Best morally correct villains and morally questionable heroes

[Keltest]

Yeah....Corvo does some pretty nasty things. Daud and his apprentice lady too. But the people they're against are far far far worse. Forcibly infecting your city with a disease to instigate a power grab may not be the worst thing a villain's ever done but it's pretty sick.

Indeed. Its also worth pointing out that, regardless of what a person deserves or how clean your revenge is, dead bodies spread the plague. That's why the game doesn't make moral judgments on Corvo and co, it just ranks it in the amount of destruction and chaos you have caused.

[dps]

Pick almost any story in which a social worker is trying to take a child away from its parent (the exceptions would be those works in which the social worker is the protagonist). The social worker will be portrayed as a villain, even though they're just doing their job. They may be in error about the parent being abusive, neglectful, or otherwise unfit, but that doesn't make them evil or villainous.

[Kitten Champion]

Pick almost any story in which a social worker is trying to take a child away from its parent (the exceptions would be those works in which the social worker is the protagonist). The social worker will be portrayed as a villain, even though they're just doing their job. They may be in error about the parent being abusive, neglectful, or otherwise unfit, but that doesn't make them evil or villainous.

Oh, yeah. It's pretty much the same thing with Internal Affairs in most any prime time cop/detective show. Sometimes it's warranted - insofar as the narrative proves they're legitimately the corrupt one(s) - but often they're more depicted as antagonists who abrasively intrude upon the works and lives of the brave heroes with their red tape and agendas. They're most likely to be blinded by their future ambitions, or harbour some kind of personal enmity with the main characters.

Another is the jurisdictional conflicts between police- most often the FBI - who comes to take the case away from the main characters for whatever reason. You have this turf battle which usually ends with the non-main character higher authority figures being dunked upon woefully.

It's such a contrived conflict and it comes down to the heroes shouldn't be held accountable or follow legal procedures when warranted because protagonist-centred morality.

[comicshorse]

]Oh, yeah. It's pretty much the same thing with Internal Affairs [/B] in most any prime time cop/detective show. Sometimes it's warranted - insofar as the narrative proves they're legitimately the corrupt one(s) - but often they're more depicted as antagonists who abrasively intrude upon the works and lives of the brave heroes with their red tape and agendas. They're most likely to be blinded by their future ambitions, or harbour some kind of personal enmity with the main characters.

Speaking of there is 2012 'The Sweeney' (also my personal Worst Film Ever)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0857190/?ref_=nv_sr_2

The Internal Affairs officer is absolutely right about exactly how corrupt the 'hero' is yet somehow we are meant to regard him as the villain for wanting to arrest the protagonist for all the thieving, rules breaking and torture of suspects he does. (He's also a massive **** but that's not really a arrestable offence)

[Lord Raziere]

*shrug*

yeah I don't really care about anything Razade just said.

I don't get his viewpoints, they're alien to me. I do not understand how he could possibly see Undertale or Spec Ops as bad. but I'm used to looking at others viewpoints and not understanding them.

I guess Razade just values different things? I think Undertale and Spec Ops the Line are both great. I'm not going to be angry at him for it, but am I going to suddenly understand how he can possibly dislike it? No. Sorry. I don't see where he is coming from, and I'm not going to make assumptions about where he is coming from with this, because that doesn't really work for communication. I guess I wish could understand, but I don't?

and again I stand by my stance about plot holes. It seems pretty obvious to me that the culture has gotten too obsessed with pointing stuff like that out and plot holes are good shorthand, and I just don't understand how no one can see that, but thats my problem I guess.

I guess I'll just say the Luffy is a morally questionable hero because he is a pirate and this creepy unrelatable monster child and the Navy is morally correct villain because honestly, I have seen no reason why the Navy SHOULDN'T bring law and order to the seas in One Piece if its filled with monsters like the ones encountered like Blackbeard.

[Brother Oni]

Pick almost any story in which a social worker is trying to take a child away from its parent (the exceptions would be those works in which the social worker is the protagonist). The social worker will be portrayed as a villain, even though they're just doing their job. They may be in error about the parent being abusive, neglectful, or otherwise unfit, but that doesn't make them evil or villainous.

