All posts by Gyumei

Well, in the case of the monster girl, the likely corrupting factor is the fact that she was unfaithful to the robot. And the funniest thing is that before she was approved, on Joseph Joestar's AI page it said that the fact that he cheated on Suzie Q with Tomoko Higashikata was corrupting enough on its own to prevent him from even being an NPG.

It is precisely because of this fact, along with the fact that Oliver hasn't performed even half of Mark's heroic feats, that for me it becomes very difficult to see Oliver as "morally superior" to Mark. I mean, the first (Oliver) attempted genocide while the second (Mark) reformed a race of conquerors and brought peace to the universe for 500 years. Seeing this, what is the logic in considering the first "morally better" than the second?

Not to mention that Oliver's time as a redeemed villain was relatively short and he didn't perform enough heroic acts to say that he completely reformed to be PG.

Well, Oliver Grayson from Invincible tried to commit genocide against humans and Viltrumites and still got a PG rating. And he wasn't even being influenced or controlled by a villain when he tried to do it.

Although, to be fair, I think most of the heroes on this wiki have their... ruthless side when dealing with certain situations or villains. Good examples of this are Gohan, Spider-Man, Yuji Itadori, and Tanjiro Kamado:

Gohan: sadistically beat and tortured Cell for all the horrible acts he committed.

Spider-Man: In the Back in Black storyline, after Aunt May was fatally shot on the orders of the Kingpin, Peter relentlessly hunted down those responsible for Aunt May's condition, from beating and breaking the bones of criminals, admitting he was prepared to kill the culprit, and of course, the most infamous of all, brutally beating and humiliating Wilson Fisk in front of an entire prison.

Yuji Itadori: After defeating Mahito, Yuji coldly admitted that Mahito was right when he said that he and Mahito are "equals." Then, Yuji vowed to kill Mahito repeatedly, no matter if Mahito changed form or name.

Tanjiro Kamado: acts with great fury when encountering despicable demons.

Well... in my opinion, it wouldn't be so strange if Shanks were removed. I mean, even if he doesn't like killing, it's quite clear from that phrase that Shanks can be ruthless if his friends are in danger:

"Listen up, Bandits. Whether I'm sprayed with alcohol or doused with food. Hell, even if I'm spit on, most of the time I'll just laugh it off and forget about it. But if you hurt a friend of mine, you'll pay for it regardless of your reason!"

This quote isn't very different from what Invincible (Mark Grayson) said (which happens to be in the description of a lethal hero):

"Someone tries to hurt my family—someone I love—if there’s another villain out there putting lives in danger—who’s just keep coming at me until they finally succeed…I won’t hesitate to kill them."

Aang does learn from his mistakes. And no, there's nothing wrong with Aang wanting a life outside of his Avatar duties as long as he doesn't neglect his duties. That doesn't make him selfish or irresponsible. In the end, all Avatars also had their own personal lives outside of their duties. He doesn't need to prioritize one over the other because, ultimately, Aang is also human. It would be like demanding that Clark Kent/Superman and Peter Parker/Spider-Man prioritize their civilian identities over their superhero identities, or vice versa.

And if you want to end this discussion, fine, I'm not going to keep arguing about something that leads nowhere. But I don't understand why you bring up the subject if you can't handle opinions contrary to your own.

And what does "distinguishing right from wrong" have to do with Aang? Is it implying that Aang lacks a moral distinction between right and wrong simply because he reacted as any child would have reacted in his place?

Look, man, no disrespect to your story, but... what does that have to do with a 12-year-old not being able to (initially) handle his responsibilities as the savior of the world and fleeing a powerful nation that wanted to kill him? Are you implying that Aang did this out of pure spite and because he's a spoiled child?

Furthermore, Aang not only demonstrates remorse and guilt throughout the series for failing to save his people, but also subverts his supposed "cowardice" (according to what you said he possesses) by overthrowing Ozai's tyrannical government and bringing a new era of peace to the world.

Look man, with all due respect, but you're aware that Aang is just a 12-year-old kid, right? And that calling a child a "coward" for running away from a situation that was out of his control is pretty... wrong, right?

Like, are you really going to blame a child for the genocide of his own people caused by an ambitious warlord?

I think in the case of Orihime and Elizabeth, it has more to do with the fact that people consider them dolls who only live for their men and constantly repeat "Kurosaki-kun" and "Meliodas-kun" respectively.

Although I personally dislike this character, I think Izuku Midoriya qualifies as an unfairly hated character. Aside from the fact that he idolizes his bullying, people like to make memes and criticize him for sympathizing with villains like Tomura Shigaraki, even though the trope of a hero sympathizing with a villain is quite common and almost always used in most works of fiction.

What do you mean they're missing? I mean, they were approved on the Heroes Wiki page and each of them has their own page on that wiki.

The way this is handled by the narrative can be a determining factor; in other words, is that moment of her on top of guts portrayed as something good?

If a character's moral status is ultimately "irrelevant," does that mean I'm not obligated to accept that a character is PG just because they're on this wiki? Good, because honestly, I don't think most of the characters listed on this wiki are truly "pure of heart."

And for your information, no, I'm not taking a character's moral status "too seriously." The phrase "the greatest heroes in their history" is literally written in the description of a PG hero on the heroes wiki. It's difficult to consider a character like Oliver Grayson (Invincible) "morally superior" to Mark, even though Oliver not only attempted genocide against the Viltrumite and human species, but didn't even perform half the admirable acts that Mark accomplished. And while I casually edit images for these wikis, it doesn't mean I consider them 100% reliable in how they morally classify a hero.

Ultimately, what determines on this wiki whether a hero is "pure of heart" or not is purely subjective, without any real concrete facts. Even if they classify a character as PG or not, a simple proposal for approval or removal is enough for the character to be included or excluded.

Because having those things you mentioned:

1- The hero must have no corrupting qualities.

2- They must pass the admirable standards of the work.

I see it as meaningless if that's all that's needed to determine someone who is considered "the best of all the heroes in their history."

Furthermore, the description on the Heroes wiki is quite clear that a PG hero has a desire to improve the world around them or at least prevent it from getting worse. It's not enough to just be a nice guy who helps his companions. We don't see Judeau having any interest in improving the world around him outside of the Band of the Hawk