PDA

View Full Version : Code Geass: Black Knight/White Knight



+Namiko+
12-10-2008, 08:15 PM
Chose your side:
Lelouch or Suzaku

I want to know who's side you're on and why. Do you think Suzaku is a mighty hero for spoiler alert:



:ninja: killing Lelouch:ninja:

or are you utterly angry with him over it? Do you think Lelouch is a crazy reincarnation of Light Yagami who needs to fall, or do you support him? I want to know what the majority of people think cuz Im the only person I know that watches it! PLEASE GIVE REASONS FOR YOUR CHOICE!!!!!

:ninja: I am on Lelouch's side. He is a tactical genius who was fighting for a downtrodden nation. He was on the right track. I used to like Suzaku, till I watched him drag Lelouch by the hair to his father to have his memory erased and watch silently while Lelouch screamed for Nunally. Sorry, can't forgive him for that. Lelouch never deserved to die. I back him 100%. And Suzaku will never be Zero, no matter how many times he acts as him.:ninja:

WHAT DO YOU THINK!?

to Suzaku for Lelouch
"And this, the most unkindest cut of all..."-William Shakespeare, Julias Caesar

SigmaSD
12-10-2008, 08:22 PM
I would choose Lelouch's side. He was closer to changing the world his way than Suzaku. Nothing against Suzaku, but I didn't really see any change in the nation when he did things his way.

My Name is Ian.
12-10-2008, 08:34 PM
I thought Lulu is the dark prince? XD

I stand with Lulu. I have never seen a man so psychologically brave and mentally strong, and dares to sacrifice for the greater good. Such men don't likely exist. Suzaku on the other hand, is physically awesome and a vital knight. But IMPO he lacks the wisdom and loses.

Yah, Sunrise used Suzaku and "killed" Lulu. Bam. But he is mostly alive, since he already has a code(from Charles).

Dr. Hax
12-10-2008, 08:50 PM
Suzaku = The Shinji of CG

Ledouche = A cross-breed between an emo and a man who thinks he is the proverbial "Hand of God".

samurai_fang001
12-11-2008, 08:13 AM
Lelouch all the way man! I mean come on if Suzaku really was Lelouch's pal he would've gotten some military secrets to help Lelouch get back HIS OWN COUNTRY WHICH HE HELPED IN IT'S DOWNFALL!! It only makes sense... and there's a difference between protecting what is right and being a complete douchbag... If ANY of my pals did that I'd have to forget every good time I had with them and kill them without mercy....

+Namiko+
12-11-2008, 03:36 PM
Lelouch all the way man! I mean come on if Suzaku really was Lelouch's pal he would've gotten some military secrets to help Lelouch get back HIS OWN COUNTRY WHICH HE HELPED IN IT'S DOWNFALL!! It only makes sense... and there's a difference between protecting what is right and being a complete douchbag... If ANY of my pals did that I'd have to forget every good time I had with them and kill them without mercy....:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!!!
I mean srsly!! What's with Suzaku? He's changed so much! What happened to all that pacifist crap? It all went down the crapper when he found out Lalouch was Zero. I USED to really like the guy, till he dragged Lelouch down while the poor guy cried for Nunally, thats cold!!!! How could he do that? What is Lelouch doing thats so bad? Oh, yeah, I forgot. HE'S BATTLING AN EMPIRE CONTROLLED BY A NUTCASE THAT JUST HAPPENED TO DESTROY THE HOME OF NONE OTHER THAN SUZAKU KURURUGI!!! HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO!?? My God, Suzaku should be worshiping the grounds Lelouch walks on, not shoving the poor guys face into it!!!

Lelouch mostly has taken out Brittanian soldiers, he doesn't exactly slaughter innocent citizens like SOME nations *chough cough**brittannia**coughcough**!!!! He never wanted to kill Euphie, that was a complete and utter accident, and he had to do it or SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many more people would die.

Lelouch, psycho murder? I think not!!! Brilliant strategist? YES!!

Suzaku, moral white knight in shining armor? NO!! A hypocrtitcal traior (ill pay for that later, I know it)


:( :( Im sorry Suzaku fans, I have respect for him, but I back Lalouch 100% and I can't get over what he did to him. He is an excellent fighter and strategist. I respect him, I just hate him >.< SORRY!!!

samurai_fang001
12-12-2008, 08:01 AM
THANK YOU SOMEONE WHO FINALLY AGREES WITH ME!!! *wolf hugs instead of bear hugs and yips with approval* I mean Suzaku killed his own father and for what? to have that nutcase who shouts that no one's equal all across the world... Jeez if that was my pops I'd kill him too no questions asked.. >.> Suzaku was cool until he betrayed his own people I though he was okay when he was in the military for Britainia because I tought that he'd side with Zero and give him military secrets to help the black knights because they're buds but noooo... he tries to kill Zero and then he says he's doing this so HE can be top dog... what a (pardon my english) douche...

Caelus
12-16-2008, 03:12 PM
Lelouch. Even if I did start to lose faith in him, his genius is just so impressive.

leingod
12-16-2008, 06:02 PM
Lelouch, because he reminded me a lot of Light from Death Note and their ideals are quite similar.

Tsuki.
12-16-2008, 07:06 PM
I should really start watching this again . . . Well, I'm not as far as most people here, so I'll have to say Suzaku. Just for now, I don't know if my mind is completely made up, but right now I have to say Suzaku because I'm really far behind and he's still really nice and I love his character. (at the moment)

jtdlives
12-16-2008, 07:39 PM
I would of said Lelouch until he killed Yufie( eventhough it was by accident) so I'm behind Suzaku. If I was Suzaku I would of killed Lelouch right there and then. No 2nd chances. That is Suzaku's one big flaw he isn't willing to go all the way like Lelouch he holds back when it comes to his friends even former friends. I still root for him though.

Dragon Ranger
12-21-2008, 09:29 PM
Suzaku = The Shinji of CG

Ledouche = A cross-breed between an emo and a man who thinks he is the proverbial "Hand of God".


oh that's bad

Dr. Hax
12-21-2008, 09:44 PM
it's true though, Ranger. I am the real God. No anime character could compare. Not even Light can compare.

Dragon Ranger
12-21-2008, 09:54 PM
it's true though, Ranger. I am the real God. No anime character could compare. Not even Light can compare.


that is true

Dr. Hax
12-21-2008, 10:07 PM
that is true

I have evidence as well. See my name? I'm Lord.

Dragon Ranger
12-21-2008, 10:13 PM
lol how true

samurai_fang001
12-22-2008, 02:56 PM
jesus christ you two need some "help" >.>

Sashikizu
12-22-2008, 04:16 PM
Suzaku only killed Lelouch because it was Lelouch's wish to free Britannia from himself or at least that's how I understood it. So I'm gonna stick with Lelouch because being prepared to die to free your country is a really admirable thing.. even if he started a bunch of wars to do it, the end result was still a positive, lol.

Kaitou+
12-22-2008, 05:31 PM
Simple, Black Knight. Suzaku is a big pussy until R2 19.

nunnally_shana
12-25-2008, 09:55 AM
I would choose Lelouch side because Suzaku is on the side of the Holy Empire of Britannia who started the war and who just make things worst.Killing Japanese,(actually,they call the Japanese elevenus)making Japan their own land,that's what I don't like.But I have a comment on how Lelouch ending the war,he said that he will destory worlds and create(new)worlds.Thus that mean he should kill all the people and create another one?

little miss sunshine
12-31-2008, 03:01 AM
I'm on Lelouch's side!
He thinks ahead a whole lot more accurately than Suzaku
I like Suzaku too, but Lelouch is an obsession
XD

Dragon Ranger
12-31-2008, 09:03 AM
Britanian forces were killing defenseless civilians, I'm with Lelouch on this one

+Namiko+
12-31-2008, 11:25 AM
THANK YOU SOMEONE WHO FINALLY AGREES WITH ME!!! *wolf hugs instead of bear hugs and yips with approval* I mean Suzaku killed his own father and for what? to have that nutcase who shouts that no one's equal all across the world... Jeez if that was my pops I'd kill him too no questions asked.. >.> Suzaku was cool until he betrayed his own people I though he was okay when he was in the military for Britainia because I tought that he'd side with Zero and give him military secrets to help the black knights because they're buds but noooo... he tries to kill Zero and then he says he's doing this so HE can be top dog... what a (pardon my english) douche...

You're in my head right? Your in my subconcious interperating my thoughts. HONESTLY!!! I was watching it the other night and Lelouch and I used the same word at the same time which was "Hypocrite" And I nearly busted a gut because "hypocrite" is the exact word I'd apply to Suzaku.

I USED to compare Lelouch with Light Yagami, but I realize that their is a FINE LINE between Outspoken broken-hearted rebel fighting for the little guy and a psycho crazed murderer who would kill someone for stealing a peice of bread or being "imoral" who has no concept of "seccond chances". Light is closer to Brittannia in my eyes. But thats Just how I see it. Sure, Lelouch is violent, but at times like that, sometimes you HAVE to be violent!

Let me ask you something. If a crazy empire conquered your country, took away all your customs and culture, then gave you a NUMBER as a race and treated you like crap becouse you actually CAME from the country you live in... would you

A. Be more than a little ticked, and try to fight to expell the invaders from your land

OR

B. Drop ALL of your dignity and JOIN them in destroying the ONE REAL HOPE for your people.................O.o?

Thats just what I beleive O.o

Sorry to Suzaku fans, I repect him but he made a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD choice^^!!

Dragon Ranger
12-31-2008, 05:23 PM
You're in my head right? Your in my subconcious interperating my thoughts. HONESTLY!!! I was watching it the other night and Lelouch and I used the same word at the same time which was "Hypocrite" And I nearly busted a gut because "hypocrite" is the exact word I'd apply to Suzaku.

I USED to compare Lelouch with Light Yagami, but I realize that their is a FINE LINE between Outspoken broken-hearted rebel fighting for the little guy and a psycho crazed murderer who would kill someone for stealing a peice of bread or being "imoral" who has no concept of "seccond chances". Light is closer to Brittannia in my eyes. But thats Just how I see it. Sure, Lelouch is violent, but at times like that, sometimes you HAVE to be violent!

Let me ask you something. If a crazy empire conquered your country, took away all your customs and culture, then gave you a NUMBER as a race and treated you like crap becouse you actually CAME from the country you live in... would you

A. Be more than a little ticked, and try to fight to expell the invaders from your land

OR

B. Drop ALL of your dignity and JOIN them in destroying the ONE REAL HOPE for your people.................O.o?

Thats just what I beleive O.o

Sorry to Suzaku fans, I repect him but he made a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD choice^^!!


I'd go with A

Persistance
01-02-2009, 11:37 PM
Though wishing I could say I side with both characters, I would say I go with Lelouch. He, from the very beginning, had the right idea to begin with. He wanted to destroy the rule of Britannia and unify the world. He wanted a world where people could negotiate with words and not war. He wanted this so much he "sacrificed" his life. Though the killing was stretching it a bit.

samurai_fang001
01-12-2009, 10:48 AM
You're in my head right? Your in my subconcious interperating my thoughts. HONESTLY!!! I was watching it the other night and Lelouch and I used the same word at the same time which was "Hypocrite" And I nearly busted a gut because "hypocrite" is the exact word I'd apply to Suzaku.

I USED to compare Lelouch with Light Yagami, but I realize that their is a FINE LINE between Outspoken broken-hearted rebel fighting for the little guy and a psycho crazed murderer who would kill someone for stealing a peice of bread or being "imoral" who has no concept of "seccond chances". Light is closer to Brittannia in my eyes. But thats Just how I see it. Sure, Lelouch is violent, but at times like that, sometimes you HAVE to be violent!

Let me ask you something. If a crazy empire conquered your country, took away all your customs and culture, then gave you a NUMBER as a race and treated you like crap becouse you actually CAME from the country you live in... would you

A. Be more than a little ticked, and try to fight to expell the invaders from your land

OR

B. Drop ALL of your dignity and JOIN them in destroying the ONE REAL HOPE for your people.................O.o?

Thats just what I beleive O.o

Sorry to Suzaku fans, I repect him but he made a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD choice^^!!

yep don't you see my location "in your mind"?! but seriously I hope Suzaku gets shot or something I don't care how many Suzaku fans go in my inbox yelling at me because I tell things how it is... but right now LeLouch is turning into a bit of a pansy.. he's questioning himself again and to a point starting to lose hope I'm at the episode in R2 when he comes on his knightmare to say I'll go in the special area ( place where everyone's equal numbers and Britainnians alike) so yeah as I said... SOMEONE SHOOT SUZAKU!!!!!

blackrosetwilight
01-12-2009, 11:55 AM
Got to go with Lelouch, he chose to give the world a real peace instead of one forced upon if had decided to stay as emporer.

Dragon Ranger
01-13-2009, 02:33 AM
this should of had a poll

SigmaSD
01-13-2009, 08:49 AM
this should of had a poll

There's no point since everyone is mostly choosing Lelouch. I don't think it would make any difference, but the results would just disappoint the few people who picked Suzaku.

I think a better confrontation would be Lelouch and Light Yagami.

.Miki~
01-13-2009, 10:45 PM
i'm on lulu's side 100%! he could have changed the world, stupid suzaku, i never liked him ><

Dragon Ranger
01-14-2009, 07:32 AM
There's no point since everyone is mostly choosing Lelouch. I don't think it would make any difference, but the results would just disappoint the few people who picked Suzaku.

I think a better confrontation would be Lelouch and Light Yagami.


on that one I'm still going with Lelouch

blackrosetwilight
01-14-2009, 03:05 PM
on that one I'm still going with Lelouch
I second that

+Namiko+
01-21-2009, 06:27 AM
I agree with samurai fang, SOMEBODY GET OFF THEIR BUTTOCKS AND SHOOT SUZAKU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Diocletian
01-21-2009, 07:12 PM
I agree with samurai fang, SOMEBODY GET OFF THEIR BUTTOCKS AND SHOOT SUZAKU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's an anime. Make your own doujin and make a story like that. The anime is over, there is no reason to get all spazed out over something this small.

If he made a bad choice it's because Sunrise said so and you nor any other Lelouch fan can change that.

samurai_fang001
01-22-2009, 08:17 AM
we know that but we're bored and having fun... besides my imagination sucks so I couldn't write a fan fiction anyways...

Dr. Hax
01-22-2009, 09:00 AM
It's an anime. Make your own doujin and make a story like that. The anime is over, there is no reason to get all spazed out over something this small.

If he made a bad choice it's because Sunrise said so and you nor any other Lelouch fan can change that.

I agree with Dio, Nami. You don't like the fact that Suzaku lives, shut up and make your own story. I'm sure it will become popular amongst the Ledouche fangirl community. Honestly, I piss all over this thread.

Nightmare_Ruka
01-23-2009, 08:55 PM
I think I would have to go with Lelouch. He does have similar ideals to Yagami Light but he is just a less psychotic and his aims aren't as murderous in mental nature (even though Lelouch did kill more people, even if they are just doing their jobs).

Light never did anything for his people, just what he thinks is justice. And was overly obsessed about winning over L...Also, I definitely don't like his evil cackle....

Lelouch did stand up for the people not of his heritage. But also he chose to oppose Britannia because of revenge. Plus, he did redeem himself in the end. Which goes a long way in my heart.
He's a tactical genius and somewhat sadistic (maybe in my head only lol) and very forward. I like that in general anime. Although I did like L in Death Note because of his genius abilities and non-emotional character.

I do love Suzaku but he just didn't do enough for me to really understand. He's just the fallen hero. Rival to Zero.

iNagare
01-23-2009, 11:47 PM
i like Suzaku but Lelouch is my fave. He's an obsession. Aside from that, Lelouch has a real purpose in fighting against his own country, unlike Suzaku.

proEuphie
02-14-2009, 08:18 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!!!
I mean srsly!! What's with Suzaku? He's changed so much! What happened to all that pacifist crap? It all went down the crapper when he found out Lalouch was Zero. I USED to really like the guy, till he dragged Lelouch down while the poor guy cried for Nunally, thats cold!!!! How could he do that? What is Lelouch doing thats so bad? Oh, yeah, I forgot. HE'S BATTLING AN EMPIRE CONTROLLED BY A NUTCASE THAT JUST HAPPENED TO DESTROY THE HOME OF NONE OTHER THAN SUZAKU KURURUGI!!! HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO!?? My God, Suzaku should be worshiping the grounds Lelouch walks on, not shoving the poor guys face into it!!!

Lelouch mostly has taken out Brittanian soldiers, he doesn't exactly slaughter innocent citizens like SOME nations *chough cough**brittannia**coughcough**!!!! He never wanted to kill Euphie, that was a complete and utter accident, and he had to do it or SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many more people would die.

Lelouch, psycho murder? I think not!!! Brilliant strategist? YES!!

Suzaku, moral white knight in shining armor? NO!! A hypocrtitcal traior (ill pay for that later, I know it)


:( :( Im sorry Suzaku fans, I have respect for him, but I back Lalouch 100% and I can't get over what he did to him. He is an excellent fighter and strategist. I respect him, I just hate him >.< SORRY!!!


Giving Euphie the geass was an accident. Pointing the gun at her and pulling the trigger was murder. Lelouch came to the meeting planning to start a rebellion that would drive the Brittannians out of Japan, and he told Eupemia he was going to make her shoot him to start it. He was going to make the Japanese hate her almost as much as they did hate her later . That would have put poor little Euphie in great danger. And getting shot to start a revolution which will kill thousands of Brits and Japanese? Greater hate has no man than he who gives up his life to endanger those he should protect.
Lelouch could have thought of a plan to kill the SAZ without killing Euphemia, like making her resign from the position of administrator because it was too big and dangerous a job for her. But he didn't. And when he accidentally made her order the massacre he didn't waste much time going back to the old plan of killing her. He could have captured her alive easily but he shot her while she was talking to him. Euphemia didn't remember anything about the massacre and so must have been almost wholely out of the control of the geass when he shot her, for no good reason and without much evil reason that I can think of.
And some people think Suzaku was bad to fight against the friend she saw murder his girlfriend.

proEuphie
02-14-2009, 08:24 PM
Though wishing I could say I side with both characters, I would say I go with Lelouch. He, from the very beginning, had the right idea to begin with. He wanted to destroy the rule of Britannia and unify the world. He wanted a world where people could negotiate with words and not war. He wanted this so much he "sacrificed" his life. Though the killing was stretching it a bit.

But Britannia was headed toward uniting the world until Lelouch interfered, so Britannia would have become the solution to the problem of Britannia. After a few few centuries the brittanians and the numbers would have united into one people. War would have ended forever. Thanks to Lelouch there may be tens of thousands of years of wars until there is another chance as good to unify the world, and how many millions will die in the wars fought in all those years?
But even if Lelouch's goals were right, he committed two terrible and evil crimes. The geass directorate massacre and the murder of Euphemia when he could have captured her alive with no danger to himself or others.

proEuphie
02-14-2009, 08:32 PM
Chose your side:
Lelouch or Suzaku

I want to know who's side you're on and why. Do you think Suzaku is a mighty hero for spoiler alert:



:ninja: killing Lelouch:ninja:

or are you utterly angry with him over it? Do you think Lelouch is a crazy reincarnation of Light Yagami who needs to fall, or do you support him? I want to know what the majority of people think cuz Im the only person I know that watches it! PLEASE GIVE REASONS FOR YOUR CHOICE!!!!!

:ninja: I am on Lelouch's side. He is a tactical genius who was fighting for a downtrodden nation. He was on the right track. I used to like Suzaku, till I watched him drag Lelouch by the hair to his father to have his memory erased and watch silently while Lelouch screamed for Nunally. Sorry, can't forgive him for that. Lelouch never deserved to die. I back him 100%. And Suzaku will never be Zero, no matter how many times he acts as him.:ninja:

WHAT DO YOU THINK!?

to Suzaku for Lelouch
"And this, the most unkindest cut of all..."-William Shakespeare, Julias Caesar

Suzaka saw Lelouch murder his girlfriend before he dragged lelouch to the Emperor. Isn't murdering Euphie an unforgivable crime? And what about ordering the geass directorate massacre? How can fans forgive Lelouch for doing that when in control of his body while thinking Euphie should be killed for giving a simular order while controlled by outside forces? A double standard. And don't say Lelouch had to kill Euphemia to protect innocent people. I ddidn't see any Brittannian soldiers running away or surrendering after Euphie was shot. And she was not threatening anyone when Lelouch shot her and could have been captured alive with no trouble. Which makes killing her murder.

Dragon Ranger
02-16-2009, 01:08 PM
oh good lord

wolfgirl90
02-16-2009, 05:34 PM
Suzaka saw Lelouch murder his girlfriend before he dragged lelouch to the Emperor. Isn't murdering Euphie an unforgivable crime? And what about ordering the geass directorate massacre? How can fans forgive Lelouch for doing that when in control of his body while thinking Euphie should be killed for giving a simular order while controlled by outside forces? A double standard. And don't say Lelouch had to kill Euphemia to protect innocent people. I ddidn't see any Brittannian soldiers running away or surrendering after Euphie was shot. And she was not threatening anyone when Lelouch shot her and could have been captured alive with no trouble. Which makes killing her murder.

That is true, however, Princess Euphemia was not going to stop killing Japanese citizens anytime soon and virtually the only option left was to kill her (even when she was on her death bed, she still had thoughts of killing the Japanese). However, it was still Lelouch's fault for the entire incident in the first place (while it was an accident that his geass activated, that was a heartless joke he told). Both Suzaku and Lelouch are guilty of murder, but peaceful situations became of them. For example, if anyone forgot, Suzaku killed his father (something only slightly worse than killing your half-sister). His father, the Prime Minister of Japan at the time, wanted to resist Britannia, while Suzaku thought it best to surrender (Japan, due to their size, did not really have the option of fighting a large empire like Britannia). During this argument, Suzaku killed him. After his death, Japan surrendered to Britannia. Had he lived (according to Lelouch), Japan would have been torn apart by war and Japan's situation would have been much, much worse.

As to the original question "Do I think that Suzaku is a "mighty hero" for killing Lelouch?" Yes and no. No, because he did not kill Lelouch for the reasons everyone might be thinking. Him killing Lelough in the end was something he and Lelough had planned the whole time. Lelouch was hated by...well...everyone after he became the ruler of the world. His death meant that everyone could now get together and rebuild since everyone's enemy was now gone (planning everything so that you would reach your goal by dying is pretty impressive:ninja:). The reason why I also say yes is because Suzaku took on the role of being the new Zero. He threw away happiness and freedom so that peace could continue.

proEuphie
02-18-2009, 04:17 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!!!
I mean srsly!! What's with Suzaku? He's changed so much! What happened to all that pacifist crap? It all went down the crapper when he found out Lalouch was Zero. I USED to really like the guy, till he dragged Lelouch down while the poor guy cried for Nunally, thats cold!!!! How could he do that? What is Lelouch doing thats so bad? Oh, yeah, I forgot. HE'S BATTLING AN EMPIRE CONTROLLED BY A NUTCASE THAT JUST HAPPENED TO DESTROY THE HOME OF NONE OTHER THAN SUZAKU KURURUGI!!! HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO!?? My God, Suzaku should be worshiping the grounds Lelouch walks on, not shoving the poor guys face into it!!!

Lelouch mostly has taken out Brittanian soldiers, he doesn't exactly slaughter innocent citizens like SOME nations *chough cough**brittannia**coughcough**!!!! He never wanted to kill Euphie, that was a complete and utter accident, and he had to do it or SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many more people would die.

Lelouch, psycho murder? I think not!!! Brilliant strategist? YES!!

Suzaku, moral white knight in shining armor? NO!! A hypocrtitcal traior (ill pay for that later, I know it)


:( :( Im sorry Suzaku fans, I have respect for him, but I back Lalouch 100% and I can't get over what he did to him. He is an excellent fighter and strategist. I respect him, I just hate him >.< SORRY!!!

Suzaku's ideals went down the crapper when Lelouch/Zero murdered Euphemia when he could have easily captured her alive. What has Lelouch done so wrong? He went to the meeting with Euphemia planning to endanger her by making the Japanese hate her. If he did so he should have had a plan to transfer the Japanese hatred of Euphemia from her to the Emperor (don't blame Euphemia! She must be crazy! Being the only good child of the evil Emperor Charles would drive anyone insane!"). Or he could have easily thought of a plan to make someone else sabotage the SAZ claiming to do so on the orders of the Emperor.
Then Lelouch made peace with Euphemia, accidentally told her to kill the Japanese, and after a few minutes abandoned the peace and went back to starting a revolution and trying to kill Euphie. Even though saying that Euphie was crazy or possessed by demons or something and it wasn't her fault, but the fault of the evil Emperor Charles who had turned his soldiers into evil killers who would obey even the craziest order to kill people would direct the Japanese hatred toward Lelouch's arch enemy Charles and would be perfectly true. Euphie was "insane or possessed by demons or something" and Emperor Charles had "turned his soldiers into evil killers who would obey even the craziest order to kill people".
Lelouch's decision to blame the massacre on Euphemia and kill her was poor planning, sinch a lot of the Japanese hatred vanished when they heard that Euphemia was dead. That hatred could have been directed at the Emperor and used to make them more eager to capture Tokyo and eventually attack Brittannia.
Lelouch's planning was poor because he seems to have had a desire to kill Euphemia for some unknown reason(s).
Who has Lelouch killed beside Brittannian soldiers? He murdered JLF leaders by blowing up their ship because he thought they were evil terrorists or because they were rivals for leadership in the rebellion. At Narita he unleashed a landslide which killed a lot of Britannian soldiers and JLF men and went on the engulf the town of Narita. Lelouch didn't seem very sorry that he hadn't calculated it more carefully, in fact his leer reminded me of a typical villain.
Whether Lelouch knew it or not, Narita was mostly empty because the Brit. soldiers had moved the local poulation out of the war Zone. Later Euphemia refused to go to the rescue of her beloved sister Cornelia because it might endanger the cilivians.
In contrast, Lelouch and Cornelia fought a big battle in the Toyko settlement, where an unknown number of civilians were killed in the fighting: tens or hundeds or thousands or...
The destruction in Tokyo from the Britannian invasion indicates that thousands or millions were killed in all of Japan, and yet Lelouch said that Japanewas relatively undamaged because they surrendered after only a month, due to Suzaku killing his father. So Suzaku probably saved thousands or millions of lives.
But at Narita the Brits. fought in a very civilized and humane way. Did the Emperor order the change? or Prince Schnitzel? or Princess Cornelia, the same who ordered the Saitema massacre in "Attack Cornelia"? Isn't Euphemia with her close relationship with Cornelia the one most likely to be responsible? And isn't it quite likely that gentle Euphemia persuaded Cornelia to invade Area 18 in a more civilized way than the invasion of Area 11 and so saved thousands or millions of lives?
Saying that killing Euphie was a accident is like saying that killing her was an inevitable result of accidentally giving her the order to kill the Japanese instead of a conscious decision to kill her and saying that many people would have died if she lived is like saying that Euphemia would have killed many people if she had been captured alive by Lelouch and confined instead of being shot. Do you know how many many madmen who wanted to exterminate an entire nation or the whole human race have been locked up in prisons and asylums and never killed anybody again? If Euphie is such a terrible killing machine why isn't she considered the greatest warrior in all of anime?

proEuphie
02-18-2009, 07:59 PM
That is true, however, Princess Euphemia was not going to stop killing Japanese citizens anytime soon and virtually the only option left was to kill her (even when she was on her death bed, she still had thoughts of killing the Japanese). However, it was still Lelouch's fault for the entire incident in the first place (while it was an accident that his geass activated, that was a heartless joke he told). Both Suzaku and Lelouch are guilty of murder, but peaceful situations became of them. For example, if anyone forgot, Suzaku killed his father (something only slightly worse than killing your half-sister). His father, the Prime Minister of Japan at the time, wanted to resist Britannia, while Suzaku thought it best to surrender (Japan, due to their size, did not really have the option of fighting a large empire like Britannia). During this argument, Suzaku killed him. After his death, Japan surrendered to Britannia. Had he lived (according to Lelouch), Japan would have been torn apart by war and Japan's situation would have been much, much worse.

As to the original question "Do I think that Suzaku is a "mighty hero" for killing Lelouch?" Yes and no. No, because he did not kill Lelouch for the reasons everyone might be thinking. Him killing Lelough in the end was something he and Lelough had planned the whole time. Lelouch was hated by...well...everyone after he became the ruler of the world. His death meant that everyone could now get together and rebuild since everyone's enemy was now gone (planning everything so that you would reach your goal by dying is pretty impressive:ninja:). The reason why I also say yes is because Suzaku took on the role of being the new Zero. He threw away happiness and freedom so that peace could continue.

How do you know how soon Euphemia was going to stop killing Japanese? She was only dangerous when she had an army to obey her, and the episode doesn't give much clue about what happened to the army, or as an individual while she was alive, and conscious, and armed, and unconfined, and still under the influence of the geass. After her nightmare was destroyed Lelouch could have just grabbed her with a hand of the Gawain and popped her in the hatch to tie her up. Then he could have confined her for minutes, weeks, years or decades (Lelouch thought he was certain to win) until the geass wore off or she died.
When Euphemia recognized Kallen she said "you're the girl from the island" in a remarkably nonhostile tone considering that the last time they met Kallen was firing a machine gun toward her. That was not the geass talking because her geass-controlled self would only care whether Kallen was a Japanese target. So apparently Euphemia reverted to her approximately normal self as soon as she saw a non-Japanese face. A little later Euphemia was under the control of the geas but reverted to her mainly normal self when she saw Zero, her brother in disguise. She talked like the Special Admiinstrative Zone was still going to function, indicating she didn't remember the massacre. And when Lelouch shot her she asked why. Either she didn't believe Lelouch would shoot someone who was talking calmly and could easily be captured alive, or else she didn't think that Zero, protector of the Japanese, had reason to consider her an enemy to the Japanese. So she probably didn't remember the massacre, which means that she was probably almost entirely out of the geass control.
So Lelouch should have kept her guarded by nonJapanese Black Knights.[/quote]

proEuphie
02-18-2009, 08:09 PM
That is true, however, Princess Euphemia was not going to stop killing Japanese citizens anytime soon and virtually the only option left was to kill her (even when she was on her death bed, she still had thoughts of killing the Japanese). However, it was still Lelouch's fault for the entire incident in the first place (while it was an accident that his geass activated, that was a heartless joke he told). Both Suzaku and Lelouch are guilty of murder, but peaceful situations became of them. For example, if anyone forgot, Suzaku killed his father (something only slightly worse than killing your half-sister). His father, the Prime Minister of Japan at the time, wanted to resist Britannia, while Suzaku thought it best to surrender (Japan, due to their size, did not really have the option of fighting a large empire like Britannia). During this argument, Suzaku killed him. After his death, Japan surrendered to Britannia. Had he lived (according to Lelouch), Japan would have been torn apart by war and Japan's situation would have been much, much worse.

As to the original question "Do I think that Suzaku is a "mighty hero" for killing Lelouch?" Yes and no. No, because he did not kill Lelouch for the reasons everyone might be thinking. Him killing Lelough in the end was something he and Lelough had planned the whole time. Lelouch was hated by...well...everyone after he became the ruler of the world. His death meant that everyone could now get together and rebuild since everyone's enemy was now gone (planning everything so that you would reach your goal by dying is pretty impressive:ninja:). The reason why I also say yes is because Suzaku took on the role of being the new Zero. He threw away happiness and freedom so that peace could continue.

You say that both Lelouch and Suzaku are guilty of murder, but peaceful situations came of them. If You think a peaceful situation came of Lelouch's murdering Euphemia, how? It is true that was a fool proof way of preventing Euphie from distrubing the peace in the future, but if locked up she would be no more likely to kill someone that you are, probably less so. Should you be killed to prevent the possibility you might kill somone?
And Lelouch could have achieved a more peaceful revolution by capturing Euphemia and forcing Cornelia to surrender to him to save her. IN "Black KKnight" Lelouch said that Euphemia was Cornelia's weakenss, but he threw away that weakness for no good reason. [/quote]

SigmaSD
02-18-2009, 08:27 PM
You say that both Lelouch and Suzaku are guilty of murder, but peaceful situations came of them. If You think a peaceful situation came of Lelouch's murdering Euphemia, how? It is true that was a fool proof way of preventing Euphie from distrubing the peace in the future, but if locked up she would be no more likely to kill someone that you are, probably less so. Should you be killed to prevent the possibility you might kill somone?
And Lelouch could have achieved a more peaceful revolution by capturing Euphemia and forcing Cornelia to surrender to him to save her. IN "Black KKnight" Lelouch said that Euphemia was Cornelia's weakenss, but he threw away that weakness for no good reason.

Yeah, Lelouch did make a pretty bad mistake by killing Euphie, I mean, he didn't really have to kill her at all. But in the end he did fulfill her dream of uniting the people together, so he can't be totally bad. At least her sacrifice wasn't in vain, and he did pay for all of his crimes with his life.

proEuphie
02-18-2009, 09:41 PM
Though wishing I could say I side with both characters, I would say I go with Lelouch. He, from the very beginning, had the right idea to begin with. He wanted to destroy the rule of Britannia and unify the world. He wanted a world where people could negotiate with words and not war. He wanted this so much he "sacrificed" his life. Though the killing was stretching it a bit.

From Fifty years of my Life by George Thomas, Earl of Allbemarle, New York, 1877 page 108, after Waterloo: "One sight especially riveted my attention. It was the body of a boy, that from his appearance could not have been more than fourteen years of age. The finely-chiselled features of the poor lad contrasted strongly with the coarse lineaments of corpses in his neighborhood, which had been rendered still more grim by the agony of the death-struggle. Like the bodies around him, no vestige of dress remained to show his rank or nation. From his peculiarly fair hair it may be assumed he was a German; from his small white hands, that he was of gentle race, and from the heaps of dead horses around him that he had fallen in a charge of cavalry."
If you could kill Napoleon before the Hundred Days in 1815 to save that boy, and other boys, and tens of thousands of men, wouldn't you do it?
If you could kill Napoleon in early 1814 and save the lives of even more people, wouldn't you do it?
If you could kill Napoleon in early 1813 and prevent the Battle of Leipzig, or the Battle of the Nations, the bloodiest battle up to that time, and other battles, and save hundreds of thousands of lives, wouldn't you do it?
If you could kill Napoleon in early 1812 and prevent the Russian campaign and save even more lives, wouldn't you do it?
If you could kill a few hundred of the leading hawks in France and other European countries in 1792 and save the lives of a million men (and boys) killed in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, wouldn't you do?
If you could kill Francisco Solano Lopez and his top men in 1864, saving Paraguay from the crushing defeat which was to come, and saving thousands of children, wouldn't you do it?
If you could kill Ala ad-Din Muhammad Khwarizmshah and his hawkish advisers in 1218, saving millions of lives by forcing surrender to the Mongols, wouldn't you do it?
If you could kill a few hundred of the most hawkish leaders in the European nations in 1914, saving millions of lives by preventing World War I and thus World War II, wouldn't you do it?
If you could kill the founder of the Tai Ping movement before it got started, and save a million and a half lives killed in the Tai Ping Rebellion, wouldn't you do it?
If you could kill the delegates to succession conventions in 1860 and 1861 in a way which convinced the Southerners that God had struck them down in wrath, and so prevent the US Civil War, and save 600.000 lives, wouldn't you do it?
The ruins of Tokyo indicate that many thousands or millions of Japanese were killed in the Brittannian conquest. But Lelouch said that Japan was much better off than other areas because it surrendered after only one month, because Prime Minster Kururoghi was shot, because ten-year-old Suzaku shot his father. So Suzaku saved thousands and probably millions of lives with a single shot. That probably makes him the greatest child hero in anime.
As a teenager Suzaku joined the Brittannian army as an honorary Brittannian in the hope of eventually rising to a position where he could help the Japanese people after twenty or forty years, or maybe being killed to escape his guilt for killing his father.
When the resistance captured a van containing what they thought was poison gas, Viceroy Clovis panicked and ordered the Shinjaku Ghetto Massacre, slaughtering thousands of the Japanese the resistance had hoped to help. Suzaku was shot for refusing an order to kill someone but survived. Lelouch ended the massacre but murdered Clovis, and Suzaku was framed for the murder. Lelouch and the resistance rescued Suzaku, but he refused to join Zero and turned himself into the army. Both Suzaku and Lelouch acted like jerks, insulting the beliefs of the other.
Suzaku saw that he was right to reject violent resistance, because it leads to violent and unpredictable reactions,and more death and evil, which later events in the series constantly prove true. But he must have also felt that his way of trying to reform Britannia was hopeless.
Even though Lelouch knew first hand the hatred that the killing of a loved one can cause, and even though he hoped to take bloody vengeance on those responsible for killing his mother, he continued to try violent ways of reforming the world despite the constant unpredictable and disastrous results of his and his enemies' violence.
Then Suzaku met Princess Euphemia and she turned his life around even before they said that they loved each other. Now he had a regular life at school and "good" friends like Lelouch and Kallen and the best boss a teenage boy could imagine and hope to make things better for the Japanese now instead of in a generation or two.
Then Lelouch went to the meeting with Euphemia determined to prevent the Japense from freely choosing which way to go and force them to do it his way. He planned to make the Japanese hate Euphemia and start a revolution, probably killing Euphie. Face to face with her goodness, he relented and made peace, then accidentally commanded her to kill the Japanese and soon reverted to his original plan of starting a revolution and killing Euphie.
Lelouch saw Euphemiai resist the geass command for long seconds. He should have realized that her struggle far exceeded the limits of human variability and showed that she was super humanly good, and so somehow some type of supernatural or extraterrestrial being. She was probably incarnated as a human to show us the way to peace and justice and nonviolence. If her people don't exterminate the human race, probably soon after the last episode of Code Geass, they might send us another savior in ten thousand years or ten million years.
Lelouch could have gently restrained Euphemia while she was talking to him. Instead he shot her without warning before Suzaku's eyes, a shot which started Suzaku down the same road to evil that Lelouch had begun to take the first time he started to relax his scruples. Suzaku now wanted to kill and take vengeance.
Nina tried to create and use an atomic weapon to get revenge for Euphemia. It failed, but she joined an army research team and helped to prefect her weapon. I hear that in the second season it was used several times and killed millions of people, and that it was sometimes used by such former innocents as Nunnally and Suzaku.
I read that in the second season Britannia defeated the Euro Universe and a marriage alliance was arranged between the Brittannian first prince and the Chinese Empress, giving hope that mankind would be united in time to prevent the use of atomic weapons. But Lelouch sabotaged the marriage alliance and prevented a Britannian conquest of the world and atomic weapons began to be used.
After a Britannian world conquest it would have taken just a few hundred years for the Britannians and the numbers to gradually become one people, just as it took just a few hundred years for the people of hundreds of tribes conquered by the Japanese to become Japanese themselves.
Who knows how many thousands of years it will be until there is another chance to unite the human race as good as the one Lelouch prevented, and how many millions of people will be killed by atomic weapons in the wars that will be fought.
So Suzaku fired one shot and killed someone he loved, and suffered agonies of guilt for killing him, and saved millions of lives.
And Lelouch fired one shot and killed someone he supposedly loved,and suffered occassional feelings of mild regret for killing her, and deprived the world of Euphemia, and the hope of a movement of Euphemiaism, and possibly doomed the human race to extermination by her vengeful people, and helped cause atomic weapons to kill millions of people within a year, and turned former innocents like Nina, Suzaku, and Nunnally, into killers on a grand scale.

proEuphie
02-18-2009, 09:44 PM
Yeah, Lelouch did make a pretty bad mistake by killing Euphie, I mean, he didn't really have to kill her at all. But in the end he did fulfill her dream of uniting the people together, so he can't be totally bad. At least her sacrifice wasn't in vain, and he did pay for all of his crimes with his life.

as for Euphie's sacrifice being in vain, see post # 49 [/quote].

proEuphie
02-18-2009, 10:52 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!!!
I mean srsly!! What's with Suzaku? He's changed so much! What happened to all that pacifist crap? It all went down the crapper when he found out Lalouch was Zero. I USED to really like the guy, till he dragged Lelouch down while the poor guy cried for Nunally, thats cold!!!! How could he do that? What is Lelouch doing thats so bad? Oh, yeah, I forgot. HE'S BATTLING AN EMPIRE CONTROLLED BY A NUTCASE THAT JUST HAPPENED TO DESTROY THE HOME OF NONE OTHER THAN SUZAKU KURURUGI!!! HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOO!?? My God, Suzaku should be worshiping the grounds Lelouch walks on, not shoving the poor guys face into it!!!