Lilo and Stitch disagrees with you on that one. The social worker there, Cobra, is trying to do what is best for Lilo and despite her best efforts, Nani can't provide a decent environment for her.

Oh, yeah. It's pretty much the same thing with Internal Affairs in most any prime time cop/detective show. Sometimes it's warranted - insofar as the narrative proves they're legitimately the corrupt one(s) - but often they're more depicted as antagonists who abrasively intrude upon the works and lives of the brave heroes with their red tape and agendas. They're most likely to be blinded by their future ambitions, or harbour some kind of personal enmity with the main characters.

I'm not sure whether The Corruptor counts as a prime time show as it's a movie, but the IA officer isn't an antagonist there.

The IA sergeant in Lethal Weapon 3 initially starts out as an antagonist, but is soon brought into the protagonist fold.

[Tyndmyr]

Every story breaks down under scrutiny. If we ignore every story because they wouldn't line up 100% with the logic of the real world, there'd be no stories to tell. its still a better handling than black and white morality and acting as everything will be okay when the hero saves everything.

Unrealistic is not exactly what makes a plot hole. Inconsistency is.

I don't much care about why magic exists in Lord of the Rings. It's part of the setting, and so long as it's portrayed consistently, nobody gets put out that it's unlike the real world. They do get put out that the Eagles become a deus ex machina that solve all sorts of otherwise insoluble scenarios, but are not used to bypass other obstacles that they apparently can with ease. The problem doesn't lie in the eagles, but in the apparent contradiction.

So, no, not every story breaks down under scrutiny. Some are far, far more consistent than others. Yeah, some films are enjoyable despite plot holes, but generally, noticing that something doesn't make any sense detracts from enjoyment of most films. The fewer plot holes, the better the work.

I'd put an exception out there for films enjoyed specifically because they are bad, absurd, etc. Sharknado knows what it is. However, nobody considers those to be great works of art, yknow?

[Keltest]

*shrug*

yeah I don't really care about anything Razade just said.

I don't get his viewpoints, they're alien to me. I do not understand how he could possibly see Undertale or Spec Ops as bad. but I'm used to looking at others viewpoints and not understanding them.

I guess Razade just values different things? I think Undertale and Spec Ops the Line are both great. I'm not going to be angry at him for it, but am I going to suddenly understand how he can possibly dislike it? No. Sorry. I don't see where he is coming from, and I'm not going to make assumptions about where he is coming from with this, because that doesn't really work for communication. I guess I wish could understand, but I don't?

and again I stand by my stance about plot holes. It seems pretty obvious to me that the culture has gotten too obsessed with pointing stuff like that out and plot holes are good shorthand, and I just don't understand how no one can see that, but thats my problem I guess.

I guess I'll just say the Luffy is a morally questionable hero because he is a pirate and this creepy unrelatable monster child and the Navy is morally correct villain because honestly, I have seen no reason why the Navy SHOULDN'T bring law and order to the seas in One Piece if its filled with monsters like the ones encountered like Blackbeard.

I mean, when the basic premise of the game should render the plot impossible, I think we can call that a plot hole. Its not even a case of "this is unlikely, but sometimes people do dumb things" its just straight up "this should have been shut down in fifty different places before it got this far."

[Lord Raziere]

Unrealistic is not exactly what makes a plot hole. Inconsistency is.

I don't much care about why magic exists in Lord of the Rings. It's part of the setting, and so long as it's portrayed consistently, nobody gets put out that it's unlike the real world. They do get put out that the Eagles become a deus ex machina that solve all sorts of otherwise insoluble scenarios, but are not used to bypass other obstacles that they apparently can with ease. The problem doesn't lie in the eagles, but in the apparent contradiction.

So, no, not every story breaks down under scrutiny. Some are far, far more consistent than others. Yeah, some films are enjoyable despite plot holes, but generally, noticing that something doesn't make any sense detracts from enjoyment of most films. The fewer plot holes, the better the work.

