Speculations Shanks is not who we think he is.

#41
For Shanks to turn around one day, say SIKE and fight his friend Luffy in a serious manner as a villain would literally crash the whole "you can do what you want to me, but I won't let anyone touch my friends". Which is the first thing we learned about Shanks and which is engraved in Luffy.

It would be terrible writing.

That being said there is no doubt Shanks is a powerful pirate in every sense of the word, so I'm not sure what could possibly be more morally grey than that.
Post automatically merged:

Luffy does not straight up kill people nor has Oda had any of the main characters go that far. Oda has allowed Shanks to maim and dismember people, just as Kaido has done.

That right there proves that their morals are different, precisely because Oda has explicitly stated he has villains survive to have their dreams crushed by Luffy. Its all about "beliefs", not really "morals". Hence where I think Luffy and Shanks are different.
Yeah but: Luffy is the main character. Oda is obviously keeping him "pure", which is one of the reasons that everyone will follow his lead.

And it's not entirely true, Zoro has been quite bloodlusted and killed on panel.
 
#42
Sometimes, there can't be narrative misdrections, we all know Luffy is going to survive this arc, and he will become the Pirate King in the end. He can't spin this around.

That's no different than Shanks's obsession with Blackbeard, otherwise E.Oda wouldn't go far enough decorate Shanks's Jolly Roger according to the scar he took from Blackbeard, he even fought with Whitebeard because of Blackbeard. He showed us what Shanks can do for his obssession about Blackbeard. He can go that far (negotiating with Gorousei), only because of Blackbeard.
I'm afraid I don't get what you are saying. Luffy surviving the arc has nothing to do with Shanks talking about someone who's not Blackbeard to the Gorosei, nor are the ideas even remotely related. One is super obvious because, no shit, the MC will survive to the end of the series at least, while the other can be whatever Oda wants because we know virtually nothing about Shanks

He isn't "obsessed" with Blackbeard, not sure why people say this. He warned Whitebeard to stop Ace when he could have stopped him himself. He didn't kill Blackbeard when he could have at Marineford. He didn't fight Blackbeard in the past two years while he amassed power.
 
#43
He didn't kill Blackbeard when he could have at Marineford..
Because he couldn't? Sengoku + Garp couldn't, what makes you think Shanks could?

And lets say he could, fighting with Blackbeard at marineford would only make things worse, the fight was going to continue at the both sides if Shanks attacked Blackbeard, then marines would continue to fight with all pirates, Shanks came there to stop the fighting, not making it bigger.

He didn't fight with Blackbeard in the past 2 years? We don't know that. Blackbeard knew Whitebeard's territories very well, better than Shanks, so it's not easy to catch Blackbeard in his own territories unless Blackbeard wants that confrontation, the only one who can know Whitebeard's territories as good as Blackbeard knows was Marco, and that fight happened and Blackbeard won easily.
 
#44
Sort of an extension post from a comment i made in another thread but I feel it warrants a separate discussion. This is in NO WAY a statement outside of my own thoughts or belief, I just personally have been a huge skeptic of Shanks as this "perfect" pirate that Luffy should look up to. Before responding, please read the whole thing. There is no tldr, other than the fact that I'm not saying Shanks is evil, but rather a morally grey antagonist that may serve as an eventual foil for Luffy. There are things in the story that support this so im just going to list them out below. Up to you if you want to believe any of it or agree. Some of it is direct evidence from the manga, some of it is a little bit of theorizing from said evidence in the manga. That said, Blackbeard imo, is still an intrinsic part to the climax of the story, so don't feel too deterred from reading if that is the case. Anyway:


- Oda has known the ending to his series since before his series began. This is very unlike most other long running manga because usually the bigger they get, their endings have to fluctuate based on what can be done. We do know (as Oda reminds us always) that his ending hasn't changed. This is important because no matter how much bigger one piece gets, it seems that it will return to its roots primarily for this reason. There are 2 major things that have remained constant since the beginning of the series: Shanks and the Strawhat. They are the biggest things that come out of chapter 1. Blackbeard wasn't hinted at until the 130's and wasnt introduced until the 230's. While there is no evidence to say Oda hadn't conceived Blackbeard from the beginning, we can be sure Shanks was an idea already when Oda drafted his ending. The same goes for Akainu/Im, whom are characters even conceived even further into the story.