Lelouch mostly has taken out Brittanian soldiers, he doesn't exactly slaughter innocent citizens like SOME nations *chough cough**brittannia**coughcough**!!!! He never wanted to kill Euphie, that was a complete and utter accident, and he had to do it or SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO many more people would die.

Lelouch, psycho murder? I think not!!! Brilliant strategist? YES!!

Suzaku, moral white knight in shining armor? NO!! A hypocrtitcal traior (ill pay for that later, I know it)


:( :( Im sorry Suzaku fans, I have respect for him, but I back Lalouch 100% and I can't get over what he did to him. He is an excellent fighter and strategist. I respect him, I just hate him >.< SORRY!!!

How can Suzaku possibly be a traitor? The crime of treason is defined in the laws of various independent governments and given penalties to frighten citizens or subjects from revolting against those governments.
IN the years 2017 and 2018 of the Brit. calendar there is no independent government of Japan to make treason laws. The only government with authority in Japan is the Britannian Empire, and therefore it is impossible to committ treason in Japan against any other authority than the Britannian Empire.
Accusing Suzakuof committing treason against the Japanse people or nationality is absurd. Treason is a crime against governments and it is decreed a crime because those governments want to frighten people from revolting against them.
No logical person would accuse Suzaku of treason against Japan any more than any logical person would accuse Benedict Arnold of treason against the United States during the American Revolution. Of course American history books call Arnold a traitor, but those same history books say that the United States began on July 4, 1776, instead of in 1783 when the peace treaty was signed and ratified.
Before 1783 the United States was not a government but a criminal organization and it was impossible to committ any crime against the United States. Benedict Arnold was a murderer and a traitor against Great Britain as long as he served the United States and he returned to his rightful Loyalty at the time of his so-called "treason" against the United States.
Nothing done by the United States before 1783 was legal. The British government could have kidnapped George Washington from his presidential mansion in Philadelphia in 1789 to 1797, smuggled him to Britain, and tried him for treason during the years 1775 to 1783, with much more right than Israel had to kidnap Adolf Eichmann from Argentina and try him for crimes committed in Europe, far beyond the jurisdiction of Israel.
Many governments go to the extreme of punishing enemy nationals on their territory for treason if they try to fight for their native lands, while punishing their own nationals for treason if they help enemy governments while on enemy territory. So if you are an enemy national in an enemy country in time of war you could be punished for treason by either the enemy country or your own country if you are not careful.
I think it was kind of silly for the US to try "Tokyo Rose" for treason for making propaganda broadcasts during world War II, since she did so in Japan while she was under Japanese jursidiction. I think it would be more resonable for the Japanese government to demand the extradition of surviving US bomber crews on the grounds that they were in Japanese airspace when they released their bombs and so were committing treason against the government in control of the area they were visiting.
I hope this discussion will remind you that being tried for treason is a terrifying prospect and that loosly accusing even fictional characters of treason might eventually lead to unjust actions against real people.
for more of my opinions about Lelouch and Suzaku see my other posts in this thread. [/quote]

Sakurei
02-22-2009, 02:08 PM
i would choose lelouch, in fact for various reasons

one is definitely the fact that he's a strategic genius, another is that he has never done anything for himself, it was all for nunally's sake, and some others well

i thought suzaku was a nice guy as well but then he did the things he did xD

proEuphie
02-22-2009, 11:18 PM
I would of said Lelouch until he killed Yufie( eventhough it was by accident) so I'm behind Suzaku. If I was Suzaku I would of killed Lelouch right there and then. No 2nd chances. That is Suzaku's one big flaw he isn't willing to go all the way like Lelouch he holds back when it comes to his friends even former friends. I still root for him though.

Lelouch killed Euphie on purpose. Giving her the geass was an accident, but it didn't make killing her necessary or inevitable. Lelouch could have captured her a'ive and she could have been locked up, possibly for the rest of her life, and never been dangerous to anyone. Lelouch pased up several chances to eithr kill or capture Euphemia. Lelouch was so confident that Euphemia was not dangerous to him that he walked up to her, passed her within touching distance and walked on with his back to her before turning around and shooting her. What kind of person turns his back on a homicidal maniac? One who knows that maniac is not trying to kill him but loves and trusts him.
ReEmember Lelouch came to the meeting that day planning to start a revolution sparked by Japanese anger at Euphie. Euphemia would have been in great danger of being killed. Lelouch could have come up with a plan to kill the Special Administrative Zone without killing Euphie, but he didn't. If he had come to the meeting with a different plan than start a revolution and kill Euphie then when he accidentally gave her the geass he might have come up with a plan to save her instead of kill her.
As for Suzaku not killing Lelouch, he was like a cat that brings its human a critter it caught instead of eating it itself. He was thinking of others ahead of himself. He entered the Army in the hope of being killed and escaping his guilt or eventually rising to be important enough to help the Japanese. In twenty, thirty, or forty years. People who say Emperor Charles would never have promoted Suzaku that high forget that Charles, over forty years older, would be long dead by the time Suzaku could expect to reach such a position.
The first few episodes of code geass convinced Suzaku that Zero's way was wrong and that his way was probably hopeless. Then he met Euphemia and she gave him hope of being able to help the Japanese now instead of in forty years. So when Lelouch shot Euphie it was back to square one for Suzaku and all he had to live for was killing Lelouch/Zero. But if Suzaku was offered a major promotion for bringing in Lelouch alive his sense of duty would force him to accept, and take a few steps forward toward his goal of being able to help the Japanese and give meaning to his life.

Leleiron
02-23-2009, 01:16 AM
I can sympathize with Suzaku but compared to what Lelouch went through...
I know that some of Suzaku's sad parts (spoiler: Euphemia dieing) are very tragic on Suzaku's part but you can also say the Lelouch was gravely injured by that too...
I guess that I choose Lelouch out of pity on everything he's been through but I also admire how he it fought with it keeping everything in mind (eg: Nunnally)...

proEuphie
02-23-2009, 11:20 PM
I can sympathize with Suzaku but compared to what Lelouch went through...
I know that some of Suzaku's sad parts (spoiler: Euphemia dieing) are very tragic on Suzaku's part but you can also say the Lelouch was gravely injured by that too...
I guess that I choose Lelouch out of pity on everything he's been through but I also admire how he it fought with it keeping everything in mind (eg: Nunnally)...

Who knows what Lelouch or Suzaku or other characters really suffered compared to other characters? Lelouch's main sufferings in his past were the death of Marianne, the wounding of Nunnally, and almost getting killed during the invasion of Japan. Suzaku's main past childhood sufferings were almost getting killed in the invasion of Japan and believing that Lelouch and Nunnally were dead, and killing his father to stop the fighting. Perhaps Lelouch had a bit more innocent childhood victemization since Suzaku did choose to kill his father to save thousands or millions of lives.
But nobody knows how much they suffered inside during the seven years leading up to the beginning of the series.
After the series opens a lot of Lelouch's and Suzaku's sufferings were partially self inflicted since they were caused in part by enemies reacting to their moves. If they had chosen differently their enemies would have reacted differently and they would have suffered diferently, and perhaps less.
I don't see how you can justify Lelouch's rebellions as being done for Nunnally's sake. Were they intended to somehow magically heal Nunnally's conditions or bring her mother back to life? No. And Nunnally had lived a comfortable and safe life for years at Ashford, with no sign of assassins lurking in the bushes. Otherwise Lelouch would have changed their first names and moved to several isolated houses in several lands not rulled by Britannia. Starting revolutions and wars tends to make a lot of enemies. Lelouch had no right to do so until Nunnally was an adult and could give informed consennt for the dangers it might put her in. In fact nobody has a right to fight any war or revolution as long as there is a single child in the world too young to give informed consent to the dangers those wars and revolutions might put him or her in.
Your reference to Euphemia dieing is an "Euphy-mism". Lelouch murdered her. He killed her when he could have captured her alive with no danger to himself and she could have been confined, for the rest of her life if necessary, with no danger to anyone. Considering how innocent Euphemia's normal self was, that seems to me to be one of the worst murders ever shown on television.
How did Lelouch suffer for murdering Euphemia? Instead of honoring Euphemia as a goddess whose love for them was so strong she fought against the command to kill them as no human ever could, the Japanese, deceived by lelouch, hated her and accepted Lelouch as their savior.
It is true that Lelouch shed a tear or two when ordering his men to kill Euphemia, and he later briefly seemed a bit depressed. But compared to the reactions of normal persons who kill someone, whether justly or unjustly, his regret seems rather muted.
A few days later Lelouch was captured and his memories of his real life, including killing Euphemia, were supressed, and he want back to living the comfortable life of a high school student for a year, and he was happier than Suzaku, and infinitly happier than poor little Euphie, dead and possibly buried.
When his memories were restored he went back to plotting revolution and revenge. He thought of Euphemia with regret a few times, And Cornelia, Suzku, and Nina caused him some trouble because they still loved her. But that hardly seems to compare with Suzaku's grief.
[/quote]

wolfgirl90
03-02-2009, 07:45 PM
You keep saying that Lelouch could have just captured Euphemia and tied her up somewhere versus shooting her. Sure she would be alive, but she would have constant thoughts of killing Japanese for the rest of her live and would most likely perish in madness. While she was on her deathbed, she had thoughts of killing Suzaku after realizing that he was Japanese. A command like "kill all the Japanese" is not a command that wears off, according to the rules of Geass. This type of command is not an eternal command (like Lelouch's command for Suzaku to live) but it will not wear off until all Japanese are effectively killed (which is not something that is likely to happen).

Of course, one thing you seem to forget is the fact that Lelouch hates his half-siblings. He hates Clovis, he hates Cornelia, he hates Schneizel and he hates Euphemia. Now, he eventually develops feeling for her but he is not above using his own siblings, including Nunnally, for he own means. The very first thing he was going to do when he met with Euphemia in episode 22 was to have her shoot him to make him look like a martyr. There was nothing that Euphemia or Lelouch could say that could explain this happining. Lelouch could have blamed demons or even Charles but that wouldn't make sence to the people. Demons is too out of the ordinary and putting the blame on Charles would not have done anything. Euphemia was mentally stable and (as far as we know) did not have to much ill will towards her father. She did not have any need to, so the excuse that she went mad under the influence of Charles would not make any sence. Lelouch hate has father for many reasons:
1. Calm after the death of his mother
2. Took away Nunnally's eyesight with his Geass
3. Was indirectly involved with the death of Marianne (and therefore the crippling of Nunnally)
4. Used Lelouch and Nunnally as political hostages in Japan
5. Invaded Japan, even knowing that this put his children in extreme danger and dissolved any protection they would have had
6. Forced Lelouch and Nunnally into hiding
And that was before Lelouch found out about the Sword of Akasha.:eek:

ichimoku_fanboy
03-02-2009, 08:07 PM
although lelouche was simply using the Black Knights and the Japanese people as a whole to be as big a pain in the *** to his father as possible, i agree with his efforts...

he was actaully helping the world by being a huge pain for Brittania with the very limited resources and manpower Japan could muster, possibly if he was exiled to a different area, he prbly would have won the rebellion, but on the flip side he could have equally lost it just as fast...

yes Suzaku was born Japanese, but he certainly didnt support his people nearly to the extent as an exiled Brittanian did, its actually kinda ironic, a japanese is fighting for Brit. and a Brittanian is fighting for Japan, its kind of an oxymoron XD

but overall Lelouche was willing to discard personal values to win, and Suzaku repeatedly let his personal vendettas and beliefs get in the way of his duty, in fact if Zero hadnt commanded him to live, he wouldnt have survived to kill Lelouche...

wolfgirl90
03-03-2009, 01:52 PM
although lelouche was simply using the Black Knights and the Japanese people as a whole to be as big a pain in the *** to his father as possible, i agree with his efforts...

he was actaully helping the world by being a huge pain for Brittania with the very limited resources and manpower Japan could muster, possibly if he was exiled to a different area, he prbly would have won the rebellion, but on the flip side he could have equally lost it just as fast...

yes Suzaku was born Japanese, but he certainly didnt support his people nearly to the extent as an exiled Brittanian did, its actually kinda ironic, a japanese is fighting for Brit. and a Brittanian is fighting for Japan, its kind of an oxymoron XD

but overall Lelouche was willing to discard personal values to win, and Suzaku repeatedly let his personal vendettas and beliefs get in the way of his duty, in fact if Zero hadnt commanded him to live, he wouldnt have survived to kill Lelouche...

*sigh*

You do realize, of course, that Lelouch and Suzaku were working together for a good part if the series right? The Zero Requiem was something that was planned out between Lelouch, Suzaku and C.C a long time ago: to have as much hatred put on Zero as possible, so that when he revealed himself as Lelouch, that hatred would be focused on him. Once Zero (as Suzaku) killed him, the people would focus on recontruction and coming together (since Lelouch was a threat to everyone).

To the Japanese, Suzaku was a traitor but he had valid points. Japan would not have survived the Britannian invasion. Period. They would have got their butt wiped and their country destroyed versus being taken over (Britannia did not destroy Japan; they wanted Japan for the Sakuradite, so they didn't want to destroy it). Suzaku knew this and Lelouch even told him that Suzaku made the right "decision" to shot his father. Japan was not in a position to resist a large empire like Britannia.

Yes, Lelouch was willing to throw away some values, but he threw away such values like caring for his friends, family and the people who follow him. He could care less about his friends if they got in his way. He hated most of his family and was willing to kill his closest siblings to achieve what he wanted (killed Euphemia, took Cornelia prisoner, was willing to kill Nunnally if it came down to it). He was willing to start as a massacre in Shinjuku just to prove a point:rolleyes:!

Suzaku was blinded at some points by his own issues but he had good reasons to be. Killing his father, watching the woman he cared the most about get shot by his enemy, watching his enemy use his followers like pawns, finding out that his best friend IS his enemy. Suzaku has many reasons to be pissed off.:closedeye

+Namiko+
03-06-2009, 01:46 PM
You say that both Lelouch and Suzaku are guilty of murder, but peaceful situations came of them. If You think a peaceful situation came of Lelouch's murdering Euphemia, how? It is true that was a fool proof way of preventing Euphie from distrubing the peace in the future, but if locked up she would be no more likely to kill someone that you are, probably less so. Should you be killed to prevent the possibility you might kill somone?
And Lelouch could have achieved a more peaceful revolution by capturing Euphemia and forcing Cornelia to surrender to him to save her. IN "Black KKnight" Lelouch said that Euphemia was Cornelia's weakenss, but he threw away that weakness for no good reason. [/quote]

Ok I get it, you're ticked about Euphie. Ok? I understand what you're saying, but posting the same thing 3 times in a row is helping no one. I understand that you don't agree with me, but pleas get it out all at once or wait for more posts. ^^ Please and Thankyou

I dont agree withEVERYTHING that Lulu does, but he evolved as a person and I dont know if you just missed the regret and love he felt for Euphie?

Ok, I'll stop now.

mstrmnd48
03-06-2009, 02:04 PM
i'd go with the black knights.

proEuphie
03-06-2009, 06:37 PM
You keep saying that Lelouch could have just captured Euphemia and tied her up somewhere versus shooting her. Sure she would be alive, but she would have constant thoughts of killing Japanese for the rest of her live and would most likely perish in madness. While she was on her deathbed, she had thoughts of killing Suzaku after realizing that he was Japanese. A command like "kill all the Japanese" is not a command that wears off, according to the rules of Geass. This type of command is not an eternal command (like Lelouch's command for Suzaku to live) but it will not wear off until all Japanese are effectively killed (which is not something that is likely to happen).

Of course, one thing you seem to forget is the fact that Lelouch hates his half-siblings. He hates Clovis, he hates Cornelia, he hates Schneizel and he hates Euphemia. Now, he eventually develops feeling for her but he is not above using his own siblings, including Nunnally, for he own means. The very first thing he was going to do when he met with Euphemia in episode 22 was to have her shoot him to make him look like a martyr. There was nothing that Euphemia or Lelouch could say that could explain this happining. Lelouch could have blamed demons or even Charles but that wouldn't make sence to the people. Demons is too out of the ordinary and putting the blame on Charles would not have done anything. Euphemia was mentally stable and (as far as we know) did not have to much ill will towards her father. She did not have any need to, so the excuse that she went mad under the influence of Charles would not make any sence. Lelouch hate has father for many reasons:
1. Calm after the death of his mother
2. Took away Nunnally's eyesight with his Geass
3. Was indirectly involved with the death of Marianne (and therefore the crippling of Nunnally)
4. Used Lelouch and Nunnally as political hostages in Japan
5. Invaded Japan, even knowing that this put his children in extreme danger and dissolved any protection they would have had
6. Forced Lelouch and Nunnally into hiding
And that was before Lelouch found out about the Sword of Akasha.:eek:

Considering your quotation about enjoying madness you certainly make a big deal about Euphemia possibly going insane. Some forms of insanity can be pleasant. And some insanity can be cured.
And why do you say that Euphemia was commanded to kill "all" the Japanese? Is that an exact quote? I thought It was "kill the Japanese" -- a minor point to someone in the stadium but it could be important.
And is that all the Japanese everywhere or all the Japanese in the SAZ?
I think that it is amazing that Lelouch manages to get anything done with the often imprecise geass orders he gives. There must be a lot of interpitation of those orders done by somebody or something.
Why do you assume that Euphemia would be doomed to obey the geass forever, when all the evidence about Lelouch's form of geass comes from a period of less than two years of fictional time? How can Suzaku's geass command be called eternal, if all of the evidence about it comes from a period of less than two years?
Didn't Suzaku's geass to survive fail to control him in episode 20 when he was about to give up and die? And Lelouch saw hm fighting bravely in that episode. Isn't facing danger in battle a violation of a command to survive?
So Suzaku's command to survive affected hm strongly at first but a few days later failed to have any visible effect. And then it strangely recurred the next year, though at much lesser strength. It never forced him to resign from the military, become a health food nut, kidnap a bunch of people with compatable organs as possible donors, build an earthquake and fire proof house, etc. etc. as he would have done if the command to survive dominated him. And he would never have fought bravely again if it totally controlled him.
So maybe Euphema would have gone on a killing rampage for a few hours or days and then seemed perfectly normal for weeks or months before feeling another, weaker, urge to kill Japanese. Probably every time she was released and certified as totally cured she and Suzaku would go on a date and it would start up and she would have to be rushed back to the asylum.
Except that since Euphemia resisted her geass at first it is possible that her cycle would have been much shorter than Suzaku's. Perhaps by the time Lelouch caught up with her she was already alternating between her normal self and the geass control. She greeted Kallen as the girl from the island instead of merely noting "non Japanese". Later she apolgized to lelouch/Zero for mistaking him for a Japanese, so she knew at that point that she was killing Japanese. And soon after she asked him to assist her in administering the sAZ, which would be unecessary if she remembered depopulating it. And when she asked Lelouch why he shot her she obviously didn't remember doing anything to harm those that Zero protected. So she seems to have been pretty much out of the control of the geass at that point. Asking if Suzaku was Japanese could be due to hear normal self weakening and the geass regaining control for a brief moment.
Anyway, Lelouch should have expected her to return to normal in few days if Suzaku was a good example.
You say that hating someone makes killing them more justified? Anyway, as far we know Lelouch only hates Euphemia for being her father's daughter, not for anything she might have done to annoy him when they were nine. And Euphemia keeps Zero's identity and later address a secret. She clearly still loves Lelouch and Nunnally and wants to be part of their faimily again.
I believe the point of the zero Requiem was to make Lelouch the target of all the hate in the world so all the hate would be gone once Lelouch died. So making Euphemia hated and then killing her would waste all the lovely hatred which could have been directed against Britannnia and Emperor Charles.
Popular ideas to explain why someone is not guilty of willing the actions of their body include demonic possession, brainwashing, hypnotism, drugs, brain control implants, and insanity. Some of them should have been acceptable to the Japanese crowd to explain why they shouldn't waste any hatred on Euphemia. Instead they should hate the soldiers who obeyed the massacre order as well as earlier massacre orders from Clovis and Cornelia, and the policies of Emperor Charles who trained the soldiers to obey every order no matter how evil it was. And I think the crowd, who probably remember that Lelouch and Nunnally were sacrified by their father, would believe that Charles or other Britannians might use some kind of mind control on Euphemia to sabotage her plan for the SAZ. If Lelouch included himself among those other Britannians it would be true after all. [/quote]

Sailor Mystery
03-06-2009, 07:17 PM
I think even though Lelouch is similar to Light(I hate light) for some weird reason I will alway side with Lelouch. :D

wolfgirl90
03-07-2009, 11:41 AM
Considering your quotation about enjoying madness you certainly make a big deal about Euphemia possibly going insane. Some forms of insanity can be pleasant. And some insanity can be cured.
And why do you say that Euphemia was commanded to kill "all" the Japanese? Is that an exact quote? I thought It was "kill the Japanese" -- a minor point to someone in the stadium but it could be important.
And is that all the Japanese everywhere or all the Japanese in the SAZ?
I think that it is amazing that Lelouch mananges to get anything done with the often imprecise geass orders he gives. There must be a lot of interpetation of those orders done by somebody or something.
Why do you assume that Euphemia would be doomed to obey the geass forever, when all the evidence about Lelouch's form of geass comes from a period of less than two years of fictional time? How can Suzaku's geass command be called eternal, if all of the evidence about it comes from a period of less than two years?
Didn't Suzaku's geass to survive fail to control him in episode 20 when he was about to give up and die? And Lelouch saw hm fighting bravely in that episode. Isn't facing danger in battle a violation of a command to survive?
So Suzaku's command to survive affected hm strongly at first but a few days later failed to have any visible effect. And then it strangely recurred the next year, though at much lesser strength. It never forced him to resign from the military, become a health food nut, kidnap a bunch of people with compatable organs as possible donors, build an earthquake and fire proof house, etc. etc. as he would have done if the command to survive dominated him. And he would never have fought bravely again if it totally controlled him.
So maybe Euphema would have gone on a killing rampage for a few hours or days and then seemed perfectly normal for weeks or months before feeling another, weaker, urge to kill Japanese. Probably every time she was released and certified as totally cured she and Suzaku would go on a date and it would start up and she would have to be rushed back to the asylum.
Except that since Euphemia resisted her geass at first it is possible that her cycle would have been much shorter than Suzaku's. Perhaps by the time Lelouch caught up with her she was already alternating between her normal self and the geass control. She greeted Kallen as the girl from the island instead of merely noting "non Japanese". Later she apolgized to lelouch/Zero for mistaking him for a Japanese, so she knew at that point that she was killing Japanese. And soon after she asked him to assist her in administering the sAZ, which would be unecessary if she remembered depopulating it. And when she asked Lelouch why he shot her she obviously didn't remember doing anything to harm those that Zero protected. So she seems to have been pretty much out of the control of the geass at that point. Asking if Suzaku was Japanese culd be due to hear normalself weakenng and the geass regaining control for a brief moment.
Anyway, Lelouch should have expected her to return to normal in few days if Suzaku was a good example.
You say that hating someone makes killing them more justified? Anyway, as far we know Lelouch only hates Euphemia for being her father's daughter, not for anything she might have done to annoy him when they were nine. And Euphemia keeps Zero's identity and later address a secret. She clearly still loves Lleouch and Nunnally and wants to be part of their faimily again.
I believe the point of the zero Requiem was to make Lelouch the target of all the hate in the world so all the hate would be gone once Lelouch died. So making Euphemia hated and then killing her would waste all the lovely hatred which could have been directed against Britannnia and Emperor Charles.
Popular ideas to explain why someone is not guilty of willing the actions of their body include demonic possession, brainwashing, hypnotism, drugs, brain control implants, and insanity. Some of them should have been acceptable to the Japanese crowd to explain why they shouldn't waste any hatred on Euphemia. Instead they should hate the soldiers who obeyed the massacre order as well as earlier massacre orders from Clovis and Cornelia, and the policies of Emperor Charles who trained the soliders to obey every order no matter how evil it was. And I think the crowd, who probably rmember that Lelouch and Nunnally were sacrified by their father, would believe that Charles or other Britannians might use some kind of mind control on Eeuphemia to sabotage her plan for the SAZ. If Lelouch included himself amoung those other Britannians it wotur be true after all.

Assuming that Euphemia does not go insane but rather has the Geass pop up whenever a Japanese walks by (like how Suzaku's command to live only activates at certain times), what do you think should have happened to Euphemia? Sorry, but the Japanese are not going to accept the whole "Euphemia was crazy" excuse. She was fine before. Plus, like I said before, that excuse sounds like a feint. The Japanese are already sick of Britannia's bull crap so they are not going to accept that. And they are not going to drop their hatred for Euphemia and put on the soldiers simply because she was "crazy". They are going to hate her AND the soldiers no matter what. The Black Knights can not take care of her because the ENTIRE organization (save for 3 people) is Japanese. Any person could trigger the Geass. Britannia can not take care of her for several reasons. Euphemia no longer has a rank, title or status; she gave it up, so some people (especially Charles) may see no point in caring for her. Cornelia would not be best person to take care of her either. She is the Viseroy of Area 11; she is constantly in Japan, so any random moment can trigger the Geass. She could be sent to the royal palace in Pendragon, where she would have no chance of seeing a Japanese. Although, something on the news could trigger it. Plus, we all know what happened to Pendragon, right? It was completely destroyed by a F.L.E.I.J.A bomb later in series.

Your example in episode 20 is not the best one. While it is true that Suzaku was about to give up and die, we do not know when (or if) the Geass would have activated due to Lelouch intervening at that point. The Geass command to live activates when Suzaku is feeling suicidal or when his life is mortal danger. It does not stop him (obviously) from serving in the military.

I have said over and over that while we do not know the upper limits of a Geass, the rules for it say that a command has to be completed before it wears off. And we have long ones before; Suzaku is not the only one. Charles' Geass lasted on Lelouch and Nunnally for more than 7 years before C.C broke it on Lelouch and Nunnally broke it of her own will. Marianne's Geass lasted over 8 years. And C.C Geass lasted on people from her childhood to the later part of her adolesence (about 10 years).

I never said that Lelouch was justified in killing Euphemia because he hated his family. What I said was that you should not be at all surprised that Lelouch decided to kill Euphemia instead of save her, considering what has first plan was. He did not care what would happen to Euphemia if she shot him and made him look like a martyr. She may have been captured or even killed, but Lelouch didn't really seem to care. He may have regretted the fact that he had to shot Euphemia, but it still only took him a few seconds to make that decision, carry it out and use it to his advantage.

Knightmare_Zero
03-09-2009, 05:43 PM
code geass is my favorite anime. i go with lelouch

KweK weK
03-09-2009, 08:23 PM
For me...
...Suzaku is more heroic type than Lelouch; and Suzaku have the traits I'm looking for a main character...

But, I also like Lelouch at first...
but in his attitude, i begun hating him...
and the time Lelouch command his lovely sister, Leufie, to kill her self...
I begun hating him the most!

proEuphie
03-13-2009, 08:25 PM
As you can guess from my user name, I mostly don't like Lelouch because he killed Euphemia when he could have easily captured her alive and kept her locked up safely, and also because of the geass directorate massacre, and some other crimes. But the more I write about it the more I keep spelling his name Lleouch, like it was Welsh (which is kind of fitting for a Britannian). Having to reype it all the time makes me really hate him. Why couldn't he have changed it to Cadwallader or Maelegwn or something else easy for me to type (with all the practice I've had due to my interest in Welsh history)?[/quote]

proEuphie
03-13-2009, 08:34 PM
For me...
...Suzaku is more heroic type than Lelouch; and Suzaku have the traits I'm looking for a main character...

But, I also like Lelouch at first...
but in his attitude, i begun hating him...
and the time Lelouch command his lovely sister, Leufie, to kill her self...
I begun hating him the most!

Actually Lelouch planned to make Euphie shoot him which would start a revolution in which she would be in great danger of being killed, but then made peace with her, and then "accidentally" commanded Euphie to "kill the Japanese" (how many Japanese unspecified) and during the ensuing massacre Lelouch killed her, which I think is one of the worst murders ever on television, as you can see from my other posts. [/quote].

proEuphie
03-13-2009, 08:53 PM
Assuming that Euphemia does not go insane but rather has the Geass pop up whenever a Japanese walks by (like how Suzaku's command to live only activates at certain times), what do you think should have happened to Euphemia? Sorry, but the Japanese are not going to accept the whole "Euphemia was crazy" excuse. She was fine before. Plus, like I said before, that excuse sounds like a feint. The Japanese are already sick of Britannia's bull crap so they are not going to accept that. And they are not going to drop their hatred for Euphemia and put on the soldiers simply because she was "crazy". They are going to hate her AND the soldiers no matter what. The Black Knights can not take care of her because the ENTIRE organization (save for 3 people) is Japanese. Any person could trigger the Geass. Britannia can not take care of her for several reasons. Euphemia no longer has a rank, title or status; she gave it up, so some people (especially Charles) may see no point in caring for her. Cornelia would not be best person to take care of her either. She is the Viseroy of Area 11; she is constantly in Japan, so any random moment can trigger the Geass. She could be sent to the royal palace in Pendragon, where she would have no chance of seeing a Japanese. Although, something on the news could trigger it. Plus, we all know what happened to Pendragon, right? It was completely destroyed by a F.L.E.I.J.A bomb later in series.

Your example in episode 20 is not the best one. While it is true that Suzaku was about to give up and die, we do not know when (or if) the Geass would have activated due to Lelouch intervening at that point. The Geass command to live activates when Suzaku is feeling suicidal or when his life is mortal danger. It does not stop him (obviously) from serving in the military.

I have said over and over that while we do not know the upper limits of a Geass, the rules for it say that a command has to be completed before it wears off. And we have long ones before; Suzaku is not the only one. Charles' Geass lasted on Lelouch and Nunnally for more than 7 years before C.C broke it on Lelouch and Nunnally broke it of her own will. Marianne's Geass lasted over 8 years. And C.C Geass lasted on people from her childhood to the later part of her adolesence (about 10 years).

I never said that Lelouch was justified in killing Euphemia because he hated his family. What I said was that you should not be at all surprised that Lelouch decided to kill Euphemia instead of save her, considering what has first plan was. He did not care what would happen to Euphemia if she shot him and made him look like a martyr. She may have been captured or even killed, but Lelouch didn't really seem to care. He may have regretted the fact that he had to shot Euphemia, but it still only took him a few seconds to make that decision, carry it out and use it to his advantage.

You keep saying that here are examples of geass lasting for five to ten years and that therefore Euphie would have to be imprisoned for five to ten years and perhaps years more than that. And you seem to imply that being imprisoned for such a long time would be no better than death for a young girl.
I suggest that you get in contact with Dr. Otto Habsburg, who was the head of the Habsburg dynasty and claimant to its thrones from 1922 to 2007, and ask him a hypothetical question about the Austrian revolution in 1918, when he was exiled from Austria with the rest of the Imperial family.
Suppose that the new government wanted to execute or imprison the Habsburgs. Does he think it would have been better for him to have been imprisoned or forty or fifty or sixty years and not released until 1958 to 1978, or executed ninety years ago in 1918? [/quote]

wolfgirl90
03-15-2009, 12:16 AM
You keep saying that here are examples of geass lasting for five to ten years and that therefore Euphie would have to be imprisoned for five to ten years and perhaps years more than that. And you seem to imply that being imprisoned for such a long time would be no better than death for a young girl.
I suggest that you get in contact with Dr. Otto Habsburg, who was the head of the Habsburg dynasty and claimant to its thrones from 1922 to 2007, and ask him a hypothetical question about the Austrian revolution in 1918, when he was exiled from Austria with the rest of the Imperial family.
Suppose that the new government wanted to execute or imprison the Habsburgs. Does he think it would have been better for him to have been imprisoned or forty or fifty or sixty years and not released until 1958 to 1978, or executed ninety years ago in 1918?

I keep saying that because you keep saying that the longest time anyone has ever been under the influence of a Geass was only a year or two, while I (repeatedly) have shown examples of longer periods than that. The most obvious example would be Charles' use of his Geass on Lelouch and Nunnally. Both of them were under the influence of his Geass for over 7 years before having it broken (Lelouch) or breaking it on their own (Nunnally). Because of this, we know that the Geass can last AT LEAST this long.

How many Japanese she was commanded to kill is ambiguous. The command was "kill the Japanese". She not stop with the people that were in the SAZ. She killed people standing immediately outside the SAZ plus she attacked Suzaku (who, while in the SAZ, was not a participate) and Kallen (who was even there). She commanded her soldiers to kill any Japanese they saw, not just to kill the Japanese in the SAZ.

I am not comparing prison to death, however, someone like Euphemia, who has a strong relationship with those she loves and trusts, will most likely not handle being in confinement for a sentence that could possibly be for the rest of her life. If her Geass is not constantly active (like Suzaku's), it will activate anytime she is around someone who is Japanese or anything that triggers the Geass itself. However, there is evidence to the contrary. Suzaku's command to live wore off whenever conditions were safe for him again. Euphemia's command to kill the Japanese did not wear off even when Lelouch was standing right in front of her. Unlike Dr.Hapsburg, a man who might have been of sound mind, Euphemia was under the influence of something that can only be discribed as a spell that was compelling her to carry out the practical genocide of the Japanese people. A lot of people have suggested that Euphemia should have been taken prisoner but my question is, what would hapen to her after that?

Like I said before, the Geass command to kill would either be in constant effect or trigger activated by her surroundings. She cannot be with her sister because Cornelia is Viceroy of Japan. She is always going to be in Japan. She cannot visit Suzaku, the man she loves, for more than obvious reasons. She cannot be with the Black Knights because the entire organization (except 3 people) are Japanese. Anything can set her off and she has already shown that she able to use a gun and pilot a Knightmare. Keeping her in the constant presence of a non-Japanese member (ie Diethard) may or may not work since she certainly did not forget who the Black Knights were (just knowing she is around a bunch of Japanese can trigger the Geass).

proEuphie
03-16-2009, 02:08 PM
How many Japanese she was commanded to kill is ambiguous. The command was "kill the Japanese". She not stop with the people that were in the SAZ. She killed people standing immediately outside the SAZ plus she attacked Suzaku (who, while in the SAZ, was not a participate) and Kallen (who was even there). She commanded her soldiers to kill any Japanese they saw, not just to kill the Japanese in the SAZ.

