PDA

View Full Version : Lelouch(Zero) - Villain or Hero of Justice?



IcePriestess
08-12-2009, 01:22 PM
Well I think that's quite an interesting topic, because even though I like Lelouch very much, I can't tell if he is Villain or Hero of Justice.
But still I would go with the Hero of Justice, because he sacrificed his own life in order for world to become a better place to live. He collected all world's hatred. I know you can tell that many people died, but there was a need for that. I just can't believe that he was a very bad person.

So tell me what you think - Is Lelouch(Zero) a Villain or a Hero of Justice?

P.S. I don't see the thread like this, but if you've seen this somewhere please tell me where :)

lilminx
08-12-2009, 01:27 PM
i swear i've already answered to a question like this >.<

oh well, i think lelouch is neither a villain nor a hero. he killed a lot of people to gain peace. i dont think that killing is the way to go for a hero. he did achieve his goal to end war so he is somehow a hero.

Oloty
08-12-2009, 02:03 PM
He is neither hero or villain. Like lilminx said he killed many people but e did stop the war.

proEuphie
08-13-2009, 09:26 PM
Both, but more of a villain.
I say that Lelouch committed three terrible crimes in addition to many deeds which many people can argue whether they were crimes or not:
!) He went to the opening of the SAZ planning to make Euphemia shoot him, and then come back to life, convincing the Japanese that he was their messiah and sparking a bloody revolution in which thousands of people who wanted to live would be tricked into being killed for his plans.
This was a plan for mass murder, as well as probably the individual murder of Euphemia.
As part of this plan Lelouch told Euphemia he would make her shoot him. After Lelouch gave up his plan Euphie asked him if he could really make her shoot him, which led to his giving the command to order the massacre. Thus all the deaths in the Fuji Massacre and the Black Rebellion: Euphemia, Japanese, Britannians, were a direct result of his earlier evil plan for mass murder. Everyone who died in the Fuji massacre was murdered by Lelouch, and by CC if she was in on the plan.

2) Killing Euphemia when it would have been so easy to simply pick her up in the hand of a giant robot as soon as her nightmare was destroyed. And Lelouch let Euphie pick up and keep a machine gun, and then left the safety of his armored nightmare to approuch her. Lelouch believed that as long as he did not act threatening Euphemia would love and trust him too much for the geass command to make her shoot him.

There can never be any imaginable justification for killing someone who would have been so easy to capture alive as Euphemia would have been. Killing her was one of the most evil murders ever shown on television. Lelouch went from hero to Zero in my opinion when he pulled the trigger.

And as a result of the murder of Euphemia, Nina tried to make and use a F.R.E.I.J.A. device, and as a result of that later joined the team which developed F.R.E.I.J.A. in time to kill millions during the wars of the second season.

3 The geass directorate massacre. How can there be a justification for massacring thousands of people? If some of them were evila nds ome were dangerious with geass powers, they could have been captured and Lleouch could have given them all geass commands to do only good and/or obey all his orders and he would have gained more followers and avoided killing children.

Dreydor
08-22-2009, 06:21 PM
everyone else has said hes more of a villian, but i think he is definately a hero of justice. My reason why is that alllthroughout the aniem, yes he did kill many, yes he did commit "wrong" deeds, but in times such as what he was living in, he always made the best possible decisions. HIs ultimaate goal was peace, which he achieved, and even though some of his tactics were underhanded, in the end, the deaths of the many that were sacrificed unfairly is repayed by the gratitude of the millions whom are now living in peace. And what makes him even more of a hero is that this was all self-less, in the sense that he fell britannia, gave the world peace, and even though he is their great savior and ultimately the bringer of peace, his name will go down in infammy as the evil king lelouch. :(

+Namiko+
08-22-2009, 08:32 PM
Hero.
Yes, he killed people, but dont all War Heroes? Thats what makes them War Heroes.

Hero. He committed one of the most selfless acts I can think of. He made his life hell so everyone would hate him, then killed himself to make every other person on Earth Happier. If that is not a hero I don't know what is.

Hero.
:'3

blackrosetwilight
08-22-2009, 08:51 PM
He's an anti-hero, a hero who just doesnt play by the rules

Sailor Mystery
08-22-2009, 10:46 PM
Everytime I say he's a hero of justice I think of something makes me think differently but I say he's both but more of a Hero of Justice. <3 sorry if that was confusing

Kingmelo15
08-23-2009, 04:06 AM
Hey he's a hero a villian couldn't perform as well as him. Not even Joker himself.

yakman1692
08-24-2009, 04:08 AM
He's a hero in my book.

It doesn't matter if he killed alot of people, in the end, he sacrificed himself to bring about peace, and if self sacrifice for the greater good isn't what makes you a hero, I don't know what is.

Kamen Rider V3 Blue
08-25-2009, 02:40 PM
He's neither because the World of Code Geass isn't black&white.

proEuphie
08-25-2009, 08:29 PM
He's a hero in my book.

It doesn't matter if he killed alot of people, in the end, he sacrificed himself to bring about peace, and if self sacrifice for the greater good isn't what makes you a hero, I don't know what is.

Well, even if self sacrifice for the good of others always makes someone a hero, it is not enough to undo one's villainous acts. And Lelouch committed at least some villainous act. So if you are right about self sacrifice always making someone a hero, Lelouch is both a hero and a villain.

proEuphie
08-25-2009, 08:30 PM
He's neither because the World of Code Geass isn't black&white.

Well, I think that Lelouch was a dark enough shade of gray to fall well within the villain category much too often.

Leleiron
08-25-2009, 08:56 PM
Hero.
Yes, he killed people, but dont all War Heroes? Thats what makes them War Heroes

Agreed :]

proEuphie
08-26-2009, 09:48 PM
Hero.
Yes, he killed people, but dont all War Heroes? Thats what makes them War Heroes.

Hero. He committed one of the most selfless acts I can think of. He made his life hell so everyone would hate him, then killed himself to make every other person on Earth Happier. If that is not a hero I don't know what is.

Hero.
:'3

Technically it is not correct that all war heroes kill people. For example, many present day medals of honor are awarded posthumously for sacrificing one's own life to save the lives of one's comrades. The classic example is leaping on a hand grenade and smothering and adsorbing the explosion and the deadly fragments with your own body to save the lives of others.

Some of the soldiers who did that type of thing may have killed people previously, but that is not what they were honored for. And some of them did not kill anyone in their military careers

Thus it is perfectly possible to be a war hero without killing anyone.

And killing people does not always make a hero out of a warrior. Did Jefferson Davis become a hero for shooting General Nelson during the Civil War? No.

He wasn't the Confederate president, but Union General Jefferson C. Davis, the butt of a number of jokes. And why didn't shooting a Confederate general make Jefferson C. Davis a hero? Because General Nelson was a U.S. general and Davis's commanding officer when Davis shot him during a quarrel.

Contrary to your assumption, killing people is not always necessary or sufficient to make someone a war hero.

Manhattan_Project_2000
08-26-2009, 10:15 PM
Technically it is not correct that all war heroes kill people. For example, many present day medals of honor are awarded posthumously for sacrificing one's own life to save the lives of one's comrades. The classic example is leaping on a hand grenade and smothering and adsorbing the explosion and the deadly fragments with your own body to save the lives of others.

Some of the soldiers who did that type of thing may have killed people previously, but that is not what they were honored for. And some of them did not kill anyone in their military careers

Thus it is perfectly possible to be a war hero without killing anyone.

And killing people does not always make a hero out of a warrior. Did Jefferson Davis become a hero for shooting General Nelson during the Civil War? No.

He wasn't the Confederate president, but Union General Jefferson C. Davis, the butt of a number of jokes. And why didn't shooting a Confederate general make Jefferson C. Davis a hero? Because General Nelson was a U.S. general and Davis's commanding officer when Davis shot him during a quarrel.

Contrary to your assumption, killing people is not always necessary or sufficient to make someone a war hero.

The status of "war hero" is conveyed upon people who selflessly either kill people for whatever nation-state they may be fighting for, or risking their own life to aid others in killing people for their nation state. No one has ever become a war hero making bread for soldiers for the duration- you have to be in the theater of operation as a soldier for the purpose of killing enemy soldiers or assisting in the killing of enemy soldiers. Killing people isn't sufficient, but the person you quoted never said that all soldiers that kill people are war heroes, only that it's a prerequisite. You can disagree if you want but killing strongly correlates with the status of war hero for obvious reasons.

But thanks for ignoring the gist of his post, blatantly misreading the errata and going on a tirade over a moot point.

marcsairu
08-29-2009, 11:56 PM
i think he is just a person who likes peace for her sister..

wolfgirl90
08-30-2009, 12:43 AM
And killing people does not always make a hero out of a warrior. Did Jefferson Davis become a hero for shooting General Nelson during the Civil War? No.

He wasn't the Confederate president, but Union General Jefferson C. Davis, the butt of a number of jokes. And why didn't shooting a Confederate general make Jefferson C. Davis a hero? Because General Nelson was a U.S. general and Davis's commanding officer when Davis shot him during a quarrel.

Contrary to your assumption, killing people is not always necessary or sufficient to make someone a war hero.

Nice logic, proEuphie. Of all the examples you could have used, you used Jefferson C. Davis as proof of your point?

Honestly, its pretty obvious that ANY soldier that killed his commanding officer for something as petty as being slapped in the face is not going to be named a war hero for their actions (for the killing, anyway). They would most likely receive a court-martial and sent to prison and possibly executed...which, as you MUST have known, did not happen to Davis.

He avoided conviction (they apparently needed some experienced field commanders) and went on serve in several more battles and wars, including the Modoc War where his presence was actually celebrated by the soldiers who were there and his campaign lead to the eventual surrender of some enemy leaders (like Bogus Charley and Captain Jack), which lead Davis to be later celebrated as...a war hero.:rolleyes:

proEuphie
08-30-2009, 02:17 PM
Nice logic, proEuphie. Of all the examples you could have used, you used Jefferson C. Davis as proof of your point?

Honestly, its pretty obvious that ANY soldier that killed his commanding officer for something as petty as being slapped in the face is not going to be named a war hero for their actions (for the killing, anyway). They would most likely receive a court-martial and sent to prison and possibly executed...which, as you MUST have known, did not happen to Davis.

He avoided conviction (they apparently needed some experienced field commanders) and went on serve in several more battles and wars, including the Modoc War where his presence was actually celebrated by the soldiers who were there and his campaign lead to the eventual surrender of some enemy leaders (like Bogus Charley and Captain Jack), which lead Davis to be later celebrated as...a war hero.:rolleyes:

I used Jefferson C Davis as a somewhat humorous example of the fact that killing someone doesn't always make a war hero and sometimes unmakes a war hero or respected commander. Davis wasted a lot of his hard earned respect and military reputation and chances for promotion in not being punished for the murder of Nelson.

After the war he became the colonel of the 23rd US Infantry but was stationed on very detached duty or exile as commander of the military Department of Alaska, where the Indian fighting was mostly navel vessels shelling coastal Indian villiages. While the 23rd was commanded by the Lieutenant Colonel, George Crook, who gained fame in the Paiute and Apache wars.

Then in 1870 Alaska was reduced to a military district within the Department of the Columbia about a month before the current commander of the Department of the Columbia was relieved - who happened to be Lt. Col. Crook. And in 1873 Crook was promoted straight to brigadier general. Davis must have often wondered how much of this was planned by his superiors to try to make up for the punishment he had escaped.

wolfgirl90
08-30-2009, 03:44 PM
I used Jefferson C Davis as a somewhat humorous example of the fact that killing someone doesn't always make a war hero and sometimes unmakes a war hero or respected commander. Davis wasted a lot of his hard earned respect and military reputation and chances for promotion in not being punished for the murder of Nelson.

I understand what you were trying to say, but you are not organizing your thoughts very well. We all know that killing someone does not automatically make one a war hero and that one can be a war hero for sacrificing their lives for their comrades (you would think that I, of all people, would already know this). However, bare in mind that, while those soldiers are not being recognized for killing people, that does not mean that they certainly did not kill anyone (doing so, like you have done, would be a logical fallacy). Sure, a soldier can receive high honors for sacrificing their lives to protect their comrades but that does not mean that they did not, at any point in time, kill someone (because they easily might have).

Davis certainly did not receive any positive recognition for killing his commanding officer (I seriously doubt that ANY soldier would). However, your logic is flawed because Davis was never convicted for this serious crime and went on to serve in many wars and battles AFTER killing Nelson and received the rank of Brevet Major General (while not a full Major General, the rank of Major General was the highest rank that a man could receive at the time, quite a high rank for someone who killed their commanding officer) and went on to become a war hero, despite the fact he killed Nelson over a slap in the face and a few insults.:rolleyes:

You are effectively making a moot point since Davis, regardless of his previous actions, still became quite the war hero.

When it comes to Lelouch, again, no is (or was) saying that his killing of people made him a war hero (like MP2000 said, you completely missed the point of the posts and went off on a rather moot point). They are saying that, regardless of the fact that he killed people, because he sacrificed himself at the end of the series to help people and bring peace, he is a hero.

For me, I would put Lelouch under the classification of anti-hero. The actions of the characters in Code Geass are not so black-and-white as to classify most of them as being "heroes" or "villains".;)

proEuphie
08-30-2009, 09:06 PM
I understand what you were trying to say, but you are not organizing your thoughts very well. We all know that killing someone does not automatically make one a war hero and that one can be a war hero for sacrificing their lives for their comrades (you would think that I, of all people, would already know this). However, bare in mind that, while those soldiers are not being recognized for killing people, that does not mean that they certainly did not kill anyone (doing so, like you have done, would be a logical fallacy). Sure, a soldier can receive high honors for sacrificing their lives to protect their comrades but that does not mean that they did not, at any point in time, kill someone (because they easily might have).

Here is a copy of part of my post # 15:



Davis certainly did not receive any positive recognition for killing his commanding officer (I seriously doubt that ANY soldier would). However, your logic is flawed because Davis was never convicted for this serious crime and went on to serve in many wars and battles AFTER killing Nelson and received the rank of Brevet Major General (while not a full Major General, the rank of Major General was the highest rank that a man could receive at the time, quite a high rank for someone who killed their commanding officer) and went on to become a war hero, despite the fact he killed Nelson over a slap in the face and a few insults.:rolleyes:

You are effectively making a moot point since Davis, regardless of his previous actions, still became quite the war hero.

When it comes to Lelouch, again, no is (or was) saying that his killing of people made him a war hero (like MP2000 said, you completely missed the point of the posts and went off on a rather moot point). They are saying that, regardless of the fact that he killed people, because he sacrificed himself at the end of the series to help people and bring peace, he is a hero.

For me, I would put Lelouch under the classification of anti-hero. The actions of the characters in Code Geass are not so black-and-white as to classify most of them as being "heroes" or "villains".;)[/quote]

proEuphie
08-30-2009, 09:15 PM
I understand what you were trying to say, but you are not organizing your thoughts very well. We all know that killing someone does not automatically make one a war hero and that one can be a war hero for sacrificing their lives for their comrades (you would think that I, of all people, would already know this). However, bare in mind that, while those soldiers are not being recognized for killing people, that does not mean that they certainly did not kill anyone (doing so, like you have done, would be a logical fallacy). Sure, a soldier can receive high honors for sacrificing their lives to protect their comrades but that does not mean that they did not, at any point in time, kill someone (because they easily might have).

I am not sure that one of us, +Namiko+, knows that killing someone does not automatically make someone a war hero. See the first part of her post # 6, quoted below.

Here is part of my post # 15:

"Technically it is not correct that all war heroes kill people. For example, many present day medals of honor are awarded posthumously for sacrificing one's own life to save the lives of one's comrades. The classic example is leaping on a hand grenade and smothering and adsorbing the explosion and the deadly fragments with your own body to save the lives of others.

Some of the soldiers who did that type of thing may have killed people previously, but that is not what they were honored for. And some of them did not kill anyone in their military careers."

As you see from this quote I wrote that some of the war heroes honored for sacrificing their lives to save other soldiers killed people (presumably mostly enemy soldiers) previously and some did not, and I did not speculate on what the relative proportions might be.

Therefore I did not make the logically fallacy of claiming that all of those heroes who sacrificed their lives to save others had never killed an enemy before.


Davis certainly did not receive any positive recognition for killing his commanding officer (I seriously doubt that ANY soldier would). However, your logic is flawed because Davis was never convicted for this serious crime and went on to serve in many wars and battles AFTER killing Nelson and received the rank of Brevet Major General (while not a full Major General, the rank of Major General was the highest rank that a man could receive at the time, quite a high rank for someone who killed their commanding officer) and went on to become a war hero, despite the fact he killed Nelson over a slap in the face and a few insults.:rolleyes:

My logic is not flawed because murdering General Nelson made Davis an evil murderer and dimmed the luster of his reputation as a war hero which he earned before and since. And it is something which nobody would consider heroic.

No matter how heroic Davis was. and was perceived to be, before and after killing Nelson, he was never promoted to major general of US volunteers despite commanding a division as early as late 1861 and the XIV corps in 1864 to 1865. A few minutes of research showed that Davis was appointed a brevet major general of US Volunteers on August 8, 1864, which of course is several months after Grant was appointed to the next higher rank of Lieutenant general (full, not brevet, and US Army, not US Volunteers) in the spring of 1864 -- March 2, to be precise. So no major general, even a "full" one in the US Army, had the highest rank possible at the time when Davis was appointed brevet major general of US Volunteers. Davis did not achieve the highest rank possible at the time, even in brevet form.

So Davis was a war hero in fact and in the perception of others, but killing General Nelson made him an evil murderer in fact and lessened his heroism in the eyes of others.


You are effectively making a moot point since Davis, regardless of his previous actions, still became quite the war hero.

But killing Nelson made him a common murderer in fact, and lessened his reputation as a war hero, and was definitely not something an ambitious or honorable young officer should have emulated.

+Namiko= should know that many high ranking generals honored as war heroes are not known to have ever killed anyone personally, no matter how many thousands or millions of people their command decisions killed and/or saved, but are considered heroes because of their leadership in winning battles, campaigns, and wars.

And even war leaders who personally killed enemies in battle may be considered heroes mainly because of their tactics, strategy, and leadership. For example, General George Crook, who was the lieutenant colonel and default commander of the 23rd US Infantry for seven years while its Colonel, Jefferson C Davis, was exiled in Alaska, was not considered a great hero of the Indian wars because he personally shot and killed or wounded at least six Pitt River Indians, one Paiute, one Apache, and one Cheyenne, but because the troops under his command, killed, wounded, captured, accepted the surrender of, and generally defeated, much more Indians than any other general's forces.


When it comes to Lelouch, again, no is (or was) saying that his killing of people made him a war hero (like MP2000 said, you completely missed the point of the posts and went off on a rather moot point). They are saying that, regardless of the fact that he killed people, because he sacrificed himself at the end of the series to help people and bring peace, he is a hero.

+Namiko+ came very close to saying that killing people made Lelouch a war hero. Part of her post # 6 says: "Yes, he killed people, but dont all War Heroes? Thats what makes them War Heroes." Thus she seems to say that killing people is necessary, and perhaps she even means sufficient, to make someone involved in a war a war hero.

So MP2000 was incorrect when he he said that I missed the point and wrote: "Killing people isn't sufficient, but the person you quoted never said that all soldiers that kill people are war heroes, only that it's a prerequisite. You can disagree if you want but killing strongly correlates with the status of war hero for obvious reasons."

But wolfgirl90 and I both agree that some war heroes (percentage uncertain) were not honored as heroes for killing people, and some of those (percentage again uncertain) did not kill anyone during their entire military careers. Thus killing people is not a prerequisite for being a war hero, since an unknown percentage of war heroes were honored for courageous deeds which did not involve killing people.

Well I suppose that someone could find out how strongly being a war hero in a specific army and era correlated with killing people by classifying the citations in awards of decorations for valor to find how what percentage of the citations show that the hero was honored by deeds which involved killing people, which percent were honored for deeds which clearly did not involve killing people, and which percent were uncertain.

People may be saying that Lelouch was a hero because of his good and noble sacrifice regardless of the people he killed. I say that they can disregard the people Lelouch killed using more or less "clean" or "honorable" methods of warfare, but they can't disregard the people he wrongly and needlessly killed, the people he murdered. I say that Lelouch's good and noble sacrifice would have made him a hero if he had never killed even one person in a terribly and obviously unjust way, such as, for example, murdering Euphemia and ordering the geass directorate massacre.


quote=wolfgirl90;2322246]For me, I would put Lelouch under the classification of anti-hero. The actions of the characters in Code Geass are not so black-and-white as to classify most of them as being "heroes" or "villains".;)[/quote]

As far as I can tell almost all the characters in Code Geass committed at least one evil deed or condoned the evil deeds of other people on their side. That makes almost all of them evil to me. Which makes almost all of the characters villains to me, even if some of them did at least one heroic deed that would make them a hero if they were not evil as a result of committing or condoning at least one evil deed.

Lelouhc is way too anti- and not enough hero for me to call him a hero. To me a hero has to be good enough to never commit even one evil crime. I guess I could call Lelouch both a villain because of his crimes which he can never become innocent of in a million years and an sometimes hero because of his occassional acts of heroism.

lilminx
08-30-2009, 09:19 PM
do you guys have to battle like this everywhere? i mean whenever theres a thread about Lelouch or Euphemia you guys go nuts. i understand you both have a different view on this but you dont need to make so many posts about it everywhere.

i liked code geass but ever since this fighting , im starting to dislike it.
im sorry if im being mean ,but its really frustrating... >.<

DeMoNoFtHeFaLl666
08-30-2009, 11:07 PM
i think he as both to be honest. Because there were points he did good thing other time bad things its really 50/50 with him

wolfgirl90
08-31-2009, 12:58 AM
OKAAAAAAAAY, proEuphie, I got it (geez, this time I wasn't even arguing with you).:banghead::banghead:

While I have not read everything that you have said in that long post of yours, I never even said that you were completely wrong; just that you used a bad example and that some parts of your argument are flawed. I understood your point from the beginning. :rolleyes:

Getting FULLY back on topic (meaning that if you bring up anything else not related to Code Geass, I will ignore it completely), while it is true that a lot of the characters committed evil acts, whether or not those characters themselves are evil is up to debate. Lelouch did a lot of evils things, no doubt about it, but does that make him evil, considering the meaning behind the actions that he took? Because of this I find it hard to classify him as a hero because of his actions but find it equally hard to call him a villain because of the meaning behind those actions.

玲華.
08-31-2009, 01:26 AM
To me, he's an anti-hero. Because of how Suzaku is portrayed, it appears that way. In this case, Suzaku is the 'hero', and Lelouch is the force opposing him, and the Britannian Empire, for a greater good. Therefore, anti-hero. (:

IcePriestess
08-31-2009, 06:07 AM
ProEuphie can you please not write a bible in this thread? I created it so that you wouldn't argue about that, but just tell your opinion. That's all.

proEuphie
08-31-2009, 05:11 PM
OKAAAAAAAAY, proEuphie, I got it (geez, this time I wasn't even arguing with you).:banghead::banghead:

While I have not read everything that you have said in that long post of yours, I never even said that you were completely wrong; just that you used a bad example and that some parts of your argument are flawed. I understood your point from the beginning. :rolleyes:

Getting FULLY back on topic (meaning that if you bring up anything else not related to Code Geass, I will ignore it completely), while it is true that a lot of the characters committed evil acts, whether or not those characters themselves are evil is up to debate. Lelouch did a lot of evils things, no doubt about it, but does that make him evil, considering the meaning behind the actions that he took? Because of this I find it hard to classify him as a hero because of his actions but find it equally hard to call him a villain because of the meaning behind those actions.

I define an evil person, as I have said in other posts, as one who has committed at least one evil act in his life, and has not repented and atoned sufficiently for it - if atonement for that act is even theoretically possible, which may be disputed and argued about. I think that if a person is basically good they will not do even one evil thing in their life.

I think that one evil deed must overshadow a lifetime of otherwise good or acceptable deeds if you believe that most people can, with luck and effort, live their lives without doing anything evil and that such a life is a goal worth encouraging and demanding.

As near as I can tell the only characters who never did anything evil were Euphemia, Shirley, Milly, and Rivalez. You may object that many of the Britannian warriors and Black Knights did not participate in massacres or terrorists acts themselves.

But being in the same organization, or loose group of organizations working for one common cause, as people who commit massacres and/or terrorism and not quitting in disgust or protesting or doing something to make massacres and/or terrorism a less common practice by those on your side, makes you an accessory or accomplice in my view.

Suzaku in the first season, when he fought without killing, as Lloyd said in "Battle of Narita", and Euphemia in the same episode when she refused to do what she desperately wanted to do for fear that it might cause the enemy to respond and endanger civilians, followed codes of conduct that were very much higher than those of many other Britannians and so can be considered to be criticizing, by example, typical Britannian methods. Thus they can be considered to be uncontaminated, or much less contaminated, by fighting for britannia than any of the other Britannians in the first season.

It is possible that some Britanians in the second season might have protested against the use of F.R.E.I.J.A. to kill millions, and some Black Knights may have protested the geass directorate massacre. And thus they may have remained innocent. But that seems rather late in the day for Britannains or Black Knights to protest.

And how can the meaning behind Lelouch's actions have much value to make him less of a villain?

Doing them for revenge would make each of his deeds more evil and less good than otherwise.

Doing them to make Nunnally happier and safer would mean that he couldn't figure out what would make Nunnaly happy or safe.

And doing them to save the world would mean that he was just another destructive character with a nutty plan to save the world like Lenin, or Hitler, or Mao, or Jim Jones, or Charles Manson or (insert here the name of any one of hundreds or thousands of destructive, violent historical characters who killed tens, or hundreds, or thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions of people in a warped, twisted, effort to improve the world).

kimi no kioku
08-31-2009, 05:25 PM
I'd say in R1, yeah, he was a villian. I always thought of Suzaku-kun as more of a hero there. He did alot of bad things, but we all do. He killed alot of people, but he made up for it. I honestly hated Lulu in R1, if I had only seen that, I would say he was evil. But in R2, he was more of a hero. In the end, he got redemption for all he did, thus he was a hero. In my oppinion by the way.
Plus, you can't judge him for what happened to Euphy, I was a huge Euphy fan, but it was accodent. He didn't want to use Geass on her.

proEuphie
08-31-2009, 10:29 PM
I'd say in R1, yeah, he was a villian. I always thought of Suzaku-kun as more of a hero there. He did alot of bad things, but we all do. He killed alot of people, but he made up for it. I honestly hated Lulu in R1, if I had only seen that, I would say he was evil. But in R2, he was more of a hero. In the end, he got redemption for all he did, thus he was a hero. In my oppinion by the way.
Plus, you can't judge him for what happened to Euphy, I was a huge Euphy fan, but it was accodent. He didn't want to use Geass on her.

1) Doing good deeds is not necessarily enough to redeem you for your previous bad deeds.

2) yes, I can judge Lelouch for the Euphy thing because:

A) He was planning something very similar, making Euphie shoot him to start the revolution, and then coming back to life to awe the Japanese. He was planning to trick thousands of Japanese who wanted to live into dying for the revolution. That was a plan for mass murder. And he was probably planning to kill Euphie too. If he had a plan to save her he could have adapted it to the similar circumstances of the massacre and saved her.

