Forum

I'm done with this show. The next time someone tells me that there's a new sword and sorcery anime that's really great, I think I'm just going to go back and watch Slayers, because all this experience has taught me is that I don't like the vast majority of Japanese medieval fantasy. It's perhaps the sole anime subgenre that constantly disappoints me, and it's mostly because of stuff like these past few episodes.

{Edit}: I edited out your response to the removed post. ~ Psycho 101

Agent355 wrote:

ChibiKangaroo wrote:

So wait, now people's excuse for Charioce murdering and enslaving countless people is because it was the most convenient thing for him to do? That makes him seem even more psychopathic. If it was an ideological thing, maybe that puts him at the Hitler level. If it's not even ideological and he goes on a genocidal rampage just because "meh, it's easier this way," he's worse than Hitler. As I said before, you can't redeem a character like this.

I completely disagree. Developing an ideology that dictates oppression, slavery and genocide is worse than just doing it for economic or expedient reasons. We also have way more examples of people in history who hurt other people for reasons as mundane as politics or economics or convenience than people who truly convinced themselves and their followers of some kind of homicidal gospel. And some of them we still honor as heroes!

Ideology can be debated, in theory. People can theoretically be convinced to change ideology or they can be shown the evils of a bad ideology. They still operate on a moral system, but their morals are off, or twisted in some way that can theoretically be corrected.

Convenience, expedience and other such things can't be debated. If someone is operating purely on what is convenient to them at any given moment, you can't convince them of a greater good. Morality and empathy have no meaning to such a person. Generally, we refer to such individuals as psychopaths. They tend to be the most terrifying evil in media, because they cannot be reasoned with. They are akin to evil spirits and demons in horror movies, which similarly have no moral code.

Quote:

Take Thomas Jefferson as an example. We know he enslaved his own children (until he declared them free in his Will, IIRC), but most people don't think of him as "the guy who treated his own kids as slaves." It's not even that he was the biggest proponent of slavery, but he owned slaves and he had an affair spoiler[or raped, since slaves, like prisoners, can not freely consent to their masters having sex with them since they don't get a choice] with a slave, and she gave birth to his children--if he would have treated them like his children rather than slaves, everyone would know about the affair. So they were slaves by default, it was convenient. Historians might all agree that he wasn't the best dad, but Americans still consider him a pinnacle Founding Father.

If Thomas Jefferson were alive today and engaging in slavery he would be considered as as a very bad person. Most people probably assume that he did it at the time because slavery was treated as morally acceptable at the time. The ideology of many American institutions when he was alive was "slavery = good," or at least allowable. Saying or implying that American slavery was non-ideological and based purely upon expedience is a false narrative. An entire culture and ideological framework was established and cultivated at every institutional level for dehumanizing and oppressing people based upon skin color. Thomas Jefferson was a part of that. His sins cannot be brushed off or ignored. However, as I said, he was living in a time with a moral code that we have since cast off, because America recognized that it was a bad moral code.

Really, I think you have provided the ultimate example of what I am arguing. If Americans had acted purely on what was convenient and expedient, slavery would still be in effect today in America. A person devoid of empathy and morality could conclude that owning slaves is convenient, and a society full of such people would employ slavery. They would also engage in all kinds of other monstrous activities. Your neighbor has a 60 inch 4k TV that you like, but you can't afford one? Kill him, then cut up his body and put it in an acid bath. Then take his TV. It's the most convenient thing to do. It's the mentality of the American Psycho. He's leaving the office after engaging in a murder spree and it's inconvenient for him that the security desk guy and janitor saw him, so he instantly murders them both without even thinking. Watch the casualness of him committing those murders. It was great writing for the movie, which does such an amazing job of creating this truly amoral psychopath.

That's not Thomas Jefferson. That is someone who does whatever is most expedient to them at a given moment, the most terrifying kind of monster. If people are arguing that that is Charioce, then he is even worse than I have been claiming.

I'm confused by your definition of a psychopath because empathy=/=morals. Most people are capable of empathy, but psychologically, empathy only goes so far. People feel the most empathy for their family and then for other people in their greater social group, their tribe. Psychopaths are an anomaly because they lack empathy completely, and ordinary people are perfectly capable of murder or other heinous acts despite being capable of empathy. Very few crimes, including crimes against humanity are committed because people were convinced they were morally obligated to do it--there might be moral justifications after the fact, but most things happen because people are motivated by power and money, not piety.

