Unpopular DB opinions

[MasenkoHA]

I like the direction Gohan's character has gone in and I believe it to be totally consistent with how he acted when he was introduced. I've never understood the vitriol that people have toward him.

In a show about fighting, where many of the fans treat the show like it’s a video game a lot of them just expect the character who was “suppose to be the strongest fighter ever” to deliver.


It’s not like Toriyama/Toei didn’t play fair with Gohan. He said he wanted to be a scholar in his first appearance

[ABED]

I like the direction Gohan's character has gone in and I believe it to be totally consistent with how he acted when he was introduced. I've never understood the vitriol that people have toward him.

In a show about fighting, where many of the fans treat the show like it’s a video game a lot of them just expect the character who was “suppose to be the strongest fighter ever” to deliver.


It’s not like Toriyama/Toei didn’t play fair with Gohan. He said he wanted to be a scholar in his first appearance

Agreed, but the thing that still baffles me is whenever I see the argument that without Gohan turning SSJ2, his arc was incomplete.

[WittyUsername]

He was always that, it just becomes more obvious the higher the stakes are. It's not sudden. He let Piccolo go for the same reason he let Vegeta go, he wanted to fight them again.

You're neglecting to mention the other major reason Goku spared Piccolo: it meant sparing both Kami and the Dragon Balls. That's a pretty significant detail, and makes his decision a lot more justifiable than just wanting a rematch.

Goku has always loved fighting, but as a kid he was a lot more honest, blunt and ruthless, and he always put his friends first. Whereas adult Goku chose to spare the genocidal alien responsible for killing Yamcha, Tenshinhan, Chaozu and Piccolo, and then later the genocidal space tyrant who killed his best friend; kid Goku actively sought to kill Tambourine and King Piccolo in order to avenge Krillin. Prior to that, he went on a murderous rampage through the Red Ribbon Army base just to find the Dragon Balls and wish Upa's father back to life.

Whatever selfishness and innate battle lust Goku had as a kid/teen was magnified significantly once it was revealed he was a Saiyan, and that's what ultimately turned me off from his character. Even then, I could somewhat excuse his behaviour all through Namek, because he was still trying to do the right thing, but this moment was simply irredeemable in my opinion.

I'm not saying Goku should be some cookie cutter Superman clone, nor would I want him to. Hell, I actually like the fact that he's so different from a typical action "hero". I'm just saying, I find his character from the Vegeta fight onwards increasingly unappealing.

I don't think it's relevant because that wasn't his primary reason for letting Piccolo live just like it wasn't why he let Dr. Gero finish making the cyborgs. He gives lipservice to Gero having not done anything yet, but it wasn't the primary reason. Also, letting Kami live is partially just good sense since he's necessary for the DB's. Not exactly helpful to your point.

His love for battle was only magnified due to the stakes. He doesn't change despite your claims to the contrary. Goku is willing to show leniency to those that ask, and if he's in control of the situation or the enemy is incapacitated, he's willing to end the fight. He didn't go after the RRA out of revenge. He went after them to get the DB. He was more than willing to let anyone live, including Black, if the didn't attack him.

What's wrong with his love for battle?

That shouldn’t be up for debate

Hard disagree there buddy.

Goku killed Black, even after he tried to run away. He definitely displays an unusual level of bloodlust against the Red Ribbon Army. That’s why people like to headcanon the idea that Kami taught him to value life, in order to explain away why he’s suddenly less willing to kill people in the Freeza arc, even though nothing in the text supports that.

[ABED]

How is him B-lining for the Dragon Balls "bloodlust"? If he did have bloodlust he would have killed all of them he could.

He killed Black after he warned him to stand down and Black didn't listen.

Not only is there nothing in the text to support that Kami theory, it's also contradicted.

[Soppa Saia People]

You can definitely argue 99 percent of the problems in the Z era are due to Vegeta’s hubris

Vegeta and Nappa going to earth which lead to the gang going to Namek and crossing paths with Freeza? Because Vegeta wanted eternal life


Cell becoming perfect? Because Vegeta allowed him

Boo being released? Because Vegeta sold his soul to Bobbidi

there's a old randomguy96 post on here that lines out that argument pretty well actually, lol. basically saying that every problem in the series after gero actives the cyborgs could have been solved way easier without vegeta being there, IE. if #18 killed vegeta, then cell never becomes perfect, or if vegeta died on the islands after cell became perfect, gohan would have never got his arm mangled against cell, or if vegeta died at the cell games, then there would be no majin vegeta leading to boo and so on.

it's pretty funny to think about, lol.

