Umm Nefertieh, did you even read my post?
Except neither Naruto nor Obito are claiming to be taking the moral highroad. If you want a foil to the protagonist, then that character is Sasuke.
*facepalm* You do realize that Sasuke is the only one Naruto doesn't see as evil, right? Meanwhile, he sees all the others evil, but here you are saying that Sasuke IS evil. You foiled your own logic and enhanced mine.
"Good" and "Evil" are from the perspective of the viewer. Whatever side you are on is the "good" side. Who ever fights or opposes your side is the"evil" one. Describing "good" and "evil" is a narrow-minded viewpoint as it could be altered quite easily and even bad guys can become allies.
Some of the characters do sometimes outright claim themselves to be better on the moral high-ground compared to Naruto. Again, look at Nagato. He challenged Naruto "What makes you think you can end hatred? What makes you think you know true pain? I'll show everyone true pain." Paraphrasing, but still.
Obito has also done it, but he isn't as flashy about it. He also explains to Naruto that ending hatred is by ending free-will. He will force people to end their hatred just like Nagato wanted to do.
If Obito isn't trying to foil Naruto's plan, then why is Naruto fighting him? Naruto wants to live, Obito wants him to die. Yeah I'd say that's foiling his plan and this isn't even factoring the whole "war" and other collisions in views.
.
QUOTE
No, the manga is called Naruto because he is the main character, not the he embodies all that is just and good, who kills anyone he deems evil. Don't confuse this with American comicbooks.
Yeah, no kidding Naruto is the main character. And as the main character we have to view everything from his perspective. I just said that. I didn't say he was the embodiment of good and just. I said for this story he is the "good guy" and anyone he fights is the "bad guy" to him. (The perspective of the character.) If they were not the bad guy, why would Naruto fight them? Naruto is not a character that just fights for the sake of fighting. He has a purpose to every battle he fights.
Also, if you think about, Naruto IS the embodiment of good because he is always trying to convert people to the good side. To end the hatred that plagues the world and making everything more righteous. Even to understand pain itself just so he can understand why some people become bad in the first place.
Talk no Jutsu? Ring any bells? The meeting with Nagato shows how Naruto became the embodiment of good and just. Especially when he gave a long winded speech on how he plans to end hatred in the world and do it without taking away people's will. The whole Will of Fire speeches ARE the embodiment of good speeches too. He also refuses to kill. Name one character Naruto has actually killed in this manga? And he doesn't kill them because he can't, he does it by choice.
BTW, which American comic books are we talking about here? Watchmen (A lot of DarkHorse really) heroes are not the embodiment of good or evil and they themselves are seen doing evil things. A lot of the Marvel heroes are not really based on a Black and white scale, they have many forms with very few taking a moral high-ground. Even then, those characters can easily fight using evil tactics. (A whole mess when it comes to the Civil War too, but then again that's why they call it a Civil War)
DC is the comic studio where the heroes are all boyscouts (save for Batman which is why he is the most popular.)
So again, which American comic books are we talking about?
QUOTE
The classic tier of evil doesn't hold for every piece of literature in existence. You're looking black and white in a comic book largely about colour, about understanding your enemies. Jiraiya's entire story arc was about that.
Did I not just say I am NOT looking at the grey area? Did I not just say that I was merely looking at the oppositions of the characters? Not good, not evil. Opposites. I AM looking at this from a black and white scale.
I AM not paying attention to the grey areas because according to the grey area there is no such thing as good and evil. According to the grey area. Obito, Sasuke, and most of Kishi's "villain" characters are not considered evil. Just misguided.
Here is the scale in it's entirely. (Thank you, TV tropes. Great source) You want to sort which characters go into what, then be my guest. Here is a starting point. Sasuke is Chaotic Neutral.
