Discussion Are the villains that evil? [Archive]

View Full Version : Discussion Are the villains that evil?

jiro

August 18, 2009, 08:51 PM

Well, except for Orochimaru, other villains on Naruto are not THAT evil enough. It seems that their end justify the means... is it?

Danzou - is it not morally wrong to sacrifice the few to benefit the many?
Pain - How does anyone claim the moral authority to kill or harm people so that others may live in peace?
Sasuke - is his revenge justified? how could act and rely on law if it was Konoha who ordered the massacre on his family?

Madara , for me, is still vague. His end? is it morality or personal happiness? is he evil? so is Zetsu, it's still unknown if he is evil.

Nothing beats Orochimaru. He still rank #1.
Yes! Villains should be evil! ^_^

ashher

August 19, 2009, 05:12 AM

Ha,you got it 1/3rd right.
Yes,Naruto's villains are not villainous.Why? cause in reality there is no such thing as evil.Evil and good are extremely relative and subjective.That's why you'll find that there is no such things as good sides and bad sides when you can see through the eyes of both sides.(uhh confused?so am I:p.Just listen to Eminem's Beautiful to make things clearer.)
Here is the first third where you went wrong.Orochimaru is not evil.Remember that kid,the polite and talented one,the one who lost his parents.That is Orochimaru.Yes he got twisted later on,but when you remember his beginning,you kinda feel sorry for him,not hatred.In my dictionary evil is something which spawns hatred,not sympathy.So oro maybe psycho,but not evil.
The second third is a bit more subjective I think.In your opinion,villains should be evil.In mine,they should what they are.I mean heros gonna be heroic,villains gonna be villainous - these rules suck.Because they gotta be humans at first before becoming hero/villain,and no human is evil/angel.They are something in between and that's what it makes them so interesting.(uh if i sound like alien,its not my fault.its alien's)

juUnior

August 19, 2009, 08:12 AM

I actually agree with jiro. In my humble opinion:

Nothing beats Orochimaru. He still rank #1.
Nothing beats Orochimaru. Maybe, like ashher said he was good chilrd, but later on he was the quintesence of evil. Somebody will say that other always done sth bad too, but like it is stated in the first post, they were/are aiming at sth "good"; I'm not saying they are good or evil, but Kishi's manga tends for the characters to be "gray", not "black & white"; even Kishi-sama himself stated in the interview that he wants his characters to be "gray" rather than obvious colors. So I like it very much. Even Madara did not affect me as the "only bad villain" of the series, because of the traits which give him somewhat "graish" color: he was a shinobi, he killed because of that but for the sake of his clan, he made an alliance to prosper, and then for the benefit of the clan he was betrayed by his own mates, than killed by the one whom he made the allaince. The other we know would be he wanted revenge. Is he realy that evil? I mean, yes, he is, why wouldn't he, but if his motives are not revealed, I don't think I can say his truly evil :p
Besides, Orochimaru's motiv was just to learn all the jutsu of the world, he was/is selfish, egoistic,etc. He didn't do that for someone else, he was doing it for himself. That's what I would call evil in that manga.

ashher

August 19, 2009, 08:30 AM

Well I suppose one could say Oro has the blackest shade among all the villains,but not absolutely black..that was the point I was trying to make.
If that makes him no1 to you,well .....its your choice really.
To me Madara and Danzo both seems to be more crafty and interesting than Oro,even though they might lack that evil aura(which is a plus-point for me,not a drawback )

Osprey

August 19, 2009, 06:00 PM

THM Nindo

August 19, 2009, 06:07 PM

There's already a thread for that here : http://mangahelpers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46324

But, I agree with you all, most of the villains we saw were not truly evil, they thought they were doing the right thing.

Exception : Orochimaru, Kakuzu, maybe Sasori.

Darth Executor

August 19, 2009, 06:11 PM

Nowhere does it say Oro wasn't evil when he was a kid. Just because he had a convo with Sarutobi about a snake skin doesn't mean he was good. For all we know he had planned his goal for absolute knowledge no matter who he hurt since back then.

Weapon_X

August 19, 2009, 06:14 PM

Of course the villains are evil. The whole Akatsuki group was/is evil. Trying to capture Jinchuuriki, attack Kages, and attack villages is what you call evil. Orochimaru was evil. Negato was evil. Madara is evil...anyone who is in Akatsuki is evil. Hell, Gaara was evil. Evil can change.

mannenntihnmo

August 21, 2009, 09:43 AM

You guys forgot Hidan. He pretty much was the only pure evil villain. Even Kakuzu's backstory was slightly sympathetic with his village giving him an impossible mission of killing the First Hokage and then throwing him in jail when he failed. But Hidan was always totally chaotic evil. Everything with him was torture, pain, and death. He hated that his village was peaceful so he killed a bunch of people. Joined a death cult. Killed anyone that didn't convert to Jashin. Then joined Akatsuki to kill and spread his evil religion. Orochimaru was a cub scout compared to Hidan.
Where was it stated that Kakuzu had this mission? And I think Hidan just followed his religious ideals (OK, they are quite evil, but there were many religions, where the gods asked for sacrifices).

Orochimaru is not evil.Remember that kid,the polite and talented one,the one who lost his parents.
Where was it stated that Oro lost his parents?

Mailo

August 21, 2009, 10:18 AM

No-one is truly evil, evil and good are but words.
Everyone behaves and does what they do for a reason, and people can perceive this as either evil or good, but in the end they have their own reasons to do what they do.
This is also one of the main reasons why I like this show, noone (aside from the movies) is is "evil" just because they can.
Therefore, I don't think evil or good exists, everyone is neutral and their actions have motives.

Belisar

August 21, 2009, 03:12 PM

kthy0056

August 21, 2009, 06:14 PM

What OP is looking are called psychopaths. Deidara was one, Hidan was one, Sasori was one, Zabuza was one, Gaara was one. They were killing just because they felt the urge to do so.

savantking

August 21, 2009, 07:11 PM

Honestly in the Naruto world just like our own there really isn't any truly evil villain. I mean how can ninjas call them truly evil. I mean for chuunin exams they have fights and survival tests where killing is not only allowed but it is sometimes encouraged. I can honestly say that the good guys aren't all that good either. they encourage such tests and consider them normal. How is that all that moral? Honestly for the villains, for most of them anyways, I can't say that I can't see their POV even i don't agree with them in the least bit.

Xiraiya

August 21, 2009, 07:35 PM

I could call Madara evil, though I don't think it's that simple, He is a man who lusts for war, war was everything in his time.

He merely wants that era to return, as it gives him a proper place to exist and ninja in general.

His intentions are basically what HE wants, while war is generally considered bad, I think in the end it comes down to opinion.

Finale

August 21, 2009, 08:06 PM

All the villains have their reasons for doing evil things. As far as being evil just for evils sake, I cant really think of anyone in the manga except for maybe the Kyuubi. But in his case its in his very nature. You know that would be something to explore, the nature of the bijuus. The 8 tails seems like a pretty cool beast while the Shukaku was a psychopath. Maybe some of the other beast are somewhat good or have changed because of their hosts.

benelori

August 22, 2009, 01:19 PM

In Naruto good and evil are matters of opinion...This world's beginnings as far as we know were drenched in war. So to complete missions even if they needed massacres was the right thing if it served the clan. Shodai saw this was wrong and used his abilities to stop the fighting. Madara who grew up in that world, sacrificed his eyes, then his brother's eyes, and then Uchiha even cut a deal with the biggest rival...well i think to him his crusade began as a matter of honor, but now who knows...anyway he definitely isn't a pure evil as far as we know...
Nagato explained to naruto why we shouldn't consider him being evil, he is fighting for peace in his own way, knowing that when war comes the little villages like his get trapped beetween the great nations.
Hidan was a lunatic, not evil...
Orochimaru is the toughest villain to deal with...Sandaime said that he doesn't have goals...To obtain every jutsu in the world, and then what...I think he was just blinded by power. He witnessed war as well, so he knew power is essential to survive in the ninja world, immortality well...that's a good goal as well...

I think I resonate with most people when I say Oro tends to be nr.1 evil in the manga.
Kyuubi is a special, his chakra is evil, we saw now that sasuke is going evil fast, madara...we won't until we know his plans

jiro

August 24, 2009, 12:31 AM

except for orochimaru and hidan, all the other villain seems to be working towards a greater good is their own way.

madara - towards uchiha clan
danzou - towards kohona
pain - world peace
itachi - hmmm... prevent war? that decision seem to have pass down to sasuke.
gara - used to be evil.=
sasuke - seeking retribution

their evilness seems to be justified by their means. i cant help but sympathize with the villains. i hate it that i love the villains. i mean, i dont want any of these villains to go away.

benelori

August 24, 2009, 07:00 AM

Roflkopt3r

August 28, 2010, 10:54 AM

Now after that Kisame memory... Kishimoto once again proved that there are only very very few genuine evil persons.
Really touching moment how even one of the most sadistic and ruthless characters has an awesome background and makes it obvious how he was shaped by his environment.
Poor Kisame having first killed all of his humanity by his undercover job, loosing knowingly all of his bonds and identity as a servant of Mizukage and in the end finding his trust again as Madara becomes the closest person to him!

Actually he's incredibly un-evil and a character one can sympthazise with easily... and that only due to those few panels by Kishimoto... real masterpiece in my opinion.
It's easy to imagine how low he must value lifes after beeing ordered to kill his own comrades, most likely even several times, and how desillusionised he is, ending in his weltanschauung (wtf, the english language adapted our german word? That's funny, if anyone doesn't know it, it's the ethic/moral view on the world and society) beeing absolutely certain that the world consist of lies only. So in his way he is perfectly sure to do humanity and his own soul a favor by helping Madara in accomplishing his moon's eye plan.

Kaiten

August 28, 2010, 12:19 PM

Most of the villains in Naruto have been shown to have some sort of anti-social personality disorder or another. Megalomaniacs, paranoiacs, and sociopaths given a great deal of power more than happy to use it for death and destruction. All members of Akatsuki committed acts of extreme violence at some point before joining. Kisame slaughtered his comrades to stifle intel at the behest of an incredibly corrupt, violent administration. Nagato planned to use fear and violence to force world peace on his terms. He may have been redeemed but needed to die to find it. Having a troubled childhood, as many of the villains have, is no excuse for becoming a villainous adult. Naruto has just as screwed up a background and turned out pretty well. Kishi deserves praise for giving his villains enough humanity that they can be sympathized with, without actually condoning or excusing their transgressions.

Roflkopt3r

August 28, 2010, 01:11 PM

I think that what's so special and cool about Naruto villains is that most of them aren't even seriously mentally ill. They just have made some bad bad experiences followed loosing trust or not valuing human lifes anymore. The cool thing is that they're never too desillusionised to pursue great goals.
Also, the heroes often made the very same disturbing experiences, in case of Konoha the only thing which saves them from becoming villains is their super strong teacher bonds, tracing back to some seriously great ethic instances. We also have the part of the "fallen heroe" who are somewhere between good and evil, Danzou for example.

Zabuza: Following his goals, blending in with his background as a ninja of the bloody mist, still beeing able to feel heavy emotions in the end and having a bond to Haku.
Deidara: Some kind of workaholic as an artist and doesn't value human lifes highly, but that happens easily for guys having "ninja" as their job :P
Kakuzu: Driven by revenge, he just adapted the experience that he can't trust anyone. Still he is, in a very slightly presented way, enjoying company of Hidan ;)
Hidan: Bellicous but not even true megalomaniac, since he really is immortal :amuse
Sasori: Ok, he is seriously ill.
Itachi: Ok, he's not a villain. He's one of the greatest tragic heroes imaginable. And remarkably mentaly healthy given his circumstances!
Orochimaru: Ok, he became truly egocentric. He made the experience that lifes don't count because they end so quickly, so he decides to break that cycle at all costs instead of accepting it.
Madara: Obsessed with revenge... a really clever guy but way too vengeful. He's shaped by his experience that he can't even trust his own family, which he only made because of his own distrust towards Senju.
Pain: His ideology... is very understandable. Especially with his background. Real politicians and important persons in economy show us every day how quickly people lose their sight for the costs when they're pursuing an aim, and Nagato still has the idea of fighting for the best of all of humanity!