[ABED]

It's interesting to think about but stories aren't just about getting to the end as expediently as possible, it's about the twists and turns along the way and the choices the characters make.

I'm not saying it's the case here, but too often I see people claim stuff like this is bad writing. There's bad writing in the Cell arc but it's not due to the mechanics of time travel or the heroes not stopping the bad guys when the had the chance. That's perfectly in character (see what I did there)?

[Mad Swami]

It's interesting to think about but stories aren't just about getting to the end as expediently as possible, it's about the twists and turns along the way and the choices the characters make.

I'm not saying it's the case here, but too often I see people claim stuff like this is bad writing. There's bad writing in the Cell arc but it's not due to the mechanics of time travel or the heroes not stopping the bad guys when the had the chance. That's perfectly in character (see what I did there)?

perfectly in character for some but Piccolo, Tien, and others should have acted. It's even proven they would have as later when stronger androids are on the table they try to stop them from awaking

[goku the krump dancer]

Tien mentioned he wanted to fight the androids too.. Contrary to popular belief, its not just Goku and Vegeta who are the battle hungry Martial Artist.. Both Tien and Piccolo both enjoy a good test of their strength, they just seem more level headed because they're often so far outclassed that they have almost no choice but to stand aside.

EDIT: When Gero retreated to revive 17 & 18, the Dragon Team followed him as to not let him escape but it was Trunks that led the "charge" so to speak to stop them from being activated, it wasn't so much everyone else suddenly getting cold feet, save for Krillin.

[WittyUsername]

How is him B-lining for the Dragon Balls "bloodlust"? If he did have bloodlust he would have killed all of them he could.

He killed Black after he warned him to stand down and Black didn't listen.

Not only is there nothing in the text to support that Kami theory, it's also contradicted.

But Black was running away. That’s essentially the same as surrendering. He no longer wanted to fight, but Goku still killed him. That’s at odds with Goku’s mindset in the Freeza arc, where he gives Freeza and the Ginyu Force numerous chances, despite them being far more dangerous than Black. Hell, Goku also kills Tambourine when he tries running away.

Since there’s nothing in the text to support the idea that Goku softened up over the years, I consider that an example of Toriyama’s inconsistent writing. In the Freeza arc, Goku’s aversion to killing is meant to highlight the contrast between him and Vegeta, but it makes no acknowledgement of all the villains who Goku killed in the past.

Anyway, the only real case prior to the Saiyan arc of Goku letting a villain go for the sake of a fight is when he spares Piccolo Jr., but even then, that at least was partly justified by the fact that Piccolo’s life is tied to both Kami and the Dragon Balls. After he’s revealed to be a Saiyan though, Goku regularly allows his lust for battle to override common sense.

[ABED]

How is him B-lining for the Dragon Balls "bloodlust"? If he did have bloodlust he would have killed all of them he could.

He killed Black after he warned him to stand down and Black didn't listen.

Not only is there nothing in the text to support that Kami theory, it's also contradicted.

But Black was running away. That’s essentially the same as surrendering. He no longer wanted to fight, but Goku still killed him. That’s at odds with Goku’s mindset in the Freeza arc, where he gives Freeza and the Ginyu Force numerous chances, despite them being far more dangerous than Black. Hell, Goku also kills Tambourine when he tries running away.

Since there’s nothing in the text to support the idea that Goku softened up over the years, I consider that an example of Toriyama’s inconsistent writing. In the Freeza arc, Goku’s aversion to killing is meant to highlight the contrast between him and Vegeta, but it makes no acknowledgement of all the villains who Goku killed in the past.

Anyway, the only real case prior to the Saiyan arc of Goku letting a villain go for the sake of a fight is when he spares Piccolo Jr., but even then, that at least was partly justified by the fact that Piccolo’s life is tied to both Kami and the Dragon Balls. After he’s revealed to be a Saiyan though, Goku regularly allows his lust for battle to override common sense.

He wasn't asking for leniency he was running out of cowardice. And against Tambourine he was super pissed off and it was heat of the moment. The only reason he didn't kill Vegeta and Freeza during those battles was because he couldn't. When uses the Genki Dama, or tries to, he's going for a killing blow.

I don't consider that inconsistent writing as much as people aren't consistent in their behavior.

