Discussion How Do We Define Tyranny and Evilness in One Piece?

Zehahaha

Registered User
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
8,501
Reaction score
5,714
Gender
Male
Country
Morocco
Appears not to be a tyrant.

However, petty point being mad here but, Joker didn't kill Trebol for failing to protect Sugar who was holding the semblance of freedom and stability in the country; Joker was a tyrant by every standard, irregardless, he did have something of a heart.

A tyrant can show love and affect. Hitler was said to have been no different to any family man, he showed love to wife and kids, although, a mad man. Even if Whitebeard was a tyrant, shackling Ace or not, wouldn't do much to change the fact, just like Joker not killing his subordinates for failing doesn't stop making him a tyrant.

In total, Pirates in general are not exactly saints. Shanks has killed people when it wasn't necessary.
Your point of WB and Shanks being tyrants is wrong as you admitted, but nobody said they were complete saints anyway
As for DD, he didn't have a heart, he had no problems discarding Monet and Vergo when he deemed it necessary, his loyalty towards his crew is "limited" IMO

And here I was close to write a lengthy post to answer your points, turns out you agree with me now lol
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
Appears not to be a tyrant.

However, petty point being mad here but, Joker didn't kill Trebol for failing to protect Sugar who was holding the semblance of freedom and stability in the country; Joker was a tyrant by every standard, irregardless, he did have something of a heart.

A tyrant can show love and affect. Hitler was said to have been no different to any family man, he showed love to wife and kids, although, a mad man. Even if Whitebeard was a tyrant, shackling Ace or not, wouldn't do much to change the fact, just like Joker not killing his subordinates for failing doesn't stop making him a tyrant.

In total, Pirates in general are not exactly saints. Shanks has killed people when it wasn't necessary.
You can't compare the both, though. Joker being a tyrant is a fact because of how he treated others who wasn't loyal to him or betrayed him. When has Whitebeard acted like a tyrant towards others? He even made it a point to ensure Luffy's survival the best he could, if not make sure he frees Ace. Joker did have a heart, but only towards his crew members who were loyal to him, whereas Whitebeard didn't treat everyone out of his crew member like shit, did he?
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,333
Reaction score
24,940
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
You can't compare the both, though. Joker being a tyrant is a fact because of how he treated others who wasn't loyal to him or betrayed him. When has Whitebeard acted like a tyrant towards others? He even made it a point to ensure Luffy's survival the best he could, if not make sure he frees Ace. Joker did have a heart, but only towards his crew members who were loyal to him, whereas Whitebeard didn't treat everyone out of his crew member like shit, did he?
What about the way he treated everyone who disagreed with him? Whitebeard was a pirate, his lifestyle was fundamentally violent. Even in the flashbacks we hear of ace getting rid of WB's enemies... Even in fishman island's case the deal was that he would basically exterminate anyone who messed with his friend. How is that not tyrannical? Whitebeard effectively acted as judge, jury and executioner of his enemies.
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
How did Ace get rid of Whitebeard's enemies though? Did he kill them or somehow force them to give up going after Whitebeard/being a pirate? In the OP world, getting rid of someone could mean many things, not just murder.

Well, how is it tyrannical to kill someone who wants to hurt Fishman Island or its people?
 

Hannibal Psyche

Registered User
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
8,167
Reaction score
9,234
Gender
Male
Country
Nigeria
You can't compare the both, though. Joker being a tyrant is a fact because of how he treated others who wasn't loyal to him or betrayed him. When has Whitebeard acted like a tyrant towards others? He even made it a point to ensure Luffy's survival the best he could, if not make sure he frees Ace. Joker did have a heart, but only towards his crew members who were loyal to him, whereas Whitebeard didn't treat everyone out of his crew member like shit, did he?
Actually, they can.

Both Whitebeard and Joker treat those loyal to them as family.

A tyrant can be affectionate towards those they love, that's a fact. Being affectionate is not something tyrants aren't capable of.

Crocodile was pretty tyrannical, but look how he treats Mr.3? he even aided Luffy too.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Your point of WB and Shanks being tyrants is wrong as you admitted, but nobody said they were complete saints anyway
As for DD, he didn't have a heart, he had no problems discarding Monet and Vergo when he deemed it necessary, his loyalty towards his crew is "limited" IMO
Nonetheless, it's not like he was happy about it and didn't care, it was a pragmatic choice.