Lawful Good: Basically, they believe Law is Good, and that you do good by upholding the law. The alignment of The Cape, Paladins, and the Knight in Shining Armor. Believes in Truth, Justice and such, but may potentially believe in them a little too much. Poorly portrayed, he tends to be Lawful Stupid, largely depending on your interpretation of "good". Individuals who believe that Rousseau Was Right will tend to view society as tending towards Lawful Good, with most individuals within it as lawful or Neutral Good. In D&D canon up to the most recent edition, archons, celestials who inhabit the Seven Heavens, are Lawful Good. From a non-D&D more realistic perspective however, LGs are likely altruists who believe in an orderly lifestyle for the benefit of their species.
Neutral Good: Sweetness and light. Doing good is more important than upholding the law, but law is not a bad thing. Not too caught up in Order Versus Chaos; concerned with moral goodness, but often not willing to enforce it in others. The Messiah is very likely to be Neutral Good. Just think "basically nice person" and you've probably got it. (For advanced learners, there's Good Is Not Nice.) Neutral Good states may be really nice places to live, but depending on how idealistic or cynical the setting is, they may be deluding themselves. The guardinal celestials of D&D, beastlike creatures who inhabit Elysium, are Neutral Good.
Chaotic Good: Rebels and free spirits who are more often than not seen opposing tyrants and other oppressive types. Somewhat like Chaotic Neutral, only much nicer. They tend to believe that things like order, discipline, and honor get in the way of doing good. Or they may believe too much order is bad for everyone. Whatever their stance is, they act on their ideals before they let laws get in the way, and sometimes they dare the laws to get in the way. Whether they're portrayed as damn big heroes, too damn idealistic, a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, or just a damn problem depends on the views of the author and, ultimately, readers. Represented in pre-4th Edition D&D by the elf- and fey-like eladrin celestials of Arborea.
Lawful Neutral: The rule-abiding sort. Law and order is more important than whether you're good or evil. Believes in keeping order, though not necessarily in Justice as a universal constant (though they may - this can get complicated). They'll arrest a robber or rapist, but may also kick a family out of their home for failing to pay rent, even if they were poor. May also believe in a Cosmic Order that transcends laws - many monks are Lawful Neutral. Just as often the bad guys as the good guys in an Order Versus Chaos situation. People who think Hobbes Was Right will argue that all societies tend towards Lawful Neutral, as the Always Chaotic Neutral individuals who make up society surrender their freedom to the law in exchange for protection from other Chaotic Neutral individuals. Modrons, D&D beings of geometrically perfect precision and order who inhabit the plane of Mechanus, are Lawful Neutral. Mercenaries who obey their contracts without question, and take either side of the moral spectrum, are Lawful Neutral. The Stoic can make a good Lawful Neutral.
True Neutral: Sometimes known as just Neutral, or even Neutral Neutral. Comes in two flavors: Keeping the Balance and Just Doesn't Care. Druids are canonically the former sort, on the same side as the animals. The balance-happy sort may sometimes be characters just too dumb to know the difference, but may also be a Wild Card. It's not uncommon to see True Neutral monks, for instance; not to mention ordinary folks who just want to be left alone. Most Punch Clock Villains fit under this alignment. Your average citizen of Libria (in Equilibrium) is an example of the "Just Doesn't Care" version of neutrality, without necessarily being stupid - the government would probably be Lawful Evil. Druids in D&D were required to be True Neutral until the 3rd Edition of the game, and even then had to maintain "some of nature's neutrality". Mordenkainen, from the Dungeons & Dragons Greyhawk setting, a very powerful wizard who actively tries to keep any major power from getting the upper hand, is an example of the "Balance Keeping" version. Animals, meanwhile, are considered to lack any sort of moral capacity; since moral judgments can't be placed on them, they are canonically True Neutral in Dungeons & Dragons. Rilmani, metallic-skinned humanoids from the Outlands, are the True Neutral archetype, maintaining the balance between all the other planes. If True Neutrals include the kind with a head for things, then they most likely typically do not care for idealist virtues and/or politics. Intelligent true neutrals are quite logical in how they go about things, including morals. Employers fire and hire employees in equal measure, etc.