And he gloated about making her shoot him (like a melodrama villain - a subtle hint from the producers?) which was a cause of his later giving her the geass command to kill the Japanese. Thus everyone killed in the Fuji Massacre and the Black Rebellion was murdered by Lelouch, since those deaths were a direct result of his earlier plan for mass murder.

And thus all the millions killed by the use of F.R.E.I.J.A. in the second season were murdered by Lelouch, since the Fuji Massacre, the killing of Euphemia, Nina's attempts to make a F.R.E.I.J.A. weapon, her recruitment into the F.R.E.I.J.A. project, and the perfection of F.R.E.I.J.A. in time to kill millions in the wars of the second season, all flowed from his plan to make Euphie shoot him and spark a revolution.

B) I can judge him for the Euphy thing because shooting Euphy was deliberate, not an accident. If it was an inevitable result of accidentally giving her the geass command it could be considered a part of the accident, but it was hardly a direct or inevitable result of giving her the command.

Once her nightmare was destroyed he could have picked her up in one hand of his nightmare and carried her around like King Kong with Ann Darrow. If he encountered Britannian nightmares a live princess in the hand would be worth two blasters in the holster to make them surrender.

Instead he inexplicably let her pick up and keep a machine gun and then left the armored safety of his nightmare to walk toward her. That was treason against his cause unless he felt absolutely certain that even a geass command could not make her shoot him unless he gave some sign of interfering with her mission.

So if he was perfectly safe around Euphemia he could have captured her or tricked her into becoming his prisoner as fast, as easy, and a safely as he killed her. Once she was a prisoner she could have been confined and been less danger to anyone than any free person in the world would have been. So killing her was an utterly senseless murder. And we can and must blame him for that.

玲華.
09-01-2009, 09:21 PM
Oh. I am just simply amazed that you would go watch season two after Euphemia died. :rolleyes:

MangaFanGuy
09-02-2009, 11:28 PM
I don't think that Lelouch was a villain and nor do I think he was entirely a hero.
If you ask me if Suzaku was more of a villain then Lelouch was due to his almost non-existant regard for anyone besides himself (This became immensely more apparent in the second season).
Lelouch as Zero was a soldier first and foremost waging a massive guerrilla war agianst the brittanians.
His actions for the most part were no better nor worse then many acts perpetrated by the other side.
Does this mean Lelouch was a Hero? No he was egotistic prick
Does this mean he was a villain? No as his actions were often superceded by the necessities of war and politics

WiTCHiiee YUKO :)
09-03-2009, 06:15 AM
he's a HERO !!

proEuphie
09-03-2009, 07:55 PM
I don't think that Lelouch was a villain and nor do I think he was entirely a hero.
If you ask me if Suzaku was more of a villain then Lelouch was due to his almost non-existant regard for anyone besides himself (This became immensely more apparent in the second season).
Lelouch as Zero was a soldier first and foremost waging a massive guerrilla war agianst the brittanians.
His actions for the most part were no better nor worse then many acts perpetrated by the other side.
Does this mean Lelouch was a Hero? No he was egotistic prick
Does this mean he was a villain? No as his actions were often superceded by the necessities of war and politics

I say that three of his actions were villainous:
1) Plotting to trick thousands of Japanese who wanted to live into dying for his revolution at the SAZ opening. That was a plot for mass murder - and probably the individual murder of Euphemia.
2) After giving Euphie the command to kill the Japnese he ordered his men to kill her and them killed her himself, even though after her nightmare ws destroyed capturing her alive wuld have been as easy as picking her up in the hand of his giant robot
3) Ordering the geass directorate Massacre.
Any one of those three villainous acts is enough to make lleouch a villain, however much of a hero he might also be due to other acts. Lleouchis way too much fof a villain for me to approve of.

+Namiko+
09-03-2009, 08:06 PM
Technically it is not correct that all war heroes kill people. For example, many present day medals of honor are awarded posthumously for sacrificing one's own life to save the lives of one's comrades. The classic example is leaping on a hand grenade and smothering and adsorbing the explosion and the deadly fragments with your own body to save the lives of others.

Some of the soldiers who did that type of thing may have killed people previously, but that is not what they were honored for. And some of them did not kill anyone in their military careers

Thus it is perfectly possible to be a war hero without killing anyone.

And killing people does not always make a hero out of a warrior. Did Jefferson Davis become a hero for shooting General Nelson during the Civil War? No.

He wasn't the Confederate president, but Union General Jefferson C. Davis, the butt of a number of jokes. And why didn't shooting a Confederate general make Jefferson C. Davis a hero? Because General Nelson was a U.S. general and Davis's commanding officer when Davis shot him during a quarrel.

Contrary to your assumption, killing people is not always necessary or sufficient to make someone a war hero.

AND IT STARTS

The mutilation of another thread.

Please. I beg you not to MUTILATE this poor thread like you did the others you showed up on.:)

You're vicious killing of the Code Geass section is worse than that bullet entering Euphie's heart.

You deserve your own motivational poster.

You are frighting... really.

Ok....

my POINT where you will UNDOUBTEDLY pick ONE WORD out and attack OVER AND OVER while completely ignoring everything else I have said.:rolleyes:

Key words
"killing people is not always necessary"

NOT AWLAYS

meaning

SOMETIMES IT IS


Though I suppose you are some sort of strategic genius sitting at home and finding nothing better to do then say "He's wrong" but I dont know anything. Im a Lelouch fan! I'm just a moron who blindly follows a sadist! Right?:p


Killing people makes good TV, why else would some of the most popular shows ANYWHERE be crime shows? CSI, NCIS, The Mentalist, Criminal Minds.

Death is INTERESTING when its not REAL and cg isnt REAL its


E N T E R T A I N M E NT.:)
D R A M A.:D
F A N S E R V I C E.:laugh:
P I Z Z A H U T C O M M E R C I A L W I T H D E A D P E O P L E.:unsure:


we are SUPPOSED to question Lelouch BUT in the END we are most likely supposed to confirm his LAST ACT OF KINDNESS.

Darn him. Darn that fool. How dare he die for others. Bad Lelouch! Bad!

MangaFanGuy
09-03-2009, 09:32 PM
I say that three of his actions were villainous:
1) Plotting to trick thousands of Japanese who wanted to live into dying for his revolution at the SAZ opening. That was a plot for mass murder - and probably the individual murder of Euphemia.
If my memory serves me right he never intended for anyone but himself to die at the opening of the SAZ.
Extenuating circumstances due to an unforseen complication forced him to a much more drastic and costly act.
However if he didn't do what he did how much worse would the situation have been (With Euphie under the compulsion to kill ALL japanese)

2) After giving Euphie the command to kill the Japnese he ordered his men to kill her and them killed her himself, even though after her nightmare ws destroyed capturing her alive wuld have been as easy as picking her up in the hand of his giant robot
Ok then what?
He now has Euphie under the permanent cmpulsion to kill any and all japanese.
So what will he do with her?
He can't let her go and her use as a hostage will merely tarnish Zeros image (Euphie still being seen as one of the best Britanians for the Japanese)
Also there is Euphie who is unable to stop the horror she is inflicting.
So strategically and morally it was better to end the suffering of Euphie and seize the chance to free Japan.

3) Ordering the geass directorate Massacre.
However this was not an intended action and was an unforseeable problem that arose from the activation of the Geass.
Surely Lelouch would not have wanted this course of action which is one of the worst possible outcomes for either side. (it eventually leads to Zeros Defeat)

Any one of those three villainous acts is enough to make lleouch a villain, however much of a hero he might also be due to other acts. Lleouchis way too much fof a villain for me to approve of.
I will grant that Lelouch could be a cold and calculating person who is more then prepared to sacrifice to achieve his goals.
But from a strategic standpoint of a soldier his actions are the logical continuation of diplomacy by undiplomatic means and no better or worse then many of the other fighters around him.

proEuphie
09-03-2009, 09:56 PM
Oh. I am just simply amazed that you would go watch season two after Euphemia died. :rolleyes:

I didn't. I lost interest in the story. What suspense can there be when the character who has ninety percent of all the goodness in the cast of dozens has already been murdered.

proEuphie
09-03-2009, 10:01 PM
Hero.
Yes, he killed people, but dont all War Heroes? Thats what makes them War Heroes.

Hero. He committed one of the most selfless acts I can think of. He made his life hell so everyone would hate him, then killed himself to make every other person on Earth Happier. If that is not a hero I don't know what is.

Hero.
:'3

Yes, Lelouch sacrificed himself at the end. But do you think that sacrifice 50%, or 100 %, or 200% makes up of any of all of his evil deeds such as murdering Euphemia or ordering the geass directorate Massacre?

It might if those evil deeds were directly necessary for the succeess of the Zero Requiem. But since Lelouch could have have achieved the Zero Requiem without murdering Euphie or ordering the geass directorate Massacre those evil deeds were totally unrelated to achieving his noble goal and thus were totally unnecessary and evil deeds which the Zero Requiem cannot make up for.

Someone who thinks that his goal is noble and therefore he doesn't have to worry if he commits a few more murders and massacres than are absolutely necessary to achieve his goal is too much of a villain for me.

proEuphie
09-03-2009, 10:03 PM
AND IT STARTS

The mutilation of another thread.

Please. I beg you not to MUTILATE this poor thread like you did the others you showed up on.:)

You're vicious killing of the Code Geass section is worse than that bullet entering Euphie's heart.

You deserve your own motivational poster.

You are frighting... really.

Ok....

my POINT where you will UNDOUBTEDLY pick ONE WORD out and attack OVER AND OVER while completely ignoring everything else I have said.:rolleyes:

Key words
"killing people is not always necessary"

NOT AWLAYS

meaning

SOMETIMES IT IS


Though I suppose you are some sort of strategic genius sitting at home and finding nothing better to do then say "He's wrong" but I dont know anything. Im a Lelouch fan! I'm just a moron who blindly follows a sadist! Right?:p


Killing people makes good TV, why else would some of the most popular shows ANYWHERE be crime shows? CSI, NCIS, The Mentalist, Criminal Minds.

Death is INTERESTING when its not REAL and cg isnt REAL its


E N T E R T A I N M E NT.:)
D R A M A.:D
F A N S E R V I C E.:laugh:
P I Z Z A H U T C O M M E R C I A L W I T H D E A D P E O P L E.:unsure:


we are SUPPOSED to question Lelouch BUT in the END we are most likely supposed to confirm his LAST ACT OF KINDNESS.

Darn him. Darn that fool. How dare he die for others. Bad Lelouch! Bad!

So you claim that I misquoted you.
Hero.
Yes, he killed people, but dont all War Heroes? Thats what makes them War Heroes.



You clearly wrote that killing people was necessary, and perhaps sufficient, to make a war hero.

So you claim that mutilating a website is even worse than having someone helpless at the feet of your two giant robots and killing them instead of capturing them. You claim that mutilating a website is worse than walking up to someone, and past them, and away from them, confident that they love you and trust you too much to shoot you in the back. And then rewarding them for that love and trust and not shooting you by treacherously shooting them.

So you claim that mutilating a website is worse than a leader saying that there is no point in capturing someone alive when actually there is never any point in killing someone who can be captured alive as easily, and as fast, and as safely as Euphemia could have been.

So you claim that mutilating a website is worse than killing someone who is helpless to fight you and also loves and trusts you so much they would never suspect you were hostile to them? Do you know how many millions of men have wished that they hadn't had to kill and that it would have been as safe and easy to capture their enemy as it would have been for Lelouch to capture Euphemia?

Do you know how many of your ancestors were captured despite it being much harder to capture them alive than it would have been for Lelouch to capture Euphie? You would never have been born if the warriors who captured countless of your ancestors had been like Lelouch and killed everyone that was not even safer and easier to capture than Euphemia was.

I was sort of a Lelouch fan until I saw him shoot Euphemia unnecessarily.

And yes I do know better than Lelouch, who is just a fictional character created by tv writers and producers, not by the greatest tacticians and strategists in the world.

You think I'm frightening? All I'm trying to do is find someone who shares my outrage and disgust at being expected by cynical tv producers to keep on liking Lelouch despite seeing him murder Euphemia needlessly. I find all the thousands and possibly millions of Code Geass fans who can keep liking Lelouch despite seeing him murder Euphie just as frightening as you find me.

We may be expected (in the sense of prediction) to cheer Lelouch's last act of sacrifice by the creators of Code Geass, but we are probably expected (in the sense of demanding) to hate and despise Lelouch for his previous crimes by the creator of the universe.

ichimoku_fanboy
09-03-2009, 10:55 PM
i can only think to ansewer this with a personal quote of mine -

"One must dirty one's hands to clean a mess, no?"

he did what was necessary to cripple a superpower-nation, the most powerful might i add, diplomatic or peaceful means would be far to risky and take possibly 30+ years for him to even come close, but those are my opinions...


in the end, i declare him a hero, cuz true heroes dont wanna be recognized for their work, only selfish children run around declaring how great they are for cleaning up someone else's mess, Lelouche didnt want recognition for his actions, therefore i declare him both selfless, but selfish in his desire for a new world, even though he had purely selfish reasons for doing so...

proEuphie
09-03-2009, 11:01 PM
If my memory serves me right he never intended for anyone but himself to die at the opening of the SAZ.
Extenuating circumstances due to an unforseen complication forced him to a much more drastic and costly act.
However if he didn't do what he did how much worse would the situation have been (With Euphie under the compulsion to kill ALL japanese)

Lelouch expected himself to rise from the dead to prove to the Japanese that he was the true messiah. I started a thread to discuss this but it has been locked before any satisfactory conclusion was reached.

Lelouch expected a bloody riot would break out and that it would be the start of his revolution. Thus he was planning to trick many Japanese to die by making it seem that Euphie had murdered him.

By doing what he did Lelouch caused Nina to try making a F.R.E.I.J.A. weapon which caused her to be later recruited into the project and help to perfect it in time to kill millions of people in the wars of the second season. And I keep saying that Lelouch could have saved the Japanese by capturing Euphie, which would have been just as good for the Japanese and a lot better for her.


Ok then what?
He now has Euphie under the permanent cmpulsion to kill any and all japanese.
So what will he do with her?
He can't let her go and her use as a hostage will merely tarnish Zeros image (Euphie still being seen as one of the best Britanians for the Japanese)
Also there is Euphie who is unable to stop the horror she is inflicting.
So strategically and morally it was better to end the suffering of Euphie and seize the chance to free Japan.

Euphemia was not under a permanent compulsion to kill all Japanese. This was in the first season. Lelouch gave Suzaku, the second most prominent character, a geass command to survive, which turned Suzaku cowardly at first. But a few days later Lelouch saw Suzaku fighting bravely against the Chinese invasion. Since Suzaku's geass command and Euphemia's both did not mention time limits, Lelouch and the audience should have assumed that Euhemia's command would have worn off after a few days.

Perhaps the series was originally intended to last just one season and end in a tragic gotterdamerung in which Suzaku attacked Lelouch in revenge for the senseless murder of Euphemia and they killed each other at the climax, ruining both their attempts to help the Japanese. Thus the temporary effects of Suzaku's geass command would have been written into the story to prove how senseless Euphie's murder was and motivate Suzaku's revenge.

If so, during the second season the producers made a feeble effort to rewrite history by having Suzaku's geass command occassionally affect him, while he still sometimes fought bravely. Even so, the audience should have expected that if Euphemia survived she would only sometimes try to kill Japanese people. she might have to be locked up all the time, but when not affected by the geass command she could be happy and do good.

You actually expect me to believe that Euphemia would become a tiger by the tail if Lelouch captured her? You say that she still has enough of a reputation left that using her as a hostage to save Japanese lives will tarnish Zero's reputation but killing her will not tarnish his reputation? Of course Lelouch could always lie about the circumstances and say that he killed Euphemia while she was about to kill a bunch of Japanese people. But if he's going to lie that much he might as well take her prisoner and lie about killing her.

Lelouch gloated to Cc that he would invite the Emperor to a meeting when the Japanese proclaimed independence in Tokyo and said the Emperor would have to attend. So Lelouch was not planing to defeat attack after attack for years but expected the Emperor to make a state visit to Tokyo right after a bloody rebellion. Perhaps Lelouch expected Santa Claus to bring the Emperor in his sleigh.

So Lelouch needed to have Euphemia alive in order to have even the tiniest chance to trick the emperor into coming to Tokyo. Even if Euphemia was alive in japan or Britannia the Emperor might be afraid to come to Tokyo, but if a sweet girl like her had been killed with no better excuse than fake videos of a totally out of character massacre, the Emperor would know that it would be suicidal to come to Japan.

Lelouch desperately needed Euphemia alive for his plan to work, he could use her as a hostage to stop the massacre sooner, he knew that she was innocent, he could capture her really easy and safely, and he killed her anyway. So much for strategy.

I didn't hear Euphie screaming in pain and begging for Lelouch to shoot her. When he shot her she asked him why. She didn't want to die. Euphie didn't have to stop the horror she was inflicting. Locking her up would do that for her. Killing her was morally wrong.


However this was not an intended action and was an unforseeable problem that arose from the activation of the Geass.
Surely Lelouch would not have wanted this course of action which is one of the worst possible outcomes for either side. (it eventually leads to Zeros Defeat)

If the geass command was an accident, killing Euphemia was not. It was not an inevitable result of the accident. After Euphemia's nightmare was destroyed it was just one unarmed girl facing two of the most powerful nightmares in the world. She could have been killed or captured in many different ways. Lelouch could choose to kill or capture her by many different methods. He was not forced to kill her. he chose to kill her using a method which took advantage of her trust and love for him, instead of capturing he by, for example, simply picking her up in a and of his giant robot.


I will grant that Lelouch could be a cold and calculating person who is more then prepared to sacrifice to achieve his goals.
But from a strategic standpoint of a soldier his actions are the logical continuation of diplomacy by undiplomatic means and no better or worse then many of the other fighters around him.

many of Lelouch's (and those of most other characters) actions were far more evil than any good and decent solider would do. Euphemia at the battle of Narita was a commander who who followed the highest code of ethics, and Suzaku in the first season was a highly honorable warrior. Their examples could be considered criticism of typical Britannian behavior and attempts to change it by example.

You damn Lelouch with very, very, very, very faint praise if you say that he is no better or worse than many of the other fighters around him. Lelouch is no worse than Charles! Leouch is no worse than Schenitzel! Lelouch is no worse than Kallen! I have claimed that as far as I know only Euphemia, Shirley, Milly, and Rivalez never did anything evil themselves nor were contaminated by fighting on the same same side as evil doers.

MangaFanGuy
09-04-2009, 12:13 AM
Lelouch expected himself to rise from the dead to prove to the Japanese that he was the true messiah. I started a thread to discuss this but it has been locked before any satisfactory conclusion was reached.

Lelouch expected a bloody riot would break out and that it would be the start of his revolution. Thus he was planning to trick many Japanese to die by making it seem that Euphie had murdered him
So you argue that the outcome would have been the same either way.
And this whole plan would have hinged on Euphie actually agreeing to this course of action which I can hardly see her doing.
So regardless of his plan it is what happened that is more important.

By doing what he did Lelouch caused Nina to try making a F.R.E.I.J.A. weapon which caused her to be later recruited into the project and help to perfect it in time to kill millions of people in the wars of the second season.
Did Lelouch force Nina to construct F.R.E.I.J.A?
No
this was the fault/outcome of Ninas actions.
Lelouch may have been an excuse but the blame for that device is squarely resting on Ninas shoulders and any blame can only be peripherally attributed to Lelouch.

And I keep saying that Lelouch could have saved the Japanese by capturing Euphie, which would have been just as good for the Japanese and a lot better for her.
Depends.
Euphie could have been a disaster either way.

You actually expect me to believe that Euphemia would become a tiger by the tail if Lelouch captured her? You say that she still has enough of a reputation left that using her as a hostage to save Japanese lives will tarnish Zero's reputation but killing her will not tarnish his reputation?
either way you look at it the tarnishing of his reputation would be inevitable if he publically captured her.
If he kills her he murdered a beloved member of the royal family.
If he captures her she becomes a pawn to be used against him. (Even if he takes her alive and says she is dead she can still be used against him)
Only with her confirmed death can he then lay the blame on her and shift attention to the person who (although unwillingly) started the massacre without looking like a mastermind of a massacre of his own people.


Of course Lelouch could always lie about the circumstances and say that he killed Euphemia while she was about to kill a bunch of Japanese people. But if he's going to lie that much he might as well take her prisoner and lie about killing her.
again this is a double edged sword as the royal family can equally contend he is merely holding her captive (as she will not be proven dead) and stir up anti-Zero support

I didn't hear Euphie screaming in pain and begging for Lelouch to shoot her. When he shot her she asked him why. She didn't want to die. Euphie didn't have to stop the horror she was inflicting. Locking her up would do that for her.
So are you trying to say Euphie had no problem with a massacre at her own command?
Why could also be asking why this was happening.
and locking her up could have long term ramifications

If the geass command was an accident, killing Euphemia was not. It was not an inevitable result of the accident. After Euphemia's nightmare was destroyed it was just one unarmed girl facing two of the most powerful nightmares in the world. She could have been killed or captured in many different ways. Lelouch could choose to kill or capture her by many different methods. He was not forced to kill her. he chose to kill her using a method which took advantage of her trust and love for him, instead of capturing he by, for example, simply picking her up in a and of his giant robot.
Politically and strategically the best course of action for Zero, the black knights and all japanese was the death of Euphemia.
Alive and she is a propoganda weapon against Zero.
Dead she is a Tyrant and propoganda for Zero.

many of Lelouch's (and those of most other characters)actions were far more evil than any good and decent solider would do.
Such as?

Euphemia at the battle of Narita was a commander who who followed the highest code of ethics, and Suzaku in the first season was a highly honorable warrior. Their examples could be considered criticism of typical Britannian behavior and attempts to change it by example.
Euphemia was in alot of ways a pacifist so her trying to follow a code of ethics is hardly surprising.
Suzaku is one of the worst IMO. He fights in favor of an oppressive regeme with little regard for what he is doing.
I found his total worthy achievements in the first season were virtually non-existant

You damn Lelouch with very, very, very, very faint praise if you say that he is no better or worse than many of the other fighters around him. Lelouch is no worse than Charles! Leouch is no worse than Schenitzel! Lelouch is no worse than Kallen!
I never said Lelouch was a hero.
I merely said he was not entirely a villain.
And as a soldier I would not expect a character to be free of any wrongdoings and while Lelouch made his fair share of mistakes and dubious calls he was hardly alone in regard to the soldiering world.
But to call him a villain is hardly fitting as in a similar situation to obtain the same goals how many other characters would have had the fortitude to perservere for the brighter future he invisioned (even at the expense of himslef)

I have claimed that as far as I know only Euphemia, Shirley, Milly, and Rivalez never did anything evil themselves nor were contaminated by fighting on the same same side as evil doers.
Euphie I can agree with.
She selflessly toiled for the betterment of everyone and her only stain was the result of irresistable compulsion.
However with the others I would hardly credit that.
They were minor characters with little to do and less sacrifices to make.
Even Shirly in the end had few decisions to make even remotely close to the moral and strategic significance of the likes of Suzaku and Lelouch.
they may be blameless and free of major evils but then they are also devoid of any major good to the story as a whole making a comparison between them and the likes of Lelouch an effort in fultility.

proEuphie
09-04-2009, 12:13 AM
i can only think to ansewer this with a personal quote of mine -

"One must dirty one's hands to clean a mess, no?"

he did what was necessary to cripple a superpower-nation, the most powerful might i add, diplomatic or peaceful means would be far to risky and take possibly 30+ years for him to even come close, but those are my opinions...


in the end, i declare him a hero, cuz true heroes dont wanna be recognized for their work, only selfish children run around declaring how great they are for cleaning up someone else's mess, Lelouche didnt want recognition for his actions, therefore i declare him both selfless, but selfish in his desire for a new world, even though he had purely selfish reasons for doing so...

I keep saying that murdering Euphemia and ordering the geass directorate massacre were not necessary evils, that they were not necessary for the Zero requiem to work. Thus when Lelouch committed them he was dirying his hands to make the mess dirtier, not to clean it up.

You say that diplomatic or peaceful means would be too risky. I don't see how they would been any riskier than starting wars and revolutions. And you say that peaceful means might take thirty years. The Basque terrorist organization ETA and the Tamil rebel organization Tamil Tigers have been around for thirty years and they haven't had much success.

玲華.
09-04-2009, 04:20 AM
I keep saying that murdering Euphemia and ordering the geass directorate massacre were not necessary evils, that they were not necessary for the Zero requiem to work. Thus when Lelouch committed them he was dirying his hands to make the mess dirtier, not to clean it up.

You say that diplomatic or peaceful means would be too risky. I don't see how they would been any riskier than starting wars and revolutions. And you say that peaceful means might take thirty years. The Basque terrorist organization ETA and the Tamil rebel organization Tamil Tigers have been around for thirty years and they haven't had much success.

Oh Lordy Lord. Of course you keep on saying it, that's why you keep on annoying people.

Your idea of a mess is not his idea of a mess. Massacres were required, for him, because he wants to rebuild the world.

They would be. Zero is an anti-hero (or villain), remember. He. DOES NOT. Take the diplomatic way. And besides, the LTTE and ETA haven't been doing much for the past thirty years. Nothing that largely affects the world.

And you have to take into view CONTEXT. Basically, Lelouch's rise takes place in Japan, and not much of the rest of the world is shown. That is because the anime only focuses there, and other countries don't do much. So, in the case of both the real world and this anime world, what would seem like small events in the context of the ENTIRE WORLD would seem really big in the country itself. So for example, in idea it would seem a really big deal with people dying and all, but if you were in the United States, you wouldn't think much about it.

Get it, finally? I'm hoping you do.

wolfgirl90
09-04-2009, 05:24 PM
I define an evil person, as I have said in other posts, as one who has committed at least one evil act in his life, and has not repented and atoned sufficiently for it - if atonement for that act is even theoretically possible, which may be disputed and argued about. I think that if a person is basically good they will not do even one evil thing in their life.

But being in the same organization, or loose group of organizations working for one common cause, as people who commit massacres and/or terrorism and not quitting in disgust or protesting or doing something to make massacres and/or terrorism a less common practice by those on your side, makes you an accessory or accomplice in my view.

Wow...you are beginning to look like a troll.:rolleyes:

Your definition of an "evil person" (again, evil is a very relative concept) causes an extreme case of guilt by association. A person who does an evil act (again evil is relative) is automatically an evil person and anybody who associates with that person is evil (if they didn't try to stop said person). Basically, if a soldier killed someone (with you, killing under any circumstance is evil; believe me, I can quote you on this), I am just as guilty as him since I am also in the military and didn't stop him. If a police officer gets an order to shoot and does (and doesn't regret it), he is evil, the commander is evil (for giving the order), his coworkers that were with him are evil (for not stopping him) and all other police officers and affiliating organizations are evil (for simply being associated with the officer in question).

With that definition, almost all of the characters in Code Geass are evil, including Euphemia, because she is a Britannian (guilty by association). She may have criticized the actions of the Britannians but she never actively did anything to stop them from fighting and attacking (she even participated in the Battle of Narita of her own free will; she did not even try to stop the attack) nor did she up and leave the Britannian family in disgust (which she should have done the minute that she was able to understand what was going on); she did ultimately leave but only after the creation of the SAZ and as a part of the creation of the SAZ, not because she was disgusted. And, to make up for the invasion of Japan and the deaths of many Japanese, Euphemia decides to give them a portion of their land back? Yeah...that doesn't cut it, with your definition that the deed done must equally make up for the crime committed (again, your definition makes Euphemia guilty by association as a Britannian who did not actively stop any of the actions of the other Britannians).