How do you know the limits of the SAZ? Did you see signs in Japanese showing the borders of the SAZ?
I remember soldiers shooting at Suzaku but not Euphemia shooting at him.

And when did Euphemia attack Kallen? Kallen was hidden at a distance during episode 22 and couldn't have been attacked by Euphie then. And if you saw the same episode 23 as I did and think that Euphemia attacked Kallen you would make a poor witness in court:

Prosecutor: So Ms Wolfgirl has testified that Euphemia attacked Kallen.

Judge: Defense may cross-examine.

Defense: Ms Wolfgirl, how many rounds did Euphemia fire at Kallen?

Wolfgirl: Er, none.

Defense: So how many times did Euphemia kick or punch Kallen's nightmare?

Wolfgirl: She, er, didn't.

Defense: So how did the encounter between them begin?

Wolfgirl: Well, Euphemia was shooting at some fleeing Japanese when Kallen's nightmare bumped into Euphemia's.

Defense: So Kallen initiated the physical contact?

Wolfgirl: Well, er, yes, I guess you could put it like that.

Defense: But I suppose that Euphemia reacted with violence to Kallen's actions.

Wolfgirl: Yes. That arrogant [censored] called Kallen an Eleven and said how dare you do that to Princess Euphemia, or words to that effect.

Defense: How brutal. What happened next?

Wolfgirl: Kallen realized she was talking to the princess and said something like "I've got you now, you useless person", or something similar.

Defense: So did Euphemia begin her attack then?

Wolfgirl: No, when she recognized that Kallen wasn't Japanese her normal personality reemerged and she said something like "You're the girl from the island".

Defense: You said that in a rather neutral or even friendly tone. Didn't Euphemia say it in a more hostile tone?

Wolfgirl: No, she said it about like I said it.

Defense: So their previous meeting on the island should have been friendly?

Wolfgirl: Well, er, Kallen attacked Euphemia's knight, and Euphemia objected, and Kallen said something like stay out of it you useless puppet subviceroy, and Euphemia ordered her knight to attack Kallen.

Defense: Did Euphemia insult Kallen back when she ordered her knight to attack?

Wolfgirl: Well, no. Except when controlled by the geass Euphemia never insulted anybody.

Defense: How did the fight go?

WolfgirL: The ground collapsed and they fell into a lab in a cavern. Lelouch and Kallen stole a nightmare and escaped, and__

Defense: And?

Wolfgirl: Well, Kallen did shoot a machine gun in the general direction of Suzaku and Euphemia, but armored soldiers formed a shield around them to protect them.

Defense: So in her normal condition Euphemia was so friendly that she was not hostile to someone who had tried to kill her?

Wolfgirl: Well, er, no, she didn't seem to resent that.

Defense: So what happened after Euphemia recognized Kallen, on the day of the Fuji Massacre?

Wolfgirl: Kallen said something about Euphemia being doomed, and prepared to try to roast Euphemia to death, but Zero interrupted them.

Defense: And what did Euphemia do to Kallen after the interruption? When did she get around to attacking Kallen?

Wolfgirl: That was the end of it. They didn't meet after that.

Defense: So that is how Euphemia attacked Kallen. I have no further questions, your honor.

Judge: Does the prosecution wish to further examine the witness?

Prosecution. No. your honor.

And how far was Euphemia's broadcast command to kill Japanese transmitted? If it went all over Japan wouldn't Cornelia have been alerted within minutes? Wouldn't she have ordered the soldiers in the zone to stop the massacre and protect Euphemia and high-ranking guests, and restrain Euphemia if she insisted on attacking the Japanese? Wouldn't the Black Knights have had to fight a dense concentration of Britannian troops, or allow them to withdraw in peace, instead of finding them scattered to hunt Japanese? If Euphemia knew the range of her transmitter she would have an idea of where the soldiers would be obeying her. But I don't see how it could have reached far beyond the SAZ without Cornelia soon taking charge of the situation. [/quote]

proEuphie
03-16-2009, 08:10 PM
Assuming that Euphemia does not go insane but rather has the Geass pop up whenever a Japanese walks by (like how Suzaku's command to live only activates at certain times), what do you think should have happened to Euphemia? Sorry, but the Japanese are not going to accept the whole "Euphemia was crazy" excuse. She was fine before. Plus, like I said before, that excuse sounds like a feint. The Japanese are already sick of Britannia's bull crap so they are not going to accept that. And they are not going to drop their hatred for Euphemia and put on the soldiers simply because she was "crazy". They are going to hate her AND the soldiers no matter what. The Black Knights can not take care of her because the ENTIRE organization (save for 3 people) is Japanese. Any person could trigger the Geass. Britannia can not take care of her for several reasons. Euphemia no longer has a rank, title or status; she gave it up, so some people (especially Charles) may see no point in caring for her. Cornelia would not be best person to take care of her either. She is the Viseroy of Area 11; she is constantly in Japan, so any random moment can trigger the Geass. She could be sent to the royal palace in Pendragon, where she would have no chance of seeing a Japanese. Although, something on the news could trigger it. Plus, we all know what happened to Pendragon, right? It was completely destroyed by a F.L.E.I.J.A bomb later in series.

Your example in episode 20 is not the best one. While it is true that Suzaku was about to give up and die, we do not know when (or if) the Geass would have activated due to Lelouch intervening at that point. The Geass command to live activates when Suzaku is feeling suicidal or when his life is mortal danger. It does not stop him (obviously) from serving in the military.

I have said over and over that while we do not know the upper limits of a Geass, the rules for it say that a command has to be completed before it wears off. And we have long ones before; Suzaku is not the only one. Charles' Geass lasted on Lelouch and Nunnally for more than 7 years before C.C broke it on Lelouch and Nunnally broke it of her own will. Marianne's Geass lasted over 8 years. And C.C Geass lasted on people from her childhood to the later part of her adolesence (about 10 years).

I never said that Lelouch was justified in killing Euphemia because he hated his family. What I said was that you should not be at all surprised that Lelouch decided to kill Euphemia instead of save her, considering what has first plan was. He did not care what would happen to Euphemia if she shot him and made him look like a martyr. She may have been captured or even killed, but Lelouch didn't really seem to care. He may have regretted the fact that he had to shot Euphemia, but it still only took him a few seconds to make that decision, carry it out and use it to his advantage.

Why would any Japanese ever walk by Euphemia unless he was suicidal or didn't know who she was? Why would Euphemia, if not controlled by the geass, want to take a chance of triggering it? Why would the Briitannian government ever want her to come in contact with Japanese, unless of course they kill two birds with one stone and make her the head executioner in Japan? And maybe they would charge suicidal Japanese a fee to be killed by Euphemia and avoid the heavy fine that their survivors would otherwise have to pay if they deserted their duties through unsanctioned suicide.
Why do you say the Japanese would never forgive Euphemia?. Was the Fuji massacre worse than Cornelia's Saitema Ghetto massacre? Cornelia didn't seem to be marked for death after the Saitema massacre. In real life American GIs were perfectly safe in post-war Japan, even though any one of them might have taken part in the genocidal air raids. General Douglas MacArthur didn't make any effort to stop those air raids, and so shared the guilt for them. Yet his administration of occupied Japan made him respected and even loved.
(All the Britannians, except for Euphemia who seems to have made the Britannian army fight in a more civilized way at least once, share in the guilt for the Shinjaku and Saitema massacres because they did not object to them. All of the Japanese who fight for Japanese independence or at least desire it share the guilt of the worst terrorists who fight for Japanese independence, since they have not renounced the goal of Japanese independence in disgust at the crimes of the terrorists who share that goal. So Euphemia is just about the only good person in Code Geass).
If Euphemia became the viceroy and was allowed to make the reforms she desired she might soon be worshiped as a goddess who was usually very kind and just but sometimes terrible and dangerous.
Why do you make such a big deal about the problems of caring for one more prisoner in a world with thousands or millions of prisoners? If there were only three non-Japanese in the Black Knights Diethard was making a mountain out of a molehill when he made his speech about Zero attracting followers of all races and creeds. No wonder Zero put him in charge of propaganda. But Lelouch had a big source of non-Japenese recruits for the Black knights. He could use his geass on some of the non-Japanese at the stadium to make them guard Euphemia faithfully.
But if Euphemia didn't need medical attention after being captured she could just be tied up, perhaps sedated, and basically ignored for a day or so. She would have to be checked now and then, and given water every few hours, and optionally be fed and allowed to go to the bathroom under guard. That would not tie up a lot of valuable manpower. And after the capture of Tokyo there would be thousands of Britannian prisoners eager to improve their life expectancies and/or save relatives kept as hostages by helping to guard Euphemia. And Lelouch could give them geass commands to guard Euphemia.
Of course Lelouch could have released Euphemia after a few hours in exchange for whatever he could extort from Cornelia. The surrender of Suzaku and his Lancelot, or maybe the surrender of Tokyo, or all of Japan, or fighting the Black Knights in the open instead of in Tokyo, saving the lives of tens or hundreds or thousands of civilians if Lelouch still cared about that.
And if Euphemia lived Cornelia would have no motive to say on as viceroy just to take out her hatred on the Japanese. in "Refrain" Cornelia told Euphie that she wanted to fight the Euro Universe on the EL Alemain front, and would leave Euphie in charge of "this area" as soon as the rebel groups were defeated. Once the Black Rebellion was crushed Cornelia could go fight the Euro Universe and keep Euphie guarded at her main headquarters, or take her back to Britannia to be locked up and cared for.
I think that Euphemia and Cornelia are probably rich enough to pay for Euphemia's care without government help, especially if Cornelia has acquired a lot of loot in her conquests. And it would be better to possibly be killed in Pendragon at the age of seventeen to to be killed at Fuji at the age of sixteen. [/quote]

proEuphie
03-16-2009, 09:10 PM
I am not comparing prison to death, however, someone like Euphemia, who has a strong relationship with those she loves and trusts, will most likely not handle being in confinement for a sentence that could possibly be for the rest of her life. If her Geass is not constantly active (like Suzaku's), it will activate anytime she is around someone who is Japanese or anything that triggers the Geass itself. However, there is evidence to the contrary. Suzaku's command to live wore off whenever conditions were safe for him again. Euphemia's command to kill the Japanese did not wear off even when Lelouch was standing right in front of her. Unlike Dr.Hapsburg, a man who might have been of sound mind, Euphemia was under the influence of something that can only be discribed as a spell that was compelling her to carry out the practical genocide of the Japanese people. A lot of people have suggested that Euphemia should have been taken prisoner but my question is, what would hapen to her after that?

Like I said before, the Geass command to kill would either be in constant effect or trigger activated by her surroundings. She cannot be with her sister because Cornelia is Viceroy of Japan. She is always going to be in Japan. She cannot visit Suzaku, the man she loves, for more than obvious reasons. She cannot be with the Black Knights because the entire organization (except 3 people) are Japanese. Anything can set her off and she has already shown that she able to use a gun and pilot a Knightmare. Keeping her in the constant presence of a non-Japanese member (ie Diethard) may or may not work since she certainly did not forget who the Black Knights were (just knowing she is around a bunch of Japanese can trigger the Geass).

Euphemia could have been visited by people she loved in prison or an asylum or when under house arrest. As far as I can tell Euphemia loved her father (at least a little, and he may not have returned it at all), and her mother (who may have been alive and able to care for her. If not that was another loss that Euphemia had learned to accept), and Cornelia, and any hypothetical full siblings they may have had (who might have been alive to help care for her. And if not that was another loss Euphie had learned to accept), and several half siblings such as Lelouch, Nunnally, Clovis (dead), maybe Schnitzel, and her boyfriend Suzaku. She could have had a few visitors or even one or more full time companions that she loved. Suzaku could have visited behind a glass wall or something.
And if Euphemia lived Cornelia might give up the position of Viceroy of area Eleven. In "Refrain" she said she would go fight the Euro Universe as soon as the rebels were crushed. So she might give up the viceregal position to take care of Euphie while having another assignment. Why would a great general like Cornelia take a job as Viceroy of an already conquered Area like Japan except as a temperary assignment?
Why do you say: "Euphemia's command to kill the Japanese did not wear off even when Lelouch was standing right in front of her."? When she saw Zero's mask she said something like "Sorry,I thought you were Japanese." so at that moment she knew that she had been killing Japanese. A moment later she asked Zero to help her administer the SAZ. That would not make sense if she remembered the massacre and the exodus of terrified fugitives.
When Lelouch shot her she asked why. She didn't expect any danger from Zero, the protector and avenger of the Japanese, so she didn't remember the massacre. After Geass is done people don't remember what they did, so Euphemia seems to have been almost totally free from the geass when Lelouch shot her.
And why do you worry so much about what would happen to Euphemia as a prisoner? Obviously she would have had problems, like most prisoners. And why do you make such a big deal about her knowing how to use a gun and a nightmare? Thousands and thousands of Britannian soldiers and Black Knights know how to use guns and pilot nightmares, and have obeyed orders to commit massacres, and have full access to guns and nightmares. Euphemia's potential danger to Japanese people is a drop in the bucket. [/quote]

blackrosetwilight
03-17-2009, 07:00 PM
Screw all this Im going for Pizza Hut!!!!!!!

proEuphie
03-18-2009, 03:04 PM
Assuming that Euphemia does not go insane but rather has the Geass pop up whenever a Japanese walks by (like how Suzaku's command to live only activates at certain times), what do you think should have happened to Euphemia? Sorry, but the Japanese are not going to accept the whole "Euphemia was crazy" excuse. She was fine before. Plus, like I said before, that excuse sounds like a feint. The Japanese are already sick of Britannia's bull crap so they are not going to accept that. And they are not going to drop their hatred for Euphemia and put on the soldiers simply because she was "crazy". They are going to hate her AND the soldiers no matter what. The Black Knights can not take care of her because the ENTIRE organization (save for 3 people) is Japanese. Any person could trigger the Geass. Britannia can not take care of her for several reasons. Euphemia no longer has a rank, title or status; she gave it up, so some people (especially Charles) may see no point in caring for her. Cornelia would not be best person to take care of her either. She is the Viseroy of Area 11; she is constantly in Japan, so any random moment can trigger the Geass. She could be sent to the royal palace in Pendragon, where she would have no chance of seeing a Japanese. Although, something on the news could trigger it. Plus, we all know what happened to Pendragon, right? It was completely destroyed by a F.L.E.I.J.A bomb later in series.


You say if Euphemia lived she might have been in Pendragon when it was destroyed by a F.L.E.I.J.A bomb. Didn't Nina try and fail to make a F.L.E.I.J.A. bomb when she heard that Euphemia was killed? Didn't Nina later help Lloyd's team develop F.L.E.I.J.A a little sooner than they would have done without her help? Maybe the fighting would have been over by the time that a practical F.L.E.I.J.A weapon was developed, if Euphemia hadn't been killed. The shot that killed Euphemia was the shot that kept on giving death, destruction, and suffering. And it is better to die in Pendragon in the year 2018 than to die at Fuji in the year 2017.
And if Euphemia was kept in some villa on the outskirts of Pendragon she might survive the blast. And even if she got a fatal case of cancer decades later as a result, she might still have lived a much long, healthier, and happier life than most girls contemporary to CC, and most girls though history, could have expected. And she might have been kept hundreds of miles from Pendragon.[/quote]

Zenga
03-18-2009, 04:03 PM
Wow. I've read what each and everybody has posted and I must say that you all have points and feel more strongly about your choice. I know I'll probably get yelled (figuratively) at for my choice, but I side with Suzaku.
He could have found another way for dealing with Euphemia, like modifying her Geass, tying her up, or whatever. His decision to kill Euphemia resullted in F.L.E.I.A., the worst weapon I've seen so far. F.L.E.I.A. probably resulted in thousands of death (both Britannian and Japanese).
Also, Lelouch was a douche for using Rolo. All the poor kid wanted was to make Lelouch happy. Killing Shirley was a fluke. Hell, I almost cried when Rolo died protecting his 'big brother', and all I could think was that Lelouch didn't deserve to know Rolo.
I also agree with proEuphie when Suzaku can't technically be a traitor to the japanese govt.
Lastly, I agree with Suzaku's idea. To change the Britannian government from thre inside. I believe that is the best way to deal with Britannnia. Let's not forget, it's Charles that's evil, not all of Britannia. There were innocent Brittanians who wanted nothing with the war and just wanted to live their lives.

proEuphie
03-18-2009, 09:34 PM
Assuming that Euphemia does not go insane but rather has the Geass pop up whenever a Japanese walks by (like how Suzaku's command to live only activates at certain times), what do you think should have happened to Euphemia?....Britannia can not take care of her for several reasons. Euphemia no longer has a rank, title or status; she gave it up, so some people (especially Charles) may see no point in caring for her. Cornelia would not be best person to take care of her either. She is the Viseroy of Area 11; she is constantly in Japan, so any random moment can trigger the Geass. She could be sent to the royal palace in Pendragon, where she would have no chance of seeing a Japanese. Although, something on the news could trigger it. Plus, we all know what happened to Pendragon, right? It was completely destroyed by a F.L.E.I.J.A bomb later in series.

Are you suggesting that only members in good standing of the royal family are allowed to get psychiatric treatment or to be confined in mental institutions?
While it is true that Emperor Charles has a huge family, and their life style may tend to drive them insane a lot, that would restrict the mental health industry to a very small pool of customers. Why would there be such a harsh restriction, unless perhaps Emperor Charles has a grudge against the mental health industry for some well-founded doubts about his mental condition expressed sometime in the past?
And why would Cornelia keep the position of viceroy of Area 11, an already-conquered province, in preference to taking care of her beloved sister? If Cornelia was going to give up her warlike life style for anything, it would be to take care of Euphemia, not administer a relatively peaceful region. She only accepted the job as a temporary measure. By "Refrain" she was already talking about going to fight the Euro Universe as soon as the Japanese rebels were crushed. Cornelia did not want to be Viceroy of Area 11, it was an unsatisfying position she took out of a sense of duty because a strong hand was needed there after the death of Clovis and perhaps to prove that she had enough civilian government skills to make a good empress.
And Cornelia could have taken care of Euphemia fine commuting from Japan to Britannia every weekend or whatever. Do you think that any employees of Cornelia would dare to disobey her orders for the care and protection of Euphemia? Cornelia would probably start by torturing one or more of them just as a slight hint of what she would do if they failed her. And if Euphemia watched that and her normal personality had any control over her she would do her best not to get them in any trouble. And if Euphemia's normal personality was in control a lot of the time her guardians would soon like her and want to do what was good for her. [/quote]

+Namiko+
03-20-2009, 04:51 PM
ProEuphie
U have made ur point!
STOP DOUBLE POSTING ON MY THREAD PLZ!! U R FLOODING!!!!
PLEAZE!?!?!?
I asked nicely??? Please stop???^^ Double posting???? Wait ur turn please???

proEuphie
03-28-2009, 09:06 PM
Wow. I've read what each and everybody has posted and I must say that you all have points and feel more strongly about your choice. I know I'll probably get yelled (figuratively) at for my choice, but I side with Suzaku.
He could have found another way for dealing with Euphemia, like modifying her Geass, tying her up, or whatever. His decision to kill Euphemia resullted in F.L.E.I.A., the worst weapon I've seen so far. F.L.E.I.A. probably resulted in thousands of death (both Britannian and Japanese).
Also, Lelouch was a douche for using Rolo. All the poor kid wanted was to make Lelouch happy. Killing Shirley was a fluke. Hell, I almost cried when Rolo died protecting his 'big brother', and all I could think was that Lelouch didn't deserve to know Rolo.
I also agree with proEuphie when Suzaku can't technically be a traitor to the japanese govt.
Lastly, I agree with Suzaku's idea. To change the Britannian government from thre inside. I believe that is the best way to deal with Britannnia. Let's not forget, it's Charles that's evil, not all of Britannia. There were innocent Brittanians who wanted nothing with the war and just wanted to live their lives.

Actually I have to give the devil his due and say that Lelouch was not totally responsible for creating F.L.E.I.A. -- killing Euphie just made Nina get involved in the project and help complete it faster. If the project had been completed weeks or months later, the fighting might have been over before it was ready.
I believe I read that ten million people were killed when F.L.E.I.A. was used on Tokyo and twenty five million when it was used on Pendragon, or whatever. Anyway, millions, not thousands. Yuck!
Suzaku's plan of trying to reform Britannia from the inside ran into a number of problems in the first few episodes. He probably despaired until he met Euphemia, a moderately powerful Britannian who wanted to do what was good for the Japanese.
Lelouch's plan for saving the Japanese though violent revolution also met a lot of problems and set backs, starting when the resistance captured CC in the first episode and caused Clovis to panic and order the Shinjaku massacre and climaxing in the second battle for Tokyo when millions were killed though the use of F.L.E.I.A.
Both peaceful and violent ways have a lot of difficulties and set backs, but if you try peaceful ways you will not give your opponents a push toward responding violently to your actions, and will reduce the possibility that violence will escalate.
There were tens of millions of slaves in 1750 and almost none in 1900. Except in the tiny nation of Haiti, all were freed by the efforts of reformers working within the system instead of by bloody slave revolts.
In the USA there have been many important political revolutions which are not usually considered revolutions because they were carried out by ordinary political methods instead of violent civil war. They include universal male suffrage , free, universal, and mandatory public education, the program of the Republican Party in the 1850s and 1860s, the progressive movement, woman's suffrage, the new Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Movement, and so on.[/quote]

blackrosetwilight
03-29-2009, 08:57 AM
proEuphie, we all get it the things lelouch did werent all that good, but the motive behind them werent that bad either he never wanted to rule the world. just get over it he paid for all the things he did in the final episode when suzaku killed him, besides he did more good than evil.

Funkgun
03-31-2009, 09:36 PM
proEuphie, we all get it the things lelouch did werent all that good, but the motive behind them werent that bad either he never wanted to rule the world. just get over it he paid for all the things he did in the final episode when suzaku killed him, besides he did more good than evil.
I approve of this message.


Most people have short comings if given too much power or authority. Intentions may be good, actions to achieve those goals may be borderline bad, but in this instance the outcome was unexpectedly better for the whole.

Virendar
04-06-2009, 09:57 AM
I approve of this message.


Most people have short comings if given too much power or authority. Intentions may be good, actions to achieve those goals may be borderline bad, but in this instance the outcome was unexpectedly better for the whole.

i agree

he was a genius and his methods may have been questionable, but in his own way he did was was right

Crimson Tears
04-06-2009, 10:34 AM
I am all for Lelouch. ^^ Yeah it's true some of the things he has done could be questionable but overall he was the closest to changing the world into a better place. He's uber smart and very determined. I would totally back Lelouch up for anything. He's awesome!! ^^

XxPantherChickxX
04-12-2009, 07:16 PM
I choose Lelouch because I think he had better ethics.
*Very short reply*

Rivette
04-12-2009, 08:27 PM
Both characters made questionable choices; more so Suzaku.
But I support him more than I do Lelouch.
I mean, if you look at R2, Lelouch seemed to go a tad insane.
(No offense to the Lulu fans.)
I like Lulu, infact, he's my 3rd favorite character,
but I'd choose the Knights of the Round over the Black Knights.

Dragon Ranger
04-12-2009, 09:26 PM
things did go bad for Lelouch later on in R2

Rivette
04-12-2009, 09:45 PM
Agreed, Dragon.

He just sort of lost it on R2.

Legend of the Twilight
04-17-2009, 11:37 AM
Lelouch is fighting for something good. Even if he occasionally does things that are wrong, he never means to do the wrong thing.

Suzaku is just an idiot and a traitor. He'd rather be Britainia's dog and "try to help" the Japanese people. He also doesn't seem to care if Nunnally is without Lelouch, which obviously hurts her.

Rorschach'
04-23-2009, 02:36 PM
Lulu for obvious reasons his pan changed the world

A. it made sure no single empire would ever be allowed to rule again.
B. United the world against him
C. Cleared his sisters name
D. Showed the world the wrongs of WMD in the hands of anyone is dangerous

Suzaku was just a tag along and he provided no alternative to Lelu's plan

+Namiko+
05-09-2009, 07:46 PM
WOW^^ Never knew there would be this many Lulu fans! I love Lelouch^^ Def my favorite character! I do not agree with EVERYthing he did, but in EVERY SINGLE WAR EVER innocent people are killed. How does Lelouch killing innocent people to save millions more any worse that many Great Leaders of the world who killed people in wars?

I agree with Lelouch and he has made some of the greatest points I have ever seen! Like, for instance:

An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth? Pretty soon we'll be left with a bunch of toothless blind people.

and

When somebody wins...the fighting will stop.


YAY LULU

wolfgirl90
05-09-2009, 08:40 PM
Lelouch is fighting for something good. Even if he occasionally does things that are wrong, he never means to do the wrong thing.

By that logic, Suzaku is also in the right, since while he did bad things, he wanted (and had) good come out of his actions.


Suzaku is just an idiot and a traitor. He'd rather be Britainia's dog and "try to help" the Japanese people. He also doesn't seem to care if Nunnally is without Lelouch, which obviously hurts her.

While Suzaku's plan was not as proactive as Lelouch, being an honorary Britanian was not really a bad thing (Lelouch even said this to him). As Lelouch pointed out, Japan resisting Britania, with its "fight to the death" mentality, could have lead to its destruction had Suzaku not shot his father and Japan surrendered. When it comes to Nunnally, Suzaku was always going to protect her, but Lelouch was the one causing the rebellion; its not like he can just hand Nunnally over to him (in fact, that would be defeating the point).

Am I saying this because I am on Suzaku's "side"? No. In fact, while I love the series, I am on no one's "side", which would be implying that one person is right and the other is wrong, since what happens in Code Geass is a little bit more comlicated than that;). You appently either choose between the guy who sided with the enemy to change things from the inside (a slower, less proactive, but less violent way of changing things) or the guy who used the people of the other guy as tools to get his revenge on his father and destroy the oppressing empire (a faster, more proactive, but much more violent way of changing things).:closedeye

proEuphie
05-13-2009, 10:40 PM
WOW^^ Never knew there would be this many Lulu fans! I love Lelouch^^ Def my favorite character! I do not agree with EVERYthing he did, but in EVERY SINGLE WAR EVER innocent people are killed. How does Lelouch killing innocent people to save millions more any worse that many Great Leaders of the world who killed people in wars?

I agree with Lelouch and he has made some of the greatest points I have ever seen! Like, for instance:

An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth? Pretty soon we'll be left with a bunch of toothless blind people.

and

When somebody wins...the fighting will stop.


YAY LULU

You say that in every single war ever innocent people are killed. Perhaps. But Sun Tzu in the Art of War says that he who defeats the enemy in a hundred battles is less great than he would wins without fighting. Sun Tzu believed that a great strategist could win without fighting (and thus without killing anyone, let alone the few who are innocent) though superior strategy. Sun Tzu didn't believe in magic, but obviously he would have believed that it was better to brainwash your enemies with magic than to defeat them in bloody battles, that only a stupid general would prefer winning though slaughter and destruction and war than by magically making the enemy your followers.

Lelouch could have done that, but he chose to fight wars and revolutions instead of geassing the Britannian government and army into loyalty to him. It is true that unknown to Lelouch the Emperor was watching and might have sent VV to take the geass off everyone that Lelouch geassed. But Wolfgirl90 doubts that VV would bother to take a geass command off of even one person, Euphemia, let alone the entire Brittannian army.

Anyway, Lelouch did not take the obvious course to reduced the casualties of his revolution to a minimum.

And the Geass Directorate Massacre and the murder of Euphemia were totally evil. And they were totally unnecessary to achieve any good or evil or controversial goals that Lelouch achieved or tried and failed to achieve. They were totally unnecessary and unjustified.

You can praise Lelouch's other actions to the heavens and I will think that you are just being carried away by your enthusiasem for your favorite character. But if you don't add that the Geass Directorate Massacre and the murder of Euphemia were totally unjustified, the two terrible crimes of your otherwise noble and great hero, I will fight you to the finish to convince you that not only were those two deeds evil, but everything else that Lelouch did was evil.

I can make a truce with Lelouch lovers who admit that killing Euphemia and the Geass Directorate Massacre were evil, but I will have no peace with those who claim that those two deeds were the least bit good or justified.[/quote]

You ask how Lelouch killing innocent people to save millions makes him any worse than the great leaders of history. Most of the great leaders of history were evil. So claiming that Lelouch is no worse than the great leaders of history is the same as admitting that he was evil. For example, FDR, Churchill, and Truman were great leaders, but since they permitted air raids that slaughtered thousands of civilians at a time they were clearly evil men.

If you combined Lelouch's drive to change the world with Euphemia's refusal to kill, you would have a truly great and good leader, far superior to anyone in our world's history.[/quote]

proEuphie
05-13-2009, 11:08 PM
Lelouch is fighting for something good. Even if he occasionally does things that are wrong, he never means to do the wrong thing.

Suzaku is just an idiot and a traitor. He'd rather be Britainia's dog and "try to help" the Japanese people. He also doesn't seem to care if Nunnally is without Lelouch, which obviously hurts her.

How can you say that Lelouch never means to do the wrong thing? How can ordering the Geass Directorate Massacre be unintentional? How can walking up to Euphemia, pointing the gun at her and pulling the trigger be unintentional? In the thread "did Euphemia escape from the control of her geass before Lelouch shot her?" my post # 28 lists fifteen ways to capture Euphemia alive just as fast, just as easy, and with just as much safety for Lelouch and the Japanese as killing her. Is Lelouch such an idiot he can't think of at least one of those ways to capture her alive, or other ways which aren't on my list?

As for Suzaku being a traitor, I pointed out in a previous post in this thread (#51) that Suzaku is not a traitor, though the Black Knights are traitors against the government in control of the area they live in.

You say that Suzaku doesn't care if Nunnally is without Lelouch, which obviously hurts her. Well Lelouch killed Euphemia when he could have captured her alive easily and safely. Lelouch didn't care about murdering innocent Euphemia who loved and trusted him, and he didn't care that would hurt Nunnally. And Lelouch saw how the death of Shirley's father hurt her, and yet he continued to plan to achieve his goals by a bloody revolution which would hurt many other people instead of using his geass to make the entire Britannian government and army obey him and do what was right. [/quote]

wolfgirl90
05-14-2009, 03:18 PM
Lelouch could have done that, but he chose to fight wars and revolutions instead of geassing the Britannian government and army into loyalty to him. It is true that unknown to Lelouch the Emperor was watching and might have sent VV to take the geass off everyone that Lelouch geassed. But Wolfgirl90 doubts that VV would bother to take a geass command off of even one person, Euphemia, let alone the entire Brittannian army.

Anyway, Lelouch did not take the obvious course to reduced the casualties of his revolution to a minimum.

Yeah. I hope you realize that that action would be short of impossible. In fact, Lelouch runs through the thought of using the Geass on every single Britannian soldier and government official right from the get-go and decides, just like I said, that that would be nothing short of impossible. The best course of action would be to rise to the top of Britannian power and control the soldiers and the government that way. Which is what he did.

And please do not confuse what I said (there are quote tags for a reason). When it came to V.V, I was talking about your plan to have Lelouch force V.V into canceling the Geass that was placed on Euphemia. What I said was that that would be impossible since V.V had no moral obligation to help Lelouch (and in fact, hates him) and he is immortal. You can't "force" him to do anything. So, V.V would be hard pressed to do ANYTHING that Lelouch said. However, V.V, being Charles' brother and partner in crime, would help Charles. So that argument, once again, is moot.


You can praise Lelouch's other actions to the heavens and I will think that you are just being carried away by your enthusiasem for your favorite character. But if you don't add that the Geass Directorate Massacre and the murder of Euphemia were totally unjustified, the two terrible crimes of your otherwise noble and great hero, I will fight you to the finish to convince you that not only were those two deeds evil, but everything else that Lelouch did was evil.

See what I put in bold? You, OF ALL PEOPLE, have no real right to criticize people about their enthusiasm for their favorite character. All you really talk about is either how evil Lelouch is or great Euphemia was. Of the 7 threads that you have created, 3 were specifically aimed at dicussing something about Euphemia,usually her death (2 others skewed in that direction, dispite the topic). Hell, you have "Euphie" in your name. So, you really can not talk about this.


I can make a truce with Lelouch lovers who admit that killing Euphemia and the Geass Directorate Massacre were evil, but I will have no peace with those who claim that those two deeds were the least bit good or justified.

You ask how Lelouch killing innocent people to save millions makes him any worse than the great leaders of history. Most of the great leaders of history were evil. So claiming that Lelouch is no worse than the great leaders of history is the same as admitting that he was evil. For example, FDR, Churchill, and Truman were great leaders, but since they permitted air raids that slaughtered thousands of civilians at a time they were clearly evil men.

If you combined Lelouch's drive to change the world with Euphemia's refusal to kill, you would have a truly great and good leader, far superior to anyone in our world's history.

Ummm...who are you to offer a "truce"? The problem with you is that you act as if you are the only person (or rather, THE person) who knows the difference between good and evil and the opinions of everybody else do not matter so long as they disagree, even slightly, on YOUR definition of good and evil. These concepts are rather complex, ones that really cannot be seperated from one another. That is something that we are all taught at one point, but one you have apparently missed. Idealistically, yes, what Lelouch did was indeed evil. However, who has the right to use THEIR definition of evil and call him out on it, since the same definition of good could be applied to him, as we, as unfortunate as it may seem, do not live in such an idealistic world?

For example, you have some nerve applying the term "evil" to such people as FDR, Truman and Churchill. You are indeed entitled to your own opinion that good and evil are strictly black and white concepts (which they are not, but again, your opinion) but it is rather immature to apply the term "evil" to every single person who declares a war or participates in it. That falls into the realm of the "Fallacy of the undistributed middle". Your logic apparently works like this:
1. All people who declare war and/or bomb people are evil.
2. FDR, Churchill and Truman declared war and/or bombed people
3. Therefore, FDR, Churchill and Truman are evil
This is a logical fallacy.

And Euphemia? The woman is strategically and politically challenged. She is totally naive to things around her. We saw her in battle ONCE, and she almost failed in doing that. Again, your logic runs on a fallacy:
1. All great leaders do not kill people
2. Euphemia refuses to kill people
3. Therefore, Euphemia is a great leader
Yes, this is quite the logical fallacy.


How can you say that Lelouch never means to do the wrong thing? How can ordering the Geass Directorate Massacre be unintentional? How can walking up to Euphemia, pointing the gun at her and pulling the trigger be unintentional? In the thread "did Euphemia escape from the control of her geass before Lelouch shot her?" my post # 28 lists fifteen ways to capture Euphemia alive just as fast, just as easy, and with just as much safety for Lelouch and the Japanese as killing her. Is Lelouch such an idiot he can't think of at least one of those ways to capture her alive, or other ways which aren't on my list?

He doesn't mean to do the wrong thing. I don't think that any of the characters (Charles included) mean to do the wrong thing. I don't think anyone said that (go back and read the posts again). Everybody knows that the Geass Directorate Massacre was intentional. Everybody knows that shooting Euphemia was intentional.

However, since "right" and "wrong" are only concepts that can be applied blankly to so many things, again, like I said before, you are not the only person who can determine what these words mean, as if you are the expert or the "go-to" person on the matters of good and evil. You even gave a reference to your own thread and post as if you are some kind expert.

Was Lelouch shooting Euphemia good or evil? Who can make this decision? You? Because while shooting an innocent girl would be more than evil, shooting someone who was quilty of killing many people would be good. Then, there are the other factors that are working in the backround (the Geass, the Black Rebellion, etc), but, as I can tell, you could care less about these things so long as Euphemia, your favorite character, ends up dead, which, according to your logic (which I have already revealed to comprise of a fallacy), is evil no matter what the circumstances are.

Again, am I defending Lelouch because I am on his side? No. As I said before, I am on nobody's "side", which, like I said before, would imply that one person is completely right and the other is completely wrong, which, since "good" and "evil" are not completely seperate, black and white concepts, would not be true under any real circumstance.

blackrosetwilight
05-14-2009, 09:16 PM
You know what? Im going to make a thread on who was right thread wolfgirl90 or proEuphy and let the people of AF put this to rest by voting... lol nah, as much as I enjoyed both wolfgirl90 and proEuphy fling about Lelouch actions, this needs to stop somewhere and I doubt Im the person to do so but... eh it sure was fun.

Funkgun
05-14-2009, 10:37 PM
You know what? Im going to make a thread on who was right thread wolfgirl90 or proEuphy and let the people of AF put this to rest by voting... lol nah, as much as I enjoyed both wolfgirl90 and proEuphy fling about Lelouch actions, this needs to stop somewhere and I doubt Im the person to do so but... eh it sure was fun.

You would almost hate to see it end though, would you not?

=D

proEuphie
05-15-2009, 10:47 PM
WOW^^ Never knew there would be this many Lulu fans! I love Lelouch^^ Def my favorite character! I do not agree with EVERYthing he did, but in EVERY SINGLE WAR EVER innocent people are killed. How does Lelouch killing innocent people to save millions more any worse that many Great Leaders of the world who killed people in wars?

I agree with Lelouch and he has made some of the greatest points I have ever seen! Like, for instance:

An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth? Pretty soon we'll be left with a bunch of toothless blind people.

and

When somebody wins...the fighting will stop.


YAY LULU


You say: How does Lelouch killing innocent people to save millions more any worse that many Great Leaders of the world who killed people in wars?