Claiming that a leader who implements a regime based on conquest and slavery is a psychopath incapable of empathy greatly underestimates the banality of evil.

Charioce is not a psychopath, he seems capable of empathy. He doesn't empathize with demons or gods because he thinks them enemies of humans, and he's focused on putting humans first, and killing Bahamut, which both demons and gods would object to.

When a leader convinces his people that those in their "in group" are more worthy of just treatment than those labeled "others," all bets are off. Everything done against "others" becomes justifiable to the "in group" within *a typical psychological framework.* Doesn't make it moral (although people might defend their actions with philosophical ideas like Social Darwinism to justify their actions to themselves), but it doesn't mean people are psychopaths, either.

Agent355 wrote:

I'm confused by your definition of a psychopath because empathy=/=morals. Most people are capable of empathy, but psychologically, empathy only goes so far. People feel the most empathy for their family and then for other people in their greater social group, their tribe. Psychopaths are an anomaly because they lack empathy completely, and ordinary people are perfectly capable of murder or other heinous acts despite being capable of empathy. Very few crimes, including crimes against humanity are committed because people were convinced they were morally obligated to do it--there might be moral justifications after the fact, but most things happen because people are motivated by power and money, not piety.

I'm not sure why you are confused. I said psychopaths have neither empathy or morals. Normal people have empathy but may or may not have "good" morals. Some of them have evil morals. This seems pretty straightforward to me.

I don't know where you get your figure about "very few crimes" being committed because someone felt it was within their moral code. I don't buy that though. I think it is completely logical that most people do not see themselves as committing evil acts, and thus they will always create a moral code in which what they are doing is acceptable. This logic can explain all of the societal crimes that have been committed throughout history. People did terrible things but decided it was within their moral code when they were doing it. Objectively, outsiders can and should call people out for evil morals. But I think human nature is such that people will rationalize whatever they are doing at any given moment such that it is within their morals.

The distinction with psychopaths is that they don't need a moral code. It would only get in the way. Thus, they can commit evil without hesitation (see the American Psycho clip I linked above, seriously watch how perfectly Christian Bale portrays the complete lack of empathy. He gets greeted by the security guy who is friendly towards him, and he instantly pulls out his gun and shoots the poor sap in the head purely by realizing the guy was a witness who could put him at the scene. No hesitation whatsoever. Same thing with the janitor), whereas a normal murderer might think about it for a moment and ensure that they can justify it in their mind first. And yes, murderers, rapists, and other terrible criminals do justify things in their minds.

Quote:

Claiming that a leader who implements a regime based on conquest and slavery is a psychopath incapable of empathy greatly underestimates the banality of evil.

You are mischaracterizing my point. I was initially just saying Charioce was Hitler-like. Hitler was an ideologue with an evil ideology. I don't think he was Patrick Bateman. He created an evil moral code and tried to enact it. He empathize with "his people" which might have just been relatives and friends, who knows. I was saying that is what Charioce is - a Hitleresque figure who any reasonable and good person like Nina should be revolted by.

Then other people started coming in and saying, actually no, he doesn't care about any of this stuff and is really committing all of this evil PURELY out of his own personal expedience. This is where I said, well if that is true, then he is a psychopath and is worse than Hitler. I didn't say all leaders who do evil deeds are psycopaths.

Quote:

Charioce is not a psychopath, he seems capable of empathy. He doesn't empathize with demons or gods because he thinks them enemies of humans, and he's focused on putting humans first, and killing Bahamut, which both demons and gods would object to.

Maybe he is capable of it. Like I said, other people were claiming everything he has done and all the evils he caused was purely due to his own personal expediency. If so, he has no empathy and is a psychopath. I was willing to say maybe he does have empathy, but he's just Hitler. Shocked

Quote:

When a leader convinces his people that those in their "in group" are more worthy of just treatment than those labeled "others," all bets are off. Everything done against "others" becomes justifiable to the "in group" within *a typical psychological framework.* Doesn't make it moral (although people might defend their actions with philosophical ideas like Social Darwinism to justify their actions to themselves), but it doesn't mean people are psychopaths, either.