I'd put an exception out there for films enjoyed specifically because they are bad, absurd, etc. Sharknado knows what it is. However, nobody considers those to be great works of art, yknow?

Okay?

I don't really care?

there is always contradictions. you can find those in anything. and I don't really care about Sharknado. again, you seem to be that guy who is more concerned about pointing out the contradictions and feeling smart about it than actually enjoying the thing itself. I only ever notice these contradictions when other people point them out when discussing something and when I actually view something....I almost never notice them, they are about as important as whether a random shoe is in a scene or not.

I mean I could say "blob walked over to blob." and it'd be a perfectly consistent story, but thats hardly a good story.

[The Jack]

I can see why someone'd hate spec ops the line, even though I haven't played it.
In general, people make a lot of stuff in order to villainise or lampoon something, ignoring a lot of stuff to.

I never got why people love the marines in aliens so much. As bad as Vietnam might have been, they're not a fair parody.


I think batman's a POS, in general. You can tell me about all this nuance, different writers and how he's a philanthropist, but the dude's a multi billionaire with a suspicious stranglehold over the economy of Gotham. You know what breeds crime? A lack of legitimate economic opportunities. I can't think of a rational for the batman thing better than -He saw his parents murdered by a poor dude, so now he wages personal war on the poor to feel better, branding it as justice and using his economic platform to ensure plenty of poor criminals. It's part of the reason why he doesn't kill- So his punching bag is perpetual. Everyone escapes Arkham and black-gate because Bruce wants it that way. Bruce gave Joker that Christmas tree rocket, it's obvious, How else would he get it? The decades of training and learning to be batman could've been spent increasing the ability of Wayne enterprises to do good or invested in politics if the guy had meant well.
Now, to get some arguments out the way.
-He's giving millions to charity so he can make billions and still look good.
-If he doesn't trust the police force, why doesn't he do a Luthor and build security bots? Why doesn't he use his influence to bring the feds down upon the department?

[Keltest]

Okay?

I don't really care?

there is always contradictions. you can find those in anything. and I don't really care about Sharknado. again, you seem to be that guy who is more concerned about pointing out the contradictions and feeling smart about it than actually enjoying the thing itself. I only ever notice these contradictions when other people point them out when discussing something and when I actually view something....I almost never notice them, they are about as important as whether a random shoe is in a scene or not.

I mean I could say "blob walked over to blob." and it'd be a perfectly consistent story, but thats hardly a good story.

Well youre coming off as somebody who has no standards and is confused that other people might, so...

This isn't just a contradiction, this is a gaping maw in the plot. You could launch a space shuttle through that gap if you aligned it correctly. The premise fundamentally does not work, at all. And maybe that doesn't damage your enjoyment of it, but other people cant take a work seriously if it doesn't even hold up to rudimentary scrutiny.

[Lord Raziere]

Well youre coming off as somebody who has no standards and is confused that other people might, so...

This isn't just a contradiction, this is a gaping maw in the plot. You could launch a space shuttle through that gap if you aligned it correctly. The premise fundamentally does not work, at all. And maybe that doesn't damage your enjoyment of it, but other people cant take a work seriously if it doesn't even hold up to rudimentary scrutiny.

*shrug*

thats your problem, it seems to work to me. its not as if any other horror thing is more logical. your the one ignoring the important message for the offscreen unthings that don't actually matter to the plot. anything that doesn't make the plot happen is unimportant to it and should be discarded, and you don't always have the time to lengthily explain why those things don't happen, because that sort of explanation is a luxury for a writer. perfect is the enemy of finished.

[Kyrell1978]

"The Operative" from Serenity.

The Operative: I'm sorry. If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer. Or did you think none of this was your fault?

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.

The Operative: I do. If I have to.

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?

The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.

Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?

The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster. What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.

[Willie the Duck]

"The Operative" from Serenity.

Firefly in general is a case where your sympathies can go back and forth with each new bit of information.