I say:

You say it is right to kill hundreds or thousands to bring peace to millions. Which characters beside Lelouch may have followed such a course? Perhaps Emperor Charles and his generals Schneitzel and Cornelia, when they conquered area fourteen and area fifteen and area sixteen, etc. They may have believed that it doesn't matter how many people they killed because if they ended war forever by conquering the world they would save far more lives than they killed. Even if they killed billions and exterminated all the non Britannians, they would still be doing good by saving the world from war forever. And they would have been right.

But if Euphemia sought to persuade them to fight in a kinder and less bloodthirsty way she would have been right, also. It is wrong to waste lives by killing more people than is necessary. And if Britannia killed and destroyed less during its conquests the conquered regions would pay more in taxes and Britannia could afford a bigger army to conquer the world faster. And by being less violent Britannia would be less hated in the newly-conquered areas and would need to keep smaller garrisons in them, thus having more forces available to conquer more lands faster.

So maybe Charles, Schneitzel, and Cornelia together formed a Lelouch-like Great Leader such as you approve of, and with Euphemia's influence to reduce the killing and destruction to a minimum, together they may have formed a Great Leader such as I could approve of.

But Lelouch killed the hundreds and the thousands and maybe millions (depending on estimated casualty figures and how much of the blame you assign to him in specific actions) to give war to the billions. When Britannia defeated the Euro Universe and negotiated the Chinese marriage and seemed about to conquer and unite the world Lelouch organized the United Federation of Nations to oppose Britannia and prevented the Chinese-Britannian marriage. Even if the United Federation of Nations is a lot stronger than the League of Nations or the United Nations it will probably be too weak to keep the peace once the effects of the wars and the Zero Requiem wear off. [/quote]

blackrosetwilight
05-16-2009, 11:05 AM
You say: How does Lelouch killing innocent people to save millions more any worse that many Great Leaders of the world who killed people in wars?

I say:

You say it is right to kill hundreds or thousands to bring peace to millions. Which characters beside Lelouch may have followed such a course? Perhaps Emperor Charles and his generals Schneitzel and Cornelia, when they conquered area fourteen and area fifteen and area sixteen, etc. They may have believed that it doesn't matter how many people they killed because if they ended war forever by conquering the world they would save far more lives than they killed. Even if they killed billions and exterminated all the non Britannians, they would still be doing good by saving the world from war forever. And they would have been right.

But if Euphemia sought to persuade them to fight in a kinder and less bloodthirsty way she would have been right, also. It is wrong to waste lives by killing more people than is necessary. And if Britannia killed and destroyed less during its conquests the conquered regions would pay more in taxes and Britannia could afford a bigger army to conquer the world faster. And by being less violent Britannia would be less hated in the newly-conquered areas and would need to keep smaller garrisons in them, thus having more forces available to conquer more lands faster.

So maybe Charles, Schneitzel, and Cornelia together formed a Lelouch-like Great Leader such as you approve of, and with Euphemia's influence to reduce the killing and destruction to a minimum, together they may have formed a Great Leader such as I could approve of.

[/quote]
See this is where you're wrong proEuphy, the only inoccent people (people who werent involved in the war) Lelouch personally killed was probably only Euphy, the rest of all the other inocccent people died from many unavoidable factors of war, such as stray fire, unexpected factors appearing on the field, or a loony possesed princess with an assualt rifle look at the war in afganastan or iraq minus the loony princess. However grouping Lelouch with Charles and crew isnt correct either. Why? Well the diffrece is Lelouch never intended for himself to lead the world in the first place, second he never saw himself as part of the new world he would create, and he never intended to be glorified either, since zero was a faceless man. I personally compare Lelouch to Nameless and the Qin Emporer from the movie Hero. I would love to explain how Lelouch compare to them but it would be better off if you watch the movie yourself and find the comparison.

SigmaSD
05-16-2009, 07:10 PM
You say: How does Lelouch killing innocent people to save millions more any worse that many Great Leaders of the world who killed people in wars?

I say:

You say it is right to kill hundreds or thousands to bring peace to millions. Which characters beside Lelouch may have followed such a course? Perhaps Emperor Charles and his generals Schneitzel and Cornelia, when they conquered area fourteen and area fifteen and area sixteen, etc. They may have believed that it doesn't matter how many people they killed because if they ended war forever by conquering the world they would save far more lives than they killed. Even if they killed billions and exterminated all the non Britannians, they would still be doing good by saving the world from war forever. And they would have been right.

But Lelouch killed the hundreds and the thousands and maybe millions (depending on estimated casualty figures and how much of the blame you assign to him in specific actions) to give war to the billions. When Britannia defeated the Euro Universe and negotiated the Chinese marriage and seemed about to conquer and unite the world Lelouch organized the United Federation of Nations to oppose Britannia and prevented the Chinese-Britannian marriage. Even if the United Federation of Nations is a lot stronger than the League of Nations or the United Nations it will probably be too weak to keep the peace once the effects of the wars and the Zero Requiem wear off.

The sad truth of it is that everything is fair in love and war. The ends justify the means.

proEuphie
05-16-2009, 08:05 PM
The sad truth of it is that everything is fair in love and war. The ends justify the means.

No. It is not true that any ends, however good or evil, justifies any means, no matter how good or evil. If there is any truth to the saying that the ends justify the means it is that the means must be proportional to the ends. In war that means that no level of violence is acceptable unless it is close to the minimum level of violence necessary to achieve the ends, and that minimum level of violence varies with the goodness and importance of the ends.

For example, if Lelouch killed Euphemia to save the Japanese from her the means were not justified by the ends since he could have captured her alive just as easy and then she would have been almost as harmless as if she was dead. The tiny little bit of danger a live Euphemia would pose was more than counterbalanced by the good example that taking her prisoner would set, and the lives of persons taken prisoner, instead of being killed, in the future because of that good example..

And, of course, ______(insert the name of almost any Code Geass character here) killed more persons in battle than he/she absolutely needed to, and thus more than were justified by the ends.[/quote]

blackrosetwilight
05-16-2009, 08:25 PM
In war that means that no level of violence is acceptable unless it is close to the minimum level of violence necessary to achieve the ends, and that minimum level of violence varies with the goodness and importance of the ends. [/quote]
proEuphy...what are you talking about? There no such thing as minimum violence, only minimum casualty, so how do you measure violence? Besides in war both violence and casualty are the two most unavoidable thing.

proEuphie
05-16-2009, 09:03 PM
See this is where you're wrong proEuphy, the only inoccent people (people who werent involved in the war) Lelouch personally killed was probably only Euphy, the rest of all the other inocccent people died from many unavoidable factors of war, such as stray fire, unexpected factors appearing on the field, or a loony possesed princess with an assualt rifle look at the war in afganastan or iraq minus the loony princess. However grouping Lelouch with Charles and crew isnt correct either. Why? Well the diffrece is Lelouch never intended for himself to lead the world in the first place, second he never saw himself as part of the new world he would create, and he never intended to be glorified either, since zero was a faceless man. I personally compare Lelouch to Nameless and the Qin Emporer from the movie Hero. I would love to explain how Lelouch compare to them but it would be better off if you watch the movie yourself and find the comparison.[/quote]

You say that the only innocent person Lelouch probably killed personally was Euphiy. Well Lelouch killed her personally and she was really innocent.

But Lelouch killed a lot more innocent people than that.

Take Kagura (please! as the old joke goes). She didn't plant any bombs or fire any guns and she didn't throw a guest out of a hotel window to his death in "Black Knight". But she was at least nominally one of the leaders of the Kyoto Group and if she ever protested or voted against giving funding to any terrorist organizations the series omitted to show that fact. So as far as the creators told us, she is just as evil as any of the terrorists that the Kyoto Group funded, and is guilty of killing all the guilty and innocent persons who were killed by those terrorist groups while she was a leader of the Kyoto Group. I would say Kagura was the most evil fourteen-year-old girl in anime history but that would probably get me a depressingly long list of competitors for the title.

You say : "the rest of all the other inocccent people died from many unavoidable factors of war, such as stray fire, unexpected factors appearing on the field,"

Good military leaders try to reduce the deaths caused by those unavoidable factors. For example, they try to fight in the least densely populated areas they can. And some evil military leaders hide their soldiers in a dense civilian population in the hope that the enemy won't risk the lives of civilians by attacking.

And Lelouch, the great military planner, sometimes fought his battles in populated areas. At the Battle of Narita his landslide got out of control and smashed into the town of Narita, fortunately almost totally evacuated (probably due to Euphemia's influence on Cornelia).

The Black Knights fought their way through Toko in the first Decisive Battle of Tokyo with stray shells and bombs landing in the middle of a densely populated area. And Lelouch shot down tens or hundreds of Britannian aircraft over the Tokyo settlement. If Nunnally wasn't still innocent at that time it would have been poetic justice if Lelouch found out that one of those falling aircraft killed Nunnally. Then he would have felt the sorrow and grief that an unknown number of other people felt due to his planning to fight inside the Tokyo settlement instead of luring Cornelia to fight in some less populated area.

In the Second Decisive Battle of Tokyo The Black Knights were winning when the Britannians used F.R.E.I.J.A. and millions of Britannians and Japanese in the area were killed. Killed in an invasion which Lelouch started.

And of course Lelouch was guilty of killing all the people, including the innocent ones, who died in the Fuji Massacre. The Fuji Massacre was the direct result of his earlier plan to make Euphemia shoot him, sparking a revolution in which thousands of people would be tricked into dying for his cause.

Saying that Lelouch only killed one innocent person personally might be accurate, but it is just as misleading as saying that Emperor Charles never personally killed any innocent person. Or that the great warlords of World War II, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Mussolini, and FDR, etc., were innocent because they never personally killed any innocent people during the conflict.[/quote]

blackrosetwilight
05-16-2009, 09:58 PM
You say that the only innocent person Lelouch probably killed personally was Euphiy. Well Lelouch killed her personally and she was really innocent.

But Lelouch killed a lot more innocent people than that.

Take Kagura (please! as the old joke goes). She didn't plant any bombs or fire any guns and she didn't throw a guest out of a hotel window to his death in "Black Knight". But she was at least nominally one of the leaders of the Kyoto Group and if she ever protested or voted against giving funding to any terrorist organizations the series omitted to show that fact. So as far as the creators told us, she is just as evil as any of the terrorists that the Kyoto Group funded, and is guilty of killing all the guilty and innocent persons who were killed by those terrorist groups while she was a leader of the Kyoto Group. I would say Kagura was the most evil fourteen-year-old girl in anime history but that would probably get me a depressingly long list of competitors for the title.

You say : "the rest of all the other inocccent people died from many unavoidable factors of war, such as stray fire, unexpected factors appearing on the field,"

Good military leaders try to reduce the deaths caused by those unavoidable factors. For example, they try to fight in the least densely populated areas they can. And some evil military leaders hide their soldiers in a dense civilian population in the hope that the enemy won't risk the lives of civilians by attacking.

And Lelouch, the great military planner, sometimes fought his battles in populated areas. At the Battle of Narita his landslide got out of control and smashed into the town of Narita, fortunately almost totally evacuated (probably due to Euphemia's influence on Cornelia).

The Black Knights fought their way through Toko in the first Decisive Battle of Tokyo with stray shells and bombs landing in the middle of a densely populated area. And Lelouch shot down tens or hundreds of Britannian aircraft over the Tokyo settlement. If Nunnally wasn't still innocent at that time it would have been poetic justice if Lelouch found out that one of those falling aircraft killed Nunnally. Then he would have felt the sorrow and grief that an unknown number of other people felt due to his planning to fight inside the Tokyo settlement instead of luring Cornelia to fight in some less populated area.

In the Second Decisive Battle of Tokyo The Black Knights were winning when the Britannians used F.R.E.I.J.A. and millions of Britannians and Japanese in the area were killed. Killed in an invasion which Lelouch started.

And of course Lelouch was guilty of killing all the people, including the innocent ones, who died in the Fuji Massacre. The Fuji Massacre was the direct result of his earlier plan to make Euphemia shoot him, sparking a revolution in which thousands of people would be tricked into dying for his cause.

Saying that Lelouch only killed one innocent person personally might be accurate, but it is just as misleading as saying that Emperor Charles never personally killed any innocent person. Or that the great warlords of World War II, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Mussolini, and FDR, etc., were innocent because they never personally killed any innocent people during the conflict.[/quote]

proEuphy no one can fight a war idealy, no where in history has anyone ever done so. You're being naive about all of this no matter the circumstance inoccent people will always get caught up in the fighting. No matter how good a military leader is or how good their plans are, inoccent people will die where ever there is fighting... ahahahahahaha I just realize something really good, I forgot what kind of person Lelouch really was damn Im was so stupid I focused too much on what he did and not what he succeeded in. I just never expected that "this" would happen outside the anime and into reality. Damn you Lelouch you really are clever... Hey proEuphy, Lelouch got the last laugh on you even though fictional he really does have the last laugh on you. I would love to tell you what it is but Im not, however I will give you one "BIG" cluein two words "Zero's Requiem" Im sure a few people would get what Im talking, if not just PM me.

proEuphie
05-16-2009, 10:01 PM
Yeah. I hope you realize that that action would be short of impossible. In fact, Lelouch runs through the thought of using the Geass on every single Britannian soldier and government official right from the get-go and decides, just like I said, that that would be nothing short of impossible. The best course of action would be to rise to the top of Britannian power and control the soldiers and the government that way. Which is what he did.

And please do not confuse what I said (there are quote tags for a reason). When it came to V.V, I was talking about your plan to have Lelouch force V.V into canceling the Geass that was placed on Euphemia. What I said was that that would be impossible since V.V had no moral obligation to help Lelouch (and in fact, hates him) and he is immortal. You can't "force" him to do anything. So, V.V would be hard pressed to do ANYTHING that Lelouch said. However, V.V, being Charles' brother and partner in crime, would help Charles. So that argument, once again, is moot.



See what I put in bold? You, OF ALL PEOPLE, have no real right to criticize people about their enthusiasm for their favorite character. All you really talk about is either how evil Lelouch is or great Euphemia was. Of the 7 threads that you have created, 3 were specifically aimed at dicussing something about Euphemia,usually her death (2 others skewed in that direction, dispite the topic). Hell, you have "Euphie" in your name. So, you really can not talk about this.



Ummm...who are you to offer a "truce"? The problem with you is that you act as if you are the only person (or rather, THE person) who knows the difference between good and evil and the opinions of everybody else do not matter so long as they disagree, even slightly, on YOUR definition of good and evil. These concepts are rather complex, ones that really cannot be seperated from one another. That is something that we are all taught at one point, but one you have apparently missed. Idealistically, yes, what Lelouch did was indeed evil. However, who has the right to use THEIR definition of evil and call him out on it, since the same definition of good could be applied to him, as we, as unfortunate as it may seem, do not live in such an idealistic world?

For example, you have some nerve applying the term "evil" to such people as FDR, Truman and Churchill. You are indeed entitled to your own opinion that good and evil are strictly black and white concepts (which they are not, but again, your opinion) but it is rather immature to apply the term "evil" to every single person who declares a war or participates in it. That falls into the realm of the "Fallacy of the undistributed middle". Your logic apparently works like this:
1. All people who declare war and/or bomb people are evil.
2. FDR, Churchill and Truman declared war and/or bombed people
3. Therefore, FDR, Churchill and Truman are evil
This is a logical fallacy.

And Euphemia? The woman is strategically and politically challenged. She is totally naive to things around her. We saw her in battle ONCE, and she almost failed in doing that. Again, your logic runs on a fallacy:
1. All great leaders do not kill people
2. Euphemia refuses to kill people
3. Therefore, Euphemia is a great leader
Yes, this is quite the logical fallacy.



He doesn't mean to do the wrong thing. I don't think that any of the characters (Charles included) mean to do the wrong thing. I don't think anyone said that (go back and read the posts again). Everybody knows that the Geass Directorate Massacre was intentional. Everybody knows that shooting Euphemia was intentional.

However, since "right" and "wrong" are only concepts that can be applied blankly to so many things, again, like I said before, you are not the only person who can determine what these words mean, as if you are the expert or the "go-to" person on the matters of good and evil. You even gave a reference to your own thread and post as if you are some kind expert.

Was Lelouch shooting Euphemia good or evil? Who can make this decision? You? Because while shooting an innocent girl would be more than evil, shooting someone who was quilty of killing many people would be good. Then, there are the other factors that are working in the backround (the Geass, the Black Rebellion, etc), but, as I can tell, you could care less about these things so long as Euphemia, your favorite character, ends up dead, which, according to your logic (which I have already revealed to comprise of a fallacy), is evil no matter what the circumstances are.

Again, am I defending Lelouch because I am on his side? No. As I said before, I am on nobody's "side", which, like I said before, would imply that one person is completely right and the other is completely wrong, which, since "good" and "evil" are not completely seperate, black and white concepts, would not be true under any real circumstance.

Why do you say that the plan of using geass on all the Britannian soldiers and officials would be almost impossible? Surely it would be easy to geass someone who could get him to see and geass someone who could get him to see and geass some officers who could then order their men to a meeting where Lelouch would geass them, and repeat over and over again. If Lelouch was afraid someone would attend a meeting who wasn't in line of sight with him he could write a short speech which included his commands as parts of longer sentences, so it wouldn't seem too suspicious. Lelouch could become a traveling preacher or motivational speaker or lecturer and hide his geass commands in part of his routine.

And why do you insist that VV could not be persuaded to cure one person, Euphemia, but would certainly be willing to spend millions of times as much time degeassing millions of Britannian soldiers and officials?

If Lelouch made degeassing Euphemia a condition for her survival Cornelia would put a lot of pressure on Charles to put a lot of pressure on VV to agree. Why do you say there is no way to force or otherwise persuade an immortal? Do you think immortals don't want or fear anything? Maybe some immortals want sex, money, priceless treasures, people to stop pestering them, etc.etc. and/or fear boredom, being tickled, being tortured to death every day for a hundred years, etc., etc.

When you wrote that CC could not undo Lelouch's geasses you revealed that VV could. The problem of undoing Euphemia's geass was thus turned into a negotiating problem, not a scientific one. Lelouch might have released Euphemia to Cornelia and turned the problem over to her. If VV would have been willing to degeass millions of soldiers for Charles Cornelia could probably offer him something worth taking one millionth of the trouble.

And you say VV was Charles's partner in crime. According to VV's Wickipedia article he betrayed Charles's trust seven years earlier and Charles killed him a year later. So they were seven eighths of the way through dissolving their partnership. Perhaps VV might have merely pretended to degeass the Britannian soldiers in case Charles was watching but would have made a deal with Lelouch to leave them under Lelouch's control. If Lelouch never found out that VV killed Marianne that deal would be a lot safer for VV than trusting Charles much longer.

You say that Lelouch would have been better off doing what he did, making himself emperor and then controlling the Britannian soldiers from above. If that was the case, Lelouch still went about it the wrong way. He should have visited Pendragon and geassed a lot of soldiers and security guards and secret agents there, then geassed a lot of the princes and princesses and government officials to depose Charles and proclaim him emperor. If he wanted to free Japan he could have ordered that Japan and other areas be granted independence. And maybe a few million fewer people would have been killed than in the path he did take to the throne.[/quote]

wolfgirl90
05-17-2009, 02:18 AM
Take Kagura (please! as the old joke goes). She didn't plant any bombs or fire any guns and she didn't throw a guest out of a hotel window to his death in "Black Knight". But she was at least nominally one of the leaders of the Kyoto Group and if she ever protested or voted against giving funding to any terrorist organizations the series omitted to show that fact. So as far as the creators told us, she is just as evil as any of the terrorists that the Kyoto Group funded, and is guilty of killing all the guilty and innocent persons who were killed by those terrorist groups while she was a leader of the Kyoto Group. I would say Kagura was the most evil fourteen-year-old girl in anime history but that would probably get me a depressingly long list of competitors for the title.

First off, proEuphie. The sooner you learn how to properly use quote tags, the sooner I will take your posts more seriously.

Anyway, I will ASSUME you are talking about Kaguya (you are accusing her of being one of most evil 14 year olds in anime history and you can't even get her name right). First, the Six Houses of Kyoto and the JLF are two entirely different entities. The only real way they are connected is that Kyoto give the JLF funding and other forms of support, but this also includes the Black Knights and any other anti-Britannian group.

Kaguya was in no way involved in the Lake Kawaguchi Hotel attack. In fact, all the members of Kyoto were executed due to their involvement in terrorism. The only person who was spared, due to their non-involvement and rather persistant disapproval of the actions off the other members of Kyoto was...KAGUYA!!:banghead:


And Lelouch, the great military planner, sometimes fought his battles in populated areas. At the Battle of Narita his landslide got out of control and smashed into the town of Narita, fortunately almost totally evacuated (probably due to Euphemia's influence on Cornelia).

There is no evidense that Euphemia influenced Cornelia into ordering the evacuation. In fact, there is no evidence to support that the evacuation was ordered strictly for the safety of the people (in the Bandai world and the real world, this is never truely the case).


Why do you say that the plan of using geass on all the Britannian soldiers and officials would be almost impossible? Surely it would be easy to geass someone who could get him to see and geass someone who could get him to see and geass some officers who could then order their men to a meeting where Lelouch would geass them, and repeat over and over again. If Lelouch was afraid someone would attend a meeting who wasn't in line of sight with him he could write a short speech which included his commands as parts of longer sentences, so it wouldn't seem too suspicious. Lelouch could become a traveling preacher or motivational speaker or lecturer and hide his geass commands in part of his routine.

I won't even explain how stupid this sounds. I will wait for you to reread your post so that you can be absolutely sure that you want to stick with this argument before commenting.


If Lelouch made degeassing Euphemia a condition for her survival Cornelia would put a lot of pressure on Charles to put a lot of pressure on VV to agree. Why do you say there is no way to force or otherwise persuade an immortal? Do you think immortals don't want or fear anything? Maybe some immortals want sex, money, priceless treasures, people to stop pestering them, etc.etc. and/or fear boredom, being tickled, being tortured to death every day for a hundred years, etc., etc.

Except that Charles honestly could care less about his children and really doesn't care what happens to him. I have explained this before.

However, let's not get into a big discussion about this, as this is not the thread for that.


You say that Lelouch would have been better off doing what he did, making himself emperor and then controlling the Britannian soldiers from above. If that was the case, Lelouch still went about it the wrong way. He should have visited Pendragon and geassed a lot of soldiers and security guards and secret agents there, then geassed a lot of the princes and princesses and government officials to depose Charles and proclaim him emperor. If he wanted to free Japan he could have ordered that Japan and other areas be granted independence. And maybe a few million fewer people would have been killed than in the path he did take to the throne.

You think that Lelouch can just waltz into Pendragon? No. The royal palace and the surrounding city of Pendragon is heavily guarded and has high amounts of security. He can't just Geass a guard; he would be killed before he even got close to the city. Remember, you are suggesting that this was done AS SOON AS he got the Geass. He had no support at the time and would be quite vulnerable. Also, since Lelouch planned to use people as pawns in the first place, there really is no point in giving alternatives to Lelouch's plan that would save more people, seeing as he could really care less.

Of course, the only real reason you are trying to do this is, again, wrap this around Euphemia and your more than naive notions of a ideal leader and an ideal war, the thought of which makes no sense. As blackrosetwilight already pointed out, there is no such thing as an ideal war. Even though a country can have a pacifistic leader, that won't stop it from being attacked (hatred can form from anything). At that point, then what?

From what I have understood from you, evil people (or rather, people YOU deem evil) deserve to die, while good people (or rather, people YOU deem good) deserve to live. And apparently the ends do not justify the means, no matter how good or evil and the means must be proportionate (these are your words, not mine).

But you do not follow the latter completely. In one of your posts, you made a plan that involved killing hundreds upon hundreds of Britannian soldiers to save Euphemia, one person. Its not a proportional means (killing hundreds of people to save one person), but you would argue that the ends certainly DO justify the means at that point, yes?

Right now, you remind me of Relena Peacecraft in Gundam Wing. She was a total pacifist but was also quite the hypocrite. You are either quite naive or a hypocrite.

proEuphie
05-17-2009, 09:15 PM
proEuphy no one can fight a war idealy, no where in history has anyone ever done so. You're being naive about all of this no matter the circumstance inoccent people will always get caught up in the fighting. No matter how good a military leader is or how good their plans are, inoccent people will die where ever there is fighting... ahahahahahaha I just realize something really good, I forgot what kind of person Lelouch really was damn Im was so stupid I focused too much on what he did and not what he succeeded in. I just never expected that "this" would happen outside the anime and into reality. Damn you Lelouch you really are clever... Hey proEuphy, Lelouch got the last laugh on you even though fictional he really does have the last laugh on you. I would love to tell you what it is but Im not, however I will give you one "BIG" cluein two words "Zero's Requiem" Im sure a few people would get what Im talking, if not just PM me.[/quote]

Yes, no one can fight a war ideally, but Lelouch and the rest of the Code Geass characters never tried enough.

Take as an example the hundreds of army attacks on Indian (Native American) encampments during the Indian wars. Those were clearly violations of the Laws of war. And almost all of the US commanders would have preferred not to do so but to catch raiding parties and fight only the warriors. But they couldn't find small raiding groups in the vastness of the West. So they resorted to a more evil strategy which would result in the accidental death and wounding of noncombatants.

And of course that was also the fault of the Indian warriors who refused to fight in formal battles and be defeated fast but with less suffering and death but instead preferred to attack civilian targets in guerrilla war or terrorism and so were defeated slower and with more death and suffering for their people.

No doubt Cornelia would have tried to justify the Saitema Ghetto Massacre by claiming it was the fault of the terrorists who hid in the ghetto and the ghetto dwellers who helped them hide.

General Sherman once said that War was hell and there was no way to civilize it and the only thing to do to reduce the suffering was to win it as fast as possible. But if he could have seen the way war was fought in World war II or too often in Code Geass he would realize that the kind of war he fought, hellish though it seemed to him, was heavenly and civilized compared to the way war could be fought without any ethical inhibitions. And he would have realized that making and obeying laws to make war less brutal was a very good idea.[/quote]

proEuphie
05-17-2009, 10:41 PM
First off, proEuphie. The sooner you learn how to properly use quote tags, the sooner I will take your posts more seriously.

Anyway, I will ASSUME you are talking about Kaguya (you are accusing her of being one of most evil 14 year olds in anime history and you can't even get her name right). First, the Six Houses of Kyoto and the JLF are two entirely different entities. The only real way they are connected is that Kyoto give the JLF funding and other forms of support, but this also includes the Black Knights and any other anti-Britannian group.

Kaguya was in no way involved in the Lake Kawaguchi Hotel attack. In fact, all the members of Kyoto were executed due to their involvement in terrorism. The only person who was spared, due to their non-involvement and rather persistant disapproval of the actions off the other members of Kyoto was...KAGUYA!!:banghead:



There is no evidense that Euphemia influenced Cornelia into ordering the evacuation. In fact, there is no evidence to support that the evacuation was ordered strictly for the safety of the people (in the Bandai world and the real world, this is never truely the case).



I won't even explain how stupid this sounds. I will wait for you to reread your post so that you can be absolutely sure that you want to stick with this argument before commenting.



Except that Charles honestly could care less about his children and really doesn't care what happens to him. I have explained this before.

However, let's not get into a big discussion about this, as this is not the thread for that.



You think that Lelouch can just waltz into Pendragon? No. The royal palace and the surrounding city of Pendragon is heavily guarded and has high amounts of security. He can't just Geass a guard; he would be killed before he even got close to the city. Remember, you are suggesting that this was done AS SOON AS he got the Geass. He had no support at the time and would be quite vulnerable. Also, since Lelouch planned to use people as pawns in the first place, there really is no point in giving alternatives to Lelouch's plan that would save more people, seeing as he could really care less.

Of course, the only real reason you are trying to do this is, again, wrap this around Euphemia and your more than naive notions of a ideal leader and an ideal war, the thought of which makes no sense. As blackrosetwilight already pointed out, there is no such thing as an ideal war. Even though a country can have a pacifistic leader, that won't stop it from being attacked (hatred can form from anything). At that point, then what?

From what I have understood from you, evil people (or rather, people YOU deem evil) deserve to die, while good people (or rather, people YOU deem good) deserve to live. And apparently the ends do not justify the means, no matter how good or evil and the means must be proportionate (these are your words, not mine).

But you do not follow the latter completely. In one of your posts, you made a plan that involved killing hundreds upon hundreds of Britannian soldiers to save Euphemia, one person. Its not a proportional means (killing hundreds of people to save one person), but you would argue that the ends certainly DO justify the means at that point, yes?

Right now, you remind me of Relena Peacecraft in Gundam Wing. She was a total pacifist but was also quite the hypocrite. You are either quite naive or a hypocrite.


What are quote tags?

You say that Kyoto and the JLF are two different things and then say that Kyoto provided funding and support for the JLF (and thus could influence their actions).


Suppose that the leader of The US or the USSR during the cold War was discussing the antagonistic government in say Elbonia and was told that among other ways of destabilizing that government they were providing funds for the Mad Dogs terrorist group. Suppose that two months later he hears that the Mad Dogs killed 241 pepole in a marketplace bombing and doesn't order that all support to them be ended. If six months later the Mad Dogs kill 43 schoolchildren held hostage the leader of the country funding the Mad Dogs is just as guilty of murdering those 43 schoolchildren as any of the Mad Dogs.

And so the Kyoto group are just as guilty of murder and terrorism as any member of any of the terrorist groups they support. Unless Kaguya did vote against supporting the JLF and other terrorist groups she was an evil fourteen-year-old girl.

There is no direct evidence that Euphemia influenced Cornelia to order the evacuation of the civilians from Narita. This was just a few weeks after Cornelia ordered the Saitema Ghetto Massacre, slaughtering the residents until the terrorists who hid among them emerged in their nightmares and were killed. And then Cornelia ordered the massacre ended - I hope.

As far as I know the civilians killed at Saitema numbered somewhere between the dozens seen being shot and the millions who live in Saitema Prefecture. The civilians at Narita lived in an area controlled by the JLF and probably paid protection money to the JLF, so Cornelia would consider them just as traitorous as the civilians at Saitema.

There wouldn't seem much military necessity for moving the civilians out of the battle zone, since nightmares were the main Britannian units involved. A nightmare could just walk over a crowd of fleeing civilians, squashing those it stepped on. And it is really amazing that the JLF didn't get hundreds of cell phone calls reporting the evacuation, but were taken by surprise when the attack began later -- the Britannans must have used phone jamming devices.

So I suspect that Euphemia persuaded Cornelia to evacuate the civilians at Narita instead of massacring them or leaving them in the crossfire.[/quote]

blackrosetwilight
05-18-2009, 10:14 AM
And of course that was also the fault of the Indian warriors who refused to fight in formal battles and be defeated fast but with less suffering and death but instead preferred to attack civilian targets in guerrilla war or terrorism and so were defeated slower and with more death and suffering for their people.[/quote]
What? There's no such thing as a formal way of fighting a war, to the Native it was life or death things like formality does not exist if your fighting to protect your land, your people, and your culture from foreign invaders out to take everything from you. Beside the colonist did the samething so stop being so one sided. Those greedy civilian got what they deserved, its because of them increasing in number and needing more land that the colonist broke their treaty with the natives, to satisfy their own people, so of course then native retaliated. And in the end the natives were to the one to suffer the most, their culture erased, their women ravaged, their people slaugtered and their land taken. Just to let you know history is one of my forte ecspecialy the history of warfare on both sides.

B Gundam
05-18-2009, 12:27 PM
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9470/1222492840762.png

sry, had to do that, back to serious business then XD.

blackrosetwilight
05-18-2009, 03:09 PM
http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/9470/1222492840762.png

sry, had to do that, back to serious business then XD.
dang I wish I could see that image or whatever it is, since all I see is white box with a lil red "x"

proEuphie
05-21-2009, 10:33 PM
What? There's no such thing as a formal way of fighting a war, to the Native it was life or death things like formality does not exist if your fighting to protect your land, your people, and your culture from foreign invaders out to take everything from you. Beside the colonist did the samething so stop being so one sided. Those greedy civilian got what they deserved, its because of them increasing in number and needing more land that the colonist broke their treaty with the natives, to satisfy their own people, so of course then native retaliated. And in the end the natives were to the one to suffer the most, their culture erased, their women ravaged, their people slaugtered and their land taken. Just to let you know history is one of my forte ecspecialy the history of warfare on both sides.[/quote]

Formal war consists of battles between armies. If you see movies about the Napoleonic Wars or the Civil War you will see the soldiers fighting in close order and in formal formations, thus the term formal war, applied to all wars between armies.

There were a few formal battles during the Indian Wars. In 1858, for example the Yakimas, Spokanes, Palouses, and other Northwestern tribes defeated Colonel Steptoe. The army sent a punitive expedition under General Wright and the hostiles attacked his command in a formal battle and were swiftly defeated. And that was pretty much the end of hostilities. Just a few dozen warriors killed or wounded, and no villages burned, no noncombatants accidentally or deliberately killed, no freezing and starving in the dead of winter.

It seems to me that the Yakimas, Spokanes, Palouses, etc. who fought a formal war lost a lot easier than tribes which tried guerrilla warfare and terrorism and lost.

And you say that the Indians had to fight back. If that is so why is it that most of the tribes and most of the Native Americans in the West didn't fight back? Whether a Indian group fought would be due to if it was lucky enough to live in a barren land nobody wanted to take from them, and if they had a tradition of fighting other tribes, and if they were the enemies of the enemies of the Americans.

In 1873 the agent at a Sioux reservation tried to raise the American flag and some of the Sioux objected to that symbol. I believe six white men were killed in the fighting, which took place during what is considered an interval of peace with the Sioux.

By contrast, the Crows used to boast that they never killed a white man (even if they robbed a lot) until the "Great Crow Uprising" in 1886, when ten white men were killed. That "Great Crow Uprising" , like the Sioux flag incident in 1873, would have been too minor to mention in most histories of the Sioux Wars if it had been a Sioux incident.

Of course the Crow did fight a lot against the invaders who stole their horses, kidnapped their women and children, tortured some prisoners to death and tried to drive them off their land - the Sioux. The Sioux who fought in the most famous Sioux battle, the Little Big Horn, were invading the Crow Reservation. And so today most of the Indians who play the role of Sioux at re enactments of Custer's Last Stand, and profit from tourist dollars, are Crows, getting the last laugh on the Sioux invaders.

As we all know, the Apache fiercely fought the Americans for decades, but sometimes their hostility can be exaggerated. In 1883 when General Crook was negotiating with the hostile Apaches in Mexico, it is said that Geronimo invited Crook's Apache scouts to a dance, planning to kill them all, but Al Sieber, the chief of scouts, refused to let the scouts attend. If that massacre of the scouts had taken place, it would have been the worst disaster the Apaches ever suffered, since there were two hundred Apache scouts in Crooks command. And also the worst disaster the army ever had in the Apache conflicts, since the Apache scouts were all formally enlisted men. Yes, the cavalry and the Indians were the same people in that case. Considering the number of Apache warriors who fought for him, General Crook could be considered the biggest Apache chief ever.

In 1895 there would have been about fifty thousand Indian men in the West, most owning repeating rifles, while the entire US army was fewer than twenty five thousand men armed with single shot rifles. If the Indians had to fight, if they were treated so badly that they had no choice but to rise up in genocidal war against the white oppressors, those statistics would make no sense. The West would have been ablaze, and Custer's Last Stand would have been a skirmish compared to the disasters which the army would have suffered. But instead the West was very peaceful in 1895, and while the Indians continued to acquire modern rifles and become ever more formidable, the biggest Indian battle after 1890 was at Leech Lake, Minnesota, in 1898, which involved only a hundred soldiers and just a few casualties.

And try telling Lavinia Eastlick that the settlers (all) deserved what they got. She fled with her children when her husband was killed in the Minnesota uprising in 1862, then left her slower-moving children behind to save herself. And then she heard shots in the distance behind her and knew that her children were being murdered. But two of her sons escaped from the Sioux and were reunited with her. Eleven-year-old Merton Eastlick carried his little brother Henry on his back for fifty miles to safety, and died soon after from hunger, exposure, and exhaustion.

What did the Eastlick children do to deserve death? Not warn their parents against buying land acquired from the Sioux in somewhat shady negotiations? Or do you say that the adult settlers deserved death and the children don't count because they weren't really people, just property belonging to their parents?

If you justly and rightly condemn the murder of Indian children by Whites, you have to equally condemn the murder of white children by Indians, the murder of Indian Children by Indians, etc. etc. etc.

blackrosetwilight
05-22-2009, 12:21 AM
Formal war consists of battles between armies. If you see movies about the Napoleonic Wars or the Civil War you will see the soldiers fighting in close order and in formal formations, thus the term formal war, applied to all wars between armies.

There were a few formal battles during the Indian Wars. In 1858, for example the Yakimas, Spokanes, Palouses, and other Northwestern tribes defeated Colonel Steptoe. The army sent a punitive expedition under General Wright and the hostiles attacked his command in a formal battle and were swiftly defeated. And that was pretty much the end of hostilities. Just a few dozen warriors killed or wounded, and no villages burned, no noncombatants accidentally or deliberately killed, no freezing and starving in the dead of winter. And after all that what did the colonist do? They kept on pushing the natives further west making them conflict with the western tribes, weakining them even more until they were all jammed into small reservation that nobody wanted.

