Death Note

That's basically saying the inverse of Might Makes Right.

We're talking Gundam 00 Season 2 here. It didn't do anything with any characters except ruin them. Nena is in like two episodes for two minutes each. Like Wang Lu Mei and Poverty Princess, she contributes nothing to the plot except wasted potential. Then she dies without accomplishing anything really and none of it being properly explained or climactic.

I've never seen a show tank so dramatically in quality. And I've seen Buffy Season 3-4 and 5-6.

The only Trinity sibling that was remotely sane was the big one. Nena's Moe charms were sickening given who she actually was and the other one I remember looking demented while holding a knife and threatening to cut people. Only the big one at leas thad the courtesy to keep his craziness in check. The only reason he looks crazy is his obliviousness to the madness of his siblings. That's really why they're so terrible - Nena and the other two see nothing wrong with anything any of them do. They're The Family That Slays Together.

As for Light being a Jerk Ass, that's true enough. But I'd take a Jerk Ass over Nena's "I'm so sweet tralalala" and then "MURDER!!!" Quite frankly, she was just annoying when she wasn't being outright evil.

And now I think back on it, the Trinities were all Jerkasses. Don't you remember their big introduction of "we're so much better than you chumps! We're the REAL Celestial Being!" And then they got their asses kicked and died.

edited 2nd Jul '16 1:14:57 PM by Nikkolas

Also Ambar I forgot to ask you this

"He's also the least sympathetic person on the show, because he has no reason for doing what he does."

He has several reasons to do what he does. You can call them crazy, childish, selfish reasons but they're there.

But my question is - what the hell do you call Mello? If you can ignore Light's ideas on the grounds they are petty and self-centered, then Mello also has absolutely no reason to do any of the horrible things he does. He's in it for absolutely no reason other than his inferiority complex to Near. And for that he kidnaps people, kills people and overall revels in power just as much as Light ever did.

edited 2nd Jul '16 1:32:29 PM by Nikkolas

Funny how Kira and Mello basically took each other out.

Mello killed fewer people than Light. He is therefore, not as bad as Light. Depending on who killed more people he may be as bad as Mikami or Misa. He may be worse, he may be better. That's why Mello is better than Light—in terms of bodycount he's less of a danger to the community.

Using your "personality matters" argument I could also note that, unlike Light, who died the screaming death of a coward, Mello went into his final attack on Takada fully accepting the fact that he was a dead man. He expected Light to kill him, and used his own death to prove a point and ultimately help Near win. That's a level of self-sacrifice and courage that is simply beyond Light. Also, unlike Light, he displays some actual shreds of sympathy for other people, namely Matt.

All that said, yeah, Mello's a terrible human being. The whole point of his character is that he's a terrible human being. My liking of him stems entirely from him being a terrible human being which is something I've commented on before. He's a kidnapper, a gangster, a murderer, and a terrorist. He is everything Light claims to be protecting the world from. And yet, when he makes his opening move there is nothing that Light can do to stop him. The criminal underworld that Light wanted to destroy bit back and all Light could do was watch and scream. Mello's insane attack on the Japanese police and the Yagami family left Soichiro dead, Saiyu in a coma, and Light reeling, and there was nothing Light could do to stop him. That is dramatic irony at its finest and most utterly hilarious.

Short version of the above—Mello's a total rat bastard but I love what he brings to the story.

Yeah they are. They're literally designed from the ground up to be that way. That's the Freudian Excuse they have that Light is missing. I'd point out, by the way, how utterly hilarious your condemnation of Nena is in (dare I say it) light of your love of Four Murasame who is almost the exact same character (complete with murdering most of Hong Kong in the midst of a temper tantrum) but that'd be off topic. Though if you take it to the Gundam thread things could get interesting there.

You can't claim I'm cherrypicking. The phrase "makes someone look like a saint" has a clear meaning. Because phrases and words have meanings. If you don't mean something, don't say it.