The operative is merely a cold-blooded (not good) patriot (good) willing to kill innocents (so not good) for the greater good (so, good. Happens all the time in movies. You gotta break a few eggs, yadda yadda...). The greater good being a the forces of government against frontier lawlessness (could go either way, depending on genre)... who turned an entire planet of peaceful people into cannibal rape monsters (uh...mistakes happen. In sci fi, often big mistakes) through a failed mind-control pacification experiment (okay, I don't want to play this game anymore, pass me my blankie, I'm going to go hide under my desk).

Even before the movie, the Firefly crew are how-you-look-at-it split between hardened criminals and just regular joes trying to get by. The rebellion Mal and Zoe are veterans of takes on different light based on how closely you think it hews to the American Civil War it is clearly an allusion to as well.

[Eldan]

Hang on. Raziere, are you honestly claiming that you have never once in your life watched something and thought "Hang on, this makes no sense?" And are you really suggesting that people who do so are somehow wrong?

That's a legitimate impression one can get while watching something, and discussing your impression is what art is about. Telling people that they are wrong to do so is seriously dickish. And the impression is nothelped by you just answering "Shrug, I don't care whta you say or think" to every attempt to discuss this.

[Kyrell1978]

Firefly in general is a case where your sympathies can go back and forth with each new bit of information.

The operative is merely a cold-blooded (not good) patriot (good) willing to kill innocents (so not good) for the greater good (so, good. Happens all the time in movies. You gotta break a few eggs, yadda yadda...). The greater good being a the forces of government against frontier lawlessness (could go either way, depending on genre)... who turned an entire planet of peaceful people into cannibal rape monsters (uh...mistakes happen. In sci fi, often big mistakes) through a failed mind-control pacification experiment (okay, I don't want to play this game anymore, pass me my blankie, I'm going to go hide under my desk).

Even before the movie, the Firefly crew are how-you-look-at-it split between hardened criminals and just regular joes trying to get by. The rebellion Mal and Zoe are veterans of takes on different light based on how closely you think it hews to the American Civil War it is clearly an allusion to as well.

I know that The Operative is not a good character, but I was talking more about his working for a "world without sin" and his knowledge that he didn't belong in that world. I think it should also be taken into account that when he was shown that the government in which he believed so strongly had made the planet into "cannibal rape monsters" (great turn of phrase there by the way) he changed his mind about that institution's ability to usher in that world.

[tomandtish]

I know that The Operative is not a good character, but I was talking more about his working for a "world without sin" and his knowledge that he didn't belong in that world. I think it should also be taken into account that when he was shown that the government in which he believed so strongly had made the planet into "cannibal rape monsters" (great turn of phrase there by the way) he changed his mind about that institution's ability to usher in that world.

The biggest problem with The Operative (and similar characters) is that they are SO dedicated to their cause that they never bother looking around. There's plenty of evidence well before then that the world TPTB are creating isn't a world without sin, it is one where the worst sinners have risen to the top. It took literally broadcasting video evidence of the deaths of 30 million people into his face to gt him to realize that. The torture and brainwashing of children (as well as everything else they were up to) apparently didn't budge him at all.

[Tyndmyr]

Okay?

I don't really care?

there is always contradictions. you can find those in anything. and I don't really care about Sharknado. again, you seem to be that guy who is more concerned about pointing out the contradictions and feeling smart about it than actually enjoying the thing itself. I only ever notice these contradictions when other people point them out when discussing something and when I actually view something....I almost never notice them, they are about as important as whether a random shoe is in a scene or not.

You may not notice things while watching a film, but many people do. A pedantic error, like newspapers using filler text for the small fonts you can barely see, is not really important. Mainstream films like The Last Jedi have confusing moments that contradict known information, and those do matter for you to even follow the plot.

You've got an odd worldview, in which there are "people like you", and people who don't enjoy movies. The rest of us also enjoy movies. We wouldn't go to them if we didn't. We just happen to rip on the ones that we didn't like, or flawed parts of things we otherwise enjoyed.

