Controversial Which antagonist would yall say was in the right?
- Thread starter Yoho
- Start date
I say Lucci and Garling.
It's a fact that there are always things you have to fight for,both in real life and fiction. But there are many characters in OP who are powerless,and believe that anything can be resolved through peaceful means,like Lhopper and Rebecca. Lolda always draws these characters crying rivers when other characters who have the power to fulfill their desires are doing whatever they want in front of them,thinking it's emotional,when in fact it's pathetic and annoying. This why Lucci is right about his belief that "weakness is a sin".
In OP,there are many characters who do nothing on screen other than be annoying,and who Lolda forces us to like through sob backstories. Examples are the dumpster of humanoid animals and the entire population of shitty country. Condom-boy's gang protects these characters,believing that their lives have some value,when the truth is that their lives are worth shit. This is why Garling is right about his belief that "Those who protect trash are less than trash.".
@Fuckthis3 @Gauntlet @NAMELESS @Yoho @ConquistadoR @Le Fishe D. Tomdou
@Moegara @RiShin @Etzel Andergast @Malakhith @Juanpiz @Urouge D. Rouge
@Yomi @Gaimon The Pirate
It's a fact that there are always things you have to fight for,both in real life and fiction. But there are many characters in OP who are powerless,and believe that anything can be resolved through peaceful means,like Lhopper and Rebecca. Lolda always draws these characters crying rivers when other characters who have the power to fulfill their desires are doing whatever they want in front of them,thinking it's emotional,when in fact it's pathetic and annoying. This why Lucci is right about his belief that "weakness is a sin".
In OP,there are many characters who do nothing on screen other than be annoying,and who Lolda forces us to like through sob backstories. Examples are the dumpster of humanoid animals and the entire population of shitty country. Condom-boy's gang protects these characters,believing that their lives have some value,when the truth is that their lives are worth shit. This is why Garling is right about his belief that "Those who protect trash are less than trash.".
@Fuckthis3 @Gauntlet @NAMELESS @Yoho @ConquistadoR @Le Fishe D. Tomdou
@Moegara @RiShin @Etzel Andergast @Malakhith @Juanpiz @Urouge D. Rouge
@Yomi @Gaimon The Pirate
Came here to write Akainu did nothing wrong and found this based bro.
Don Krieg was just an actual pirate doing honest pirate stuff. Sad how he got handled by Oda and even cucked hardly in the LA.
Foxy unironically
Doffy was the rightful king of DR and he had all right to claim it back. But his overall activities, especially regarding human traffic and human experiments, disqualify him.
Germa. Though they were not real antagonists.
Smoker realized the danger luffy poses very early and didn't think twice to reorient his career only to take him down. In secret he deeply respects luffy and sees him from a rivalry perspective and rather less from a lawman's.
Blackbeard
Don Krieg was just an actual pirate doing honest pirate stuff. Sad how he got handled by Oda and even cucked hardly in the LA.
Foxy unironically
Doffy was the rightful king of DR and he had all right to claim it back. But his overall activities, especially regarding human traffic and human experiments, disqualify him.
Germa. Though they were not real antagonists.
Smoker realized the danger luffy poses very early and didn't think twice to reorient his career only to take him down. In secret he deeply respects luffy and sees him from a rivalry perspective and rather less from a lawman's.
Blackbeard
A Villain is defined as an Evil Character with Malicious intent
Everything Akainu has ever done was for what he believes to be the greater good to prevent something worse
It's a lot like Thanos, Thanos wasn't pure evil he had pure intentions just a twisted way of going about it
So while Akainu is an antagonist and can be seen has cruel or fucked up from the outside looking in
From the perspective of the one piece citizens he's protecting the peace and if you gotta kill 100 to save 1000 Akainu sees that has a good thing rather than a bad
Everything Akainu has ever done was for what he believes to be the greater good to prevent something worse
It's a lot like Thanos, Thanos wasn't pure evil he had pure intentions just a twisted way of going about it
So while Akainu is an antagonist and can be seen has cruel or fucked up from the outside looking in
From the perspective of the one piece citizens he's protecting the peace and if you gotta kill 100 to save 1000 Akainu sees that has a good thing rather than a bad
In universe?