- Shanks himself is probably the most enigmatic character in the series. We know next to nothing about his motivations or primary feelings about pretty much anything. There are some things that seem to give away to his character though.


- Shanks has constant competitive, almost "dark" looking faces anytime Luffy is mentioned via bounty poster. This has been consistent virtually every time Luffy is mentioned. When he talks to Luffy at Marineford, its yet another weird looking face (the shading; how Oda drew it) that sort of doesn't fit the tone of the scene in a way.

- Shanks is an interesting harbinger of peace, but its by which he achieves said "peace" that's odd: His relationship to the WG. Sengoku seems to respect him. This seemed normal until we got chapter 906, his discussion with the Gorosei. This does not make sense in context. The Gorosei murder and commit genocides in droves. This should be the biggest red flag for anyone thinking Shanks is a primarily "good" person.

- Then on that note, his conversation with them ends about a "certain pirate". I hope people know that Oda is all about misdirect when it comes to dialogue. We KNOW Shanks has a disdain for Blackbeard, we KNOW he's warned Whitebeard about him with Ace. So WHY is Oda not actually referencing this "certain pirate" by name prior as if to leave it a mystery?

- Whats interesting is that the last thing Shanks did before go to the Gorosei is look at Luffy's 1.5 billion poster and say "its about time we meet Luffy". Not saying it means anything but there was no major Blackbeard or any other pirate news prior to this so...take what you will from that.

- Shanks also the same age as the God Valley incident. Oden's flashback also seems to hint that Roger has had Shanks since he was a baby (and maybe even Buggy, who is also the same age). On top of this, Oden's flashback left us with a weird moment where Oden catches Shanks asking Roger an "unknown question", to which Roger responds and Shanks crying. This is a BIG TELL that there is more to Shanks' character than what we know, a hidden emotional connection to Roger or that question.

- God Valley itself is yet another enigmatic island like Laugh Tale. The WG erased the island from maps for a reason, which means Rocks was there for a reason they didn't want another pirate to repeat. If it was just killing the CD's, erasing the island doesn't make much sense when many of them seem to have relocated to Mariejois. On top of this, the term used is "erased from maps", not destroyed. I think this will play a huge role in the climax, not just Laugh Tale

- A BIG confirmation happened also during Oden's flashback that shows Shanks and Buggy never went to Laugh Tale. This really hurts the whole "gatekeepter" theory because it proves that Shanks wasn't any closer to One Piece than the other Yonko and wouldn't have known where Laugh Tale was.

- We also have zero idea if Shanks is interested or emotionally invested in "One Piece" specifically. His vested interest seems to partially come from Luffy and him meeting again, but why? What does he know or want Luffy to do? He talks about "betting his arm" on the new age, but Shanks never went to Laugh Tale so we have no idea what this actually suggests. There is an idea that "betting his arm" on Luffy suggests malicious intent due to him being a D., and also a reason why he didn't want Ace to die. They are/were candidates for "something". I won't get too deep into theory territory though, its too early, although I have a summary at the end of my post from a reddit user who I think nailed what I am talking about.


- Shanks' crew quite literally rips Kids arm off in a battle with him. Killer also has some bad scars. Pretty violent for a "peaceful" man who sacrificed his own arm for something. Let it be known that Lucky Roo still shot a man in the head in chapter 1. These people are brutal and Yonko are no joke, not even Shanks.

- Luffy has proclaimed twice that he wants to beat Shanks physically, once at Punk Hazard ("as long as Shanks isn't first!"/"I plan on taking down all 4 Yonko") and once at Wano explaining to Hyougoro what the Yonko are.

- A big part of why I think Shanks may be the true final antagonist (not villain, there is a difference) is Mihawk. Mihawk lost his Shichibukai status and his only known association with another pirate is Shanks. Im not saying he will "join" the Red-Haired pirates as Shanks' subordinate but an alliance almost seems likely since what comes after Wano is the world being in turmoil. For Mihawk to be aimless until his eventual final fight with Zoro seems weird, and that the thing, he should be Zoro's final fight. IF Mihawk joins Shanks, then I pretty much expect Shanks to be Luffy's final fight then as well.