So does Nena. I could say literally the same thing about her. "I killed these people because I was frustrated" is about as much of a reason as "I killed these people to feed my god complex."

An intelligence system that can automatically determine guilt where the entire legal system cannot? I would love to see that intelligence system.

The law is the only determiner of innocence. Regular citizens do not get to determine otherwise. I mean, I'm pretty sure that my former neighbour was a drug dealer. I told the cops as much. They couldn't do anything about it. Now, I could have walked over and shotgunned him to death, and in your world I guess that would be the right thing to do, but I didn't because who am I to determine who gets to live or die? What makes me so special that I can overrule the justice system?

Your problem here is that you seem to be assuming that people who become vigilantes are all decent human beings, perhaps even better human beings than those who work in the justice system. They're not.

The man tried to get a publishing deal for a book called If I Did It. If you can convict the likes of Darren Wilson on the basis of public opinion (public opinion that I happen to share before you accuse me of being pro-Wilson) I think we can convict OJ on the basis of that.

Moving along—so according to your worldview if the man who rapes and murders my fiancee is white I am free to cut out his heart with the nearest blunt implement, but if he's black I just have to take it because I myself am white? That's not fixing an abusive system that's just turning it upside down.

And before you just assume a black rapist/murderer would be arrested and convicted, I remind you that OJ, who almost certainly was guilty, was not convicted, due to his celebrity status. You're really leaving out intersectionality here. Sure, OJ's a black man. He's also an incredibly wealthy celebrity with connections throughout the upper class (white and black alike) who used said wealth, celebrity, and connections to get away with murdering, drumroll please, a woman (a member of another traditionally oppressed class of people).

I anticipated this would be your response on OJ, which is why I asked the question. So answer me this now—if you believe that vigilante justice is the only way to make the rich, the powerful, and the otherwise untouchable pay in full for crimes against minorities, what happens when the rich, powerful, untouchable person in question is a member of a minority? What happens when the person getting away with murder is black? Or Latino? Or a woman? Or gay? Why does attacking the system in the name of defending minorities apparently require that you not attack those minorities who have managed to become a part of the system, even when they commit heinous crimes? Even when those crimes are against other minorities?

Put bluntly—have you really thought this through as much as you think you have?

edited 2nd Jul '16 9:22:46 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

Way to misrepresent what Rynnec said in order to make them look bad. They specified killing violent murderers, you equated their position with killing someone who sells pot or something. That's not only dishonest, it's offensive to me because I know people who have been drug dealers (and addicts, they tragically go hand-in-hand) in their lifetime and they never murdered anyone.

Also normal citizens determine guilt all the time. They're called juries and they find people not guilty because off sentimentality and bias and stupidity all the time. Justice is not blind.

edited 3rd Jul '16 4:21:28 AM by Nikkolas

No I equated it with killing the violent, girlfriend-beating jackass whose presence caused the building to be filled with dangerous drug addicts who roamed the halls, high out of their minds and threatening the tenants. We had repeat break-in attempts because of him. We had to listen to his girlfriend scream every time he hit her—and then have to lock our doors when she'd leave his apartment and wander the halls, high, angry, and looking for somebody else to take her anger out on. We had to call the cops about once a month by the end, due to the violence, and were eventually forced to move out in fear for our personal safety.

I'm not even going to get into the subject of all the people whose lives he ruined by feeding their addictions—though if the object of vigilantism is to save lives you'd think that'd be all that's required to excuse killing him. Regardless, his presence made the building unsafe, the cops refused to do anything about him, and he regularly abused his girlfriend. Under your and Rynnec's logic, I should have shot him. I didn't.

Juries are made out of citizens who are deputized and brought into the legal system in order to determine a specific case of guilt or innocence, then released back into civilian life. If you don't grasp the difference between that and executing a man in a back alley, there's noting to really talk about.