It seems to me that the Yakimas, Spokanes, Palouses, etc. who fought a formal war lost a lot easier than tribes which tried guerrilla warfare and terrorism and lost.

And you say that the Indians had to fight back. If that is so why is it that most of the tribes and most of the Native Americans in the West didn't fight back? Whether a Indian group fought would be due to if it was lucky enough to live in a barren land nobody wanted to take from them, and if they had a tradition of fighting other tribes, and if they were the enemies of the enemies of the Americans.

In 1873 the agent at a Sioux reservation tried to raise the American flag and some of the Sioux objected to that symbol. I believe six white men were killed in the fighting, which took place during what is considered an interval of peace with the Sioux.

By contrast, the Crows used to boast that they never killed a white man (even if they robbed a lot) until the "Great Crow Uprising" in 1886, when ten white men were killed. That "Great Crow Uprising" , like the Sioux flag incident in 1873, would have been too minor to mention in most histories of the Sioux Wars if it had been a Sioux incident.

Of course the Crow did fight a lot against the invaders who stole their horses, kidnapped their women and children, tortured some prisoners to death and tried to drive them off their land - the Sioux. The Sioux who fought in the most famous Sioux battle, the Little Big Horn, were invading the Crow Reservation. And so today most of the Indians who play the role of Sioux at re enactments of Custer's Last Stand, and profit from tourist dollars, are Crows, getting the last laugh on the Sioux invaders.

As we all know, the Apache fiercely fought the Americans for decades, but sometimes their hostility can be exaggerated. In 1883 when General Crook was negotiating with the hostile Apaches in Mexico, it is said that Geronimo invited Crook's Apache scouts to a dance, planning to kill them all, but Al Sieber, the chief of scouts, refused to let the scouts attend. If that massacre of the scouts had taken place, it would have been the worst disaster the Apaches ever suffered, since there were two hundred Apache scouts in Crooks command. And also the worst disaster the army ever had in the Apache conflicts, since the Apache scouts were all formally enlisted men. Yes, the cavalry and the Indians were the same people in that case. Considering the number of Apache warriors who fought for him, General Crook could be considered the biggest Apache chief ever.

In 1895 there would have been about fifty thousand Indian men in the West, most owning repeating rifles, while the entire US army was fewer than twenty five thousand men armed with single shot rifles. If the Indians had to fight, if they were treated so badly that they had no choice but to rise up in genocidal war against the white oppressors, those statistics would make no sense. The West would have been ablaze, and Custer's Last Stand would have been a skirmish compared to the disasters which the army would have suffered. But instead the West was very peaceful in 1895, and while the Indians continued to acquire modern rifles and become ever more formidable, the biggest Indian battle after 1890 was at Leech Lake, Minnesota, in 1898, which involved only a hundred soldiers and just a few casualties.

And try telling Lavinia Eastlick that the settlers (all) deserved what they got. She fled with her children when her husband was killed in the Minnesota uprising in 1862, then left her slower-moving children behind to save herself. And then she heard shots in the distance behind her and knew that her children were being murdered. But two of her sons escaped from the Sioux and were reunited with her. Eleven-year-old Merton Eastlick carried his little brother Henry on his back for fifty miles to safety, and died soon after from hunger, exposure, and exhaustion.

What did the Eastlick children do to deserve death? Not warn their parents against buying land acquired from the Sioux in somewhat shady negotiations? Or do you say that the adult settlers deserved death and the children don't count because they weren't really people, just property belonging to their parents?

If you justly and rightly condemn the murder of Indian children by Whites, you have to equally condemn the murder of white children by Indians, the murder of Indian Children by Indians, etc. etc. etc.

proEuphy, the land the colonist took/bought came from the expense of the natives suffering, so they had to fight back and no way is there a person willing to stand by why someone takes away something thats rightfuly theirs. And I do condemn the murder of children regardless if they're white or native, besides those war were fought on the concept of an eye for an eye and the natives lost since they lacked a real unity with other tribes, having diffrent goals, and turning on each other unlike the colonist who share the common intrest of expanding their borders and gaining more resources.

proEuphie
05-23-2009, 08:23 PM
proEuphy, the land the colonist took/bought came from the expense of the natives suffering, so they had to fight back and no way is there a person willing to stand by why someone takes away something thats rightfuly theirs. And I do condemn the murder of children regardless if they're white or native, besides those war were fought on the concept of an eye for an eye and the natives lost since they lacked a real unity with other tribes, having diffrent goals, and turning on each other unlike the colonist who share the common intrest of expanding their borders and gaining more resources.

No, fighting back against real or imaginary injustice is never either an ethical or a emotional imperative. People can and do chose whether to fight back or not even when what they value most is taken away from them.

You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grand parents, and so on. You have positions for 1,024 ancestors ten generations back, and 1,048,576 ancestors twenty generations back, and over a billion ancestors thirty generations back, and so on. Even if you were a Habsburg Archduchess and most of your ancestors in recent generations were high and mighty, you would still have many humble and down trodden ancestors. For example, King William the Conqueror's mother Arlotta (allegedly the original harlot) was the daughter of Fulbert, a tanner in the town of Falaise. You can bet that a lot of Fulbert's ancestors for hundreds and thousands of years back were humble and downtrodden serfs and slaves.

Even if our highest ancestors might possibly have been mighty emperors who ruled over most of the then known world, most of our ancestors would certainly have been lowly, humble, and largely powerless. You and I and all our readers are descended from countless millions of person who lived long enough to give birth to the children who became our ancestors by choosing not to fight back when all that they loved was taken away from them. We might all be descended from countless prehistoric persons whose mothers chose not to fight back against the fathers of those persons, even after the fathers ATE the families of the mothers.

If it was impossible to not fight back against injustice, countless millions of our ancestors would have fought back and been killed before they became the parents of our next generation of ancestors, and so we would not exist.

I guess the popularity of revenge stories is because so many of our ancestors didn't resist wrongs or get revenge for them later even when they wanted to.


"I think; therefore I am; therefore people can and sometimes do choose to not fight back even when everything they love is taken away from them."

wolfgirl90
05-24-2009, 01:21 PM
No, fighting back against real or imaginary injustice is never either an ethical or a emotional imperative. People can and do chose whether to fight back or not even when what they value most is taken away from them.

That is indeed a choice people CAN make, but how many people will make that choice? What do you mean by "fighting back"? This is important since you almost sound like people shouldn't do ANYTHING. Are you suggesting that people just "grin and bare it" whenever some type of social injustice happens to them? If a person just had their entire family murdered, what do you suggest they do? Ignore it? ;)

That is a actually a very hypocritical view for you to make. Again let's take a look at the death of Euphemia. That's an injustice, yes? The death of an innocent girl. However, you just said that fighting back is never an ethical imperative, which is a complete contradiction against your past ideas that suggested that Lelouch kill a bunch a soldiers to save Euphemia or that those soldiers should just up and die.

And actually, your argument, once again, runs on a fallacy:
1. People who don't fight, live
2. Our ancestors lived
3. Therefore they didn't fight
That argument fails to acknowledge the fact that maybe our ancestors DID fight; considering the many wars, battles and skirmishes that have happened over time, this is a big possibility (it also suggests that people who don't fight always live, which is not completely true). They could have survived and then had children. Maybe they were on the winning side of the fight and lived anyway. In fact, maybe the reason that some of us are alive today is BECAUSE our ancestors fought.

If you choose not to fight back because of ethical reasons, that's fine. However, if you are merely doing it to make you look like the ethically better person(which is what it sounds like, coming from you), I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.

proEuphie
05-24-2009, 04:11 PM
That is indeed a choice people CAN make, but how many people will make that choice? What do you mean by "fighting back"? This is important since you almost sound like people shouldn't do ANYTHING. Are you suggesting that people just "grin and bare it" whenever some type of social injustice happens to them? If a person just had their entire family murdered, what do you suggest they do? Ignore it? ;)

That is a actually a very hypocritical view for you to make. Again let's take a look at the death of Euphemia. That's an injustice, yes? The death of an innocent girl. However, you just said that fighting back is never an ethical imperative, which is a complete contradiction against your past ideas that suggested that Lelouch kill a bunch a soldiers to save Euphemia or that those soldiers should just up and die.

And actually, your argument, once again, runs on a fallacy:
1. People who don't fight, live
2. Our ancestors lived
3. Therefore they didn't fight
That argument fails to acknowledge the fact that maybe our ancestors DID fight; considering the many wars, battles and skirmishes that have happened over time, this is a big possibility (it also suggests that people who don't fight always live, which is not completely true). They could have survived and then had children. Maybe they were on the winning side of the fight and lived anyway. In fact, maybe the reason that some of us are alive today is BECAUSE our ancestors fought.

If you choose not to fight back because of ethical reasons, that's fine. However, if you are merely doing it to make you look like the ethically better person(which is what it sounds like, coming from you), I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.

I did not suggest that people should not fight back in the post that you quoted. What I did say in an earlier post was that American Indians should not have fought back using guerrilla warfare and terrorism. And in her post blackrosetwilight happened to say that people can not avoid fighting back when injustice is done to them.

In the post which you reply to I pointed out that it is possible to choose not to fight back. As evidence I pointed out that among our countless billions of ancestors there were many millions who chose not to fight back against injustice when it was suicidal to do so and so survived to have the children who became our next generation of ancestors.

You say that maybe some of our ancestors tried to fight back and won and then had the children who became our next generation of ancestors. "In fact, maybe the reason that some of us are alive today is BECAUSE our ancestors fought."

I am certain that all of us today are alive because countless millions of our ancestors chose to fight back, survived, and later had the children who became our next generation of ancestors. But that doesn't change the fact that we are also alive because countless millions of our other ancestors chose not to fight back when it would have been suicidal, and so lived to have the children we are descended from. You fail to appreciate the enormous number of ancestors you have, and that you would never have been born if even a single one of them died before reproducing.

Suppose that a thousand years ago slave owner A (that we are both descended from) decided to sell off the wives and children of ten of his male slaves. Slaves one through five chose to fight and were killed and never had any more children. Slave six died without having any more children. Slaves seven and eight remarried and had children but their families died out within a few generations. And slaves nine and ten remarried and we are both descended from children of their second marriages. We might be descended from some of the slaves who chose to fight suicidally, through their first marriages, but that wouldn't change the fact that we are descended from slaves nine and ten only because they chose not to fight when it was suicidal to do so.

My logic goes like this:

1 We are descended from people who reproduced.
2 People who are killed do not reproduce after being killed.
3 People who fight when it is suicidal to do so are killed and thus do not reproduce after choosing to fight when it is suicidal to do so.
4 None of our ancestors was born more than nine months after his father (or zero months after his mother) decided to fight when it was suicidal to fight.
5 Countless billions of our ancestors were subjected to injustice; countless millions of those were subjected to injustice that it would have been suicidal to fight; and countless millions of those were subjected to injustices which it would have been suicidal to fight, before giving birth to our next generation of ancestors.
6 Therefore countess millions of our ancestors chose not to fight back against injustices, when it would have been suicidal to do so, before giving birth to our next generations of ancestors. And many of them no doubt fought at other times in their lives.
7 Therefore the fact that we are alive is proof that it is possible to not fight back against injustice and that some people sometimes do not fight back.

But you claim that my logic goes like this:

1. People who don't fight, live
2. Our ancestors lived
3. Therefore they didn't fight

You would be a more effective opponent if you didn't sometimes waste time refuting things I did not write.

And what is the question of curing Euphemia's geass command doing in a discussion of fighting back? Lelouch possibly choosing to try to cure Euphemia instead of killing her would not be fighting back against the injustice of her death, but instead preventing the injustice by deciding not to kill her unjustly.

Oh, I see, you are commenting out my proposal that Lelouch should have used up a bunch of Britannian soldiers in an attempt to cure Euphemia. I remind you that those soldiers had obeyed her massacre order without hesitation and some had even refused Suzaku's reasonable request that they stop shooting at him until they ask Euphemia if the order applied to him, her knight, while Euphemia had fought aback against a geass command to kill the Japanese, and seems to have largely escaped from its control within about an hour.

B Gundam
05-24-2009, 06:59 PM
I'll just ignore the other thread because its basically the same thing.

So you are saying the World should just go in the fashion that power is absolute, and when fighting back is pointless the strong guy getting all the say is the right thing for the sake of survival?

Sorry, I kinda need an update but my attempt to read and fully understand all the text turned out hard because some people seem to have quote tags slightly mistyped and it was hard to discern who wanted to give what point.

proEuphie
05-25-2009, 03:17 PM
Yeah. I hope you realize that that action would be short of impossible. In fact, Lelouch runs through the thought of using the Geass on every single Britannian soldier and government official right from the get-go and decides, just like I said, that that would be nothing short of impossible. The best course of action would be to rise to the top of Britannian power and control the soldiers and the government that way. Which is what he did.

And please do not confuse what I said (there are quote tags for a reason). When it came to V.V, I was talking about your plan to have Lelouch force V.V into canceling the Geass that was placed on Euphemia. What I said was that that would be impossible since V.V had no moral obligation to help Lelouch (and in fact, hates him) and he is immortal. You can't "force" him to do anything. So, V.V would be hard pressed to do ANYTHING that Lelouch said. However, V.V, being Charles' brother and partner in crime, would help Charles. So that argument, once again, is moot.




So if it would take a lot of time to geass every single Britannian solider and official one by one, perhaps Lelouch could geass only the ones that were necessary for a take over of Britannia, and/or geass them in groups.

A group of a hundred people could fit into a space the size of a classroom, and several thousand people could fit into a space with a diagonal less than the range of Lelouch's geass. So Lelouch could geass groups of a dozen to several thousand at a time.

Lelouch could geass acquire a property and convert a large room into a geass chamber. It would be windowless and soundproof, with a transparent bulletproof partition. From behind the partition Lelouch could monitor for suspicious activity on the video surviallance system and if neccessary escape out the exits on his side of the partition. He would send geassed agents to places frequented by off duty soldiers to lure groups with the promise of a totally new experience like nothing else. When a group entered Lelouch would activate a sight and sound behind him that would get their attention, activate his geass, and command them to obey all his orders and then give them the first set of orders. Lelouch could take over several hundred soldiers per night.

Before the first episode Lelouch was in the habit of skipping school to gamble over the outcome of chess games with noblemen. So clearly noblemen, officers, and officials, do not inhabit a world vacuum sealed from all contact with teenagers of the citizen class. And if contact is possible Lelouch can find a way to use his geass on noblemen, officers, and officials without warning them and without other people noticing.

So Lelouch can worm his way into the military garrison of a town, such as the Tokyo settlement, from the top and the bottom and soon gain control of the commander and his top officers. And if Lelouch thinks that he needs to control all the men, the officers can order them in batches of several hundred or several thousand into an auditorium patrolled by men in Lelouch's control instructed to make certain that nobody uncontrolled finds out what is happening and survives. Instead of the propaganda film or lecture they were told to expect they will be find Lelouch who will do something to make all of them look at him and then geass them all into obeying all his orders for the rest of their lives (or for years until the geass control wears off). Lelouch could take over tens of thousands of men in a day or two that way.

And he can take over all the garrisons he thinks he needs to, faster and faster each time with introductions from high ranking officers to other high-ranking officers. And when he is ready he can investigate Pendragon, the capital, cautiously scout it out, and then begin taking over the garrison and all the security forces he can identify. And he can take over top officials and officers once their bodyguards are under his control.

Then he can take over top noblemen who often entertain members of the imperial family. Then he can start taking over Prince Oddysseuss and prince Schneitzel and Princess Cornelia and other princes and princesses one by one when they are surrounded by friends, bodyguards, and officials under his control. Then the princes and officials under his control can launch their coup to overthrow Emperor Charles and replace him with Lelouch or some figurehead under Lelouch's control.

You said that Lelouch couldn't force VV to undo the geass on Euphemia. I suggested that Lelouch or Cornelia could persuade VV to undo the geass. In many societies the powerful are always doing favors for other powerful people and for lowly, humble, petitioners, expecting gratitude and a return of the favor when asked for. If Britannia and/or the Geass Directorate worked that way VV would grant any reasonable request from someone as powerful as Cornelia without thinking about it. And even if VV doesn't live in a society based on doing favors it would be obviously beneficial for him to do a favor for Cornelia. And possibly VV, no matter how evil he was, might do a favor for Cornelia and Euphemia, no matter how little he may have known or loved them, just to be nice. It is possible that there might be historical examples of people as evil as Hitler doing favors just to be nice, sometimes.

And you claim there is no way to force or persuade an immortal to do something. Don't immortals want money and fear poverty? Wouldn't VV fear that if revolutions deprived him of his positions as a Britannian prince and head of the Geass Directorate and confiscated a lot of his financial assets he would run out of money and have to get a job? And what kind of job is available to someone whose work skills would soon (by his standards) be as obsolete as CC's medieval peasant girl skills, and who looked way too young to be legally employed? I think any immortal would always jump at the chance to do anything reasonably easy for the equivalent of about one thousand dollars to go into one of his many secret eternal retirement funds. And possibly Cornelia would offer millions to have Euphemia degeassed and end her fear that Euphie would escape to hunt Japanese and get killed.

And maybe VV told Cornelia he really likes one of her country estates, and she might offer it to him in return for ungeassing Euphemia. Or maybe Cornelia could threaten to torture VV to death every day until he agrees to ungeass Euphemia.

Suppose that Lelouch managed to geass ten thousand Britannian soldiers a day for a hundred days during a year of preparing his coup. That would total one million men. If VV had to degeass each of them separately one at a time and it took him one minute for each, that would take him one million minutes, or 1.9 years if he didn't stop to eat or sleep. And if the Emperor didn't know how many soldiers in each garrison had been geassed by Lelouch or who they were (try remembering what one million men in uniform look like) VV would have to waste a lot of time on degeassing people who were not geassed.

If Lelouch found out that VV was degeassing he would assume that all the nobles in Pendragon had been degeassed first (if Lelouch had even geassed them yet) and would order all his still geassed men to attack Pendragon and overthrow Charles, starting a bloody civil war, and offer rewards for VV. Lelouch might issue public threats to chain VV to an anchor and drop him in the deepest part of the ocean (which he'd never get out of for millions of years, and he would get incredibly bored, and probably be eaten alive with horrible pain by sea monsters several times) unless he stopped interfering with Zero's plans.

Cornelia might offer VV millions of dollars for a minute's work degeassing Euphemia. Can Charles offer VV something a million times as valuable for a million times as much work? Or would VV just quit and tell Charles that if Charles escaped VV would pay him so much per month in hush money not to reveal to Lelouch who really killed Mariannne? Money which Charles could use to support himself in hiding and help finance his counter attack, whatever it would be. And VV might try to get Lelouch to pay him not to interfere with Lelouch's plans, thus being able to pay Charles's hush money and still make a profit.

I say it is far more reasonable for VV to degeass one person, Euphemia, than to degeass a million soldiers. I think that Charles would not ask him to but would send blind secret agents, immune to Lelouch's geass, with radar or sonar sensory equipment to try to capture Lelouch soon after Lelouch started geassing Britannian soldiers and officials, hoping that they would catch Lelouch while VV still had only a few thousand people to degeass.

And to Lelouch, who didn't know that Charles was watching him, the plan of geassing Britannian soldiers and officials should seem more reasonable than starting a rebellion in Area Eleven.

B Gundam
05-25-2009, 05:52 PM
If this thing is possible and if that works and if this and that turns out okay and whatnot there would be no problems. Right.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/5549/eadc8669cf3ac8ba0e9664b.gif

Yeah... and please rewrite the rest of the story too while you're at it.

You're assuming a long chain of actions will work smoothly and without anyone noticing there. That everyone will easily be railed into obvious courses of action, that this and that person can certainly be convinced simply because there's something they want and can be provided and whatnot.

Lets take your comparison with Hitler. In fact it historically happened that people tried to turn him with favours, the Appeasement policy leading to the Munich Agreement. They thought giving Hitler what he wants would get him on his good side and make him not resolve to war for 'Lebensraum' (the National socialistic ideal of spreading the living space for the dominant Aryan race).

Hitler wants land and claims certain territories of interest
=> You give those to him peacefully
=> He has what he wanted and won't start a war

Simple and logic, and so World War II was prevented... Oh wait it wasn't.

Certainly it was within possibilities to speak and convince Hitler to this and that, the thing was simply that on the other hand it can also possibly totally fail. If you want to put a possibility, limit it to something smaller in scale or overall risk.

proEuphie
05-25-2009, 10:33 PM
See what I put in bold? You, OF ALL PEOPLE, have no real right to criticize people about their enthusiasm for their favorite character. All you really talk about is either how evil Lelouch is or great Euphemia was. Of the 7 threads that you have created, 3 were specifically aimed at dicussing something about Euphemia,usually her death (2 others skewed in that direction, dispite the topic). Hell, you have "Euphie" in your name. So, you really can not talk about this.



You don't understand about my anger at the death of Euphemia and the way most posters just shrug it off. Euphemia was not my favorite character before I "witnessed" her murder. I just thought of her as a really nice minor character until I saw Lelouch cross the line and do the unforgivable. He shot and killed some one who he could have captured alive as fast, as easy, and as safely as he killed her. He killed someone who would be just a minor problem to keep a prisoner - what is one more prisoner to worry about to someone overthrowing the government of a conquered nation?

So after Euphemia was murdered she became my favorite Code Geass character by default as I realized that almost all the other characters were too evil for me to like and that I had been overlooking their evil deeds because I was interested in the story.

I was commenting that fans of Lelouch were overlooking his evil deeds because he was their favorite character. What I accused them of doing is different from being angry at what I consider to be an unjustified and unmotivated murder of someone who became my favorite character because she was the victim of such an unjustified and irrational crime.

If I was acting similar to the people I was talking about I would be making excuses for Euphemia's crimes. Can you point out any times when I made excuses for Euphemia's crimes? Except when saying that she was not guilty of the Fuji Massacre because her body was controlled by outside forces. Forces which CC said in the introduction to some episodes were absolute, and yet Euphemia resisted at first and seems to have mostly escaped from within a hour or less, alone among known victims of geass commands.

You say all I talk about is how evil Lelouch is and how great Euphemia is. Well, there isn't much need to talk about how evil Emperor Charles is. What would be the point of telling people what they already know? Instead I try to point out how evil the most popular character is, since I think that his evil is greatly underestimated by the majority of Code Geass fans.

And I did not check all my posts but I believe that I usually said the Euphemia was good, not great. Good not in the sense of being less great than great but in the sense of being altruistic, generous, polite, merciful, benevolent, kind, etc. etc. Although her resistance to the geass command and her eventual almost total escape from its control shows that in some respects Euphie really was EUPHEMIA THE GREAT.

And why make a fuss about my saying right out that I am pro Euphemia? Haven't I seem posts by Luluko, who seems to be using Lelouch's nickname of Lulu?

blackrosetwilight
05-25-2009, 10:37 PM
No, fighting back against real or imaginary injustice is never either an ethical or a emotional imperative. People can and do chose whether to fight back or not even when what they value most is taken away from them.

You have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grand parents, and so on. You have positions for 1,024 ancestors ten generations back, and 1,048,576 ancestors twenty generations back, and over a billion ancestors thirty generations back, and so on. Even if you were a Habsburg Archduchess and most of your ancestors in recent generations were high and mighty, you would still have many humble and down trodden ancestors. For example, King William the Conqueror's mother Arlotta (allegedly the original harlot) was the daughter of Fulbert, a tanner in the town of Falaise. You can bet that a lot of Fulbert's ancestors for hundreds and thousands of years back were humble and downtrodden serfs and slaves.

Even if our highest ancestors might possibly have been mighty emperors who ruled over most of the then known world, most of our ancestors would certainly have been lowly, humble, and largely powerless. You and I and all our readers are descended from countless millions of person who lived long enough to give birth to the children who became our ancestors by choosing not to fight back when all that they loved was taken away from them. We might all be descended from countless prehistoric persons whose mothers chose not to fight back against the fathers of those persons, even after the fathers ATE the families of the mothers.

If it was impossible to not fight back against injustice, countless millions of our ancestors would have fought back and been killed before they became the parents of our next generation of ancestors, and so we would not exist.

I guess the popularity of revenge stories is because so many of our ancestors didn't resist wrongs or get revenge for them later even when they wanted to.


"I think; therefore I am; therefore people can and sometimes do choose to not fight back even when everything they love is taken away from them."
Hey proEuphy ever heard of the holocaust? If no one had gone to war against the Nazi no one would've known about it and no one would saved the many people in those concetration/death camps.

B Gundam
05-25-2009, 10:53 PM
You don't understand about my anger at the death of Euphemia and the way most posters just shrug it off. Euphemia was not my favorite character before I "witnessed" her murder. I just thought of her as a really nice minor character until I saw Lelouch cross the line and do the unforgivable. He shot and killed some one who he could have captured alive as fast, as easy, and as safely as he killed her. He killed someone who would be just a minor problem to keep a prisoner - what is one more prisoner to worry about to someone overthowing the government of a conquered nation?

1.) It is not the World's job to understand your feelings.
2.) You say it as if you were the only person with neutral and unbiased view on the matter, though at least the way of your wording is not.
3.) You are putting the situation she was killed in as clearly unjust to her. Reality is different.


Police in squad cars and a helicopter helplessly chased the M-60 tank for nearly half an hour until the 53-ton vehicle ran astride a concrete divider along California 163 and marooned itself. Police wrenched open the tank's hatch and shot the unidentified driver[...]
This man did not kill anyone, he just flattened about 20+ cars and ran over some hydrants and poles and was surrendering when the hatch was opened. But running amok armed means for any security force not to take risks. It is the natural course of action independent of the culprit's motivation or personality. A person who has snapped this far cannot be considered good by any means and will be shown no mercy by any government of this World. Lelouch giving a bogus order leading to this is just as wrong, but does not justify anything.

Once there was a nice guy who wanted to be a painter and served loyally in the army, but witnessed jews abusing their power. Then he witnessed how the World put sole guilt of WW I on Germany and sanctioning it into an economic slump, so he started a political party to draw Germany out of the economical crisis, built it into a superpower, advertised healthy living, greatly improved infrastructure and decided to serve "justice" to the "evil" jews (and bolsheviks) by holocaust. Of course, its not the same scale, but even if you "understand" and sympathize one section or another, or even most of it, is he the bad guy or everyone else around him (yeah I'm not so pro-Lelouch on these matters. But at least his view on race isn't warped so the intentions are somewhat better, and he'll probably get away with "guts to be the villain to prevent worse" at points, ol' Liu Bei trick.)?

This developement of Euphemia is a plot thing. you may or may not have her as favourite character, or tragic character, but don't try bending too hard. You are pressing too much for her to be "alive" indescriminantly. That would rather make her suffer even more.

proEuphie
05-28-2009, 09:59 PM
Ummm...who are you to offer a "truce"? The problem with you is that you act as if you are the only person (or rather, THE person) who knows the difference between good and evil and the opinions of everybody else do not matter so long as they disagree, even slightly, on YOUR definition of good and evil. These concepts are rather complex, ones that really cannot be seperated from one another. That is something that we are all taught at one point, but one you have apparently missed. Idealistically, yes, what Lelouch did was indeed evil. However, who has the right to use THEIR definition of evil and call him out on it, since the same definition of good could be applied to him, as we, as unfortunate as it may seem, do not live in such an idealistic world?

For example, you have some nerve applying the term "evil" to such people as FDR, Truman and Churchill. You are indeed entitled to your own opinion that good and evil are strictly black and white concepts (which they are not, but again, your opinion) but it is rather immature to apply the term "evil" to every single person who declares a war or participates in it. That falls into the realm of the "Fallacy of the undistributed middle". Your logic apparently works like this:
1. All people who declare war and/or bomb people are evil.
2. FDR, Churchill and Truman declared war and/or bombed people
3. Therefore, FDR, Churchill and Truman are evil
This is a logical fallacy.

And Euphemia? The woman is strategically and politically challenged. She is totally naive to things around her. We saw her in battle ONCE, and she almost failed in doing that. Again, your logic runs on a fallacy:
1. All great leaders do not kill people
2. Euphemia refuses to kill people
3. Therefore, Euphemia is a great leader
Yes, this is quite the logical fallacy.




No, the problem is not with the world not being idealistic but that the people who live in it are not as idealistic as they should be, In my opinion, of course. In my opinion the less idealistic the world the more the people in in it should be idealistic to make up for it.

And again you attack things which I did not write. You accuse me of saying that everyone who declares war or participates in it is evil. (incidentally, that could be interpeted as meaning that there are no more evil people, since wars and declarations of war are outlawed and today people merely participate in war like "armed conflicts").

You accuse me of the fallacy of the undistributed middle and say that my logic goes like this:
1. All people who declare war and/or bomb people are evil.
2. FDR, Churchill and Truman declared war and/or bombed people
3. Therefore, FDR, Churchill and Truman are evil
This is a logical fallacy.

I don't see the logical fallacy. If somebody believes that 1 is true and believes that 2 is a historical fact it is quite logical to believe in 3.

Anyway, I said that FDR, Churchill, and Truman were great leaders who were evil because they authorized massive bombing raids on cities in which thousands, tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in single attacks.

My logic goes like this:
1 all people who bomb civilian population centers with massive air raids in which thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands are killed in a single day are evil, no matter how otherwise good they might be.
2 It is a historical fact that FDR, Churchill, and Truman did bomb civilian population centers with massive air raids in which thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands were killed in a single day.
3 Therefore, FDR, Churchill, and Truman were evil because they pursued at least one evil policy, no matter how good they might have otherwise been, and no matter how great they were as leaders.

I did not write that all people who declare war are evil, and I did not write that all people who bomb people are evil. For all that you know, I might believe that some people who bomb some people are more good or less evil than other people who bomb other people.

For example, I might believe that the Axis and Allied airmen of World War II were more good or less evil when bombing submarines, warships, Hitler's Atlantic Wall, airfields, radar installations, and other military targets than when they were bombing cities.

Why do you call Euphemia a woman? She is a sixteen-year-old girl. Calling her a woman is like calling one of the famous teenage generals of history a man (or sometimes a woman) and thus making his successes seem less praiseworthy and his failures more blameworthy. After all, calling Lelouch a man when comparing him to leaders in their twenties, thirties, forties, fifties, etc. might make his success/failure ratio seem not as impressive when compared to Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Genghis Khan, Frederick the Great, Napoleon, etc.

And why do you write that Euphemia is politically and strategically challenged? Do you have a list of stupid political moves she made, or strategic blunders she made while planning the war with the Euro Universe? Of course she didn't plan the war against the Euro Universe and nobody knows if the Britannians made any strategic blunders in that war during the first season.

It is true that Lelouch planned to sabotage the Special Administrative Zone, and later accidentally did sabotage it. But isn't blaming Euphemia for that disaster like calling General Custer strategically and tactically challenged because of the Little Big Horn, instead of saying he shares the blame with some of his subordinates and with his superiors like General Terry, General Sheridan, General Sherman, and President Grant?

You write: "We saw her in battle ONCE, and she almost failed in doing that." I notice that your only test of a political or military leader is combat command. This could be the first time she was in a battle, but of course she could have commanded battles or skirmishes before, from a distance using modern communications. If she had been in charge of the rear areas as Cornelia was conquering Area Seventeen, for example, it might have been reported to her headquarters that base # 10 on Cornelia's main supply route was under attack by guerrillas and Euphemia's officers would have given orders to deal with the attack, which she would have assented to or modified as the highest ranking person present. But I think that in such a position Euphemia would have been mostly politically involved, persuading various local groups to support the Britannians with auxillary troops to help guard the supply lines against guerrilla attack (and thus not be involved themselves in the guerrilla activities) and rewarding them with the creation of Special Treaty Zones where they would have more rights than ordinary numbers.

So when Euphemia created the special Administrative Zone her big step forward would be trying to grant a group of numbers the rights of natives of the (hypothetical) Special Treaty Zones, even though though they had not gained such rights by treaty as a reward for loyalty during the conquest of their Area.

This is just speculation, but if Nunnally could be a viceroy at fifteen Euphemia could have been quietly acting as one of Cornelia's main political and military assistants during some of her recent conquests, doing her best to reduce the bloodshed and preserve as many rights as possible for as many of the natives as possible, whose days of independence were now "numbered".

Anyway, in "Refrain" Cornelia told Euphemia she wanted to go fight the Euro Universe and would do so as soon as the rebels ere defeated, leaving Euphemia in charge of "this area". If the the Britannians had not lost a lot of men and nightmares at Narita, Cornelia would probably have felt that it was safe to go and leave Euphemia in charge of the Tokyo region or all of Area Eleven. Then Lelouch would have thought his golden oppertunity had come, only to see Euphemia start to grant more rights to the Japanese and make their support for the Black Knights dwindle.

Cornelia might have agreed with Euphemia that treating the Japanese better was the best way of permanently defeating the rebellions, but felt that the Britannians and the Emperor would never accept that except after a clear military victory, and it would be too dangerous for Euphemia to try her plan until the rebels were thoroughly defeated. And Euphemia no doubt feared the rebellions would never end until the Britannians started treating the Japaneses a lot better.

And so in desperation Euphemia may have tried to break the impasse by creating the Special Administrative Zone, as a pilot program, and probably thought that something like it should have been tried years ago. The path to victory in a war or rebellion is ending the enemies desire to keep fighting, to crush his will to resist or to make him too happy to fight, and Euphemia saw that the Britannians had taken away far more rights from the Japanese than they needed to, so giving most of them back to the Japanese would not risk what Britannia needed to keep control.

At least that is my opinion. Certainly everyone thought that the SAZ would be the end of the Black Knights and the rebellion, and Lelouch came up with a plan to trick thousands of Japanese into dying for his revolution. And then Euphemia persuaded him to accept the SAZ plan and he "surrendered" to her. Some people might think that Euphemia achieved a lot for a naive teenager.

You say that Euphemia nearly failed at the Battle of Narita. Isn't that the same thing as admitting that she succeeded?

In "Gueren Dances" Cornelia talked to an officer on the radio and said that Euphemia would provide logistical support from the G1, and then told the officer to put Euphemia in command of the Medical Unit. So Euphemia was apparently empowered to make combat decisions but not expected to have to. When Cornelia was trapped the officers in the G1 asked her to order it to move, apparently needing her permission. Euphemia rejected the plan, to protect the civilians and because Cornelia had ordered her not to move the G1. (Nobody talked about whether the G1 could get high enough on the slope to get in range of the fighting). Then Euphemia accepted the offer of Lloyd, Ceicely, and Suzaku to send in Suzaku in the Lancelot, over the objections of her officers, professional soldiers two to three times her age. Suzaku rescued Cornelia from Zero, so Euphemia chose the right people to listen to. So she made a successful combat command decision in a battle where she was not expected to need to make any.

You're right, that can be considered almost failing. Especially by people who would define success as taking command of all the Britannian forces and utterly crushing the Black Knights and the JLF.

The Black knights retreated because of Suzaku's attack and because Britannian forces from the other side of the mountain were coming. Those Britannian forces could have been ordered to move by their own officers or by higher ups like Cornelia, General Darlton, General X, General Y, or perhaps Euphemia.

you say my flawed logic goes like this:
1. All great leaders do not kill people
2. Euphemia refuses to kill people
3. Therefore, Euphemia is a great leader
Yes, this is quite the logical fallacy.

Actually my logic goes like this:
1 No good (i.e. benevolent) leader kills people needlessly or wastefully.
2 Euphemia is extremely reluctant to kill people, although she has made combat command decisions at least once.
3 Therefore Euphemia certainly fills that requirement for being a good (i.e. benevolent) leader.

To argue that Euphemia was a great leader I could argue like this:
1 Lelouch was a great leader (though far too evil for my taste) and knew a greet leader when he saw one.
2 In episode 22 Lelouch made peace with Euphemia and acted like she had defeated him with her own type of attack. He said she had been his greatest enemy.
3 Therefore. allowing for exaggeration, Lelouch's belief that Euphemia was a worthy opponent is evidence that she was probably a great leader.

frazelle
05-28-2009, 11:51 PM
i'll go fr lelouch

he's really a genius and he only sometimes do mistakes because of his overflowing love for nunnaly.

for suzaku. i dont think so.
i cant believed he almost betray his own bestfriend.

proEuphie
05-30-2009, 02:59 PM
Hey proEuphy ever heard of the holocaust? If no one had gone to war against the Nazi no one would've known about it and no one would saved the many people in those concetration/death camps.

I didn't say that nobody ever resisted anybody. I said that we are alive because millions of our ancestors did not resist when it would have been suicidal to do so. For example, millions of slaves who could always have resisted and been killed but obeyed and lived long enough to have children who became our ancestors. And millions of serfs who let their lords lord it over them and so lived long enough to have children who became our ancestors. And people who heard that dangerous enemies like, for example, Genghis Khan and his Mongol hordes, might invade their land and packed up their families and moved hundreds or thousands of miles to get away from the danger, and so escaped the massacres, instead of staying, fighting, and being killed.

And I never said that nobody should ever resist injustice, such as the Nazi Holocaust. I merely pointed out that people can choose to fight or submit and that for example, countless millions of our ancestors must have chosen to submit when it would have been suicidal to fight, or else we would never have been born. I was answering the statement that people have to resist, implying that some psychological drive forces them to resist every time.

proEuphie
05-30-2009, 04:55 PM
1.) It is not the World's job to understand your feelings.
2.) You say it as if you were the only person with neutral and unbiased view on the matter, though at least the way of your wording is not.
3.) You are putting the situation she was killed in as clearly unjust to her. Reality is different.