*shrug*

thats your problem, it seems to work to me. its not as if any other horror thing is more logical. your the one ignoring the important message for the offscreen unthings that don't actually matter to the plot. anything that doesn't make the plot happen is unimportant to it and should be discarded, and you don't always have the time to lengthily explain why those things don't happen, because that sort of explanation is a luxury for a writer. perfect is the enemy of finished.

Lots of horror is fairly self consistent. The Meg just came out, and it's pretty fun. It's not perfect, there's one or two scenes where one might think "that shouldn't possibly work", but in general the horror is pretty straightforwardly a giant shark eating people(not a spoiler, the trailer promises exactly this), and the film is generally fun to watch. If you fixed the coupla errors, it would not impact the horror of it at all.

Your writing advice is perhaps useful for a new writer who needs to gain experience, but it's not really appropriate for hollywood. A bit of polishing is in order when one is doing a multimillion dollar project, as compared to writing a fanfic or what have you. It's not wrong to have a higher standard for the former to meet.

[Ibrinar]

Okay?

I don't really care?

there is always contradictions. you can find those in anything. and I don't really care about Sharknado. again, you seem to be that guy who is more concerned about pointing out the contradictions and feeling smart about it than actually enjoying the thing itself. I only ever notice these contradictions when other people point them out when discussing something and when I actually view something....I almost never notice them, they are about as important as whether a random shoe is in a scene or not.

I mean I could say "blob walked over to blob." and it'd be a perfectly consistent story, but thats hardly a good story.

If you don't care you could just not tell others about your plothole related viewpoints? That would be the polite thing to do if you don't want to seriously talk about it.

[Sapphire Guard]

If Gotham is so terrible, how bad does Marvel New York look, with it's enormous superhero population and multiple billionaire geniuses, look? People come to that conclusion by mashing a bunch of continuities together and disregarding the come uppances that several of them involve.

The eagles are not Pokemon, they decide where they go, Gandalf doesn't give them orders.

Spoiler: Dishonored

Show

In canon, Lady Boyle eventually murders her captor and escapes. The Heretic's brand isn't just a brand, it makes it a crime for anyone to help the bearer. Campbell shows up later in the game as a Weeper, so it's not just exile.

[GloatingSwine]

If Gotham is so terrible, how bad does Marvel New York look, with it's enormous superhero population and multiple billionaire geniuses, look? People come to that conclusion by mashing a bunch of continuities together and disregarding the come uppances that several of them involve.

Marvel New York is so densely populated with superheroes that you wonder why anyone bothers to do crime there.

Sure, let's rob a bank oh wait Wolverine was queueing to get his beer money for the evening and now he's upset...


Move to Arkansas, there aren't any superheroes randomly wandering around there.

[Lurkmoar]

Spoiler: Dishonored

Show

In canon, Lady Boyle eventually murders her captor and escapes. The Heretic's brand isn't just a brand, it makes it a crime for anyone to help the bearer. Campbell shows up later in the game as a Weeper, so it's not just exile.

I always felt that Corvo's no-kill methods were cruel mercy, emphasis on the cruel part.

Spoiler

Show

Except for Daud. If Corvo doesn't kill him, that was straight mercy.

Corvo is morally questionable, but his options were fairly limited. He couldn't exactly go to the Bristol version of the cops, he was a wanted murdered of the Empress. Couldn't exactly flee the county, unless he was willing to abandon Emily.

Spoiler

Show

I was never crazy about that book, The Corroded Man because of the inclusion of time travel. To me, unless time travel is a central conceit to a series or franchise, it's better off left out.

[Lord Raziere]

You know what, nevermind. I had a rant, but I decided against it, and just going to leave and move on

[Rynjin]

I guess I'll just say the Luffy is a morally questionable hero because he is a pirate and this creepy unrelatable monster child and the Navy is morally correct villain because honestly, I have seen no reason why the Navy SHOULDN'T bring law and order to the seas in One Piece if its filled with monsters like the ones encountered like Blackbeard.

