Apocalypse Bringer Mynoghra: World Conquest Starts with the Civilization of Ruin - Vol. 2 Ch. 9.2

[MangaDex]

 

[Terithes]

I think you can't explain away being evil as that. Actions are what determine it. Or determined to do something. Which could extend to how you influence others to act as well. So far he's really tried hard to play the good guy.
Evil also means to have next to no morals, or even take pleasure in others misery.
He's a being of Evil, that is supposed to be Evil in nature, but with his free will he chooses instead to be kind and caring. But at the same time he tries to embrace evil nature and explain away like he did, it doesn't make sense, as he rejects acting in immoral ways or harming others.
If anything it's disingenuous to explain it like he did, unless he really thinks that which otherwise makes it stupid.

 

[androgynous]

That explanation of his it's hilarious! If you switch the words "Evil" with "Pirate King" you get Luffy!

 

[F2ERRORR]

That explanation of his it's hilarious! If you switch the words "Evil" with "Pirate King" you get Luffy!

The whole time I was like this sounds VERY similar

 

[Mystyc_Cheez]

well that didnt make any fucking sense, dropped

 

[Kaitensatsuma]

Is this bad translation, or is it how fucked up he is? It's honestly hard to tell

 

[Usur]

I think you can't explain away being evil as that. Actions are what determine it. Or determined to do something. Which could extend to how you influence others to act as well. So far he's really tried hard to play the good guy.
Evil also means to have next to no morals, or even take pleasure in others misery.
He's a being of Evil, that is supposed to be Evil in nature, but with his free will he chooses instead to be kind and caring. But at the same time he tries to embrace evil nature and explain away like he did, it doesn't make sense, as he rejects acting in immoral ways or harming others.
If anything it's disingenuous to explain it like he did, unless he really thinks that which otherwise makes it stupid.

Essentially, being evil is being selfish (to the point where it's out of the norm--for ex.: "you refused to shelter our relatives, even though we had the means, because you didn't want the inconvenience...". Thing is, it's not a either or thing, but partial. Nobody's 100% good/evil ("shades of gray"). When someone's actions are mostly damaging to others, they're considered evil (bad). And someone can be good to some people and bad to others and such, which complicates things.

Normally, good actions are altruistic ("give"), and evil/bad actions are selfish ("take"), because we depend on resources since we are struggling for survival.

He did make an evil/bad action, though, by annihilating those soldiers. He being mostly good doesn't excuse that. It's acceptable because it was self-defense, but he chose the role of a conqueror, knowing that it'd cause (outstanding) conflict thus loss of life.

 

[swbgtoc]

Evil is... le good!
Good is... le bad!

Peak japanese philosophy right there. Why do they bother making """evil""" protagonists if they just don't want to?

 

[DeOneChester]

In DnD logic, I think his way of thinking is more chaotic neutral than any of the evil alignments. But this series seems to only have a single axis thats vibes based. He just has evil vibes with a neutral philosophy.

 

[MrsBlack]

I also want to talk about his explanation of evil and good

I definitely think his explanation is flawed and that is on purpose, because he's literally!! explaining!! to!! children!!! why he can be evil and still do a good things, so it is really simplified.

but how I'm understanding it? thanks to myself being an evil person, because I consider myself a evil person, I have much other evidence of being evil that I can share and stuff that I can't.

I think being evil is kind of like he said, it is being able to just not caring.

not holding empathy like truly in your mind that doesn't mean you don't understand it. in my case I understand if I give something to someone they will be happy and may give me something, talk with me in a positive manner or help me if I needed.

but that doesn't mean that I care about them.

but in the protagonist case? I definitely don't think he is truly evil.

 

[DojiStar]

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" I think Aleister Crowley's philiposphy would strike many as evil or at least incredibility selfish.

 

[LuckyNChance]

I think to understand his POV you have to to first accept that good & evil are more subjective societal constructs rather than forces in the world. If you adhere to the societal constructs that are considered moral and just, then you are a "good person" but if you don't adhere to them because you don't believe in them then you are a "bad person". I think the MC is trying to explain that just because someone is bad, doesn't mean they are mindlessly destructive.

I think a (not perfect) example would be...
A good person would say, "I won't kill that person because its the wrong thing to do", A "bad" person would say "I won't kill that person because I have no reason to, its messy, and it will be a pain to deal with."

Even those the results are the same, one is adhering to a just mindset, while the other doesn't take morals/ethics into consideration.