This man did not kill anyone, he just flattened about 20+ cars and ran over some hydrants and poles and was surrendering when the hatch was opened. But running amok armed means for any security force not to take risks. It is the natural course of action independent of the culprit's motivation or personality. A person who has snapped this far cannot be considered good by any means and will be shown no mercy by any government of this World. Lelouch giving a bogus order leading to this is just as wrong, but does not justify anything.

Once there was a nice guy who wanted to be a painter and served loyally in the army, but witnessed jews abusing their power. Then he witnessed how the World put sole guilt of WW I on Germany and sanctioning it into an economic slump, so he started a political party to draw Germany out of the economical crisis, built it into a superpower, advertised healthy living, greatly improved infrastructure and decided to serve "justice" to the "evil" jews (and bolsheviks) by holocaust. Of course, its not the same scale, but even if you "understand" and sympathize one section or another, or even most of it, is he the bad guy or everyone else around him (yeah I'm not so pro-Lelouch on these matters. But at least his view on race isn't warped so the intentions are somewhat better, and he'll probably get away with "guts to be the villain to prevent worse" at points, ol' Liu Bei trick.)?

This developement of Euphemia is a plot thing. you may or may not have her as favourite character, or tragic character, but don't try bending too hard. You are pressing too much for her to be "alive" indescriminantly. That would rather make her suffer even more.

Let us consider a situation somewhat worse than going on a victimless rampage due to temparery insanity or intoxication. Suppose that hundreds of airplanes bomb a city in a giant raid destroying thousands of buildings and killing thousands or tens of thousands of civilians. Suppose that some of the planes are shot down. Suppose that some crewmen from the planes parachute to Earth. Will the police or military forces of the bombed nation A) shoot the enemy airmen as soon as they arrive on the scene or B) accept their surrender as prisoners of war? I believe that B) happened much more often than A). Sometimes the security forces of even evil, brutal, states show mercy to people they consider sane but evil murderers of their people.

Anyway, Lelouch is not a member of the security forces of any nation in our world but a free lance, amateur rebel leader and general in an alternate universe who does not have to obey the policies of his superiors since he acknowledges no superiors and is his own king, emperor, general, etc.

And Euphemia is not a lone psycho gungirl but a leader of a military force during an armed conflict. If she could be captured alive she could be used as a hostage in an attempt to get her remaining troops to cease fire or get Suzaku to surrender with the Lancelot to save her or get Cornelia to make some kind of truce favorable to the Black Knights. The episode clearly shows that Euphemia could have been captured alive sooner than she was killed.

You say that security forces take no chances. Do you mean chances with their own lives or chances with those of bystanders or both? Lelouch took a lot more seeming chances with his own life and those of hypothetical Japanese bystanders when he killed Euphemia than he needed to take to capture her alive. Once Euphemia's nightmare was destroyed the odds were two nightmares against one unarmed girl. Lelouch had all the options and Euphemia had no options.

Euphemia could have been captured by being grabbed in the hand of a nightmare as soon as she crawled out of the wreckage of her nightmare. Of course the nightmare would no longer be able to use weapons in that hand but if Britannians came along an Euphemia in the hand might be the most powerful weapon available. Instead they let her pick up a machine gun conveniently lying around on the ground, and didn't lift a giant robotic finger to stop her or to take it away from her. How's that for making the best possible use of all the weapons at your disposal to protect any Japanese who might have been nearby?

Then Lelouch left the safety of his armored nightmare and walked toward Euphemia. Euphemia talked to him and he walked up to her and past and away from her, almost guaranteeing that she would turn around to look at him as he walked away from her. So Lelouch was deliberately condemning to death any Japanese who might have been in front of him and behind Euphemia. Since Euphemia didn't shoot the machine gun either there were no Japanese in that direction or Euphemia was enough out of the control of the geass command that it could no longer make her kill.

If there were Japanese in front of Lelouch when he walked past Euphemia, he might have hoped that she would turn around and shoot at them and Lelouch could shoot her, making dramatic footage of him slaying the evil killer, if there were any cameras rolling.

If you don't want to think that Lelouch was evil enough to sacrifice Japanese lives for that or some other reason, you must accept there were no Japanese in sight behind Euphemia when Lelouch made her turn around. So if Lelouch knew there were no nearby Japanese he knew that he could afford to take a few extra seconds or even minutes to capture Euphemia alive. And of course he could have captured Euphemia alive by picking her up in his nightmare's hand before the time when he got out of his nightmare and started walking toward her.

Lelouch did not shoot Euphemia in a desperate effort to save someone she was about to kill. He killed her some time after the earliest moment when he could have killed or captured her. And I can imagine no good reason for wasting precious seconds unless you are going to capture someone instead of killing them and need that extra time to capture them. But of course Lelouch didn't need to waste those precious seconds when a Japanese person might have emerged from somewhere and been shot. He could have captured Euphemia alive as soon as she crawled out of the wreckage of her nightmare.

He could have killed Euphemia even sooner by blasting her nightmare with some powerful weapon that his nightmare carried. And possibly he could have captured her then too, by forcing her to eject from her nightmare, possibly leaving it intact to be commandeered by a Black Knight, or else going on the radio and persuading her to get out of her nightmare and into his for some reason. Lelouch did not kill Euphemia when he did because he was in a rush to save Japanese lives or because he was in a rush to stop wasting time with her and get back to commanding the battle. He could have killed or captured her before he did kill her. And capturing her could have made winning the battle much easier for him.

Lelouch seemed to be taking a big risk walking around without armor with Euphemia holding a machine gun that he had inexplicably let her pick up and keep. But he knew that she knew that Zero was him, and thus not a Japanese target, and also someone she loved. So he knew that he was perfectly safe around her. Isn't there a word for killing someone who isn't dangerous to you when they can be captured in time to keep them from becoming dangerous to any other person? Isn't that word called -- murder?

Euphemia seemed to be escaping from the control of the geass command while she was talking to Lelouch. When she apologized for shooting at his nightmare she remembered that Japanese people were her targets. But then she asked Zero's help in administering the Zone. She did not then remember the massacre and chasing the survivors out of the Zone and the fact that there was now no need for Zero's help. Then she said "No, that's not right", so she remembered at least vaguely that the plan had changed.

If the Geass had been in full or almost full control of her she would have been running around looking for victims, or requesting Zero's help, or doing something to obey. So Euphemia had regained a majority of the control of her body. But if she remembered the massacre clearly she would have been horrified, so she was forgetting it fast. And when a geass command has been completed and the geass ends the person forgets everything he did when under its control. Euphemia was forgetting, so she seemed to be escaping from the control of the geass.

If Euphemia was commanded to kill not just the Japanese in the stadium but all Japanese everywhere, she had a big problem -- more Japanese babies were being born about as fast as she could kill them. It is possible that one or more Japanese babies were being born while Euphemia wasted time talking to the first familiar mask that she saw. Either Euphemia had been commanded to kill only the Japanese in the stadium, and she was freeing herself from the geass because she figured they must all be dead by now, or else she was breaking free from the control of a geass command to kill all Japanese everywhere. In either case Euphemia might soon be her old harmless self -- and might feel so guilty that Lelouch might persuade her to help the Black Knights someway.

And so Euphemia, passing from the control of the geass to control by her own personality, was in a dazed and confused and helpless state when Lelouch shot her. It is a war crime to kill an enemy who is trying to surrender. Of course Euphemia was not trying to surrender to Lelouch: She didn't even know that they were enemies. She thought that after their reunion in "Island of the Gods" Lelouch must love her almost as much as she loved him. Somewhere in her brain Euphemia had all the information she needed to realize that the massacre might have made Lelouch/Zero hostile to her and she should try shooting him or running away or hiding or begging for mercy or something. But In her dazed and confused state of mind the needed information was not available to either her self or the geass command, so she could not realize the danger she was in or come up with any kind of plan to avoid it. And isn't it a war crime to attack and kill an enemy who doesn't yet know there is a state of war? Isn't that murder?

When Lelouch destroyed Euphemia's nightmare Kallen asked him if he was going to capture Euphemia. That was a silly question; it would have been easy to capture Euphemia so Kallen should have assumed Lelouch would do that. And Lelouch answered that there was no point in that.

In war there is always a point in capturing someone as a prisoner. That point is so strong that you must always capture someone as a prisoner if it would be just a safe for you and others as killing him would be, and if just letting him go is not a good idea for some reason.

Lelouch shot Euphemia when there was no point in shooting her. At least, I can see no point in shooting Euphemia if Lelouch was a good person, and very little more point if Lelouch was evil. Killing someone without a point is murder.

proEuphie
05-31-2009, 10:13 PM
He doesn't mean to do the wrong thing. I don't think that any of the characters (Charles included) mean to do the wrong thing. I don't think anyone said that (go back and read the posts again). Everybody knows that the Geass Directorate Massacre was intentional. Everybody knows that shooting Euphemia was intentional.

However, since "right" and "wrong" are only concepts that can be applied blankly to so many things, again, like I said before, you are not the only person who can determine what these words mean, as if you are the expert or the "go-to" person on the matters of good and evil. You even gave a reference to your own thread and post as if you are some kind expert.

Was Lelouch shooting Euphemia good or evil? Who can make this decision? You? Because while shooting an innocent girl would be more than evil, shooting someone who was quilty of killing many people would be good. Then, there are the other factors that are working in the backround (the Geass, the Black Rebellion, etc), but, as I can tell, you could care less about these things so long as Euphemia, your favorite character, ends up dead, which, according to your logic (which I have already revealed to comprise of a fallacy), is evil no matter what the circumstances are.

Again, am I defending Lelouch because I am on his side? No. As I said before, I am on nobody's "side", which, like I said before, would imply that one person is completely right and the other is completely wrong, which, since "good" and "evil" are not completely seperate, black and white concepts, would not be true under any real circumstance.

Several posters said that Lelouch didn't mean to do the wrong thing or Lelouch's actions might not have been for the best all the time or that Lelouch's intentions were good, and so on. Since they know that he deliberately ordered a massacre and deliberately shot someone who trusted him and didn't have the faintest idea that he was hostile to her, doesn't that mean that they believe that Lelouch had evil/bad/non good intentions?
Or do they believe that it could sometimes be alright to order a massacre or to kill someone who trusted you so much it would be very easy to capture them alive?

You mention that I made a reference to my own post and thread as if I was an expert (in ethics or Code Geass?). I think you are referring to my mention of my post containing 15 ways that Lelouch might have captured Euphemia alive easily, safely, and quickly. I mentioned my post with the 15 ways to capture Euphemia because I was not aware of any list with 18 ways or 25 ways to capture her alive. If anyone knows of such a list I will cite it instead of mine the next time I want to make the point that Lelouch had many ways to capture Euphemia alive that were just as safe for him and the Japaneses, and just a quick and easy, as shooting her.

Of course if that list doesn't include all the ways on my list I will have to cite both my own list of 15 ways to capture Euphemia and the other list of 20 ways or 23 ways or whatever, in order that the readers can appreciate the total number of ways to capture Euphemia that were available to Lelouch.

I notice that you did not respond to my list of 15 methods to capture Euphemia by suggesting that any of the ways I suggested would be too dangerous or difficult for Lelouch, or by suggesting that some should be considered minor variations of other methods. I suppose that you might have been able to suggest that the list should be reduced to only 11 or 8 ways to capture Euphemia.

Which reminds me of a movie scene in which a young martial arts expert told his uncle that a ninja should always be able to see six ways to kill somebody with the objects available at the moment. The uncle asked if the boy could see six ways to kill him with the objects in the room they were in, and the boy admitted that he could see only five ways to kill him.

I suppose that if constructive criticism reduced my list of 15 ways to capture Euphemia down to only five or six ways that everyone agreed would be just as easy and safe as killing her would be, that would not make it much easier to defend Lelouch's decision to shoot her. And since you did not offer any detailed criticism of my list of 15 ways Lelouch could have captured Euphemia but instead resorted to calling me arrogant, I think you do not see any way to take off more than a few methods from my list.

You say: "Because while shooting an innocent girl would be more than evil, shooting someone who was quilty of killing many people would be good."

I remember one time when I wrote that any soldier, warrior, guerrilla, or terrorist who took part in a massacre was guilty and should be killed, you reacted as if I wrote that any soldier, warrior, guerrilla, or terrorist was guilty and should be killed. You certainly seemed to think that the lives of the Britannian soldiers who obeyed Euphemia's massacre order were still worth something and should not be wasted.

Those soldiers should have told Euphemia and the officers who passed on the order "No!", just as Suzaku refused to obey the order to kill Lelouch in the first episode. Of course Suzaku was shot by his officer for mutiny. But if those soldiers were good men they would have discussed what they would do if they were ever given a massacre order and decided they would all stand together and refuse to obey it. So if they were good men they would have refused the massacre order and maybe shot at Euphemia and her officers instead of the crowd and maybe captured Euphie and her officers as hostages and joined the Black Knights or got the Black Knights to help smuggle the mutinous soldiers out of Britannian territory to safety.

But maybe you were right. Maybe those soldiers who obeyed a massacre order without hesitation were not brutal, callous, evil, brutes who should have been exterminated like vermin but still basically decent men forced by a tyrannical government to do things they felt were evil but dared not resist, and still deserved to live. And therefore Euphemia, a sweet, innocent girl who wanted to be good to everybody, who was taken over by a geass command despite her resistance, clearly deserved to live at least as much as they did.

And what do you mean when you write: "shooting someone who was quilty of killing many people would be good."?
If someone is evil and deserves to die it is permissible to kill him under some circumstances, but it is not a good and beneficial thing that should be done or needs to be done. As you remember, I suggested that it would be right to use up the lives of those Britannian soldiers to try to achieve a good purpose. I didn't say that killing them would be a good and noble deed or that it might compensate or atone for the evil deeds someone who killed them might have done.

The main leader of the Santee Sioux in the uprising of 1862 was Little Crow, persuaded to join what he considered to be an evil and/or suicidal venture. Over three hundred of those Sioux were later sentenced to death for murder, and 38 were hung, including at least one who was only sixteen. Little Crow was killed in a shoot out in 1863 and a few weeks later his sixteen-year-old son Wowinapa (spelling uncertain, of course) was captured by army scouts. They took at least a little risk by not shooting him on sight but giving him a chance to surrender, so would be criticized by many who defend Lelouch for shooting Euphemia.

Wowinapa was tried for theft and attempted murder in 1863 and taking part in the 1862 uprising (when he was fifteen), convicted, probably justly, and sentenced to be hung. But he got off on a technicality and was released from prison after a couple of years. His family had been largely assimilated into American culture before the uprising, so Wowinapa became a Christian and a member of white society, changing his name to Thomas Lakeman. He was a founder of the Young Men's Christian Association among the Sioux and some of his sons were ministers. He is listed as one of the early settlers of the region in Iowa where he lived, which I think is a little amusing.

I think most people who know some of his descendants will say that no matter how guilty of murder he might have been and no matter how just his death sentence might have been, it is a good that he was not hung.

So I say there is no point in killing someone just because they are guilty of killing people and deserve to die (not that Euphemia was). Shooting someone who is guilty of killing a lot of people is not a positive good thing unless it is a necessary and/or useful thing. And I have already explained that shooting Euphemia was not necessary to protect lives.

you say: "Then, there are the other factors that are working in the backround (the Geass, the Black Rebellion, etc), but, as I can tell, you could care less about these things so long as Euphemia, your favorite character, ends up dead, which, according to your logic (which I have already revealed to comprise of a fallacy), is evil no matter what the circumstances are."

What about the geass? I have explained that if Euphemia was captured curing her geass would be a simple matter of negotiation by her guardians to get the use of the geass canceler or VV to undo the geass, to say nothing of any other methods that CC could have known about and told Lelouch about. And I have explained that Euphemia was breaking free of her geass command while she was talking to Lelouch and he should have noticed that she might be totally harmless again in just hours or even minutes if captured.

What about the Black Rebellion? If Lelouch was doing it for revenge he should have given it up to avoid killing Euphemia. Which is pretty much what he did at his meeting with her. So when the massacre started after that, he should have contented himself with saving the Japanese victims from the soldiers and then leaving, saying he would decide whether to revolt against Britannia based on what the Japanese people said they wanted. Of course Diethard could always rig the online polls to make the vote go Lelouch's way, and the extra time to prepare would be useful.

If Lelouch was doing the Black Rebellion to make a happier and safer world for Nunnally, he should have given up the Black Revolution to save Euphemia. Nunnally loved Euphemia and Euphie's death made her sadder, not happier. And Nunnally would have preferred to face an unknown risk of being killed sometime in the future rather than have Euphemia (or possibly even any of the thousands of strangers killed in the Black Rebellion) killed now.

If Lelouch was doing the Black Rebellion to give independence to Japan, he should have given it up to save Euphemia, since the life of any human being, even an evil one like Emperor Charles, for example, to say nothing of such a good person as Euphemia, is worth more than the independence of all the nations that ever were, are, or will be.

If Lelouch was doing the Black Rebellion to make the Japanese less oppressed, then he should have continued the Black Rebellion while saving Euphemia. The only other serious plan to give immediate freedom to (at first only some) the Japanese was Euphemia's Special Administrative Zone and it had just suffered a major and possibly fatal set-back. And of course you keep insisting that the Black Rebellion could not succeed if Euphemia lived.

I don't know why. Did I miss the scene where Lelouch promised to kill Euphemia as a human sacrifice to some evil Cthulhuvian god in return for victory and was warned that if he didn't kill her the god would make certain that the rebellion failed? I don't think so.

The Black Rebellion was doomed to failure anyway, and Lelouch should have realized that. During the
assault on the Tokyo settlement Lelouch gloated to CC that once the rebels proclaimed an independent Japan in the Government Center the Emperor would be forced to come to Japan to meet Zero face to mask. Of course Lelouch could then use his geass on the Emperor and take over Britannia.

Did King George III make a state visit to the United States immediately after the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 or the Treaty of Paris in 1783? No. Did the King of Spain visit Mexico, or Peru, or Chile, or Argentina right after they gained independence? No. Is there any example in our history of a head of state or head of government making a visit to a former possession right after it gained independence in a bloody rebellion? I don't think so. And I don't think that Lelouch could have found many examples - if any - in the history of his alternate universe.

So I guess Lelouch should have given up the plan for the Black Rebellion and gone back to the drawing board. He seemed to expect that merely because he wanted Emperor Charles to meet him face to mask he could get Charles to come by doing something which would scare Charles away, not lure him in, if he had any sense. If Lelouch wanted to lure Charles to Japan he should have made various leading Britannians in Japan build a two hundred foot tall statue of Charles in the Tokyo settlement and invite Charles to dedicate it (little knowing that the Black Knights and their nightmares would be hidden inside it waiting to emerge), or something like that. Since you have accused Euphemia and myself of being naive perhaps you might admit that Lelouch could be naive too.

Defending Lelouch's most dubious actions makes his defenders seem like Dr. Pangloss, claiming that we have the best of all possible Code Geasses, the best of all possible Lelouch's, and the beat of all possible Lelouch strategies.

You can say that since Lelouch did not realize that his plan for the Black Rebellion had a fatal flaw it would have been right for him to kill Euphemia to give the rebellion a better chance of succeeding. But you have never managed to explain how killing Euphemia would do that, or would be better than using her as hostage to get Suzaku to switch sides or gain some other advantage.

And if Lelouch expected the Emperor to come to Japan he should have realized that he had to keep Cornelia and above all Euphemia safe and unharmed. Lelouch should have realized that the Emperor would probably believe that sweet little Euphie had been framed for the massacre. Lelouch should have realized that Charles should have realized that since Charles had killed thousands of times as many Japanese as Euphemia, he would be hated thousands of times as much and would be thousands of times more likely to be killed by the Japanese than Euphemia. Even with a live Euphemia it would be stupid for the Emperor to visit Japan and with a dead Euphemia it would be a thousand times stupider and less likely.

Lelouch desperately needed a live Euphemia for his plan to work, even in his naive fantasies. And he killed her anyway.

And no, I don't believe that it could never be right to kill an innocent person like Euphemia, no matter what the circumstances. This link: http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/13-TheBestofJimBaensUniverseCD/TheBestofJimBaensUniverseCD/The%20World%20Turned%20Upside%20Down/0743498747__19.htm takes you to an online version of the short science fiction story "The Cold Equations", by Tom Godwin, in which a situation is created in which it is necessary and thus more or less "right" to kill an innocent person. And this link: http://home.tiac.net/~cri_d/cri/1999/coldeq.html will take you to a discussion of that story and the controversies it caused and a critique of the fictional universe of that story.

Science fiction author Robert Heinlein once wrote wrote that a competent person would be capable of taking care of a baby or killing it if necessary (probably in the Notebook of Lazarus Long). For a long time I couldn't imagine any circumstances when it would be necessary to kill a baby but just a few months ago I thought of a (possible) example.

Suppose you argue with a stranger, claiming that it could never be right under any circumstances to kill an innocent person like Euphemia. The stranger vows to make you change your mind. Unknown to you, the stranger is actually supervillain Ima Devil. So you regain consciousness tied up so you can use only one finger to press one button on a control device placed in reach. Ima Devil tells you that a baby had been placed on the steps of the orphanage at 8:10 pm and the next routine check will be at 9:00 PM The baby has been infected with a disease that will become airborne soon after 9:00 PM and spread to the other babies in the orphanage. They will all be dead within days. But now the disease is still in the state where it needs the warmth of a human body to survive. If you press the button it will give the baby a lethal injection and the baby will quickly die and cool off enough to kill the disease with minutes to spare before the 9:00 PM check finds the baby.

If you believe that Ima Devil has told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (which is a big if) you might accept that you have no choice but to press the button that Ima Devil says will kill the baby and save the other babies in the orphanage.

(Devil is a real surname, a variation of De Ville, etc. http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Devil. Ima is a real personal name, used by Texas socialite and philanthropist Ima Hogg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ima_Hogg, and according to books on bad baby names also by Ima Pigg, Ima Nutt, Ima Pain, Ima Hooker, etc.)

In the case of the "The Cold Equations" an innocent person had to die by suicide and/or murder because 1) that person would have died within minutes anyway, and 2) giving that innocent person the extra few minutes of life would result in death for a number of other persons.

In my example, if Ima Devil is telling the truth the baby on the doorstep has to die now because: 1) It will be dead within days anyway, and 2) giving it those extra few days of life will result in death for the other babies in the orphanage.

Can anybody say that Euphemia had to die because: 1) she would have died within minutes (or days or some other specified time) anyway and 2) because her survival would inevitably, by the operation of the laws of physics and other sciences, result in the deaths of other people?

No. There is no logical way to assert that either 1) or 2) is correct, let alone both.

Before I saw episode 23 I read that Lelouch was forced to shoot Euphemia in that episode. When I was watching it I expected to see some dreadful, terrible scene in which first it became necessary for Lelouch to shoot Euphemia and then he shot her. Instead I saw the terrible scene where Lelouch shot Euphemia before it became necessary for him to shoot her, thus making it impossible that it shooting her would ever be necessary.

When I saw Lelouch shoot Euphemia without any necessity he went from hero to Zero in my estimation. And I soon realized that Euphemia was not just a charming and innocent minor character but the only member of the cast who was both good and important. I saw that without her the series becomes evil people fighting other evil people in the ethically drab and dreary Post-Euphemian Era.

You say you are not defending Lelouch because you are on his side, that you are not on his or anyone's side. You leave it a little unclear if you are defending Lelouch. Would you vote to acquit or convict him of the murder of Euphemia and/or the Geass Directorate Massacre?

You say you are not on anybody's side because nobody is totally right or has opponents who are totally wrong. I don't believe that any side in any type of conflict could ever be totally right or totally wrong. But I do choose sides in many real or fictional conflicts, choosing those who seem to be mostly a lot better than their opponents, or whose victory will result in a better world down through the centuries. Thus I am a lot more on the side of the Allies than the Axis in World war II, despite considering the Allied bombing campaigns to be evil war crimes regardless of how effective they may or may not have been in bringing about victory. A victory that I think was mostly for the better (though certainly not for the best).

blackrosetwilight
05-31-2009, 10:58 PM
okay, okay you win proEuphy I admit it I killed Eupy not Lelouch, his little needle gun couldnt even kill a fly. I delivered the final blow that actually killed her, I planned all of it, ever since I first saw her I wanted her gone and I knew that one day Lelouch would lose control of his power and that Euphy would try to make peace with him and ect, ect, ect, you know what happened next. Why you ask? Because there can only be one Pink Hair Princess and that is... LACUS CLYNE!!!!!! KiraXLacus 4ever!!!!!... nah screw Kira he's next on my list, LONG LIIIIIVE LAAAAAAAACUS!!!!!! and I would've gotten away with it too, if it werent for you meddling kids and your dog too

proEuphie
06-04-2009, 09:18 PM
You think that Lelouch can just waltz into Pendragon? No. The royal palace and the surrounding city of Pendragon is heavily guarded and has high amounts of security. He can't just Geass a guard; he would be killed before he even got close to the city. Remember, you are suggesting that this was done AS SOON AS he got the Geass. He had no support at the time and would be quite vulnerable. Also, since Lelouch planned to use people as pawns in the first place, there really is no point in giving alternatives to Lelouch's plan that would save more people, seeing as he could really care less.

If Pendragon is a city of millions there should be hundreds or thousands of people entering and leaving it every hour. And what do you mean by heavy security? Like the security at the Pentagon, Cheyenne Mountain, the Kremlin, etc. etc.? Do you think that there is any place in the world today where anyone seriously expects an attack or infiltration by Lelouch with his command geass and so is prepared with adequate security measures to stop such an attack or infiltration? Is there any leader or government on Earth today so well guarded that Lelouch could not take over?

And if you admit that Lelouch could probably find ways to get around any security measures on Earth today, I suggest you read the Lensman novels by E.E. Smith. The second-stage Lensmen and their main enemies had mental powers that put all geass users to shame. Any of the major agents could singlehandedly overthrow any government on Earth today from the other side of the planet -- or exterminate the human race.

And why do you say there is no point in pointing out less violent and destructive ways of achieving Lelouch's goals, because Lelouch does not care about that? The entire point of many of my posts is is to pint out the difference between what a good person would do and what Lelouch does.

proEuphie
06-04-2009, 10:03 PM
Of course, the only real reason you are trying to do this is, again, wrap this around Euphemia and your more than naive notions of a ideal leader and an ideal war, the thought of which makes no sense. As blackrosetwilight already pointed out, there is no such thing as an ideal war. Even though a country can have a pacifistic leader, that won't stop it from being attacked (hatred can form from anything). At that point, then what?

From what I have understood from you, evil people (or rather, people YOU deem evil) deserve to die, while good people (or rather, people YOU deem good) deserve to live. And apparently the ends do not justify the means, no matter how good or evil and the means must be proportionate (these are your words, not mine).

But you do not follow the latter completely. In one of your posts, you made a plan that involved killing hundreds upon hundreds of Britannian soldiers to save Euphemia, one person. Its not a proportional means (killing hundreds of people to save one person), but you would argue that the ends certainly DO justify the means at that point, yes?

Right now, you remind me of Relena Peacecraft in Gundam Wing. She was a total pacifist but was also quite the hypocrite. You are either quite naive or a hypocrite.

You say that there can be no such thing as an ideal war (i.e. one fought according to strict ideals of protecting noncombatants). In the Next sentence you say that even a country with a pacifistic leader can be attacked. That is a statement about the possible cause of a war, and is not connected very closely with the question of how a war should be fought. And you say that hatred can form from anything.

Are you naive enough to believe that hatred is a major cause of most wars, instead of flaring up with great intensity during war and then subsiding to a lower level in peacetime? If so, I guess you are naive enough to believe that the Zero Requiem could work.

You accuse me of being a hypocrite for saying the means must be proportional to the end and suggesting elsewhere that hundreds and hundreds of Britannian soldiers be sacrificed to save one person, Euphemia. Would I be a hypocrite for proposing that hundreds of insects, or plants, or bacteria be sacrificed to save the life of one person, or even a dog?

No. And I wouldn't be a hypocrite for suggesting that hundreds of Nazi SS death camp guards or Mongol warriors (who had each massacred hundreds of civilians) be sacrificed to save the life of one good, deserving person. Nor would I be a hypocrite for suggesting that hundreds of Britannian soldiers who had taken part in a massacre be sacrificed to save the life of one good person like Euphemia.

After all, demanding that people don't massacre is not exactly setting a impossibly high standard of behavior. For example, in my life I have never witnessed a single massacre.

If someone has taken part in a massacre of his own free will he is evil and deserves to die. He can be executed by firing squad, burned at the stake, imprisoned for life, imprisoned for five to ten years and then released, given psychiatric treatment until he is cured of his willingness to obey evil orders, sold as a slave, fined, etc. etc. without violating the rights that he used to have before he committed a massacre. The life of a massacre participant has about the same value to society as the life of a bug or a bacteria, so sacrificing the lives of hundreds of them to save one good person is as proportionate as killing hundreds of insects or even rodents to save the life of one human, which is done countless times every day.

And Euphemia did what no human being should be able to do. She resisted the geass at first, and she seemed to have almost entirely broken and defeated her geass command by the time Lelouch shot her. If Nunnally broke her blindness geass after eight years and showed incredible will power in so doing, Euphemia, who almost totally broke her geass about ten thousand times faster, can hardly be merely human. Thus it is logical to assume that Euphemia might some kind of supernatural or extraterrestrial being incarnated as a human, and that her life might be worth hundreds of human lives, just as a human life is worth hundreds of rodent lives.

I have never seen Gundam Wing, but considering how much you despise Relena Peacecraft I suppose that I might like her if I ever do watch it.

wolfgirl90
06-07-2009, 02:27 PM
If Pendragon is a city of millions there should be hundreds or thousands of people entering and leaving it every hour. And what do you mean by heavy security? Like the security at the Pentagon, Cheyenne Mountain, the Kremlin, etc. etc.? Do you think that there is any place in the world today where anyone seriously expects an attack or infiltration by Lelouch with his command geass and so is prepared with adequate security measures to stop such an attack or infiltration? Is there any leader or government on Earth today so well guarded that Lelouch could not take over?

"Every time you put logic into anime, God kills a catgirl."

Remember this phrase? Are you suggesting that I compare the real world security of a place like the Kremlin to Pendragon, a city that exists in a universe where there are large mechs that fly around using wings made out of energy? I don't think so. I said that Pendragon was well guarded and had large amounts of security because that is stated (over and over) in the anime. An unauthorized person can't even approach the city, let alone get in. Lelouch can't Geass a sniper, or a Knight approaching him in a Knightmare, or even fight someone, so that is the basis of what I said (remember, I am assuming, like you, that Lelouch went straight to Pendragon after getting the Geass; the Black Knights have not formed yet).


Are you naive enough to believe that hatred is a major cause of most wars, instead of flaring up with great intensity during war and then subsiding to a lower level in peacetime? If so, I guess you are naive enough to believe that the Zero Requiem could work.

Noooo...read what I said. I mentioned the hatred thing because a nation could be attacked for any reason. Even a peace loving, non-combatant nation could be invaded. My point was, if fighting against injustice is NEVER justified, what should a pacisifistic nation do if it was attacked? What should other nations do if another country was attacked for no reason?

And the Zero Requiem DID work. The thing is, it can only do so much when it comes to world peace (that has to be done by the people themselves). Like I said, war can start from anything.


And I wouldn't be a hypocrite for suggesting that hundreds of Nazi SS death camp guards or Mongol warriors (who had each massacred hundreds of civilians) be sacrificed to save the life of one good, deserving person. Nor would I be a hypocrite for suggesting that hundreds of Britannian soldiers who had taken part in a massacre be sacrificed to save the life of one good person like Euphemia.[quote]

Let's go back to the quote, shall we?:rolleyes:
quote=proEuphie;2267185]No, fighting back against real or imaginary injustice is never either an ethical or a emotional imperative. People can and do chose whether to fight back or not even when what they value most is taken away from them.

I called you a hypocrite bacause, while you say that fighting against real or imaginary injustice is never justified, you said that hundreds, if not thousands of Britanian soldiers should die, whether it was to either save Euphemia or just die for the crimes they committed. You can't have a pacifistic attitude about war and fighting for social injustice but then turn around and advocate the mass killing of a bunch of people because THEY committed a social injustice. That, my friend, is being a hypocrite.:rolleyes:


If someone has taken part in a massacre of his own free will he is evil and deserves to die. He can be executed by firing squad, burned at the stake, imprisoned for life, imprisoned for five to ten years and then released, given psychiatric treatment until he is cured of his willingness to obey evil orders, sold as a slave, fined, etc. etc. without violating the rights that he used to have before he committed a massacre. The life of a massacre participant has about the same value to society as the life of a bug or a bacteria, so sacrificing the lives of hundreds of them to save one good person is as proportionate as killing hundreds of insects or even rodents to save the life of one human, which is done countless times every day.

Are you God, proEuphie? How do you know how much a human life, a plant's life, an animal's life, is worth? Sorry, but you are a hypocrite so long as you have the philosophy of "We shouldn't kill people...except those that kill other people", "Fighting against people is wrong...unless they do something terrible to us.":rolleyes:


And Euphemia did what no human being should be able to do. She resisted the geass at first, and she seemed to have almost entirely broken and defeated her geass command by the time Lelouch shot her. If Nunnally broke her blindness geass after eight years and showed incredible will power in so doing, Euphemia, who almost totally broke her geass about ten thousand times faster, can hardly be merely human. Thus it is logical to assume that Euphemia might some kind of supernatural or extraterrestrial being incarnated as a human, and that her life might be worth hundreds of human lives, just as a human life is worth hundreds of rodent lives.

Did you forget that Nunnally resisted Lelouch's Geass too? I have said that over and over. Euphemia is not that special for resisting Lelouch's Geass since Nunnally did the exact same thing (and lasted quite a long time). But once again, I am going to drop it since there is an entire thread where we can talk about this.

Again, proEuphie, while it is your opinion, since you are not some godlike being, I will assume that you really have no idea how much the life of a human being is worth.

Since I am in the military, I know all to well about the value of a human life. When it comes to rats, its either their lives and diseases or my life and my health. Its not because one is worth more than the other. Since you have most likely have never been on a battlefield, it is easy for you to say that that you are willing to dispose the lives of hundreds upon thousands of lives to save one good person or rather, one person you perceive as good (remember, we are talking about a cartoon character here), while you are sitting behind a computer. Its easy when you are at home and you can't see those people in question. However, the situation is TOTALLY different once you are on the battlefield.

Its because if this that I can sympathize with BOTH Lelouch and Suzaku and what they did. Both of them did things that helped people and both of them did things that harmed people. Its easy to think that "good" and "evil" are separate things when you think that you could never do anything evil yourself. However, life does not work that way.:closedeye

blackrosetwilight
06-08-2009, 09:17 PM
"Every time you put logic into anime, God kills a catgirl."

NOOOOOO!!!!!! How many catgirls died because of proEuphy? and they were just taken off the endanger species list too, such "INJUSTICE" cannot go UNPUNISHED!!!!!!

SigmaSD
06-08-2009, 09:29 PM
NOOOOOO!!!!!! How many catgirls died because of proEuphy? and they were just taken off the endanger species list too, such "INJUSTICE" cannot go UNPUNISHED!!!!!!

No don't get involved. They're in their own little world now. *shakes head*

But I do have to say that catgirls were the only reason for my existance. If they're gone then what is a man to do?

proEuphie
06-08-2009, 10:45 PM
"Every time you put logic into anime, God kills a catgirl."

Remember this phrase? Are you suggesting that I compare the real world security of a place like the Kremlin to Pendragon, a city that exists in a universe where there are large mechs that fly around using wings made out of energy? I don't think so. I said that Pendragon was well guarded and had large amounts of security because that is stated (over and over) in the anime. An unauthorized person can't even approach the city, let alone get in. Lelouch can't Geass a sniper, or a Knight approaching him in a Knightmare, or even fight someone, so that is the basis of what I said (remember, I am assuming, like you, that Lelouch went straight to Pendragon after getting the Geass; the Black Knights have not formed yet).


Well, I always put logic into every fictional world I create. You claim that no unauthorized person can approach Pendragon, but Lelouch should be able to get all kinds of authorization with his geass. Perhaps catching the first plane to Pendragon might not be a good idea, but infiltrating Pendragon should be Lelouch's first plan, at least until he convinces himself that the security is too tight for him. He could read everything he could find about Pendragon security, use his geass to get people who might know about Pendragon security to tell him what they know, and try taking over the leaders in the government center at the Tokyo Settlement. If the security there is too tight he could expect it would probably be too tight at Pendragon.




What I wrote was that fighting back against real or perceived injustice was never either an ethical or an emotional imperative. perhaps my words were a little too fancy for you. What I said was that fighting back against injustice is never the only good thing to do. Sometimes not fighting back might be almost as good, just as good, er even better than fighting back. And that people's emotions do not always force them to fight back. Sometimes they restrain themselves for various emotional or logical reasons. I never wrote that fighting back against against injustice was never justified. There is a difference between not always mandatory and never justified.

So you say that the Zero Requiem worked for days, or weeks, or months, or years. But world peace has to come from the people. In that case I expect that wars will start up again fairly soon after the last episode. Slowly at first, but soon they will be back to the normal historical rate in the Code Geass alternate universe. And keep it up at that rate for another ten thousand or ten million years perhaps.