Of course, that is just my opinion and I would rather not talk about that any further. You could PM me, but both of us know that it is not going to matter (I sincerely suggest that you give up on this annoying crusade).



It might if those evil deeds were directly necessary for the succeess of the Zero Requiem. But since Lelouch could have have achieved the Zero Requiem without murdering Euphie or ordering the geass directorate Massacre those evil deeds were totally unrelated to achieving his noble goal and thus were totally unnecessary and evil deeds which the Zero Requiem cannot make up for.

Again, that ENTIRE argument is a moot point since Lelouch did not plan the Zero Requiem until AFTER Euphemia's death, hence the reason why part of the Requiem was to erase Euphemia's tarnished name.:rolleyes:


You think I'm frightening? All I'm trying to do is find someone who shares my outrage and disgust at being expected by cynical tv producers to keep on liking Lelouch despite seeing him murder Euphemia needlessly. I find all the thousands and possibly millions of Code Geass fans who can keep liking Lelouch despite seeing him murder Euphie just as frightening as you find me.

What are you talking about?! Its a freaking CARTOON! The producers of Code Geass are not expecting you to do ANYTHING!! If you like Lelouch, fine. If you hate Lelouch, fine. They really do not care what your opinion of him is. Seriously, they really do not care. In fact, they purposely made the series complex so that there would be multiple opinions about Lelouch and no person would be right or wrong (note the word "opinion").

Your opinion about Lelouch is no more right or wrong than the opinions of everyone else here and I think everyone else here would agree with me on that. HOWEVER, you want to say that because he is evil, if we like him, there MUST be something wrong with us, which is why you feel comfortable by riding on a "moral" high horse and calling our morals into question and saying that we must have "latent violent tendencies" (yes, you did say this) for liking a particular CARTOON CHARACTER!!

I honestly do not care about your opinions about Lelouch and Euphemia. I am not saying that your opinions are wrong; I am saying that I do not care and I am not the only person who shares this sentiment. I certainly do not need to hear them in every other blasted forum that you lay your eyes on. Did it EVER occur to you that if you wanted to find like minded people who felt the same way about Euphemia that you did, that you should start a THREAD about it (amazingly, you have yet to do a "Do you like Euphemia" or a "Were you upset by Euphemia's death" thread)?!

We are discussing a CARTOON! Not real life, not a reality show, not a live action movie, but a CARTOON!!:banghead::banghead:

If the death of a cartoon character shatters your reality SO MUCH that you can't handle it, that you must inform everyone about how "sad" it was, that you feel the need to call the morals of other people into question for the simple fact that they have a differing opinion than yours, then I suggest that you get off mommy and daddy's computer, since you are obviously either not old enough or mature enough to handle a discussion like this, and stop bringing up her death as if it caused the Earth to stop and the angels to cry out in agony. In fact, order a couple volumes of Tales of an Alternate Shogunate, where Euphemia is alive and well, so that you can enjoy Euphemia ON YOUR OWN!!:rolleyes:

proEuphie
09-04-2009, 09:27 PM
Wow...you are beginning to look like a troll.:rolleyes:

Your definition of an "evil person" (again, evil is a very relative concept) causes an extreme case of guilt by association. A person who does an evil act (again evil is relative) is automatically an evil person and anybody who associates with that person is evil (if they didn't try to stop said person). Basically, if a soldier killed someone (with you, killing under any circumstance is evil; believe me, I can quote you on this), I am just as guilty as him since I am also in the military and didn't stop him. If a police officer gets an order to shoot and does (and doesn't regret it), he is evil, the commander is evil (for giving the order), his coworkers that were with him are evil (for not stopping him) and all other police officers and affiliating organizations are evil (for simply being associated with the officer in question).

You are simplifying and over simplifying what I wrote. If you want to find the quote where I supposedly wrote that killing under any circumstances is always evil please go look for it.

But I never wrote that it would be impossible for it ever to be right to kill even such a wonderfully good person as Euphemia. Here is a quote from my post # 124 in Code Geass: Black Knight/White Knight:

Beginning of quote.

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.

End of quotation from my post # 124.

clearly I accepted when I wrote it that it sometimes is right to kill, and even that it could possibly be right to kill someone who you know is as innocent as Euphemia. I simply denied that there was any justification for killing Euphemia in Code Geass.



Your definition of an "evil person" (again, evil is a very relative concept) causes an extreme case of guilt by association. If a police officer gets an order to shoot and does (and doesn't regret it), he is evil, the commander is evil (for giving the order), his coworkers that were with him are evil (for not stopping him) and all other police officers and affiliating organizations are evil (for simply being associated with the officer in question).

If a police officer gets an order to shoot the result will be either:
1) He rightly obeys a justified order to shoot.
2) He wrongly obeys an unjustified order to shoot.
3) He rightly disobeys an unjustified order to shoot.
4) He wrongly disobeys a justified order to shoot.

Fortunately in the US most police orders to shoot are more or less justified. Anyway, I only believe that the police officer in question is guilty is guilty of murder when he obeys an unjustified order to shoot. And thus the question of how much guilt the coworkers may have only arises when there is some guilt to be shared.

And what do you mean by:

If a police officer gets an order to shoot and does (and doesn't regret it), he is evil

Did I ever write that regretting something makes someone not guilty of doing it? A number of people have suggested that Lelouch was not guilty of Euphemia's murder because he sometimes regretted it. Have you read any of my discussions about regret and guilt feelings or should I paste one in from one of my other posts?

I say in several posts that almost everyone feels at least a little guilt and regret for killing someone, no matter how justified or unjustified the killing was, and that therefore regret for killing someone is no evidence that the killing was not murder.

Your claim that I wrote that regret for a deed makes someone not guilty of it is not accurate and makes me seem to accept other people's arguments which I in fact reject. Your point is moot because you are refuting things I did not write.


With that definition, almost all of the characters in Code Geass are evil, including Euphemia, because she is a Britannian (guilty by association). She may have criticized the actions of the Britannians but she never actively did anything to stop them from fighting and attacking (she even participated in the Battle of Narita of her own free will; she did not even try to stop the attack) nor did she up and leave the Britannian family in disgust (which she should have done the minute that she was able to understand what was going on); she did ultimately leave but only after the creation of the SAZ and as a part of the creation of the SAZ, not because she was disgusted. And, to make up for the invasion of Japan and the deaths of many Japanese, Euphemia decides to give them a portion of their land back? Yeah...that doesn't cut it, with your definition that the deed done must equally make up for the crime committed (again, your definition makes Euphemia guilty by association as a Britannian who did not actively stop any of the actions of the other Britannians).

Here is part of my definition from my post # 29:

"But being in the same organization, or loose group of organizations working for one common cause, as people who commit massacres and/or terrorism and not quitting in disgust or protesting or doing something to make massacres and/or terrorism a less common practice by those on your side, makes you an accessory or accomplice in my view."

You object to my definition because it would make almost all the Code Geass characters evil. Here is another quotation from my post #29:

"As near as I can tell the only characters who never did anything evil were Euphemia, Shirley, Milly, and Rivalez."

Of course Shirley, Milly, and Rivalez are pretty much lightweights compared to the adult characters or the teenagers with serious responsibilities. So that leaves Euphemia as pretty much the only character who is innocent, and does positive good, and is serious due to important responsibilities.

Clearly I am claiming that most of the Code Geass characters are evil. They are evil because of their own evil deeds or because they accept the evil practices of their organizations without quitting in disgust, or protesting, or doing something to make massacre and/or terrorism a less common practice by their side.

'm going to bed, to be continued.

I did not claim, for example, that every member of the Union army had to quit in disgust over the Sand creek Massacre in November 1864, or because of t eh orders which General Carlton allegedly gave in the winter of 1864 to 1865 to exterminate all the hostile Western Apaches. These things were little know in the east where most of the news was about the Civil war, and they were not policies of the government or the army as a whole.



Of course, that is just my opinion and I would rather not talk about that any further. You could PM me, but both of us know that it is not going to matter (I sincerely suggest that you give up on this annoying crusade).





Again, that ENTIRE argument is a moot point since Lelouch did not plan the Zero Requiem until AFTER Euphemia's death, hence the reason why part of the Requiem was to erase Euphemia's tarnished name.:rolleyes:





What are you talking about?! Its a freaking CARTOON! The producers of Code Geass are not expecting you to do ANYTHING!! If you like Lelouch, fine. If you hate Lelouch, fine. They really do not care what your opinion of him is. Seriously, they really do not care. In fact, they purposely made the series complex so that there would be multiple opinions about Lelouch and no person would be right or wrong (note the word "opinion").

Your opinion about Lelouch is no more right or wrong than the opinions of everyone else here and I think everyone else here would agree with me on that. HOWEVER, you want to say that because he is evil, if we like him, there MUST be something wrong with us, which is why you feel comfortable by riding on a "moral" high horse and calling our morals into question and saying that we must have "latent violent tendencies" (yes, you did say this) for liking a particular CARTOON CHARACTER!!

[quote=wolfgirl90;2324757]I honestly do not care about your opinions about Lelouch and Euphemia. I am not saying that your opinions are wrong; I am saying that I do not care and I am not the only person who shares this sentiment. I certainly do not need to hear them in every other blasted forum that you lay your eyes on. Did it EVER occur to you that if you wanted to find like minded people who felt the same way about Euphemia that you did, that you should start a THREAD about it (amazingly, you have yet to do a "Do you like Euphemia" or a "Were you upset by Euphemia's death" thread)?!

We are discussing a CARTOON! Not real life, not a reality show, not a live action movie, but a CARTOON!!:banghead::banghead:

If the death of a cartoon character shatters your reality SO MUCH that you can't handle it, that you must inform everyone about how "sad" it was, that you feel the need to call the morals of other people into question for the simple fact that they have a differing opinion than yours, then I suggest that you get off mommy and daddy's computer, since you are obviously either not old enough or mature enough to handle a discussion like this, and stop bringing up her death as if it caused the Earth to stop and the angels to cry out in agony. In fact, order a couple volumes of Tales of an Alternate Shogunate, where Euphemia is alive and well, so that you can enjoy Euphemia ON YOUR OWN!!:rolleyes:

+Namiko+
09-05-2009, 01:27 PM
Quote: "
So you claim that mutilating a website is even worse than having someone helpless at the feet of your two giant robots and killing them instead of capturing them."

No.

I dont.

You seem to think that everyone, like yourself, has ability to differenciate real life from anime.

But anime characters are not "someone" they are ink and pixels of color. Therefore, the death of insignificant secondary characters who just managed to get on my nerves every time they opened their mouth(Euphie) MAKES ME GIGGLE.

And mutilating a website is worse than killing an anime character. Im sure every one in the world can live with the animated bombing/shooting/poisoning/impaling/vaporization/spiritual department of an animated character.

If you feel bad for anyone, feel bad for their voice actor, who was out of a job after they died.

Quote: "I didn't. I lost interest in the story. What suspense can there be when the character who has ninety percent of all the goodness in the cast of dozens has already been murdered."

THEN WHY THE HECK ARE YOU IN THIS FORUM?
WATCH THE WHOLE SERIES BEFORE YOU INSTIGATE A WAR ABOUT IT.
DUR!

You obviously are so close minded that you would never listen to someone's half of the story. Code Geass is not a show for children, which is what your are acting like. You remind me of Nina. Geez. Do you sit at home screaming "ZEEEEEEEEERRRRROOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!" ?

Euphie wants you to pwease stop embarrassing her 3:>

IcePriestess
09-05-2009, 01:46 PM
+Namiko+, You are so damn right! But I don't actually think ProEuphie will read this. I wrote a post telling her to stop, because I created it to not argue, but to just tell your own opinion, but she just ignored it.(Aw, I think I will not create any more threads in Code Geass section, because ProEuphie will flood them all).
She should really watch R2, or else she has no right to judge Lelouch, just because she loved Euphemia(How the hell can somebody love her?). BTW LElouch said that he did commit crimes(When he became the emperor), but he'll commit them more to erase the name of "Murdered princess". So That just shows that ProEuphie has no right to judge Lelouch.
I would like to ask(Normal people) to write their opinion, so that I won't see Proeuphie's flood anymore.
Thank you for reading....
Annoyed ~IcePriestess

wolfgirl90
09-05-2009, 08:41 PM
ProEuphie, again, I understood what you were trying to say (your responses are really too long for a small post; I mean, technically you are on topic [sort of] but let's stop with the HUGE posts). I said there was a flaw in your argument that caused Euphemia to be guilty by association (not AS guilty as the other Britannians but still guilty), not that you were completely wrong, so there was no point in trying to prove that you are right. Again, it was my opinion...which was the point of the thread...to present one's opinion, not prove that yours is right.

And again, I don't really care about you liking Euphemia. Honestly, there is absolutely nothing that you can do that that will change my opinion of Euphemia. In MY opinion, I think that she is the illegitimate love-child of Lacus Clyne and Relena Peacecraft and, just like Relena, she was so annoying I wanted her to be shot (as you and I both know, that is exactly what happened). However, that is MY opinion, one that is neither right or wrong. Trying to say that I am wrong or that I must have something wrong with me is not going to change my mind about Euphemia (or any other character, such as Lelouch); its just annoying.

If she is your favorite character, fine. If you think that she is a goddess and the best character around, fine. And you are free to state your opinion...where it is needed. Invading every other thread to talk about how terrible and unnecessary her death was is not only not going to help you find like-minded people, but it also annoys the crap out of everyone else, especially when you use the straw man fallacy to assume that there must be something wrong with us or that its "frightening" if we don't express long-term outrage and deep sorrow over the death of a cartoon character (one that appeared in 18/50 episodes).

If all you want to do is talk to other people who were saddened by Euphemia's death and/or are outraged that "the producers want the audience to sympathize with Lelouch", then fine. That's okay. But please make a thread about it, go to a Euphemia fan site (or start one yourself), or something but don't try to push this "Lelouch is bad because he killed my favorite character" spiel into every thread because its not going to help.;)

And let's end it at that. You might post a couple of replies after this one, but I most likely will ignore them unless they are truly relevant to the thread (which they probably won't be).

proEuphie
09-05-2009, 09:20 PM
+Namiko+, You are so damn right! But I don't actually think ProEuphie will read this. I wrote a post telling her to stop, because I created it to not argue, but to just tell your own opinion, but she just ignored it.(Aw, I think I will not create any more threads in Code Geass section, because ProEuphie will flood them all).
She should really watch R2, or else she has no right to judge Lelouch, just because she loved Euphemia(How the hell can somebody love her?). BTW LElouch said that he did commit crimes(When he became the emperor), but he'll commit them more to erase the name of "Murdered princess". So That just shows that ProEuphie has no right to judge Lelouch.
I would like to ask(Normal people) to write their opinion, so that I won't see Proeuphie's flood anymore.
Thank you for reading....
Annoyed ~IcePriestess

How can you say that I have no right to judge Lelouch without seeing the second season?

If you went back in time to 1938 and heard someone denouchng the evil of Hitler, or Stalin, would you tell them they didn't have to right to judge Hitler or Stalin until their whole careers were over?

And if a magic spell suddenly turned Hitler and Stalin good in 1938 and they saved the world from terrible evils and did wonderful good deeds, you could not deny that they were still guilty of all the murders and other evil deeds they committed before 1938. I could still rightfully say that they did evil deeds before 1938.

And remember that I am only judging Lelouch for the murder of Euphemia which I witnessed, and not for the geass directorate massacre which I only read about. Encouraging me to watch the second season and see the geass directorate massacre and get fired up about it is not a good idea from your point of view!

I guess I will probably get out of the habit of posting in this thread and other threads. If I do you can create as many new threads as you like without worrying about me. But remember I am not giving up on trying to convince you of my point of view because I think you don't deserve to be pestered but because it is not working.

proEuphie
09-05-2009, 10:08 PM
Quote: "
So you claim that mutilating a website is even worse than having someone helpless at the feet of your two giant robots and killing them instead of capturing them."

No.

I dont.

You seem to think that everyone, like yourself, has ability to differenciate real life from anime.

But anime characters are not "someone" they are ink and pixels of color. Therefore, the death of insignificant secondary characters who just managed to get on my nerves every time they opened their mouth(Euphie) MAKES ME GIGGLE.

And mutilating a website is worse than killing an anime character. Im sure every one in the world can live with the animated bombing/shooting/poisoning/impaling/vaporization/spiritual department of an animated character.

If you feel bad for anyone, feel bad for their voice actor, who was out of a job after they died.

Quote: "I didn't. I lost interest in the story. What suspense can there be when the character who has ninety percent of all the goodness in the cast of dozens has already been murdered."

THEN WHY THE HECK ARE YOU IN THIS FORUM?
WATCH THE WHOLE SERIES BEFORE YOU INSTIGATE A WAR ABOUT IT.
DUR!

You obviously are so close minded that you would never listen to someone's half of the story. Code Geass is not a show for children, which is what your are acting like. You remind me of Nina. Geez. Do you sit at home screaming "ZEEEEEEEEERRRRROOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!" ?

Euphie wants you to pwease stop embarrassing her 3:>

About not seeing the second season, see my post # 50 above. Also see it for my response to your saying that we are supposed to appreciate Lelouch's last act of kindness.

Wolfgirl90 criticizes me for calling you frightening in your indifference to the evil of Lelouch, Of course I was merely responding to you callling me frightening.

You say that killing an amime character is no big deal and not as bad as messing up a thread. But I keep saying that what Lelouch did was murder in the worst degree, or would be if done by a real person to a real person. I discuss the real-life ethics of doing what Lelouch did and you just say go away we don't care its just a story.

So have you ever posted anywhere expressing a lot of emotion about Lelouch and Code Geass, a post in which you take it seriously despite it being just a story?

Euphemia was not an insignificant secondary character, except in screen time. She was the most important character because she was the only character who was good, because she was more good than all the other characters put together. Without her the series is just evil people fighting other evil people.

So you giggled when someone good and noble was murdered, merely because she had a voice or a way of speaking you find irritating? How mature. How sympathetic.

Don't respond unless you want me to respond to your response. Good bye.

Kamen Rider V3 Blue
09-06-2009, 09:26 PM
God this ****'s still going on?:rolleyes:

TrueTears
09-08-2009, 08:12 AM
I think Lelouch is good, he sacrificed himself at the end to bring peace to the world. Yes ofcourse he caused the death of many other innocent people but who can change the world without inflicting pain?

Oyashenron
09-08-2009, 03:24 PM
This might sound weird, but I was pretty much cool with everything he did throughout both series. I figure being a little heavy handed as the Emperor was justified because it keeps people from hurting each other and committing crimes, just so long as you don't interfere with the lives of good, honest people, what's wrong with that? So I see him as a non-traditional hero, but absolutely a champion of justice. Even without the Xanatos Gambit, he would have been justified.

+Namiko+
09-11-2009, 04:44 PM
QUOTE: "murder of Euphemia"

Did you ever stop to think that maybe killing her was the more merciful thing to do?
That Geass had her in it's grasp and she was suffering, unable to understand why thoughts of murder were in her head.

Then, if she ever broke the Geass, what would she do? She would hear of the people that she killed, and even if they told her it wasn't her fault, she wouldn't be able to live with her self

it would break her heart. I can't see someone as innocent as Euphie living with herself after that, she would blame herself and might have even killed herself.

If she never came out of the Geass she would be in prison for the rest of her life.

Would you rather have her dead and peaceful or alive and suffering? If you really are as big a euphie fan as you say, you'll see my point.

proEuphie
09-11-2009, 10:05 PM
QUOTE: "murder of Euphemia"

Did you ever stop to think that maybe killing her was the more merciful thing to do?
That Geass had her in it's grasp and she was suffering, unable to understand why thoughts of murder were in her head.

In my opinion the term "mercy Killing" is an oxymoron. I believe that death is the worst fate imaginable and life is infinitely better than death.

As a resident of the US you are probably a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. Thus you would more or less believe in an all-good. all-kind, and all-merciful God who created heaven, a place of eternal joy, and hell, a place of eternal torture, for the afterlife.

Many people wonder how an all-merciful God can punish people for finite crimes with the infinite punishment of hell.

It seems to me that the only answer must be that in the eyes of God he is rewarding the saints and the sinners equally well by giving them an eternal afterlife in heaven or hell, because to God existence is infinitely better than nonexistence. The difference between the joys of heaven and the pains of hell is infinitesimal to God, since to Him both conditions are equally and infinitely superior to nonexistence. No doubt He only created the difference between the joys of heaven and the pains of hell to impress mortals with the benefits of being good.

But if you think that you know better than God and it is better to be dead than to live and suffer a bit, go on believing it.

But you may say that the choice is between having Euphemia live, and perhaps suffer, for decades or else go straight to heaven which would be happier for her. But if you really believe that heaven is so much better than life that it would be better to kill someone than let them suffer through life, shouldn't you locate all the innocent children and all the good people you can find and kill them right now so that they can skip decades of suffering in this life and go straight to heaven?

But as you may have noticed religious teachers say that it is evil to kill good people, which is the same thing that atheistic persons who don't believe in an afterlife would believe. They don't teach that it is good to kill good people to send them to heaven. Apparently religious people are expected to think that death is just as evil as atheists think death is.

If theologians discuss this matter for, say, five thousand years, and come up with a good answer which explains if there are any circumstances when it is right to take account of the existence of heaven and kill a good person to send them to heaven, and if brilliant theologians continue to criticize and attack that answer for another five thousand years or so and fail to disprove it, then you could have confidence in believing that you know when it is right to prefer to let someone suffer in this life and when it is right to kill them to send them to heaven.

But that is at least ten thousand years in the future. In the meantime you have to accept that taking account of what you think will happen to someone in the after life is not permissible when deciding whether or not to kill them. You have to accept that you have to act like you are an atheist and believe that death is oblivion and nothingness which is infinitely worse than anything which can happen to someone during life.

Euphemia did not suffer much when she was controlled by the geass. She suffered when she struggled painfully against it for a dozen seconds. It is possible that the geass command alternately stimulated her please center in the brain to offer her incredibly strong pleasure if she agreed to kill, and stimulated her pain center to give her samples of the pain she would suffer until she gave in and accepted the command to kill. Possibly Euphemia suffered thousands of times as much pain in a single second as a normal person suffers in a lifetime.

But once she was defeated by the geass command Euphemia did not seem to enjoy herself or suffer much. She seemed to be like a person concentrating on a task. Some people say that concentrating on a task is a pleasant experience in itself. But anyway, she did not seem to be suffering or enjoying herself much while controlled by the geass command.

When Kallen bumped her nightmare Euphemia seemed scared and angry, much like a normal person would react to something potentially dangerous interrupting them when concentrating on a task. It didn't seem like Euphemia was suffering a lot and would welcome death to end it.


Then, if she ever broke the Geass, what would she do? She would hear of the people that she killed, and even if they told her it wasn't her fault, she wouldn't be able to live with her self

it would break her heart. I can't see someone as innocent as Euphie living with herself after that, she would blame herself and might have even killed herself.

If she never came out of the Geass she would be in prison for the rest of her life.

Would you rather have her dead and peaceful or alive and suffering? If you really are as big a euphie fan as you say, you'll see my point.

I say that Euphemia would be able to live with herself. She wouldn't be happy all the time, but she wasn't happy all the time before given the geass command either. You seem to think that if life is not all bliss you might as well die.

And as I have written before, normal, ordinary, people feel more guilt the more wrong things they do. But really good people, like Euphemia, and really bad people, like most Code Geass cast members, feel guilt in inverse proportion to what they should feel. The really evil feel very little guilt and the really good feel a lot of guilt.

So I say that Euphemia being so innocent, would already feel a lot more guilt than most people do. For example, guilt by association just in shame for being a Britannian, a member of the imperial family, and a human being. Having made important decisions, choosing between the biggest of several goods and the smallest of several evils, she knows that some evil will come out of even the best decisions she makes, and so she feels guilty for every decision she has ever made. I say that probably even the guilt from the massacre would add just a little bit to the burden of guilt she already bears. And she still manages to have as much fun as most of the other characters despite that heavy burden of guilt.

So you say that it would be better for Lelouch to kill Euphemia in order to prevent her from becoming so guilty and unhappy she might (might, not would) kill herself some time in the future? Compared to your statement the classic "We had to destroy the village to save it" actually makes a lot more sense. It is better to possibly die in the future than certainly die now.

A lot of people will tell you that life is suffering. And they exaggerate a lot But there is a lot of suffering in even the best life. You have to get through the suffering to enjoy the good parts.

Dead people are not peaceful, except and unless they have a peaceful time in the afterlife. But I have already explained that any Christian, Muslim, or Jew has to discount someone's possible fate in the afterlife and calculate like an atheist who does not believe in the afterlife when deciding if someone would be better off dead or alive. And an atheist would say you have be alive to enjoy peace. To enjoy peace you have to be at least semiconscious, like someone who is sleeping. So anyone who is alive is more peaceful, even while being tortured, than anyone who is dead.

I would always see someone I like alive and sometimes suffering and sometimes enjoying life than dead.

+Namiko+
09-11-2009, 11:28 PM
Quote: "In my opinion the term "mercy Killing" is an oxymoron. I believe that death is the worst fate imaginable and life is infinitely better than death."
There are much worse things than death. Being alone. Having everyone you've ever loved taken away. That is unending pain.

"But if you think that you know better than God and it is better to be dead than to live and suffer a bit, go on believing it."

Dont bring God into this. I am a Christian, but I'm not sure if I beleive in hell. And that has nothing to do with it.


"shouldn't you locate all the innocent children and all the good people you can find and kill them right now so that they can skip decades of suffering in this life and go straight to heaven?"

Are you nuts?

I say that Euphemia would be able to live with herself

You must really want her to suffer.


And, God or not, some people would rather just not exist than go on living. Its not about heaven. Its about not hurting anymore.


I have come to realize in my time here that there are people on this earth that cannot be changed. These close minded people who refuse to go by anything other than what they initially thought. People who would rather start a war than admit being wrong. People who HAVE started wars and killed thousands of lives so they don't have to admit they are wrong. I have considered my point and tried to look at it from your point of view.

I beleive you are one of those people.

kimi no kioku
09-12-2009, 10:35 AM
1) Doing good deeds is not necessarily enough to redeem you for your previous bad deeds.

2) yes, I can judge Lelouch for the Euphy thing because:

A) He was planning something very similar, making Euphie shoot him to start the revolution, and then coming back to life to awe the Japanese. He was planning to trick thousands of Japanese who wanted to live into dying for the revolution. That was a plan for mass murder. And he was probably planning to kill Euphie too. If he had a plan to save her he could have adapted it to the similar circumstances of the massacre and saved her.

And he gloated about making her shoot him (like a melodrama villain - a subtle hint from the producers?) which was a cause of his later giving her the geass command to kill the Japanese. Thus everyone killed in the Fuji Massacre and the Black Rebellion was murdered by Lelouch, since those deaths were a direct result of his earlier plan for mass murder.

