#l2wish

You can count on CLAMP for scantily clad women, angsty gay boys, and pining yuri.

So I just heard from Thorgi's top character countdown that people love Edelgard because she wanted to break down a whole system that was unjust, in order to protect people. And that's fine. I didn't watch playthroughs of her story route, but sounds like the same type of thing I loved about Code Geass.  Cool.  But if people are defending her by titling their arguments "Edelgard did nothing wrong", I'm going to have to take offense at that.  No one can be alive without hurting or killing something else to survive.  That's what eating is.  The only way to justify killing something else to survive, is to make your survival/existence worth it.  The only way to justify killing someone else in a war is to accept that the thing (people, ideals) you want to protect, are worth taking those lives.  (At least by samurai anime logic.)  But you accept that what you have done is a sin, evil, not "right" in and of itself, that in a perfect world, would not have been something that needed to be done.  You can't maintain the dignity of "committing evils to prevent greater evils" as Lelouch said, without fully accepting that you have conceded to doing evil.  Because the alternative is to try to say you "did nothing wrong", and that is a slippery slope that only marks certain things as evil/good whenever convenient for only your own individual purposes, and slowly erodes one's sense of empathy.  Now that's a true evil.  That type of subjective, self-centered thinking is what leads to those "greater evil" systems that must be broken down by the means of "lesser evils" (which are presumably a lesser level of subjective self-centeredness). People get hurt in war.  That's an absolute.  And trying to nullify that fact by saying those pains suffered by civilians/soldiers/enemies/people were negligible or "didn't count", leads to evils that invalidate the sacrifices from deciding to go to war, in order to stop greater evils. If something is so worth protecting that you have to hurt something/someone else to protect it, then take pride in that thing you’re protecting being WORTH it, but also don’t diminish your pride in deciding something was worth protecting, even at the expense of others, by deluding yourself into thinking that sacrifice wasn’t even a sacrifice.  If she's so sure that what she's doing is "right", and will dispel a greater evil, then I'm sure Edelgard is taking pride in what she is doing, by recognizing her methods are not kind, by not turning blind to the faults in her own methods, and by preserving her empathy by not deluding herself into thinking she "did nothing wrong".  

Utilitarianism in Anime by  Anime Philosopher

Ever since Witch Hat Atelier got an anime adaptation, people have started to talk about whether Qifrey is trustworthy or not. And it bothers me.

It bothers me that I've heard this discussion before. That just because a character has some ulterior motives, then they are judged as absolutely "bad". This happened with Claude von Riegan. Maybe it could have been said about Lelouch vi Britannia (but I never saw the Code Geass fandom).

According to my ideals about True Strength, one of the points of becoming Strong, is to be able to risk being kind. Compassion is not for the Weak. It is a signifier of the Strong, because only the Strong can risk themselves either without fear or can survive, if the possibility of their kindness being taken advantage of, proves true. Extending kindness is vulnerability. It is a risk taken consciously by the Strong. Compassion is a marker of True Strength.

But so many people seem to have an underlying fear of being taken advantage of, if they risk being kind, that they treat leaving yourself vulnerable as the "dumb, stupid" decision, seemingly always. Whenever risking yourself is treated as not smart, that is what they are implying. So every time they totally reject a character, just because they have something a little suspicious, or they have committed some sin or have hurt you (even you specifically), they take that harm as an absolute evil to never EVER be risked. A character has some ulterior motives? They get totally rejected and labelled as "evil". Because the Weak are afraid of being hurt, vulnerable, and taken advantage of.

I thought maybe this fixation on black&white, absolutist thinking and labels was a uniquely American perspective, since America is obsessed with Truth. So maybe characters that are anything less than absolutely truthful are deemed bad? But maybe assigning such mentality to only one nationality/psychology is small-minded and prejudiced generalizing.

I know me standing up for characters with ulterior motives might seem strange for me to say, when I hate Edelgard, but also, love Lelouch.

But because everyone in the world has their own agendas, their own personal motivations, their own ulterior motives, I don't think that necessarily means that everyone is bad. EVERYONE carries their own inner worlds that they can't shamelessly share, completely and totally with everyone. I don't think it's fair to ask that of full exposing Truth of someone/everyone, anyway. It's embarrassing, an invasion of privacy, a breach of boundaries, and a violation of autonomy. Everyone needs their own private space. And because everyone has their own private worlds, you're going to get people with agendas that might need to use you.

But I think small ways is fine. That's what career networking is. But even families use each other, and it's not as bad as it sounds. If I want to learn guitar, I'm going to take advantage of my dad's already-established knowledge of guitar, to ask him for help/advice. If I want to learn about musical theater, and I know that 3 of my relatives have college and professional experience in musical theater, I don't think it's wrong for me to take advantage of their knowledge and our connections. Just yesterday, I learned my brother realized he can offload his extra Pokémon cards onto our cousin's son, whom we just discovered is collecting Pokémon cards too. Everyone takes advantage of each other, and it's not always an evil thing, and it doesn't automatically make people completely evil.

So I think the important thing is to stop evaluating if people are "good" or "evil" according to whether they have ulterior motives or not, and instead judge people for the remaining context for who they are. Someone can have ulterior motives, personal, independent motivations but still be trustworthy.