Blowing up Ohara civilians isn't wrong?
>Blowing civilians was the right move 100%. The only thing wrong was that Robin wasn't included in the list of casualties. Without Robin the WG would be in a better position.
Killing Marines who were afraid of war isn't wrong?
>Again 100%. Deserters are shit for morale and a liability. They need to be punished and killing those cowards was the right move.
Blaming children (they were pirates, yes) for the sins of their fathers isn't wrong? He only ever referred to Luffy as "Dragon's son" btw.
>Considering that this person was a pirate with a bounty dead or alive and has show potential to threaten the WG? Again 100%. Had the Gorosei had more than 2 braincells and sent a admiral to kill Luffy as soon as Croc was defeated the WG would be in a better position now.
Trying to kill Koby isn't wrong?
>Not even a little. He was questioning the orders of a superior officer and wasting time that could have make the difference in killing Luffy. Both the admirals and vice-admirals in site agreed that killing all pirates was worth the cost in deaths and decided for the attack, while at the same time BB was hell bent on destroying MF. The little coward trying a mutiny would be better off dead.
In Universe, if his actions had succeed it would lead to a more stable government and can be justified, again in universe, if someone really believes that the WG is the best option available.
Of course in real life some of his actions would be considered war crimes in the west (China/north korea are a little more hardcore- don't look at what happened to the team that lost the World Cup) but if we are evaluating characters it should be looking at his actions in universe and what they would accomplish if they worked.
Blowing up Ohara civilians isn't wrong?
>Blowing civilians was the right move 100%. The only thing wrong was that Robin wasn't included in the list of casualties. Without Robin the WG would be in a better position.
Killing Marines who were afraid of war isn't wrong?
>Again 100%. Deserters are shit for morale and a liability. They need to be punished and killing those cowards was the right move.
Blaming children (they were pirates, yes) for the sins of their fathers isn't wrong? He only ever referred to Luffy as "Dragon's son" btw.
>Considering that this person was a pirate with a bounty dead or alive and has show potential to threaten the WG? Again 100%. Had the Gorosei had more than 2 braincells and sent a admiral to kill Luffy as soon as Croc was defeated the WG would be in a better position now.
Trying to kill Koby isn't wrong?
>Not even a little. He was questioning the orders of a superior officer and wasting time that could have make the difference in killing Luffy. Both the admirals and vice-admirals in site agreed that killing all pirates was worth the cost in deaths and decided for the attack, while at the same time BB was hell bent on destroying MF. The little coward trying a mutiny would be better off dead.
In Universe, if his actions had succeed it would lead to a more stable government and can be justified, again in universe, if someone really believes that the WG is the best option available.
Of course in real life some of his actions would be considered war crimes in the west (China/north korea are a little more hardcore- don't look at what happened to the team that lost the World Cup) but if we are evaluating characters it should be looking at his actions in universe and what they would accomplish if they worked.
Yes, and his way of thinking, his way of Justice is inherently wrong.
Aokiji & Fujitora both showed that "Thorough Justice" is never the correct way to do things.
His actions/goals maybe noble, I'm not even talking about that.
The way he does things is clearly labelled as a "wrong" idea to follow.
Hence i would not say he is an Antagonist who is in the right.
Aokiji & Fujitora both showed that "Thorough Justice" is never the correct way to do things.
His actions/goals maybe noble, I'm not even talking about that.
The way he does things is clearly labelled as a "wrong" idea to follow.
Hence i would not say he is an Antagonist who is in the right.
Yes, and his way of thinking, his way of Justice is inherently wrong.
Aokiji & Fujitora both showed that "Thorough Justice" is never the correct way to do things.
His actions/goals maybe noble, I'm not even talking about that.