And thus all the millions killed by the use of F.R.E.I.J.A. in the second season were murdered by Lelouch, since the Fuji Massacre, the killing of Euphemia, Nina's attempts to make a F.R.E.I.J.A. weapon, her recruitment into the F.R.E.I.J.A. project, and the perfection of F.R.E.I.J.A. in time to kill millions in the wars of the second season, all flowed from his plan to make Euphie shoot him and spark a revolution.

B) I can judge him for the Euphy thing because shooting Euphy was deliberate, not an accident. If it was an inevitable result of accidentally giving her the geass command it could be considered a part of the accident, but it was hardly a direct or inevitable result of giving her the command.

Once her nightmare was destroyed he could have picked her up in one hand of his nightmare and carried her around like King Kong with Ann Darrow. If he encountered Britannian nightmares a live princess in the hand would be worth two blasters in the holster to make them surrender.

Instead he inexplicably let her pick up and keep a machine gun and then left the armored safety of his nightmare to walk toward her. That was treason against his cause unless he felt absolutely certain that even a geass command could not make her shoot him unless he gave some sign of interfering with her mission.

So if he was perfectly safe around Euphemia he could have captured her or tricked her into becoming his prisoner as fast, as easy, and a safely as he killed her. Once she was a prisoner she could have been confined and been less danger to anyone than any free person in the world would have been. So killing her was an utterly senseless murder. And we can and must blame him for that.

Forgivness is important though. What happened to Euphy was an accident, and Lelouch changed his mind. He wasn't going to do anything to her. I think dying for peace was a good payoff for what he did. They say if someone truly wants forgivness, you have to forgive them.
Namiko is completely right.

CrazyCosplys
09-19-2009, 09:58 AM
Ithink that this qwestion is almoast imposibul to anser Lelouch never actually decided what side Zero was on Zero was nutral nither good or bad. Lelouch just wanted to change the world and make it a better place for his sister. Zero was just a symbol so that people would listen to him.

OtakuInu!!!
10-01-2009, 02:32 AM
I think he's neither a hero nor a villain. Because in order to get his goals for peace he killed a lot of people in the process.

wolfgirl90
10-02-2009, 04:27 PM
As a resident of the US you are probably a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. Thus you would more or less believe in an all-good. all-kind, and all-merciful God who created heaven, a place of eternal joy, and hell, a place of eternal torture, for the afterlife.

Many people wonder how an all-merciful God can punish people for finite crimes with the infinite punishment of hell.

It seems to me that the only answer must be that in the eyes of God he is rewarding the saints and the sinners equally well by giving them an eternal afterlife in heaven or hell, because to God existence is infinitely better than nonexistence. The difference between the joys of heaven and the pains of hell is infinitesimal to God, since to Him both conditions are equally and infinitely superior to nonexistence. No doubt He only created the difference between the joys of heaven and the pains of hell to impress mortals with the benefits of being good.

Oh, Goddess are you still arguing about this? Alright, I know I said that I was done with you, but you have said some things that only make me that you really are a troll. Oh, and for the BILLIONTH time, replay directly to me if you plan to criticize me (whether you think I will actually answer or not), don't merely call me out. I shouldn't have to tell you this over and over again.:closedeye

Just to point out, congratulations on simplifying the believes of Americans to 3 religions and making assumptions based on those beliefs (which is something that you are REALLY good at). Despite being American, I am actually Wiccan, so this whole thing about God and heaven and hell falls of the wayside for me, as if these things could be used as arguments for anything (if you can imagine, I tone out whenever someone even tries). Of course, you are ALSO playing God by deciding who should live (Euphemia..and really no one else) and who should die (Lelouch, C.C, Nina, every other Britannian and any other character who is not Euphemia), effectively playing around the value of a human life. Oh yes, the Japanese need to be saved but God forbid that we kill the ONE crazy chick who is causing their deaths. I bet if Lelouch was the one shooting, controlled by the Geass of some other person (hypothetically, of course), I bet you would have no problem with him being killed.

Can you say double standard? I think you can.:rolleyes: Despite your little "all life is sacred" and "life is better than death" stance that you are trying to force feed us, you determine the value of a life and who should live/die all the time and I know there are people and characters that you are not afraid to say should die. Would you like me to get the quote where you said that Naraku from InuYasha should be dragged by a bunch of horses until he died?

Now, no one is saying that death is better life (that is not even an argument). However, if a person is basically a traumitized zombie because they realized that they are responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocent people, people that they were trying to save, then are they really alive? Of course, this conundrum was brought up in Code Geass and if you actually WATCHED the ENTIRE series, you might have figured this out.


But once she was defeated by the geass command Euphemia did not seem to enjoy herself or suffer much. She seemed to be like a person concentrating on a task. Some people say that concentrating on a task is a pleasant experience in itself. But anyway, she did not seem to be suffering or enjoying herself much while controlled by the geass command.

You are joking right? We are not talking about her suffering while she was being controlled by the Geass (of course, according to you, her sub conscience was fighting the whole time, so she could have been suffering...again, according to you). We are talking about the potential suffering that she will face IF the Geass wore off (which I don't think she did). She would be struck with the knowledge that she is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people, people she was JUST trying to help. Being the innocent person that she is, I can only imagine that she would lose her freaking mind (if not kill herself), not shrug it off as simply another burden to bare.


Dead people are not peaceful, except and unless they have a peaceful time in the afterlife. But I have already explained that any Christian, Muslim, or Jew has to discount someone's possible fate in the afterlife and calculate like an atheist who does not believe in the afterlife when deciding if someone would be better off dead or alive. And an atheist would say you have be alive to enjoy peace. To enjoy peace you have to be at least semiconscious, like someone who is sleeping. So anyone who is alive is more peaceful, even while being tortured, than anyone who is dead.

And I agree that life is not easy and one has to go through some suffering to enjoy some of the good parts of it. However, that does not mean that we should LET people suffer. Yeah, life is not fun, but you seriously think that Euphemia would not suffer knowing that she was DIRECTLY responsible for deaths of thousands of people, that she wouldn't totally lose her freaking mind or even kill herself (assuming that she wasn't killed before)? If you don't then you are quite the naive person.

Well, I already think that you naive, since you apparently lost your cool with the death of character character (whose death occurred 2 years ago and who was subsequently brought back for TWO separate spin-offs...why the hell are you still arguing exactly?) and because you believe that life-long, never ending, mind-blowing, soul-crushing torture is better than death because, hey, at least their heart is still beating.

But now that that is out, you really need to stop or make a nice little thread where you ask people about how they felt about Euphemia's death and argue about it there. Its getting just a little bit (VERY) annoying and you are beginning to look like a troll or someone who is terribly immature (which trolls are by simple definition).:closedeye

kimi no kioku
10-06-2009, 01:42 PM
Oh, Goddess are you still arguing about this? Alright, I know I said that I was done with you, but you have said some things that only make me that you really are a troll. Oh, and for the BILLIONTH time, replay directly to me if you plan to criticize me (whether you think I will actually answer or not), don't merely call me out. I shouldn't have to tell you this over and over again.:closedeye

Just to point out, congratulations on simplifying the believes of Americans to 3 religions and making assumptions based on those beliefs (which is something that you are REALLY good at). Despite being American, I am actually Wiccan, so this whole thing about God and heaven and hell falls of the wayside for me, as if these things could be used as arguments for anything (if you can imagine, I tone out whenever someone even tries). Of course, you are ALSO playing God by deciding who should live (Euphemia..and really no one else) and who should die (Lelouch, C.C, Nina, every other Britannian and any other character who is not Euphemia), effectively playing around the value of a human life. Oh yes, the Japanese need to be saved but God forbid that we kill the ONE crazy chick who is causing their deaths. I bet if Lelouch was the one shooting, controlled by the Geass of some other person (hypothetically, of course), I bet you would have no problem with him being killed.

Can you say double standard? I think you can.:rolleyes: Despite your little "all life is sacred" and "life is better than death" stance that you are trying to force feed us, you determine the value of a life and who should live/die all the time and I know there are people and characters that you are not afraid to say should die. Would you like me to get the quote where you said that Naraku from InuYasha should be dragged by a bunch of horses until he died?

Now, no one is saying that death is better life (that is not even an argument). However, if a person is basically a traumitized zombie because they realized that they are responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocent people, people that they were trying to save, then are they really alive? Of course, this conundrum was brought up in Code Geass and if you actually WATCHED the ENTIRE series, you might have figured this out.



You are joking right? We are not talking about her suffering while she was being controlled by the Geass (of course, according to you, her sub conscience was fighting the whole time, so she could have been suffering...again, according to you). We are talking about the potential suffering that she will face IF the Geass wore off (which I don't think she did). She would be struck with the knowledge that she is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people, people she was JUST trying to help. Being the innocent person that she is, I can only imagine that she would lose her freaking mind (if not kill herself), not shrug it off as simply another burden to bare.



And I agree that life is not easy and one has to go through some suffering to enjoy some of the good parts of it. However, that does not mean that we should LET people suffer. Yeah, life is not fun, but you seriously think that Euphemia would not suffer knowing that she was DIRECTLY responsible for deaths of thousands of people, that she wouldn't totally lose her freaking mind or even kill herself (assuming that she wasn't killed before)? If you don't then you are quite the naive person.

Well, I already think that you naive, since you apparently lost your cool with the death of character character (whose death occurred 2 years ago and who was subsequently brought back for TWO separate spin-offs...why the hell are you still arguing exactly?) and because you believe that life-long, never ending, mind-blowing, soul-crushing torture is better than death because, hey, at least their heart is still beating.

But now that that is out, you really need to stop or make a nice little thread where you ask people about how they felt about Euphemia's death and argue about it there. Its getting just a little bit (VERY) annoying and you are beginning to look like a troll or someone who is terribly immature (which trolls are by simple definition).:closedeye

It's useless. I'm starting to think pro Euphie is Nina.

blackrosetwilight
10-06-2009, 03:16 PM
It's useless. I'm starting to think pro Euphie is Nina.
Awwwww come on people proEupy is worser than Nina, at least Nina got over Euphy's death and putting away her hatred to help Lelouch rid the world of those sakurite nukes' and besides that she got pretty cute in season 2

kimi no kioku
10-12-2009, 06:51 AM
Awwwww come on people proEupy is worser than Nina, at least Nina got over Euphy's death and putting away her hatred to help Lelouch rid the world of those sakurite nukes' and besides that she got pretty cute in season 2
Lol, I guess you're right.

proEuphie
10-12-2009, 08:19 PM
Quote: "In my opinion the term "mercy Killing" is an oxymoron. I believe that death is the worst fate imaginable and life is infinitely better than death."
There are much worse things than death. Being alone. Having everyone you've ever loved taken away. That is unending pain.

Pain is better than death.


"But if you think that you know better than God and it is better to be dead than to live and suffer a bit, go on believing it."
Dont bring God into this. I am a Christian, but I'm not sure if I beleive in hell. And that has nothing to do with it.

I am saying that if an all-merciful God really did create a hell of ever lasting torment for sinners, he would only have done so because the torments of hell are infinitely better than nothingness and non existence. Thus if you are a Christian you must accept that even the tortures of hell, much worse than anything you can suffer in life, are better than the end of your existence would be.



"shouldn't you locate all the innocent children and all the good people you can find and kill them right now so that they can skip decades of suffering in this life and go straight to heaven?"

Are you nuts?

NO. I am being logical. If a good person is certain to go the heaven if he dies now but if he lives might become evil and go to hell when he does die, and if heaven is much better than hell, then it is perfectly logical to kill him now so he will be certain to go to heaven.

There are at least three reactions to this idea:

1) Humans imagined God and attributed their ethical codes to his commands.

2) God actually decreed that we should kill the good and innocent so they will be certain to go to heaven,and protect the evil so that will will have as long as possible to repent and avoid hell. But over the centuries people have altered his commands to ones which they find more palatable: save the good and kill the evil.

3) It would be right to kill the good to send them to heaven, and save the wicked so that they might repent, but for some divine reason God decreed that we should behave like a good atheist who believed that death was the end of everything would: save the good and kill (or otherwise punish) the wicked.

Since A) by creating hell an all-merciful God would be proving that even tortures worse than anything possible on earth would be better than ceasing to exist.
And B) Atheists believe that after death people cease to exist.
And C) God has decreed that his followers should follow an ethical code that an atheist who did not believe in any afterlife might follow: protect the innocent and kill (or otherwise punish) the evil.

Thus when you wonder if it would be better for someone to suffer in life or die, you have to ignore the possibiiity that they might be happy in the afterlife, since God has apparently decreed that Christians, Muslims, and Jews follow the same ethical code that an atheist who believes that death is the end of everything might follow. And by creating hell God has apparently shown that suffering much worse than possible in life is still better than the end of existence. Thus any Christian, Muslim, or Jew who believes in hell has to believe that everyone is better off alive than dead.

But suppose that you are right that it sometimes is possible for someone to be better off dead. If so, a trained psychologist would have to study a person intensely for weeks, months, or years before making such a decision. But if Lelouch decided that Euphie was better off dead he did so after being with her for only a few hours in the last seven years, almost the last half of her life. I say that it is evil to decide on such little evidence that someone is better off dead,and anyone who thinks that he has done so is probably just lying to himself because he wants to kill someone for other reasons.

And even if Lelouch correctly believed that Euphemia was better off dead, it wold still be his duty to capture her instead of killing her. By capturing and imprisoning her, on the grounds that she was not guilty by reason of insanity, when all the Japanese wanted her killed Lelouch would be setting an example of mercy and fair judgment that would go down in history and perhaps influence thousands of people to spare thousands of persons they would have otherwise killed. A lot of defenders of Lelouch say that the good of the many outweighs the good of one and so Euphemia had to be killed. I say that if the good of the many outweighs the good of the one Euphemia had to be captured and kept alive no matter how much she suffered.


I say that Euphemia would be able to live with herself

You must really want her to suffer.


And, God or not, some people would rather just not exist than go on living. Its not about heaven. Its about not hurting anymore.

And sometimes what people want is not the same as what is good for them. And I did not hear Euphemia begging to die before Lelouch shot her.

And yes, because I want Euphemia to live and enjoy life and be happy, I do want her to suffer. I want her to suffer and enjoy life, preferably with as much enjoyment as possible. But whether someone has a lot of suffering and a little joy, or a lot of joy and a little suffering, everyone must face at least some suffering to enjoy the pleasures of life.


I have come to realize in my time here that there are people on this earth that cannot be changed. These close minded people who refuse to go by anything other than what they initially thought. People who would rather start a war than admit being wrong. People who HAVE started wars and killed thousands of lives so they don't have to admit they are wrong. I have considered my point and tried to look at it from your point of view.

I beleive you are one of those people.

I think that Lelouch is one of those people.

I am not as close minded as you think. For months I thought that Lelouch was basically good.

I ignored his murder of Clovis who was begging for life.

I ignored his careless triggering of a landslide which wiped out enemy Britiannian soldiers and "friendly" JLF fighters and destroyed the town of Narita, killing hundreds of civilians --his attitude contrasts greatly with Euphemia's at the same battle.

I ignored his blowing up a ship with the remaining JLF leaders to get rid of his competition for leadership of the Japanese rebels.

I ignored his pointing a gun at Euphemia in "Black Knight" and "Island of the Gods".

And now I feel so stupid and dirty. I feel like a follower of Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini who made excuses for every crime of his leader, until finally he had to face the truth and realize that he had been supporting a monster of evil.

After I saw Lelouch shoot Euphemia when it would have been so easy to capture her, I soon realized that he had committed a crime.

It is never right to kill someone you can capture alive as fast, easy, and safely as you could kill them. That is not merely evil but it is obviously evil. It is not obviously evil to fight for a cause that millions of people believe is right, no matter how evil that cause actually is. If it was obvious that a cause was evil, very few of the millions who support it would do so. Fighting for or against Britannia may be good or evil, but neither is obviously evil since millions of people convinced themselves that each cause was right, which they couldn't do if the evilness of their cause was obvious..

But walking up to someone who loves and trusts who and doesn't suspect anything and killing her when you can easily and safely capture her and keep her confined so that she would not be dangerous is so obviously evil that no matter how often Lelouch's defenders try to justify it I just can't believe that they really mean it.

You say I don't change my opinions. Soon after I saw episode 23 I changed my opinions about Lelouch drastically. He went from hero to Zero in my opinion.

But you went on believing in him even after seeing that same murder. You went on believing that Lelouch was good even after seeing the geass directorate massacre in the second season, And perhaps a lot of other things that Lelouch did in the second season were as obviously evil as that.

So I say that you are the one who refuses to change your opinions and are sure that you are right.

proEuphie
10-12-2009, 10:10 PM
Awwwww come on people proEupy is worser than Nina, at least Nina got over Euphy's death and putting away her hatred to help Lelouch rid the world of those sakurite nukes' and besides that she got pretty cute in season 2

How can I be worse than Nina? She invented a weapon which she knew would probably be used to kill a lot of people. And it was used to kill tens of millions of innocent people, most of them people that Nina had no reason to seek revenge on.

And then she worked with Lelouch, the one person she had the most reason to to kill, to achive a common goal. And apparently she was not prepared and ready to kill him the instant that goal was achieved and missed her chance.

Like Khan Singh in Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan she had a terrible aim and killed everyone except the one perso she wanted most to kill.

But I haven't killed anybody.

All I am trying to do is convince you that killing Euphemia was obvoiusly evil and did not have the slightest justification. And that nobody should ever get the least bit of pleasure from watching that terrible, evil, series Code Geass.

Defending Nina by saying she got cute in season 2 is really lame. Most of the evil characters in Code Geass, such as Lelouch, Suzaku, CC, Kallen, Cornelia, Viletta, Rollo, etc. etc. were cute and innocent looking.

proEuphie
10-12-2009, 10:41 PM
Oh, Goddess are you still arguing about this? Alright, I know I said that I was done with you, but you have said some things that only make me that you really are a troll. Oh, and for the BILLIONTH time, replay directly to me if you plan to criticize me (whether you think I will actually answer or not), don't merely call me out. I shouldn't have to tell you this over and over again.:closedeye

You really think you are the center of the universe. My post # 56 which you quote is my reply to Namiko's post # 55. She responded with post # 57 and I responded to that with post # 65. I was not "calllling you out" by writing to Namiko, though I thought that you might possibly be interested. I was writing to Namiko.


Just to point out, congratulations on simplifying the believes of Americans to 3 religions and making assumptions based on those beliefs (which is something that you are REALLY good at). Despite being American, I am actually Wiccan, so this whole thing about God and heaven and hell falls of the wayside for me, as if these things could be used as arguments for anything (if you can imagine, I tone out whenever someone even tries). Of course, you are ALSO playing God by deciding who should live (Euphemia..and really no one else) and who should die (Lelouch, C.C, Nina, every other Britannian and any other character who is not Euphemia), effectively playing around the value of a human life. Oh yes, the Japanese need to be saved but God forbid that we kill the ONE crazy chick who is causing their deaths. I bet if Lelouch was the one shooting, controlled by the Geass of some other person (hypothetically, of course), I bet you would have no problem with him being killed.

I just checked and over 76 percent of Americans are Christians. Thus when I wrote that Namiko (not Wolfgirl) was probably a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, I was correct since there would be much more than a fifty percent chance that she (Namiko) belonged to one of those religions.

I didn't say that only Euphemia should live. As far as I know, out of the dozens of characters in the series, Euphemia, Milly, and Rivalez never did anything evil.

And of course I would not want the sometimes evil minors such as Kaguya, Tianzi, Rolo, Nunnally, etc. killed if they could be confined for the safety of others - just as I would not want sixteen-year-old Euphemia to be killed even if I believed she was guilty of the massacre.

As for the adult evil characters they deserve to die but imprisoning them would be just as good to protect the world.

But this accounts for only a few dozen out of billions of people in the world of Code Geass. I am sure that there are tens of millions of criminals, and many evil leaders with tens of millions of followers in armies and governments who support their evil. And all those evil people should be killed or imprisoned for the safety of the world. Probably less than one percent of the people in the code Geass world should be killed or imprisoned or fired from their jobs or otherwise disgraced for the safety of the world.

So I didn't write that only Euphemia should live and everyone else in the world should die.

And what do you mean by saying I say god forbid that we kill the ONE crazy chic who is killing the Japanese people. Tens or hundreds or thousands (you once wrote about hundreds and hundreds of them) of Britannian soldiers obeyed Euphemia's massacre order and were killing Japanese many times as fast as Euphemia. Sane but EVIL Britannian men and chics. Finding the best way to stop them - such as using Euphemia as a hostage - was the way to save Japanese lives fast.

Or did you mean that Euphie was causing all of their deaths by ordering the massacre? In that case again capturing Euphemia to use as a hostage was the fastest way to stop the massacre and save as many Japanese lives as possible. It can be argued that Lelouch murdered Japanese people by killing Euphie instead of using her as a hostage.

And I do say god forbid killing a crazy chic who started a massacre if she could be stopped by capture just as fast, just as easy, and just as safely as Euphemia could have been captured. If an allied soldier could have captured Adolf Hitler as easy as Euphemia could have been captured it would have been murder for him to kill Hitler instead of capturing him for trial and execution or whatever dire fate representatives of the allied peoples decided to inflict upon him.

And I would have a problem with killing Lelouch to save people if he was controlled by a gesss command or demonic possession or mind control when he was ten, or twelve, or fourteen, or sixteen, at the time. But if he was seventeen or eighteen (in the alternate universe of the aired series) I would have a lot less interest in saving him, since he committed a lot of crimes at those ages. But even though my emotions would say "go ahead and shoot" my logic would tell me that it is never right to kill someone if it would be as safe, as easy, and as fast to capture them as it would have been for Lelouch to capture Euphemia.

And if this was after he killed Euphemia and/or ordered the geass directorate massacre I would want him captured for trial and execution for those crimes.


Can you say double standard? I think you can.:rolleyes: Despite your little "all life is sacred" and "life is better than death" stance that you are trying to force feed us, you determine the value of a life and who should live/die all the time and I know there are people and characters that you are not afraid to say should die. Would you like me to get the quote where you said that Naraku from InuYasha should be dragged by a bunch of horses until he died?

Naraku from Inuyasha killed so many humans that early in the series I only counted and kept track of the entire villages he wiped out. Later I realized that I had lost track of the villages. Naraku was constantly sending hundreds of his fellow demons to their deaths in suicide attacks to distract the heroes (who must be among the most violent teenagers in all of television). I think that if any fantasy character deserves a horrible death it is Naraku.

And of course it would probably take an atomic bomb, ten terrible magic spells, being burned alive, being eaten by dragons, and several other forms of death to kill such a powerful demon as Naraku. And its not like my words are going to inspire a lot of people to go looking for incredibly dangerous demons to lynch. But thank you for reminding me that I am not always entirely consistent. By the way, I am not nearly as shocked by the villages which Naraku slaughtered as I would have been if Inuysaha the protagonist had massacred one.

Can you say "Double standard?" A lot of "Lelouch lovers" make excuse for and defend the geass directorate massacre which he ordered when in control of his mind and body. And they also try to justify killing Euphemia who had ordered a similar massacre while controlled by a geass command --even though if properly confined she would have been a lot more harmless than Lelouch who was probably more or less directly responsible for millions of deaths later in the series.


Now, no one is saying that death is better life (that is not even an argument). However, if a person is basically a traumitized zombie because they realized that they are responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocent people, people that they were trying to save, then are they really alive? Of course, this conundrum was brought up in Code Geass and if you actually WATCHED the ENTIRE series, you might have figured this out.

So if you were assigned to do something abut the traumatized survivors of a catastrophe suffering from survivor's guilt would you line them up against a wall and shoot them to end their suffering? You really seem to think that mental stress and guilt is a terrible agonizing thing. But does anyone ever scream in agony at a guilt feeling the way they do when being tortured? And many people who are being tortured refuse to say or do something that will end their suffering by getting themselves killed. And many other people chose to commit suicide to escape from much lesser physical or mental pain than other people patiently endure.

A person is really alive if they have a functioning mind. And no matter how bad their present situation is they might have an improved situation in the future. So are you saying that at some point in the second season someone discussed if Euphemia was better off dead or alive? If so, why should I accept their opinions? Even if Cornelia, Suzaku, and Nina gave up seeking vengeance for Euphemia, it would probably be a subconscious rationalization of their failure on their parts.

By the way, do you think that Suzaku is better off dead than living with all his guilt for killing his father, and for using F.R.E.I.J.A. to kill millions of people he had been trying to save or serve, for being too much and not enough obsessed with avenging Euphemia, etc. etc? If you think that Suzaku is better off alive, how do you decide that he suffers less from his guilt than Euphemia would? Do you have some kind of double standard that says an eighteen-year-old boy must be much better able to bear guilt than a sixteen-year-old girl.?


You are joking right? We are not talking about her suffering while she was being controlled by the Geass (of course, according to you, her sub conscience was fighting the whole time, so she could have been suffering...again, according to you). We are talking about the potential suffering that she will face IF the Geass wore off (which I don't think she did). She would be struck with the knowledge that she is personally responsible for the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people, people she was JUST trying to help. Being the innocent person that she is, I can only imagine that she would lose her freaking mind (if not kill herself), not shrug it off as simply another burden to bare.

I'm sorry I refuted an opinion you did not make about when Euphemia would be suffering. But I still say that you defenders of her murder seem to have an exaggerated estimate of the pain of guilt feelings. If guilt was so terrible there would be a lot less evil done and a lot more people would commit suicide to escape their guilt.

But suppose that you are right that it sometimes is possible for someone to be better off dead. If so, a trained psychologist would have to study a person intensely for weeks, months, or years before making such a decision. But if Lelouch decided that Euphie was better off dead he did so after being with her for only a few hours in the last seven years, almost the last half of her life. I say that it is evil to decide on such little evidence that someone is better off dead, and anyone who thinks that he has done so is probably just lying to himself because he wants to kill someone for other reasons.

And even if Lelouch correctly believed that Euphemia was better off dead, it wold still be his duty to capture her instead of killing her. By capturing and imprisoning her, on the grounds that she was not guilty by reason of insanity, when all the Japanese wanted her killed Lelouch would be setting an example of mercy and fair judgment that would go down in history and perhaps influence thousands of people to spare thousands of persons they would have otherwise killed. A lot of defenders of Lelouch say that the good of the many outweighs the good of one and so Euphemia had to be killed. I say that if the good of the many outweighs the good of the one Euphemia had to be captured and kept alive no matter how much she suffered.


And I agree that life is not easy and one has to go through some suffering to enjoy some of the good parts of it. However, that does not mean that we should LET people suffer. Yeah, life is not fun, but you seriously think that Euphemia would not suffer knowing that she was DIRECTLY responsible for deaths of thousands of people, that she wouldn't totally lose her freaking mind or even kill herself (assuming that she wasn't killed before)? If you don't then you are quite the naive person.

Your first sentence says that everyone has to suffer to enjoy the good things in life. Your second says that we shouldn't LET people suffer. In the context, it could be interpreted as meaning we should kill everyone to keep them from suffering! Write more clearly.

I say that if Euphemia did not remember killing people and ordering a massacre, she would feel innocent. Even if she accepted that her body did it she would believe that she had an evil other personality or something.