Chaotic Neutral: The ultimate free spirits, or just lunatics? It can go either way. Chaotic Neutral characters are all about freedom, and don't care so much about morality. Sometimes they're just amoral nutjobs, and sometimes they're generally good people with a wild streak that sometimes leads them into bad things. Often used by players in Tabletop Games to excuse doing anything they feel like (in the case of a Game Master who disables evil alignments - see Neutral Evil, below), and often prohibited by the sort of Game Master who also prohibits outright evil characters. Like Lawful Neutral, however, how "good" they ultimately end up seeming depends on which side of Order Versus Chaos the plot tends toward.
Lawful Evil: The ordered sort of Evil, that often ends up in charge. Can be a lot like Lawful Neutral, but nastier. Well-structured, large-scale and often scarily successful evil. May believe in keeping order at all costs, or may simply believe that a well-ordered system is so much easier to exploit. Whether an Obstructive Bureaucrat is Lawful Evil or Lawful Neutral is basically a function of whether he enjoys what he's doing (see above example of kicking the family out of the house). Knight Templars are almost always this alignment. If God Is Evil, he's almost always Lawful Evil. On the "bright" side, the Worthy Opponent and Noble Demon are often Lawful Evil (if they're evil at all), as they tend to develop a "Code of Honor" to guide their actions, and can in fact be dependable allies in an Enemy Mine situation where other alignments might fizzle out. In circumstances where you are not a threat to their intentions, Lawful Evil might well be the "lesser of the three evils", but on the other hand its the one most likely to win and the one that most frequently causes suffering on a grand scale. BBEGs in general tend towards Lawful Evil - mostly since they plan to construct their very own empire that you'd better fall in line with - as do many Magnificent Bastards. A mercenary who always keeps his contract (good or evil), but enjoys a job where he gets to hurt people, is Lawful Evil and more likely to end up working for the bad guys. The baatezu (devils) of D&D rule the plane of Baator with a Lawful Evil fist, and some of these were originally Knight Templar angels. As a good reference point, Big Brother (or O'Brien) from 1984 would be Lawful Evil.
Neutral Evil: Sometimes known as the a**hole Alignment. The Neutral Evil Alignment can be even more dangerous than the Chaotic Evil Alignment - simply because you can't be sure of which way they'll swing in the end. Neutral Evil characters are primarily in it for themselves, because while they are usually villains, they can also swing to the good guy's side, like the Magnificent Bastard they really are. They may also just happen to be on the Good Guy's Team because it's better for them at the moment. Why are they so bad? It could be that Evil Tastes Good or maybe Evil Feels Good. Could be that they've given in to The Dark Side. They could be part of the Religion of Evil. They could just be, you know, sociopaths. They could take looking out for number one way too far. Or it could be for no readily apparent reason whatsoever. They can be the very embodiment of malice, or just petty thugs. In Dungeons & Dragons, characters who are selfish above all else are Neutral Evil by default. Expect any Neutral Evil state to be Mordor, and a Neutral Evil city the Wretched Hive. The double-dealing, backstabbing, gleefully evil and mercenary fiends called yugoloths (daemons), living in the Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, are D&D's archetypal Neutral Evil beings.
Chaotic Evil: If Chaotic Neutral indicates the truly free spirit, Chaotic Evil is the truly evil free spirit. Whereas the Chaotic Neutral is concerned only with his freedom but isn't a really horrible person, the same can't be said for the Chaotic Evil character. They will do whatever they want to (even if, and sometimes, especially, it hurts other people) and (to them) rules don't matter. Whereas a Neutral Evil character will sometimes follow the law if it is convenient, the Chaotic Evil character occasionally takes pleasure in going out of their way to break the law. So why are they evil? Perhaps they're in it for profit. Maybe they are narcisstic or egotistical. Or maybe they're simply insane; most but not all psychopaths fall under this designation. But contrary to what some believe, Chaotic Evil does not mean the kind of wanton, meaningless slaughter and destruction associated with Stupid Evil. Indeed, it is often the more calculating and intelligent villains of this kind that are the most dangerous. Being Chaotic Evil doesn't mean a character HAS to slaughter an entire village just because he's passing through. Of course, if he's feeling bored, or is having a bad day, he might just jam a knife in somebody For the Evulz. Serial Killers are good examples of Chaotic Evil. It's the canonical alignment of tanar'ri (demons), beings who were created in and by an endless semisentient Abyss that itself is dedicated to entropy, in Dungeons & Dragons. For a great example of how Chaotic Evil can be done well and not be Chaotic Stupid, see the Joker.
