orders" defense, he accepted full moral responsibility for everything he did. Rather than seek power as a means of righting wrongs, he avoids power to the extent he can - trying to live as anonymously as possible, though of course he can't do that very often. And he abjectly refuses to take a life no matter the reason, believing that no matter how noble the end, it doesn't justify the means if that means killing.

[Kirarakim]

Originally Posted by Guardian Enzo

Kenshin is the mirror opposite of Roy, in many ways. Rather than fall on the "just following orders" defense, he accepted full moral responsibility for everything he did. Rather than seek power as a means of righting wrongs, he avoids power to the extent he can - trying to live as anonymously as possible, though of course he can't do that very often. And he abjectly refuses to take a life no matter the reason, believing that no matter how noble the end, it doesn't justify the means if that means killing.

There is a problem with this comparison. Roy is actually at the stage Kenshin was at during the war. Kenshin only put down his sword and swore to stop killing after the war was over. He came to this conclusion because of Tomoe but even after that still kept killing until the war was over (or at least close to over.)

After the war Kenshin only fought with the reversed blade sword and decided to work to fix the wrongs of his past and to fight to keep the peace the war he previously fought in created.

For Roy the war he is fighting for is Not over. Ishval was only the start of Roy's war. Roy is fighting to change the country. This is actually the same thing Kenshin was doing when he first decided to become an assassin.

So I think it is unfair for people to say Kenshin is so much more righteous because he stopped killing. He only did so when there was finally peace. As for Roy we still don't know what he is going to do when the war he has been fighting all this time is finally over.


And another thing Roy never justified what he did as "just following orders". He knows what he did was wrong just as much as Kenshin realized this. However, they both continued to do these things to change something.



edit: And to sum it up to show just how similar what Kenshin did to what Roy is doing now is:

Spoiler for Kenshin Vol. 21:

If I throw down my sword now, it will negate the meaning of all the lives I have taken. Until the new era comes where everyone will nurture the small happiness Tomoe taught. I will keep wielding my sword. But when the new era comes....I will never again kill

Roy is still fighting for that new era! What he will do when that era finally comes remains to be seen.