No "even then" it was a weak justification and the Dragon Balls doesn't help your argument. That doesn't show him being more merciful or lenient or whatever, it shows he is practical. And Piccolo was the only one to give Goku a run for his money twice. Goku had been defeated but he usually vastly overpowered his opponent in the second fight. He barely survived Piccolo Daimao, and he just defeated Piccolo Jr. by the skin of his teeth. Of course he would want to keep him alive.

He's a martial artist, through and through. It's not about being heroic, it's about getting a good fight. They aren't out to do the "common sense" action. They are out for a fight. It's who they are, and I don't know why these deep into the story anyone has an issue with it. It's what we signed up for.

Even when Goku killed people it was not remotely like Vegeta. Vegeta did it to hurt people because he got off on causing pain. Goku was resolving a threat. They aren't the same, even at Goku's worst.

To piggy back off Krump Dancer's point, Piccolo goes to Namek in large part because he wants to fight Freeza, not just to protect Gohan, but because he looks forward to the challenge. That's not subtext.

[WittyUsername]

How is him B-lining for the Dragon Balls "bloodlust"? If he did have bloodlust he would have killed all of them he could.

He killed Black after he warned him to stand down and Black didn't listen.

Not only is there nothing in the text to support that Kami theory, it's also contradicted.

But Black was running away. That’s essentially the same as surrendering. He no longer wanted to fight, but Goku still killed him. That’s at odds with Goku’s mindset in the Freeza arc, where he gives Freeza and the Ginyu Force numerous chances, despite them being far more dangerous than Black. Hell, Goku also kills Tambourine when he tries running away.

Since there’s nothing in the text to support the idea that Goku softened up over the years, I consider that an example of Toriyama’s inconsistent writing. In the Freeza arc, Goku’s aversion to killing is meant to highlight the contrast between him and Vegeta, but it makes no acknowledgement of all the villains who Goku killed in the past.

Anyway, the only real case prior to the Saiyan arc of Goku letting a villain go for the sake of a fight is when he spares Piccolo Jr., but even then, that at least was partly justified by the fact that Piccolo’s life is tied to both Kami and the Dragon Balls. After he’s revealed to be a Saiyan though, Goku regularly allows his lust for battle to override common sense.

He wasn't asking for leniency he was running out of cowardice. And against Tambourine he was super pissed off and it was heat of the moment. The only reason he didn't kill Vegeta and Freeza during those battles was because he couldn't. When uses the Genki Dama, or tries to, he's going for a killing blow.

I don't consider that inconsistent writing as much as people aren't consistent in their behavior.

No "even then" it was a weak justification and the Dragon Balls doesn't help your argument. That doesn't show him being more merciful or lenient or whatever, it shows he is practical.

He's a martial artist, through and through. It's not about being heroic, it's about getting a good fight. They aren't out to do the "common sense" action. They are out for a fight. It's who they are, and I don't know why these deep into the story anyone has an issue with it. It's what we signed up for.

Even when Goku killed people it was not remotely like Vegeta. Vegeta did it to hurt people because he got off on causing pain. Goku was resolving a threat. They aren't the same, even at Goku's worst.

I never tried to suggest that Goku sparing Piccolo is an example of mercy. I was saying that it wasn’t entirely driven by his lust for battle, because there was another reason in play. I’m not trying to argue that Goku is a superhero. That’s been argued about to death, and you and I both know the answer is no. I’m simply arguing that his suicidal love for battle becomes more prominent after he’s revealed to be a Saiyan. What I’m saying is that he was more pragmatic before that, not that he was more heroic.

[ABED]

But Black was running away. That’s essentially the same as surrendering. He no longer wanted to fight, but Goku still killed him. That’s at odds with Goku’s mindset in the Freeza arc, where he gives Freeza and the Ginyu Force numerous chances, despite them being far more dangerous than Black. Hell, Goku also kills Tambourine when he tries running away.

Since there’s nothing in the text to support the idea that Goku softened up over the years, I consider that an example of Toriyama’s inconsistent writing. In the Freeza arc, Goku’s aversion to killing is meant to highlight the contrast between him and Vegeta, but it makes no acknowledgement of all the villains who Goku killed in the past.

Anyway, the only real case prior to the Saiyan arc of Goku letting a villain go for the sake of a fight is when he spares Piccolo Jr., but even then, that at least was partly justified by the fact that Piccolo’s life is tied to both Kami and the Dragon Balls. After he’s revealed to be a Saiyan though, Goku regularly allows his lust for battle to override common sense.

