FFF-Class Trashero - Vol. 1 Ch. 30
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2019
- Messages
- 316
@cor3zone she did nothing wrong, you cant punish someone for something they never did.
The future is not certain, like if Hitler found a cool teacher and friends, got accepted at art school, WW2 would be so different, he only became like that because he failed art school.
That girl only became a evil ruler because there was no trust into the princess(her mother and sister were satanists) and the nobles were all corrupt.
You saw how the protagonist cleaned the kingdom and cleared the doubts around the innocent princess.
Even if she was alive, she would not have a claim for power and would just live a peaceful life.
He killed her because he disliked her, that is the truth
The future is not certain, like if Hitler found a cool teacher and friends, got accepted at art school, WW2 would be so different, he only became like that because he failed art school.
That girl only became a evil ruler because there was no trust into the princess(her mother and sister were satanists) and the nobles were all corrupt.
You saw how the protagonist cleaned the kingdom and cleared the doubts around the innocent princess.
Even if she was alive, she would not have a claim for power and would just live a peaceful life.
He killed her because he disliked her, that is the truth
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2018
- Messages
- 210
@joel7686
That's your headcanon. None of that is confirmed or suggested by the story. We've had suggestions to the contrary, with the hero feeling weirded out by her ordering a butchering of the losers(was she not in the same position herself?), and hard evidence against that she doesn't hold a claim with the fact that she's still the princess and even bothered to retake the throne. Given that she was a cruel, heartless ruler, it's better to give the old man a chance instead.
He killed her because he doesn't want to waste time on all these side quests that, if treated with laxity, could lead to bad outcomes. He's made it clear that he's not bothering with side quests this round, and that he's nipping problems early. Could he spend years trying to make her a good queen? Sure. But why should he take up the cause of every bloodthirsty claimant in the world?
Just because she has a pretty face does not mean she has a kind heart.
That's your headcanon. None of that is confirmed or suggested by the story. We've had suggestions to the contrary, with the hero feeling weirded out by her ordering a butchering of the losers(was she not in the same position herself?), and hard evidence against that she doesn't hold a claim with the fact that she's still the princess and even bothered to retake the throne. Given that she was a cruel, heartless ruler, it's better to give the old man a chance instead.
He killed her because he doesn't want to waste time on all these side quests that, if treated with laxity, could lead to bad outcomes. He's made it clear that he's not bothering with side quests this round, and that he's nipping problems early. Could he spend years trying to make her a good queen? Sure. But why should he take up the cause of every bloodthirsty claimant in the world?
Just because she has a pretty face does not mean she has a kind heart.
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2019
- Messages
- 316
@nazrinMaus nothing is confirmed because the future is not certain, killing someone by something they could do under some specific circumstances in the future is wrong, i don't need cannon to talk about it
also the title is trash hero, he is not a good person
also the title is trash hero, he is not a good person
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2018
- Messages
- 210
@joel7686
Even ignoring her paranoid/cruel personality and terrible rulership skills, she still holds the potential to start a civil war for the throne. The world is better off with her dead regardless.
Also the title itself is a jab at what it means to be a 'hero'. I don't know how you're this far into the story and didn't notice how hard it's attacking the idea of a 'hero' who is essentially just a mistreated tool.
Even ignoring her paranoid/cruel personality and terrible rulership skills, she still holds the potential to start a civil war for the throne. The world is better off with her dead regardless.
Also the title itself is a jab at what it means to be a 'hero'. I don't know how you're this far into the story and didn't notice how hard it's attacking the idea of a 'hero' who is essentially just a mistreated tool.
@joel7686
So the hero is not right because he killed a person for a crime she has yet commit. I agree with you on that one.
But i cannot say as such he is wrong because from what he already know of her that doesn't she is a innocent person and as such it is dangerous to let her outside. So I can just straight up blame him
So the morally best thing to do would have been to save them without killing the assassins (they were just doing their jobs) let them think she is dead hind her and keep an eye on her. If she still insane, prevent her to take the throne again.
But it will take time and the hero didn't want to spend his on it so he choose the most quickest and easiest way to be sure to avoid that future. Maybe that the best thing I manage to imagine but if you can find a better one, please share it with me.
Finally, i follow you, even if is not a good person, that doesn't mean he is a straight up bad one either if that what you mean.
So the hero is not right because he killed a person for a crime she has yet commit. I agree with you on that one.
But i cannot say as such he is wrong because from what he already know of her that doesn't she is a innocent person and as such it is dangerous to let her outside. So I can just straight up blame him
So the morally best thing to do would have been to save them without killing the assassins (they were just doing their jobs) let them think she is dead hind her and keep an eye on her. If she still insane, prevent her to take the throne again.