I hope you realize you didn't do your argument any favors by pointing out that the police refused to do anything about the scumbag. Because police refusing to do something allows crimes to flourish and spread, like the horrific "grooming" practice that went on in Rotherham for over a decade with Pakistani men drugging, raping and prostituting young girls while the cops ignored all reports about it.

As for juries, they're just people. Would you say a random guy on the street is qualified to be president just because someone says "hey, you want to be president of the USA?" And I know there are screening processes for juries but the point remains, they are still just people. They have no special training, there is nothing different about them than you or me. Yet they are trusted to administer justice and the rest of us have to bow o their so-called wisdom.

edited 3rd Jul '16 3:50:50 PM by Nikkolas

Of course I did my argument a favour. The police can't act unless there's proof of a crime. And if I picked up a shotgun and killed the man, the only proof there'd be of a crime is my own. And I would accordingly belong in prison. That's how the justice system works. That's how it has to work. Otherwise you'd have a whole lot of innocent people in prison. You can't arrest people without evidence, and the evidence has to go beyond the circumstantial. If you think murdering people on the basis of circumstantial evidence is acceptable, I'm glad we live very far away from each other.

And of course according to Rynnec's argument thus far no one in Rotherham would be allowed to do something about the "Pakistani men" you mentioned. Since they're a minority.

Which is why they're only allowed to decide matters of innocent or guilt under special circumstances, within the bounds of a legal system. Executing a man in the street because you think he did something is well outside the bounds of said legal system. If as your crack about "so-called wisdom" would indicate you don't think that juries can or should be trusted with determining innocent or guilt within a controlled system why on Earth would you ever trust a random vigilante with not only determining innocent or guilt but doing it outside of a controlled system and then deciding what the punishment should be as well, all without any resort to an appeal for the victim?

Even with all the checks and balances built in, the legal system convicts people wrongly on a fairly frequent basis. In states with the death penalty it executes people wrongly on a fairly frequent basis. Turning over the whole of law enforcement to citizens in place of the police, lawyers and other trained professionals is only going to result in more people being wrongfully beaten and executed.

Anyway, this discussion has likely moved beyond the bounds of the Death Note thread. If you want to talk about vigilantism, executions, etc, it probably belongs in either the Law Enforcement thread or the Death Penalty thread. Or you could make a new one meant to deal with vigilantism in and of itself.

Well let's get back to the last thing that was pure Death Note - Light's death being Torture Porn.

No, it was not Saw or Hostel, but I don't think that disqualifies it as torture. Torture is not all thumbscrews and waterboarding. What happened to Light was psychological, emotional torture on the part of Ohba. It was a very long, protracted scene of Light suffering a complete and utter breakdown where he is reduced to a whimpering, pathetic spec trembling in absolute terror. And this is something that brought great pleasure to people in this thread and elsewhere.

As such, I would say it does qualify as torture porn because people are getting satisfaction from a scene dedicated mainly to watching a person suffer.

edited 4th Jul '16 6:24:53 AM by Nikkolas

Personally, I wouldn't call it "torture porn". More like... "karmic retribution porn"? "Megalomaniac discovering he's not actually better than anyone else porn"? "Bad guy finally having used all of his get out of jail free cards porn"?

The point is not Light's suffering, is his utter and complete defeat, both in a practical and a moral sense. Near's "you're just another murderer, and the death note is just another weapon" speech is probably the most important part. When Matsuda shoots Light, it's not nice because Light is suffering from the wounds, it's nice because Matsuda was the one who sort of wasn't really able to see Kira as totally evil, and now he does. It's nice because Light's delusion finally collapse and the story confirms what we've known since the beginning: he's not a god or a hero, he's just a pathetic and spineless human being who unfortunately was handed a big intellect and a deadly weapon.

edited 4th Jul '16 7:02:48 AM by Cozzer

I will remind you Light was ready to be dragged to Hell by Ryuk for using the Death Note and he didn't even flinch or hesitate. He faced the prospect of eternal torment with complete poise and bravery.