And I wouldn't be a hypocrite for suggesting that hundreds of Nazi SS death camp guards or Mongol warriors (who had each massacred hundreds of civilians) be sacrificed to save the life of one good, deserving person. Nor would I be a hypocrite for suggesting that hundreds of Britannian soldiers who had taken part in a massacre be sacrificed to save the life of one good person like Euphemia.

I called you a hypocrite bacause, while you say that fighting against real or imaginary injustice is never justified, you said that hundreds, if not thousands of Britanian soldiers should die, whether it was to either save Euphemia or just die for the crimes they committed. You can't have a pacifistic attitude about war and fighting for social injustice but then turn around and advocate the mass killing of a bunch of people because THEY committed a social injustice. That, my friend, is being a hypocrite.:rolleyes:

I didn't say that fighting against real or imaginary injustice was never justified, I wrote that it was never mandatory. I didn't advocate the mass killing of people because they committed social injustice. I advocated the mass killing of people because they committed mass murder and took part in a massacre. That is a lot worse than committing social injustice, although I suppose that taking part in a massacre could be considered an extreme form of social injustice by some definitions.

Anyway, those hundreds of Britannian soldiers would never be sacrificed by Lelouch in an attempt to cure Euphemia because 1) Lelouch is too evil to capture even one person who would make a valuable hostage, let alone hundreds of Britannian soldiers, so those soldiers were all killed in the battle or escaped 2) Lelouch knows that such a plan wouldn't work for reasons you explained 3) we don't even know if there were hundreds of Britannian soldiers there since all Code Geass statistics are very vague.

But if someone you loved suffered from a deadly disease which the doctors didn't know how to cure since they needed to perform unethical human experiments on many subjects, and a helpful genie brought you hundreds of SS death camp guards, or Mongol warriors who had each massacred hundreds of men and women and children in one of Genghis Khan's bloodiest campaigns, would you refuse to let the doctors experiment on them? Or would you consider their lives worth less than that of one good person?

This whole matter was brought up because you insisted that since Euphemia could not be cured of her compulsion to kill Japanese she had to be killed, since there was no way to guarantee that she would not escape and possibly kill a few more Japanese. But I said that keeping Euphemia a prisoner with very little chance of escaping would be no big deal for an organization fighting to take over an entire country. Lelouch planned to capture Tokyo that very night. And then somebody would sooner or later get around to releasing all the political prisoners from Britannian prisons, and then Lelouch would have a lot of empty cells available for Euphemia. And in the meanwhile carrying Euphemia around in the hand of his nightmare like King Kong with Ann Darrow would be a very good weapon against any Britannians he happened to meet. And when Lelouch got into the G1 for his march on Tokyo Euphemia could be sedated, tied up, and locked inside some locker or closet inside a locked chamber of the G1 and she wouldn't be any trouble until it was time to transfer her to a new cell.

And I also pointed out that If Euphemia was kept a prisoner there would be three ways of curing her before the geass canceler became available in a year:
1) Getting VV to undo the geass command, a simple matter of negotiation for Lelouch, or Cornelia, or whoever had custody of Euphemia. Most immortals should be terrified of poverty and willing to do anything easy and within their ethics for money they can invest for hundreds of years in one of their many secret retirement accounts.
2) Going through a bunch of Britannian soldiers until one of them got a geass power to undo Lelouch's commands. You convinced me it would not work.
3 ) She was apparently struggling against the geass command on a subconscious level while under its control, and while she was talking to Lelouch she seemed to be freeing herself from the geass command's control. Thus if Euphemia was kept a prisoner she would probably cure herself within minutes, hours, or days.
I believe that # 1 and # 3 are still very plausible was for Euphemia to become entirely or almost entirely (almost entirely could make for occasional suspenseful moments) cured of her geass and thus a much lesser threat of ever killing any Japanese people in the future.

But the hundreds of Britannian prisoners you think it would have been evil for Lelouch to kill in an attempt to cure Euphemia would have collectively been at least as dangerous a potential treat as Euphemia, since if they rejoined the Britannian army sometime in the future they might receive and obey other massacre orders in the future.

It's midnight and I'm quitting halfway though my response. Please don't start responding to me until I finish responding to you.

Are you God, proEuphie? How do you know how much a human life, a plant's life, an animal's life, is worth? Sorry, but you are a hypocrite so long as you have the philosophy of "We shouldn't kill people...except those that kill other people", "Fighting against people is wrong...unless they do something terrible to us.":rolleyes:



Did you forget that Nunnally resisted Lelouch's Geass too? I have said that over and over. Euphemia is not that special for resisting Lelouch's Geass since Nunnally did the exact same thing (and lasted quite a long time). But once again, I am going to drop it since there is an entire thread where we can talk about this.

Again, proEuphie, while it is your opinion, since you are not some godlike being, I will assume that you really have no idea how much the life of a human being is worth.

Since I am in the military, I know all to well about the value of a human life. When it comes to rats, its either their lives and diseases or my life and my health. Its not because one is worth more than the other. Since you have most likely have never been on a battlefield, it is easy for you to say that that you are willing to dispose the lives of hundreds upon thousands of lives to save one good person or rather, one person you perceive as good (remember, we are talking about a cartoon character here), while you are sitting behind a computer. Its easy when you are at home and you can't see those people in question. However, the situation is TOTALLY different once you are on the battlefield.

Its because if this that I can sympathize with BOTH Lelouch and Suzaku and what they did. Both of them did things that helped people and both of them did things that harmed people. Its easy to think that "good" and "evil" are separate things when you think that you could never do anything evil yourself. However, life does not work that way.:closedeye[/quote]

Diocletian
06-08-2009, 11:00 PM
proEuphie, I don't know if you realized that but you come off as obsessed and disgusting. By disgusting I mean I have never EVER met someone who came to a forum to discuss only ONE anime. Not just that you're writing essays about a fictional show.

I'd say god speed you, black emperor but this is just....nasty.

SigmaSD
06-08-2009, 11:04 PM
proEuphie, I don't know if you realized that but you come off as obsessed and disgusting. By disgusting I mean I have never EVER met someone who came to a forum to discuss only ONE anime. Not just that you're writing essays about a fictional show.

I'd say god speed you, black emperor but this is just....nasty.

To each their own, right? But I don't think she can hear you anyway. As I said before, she went through a road that has no return.

Diocletian
06-08-2009, 11:07 PM
To each their own, right? But I don't think she can hear you anyway. As I said before, she went through a road that has no return.

I've seen a Gundam otaku that started about 20 threads and even then it wasn't as bad as this. I think she forgot Euphenieiaknaskjd is dead and stuff.

To each their own shouldn't go this far. What does she have, like 100 posts? Poor wolfgirl...

SigmaSD
06-08-2009, 11:16 PM
To each their own shouldn't go this far. What does she have, like 100 posts? Poor wolfgirl...


Well I guess so. But you shouldn't feel bad for wolfgirl. Debating and standing strong in arguments is what she does best. *chuckles*

Balance
06-09-2009, 12:53 AM
Fffffffffffffffffffffffffffff.
First thing I see is a friggin wall of text.

This also veered way the hell off the original topic's question.

I simply have this to say...
It's a friggin anime, and everything that we come up is all HYPOTHETICAL.

There's no real use to argue that either person is entirely correct on a threshold of hypothesis based on an animation.

blackrosetwilight
06-09-2009, 06:17 AM
To each their own, right? But I don't think she can hear you anyway. As I said before, she went through a road that has no return.
Hey I've hitched hike down that roads lots of time before and thats how I met the Wizard Of Oz at the Emeraled City and I always got back fine... "there's no place like reality, there's no place like reality, there's no place like reality" yep good times.

proEuphie
06-11-2009, 09:00 PM
NOOOOOO!!!!!! How many catgirls died because of proEuphy? and they were just taken off the endanger species list too, such "INJUSTICE" cannot go UNPUNISHED!!!!!!

In my defense I must say that Wolfgirl90 puts logic into her Code Geass discussions whenever that logic seems to favor her point of view. She objects to logic only when it is used by me to support my point of view. Therefore I suspect that probably Wolfgirl90 has killed as many catgirls as I have. Possibly other posters in other forums have done worse.


But don't blame us. Blame whatever evil god (Cthulhu? Yog-Shoggoth?) it is that likes illogical fictional universes so much that he holds catgirls hostages to prevent logic from ever being appllied to the worlds of fiction. Identify that evil god and support the good god or gods that oppose him/her/it. That's the way to save the catgirls.

blackrosetwilight
06-12-2009, 02:13 PM
In my defense I must say that Wolfgirl90 puts logic into her Code Geass discussions whenever that logic seems to favor her point of view. She objects to logic only when it is used by me to support my point of view. Therefore I suspect that probably Wolfgirl90 has killed as many catgirls as I have. Possibly other posters in other forums have done worse.


But don't blame us. Blame whatever evil god (Cthulhu? Yog-Shoggoth?) it is that likes illogical fictional universes so much that he holds catgirls hostages to prevent logic from ever being appllied to the worlds of fiction. Identify that evil god and support the good god or gods that oppose him/her/it. That's the way to save the catgirls.
yeah not to be a bias jerk, but wolfgirl was using real life logic on your real life logic on, real logic of an fictional logic, in a fictional world ok.

proEuphie
06-12-2009, 08:41 PM
"Every time you put logic into anime, God kills a catgirl."

Remember this phrase? Are you suggesting that I compare the real world security of a place like the Kremlin to Pendragon, a city that exists in a universe where there are large mechs that fly around using wings made out of energy? I don't think so. I said that Pendragon was well guarded and had large amounts of security because that is stated (over and over) in the anime. An unauthorized person can't even approach the city, let alone get in. Lelouch can't Geass a sniper, or a Knight approaching him in a Knightmare, or even fight someone, so that is the basis of what I said (remember, I am assuming, like you, that Lelouch went straight to Pendragon after getting the Geass; the Black Knights have not formed yet).

Well, I always put logic into every fictional world I create. You claim that no unauthorized person can approach Pendragon, but Lelouch should be able to get all kinds of authorization with his geass. Perhaps catching the first plane to Pendragon might not be a good idea, but infiltrating Pendragon should be Lelouch's first plan, at least until he convinces himself that the security is too tight for him. He could read everything he could find about Pendragon security, use his geass to get people who might know about Pendragon security to tell him what they know, and try taking over the leaders in the government center at the Tokyo Settlement. If the security there is too tight he could expect it would probably be too tight at Pendragon.



Noooo...read what I said. I mentioned the hatred thing because a nation could be attacked for any reason. Even a peace loving, non-combatant nation could be invaded. My point was, if fighting against injustice is NEVER justified, what should a pacisifistic nation do if it was attacked? What should other nations do if another country was attacked for no reason?

What I wrote was that fighting back against real or perceived injustice was never either an ethical or an emotional imperative. perhaps my words were a little too fancy for you. What I said was that fighting back against injustice is never the only good thing to do. Sometimes not fighting back might be almost as good, just as good, er even better than fighting back. And that people's emotions do not always force them to fight back. Sometimes they restrain themselves for various emotional or logical reasons. I never wrote that fighting back against against injustice was never justified. There is a difference between never mandatory and never justified.



And the Zero Requiem DID work. The thing is, it can only do so much when it comes to world peace (that has to be done by the people themselves). Like I said, war can start from anything.

So you say that the Zero Requiem worked for days, or weeks, or months, or years. But world peace has to come from the people. In that case I expect that wars will start up again fairly soon after the last episode. Slowly at first, but soon they will be back to the normal historical rate in the Code Geass alternate universe. And keep it up at that rate for another ten thousand or ten million years perhaps.





[quote=proEuphie;2275314] And I wouldn't be a hypocrite for suggesting that hundreds of Nazi SS death camp guards or Mongol warriors (who had each massacred hundreds of civilians) be sacrificed to save the life of one good, deserving person. Nor would I be a hypocrite for suggesting that hundreds of Britannian soldiers who had taken part in a massacre be sacrificed to save the life of one good person like Euphemia.


[quote=wolfgirl90;2276570]
I called you a hypocrite bacause, while you say that fighting against real or imaginary injustice is never justified, you said that hundreds, if not thousands of Britanian soldiers should die, whether it was to either save Euphemia or just die for the crimes they committed. You can't have a pacifistic attitude about war and fighting for social injustice but then turn around and advocate the mass killing of a bunch of people because THEY committed a social injustice. That, my friend, is being a hypocrite.:rolleyes:

I didn't say that fighting against real or imaginary injustice was never justified, I wrote that it was never mandatory. I didn't advocate the mass killing of people because they committed social injustice. I advocated the mass killing of people because they committed mass murder and took part in a massacre. That is a lot worse than committing social injustice, although I suppose that taking part in a massacre could be considered an extreme form of social injustice by some definitions.

Anyway, those hundreds of Britannian soliders would never be sacrificed by Lelouch in an attempt to cure Euphemia because 1) Lelouch is too evil to capture even one person who would make a valuable hostage, let alone hundreds of Britannian soldiers, so those soldiers were all killed in the battle or escaped 2) Lelouch knows that such a plan wouldn't work for reasons you explained 3) we don't even know if there were hundreds of Britannian soldiers there since all Code Geass statistics are very vague.

But if someone you loved suffered from a deadly disease which the doctors didn't know how to cure since they needed to perform unethical human experiments on many subjects, and a helpful genie brought you hundreds of SS death camp guards, or Mongol warriors who had each massacred hundreds of men and women and children in one of Genghis Khan's bloodiest campaigns, would you refuse to let the doctors experiment on them? Or would you consider their lives worth less than that of one good person?

This whole matter was brought up because you insisted that since Euphemia could not be cured of her compulsion to kill Japanese she had to be killed, since there was no way to guarantee that she would not escape and possibly kill a few more Japanese. But I said that keeping Euphemia a prisoner with very little chance of escaping would be no big deal for an organization fighting to take over an entire country. Lelouch planned to capture Tokyo that very night. And then somebody would sooner or later get around to releasing all the political prisoners from Britannian prisons, and then Lelouch would have a lot of empty cells available for Euphemia. And in the meanwhile carrying Euphemia around in the hand of his nightmare like King Kong with Ann Darrow would be a very good weapon against any Britannians he happened to meet. And when Lelouch got into the G1 for his march on Tokyo Euphemia could be sedated, tied up, and locked inside some locker or closet inside a locked chamber of the G1 and she wouldn't be any trouble until it was time to transfer her to a new cell.

And I also pointed out that If Euphemia was kept a prisoner there would be three ways of curing her before the geass canceler became available in a year:
1) Getting VV to undo the geass command, a simple matter of negotiation for Lelouch, or Cornelia, or whoever had custody of Euphemia. Most immortals should be terrified of poverty and willing to do anything easy and within their ethics for money they can invest for hundreds of years in one of their many secret retirement accounts.
2) Going through a bunch of Britannian soldiers until one of them got a geass power to undo Lelouch's commands. You convinced me it would not work.
3) She was apparently struggling against the geass command on a subconscious level while under its control, and while she was talking to Lelouch she seemed to be freeing herself from the geass command's control. Thus if Euphemia was kept a prisoner she would probably cure herself within minutes, hours, or days.
I believe that # 1 and # 3 are still very plausible ways for Euphemia to become entirely or almost entirely (almost entirely could make for occasional suspenseful moments) cured of her geass and thus a much lesser threat of ever killing any Japanese people in the future.

But the hundreds of Britannian prisoners you think it would have been evil for Lelouch to kill in an attempt to cure Euphemia would have collectively been at least as dangerous a potential treat as Euphemia, since if they rejoined the Britannian army sometime in the future they might receive and obey other massacre orders they might receive.

This is where I quit working on post # 132 about midnight Monday, June 8. As you see, I have copied everything into this new post which is better organized because I finally managed to get the quote boxes right (I hope)



Are you God, proEuphie? How do you know how much a human life, a plant's life, an animal's life, is worth? Sorry, but you are a hypocrite so long as you have the philosophy of "We shouldn't kill people...except those that kill other people", "Fighting against people is wrong...unless they do something terrible to us.":rolleyes:

NO, I am not God, not yet. I'm working on that promotion. I don't have to be God or even a god to know that most people value the life of a human being much more than that of an animal, or a plant, or a bacteria. The total number of bacteria, plants and animals which have been killed to keep any one of us alive is doubtless in the millions or billions.

I never said that I have a philosophy of never killing people unless they kill other people. I have said that I greatly admire Euphemia's reluctance to kill and think that it makes her much better than any other character in Code Geass. You could assume that I share her attitude or you could assume that I admire it because it is something I don't share with her, or you could assume that I am somewhere between those extremes.

If someone is a hypocrite for saying we shouldn't kill people unless they kill other people I suppose that all legal jurisdictions which have the death penalty, but only for murder, are hypocritical.




Did you forget that Nunnally resisted Lelouch's Geass too? I have said that over and over. Euphemia is not that special for resisting Lelouch's Geass since Nunnally did the exact same thing (and lasted quite a long time). But once again, I am going to drop it since there is an entire thread where we can talk about this.

If you mean my thread "How Long do Geass Commands Last?" I just looked at it and it has been closed. Please suggest an alternate thread.



Again, proEuphie, while it is your opinion, since you are not some godlike being, I will assume that you really have no idea how much the life of a human being is worth.

Since I am in the military, I know all to well about the value of a human life. When it comes to rats, its either their lives and diseases or my life and my health. Its not because one is worth more than the other. Since you have most likely have never been on a battlefield, it is easy for you to say that that you are willing to dispose the lives of hundreds upon thousands of lives to save one good person or rather, one person you perceive as good (remember, we are talking about a cartoon character here), while you are sitting behind a computer. Its easy when you are at home and you can't see those people in question. However, the situation is TOTALLY different once you are on the battlefield.

Its because if this that I can sympathize with BOTH Lelouch and Suzaku and what they did. Both of them did things that helped people and both of them did things that harmed people. Its easy to think that "good" and "evil" are separate things when you think that you could never do anything evil yourself. However, life does not work that way.:closedeye

I find it very interesting that you say that it is easy for me to condemn hundreds of Britannian soldiers to death since I do not see them but once I was on the battlefield and can see the people in question the situation would be TOTALY different. It sounds like you are advocating a merciful action toward those Britannian soldiers.

So what would you say about someone who was on the battlefield and who didn't change his hard line stance when he saw the people in question but went ahead and killed them anyway? Would you say that he was slightly different from you or would you say that his actions were really, really, different from any actions you or anyone you know and admire would do? And thus as close to evil as you would classify any actions?

What if, a day or two after the fighting was over, when everything was calm, the people of a conquered city assembled outside the walls and were divided into groups of a dozen or two, each group assigned to a soldier, and at a signal every soldier attacked and massacred all the men. women, and children in his group? Wouldn't you say that the leader who gave the massacre command and the soldiers who who saw the terrified faces of their victims and hacked them into pieces anyway were not behaving like normal people? Normal people who might find reasons to justify mass slaughter when peacefully at home, but would abandon all such plans on the battle field, when they actually saw the proposed victims. And wouldn't you say that the commander who gave the order and the soldiers who obeyed it were different from what we hope that normal people are like, and in an inferior way?

So what would you think about someone who, on the battlefield, but during a lull in the fighting, in which he has seconds and maybe minutes to think about what he is doing, renders someone totally helpless and powerless to kill by destroying their war vehicle. And then, despite his claim to be protecting the people that person has been attacking, he not only does not instantly capture her, but he lets her pick up and keep a machine gun and thus become a potential danger again.

Then he leaves the safety of his armored vehicle and stalks toward her, confident she recognizes his disguise and will not harm him. He passes close to her, close enough to touch, and could easily try subduing her or shooting her in an arm or a leg or talking her into becoming his guest and thus his prisoner. He walks past and away from her, confident that she won't shoot him in the back. And naturally she turns to look after him. And thus he condemns to death all of her intended targets who may be in view once she turns around. But she doesn't not shoot at anyone, so either there are no members of the target group in sight or she has overcome her insane compulsion to kill them and is no longer dangerous.

He sees that she is no longer totally controlled by the geass command but is mostly normal, and that she is very confused and mixed up due to the the transition, and helpless to defend herself against an attack she can not imagine he would have any reason to make. He remembers the good times of their childhood together, and her many kind deeds. He sees her not as a hypothetical being but as someone he has known all his life. And he turns around and shoots her without warning anyway.

And the next year he orders and carries out, of his own free will, a massacre similar to the one she was forced by a geass command to order. He sees thousands of people and has them killed anyway.

Isn't that behaving very differently from the way that you believe that you would behave on the battlefield and the way you believe that most soldiers would behave on the battlefield, when they see real people instead of hypothetical people? Isn't that behaving very differently, and in a way which you might consider to be inferior and wrong?

You say you can sympathize with both Lelouch and Suzaku. Isn't it time you started sympathizing with people who are kinder and more humane? People like Euphemia, or Shirley Fenette, or the hypothetical Japanese children who were possibly killed in the Shinjaku, Saitema, or Fuji Massacres? Or perhaps Britannians who might have been massacred by hypothetical mobs of angry Japanese during the first Decisive Battle of Tokyo? Or maybe the millions killed by the use of F.R.E.I.J.A. at Tokyo or Pendragon? Which might not have happened if Lelouch hadn't murdered Euphemia.

Or maybe you could sympathize with the children who were being turned into geass warriors at the Geass Directorate, I hear, and who might have hoped that someone would come to rescue them from their sad life. Someone did come,and rescued them from their sad lives by killing them, a cure worse than the disease. In real life of course, children and teenagers are kidnapped and turned into warriors in many third world countries, and you could potentially encounter children like those in the Geass Directorate, though without geass powers. So you should sympathize with the Geass Directorate children most of all.

You claim that you know the value of human life. Then perhaps you should stop defending (fictional) fellow members of the military profession who have crossed the line and committed a terrible (fictional) massacre, and start showing more sympathy for various (fictional) massacre victims. (Except by stating that Euphemia had to die for the Fuji massacre, even though she was forced against her will into it, which seems to be the only way you know to sympathize with massacre victims in the world of Code Geass).

+Namiko+
08-02-2009, 08:29 PM
Pro Euphie Stop. I am sorry I ever started this thread. In fact, since i STARTED this thread I have grown to FORGIVE suzaku int he first place and you are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off topic. It was a simple side choosing question, not an incentive fro you to waste countless hours ranting on a subject, mm'kay? Its getting irritating and you're scaring people off the thread. I have put up with this long enough. Do you not have anything better to do than analyze a FICTIONAL WORLD down to the last spot of ink used to create it?
Honestly.

proEuphie
08-05-2009, 11:13 PM
Pro Euphie Stop. I am sorry I ever started this thread. In fact, since i STARTED this thread I have grown to FORGIVE suzaku int he first place and you are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off topic. It was a simple side choosing question, not an incentive fro you to waste countless hours ranting on a subject, mm'kay? Its getting irritating and you're scaring people off the thread. I have put up with this long enough. Do you not have anything better to do than analyze a FICTIONAL WORLD down to the last spot of ink used to create it?
Honestly.

And just when I was thinking of making a post admitting that Lelouch was much superior to Suzaku when it came to getting revenge on his enemies. After all, in the end, Suzaku became Lelouch's follower and only killed Lelouch when it was part of Lelouch's plan to die. Lelouch slaughtered the guilty and the innocent by the thousands and the millions in his quest for vengeance, while that whimp Suzaku tamely waited until he had his enemy's permission and even orders before killing him.

Akira Kogami
08-06-2009, 10:22 AM
I'm with Lelouch. Although he may at some times seem insane, or not completely with the grand scheme, the whole time he guessed everything from the start and knew the fundamental ending would be his death. So he did everything despite knowing the end result. He's awesome. ^_^

blackrosetwilight
08-06-2009, 01:35 PM
Pro Euphie Stop. I am sorry I ever started this thread. In fact, since i STARTED this thread I have grown to FORGIVE suzaku int he first place and you are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off topic. It was a simple side choosing question, not an incentive fro you to waste countless hours ranting on a subject, mm'kay? Its getting irritating and you're scaring people off the thread. I have put up with this long enough. Do you not have anything better to do than analyze a FICTIONAL WORLD down to the last spot of ink used to create it?
Honestly.
We of animeforum happily accept your apology... lol nah just kidding, I think most of us should thank you for making this thread heheheh, so thanks it was and is a fun thread... oh that reminds me who did I pick?

Oloty
08-12-2009, 02:33 PM
I agree with Namiko

The Nightingale
08-31-2009, 11:18 AM
I would choose The Black Knights.
Lulu may be hellbent on getting rid of Britannia in any way possible, but I still love how the helped the 11's even if it WAS fer himself.

proEuphie
08-31-2009, 04:42 PM
I'm with Lelouch. Although he may at some times seem insane, or not completely with the grand scheme, the whole time he guessed everything from the start and knew the fundamental ending would be his death. So he did everything despite knowing the end result. He's awesome. ^_^

So he did evil and senseless things like murdering Euphemia for no good or practical reason and ordering the geass directorate massacre, all the time knowing that it would end in his death?

If so, it proves that "greater hate has no man than he who gives up his life to kill those who he should protect." You have to be really evil to kill innocent people despite knowing that it will end up in your death.

So Lelouch came up with an implausible plan to give up his life to "save the world" at the cost of his own life and then felt that since he was going to "save the world", at least in his own opinion, and die anyway, he could kill as many people he wanted to along the way without worrying about if they were guilty or innocent or if he could achieve his goals with less killing.

Then if Lelouch had a less noble and more selfish plan to save the world and survive to enjoy it he might have caused a lot less unnecessary death and destruction in the process and the world might have been a better place at the end than it was.

kimi no kioku
08-31-2009, 05:36 PM
I was a Suzaku fangirl in R1, but liked Lelouch better in R2. I love both of them though! They're my favorite characters. But.... I like Lulu only a bit better than Suzaku. Maybe about 0.5% :)

Kamen Rider V3 Blue
09-07-2009, 02:45 PM
Feh I like Suzaku better(no offense to Lulu fans but he seemed like such a prick)

blackarrows
09-28-2009, 08:24 AM
I go with lelouch all the way. yea he may have done some bad things but still he was trying to change the world for the better.

proEuphie
11-23-2009, 10:18 PM
I hate Lelouch for murdering Euphemia when it would have been so easy for him to capture her alive.
I don't hate Lelouch for ordreing the geass directorate massacre. And I don't hate Suzaku for using F.R.E.I.J.A. to kill millions. Why? Because I gave up on Code Geass after Lelouch murdered Euphemia. Thus I never watched the second season and so never saw Lelouch and Suzaku do those terrible things, I only read about them.
Thus I say I would have to say I prefer Suzaku to Lelouch since I have not seen Suzaku do something so terrible that it makes me hate him.

Rolo Vi Britannia
11-24-2009, 04:01 PM
I hate Lelouch for murdering Euphemia when it would have been so easy for him to capture her alive.
I don't hate Lelouch for ordreing the geass directorate massacre. And I don't hate Suzaku for using F.R.E.I.J.A. to kill millions. Why? Because I gave up on Code Geass after Lelouch murdered Euphemia. Thus I never watched the second season and so never saw Lelouch and Suzaku do those terrible things, I only read about them.
Thus I say I would have to say I prefer Suzaku to Lelouch since I have not seen Suzaku do something so terrible that it makes me hate him.


But you see, you can't hate someone for one thing they do. For instance, I wouldn't think you were annoying if you only did this once, but you do it constantly.
Lelouch couldn't have saved her.
Lelouch wanted to get rid of VV because he blamed him for Shirley's death. Not only that, he also hated Geass for some reason.
You shouldn't hate Suzaku, he only used it because of the Geass command.

I've seen you talk about the Zero Requiem and say that Lelouch was evil because of it. ow can you say that if you've never read about it? What gives you the right to say that?

proEuphie
12-06-2009, 10:32 PM
But you see, you can't hate someone for one thing they do. For instance, I wouldn't think you were annoying if you only did this once, but you do it constantly.
Lelouch couldn't have saved her.
Lelouch wanted to get rid of VV because he blamed him for Shirley's death. Not only that, he also hated Geass for some reason.
You shouldn't hate Suzaku, he only used it because of the Geass command.

I've seen you talk about the Zero Requiem and say that Lelouch was evil because of it. ow can you say that if you've never read about it? What gives you the right to say that?

You must hate and despise everyone who dies evil, even if it is only one evil thing.
Why do you say that Lelouch couldn't have saved Euphemia, when it would have been so easy to capture her alive?

Rolo Vi Britannia
12-07-2009, 07:20 AM
You must hate and despise everyone who dies evil, even if it is only one evil thing.
Whey do you csay that Lelouch couldn't have saved Euphemia, when it would have been so easy to captured her alive?


Honey, I only hate people for what they've done to me. People who deserve to die are those who commit evil for no reason.

Would her living be a good thing for Lelouch? No.
Would her living be a good thing for Euphy? No
Would her living be a good thing for the plot? No.

proEuphie
12-13-2009, 10:15 PM
Honey, I only hate people for what they've done to me. People who deserve to die are those who commit evil for no reason.

Would her living be a good thing for Lelouch? No.

Yes it would be. Haven't you seen any of my posts where I point that that Lelouch needed a live Euphemia?

from post # 24, Mecha Ethics: Tens or hundreds or thousands of Britannian soldiers obeyed Euphemia's orders to kill Japanese at the Fuji stadium. Unless you have proof that Lelouch knew that Euphemia was the last Britannian left at Fuji then he should have captured her and used her as a hostage to stop the massacre instead of killing her.

And don't forget that Euphemia broadcast an order to kill Japanese at the beginning of episode 23. If any Britannian military units not at the Fuji Stadium were close enough to receive that message then there would have been other massacres taking place in other locations beside the Fuji stadium and the surrounding area that the surviving Japanese fled to. Could the Black Knights have learned about all those other massacres and stopped them before Lelouch found Euphemia? Probably not. So Lelouch should have captured Euphemia and broadcast a message threatening to kill her unless all the Britannians who heard it stopped killing at once. Not doing so makes Lelouch guilty of murdering all the Japanese who might have been killed after he could have used Euphemia as a hostage to stop the massacre or massacres.

from post # 19, Mecha ethics: And remember Euphemia broadcasting an order to kill Japanese at the beginning of episode 23. If that order was received by any Britannian soldiers who were not at the stadium, and obeyed, there would have been other massacres taking place besides the Fuji Stadium Massacre. It seems highly unlikely that the Black Knights had already heard about and stopped those other massacres by the time that Lelouch found Euphemia. Thus Euphemia should still have been valuable as a hostage to stop those other massacres even if she was the last Britannian still fighting at Fuji.

And if Lelouch and the Black Knights were defeated having Euphemia as a prisoner to trade could save the lives of many Japanese, many Black Knights, and even Lelouch himself. Since nobody knew all Lelouch's plans and goals with the possible exception of CC who cold not be counted on to carry on after Lelouch's death, Lelouch's death would have been the total end to all his plans. Thus if he had any desire to protect his followers and if he wanted to have even the slightest chance of surviving defeat to try again, Lelouch had to keep Euphemia alive to trade for their lives in the case of a defeat, which only an arrogant jerk would not consider likely enough to plan for.

And Lelouch should have known that if Euphemia survived, even if he was defeated and captured before being able to use her to bargain for mercy, Euphemia would use what little influence she had to plead for Lelouch's life, and thus reduce his chances of being executed from possibly about 99 percent to possibly about 95 percent.

And of course if the Black Rebellion was defeated the fate of thousands and millions of Japanese would largely be in the hands of Cornelia. If Euphemia was alive she would try to restrain Cornelia's violent tendencies, while if Euphemia was killed Cornelia's anger could result in many thousands or millions of extra Japanese deaths. And even after Lelouch gave Euphemia the command to kill the Japanese Cornelia's greater power meant that a dead Euphemia and an enraged Cornelia would be more dangerous to the Japanese than a live but discredited and probably considered insane Euphemia trying to use her lesser authority and influence to kill as many Japanese as possible.

from post # 179, Did Euphemia Escape from her Geass Before Lelouch Shot her?: And Lelouch might have been able to use Euphemia to force some military or political concession out of Cornelia.

For example, he might force her to agree to march her army to meet his at a specified time and place. Lelouch could tell his followers that if a few of them were stationed at points A, B, And C on the map they could trap Cornelia's army. And Cornelia would tell her men that Zero was planning to put men at points A, B, And C to trap them but she would foil him by sending some of her men to points D and E to trap the rebels. And Zero would privately tell his commanders that Cornelia would no doubt plan to trap them by sending men to points D and E but they could trap them and the rest of Cornelia's army with units at points F and G!

from post # 179 Did Euphemia Escape From Her Geass Before Lelouch Shot Her?: And later Lelouch privately gloated to CC that the Emperor would have to meet Zero once the rebels proclaimed an independent Japan in the Government Center in the Tokyo Settlement. Which is like saying king George III would have had to come to the United States as soon as he heard about the Declaration of independence. So Lelouch privately told his only confidant that he had no plan prepared to defend against the weeks and months and years of attacks from Brittannia which would have occurred instead of the visit from Emperor Charles.

Lelouch desperately needed to keep as many Britannians as possible alive, especially Cornelia and above all Euphemia, to trick the Emperor into thinking it was safe to come to Japan. Lelouch could not expect that anyone who knew Euphemia even slightly, like her father did, would believe the massacre story. Instead they would believe that the Japanese had made up the story and faked the videos to justify the murder of an innocent girl. It would have been incredibly suicidal for the Emperor to go to Japan if Euphemia was alive, since he was hated much more than she was, and thousands of times less likely for him to go there if she was dead.

So Lelouch killed his plan by killing Euphemia. Lelouch must have been irrational with anger ever since the announcement of the SAZ plan; that seems like the only explanation for killing Euphemia.


Would her living be a good thing for Euphy? No

Yes it would have been good for her. Nobody can ever benefit from death. The only good is to be alive, to think and feel and sense your surroundings, to do things and experience events. Death is absolute evil.

And even if I agreed that in some cases an adult who is suffering terrible physical pain and is begging for death might possibly be correct and it might be right for someone to kill him, what has that got to do with Euphemia?

Euphemia did not seem to be experiencing intense pleasure or pain while controlled by the geass command nor while she talked to Lelouch right before he shot her, when I think she broke free of the geass command. And when he shot her she asked him why instead of thanking him.

If Lelouch suspected that possibly Euphemia might be better off dead, he should have captured her and had her examined by psychiatrists for months or years and based his decision wether to kill her on their reports. Except for a few hours he had not seen Euphie for seven years, almost half her life, and did not know her very well.

So I say Lelouch killed Euphie, an obviously evil deed, for no reason and so deserved to die by your definition in post # 154 above.


Would her living be a good thing for the plot? No.

Yes. Euphemia's survival would be absolutely necessary for the good of the plot. Without Euphemia the story became evil people fighting other evil people and I found no reason to watch it or care about what would happen next.

Rolo Vi Britannia
12-14-2009, 04:40 PM
Yes it would be. Haven't you seen any of my posts where I point that that Lelouch needed a live Euphemia?



Yes it would have been good for her. Nobody can ever benefit from death. The only good is to be alive, to think and feel and sense your surroundings, to do things and experience events. Death is absolute evil.

And even if I agreed that in some cases an adult who is suffering terrible physical pain and is begging for death might possibly be correct and it might be right for someone to kill him, what has that got to do with Euphemia?

Euphemia did not seem to be experiencing intense pleasure or pain while controlled by the geass command nor while she talked to Lelouch right before he shot her, when I think she broke free of the geass command. And when he shot her she asked him why instead of thanking him.

If Lelouch suspected that possibly Euphemia might be better off dead, he should have captured her and had her examined by psychiatrists for months or years and based his decision wether to kill her on their reports. Except for a few hours he had not seen Euphie for seven years, almost half her life, and did not know her very well.

So I say Lelouch killed Euphie, an obviously evil deed, for no reason and so deserved to die by your definition.

Seriously. You didn't agree about the most important thing. The plot. He killed Euphemia because he thought he had to to stop her. Please go rewatch episode 22 and 23. Bandai uploaded them on youtube.

Disciple-of-Jashin
12-15-2009, 08:18 PM
Lelouch, because he reminded me a lot of Light from Death Note and their ideals are quite similar.

^This. Before I watched Code Geass, Light was my favorite character but now I would have to say Lelouch takes it.

Wicked Eden
12-22-2009, 10:19 PM
Suzaku = The Shinji of CG

Ledouche = A cross-breed between an emo and a man who thinks he is the proverbial "Hand of God".

Shinji...? No. At least Suzaku had a REASON to be sad.

Rolo Vi Britannia
12-23-2009, 07:10 AM
Shinji...? No. At least Suzaku had a REASON to be sad.


Lol. It sounded like they hated both of them.

proEuphie
01-07-2010, 10:43 PM
Seriously. You didn't agree about the most important thing. The plot. He killed Euphemia because he thought he had to to stop her. Please go rewatch episode 22 and 23. Bandai uploaded them on youtube.

Lelouch thought he had to stop Euphemia? Yes, I also think that she should have been stopped.

But what does the need to stop her have to do with the evilness of killing her? She could have been stopped just as easy by capturing her alive. Capturing her alive would have been much less violent and evil than killing her. Thus the only way for Lelouch to resolve the situation without committing or permitting murder was to capture Euphemia alive as soon as possible, thus ending her personal participation in the massacre, and trying to use her as a hostage to stop the rest of the Britannians from continuing the massacre.