I thought the series made it readily apparent why Luffy is the good guy and the Navy are the bad guys. Luffy helps people and improves their lives wherever he goes, often toppling iron fisted dictators or wannabe dictators (Arlong, Wapole, Crcodile, Eneru, Moria, Hordy, and Doflamingo all fit the bill...a good 3/4 of the villains). The only reason he is branded a pirate is because he opposes the World Government, a cabal of iron fisted, inbred, needlessly cruel dictators that treat people as objects to be tortured and discarded, with the Navy largely acting as their thug brigade, which often GENOCIDES ENTIRE POPULATIONS to hide political secrets.

There's like five good (named) people in the entire Navy, and two are retired and one is getting court martialed for not being enough of an *******. It's pretty baffling to me that anyone can see the Navy as being in the morally right.

Marvel New York is so densely populated with superheroes that you wonder why anyone bothers to do crime there.

Sure, let's rob a bank oh wait Wolverine was queueing to get his beer money for the evening and now he's upset...


Move to Arkansas, there aren't any superheroes randomly wandering around there.

Not even there is safe!

[Zevox]

The game he's talking about is God of War, by the by. Because spoiler tabs are kinda useless when unlabeled.

Kind of glad you mentioned that, since the reference to The Last of Us outside the spoiler made me assume it was something related to that and skip it, since I've never played that nor care about it.

Somebody mentioned The Last of Us and having recently finished one of PS4's best games this year...

Spoiler: If you haven't played the Game and wish to do so, skip

Show

Kratos from the GoW franchise. A look at his life prior to the latest game and the current one.

If anyone has played the series (at least the original trilogy), Kratos is at best, an antihero who, after a series of terrible and selfish decisions on his behalf, plays right into Divine Trickery by Ares.

This leads him to not only butchering hundreds if not thousands of innocents, but his family in a fit of true Spartan Rage. He of course, blames the gods, despite serving them for years afterwards. But even when he gets his revenge on Ares, he's still far from a noble soul.

This gets worse in the sequel, when he butchers the Sisters of Fate and then brutally impales Zeus, who narrowly escapes by using Athena as a human shield.

Despite her telling Kratos that Zeus cannot die or OLynmpus will fall, he doesn't care: he wants to kill the guy. Now mind you, he was made God of War to fill Ares' shoes, but his belligerent and volatile behavior in Olympus caused the other gods to be concerned... or outright afraid of him. Especially Zeus.

The third and last game in the original trilogy has him murder gods left and right. There is no sense of noble quest here- he will snap necks, dismember and rip heads off. Hell, he even killed his grandfather when the poor guy was already caught in Tartarus!

And every time he killed a deity, the world suffered for his actions. Biblical style.

At no point did Kratos feel any remorse of what happened to the world...and he kept on doing it until he bashed Zeus to a bloody paste with his bare hands.

Now, we fast forward to the latest game and check on the main antagonist.

Balder is insane, yes. But it wasn't his choosing- his mother "blessed" him with invulnerability, which has a Monkey's Paw style effect on the guy, driving him insane.

He just wants this taken off him and after 100 years of not feeling "ANYTHING!", it's clear that he'd go crazy. So, when Faye's spell wore off, he went to ask for a way to get this curse removed, but communication problems arose and a few seconds later, well... if you have played the game, you know what happens.

Spoiler

Show

While Kratos is definitely (at best) a morally questionable hero, I wouldn't call him an example of a good one, at least not until the most recent game. For the entire original trilogy - and I assume the various midquel titles, never played those - he kind of drags things down by being that. It's very hard to be invested in or care about his story, because he's such an irredeemably bad, unrelatable character - just a revenge-obsessed sociopath, and their very few attempts to humanize him are too little and too late to be effective. His story works as an excuse to go killing mythological characters and enjoy the gameplay, but it doesn't create a good narrative or make him a good character, IMO.