He even saved Buffalo and Baby5 who had failed him, and even refused to punish them whereas, anyone else who had failed would have had it coming. Just look at how he treated Bellamy as opposed to those whom he regarded as famly? He's somehwat loyal, hell, if anyone can put up with Trebol and not find every excuse to kill him, it shows that Joker though an evil individual, does have attributes that are somewhat human which even the likes of Luffy can relate to.

At no point did Luffy castigate Joker for abandoning his nakama, that's the one thing that Joker has that Luffy would appreciate about him.

But yeah, I only changed mind since I found evidence proving he wasn't bullying others into owning territory as the image with Brownbeard showed, lol.
 
Last edited:

Zehahaha

Registered User
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
8,501
Reaction score
5,714
Gender
Male
Country
Morocco
Actually, they can.

Both Whitebeard and Joker treat those loyal to them as family.

A tyrant can be affectionate towards those they love, that's a fact. Being affectionate is not something tyrants aren't capable of.

Crocodile was pretty tyrannical, but look how he treats Mr.3? he even aided Luffy too.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---

Nonetheless, it's not like he was happy about it and didn't care, it was a pragmatic choice.

He even saved Buffalo and Baby5 who had failed him, and even refused to punish them whereas, anyone else who had failed would have had it coming. Just look at how he treated Bellamy as opposed to those whom he regarded as famly? He's somehwat loyal, hell, if anyone can put up with Trebol and not find every excuse to kill him, it shows that Joker though an evil individual, does have attributes that are somewhat human which even the likes of Luffy can relate to.

At no point did Luffy castigate Joker for abandoning his nakama, that's the one thing that Joker has that Luffy would appreciate about him.

But yeah, I only changed mind since I found evidence proving he wasn't bullying others into owning territory as the image with Brownbeard showed, lol.
Thing is that WB and Shanks would never let down their loved ones no matter what, for DD ultimately his crew are just pawns, although he is attached to them to some extent, but there's limits to that

Why would he punish them knowing that the opponents there clearly outclassed them, I do agree he's somewhat loyal to his crew, my point is that it has limits and if there's anything that really threatens him, he won't hesitate to discard them

My problem with you concerning WB/Shanks being tyrants is that you completely disregarded their personality, WB/Shanks are clearly not like BM/Kaido at all, obviously they're not saints but they're clearly not bad and are not interested by this
 

Hannibal Psyche

Registered User
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
8,167
Reaction score
9,234
Gender
Male
Country
Nigeria
Thing is that WB and Shanks would never let down their loved ones no matter what, for DD ultimately his crew are just pawns, although he is attached to them to some extent, but there's limits to that
How do you know there's a limit when he never even killed Trebol or any of his subordinates? You're assuming he has one without evidence.

My problem with you concerning WB/Shanks being tyrants is that you completely disregarded their personality, WB/Shanks are clearly not like BM/Kaido at all, obviously they're not saints but they're clearly not bad and are not interested by this
I'm certain you're aware of my stance as to whether Whitebeard is a tyrant. Personality has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned. If Joker can be affectionate with his subordinates and still be unruly, I see no reason why just because we've seen Whitebeard and co. do the exact same thing as in, be affectionate to their subordinates not also be tyrants if that was what Oda was heading towards.

You're simply basing your judgement on personality towards one's subordinates, anyone, even evil people can be loyal and loving towards such people. It's a different story against those who aren't your nakama,

Just because you're nice doesn't mean you couldn't be evil. Sengoku gave approval for Ohara's destruction, he's a good man, but what he did is nonetheless evil, he killed innocent people.

To alsy so they're not interested in making names for themselves, territory and influence is of no interest to them is questionable. Then why did Whitebeard tell Ace to take his name and go wild in the sea? and why are they even Yonko to begin with? Mihawk isn't one, he simply just chills despite his strength. These guys are ambitious, they wouldn't be in those positions if they didn't want to.
 

Zehahaha

Registered User
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
8,501
Reaction score
5,714
Gender
Male
Country
Morocco
How do you know there's a limit when he never even killed Trebol or any of his subordinates? You're assuming he has one without evidence.



