So this post has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with DID/bondage, I just felt like getting wordy on a topic I've been mulling over for a while. Don't read this if you expect to get anything bondage-related out of it. Because you won't. This post will contain spoilers for the following series: The Devil is a Part-timer, Shiki and Code Geass, Anyway...
I've been watching a lot of anime as of late, which is quite unusual. Gone through a lot of different shows, big and small, known and unknown and it's made me realize that I throroughly enjoy shows pitting moral greys against each other, even if the rest of the show is kind of bleh. It brings up a lot of interesting moral questions and conflicts and I enjoy watching characters work through it. I've condensed these conflicts down to three types and the main bulk of this entry is gonna be me going through these and explaining why I think they're so interesting.
1. Good vs. "Good"
In this scenario you've got one or more good characters (usually the protagonists) going up against one or more characters (Usually the antagonist) who've got a good and noble end goal, but have long since abandoned any pretense that the end doesn't justify the means. Conflicts like these are interesting because they aren't about good and evil as much as about what you're willing to do for good. The "good" character/s in this case tend to go too far, believing that the needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few. They have usually convinced themselves that killing, harming and torturing people to fulfill their noble goal is alright, because said noble goal will end up saving way more people than their methods have doomed. If a "good" character has a lot of influence and power they usually end up totalitarian, mercilessly wiping out anyone and anything that would stand in the way of their grand goal. After all, anyone opposing their goals is a factor that might end up sending their painstakingly crafted ideals toppling to the ground, replaced by chaos, anarchy and injustice.
The reason I enjoy stories like these is because I find it interesting to watch a character's thought processes as they try to justify their actions to themselves, even if their every fiber is screaming that it's immoral. The good characters in this kind of conflict act as walking proof that the "good" character is wrong, since they are doing good without causing suffering, something the "good" character has long since deemed impossible.
One example of such a conflict (though I admit it's probably not the best of it's sort. It just so happens to be the most recent one in my mind) is Suzuno's moral issues in The Devil is a Part-timer. She has dedicated her life to being an inquisitor for the church, which really is nothing more than being their personal hitman. She'll be given the names of people who need to be killed and kill them, no questions asked. These people can be criminals, heretics or simply people who are disagreeing with the church or who are being a thorn in their side. Her goal in the anime is to get close to Sadao, the former demon lord and kill him. After she takes too long to do so, an envoy of the church shows up and basically lights a fire under her. With this, she gets back into action and decides to tell two girls that she's made friends with what her intentions are, hoping they'll understand.
They of course don't and make some rather sharp jabs at Suzuno's way of thinking. She's convinced herself that what she's been doing all her life has been for the greater good. That the people she killed were bad people. Criminals of various stripes. Rebels.
Due to this she's also convinced herself that killing Sadao, who's been completely reformed after coming to the human world, is a good thing because he's the demon lord. Even though he's no longer an evil person or even able to get back to his homeland to wreak havoc. In the end the envoy attacks one of her friends, Emilia, a hero from her own homeland who's dedicated her life to protecting the nation and its people. Suzuno let's this happen and even puts the other friend, an ordinary fast food clerk girl, to sleep. The scene I'm mentioning has one line that I think was really quite brilliant and that cut through Suzuno's pretense of morality, if only for a moment.
"If you're fighting the hero, the defender of the weak and downtrodden, then what are you?" or somesuch. The line obviously troubles Suzuno, but she refuses to budge in her views.
Later on we see the two friends on top of a roof. Chiho, the clerk, is tied up on the ground while Emilia is suspended in mid-air, tortured by energy blasts from the envoy. Suzuno, meanwhile, does nothing. While her morality has been shaken to the point where she won't actively harm anyone, she hasn't reached the point where she'd go against her "employer". Chiho, naturally, asks Suzuno why she's letting these things happen, but receives no response. I did find it quite weird myself as it becomes obvious a few minutes later that she really doesn't want things to be the way they are. So why doesn't she act? That is the one thing that makes me slightly dislike her character, even though she, naturally, changes her mind not long after. She just goes along and lets her friends suffer, not lifting a finger to help them.
Later in the same episode a pissed off Sadao shows up. Suzuno decides to fight him, even though she states out loud to herself that she really just wants him to save her from this scenario she's in. In the end he beats the envoy and the friends are freed, but that still never washed away the bad taste I got from Suzuno doing nary a thing to stop what was happening in front of her. In either case, it's an interesting (if simplistic) study in morality and the "good" character archetype.