Kisame: I think he has remarkable mental health if we look at the experiences he made. He is perfectly aware of beeing absolutely lonely and without identity due to his job. He just got obsessed with that idea that the whole world is ruled by lies because he faced so many of them and can't ignore that anymore. But in the end I'ld say he's pretty sane, even with his timing of going insane and risking his life!

As a comparison:
08/15* villain of any boring modern story: Traumatic childhood, having some kind of talent, becoming workaholic who dislikes people or doesn't value life, becoming egomanic and eccentric and megalomanic etc. A bit like Orochimaru maybe.
In my opinion, the huge broad wideness of villains mainly includes villains who are more complex and drawn in a better way.
Typical villain of an antiquated story: Just plain evil for no reason at all or part of a whole group of people considered to be evil without further questions about backgrounds.

*08/15:

English language doesn't have 08/15 as an expression? Makes me sad :(
Let me explain: It's a german phrase expressing "vanilla/Bog standard/run-of-the-mill", equals "totally ordinary and boring". The phrase is said to come from world war one from german soldiers' manual, where the name "08/15" (name of a machine gun) is repeated over and over and over. It's been repeated so often, that it became a synonyme for "totally ordinary and daily".

Jack Van Burace

August 28, 2010, 01:15 PM

All classical heroes also have severe transgressions in their repertoire. Hercules killed his wife and sons in a temporary insanity crisis. Achilles was so proud he dessacrated gods' temples. Oedipus killed his own father and married his own mother (despite not knowing their identities toward him). Someone's mistakes tend to be proportional to their power, and when we refer to super-beings, they tend to go over the board with more ease and become half-monsters half-heroes.

Naruto has that feeling as well. All great ninjas are heroes for their village and monsters in another one. Even when they have no village, as Akatsukis do, this is still true, only difference being that they have no country to admire them for their feats, just Madara (and he doesn't even retribute).

Alterno

August 28, 2010, 03:10 PM

There's an interview where Kishimoto states that he don't use villains instead he has people with opposite interests and these interests clash. Maybe Madara will be the real deal as villain.

Roflkopt3r

August 28, 2010, 03:36 PM

There's an interview where Kishimoto states that he don't use villains instead he has people with opposite interests and these interests clash. Maybe Madara will be the real deal as villain.

That's a nice view, perfectly describes the role of the "villain" in most modern stories actually which portaits the villains and scoundrel as diseased humans who are absolutely shaped by their surroundings and social background.

Jack Van Burace

August 28, 2010, 07:03 PM

That's a nice view, perfectly describes the role of the "villain" in most modern stories actually which portaits the villains and scoundrel as diseased humans who are absolutely shaped by their surroundings and social background.

Although, that's not a modern background. That's the classical one. As western civilization reached year 0 of ac/dc counting, the concept of hero turned (after a long and gradual change) into a character entirely good with no character flaws.

Marvel and DC characters have brought back the classical hero into modern conceptions. But this is the oldest (and better imo) form of hero, not the newest one.

I don't know about eastern notion of hero, tho. So I can't say about them.

M3J

August 29, 2010, 12:36 AM

Apart from Madara, I don't really think any villains we've seen are that evil. It depends on one's point of view though. Many villains have their own reasons for becoming evil or sadistic, which may not necessarily be for evil reasons. For many of them, the ends justifies the mean, no matter how horrifying the means can be (Pain + Itachi).

Spoiler tags are due to the thingies for each characters being long. This is a long post, so read at your own risk.

Anyone that sympathizes with Sasuke and his plight can easily say Sasuke's more victim than evil, as Kakashi kinda stated. Sasuke believes his clan was sacrificed for Konoha's selfishness, thus he seeks revenge. To us, those who are on Naruto's side, he seems evil because he wants to kill all of Konoha, especially Naruto. Both are to us portrayed as the heroes, though Konoha not so much. Sasuke's desire to kill the good guys is what makes him look evil, even if Konoha has some evilness. Even though he defected and joined Orochimaru, was he really evil despite being cast in that dark light? He indicated no signs of evilness, apart from wanting power and wanting revenge by using any means necessary. He was unwilling to kill innocent people and wasn't targeting Konoha, and he sought to kill Team 7 only because they were in his way. He may have still been a good guy as he was planning to take out Orochimaru and Itachi, who was seen as evil at the time. Maybe Sasuke is Danzou, and he's pretending to want revenge but is really trying to find the right moment to kill Tobi. There's many possibilities here.

Nagato... the greatest question of all. Was he really evil pre-conversion and post-Yahiko death? He had no qualms killing his former sensei, to whom he had formed a bond with and accepted. He didn't mind destroying Konoha just for revenge, even if they did cause him pain. Was he merely disillusioned with Jiraiya's ideas and lost faith in both his ideals and Jiraiya's ideals and sought to do unto others as per revenge? He wanted peace, but his way of getting peace was fucked up due to the fact that he thought inflicting pain on others was the way to achieve it. He sought revenge and did not hesitate to kill others to achieve what he wanted. Surely this made him evil, despite how badly he wanted peace... right? Maybe. I'd say yes and no, as he wanted peace. You could see that he did look for alternatives when he asked Naruto what his idea of achieving peace was when Naruto got nailed to the floor by Deva. The fact that he wasn't so intent on trying to get peace his way shows that he wasn't totally happy with his way. It was his losses that made him revert to this. Yet, he wanted revenge, and he wanted to cause pain. He quickly lost his beliefs and Jiraiya's ideals and resorted to killing for revenge.

Orochimaru is seen as an evil, twisted, sadistic, and masochistic shinobi. Orochimaru is truly obsessed with learning every ninjutsu and being immortal, such that he's willing to put his body at risk and test jutsu on himself. But, we did learn he lost his parents at an early age, and that he may not have had a good life as a war orphan. Orochimaru smiled when Hiruzen told him there was a possibility his parents may have been reborn or had a chance of being reborn (I think). He also discovered Edo Tensei (inb4niidaime), which means he may have used or intended to use it to meet his parents again. Being a war orphan, he also possibly was in pain from being alone and losing the two people that loved him. Life must have been hell for him, which may have motivated him to learn jutsu. Orochimaru may have feared death as well, which may be why he researched immortality jutsu, as well as wanting to learn all ninjutsu. I don't think power was just his motivation; there may have been something deeper. But, what makes him evil is the way he treated human lives, and the way he played with it. He also went after the manga's heroes and attempt to kill them, as well as destroy Konoha. Orochimaru to me though is a great villain. He does what he does for the lulz, not for power or for revenge or whatnot.

All for now. There may be more later. Too long. <_<

Oh, not as long as I thought. Cool.

benelori

August 29, 2010, 12:39 PM

I think the fear of death is definitely a good point when talking about Orochimaru. I remember the scene with kabuto before Sasuke took on Orochimaru...in that scene Kabuto recognizes the intense will to survive in Orochimaru, and that was from a gaze full with killer intent that even scared a usually calm Kabuto...

Also can we think of Orochimaru's goal as being so deep, that even life would be insignificant before it...that playing with all those lives, all those shinboi who fell victim to his experiments, are nothing before the truth he searched for...
I will come again with the episode from the anime, where his life was shown, that he thought of humans as small, insignificant being...so I think the truth he searched for is far deeper than peace, conflicts, friendship...he searched the root of life, of the world, which in the end transcend all these examples I mentioned before

Roflkopt3r

August 29, 2010, 11:13 PM

Although, that's not a modern background. That's the classical one. As western civilization reached year 0 of ac/dc counting, the concept of hero turned (after a long and gradual change) into a character entirely good with no character flaws.

Marvel and DC characters have brought back the classical hero into modern conceptions. But this is the oldest (and better imo) form of hero, not the newest one.

I don't know about eastern notion of hero, tho. So I can't say about them.

Yes, that's true for heroes, but not for villains. The antique tragical heroes like oedipus were, yeah, first of all the heroes and second mostly had some kind of misfortune but they were not shaped by their origin, but mainly by their own decisions. Or, rather, they weren't shaped negatively by their origin because heroes usually were noble people.
For the villains, most of old literature just created one who is evil but doesn't give away a reason for that.
Focussing on backgrounds mainly came up with social drama in 19th/20th century, which often portraits people from low society classes and shows how their background shaped them. Although that again might be said a little too much about Naruto characters since they are often rather shaped by fate and not by society... However, that age is imo the origin of allowing some empathy in literature by showing why a character turned out to be like he did.

(Got most of that information out of german classes, not that kind where one learns german since I am german, but that where the topic is literature etc., so most examples I have are from german literature, also it's not precisely the topic where I could remember any dates anymore...)

About that example of antique literature heroes, Kishimoto certainly created a prime example for a classical tragic hero in person of Itachi, because he showed how he was in an irresolvable dillema which leads to more suffering either way.

Jack Van Burace

August 30, 2010, 08:08 AM

But villains only appeared in modern tales as well, as a counterpart for the entirely good heroes. Prior to this, heroes were just super-people, and they were as good as they were evil. Just look at Hector and Achilles and you'll see a perfect example: heroes were us and villains were the others.

Everybody has the opportunity to do things regarded as good or bad, and most of that time, it's just a matter of perspective. Minato is likely a war monster, as he killed countless enemy soldiers by himself. He just has a village to back him up and praise him, while Kisame doesn't: his enemy is his own village, so he's condemned by everyone he knows. Doesn't make him any different than Minato in his actions, just in his acknowledgement.

Also, he can be called a traitor, but we can argue he was an infiltrated man that has always been on his own side, so he didn't betray anyone, just deceived the enemy. Minato can be called altruistical and Kisame egotistical due to Minato protecting the Village, and Kisame not. But we can argue Kisame was protecting "truth" or "his mission" above his village, and these ideals might be bigger than a village and than patriotism to some.

I'm not saying that doesn't matter what you do, but the label villain right now still hangs on the side you're sitting at. So far, only Naruto's method seem to surpass this fact.

abstract

September 12, 2010, 10:20 PM

Madara is ruining this manga more for me. He is such a sucky bad guy. And I don't care what Kishi makes up for madara giving Nagato rinnegan. Its retarded.

Oh I couldn't agree more! Every villain other than Orochimaru has been completely lame; to me, a villain just isn't a villain unless he's ridiculously evil--like Orochimaru. Nagato sucked as a villain, and now Madara sucks even more, I can only hope Kabuto (hopefully while sharing some of Orochimaru's consciousness) ends up being the final guy.

But that aside, is the whole line about Madara giving Nagato the Rinnegan a mistranslation? If it's not, then what is he--Aizen? How do you even give someone the Sage of Six Paths' eyes? The explanation better be good, because that's beyond retarded. This is why I loathe the entire Uchiha clan--their ass is a bigger kekkei genkai than their eyes; there's so much power in their ass--they can pull out anything!

Plyr88

September 13, 2010, 06:02 AM

Why do people keep saying Orochimaru was a better villain because he's more evil? No one in this manga is evil. It's just that a lot of the "bad guys" have goals that conflict with the main characters. It's not as if Orochimaru goes around killing babies for fun. He has a certain motivation and goes about it in a way that differs from how the main characters would go about it.

I don't think Zetsu's clones can use the powers of the person he's copying and we clearly see Tobi phasing out.

Plyr88

September 13, 2010, 07:10 AM

Oro we know was cloning/gene splicing, killing babies no matter what the motivation is clearly evil no two ways about that.

Yes, Oro is clearly evil because he did experiments in an effort to create new jutsus but Itachi slaughtering his entire clan is nice and dandy. Oh, Itachi did it to prevent a coup? So did the elderly Uchihas and baby/toddler Uchihas need to die as well?

lol it's all point of view...just like people think Hidan is evil for killing Asuma, but say nothing about Asuma's team ambushing and trying to murder Hidan who was chillin, minding his business.

jdw

September 13, 2010, 08:12 AM

Plyr88

September 13, 2010, 09:13 AM

@plyr88: as a villain, Madara seems to be true evil, but there may be room for interpretation or whatever. Not with Orochimaru. Kishi declared him as true evil. This removes all interpretation. Soon we may see if the same is true about Madara. I suspect that it is.

Didn't Kishi say before that no one is evil in this manga. Just differing views on life and the shinobi way. I mean he hasn't really done anything evil to me. Is killing the most you can say about him? This is a shinobi world where pretty much every shinobi (even Konoha nins) were taught to fight (and eventually kill...obv because of war) from an early age.