Yep, like I said, maybe he's just Hitler, and has an evil moral system. That's what I assumed, until people started claiming that he cares for nothing except whatever is most expedient to him at any moment, including mass genocide and enslavement.

Alright time to calm down folks. Gotten several reports and had to remove a few posts. It seems some of you need to chill a bit. So how about everyone relax a little and keep it civil.

Right now, I think RoB/SnB as a whole has a pacing issue, and that's my real problem. It starts off fine, but the ends have been rushed both times. But I wouldn't want to sacrifice the pacing of the first half either because I liked how everything went before in both seasons. Well. . . Genesis could have done without the recap.

Agent355 wrote:

(. . .)

I think you make good and important points, and I think they cover the issues with really gray shows like this. I mean, the writing has been weak and the show is rushed, but in terms of all these different characters with varying intentions, morality, and circumstances; I think it's realistic. It's not always going to be palpatable, or to everyone's taste, but I rather like it this way.

Indefinitely shelving Manaria Friends was a mistake.

Virgin Soul has become such a train wreck and I didn't think it could get worse but the writers keep finding a way. Kaiser dying to protect Charioce is a nice summary of how messed up this show has gotten. There was a brief moment of zombie fun in this episode which did remind me of Genesis.

Takkun4343 wrote:

Indefinitely shelving Manaria Friends was a mistake.

Agreed, even if Manaria Friends was a simple school story it would not have been a tragic romance story with a brutal dictator.

Yeah, I think it is time to hang it up when you can't even watch the show because your particular ship didn't sail the way you wanted it to. This is the most unprofessional review I've read here, and it's a real surprise to see Gabriella sink to this.

Quote:

To be honest, this death may make me angrier than Mugaro's, since it reaches back and makes the first season worse with the knowledge that Kaisar will just die pointlessly ten years later. This invalidation of the first season will reach apocalyptic proportions if they somehow manage to undo Amira's sacrifice by breaking the seal on Bahamut.

Did she ragequit before she saw the big dragon in the sky belching up firebombs at Charioce? Shocked

And Amira's sacrifice was bound to be undone eventually, which is the whole point of Charioce's obsession.

Also, how does a death (pointless or not) 10 years later invalidate previous acts of heroism? That happens irl all the time. It's sad, but most heroes don't end up dying in profoundly meaningful ways, the just get cancer, or fall off a ladder or have some equally banal accident, or get old and senile.

And it wasn't pointless anyway. If he hadn't stepped in, then Bahamut would definitely win this round since only Charioce can fire the Hand o' Smiting machine. Kaisar saved their asses.

Quote:

My only hope for not leaving this show with an absolutely wretched taste in my mouth is a total cop-out ending where Mugaro and Kaisar are somehow brought back to life and everything turns out okay.

Why would that be a cop-out ending? Mugaro's resurrection has been foreshadowed left and right, and I don't think Kaisar is coming back to "life." Instead, I think Rita will have a happy ending (also already well established to be within her powers). I cheered a little when he got what appear to be fatal injuries, since zombie babies now look more likely! Very Happy

If they do just bandage him up and he's fine after some bed rest, then I'll agree that's a cop-out.

Quote:

Alessand got a drawn-out, humiliating death this week, and it still wasn't enough to keep me happy. So Dias corners him, ready to kill, only to contemplate forgiving the guy for some reason.

I do agree that Alessand got off easy even without redemption, but despite the cliche aspects of it, I don't mind when good characters show mercy, as long as they're not naive and stupid about it, which Dias was not, since he was prepared to avoid such a cowardly attack. And I don't think he was actually being merciful, so much as just too disgusted with him and how craven he turned out to be to finish him off. They were friends, or at least comrades, for years, and it's not easy to just run a sword through someone you've known all that time just because they turned out to be more horrible than you ever imagined. Sheesh, I think if Gabriella had lived in this universe she would have been one of those vengeful people screaming for demon blood in the arenas.

