Some arguments here reminds of early editions of DnD, where you would have some Lawful Good Paladin, and, if the character ever did a single action that wasn't deemed "lawful goody", the DM would bring forth the anger of a thousand incels and complain to the player that he now has to lose his paladin powers because he once did something that goes against his alignment.
- Luffy telling Law he plans to "beat the shit out of the 4 Emperors" is completely out of character for someone thatis never the aggressor, but more like a defender.
- Zoro not wanting to hurt Monet just because she's a woman is completely against his entire backstory with Kuina.
- Robin deciding to play the "mother role" with Momonosuke is completely out of touch with Robin's character.
- Jinbe betraying Big Mom by beating Opera and saving Luffy and Nami, then trying to do the "honorable sake cup" theatrics makes no sense (thanks
@TheAncientCenturion for opening my eyes on this one. lol)
- Usopp making that speech on his head telling Nami to just lie to Ulti and say that Luffy won't become PK just so she can live, when he did all that "don't you dare laugh at my friend's dream" stunt in Alabasta against Mrs Merry Xmas and Mr4 also contradicts his character and his growth to becoming a brave warrior of the sea.
- Chopper during TS says he wants to become a "monster" if it is for Luffy's sake, but instead becomes even more sugar coated and gives people diabetes just by existing.
- Garp going through that dilemma of either helping Ace, or keeping his duty as a Navy soldier, and then, out of nowhere, wanting to kill Akainu because Akainu carried on the execution that was supposed to happen.
Etc.
Sanji is not above that.
Of course his character has contradictory moments.
What do you expect when you have an author that wants to juggle hundreds of characters by himself?