The degeneration of Light is rally best seen when you compare that scene with how he finally died. The boy who once didn't fear Hell now can't even conceive of dying even though he faces no spiritual repercussions for what he's done. He was not born a spineless wretch, he turned into one, just like he was not always a monster but became one due to the intoxicating power he wielded.

And it was undoubtedly a fine example of Karmic Death. It's why I love King Nothing and wish someone would make a good Death Note AMV set to it.

At the beginning of the series Ryuk says people who use the Death Note don't go to heaven or hell.

@Nikkolas: Of course, I'm not saying Light had always been a spineless, worthless hypocrite. But he was one for... more or less 100 chapters on a total of 108, so "what he might have been" wasn't a very prominent thought in my mind as it might have been with a character who dies right after his descent into evil.

I mean, if a character slowly gets mad because he allowed an evil power to taint him and then gets killed, it's a tragedy. If that character gets to rule over the world for years, causing countless deaths and acting smug for a hundred chapters while he kills the actual likeable characters and then he dies, it's liberating.

edited 4th Jul '16 7:47:20 AM by Cozzer

Exactly, it's something Ryuk has to inform him about. Before that, all Light knew was he had a magic murder weapon and he figured there had be some supernatural catch. He figured he was doomed already from the first name he wrote down and that's why he's completely unphased when Ryuk shows up. Dunno about you, but if I saw Ryuk, I'd take it as confirmation that there was a Hell and this thing was taking me to it. But Light faced Ryuk and his mortality very bravely.

Well that does make sense.

So I like the D&D Alignment system a lot and enjoy seeing others thoughts on what characters fit into what alignment.

I haven't found a DN list I'm satisfied with yet. This one isn't too bad◊. It includes all the Shinigami, most lists usually include Near and Mello instead. That's where my problems arise. Some put Mello at Chaotic Neutral. Then again, most lists put Ryuk in Neutral and I don't agree with that, either. Most lists put L in Neutral Good and Near in Lawful Neutral but one list I saw reversed that. Not sure how I feel about that.

I can agree with most lists having Mikami as Lawful Evil and Light as Neutral Evil, though. Misa for Chaotic Evil? Eh. It's gotta be her or Mello.

Hmm... I'd put Light as Lawful Evil and Mikami as Lawfuler Evil, personally. Misa as Chaotic Evil is perfect.

The Shinigami... eh, in any RPG I would consider them Evil (or at least, if I was playing a Palading and the GM didn't let me smite them because "they're too different blah blah blah" I would call enormous amounts of bullshit), but as a thought experiment it makes sense to consider them as too alien to have a moral alignment.

I would put Near as True Neutral, L as Neutral Good-ish and Mello as Neutral Evil, personally.

At least nobody can ever disagree with Soichiro being Lawful Good. :P

See I think Light probably started off as Lawful Evil but slid into NE as time went by. The fact is, he betrays his principles too much. An LE person can still have some code of conduct, some allegiance to order or authority. Light's only allegiance is to himself and he would do anything, including betraying everything he believes, to get ahead. I've always heard Neutral Evil as being true, unrepentant selfishness and that sounds like what Light devolved into.

That's how I see it, anyway.

Higuchi would be Lawful Evil too, in my view. He's too cowardly to act on hi sown and dependent on structure.

And you're defintiely right about Soichiro. That one is super easy. :)

I'd say Near is definitely True Neutral, with L and Mello respectively toeing the lines between Lawful Neutral & Neutral Good, and Chaotic Neutral & Neutral Evil.

Soichiro is so Lawful Good he'd probably have an aneurysm if faced with a To Be Lawful or Good dilemma.

edited 7th Jul '16 11:51:43 AM by TheAirman

Ryuk is Neutral Evil. He's not particularly active, but he's still a sadist who gets off on watching people die.

Light wants to believe he's lawful, but he's not. He has no genuine dedication to law and order, and his own killings are too arbitrary to function as any sort of code.