There are a lot of things to criticize about this episode (the organization of the plot seemed lacking to me, and some of the action was hard to follow. I didn't like foisting responsibility for dispatching Alessand onto an innocent child. Nina's role being reduced to constantly yelling to go faster! was a waste of screen time, even if the brief bit between her and Favaro was worthwhile), but sadly Gabriella was too busy raging at Bahamut to talk about any of that. Maybe she should hand this off to someone else for the finale?

about epi 23 Review... at least someone is feeling the same thing as me... fudge man, that Kaisar was a real bitch the whole season and now he dies protecting the guy who put the world to shit? wtf man? i really hope that Bahamut kills every [expletive] one in this shit show...

why did i start this 2* season? --' i just wasted my time... ;/

Gina Szanboti wrote:

If he hadn't stepped in, then Bahamut would definitely win this round since only Charioce can fire the Hand o' Smiting machine. Kaisar saved their asses.

He definitely saved their asses. My problem with this is Kaisar didn't know that Bahamut was back and they needed Charioce to kill it. So he sacrificed himself because...why? I get that he's a super righteous knight, but nothing about it seems right. From most people's perspective Charioce is a massively shitty person. Why sacrifice yourself for him? What does it accomplish?

I feel like Kaisar's position on this matter has been way too vague. He's all about ending the bloodshed. Well, killing Charioce would end the war. At this point that should be considered the quickest way to end the killing, but Kaisar is so against it even going so far as to sacrifice his life? Why? And it's not like Charioce is some innocent that needs protecting. He's pretty damn guilty. And neither is the act of killing a complete no go for Kaisar. He's not a pacifist. He's a knight. I don't see how Jeanne and Azazel killing Charioce at this point is considered unjustified to him? Because Charioce didn't personally stab El? He might not be directly responsible like Alessand, but he definitely shares the blame.

Not to mention Kaisar has no reason to believe that sacrificing himself for Charioce will stop the fighting. Sure, it will give the fighters pause because they all respect Kaisar to varying degrees, but in the end they still have major grievances and the fight should continue. That being said I'm sure the fight will indeed stop next episode due to all the Bahamut business, but again, Kaisar didn't know that.

Last edited by Zeino on Sat Sep 23, 2017 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

I haven't seen an anime sequel that so thoroughly wreaks everything good about the first series like this in awhile. The last time I think was Euerka Seven AO some five years ago.

At least Eureka AO had the spoiler[time travel plot device] to hand-wave all the ruination given to the original away. I'm not watching Rage of Bahamut like the rest of everyone in this thread, but from what I've seen... any damage control for this ending isn't gonna be nearly as neat and tidy.

Oh man, where to begin? I mean I was able to forgive this show just cause of the production values. Sure the story sucked, but it was at least fun to watch.... Until now. This episode was just insulting. It wasn't bad enough that they killed off Kaisar, they had to do it in a way so stupid it defies belief. It felt like complete slap in the face to fans of the first series. There's literally no going back now. In one episode they destroyed everything that made "Genesis" so great.

I am now convinced the writers have been drinking shoe polish. This is seriously freaking ridiculous, especially since the season started with so much promise and has now become spiteful. The first season is still great and no amount of this one will taint it, but not only has this season been disappointing it's become infuriating. This is going to make Top Ten Worst Followups lists

Forum - View topic
EP. REVIEW: Rage of Bahamut: Virgin Soul

This Week in Anime - What's Weekly Shonen Jump's Next Big Manga?

Voice Actor Takaaki Seki Dies at 54

The ANN Aftershow - Will You Watch Solo Leveling Season 2?

Dark Moon: The Blood Altar Volumes 1-2 Manhwa Review

Interview: Voice Actors Rika Hayashi and Hiroki Tōchi Talk About Their New Golf Anime, Tonbo!

Japanese TV Special Ranks Top Anime Songs, as Chosen by Foreign Fans

This Week in Anime - So, Is Sound Euphonium Queerbaiting or Not?

Wonderful Precure! Episodes 1-12 Anime Review

Dead Dead Demon's Dededede Destruction Part 1 Anime Film Review

Eiyuden Chronicle: Hundred Heroes Game Review

Forum - View topicEP. REVIEW: Rage of Bahamut: Virgin Soul

Forum

Forum - View topic
EP. REVIEW: Rage of Bahamut: Virgin Soul