>Antagonist has a philosophy and ideal he follows and tells the protagonist
>Protagonist responds with "So what?"
Why is this a thing? I'm not exactly looking for a correct answer, but they should still be able to debate things. Maybe it's not as common as I think it is, but I get annoyed everytime it happens.
Antagonist has a philosophy and ideal he follows and tells the protagonist
>Antagonist has a philosophy and ideal he follows and tells the protagonist
>Antagonist is cynical and realistic, knows how the world works and what needs to be done
>Protagonist has some bullshit ideology and wouldn't even work in fairy tales
>Anime rewards the protagonist
Why is this a thing?
>arguing with crazies
I bet you're one of those losers who think you can reason with schizos, trolls and shitposters
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if the protagonist in question isn't exactly a moral paragon or somebody that fights for justice.
Because they didn't want to.
Yeah I can agree with that. But most of the situations I'm talking about is that they're pretty the type of people you mentioned. They either don't have an answer for what the antagonist is doing or completely ignore it and say something about protecting so and so.
I haven't watched Trigun but not only does this guy look like Archer from the 90s but from what I've heard his conflict with Vash resembles Archer's conflict with Shirou.
This. If a villain is killing people and blowing stuff up, it doesn't matter whatever their grievances about society are; they're dangerous and unreasonable at best, not to mention criminals.
I don't recall a lot of final showdowns ending with "so what?"
More often it's like
P: I am strong because I have friends
A: No, friends make you weak. I am strong because I am cynical
P: No, cynical makes you weak
A: Very well, let's fling ourselves at one another in a bright flash of light and whoever believes in their thing the hardest will win
P: OK (Wins)
A: Nani!? The power of friendship was this strong!?
Okay and if the protagonist was pretty much doing the same thing a while ago.
Because the antagonist's philosophy and ideal are not justifications for the shit that they pulled against the MC and/or his friends?
>I KNOW I KILLED YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY BUT IT'S ALL FOR THE GREATER GOOD, BRO! TRUST ME!
Then there's even lesser point to reason with them since it'll just lead to the same YOU'RE NOT SO DIFFERENT, YOU AND I.
Why would the hero stop in the middle of battle to debate "Why killing you and your friends is good, actually" with a guy that is actively trying to kill them? You don't need a philosophical treastise to rationalize fighting for your lives against people that declared war on you
Because antagonists are jaded adults and protagonists are young idealists and it's fun to tell the adults "OK Boomer"
Nta, but I love that shit.
Because sometimes the conflict is just too one-sided. For this to work the protagonist and antagonist have to at least have some mutual understanding or want to resolve the same issue, I think Tales of the Abyss had a pretty good example.
I get that, but usually the protagonist is the one that starts the dialogue with a "Why are you doing this" while they're fighting.
This is why Kenshin had it right.
"So we beat Shishio and proved that his way of thinking was wrong, right?"
"Nah, all we proved was that we were stronger than him."
some niggas need to be killed
That was fantastic honestly. Shishio wasn't necessarily wrong, the cost he would have incurred was counter to Kenshin's beliefs though.
Its like when I see a schizo on Yea Forums and reply with "yes and?" or "didnt ask".
Always destroys them. 100% success rate.
YOU FUCKING TRANNY JEW
Because writing a complicated engaging story for why the antagonist is a shit heel is way easier than writing something competent for the hero. I think the intention is to portray the hero is dedicated towards good no matter the cost, but frankly it just makes the hero look like a big retard, particularly when everyone fawns over him for essentially being stubborn and close minded.
Ironically, this is often the case because good is often narrow and evil is wide. A lot of hit girls tend to look generally the same, but there are a 1000 different ways to be ugly.
Yeah that was good
Yeah. Just look at those tankies and schizos siding with Russia.
I don't see why the protagonist is required to debate with the antagonist. If they choose to tell the guy giving a sermon on his bullshit philosophy to eat shit then what's the bad guy gonna do about it? Keep talking?
Protagonists are not required to entertain the beliefs of psychos.
They don't have to. I hate when these antagonist though lives rent free in their head.