I'm certain you're aware of my stance as to whether Whitebeard is a tyrant. Personality has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned. If Joker can be affectionate with his subordinates and still be unruly, I see no reason why just because we've seen Whitebeard and co. do the exact same thing as in, be affectionate to their subordinates not also be tyrants if that was what Oda was heading towards.

You're simply basing your judgement on personality towards one's subordinates, anyone, even evil people can be loyal and loving towards such people. It's a different story against those who aren't your nakama,

Just because you're nice doesn't mean you couldn't be evil. Sengoku gave approval for Ohara's destruction, he's a good man, but what he did is nonetheless evil, he killed innocent people.

To alsy so they're not interested in making names for themselves, territory and influence is of no interest to them is questionable. Then why did Whitebeard tell Ace to take his name and go wild in the sea? and why are they even Yonko to begin with? Mihawk isn't one, he simply just chills despite his strength. These guys are ambitious, they wouldn't be in those positions if they didn't want to.
He did ask Monet to literally suicide herself for the sake of killing Luffy and the rest, and even "apologized" to Vergo for throwing him out

I'm basing my judgement on their personality yes, because WB would never usurp the throne of a country like DD did, he would never kill his family like DD did, and besides, there has been no known instance of WB and Shanks harming civilians and what not, which is why they were also respected by Marines such as Sengoku and Garp

As for Sengoku, that decision was beyond him... You do realize it's the Gorosei who ordered this, maybe Sengoku does have some responsibility (he could have decided to retire at that time), but ultimately he didn't order anything as the decision was not his to take

It is not questionable... Is Luffy interested in fame and territories ? No, he clearly said he doesn't want to be a big shot... Yet he didn't hesitate for a second to claim FI as his turf just to protect it, in the same fashion as WB

Isn't also Luffy going wild in the sea ? Isn't he an infamous too ? Yet those are nothing but consequences to his actions that are not harmful or with the intention of being infamous/powerful

Mihawk on the other hand, it's pretty obvious his goal is different... This is my speculation, but I have no doubt he was only interested in achieving the highest level of swordmanship, which he did... I doubt he has any ambition left besides that

Shanks for example wants adventure, WB wanted a family, neither one of them ever stated wanting territory or power like let's say Shiki did
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
Actually, they can.

Both Whitebeard and Joker treat those loyal to them as family.

A tyrant can be affectionate towards those they love, that's a fact. Being affectionate is not something tyrants aren't capable of.

Crocodile was pretty tyrannical, but look how he treats Mr.3? he even aided Luffy too.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---

Nonetheless, it's not like he was happy about it and didn't care, it was a pragmatic choice.

He even saved Buffalo and Baby5 who had failed him, and even refused to punish them whereas, anyone else who had failed would have had it coming. Just look at how he treated Bellamy as opposed to those whom he regarded as famly? He's somehwat loyal, hell, if anyone can put up with Trebol and not find every excuse to kill him, it shows that Joker though an evil individual, does have attributes that are somewhat human which even the likes of Luffy can relate to.

At no point did Luffy castigate Joker for abandoning his nakama, that's the one thing that Joker has that Luffy would appreciate about him.

But yeah, I only changed mind since I found evidence proving he wasn't bullying others into owning territory as the image with Brownbeard showed, lol.
no, you can't. Whitebeard was not shown to be a bad person at all, while Doflamingo was shown to be evil. He was betrayed by his brother and killed him, whereas Whitebeard didn't attack Squardo for stabbing him. Who did Whitebeard oppress or kill or make into his slave? Doflamingo burned Dressrosa and tortured the king's family, as well as turning any opponent into slaves with a special effect that they'd never be remembered by their loved ones. Whitebeard never showed cruel tendencies towards others as far as I recall, whereas Doflamingo showed cruelty towards anyone out of his most loyal crew.

This feels repetitive though. I mean, there's even proof that Whitebeard wasn't tyrannical to the people of two territories under him, I see no reason to keep arguing about his tyranny at this point.
 