2. "Good" vs. "Bad"
In this scenario one or more "good" characters, are pitted against "bad" characters. These "good" characters are much like the ones in scenario 1, so I won't delve into them quite as much. The "bad" characters are characters who do bad things, but who are forced to, who don't understand that they're doing bad things and/or who are generally stuck between a rock and a hard place. This kind of scenario is incredibly grey, with no clear GOOD and no clear BAD. You can understand both sides to some extent, though you might not agree with either. This is what makes these kind of scenarios so interesting to watch. You'll generally have a lot of characters questioning their own actions and the nature of the ones they call their enemy. Allegiances may shift and so will the viewer's opinions.
An example of this is the latter parts of Shiki where the villagers finally rise up against the undead menace plaguing their home. Up until this point you've mostly disliked/hated the shiki for all the death and suffering they cause, apparently with little remorse. However, once the villagers rise up the show turns into a clear "Good" vs. "Bad" scenario. The villagers, wanting peace, safety and life, go berserk and are merciless and brutal towards any shiki they find. They even kill those among themselves that they suspect are in cahoots with the shiki. It's painful and terrifying to watch. This is the most primal form of "good".
On the other hand you've got the shiki, who are revealed to be not as evil as you've thought up until then. Many of them were manipulated into doing their horrible deeds by the main big bad, others are desperate in their new undead form. The one who embodies this the best is Nao, a woman who was kind and well-liked while she was alive and who obviously doesn't like being a shiki. In a particularly heart-wrenching scene she's pulled out of a drain pipe, kicking and screaming for help and mercy, only to be brutally killed by the same villagers who were so fond of her when she was alive. While some of the shiki's have no problem doing what they're doing, many of them are conflicted by it, but the villagers, in their fear-driven fervour, give them no chance to have a dialogue. The merciless good vs. the sympathetic bad. It's interesting, but also heart-wrenching.
3. "Good" vs. "Good"
In this scenario you have two opposing parties, both of which think they're doing good and both of which are willing to do or overlook anything for the sake of it. What makes this interesting is watching the parties play off each other and, hopefully, learn from each other and realize they're going too far in the name of their ideals. It's a battle of whose means are the least bad, which naturally leads to a lot of discussion.
One example of this is Code Geass, where Suzaku and Lelouch both think they're doing good for the nation, even though they allow or cause various horrible things. This example is different in that it showcases how one should NOT write a "Good" vs. "Good" conflict. This is in regards to the lack of Suzaku's character growth, which is, I reckon, why he's so hated. He never learns from his mistakes or from what anyone tells him. He chooses to serve a nation that he knows commits massacres, mass incarceration of "wrongthinkers" and other assorted atrocities. He never relents in his loyalty and will step on anyone who he deems an enemy of Brittannia. The main instance of this is his interactions with Kallen. While stranded on a deserted island he comes across her naked and realizes she's one of the black knights, the faction he's been fighting against. She also happens to be his classmate. Despite this his first reaction isn't to try and talk things out with her, but to proclaim that he's arresting her in the name of Brittannia. Even on an island where there is no brittanian influence he still doesn't let up and compromise. So he ties her up and intends to hand her in as a prisoner, despite knowing how Brittania treats their captives. If his character progression had actually been good then this situation would have given him some pause, to show that he has doubts. But it doesn't in the slightest, even when Kallen is making some very valid points. In the end she does escape, so that's something. Not that it matters, because...
He captures her again in season 2, once again having not a single grain of sympathy for a former classmate. He reels her in with his mech, whereupon she is strapped to a bed. Later on she's stuck into a straitjacket and left inside a dark cell. Once again, this doesn't affect him at all and he makes no efforts to try and help her. This comes to a head when he tries to inject Kallen with a mind-numbing drug to interrogate her. Which just shows that his character progress has gone BACKWARDS as he's grown even more cold towards her. Thankfully he does end up failing and gets the crap kicked out of him by Kallen.
Take this as an example of how NOT to write a "Good" vs. "Good" story. You want the two parties to be somewhat malleable in their views, enough that it can make for some interesting character progression. A "good" character who never really changes will almost universally be hated, because they'll keep committing atrocities while touting how moral their actions are. Who the hell can like someone like that?
And there you have it. Long rant over. There are plenty more examples of these scenarios among anime and you won't have to look far. To name a few:
Cross Ange- "Good" vs. "Bad" and "Good" vs. "Good"
Zetsuen no Tempest- "Good" vs. Good
Rokka no Yuusha- "Good" vs. Good
If you've read all of this, then thank you. I'm not sure any of what I just said made sense the way I said it, I just needed to write my thoughts down. Thanks for reading!
-S-