What has he done that was evil? Sacrificing people for something he personally thought was a greater good? Didn't Kisame do the same thing when he killed his teammates to protect a code? Do you think he's truly evil? Nah. Killing his sensei? Nagato did that too. Is he truly evil? Nope.

Besides, Oro didn't do what he did for no reason. His motivation was his parents' death.

Shinsatsu

September 13, 2010, 10:00 AM

Paradoxicon

September 13, 2010, 11:58 AM

Evil is just another name of the "other party" in every manga.
We knew Konoha first so we call it the "good guys"... When the sand attacked we called them evil. Once they joined forces with Konoha they became good.
That's a common thing in every manga. The first side you see is what you normally call "the good guys".

About Naruto, I don't think that there is a good or evil side. Every party tries to reach peace one way or the other. The means justify the ends ^_^!

If we look at it from an objective point, Orochimaru was pure evil because he did evil things for his personal gain. And he was a sick f*ck, nobody else killed hundreds, children included, in more or less pointless experiments. Gaara and Deidara killed for the lulz or art. H&K killed for religious and monetarial purposes. Also evil.
But most other villains so far did have a personal agenda that made them do whatever they did. For the greater good, to serve their master whom they thought they'd owe it to, you name it.

gold349

September 13, 2010, 12:02 PM

Yes, Oro is clearly evil because he did experiments in an effort to create new jutsus but Itachi slaughtering his entire clan is nice and dandy. Oh, Itachi did it to prevent a coup? So did the elderly Uchihas and baby/toddler Uchihas need to die as well?

lol it's all point of view...just like people think Hidan is evil for killing Asuma, but say nothing about Asuma's team ambushing and trying to murder Hidan who was chillin, minding his business.

killing babies just can't be justified, no matter who or what greater good in mind its an 'evil' act no two ways about it...my point is there is 'evil' in the manga...Asuma's case Hidan was proactive in invading fire country and killing the monks at the temple he was a recognised enemy he wasn't an innocent bystander.

It wouldn't surprise me if the purpose of this fight is to show more power from him, however I'm not sure that I agree it is necessary. Yondaime really basically relied on an inferior S/T jutsu and Rasengan and he's considered one of the greatest ninja in the manga. All the damage he has taken has seemed to be superficial in the context of his body (replaceable arms apparently). Additionally, from what we saw he landed a knock out blow on the 3-tails with just a punch.

hope that to be the case everything big is off screen with Madara and the little action he has been involved in, he sustains too much damage and not much showing in way of techniques for someone who is clearly being built up as 'darkness' of Narutoverse the ninja who has had major players in Naruto on the palm of his hands with big revalations like he gave Nagato rinnegan all I'm saying is there is major stuff connected with him TBH its anoying a little 'cus what he is said to be/has done/can do/ is capable off, nothing is shown apart big talk/big lies of him as of yet.

Says the guy with Madara in his sig :P The fact that he's still alive, after all of these years, is proof enough of his power. He fooled the first hokage into thinking that he was dead. He also controlled the Mizukage like he was playing Nintendo wii or PlayStation. Don't forget who help Itachi during the uchiha incident D:

not claiming Madara is 'good', never have...Konan granted she hasn't been righteous her self has affirmed he is 'darkness', with his intention of world domination/control were no one is 'free' that is 'evil' IMO...redemption is always possible but some are way passed saving, 'good' of a character, 'bad' of a character and 'evil' of a character can be claimed/said to exist in Naruto manga in my opinion.

Plyr88

September 13, 2010, 02:04 PM

killing babies just can't be justified, no matter who or what greater good in mind its an 'evil' act no two ways about it...my point is there is 'evil' in the manga...Asuma's case Hidan was proactive in invading fire country and killing the monks at the temple he was a recognised enemy he wasn't an innocent bystander.

So Itachi is evil by your definition because I'm pretty sure there were at least a couple Uchiha babies around when it came time to slaughter the clan. We don't really know if Oro killed babies. It would be silly to test on babies. On toddlers, yea he did. However, I don't think he killed someone just because. He probably experimented, it went wrong and they died or it fcked them up and he put them out of their misery.

But even at a young age, shinobi are shinobi, especially if you're born during a time of war. You know what death is and you're already trained (or being trained) to fight and kill so killing an 8 yr old ninja is pretty much no different than killing a grown ninja. One is more naive, but both still know what they're doing.

EnvyOS

September 13, 2010, 02:07 PM

Oh I couldn't agree more! Every villain other than Orochimaru has been completely lame; to me, a villain just isn't a villain unless he's ridiculously evil--like Orochimaru. Nagato sucked as a villain, and now Madara sucks even more, I can only hope Kabuto (hopefully while sharing some of Orochimaru's consciousness) ends up being the final guy.

But that aside, is the whole line about Madara giving Nagato the Rinnegan a mistranslation? If it's not, then what is he--Aizen? How do you even give someone the Sage of Six Paths' eyes? The explanation better be good, because that's beyond retarded. This is why I loathe the entire Uchiha clan--their ass is a bigger kekkei genkai than their eyes; there's so much power in their ass--they can pull out anything!

I can't agreed anymore. Orochimaru was an amazing villain.

I think the Rinn'gan part was either a BS lie by Madara. Or on terms similar to the Pain bodies. How they got the eyes also since it was coming from Nagato's Chakra.

Skidmore

September 13, 2010, 02:10 PM

Roflkopt3r

September 13, 2010, 05:06 PM

Orochimaru still ranks as the best villain in Naruto so far, so evil and powerfull, without a Sharingan it's kind impossible to deal with him, actually the only way of knocking out Orochimaru is by sealing him(Shiki Fujin and Susanoo).

Hope Kabuto heirs his style

P.S: The Kyuubi is pure evil too.

It's true that Orochimaru might be closest to real evil, closely followed by Madara and Sasuke as avengers.
I think what really made him cool is that he was a calm and cool guy because he didn't act out of hatred. He still preserved his genius-type character of calculating everything (without beeing the nerd-type) and only acts out of self interest while having a logical background leading to this character. It's a great symbiosis of reasonability and evilness and how his evil logically developed from reasonable ideas.
Kinda was the same type like Kisame, although Kisame's goals seemed a bit more altruistic to me as he seemingly wanted to overcome the world of lies which would've been in everyones' favor in his mind. Orochimaru's goals originally were, but he kinda lost that part and only focussed on self interest.

Skidmore

September 13, 2010, 08:40 PM

It's true that Orochimaru might be closest to real evil, closely followed by Madara and Sasuke as avengers.
I think what really made him cool is that he was a calm and cool guy because he didn't act out of hatred. He still preserved his genius-type character of calculating everything (without beeing the nerd-type) and only acts out of self interest while having a logical background leading to this character. It's a great symbiosis of reasonability and evilness and how his evil logically developed from reasonable ideas.
Kinda was the same type like Kisame, although Kisame's goals seemed a bit more altruistic to me as he seemingly wanted to overcome the world of lies which would've been in everyones' favor in his mind. Orochimaru's goals originally were, but he kinda lost that part and only focussed on self interest.

Yeah, that was true, Orochimaru wasn't acting for something specifically, he once said to Sandaime that he was destroying Konoha because it was not moving, it was boring, and I believe im him. He leaves people alive beucase he thinks it's cool, and he doesn't want to change the world or peace itself, all he wants it's to have and to do what he wants.

There are not many villains like him out there, even outside Narutoverse, he doesn't have a goal, he just wants to do chaos, just like Majin Buu.

Rosebunse

September 13, 2010, 08:51 PM

Yeah, that was true, Orochimaru wasn't acting for something specifically, he once said to Sandaime that he was destroying Konoha because it was not moving, it was boring, and I believe im him. He leaves people alive beucase he thinks it's cool, and he doesn't want to change the world or peace itself, all he wants it's to have and to do what he wants.

There are not many villains like him out there, even outside Narutoverse, he doesn't have a goal, he just wants to do chaos, just like Majin Buu.

Oro wanted control, that's what he wanted. Do not tell me he isn't the closest to evil we could find. Remember the implications that he had, um, did really bad things to kids? Where did those come from? We didn't just make those up! Come one people! He was going to kill and torture a kid just so he can stay young forever!!! He didn't want world domination, just wanted to be young forver!

Nath Uchiha

September 13, 2010, 11:40 PM

Is Orochimaru evil? Depends what evil is. I think Orochimaru is more scientist that ninja, in that I doubt he never did something without hoping to gain something more of value in return. And if you think about it, in the Ninja world life isn't that valuble of a commodity as we think of it. If Orochimaru perfected the curse seal would the leaf have usd it? God yes. It allows you to ensure your ninja wont betray you, more chakra, and stronger physical abilities. If he perfected his bloodline transfere, would they care about those who died or would the still use it?

I've always had the idea that the curse seal was a secret Konoha project, which would make it incredibly interesting. Tsunade's medic skills, Jiraiya's sealing skills, and Orochimarus genius. Another of the leafs dirty secrets.

As for the other Akatsuki villains, someone said Sasori was sick. Is he? What is he doing that other villages don't already do. They collect the enemy bodies hoping to gain opposing village secrets while he just turns them into puppets. Kakuzu...well he seems fairly reasonable. A bounty hunter, just a very good one.

Roflkopt3r

September 15, 2010, 05:41 AM

I've always had the idea that the curse seal was a secret Konoha project, which would make it incredibly interesting. Tsunade's medic skills, Jiraiya's sealing skills, and Orochimarus genius. Another of the leafs dirty secrets.

I think that's a rather weird idea considering Juugo's story who handed himself over to Orochimaru after Orochimaru deserted Konoha.

As for the other Akatsuki villains, someone said Sasori was sick. Is he? What is he doing that other villages don't already do. They collect the enemy bodies hoping to gain opposing village secrets while he just turns them into puppets. Kakuzu...well he seems fairly reasonable. A bounty hunter, just a very good one.
Sasori certainly was sick, but I think sick does not exclude beeing evil. It requires a serious mental issue to become really evil, like Orochimaru who experienced the fragility of human life over and over again. It's just some good explanations Kishimoto delivered for the evilness of some individuals, while not everyone opposing the "good ones" is evil.
Kakuzu isn't a bounty hunter legimated by any law or something, he's killing out of cupidity which is one possible key feature of "murder".

Kuranzyan

September 15, 2010, 01:46 PM

I think that's a rather weird idea considering Juugo's story who handed himself over to Orochimaru after Orochimaru deserted Konoha.

Sasori certainly was sick, but I think sick does not exclude being evil.

Kakuzu isn't a bounty hunter legimated by any law or something, he's killing out of cupidity which is one possible key feature of "murder".

Err, I believe you're confusing things... I think Orochimaru was still a shinobi of Konoha during the time he had Anko as his apprentice. Unless this is a huge flaw in Kishimoto's sequence of events, it clearly means that Juugo had already come to him in search of a potential cure. I'm not particularly convinced myself, so... Take it with a grain of salt, if you would, please...

On the subject of Sasori... He's a psycho. Has been since his childhood. Evil? Depends. Human? Definitely.

As for Kakuzu... He personally stated he had trouble controlling his emotions, in particular when it came to his 'other half' (yeah, yeah :sweatdrop, whatever) and the overwhelming urges to kill them. His 'hobby' makes him evil? Nah. It does show he's just as deranged as Sasori. Of course, it can be traced back to his old age as well, cuz I think he's contracted some sort of mental affliction, something like the Narutoverse equivalent of Alzheimer's or some such...

Roflkopt3r

September 15, 2010, 01:52 PM

Err, I believe you're confusing things... I think Orochimaru was still a shinobi of Konoha during the time he had Anko as his apprentice. Unless this is a huge flaw in Kishimoto's sequence of events, it clearly means that Juugo had already come to him in search of a potential cure. I'm not particularly convinced myself, so... Take it with a grain of salt, if you would, please...

On the subject of Sasori... He's a psycho. Has been since his childhood. Evil? Depends. Human? Definitely.

As for Kakuzu... He personally stated he had trouble controlling his emotions, in particular when it came to his 'other half' (yeah, yeah :sweatdrop, whatever) and his urge to kill them. His 'hobby' makes him evil? Nah.