Hannibal Psyche

Registered User
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
8,167
Reaction score
9,234
Gender
Male
Country
Nigeria
He did ask Monet to literally suicide herself for the sake of killing Luffy and the rest, and even "apologized" to Vergo for throwing him out

I'm basing my judgement on their personality yes, because WB would never usurp the throne of a country like DD did, he would never kill his family like DD did, and besides, there has been no known instance of WB and Shanks harming civilians and what not, which is why they were also respected by Marines such as Sengoku and Garp

As for Sengoku, that decision was beyond him... You do realize it's the Gorosei who ordered this, maybe Sengoku does have some responsibility (he could have decided to retire at that time), but ultimately he didn't order anything as the decision was not his to take

It is not questionable... Is Luffy interested in fame and territories ? No, he clearly said he doesn't want to be a big shot... Yet he didn't hesitate for a second to claim FI as his turf just to protect it, in the same fashion as WB

Isn't also Luffy going wild in the sea ? Isn't he an infamous too ? Yet those are nothing but consequences to his actions that are not harmful or with the intention of being infamous/powerful

Mihawk on the other hand, it's pretty obvious his goal is different... This is my speculation, but I have no doubt he was only interested in achieving the highest level of swordmanship, which he did... I doubt he has any ambition left besides that

Shanks for example wants adventure, WB wanted a family, neither one of them ever stated wanting territory or power like let's say Shiki did
He did, but he wasn't jubilating at her death. He was clearly grieved. He even saved Baby5 and Buffalo. It's clearly evident that even an evil individual can have a need for family.

Nonetheless, Sengoku went ahead with it, he's got blood on his hands too.

Luffy isn't exactly endorsing others to go under his flag, Whitebeard is, so clearly, despite wanting a family, he has ambitions to create a dynasty. If he simply wanted a family, all he had do was stay home, marry, have kids and get on with life, but he went to the Grand line as a Pirate, it's not something that just happens by coincidence, it's ambition. It's like claiming that someone mistakenly became the president of America, it doesn't just happen, it's ambition. If Shanks didn't want a turf, he wouldn't own one, you think these things just fall on to people? that's rather naive.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
no, you can't. Whitebeard was not shown to be a bad person at all, while Doflamingo was shown to be evil. He was betrayed by his brother and killed him, whereas Whitebeard didn't attack Squardo for stabbing him. Who did Whitebeard oppress or kill or make into his slave? Doflamingo burned Dressrosa and tortured the king's family, as well as turning any opponent into slaves with a special effect that they'd never be remembered by their loved ones. Whitebeard never showed cruel tendencies towards others as far as I recall, whereas Doflamingo showed cruelty towards anyone out of his most loyal crew.

This feels repetitive though. I mean, there's even proof that Whitebeard wasn't tyrannical to the people of two territories under him, I see no reason to keep arguing about his tyranny at this point.
You clearly missed my previous posts, already made the point he's not a tyrant based on evidence I found, and which no one provided.

And I guess according to your logic, Roger is a tyrant in the same vein as Joker since he killed Squardo's entire crew.

Tyranny aside, you can't deny that Joker is no different to Whitebeard in being affectionate towards his subordinates except you simply hate Joker that much. Just because one is soft-hearted towards family doesn't mean they can't be tyrants. There's no correlation between being nice and a tyrant. If we accept your logic here again, the Nazi soldiers aren't tyrants or evil, because they expressed love towards their wife and kids as does every other good father. Clearly, I'm certain you know better than that. There's no correlation or relation between being nice to family or close relatives and being an evil bastard. The best doctor in the world saving lives and smiling with his patients could be the most overbearing father and worst husband.

There's simply no truth or correlation to what you're saying, or, every evil person would 100% of the time be a bad person to every single person they came across, related or non-related. The nature of man is far more complex than "he's a evil, therefore, he'll never be able to express anything besides evil".
 

Char

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
689
Reaction score
1,963
Age
33
Country
Spain


This image sums up the good/bad parameters in One Piece for me. Doflamingo, for example, would fall in Chaotic Evil. Whereas IMO Akainu should be lawful evil.
 

ProGoddess

MH Senpai
有名人 / Yuumeijin / Celebrity
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
2,648
Reaction score
2,176
Gender
Female
Country
Water Tribe


This image sums up the good/bad parameters in One Piece for me. Doflamingo, for example, would fall in Chaotic Evil. Whereas IMO Akainu should be lawful evil.