I wouldn't call Balder in the most recent game morally correct in any way, either. Oh sure, you can totally understand him being upset with his mother over the side-effect of her spell causing him to be unable to feel anything, but that doesn't change he's almost as obsessed with killing her as Kratos was with Ares and Zeus, even after he's freed from her spell's effects. Plus he's portrayed happily working for Odin, and while everything you learn about him in the game is admittedly secondhand and thus open to question, if it's accurate he's pretty awful in his own right in this game's world, and it does come from multiple corroborating sources, so odds are it's at least somewhat on the mark at worst.

[Razade]

I thought the series made it readily apparent why Luffy is the good guy and the Navy are the bad guys. Luffy helps people and improves their lives wherever he goes, often toppling iron fisted dictators or wannabe dictators (Arlong, Wapole, Crcodile, Eneru, Moria, Hordy, and Doflamingo all fit the bill...a good 3/4 of the villains). The only reason he is branded a pirate is because he opposes the World Government, a cabal of iron fisted, inbred, needlessly cruel dictators that treat people as objects to be tortured and discarded, with the Navy largely acting as their thug brigade, which often GENOCIDES ENTIRE POPULATIONS to hide political secrets.

There's like five good (named) people in the entire Navy, and two are retired and one is getting court martialed for not being enough of an *******. It's pretty baffling to me that anyone can see the Navy as being in the morally right

Luffy isn't a hero. He says it constantly. He doesn't go out of his way to help people and the crew actively rob people and places. They're pirates. But Luffy isn't a bad guy, he's just living a free life and when people try to stop other people from living a free life (and get in his way) than he fights. That's really his only motivation. He's not fighting anyone to better the world, he's fighting them because

1. They're in his way
2. They oppose his lifestyle
3. There's meat involved.

He's an anti-hero.

[Tyndmyr]

Claiming to not be a hero, just someone wanting to help, is something a ton of heroes arch-typically do.

[deuterio12]

Luffy isn't a hero. He says it constantly. He doesn't go out of his way to help people and the crew actively rob people and places. They're pirates. But Luffy isn't a bad guy, he's just living a free life and when people try to stop other people from living a free life (and get in his way) than he fights. That's really his only motivation. He's not fighting anyone to better the world, he's fighting them because

1. They're in his way
2. They oppose his lifestyle
3. There's meat involved.

He's an anti-hero.

Luffy virtually never steals, most of the time he's either finding unattended treasure or getting rewards for his good deeds.

Then Luffy will hand out said treasure out of his own will to help people in need.

Really, that's how heroic Luffy is. "Oh, you need money? Here, have those giant bags filled with treasure."

[Forum Explorer]

Okay?

I don't really care?

there is always contradictions. you can find those in anything. and I don't really care about Sharknado. again, you seem to be that guy who is more concerned about pointing out the contradictions and feeling smart about it than actually enjoying the thing itself. I only ever notice these contradictions when other people point them out when discussing something and when I actually view something....I almost never notice them, they are about as important as whether a random shoe is in a scene or not.

I mean I could say "blob walked over to blob." and it'd be a perfectly consistent story, but thats hardly a good story.

Well maybe an example will help you understand this viewpoint.

Spoiler: RWBY spoilers for S3 if anyone cares

Show

Penny's death is a good example of this for me. It's not just something that happened, it's something that zero sense. It pulls you out of the the story making you go 'wait what?' and when you try and figure it out it breaks down even further.

Spec Ops the line seems to do that with a twist reveal, which is the worst time to **** everything up. In this case, if the PC is having psychotic breaks then his comrades should point that out, at the very least. They especially should, because this is how the military works, try and remove you from command. It's such a bad twist it retroactively ruins the rest of the story. It's like if Lord of the Rings ended by having Sam secretly be Sauron the whole time. Not only is that really stupid, but it doesn't make sense to begin with.

[Bohandas]

*The hero from Blade Runner is at best the equivalent of Hannibal Lecter's role in the plot of Silence Of The Lambs or Pinhead's role in the plot of Hellraiser 1, and at worst actually the villain of the film.

*Everybody in the movie Frankenstein. The deranged mad scientist is mostly harmless. Of the three people the monster kills two were self defense and the third was an accident. The doctor who is presented as the voice of reason is a dangerous amoral quack.