- Finally, Shanks being the final battle just works extremely well as an emotional ending to this manga. Returning the hat seems to be the "big loop" this series has gone for, as there are even possible indications Luffy becomes PK before the series ends (before the Final War). Luffy returning the hat to Shanks on the grounds that he wasn't this exactly who he though he was is almost beautifully tragic to me (the implication being Shanks has ulterior motives that are morally grey). It works for Zoro vs. Mihawk because that should be Zoro's last fight (assuming Mihawk allies with Shanks for the final war). It works well for Usopp because surpassing his father (assuming they meet before on Elbaf or another location) is probably an extension of his brave warrior dream since everything he is is based on his father leaving him. I just think there is a huge emotional connection to Shanks being the final villain here, not Blackbeard, who's crew members come off more as "epic" villains than serious ones in all their chaos.


Pretty much all I have. One other thing to note is Blackbeard and Shanks certainly dislike each other. When I suggest Shanks being an antagonist, he is also an antagonist to Blackbeard, not just Luffy, and vice versa. Even with their personalities you get very different vibes from them in terms of how they handle things. RED Haired Shanks. BLACKbeard. Order and Chaos. Freedom through controlled peace. Freedom through disarray and panic. Luffy stopping both for his own version of freedom, which we all know would be different. Shanks potentially misinterpreting Roger's will. Makes you wonder if its always been that intentional for Oda.



‐----------------------

Additionally, I've seen some crazy, interesting facts/ideas about Shanks recently that make me actually more of a believer he has massive ties to the ending, and thats his whole "Yakuza" like influence. Credit goes to a reddit user dfd2002 who commented on a theory thread i made the other day, but essentially:


- Shanks epithet, "Akagami", can actually be read in multiple ways. (Red Hair)/ "赤髪" or (Dirty God)/"垢神". We KNOW how much Oda likes to play with words and puns. "Dirty God" could imply he is a leader of something "false" or "dirty", something like the Underworld? To elaborate, Oda introduced 6 new Underworld characters into WCI, why? None of them are truly important, but what if, like the Gorosei to Im, they all serve a secret leader?


- Even on that note, the Underworld is massively used by network of many kingdoms, the Yonko and even the World Government. Could this be how Shanks reached the Gorosei so easily? Also why they casually greet him like its no surprise?

- One big thing is that Shanks is referred to as "Kashira"/頭, not Captain/Taisho. Other translations have made it so (i believe Stephen has for simplicity), but Kashira is a term used to refer to a Yakuza boss. Whitebeard gets the less formal "Oyaji" or Pops, to very clearly there is a term of endearment/respect from Shanks' crew when it comes from this. Shanks is one of the few characters to have this reference outside of the actual Yakuza in Wano and I believe Luffy by the Strawhat fleet, which makes sense due to their sake ritual they Luffy hated. But Shanks has been referred to as this since Chapter 1, crazy as hell. Translations to English, I dont think it matters too much, but the fact this is how its done in Japanese and it is interesting Shanks is the only Yonko or major pirate to really have carried tha title since the beginning.

- Shanks is also from West blue (hes slightly older than the God Valley incident, about a year), where the 5 Yakuza families that Bege fucked over are from and also where the best Sake comes from. This could prove ties to the Underworld even more, but just an interesting fact, nothing big.