If you tell us that Sasori and Kakuzu aren't evil but only sick, then evil is an obsolete word. What should it describe then? Only if there is absolutely no motive and background behind doing evil things? A psycho like Sasori certainly is evil. Evil does not exclude a background leading to a person becoming evil.

Hm about that curse seal stuff... Orochimaru did work on an immortality jutsu when Anko was his pupil but are you sure he already had access to the cursed seal back then? Juugo was found by Kimimaro and I think all that stuff is after he deserted Konoha, I don't see a proof that he didn't already do that when he was in contact with Kimimaro and Juugo.
Gotta review that stuff with Anko... however, is there any certaincy that he didn't take Anko with him when he fled?

Sannom

September 19, 2010, 11:01 AM

What has he done that was evil? Sacrificing people for something he personally thought was a greater good? Didn't Kisame do the same thing when he killed his teammates to protect a code?

Main difference is that Kisame thought and was said it was the best thing to do for his village and his country, not for himself. In fact, Kisame hated it, and would have greatly preferred a position where he wouldn't have to always lie to everyone about everything. He found that in Akatsuki where he could be honest with his partner about their relationship, and hoped to bring it to everyone.
Orochimaru, on the other hand, saw the 'greater good' as his own power and his extended life time, which didn't profit anyone but him. Really, it's the absolute selfishness of his actions, combined with his level of power, that makes him so evil (Kisame is too, it's just that you can find something that somehow 'justifies' it among other people).

So Itachi is evil by your definition because I'm pretty sure there were at least a couple Uchiha babies around when it came time to slaughter the clan.

Of course Itachi is evil, was there even a doubt? He enacted genocide, people! There isn't much more evil than that. He perhaps did it for 'good' reasons that helps people understand him, but he was still evil. Just not the crazy, loud kind of evil, but more the 'lawful' kind.

Is Orochimaru evil? Depends what evil is. I think Orochimaru is more scientist that ninja, in that I doubt he never did something without hoping to gain something more of value in return.

I'm gonna cross a point here, but I'm sure that Mengele hopped it to reach greater things too. As for Louis Pasteur and his idea of performing experiments on death rows inmates, he didn't do it because someone wiser than him was in charge and accepted the refusal. Orochimaru believes himself to be above all that. Quick answer : he isn't.

If you tell us that Sasori and Kakuzu aren't evil but only sick, then evil is an obsolete word. What should it describe then? Only if there is absolutely no motive and background behind doing evil things? A psycho like Sasori certainly is evil. Evil does not exclude a background leading to a person becoming evil.

The problem with Sasori and Kakuzu is that they do what they do for its own sake, not helping their village or other people. Sasori wants to collect people for the sake of it, Kakuzu collects money for money. If Sasori did his thing with the corpses of enemies of his village or the bodies of the fallen of his own village, he would be on the 'Kimblee' level of evil.

DevilsNeverCry

September 19, 2010, 01:51 PM

Villain in Naruto seems to be perspective.

None so far apart from Orochimaru have done anything considerably 'evil' for no apparent reason. Always a mission. Always a reason. The side they fight on is just not the noble side as they deal in death, of innocents where necessary.

All the while they seem to be evil but their backstory always brings them back to earth and they seem to have good enough reasons for doing what they do in their capacity as a 'villain'.

Oro was just deranged and evil becuase he felt like it.

Jessie

September 19, 2010, 09:31 PM

The one character I believe Kishi strongly portrayed as evil was Hidan. All the other Akatsuki received some flashbacks showing glimpses of their past lives. While their backstories might not have portrayed them as once being good, or even given you much sympathy for them, you could see where they turned down the wrong path in this already violent world of ninja. There were reasons for their actions.

Neither Kakuzu or Hidan were given such backstories in the manga. But in the databook we learned more about Kakuzu and Hidan's past. Kakuzu's backstory put him in a more positive light. Sent on a no chance of success mission to kill Hashirama, and then severely punished by his village for the mission's failure. You could see why he would betray his village and become bitter. Although it doesn't excuse the life he chose. Hidan on the other hand came from a peaceful village and rebelled against it due to his bloodlust. Eventually betraying his village for a fanatical death cult. There is a huge difference in being trained to kill, as all ninja are in Naruto, and being a killer, like Hidan was.

There was nothing in Hidan's backstory where you could garner sympathy for him. He existed only for the thrill of murder and devotion to a zealous belief system bent on evil. A system that thought it had the right to pass judgment on others.

Also telling is the way he was taken out. The other Akatsuki either took themselves out by their own hands(Kisame, Nagato, Sasori, Deidara) or died for a purpose like Itachi. And at least Konan and Kakuzu died in battle. Hidan went out in the most disgraceful way possible. With Shikamaru easily defeating a helpless Hidan and then passing judgment on him. Just as Hidan had done to countless others. All of his sins were coming home to roust. An immortal fated to suffer for all eternity(although Kishi claims he will soon be dead). Jashin was nothing compare to the Will of Fire and his belief system was shattered. Outside of Orochimaru being in an eternal genjutsu, I can't think of any other character to meant an end as bad as Hidan. Kishi showed no sympathy for him.

Every other "evil" character did not seem inherently evil at one point. Even Orochimaru and Madara. But Hidan was a bad egg from the start. As Shikamaru said, Hidan was destined to met his end like that for all those he cursed.

Jspot

September 19, 2010, 10:39 PM

One of the recent revelations of this whole manga is that not everyone who appears to be a villain really is a villain when the context of Narutoverse's events are looked at from multiple perspectives. Naruto finally noted this to someone other than the inner musings of his mind when he commended Kisame's character to Gai.

Even Orochimaru had his background which was implied to have led him into the sick life that he led. No one character has ever been an all-encompassing manifestation of pure evil. The manga has been an expansive diorama of character development (arguably good or bad character development; irrelevant here) across the story's designated protagonists, antagonists, as well as some characters that lie in the middle.

Many people do evil things. That doesn't necessarily make them evil incarnate. And a truly good villain doesn't need to be seen that way, either.

jdw

September 19, 2010, 10:50 PM

This was said by Kishi in an interview with SJ:

SJ: Is there any good left in Orochimaru? Or is he truly evil?
KM: I think he's truly evil. There are hopelessly evil characters out in the world, and he's one of them.

juUnior

September 20, 2010, 05:59 AM

As for Orochimaru backstory and comparing him to Hidan - just because Oro's had more 'screen time' doesn't mean he was not so bad as Hidan. It was mentioned in db that Hidan didn't accept what was thought in his home village - Oro did the same at some point to Konoha <similar>. And don't tell me that any other chibi shinobi wasn't cute back than - Hidan was as well until he matured <in Narutoverse its probably 10/11 years, but whatever :p> Oro just kept his nuanses or sth a little longer than Hidan, and whats more important: he was secretive about what he was doing until it was revealed and he left <it just put Oro in another league of his own as he was not so dumb as Hidan> So no, I think Oro is as bad as Hidan, or even more for what he did. That's a truly bad guy, on the insight and on the outsight being the truly creepy guy <3 I miss him in the manga. <though Kabuto is quite a good candidate to replace him in some way xD Threatening Madara is no small feat <3>

elitefox

September 21, 2010, 02:04 AM

Rosebunse

September 21, 2010, 08:28 AM

I think we need to clarify a few things. Is having an excuse a justification for murder? Especially in Itachi and Kisame's cases. They thought they had a clear cut reason, that is, to protect their country and for the greater good. But when does that stop working as an excuse? You can't just say these people deserve a get out of jail free card. Look at what Itachi did, look at Danzo. We seem to forget that innocent people who probably had nothing to do with the coup died. This was not war, there were other options. Children were killed...and then we find out that a good portion of the reason for this was so a few old guys can get "ultimate" power. I get that it was to protect the village, but there comes a point to where you just can't justify what someone does. My God, Danzo wanted their eyes! The leaders wanted to protect themselves! This feels like the Titanic sinking. The captain and one of the head engineers went down with the ship, thus affirming their guilt. Well, Itachi, Danzo, Sarutobi, and the Uchiha are gone, and two little old people are all that are left.

benelori

September 21, 2010, 10:48 AM

This was said by Kishi in an interview with SJ:

I remember this as well. Only the anime gave Orochimaru a more human side, when they showed him in missions, the convo with Anko.

Roflkopt3r

September 21, 2010, 02:05 PM

I remember this as well. Only the anime gave Orochimaru a more human side, when they showed him in missions, the convo with Anko.
I think the manga showed him quite human as well. Not in the presence, but in the flashbacks during his fight against Sasuke which make his presence very explainable.

elitefox

September 22, 2010, 03:26 AM

Evil is the opposite of Good

Hence, anything or anyone who oppose the "Good" are evil.
On naruto's side, he is good and akatsuki is evil
On akatsuki's side, they are the good ones and naruto is evil

Sannom

September 22, 2010, 04:54 AM

As a god of murder, lust and chaos in a french comic said "You evil scum! And by evil, I mean that you go against my will!" just before shredding the person to pieces, raping the body and eating the remains :o

Nieuwsgierig

September 23, 2010, 09:27 AM

Only Orochimaru and Madara seem to be truly evil. All the others had noble reasons, but they just had the bad luck of being on the wrong side. Or do you think the people of the Cloud Village think Yondaime was 'good' for killing fifty of their ninja in the blink of an eye. Or do you think Kakashi is respected for killing a 12-year old boy by stabbing him through the heart? It is like World War II: we don't care about all the murdered German soldiers; they were 'evil'. We only visit the American and English graves because they were 'good'. That didn't stop them from killing those germans. If Germany had won, they would have been considered evil instead of the other way around. Kisame's decision would have been noble if he had done it for Konoha for instance.

Even Hidan had religion on his side; a bit of a bad religion, but a reason that he deems noble. Orochimaru and Madara on the other hand just want to rule everybody.

zerocooldx

September 25, 2010, 02:54 PM

99% of the "villains" in this manga can be forgiven and pardoned for their past actions if they just admit that they were in the wrong and demonstrate that they have seen the errors of their ways. Just look at Nagato. So "true evil" only exists in this manga if Kishi explicitly states that so and so is truly evil.

jdw

September 25, 2010, 04:25 PM

I think that true evil exists, but due to interpretation by different readers it may be difficult to single out who is truly evil. Someone like Orochimaru is easiest because Kishi removed all doubt.

Roflkopt3r

September 25, 2010, 07:48 PM

I think that true evil exists, but due to interpretation by different readers it may be difficult to single out who is truly evil. Someone like Orochimaru is easiest because Kishi removed all doubt.

I think "true" evil would mean "evil without a chance on redemption".
Orochimaru would be a character described by this. He has alot of knowledge about any kind of motives and philosophies people can have, but ended up with an egocentric and inhuman character. Others simply lack experience, for example by never having experienced trust and real friendship amongst people. Orochimaru knows everything, yet decided for the dark side. There wouldn't be anything to convince him to change, thus he's truly evil since there's no way of return for him.

zerocooldx

December 04, 2010, 01:47 PM

I think "true" evil would mean "evil without a chance on redemption".
Orochimaru would be a character described by this. He has alot of knowledge about any kind of motives and philosophies people can have, but ended up with an egocentric and inhuman character. Others simply lack experience, for example by never having experienced trust and real friendship amongst people. Orochimaru knows everything, yet decided for the dark side. There wouldn't be anything to convince him to change, thus he's truly evil since there's no way of return for him.

I agree with everything you said. But i ask the question, to anyone, of how is Sasori really any different from Orochimaru?

In all seriousness Sasori was the closest thing to Jeffrey Dahmer that the manga had ever seen. Yet he receives "clarity" and has his soul "be at peace" when he finally dies and etc. Which is essentially Kishi letting Sasori have "inner peace" and "forgiveness" and even positive "acknowledgment" for the things he had committed at the very end. Now how the hell does that work? Sasori murdered countless people, cut them up, emptied them out and used them as his puppets and for his own twisted pleasure and entertainment. I mean it really can't get any more immoral then that. At least i don't think that it can.

Yeah Orochimaru experiment with people and stuff like that which we have been told about. But to an extent Sasori did very similar things as well during his life. And like Orochimaru, Sasori went "astray" after the death of his parents. And again like Orochimaru, Sasori turned his back on the people who genuinely cared for him and left his village in pursuit of power and what not. And its not like either one of them was "manipulated" by someone else. Both were grown adults and did very terrible things of their own accord and took pleasure in doing them. So once again i ask the question, what makes Sasori so different from Orochimaru?