If Euphemia had been captured and imprsioned the geass canceler would appear in just a year and could be used on her. Then she would be perfectly harmless and she might suffer a lot of guilt for several weeks or months until the evil Emperor Lelouch reveled that he had made Euphemia order the massacre against her will. Then most of her burden of guilt would be lifted from her and she could be a lot happier, even if still confined for safety's sake.

And if Euphemia defeated her geass command as I believe, she would have been her normal self for the whole year or so until the confession of Lelouch. And she would have suffered guilt for a much longer time until the confession make it clear that she was innocent. But then she would have still had decades of reasonably happy life ahead of her with a much lesser burden of guilt from the massacre.

But it doesn't matter what we believe or Lelouch believed. Lelouch couldn't have known in advance whether Euphemia would be better off alive or dead so he had to keep her alive until that could be determined. You have accused me of speculating when I am making logical deductions. I say that you are speculating when you claim that Euphemia would have suffered terribly from guilt, and Lelouch was speculating too if he believed it was right to kill her to save her from the suffering he assumed she would go though.

It is always wrong to kill someone when it is not necessary . It is always wrong to kill someone who can be capture alive as easy, as fast, and as safely as they can be killed. And it is wrong to worry about how much they might suffer if not killed or about any other problems that might happen. Because evil people could always use such such worries abut the future to justify killing you or me if they wanted to.

Lelouch, if he worried that Euphie might suffer if she lived, and the defenders of her murder, are Like Rufus T. Firefly in Duck Soup worrying that Ambasador Trentino might not accept his apology and starting a war out of that hypothetical worry.


Well, I already think that you naive, since you apparently lost your cool with the death of character character (whose death occurred 2 years ago and who was subsequently brought back for TWO separate spin-offs...why the hell are you still arguing exactly?) and because you believe that life-long, never ending, mind-blowing, soul-crushing torture is better than death because, hey, at least their heart is still beating.

But it is only a year since I saw Euphemia murdered so senselessly last Oct. 12. And you say that she was bought back for two spinoffs. Do you mean that the Euphemia who was killed in episode 23 was brought back to life in two sequels to Code Geass, or are you talking about an alternate universe Euphemia who didn't do many of the things she did in the series?

If the many world interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct there are countless alternate universes in which you or I or anyone else was born. Do you suppose that the relatives and friends in any of the alternate universes in which a person A died in 2001, 1998, 2006, 1993, etc. etc. would feel much consolation from knowing that alternate persons A are alive in many alternate universes and won't die until 2015, 2022, 2037. 2044, 2056, 2064, 2072, etc. etc. etc.? I think they will say those other persons A are not the person A that they love.

And alternate universe Euphemias wold not be nearly as satisfying for me as the tv series Euphemia come back to life.


But now that that is out, you really need to stop or make a nice little thread where you ask people about how they felt about Euphemia's death and argue about it there. Its getting just a little bit (VERY) annoying and you are beginning to look like a troll or someone who is terribly immature (which trolls are by simple definition).:closedeye

Actually I have started two new threads "Mecha Ethics" and "Euphemia's Murder" which you can visit or avoid.

blackrosetwilight
10-13-2009, 07:10 PM
How can I be worse than Nina? She invented a weapon which she knew would probably be used to kill a lot of people. And it was used to kill tens of millions of innocent people, most of them people that Nina had no reason to seek revenge on.

And then she worked with Lelouch, the one person she had the most reason to to kill, to achive a common goal. And apparently she was not prepared and ready to kill him the instant that goal was achieved and missed her chance.

Like Khan Singh in Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan she had a terrible aim and killed everyone except the one perso she wanted most to kill.

But I haven't killed anybody.

All I am trying to do is convince you that killing Euphemia was obvoiusly evil and did not have the slightest justification. And that nobody should ever get the least bit of pleasure from watching that terrible, evil, series Code Geass.

Defending Nina by saying she got cute in season 2 is really lame. Most of the evil characters in Code Geass, such as Lelouch, Suzaku, CC, Kallen, Cornelia, Viletta, Rollo, etc. etc. were cute and innocent looking.

I think you misunderstood us, we're not talking about you being a more worse person than Nina on how morale or immoral you are compare to her. We are comparing the two of you's admiration of Eupy, on how she got over it and moved on with her life accepting that Euphy is dead and is not coming back. Unlike you who keeps suggesting that she can still be saved and anyone who says otherwise are wrong or evil. You know I know how you feel I too sometimes wish some character didnt get killed off so easily too, but it happens and you should've known people were going die in Code Geass. It was made by the same guys who made Gundam which pioneered the whole main character killing off and no resurrection fad.

IcePriestess
10-14-2009, 06:32 AM
How can I be worse than Nina? She invented a weapon which she knew would probably be used to kill a lot of people. And it was used to kill tens of millions of innocent people, most of them people that Nina had no reason to seek revenge on.

And then she worked with Lelouch, the one person she had the most reason to to kill, to achive a common goal. And apparently she was not prepared and ready to kill him the instant that goal was achieved and missed her chance.

Like Khan Singh in Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan she had a terrible aim and killed everyone except the one perso she wanted most to kill.

But I haven't killed anybody.

All I am trying to do is convince you that killing Euphemia was obvoiusly evil and did not have the slightest justification. And that nobody should ever get the least bit of pleasure from watching that terrible, evil, series Code Geass.

Defending Nina by saying she got cute in season 2 is really lame. Most of the evil characters in Code Geass, such as Lelouch, Suzaku, CC, Kallen, Cornelia, Viletta, Rollo, etc. etc. were cute and innocent looking.

Fine, since you're posting no matter what I say, I'll just try to convince you to drop your love to Euphemia.

You just wrote that evil characters are Lelouch, Suzaku, CC, Kallen ,Cornelia, Viletta, Rollo.... You're justifying Euphemia as much as you can, but why can't you justify Lelouch or any other character? OF Course for you WHO JUST SAID THAT CODE GEASS IS TERRIBLE EVIL SERIES it doesn't matter that characters have their own reasons right? I Can't see how C.C. Is bad... She is a witch, but that was passed on her not by her will(of course someone who didn't see Code Geass R2 doesn't know that.). Oh, I shouldn't forget to mention that LELOUCH did every evil deed(in the end) to erase Euphemia's name from history as a "murder princess"... Oh... OF course you couldn't see that Lelouch said : I will become evil, so evil that everyone will forget the name of murder princess... How could you see when you didn't see R2?
Oh Rollo is evil too? HE NEVER HAD A FAMILY AND WAS TRAINED TO KILL. If that's what you call evil, I don't understand you. Besides how the hell do you know about Rollo, if you didn't watch R2? Oh! So you did watch that, but you still can't justify neither Lelouch nor Suzaku or Rollo, C.C.??
Besides as you already wrote "this is terrible evil series". So why the hell did you watch that to begin with? Euphemia didn't appear in first episode and you could just drop that(that would be no proEuphie!). OR maybe it's terrible and evil just because Euphemia died?! Wow your logic is Extreme. No... more like you don't have any logic! Congratulations on that. Justify your beloved euphemia, her "TERRIBLE MURDER"(Even though she could have lived worse life than what dead would be)..... OH! I forgot. You don't know(or you're only pretending to not know) that Euphemia is living happily in afterlife!!! So you'd better wish her A Dead soul's life, full of pain and agony of killing people, rather than wish her a happy afterlife?
No matter what you will say, Euphemia was not a main character to begin with. Why the hell are you justifying her? If you'll find another princess in other anime and she will get killed by accident, you'll try to convince us to pity her too? Oh that's good! Maybe you'll forget Euphemia then.
~IcePriestess

proEuphie
10-14-2009, 11:54 PM
I think you misunderstood us, we're not talking about you being a more worse person than Nina on how morale or immoral you are compare to her. We are comparing the two of you's admiration of Eupy, on how she got over it and moved on with her life accepting that Euphy is dead and is not coming back. Unlike you who keeps suggesting that she can still be saved and anyone who says otherwise are wrong or evil. You know I know how you feel I too sometimes wish some character didnt get killed off so easily too, but it happens and you should've known people were going die in Code Geass. It was made by the same guys who made Gundam which pioneered the whole main character killing off and no resurrection fad.

But remember I just thought that Euphemia was a very nice minor character until she was murdering so senselessly. It is only upon thinking abut the world of Code geas than I cam to realize that Euphemia is so good compared to all the other characters put together.

TheSplundPopper
10-15-2009, 11:08 AM
I have only seen the first five episodes so far. From what I have seen he seems heroic in that he plans to bring down Britania, who are certainly in the wrong as they are the ones occupying Japan and trying to take everything from it.
He does on the other hand seem to believe that the end always justifies the means. So seems to be in some ways like Light Yagami only not pure evil.

wolfgirl90
10-15-2009, 09:31 PM
But remember I just thought that Euphemia was a very nice minor character until she was murdering so senselessly. It is only upon thinking abut the world of Code geas than I cam to realize that Euphemia is so good compared to all the other characters put together.

Which is fine, but it really isn't necessary to point this out in every other bloody thread. Yes, we know your opinion. Put in a thread where it matters (by the way, thank you for starting the threads that ACTUALLY deal with Euphemia's murder; I will assume that you stop talking about it in other threads).

There is a point that you should realize that you need to just...stop. Again, you liking Euphemia really isn't an issue for me or anyone. Its just that your constant rants about it in every thread get on other people's nerves to the point that it almost makes you look like a troll (and I still am not truly convinced that you are not one).;)

玲華.
10-15-2009, 09:42 PM
Stop posting freakin' essays. We ALL know that your posts have to be more than four words, Thank You Very Much. And yes, she is a troll. (OOPS. Not.)

proEuphie
10-15-2009, 10:27 PM
I think you misunderstood us, we're not talking about you being a more worse person than Nina on how morale or immoral you are compare to her. We are comparing the two of you's admiration of Eupy, on how she got over it and moved on with her life accepting that Euphy is dead and is not coming back. Unlike you who keeps suggesting that she can still be saved and anyone who says otherwise are wrong or evil. You know I know how you feel I too sometimes wish some character didnt get killed off so easily too, but it happens and you should've known people were going die in Code Geass. It was made by the same guys who made Gundam which pioneered the whole main character killing off and no resurrection fad.

NIna didn't know Euphemia the way the viewers did. Nina did not see her at the Battle of Narita refusing to do what she desperately wanted to do for fear of endangering strangers.

Nina didn't see Euphemia triumph over Lelouch's hate and convince him to support her SAZ plan.

Nina didn't see Euphemia recognize Kallen as "the girl from the island" in a tone of voice that seemed remarkably non hostile to me considering that Kallen had shot at Euphie and Suzaku on the island.

Nina didn't see Euphemia apolagize to Zero for shooting harmlessly at his armored nightmare without complaining about Zero's nightmare destroying hers and probably scaring her half to death.

Nina didn't see Lelouch shoot Euphemia and didn't realize how easy it would have been for Lelouch to capture her alive.

Nina didn't see her resist her geass command at first, nor her odd behavior right before Lelouchs shot her indicating that she was almost totally free of the control of her geass command.

Nina didn't see Euphemia defeat her geass command in the Avalon sickbay. Suzaku did but probably didn't understand or ever report it accurately to Nina.

Nina didn't see the gods obey Lelouch's geass command without resisting as Euphemia had resisted, and never knew that Euphemia's goodness enabled her to do what the gods themselves could not.

Nina may get over Euphemia's death as real people tend to get over the death of loved ones.

But to me Euphemia was just a minor Code Geass character until I saw how easy it was for Lelouch to capture her alive and how senselessly evil it was to kill her. I only realized how special Euphemia was because for the last year I have been thinking about how evil her murder was. If she had survived to the end of the series I would not have noticed a lot of great things about her and would think of her as a really nice and good minor character.

proEuphie
10-15-2009, 10:47 PM
Fine, since you're posting no matter what I say, I'll just try to convince you to drop your love to Euphemia.

You just wrote that evil characters are Lelouch, Suzaku, CC, Kallen ,Cornelia, Viletta, Rollo.... You're justifying Euphemia as much as you can, but why can't you justify Lelouch or any other character? OF Course for you WHO JUST SAID THAT CODE GEASS IS TERRIBLE EVIL SERIES it doesn't matter that characters have their own reasons right? I Can't see how C.C. Is bad... She is a witch, but that was passed on her not by her will(of course someone who didn't see Code Geass R2 doesn't know that.). Oh, I shouldn't forget to mention that LELOUCH did every evil deed(in the end) to erase Euphemia's name from history as a "murder princess"... Oh... OF course you couldn't see that Lelouch said : I will become evil, so evil that everyone will forget the name of murder princess... How could you see when you didn't see R2?
Oh Rollo is evil too? HE NEVER HAD A FAMILY AND WAS TRAINED TO KILL. If that's what you call evil, I don't understand you. Besides how the hell do you know about Rollo, if you didn't watch R2? Oh! So you did watch that, but you still can't justify neither Lelouch nor Suzaku or Rollo, C.C.??
Besides as you already wrote "this is terrible evil series". So why the hell did you watch that to begin with? Euphemia didn't appear in first episode and you could just drop that(that would be no proEuphie!). OR maybe it's terrible and evil just because Euphemia died?! Wow your logic is Extreme. No... more like you don't have any logic! Congratulations on that. Justify your beloved euphemia, her "TERRIBLE MURDER"(Even though she could have lived worse life than what dead would be)..... OH! I forgot. You don't know(or you're only pretending to not know) that Euphemia is living happily in afterlife!!! So you'd better wish her A Dead soul's life, full of pain and agony of killing people, rather than wish her a happy afterlife?
No matter what you will say, Euphemia was not a main character to begin with. Why the hell are you justifying her? If you'll find another princess in other anime and she will get killed by accident, you'll try to convince us to pity her too? Oh that's good! Maybe you'll forget Euphemia then.
~IcePriestess

What do you mean I am justifying Euphemia? Am I responding to accusations against her? NO.

I suppose if someone accused Lelouch of doing something evil he didn't do or something which was not actually evil, and if I was feeling generous toward him I might justify Lelouch in that case.

So you say that CC was not evil because she didn't choose to be a witch? I think one of the other posters will challenge you implication that choosing to be a witch would be evil. Lelouch admitted to her he put a geass on Euphie. CC knew Euphemia was innocent and as much victim as anyone else. And she helped Lelouch murder her, which is like you helping to murder a baby. She helped in the geass directorate massacre, I hear. Thus CC is a murderer and evil.

I suppose that Rollo is a nice kid who has had a tragic life (but Euphemia's life has had its tragedies too, such as the murder of Marianne and the presumed deaths of Lelouch and Nunnally, but she never kills anyone of her own free will and resists a geass command to kill more than the gods do in the second season, I hear) like Haku in Naruto and the girls in Gunslinger Girl. But someone as old as Rollo or Triella is getting rather old to use their desire to fit in with those they love as a justification for murder.

I doubt that the relatives of people that Rollo killed would get any relief of their sorrow by knowing he did it to please the people he wanted to love him. A good person would not put his personal situation above the survival of others.

And I doubt that the relatives of Emilio in Gunslinger Girl would be consoled to know that Rico killed him because of her desperate desire to be loved by her handler Jean. They might forgive Rico because she is so young and so heavily conditioned (i.e. brainwashed) but they would have no reason to forgive her agency for making its terrible, evil rule to kill all witnesses, even innocent bystanders, to preserve secrecy -- especially since the rule should have been revoked by the time of Emilio's death because the enemy was already suspecting that little girls were being used to assassinate them.

Gunslinger Girl is not a terrible, evil series because the creators never imply that the murders the girls commit are good actions or that the girls are noble heroes, merely that they are not guilty of murder by reason of their youth and brainwashing.

Yes I hear the the "Evil Emperor Lelouch" did a lot of evil toward the end of the second season, partially to clear Euphemia's name (which would be a lot better justification if Euphemia was actually alive to enjoy vindication). But in order for a person to be good and justified he has to have good goals and use good methods to work toward them. So if Lelouch was deliberately doing things which he thought were evil (I can just imagine how evil they were compared to his evil deeds which he thought were good) not because he wanted to do those particular things but as a step to his good or evil goal, then he was becoming more evil, not less. The way to do good is to have a good goal and use good means to achieve it.

And I did hear something about an afterlife in the second season and Euphie being in it. But if that information comes from some Code Geass character of dubious honesty it is a little naive to accept it at face value. And if the god or mortal who created that after life had the typical twisted values of Code Geass characters I would fear that the evil people would go to its version of heaven and good people like Euphie to its version of hell.

And with all the destruction which I hear goes on in the second season I fear that maybe heaven might have been destroyed, killing Euphie for the second time.

Did learning that there is a Code Geass afterlife make you consider any of the other murders and killings in the series were any less evil, or did you still hate Rollo for Killing Shirley, for example, as much as you did before?

And if there is an afterlife in the world of Code Geass, how does that change ethics from those in a fictional world which has no afterlife?

See posts # 55,56, 57, and 66 above, between Namiko and I, in which I point out how someone who becomes certain that there was a Christian afterlife might have to change their ethics.

I think that may make you change your mind about my lack of logic.

And was Lelouch absolutely certain that their was an afterlife when he killed Euphemia so needlessly? If not that fact is of no value in justifying his action.

And I didn't know that Code Geass was terrible and evil, though I noticed some clues, until I saw the protagonist Lelouch shoot Euphie when it would have been so easy to capture her alive. Yes, I was tricked into watching 23 hours of that terrible show by the deceptive and misleading tone of the series which implied it was about relatively good and noble people fighting for the causes they believed in, instead of evil, brutal, ruthless people fighting for the causes they believed in but shouldn't have.

blackrosetwilight
10-15-2009, 10:55 PM
NIna didn't know Euphemia the way the viewers did. Nina did not see her at the Battle of Narita refusing to do what she desperately wanted to do for fear of endangering strangers.

Nina didn't see Euphemia triumph over Lelouch's hate and convince him to support her SAZ plan.

Nina didn't see Euphemia recognize Kallen as "the girl from the island" in a tone of voice that seemed remarkably non hostile to me considering that Kallen had shot at Euphie and Suzaku on the island.

Nina didn't see Euphemia apolagize to Zero for shooting harmlessly at his armored nightmare without complaining about Zero's nightmare destroying hers and probably scaring her half to death.

Nina didn't see Lelouch shoot Euphemia and didn't realize how easy it would have been for Lelouch to capture her alive.

Nina didn't see her resist her geass command at first, nor her odd behavior right before Lelouchs shot her indicating that she was almost totally free of the control of her geass command.

Nina didn't see Euphemia defeat her geass command in the Avalon sickbay. Suzaku did but probably didn't understand or ever report it accuratley to Nina.

Nina didn't see the gods obey Lelouch's geass command without resisting as Euphemia had resisted, and never knew that Euphemia's goodness enabled her to do what the gods themselves could not.

Nina may get over Euphemia;s death as real people tend to get over the death of loved ones.

But to me Euphemia was just a minor Code Geass character until I saw how easy it was for Lelouch to capture her alive and how senselessly evil it was to kill her. I only realized how special Euphemia was because for the last year I have been thinking about how evil her murder was. If she had survived to the end of the series I would not have noticed a lot of great things about her and would think of her as a really nice and good minor character.
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh...(three hours later)...uuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhh...(another three hours passes by and I eats a hot dog with relish, chilli, cheese, onion, and some other stuff on top I found in the fridge and then spends two hours in the bathroom)...uuuuuuhhhhhhh...hmmmmmm OK you kind of just enforced my point about your undying admiration for Euphy.

AznOtaku
10-16-2009, 12:08 AM
She's called the Euphinator for a reasons. Because she kills people. And killing people is bad. The end.

玲華.
10-16-2009, 12:19 AM
S'Obviously not the end for ProEuphie, though. Someone should just kick her. Lelouch killed lots of people, but Euphie did, too. Please do not argue about how helpless she is, we all know.

kimi no kioku
10-16-2009, 05:50 AM
NIna didn't know Euphemia the way the viewers did. Nina did not see her at the Battle of Narita refusing to do what she desperately wanted to do for fear of endangering strangers.

Nina didn't see Euphemia triumph over Lelouch's hate and convince him to support her SAZ plan.

Nina didn't see Euphemia recognize Kallen as "the girl from the island" in a tone of voice that seemed remarkably non hostile to me considering that Kallen had shot at Euphie and Suzaku on the island.

Nina didn't see Euphemia apolagize to Zero for shooting harmlessly at his armored nightmare without complaining about Zero's nightmare destroying hers and probably scaring her half to death.

Nina didn't see Lelouch shoot Euphemia and didn't realize how easy it would have been for Lelouch to capture her alive.

Nina didn't see her resist her geass command at first, nor her odd behavior right before Lelouchs shot her indicating that she was almost totally free of the control of her geass command.

Nina didn't see Euphemia defeat her geass command in the Avalon sickbay. Suzaku did but probably didn't understand or ever report it accuratley to Nina.

Nina didn't see the gods obey Lelouch's geass command without resisting as Euphemia had resisted, and never knew that Euphemia's goodness enabled her to do what the gods themselves could not.

Nina may get over Euphemia;s death as real people tend to get over the death of loved ones.

But to me Euphemia was just a minor Code Geass character until I saw how easy it was for Lelouch to capture her alive and how senselessly evil it was to kill her. I only realized how special Euphemia was because for the last year I have been thinking about how evil her murder was. If she had survived to the end of the series I would not have noticed a lot of great things about her and would think of her as a really nice and good minor character.


Listen honey, Euphy was my favorite character in R1. I almost quit watching when she died. I never liked Lelouch. I was for Suzaku-kun and Euphy the whole way. But her death made the show better, I actually like it when characters die, that's why in all the stories I write, a lot of the good characters die. I actually had a character in this thing I'm currently writing with a character alot like Euphy, and she dies. It happens, if you watched FMA(anime not manga/Brotherhood), there are a lot of really good people who died.

Your problem is, you can't understand that they're only characters. Lelouch changed and became a good person, he saved the world. Suzaku did alot of bad things too. In fact, everyone did. I understand that Euphy didn't deserve to die, my brother loved her. He said she was the only anime character he ever really fanboyed over. So I understand. But her death and everything was a plot twist, they happen alot. Go watch episode 25 of Fullmetal Alchemist, seriously. You see, in anime, characters do bad things alot, because if all the characters were like Euphy, it wouldn't be interesting. But by saying that everyone else is evil and Euphy killed all those people, but didn't deserve to die, you're contradicting yourself. I know it wasn't her will, but she did it.

Another thing, she wasn't going to attack Kallen because she saw her before. She looked Britannian. Obviously. She didn't attack Lelouch either, because she knew he was Britannian.


She's called the Euphinator for a reasons. Because she kills people. And killing people is bad. The end.

Not really, she's not bad because she didn't do it. You know what, it doesn't matter....

proEuphie
10-16-2009, 11:53 PM
She's called the Euphinator for a reasons. Because she kills people. And killing people is bad. The end.

If killing people is bad, period, why didn't lelouch simply capture her alive as would have been so easy to do?

If killing people is bad, period, even when compelled to do so by a geass command, I remind you that Lelouch ordered the geass directorate massacre. Unless you were happy when Llelouch died you are displaying a double standard.

My Name is Ian.
10-17-2009, 12:38 AM
He was a villain with a sense of ultimate justice.

kimi no kioku
10-24-2009, 06:24 AM
If killing people is bad, period, why didn't lelouch simply capture her alive as would have been so easy to do?

If killing people is bad, period, even when compelled to do so by a geass command, I remind you that Lelouch ordered the geass directorate massacre. Unless you were happy when Lleouch died you are dispalying a double standard.
He didn't order the massacre on purpose though.

proEuphie
11-02-2009, 09:51 PM
Listen honey, Euphy was my favorite character in R1. I almost quit watching when she died. I never liked Lelouch. I was for Suzaku-kun and Euphy the whole way. But her death made the show better, I actually like it when characters die, that's why in all the stories I write, a lot of the good characters die. I actually had a character in this thing I'm currently writing with a character alot like Euphy, and she dies. It happens, if you watched FMA(anime not manga/Brotherhood), there are a lot of really good people who died.

Your problem is, you can't understand that they're only characters. Lelouch changed and became a good person, he saved the world. Suzaku did alot of bad things too. In fact, everyone did. I understand that Euphy didn't deserve to die, my brother loved her. He said she was the only anime character he ever really fanboyed over. So I understand. But her death and everything was a plot twist, they happen alot. Go watch episode 25 of Fullmetal Alchemist, seriously. You see, in anime, characters do bad things alot, because if all the characters were like Euphy, it wouldn't be interesting. But by saying that everyone else is evil and Euphy killed all those people, but didn't deserve to die, you're contradicting yourself. I know it wasn't her will, but she did it.

Another thing, she wasn't going to attack Kallen because she saw her before. She looked Britannian. Obviously. She didn't attack Lelouch either, because she knew he was Britannian.



Not really, she's not bad because she didn't do it. You know what, it doesn't matter....

You say it would be boring if all the characters were as good as Euphemia. Here is a plot idea which some writers could turn into an interesting story:

I can picture a war story in which all the major characters are as good as Euphemia. And in which one or more of those characters eventually decides that he, she, or it has been fighting on the wrong side and switches sides. And this character may feel horribly guilty about all the people he, she, or it has killed while fighting for a side which he, she, or it now believes is the wrong side in the conflict.

But at least that character can take comfort in knowing that he, she, or it has always tried to prevent the deaths of noncombatants and win with as little killing as possible, and thus has much less blood on his, her, or its hands (or tentacles) than someone who fought without trying to reduce the deaths to a minimum.

And I was not complaining that all of the characters should have been as good as Euphemia. I was complaining about the fact that the protagonist was as evil as Lelouch. It is perfectly possible for a series to have a majority of characters who are not as good as Euphemia without having a a protagonist as evil as Lelouch. In fact, that describes the vast majority of tv shows.

As far as I can tell only Euphemia, Milly, and Rivalez were good and innocent characters. And only Euphemia was good and important. So without her the series is just evil characters fighting other evil characters. Killing her may have increased the melodrama but it did not make the series better, it eliminated all the good and important characters worth caring about, and thus removed any reason for the show to exist.

kimi no kioku
11-07-2009, 03:54 PM
You say it would be boring if all the characters were as good as Euphemia. He is aplot idea which some writers could turn into an interesting story:

I can picture a war story in which all the major characters are as good as Euphemia. And in which one or more of those characters eventually decides that he, she, or it has been fighting on the wrong side and switches sides. And this character may feel horribly guilty about all the people he, she, or it has killed while fighting for a side which he, she, or it now believes is the wrong side in the conflict.

But at least that character can take comfort in knowing that he, she, or it has always tried to prevent the deaths of noncombatants and win with as little killing as possible, and thus has much less blood on his, her, or its hands (or tentacles) than someone who fought without trying to reduce the deaths to a minimum.

And I was not complaining that all of the characters should have been as good as Euphemia. I was complaining about the fact that the protagonist was as evil as Lelouch. It is perfectly possible for a series to have a majority of characters who are not as good as Euphemia without having a a protagonist as evil as Lelouch. In fact, that describes the vast majority of tv shows.

As far as I can tell only Euphemia, Milly, and Rizalez were good and innocent characters. And only Euphemia was good and important. So without her the series is just evil characters fighting other evil characters. Killing her may have increased the melodrama but it did not make the series better, it eliminated all the good and important characters worth caring about, and thus removed any reason for the show to exist.