- Shank's bounty is, 4,048,900,000. The "489" part is so excruciatingly specific, that if you look up the number its normally relative to gambling and Yakuza. First off, 89 is the name for the japanese gambling card game "Oicho-Kabu" (kabfuda names for 8 and 9 respectively in the game), and is often referred to as the origin of the Yakuza name too. 89 also means "hand" in several other gambling games. 489 spelt together is "Shiyaku", and apparently can mean "playing the role of teacher/master", aka his relationship to Luffy, OR "playing the role of death", which is really weird, but would i be shocked lol


- But here's where it gets wild. Take Shanks' cryptic "I bet this arm on the new age" and turn it into something negative. Imagine he wasn't talking about Luffy saving the world as we all think (he wasn't even with Roger at Laugh Tale to find out the true history), but something much more cryptic. Shanks IS a gambler and betting man. Like the medieval-1800s Yakuza, losing a pinky is a means to resolve a bet if you do not have any other means to do so. It also means you generally lost your pinky on your dominant sword hand to prevent proper sword combat. Shanks predicament is almost exactly that. He lost his alleged dominant sword hand (not that it means much) and Mihawk refuses to fight him now. Could it be Shanks is betting on Luffy by influencing him? Why was he even in East Blue? Do we actually believe Shanks couldn't prevent his arm being lopped off if a stare at the Sea King worked just as well? What does Shanks actually want Luffy to do?

Seems insanely specific to me, and I didn't even reference everything this guy brought up. Look up Shimizu Jirocho. As of now Shanks doesn't really have an influential real life figure like many other characters do, at least outwardly. But this man, my god the sheer levels of influence is so up Oda's alley to do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shimizu_Jirocho
- most famous yakuza in history
- adopted
- life has no recorded notable incidents between the death of his father and becoming a young adult
- became a gambler and criminal and started building a private navy (would be the Underworld)
- played the revolutionary army and the government against each other (wink wink, the sale of weapons and the increased conflicts have pitted both sides against each other more and more; look at Dressrosa)
- swordsman
- folk hero/robin hood figure in japan
- famously made sure people were buried properly after a war and defied the government in doing so (Ace/Whitebeard)
- was known to be able to settle major conflicts without casualties (Paramount War)


Everything under the dotted line above is credited to that reddit user, I just shortened (the list regarding Shimizu Jirocho is his) in my own words, but a lot of this almost seems way too coincidental to be just that, even when using the talking pointsI've mentioned above. All the above combined almost would make Shanks one of the deepest characters in this story, we just haven't found out his motivations yet.


Something is definitely going on with Shanks, and at this point I feel like its not exactly "good". Thoughts?
Quality in-depth analysis. Regardless of whether it turned up to be true or not, i'm all for a grey Shanks. All that motivation hiding should hint towards a bigger lore.
 
#45
For Shanks to turn around one day, say SIKE and fight his friend Luffy in a serious manner as a villain would literally crash the whole "you can do what you want to me, but don't let anyone touch my friends". Which is the first thing we learned about Shanks and which is engraved in Luffy.

It would be terrible writing.

That being said there is no doubt Shanks is a powerful pirate in every sense of the word, so I'm not sure what could possibly be more morally grey than that.
Post automatically merged:


Yeah but: Luffy is the main character. Oda is obviously keeping him "pure", which is one of the reasons that everyone will follow his lead.

And it's not entirely true, Zoro has been quite bloodlusted and killed on panel.
I've never once called him a villain. I never once specified Shanks would pull a 180. Look at the faces he makes when talking about Luffy. They are extremely menacing and violent in nature. If you don't believe me, go back to the end of 903 especially.

These 2 WANT to fight each other. Its not about it ever being a "friendly competition". I've genuinely never understood where people got that idea from. This would NOT be terrible writing if there was an additional layer to Shanks character in regards to how he views the world or sees how Luffy can save it. We've never, not once, actually found out WHAT Shanks believes Luffy can do. That is still a mystery in this series. Characters like Pedro say he can bring the dawn. Rayleigh thinks he can find One Piece/become PK. Whitebeard believes he inherited Roger's will specifically to fight the WG (he says this in his final monologue). Shanks has yet to clearly define what he believes Luffy can do for this "new age" he talks about.

And at worst, Zoro has been implied to have killed fodder, yes, but even in those cases, they are not violent and we even see in Whiskey Peak he mainly knocks people out with their own weapons against them (people shooting each other, tipping ladders, cutting a barrel). Heck, he even explicitly hits a woman and kid with the back of his blade. The most violent thing he did in whiskey peak was cut Igaram, who is still alive. Virtually every villain he has cut: Alive.
Post automatically merged:

Because he couldn't? Sengoku + Garp couldn't, what makes you think Shanks could?

