Who do you consider more evil, Zamasu or Moro?

[Femme Fatale Kikaza]

Both are equally evil in my opinion, just in different ways. The only difference is that Moro hasn't gotten the chance to go multiversal and if he has one, he'll jump on it. Moro is basically a parasite and will consume everything in his wake, Zamasu was a delusional wayward god who thought that 'justice' will flourish once mortals are annihilated. Both are evil psychos and are multiversal threats, its just that Moro is stuck in U7 for now.

Though in terms of personality, Zamasu is definitely better to watch at least anime wise. Moro's personality is bland and singular, basically being a pure evil and nothing really special about him. Hell, Moro's henchmen have more personality than him and that says something given most of them aren't on panel for that long compared to him.

[SupremeKai25]

In Zamasu's case, evil was made, not born. Zamasu was originally good and had a pure heart, he was just tired of all the conflicts and wars ruining the cosmos and wanted to create multiversal peace. Unfortunately he believed mortals were inherently flawed creatures who sought only war and destruction, so he wanted to wipe them out. He had a strong sense of justice, and like Gowasu explained, that was both a good and a bad thing. It was a good thing because it meant Zamasu was compassionate and genuinely wanted to protect the world. But it was also a bad thing because the desire for justice, if left unchecked, can become tainted and bring you to do evil things. And that's sadly what happened with Zamasu.

Meanwhile Moro is.... uhm.... what is his personality and backstory, again? Is he anything beyond "generic evil monster who wants to devour everything for fun"?

[Femme Fatale Kikaza]

In Zamasu's case, evil was made, not born. Zamasu was originally good and had a pure heart, he was just tired of all the conflicts and wars ruining the cosmos and wanted to create multiversal peace. Unfortunately he believed mortals were inherently flawed creatures who sought only war and destruction, so he wanted to wipe them out. He had a strong sense of justice, and like Gowasu explained, that was both a good and a bad thing. It was a good thing because it meant Zamasu was compassionate and genuinely wanted to protect the world. But it was also a bad thing because the desire for justice, if left unchecked, can become tainted and bring you to do evil things. And that's sadly what happened with Zamasu.

Meanwhile Moro is.... uhm.... what is his personality and backstory, again? Is he anything beyond "generic evil monster who wants to devour everything for fun"?

Moro is legit pure evil no personality traits...His henchmen are more interesting than he is. Seriously, I think the weakness of the current arc is that Moro's personality is about as exciting as stale bread.

[Magnificent Ponta]

I think they're equally evil - the key difference, to my mind, is that Moro is totally (read: too) straightforward about it, whereas Zamas is (thematically) false about it.

In fact, I would say that Moro's evil is simply evil as focused through the 'lens' of a villain who is just about the straightforward goal of eating and setting up a scenario where he can keep eating forever without hindrance; so, he only views others as meals (such as Namek, or Goku and Vegeta) or the means to create meals (such as Saganbo, who literally offers to 'cook' Moro's enemies/meal for him at one point). But there isn't anything else to that depiction; it's just the way he is, and it's just the threat he represents - like I said elsewhere, there's no extra layer, twist, or even gag to make Moro's kind of evil particularly noteworthy.

Zamas, by contrast, has falseness running as a character theme throughout his (manga) depiction, in my view. He initially is in training to be a Kaioshin, but demonstrates that he has no interest in manifesting the wisdom required to do the job - he merely pretends to accept Gowas's teachings, though it's clear he has no intention of 'balancing his heart' in the way a Kaioshin should, and he only sees things that confirm his biases (e.g. when Gowas sees various signs of development in the future Babari, Zamas only sees their violence). He merely pretends to be a Kaioshin, and his superficial pretension is at the root of his evil; he'll likewise show himself to be a false student, by ignoring and then murdering his master (3 times), and become a false Goku, craving a quick-fix in a mortal body to implement his superficial ideals - it's hardly surprising that he only manages to convince himself of the rightness of his cause. Even the things that initially seem plausible arguments are made falsely and in bad faith, as Zamas's claim that mortals are evil because they fight until their planets are destroyed is...reflected in his expanding resolutions to destroy Earth, the Galaxy, and any intelligent being that isn't himself, whether mortal or divine.

So, I'd say there's much more 'going on' in Zamas's kind of evil. But for all the claims of 'justice' or whatever, he's every bit as evil as Moro.

[Jack Bz]

I feel like Zamasu becoming evil while given every opportunity to be good makes him somewhat worse. I also feel he was somewhat of a sadist in how he treated Trunks. Moro seems to be evil in nature, but I think he just doesn't see the worth in other living things/sees them just as food.

They're probably as bad as each other but it feels like Zamasu chose being evil while Moro was born evil, I find the former worse.