QUOTE
No, you missed the point. The point is your opposite -- from your perspective -- is always going to be evil, and you will always view yourself as good. Are there no corrupt police in the world? Are people who have no opposites considered any less good or evil?
Again, no kidding. That is what I am trying to tell you. The opposite from YOUR perspective is ALWAYS going to be evil. The point is, you have to choose the side. If you side with Madara, then Naruto is the evil.
I thought about the corrupted police one yesterday and I have an answer for that one. As soon as they become corrupted, then they are no longer policeman who fight for justice. They are criminals. This is why they throw corrupted policemen in jail and are frowned upon by society. Policemen are supposed to uphold the law, not break it and absolutely no one should be above it.
QUOTE
No, in the real world there are always safety measures put into place, in case something goes wrong. Again, my point was you can't define someone "good" as someone who "solely fights evil."
"Good" (from a majority society's perspective) is a person who saves lives no matter the situation and prevents harm. They don't fight to kill, they fight to save. They don't fight bad people all the time, but they can save people from misfortune. Although they will fight the bad guys if they must. They are not even afraid to sacrifice their lives to save others and yet still remain humble that they are not the hero. They just did what they thought was right. They also fight for Justice and fairness.
Is that a better answer for you?
But we are not talking about the real world here. We are talking about a fictional world where the writer can manipulate the story anyway he wishes. He can make the sky rain down hotdogs if he wanted to or make the trees out of diamonds and give Naruto an afro just because he'd look like an ear-swab.
See, you keep looking at this from two different points of view. I am looking at it from two opposites and you keep bringing up "good" and "evil" when I keep saying that is only relevant to the person. YOU said this is relevant to the perspective, so why do you constantly bring it up? You are the one who keeps black and whiting things and then claiming I am the one doing it.
QUOTE
And are you going to define fire, a chemical reaction, as "evil?" Or firemen less "good" because fire cannot be "evil"?
I am not defining fire as anything. I am defining it as an opposite to a job. Would you be happier if I said "The opposite of fire is water?" Even in Naruto, they have elemental opposites. The "Rock-Paper-Scissors" effect as it is called. Water beats fire, Fire beats Wind, etc. Although among the community they are not sure how Lightning beats Earth in Naruto. I am still confused on that one too.
Even Kishimoto makes his own rules that real world disagrees with.
QUOTE
The point is the good people exist in this world and we aren't defined by our opposites. I'm saying there are a lot of people who benefit society in different ways. You're saying that they have no benefit, because you can think of an unrealistic, hypothetical situation where they are not needed.
Yeah Murderers are a benefit to society, right? I mean, they reduce the population. Pedophiles? Kids have to grow up some time. How about thieves? The more they take the more stuff we can get (except maybe when it comes to money.) Racists? They keep them "different colored people" in check, right? Nazis? Watch out for dem Jews. And don't get me started on how some politicians "benefit" the world.
I thought "good" people didn't exist? As you said and (as did I), "good" is only from the perspective from the viewer.
The "benefit" of the examples above is it shows what society should not be doing from a philosophical stand point. That's the only benefit I see.
QUOTE
(I'm sure in this context you can understand I was referring to a medical doctor -- when used as a common noun, a doctor almost never refers to a person with a Ph.D).
And here is where I am going to quote you: "Why do you have to keep looking at everything in black and white? Doctors can be teachers too. Are you saying teachers are not benefits to society?"
My mom is a Doctor in Reading. Are you going to say that she shouldn't have the honor of being called a Doctor because she can't perform surgery or provide medical help?