And lets say he could, fighting with Blackbeard at marineford would only make things worse, the fight was going to continue at the both sides if Shanks attacked Blackbeard, then marines would continue to fight with all pirates, Shanks came there to stop the fighting, not making it bigger.

He didn't fight with Blackbeard in the past 2 years? We don't know that. Blackbeard knew Whitebeard's territories very well, better than Shanks, so it's not easy to catch Blackbeard in his own territories unless Blackbeard wants that confrontation, the only one who can know Whitebeard's territories as good as Blackbeard knows was Marco, and that fight happened and Blackbeard won easily.
Uh, did you not see the warning he gave Blackbeard? He even said if he wants to fight he will right there. Blackbeard was the one who said "its too early to fight you". If he REALLY wanted to stop him right there, he would have at least tried. But he cared more about ending the chaos. Thats my point. Hes not "obsessed" with Blackbeard
 
#46
I never said pirates were good, pirates are not supposed to be good, and I hope they're bloody not.

And I don't mean good and evil in such a black and white manner.

"It's about the morals of the person" - that is exactly what it's about. And in connection to Luffy Shanks has 100% pure morals, and their morals shouldn't crash because it was Shanks who formed Luffy's morals in the first place.
But Shanks didn't form Luffy's morals. There was only one instance where Luffy mimicked Shanks behavior, and that was on Jaya, and that was more of a call back.

Shanks didn't fight Higuma back, because he believed that the situation wasn't severe enough to warrant a fight. He found it rather comical actually that someone would want to fight over something petty like "You drank all the alcohol".

Luffy didn't fight Bellamy back, because Bellamy had no dream of his own, and mocked the pirate life, so Luffy had no desire to fight against someone who had nothing to believe in.

Same situation, but played out for different reasons.
 
#47
Uh, did you not see the warning he gave Blackbeard? He even said if he wants to fight he will right there. Blackbeard was the one who said "its too early to fight you". If he REALLY wanted to stop him right there, he would have at least tried. But he cared more about ending the chaos. Thats my point. Hes not "obsessed" with Blackbeard
You are saying like Shanks could kill Blackbeard, but he choose not to. That's not true;

1- We don't know if he could, when Sengoku + Garp couldn't.
2- Shanks also knew that, which is why he didn't go after Blackbeard.
3- He couldn't fight him at marineford for the reason I just explained. (it would make the fight bigger, when he came there to stop it)

Shanks didn't say, ''I can kill you easily if you do anything'',

He said he is going to stop the fighting, and if Blackbeard is not stopping, then of course he has no choice but to fight with Blackbeard, even though it would be a risky fight for the both sides.

Now as for that Blackbeard is not being ready for Shanks, that doesn't prove that Shanks would win. Blackbeard is the guy who didn't want to fight with Ace, why would he fight with Shanks when the conclusion is risky and it's not certain that he could win? Of course he wouldn't fight with Shanks unless he gets more powerful, so the risk of losing should be minimum when he faced Shanks.

If I give percentage; lets say at marineford, his chances of winning was %30, he doesn't even want a %50 chance, he wants at least %90 to win when he faces Shanks, so it wouldn't be stupid for him to risk a fight.
 
#48
I've never once called him a villain. I never once specified Shanks would pull a 180. Look at the faces he makes when talking about Luffy. They are extremely menacing and violent in nature. If you don't believe me, go back to the end of 903 especially.

These 2 WANT to fight each other. Its not about it ever being a "friendly competition". I've genuinely never understood where people got that idea from. This would NOT be terrible writing if there was an additional layer to Shanks character in regards to how he views the world or sees how Luffy can save it. We've never, not once, actually found out WHAT Shanks believes Luffy can do. That is still a mystery in this series. Characters like Pedro say he can bring the dawn. Rayleigh thinks he can find One Piece/become PK. Whitebeard believes he inherited Roger's will specifically to fight the WG (he says this in his final monologue). Shanks has yet to clearly define what he believes Luffy can do for this "new age" he talks about.
Lol that's what friendly competition is, being excited to fight and see how far the other has come. I'm mentioning the villain thing because many here think that's what it implies.