Very creative!

It will be more fun if we can have all characters put into such classification. :loool

I have no doubt of Doflamingo, so is Akainu. Where do you think Roger is?
 

Char

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
689
Reaction score
1,963
Age
33
Country
Spain
I've seen Luffy classed as True neutral or chaotic neutral. I think Roger should be closer to true neutral as I see him as more "mature", although in the end I think he'd fall in the same category as Luffy since their personalities have sometimes been compared, and their goals are the same.

After all, the idea of good or bad does not necessarily correspond to marines and pirates. Akainu is much more evil than Luffy, it's just that he believes in a purpose and he follows it thoroughly, but his methods are plainly evil!

On the other hand, Luffy (or Roger for that matter) doesn't 'want' to harm anybody, their methods are not evil, they just want to 'achieve' something that the world considers evil, but their methods are far from 'evil'.

So, lawful refers to whether you're orderly, and follow some sense of justice. Neutral... well is neutral. And chaotic means the opposite to lawful. Evil means that your methods are not justifiable, neutral means neutral and good means you're kind of heart.

All in all, combinations like Lawful evil (that is to say, the goal is praiseworthy, but the means are atrocious) are possible in this manga (Akainu) or in others like Naruto (Danzou). Even in Fairy Tail if you will (Mest).
 

Tournesol

Registered User
中級員 / Chuukyuuin / Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
138
Reaction score
76
Gender
Hidden
Country
Germany
Hm... I don't care about definitions. I decide for myself if I think that someone is evil or tyrannical or not.
For example, for Big Mom I would say yes to both. Even though people in Tottoland seem pretty happy and the biggest danger they face seems to be getting caught up in one of BM's binge-eating/hunger attacks (which would make it one of the safest places in the OP world, ironically), she acts as a tyrant towards her crew and family and does tons of blatantly evil things.

But if you ask me about characters like Whitebeard, Shanks, Roger or Sengoku, then I wouldn't be able to give a definitive answer.
It seems like WB was a decent person, but was also capable of hurting and dominating his rivals. The only place where I really questioned his moral standpoint was when he defeated Ace's pirate crew and insisted that he should join him, even though he didn't want to. He used his strength to get what he wanted and didn't take No for an answer, which is pretty tyrannical imo. On the other hand, I don't remember him harming anybody who didn't challenge him. So I'd say tyrant? He may have had a little of that, but I don't think he conquered territories and hurt the people there, so not really. Evil? No, there is no evidence of him doing evil things... unless you count hurting or even killing (don't remember if he did that) other pirates in pirate battles.

Which I gotta say, I don't really count killing an evil pirate as an evil act. XD
I know people were always fighting about that in DnD too. "You can't kill this orc, that would be evil!" - "But he attacked me!" - "But still, you're a paladin!", etc.
I'm more pragmatic when it comes to stuff like that.

So on to Shanks. We know so little about him that it's almost impossible to tell what kind of person he is. I see him as a neutral character. He doesn't harm people, but he doesn't seem to be a hero who travels the world saving people either. He did end the Whitebeard vs Marines war and probably saved many people by doing that, but other than that I don't remember him doing anything noteworthy. He just seems to hang out with his crew and chill most of the time. Maybe he has some hidden ambition that we don't know about, but otherwise I find him a bit of a boring character so far. >.<

About Roger, I dunno. Most of his former allies we've seen or heard about (e.g. Rayleigh, Momonosuke's father, Shanks) seem to be decent people, so he can't have been a bad person. Then again, he's probably more of a "neutral" character too.

What I really like about OP is that there are very few characters where you can say: "This guy will always do good things." or "This guy only does evil things." They are so interesting because they are very human-like, sometimes doing things for the sake of others, sometimes doing selfish things, sometimes wanting to do good but doing a bad thing, sometimes acting on a whim, sometimes regretting their actions.

Sengoku is a character I don't understand at all.
While he has done good things and seemed like a good person, he has spent his life working as the head of an army that does about as much good as it does evil. Why would he do that? If he was anywhere near a decent person, how could he serve the tenryuubito? I hope that we'll get an explanation at some point, maybe when Strawhats vs. The Government is on (probably towards the end of the manga xD).