Claude von Riegan repeatedly describes himself to everyone as suspicious and untrustworthy. And yet, everything he does (aside from pranks), demonstrates Compassion. He puts his ego aside to work towards non-violent conflict resolution. He doesn't neglect the actual hard work of gradually persuading people, compromising, learning to understand their "language" and communicating/working on their terms, etc. Claude is willing to admit mistakes and CHANGE his behavior. Yes, he's a scheming trickster. Yes, he had original intentions of using people (like Byleth) towards his dream of a world of multicultural acceptance. But he also DEMONSTRATED Compassion for others, through care and curiosity about their cares, wants, and ideals, even WHILE he was "using" them, and even when they challenged his ideals. In fact, he was especially interested when they challenged him. He appreciated Cyrill pointing out the blind spots in Claude's purported altruism, just as much as Claude appreciated Leonie validating his open-minded point of view. Even a schemer can be trusted, if their heart is good. And you can tell their heart is good, if while they are working towards their schemes, they are simultaneously demonstrating consideration and respect for others, even when their ideas clash, even when their ideals are different. To show consideration for others, especially the challengers, even the ones who cause friction towards the schemer's dreams/goals, tells me that Claude, despite scheming, CAN be trusted. It's like Takeda Shingen said in Sengoku Basara (2009-2011), "A man who cannot tend to the small things, cannot be trusted with larger tasks"...or something like that. I can trust considerate-hearted schemers to be on the side of even my own ideals (in Claude's case, because he demonstrated care/consideration for others, regarding HOW those ideals effect/hurt/help others). I don't even mind being used for a scheme that's on my side, that's so considerate of others, that has demonstrated more wisdom that I have, towards the same lofty ideals as me. Someone wiser, Stronger, but valuing the same goal, is someone I can trust...even if they're using me. I don't mind pledging fealty. (I'm a Sengoku Basara 2009 fan. I'm not opposed to the part of a loyal retainer. But I also believe in even a loyal retrainer to not enact blind trust/loyalty, to others' detriment. AKA, Katakura Kojuro, yes; Huebert von Vestra, no.)I don't mind trusting their plans. And quite frankly, minding so much about being involuntarily part of someone else's scheme, when it was no skin off my nose, and also benefite me and the world, sounds too much like fear of vulnerability, that is implied when being used in another's schemes. Sounds Weak to me.

I think that Qifrey has demonstrated, even when unnecessary, even when no one was looking, that he genuinely cares about his students and other people. Did he still take others' memories against their will and commit magic crimes? Yes. But someone can still be good, and make mistakes. Someone can still be "good" by my standards and ideals, yet still push the boundaries of what even they will accept (according to even their own ideals/morals), for the sake of a greater goal they are working towards. It's the job of the story to set up trust that a character deeply regrets their crimes and bending of their own ideals, to the point they can be depended on to do everything they can to prevent making similar mistakes/sins. I think Witch Hat Atelier was successful (and FE3H was ineffective for the Emperor).

Lelouch really thought he was working towards defeating an evil Emperor and protecting Nunally. He had already and throughout Code Geass, demonstrated genuine Compassion, even when unnecessary, even when no one was looking, even in the smallest considerations towards others' values. And it was enough to create the impression that even he found his faltering from morals as failings, that he wanted and WOULD work towards minimizing and preventing in the future. And Code Geass made his regrets feel viscerally and effectively conveyed (in my opinion).

Whereas, Edelgard, in my opinion, was not effectively portrayed (to me) as someone whose Compassion was being stretched to almost breaking, but who could be relied upon to "do the right thing". She was not first established as consistently considerate towards others' values, even in the small ways that would prove a constant regard for others. Instead, she insisted on her own. In the end, her wants always took priority, even without integrating others' values. Because she doesn't compromise. And that Resolve can be cool in most of the Shonen genre, but I loved FE3H for exploring Resolve's dark side, which is hardly ever spoken of (in Shonen). She kept SAYING she felt bad about sacrificing others. But then (FE3H even gave the contrast of Dimitri) she never stopped her actions or changed her decisions, that continued more people being sacrificed. Whether it was Monica, Bernadetta, the villagers of Remire, the casualties of war, the civilian bystanders, the villages being caught in the path of war, etc...She just kept pushing the goal posts of what was acceptable, towards her pursuit of some promised, supposed, "better future". But isn't that how all dictators are? In contrast, Lelouch sacrificed himself and the power structure he had created, in order to protect the future and protect other's ability to choose their own definitions of happiness (even if they opposed his ideas/definitions or would cause future clashes). Meanwhile, Edelgard created a power structure so dependent on the one person with all the power, being good, that as soon as she dies, such a system, so dependent on the Emperor coincidentally being a good person, has more chances of failing, by enabling tyrants. Not only that, but she also set such a precedent of acceptable sacrifices, as long as she set up a scapegoat and said it was all for the sake of some nebulous "future" that she can always change the definition of, to suit her needs.

Do people remember Chad and his grandfather from Bleach? If you're Truly Strong, then you can take the hits. You can be vulnerable. You can trust others. You can forgive when they take a little advantage of you or originally planned to use you in their schemes (that I actually could get on board with). But also, the hits from being taken advantage of, whenever you risk being kind. That's what Strength is for, in my opinion.

So I dislike this cowardice in distrusting Qifrey's goodness, even though he has demonstrated it in everything else he does (to the point of establishing his decisions as trustworthy), just because he has "ulterior motives", AKA personal motivations. It spits on Claude, Lelouch, Kikyo, Devil Homura, C.C., the Kureshima brothers, Viktor, Mel, Jayce, Kabru, and loads of assassin characters and anti-heroes I've loved. Even if a character does some horrible things, I don't want to disregard the other meaningful moments that conveyed their overall Compassion in everything they do, EFFECTIVELY. (...even if those threshholds for effective conveyance are very subjective.) I want to believe in them.