The way he does things is clearly labelled as a "wrong" idea to follow.
Aokiji & Fujitora both showed that "Thorough Justice" is never the correct way to do things.
His actions/goals maybe noble, I'm not even talking about that.
The way he does things is clearly labelled as a "wrong" idea to follow.
Akainu can be seen as morally wrong but it's for the greater good
Aokiji at the time thought he was doing good by letter Robin go, but if she finds the true history and reveal it the world will go into chaos that one action could indirectly cause the deaths of millions
Greenbull- so far is just an akainu simp whose only sense of justice is to impress him
Kizaru and Fujitora are the only Admirals who actions/sense of justice aren't for their own self interest or possibly lead to something worse
That's is not true at all.
"Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct,"
Penalty for desertion is death. But most sentences are usually committed to lesser charges. However, it is within the right of court martial to sentence you to death.
"Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct,"
Penalty for desertion is death. But most sentences are usually committed to lesser charges. However, it is within the right of court martial to sentence you to death.
T
Like murdering a boat full of civilians without hesitation?
Akainu wants to kill people. Even some that are innocent. How is this not malicious. He is also protecting a system that allows slavery, genocide and maltreatment of the population.
Akainu went out of his way to murder a single Marine soldier right on the battlefield. There were plenty of other task he needed to do, but he took his time to personally execute someone right then and there.
The definition of "Evil" is wrong to begin with. You can not so easily define Evil as it is entirely subjective. You could only go case by case.
Akainu is evil. A character could do everything that Akainu did and not be evil too. It is the way he does things and the way he seems to enjoy doing it that makes his actions evil.
OP is rather black and white here. Antagonists are wrong. Period. Luffy is pursuing an ideal of freedom and friendship. Oda will not let someone oppose this and still be in the right. Other manga has antagonists with their own high ideals. Not OP though. Not yet anyways. We would have to see what BBs goals and intentions are.
The only "villain" that may fit this bill so far is Mihawk. If you could even consider him a villain. He did not stand in Luffys way and was provoked by Zoro.
Akainu wants to kill people. Even some that are innocent. How is this not malicious. He is also protecting a system that allows slavery, genocide and maltreatment of the population.
Akainu went out of his way to murder a single Marine soldier right on the battlefield. There were plenty of other task he needed to do, but he took his time to personally execute someone right then and there.
The definition of "Evil" is wrong to begin with. You can not so easily define Evil as it is entirely subjective. You could only go case by case.
Akainu is evil. A character could do everything that Akainu did and not be evil too. It is the way he does things and the way he seems to enjoy doing it that makes his actions evil.
OP is rather black and white here. Antagonists are wrong. Period. Luffy is pursuing an ideal of freedom and friendship. Oda will not let someone oppose this and still be in the right. Other manga has antagonists with their own high ideals. Not OP though. Not yet anyways. We would have to see what BBs goals and intentions are.
The only "villain" that may fit this bill so far is Mihawk. If you could even consider him a villain. He did not stand in Luffys way and was provoked by Zoro.
That there Gorosei has been working far too long and too hard to keep the world in order yet everyone's treating them like they're the villains. If those damn pirates hadn't gotten so uppity and if the Revolutionaries hadn't stolen so much from Mary Geoise supply ships, there would've been no need for the Mother Flame or golden tributes! Just look at the Lulusia Kingdom 2 years ago, back then it was a peaceful place full of happy milk farmers with no trouble in the world. Worst thing that ever happened there was some dumb pirate kid assaultin' a doctor, but after that there fish-lover Whitebeard went and started his ''One Piece is real'' hullabaloo and the Straw Hats started causing trouble for the government, everything breaks into a Hundred Pieces. Pirates start running rampant, law and order falls apart, and now you got the worst scum of all coming up to the surface. Those dang ol' fishmen thinking they have the right to bask in the holy sunlight of our human superiors and stinkin up the place with their dank sea smell. For shame is what it is. Remember Cocoyashi!