He wasn't asking for leniency he was running out of cowardice. And against Tambourine he was super pissed off and it was heat of the moment. The only reason he didn't kill Vegeta and Freeza during those battles was because he couldn't. When uses the Genki Dama, or tries to, he's going for a killing blow.

I don't consider that inconsistent writing as much as people aren't consistent in their behavior.

No "even then" it was a weak justification and the Dragon Balls doesn't help your argument. That doesn't show him being more merciful or lenient or whatever, it shows he is practical.

He's a martial artist, through and through. It's not about being heroic, it's about getting a good fight. They aren't out to do the "common sense" action. They are out for a fight. It's who they are, and I don't know why these deep into the story anyone has an issue with it. It's what we signed up for.

Even when Goku killed people it was not remotely like Vegeta. Vegeta did it to hurt people because he got off on causing pain. Goku was resolving a threat. They aren't the same, even at Goku's worst.

I never tried to suggest that Goku sparing Piccolo is an example of mercy. I was saying that it wasn’t entirely driven by his lust for battle, because there was another reason in play. I’m not trying to argue that Goku is a superhero. That’s been argued about to death, and you and I both know the answer is no. I’m simply arguing that his suicidal love for battle becomes more prominent after he’s revealed to be a Saiyan. What I’m saying is that he was more pragmatic before that, not that he was more heroic.

He wasn't more pragmatic. It's a difference of circumstance, not of character. The stakes take giant leaps. Notice that he kills Buu because he has to. He can't subdue him. Same with Piccolo Daimao. By the time he fights his reincarnation, Goku is able to subdue him without killing him. Had Piccolo attacked, Goku most definitely would've killed him, but Piccolo retreated after his loss. Goku kills Black in the same way he kills blasts Freeza away on Namek. Freeza is no threat to him at the point and he assumed it was a killing blow. He did so because Freeza proved he wouldn't take Goku's mercy.

[WittyUsername]

He wasn't asking for leniency he was running out of cowardice. And against Tambourine he was super pissed off and it was heat of the moment. The only reason he didn't kill Vegeta and Freeza during those battles was because he couldn't. When uses the Genki Dama, or tries to, he's going for a killing blow.

I don't consider that inconsistent writing as much as people aren't consistent in their behavior.

No "even then" it was a weak justification and the Dragon Balls doesn't help your argument. That doesn't show him being more merciful or lenient or whatever, it shows he is practical.

He's a martial artist, through and through. It's not about being heroic, it's about getting a good fight. They aren't out to do the "common sense" action. They are out for a fight. It's who they are, and I don't know why these deep into the story anyone has an issue with it. It's what we signed up for.

Even when Goku killed people it was not remotely like Vegeta. Vegeta did it to hurt people because he got off on causing pain. Goku was resolving a threat. They aren't the same, even at Goku's worst.

I never tried to suggest that Goku sparing Piccolo is an example of mercy. I was saying that it wasn’t entirely driven by his lust for battle, because there was another reason in play. I’m not trying to argue that Goku is a superhero. That’s been argued about to death, and you and I both know the answer is no. I’m simply arguing that his suicidal love for battle becomes more prominent after he’s revealed to be a Saiyan. What I’m saying is that he was more pragmatic before that, not that he was more heroic.

He wasn't more pragmatic. It's a difference of circumstance, not of character. The stakes take giant leaps. Notice that he kills Buu because he has to. He can't subdue him. Same with Piccolo Daimao. By the time he fights his reincarnation, Goku is able to subdue him without killing him. Had Piccolo attacked, Goku most definitely would've killed him, but Piccolo retreated after his loss. Goku kills Black in the same way he kills blasts Freeza away on Namek. Freeza is no threat to him at the point and he assumed it was a killing blow. He did so because Freeza proved he wouldn't take Goku's mercy.

I can’t say I agree with the notion that Goku blasting Freeza is the same as him killing Black. Freeza was still actively trying to kill Goku at that point. He wasn’t running away.

[ABED]

He was ZERO threat to Goku.

[WittyUsername]

Do we know that? He was firing a ki blast at Goku. At the very least, he would’ve posed a problem for Goku’s intentions of getting off the planet.

[ABED]

Do we know that? He was firing a ki blast at Goku. At the very least, he would’ve posed a problem for Goku’s intentions of getting off the planet.

We do know that. Goku was Super Saiyan, showed no signs of exhaustion, and gave him explicitly enough energy to survive. That's it. Freeza was exhausted, drained of his energy, cut in half, and barely clinging to life. Freeza was ZERO threat, and I don't see how he could stop Goku from getting off the planet. In fact Freeza was so damn stupid, did he really think given that Goku gave his own energy, that he'd have enough to kill Goku? He did it out of hubris.

