Trigun

I get that killing people isn't cool and ought to be avoided for more humane options but did he have to be so fucking autistic about it?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=HP8JN9nmxmo
youtube.com/watch?v=yg16u_bzjPE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>put in a position where 2 of his friends will die if he doesn't pull the trigger
>his body is forcibly held in position to pull the trigger
>the dude he's about to kill is warped psychopath too with incredibly overpowered capabilities
>STILL cries about it
I like Vash but he was being a bit of a faggot there.

Vash is an literal traumatized child, being autistic about his morals is the only thing that keeps him grounded, when in reality he's only doing it for Rem

Why wasn't it explained why Vash was born out of time?

>muh Rem
Also you'd think after existing for over 100 years and being wounded as he was he's not going to be very sane.

He's another living being regardless of whether or not that person is "evil" or not. I suspect future humans would view "psychopath" as a disease to be cured rather than put to death for.

Yes

That's what makes him an interesting character and what makes the narrative work

DA BEST GUNFIGHTER EVAR wouldn't be interesting without that restriction

What was his name, Sup Forums

EMIYA

I got very drunk once and attacked one of my friends. I don't remember doing it but but I was literally suicidal for about 3 months afterwards due to the feelings of personal betrayal. It was like some very important part of my identity had been killed.

Personal morals are a big deal to those who have them.

>Muh rem, muh humanism, muh peace and love.

Vash wouldn't be such a tragic character without said autism.

Unlimited Blade Works.

Lots of Blades

Trigun remake by bones/madhouse collaborating WHEN? It's long overdue, even if the OG anime is a much better effort than 2003 FMA.

I want it and at the same time I fear what it will bring
>fujoshits spamming pictures
>Knives dindu nuffin
>animeonlys missing the point
On the production side
>new seiyuu cast

What is Badlands rumble?
Yea it was less then desired, but still its something after 10 years

Would it be a remake of the original anime or would we get Maximum? I hated how the insurance ladies were barely characters at all in the manga.

They also looked like men because Nightow can't draw people without prominent chins and gargantuan shoulders.

spoons

I was bothered by how two Plant girls from Earth never got to talk with Vash/Knives. I like the manga, but if a remake anime ever gets made, someone has to rewrite it into a more coherent story.

Is Nightow gay?

...

Nah. He's Christian

That's just making it more suspicious.

t. Wolfwood

No, Wolfwood actually admired Vash for it.

they had their share of disagreements

youtube.com/watch?v=HP8JN9nmxmo

Of course they did. But that doesn't change that Wolfwood wasn't happy with who he was.

No one really cares if you're a psychopath. They care if you break the law. You don't get "put to death" for having it.

True but at the end of the day, Vash's way of thinking was never fully compatible with his.

>Name a kid knives
>Be surprised when he turns into a psycho.
Rem should have named him Ed or something.

I considered Vashes no killing rule to be the same kind of insanity as Legatos/kives' Kill em' all attitude. Vash is an insane person.

I agree Knives is a fucking retarded name but we can do a lot better than Ed. What about an uncommon name that people would still know how to spell like Nate?

Don't question character, question the author.

>I agree Knives is a fucking retarded name but we can do a lot better than Ed.
Tfw my name is Archangelo.

Anti-killing protags in combat situations are always pure cancer, literally the only reason to have them is to induce the worst kind of forced drama. If a MC goes around casually killing the badguys then everything is lighthearted and fun.

The difference with Trigun is that Vash is canonically wrong.
The narrative points it out time and time again, that he is in the wrong.
That makes Vash a special case.

Religious parents or hippy parents?

Dad thought that it sounded cool. Everyone calls me Angie, Angelo or Archie anyway.

He's strong enough to do it this way, so why shouldn't he if that's what he wants?
Not edgy enough for you?

I'd take Knives Millions over Valentinez Alkalinella Xifax Sicidabohertz Gumbigobilla Blue Stradivari Talentrent Pierre Andry Charton-Haymoss Ivanovici Baldeus George Doitzel Kaiser III

Killing an aggressor is tonally mute, killing innocents is somewhat edgy, not killing an aggressor is advanced tier maximum edge.

Not everyone he spares is guaranteed to learn.

Fuck.

>edge means shit I don't like
OK buddy.
And? He does what he wants, yeah some people probably die indirectly because of his actions but that's true of every single thing we ever do, so who cares.

Wrong is a bit of a blunt way to put it. The show paints his ideals as noble, and paints him as noble for continuing to stick to them even after they fail him.

It just also shows that they can't always be maintained in every situation. I'd say it's an important message of the show, in fact, that you have to stick to your ideals even after you stumble, and even when they're absolutely impossible and you have to betray them, you should go right back to trying to stick to them whenever you can.

>killing innocents is somewhat edgy
T. Psycho.

what the fuck was his problem?

