Why did Baby not also escape from Hell?

[NovaSayajinGoku]

Why is Bebi not escaping from the hell ? GT had a much more interesting story if he had a come back. I still think that he would have survived the shock of grace, why else would he not escape from hell.

It could also be possible that he's not coming to the afterlife because he is a mechanical creature. But there are cyborgs and others

What do you think?

(Except for the fact that it is GT.)

i hope you understand

[Herms]

It could also be possible that he's not coming to the afterlife because he is a mechanical creature. But there are cyborgs and others

If Cell's in Hell then I don't know why Baby wouldn't be.

I don't know of an in-universe reason, but production-wise I'd assume they didn't want to return to a villain who had just been defeated. Cell, Freeza, Nappa, the Saibaimen, etc. all have clear nostalgia value, and even Rild hadn't been around for a while.

[TheDevilsCorpse]

Honestly, I think they excluded Bebi from the Super 17 Arc because he was the last big villain and potentially still a threat to everyone who wasn't SS4 Goku . If they had him escape with everyone, it would just lead to a similar repeat of the previous story line...

[Fox666]

If Cell's in Hell then I don't know why Baby wouldn't be.

Not to mention Sergeant Metallic and No.19... I wonder if the evil airplanes used by Red Ribbon goes to Hell?

[Kaboom]

Perhaps Baby just got re-killed off-camera, given that he's not that powerful when he's not possessing someone.

[Piccolo Daimao]

Yeah, I think it's just that he wasn't shown and then later killed off-screen, as they didn't want to draw attention to a villain who had just been defeated.

[Big Momma]

He was still waiting in line.

[FindKenshi]

I honestly don't think Baby went to hell, because his war against the Saiyans was just, and right. He died for what he believed in, and as we see in the Shadow Dragon saga, the universe had begun to turn away from the Saiyans for misuing the Dragon Balls.

[Fox666]

I don't think it was justificable because the Saiyans he was attacking had nothing to do with the past. You can't attack a race because of that.

But technically he didn't killed anyone, did he?

[FindKenshi]

I think he blew away a group of human/Tuffle possessed observers during the combat and didn't show any remorse to it. But the fact is, he went to lengths to spare the human population and to ressurect his long dead race, as weren't the possessed humans actually the "spirits of the Tuffle people?"

Even Goku agreed that what the Saiyans did before was a crime, and they paid for it by being destroyed.

Baby, I think, is an interesting case. He was clearly malevolent, from the perspective of the protagonists of the story, but can you really call him evil when everything he's doing is retribution for what the Saiyans did to his people long ago?

[Chibi Mystic Gohan]

Didn't Baby wipe out an entire ship full of innocent aliens? And didn't he kill some people on Pital, the hospital planet? My memory's a little fuzzy...

[FindKenshi]

He did, but if Enma would judge these actions as part of a holy crusade--he's just doing what he has to to combat the menace of the Saiyans... hm. It's a tough call. Vegeta too killed millions and millions of people, but his latest actions redeemed him in the Dragon God's eyes.

[Piccolo Daimao]

I honestly don't think Baby went to hell, because his war against the Saiyans was just, and right. He died for what he believed in, and as we see in the Shadow Dragon saga, the universe had begun to turn away from the Saiyans for misuing the Dragon Balls.

No offence, but that's bullshit. He was attacking Saiyans that had nothing to do with what their race previously did to him. It was a vengeance-fueled rampage in which he killed a bunch of innocent people. It's like if someone murdered your father, and you attempted to get revenge on them by trying to kill their son.

He did, but if Enma would judge these actions as part of a holy crusade--he's just doing what he has to to combat the menace of the Saiyans... hm. It's a tough call. Vegeta too killed millions and millions of people, but his latest actions redeemed him in the Dragon God's eyes.

The thing is, there was no menace of the Saiyans anymore. The remaining Saiyans were good now and living on Earth without conquering any planets. Justifying the deaths of innocents on the basis of a "holy crusade" is like justifying the suicide bombers of 9/11 on the basis of what they called a "holy crusade".

Vegeta is a different story, because Porunga is a different judge to Enma, and he'd shown remorse for killing those people at the tournament when he decided to revive all those who'd died since the day of the tournament, rather than all those who'd been killed by Boo. Baby, on the other hand, showed no remorse for the people he killed as part of his revenge plot.

And besides, do we even know if the Tsufruians were good themselves? Or was Baby, automatically biased, just trying to make them out to be?

[FindKenshi]

^
Some indeed consider that fair. In China, the "eye for an eye" thing is the basis for some of their justice system. Also, Vegeta had quite a bit to do with what the Saiyans did the Tuffles. Most of the Tuffles who died were innocents, so it's only fair that now the "innocent Saiyans" get to die as well?

[Piccolo Daimao]

Edited my post a bit; read it again.

[FindKenshi]

There's not too much more there to reply to. The whole Saiyans no longer being a menace at this time is somewhat covered by the "eye for an eye" concept I already brought up. Worded another way, you could say that the Tuffles had been wronged, so negative karma existed. When you go deep into debt, and then pass away, sometimes that debt will be transferred to your descendants. Is it right? Some would say no, but sometimes it just happens. The Tuffles were wronged with no consolation. Maybe Baby's war against them without damnation was the consolation. All debts are paid off then.

[Piccolo Daimao]

There's not too much more there to reply to. The whole Saiyans no longer being a menace at this time is somewhat covered by the "eye for an eye" concept I already brought up. Worded another way, you could say that the Tuffles had been wronged, so negative karma existed. When you go deep into debt, and then pass away, sometimes that debt will be transferred to your descendants. Is it right? Some would say no, but sometimes it just happens. The Tuffles were wronged with no consolation. Maybe Baby's war against them without damnation was the consolation. All debts are paid off then.

So is that a justification for a man killing the son of another man who killed his father, or the suicide bombers of 9/11, then? It's the same thing. Innocent people that had nothing to do with whatever stupidity the real offenders committed were killed, some of which trapped in excruciating pain before they died.

"An eye for an eye" only works if the person you're getting revenge on is the person you wronged you in the first place, not his son or anything. Because then, that person did nothing wrong and you're basically dragging an innocent victim into your own dispute.

[Eire]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. "Eye for eye" rule was introduced to limit punishment just to actual culprits and protect descendants from revenge for their ancestor's blames.

Also, I find that someone very easily felt in the trap of unreliable narrator. Ever heard about a concept of source criticism? The only source we have are oral statements made by descendant of leader of one side and accounts of beings brought to sole purpose of revenge on another. Both are worth each other, since their only option is showing themselves as an innocent victims who had to fight unwanted war, both surely won't tell the whole truth. Historia magistra vitae.

[FindKenshi]

So is that a justification for

yes, it is.

An entire species was wiped out. Someone has to pay for it, even if it's just the perpetrators descendants. You cannot let something like that go. Everything Baby did, was motivated and a valid and just response.

[Eire]

So we should be happy that passenger pigeon didn't develop any significant technology. And we should hope that Neanderthals extinction wasn't as rapid as some theories describe.
Someone has to pay for what? We don't see what exactly happened, eyewitness accounts are at best debatable. Maybe Sayians were just fighting the oppression? Maybe Tuffel's experiments just went wrong? We can be sure that both sides have no business in telling the truth.