But it will take time and the hero didn't want to spend his on it so he choose the most quickest and easiest way to be sure to avoid that future. Maybe that the best thing I manage to imagine but if you can find a better one, please share it with me.
Finally, i follow you, even if is not a good person, that doesn't mean he is a straight up bad one either if that what you mean.
@joel7686 First of all, wrong princess. She's the princess of the Holy Empire, a completely different country from the one with the satanist queen. She became a tyrant because she feared losing her power once she got it, after regaining it post-coup. She was very likely to regain power regardless, and would thus do the exact same thing as MC's first time.
Second, your morals do not apply to everyone. You believe MC was wrong, he believes he was right. Which is the truth? Who decides? You? Me? Some unknown third party? It's a fucking convoluted mess, so definitively deciding what is truly right is impossible. We are creatures of contradiction; put 3 humans in one room and there will be 6 opinions. You can't objectively claim something is wrong, only that you believe so.
Second, your morals do not apply to everyone. You believe MC was wrong, he believes he was right. Which is the truth? Who decides? You? Me? Some unknown third party? It's a fucking convoluted mess, so definitively deciding what is truly right is impossible. We are creatures of contradiction; put 3 humans in one room and there will be 6 opinions. You can't objectively claim something is wrong, only that you believe so.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2018
- Messages
- 619
@Zencha :
It depend of how you think someone is made (nature vs nurture).
If you think that it's "all in the gene" then yeah, a rapist will always be a rapist from birth to death.
If you think that what makes someone is his experience in life, then you can stop him/her being a rapist if you change his/her past.
In the second case, killing someone that didn't do a crime is morally wrong. (because he isn't a killer yet). But if you know he'll do it in the future, the morally correct thing is to prevent him to do bad by educating him. (and prevent him to become a killer)
Killing can be the best solution if the education process is too long or cost too much. (where you put the threashold depend of how much you value the life and death of someone).
Lastly, I must just correct you that a pedophile isn't a criminal. A child molester is. Unless you agree that thoughtcrimes should exist.
Inbefore anything. (because I know that most people tend to overreact to such subjects). I must say that I didnt' put any personal opinion in the above text apart for what I think is the word's definitions.
My post don't condemn any of the two way of thinking and try to be the most partial possible.
Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.
Have a nice day!
It depend of how you think someone is made (nature vs nurture).
If you think that it's "all in the gene" then yeah, a rapist will always be a rapist from birth to death.
If you think that what makes someone is his experience in life, then you can stop him/her being a rapist if you change his/her past.
In the second case, killing someone that didn't do a crime is morally wrong. (because he isn't a killer yet). But if you know he'll do it in the future, the morally correct thing is to prevent him to do bad by educating him. (and prevent him to become a killer)
Killing can be the best solution if the education process is too long or cost too much. (where you put the threashold depend of how much you value the life and death of someone).
Lastly, I must just correct you that a pedophile isn't a criminal. A child molester is. Unless you agree that thoughtcrimes should exist.
Inbefore anything. (because I know that most people tend to overreact to such subjects). I must say that I didnt' put any personal opinion in the above text apart for what I think is the word's definitions.
My post don't condemn any of the two way of thinking and try to be the most partial possible.
Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.
Have a nice day!
@Clad95150 The second case doesn't necessarily mean killing to prevent future crimes is "morally wrong". Morals are subjective. MC practices a logical, egotistical form of morals. He knows the princess was formed by her life experiences, not her genetics. Yet he still killed her preemptively because he doesn't want to waste time on her (egotistical), and by the numbers one is less than however many she killed the first time (logical). To him, killing her was the right thing to do, despite her possibly being redeemable.
Personally I don't believe he was right to kill her, but I can't claim he was wrong either. He believed he was right, and only history can actually decide.
Personally I don't believe he was right to kill her, but I can't claim he was wrong either. He believed he was right, and only history can actually decide.
Member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2019
- Messages
- 316
@Zencha the reply made by @Clad95150 was really good, i agree with him and share the same opinion
- Joined
- May 4, 2019
- Messages
- 16
@joel7686 gotta say @Clad95150 reply was really good and i agree with him
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2019
- Messages
- 152
wow thats a hell of a clean up job, he essentially just took over that human kingdom, he effectively is the KING as Porter should still be his slave, well done MC your madness is amazing, I do wonder how the Morals team is gonna possibly judge him after this
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2018
- Messages
- 4,822
ok not gonna lie of all things that hes done so far this is super fucked up