Sound ridiculous? Yeah, that's basically what your post is saying to me too.
QUOTE
You're asking a lot of questions but you're not making a lot of sense. You were the one talking in black and white, not me.
Again, I said I was talking in black and white. I said it several times in one post that I was talking in Black and White. I even brought the grey scale several times, but said I was ignoring it for the purpose of my demonstration. Apparently, you missed reading every single time I said it in my last post and the one before that.
QUOTE
I think your thinking is oversimplifying anything and everything. For every one thing you can find an opposite to, there are a thousand things you will find you cannot. I'm not saying every word or concept has a one-line out-of-the-dictionary definition, but I am saying that you will run into walls if you think attaching an "opposite" to everything is going to make your definitions less literal yet more definite.
And I think you're over complicating it by trying to justify that Naruto can be just as evil as Sasuke even though Naruto is the hero. Naruto is the hero. He is the hero of this story. Whoever he fights is the opposition. If they are not against his views of the world, then he would not be fighting them. Do you understand this point? Do you understand that who ever Naruto fights on a moral fighting ground is deemed the villain.
And this my friend, is what frustrates me the most about your posts.
You personally missed the most major point I was trying to make. You missed the biggest idea out of all these posts I was trying to make. That idea was that "Ending the circle of hatred" has been a mistranslated idiom. The real meaning is to take away the "urge to act upon hatred." You can NOT have good without evil. You can not describe good, if you don't have evil. If everyone thought the exact same way on how society should be, then "good" and "evil" do not exist.
And yes, I can find opposites to everything (it is "nothing." Get it? XD) , but I don't feel like breaking down every element of the real world in it because some of the opposites are meaningless. Unless you want to do this challenge. Give me anything and I'll give you what I think is the opposite either in a literal or philosophical point of view. Be warned, opinions may vary.
In fact, I can describe the opposite of all living things right now in just one word: "Death."
QUOTE
People may have different interpretations of their feelings, but most living creatures as a whole have very similar reactions to their emotions. For example, you can measure the stress a person or animal is feeling by the level of cortisol and norepinephrine in their bodies. A blind person automatically smiles when they're happy, despite never seeing a smile in their lives. In fact, it is because our happiness isn't paradoxical to out pain that we have people who suffer through conditions such as depression, who do not experience happiness to small things in life that a normal person would overlook.
Duh, duh, and duh. This is common sense, but I am not discussing common sense. I am discussing opposites. The opposite of Happy is sad, Pleasure to Pain, Seeing to blind (both on a physical and metaphorical sense.)
Yeah, people can overcome depression, but that doesn't mean they don't go through it. Also, how do they know if they are depressed if they don't know what makes them happy? What about people who are indifferent, neither happy nor sad? We also have people who give into depression and commit suicide cause they can't find happiness. How about something more trivial. How do you know what foods you like and don't like if you've never tried them?
.
All living things...do you know if a plant is happy or sad? Do you know if an animal is happy or sad? Most of the time, no. Most living things do not exhibit enough info to garner a guess whether or not they are happy or sad. Dogs maybe and cats too, but that's really it. Can you tell if a fish is happy or sad? How about a cow?
QUOTE
Having a world of ninjas is not considered canon to the manga, but a world of opposites is? No, the whole world-of-opposites concept is a common idea found in a lot of sci-fi series, for example, Fringe. They're easy to write and easy to sell to the audience.
I am not even going to respond to this one because I never said anything about ninjas not being canon. See, now your are just putting words in my mouth.
BTW, you basically just shot yourself in the foot with this sentence because earlier up there in your post you said it is not about opposites, but now here you saying it is?
Remember this? VVV
QUOTE
The point is the good people exist in this world and we aren't defined by our opposites.
So are we defined by our opposites or are we not? And if fiction is only where this is applied to and Naruto is fiction then...well...thanks for proving me right.
QUOTE
Again, Kishimoto said his story isn't good vs. evil.