[LoganForkHands73]

To play devil's advocate (literally), Moro's comparable to both King Piccolo and Marvel Comics' Galactus in that he's clearly born pure evil, but his evil at least serves some ingrained biological purpose, i.e. his need to feed on planets. Galactus wasn't actually born evil but his hunger serves a cosmic purpose as upon the heat death of the current universe, he'll give life back to the next universe. As far as we can tell, Moro's culinary habits only serve himself and he's far from apologetic about what he does so in some ways, he can claim to be morally superior for at least admitting that he's pure evil; he has no ideology to speak of beyond anarchy.. Beerus's destruction is, on paper, not really so different, but we're told that his rampages are part of the grand cosmic balancing act between creation and destruction; and as Super eventually reveals, he's been doing his job horribly wrong this whole time.

On the other token, Zamasu had some good points about the laziness and incompetence of the other gods. But instead of like, advertising a change.org petition on GodTube or something, he decided to become a narcissistic, genocidal asshole. As much as I enjoy his character, Zamasu's ideals are literal Nazism disguised with a godly, elegant presentation. He wants to commit genocide against mortals because he views them as savage and inferior, blindly oblivious to the fact that he is steadily becoming a far worse monster in the process. He's a scapegoater with a god complex. Everything is the Jews' mortals' fault. "Those innocent civilisations I burned to the ground? Yeah, I had to because those pesky NINGENS were tainting the universe and had to be destroyed." He singlehandedly brings more death and destruction to the universe than any mortal villain in the series.

In the anime, Zamasu shows clear signs of regret for what he's done, which could have been a good chance to stop and rethink, but he instead doubled down even further. One of the escapist essences of Dragon Ball is the fact that no matter how much evil you've committed, it's never too late to change and make amends. Zamasu is a great deconstruction of a character who pushes and squanders every chance to turn his life around and instead only becomes eviler.

[SupremeKai25]

In the anime, Zamasu shows clear signs of regret for what he's done, which could have been a good chance to stop and rethink, but he instead doubled down even further. One of the escapist essences of Dragon Ball is the fact that no matter how much evil you've committed, it's never too late to change and make amends. Zamasu is a great deconstruction of a character who pushes and squanders every chance to turn his life around and instead only becomes eviler.

I appreciate that. It makes him a more unique character, in a show where every antagonist somehow gets redeemed or is forgiven. Zamasu had his own ideals, they might have been questionable, but he stick to them until the very end. There is dignity in that.

He singlehandedly brings more death and destruction to the universe than any mortal villain in the series.

He feels entitled to do so because he is a God. From his perspective, Gods have every right to judge mortals, however severe or punishing their judgement might be. Gods see mortals as their creations, not their equals. Zeno and the Grand Priest had no problem erasing trillions of innocent lives just to prove a point. The Grand Priest downright smirked at Goku and the other warriors, who were shocked after witnessing Universe 9's erasure (complete omnicide of an entire universe).

In a way what Zeno and the Grand Priest did in the Tournament of Power was even worse. Because at least the victims slain by Zamasu would just go to the Otherworld. But the victims of Zeno's "game" are literally erased from existence.

[LoganForkHands73]

In the anime, Zamasu shows clear signs of regret for what he's done, which could have been a good chance to stop and rethink, but he instead doubled down even further. One of the escapist essences of Dragon Ball is the fact that no matter how much evil you've committed, it's never too late to change and make amends. Zamasu is a great deconstruction of a character who pushes and squanders every chance to turn his life around and instead only becomes eviler.

I appreciate that. It makes him a more unique character, in a show where every antagonist somehow gets redeemed or is forgiven. Zamasu had his own ideals, they might have been questionable, but he stick to them until the very end. There is dignity in that.

Fair enough, but I'd say there's nothing dignified about Zamasu by the time Trunks bisects him. He's actually sacrificed all of his ideals by that point and become an ugly, raving beast.

He singlehandedly brings more death and destruction to the universe than any mortal villain in the series.

He feels entitled to do so because he is a God. From his perspective, Gods have every right to judge mortals, however severe or punishing their judgement might be. Gods see mortals as their creations, not their equals. Zeno and the Grand Priest had no problem erasing trillions of innocent lives just to prove a point. The Grand Priest downright smirked at Goku and the other warriors, who were shocked after witnessing Universe 9's erasure (complete omnicide of an entire universe).

In a way what Zeno and the Grand Priest did in the Tournament of Power was even worse. Because at least the victims slain by Zamasu would just go to the Otherworld. But the victims of Zeno's "game" are literally erased from existence.

With Zeno, there's a sense that he genuinely doesn't fully understand the consequences of his actions whereas Zamasu very much does and has malicious intent. Does that make Zeno's actions any less wrong? No, but he's more like a force of nature -- if he wants something erased, it's gone instantaneously and painlessly. Zamasu doesn't have that kind of power to leverage. His only way of fulfilling Project Zero Mortals was to personally hunt down and brutally murder every living mortal in the universe, all with a sadistic grin on his face.

Perhaps what separates the two most is that even with his childish innocence, Zeno loves mortals. He orchestrates the Tournament of Power because mortals are the only things left in the multiverse that can excite him. Even if it's mainly for superficial reasons, he wants to see mortals flourish and grow powerful. Zamasu, on the other hand, has an irrational hatred for them borne of spite and envy. He has no use for a universe that's not totally made in his image.

