I think SBR is the only part of JoJo I consider morally gray. The other parts have elements in there for sure, but other than that it’s good vs evil. Pucci definitely believes he’s the hero, but he’s still a terrible person. For the most part, Funny Valentine is doing the right thing. However, he’s still a bad person. He’s a walking moral dilemma, and it forces you as the reader to decide whether or not you believe national prosperity is really worth dooming the rest of the world. Johnny Joestar can debatably be labeled as an antagonist. He’s honestly piece of shit throughout a good majority of the story. The one scene that really made me question whether or not I should even root for Johnny was when he shot multiple civilians with his nails, and his only reaction was “Aw man, I missed!” lol.
Moral ambiguity in SBR
Eeeeh nah. Valentine was not doing the right thing and never was, not even for good reasons. Johnny can't be the antagonist because that term only applies in reference to the protagonist, which he is. I see what you're saying, and it at least approaches the question more than any other part, but one Valentine was still comically evil.
Valentine was trying to achieve a perpetual state of global metaphysical colonialism. Who else is morally ambiguous according to you? Cortéz? Stalin? Leopold II of Belgium?
>morally gray
Holy cringe, literally the most boring pseudo-intellectual concept out there
No, there is no such thing as a gray morality
You have yin and yang
There are people who are more good than they are evil and there are people who are more evil than they are good
No one is gray
Holy shit kill yourself already you fucking retarded shounenshitter.
We get it, this is your first seinen. Now fuck off.
>Johnny Joestar can debatably be labeled as an antagonist.
He objectively isn’t because he’s the main character.
>main character cant be an antagonist
This isn't the first time this thread was made.
>he doesn’t know what antagonist means
Filtered
filter this
>using “objectively” improperly
>not knowing the etymology of the word “antagonist”
I share a board with morons
When did he shoot civilians? I sorta remember that but I can't really place it.
mmmyes, shallow and pedantic
Perhaps.
Jojo just gets worse with each part.
>antagonist
>a person who actively opposes or is hostile to someone or something; an adversary.
>An antagonist is a character in a story who is presented as the chief foe of the protagonist.
>late 16th century: from French antagoniste or late Latin antagonista, from Greek antagōnistēs, from antagōnizesthai ‘struggle against’
>protagonist
>the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text.
>A protagonist is the main character of a story.
>late 17th century: from Greek prōtagōnistēs, from prōtos ‘first in importance’ + agōnistēs ‘actor’.
High Voltage
...
part 4 was objectively the worst so no it doesnt. it got slightly better with 5 and peaked at star ocean. it was downhill from there but still not even jojolion is as bad as 4
kek
>>A protagonist is the main character of a story
Johnny is the main character of a story, so he is the protagonist
And if he’s the protagonist then he literally CANNOT be the antagonist as well
I hope Jojolion gets better again.
Valentine's whole deal is using others, everyone is expendable in his eyes. His wife, his loyal soldiers, his stand users, the racers, people of the world. All of them can suffer as long as he gets to "grab the napkin" first and lead the new age. He's just as detestable and power hungry as any villain in JoJo. He even revels in it by doing a playful noise while sending someone away into an alternate world, knowing they will be annihilated. During his time of constant rotation he thinks back to his past and psyches himself up to try and sway Johnny. He proves himself to be a total liar and not at all genuine by bringing the gun back with the intent to kill Johnny.
During Love Train. He fired a few nail bullets at Valentine but each time the misfortune was redirected elsewhere in the world. People bring up Johnny being bad but I think that's overblown. He and Gyro put themselves in danger and help out a lot, Johnny's not clean cut good guy of course but he isn't some villainous mind some confused him as.
Based
>Valentine's whole deal is using others, everyone is expendable in his eyes.
That also includes himself.
>He proves himself to be a total liar and not at all genuine by bringing the gun back with the intent to kill Johnny.
He wasn’t willing to forgive a dangerous terrorist.
Valentine aims for the long-term good of his nation while Johnny mostly cares about himself.
>What is D4C
Last chapter was a step up but Araki has fell into a bad spell of dragging things out for the past few chapters. Hairspray chapter is up there as one of the best of JoJo for me so to see it have such a fast decline is bitter.
The tool that he uses to ensure that his plan can live on after his death.
Valentine acts as if the world is a zero-sum game which is incorrect; therefore everything he does in this belief is incorrect at the very least and immoral/evil at the most. He isn't a good guy, user.
In high voltage he shoots some girls that dio is using to cover himself but he never knows that he actually hit them.
If thats really what op is refering to, then thats really not his fault, cause how was he supposed to know his shot was going to cause some rando to get clapped
That’s true, but most people in this thread are trying to downplay his noble qualities.
That's the worst part I think: any personal nobility is tarnished by the knowledge of his goals, what he does to get there, and the implications of his success for the rest of the world.