I'm no moralfag myself, if someone threatened my life or someone I cared about I'd kill them on the spot, but I do understand where he's coming from. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as an ideal which can be applied to everyone you meet, you have to realize that everyone must be treated individually. That's not hypocrisy, it's just logic. If someone treats you well, you treat them well. If someone tries to fuck you over, you respond accordingly. Makes sense to me but most people seem to have an absolute attitude of "everyone has to be saved" or "everyone has to die". You can't save everyone, but that doesn't mean you can't try to save the people you want to save.

>expecting any character in an anime, let alone the MC, to not be autistic about anything

That's good advice to live by and all, but what if you believe in something so strongly that you're willing to give up your life? Some things are greater than our individual lives, some things worth dying for.

That Vash's friends were being threatened is morally irrelevant. Killing another person is always the wrong thing to do.
If they had died in that situation, Legato would bear the full moral responsibility for it.

>Badguy gets killed and MC is totally fine
Everything goes smoothly, the proceedings are simple and easygoing and you're back to goofing off in no time
>Badguy gets killed but the MC is broken up about it
The incident is over but the tone has taken a darker turn with a slight edge
>Badguy doesn't get killed but there is no robust legal system to imprison him
Tone doesn't take a hit but in the back of your mind you are wondering how many people the MC is responsible for killing by letting these guy go
>Badguy forces MC into an ultimatum where he has to kill him or else someone else will die
Whether MC kills the badguy or not the edge of the ensuing turbulence and drama in this situation will cut your head clean off, darker than any grimdark created by conventional methods

The only things that I believe in are people I care about. My ideals are "protect the people I personally care for, and defend them from anyone or anything that threatens their safety, no matter who or what is threatening them". If no one threatens them, I won't do anything to anyone. But if the entire world decides someone I care about needs to die, then the entire world is my enemy. Now that's all assuming that I lived in some world that required me to do that, but I don't, and there isn't actually anyone in my life. But if I did, hypothetically, that's what I would do.

When it comes to choosing between wrongs, it's right to choose the better wrong.

The only right thing is to choose neither.

That's the wrongest choice, as it leaves both hostages to die.

Right, wrong, whatever. If someone tries to kill someone else, they forfeit their right to not be attacked.

You act like they just die for no reason. They are murdered by an aggressor, which makes the aggressor the one committing the wrong, not you.

In the context of that one scene in particular he couldn't. And that was the whole point of Legato's set up. To make him be the direct cause of an enemies death or to make him the indirect cause of the death of 2 friends (or 1 friend since it was Livio he held hostage).

But you could have saved one.
You chose not to.
Every choice you make is your responsibility.

It's been year since I've seen the anime so I don't recall the scene, but if Legato set it up so that others would die then Legato is the one committing immoral actions.

I could have committed an immoral action, but chose not to.

It's fiction for god's sake, you snuff a thousand dune coons in the latest FPS and forget about it. All of that human life mumbo jumbo need not apply, MC should just take the easy way and snuff a baddie where he sees them for great justice.

You did commit an immoral action, by standing by and intentional inactivity as a person died that you could have saved.

That's the thing this post was referring too , how Vash's reaction to a situation that couldn't have played out any differently was over the top.

I couldn't, because killing is something I can't do. Simple.

Still, the one who set it up is the one doing the immoral things, not the people trapped in the situation.

>Simple.
And the rich man says "donating is something I can't do". Sure, the beggar died, but it's not his fault. Because he couldn't have given him any bread for free.

You are just trying to wiggle out of responsibility, but it's just not that "simple".

I don't think he's crazy, I think we're the crazy ones for solving everything with bullets.

Correct. Choosing your best option out of a set of bad choices does not make you a bad person.
But choosing the worst option does.

youtube.com/watch?v=yg16u_bzjPE

Got raped, now he is edgy.

All these pacifists answer this question: How do handle a short term problem of a fucking psychopaths killing people you love in a world where the justice system is a joke and rehabilitation hasn't been invented yet?

Keep in mind psychopaths breed more psychopaths by their actions (i.e people suffering traumatic experiences tend to become batshit crazy themselves.)

It's all subjective, but if you base your morality on "killing is something I shouldn't do" then it really becomes a non-issue. No other arguments matter then.

I'd just do what needs to be done, but I still know that it's wrong.

I get that killing people isn't cool and ought to be avoided for more humane options but did he have to be so fucking autistic about it?

>if you base your morality on "killing is something I shouldn't do" then it really becomes a non-issue.
No, it doesn't.
It gives you an answer to the question as to what you should do, but it doesn't negate the issue.
You can choose to abstain from dirtying your own hands, but ignoring the fact that you are in fact making a choice is highly irresponsible and immoral.
That's the entire nature of Vash's suffering. Because he can see the consequences of his inaction and he knows that more people may die because he refuses to pull the trigger. But he just can't kill people.

Now put the 90% on the second track and see how their answers change.