So you don't think he'll be a villain and you don't think he has ill intentions towards Luffy? Not sure what we're discussing then.

And at worst, Zoro has been implied to have killed fodder, yes, but even in those cases, they are not violent and we even see in Whiskey Peak he mainly knocks people out with their own weapons against them (people shooting each other, tipping ladders, cutting a barrel). Heck, he even explicitly hits a woman and kid with the back of his blade. The most violent thing he did in whiskey peak was cut Igaram, who is still alive. Virtually every villain he has cut: Alive.
What are you talking about, Zoro killed the Wano magistrate on panel.
 
#49
You are saying like Shanks could kill Blackbeard, but he choose not to. That's not true;

1- We don't know if he could, when Sengoku + Garp couldn't.
2- Shanks also knew that, which is why he didn't go after Blackbeard.
3- He couldn't fight him at marineford for the reason I just explained. (it would make the fight bigger, when he came there to stop it)

Shanks didn't say, ''I can kill you easily if you do anything'',

He said he is going to stop the fighting, and if Blackbeard is not stopping, then of course he has no choice but to fight with Blackbeard, even though it would be a risky fight for the both sides.

Now as for that Blackbeard is not being ready for Shanks, that doesn't prove that Shanks would win. Blackbeard is the guy who didn't want to fight with Ace, why would he fight with Shanks when the conclusion is risky and it's not certain that he could win? Of course he wouldn't fight with Shanks unless he gets more powerful, so the risk of losing would be minimum when he faced Shanks.

If I give percentage; lets say at marineford, his chances of winning was %30, he doesn't even want a %50 chance, he wants at least %90 to win when he faces Shanks, so it wouldn't be stupid for him to risk a fight.
Blackbeard was already heavily wounded at Marineford by the time Shanks showed up. He had a crew whose dynamic had not been established yet, and they weren't used to being apart of the same crew. Most of his members had been locked away in the dark for years, if not decades, and all just engaged in a huge battle to the death for the right to be freed against countless prisoners on level 6 of Impel Down. Burgess isn't even on the level now to take on someone like Sabo, so who knows what he was like back then. Shiliew was just given a powerup to push himself to the next level as well.

Meanwhile, Shanks crew is already a well established Yonko level crew, and is stated to have the best balance out of any of them. Sorry, but the Blackbeard Pirates would have been decimated if they tried to engage Shanks crew during Marineford. Blackbeard knew this, which is why he opted to stop the fighting and leave.
 
#50
You are saying like Shanks could kill Blackbeard, but he choose not to. That's not true;

1- We don't know if he could, when Sengoku + Garp couldn't.
2- Shanks also knew that, which is why he didn't go after Blackbeard.
3- He couldn't fight him at marineford for the reason I just explained. (it would make the fight bigger, when he came there to stop it)

Shanks didn't say, ''I can kill you easily if you do anything'',

He said he is going to stop the fighting, and if Blackbeard is not stopping, then of course he has no choice but to fight with Blackbeard, even though it would be a risky fight for the both sides.

Now as for that Blackbeard is not being ready for Shanks, that doesn't prove that Shanks would win. Blackbeard is the guy who didn't want to fight with Ace, why would he fight with Shanks when the conclusion is risky and it's not certain that he could win? Of course he wouldn't fight with Shanks unless he gets more powerful, so the risk of losing should be minimum when he faced Shanks.

If I give percentage; lets say at marineford, his chances of winning was %30, he doesn't even want a %50 chance, he wants at least %90 to win when he faces Shanks, so it wouldn't be stupid for him to risk a fight.
Except that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying he never chose to fight him because he intended on stopping the war without more violence. You have taken what I have said out of context.

I'm not playing the power game right now, please do not turn this into a powerscaling thread.