Rolo Vi Britannia
01-08-2010, 05:18 PM
Lelouch thought he had to stop Euphemia? Yes, I also think that she should have been stopped.

But what does the need to stop her have to do with the evilness of killing her? She could have been stopped just as easy by capturing her alive. Capturing her alive would have been much less violent and evil than killing her. Thus the only way for Lleouch to resolve the situation without committing or permitting murder was to cpature Euphemia alive as soon as possible, thus ending her pesonal participation in the massacre, and trying to use her as a hostage to stop the rest of the Britannians from continuing the massacre.


But that's you're opinion. If I would have made Code Geass, I would have done the same thing.
I don't think your plan would have worked to stop everything. No one would have cared because only Cornelia cared about Euphy. They had gone to crazy at that point they probably wouldn't have listened to her anyway. All that would have lead to was Suzaku and Cornelia attacking Lelouch head on, and by your logic, they'd kill him. Lelouch wouldn't have been able to kill Euphy under those circumstances without being evil, thus, in your mind, there was no way to get past the outcome.

proEuphie
01-09-2010, 09:32 PM
But that's you're opinion. If I would have made Code Geass, I would have done the same thing.
I don't think your plan would have worked to stop everything. No one would have cared because only Cornelia cared about Euphy. They had gone to crazy at that point they probably wouldn't have listened to her anyway. All that would have lead to was Suzaku and Cornelia attacking Lelouch head on, and by your logic, they'd kill him. Lelouch wouldn't have been able to kill Euphy under those circumstances without being evil, thus, in your mind, there was no way to get past the outcome.

Please express yourself more clearly. I can't prove that your ideas are totally illogical until you express them clearly enough for me to figure out what they are. Though of course the fact that you can't express them clearly is a sign that they are probably illogical.


But that's you're opinion. If I would have made Code Geass, I would have done the same thing.

By "done the same thing" do you mean you would have killed Euphemia if you were in the same situation as Lelouch? Saying that would be an illogical follow up to "If I would have made Code Geass". Or do you mean that if you made Code Geass you would have had Lelouch kill Euphemia just as he did in Episode 23?


I don't think your plan would have worked to stop everything.

I wasn't aware that I outlined a plan to stop everything. I merely pointed out that if Lelouch captured Euphemia he could have tried to use her as hostage to force the Britannians to stop the Fuji Massacre and had a chance to save tens or hundreds or thousands of Japanese who might have been killed by the Britannians at Fuji after he could have captured Euphemia.

And I pointed out that at the beginning of Episode 23 Euphemia made a broadcast ordering all Britannian soldiers (and also civilians?) who heard it to slaughter all the Japanese they could. Thus there was a fair probability that there were other massacres going on at the same time as the Fuji Massacre . If so the fastest way (if it worked) to stop all of them was to capture Euphemia and try to use her as a hostage to stop all the massacres at once. In my opinion not capturing Euphemia to use as a hostage to stop the massacre(s) made Lelouch guilty of murdering all the Japanese who might have been slaughtered after he could have tried to use Euphemia as a hostage.

And I also pointed out that if a leader who values the lives of his followers the least little bit has a chance at the beginning of hostilities, when the outcome is still undecided, to either kill or capture the girlfriend of the enemy's greatest warrior and the beloved sister of the enemy commander, he will certainly choose to capture her instead of killing her.

And I pointed out other practical disadvantages to killing Euphemia.

But that is not the same thing as having a specific plan based on the best possible way for Lelouch to use Euphemia as a hostage.


I don't think your plan would have worked to stop everything. No one would have cared because only Cornelia cared about Euphy. They had gone to crazy at that point they probably wouldn't have listened to her anyway.

How can you say that only Cornelia cared abut Euphemia? Why don't you rewatch episode 5, "The Princess and the Witch" and the scene where Euphemia reveals her identity and commands everyone to stop fighting. That certainly gives the impression that all Britannians respect Euphemia as a person and/or respect Euphemia's authority.

And why don't you rewatch "Battle at Narita" which indicates that Britannian military officers respect Euphemia as a person, and/or respect her authority, enough to obey her orders even after telling her what they think is wrong with those orders.

And why don't you rewatch episode 21 when Euphemia is recognized at the school festival and the crowd starts shouting "Euphemia!" and rushing to get close to her. Apparently Britannians adore Euphemia like a celebrity. And since the crowd included a lot of Japanese perhaps the Japanese also adore her.

And what to you mean that "they" (the Britannian soldiers at Fuji I guess) had gone too crazy to listen to "her" (Euphemia? Or Cornelia?)? You seem to assume that the Britannians must have been in some extreme mental condition, like sharks in a feeding frenzy, to take part in a massacre. But most people who take part in massacres seem to be in rather normal mental condition at the time.

And things may have been really frantic and hectic and exciting in the stadium slaughter. There were tens, or hundreds, or thousands, of Britannian soldiers packed in the same stadium as hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands, of Japanese who they had just been ordered to kill. Some of the Britannian soliders must have been very excited in such a situation.

But by the time that Lelouch found Euphemia and could have tried to use her as a hostage things were much different. The surviving Japanese were scattered in small groups headed away from the stadium and the Britannians soldiers were scattered in small groups looking for Japanese and occasionally finding and killing some. Most of the soldiers must have calmed down by now. And considering Cornelia's fearsome reputation it is hard to imagine any Britannian soldier despising Euphemia enough and being excited enough to defy Cornelia's orders to stop the massacre in order to save her beloved sister Euphemia.

proEuphie
01-09-2010, 10:21 PM
Seriously. You didn't agree about the most important thing. The plot. He killed Euphemia because he thought he had to to stop her. Please go rewatch episode 22 and 23. Bandai uploaded them on youtube.

Whey don't you rewatch episodes 22 and 23 and notice the times when Lelouch could have stopped Euphemia by capturing her alive but did not, because for some inexplicable reason he preferred to kill her.

I say that it is always murder to kill someone who can be captured alive as easily as Euphemia could have been captured alive.

I say that any real or fictional person who has a chance to capture another real or fictional person alive as easily as Lelouch could have captured Euphemia alive but chooses to to kill that instead is guilty of murder. Even if his victim is as evil as Hitler, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Tamerlane, or Chairman Mao.

Any fictional character who is depicted killing a person who could have been captured alive as easily as Euphemia could have been captured alive is depicted as being an evil murderer.

Rolo Vi Britannia
01-09-2010, 11:55 PM
Please express yourself more clearly. I can't prove that your ideas are totally illogical until you express them clearly enough for me to figure out what they are. Though of course the fact that you can't express them clearly is a sign that they are probably illogical.

What I meant was, if Lelouch captured Euphy, Cornelia and Suzaku wouldn't have bowed to him, they would have rushed at him. Lelouch, if by your theory couldn't bring himself to kill Euphy, would just get on his knees and beg for them to spare him.


By "done the same thing" do you mean you would have killed Euphemia if you were in the same situation as Lelouch? Saying that would be an illogical follow up to "If I would have made Code Geass". Or do you mean that if you made Code Geass you would have had Lelouch kill Euphemia just as he did in Episode 23?
I meant the ladder because I find her death perfect for a show of this genre.


I wasn't aware that I outlined a plan to stop everything. I merely pointed out that if Lelouch captured Euphemia he could have tried to use her as hostage to force the Britannians to stop the Fuji Massacre and had a chance to save tens or hundreds or thousands of Japanese who might have been killed by the Britannians at Fuji after he could have captured Euphemia.

And I pointed out that at the beginning of Episode 23 Euphemia made a broadcast ordering all Britannian soldiers (and also civilians?) who heard it to slaughter all the Japanese they could. Thus there was a fair probability that there were other massacres going on at the same time as the Fuji Massacre . If so the fastest way (if it worked) to stop all of them was to capture Euphemia and try to use her as a hostage to stop all the massacres at once. In my opinion not capturing Euphemia to use as a hostage to stop the massacre(s) made Lelouch guilty of murdering all the Japanese who might have been slaughtered after he could have tried to use Euphemia as a hostage.

And I also pointed out that if a leader who values the lives of his followers the least little bit has a chance at the beginning of hostilities, when the outcome is still undecided, to either kill or capture the girlfriend of the enemy's greatest warrior and the beloved sister of the enemy commander, he will certainly choose to capture her instead of killing her.

And I pointed out other practical disadvantages to killing Euphemia.

But that is not the same thing as having a specific plan based on the best possible way for Lelouch to use Euphemia as a hostage.

I meant the way you said it would all work out fine if she was captured. Your logic makes no sense to me.


How can you say that only Cornelia cared abut Euphemia? Why don't you rewatch episode 5, "The Princess and the Witch" and the scene where Euphemia reveals her identity and commands everyone to stop fighting. That certainly gives the impression that all Britannians respect Euphemia as a person and/or respect Euphemia's authority.
Because they'd be in contempt of royalty if they didn't listen.



And why don't you rewatch "Battle at Narita" which indicates that Britannian military officers respect Euphemia as a person, and/or respect her authority, enough to obey her orders even after telling her what they think is wrong with those orders.
Because they'd be in contempt of royalty.



And why don't you rewatch episode 21 when Euphemia is recognized at the school festival and the crowd starts shouting "Euphemia!" and rushing to get close to her. Apparently Britannians adore Euphemia like a celebrity. And since the crowd included a lot of Japanese perhaps the Japanese also adore her.
This is irrelevant. Of course the people wanted to talk to her.



And what to you mean that "they" (the Britannian soldiers at Fuji I guess) had gone too crazy to listen to "her" (Euphemia? Or Cornelia?)? You seem to assume that the Britannians must have been in some extreme mental condition, like sharks in a feeding frenzy, to take part in a massacre. But most people who take part in massacres seem to be in rather normal mental condition at the time.
A normal person would have been like, "she's lost it! Let's not follow her."




But by the time that Lelouch found Euphemia and could have tried to use her as a hostage things were much different. The surviving Japanese were scattered in small groups headed away from the stadium and the Britannians soldiers were scattered in small groups looking for Japanese and occasionally finding and killing some. Most of the soldiers must have calmed down by now. And considering Cornelia's fearsome reputation it is hard to imagine any Britannian soldier despising Euphemia enough and being excited enough to defy Cornelia's orders to stop the massacre in order to save her beloved sister Euphemia.
We're talking utter chaos. You saw on episode 2, the britannians love murder for some strange reason. They wouldn't listen.


Whey don't you rewatch episodes 22 and 23 and notice the times when Lelouch could have stopped Euphemia by capturing her alive but did not, because for some inexplicable reason he preferred to kill her.
Because he thought killing her was the only way to stop her.


I say that it is always murder to kill someone who can be captured alive as easily as Euphemia could have been captured alive.
In my opinion, that makes no sense.



I say that any real or fictional person who has a chance to capture another real or fictional person alive as easily as Lelouch could have captured Euphemia alive but chooses to to kill that instead is guilty of murder. Even if his victim is as evil as Hitler, Genghis Khan, Stalin, Tamerlane, or Chairman Mao.
In my opinion, this is ridiculous.


Any fictional character who is depicted killing a person who could have been captured alive as easily as Euphemia could have been captured alive is depicted as being an evil murderer.
That's far to serious for a TV show.

proEuphie
01-13-2010, 09:53 PM
Unfinished 1215 AM Thursday 01/14/10. Please don't respond until I am finished.

What I meant was, if Lelouch captured Euphy, Cornelia and Suzaku wouldn't have bowed to him, they would have rushed at him. Lelouch, if by your theory couldn't bring himself to kill Euphy, would just get on his knees and beg for them to spare him.

Your words seem to describe Lelouch standing all alone holding a gun to Euphie's head, or else holding her in the hand of the Gawain after using up all its ammunition, and being charged by Suzaku and Cornelia simultaneously in their nightmares.

But in "Black Knight Cornelia hesitated to attack the hotel because Euphemia was in it. She hesitated for so long that Lelouch deduced that Euphemia must be in the hotel and brought his Black nights there to get involved.

And in "Island of the Gods" Lelouch thought that using Euphie as a hostage would work to get Suzaku to release his prisoner Kallen. And Suzaku did not attack Lelouch while he was using Euphie as a human shield.

So we have examples of Suzaku, the enemy's greatest warrior, and Cornelia, the enemy commander, both stopped in their tracks because of their desire not to do anything to harm Euphemia when held as a hostage.

And of course Lelouch did not need to demand anything as the price for Euphemia's life. He could have simply informed the Britannians that he had captured Euphemia, that many of the japanese wanted to torture her to death for the massacre, but he was simply holding her a prisoner because she obviously had gone insane and was not of sound mind. He could tell his followers that holding Euphemia would discourage Cornelia from threatening to massacre an entire ghetto every day until the rebels surrendered.


I meant the ladder because I find her death perfect for a show of this genre.

You mean the genre of evil shows where the audience identifies with and cares about various evil characters which nobody should ever care about?

Yes, there can be good, sound dramatic reasons for killing off important characters unexpectedly. But how can there be a good, sound, dramatic reason to have the protagonist of a series senselessly murder someone he could have captured alive just as easily and safely? Unless it is to make the audience hate him and turn him into the antagonist of the series and make one of the former antagonists the new protagonist. Or unless it is to make the series a tragedy in which the formerly noble protagonist turns evil and senselessly murders someone leading to his death and the defeat and deaths of his followers as well as their enemies in a terrible, grand, armageddon of a climax.

But neither of those two courses happened. So there was no sound, dramatic, reason for Euphemia's senseless murder. It was just a spectacular, poorly-motivated act of violence designed to erase the dramatic contrast between the two main characters and turn Suazku into a cheap imitation of Lelouch's vengeance-crazed monster.



I meant the way you said it would all work out fine if she was captured. Your logic makes no sense to me.



Because they'd be in contempt of royalty if they didn't listen.

Just as the soldiers at Fuji would be in contempt of royalty if they refused to obey orders from Euphemia to stop the massacre if Lelouch could get her to give such orders, or from Cornelia if Lelouch used Euphemia as a hostage to get Cornelia to order the massacre stopped. Remember, Cornelia did not plan or order the massacre and had no desire for the massacre to continue. She would not be giving up anything she wanted or needed by ordering the soldiers to stop the massacre to save Euphie.


Because they'd be in contempt of royalty.

Just as the soldiers at Fuji would be in contempt of royalty if they refused to obey orders from Euphemia to stop the massacre if Lelouch could get her to give such orders, or from Cornelia if Lelouch used Euphemia as a hostage to get Cornelia to order the massacre stopped. Remember, Cornelia did not plan or order the massacre and had no desire for the massacre to continue. She would not be giving up anything she wanted or needed by ordering the soldiers to stop the massacre to save Euphie.


This is irrelevant. Of course the people wanted to talk to her.




A normal person would have been like, "she's lost it! Let's not follow her."

Again you are very vague, but I suppose you mean that if the Britannian soldiers at Fuji were normal they would not have obeyed Euphemia's massacre orders but would have said: "she's lost it! Let's not follow her."

I suppose you think that the evil Britannians must have been so atypical, so abnormal, so unusual, that they would not sop a massacre even if ordered to do so to save a princess's life.

It is true that if the Britannian soldiers at Fuji were good and decent persons they would have said: "she's lost it! Let's not follow her." But there is not much of a positive correlation between the attitudes of good and decent people and those of normal people.

You may think that the evil Britannian soldiers who obeyed massacre orders at Shinjaku, Saitema, and Fuji were very different from normal persons such as yourself and all the people that you know, and thus they were so weird and twisted that they would not stop a massacre even to save a hostage Princess. But their is no evidence that evil people who massacre and slaughter helpless victims are unusual, or abnormal. They is no reason to think that the evil Britannians soldiers who took part in massacres were so warped and twisted and so different from normal people that they would not have stopped a massacre if ordered to do so to save a princess. The historical evidence show that evil, vile, loathsome, vicious, disgusting brutes who slaughter helpless innocent victims are perfectly normal, average, and typical persons.



We're talking utter chaos. You saw on episode 2, the britannians love murder for some strange reason. They wouldn't listen.



Because he thought killing her was the only way to stop her.

How can Lelouch be any kind of strategic and tactical genius as he is supposed to be, or even any kind of reasonably competent warrior, If he could not see how easy it would be to capture Euphemia alive and lock her up so that she could not kill any one else? How could Lelouch, looking down on Euphemia stumbling unarmed out of the wreckage of her nightmare, possibly think that killing her was the only way to stop her?

Or maybe you didn't mean that Lelouch somehow senselessly thought that killing Euphie was the only way to stop her from killing more Japanese.

Maybe you meant that Lelouch thought that somehow Euphemia might be cured of her geass command and slowly rebuild her ruined reputation as a good and kind person and someday in the future have a lot of influence again, and possibly use that influence to provide a more peaceful alternative to his plans, as she did with the SAZ, and that therefore Lelouch thought that he couldn't count on her being hated for the Fuji Massacre forever and he had to kill her to prevent even the slightest chance that she would ever again threaten an outbreak of peace that would spoil his evil schemes?


I
n my opinion, that makes no sense.




In my opinion, this is ridiculous.



That's far to serious for a TV show.

What do you mean too serious for a tv show? Do you mean that nothing a tv character does is good or evil, even if it would be very good or every evil if a real person did it?

Rolo Vi Britannia
01-15-2010, 09:30 AM
Your words seem to describe Lelouch standing all alone holding a gun to Euphie's head, or else holding her in the hand of the Gawain after using up all its ammunition, and being charged by Suzaku and Cornelia simultaneously in their nightmares.

It;s the same difference. Both can be explained with Lelouch being defeated.


But in "Black Knight Cornelia hesitated to attack the hotel because Euphemia was in it. She hesitated for so long that Lelouch deduced that Euphemia must be in the hotel and brought his Black nights there to get involved.
Because if she would have attacked, there was no chance of them saving her. Either the terrorists would kill her or she'd be caught in the crossfire of the military.


And in "Island of the Gods" Lelouch thought that using Euphie as a hostage would work to get Suzaku to release his prisoner Kallen. And Suzaku did not attack Lelouch while he was using Euphie as a human shield.
Because he had no Lancelot of backup.


And of course Lelouch did not need to demand anything as the price for Euphemia's life. He could have simply informed the Britannians that he had captured Euphemia, that many of the japanese wanted to torture her to death for the massacre, but he was simply holding her a prisoner because she obviously had gone insane and was not of sound mind. He could tell his followers that holding Euphemia would discourage Cornelia from threatening to massacre an entire ghetto every day until the rebels surrendered.

This would not have worked because... In history when has this ever worked!?


You mean the genre of evil shows where the audience identifies with and cares about various evil characters which nobody should ever care about?
Again, this is your opinion.


So there was no sound, dramatic, reason for Euphemia's senseless murder. It was just a spectacular, poorly-motivated act of violence designed to erase the dramatic contrast between the two main characters and turn Suazku into a cheap imitation of Lelouch's vengeance-crazed monster.
Every good anime that I've seen does this. They always kill the most undeserving character. Like in Gundam 00 When Lockon dies. He was the most undeserving out of all of them, but he still dies an unfair death. or Nanako in Persona 4. She only a seven year old girl and she gets kidnapped and murdered because of the main character.


You may think that the evil Britannian soldiers who obeyed massacre orders at Shinjaku, Saitema, and Fuji were very different from normal persons such as yourself and all the people that you know, and thus they were so weird and twisted that they would not stop a massacre even to save a hostage Princess. But their is no evidence that evil people who massacre and slaughter helpless victims are unusual, or abnormal. They is no reason to think that the evil Britannians soldiers who took part in massacres were so warped and twisted and so different from normal people that they would not have stopped a massacre if ordered to do so to save a princess. The historical evidence show that evil, vile, loathsome, vicious, disgusting brutes who slaughter helpless innocent victims are perfectly normal, average, and typical persons.

Watch episode two again. Even Jeremiah disobeys his orders because killing the elevens was "the most fun he'd had on the battlefield in ages!"


How can Lelouch be any kind of strategic and tactical genius as he is supposed to be, or even any kind of reasonably competent warrior, If he could not see how easy it would be to capture Euphemia alive and lock her up so that she could not kill any one else? How could Lelouch, looking down on Euphemia stumbling unarmed out of the wreckage of her nightmare, possibly think that killing her was the only way to stop her?

Watch episode 11 of Gundam 00 and listen very closely to what Hallelujah says at the lab. It's the same difference.


Or maybe you didn't mean that Lelouch somehow senselessly thought that killing Euphie was the only way to stop her from killing more Japanese.
That's sure as hell what I thought. I don't know about you Mr. Morally Perfect.


Maybe you meant that Lelouch thought that somehow Euphemia might be cured of her geass command and slowly rebuild her ruined reputation as a good and kind person and someday in the future have a lot of influence again, and possibly use that influence to provide a more peaceful alternative to his plans, as she did with the SAZ, and that therefore Lelouch thought that he couldn't count on her being hated for the Fuji Massacre forever and he had to kill her to prevent even the slightest chance that she would ever again threaten an outbreak of peace that would spoil his evil schemes?

1. No one in the world would have thought that. At this point Lelouch completely believed that there was no cure for Geass.
2. She would never have been able to rebuild her reputation unless she lived for hunrdreds of years and everyone forgot about it.
3. Lelouch agreed with the SAZ at the end.



What do you mean too serious for a tv show? Do you mean that nothing a tv character does is good or evil, even if it would be very good or every evil if a real person did it?

Yep. Just enjoy, don't over think.


Unfinished 1215 AM Thursday 01/14/10. Please don't respond until I am finished.
Don't post unless it's finished. Write it out on notepad first or something.

Please stop posting on +Namiko+'s thread. If you want to continue this, post it elsewhere please, make your own thread. Don't post about stuff that has nothing to do with the topic anymore.

xXPainful SmilexX
01-16-2010, 09:45 AM
I always liked Suzaku better. Don't get me wrong, Lelouch wasn't bad. But Suzaku's way of thinking was much better to me. Not to mention, he was a much more interesting character.

Nyleo
01-21-2010, 11:17 PM
I like both characters, but I'd go with Suzaku. Why? Because he's noble and tries his best with his OWN power to do what's right. On the other hand, Lelouch's dominant strategic prowess are recognized.

Aku no Hikari
01-23-2010, 07:29 AM
100% Lelouch. Is that even a question?

The Truth in Blue
01-28-2010, 08:08 PM
I always liked Suzaku better. Don't get me wrong, Lelouch wasn't bad. But Suzaku's way of thinking was much better to me. Not to mention, he was a much more interesting character.
Thank you. Honestly I loved Lelouch, but I hated that the underlying moral of the story was:
"If you kill 10,000 innocents, it's okay because it's for the best."
Also, Suzaku's "Resolution" was him deciding that, so yeah. Wtf?

xXPainful SmilexX
01-28-2010, 11:24 PM
Thank you. Honestly I loved Lelouch, but I hated that the underlying moral of the story was:
"If you kill 10,000 innocents, it's okay because it's for the best."
Also, Suzaku's "Resolution" was him deciding that, so yeah. Wtf?
I can admit, Code Geass does make you look stupid for not killing. But Gundam 00 does too because Saji seemed really stupid on episode 6/7(or whatever)
And Suzaku's resolve, didn't really change anything.

neiladrian45
02-14-2010, 05:21 AM
- The world will focuse it's anger on me and when i die all the anger of the world will be gone even cleaning the name of the Masacre Princess":) Lelouch vi Britannia 11th banished prince of britannia the demon king zero

- For me happiness is like a glass mirror everything radiants in it's beauty because we see ourselves in a state:) Suzaku Kururugi Knight of Zero

They both has the synanomous view and remember C.C in the hay talking to lelouch even she is happy even though lelouch died because of his death Lelouch The world removed it cursed mask and showed it's radiance without the 11th prince of Britannia without forcing any junction like the Ragnarok Junction:D:D:D:D:D

- I am happy for you 2 lelouch and suzaku for that i chose non




-neiladrian45
xd see you people on my next post:laugh::laugh:

Dante K
03-14-2010, 05:58 PM
Lelouch all the way. Suzaku was foolish, and a coward for not standing up against the occupation. (Brave in the battlefield though. But there is a difference between physical courage and social courage.)


-Lelouch risks his cozy well-to-do life, risks everything he has, to make a better world for his sister and to free his nation.

-Suzaku's "change the system from the inside" doesn't hold. Even in the first episode, a Britannian officer orders his death! Simply for refusing to shoot Lelouch, who was just in the wrong place in the wrong time. This is how little the Britannians value the Elevens, even an Eleven who is working for them as a soldier. Total cannon fodder. How do you change something like that from the inside? He could at best hope to become an officer. While he is working as an officer for the rest of his life, how many Britannians continue to suffer?

-And even aside from the suffering of untold individuals, the nation has been defeated and occupied. Even if the Elevens would be treated well, they know they belong to a defeated nation. How can they have any national self-esteem after that? People need to feel that their nation is independent and going somewhere. Otherwise they are just living for the temporary pleasures of the day. Talk about rising alcoholism and depression levels. They need to get their national pride back, by throwing off the occupation.

-Lelouch shows repeatedly that he is still on the good track. He never lets the power get to his head. He never abuses the people who rely on him. He sends them to die in war, yes, but that is what they signed up for and it is necessary for their cause. He is even prepared to enter enemy territory and bow in the dust before Suzaku's feet, begging him to take care of his sister!

-And what does Suzaku do at that point? He puts his foot on Lelouch's head and pushes him down. Humiliating in any country - but especially in Japan, with its cleanliness ethos. The foot/shoe is considered especially dirty. Suzaku's action is the ultimate humiliation of Lelouch. And even so, Lelouch submits to it for the sake of his sister.

-And let's not forget Suzaku's dragging Lelouch before the emperor, the leader of the empire that invaded Japan. Even though when Lelouch had Suzaku all alone after rescuing him, and Suzaku said he would go off and rejoin the enemy and fight for them, Lelouch had let him go. When the tables were turned, Suzaku did not return the favor.


How fitting that Suzaku had to play the role of Zero for the rest of his life - the role of the man he had sworn to fight. While Lelouch gets to live forever, drive hay carts and eat apples in the country with sexy C.C. (That's how I see it and I'm sticking to it!)

The Butcher
03-14-2010, 06:44 PM
Lelouch's.

Though his way was bloody,it would have got the job done quicker,and more efficiently.

Dante K
03-15-2010, 05:10 PM
You must hate and despise everyone who dies evil, even if it is only one evil thing.
Why do you say that Lelouch couldn't have saved Euphemia, when it would have been so easy to capture her alive?

Everyone does evil deeds in their lives. When they are kids if nothing else, because then they have less self-restraint and will take pleasure in causing harm to others, at least a few times. Tearing wings off ladybugs for example, to take pleasure in hurting someone - even if a small act, it is evil. So should such people be hated and despised always?

I think a person who is overall good should not be hated. A person may be wrong about what is good to do, but that only makes him stupid or misinformed or obstinate, not evil. Two opponents in the same war can both be good - maybe one of them is simply wrong, or they both are.

Heck, I am sure that in many wars there have been people looking at the other side and seeing they have more in common with the best people there, than with some of the rabble on their own side.

Dante K
03-15-2010, 05:15 PM
from post # 24, Mecha Ethics: Tens or hundreds or thousands of Britannian soldiers obeyed Euphemia's orders to kill Japanese at the Fuji stadium. Unless you have proof that Lelouch knew that Euphemia was the last Britannian left at Fuji then he should have captured her and used her as a hostage to stop the massacre instead of killing her.

Armchair general; this reminds me of a case when a police officer in Spain, or maybe it was Portugal, was in a hearing before judges because when he was off-duty he had killed an armed, drugged-up murderer in the street by shooting him from behind. One of the judges asked if he couldn't just sneak up and knock out the man. The police officer said that's what people imagine when they have been watching too much TV.

kimi no kioku
03-15-2010, 05:19 PM
Everyone does evil deeds in their lives. When they are kids if nothing else, because then they have less self-restraint and will take pleasure in causing harm to others, at least a few times. Tearing wings off ladybugs for example, to take pleasure in hurting someone - even if a small act, it is evil. So should such people be hated and despised always?

I think a person who is overall good should not be hated. A person may be wrong about what is good to do, but that only makes him stupid or misinformed or obstinate, not evil. Two opponents in the same war can both be good - maybe one of them is simply wrong, or they both are.

Heck, I am sure that in many wars there have been people looking at the other side and seeing they have more in common with the best people there, than with some of the rabble on their own side.
Exactly. Too bad she doesn't understand.

proEuphie
03-16-2010, 08:28 PM
Armchair general; this reminds me of a case when a police officer in Spain, or maybe it was Portugal, was in a hearing before judges because when he was off-duty he had killed an armed, drugged-up murderer in the street by shooting him from behind. One of the judges asked if he couldn't just sneak up and knock out the man. The police officer said that's what people imagine when they have been watching too much TV.

What makes you think that it would have been even the least bit difficult for Lelouch to capture Euphemia? Lelouch sliced her mecha apart with that weird finger-thread weapon, and Euphemia crawled out the wreckage and then the situation was just one unarmed girl against two giant war robots. Looking down on her from thirty or so feet up Lelouch must have known that he had all the choices and he was not forced by circumstances to chose any one course of action.

proEuphie
03-16-2010, 08:47 PM
Everyone does evil deeds in their lives. When they are kids if nothing else, because then they have less self-restraint and will take pleasure in causing harm to others, at least a few times. Tearing wings off ladybugs for example, to take pleasure in hurting someone - even if a small act, it is evil. So should such people be hated and despised always?

Never write that "everyone" does something. With billions of humans alive today, it is almost certain that not "everyone" does anything that you could possibly claim that "everyone" does. I am constantly amazed at how different from me other people are.

I never pulled the wings off of any insect. I can get along with most insects all right -- I shared a bedroom with a wasp one summer with no problems -- but I find the idea of touching insects disgusting. So even if I was mean I wouldn't force myself to tear a bug apart just to be cruel.

I don't remember doing things just to be mean or to feel powerful from humiliating and hurting other people or creatures. I can't understand the aggressive cruelty of bullies.

When I entered junior High school at the age of twelve most of my classmates started to bully me and about ten percent of all the kids in our class. Fortunately I am a hermit and don't care about my social position so I simply ignored the bullying when it was not happening, having more interesting things to think about. I can never claim, of course, that I never had wild revenge fantasies about using fiendish tortures on my classmates.

But I did not think that my classmates deserved to die for their evil bullying. And I never decided that people become too evil to live at the age of twelve. Whenever I read about one or more historical kids twelve years old or older being killed, or saw fictional kids twelve years old or older killed in movies or tv shows, I never thought: "Good! There goes another evil teenager getting what he deserves."

Instead I gave the historical or fictional kid the benefit of the doubt and supposed that he was one of the relatively few good and nice teenagers and was angry at the historical or fictional character who killed him. Or, assuming that he might be an evil bully, I never considered that being a bully was evil enough to make him deserve to die or for me to enjoy his death.

You do have a point. I was vague in my definitions. Minor evil does not make a person deserve to die (or else half the teenagers and adults in the world should be killed) and is not enough for me to desire that an audience hate a fictional character.

From now on I will try to write that anyone who commits a single MAJOR evil deed, involving KILLING at least one person unnecessarily, counts as an evil person that nobody should like. Even doing infinite good in the future cannot undo killing even one person unnecessarily, nor make such a killer a good person worth caring about.


I think a person who is overall good should not be hated. A person may be wrong about what is good to do, but that only makes him stupid or misinformed or obstinate, not evil. Two opponents in the same war can both be good - maybe one of them is simply wrong, or they both are.

Of course you would like to think that being mostly good would be good enough to make you a good person. Of course you want to believe that you should not be despised if you managed to be at least 51% or 76% good.

But remember that Churchill was mostly good, but he let the RAF bomb German cities and kill tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians in terror bombings which have never been proven to have been vital to saving Britain from Nazi conquest or ending the war as fast as possible. Targeting vital structures such as railroad bridges and power plants and dams might have worked at least as well.

And Truman was mostly good but he permitted massive conventional air raids on Japanese cities and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with no clear proof that they were necessary.

Churchill and Truman were mostly good, but they were also mass murderers who rank among the twenty five most evil warlords in history, in spite all the competition for places on that list. So saying that being mostly good is good enough doesn't convince me.


wrong[/I] about what is good to do, but that only makes him stupid or misinformed or obstinate, not evil. Two opponents in the same war can both be good - maybe one of them is simply wrong, or they both are.
Heck, I am sure that in many wars there have been people looking at the other side and seeing they have more in common with the best people there, than with some of the rabble on their own side.

You say that being misinformed about what is right and wrong is not enough to make a person evil. Then what is enough to make a person evil? All the most evil forces in history, The Nazis, the Communists, the Mongol hordes, the Imperial Japanese army, the Assyrians, etc., etc., etc., all believed that they were fighting for good. They believed that part or all of the world, or at least their own peoples, would benefit greatly from achieving their goals, and so it did not matter how many people they killed achieving those goals. They believed their goals were infinitely good and therefore they would be doing good if they killed anything less than an infinite number of people while striving for their goals. And thus they did not care how many people they killed or try to reduce their killing rate.

The main defense against there being more such misinformed people in the future is 1) insisting that everyone think clearly and logically about their goals and examine them for ethical and factual flaws before starting to pursue them, and 2) insist that everyone pursue their goals, no matter how just, noble, holy, and vital they believe those goals are, with constant care to reduce killing to the absolute minimum necessary to achieve those goals.

For example, if the Nazis had not been more afraid of thinking clearly about ethical issues and the facts than they were of dying in battle, they might have realized that the Jews were not a terrible, demonic plague upon humanity and that exterminating the Jews was not necessary and was a waste of perfectly useful people.

And if the Nazis had believed in pursuing every goal, not matter how great and good it seemed to them, in the most humane and gentle way possible (which would be highly unNazi-like, of course), they would have simple rounded up all the Jews, sterilized them, and kept them in captivity for the rest of their lives, preventing them from doing any imaginary "Jewish Evil" to anyone. The last Jewish babies captured by the Nazis in the 1940s would die of old age in the 2050s (unless methods of major life extensions were invented first).

So people who defend Lelouch or Celestial Being for killing people unnecessarily on the grounds that they did more good than evil overall are denying the importance of one of the two main intellectual, spiritual, and ideological defenses against the possibility that in the future more deluded people will slaughter more thousands or millions of people unnecessarily.

The belief that anyone who kills even one person unnecessarily while pursuing even the most good and noble goal imaginable is too evil and disgusting to be good or to be liked is an idea that should be spread and accepted as widely as possible in an attempt to prevent any repetition of the horrors of the past, instead of being scoffed at because it makes the protagonist of a tv show you have enjoyed seem evil.

Rolo Vi Britannia
03-17-2010, 07:02 AM
How many times do I have to tell you, you shouldn't post on someone else's thread.

wolfgirl90
03-17-2010, 03:23 PM
Yeah, I was going to respond to proEuphie but decided against it; I haven't been on this thread in a long time.

ProEuphie, take it somewhere else.:rolleyes:

Gero50
03-17-2010, 03:25 PM
Well I do not know much about this series but I'm going with the Black Knight because I tend to side with the dark side if given the choice.

blackrosetwilight
03-17-2010, 07:07 PM
Well I do not know much about this series but I'm going with the Black Knight because I tend to side with the dark side if given the choice.
lol they werent evil despite the name... except in proEuphy's case

玲華.
03-17-2010, 10:13 PM
Yeah, I was going to respond to proEuphie but decided against it; I haven't been on this thread in a long time.

ProEuphie, take it somewhere else.:rolleyes:

...Looks like she took your advice/words seriously. Multi-dimensional troll now? :ninja:

YuriEcchiGirl
03-07-2011, 06:44 AM
Lelouch all the way! He is totally the best CG knight! ^^

yakman1692
03-07-2011, 05:22 PM
I'm a Lelouch supporter. I can understand the whole changing a system from the inside, but one person, especially someone who is discriminated against, it is very difficult to do, especially in something as corrupt as the Britannian government. Lelouch knew that you had to fight against them and overthrow them if you wanted results. Plus, Lelouch was overall more capable. Suzaku was a good pilot, but not much else.

YuriEcchiGirl
03-11-2011, 11:41 AM
He's also super hot aswell, for an anime character, hee hee! ^^

under the rain
03-12-2011, 09:23 AM
Well... wasn't Suzaku killing Lelouch part of Lelouch's plan? Why exactly would one pissed off at him for that? It's probably the best thing he's done in the entire series.

For the most part, I'd side with Lelouch. Also, proEuphie, can it. I've already shown how ridiculous your theories about Lelouch are. Nobody cares about your obvious histrionic disorder, the things you think you know about history, your opinions on the moral value of fictional characters that are for the most part completely unfounded, and Gundam 00 in the contest of a Code Geass discussion.

YuriEcchiGirl
03-12-2011, 02:18 PM
Lelouch should so have his own movie or series, lol! ^^

under the rain
03-13-2011, 12:49 PM
Lelouch should so have his own movie or series, lol! ^^

He... He kinda does. That's what Code Geass is...

YuriEcchiGirl
03-14-2011, 10:06 AM
Lol! My bad then! I also mean just a whole movie all to himself aswell ^^

+Namiko+
03-31-2011, 07:40 AM
A NOTHER year later and this bull crap is STILL going ON?!

Why did I make this thread?
Why?

I think proEuphie has literally WRITTEN THE BOOK on Lelouche's FICTIONAL evil.

I know even posting this now is a mistake, but I just can't keep my shock bottled up.