This is one of the things that really bothers me about Kishi and his writing. The guy doesn't know the meaning of the word consistency.

Skidmore

December 04, 2010, 02:37 PM

So once again i ask the question, what makes Sasori so different from Orochimaru?

This is one of the things that really bothers me about Kishi and his writing. The guy doesn't know the meaning of the word consistency.

There are indeed very few, but Sasori when he first died, showed us that he still somehow human, he allowed himself to be killed by his "parents", Orochimaru otherwise seems to have completly lost his human side, he showed no love, or respect for anyone, all that matters for him is what he want.

If Orochimaru was killed instead of being sealed by Itachi, the alliance would be in serious trouble, since there are probably nothing that would free his soul.

zerocooldx

December 04, 2010, 03:56 PM

There are indeed very few, but Sasori when he first died, showed us that he still somehow human, he allowed himself to be killed by his "parents", Orochimaru otherwise seems to have completly lost his human side, he showed no love, or respect for anyone, all that matters for him is what he want.

If Orochimaru was killed instead of being sealed by Itachi, the alliance would be in serious trouble, since there are probably nothing that would free his soul.

But i don't like the argument that "If the person shows signs of change or humanity...that then they can change". In large part because what Sasori did really can't be "forgiven" or "redeemed". And having a character who did all of those things somehow exhibit signs of "humanity" or "morality" first of all doesn't make too much sense. Especially in how Sasori took a complete 180 degree turn while he was trapped by Kankuro. And of how Kankuro gladly accepted and embraced Sasori. Its just not realistic or logical at all for someone who committed such acts as he did to change just like that. And if it is realistic, then Orochimaru can have the same exact end as Sasori just got. But thats not possible now is it? Because Orochimaru, as Kishi apparently stated, is true evil and cannot change. Yet he and Sasori are extremely similar in the acts that they committed. Both guys are ranked 1 and 2 in terms of terrible acts of immorality against humanity.

DementedKirby

December 04, 2010, 04:26 PM

zerocooldx

December 04, 2010, 04:51 PM

Being forgiven is what changes them in the first place. Look at what Naruto did with Nagato. Unlike Orochimaru, Sasori achieved his true goal, which was true immortality: living through his work. Who knows, what if Orochimaru learned every jutsu ever and retired to be a hermit in some mountain somewhere and passed the torch to Kabuto. What if he changed upon completing his life's work. Personally, I see no inconsistency in Kishimoto's writing of Orochimaru and Sasori. They are completely different. They suffered the same things and had the same kind of past, but in the end, their methods of pursuing their goals were different. That's why Sasori was able to achieve closure twice whereas Orochimaru's cramped living inside an ethereal sword.

How are Orochimaru and Sasori different when Sasori murdered people, cut them up into pieces and then made them into puppets for his own personal amusement and pleasure? Orochimaru did the exact same thing except he didn't make puppets but instead performed science experiments. Yet someone like Sasori can get "forgiveness" if they ask for it or make some type of an attempt to show they have "changed"? Really!? Oh wow thats certainly lets say a "unique" way at looking at someone who carried out some of the most immoral acts that can ever be performed. Its laughable how one mass murdering immoral psychopath basically gets a pass and a pat on the back in the end while the other, and rightfully so, is labeled as someone who can never get forgiveness. Oh the wonderful hypocrisy.

Skidmore

December 05, 2010, 02:13 PM

But i don't like the argument that "If the person shows signs of change or humanity...that then they can change". In large part because what Sasori did really can't be "forgiven" or "redeemed". And having a character who did all of those things somehow exhibit signs of "humanity" or "morality" first of all doesn't make too much sense. Especially in how Sasori took a complete 180 degree turn while he was trapped by Kankuro. And of how Kankuro gladly accepted and embraced Sasori. Its just not realistic or logical at all for someone who committed such acts as he did to change just like that. And if it is realistic, then Orochimaru can have the same exact end as Sasori just got. But thats not possible now is it? Because Orochimaru, as Kishi apparently stated, is true evil and cannot change. Yet he and Sasori are extremely similar in the acts that they committed. Both guys are ranked 1 and 2 in terms of terrible acts of immorality against humanity.

So if we consider like this, Sasuke is almost there too.

But I agree with you, Sasori is pretty much a mirror of Orochimaru, they both were seeking Immortality, messed with people body, their own body, similar powers and status, they both killed the Third Kage of their villages.

It's indeed very strange such a turn right now, but we have to consider their objectives.

Sasori wanted to be forever, and Kankuro conviced him that he will live through his puppets, that his art will never die, he didn't become good at all.

Kankurou will pass to the new generations Sasori art, and not his will.

zerocooldx

December 05, 2010, 02:48 PM

So if we consider like this, Sasuke is almost there too.

But I agree with you, Sasori is pretty much a mirror of Orochimaru, they both were seeking Immortality, messed with people body, their own body, similar powers and status, they both killed the Third Kage of their villages.

It's indeed very strange such a turn right now, but we have to consider their objectives.

Sasori wanted to be forever, and Kankuro conviced him that he will live through his puppets, that his art will never die, he didn't become good at all.

Kankurou will pass to the new generations Sasori art, and not his will.

I think Kishi is doing all of this so that Sasuke can be "forgiven" in the end. Because if a crazed mass murderer like Nagato and an immoral psychopathic killer like Sasori can get absolute "forgivingness" and be "redeemed" then Sasuke is easily going to be "redeemed" and "forgiven" in the end. And if anything Kankuro should have told Sasori i'm going to make sure no one remembers such a sick and twisted bastard such as yourself. Due to all of the terrible things he did to people. That would be the logical things to say. But Kishi wants "forgiveness" and "redemption". In which case i don't see any viable reason as to why there is no hope for Orochimaru.

I mean if he were to be unsealed and come back somehow then he could have a very similar moment with someone like Anko kind of like how Sasori and Kankuro had a moment. The only real difference between Orochimaru and Sasori is the fact that Sasori "accepted" that he was "wrong" and thus he was able to receive "forgiveness" and "redemption". Yet nothing in his character would really indicate that he was such a person and be so easily swayed. Especially given all of the gruesome and immoral acts that he had committed and was so bound to and found of. If there is "true evil" in this manga, then i'm not really seeing it. Because "true evil" doesn't get "forgivingness" and "redemption" nor do they ask for it or accept it.

ameya730

December 05, 2010, 03:03 PM

zerocooldx

December 05, 2010, 03:14 PM

@zerocooldx

i think you are looking at all this from either a religious point of view or even better a moralistic point of view wherein we do evil and we pay the price for it via some divine entity or through karma.

i dont think the above scenario applies in naruto world. i believe in narutoverse an individual's state of mind decides how he passes away after death. there is no third entity that judges them. kakashi's father was stuck in afterlife cause he had regrets in his minds. on those being cleared he moved on. so was the case with shin and sasori . they had regrets which were fulfilled (a bit hastily if i may add but thats another topic ) and so they moved on.

jiraya during his death had no regrets. in his mind he was clear that he had achieved what he wanted so i believe he has moved on.

a person like orochimaru i am sure would never move on because of what he wants. he like sasori is judged evil because of their actions and that has nothing to do with what happens to them after death (in my opinion) at least until it is shown on way or the other.

in hindu religion we say that if on death bed you are not satisfied with what you achieved in your life you dont attain nirvana and you continue the cycle of rebirth.

sasori in the end was satisfied that he had achieved immortality via his puppets and thus he moved on. him telling kankuro to pass on the puppets was more to ensure that he lived via his legacy.

all this does not change the fact that sasori was evil in what he did. he was as cruel as orochimaru was.

I'm looking at this through the way that Kishi established what he defines as "evil". So when he apparently stated that there is basically no hope for Orochimaru because he is "evil" then all i did was compare Orochimaru and what made him so evil to a character like Sasori. And i don't see much of a difference at all between the two. I'm evaluating this based off of the criteria that was used to label Orochimaru as a hopelessly evil person. We know what Orochimaru did and we all know what Sasori did, and both of them are like two peas in a pod. So the question is why is one guy able to get "forgiveness" and "redemption" while the other is forever to be labeled as a truly evil character? And no answer to that question makes any kind of sense. Other then the fact that the author wants it to be that way.

ameya730

December 05, 2010, 03:23 PM

I'm looking at this through the way that Kishi established what he defines as "evil". So when he apparently stated that there is basically no hope for Orochimaru because he is "evil" then all i did was compare Orochimaru and what made him so evil to a character like Sasori. And i don't see much of a difference at all between the two. I'm evaluating this based off of the criteria that was used to label Orochimaru as a hopelessly evil person. We know what Orochimaru did and we all know what Sasori did, and both of them are like two peas in a pod. So the question is why is one guy able to get "forgiveness" and "redemption" while the other is forever to be labeled as a truly evil character? And no answer to that question makes any kind of sense. Other then the fact that the author wants it to be that way.

well the only way i can explain the difference between the two is sasori in the end achieved what he set out to do. he became immortal via his puppets.

kishi by saying that orochimaru is hopelessly evil is saying (speculation on my part) that orochimaru will never be satisfied with what he achieves. he would always want more. he wants immortality, to learn all the jutsu etc in short to know everthing in this world.

thus orochimaru would not move on even after death. ironically thats exactly what he is stuck in currently an eternal genjutsu.

i am not saying sasori was redeemed as in he suddenly became a good guy. all i am saying is he was able to move on because he was satisfied with what he had achieved similar to jiraya.

zerocooldx

December 05, 2010, 03:51 PM

well the only way i can explain the difference between the two is sasori in the end achieved what he set out to do. he became immortal via his puppets.

kishi by saying that orochimaru is hopelessly evil is saying (speculation on my part) that orochimaru will never be satisfied with what he achieves. he would always want more. he wants immortality, to learn all the jutsu etc in short to know everthing in this world.

thus orochimaru would not move on even after death. ironically thats exactly what he is stuck in currently an eternal genjutsu.

i am not saying sasori was redeemed as in he suddenly became a good guy. all i am saying is he was able to move on because he was satisfied with what he had achieved similar to jiraya.

Oh I can understand being able to move on, even if you are an evil character. But i don't understand being able to move on as an evil character while seemingly positivity affecting those around you and on top of that somehow being pleased in doing so. Thats not an evil character. I mean Kankuro basically just inherited the "Will of Sasori" as a puppeteer. And he seemed to have been pretty pleased that he inherited that. But why? Kankuro basically patted Sasori on the back and said "Don't worry i'll carry on what you started and your legacy and pass it on to the next generation". Which is unbelievably ridiculous. Because Sasori's "legacy" and "will" are that of a evil character who performed terribly immoral and inhuman acts. The guy, as far as we know, did nothing "good" and did a great deal of terrible things. So thats the problem. How can Sasori receive that type of positive "attention" for a life long career of terrible immoral and murderous acts. While Orochimaru who did very similar things gets the exact opposite treatment. Thats the question and doesn't make sense and can't really be answered.

ameya730

December 05, 2010, 04:09 PM

Oh I can understand being able to move on, even if you are an evil character. But i don't understand being able to move on as an evil character while seemingly positivity affecting those around you and on top of that somehow being pleased in doing so. Thats not an evil character. I mean Kankuro basically just inherited the "Will of Sasori" as a puppeteer. And he seemed to have been pretty pleased that he inherited that. But why? Kankuro basically patted Sasori on the back and said "Don't worry i'll carry on what you started and your legacy and pass it on to the next generation". Which is unbelievably ridiculous. Because Sasori's "legacy" and "will" are that of a evil character who performed terribly immoral and inhuman acts. The guy, as far as we know, did nothing "good" and did a great deal of terrible things. So thats the problem. How can Sasori receive that type of positive "attention" for a life long career of terrible immoral and murderous acts. While Orochimaru who did very similar things gets the exact opposite treatment. Thats the question and doesn't make sense and can't really be answered.

you do have a point. but there is one major difference. orochimaru's treatment has been with respect to konoha while sasori's treatment has been with respect to suna village.

both villages have had different ideologies that they have followed. through out the course of the manga we have seen how the ideas of suna have been influenced by people of konoha and their will if fire.

for people of suna until recently their strongest warriors have been people who have been ruthless. they have been taught that he who kills and survives wins. sasori has been a byproduct of these people and as such has done what was preached to him. thus if the people of suna can understand their own mistakes have the insight to forgive gaara who once upon a time was almost a serial killer. then kankuro treating sasori in the portrayed seems natural (from suna point of view of course).

also most significantly sasori mentions specifically his parents puppets. one of the very few puppets for which he did not have to kill anybody.

hence that why i think kankuro accepted that sasori had found peace and accepted his wishes.