The fact is, Shanks warned Blackbeard if he didn't stop fighting, he would have to fought him, and thats what got Blackbeard to back off. The dialogue is explicitly there, I know you see it. I never said who would win, nor do I care. The point I was making to you is:

Shanks is not obsessed with Blackbeard and has never implied to be
 
#52
Blackbeard was already heavily wounded at Marineford by the time Shanks showed up. He had a crew whose dynamic had not been established yet, and they weren't used to being apart of the same crew. Most of his members had been locked away in the dark for years, if not decades, and all just engaged in a huge battle to the death for the right to be freed against countless prisoners on level 6 of Impel Down. Burgess isn't even on the level now to take on someone like Sabo, so who knows what he was like back then. Shiliew was just given a powerup to push himself to the next level as well.

Meanwhile, Shanks crew is already a well established Yonko level crew, and is stated to have the best balance out of any of them. Sorry, but the Blackbeard Pirates would have been decimated if they tried to engage Shanks crew during Marineford. Blackbeard knew this, which is why he opted to stop the fighting and leave.
Shanks also knew he couldn't fight with Blackbeard at marineford, because he was not certain he could win, and he went there to stop the fighting, fighting Blackbeard would make things worse for both sides, and the marines would continue to attack both.

So my point is, paperchamp said Shanks could kill Blackbeard at marineford if he wanted, and I say there is nothing proves that he could kill him for certain and the battle would continue and that would make things worse, so my point is Shanks couldn't kill Blackbeard at marineford.

Except that's not what I'm saying, I'm saying he never chose to fight him because he intended on stopping the war without more violence. You have taken what I have said out of context.

I'm not playing the power game right now, please do not turn this into a powerscaling thread.

The fact is, Shanks warned Blackbeard if he didn't stop fighting, he would have to fought him, and thats what got Blackbeard to back off. The dialogue is explicitly there, I know you see it. I never said who would win, nor do I care. The point I was making to you is:

Shanks is not obsessed with Blackbeard and has never implied to be
Of course he is obsessed with Blackbeard,

How do you explain him putting the scar he took from Blackbeard to put on his Jolly Roger flag?
 
#53
Lol that's what friendly competition is, being excited to fight and see how far the other has come. I'm mentioning the villain thing because many here think that's what it implies.

So you don't think he'll be a villain and you don't think he has ill intentions towards Luffy? Not sure what we're discussing then.



What are you talking about, Zoro killed the Wano magistrate on panel.
Natalija I have to ask, did you even read the OP? My entire post was about how I think Shanks isn't a villain, but a morally grey antagonist. Antagonism doesn't imply villainy. One is defined the person who impedes on the protagonist. The other implies malicious intent in the plot.

Even if it's just friendly competition, that STILL makes Shanks an antagonist to Luffy because he stands in the way of the plot progressing. That said, I don't think its "friendly" like Davy Back Fight Friendly. If its a fight to the death? Would it still be friendly? I don't consider Zoro vs. Mihawk friendly competition either.


And touche about Zoro, I forgot about the magistrate. But my point was essentially the level of violence Shanks's side incites. Shooting people in the head, cutting arms off/maiming/disfiguring people. This is something we haven't seen outside of actual villains in the series (Arlong to Bellmere, Blackbeard to Whitebeard, Akainu to Whitebeard and Ace, Kaido to Kiku), except potentially Pedro's sacrifice to stop Perospero, which resulted in Pedro dead so....

While he's not a villain, I see that as a significant outlier, because it somes off as more violent than normally shown.
Post automatically merged:

He's very very worried about what Blackbeard can do. How else would you interpret him talking about his scar "hurting"?
Not obsessed lol. He didn't stop Ace. He warned Whitebeard to.
Post automatically merged:

Of course he is obsessed with Blackbeard,

How do you explain him putting the scar he took from Blackbeard to put on his Jolly Roger flag?
:kayneshrug:
So my point is, paperchamp said Shanks could kill Blackbeard at marineford if he wanted, and I say there is nothing proves that he could kill him for certain and the battle would continue and that would make things worse, so my point is Shanks couldn't kill Blackbeard at marineford.
Literally said none of that
 
Last edited:
#54
Natalija I have to ask, did you even read the OP? My entire post was about how I think Shanks isn't a villain, but a morally grey antagonist. Antagonism doesn't imply villainy. One is defined the person who impedes on the protagonist. The other implies malicious intent in the plot.