Kishimoto has also said that Sakura was going to be the heroine, but later admitted he accidentally made Hinata the more heroine type.
Kishimoto says a lot of things and he admits that while he says one thing, he does the opposite. (Ironic) Yes, the story is not about good and evil, yet the story is about conquering hatred. Which is a breeding ground for evil people. (I bought up Nazis)
Not to mention we have Naruto facing HIS OPPOSITE SELF in the waterfall test to conquer the hatred inside of him. Yeah, good job there. I am so happy we got this straightened out.
Yes, Madara Uchiha is not evil. Got it.
QUOTE
You make it sound like having an army is this spectacular, awesome thing, and that people should argue with each other so that that army won't be neglected. No. Every country has an army for defense, but a lot of the time they don't participate in wars. The navy, for example, has the responsibility of patrolling the ocean.
Ummm....what? I never said anything was good or bad. I was saying that some things are necessary. If war is going to happen, then to protect your country you need a military. If war never occurred, then a military is not needed.
How the hell did you get me saying that an "army is spectacular, awesome thing?" I never said such a thing. I did, however, poke at the irony that is being a soldier when there is no such thing as war.
QUOTE
I'm not sure I understand your point.
You seem to be doing that a lot lately.
QUOTE
Because a shonen manga about ramen chefs don't sell as well as a manga about people killing each other.
So are you saying that fighting and war is an awesome thing because it is not boring? I'll write that down.
QUOTE
Often soldiers do kill innocent people, we call it collateral damage.
*BIG SIGHS* Okay, I am going to quote my own post here just for you. Read what I typed again.
QUOTE
But why is he a ninja? Why not be a Ramen maker? Make the world happy through Ramen. It makes him happy. Why choose a profession that causes you to have to possibly kill people in order to have the greater good? If you have a problem killing people, then don't be a soldier because killing the opposition is part of the job description. (And please, I know soldiers can kill innocent people in the line of duty. The grey is if they did it on accident or on full intent to do such a thing. If they meant to kill innocent people, then by our standards he is a "bad guy.")
Bolded for emphasis.
QUOTE
Naruto's role isn't to end the conflict by just stopping it, you know that. He's doing it by changing how people think, by bonding, empathizing, and talking to them. If he simply killed anyone that got into his way, then he would be no different to the people he has changed -- that includes Gaara, Neji, and Nagato -- and the cycle continues. The people he has changed aren't necessarily "bad guys" because they were on the opposite side to our main character, but because their actions had lead to more death and destruction.
Conflict refers to anything that doesn't agree. Again I covered this in my last post which again you seem to have missed. I said that "conflict" in my demo refers to war, but it can be as simple as say a small argument. Right now me and you are having a conflict of opinions and we are going to solve this by talking it out. (Or I could kill you. Just kidding XD)
And there is different ways to end conflict. This is why Naruto only chooses death/killing as a very last resort. Ever see Trigun? Vash the stampede is the same way. He doesn't like pain or death, but he sometimes has to resort to such things if he has no choice. Wolfwood even berates him for this because he was taught that killing is the only way to end bad people from hurting the innocent. They are both good guys, but with two different views of how the world should work and they are both right and wrong at the same time.
Again, did I not say this? Some third party here please tell this guy I covered this in my previous post. Please, read my posts again and you will see that every single point you covered, I said already and specifically said that I either chose to ignore it on purpose or wanted to simplify it because looking at a full grey scale gets very confusing after a while.
Naruto wants to preserve life if possible. You cannot deny this. Anyone who wants to kill others is the opposite of Naruto's view of preserving life. And again, "bad guy" is a subjective term based on moral standing from a person's perspective. This is why I choose the word "opposition" because not all problems Naruto fights are to deal with people who are "evil."
Some people want to kill Sasuke including some of the Kage. Naruto fought with Ai because he wanted him to step down. Ai is not evil, but he was an opposition because he was preventing him from doing stuff. He got rid of that opposition by proving his strength to him.
Edited by James S Cassidy, 30 September 2012 - 04:29 PM.
This topic is locked