RezzieThaRapper

December 05, 2010, 06:30 PM

Orochimaru isn't completely evil... he just hasn't had the right "Talk No Jutsu" or "Hug No Jutsu" to be converted...

Skidmore

December 05, 2010, 07:56 PM

If there is "true evil" in this manga, then i'm not really seeing it. Because "true evil" doesn't get "forgivingness" and "redemption" nor do they ask for it or accept it.

Can't we place the Kyuubi there?

RezzieThaRapper

December 05, 2010, 10:23 PM

Can't we place the Kyuubi there?

Kyuubi is gonna get the "Naruto-Touching-Speech-For-Friendship-No-Jutsu"

(I might be pushing it with the "No-Jutsu" Jokes)

But nah Kyuubi is gonna be converted soon enough...

conn-man

December 05, 2010, 11:04 PM

Based on what everyone is saying about villains not really being 'evil', I agree but want to elaborate on it.

Villains are essentially stong willed individuals who, for what ever reason, have become unhappy with the world around them. As a result they concoct a new goal in life that is going to test the world, that they are lashing out at, to the very core. Usually resorting to violent means to get their message across, its the heros job to use a stronger will to become a stronger fighter, thinker and leader to return the villain to the path that they have strayed from so long ago.

This also is the mechanic that separates the minor villain from the major villain. The matter of who has the strongest will.

ashher

December 06, 2010, 11:47 AM

I think there is a difference in core between sasori's and oro's search for immortality. Sasori wanted a body that felt no pain...basically he was running away from life with its flaws and sufferings, while oro was just conceited with his own genious looking down upon the normal humans with their limitations. Perhaps that's why of all the ppl in akatsuki kishi chose sasori as the one who detests oro the most, even though they were so similar in their outward goal.Yet at the end sasori couldn't refuse the warmth that life has to offer. He ran away from it, hid behind his 'unemotional' heart and non-feeling body and in doing so he had to give up the things ppl crave...love and other good things in life. Still at the very end sasori fall for that craving, and with it his immortality came to an end. I would rather say that sasori was a portrayal of a human trying to take shelter in 'evil/inhumanity' to escape from the pains that come with being human. He finally understood that what he did could hardly be of any worth as it was more like 'refusing to live' rather than 'immortality'. Indeed since his revival he has been acting different. He sympathized with shin and sai. He said that his efforts were meaningless compared his present state, and kankuro pointed out that his current state itself has little worth. Sasori realized so as well and saw that the times he only lived was when he created his puppets with his 'soul'(emotions)...and strikingly enough the ones he cherished most at the end was the ones with most of his pain.

zerocooldx

December 06, 2010, 05:09 PM

Can't we place the Kyuubi there?

Sure why not. But i don't perceive the Kyuubi as a real "living" and "breathing" entity. In large part because its essentially a pure mass of chakra and hatred that is basically "immortal" and even "invulnerable" to a certain degree. It is something that seems to be beyond simple humanity and morality, at least in my eyes anyways.

conn-man

December 06, 2010, 06:15 PM

Sure why not. But i don't perceive the Kyuubi as a real "living" and "breathing" entity. In large part because its essentially a pure mass of chakra and hatred that is basically "immortal" and even "invulnerable" to a certain degree. It is something that seems to be beyond simple humanity and morality, at least in my eyes anyways.

I don't know, the bijuu seem to be just as 'human' as any other character. We saw with the hachibi that they can make conscious, change-of-heart decisions. The only thing that messes with this idea is that they all split from the 10 tails but it seems like they still developed personalities, emotions and a sense of mortality.

Rikudou King

December 06, 2010, 09:28 PM

To be fair, The Kyuubi has plenty of reason for it's hatred. After all, It was basically a puppet for Madara til Hashirama came along and it ended up locked inside two women for 40+ years before once again being controlled by Madara, Then ripped in half by Minato before being sealed again in an annoying kid. I would be pretty pissed of too at these people.

ZERO PHOENIX

December 10, 2010, 03:46 PM

We have a lot of confused people in the Naruto forum, though, that's not at all surprising. Nonsense about no one in Naruto being evil, good and evil being subjective.

1) Kyuubi
The kyuubi ravaged Konoha long before Madara got control of him. The kyuubi was considered a force of nature that came every now and then to destroy shinobi villages. The damn thing did it for fun. Yet he's not evil and he just needs a hug? Get serious.

2) Orochimaru
The nutcase is willing to experiment on human beings, assisting in the deaths of dozens, just so he can overcome his fear of death. When you kill another person for selfish reasons, worse still en masse that makes you evil.

3) Kabuto
The guy is willing to manipulate the dead just so he can take revenge on a single man. He's also willing to participate in a war and work with a mad man to achieve that aim.

4) Danzo
Yeah I'm all for turning Konoha into a military state, but Danzo went Ishi Shiro in there. If you don't know who that is don't even comment on the topic of good and evil.

5) Uchiha Madara
So let me get this straight, this guy wants to hypnotize the world with his Moon's Eye plan in order to make all people obedient so that wars will never be waged. But he's doing this by first, STARTING A WAR?! :blink Drink much?

I ironed that out real simple because I don't have time to talk Philosophy 101 or give everyone a remedial course in Ethics. The fact is there is good and there is evil, everywhere in every situation. Morality is black and white. If a person can't read the writing when it's on the wall then they shouldn't read at all.

Count it!

ameya730

December 10, 2010, 10:22 PM

@zero phoenix

i dont agree with most of your most but it would be kinda difficult to have a debate wrt to your post cause anything i say can and would be constructed as having philosophical aspects.

for that matter even your statment morality is black and white is essentially your philosophy and not a universal truth cause you can give many examples where this would be untrue.

i think almost all the people here believe that all the people you have mentioned in your post have done evil deeds and many others not mentioned in your post too.

should all these people be judged evil? yes cause they have done evil deeds.

should all be judged the same ? no cause they have different reasons.

for example nagato did a lot of evil deeds yet i would not consider him a evil person because to a certain extent i sympathize with his actions and i see his point of view.

also i dont think comparing danzou to Ishi Shiro is right. the former did all that he could for the sake of konoha. were his methods right ? no they were not. but this is narutoverse we are talking about where killing is a part and parcel of your life. you do what you can to protect your own village and people.

let me reiterate i do believe that all the villains in the manga have performed evil actions and even some grey individuals have performed morally wrong actions.

in the end i do not believe that good and evil are always black and white. they might be sometimes and but there are case where there would be no black and white just grey areas.

i understand that my post might have philosophical undertones to it and if you would not like to continue discussion in that direction please feel free to ignore my post

Delbi

December 12, 2010, 09:35 AM

We have a lot of confused people in the Naruto forum, though, that's not at all surprising. Nonsense about no one in Naruto being evil, good and evil being subjective, it's like taking philosophy with a class of dropouts. :blink Of course that's not all of you, but 90 percent I'd say.

1) Kyuubi
The kyuubi ravaged Konoha long before Madara got control of him. The kyuubi was considered a force of nature that came every now and then to destroy shinobi villages. The damn thing did it for fun. Yet he's not evil and he just needs a hug? Get serious.

2) Orochimaru
The nutcase is willing to experiment on human beings, assisting in the deaths of dozens, just so he can overcome his fear of death. When you kill another person for selfish reasons, worse still en masse that makes you evil.

3) Kabuto
The guy is willing to manipulate the dead just so he can take revenge on a single man. He's also willing to participate in a war and work with a mad man to achieve that aim.

4) Danzo
Yeah I'm all for turning Konoha into a military state, but Danzo went Ishi Shiro in there. If you don't know who that is don't even comment on the topic of good and evil.

5) Uchiha Madara
So let me get this straight, this guy wants to hypnotize the world with his Moon's Eye plan in order to make all people obedient so that wars will never be waged. But he's doing this by first, STARTING A WAR?! :blink Drink much?

I ironed that out real simple because I don't have time to talk Philosophy 101 or give everyone a remedial course in Ethics. The fact is there is good and there is evil, everywhere in every situation. Morality is black and white. If a person can't read the writing when it's on the wall then they shouldn't read at all.

Count it!

While I do agree with you sense of morality concerning who you believe to be evil in the Naruto world, I don't agree that morality is black and white, in fact it's anything but.

I'll give you a Naruto example and real world one.

Naruto World: The extermination of the entire Uchiha Clan was given the ok by a man whom I think you would think is a good person in Sarturobi. The reason being was to save his entire village. Sacrafice the few for the many.

Real World: The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of people and led to the cities being unliveable. Again, sacrafice a few for many. Estimated allied casualties for an invasion of Japan was over 1 millions. Estimated Japanese casualties was over three million.

Neither of these scenario's was black and white. The deaths of innocents were calculated in both and there is nothing either white or black about that. You would have to be either naive or stupid to think otherwise, and given your own opinion on who you think is evil I'd think you were neither.

benelori

December 13, 2010, 09:57 AM

We have a lot of confused people in the Naruto forum, though, that's not at all surprising. Nonsense about no one in Naruto being evil, good and evil being subjective, it's like taking philosophy with a class of dropouts. :blink Of course that's not all of you, but 90 percent I'd say.

1) Kyuubi
The kyuubi ravaged Konoha long before Madara got control of him. The kyuubi was considered a force of nature that came every now and then to destroy shinobi villages. The damn thing did it for fun. Yet he's not evil and he just needs a hug? Get serious.

2) Orochimaru
The nutcase is willing to experiment on human beings, assisting in the deaths of dozens, just so he can overcome his fear of death. When you kill another person for selfish reasons, worse still en masse that makes you evil.

3) Kabuto
The guy is willing to manipulate the dead just so he can take revenge on a single man. He's also willing to participate in a war and work with a mad man to achieve that aim.

4) Danzo
Yeah I'm all for turning Konoha into a military state, but Danzo went Ishi Shiro in there. If you don't know who that is don't even comment on the topic of good and evil.

5) Uchiha Madara
So let me get this straight, this guy wants to hypnotize the world with his Moon's Eye plan in order to make all people obedient so that wars will never be waged. But he's doing this by first, STARTING A WAR?! :blink Drink much?

I ironed that out real simple because I don't have time to talk Philosophy 101 or give everyone a remedial course in Ethics. The fact is there is good and there is evil, everywhere in every situation. Morality is black and white. If a person can't read the writing when it's on the wall then they shouldn't read at all.

Count it!

Orochimaru and Kabuto...well...Kishimoto did describe Orochimaru as pure evil IIRC...and probably that's why he is still considered by most people as the best villain in the manga...and Kabuto was always a tricky bastard, and he even showed insanity in a few moments...

Kyuubi...he's not even a person, nor a villain...it is evil, but it was created by somebody...so hardly a legit villain IMO...and I don't know if it destroyed the village for fun...

The others...well...I would reply with your own words here
If a person can't read the writing when it's on the wall then they shouldn't read at all.

Because in Narutoverse killing is a way of life...it sustains to life of other people...it was explained by Pein...so the great areas are already there if you consider that the death of another lets another live...that's why there's the whole protect the ones I love theme all over in the manga... also the sacrifice of a few for a greater good...that's gray area as well...

I don't want to repeat your words again, but gray areas is what this manga is about...Naruto's conflict, the whole state of the world right now everything...
We are not judges here to apply our own deformed sense of justice...we are readers, so we interpret things...

Kaiten

December 13, 2010, 07:03 PM

Evil would be a very poor description of Nagato. Most of his actions prior to his involvement with Madara could even be described as justified. He could be viewed as a freedom fighter, deposing Hanzou from power. We don't know many details about Hanzou's politics but his alliance with Danzou and ordering Yahiko's death don't reflect well on his character as a leader. Being the public face and professed leader of a merciless, murderous mercenary organization does not reflect well on Nagato/Pain but in the end he was redeemable.