Knives has a philosphy but he's a fag. Vash also has a philosophy, isnt a fag, and he isnt human and the injuries he receives from his philosophy in action are severe and often life threatening. Plus everybody hates him because his philosophy often leads to mass destruction. So both are retarded and shit but at very least they stick to it
Because sometimes "So what?" is the correct answer. Especially in your example. Guy's whole thing was that humans suck so we should just kill them all now.
Yeah, for a real debate to happen you need a case where it's not actually easy for the hero to say 'So what?'.
It’s meant to show that the villain is just using mental gymnastics to justify his evil and will not respond to normal logic so it’s better to just punch him in the face
And what was his philosophy?
Yeah Rau was insane. My thing is more focused is that the entire culmination of the series is leading these moments. Rau's overall goal is stupid, but he had points/arguments that have been asked to Kira throughout the whole series and he pondered for most of it. I just rather have some sort of actual answer rather than nothing or the "we will find the answer in the future"
STANDING HERE, I REALIZE
What a childish thing to say
He was a clone that believed that humanity deserved to be wiped out because of the deep sins they have created. Or something along the line.
Well I'd tell him to shut up because it sounds like he's being a cunt.
You're right there should be some answer, but not to the crazy guy you're fighting. Rather, after the fight and a solution is being presented to the non-crazies from the opposing side.
I can agree with that. Though I often feel that mangaka's rarely show the after the fight solution or they just skim it by saying 'they're working at it'
That's because it's so much simpler to beat someone than to work with them.
What are some stories where the protagonist doesn't say 'So what?'?
So is it a hot take to say that the Frost Brothers were better than him?
Yea Forums only?
Try to limit it to Yea Forums if possible, but I wouldn't say no to something else.
My memory for X is kinda of fuzzy. I didn't like the series so I don't really remember much.
Because usually the philosophy does not naturally lead to the means or ends. The point of the response is to reject the premise. Whatever high minded ideals or deep seated trauma leads to the fight literally does not matter to the protagonist.
The fight is the most extreme and obvious answer, because your philosophy has absolutely no influence on my continued survival beyond your threat.
So the appropriate response IS "I don't care about any of that." because you don't. This isn't about justice, or revenge, or dignity or power. This is about what your spear does to my and mine's throat and keeping that from happening.
Because forcing your will through force is more effective than debates. Have you not learned anything from history?
I miss fights like Kenshin vs. Shishio, where rejection does happen but Kenshin has a good understanding of the sort of tragedy Shishio's ideology leads to.
Fullmetal Alchemist, maybe?
I can't remember for sure.
Why debate when you could just beat the fuck out of the other person?
Frost brothers were just him, but still pretending it was the 80s and listening to the Cure on repeat hoping that alternative goth rock would come back.
One has abandoned his ideals and accepted reality while the other refuses to abandon them even though they are unachievable. Man I wonder why won was rewarded from a narrative standpoint?
in the end ra le cruze was right. kira was the perfect human (thanks to writers god mode) and so proved coordinates would be the destruction of humanity.
so the villain loses to the masses who organize against him?
Sounds like real life lol. Sometimes I want to see the villain have enough grounding to realize he will be targeted for what he does or accepts it and goes full tilt without giving the protagonists a chance to fight back.
No one's out to get you user. It's not too late user. It's never too late.
No, Kira actually knew the answers to most of those questions, but fuck Rau, he wasn't worth talking to. And I agree. I'd be "good point. Counterpoint: fuck off"
I don't know if it was just because of the subtitles in the version I watched, but I didn't get that impression.
I got the impression that they were a pair of teenagers with psychological issues, and that their motives being what they were made sense as a result of that. They didn't want to kill all humans because "humans are bad" or whatever, they just hated newtypes and the people who obsessed over them.
I'm writing a story, the plot twist is that someone thought of as a hero was indeed a villain in the past who accepted he'd absolutely be hated for his decision to raise an effective Macguffin for the world's sake than to save the world as he was supposed to do. Everyone who went after him was killed.
Frost brothers just wanted to show the world that they were better then newtypes