Goku doesn't kill him as a matter of being pragmatic. He does so because he's fed up with Freeza's BS.

[WittyUsername]

Do we know that? He was firing a ki blast at Goku. At the very least, he would’ve posed a problem for Goku’s intentions of getting off the planet.

We do know that. Goku was Super Saiyan, showed no signs of exhaustion, and gave him explicitly enough energy to survive. That's it. Freeza was exhausted, drained of his energy, cut in half, and barely clinging to life. Freeza was ZERO threat, and I don't see how he could stop Goku from getting off the planet. In fact Freeza was so damn stupid, did he really think given that Goku gave his own energy, that he'd have enough to kill Goku? He did it out of hubris.

Goku doesn't kill him as a matter of being pragmatic. He does so because he's fed up with Freeza's BS.

I just find it a bit difficult to form a definitive statement on how much energy Freeza has at that point, since that’s the only real point in the manga where ki is explicitly used to heal someone.

[ABED]

Do we know that? He was firing a ki blast at Goku. At the very least, he would’ve posed a problem for Goku’s intentions of getting off the planet.

We do know that. Goku was Super Saiyan, showed no signs of exhaustion, and gave him explicitly enough energy to survive. That's it. Freeza was exhausted, drained of his energy, cut in half, and barely clinging to life. Freeza was ZERO threat, and I don't see how he could stop Goku from getting off the planet. In fact Freeza was so damn stupid, did he really think given that Goku gave his own energy, that he'd have enough to kill Goku? He did it out of hubris.

Goku doesn't kill him as a matter of being pragmatic. He does so because he's fed up with Freeza's BS.

I just find it a bit difficult to form a definitive statement on how much energy Freeza has at that point, since that’s the only real point in the manga where ki is explicitly used to heal someone.

Goku was about to leave the fight BEFORE Freeza was cut in half. Clearly he saw him as no threat. Logically, he's even less of a threat after he was cut in half.

[MyVisionity]

Black was inside his mecha when Goku killed him, so it's more like he destroyed the robot than Black himself. It's a different kind of killing.

Either way though, Goku killing folks as a child was during the era where the gag manga roots were more prominent. Those deaths may have been intended as a form of comedy more so than anything else.

[TheGodfather93]

What's wrong with his love for battle?

The main issue I have with it is that his selfishness in wanting to fight strong opponents constantly puts the lives of innocent people at risk, and I'd be lying if I said it doesn't mildly irritate me that none of the other characters bat an eyelid at it. The few instances they do actually acknowledge it, it's instantly swept under the rug. Had his attitude towards fighting been more like Future Trunks', I would've liked him a lot more.

He's a martial artist, through and through. It's not about being heroic, it's about getting a good fight. They aren't out to do the "common sense" action. They are out for a fight. It's who they are, and I don't know why these deep into the story anyone has an issue with it. It's what we signed up for.

I first watched the OG Funi dub as a kid and had no issue with it back then. I loved the fact that the series was so action-packed, and I was too young to consider the deeper moral implications behind the protagonists' decisons. But when I rewatched the series in Japanese as a teenager, and then read the manga after that, it was hard not to notice just how selfish a lot of these guys were, especially Goku. And that made me view than in a far more negative light than I did when I was younger.

While Goku and Vegeta kept pissing me off, I found myself liking the more relatable, rational, and more human characters like Krillin and Yamcha, the latter of which didn't deserve anywhere near the amount of shit Toriyama flung at him. As far as Saiyans went, I empathised far more deeply with Gohan and Future Trunks than I did their fathers, because their human side meant they weren't bloodthirsty battle junkies. They also cared more about saving people than getting a good fight. Barring that one moment of idiocy at the start of the Android arc, Piccolo became one of my favourite characters because of how much he grew and changed due to his bond with Gohan. I hold no resentment whatsoever towards Chi-Chi for forcing Gohan to study because I understand where she's coming from: what sane mother would want their 4-9 year old child to be involved in life or death battles against planet-busting monsters?

I get that this is a shounen battle manga, but I came to like the slice of life moments more than I did the fighting, and I preferred when characters got up to goofy shenanigans than when they acted like stoic hardasses/badasses. I know I'm in the minority in that regard (that's why I'm posting in the unpopular opinion thread), but I can't help the way I view the story.