There is no way to justify the actions of Oro as anything short of evil. Arguments about what constitutes evil, the greater good can be swept aside when discussing someone who specializes in genetic manipulation, curses, resurrecting the dead, invading his former home, and killing his mentor. Not a nice guy and he met a deservedly nasty end. Great character though.

Madara is another one. There isn't much that can redeem him. Most of his motivation is political, rather than personal so he can't even be excused for some sort of primal trauma.

Some other characters, like Sasori can't be described in black and white terms. He certainly was not a good person but he could be sympathized with. Some, like Deidara or Hidan were two one dimensional to really sympathize with, probably deliberately. Deidara was the anarchist mad bomber, Hidan the religious fanatic.

ZERO PHOENIX

December 14, 2010, 09:40 AM

Wow, there was so much wrong here I don't know where to start. Clearly the lot of you have read more Kishimoto than Aristotle. :blink I'll start with you ameya and work my way down.

According to ameya:

"should all these people be judged evil? yes cause they have done evil deeds. should all be judged the same ? no cause they have different reasons."

The reasons don't matter if they arrive at the same ends, human suffering. Yes Nagato wanted to create a world with no war and we are led to believe that Madara wants to do the same. However, both plans require the sacrifice of millions of innocent lives. If Madara and Nagato only went around killing the evil people of the world, ala Kira then this would be a different. However, both Nagato and Madara are ready to throw innocent lives into the fires of war right along with the villains of this world. In Nagato's view and in Madara's view what they are doing is right for the good of the world but this isn't true. Take a walk with me. To Hitler, exterminating the Jews was what was best for Germany. He wanted to create a country of "pure" human beings. Are you going to spout that BS that well he had good intentions but his means were wrong but we can't call him evil?

"for example nagato did a lot of evil deeds yet i would not consider him a evil person because to a certain extent i sympathize with his actions and i see his point of view."

Sympathizing with villains is indeed something we should all do for we may find some human aspect of them. However, to embrace a serpent is to invite poison into your heart. In your sympathizing you've endeavored to make morality operate on a sliding scale and it does not. It doesn't matter what Nagato's aims were, when he slaughtered all of Honzo's supporters, men, women, children, and babies alike he crossed that line. Or in your book, is it legal to kill an infant for some greater good? :s

"also i dont think comparing danzou to Ishi Shiro is right. the former did all that he could for the sake of konoha. were his methods right ? no they were not. but this is narutoverse we are talking about where killing is a part and parcel of your life. you do what you can to protect your own village and people."

The morality in the Narutoverse cannot be separated from the morality in the real world. Why? Because the real world is all we have to go on. There is no such thing as fictional morality or a system of ethics that exists on its own within a fictional world. :notrust

Do you know why I compared Ishi Shiro and Danzo ameya? Because their similarities more than outnumber their differences. Danzo was willing to wipe out an entire clan, incite a coup, and who knows what else to turn Konoha into a military state. He felt it was for the good of Konoha yes? Ishi Shiro was conducting experiments on the Chinese in hopes of creating a biological weapon the Japanese army could use against its enemies. He felt what he was doing was for the good of Japan but guess what, that doesn't erase what he did or put a smiley face on the hundreds of people he helped kill. Danzo is the same way. Even if he changed Konoha for the better, how would that bring back the Uchiha or erase Konoha's past sins?

I'll address Delbi next.
<hr noshade size="1">
Delbi says:

"...I don't agree that morality is black and white, in fact it's anything but."

Incorrect. I don't have enough "time" to explain why that is. Visit Project Guttenberg and look for the work of Machiavelli, Sartre, and Aristotle when you have the chance. If you placed as much time educating yourself about the "real world" as you did the "Naruto world..."

"Naruto World: The extermination of the entire Uchiha Clan was given the ok by a man whom I think you would think is a good person in Sarturobi. The reason being was to save his entire village. Sacrafice the few for the many."

True.

"Real World: The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of people and led to the cities being unliveable. Again, sacrafice a few for many. Estimated allied casualties for an invasion of Japan was over 1 millions. Estimated Japanese casualties was over three million."

What makes American lives more valuable than Japanese lives? This is a question asked to philosophy students so I've no doubt it's the first time many of you have even heard it. I've heard this argument countless times so I ask in response to it, "What makes American lives more valuable than Japanese lives?" To the Japanese this was an act of evil. To the Americans it was necessary. To a moral agent and a true philosopher the act was evil. It's a stain that we bear today. It's easy to say it had to be done when your view of morality is skewed, but the issue with your argument is that it has to apply to other situations as well.

I'll give a brief lesson. If you make an argument and use a grounds to defend it, that same logic has to be applied to other areas in order to prove or disprove its infallability. You allege that America had to drop those bombs in order to end the war. The sacrifice of the few for the good of the many. Again I will use Hitler and the holocaust. Hitler operated on the mindset, the sacrifice of the few for the good of the many and yes, sometimes this is admirable in a person. However, Hitlers idea for the good of the many was a Nazi Germany free of all "ethnic impurities." For this reason he set out to exterminate the Jews. In Hitler's view what he was doing for the good of Germany. In America's view dropping the bomb was for the good of America. How can one action be morally permissable while the other action is not when both are operating on the same logic? :blink

"Neither of these scenario's was black and white. The deaths of innocents were calculated in both and there is nothing either white or black about that. You would have to be either naive or stupid to think otherwise, and given your own opinion on who you think is evil I'd think you were neither."

Given your argument I would most certainly think you were one of the two if not both. Come see me when you're ready to take off the training wheels and talk some serious philosophy. :pwned
<hr noshade size="1">
You're up next Benelori.

"Orochimaru and Kabuto...well...Kishimoto did describe Orochimaru as pure evil IIRC...and probably that's why he is still considered by most people as the best villain in the manga...and Kabuto was always a tricky bastard, and he even showed insanity in a few moments..."

We agree.

"Kyuubi...he's not even a person, nor a villain...it is evil, but it was created by somebody...so hardly a legit villain IMO...and I don't know if it destroyed the village for fun..."

:blink That's a damn good argument. :) I suggest many of you take note. It seems benelori was the only one who spotted an actual logical fallacy in my argument. As the Kyuubi is not a human being, one cannot expect it to operate as a human being. It's not technically an animal either so we cannot say it's destructive tendencies are a result of it's instinct either. However I have a different approach. We know that the Juubi was a being of pure evil, at least according to Madara's account of the legend. We also know that Rikudou Sennin defeated the Juubi, sealed it's chakra within himself and then split it into nine different creatures we know as the bijuu. If the Juubi was pure evil then the sum of its parts (the bijuu) are also evil. But due to lack of airtime, I suppose we can't call them villains.

"Because in Narutoverse killing is a way of life...it sustains to life of other people...it was explained by Pein...so the great areas are already there if you consider that the death of another lets another live...that's why there's the whole protect the ones I love theme all over in the manga... also the sacrifice of a few for a greater good...that's gray area as well..."

As I explained above, and must reiterate again apparently, the morality of the real world cannot be separated even from the fictional world. Do you know why? Because all moral dilemmas in fiction and non-fiction operate on the same basis as moral dilemmas in the real world, in addition to that they come from the same problems. Of course, people who read Naruto typically don't read much else so I shouldn't be surprised that I have to explain this. Not one dilemma in Naruto exists solely within Naruto. Not one moral dilemma is introduced into the world through Naruto. Kishimoto is basing all of his stories, lessons, (yeah right) and events off of real life situations. Of course, the fandumb can't be counted on to be anything but, however a simple romp through history should be enough to make even the most black and white dilemmas even more understandable for a Narutard. Danzo wanted to turn Konoha into a military state because he felt it would be best. Hmmm, Stalin anyone? Danzo (more fittingly Orochimaru) felt that even human experimentation was necessary for his aims, a better Konoha. I remember a certain Japanese scientist doing the same. Who was it? The Uchiha were a clan of conquerors. It doesn't take much common sense to think back to the Huns, the Greeks, or the Babylonians. Nothing in Naruto is foreign to the world because every ethical dilemma comes FROM the real world. Oh that's right, I forgot that Kishimoto preceded Machiavelli by 500 years. Silly me. :amuse

"We are not judges here to apply our own deformed sense of justice...we are readers, so we interpret things..."

One of the first lessons a learned person comes to know is that the reader IS a judge. A reader is supposed to observe, interpret, and finally judge whatever work they are privvy to. I'm guessing English isn't your strong point but guess what, interpretation is a form of judgement! :eyeroll When you interpret a work, you are, in a sense JUDGING IT! (Oh and for reference smartass, we're not talking about Justice, we're talking about morality. Justice is a branch of ethics but it's not the same as morality:notrust). Please, don't try and one-up someone when THEY have the upperhand. You only make yourself look foolish. I didn't need any additional help in assisting there but I appreciate it.
<hr noshade size="1">
And finallly, Kaiten:

"Evil would be a very poor description of Nagato. Most of his actions prior to his involvement with Madara could even be described as justified. He could be viewed as a freedom fighter, deposing Hanzou from power. We don't know many details about Hanzou's politics but his alliance with Danzou and ordering Yahiko's death don't reflect well on his character as a leader. Being the public face and professed leader of a merciless, murderous mercenary organization does not reflect well on Nagato/Pain but in the end he was redeemable."

Unlike most of the others, you Kaiten have a VERY strong argument. But there are some holes here too. Allow me to explain. You stated that "prior" to Nagato's involvement with Madara, Nagato's actions can be deemed as justified. That is true. But it's a given that "prior" to Nagato's involvement with Madara his aims and actions were justified. But we're not concerned with the Nagato of the past, i.e., the Nagato that existed before the events of Naruto as it exists now. When addressing the ethical or unethical nature of Nagato's actions we have to concern ourselves with Nagato as Pain. It's a given that Nagato was a good kid "IN THE PAST," just as it is a given that Sasuke was a model student. And I'm sure Kisame wasn't a wanted criminal when he was in the first grade, just as I am equally sure that Zabuza didn't start killing fresh out of the womb. Excuse my example. The fact is it's a moot point to say that any character acted in a justifiable manner in the past. When their present activity contradicts their past conduct then the past is no longer relevant, ergo it doesn't matter how good Nagato was prior to his involvement with Madara. We as readers and moral agents (unless I'm the only one here, likely) are only concerned with his present activities. We can't say, well Stalin killed a lot of people but he was such a kind boy. However, your argument did hit the nail on the head in the last part when you said that Nagato was redeemable. This is defensible based on his actions right up until he died. That was impressive.

"There is no way to justify the actions of Oro as anything short of evil. Arguments about what constitutes evil, the greater good can be swept aside when discussing someone who specializes in genetic manipulation, curses, resurrecting the dead, invading his former home, and killing his mentor. Not a nice guy and he met a deservedly nasty end. Great character though."

Thank you. I'm glad one person here understands that. :)

"Madara is another one. There isn't much that can redeem him. Most of his motivation is political, rather than personal so he can't even be excused for some sort of primal trauma."

Thank you.I'm glad one person here understands that. :)

"Some other characters, like Sasori can't be described in black and white terms. He certainly was not a good person but he could be sympathized with."

I don't possess a great deal of insight for Sasori so I will take your word for it.

"Some, like Deidara or Hidan were too one dimensional to really sympathize with, probably deliberately. Deidara was the anarchist mad bomber, Hidan the religious fanatic."

Indeed. To extend that, a logical conclusion would be that both of these men where evil to the core. Deidara just like to blow $#!* up and Hidan liked to kill people. Hell, Jashin is a religion dedicated to being evil.

As for the rest of you, when you step your game up you know where to find me.

benelori

December 14, 2010, 10:36 AM

I didn't really counter or tried to counter that villains are not evil...if you take a closer look to the thread title, you will understand that even in this topic villains are considered evil, but we are discussing the possibility to sympathize with them, or maybe find reasons for their evil deeds...

My problem was with your statement about morality being black and white...while in theory this is true, in the real world there's no such thing as absolute...morality as any other belief system is created by people, so you can define morality as what people consider to be right or wrong...so basically I agree that any fictional system of values cannot be separated from the real world, it's just that, as in the real world, what is considered right or wrong changes throughout time, which can be identified as the theme of this manga...
Naruto represents change, and it has been said a lot of times, that as long the ninja system is in effect, the change cannot be materialized...