Lelouch wasn't really evil. He was bad, but not evil. Some real evil people are....
1. Frank Archer from Fullmetal Alchemist. He was going to kill an entire town full of civilians so he could become as famous as Roy.
2. Kujou fom Persona Trinity Soul. He used his daughter as a live experiment and when she died, he bought an orphanage so he could use all the kids in it. He gave them all special powers and was going to use them to bring his daughter back to life.
3. Light Yagami from Death Note. He wanted to kill all the criminals so he could become God.
4. Amshel Goldsmith from Blood Plus. He made sure that Diva would be unhappy that way she would never leave him so he could use her as a test subject forever.
5. James Goldsmith from Blood Plus. He got made at the Schiff(fake vampires that would all die of this ting called the Thorn. and dided if they were touched by sunlight.) He forced Moses to try and kill the human that cared about them(who he was jealous of because Diva liked him) and lied to him saying he would cure the Thorn on his frien. And while he was doing that, he went to where his friend was and opened all the windows.

Those people are evil. Lelouch at least changed, he got better. In R1, I didn't like him very much.

But you see, I like better main characters too. Like Edward Elric, Shin Kanzato, and Ichigo Kurosaki. But I think it's interesting to have them be anti-heroes sometimes too. I played this game once where the main character was to bad for me to even like, but he got better, just like Lelouch. I'm saying that it's more interesting if the main characters if the good guys have blood on their hands too.

I think that you're wrong on how everyone was evil. Suzaku wasn't evil, he was a little dark, but not evil. Your definition of good must be very very good. Btw, how was Shirley evil exactly?

proEuphie
11-07-2009, 09:13 PM
Lelouch wasn't really evil. He was bad, but not evil. Some real evil people are....
1. Frank Archer from Fullmetal Alchemist. He was going to kill an entire town full of civilians so he could become as famous as Roy.
2. Kujou fom Persona Trinity Soul. He used his daughter as a live experiment and when she died, he bought an orphanage so he could use all the kids in it. He gave them all special powers and was going to use them to bring his daughter back to life.
3. Light Yagami from Death Note. He wanted to kill all the criminals so he could become God.
4. Amshel Goldsmith from Blood Plus. He made sure that Diva would be unhappy that way she would never leave him so he could use her as a test subject forever.
5. James Goldsmith from Blood Plus. He got made at the Schiff(fake vampires that would all die of this ting called the Thorn. and dided if they were touched by sunlight.) He forced Moses to try and kill the human that cared about them(who he was jealous of because Diva liked him) and lied to him saying he would cure the Thorn on his frien. And while he was doing that, he went to where his friend was and opened all the windows.

Those people are evil. Lelouch at least changed, he got better. In R1, I didn't like him very much.

But you see, I like better main characters too. Like Edward Elric, Shin Kanzato, and Ichigo Kurosaki. But I think it's interesting to have them be anti-heroes sometimes too. I played this game once where the main character was to bad for me to even like, but he got better, just like Lelouch. I'm saying that it's more interesting if the main characters if the good guys have blood on their hands too.

I think that you're wrong on how everyone was evil. Suzaku wasn't evil, he was a little dark, but not evil. Your definition of good must be very very good. Btw, how was Shirley evil exactly?

1) I say that Lelouch was about as evil as Frank Archer from Full Metal Alchemist. Lelouch created a landslide which was bigger than he expected and engulfed the town of Narita (population over 90,000 in our world). Lelouch didn't seem very worried or sorry when he thought that he should have consulted an expert. Was he merely planning what he would say if some of the Black Knights asked him about the devastation? Did he even know that Narita had been evacuated by the Britannians (probably because Euphemia was involved) and thus probably only a few hundred people were killed in the town?

3) Perhaps Lelouch was as evil as "Dark" Yagami. Perhaps Lelouch also wanted to become a god in the eyes of the people of the world by slaughtering thousands of people he considered wrong doers. Remember when he told Euphemia he would rise from death and prove to the Japanese he was their true mesiah and that she was a false messiah? That sounds like Lelouch had aspirations to godhood or near godhood.

Perhaps Lelouch's plan was to become two gods. A terrifying evil god, Emperor Lelouch, who would be remembered forever as the worst of the worst (a lot of teenage boys seem to think that is a great reputation), and a beloved savior hero god Zero, who would be considered infallibly good by the masses who didn't know Zero's dirty little secrets.

4) Amshel Goldsmith -- you say he was evil because he kept Diva unhappy? He was evil because of a little personal cruelty and meanness? How about saying he was evil because he let Diva and her followers kill thousands of people over the centuries and perhaps someday enslave all humanity as their blood sources?

You say that Lelouch got better over the series. I think that you mean that his ratio of good and evil deeds shifted more toward the good.

But I define an evil person as a person who historically has committed at least one evil deed.

Suppose that a fictional character, like Lelouch, started out doing 100 ordinary deeds, 10 good deeds, and 1 evil deed each week, and later shifted to doing 400 ordinary deeds, 40 good deeds, and 1 evil deed per month. He would be getting better and less dangerous in the sense that the probability that he would do an evil deed would decrease. But according to my definition he would become more evil each time that he did something evil, and so the improvement in his behavior would slow the rate at which he became more evil but would not make him less evil.

You say its more interesting if the good guys have blood on their hands. If the main characters are involved in a war or revolution they are certain to have blood on their hands. but I don't like it if the blood is the blood of innocent murder victims or people they killed when they knew they didn't have to kill them.

I hear that many policemen, soldiers and others who kill in the line of duty and perhaps are considered heroes for it suffer a lot of guilt over those killing. Maybe not all of them feel a lot of guilt, but many do. And who am I to say that there is not a lot of justification for their guilt feelings? I say that any warrior or military or political leader involved in wars and revolutions, even if they are as careful to avoid unnecessary killing as Euphemia at Narita or Suzaku during most of the first season, will have enough blood on their hands to give them a considerable amount of interesting guilt, and enough to make them less than totally pure and innocent and (in the eyes of some viewers) bland and dull. I say that any worse blood on their hands is too much.

Why do I say that almost all the characters are evil? Because of the terrorist acts committed by the JLF in "Black Knight" and because Ogri's rebel group were described as terrorists in the first episode, and because the rebels in the Saitema Ghetto in "Get Cornelia" are described as terrorists. If some of the Japanese rebels are terrorists the other Japanese rebels and all the other Japanese have to show their disgust at the terrorist tactics of the terrorists by giving up on their hope of an independent Japan. As long as the Japanese tolerate terrorism by some of the rebels and are willing to live in an independent Japan which regains its independence by terrorism they are all evil.

In our world, I say that all Basques are evil and will remain evil until they show their disgust at the terrorism of the ETA, seeking an independent Basque homeland, by selling their property to non Basques and moving out of the Basque homeland and scattering themselves all over the world, putting an end to all the hopes of the ETA.

I say that all Algerians are evil and will remain evil until they show their disgust at the terrorist campaign which gained Algerian independence by selling their property in Algeria to non Algerians and moving out and scattering themselves all over the world, thus putting an end to the nation which was created by a terrorist campaign.

Since the Britannian army commits massacres and other atrocities all Britannians who do not protest those crimes or try to stop them are evil. Since the Britannians oppress the numbers too much, all Britannians who do not try to reduce the level of oppression down to the correct level are evil.

As far as I know the only Britannians except Lelouch interested in reducing Britannian oppression were Euphemia and Suzaku. In the first season Suzaku tried to fight without killing anyone (with the possible exception of "Black Knight") and thus was a shining example for his massacring fellow soldiers to be inspired by and emulate (if any did). When Euphemia insisted on being preent at the Battle of Narita there were no known Britannian atrocities (I suspect cause and effect relationship) and Euphemia refused to do anything which might endanger the lives of civilians.

So the possible good characters are down to Euphemia, Suzaku, Shirley, Milly, and Rivalez. Shirley, Milly, and Rivalez are not part of military and political organizations and aren't involved in a lot of situations where they can choose between doing good or evil.

Suzaku used F.R.E.I.J.A. to kill millions during the second season, and thus was evil unless his geass command forced him to do it against his will. Suzaku helped in the Zero Requiem and thus probably let the "Evil Emperor Lelouch" do the evil deeds which gathered all the hate in the world. I suppose that Suzaku would justify taking part in such evil by saying it was a means to a greater good and it must be the only way to bring peace to the world if even Lelouch couldn't think of a better way. You may guess my opinion about Lelouch's ability to always chose the best way to achieve his goals or any faith Suzaku might have had in that ability.

It has been pointed out to me that Shirley shot Villeta, not in self defense and unaware of Villeta's attempt to frame Suzaku for murder. Thus Shirley should probably be considered an evil character.

kimi no kioku
11-07-2009, 09:27 PM
1) I say that Lelouch was about as evil as Frank Archer from Full Metal Alchemist. Lelouch created a landslide which was bigger than he expected and engulfed the town of Narita (population over 90,000 in our world). Lelouch didnn't seem very worried or sorry when he thought that he should have consulted an expert. Was he merely planning what he would say if some of the Black Knights asked him about the devastion? Did he even know that Narita had been evacuated by the Britanians (probably because Euphemia was involved) and thus only a few hundred people were probably killed in the town?

3) Perhaps Lelouch was as evil as "Dark" Yagami. Perhaps Lelouch also wanted to become a god in the eyes of the people of the world by slaughtering thousands of people he considered wrong doers. Remember when he told Euphemia he would rise from death and prove to the Japanese he was their true mesiah and that she was a false messiah? That sounds like Lelouch had aspirations to godhood or near godhood.

Perhaps Lelouch's plan was to become two gods. A terrifying evil god, Emperor Lelouch, who would be remembered forever as the worst of the worst (a lot of teenage boys seem to think that is a great reputation), and a beloved savior hero god Zero, who would be considered infalliby good by the masses who didn't know Zero's dirty little secrets.

4) Amshel Goldsmith -- you say he was evil because he kept Diva unhappy? He was evil because of a little personal cruelty and meanness? How about saying he was evil because he let Diva and her followers kill thougsands of people over the centuries and perhaps someday enslave all humanity as their mblood sources?


1.) Lelouch didn't do it for fame, he did it to fix the world. Archer did it out of Jealousy, Lelouch did it to fix things.

2.) I don't see two on your list

3.) Lelouch never wanted to become God. He wanted to destroy Britannia and create a world where him and his sister didn't have to live in fear. Lelouch DID NOT do the Zero Requiem for fame or to be remembered, he did it to get rid of hate to make people forget about the crimes of your goddess Euphemia.(Sorry to be rude, it's late and I'm cranky)



4.) I actually liked Diva in Blood Plus, I'm a big Saya hater. You don't get it, huh? Diva was evil because she was raised that way. Amshel hated humans, so he wanted her to kill them and make Chevaliers so that they could wipe out the human race. He was the REAL bad guy, not Diva. Saya was much worse, you can see it on the episode that Kai argues about Irene with her. She wanted to kill all the Chiroptians(sp?) even if they weren't evil, like the Schiff, who become their allies later. Solomon, Carl, and Moses weren't evil. Carl went crazy because AMSHEL forced him to become a Chevalier. Solomon was sick of hate, AMSHEL convinced him to become a Chevalier because he was depressed. Moses and all the other Schiff, were just unfortunate and uneducated. But Amshel was the one who made it possible for them to get the Thorn anyway.


Can you say off topic?

proEuphie
11-08-2009, 08:52 PM
1.) Lelouch didn't do it for fame, he did it to fix the world. Archer did it out of Jealousy, Lelouch did it to fix things.

How do you know what all of Lelouch's motives were? How could Lelouch himself know for sure what his motives were for his various actions?


2.) I don't see two on your list

I am not familiar with that anime. If the man's daughter dies as a result of his experiments on her that sounds evil. But the part about giving kids superpowers and planning to use those powers to bring his daughter back to life sounds like he repented of his evil and was trying to make amends, much as you say Lelouch did. Unless you left out the part where the orphans given superpowrs would die or be seriously harmed in the process.


3.) Lelouch never wanted to become God. He wanted to destroy Britannia and create a world where him and his sister didn't have to live in fear. Lelouch DID NOT do the Zero Requiem for fame or to be remembered, he did it to get rid of hate to make people forget about the crimes of your goddess Euphemia.(Sorry to be rude, it's late and I'm cranky)

YOu say that Lelouch only wanted to destroy Britannia. "Only"?. Someone else once wrote that Llelouch didn't exterminate the Britannians but merely destroyed the infrastructure in Britannia. If Lelouch destroyed the Britannian infrastructure he woud make it impossible for many millions of Britannians to get what they nended to survive. He would have been causing countless mllions of future deaths.

And how did Lleouch's wars and revolutions make it possible for him and Nunnally to live without fear? Lelouch gave up his life. He certainly did not live would fear as a result. And how was the world any safer for Nunnally at the end of the series than at the beginning? If llelouch was so worried about Britannian danger to himself and Nunnally why didn't he do something obvious to reduce that risk? Like changing their first names as well as their last names? Like getting the Ashfords to buy them a house in some land that was not ruled by Britannia?

And how could all the crimes of "Evil Emperor Lelouch" make people forget the fuji massacre? I say the crimes of Yahya Khan have not made me forget the crimes of Genghis Khan. I say the crimes of Idi Amin, Hitler, Salin, Pol Pot, Vlad the Impaler, Tamerlane, Attila the Hun, etc. etc. will all be remembered for thousands of years more, despite all the evil doers who will appear in the future and be more recent.



4.) I actually liked Diva in Blood Plus, I'm a big Saya hater. You don't get it, huh? Diva was evil because she was raised that way. Amshel hated humans, so he wanted her to kill them and make Chevaliers so that they could wipe out the human race. He was the REAL bad guy, not Diva. Saya was much worse, you can see it on the episode that Kai argues about Irene with her. She wanted to kill all the Chiroptians(sp?) even if they weren't evil, like the Schiff, who become their allies later. Solomon, Carl, and Moses weren't evil. Carl went crazy because AMSHEL forced him to become a Chevalier. Solomon was sick of hate, AMSHEL convinced him to become a Chevalier because he was depressed. Moses and all the other Schiff, were just unfortunate and uneducated. But Amshel was the one who made it possible for them to get the Thorn anyway.

You say that Diva was only evil because of the way she was raised.

I say that in the Lord of the Rings the fact that Wormtongue was corrupted and seduced into evil by Saruman does not make Wormtongue's evil less evil. The fact that Saruman was tempted by Sauron does not make Saruman's evil less evil. The fact that Sauron was led astray and turned evil by Morgoth does not make Sauron's evil any less evil.

Diva's upbringing may be the historical reason why she was evil but that doesn't make any of the thousands of people she let her chiropitans(?) kill any less dead.

Diva could have put pressure on Amshiel to find ways for chiroptians to get blood without killing humans, if she was a good person. Just as Saya could have demanded that her organization develop ways to capture Chiroptians alive and keep them prisoners in safety to themselves and humans, if she was good enough to want to reduce her killing to a minimum.

Kai persuaded Saya not to kill Irene and the schiff. And Kai persuaded Saya not to kill Diva's babies but raise them in love the way Diva should have been raised. Saya could be persuaded to change her evil aims into good ones.

But Diva found herself attracted to Riku so she raped him and then killed him as was automatic for her. And later when she was bored and wished she had "that boy" to amuse her I felt like telling her "If you didn't always break your toys when done playing with them you could have them to play with again when you wanted to."

I say that Diva was much eviler than Saya.


Can you say off topic?

Off topic.

Wio
11-08-2009, 10:43 PM
Imagine if his plan failed half way and Schneizel won the war (it was a very possible out come, even Zero should know that he was gambling here). Then he would have just been an apple-hat. I thought it was a pretty big gamble myself, considering how Zero had NEVER beaten Schneizel in a game a chess.

Even so, does anyone really think that what Zero did lead to world peace? It's not like all the hatred towards Zero magically erased the hatred amongst all the countries, nor did it kill all potential aspirations of world domination. But even so, let's just pretend that it did.

Essentially, we have a village idiot who stole all the towns money, invested it in a bunch of OTCs, won big, and redistributed it back to the town. Even if you think he's a hero, he's still the village idiot.

Crazyjavi87
11-09-2009, 02:35 AM
He's neither a villain or a hero with a sense of justice

He's did those things, more or less, for his own(or rather his sister's) gain. He had no sense of justice to call himself a hero, yet he had not done anything truly evil enough to call him a villain. Throughout the whole anime he was thinking of a plan to gain nunnaly's peaceful world. He chose the sacrifices that needed to be made, and he did what others would not do.

Of course, there are times when Lelouche seemed like a complete villain. Then there are times he was seen as a hero. Those times were times when he was manipulating people at very conviently chosen spots.

Also Wio, what Zero did with the world essentially happened with Hitler during WW2. Sure the wars won't stop, and sure it won't erase the hatred agmonst countries(or potentional dr.evils apparently.), but he brought in a -time- of peace. Not world peace.

But it allowed a time of peace. And shortly after the anime would be something like that cold war. Well, that's what I think anyways.

kimi no kioku
11-10-2009, 11:14 AM
How do you know what all of Lelouch's motives were? How could Lelouch himself know for sure what his motives were for his various actions?



I am not familiar with that anime. If the man's daughter dies as a result of his experiments on her that sounds evil. But the part about giving kids superpowers and planning to use those powers to bring his daughter back to life sounds like he repented of his evil and was trying to make amends, much as you say Lelouch did. Unless you left out the part where the orphans given superpowrs would die or be seriously harmed in the process.



YOu say that Lelouch only wanted to destroy Britannia. "Only"?. Someone else once wrote that Llelouch didn't exterminate the Britannians but merely destroyed the infrastructure in Britannia. If Lelouch destroyed the Britannian infrastructure he woud make it impossible for many millions of Britannians to get what they nended to survive. He would have been causing countless mllions of future deaths.

And how did Lleouch's wars and revolutions make it possible for him and Nunnally to live without fear? Lelouch gave up his life. He certainy did not live would fear as a result. And how was the world any safer for Nunnally at the end of the series than at the beginning? If lleouch was so worried about Britannian danger to himself and Nunnally why didn't he do something obvious to reduce that risk? Like changing their first names as well as their last names? Like getting the Ashfords to buy them a house in some land that was not ruled by Britannia?

And how could all the crimes of "Evil Emperor Lelouch" make people forget the fuji massacre? I say the crimes of Yahya Khan have not made me forget the crimes of Genghis Khan. I say the crimes of Idi Amin, Hitler, Salin, Pol Pot, Vlad the Impaler, Tamerlane, Attila the Hun, etc. etc. will all be rmembered for thousands of years more, despite all the evil doers who will appear in the future and be more recent.




You say that Diva was only evil because of the way she was raised.

I say that in the Lord of the Rings the fact that Wormtongue was corrupted and seduced into evil by Saruman does not make Wormtongue's evil less evil. The fact that Saruman was tempted by Sauron does not make Saruman's evil less evil. The fact that Sauron was led astray and turned evil by Morgoth does not make Sauron's evil any less evil.

Diva's upbringing may be the historical reason why she was evil but that doesn't make any of the thousands of people she let her chiropitans(?) kill any less dead.

Diva could have put pressure on Amshiel to find ways for chiroptians to get blood without killing humans, if she was a good person. Just as Saya could have demanded that her organization develop ways to capture Chiroptians alive and keep them prisoners in safety to themselves and humans, if she was good enough to want to reduce her killing to a minimum.

Kai persuaded Saya not to kill Irene and the schiff. And Kai persuaded Saya not to kill Diva's babies but raise them in love the way Diva should have been raised. Saya could be persuaded to change her evil aims into good ones.

But Diva found herself attracted to Riku so she raped him and then killed him as was automatic for her. And later when she was bored and wished she had "that boy" to amuse her I felt like telling her "If you didn't always break your toys when done playing with them you could have them to play with again when you wanted to."

I say that Diva was much eviler than Saya.



Off topic.
I don't go by "what ifs" I go by what I see in the show. Like the viewer is supposed to.


No, since you haven't seen Trinity Soul, you wouldn't understand. He gave the kids powers, that were going to kill them. Not only that he was raising the kids to rip out people's souls to grow more powerful and convinced them it was the only way they could survive. Not only that, he made a bunch of dolls of his daughter and was going to rip out all the kids souls and try to recreate her soul using theirs, that's evil.


Lelouch wanted to erase that, not saying he actually did. He tried to. Lelouch tried to be good, you have to understand that. He tried to make the world a better place, he did some bad things, but don't all people? Not quite to the extent of murder, but he didn't do it for a terrible reason(besides revenge which he gives up in R2). Personally, I don't know why he didn't do that. I guess he liked being a Britannian, just not Britannia(lol) I suppose he didn't change his first name because the creator liked the name Lelouch too much. And he didn't move away because since he was Britannian he would be treated poorly.

Diva didn't care about humans, because she was raised as a vampire. Saya loved humans because she had a close connection with humans. Diva never had that, watch episode 49 and I think she mentions that. I wouldn't care what happened to them if I was raised thinking they were a food source nothing more.

Yeah she was more evil, but Saya was bad too. I never remember Saya telling hem to capture the Chiroptians. She said she had to kill all of them. She says it like 200 times.


EDIT!

It has been pointed out to me that Shirley shot Villeta, not in self defense and unaware of Villeta's attempt to frame Suzaku for murder. Thus Shirley should probably be considered an evil character.

She felt bad about it. How can you see someone as evil if they do one bad thing or regret what they've done? Evil is when you don't even see that it was wrong, IMO at least.

Rolo Vi Britannia
11-16-2009, 03:26 PM
How do you know what all of Lelouch's motives were? How could Lelouch himself know for sure what his motives were for his various actions?



I am not familiar with that anime. If the man's daughter dies as a result of his experiments on her that sounds evil. But the part about giving kids superpowers and planning to use those powers to bring his daughter back to life sounds like he repented of his evil and was trying to make amends, much as you say Lelouch did. Unless you left out the part where the orphans given superpowrs would die or be seriously harmed in the process.



YOu say that Lelouch only wanted to destroy Britannia. "Only"?. Someone else once wrote that Llelouch didn't exterminate the Britannians but merely destroyed the infrastructure in Britannia. If Lelouch destroyed the Britannian infrastructure he woud make it impossible for many millions of Britannians to get what they nended to survive. He would have been causing countless mllions of future deaths.

And how did Lleouch's wars and revolutions make it possible for him and Nunnally to live without fear? Lelouch gave up his life. He certainly did not live would fear as a result. And how was the world any safer for Nunnally at the end of the series than at the beginning? If llelouch was so worried about Britannian danger to himself and Nunnally why didn't he do something obvious to reduce that risk? Like changing their first names as well as their last names? Like getting the Ashfords to buy them a house in some land that was not ruled by Britannia?

And how could all the crimes of "Evil Emperor Lelouch" make people forget the fuji massacre? I say the crimes of Yahya Khan have not made me forget the crimes of Genghis Khan. I say the crimes of Idi Amin, Hitler, Salin, Pol Pot, Vlad the Impaler, Tamerlane, Attila the Hun, etc. etc. will all be remembered for thousands of years more, despite all the evil doers who will appear in the future and be more recent.




You say that Diva was only evil because of the way she was raised.

I say that in the Lord of the Rings the fact that Wormtongue was corrupted and seduced into evil by Saruman does not make Wormtongue's evil less evil. The fact that Saruman was tempted by Sauron does not make Saruman's evil less evil. The fact that Sauron was led astray and turned evil by Morgoth does not make Sauron's evil any less evil.

Diva's upbringing may be the historical reason why she was evil but that doesn't make any of the thousands of people she let her chiropitans(?) kill any less dead.

Diva could have put pressure on Amshiel to find ways for chiroptians to get blood without killing humans, if she was a good person. Just as Saya could have demanded that her organization develop ways to capture Chiroptians alive and keep them prisoners in safety to themselves and humans, if she was good enough to want to reduce her killing to a minimum.

Kai persuaded Saya not to kill Irene and the schiff. And Kai persuaded Saya not to kill Diva's babies but raise them in love the way Diva should have been raised. Saya could be persuaded to change her evil aims into good ones.

But Diva found herself attracted to Riku so she raped him and then killed him as was automatic for her. And later when she was bored and wished she had "that boy" to amuse her I felt like telling her "If you didn't always break your toys when done playing with them you could have them to play with again when you wanted to."

I say that Diva was much eviler than Saya.



Off topic.


Diva was more evil than Saya, but Diva wasn't pure evil(though she was pretty damn close) She bothered me a few times, but only because they made her act like a freaking little kid. Overall though, Saya and Diva were evil. Saya was genocidal and Diva was crazy. Kai actually didn't. Moses did when he begged her to save Irene.

Back to Lelouch and other on topic Code Geass topics.

Lelouch wasn't evil for what he did to Euphy, that was necessary, and don't try to tell me he could capture her and wait until she got over the Geass. NO ONE DOES THAT. Nunnally breaks it because Charles was dead, thus it was weaker. Most likely at least. Or because her will to see and stop Lelouch was stronger than Charles's will. CC and VV cannot break the Geass. CC does because she sends his mind to C's World and returns his memory. I doubt CC planting one on Euphy's lips would have made her think that the Elevens should live.

Lelouch believed he could be so evil, no one would talk about Euphy anymore. Not everything Lelouch said was meant to be literal.



She felt bad about it. How can you see someone as evil if they do one bad thing or regret what they've done? Evil is when you don't even see that it was wrong, IMO at least.

Thant's not really true. I could do something terrible and feel bad later, but it didn't stop me from doing it in the first place. Where do you think the phrase, "it seemed like a good idea at the time." came from?



How could Lelouch himself know for sure what his motives were for his various actions?

What the hell do you mean?

proEuphie
11-16-2009, 09:54 PM
Lelouch wasn't evil for what he did to Euphy, that was necessary, and don't try to tell me he could capture her and wait until she got over the Geass. NO ONE DOES THAT. Nunnally breaks it because Charles was dead, thus it was weaker. Most likely at least. Or because her will to see and stop Lelouch was stronger than Charles's will. CC and VV cannot break the Geass. CC does because she sends his mind to C's World and returns his memory. I doubt CC planting one on Euphy's lips would have made her think that the Elevens should live.

Lelouch was evil for what he did to Euphie. It is never necessary to kill someone if capturing them alive will do just as well to protect other people from that person and will be just as safe, as fast, and as easy as killing them.

Capturing Euphemia would do just as well as killing her to protect the Japanese at Fuji from her. And once Euphemia's nightmare was destroyed Lelouch must have been aware of how easy it would be to capture her alive. Thus Lelouch decided to kill her when he knew that capturing her alive would be really safe and easy and would be just as good as killing her for any good and decent purpose like saving the lives of innocent people.

And Lelouch could capture her and wait until she got over the geass. It didn't matter if that took her ten minutes or ten years, a hundred days or a hundred years. As long as she was confined with good security until she got over the geass or died, Euphemia would never have to chance to kill any more Japanese people.

Every Japanese person would sometimes worry about what would happen if Euphemia escaped and tried to kill him. And every year hundreds or thousands of those Japanese people would be murdered by other Japanese persons. In a decade or two innocent Japanese babies who where born after the Fuji Massacre would start to grow old enough that a few of them would murder other Japanese people. Generation after generation of innocent Japanese babies would grow up and some of them would murder other Japanese people while Euphemia was confined and every Japanese persons sometimes worried about her potential danger to him.