Who am I to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? If I start killing people because I don't like their actions, how am I any better than them? Furthermore, where does it end? If I kill one man because I disagree with him then it makes no difference morally if I kill ALL the men who have a different opinion than me. The only thing to do is live a good and moral life and by my actions attempt to persuade others to do the same.

>No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does, but Vash's morality is more complex than that so he suffers. I was mostly talking about my own outlook.

You are turning a moral discussion into a "do you want to die?"
What are you trying to accomplish?

>Yes, it does,
You are still making a choice, and that is an important fact. Don't ignore it.

Not him but you are presenting a black and white moral argument and he is rejecting the framing and then you're circling back to "But it's black and white! Why can't you understand that?"

Now you can go back to Texas, kiddo.

When someone else's life is the currency you're going to use to make decisions, it's very easy to take the high road. Now let them have some skin in the game and you'll see them for what they are.

>Who am I to decide who gets to live and who gets to die?

You are a rational being that wants two things 1) Safety of himself and 2) Safety for his kin and social group. This is in built in everybody as a human being. Using this assumption this guy is in direct opposition of what you, as a human being, wants to do.

This isn't a question of "grey morality" in my opinion, this is a question of conflict resolution, and in the end these guys get it:

Not quite.
I'm pointing out that a moral problem exists even if he has made his choice already.
I don't care which way he chooses. I am irritated at his refusal to acknowledge that there is even a problem.

The problem in this show was mostly that all of Vash's enemies were horrible villains with literally zero redeeming qualities. They were all vicious murderers (at least the ending baddies after him).

Furthermore, the setting was supposed to be like an American western, and if you've seen any of those, you know a major theme is how little human lives are worth in the old west. People get brained for cheating at cards or just looking at someone wrong. Trying to inject some sort of moral jesus into this setting is hamfisted and really goes against what fans of westerns are looking for. Just look at the Dollars trilogy and how many people the man with no name killed. He didn't kill for fun, and he only killed bad guys, but there were tons of bad guys who needed a few extra holes in their bodies.

>choosing between wrongs,
My point is that not-killing Legato isn't a wrong.

>Now let them have some skin in the game and you'll see them for what they are.
It's still retarded putting personal drives into a question of morality.
I am ideologically opposed to the idea of vengeance or even legal sentences which I consider to be just constitutional vengeance.
But if you kill my family, do you think I'll have the self-control to not at least punch you in the face?

Humans are more than their urges. Stop turning this argument ad absurdum.

>You are a rational being that wants two things 1) Safety of himself and 2) Safety for his kin and social group

False assumption. I stated previously that there are things greater than my life and I stand by that.

>This is in built in everybody as a human being. Using this assumption this guy is in direct opposition of what you, as a human being, wants to do.

Appeal to nature fallacy. What is built in to me as a human being is not necessarily a morally good thing. Nature has no moral weight so morality cannot be judged on whether something is natural.

Unless it means killing people.

Please, don't associate me with those fags. They just say that shit because they can't wait for an excuse to kill people. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what I just said, if you attack someone else without the excuse that you are defending another person, you willing give up your right to not be attacked.

>>False assumption. I stated previously that there are things greater than my life and I stand by that.
So you are not a rational being, okay discussion ended.

>Appeal to nature fallacy. What is built in to me as a human being is not necessarily a morally good thing. Nature has no moral weight so morality cannot be judged on whether something is natural.

Never appealed to nature, there is no part of my post that I implied "Nature = Good". I was just describing the general nature of the human species and arguing what they're rational response to conflict (which cannot be solved through non-violent means) would be.

I'll concede that you are not rational and there fore you are able to make outlier claims of pacifism.

If Vash hadn't killed Legato, the only one who would have killed people in that scene would have been Legato.

And if the workers on a nuclear power plant just go on vacation and leave the stupid plant to just go critical it won't be the workers that kill people.
It will be the power plant.

You are retarded.

Evil is situation based.
In todays society the greatest evil one can commit is take the life of a fellow human being, because that way you rob them of everything.

However, I firmly believe every human in existence is able to take a life if the situation calls for it, through own survival, rage or sorrow. Whatever the motive, if the situation turn so severe, everyone will succumb and attempt to end it.

We see it in several psychological expermients, Zimbardos prison experiment is one of the most famous, the other is Milgrams obedience experiment.
These experiments, show humans who themselves claim to be completly incapable of doing harm to a fellow human, soon abandons those ideals in the face of authority or group consensus.

You can claim not being able to take a life, but wait until you become a father and some fuckwit rapes your daughteru and kills her in cold blood, and before you know it you are in a room with him, you and a gun. Or any other equal perverted scene, then we will see.

>that one user that always has the bad grace to sperg out when everybody is pretending to act like adults

The general response of humans is irrelevant. What is or is not moral is not based on what others would do, or what a human being would do in nature.

Resorting to insults is not a good way to get your point across, by the way.

lol