Even if it's just friendly competition, that STILL makes Shanks an antagonist to Luffy because he stands in the way of the plot progressing.


And touche about Zoro, I forgot about the magistrate. But my point was essentially the level of violence Shanks's side incites. Shooting people in the head, cutting arms off/maiming/disfiguring people. This is something we haven't seen outside of actual villains in the series (Arlong to Bellmere, Blackbeard to Whitebeard, Akainu to Whitebeard and Ace, Kaido to Kiku) outside of Pedro's sacrifice to stop Perospero.

While he's not a villain, I see that as a significant outlier, because it somes off as more violent than normally shown.
That’s still wrong because being an antagonist would mean he’d be hostile to Luffy. Which I don’t think he ever will be. Friendly competition isn’t antagonism, but now we’re splitting hairs and this depends on how you define those terms.

I mean... He’s a pirate, of course he will dismember people. It doesn’t automatically mean he’ll be an antagonist.

About his dark panels - I never gave it more thought apart from him being serious. But time will tell.
 
#55
Literally said none of that
You didn't say what?

I am talking about this;

He isn't "obsessed" with Blackbeard, not sure why people say this. He warned Whitebeard to stop Ace when he could have stopped him himself. He didn't kill Blackbeard when he could have at Marineford. He didn't fight Blackbeard in the past two years while he amassed power.
 
#56
You didn't say what?

I am talking about this;
Oh boy. When you write paragraphs and people cherry pick one line out of context that was written by accident.

Let me rephrase since you seem to be more obsessed with this than Shanks over Blackbeard: "He didn't fight blackbeard when he could have at Marineford".

Better? I clarified this multiple times with you after the fact BTW. Even right below that sentence, I didn't use the word "kill" again
 
#57
Oh boy. When you write paragraphs and people cherry pick one line out of context that was written by accident.
:milaugh::milaugh::milaugh:

Yes, you need to realize what you are writing of course, it's not my problem if you write the wrong thing. Also it's not out of context at all, you are trying to prove that Shanks is not obsessed with Blackbeard, and you were acting like (accidently wrote even) Shanks could kill Blackbeard, but he chooses not to is helping your case of course.

And you still didn't reply why would Shanks put the scar mark that he took from Blackbeard on his Jolly Roger flag if he is not obsessed with Blackbeard.
 
#58
:milaugh::milaugh::milaugh:

Yes, you need to realize what you are writing of course, it's not my problem if you write the wrong thing.

And you still didn't reply why would Shanks put the scar mark that he took from Blackbeard on his Jolly Roger flag if he is not obsessed with Blackbeard.
Because its a trademark of Shanks's face. Thats it. No idea how you get him being obsessed with Blackbeard because of it. Its HIS face, the name of his crew is based on HIS image.

I feel I didn't need to answer it because it was silly....


It still has zero implication on which pirate Shanks was discussing, because Oda purposefully left it blank for people to guess, not to assume.
 
#59
Because its a trademark of Shanks's face. Thats it. No idea how you get him being obsessed with Blackbeard because of it. Its HIS face, the name of his crew is based on HIS image.

I feel I didn't need to answer it because it was silly....


It still has zero implication on which pirate Shanks was discussing, because Oda purposefully left it blank for people to guess, not to assume.
This is Luffy's face, and his scar;



And this is his flag;



There is no scar. You don't put the scar on there, as a main symbol of your flag, but Shanks did because he is obsessed with it.
 
#60
People laugh at my points in the OP being "too specific" or "deep" seem to not realize this is the same author who made Whitebeard have a particular laugh only to imply his earthquake power sound effect hundreds of chapters later. This is exactly what Oda does and there are hundreds of examples like it big and small.

People SHOULD find interesting the obvious connections regarding Shanks' bounty to the Yakuza or gambling, or how he's referred to as boss instead of captain by his crew and marines, or his relationships with unlikely characters, or his questionable motivations. These things are there for people to pick apart. We aren't at a point were we know, but its an excellent time to start theorizing because we will know soon
 
Last edited:
Top