Any person who is free, no matter how little he may want to kill you now, is a bigger danger to you than any person who is confined with good security measures, no matter how much he might want to kill you now. So it would be perfectly practical for Lelouch to capture Euphemia and confine her until she got over the geass or died of old age.

What do you mean that nobody gets over the geass? Haven't you seen my thread arguing that Euphemia probably escaped from the control of her geass right before Lelouch shot her?

Anyway, the events of the series take place over two years or less, which is the longest amount of time one of Lelouch's geass commands could have been observed to control someone. And I have never heard of any examples of any other type of geass known to last for more than ten years. It is perfectly possible that geas commands would fade away after ten years or some other period longer than ten years but shorter than a human lifetime.


Lelouch believed he could be so evil, no one would talk about Euphy anymore. Not everything Lelouch said was meant to be literal.

So you mean that people wouldn't forget about her massacre but would think and talk abut the much more sensational crimes of the "Evil Emperor Lelouch" instead? I thought that sometime during the Zero Requiem the "Evil Emperor Lelouch" announced that he had used black magic to make Euphemia order the massacre, thus clearing her name. If so, it wouldn't matter how often people thought and talked about the Fuji massacre, as long as they all realized that Euphemia was innocent.

so there would be no need for "Evil Emperor Lelouch" to be so evil if it was just in order to make people stop condemning Euphemia for the Fuji Massacre, since the confession of the "Evil Emperor Lelouch" would stop people from condemning Euphemia for the Fuji Massacre. If the desire to make people stop thinking badly of Euphemia made made Lelouch be even a little more evil than he needed to be to gather all the hatred in the world for the Zero Requiem, that extra evil was unnecessary once Lelouch confessed to making Euphemia order the Fuji Massacre.



Thant's not really true. I could do something terrible and feel bad later, but it didn't stop me from doing it in the first place. Where do you think the phrase, "it seemed like a good idea at the time." came from?

Yes. I have pointed out several times that almost everyone would feel some guilt and regret over killing someone, no no matter what the circumstances. Thus Lelouch's mild regret for killing Euphemia does not make him innocent of murdering her.


What the hell do you mean?

I mean exactly what I say. I wrote that even Lelouch might not know why he killed Euphemia or did anything else that he did. People often do things for several reasons. People often do things for conscious and subconscious reasons, and they are only dimly aware of their subconscious reasons.

小美ドクロchan
11-17-2009, 12:04 AM
Haha, I'm gonna be cliche and say "Lelouch isn't a villian or a hero....he's just awesome?

Was probably already said...but yeah. XD; But on a serious note, I think the creators wanted to write him that way....There's no black-and-white area-the viewer decides on what kind of a person he's supposed to be and that's pretty cool.

Rolo Vi Britannia
11-23-2009, 07:12 PM
Lelouch was evil for what he did to Euphie. It is never necessary to kill someone if capturing them alive will do just as well to protect other people from that person and will be just as safe, as fast, and as easy as killing them.

Capturing Euphemia would do just as well as killing her to protect the Japanese at Fuji from her. And once Euphemia's nightmare was destroyed Lelouch must have been aware of how easy it would be to capture her alive. Thus Lelouch decided to kill her when he knew that capturing her alive would be really safe and easy and would be just as good as killing her for any good and decent purpose like saving the lives of innocent people.

And Lelouch could capture her and wait until she got over the geass. It didn't matter if that took her ten minutes or ten years, a hundred days or a hundred years. As long as she was confined with good security until she got over the geass or died, Euphemia would never have to chance to kill any more Japanese people.

Every Japanese person would sometimes worry about what would happen if Euphemia escaped and tried to kill him. And every year hundreds or thousands of those Japanese people would be murdered by other Japanese persons. In a decade or two innocent Japanese babies who where born after the Fuji Massacre would start to grow old enough that a few of them would murder other Japanese people. Generation after generation of innocent Japanese babies would grow up and some of them would murder other Japanese people while Euphemia was confined and every Japanese persons sometimes worried about her potential danger to him.

Any person who is free, no matter how little he may want to kill you now, is a bigger danger to you than any person who is confined with good security measures, no matter how much he might want to kill you now. So it would be perfectly practical for Lelouch to capture Euphemia and confine her until she got over the geass or died of old age.

What do you mean that nobody gets over the geass? Haven't you seen my thread arguing that Euphemia probably escaped from the control of her geass right before Lelouch shot her?

Anyway, the events of the series take place over two years or less, which is the longest amount of time one of Lelouch's geass commands could have been observed to control someone. And I have never heard of any examples of any other type of geass known to last for more than ten years. It is perfectly possible that geas commands would fade away after ten years or some other period longer than ten years but shorter than a human lifetime.



So you mean that people wouldn't forget about her massacre but would think and talk abut the much more sensational crimes of the "Evil Emperor Lelouch" instead? I thought that sometime during the Zero Requiem the "Evil Emperor Lelouch" announced that he had used black magic to make Euphemia order the massacre, thus clearing her name. If so, it wouldn't matter how often people thought and talked about the Fuji massacre, as long as they all realized that Euphemia was innocent.

so there would be no need for "Evil Emperor Lelouch" to be so evil if it was just in order to make people stop condemning Euphemia for the Fuji Massacre, since the confession of the "Evil Emperor Lelouch" would stop people from condemning Euphemia for the Fuji Massacre. If the desire to make people stop thinking badly of Euphemia made made Lelouch be even a little more evil than he needed to be to gather all the hatred in the world for the Zero Requiem, that extra evil was unnecessary once Lelouch confessed to making Euphemia order the Fuji Massacre.




Yes. I have pointed out several times that almost everyone would feel some guilt and regret over killing someone, no no matter what the circumstances. Thus Lelouch's mild regret for killing Euphemia does not make him innocent of murdering her.



I mean exactly what I say. I wrote that even Lelouch might not know why he killed Euphemia or did anything else that he did. People often do things for several reasons. People often do things for conscious and subconscious reasons, and they are only dimly aware of their subconscious reasons.

I think I covered this on my post in another topic.

blackrosetwilight
11-24-2009, 11:20 PM
I think I covered this on my post in another topic.
Hey just give on proEuphy. Me, wolfgirl, fungkun, and many other already walked the path that you're walking right now replying to proEuphy. Nothing you say will get through

Rolo Vi Britannia
11-26-2009, 01:42 PM
Hey just give on proEuphy. Me, wolfgirl, fungkun, and many other already walked the path that you're walking right now replying to proEuphy. Nothing you say will get through


I see. I suppose I'll just ignore it from now on. Thanks.

Aizen-sama
11-26-2009, 02:30 PM
Lelouch is a true hero
he..when i saw what he did i cryed...lelouch was probably the most caring human ever....hmph to bad nobody would never actually do something like that,humans are way to selffish

Lehvorak
11-29-2009, 06:07 PM
"It's what you do that makes a hero"

That quote is always significant to me. Anyway, I believe Lelouch(Zero) is a hero because he sacrificed things to make himself a hero to the people who needed it.

reccareichiri
11-29-2009, 08:50 PM
everyone else has said hes more of a villian, but i think he is definately a hero of justice. My reason why is that alllthroughout the aniem, yes he did kill many, yes he did commit "wrong" deeds, but in times such as what he was living in, he always made the best possible decisions. HIs ultimaate goal was peace, which he achieved, and even though some of his tactics were underhanded, in the end, the deaths of the many that were sacrificed unfairly is repayed by the gratitude of the millions whom are now living in peace. And what makes him even more of a hero is that this was all self-less, in the sense that he fell britannia, gave the world peace, and even though he is their great savior and ultimately the bringer of peace, his name will go down in infammy as the evil king lelouch. :(

I strongly agree...;)


He's a hero...

KamiKenpachi
12-26-2009, 11:22 PM
At one point he was truely becomeing his cousin light yagami, but then hemade a geat turn around and I think that unity of the world and paying for everyones sins = SuperJesus! Not hero or villian

Nightixu@hotmail.com
12-31-2009, 06:43 AM
To understand lelouch u have to understand where he's coming from and his thoughts. I'll try to make it short.
To begin with, he saw his mother die and his sister become blind due to politically motivated actions and he spends his life in hiding for his and his sister's life. His life crumbled at a young age leading him to lose faith and trust in the world and the kindness in men's hearts. He becomes practical and analytical throwing away emotions except for his sister which he greatly cares for.

Hence a person who is practical and logical is not evil as they use methods and means that are the most efficient and effective even if others suffer. To them, it is for the greater good. Every great leader is guilty of this. He grew up as a royal surrounded by ambitious courtiers. It is vital for him to understand politics which he eventually excelled in as he understood how people thought and what to say. He manipulated others for his cause and politics is all about sweet talking and manipulation.

And even though he may seem evil, he never lost sight of his goal or never deliberately wanted to make people suffer. He wanted peace for his sister and to do that there had to be sacrifices. He knew and accepted that.
Even with Rolo, he kept saying he wanted to kill Rolo, but in the end his heart soften and he admitted his misgivings to Rolo even though he died.

But comparing Lelouch to Kira from death note as they both fall into the same circumstance and situation, Kira is evil and lelouch is not. Lelouch has virtues and morals as seen by his love of his sister and his dedication to his goal for the good of humanity. Kira has love for noone as he manipulated his family to get what he wanted betraying their love. The killing of criminals for a better world was his goal and he did it not do it just because he wanted to save the world. It was because he could do it. He had power. He was absorbed in it.

xXPainful SmilexX
01-16-2010, 09:59 AM
To understand lelouch u have to understand where he's coming from and his thoughts. I'll try to make it short.
To begin with, he saw his mother die and his sister become blind due to politically motivated actions and he spends his life in hiding for his and his sister's life. His life crumbled at a young age leading him to lose faith and trust in the world and the kindness in men's hearts. He becomes practical and analytical throwing away emotions except for his sister which he greatly cares for.

Hence a person who is practical and logical is not evil as they use methods and means that are the most efficient and effective even if others suffer. To them, it is for the greater good. Every great leader is guilty of this. He grew up as a royal surrounded by ambitious courtiers. It is vital for him to understand politics which he eventually excelled in as he understood how people thought and what to say. He manipulated others for his cause and politics is all about sweet talking and manipulation.

And even though he may seem evil, he never lost sight of his goal or never deliberately wanted to make people suffer. He wanted peace for his sister and to do that there had to be sacrifices. He knew and accepted that.
Even with Rolo, he kept saying he wanted to kill Rolo, but in the end his heart soften and he admitted his misgivings to Rolo even though he died.

But comparing Lelouch to Kira from death note as they both fall into the same circumstance and situation, Kira is evil and lelouch is not. Lelouch has virtues and morals as seen by his love of his sister and his dedication to his goal for the good of humanity. Kira has love for noone as he manipulated his family to get what he wanted betraying their love. The killing of criminals for a better world was his goal and he did it not do it just because he wanted to save the world. It was because he could do it. He had power. He was absorbed in it.

I agree. Kira was a man who only saw himself, Lelouch saw the rest of the world as well. I do believe at some point Lelouch became very corrupt. That's the reason Euphemia died. But, he turned around at the very end. I'd say hero with a strong resemblance to a villain.

Aku no Hikari
01-25-2010, 06:31 AM
He's an anti-hero, a hero who just doesnt play by the rules

Almost there. More specifically, he's a Byronic hero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byronic_hero).

Nightixu@hotmail.com: Nice analysis there. (Though I disagree about what you said regarding Kira...)

proEuphie
01-25-2010, 10:18 PM
Almost there. More specifically, he's a Byronic hero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byronic_hero).

Nightixu@hotmail.com: Nice analysis there. (Though I disagree about what you said regarding Kira...)

I don't see how being considered a Byronic hero can justify the crimes of Lelouch, such as murdering Euphemia for no good reason and no evil reason that makes any sense, and ordering the geass directorate massacre.

In real life, if someone who fit the description of a Byronic hero killed someone that you loved, would you try to have him acquittted of that murder because he was a Byronic hero? If not, why should you continue to admire or respect any fictional Byronic hero for a single instant after he committs an evil deed typiclaly committed by fictional villains?

I say that any Byronic hero who does something evil immediately becomes a villain, regardless of the literary conventions of Byronic heroes.

I can not and do not want to lower the ethical standards I hold for respecting people in real life when dealing with fictional characters, no matter how many literary genres may have conventions that require readers (or viewers) to judge the protagonist by lower standards.

proEuphie
01-25-2010, 10:26 PM
I agree. Kira was a man who only saw himself, Lelouch saw the rest of the world as well. I do believe at some point Lelouch became very corrupt. That's the reason Euphemia died. But, he turned around at the very end. I'd say hero with a strong resemblance to a villain.

No.

I my eyes bieng a hero does not require extraordinary feats of heroism and a life filled with such feats. One single heroic deed in a lifetime is enough to qualify someone as a hero in my eyes. I do not set the positive requirements necessary to be considered a hero very high. But I do set very strict negative standards for eliminating a person from being considered a hero.

Being a hero does not require that a person be heroic all his life. It does not require being brave, or self sacrificing, or considerate of others, or honorable, or honest, or whatever else you might imagine being a hero is, for all of the hero's life. A hero can fall below heroic standards almost all of his life, and still be a hero if he does at least one thing which can be defined as heroic in his life, even for just one second in a long lifetime.

But being a hero does require that he be good and decent all his life and never do even one evil deed. Doing even one evil deed in a life time makes someone a villain. Even if he does just one evil deed for one second in a lifetime filled with good deeds and even heroic deeds.

So turning around at he very end is not enough to make Lelouch a hero instead of a villain.

And please see my post # 106 below.

proEuphie
01-25-2010, 10:54 PM
To understand lelouch u have to understand where he's coming from and his thoughts. I'll try to make it short.
To begin with, he saw his mother die and his sister become blind due to politically motivated actions and he spends his life in hiding for his and his sister's life. His life crumbled at a young age leading him to lose faith and trust in the world and the kindness in men's hearts. He becomes practical and analytical throwing away emotions except for his sister which he greatly cares for.

Hence a person who is practical and logical is not evil as they use methods and means that are the most efficient and effective even if others suffer. To them, it is for the greater good. Every great leader is guilty of this. He grew up as a royal surrounded by ambitious courtiers. It is vital for him to understand politics which he eventually excelled in as he understood how people thought and what to say. He manipulated others for his cause and politics is all about sweet talking and manipulation.

And even though he may seem evil, he never lost sight of his goal or never deliberately wanted to make people suffer. He wanted peace for his sister and to do that there had to be sacrifices. He knew and accepted that.
Even with Rolo, he kept saying he wanted to kill Rolo, but in the end his heart soften and he admitted his misgivings to Rolo even though he died.

But comparing Lelouch to Kira from death note as they both fall into the same circumstance and situation, Kira is evil and lelouch is not. Lelouch has virtues and morals as seen by his love of his sister and his dedication to his goal for the good of humanity. Kira has love for noone as he manipulated his family to get what he wanted betraying their love. The killing of criminals for a better world was his goal and he did it not do it just because he wanted to save the world. It was because he could do it. He had power. He was absorbed in it.

I say that Lelouch was evil and he was often not practical and logical, so many of the evil deeds that he did were actually against his best intersts.

In Code Geass:Black Knight/White Knight post # 154 Rolo Vi Britannia, claiming the Lelouch could not and should have saved Euphemia's life says:

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

In my post # 155 I responded to "Would her living be a good thing for Lelouch? NO." with :

Yes it would be. Haven't you seen any of my posts where I point out 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 bargin 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.

I have demonstrated that Lelouch killed Euphemia despite having many practical reasons why he had to keep her alive at all costs. That does not seem very much like a practical person to me. Killing Euphemia shows that Lelouch was evil and not practical and logical.

I responded to "Would her living be a good thing thing for Euphie? No." With:

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 whether 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 of Code Geass: Black Night/White Knight..

I responded to: "Would her living be a good thing for the plot? NO." with:

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.

xXPainful SmilexX
01-26-2010, 10:40 AM
No.

I my eyes bieng a hero does not require extraordinary feats of heroism and a life filled with such feats. One single heroic deed in a lifetime is enough to qualify someone as a hero in my eyes. I do not set the positive requirements necessary to be considered a hero very high. But I do set very strict negative standards for eliminating a person from being considered a hero.

Being a hero does not require that a person be heroic all his life. It does not require being brave, or self sacrificing, or considerate of others, or honorable, or honest, or whatever else you might imagine being a hero is, for all of the hero's life. A hero can fall below heroic standards almost all of his life, and still be a hero if he does at least one thing which can be defined as heroic in his life, even for just one second in a long lifetime.

But being a hero does require that he be good and decent all his life and never do even one evil deed. Doing even one evil deed in a life time makes someone a villain. Even if he does just one evil deed for one second in a lifetime filled with good deeds and even heroic deeds.

So turning around at he very end is not enough to make Lelouch a hero instead of a villain.

And please see my post # 106 below.
I disagree. I believe Lelouch was a hero, not only for his sacrifice, but also for the entire second half of R2. He didn't do anything bad, of that bad that was not part of the Zero Requiem, after episode 14(The unreasonable massacre of the Order but we all know this was just a reference to Gundam 00(Jk)
I don't believe what makes someone good is if they're good deeds outweigh their bad. I believe that it's judged by every single action and feeling. It's not the act that is committed, it's in the heart. That's what i truly believe.
On Gundam 00 Season 2.
Tieria was always the bad, more antihero out of Celestial Being, but he does save everyone in the end, at least so far. He turns into a hero to me
I like the place between good and evil, or more, I like when the hero has to learn how to be a hero. Otherwise, it's a bit boring to me.
However, this is all just my opinion.

Aku no Hikari
01-26-2010, 07:02 PM
I don't see how being considered a Byronic hero can justify the crimes of Lelouch, such as murdering Euphemia for no good reason and no evil reason that makes any sense, and ordering the geass directorate massacre.

I didn't say that being a Byronic character justifies anything he does. I was just stating the fact that he is.

And besides, can you tell me one thing that I said that suggested that I was trying to justify him? As far as I remember, I said (in the other thread) that Lelouch committed "an unforgivable crime", which he had to pay for later. "Unforgivable" and "crime"? I think these words are more likely to suggest that I agree with you than to suggest that I don't. (Though actually I DON'T.) Seems like you just want to pointlessly keep asserting your viewpoints and keep arguing about them with other people, even if the other people said that they agree with you!! :laugh: You just want a reason to argue. Actually, you don't even want a reason. You just want to argue.

proEuphie
03-19-2010, 10:24 PM
I disagree. I believe Lelouch was a hero, not only for his sacrifice, but also for the entire second half of R2. He didn't do anything bad, of that bad that was not part of the Zero Requiem, after episode 14(The unreasonable massacre of the Order but we all know this was just a reference to Gundam 00(Jk)
I don't believe what makes someone good is if they're good deeds outweigh their bad. I believe that it's judged by every single action and feeling. It's not the act that is committed, it's in the heart. That's what i truly believe.
On Gundam 00 Season 2.
Tieria was always the bad, more antihero out of Celestial Being, but he does save everyone in the end, at least so far. He turns into a hero to me
I like the place between good and evil, or more, I like when the hero has to learn how to be a hero. Otherwise, it's a bit boring to me.
However, this is all just my opinion.

From my post # 179 in Code Geass: Black Knight/White Knight


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.


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.

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, while seeking even the most good and noble goal imaginable, kills even one person unnecessarily 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.

kimi no kioku
03-20-2010, 08:24 AM
Keep your lame arguments to your own thread.

The Butcher
03-21-2010, 08:58 PM
A Anti-Hero at the beginning,then he turned Evil to bring the world peace by rising to the most powerful person on the Planet.

So I consider him a hero from his very last action.

-P.N.-
03-21-2010, 09:10 PM
He is kinda like Light but Light failed.
Yea I would call him a hero. you can't save everyone! sacrifice must be made... I dun belive in happy ending anyway.
~P.N.~

玲華.
03-22-2010, 04:26 AM
Almost there. More specifically, he's a Byronic hero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byronic_hero).

^ Makes me think of Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights.

No, Lelouch doesn't really seem like one.

IcePriestess
03-22-2010, 07:20 AM
Yeez... Even though it's my thread, ProEuphie still likes to flood in it... Oh well... PM me if you ever see a post of ProEuphie where the name "Euphemia" isn't mentioned.

I've read your thoughts and I totally agree with akuNoHikari. He totally matches Byronic Hero(well maybe not totally, but some points are very accurate).

CorneliaNoGeass
04-06-2010, 01:58 AM
He is kinda like Light but Light failed.
Yea I would call him a hero. you can't save everyone! sacrifice must be made... I dun belive in happy ending anyway.
~P.N.~

even if he did sacrifice himself he killed thousands of people and thats unacceptable, only god has the right to take human life and well...lelouch isnt god.

any news on the new code geass?

Russian Medved'
04-09-2010, 09:56 PM
even if he did sacrifice himself he killed thousands of people and thats unacceptable, only god has the right to take human life and well...lelouch isnt god.
He sacrificed himself 'cause it was needed to do, not for repayment. And anyway he never thought about himself as a god. He was an idealist and altruist deep inside. Speech with Suzaku - "Don't you think human's desires like a geass? I am influenced by that geass". He had killed thousands of people indeed, but how many did he save?

He is a villain. It is a price which he had paid. But he was needed.
One thing for sure - if he had not died he would be a Great Emperor.

Hollow Lelouch
04-09-2010, 10:17 PM
Anyone who would comepletely forsake his own desires and destroy his own good nature, even -----die----- for the sake of peole he didn't even know is a hero in my eyes.

And, proeuphie, are we going to have to do this again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEhDZN0RFjw&playnext_from=TL&videos=gLkIV7vaVvg

Ténèbres éternelles
08-01-2010, 11:29 AM
He is neither hero or villain. As said in previous posts, he killed a lot of people however reunited the world.
For me, the balance leans more toward the hero beacause at the end, everything seem to be peaceful.

Sword
09-05-2010, 06:17 PM
Lelouch is no doubt a hero in my opinion. He carried the weight of everyone's hatred on his shoulders in an attempt to bring peace to the world. Killing people isn't so black and white. The people he killed were either soldiers or inevitable casulties of war. In the case of Euphie, that was a complete accident and he had no choice but to kill her.

Marius2000
09-06-2010, 07:00 AM
I also believe Lelouch is a hero, at least at the end. In the beginning he has selfish motives basically starting a rebellion to get revenge for himslef and his sister, his only real goal to kill off the royal family. I know Lelouch says he is doing it to create a better world for Nunnaly, but his actions are more geared toward killing his relatives. However as the series goes on Lelouch changes (not always for the better) but eventually he sees what he need to do to make the world a better place and he mans up and sacrifices himself to do it.
I think Lelouch is best seen as a deeply flawed hero, there are several times during the series that he nearly looses is sanity and he could be very cruel at times and he made a lot of mistakes. As for the people that say he isn't a hero because he killed thousands, well no great social change or revolution in history was bloodless but I think Lelouch's sacrifice in the end really reduced the blood shed necessary to bring about a complete societal paradigm shift.
Lelouch is a very complex character which is what made him so interesting to watch, we not only saw his genius as a tactician, but we also got to see his flaws as an emotionally damaged human being.
Now if you want to get really complicated with it we can talk about Lelouch vs Zero and line where the man ends and the symbol begins, because at times during the series there were pretty big divergences between the two.... but that is a disscusion for another time.

Maha Vailo
09-06-2010, 06:52 PM
I think he's a hero, and to be honest I wish people like him existed in real life. Sword's post above pretty much sums up my views of Lelouch.

Saxima
09-07-2010, 10:04 PM
Lelouch is both. It's just that simple, the way he views justice is common; to get peace you must first take action and destroy.
(also, he's a bit psycho...)

proEuphie
09-07-2010, 11:15 PM
I think he's a hero, and to be honest I wish people like him existed in real life. Sword's post above pretty much sums up my views of Lelouch.

I can only hope that if you every meet someone like Lelouch in real life,and find yourself in a situation where killing you would be as totally senseless and unjustified as killing Euphemia was, you will suddenly fear that this person might kill you anyway, just like Lelouch killed Euphemia without any reason or justification.

---------- Post added at 12:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:05 AM ----------


Lelouch is both. It's just that simple, the way he views justice is common; to get peace you must first take action and destroy.
(also, he's a bit psycho...)

More psycho than hero in my opinion see my post # 106 and # 109 above for reasons

---------- Post added at 12:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 AM ----------


Lelouch is no doubt a hero in my opinion. He carried the weight of everyone's hatred on his shoulders in an attempt to bring peace to the world. Killing people isn't so black and white. The people he killed were either soldiers or inevitable casulties of war. In the case of Euphie, that was a complete accident and he had no choice but to kill her.

What about the civilians killed in Lelouch's landslide at Narita? Lelouch did not have to use a landslide to wipe out Britannian soldiers and JLF fighters and continue on to wipe out Narita. Lelouch could have found a different tactic if he cared enough about reducing civilian casualties. And how was massacring the geass directorate people inevitable? If you can massacre people you are in a position where you don't have to massacre them. All massacres are unnecessary and easily avoidable..

Giving Euphemia the geass command may have been a accident. But saying that Lelouch had no choice but to kill her is utterly senseless. All my posts on the topic have stated that Euphemia was wonderfully safe and easy to capture alive and that nobody who had the slightest respect for human life would ever kill someone who was that easy to capture alive.

The killing of Euphemia was one of the most terrible and evil (fictional) murders (of a single person) I have ever seen on television. Having such a terrible murder committed by a protagonist who millions of viewers continue to like and respect is intolerable.

I suggest that you look up Arther C Clarke's short story "I Remember Babylon" (1960). All the changes in television programming that Clarke speculated about have happened, though not as part of any sinister plot. I suggest you find out how fictional heroes behaved in 1960 television shows and how evil were the military and political actions which the viewing public tolerated in real life. Then compare that the way modern tv heroes behave and imagine what evil military and political deeds today's viewing public might tolerate in real life.

玲華.
09-08-2010, 12:02 AM
Lol? Who revived this thread. Anyway you have to agree that no one character in Code Geass is clearly a villain or hero.

proEuphie
09-08-2010, 11:29 PM
Lol? Who revived this thread. Anyway you have to agree that no one character in Code Geass is clearly a villain or hero.

I believe that all the characters are evil enough to be considered villains (or their henchmen) except for Euphemia, who is the only one good enough to be a hero.

Shinn Kamiyra
09-08-2010, 11:35 PM
Hrm... I believe that, during the course of Code Geass, Lelouch drifted quite often between being a villain and a hero; so much so that one cannot readily define him as one or the other. However, I would say that the nature of his death was befitting that of a hero. Bearing the hatred of the entire world upon his shoulders and for the sake of peace, he relinquished himself to Suzaku's sword and paid the ultimate price for what he believed was correct.

Lelouch did some very terrible things, yes; however, bearing pain and nigh unimaginable guilt, he continued along the path he believed was correct right up until the end. In this sense, he was a very strong person.

As for this by far long-standing argument over Lelouch's involvement with Euphemia's death; I'll put in my two cents and back off. Her death was truly unfortunate, yes, and even her name was sullied in the minds of pretty much everyone who knew her. However, Euphemia only ever wished for a peaceful world; and one cannot argue that, in spite of everything, Lelouch gave everything he had into making that happen. I believe this was one of the primary reasons that Suzaku decided to help Lelouch out in the end; and so, bearing the conclusion of Code Geass in mind, I don't believe Euphemia's death was in vain at all.