Akainu, huummm, yes, he seems very evil. I don't think he cares about the lives of civilians at all, but I don't know what he DOES care about. He must have some sort of motivation in life, right? I guess he might be a conservative kind of person. "Things have to stay the way they have always been. The Marines will make sure that order exists in the world and lawless people can't do as they please." Where I'm pretty sure that he doesn't make a difference between actually harmful people (most pirates), people who want to just live their lives and follow their passions (e.g. SHs, those Oharan historians) and people who want to change the world for the better (Revos). Any rebels must get cut down! Like that rebellious dandelion growing on the edge of a perfectly groomed lawn.
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
You clearly missed my previous posts, already made the point he's not a tyrant based on evidence I found, and which no one provided.

And I guess according to your logic, Roger is a tyrant in the same vein as Joker since he killed Squardo's entire crew.

Tyranny aside, you can't deny that Joker is no different to Whitebeard in being affectionate towards his subordinates except you simply hate Joker that much. Just because one is soft-hearted towards family doesn't mean they can't be tyrants. There's no correlation between being nice and a tyrant. If we accept your logic here again, the Nazi soldiers aren't tyrants or evil, because they expressed love towards their wife and kids as does every other good father. Clearly, I'm certain you know better than that. There's no correlation or relation between being nice to family or close relatives and being an evil bastard. The best doctor in the world saving lives and smiling with his patients could be the most overbearing father and worst husband.

There's simply no truth or correlation to what you're saying, or, every evil person would 100% of the time be a bad person to every single person they came across, related or non-related. The nature of man is far more complex than "he's a evil, therefore, he'll never be able to express anything besides evil".
I did not miss your posts. What are you arguing, then?

Why did Roger kill Squardo's entire crew? I don't remember that, where was that said or mentioned in the manga? Did he do it for the lulz? Because he wanted revenge? Because he wanted to put fear in Squardo's heart? Because it was either his crew or Squardo's crew?

I don't hate Joker as I do Bellamy, I hate Joker as in "holy shit, he's an evil person!" but as a character, I like him and hope he stays a villain and makes appearances. While Joker is same as Whitebeard in being affectionate towards his subordinates, Joker is like that only with the ones in his inner circle, and if they betray him, they're likely to be killed. As far as I recall, Whitebeard is affectionate towards his entire crew, and he did not attack Squardo when Squardo stabbed him. In fact, Blackbeard was the only person Whitebeard was willing to kill, and only because he killed his own crewmate as well as Whitebeard's "son."

I don't know what your point is. If I thought being nice meant one wasn't a tyrant, I would not have called Joker a tyrant, which he clearly is. Have I not stated this multiple times? But you yourself admitted Whitebeard is not a tyrant, so what are you trying to say?
 

Hannibal Psyche

Registered User
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
8,167
Reaction score
9,234
Gender
Male
Country
Nigeria
Why did Roger kill Squardo's entire crew? I don't remember that, where was that said or mentioned in the manga? Did he do it for the lulz? Because he wanted revenge? Because he wanted to put fear in Squardo's heart? Because it was either his crew or Squardo's crew?
We don't need to know a reason, he killed Squardo's crew nonetheless.



I don't hate Joker as I do Bellamy, I hate Joker as in "holy shit, he's an evil person!" but as a character, I like him and hope he stays a villain and makes appearances. While Joker is same as Whitebeard in being affectionate towards his subordinates, Joker is like that only with the ones in his inner circle, and if they betray him, they're likely to be killed. As far as I recall, Whitebeard is affectionate towards his entire crew, and he did not attack Squardo when Squardo stabbed him. In fact, Blackbeard was the only person Whitebeard was willing to kill, and only because he killed his own crewmate as well as Whitebeard's "son."
And where did Joker kill his own subordinate?

I don't know what your point is. If I thought being nice meant one wasn't a tyrant, I would not have called Joker a tyrant, which he clearly is. Have I not stated this multiple times? But you yourself admitted Whitebeard is not a tyrant, so what are you trying to say?
You're asserting that just because Whitebeard is kind to his subordinates, he's not a tyrant. A tyrant is not defined as being kind to subordinates, or else, Joker wouldn't be considered a tyrant as he's merciful towards his executives.
 
Top