The ninja system stand for a system of belief that supports killing, supports evil in an absolute sense...but from the ninja point of view fighting for their country, for their family was very much a moral thing to do...because in the end what stand as base for seeing the difference between right or wrong, is benefit or harm...

Try to think this over from this point of view, not think in absolute terms, and you will see that the topic and some of the arguments are very legit, and they can be connected to real world decisions, actions etc.

About that justice thing...you're kidding right, when you separate justice and morality? Their relation is as strong, as Naruto's preference for orange jumpsuits...
And I stand by my statement about interpretation...while I agree that interpretation can be considered judgment, sometimes interpretation is just a form of explanation, enlisting of facts etc...
English is not my strong point that's true, but interpretation is not just an english word...while I'm not participating in this conversation to have a false sense of superiority, I'd ask you to stand firm by your own advices;)

ZERO PHOENIX

December 14, 2010, 11:06 AM

Hm, I did not expect this of you. Very good, but your argument is not bulletproof.

"My problem was with your statement about morality being black and white...while in theory this can be applied, in the real world there's no such thing as absolute...morality as any other belief system is created by people, so you can define morality as what people consider to be right or wrong..."

Incorrect. One of the primary tenets of philosophy is to discover the absolute good and the absolute evil in each and every situation. An entire section of the humanities exists because of the knowledge that these things are black and white. In every situation there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. The issue with you and most people, and this is not an insult merely an aspect of human nature, the issue with many people is that they cannot separate what is good for the universe, from what is good for themselves. More often than not, moral dilemmas come from a persons inability to recognize that morality IS black and white.

As Aristotle and Socrates have taught us, or at least those who can be taught, is that in every situation we are faced with making the decision of what we "ought" to do. There is an ought and ought not in each and every scenario we come face-to-face with and making the proper decision is dependent upon our understanding of ethics and morality. To summarize this complex point, philosophy aims at the one true good in every situation. If all the world was gray, then there would not be a one true good to aim at.

Because there is a right and wrong way to do everything, the world is in black and white. Weak minded people or morally corrupt individuals will try and find some grey areas but even if we commit and unjust act (dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) for the right reasons (ending the war), our actions were still unjust (which is why the U.S. is still sending checks to Japan). This is morality as it exists and not as you have been brainwashed into believing. Because this is morality in its pure form, all dilemmas must conform to this true form. Good doesn't became evil nor does evil become good to suit the individuals who are not able to live ethically. The wrong decision for the right reasons is still the wrong decision.

"The ninja system stand for a system of belief that supports killing, supports evil in an absolute sense...but from the ninja point of view fighting for their country, for their family was very much a moral thing to do...because in the end what stand as base for seeing the difference between right or wrong, is benefit or harm..."

True, but I don't recall debating this. I don't recall claiming that the shinobi as a whole were operating ethically or unethically. I do recall taking aside individual parties who were unethical in their conduct.

"Try to think this over from this point of view, not think in absolute terms, and you will see that the topic and some of the arguments are very legit, and they can be connected to real world decisions, actions etc."

You're asking me to look at something that operates upon a very rigid system of rules, deleting those rules, and then try to grasp the muddled remains. That cannot be done. When you remove the rigidness of morality what you are left with is NOT morality. Morality, ethics, these things exist because they are rigid. They do not change with the times, that's why they are not called opinions.

"About that justice thing...you're kidding right, when you separate justice and morality? Their relation is as strong, as Naruto's preference for orange jumpsuits..."

Justice operates based on the mainstays of morality, but justice itself is not morality itself. If justice is the car then morality is the engine. One needs the other to operate but they are not the same thing. No one tries to drive their engine to work every morning. :notrust You didn't know that yet I'm the one operating with a false sense of superiority. Try to explain that to me.

"And I stand by my statement about interpretation...while I agree that interpretation can be considered judgment, sometimes interpretation is just a form of explanation, enlisting of facts etc... English is not my strong point that's true, but interpretation is not just an english word... while I'm not participating in this conversation to have a false sense of superiority, I'd ask you to stand firm by your own advices"

Yeah, that's what I meant by English isn't your strong point. I wasn't referring to English being or not being your native tongue, rather I was referring to English as a subject. Intepretation and judgment cannot be separated just to suit your flawed argument. This is EXACTLY what I was talking about with regards to morality and ethics. We cannot, intelligently corrode the rigidness of morality just to suit our poor decision making. Likewise, you can't turn a word on its head just because you don't know what it means. Interpretation is equally a form of judgment, explanation and so forth. It doesn't matter what you meant to say, interpretation is a form of judgment. You can't crucify me for judging Naruto, but then try and defend your argument on the grounds of interpretation when we're doing the samething.

As far as me maintaining a faux superiority, I'm going make this real easy for you and everyone else to understand. Too many members of the Naruto fandumb think that they can maintain any assinine position and that they're correct just because they have an opinion. It doesn't work that way. In a forum every participant has to be able to back up their claims. So if someone says something idiotic or just plain wrong I'm going to call them out on it and I expect them to defend their views, (no matter how absurd) to my satisfaction. If a person makes a claim but they can't back it up, then all they have is an opinion. Opinions are nothing more but trash. Or, if that was a bit too harsh then I'll use the words of Socrates, "Opinion is the absence of knowledge." Any idiot has an opinion but when the fandumb takes their respective positions with devotion, then I hope that "knowledge" and not the absence thereof is the reason for it.

Unlike most of these people, I can back-up anything I say using facts and logic. I don't need flaky opinions for what I'm bringing to the table. That's how I operate. I expect the same of anyone and everyone operating in these forums. If anyone has a problem with that then all they have to do is prove me wrong. No mere feat I can assure you. Still, what I am asking for is not impossible. I expect everyone to do the same thing I can, back-up whatever they say.

benelori

December 14, 2010, 11:47 AM

I'm not debating philosophy here that's why I tried to actually connect my post with the manga...trying to be on topic here, and I suggest the same thing to everybody...

While you base your thoughts on the works of greek philosophers who as you said set up a rigid system, and were concerned with right or wrong...but others thought about expanded these ideas about the moral status of a person, introducing the idea of moral duty, which I accept, because real life taught me that people only search for the absolute, they never reach it...

I think that nobody, who discussed the evilness of certain characters, or maybe compared one evil deed to another as seen in the thread's title, ever denied that ultimately these characters were evil...that's why they are called villains after all...this is where the idea of moral duty comes in...to investigate whether or not these characters had their motives, what were those motives, can a person feel sympathy for them, basically to interpret the circumstances that made them evil

Delbi

December 14, 2010, 07:05 PM

"...I don't agree that morality is black and white, in fact it's anything but."

Incorrect. I don't have enough "time" to explain why that is. Visit Project Guttenberg and look for the work of Machiavelli, Sartre, and Aristotle when you have the chance. If you placed as much time educating yourself about the "real world" as you did the "Naruto world..."

"Naruto World: The extermination of the entire Uchiha Clan was given the ok by a man whom I think you would think is a good person in Sarturobi. The reason being was to save his entire village. Sacrafice the few for the many."

True.

"Real World: The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of people and led to the cities being unliveable. Again, sacrafice a few for many. Estimated allied casualties for an invasion of Japan was over 1 millions. Estimated Japanese casualties was over three million."

What makes American lives more valuable than Japanese lives? This is a question asked to philosophy students so I've no doubt it's the first time many of you have even heard it. I've heard this argument countless times so I ask in response to it, "What makes American lives more valuable than Japanese lives?" To the Japanese this was an act of evil. To the Americans it was necessary. To a moral agent and a true philosopher the act was evil. It's a stain that we bear today. It's easy to say it had to be done when your view of morality is skewed, but the issue with your argument is that it has to apply to other situations as well.

I'll give a brief lesson. If you make an argument and use a grounds to defend it, that same logic has to be applied to other areas in order to prove or disprove its infallability. You allege that America had to drop those bombs in order to end the war. The sacrifice of the few for the good of the many. Again I will use Hitler and the holocaust. Hitler operated on the mindset, the sacrifice of the few for the good of the many and yes, sometimes this is admirable in a person. However, Hitlers idea for the good of the many was a Nazi Germany free of all "ethnic impurities." For this reason he set out to exterminate the Jews. In Hitler's view what he was doing for the good of Germany. In America's view dropping the bomb was for the good of America. How can one action be morally permissable while the other action is not when both are operating on the same logic? :blink

"Neither of these scenario's was black and white. The deaths of innocents were calculated in both and there is nothing either white or black about that. You would have to be either naive or stupid to think otherwise, and given your own opinion on who you think is evil I'd think you were neither."

Given your argument I would most certainly think you were one of the two if not both. Come see me when you're ready to take off the training wheels and talk some serious philosophy. :pwned.

Your a funny guy you know that?

Firstly, did you not read what I said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The invasion of Japan to end the war had an estimated casualty rate of 4 millions people. 3 million Japanese, and 1 million American.

Nothing makes American lives more valuable than Japanese lives, but the Ameicans spared many more Japanese lives by not invading their home, something that is often ignored by ignorant people who don't know their history. Futhurmore, the Japanese were told to surrender and didn't out of stupidity and pride of their Government. They were defeated completely, Tokyo was burned to the ground, and believe it or not, more people died in the fire bombings of the capital than did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Now you tried to compare Hitler to this situation when it isn't even remotely similar. To prove infallability you need scope conditions. The scope conditions for the Uchiha Massacure and the Japan bombings were to stop war and I figured I didn't need to mention that but obviously I did. Hitler didn't kill the Jews to stop war, he did it because he believed it was neccessary to create a stronger Germany by purifiying the country so he could create a master race. A little different no?
[hr]

Incorrect. One of the primary tenets of philosophy is to discover the absolute good and the absolute evil in each and every situation. An entire section of the humanities exists because of the knowledge that these things are black and white. In every situation there is a right way and a wrong way to do things. The issue with you and most people, and this is not an insult merely an aspect of human nature, the issue with many people is that they cannot separate what is good for the universe, from what is good for themselves. More often than not, moral dilemmas come from a persons inability to recognize that morality IS black and white.

Hypothetical situation for you: It's relatable to the Narutoverse as well.

Your a warrior, say a ninja in the battlefield. You stumble across a child, in this case, a ninja with a jutsu pointed at your adult comrade ready to kill them. What do you do?

Morality in this situation is not black and white. Is a childs life more valuable than an adults? Is it ever right to take human life, even if that human has taken other lives? Do you try and injure the child and not kill them in hopes they don't kill your comrade? What if you injure him but your comrade still dies, and you have to kill the child anyway to save your own life?

As Aristotle and Socrates have taught us, or at least those who can be taught, is that in every situation we are faced with making the decision of what we "ought" to do. There is an ought and ought not in each and every scenario we come face-to-face with and making the proper decision is dependent upon our understanding of ethics and morality. To summarize this complex point, philosophy aims at the one true good in every situation. If all the world was gray, then there would not be a one true good to aim at.

As smart as you seem to be, I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of Utilitarianism. Sarturobi had to use this when determining what to do with the Uchiha clan. He figured he'd bring about the most good by killing the Uchiha clan. Yet, he brought about good, through an evil act of genocide, no? He was in a fucked up situation and was forced to make a decision. There was no true "right" or "wrong" decision because anything he would have done may have lead to the lose of lives. So instead, he chose to act in a way that brought about the most good.

Fact of the matter is, the world is gray, if it wasn't gray we would have no needs for courts, no need for laws because every human would agree on everything and we would all know right from wrong, wouldn't we? Every society would be the same, and they wouldn't disagree. Morality is relative afterall, or at least I believe so. Because that is my opinion. Opinions matter because they are what define morality. Humans weren't given the blueprint of morality at birth, they defined it via their opinions on what made them feel good and what made them feel bad.

benelori

December 15, 2010, 05:37 PM

Please post your statements in a polite way. Antagonistic remarks and insults have no place here, as same with off topic posts. Therefore the posts have been deleted. Feel free to repost your ideas in a polite way, while remembering what was the starting point of this discussion, so stay on topic.

While the discussion has a great topic, I suggest that you would take it to the General Discussion (http://mangahelpers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=18) section.

Thanks