That's all I have to say regarding that matter. Good night, everyone.

Sword
09-09-2010, 07:55 AM
What about the civilians killed in Lelouch's landslide at Narita? Lelouch did not have to use a landslide to wipe out Britannian soldiers and JLF fighters and continue on to wipe out Narita. Lelouch could have found a different tactic if he cared enough about reducing civilian casualties. And how was massacring the geass directorate people inevitable? If you can massacre people you are in a position where you don't have to massacre them. All massacres are unnecessary and easily avoidable..

Giving Euphemia the geass command may have been a accident. But saying that Lelouch had no choice but to kill her is utterly senseless. All my posts on the topic have stated that Euphemia was wonderfully safe and easy to capture alive and that nobody who had the slightest respect for human life would ever kill someone who was that easy to capture alive.

The killing of Euphemia was one of the most terrible and evil (fictional) murders (of a single person) I have ever seen on television. Having such a terrible murder committed by a protagonist who millions of viewers continue to like and respect is intolerable.

I suggest that you look up Arther C Clarke's short story "I Remember Babylon" (1960). All the changes in television programming that Clarke speculated about have happened, though not as part of any sinister plot. I suggest you find out how fictional heroes behaved in 1960 television shows and how evil were the military and political actions which the viewing public tolerated in real life. Then compare that the way modern tv heroes behave and imagine what evil military and political deeds today's viewing public might tolerate in real life.

Meh, the landslide was an extremely helpful asset to the success of the battle at Narita. And yeah that massacre of the people researching the Geass was a bit too far, but I think his final moments more than made up for that.

With regard to Euphie, there are loads or factors Lelouch would have to consider when choosing the best course of action. ANY time Euphie saw a Japanese person she was going to attempt to murder them, including Suzaku. This could lead to even heavier examination on both sides about what really happened when Zero talked with Euphie in private before her rampage, putting his whole plan in jeopardy. IMO Lelouch's plan is more important than Euphie's life. She was far too naive to be of any use to anyone anyway. Not ony that, but Lelouch didn't have much time to think of what to do, also he liked her and killed her with a tear in his eye. It's not like he had any malice towards her, he just went with what he thought was the best move at the time. And more often than not Lelouch's calls are the right ones in regards to succeeding.

blackrosetwilight
09-11-2010, 10:50 PM
OMG I've been gone for close to half a year and i came back to find proEuphy still doing the Euphy death thing lol oh well it keeps the CG forum sect exciting at least

玲華.
09-13-2010, 04:43 AM
I believe that all the characters are evil enough to be considered villains (or their henchmen) except for Euphemia, who is the only one good enough to be a hero.

Euphy: Epic sitting around and doing nothing.

Nah, it's sad that this is probably the most active thread in the section. Ever.

proEuphie
09-13-2010, 10:57 PM
Hrm... I believe that, during the course of Code Geass, Lelouch drifted quite often between being a villain and a hero; so much so that one cannot readily define him as one or the other.

If Lelouch ever did anything villainous -- and I say he did several villainous deeds -- he did something too evil to ever be forgiven by the audience, who where then obligated to hate him as an evil villain for the rest of the series even if he did many heroic things.


However, I would say that the nature of his death was befitting that of a hero. Bearing the hatred of the entire world upon his shoulders and for the sake of peace, he relinquished himself to Suzaku's sword and paid the ultimate price for what he believed was correct.

I don't see how the Zero Requiem was supposed to bring about peace, so I don't see how dying for it would redeem Lelouch for even one murder. And if I was convinced that the Zero Requiem was intended to bring peace, that would only redeem Lelouch for one murder.

Sacrificing your life can only redeem you if you have only killed one person unjustly. If, like Lelouch, you have unjustly killed two or more persons even the ultimate sacrifice possible, even sacrificing your life, is not enough enough to redeem yourself.


Lelouch did some very terrible things, yes; however, bearing pain and nigh unimaginable guilt, he continued along the path he believed was correct right up until the end. In this sense, he was a very strong person.

He would have been stronger if, Like Euphemia, he defeated his evil desires to do evil deeds.


As for this by far long-standing argument over Lelouch's involvement with Euphemia's death; I'll put in my two cents and back off. Her death was truly unfortunate, yes, and even her name was sullied in the minds of pretty much everyone who knew her. However, Euphemia only ever wished for a peaceful world; and one cannot argue that, in spite of everything, Lelouch gave everything he had into making that happen. I believe this was one of the primary reasons that Suzaku decided to help Lelouch out in the end; and so, bearing the conclusion of Code Geass in mind, I don't believe Euphemia's death was in vain at all.

I say that Lelouch always acted to make war, not peace, and thus he kept making Euphie's death more and more in vain.

In the first season someone who wanted peace would approve of the Britannian conquests. The function of independent governments is to fight wars with other independent governments. Making war is all that their independence enables them to do that dependent governments could not also do.

Those a peaceful person would have seen the Britannian conquests of many nations as a solution to the problem of war.

And if that peace loving person was troubled by the secondary problems arising from the solution posed by the Britannian conquests he would try to reduce those problems without stopping the Britannian conquests.

He would try to give Britannia a leader who would continue the Britannian conquests but reduce the death and destruction they caused and reduce the excessive oppression of the conquered numbers. If he had a geass command power he would use it to make a kind and gentle person like Euphemia the Empress of Britannia to demand that her generals conquer more while killing less and to make Britannian rule less oppressive for the numbers.

Instead, during the first season Lelouch revolted against Britannia and murdered Euphemia, who was the best hope for making a kinder and gentler Britannia.

In the second season Lelouch prevent the Britannian - Chinese royal marriage which was the best hope for uniting two-thirds of mankind without firing a shot.

I hear that at the end Lelouch conquered the whole world and then preferred to die and give independence to dozens and hundreds of evil nations, whose purpose was to fight wars, instead of ruling the world and founding an empire that would last for thousands of years and save thousands or millions of lives each year by preventing wars. Those were the actions of one who wants to condemn the world to eternal war, not those of a peace maker.

Furore
09-14-2010, 05:22 AM
I still haven't seen much of this series - I figured I'd start with that in case I'm missing some bigger detail or something.
Reading through these replies though, I figure whether or not anyone can see him as a hero depends on whether or not they feel the end justifies the means and to what extent.
I don't see the end justifying the means these days - I feel I've been quite villainous at times because I do think that way and have used some shifty means to achieve well intentioned goals in the past. Because of this, to my way of thinking any character whose methods include killing/harming many is definitely a villain.

Shinn Kamiyra
09-14-2010, 09:42 AM
@ proEuphie: Those are your opinions and you're certainly entitlted to them. I don't agree with you on your views of Lelouch and Euphemia however. Regardless, when two people such as us have a fundamental difference in our beliefs, it's pretty much a waste of time on both our parts to debate over it. You will not change your views, and neither will I. So let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

However, if I might suggest one thing; it sounds as though you yourself haven't actually watched the end of Code Geass R2. You might be well advised to do so. It was quite the ending in my opinion.

玲華.
09-15-2010, 07:05 AM
However, if I might suggest one thing; it sounds as though you yourself haven't actually watched the end of Code Geass R2. You might be well advised to do so. It was quite the ending in my opinion.

...
She quit watching it after Euphy died. And started this thread. That says everything.

Shinn Kamiyra
09-15-2010, 07:33 PM
...
She quit watching it after Euphy died. And started this thread. That says everything.

Oh well, I'll leave her to mourn an anime character's death for the rest of her life if that's what she wants. I'm done with this argument.

proEuphie
09-16-2010, 10:51 PM
Yeez... Even though it's my thread, ProEuphie still likes to flood in it... Oh well... PM me if you ever see a post of ProEuphie where the name "Euphemia" isn't mentioned.


I started a thread discussing the date AD of Code Geass. I have many posts in it which do not mention Euphemia. I started a thread called Mecha Ethics and I did not mention the name of Euphemia in some of my posts in it.

In the miscellaneous miscellany forum I have a series of threads called Horrors of History which are now on the third page of the forum, which do not mention Euphemia.

And i just started a new thread in the Miscellaneous section called "Do some people want to be animals?" I have not mentioned euphemia in my first post and I don't expect that her name will be brought up in connection with people wanting to be animals.

proEuphie
09-17-2010, 10:38 PM
-------


Euphy: Epic sitting around and doing nothing.

Nah, it's sad that this is probably the most active thread in the section. Ever.

What do you mean about Euphie epic sitting around doing nothing? During the fictional time Euphie was on screen, a few weeks or months, she did a lot. Can you remember a single year of your life, for example, in which you did as much as Euphie did in a few weeks or months?

And I think it a sign of hope that this is the most active thread in the forum.

wolfgirl90
09-18-2010, 05:20 PM
What do you mean about Euphie epic sitting around doing nothing? During the fictional time Euphie was on screen, a few weeks or months, she did a lot. Can you remember a single year of your life, for example, in which you did as much as Euphie did in a few weeks or months?

Honey, we don't care. We just...don't. Like I said, the harder you push, the more it pisses us off. Euphemia did a lot, sure. She did more in a few months than I have ever done in the same amount of time (not saying she did any GOOD things; just that she did some stuff). However, I am doing more stuff than her right now because 1) I am real and because 2) I am not dead and rotting in the ground (kinda hard to argue with that).:closedeye

Euphemia was a special character; we can all agree with that. She was nice, she was innocent, blah, blah, blah, you know the rest. However, not even Cornelia, who cared about her sister more than anything in the world, or Suzaku, who loved her and took it upon himself to carry her dying body back to the Avalon, were crying and carrying on about her death a year later (in our time, its been over 3 years, so yeah, its kinda pathetic). At some point you need to let go; not forget, but let go. If you don't, you go crazy, like hijacking threads, insulting people or accusing a forum member that she has a higher chance of killing someone and needs to be locked up or killed (what's sad is that I am not making this up).:ninja:


And I think it a sign of hope that this is the most active thread in the forum.

Err...why? You are not changing any minds here. In fact, since your behavior hasn't changed much, we still don't like you and still don't take you seriously. When you change, we might pay attention and heed your words, but until then...

Not saying you can't talk about Euphemia; go ahead if you what to (I can't stop you). However, present your ideas in a coherent fashion, something that makes sense and is relevant. The minute you bring up things like Nazis, the Civil War and "mecha ethics", you start sounding like an idiot (which is what you are until further proof is given).

proEuphie
09-18-2010, 10:33 PM
Reply to Sword, part 1

In post # 119 Sword wrote:

[/COLOR]
Lelouch is no doubt a hero in my opinion. He carried the weight of everyone's hatred on his shoulders in an attempt to bring peace to the world. Killing people isn't so black and white. The people he killed were either soldiers or inevitable casulties of war. In the case of Euphie, that was a complete accident and he had no choice but to kill her.

And in post # 123 I replied:

What about the civilians killed in Lelouch's landslide at Narita? Lelouch did not have to use a landslide to wipe out Britannian soldiers and JLF fighters and continue on to wipe out Narita. Lelouch could have found a different tactic if he cared enough about reducing civilian casualties. And how was massacring the geass directorate people inevitable? If you can massacre people you are in a position where you don't have to massacre them. All massacres are unnecessary and easily avoidable.

Giving Euphemia the geass command may have been a accident. But saying that Lelouch had no choice but to kill her is utterly senseless. All my posts on the topic have stated that Euphemia was wonderfully safe and easy to capture alive and that nobody who had the slightest respect for human life would ever kill someone who was that easy to capture alive.

The killing of Euphemia was one of the most terrible and evil (fictional) murders (of a single person) I have ever seen on television. Having such a terrible murder committed by a protagonist who millions of viewers continue to like and respect is intolerable.

I suggest that you look up Arther C Clarke's short story "I Remember Babylon" (1960). All the changes in television programming that Clarke speculated about have happened, though not as part of any sinister plot. I suggest you find out how fictional heroes behaved in 1960 television shows and how evil were the military and political actions which the viewing public tolerated in real life. Then compare that the way modern television heroes behave and imagine what evil military and political deeds today's viewing public might tolerate in real life.

And in post # 127 Sword responded with:


Meh, the landslide was an extremely helpful asset to the success of the battle at Narita. And yeah that massacre of the people researching the Geass was a bit too far, but I think his final moments more than made up for that.

With regard to Euphie, there are loads or factors Lelouch would have to consider when choosing the best course of action. ANY time Euphie saw a Japanese person she was going to attempt to murder them, including Suzaku. This could lead to even heavier examination on both sides about what really happened when Zero talked with Euphie in private before her rampage, putting his whole plan in jeopardy. IMO Lelouch's plan is more important than Euphie's life. She was far too naive to be of any use to anyone anyway. Not ony that, but Lelouch didn't have much time to think of what to do, also he liked her and killed her with a tear in his eye. It's not like he had any malice towards her, he just went with what he thought was the best move at the time. And more often than not Lelouch's calls are the right ones in regards to succeeding.

And I will disprove his arguments one by one:


Meh, the landslide was an extremely helpful asset to the success of the battle at Narita.

What kind of success?

The landslide harmed the cause of Japanese independence by wiping out many JLF fighters who, being dead, were unable to fight in later battles against Britannia.

The landslide was helpful for the success of Lelouch’s plans to make his alter ego Zero the sole leader and only hope for the Japanese rebellion. Lelouch felt that he had to wipe out all the other important leaders of the rebellion and their organizations so that the Japanese would lose all hope except for Lelouch’s alter ego Zero and the Black Knights. Lelouch wanted to be the only hope for Japan to feed his egomaniac desire for adulation by proxy, since during the years spent in hiding he had been starved of the adoration which had been heaped upon him as a member of the Imperial Family.

If Lelouch had wanted to honestly earn adoration by the Japanese, he would not have wasted many JLF rebels and later murdered surviving JLF leaders in order to advance the leadership position of his alter ego Zero and the Black knights within the rebellion as a whole. Instead, he would have warned the JLf leaders of the Britannian attack at Narita and together they would have planned to ambush the Britannians, winning a greater victory and having more JLF fighters surviving to fight under Zero’s leadership.

Lelouch could have used his geass to take over the JLF and make the JLF leaders issue public statements swearing allegiance to Zero and saying that only Zero was fit to be the leader of the whole rebellion. That would have given Lelouch more fighters at his command, and thus would have been best for him, and would have spared the lives of perhaps hundreds of civilians killed in the Narita landslide -- but instead Lelouch betrayed and murdered many members of the JLF – perhaps he had gone too long since his last betrayal and felt an overpowering urge to betray and kill in order to get his double crossing fix.

wolfgirl90
09-19-2010, 01:24 PM
Okay, proEuphie, okay. Jeez.:wacko:

proEuphie
09-23-2010, 10:08 PM
Reply to sword , Part Two:

In post # 127 Sword wrote:


Meh, the landslide was an extremely helpful asset to the success of the battle at Narita. And yeah that massacre of the people researching the Geass was a bit too far, but I think his final moments more than made up for that.

With regard to Euphie, there are loads or factors Lelouch would have to consider when choosing the best course of action. ANY time Euphie saw a Japanese person she was going to attempt to murder them, including Suzaku. This could lead to even heavier examination on both sides about what really happened when Zero talked with Euphie in private before her rampage, putting his whole plan in jeopardy. IMO Lelouch's plan is more important than Euphie's life. She was far too naive to be of any use to anyone anyway. Not ony that, but Lelouch didn't have much time to think of what to do, also he liked her and killed her with a tear in his eye. It's not like he had any malice towards her, he just went with what he thought was the best move at the time. And more often than not Lelouch's calls are the right ones in regards to succeeding.

Here I continue my reply.


And yeah that massacre of the people researching the Geass was a bit too far,

I suppose that if you went back in time and witnessed the Mongol Massacre at Baghdad in 1258, or the Rape of Nanking, or the Massacre at Babi Yar, or the Virginia Massacre on March 22, 1622, or the Powhatan Poisoning in May 1623, or the Mystic Massacre in 1637, or James Johnson’s massacre of peaceful Mimbres Apaches at Santa Rita de Cobre in 1837, etc. etc., you would have said that the perpetrators were going “a bit to far”.

(Several of those massacres are described in my “Horrors of History” series of threads in the Miscellaneous Forum).

IMO, if a judge sentences a convicted criminal to serve one day longer in prison than the maximum legal penalty for his crimes, the judge is going “a bit too far”.

IMO, If a parent threatens to ground a child for two weeks if the child disobeys by doing a specific action, the child does that specific action, and the parent then grounds the child for three weeks instead of two, the parent is going “a bit too far”.

IMO, if someone calculates that he needs exactly ten dollars to keep himself alive until he gets an expected new source of income, steals a wallet with $ 100.00 in it and sends the wallet with $ 80.00 back to its owner and keeps $ 20.00 instead of $ 10.00 in stolen cash, he is going “a bit too far”.

But I believe that if someone kills even a single person in his entire life that is not in open battle or that he is not forced by immediate tactical necessity to kill to protect another life or lives, he has gone not “a bit too far” but “way, way, way, way too far” and crossed the line from being good to being very, very, very, very, very evil.

And people who massacre hundreds or thousands of other people who can't fight back and with no immediate tactical necessity to kill are hundreds and thousands of times worse than being very, very, very, very, very evil.

“A bit too far”!!!



but I think his final moments more than made up for that.

I don’t see how the Zero Requiem was supposed to bring about world peace, and thus I don’t see how dying for the Zero Requiem was any more noble than dying for the Nazi cause or the cause of Genghis Khan, etc., etc.

But if I believed that the Zero Requiem was likely to bring about world peace then I would say that dying to make the Zero Requiem work would be noble enough to atone for ONE and ONLY ONE unjustified homicide.

Thus Lelouch could have atoned for ONE and ONLY ONE of the many unjustified homicides in the Geass Directorate Massacre by sacrificing everything that he had and giving up his life.

No one should ever kill more than one single person in their lifetime, because if they do kill one or more persons and later decide that they killed wrongly, they can only sufficiently atone for ONE wrongful killing by making the ultimate sacrifice and giving up their own life.

proEuphie
09-24-2010, 09:44 PM
In post # 127 Sword wrote:


Meh, the landslide was an extremely helpful asset to the success of the battle at Narita. And yeah that massacre of the people researching the Geass was a bit too far, but I think his final moments more than made up for that.

With regard to Euphie, there are loads or factors Lelouch would have to consider when choosing the best course of action. ANY time Euphie saw a Japanese person she was going to attempt to murder them, including Suzaku. This could lead to even heavier examination on both sides about what really happened when Zero talked with Euphie in private before her rampage, putting his whole plan in jeopardy. IMO Lelouch's plan is more important than Euphie's life. She was far too naive to be of any use to anyone anyway. Not ony that, but Lelouch didn't have much time to think of what to do, also he liked her and killed her with a tear in his eye. It's not like he had any malice towards her, he just went with what he thought was the best move at the time. And more often than not Lelouch's calls are the right ones in regards to succeeding.

Here is part three of my reply to Sword:


With regard to Euphie, there are loads or factors Lelouch would have to consider when choosing the best course of action.

Yes, but Lelouch did not have a lot of time to think of them all. So, if Lelouch was a good and decent person, good enough to be liked by the audience, he would have gone by the simple rule: “When in doubt, DON’T KILL!!!”

Some of the factors Lelouch should have thought of before deciding whether to kill Euphie were:

One) Since Lelouch planned to make Zero the guardian of his new world, he had to make certain that Zero never set a bad examples for his countless millions of admirers by doing anything that was obviously wrong – such as killing a minor like Euphemia.

Two) Since Lelouch planned to make Zero the guardian of his new world, he had to make certain that Zero never set a bad examples for his countless millions of admirers by doing anything that was obviously wrong – such as killing someone, no matter how good or evil one thinks that they are, who is as wonderfully safe and easy to capture alive as Euphemia obviously was.

Three) It is obviously dangerous for your followers to kill the girlfriend of the enemy’s best warrior long before the end of the conflict, when he might kill a lot more of your followers than he otherwise would. Obviously Lelouch didn’t care how many more people an enraged Suzaku killed as result of Euphie’s murder.

Four) It is obviously dangerous for your followers to kill the beloved sister of the enemy’s commander long before the end of the conflict, when she might kill a lot more of your followers than she otherwise would. Obviously Lelouch didn’t care how many more people an enraged Cornelia killed as result of Euphie’s murder.

Five) Lelouch needed someone on the enemy side to try to save him from execution if he was defeated and captured. His mother would be ideal, but of course he knew she was dead – that’s what he was getting vengeance for. Fortunately Lelouch had Euphemia who might be able to save his life and thus everything that he fought for– but he killed her anyway.

Six) The fastest way to stop a massacre is to capture a leader and use him as a hostage to get the followers to stop killing. When the Black Knights arrived the Britannians were widely scattered hunting down Japanese victims and there was no way to stop the massacre faster than finding and defeating the Britannians one by one except by using Euphemia as a hostage. But Lelouch killed Euphemia instead of trying to use her as a hostage .to stop the massacre. Lelouch may have let many Japanese people be killed by not capturing Euphie as a hostage.

Seven) At the beginning of episode 23 Euphemia broadcast an order to massacre Japanese. If that order was obeyed in many wide spread locations the quickest way to stop all those massacres and save as many Japanese people as possible was to try to use Euphemia as a hostage to stop them. Lelouch may have let many Japanese people get killed when he killed Euphie.



ANY time Euphie saw a Japanese person she was going to attempt to murder them, including Suzaku.

Your prediction is falsified by the scene in the Avalon sickbay where the geass command tried to regain control of Euphemia and failed. And Euphemia continued to do the activity that the geass command had made her use to kill hundreds or thousands of other people. The geass command could see that she was still physically strong enough to kill the way she had killed hundreds or thousands of people before. Thus the idea that the geass command gave up trying to make her kill because she was physically too weak is disproven.

Either the command to kill was so vague that the geass arbitrarily decided to make her kill as many Japanese people as she could for a limited period of time, and then stop, and the geass command gave up when that time ran out in the Avalon sickbay, or else Euphemia defeated her geass command in the sickbay of the Avalon. Thus there is no reason to believe that Euphie would have continued trying to kill Japanese people forever.

And you seem to picture Euphie walking down the street accompanied by guards and newsmen with video cameras running – so that anyone could turn to the Euphemia warning channel on their tv or phone to check her present location -- and bumping into a Japanese person unlucky enough not to keep track of the danger zone and snatching a gun from a body guard to shoot him down on live television seen all over the world.

As long as Euphemia was still controlled by her geass command she would be locked up in some institution or house arrest with very tight security and no Japanese person would ever be unlucky enough to meet her unless her guardians would bring condemned Japanese prisoners or suicidal Japanese people in to be killed by her.

TomoyoSakagami
09-28-2010, 10:15 PM
Woah, alot of good points flying around there.

I'm just gonna poke my head in and say "Hero of Justice".

Sussan Victoria Nuñez
12-02-2010, 06:29 PM
Definite anti-hero. Lelouche totally did what he did for good reasons even if he did it the wrong way.

under the rain
12-17-2010, 06:23 PM
It's hard to say... He's done some cruel and uncompromising things, but he usually has the best intentions in his heart. In my opinion, the story details his descent to madness, and his crawling back from it. I think by the end he is entirely good.

Ghost
12-17-2010, 06:35 PM
Hero of Justice I Am

DragonSoul
12-17-2010, 06:44 PM
Well i guess a hero

PinkCherimu
12-18-2010, 03:21 PM
Hero of Justice~ :D But I suppose his definition of justice is slightly...warped :/
I thought it was pretty sad when Suzaku blamed Lelouch for Euphoenia's (<-- I know I can't spell her name o_O") death D:

YuriEcchiGirl
03-11-2011, 11:40 AM
I'm a gonna say he's a hero of justice for sure, in a very roundabout way, lol! ^^

36gamer
06-20-2011, 04:41 AM
I haven't completed this series yet and am still on like episode 12 of the second season.

i think Lelouch is definitely a hero. I say this because his goal is good. He may have done a lot of messed up stuff but sometimes you have to get your hands dirty so other people don't have to. Sometimes you have to do evil stuff and make yourself look like a villain to achieve victory.

shaqpabst
06-21-2011, 10:56 PM
Has to be a hero no matter wat , everything he did was for a reason. Remember the black knights stabbed him in the back and the only option left for him was to try and make the country hate him

-RukiaKuchiki-
06-22-2011, 10:56 PM
i would think he is a AntiHero he is neither a good guy or a bad guy

jamesedwards
10-26-2011, 05:21 AM
Question: If an evil exists, do you commit evil to destroy evil or stick to justice? Evil still remains. Answer: Lelouch was evil (aka villain) to destroy evil and therefore being the new evil. Then he died so evil was eliminated. He was a villain, but with a greater good agenda.

nukedude
01-30-2012, 06:00 PM
If you'd really understood the anime, Lelouch is Jesus Christ, metaphorically speaking.

mangeassshajigan
01-31-2012, 08:31 AM
lelouch is a hero because he eliminated this world of hate and make everyone think he was evil but he was actually good his character development was that deep

meggido
03-01-2012, 12:34 AM
Its hard to say whether he was a villain or a hero, but id say that his intentions in the beginning were pretty heroic and awesome. What he stood for was to defend the weak from the strong, Britannia was a country of self righteous nazis elitist which needed to be changed.

Rusty Blade
09-07-2013, 12:18 AM
It's truly hard to tell. In the very end he achieved something good for all of humanity, but the road there was paved with manipulation, abuse, betrayal, lie upon lie upon lie and thousands and thousands of lives. Having stained his hands in the blood of so many people it is hard to see him as a hero, though his whole stance as the martyr of everyone's hatred was quite an honorable thing to do. But he did destroy countless lives all for the sake of his ambitions which is the very same as the Brittanians he fought against. If anything he was a villain with good intentions, but a villain nonetheless. Depends on how you weigh up the means against the end but that's a slippery slope of subjectivity that could be argued for eternity.

I still definitely sympathised with Lelouche in the end, but certainly he had done some things that are terrible beyond redemption and so he cannot be called a hero of justice. Depending on whether you are an optimist or pessimist he is either a corrupted hero or a villain of justice.

Glies
09-22-2013, 10:38 PM
He is a Hero. Through my eye's he's sacrificed everything, Friends, Loved ones, Family, his own Life, and his unwavering Loyalty to his own Sister (When he used his Geass on her,) even though their planes were so similar. He's become a Symbol of Hatred to all people, yeah, Lelouche is definitely a Hero. :3

I could go on about the guy for a while...

BrittonPatrick
09-28-2013, 01:51 AM
I think he was a good one. Because sometimes you need to become evil in order to remove evil. Also he died at last so with him all evil is gone.

Lollyck
09-28-2013, 04:24 AM
the end justify the means.

Juzey
11-13-2013, 10:51 AM
He may have done a lot of unheroic things but he had good reasons to. I think overall he's a hero.

Swaggy Missy-Chan
12-08-2013, 04:06 AM
"A person is isn't willing to abbandon anything won't achive anything;
A person who will do anything to achive its gold is capable of bringing change to this world" - Armin ( Shingeki No Kyojin )

So what do u think???

~OTAKYU~
01-06-2014, 12:22 AM
why not just both

Idiotchan
02-08-2014, 02:54 PM
Neither. I wouldn't divide people to good and bad. It's stupid.