Similarly I can't say I agree with Near being Neutral rather than Good. Near isn't a fun person to be around—and he's overly forgiving of the likes of Mello—but he sticks to the rule of law, and where L once kidnapped and tortured Misa, Near has no major legal or moral transgressions under his belt. To call L Good and Near Neutral when Near explicitly broke fewer legal or moral rules than L is pushing it.

As for Mello, he might qualify as Chaotic Evil but he's Chaotic only insofar as he's resisting Light's idea of the social order. In a society where there are theoretically laws on the books but somebody like Light is active, obeying the law becomes a fairly meaningless way of examining who is lawful, since the law is not only being defied all the time by the people in charge, but is effectively weightless.

D&D's alignment system doesn't really translate well to the DN world.

edited 7th Jul '16 2:38:48 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

So basically everyone of note is Neutral Evil, Lawful Neutral, or Neutral Good.

edited 7th Jul '16 3:11:15 PM by VeryMelon

I think the reason Near comes off as slightly "lower" than L on the morality scale is all due to perception. L has a worse offense under his belt (unless you believe that he used the Death Note) but Near really does come off to me as being far less interested in justice than L was. This was all a game to him and Mello and Light. A game of L's Successor. Good people can commit the occasional evil or ambiguous act just as evil people can do good things. L's thing with Misa is more the exception than the rule for him, I'd say and shouldn't effect his alignment, which is supposed to represent the norm, not the exception.

All the really smart people are neutral or evil, yes. Tells you what kind of work DN is.

No wait, there was Naomi. She's totally Lawful Good and probably scrapes Top 5 or 6 Smartest DN Characters. I think she's "of note", if not a main character.

Post timeskip it's effectively impossible for any of the main characters to be lawful. Nobody on Light's side can be lawful since they are disregarding and destabilizing the law, making it less effective rather than more effective, and putting in its place a completely arbitrary "justice" system based around Light's personal feelings, and those of his agents. They may think they are lawful (Mikami certainly does) but the net result of their actions is to completely undermine the concept of law—legal codes and societal mores don't matter when Light can simply overrule the justice system and kill anybody whose behaviour he finds objectionable, and Light himself doesn't have a consistent enough pattern of operation for his system to be described as lawful in any way. It's like living under a mad king—the rules don't stay the same, but you still die for breaking them.

Conversely, those who oppose Light can't really be called lawful since they have to go well outside current law—which, despite being weakened to the point of meaningless tends to cooperate with Light—in order to arrest him. Even Soichiro Yagami, easily the most dedicated enforcer of the legal status quo in the setting, steps outside the law when he continues to pursue Light despite the American and Japanese governments tacit (and subsequently, public) acceptance of "Kira". His raid on Mello's headquarters, for instance, is not, as far as I recall, authorized by any legal body, and is done in collaboration with "Kira", the very criminal he was originally assigned to capture.

At the same time it would be a real stretch to call them chaotic (maybe Mello) since their objective isn't to tear down the actual legal system or defeat the government. Their objective is to overthrow a tyrannical and arbitrary social order that's being enforced at the point of a gun, in contravention of the actual laws of the land. If they succeed, respect for rule of law will be returned, and the law codes will resume normal operation. That's not a chaotic goal.

So, if you have to violate the law to save the law what does that make you? Safest bet is to just call them neutral.

It should be considered that, as seen with the U.S., changes in government policy to declare support of Kira were made in a state of duress. IANAL, but I imagine that any policy made in such a manner not be considered lawful. Therefore, in any nation in which murder is illegal, it is the sworn duty of any and all detectives to investigate Kira if a victim died in their jurisdiction.

Furthermore, as Kira is in fact a terrorist, Near and the FBI were well within their jurisdiction to take the investigation overseas; although, as noted, the same cannot necessarily be said for the raid on Mello's compound.

edited 7th Jul '16 6:45:25 PM by TheAirman

Governments do things under threat of force all the time. It's called being a weaker party in a negotiation or losing a war.

edited 7th Jul '16 7:24:13 PM by Nikkolas