From a tonal, quasi-religious perspective, Zeno is positioned as God. Inscrutable and almighty. Zamasu is a Golden Calf.

[SupremeKai25]

In the anime, Zamasu shows clear signs of regret for what he's done, which could have been a good chance to stop and rethink, but he instead doubled down even further. One of the escapist essences of Dragon Ball is the fact that no matter how much evil you've committed, it's never too late to change and make amends. Zamasu is a great deconstruction of a character who pushes and squanders every chance to turn his life around and instead only becomes eviler.

I appreciate that. It makes him a more unique character, in a show where every antagonist somehow gets redeemed or is forgiven. Zamasu had his own ideals, they might have been questionable, but he stick to them until the very end. There is dignity in that.

Fair enough, but I'd say there's nothing dignified about Zamasu by the time Trunks bisects him. He's actually sacrificed all of his ideals by that point and become an ugly, raving beast.

I mean dignified from a writing perspective. It's annoying when you have a villain with intricate ideals and plans, who just throws everything away because someone had a discussion with them (looking at Naruto, I know that show does this a lot). With Zamasu you have an example of a villain who doesn't need redemption nor does he seek it, because in his mind there's nothing to atone for. That makes him even more badass. He never doubts himself, he never has regrets, he is a methodical person with a clear objective and will stop at nothing to achieve his goal.

From a tonal, quasi-religious perspective, Zeno is positioned as God. Inscrutable and almighty. Zamasu is a Golden Calf.

But he is for all intents and purposes a God. That's why I disagree with your comparison to irl nazi. He is not a mortal with a God complex, he is an actual God, he is naturally superior to mortals. And the vast majority of Gods in Dragon Ball are absolutely lawful neutral. They don't care about mortals, they are inferior creatures. Their lives are meaningless, and if they die, oh well. That's why Zamasu doesn't see multiversal omnicide as such a morally terrible thing, he's not a mortal, so he has a different mindset.

Regardless, to answer OP, I would say Moro is clearly more evil. Evil actions with good intentions are better than evil actions with evil intentions.

[Magnificent Ponta]

Evil actions with good intentions are better than evil actions with evil intentions.

But what are the 'good intentions' that Zamas has? The points he makes aren't made in good faith, but are made because they are congenial to his own presuppositions (i.e. the inferiority and incorrigibility of Mortals). His reasoning is completely superficial.

For instance, in making his argument about mortals being destructively violent, he gets a really fortunate example in the planet Babari, but whereas Gowas actually comes down to their level to see that they have developed writing, music, and culture, Zamas literally looks away from that to see and point out the violence of the Babari... and then he doesn't notice or acknowledge the presence of the Babari elder who pacifies the warring factions at the end of it. Nope, it's just 'mortals are violent and evil and never change', despite all the evidence to the contrary even in his most favourable example. He doesn't even try to engage with Gowas's counter-argument in good faith or come down from his lofty perch to see the truth of the matter; he's too busy chopping a mortal in half and enjoying it.

And when he says Mortals are evil because they destroy their planets, he ignores Gowas's point that those planets don't belong to the Kaioshin, but to the Mortals, and he doesn't take seriously Gowas's contention that there are no worthless beings, which just means he's not interested in hearing it - but why is it for Zamas to say what Mortals ought to do with their own planets? Moreover, what's the cosmic advantage to scouring the face of a planet so that it's just a graveyard? How is that better than what he accuses Mortals of doing? And then, when he's fused, he says he'll destroy all intelligent life except himself; then, when put under pressure by Goku, he resolves to destroy the whole galaxy because he "doesn't need" it anymore, and then tries to blow up Earth because it's "a pain".

And finally, all his answers are rooted in a show of strength, rather than the use of wisdom. He just assumes that mortals couldn't possibly match the strength of Gods, and then blames "nasty mortals" for actually achieving that level of strength when he sees it from Son Goku on Godtube. His sole focus has been on fighting, becoming strong, and "crushing evil in its tracks", despite the fact that this is not a proper role for a Kaioshin (and he knows it); his only answer to Babari is to "terminate them all, of course", rather than trying to think of any other solution - despite his condemnation of mortals for their violence, his only response is violence of his own, and when Gowas proposes that he try to balance his heart to become more tolerant, Zamas's expression shows that he has no intention of learning or applying anything that his master (an actual, proper Kaioshin) says to him.

How is any of that well-intentioned? It merely strikes me as the actions of a hypocrite who just declares that he's a good guy with ideals, despite not having any actual intention of examining the questions he poses with any of the fairness or discernment appropriate to his privileged station.

[SupremeKai25]

Evil actions with good intentions are better than evil actions with evil intentions.

But what are the 'good intentions' that Zamas has? The points he makes aren't made in good faith, but are made because they are congenial to his own presuppositions (i.e. the inferiority and incorrigibility of Mortals). His reasoning is completely superficial.

For instance, in making his argument about mortals being destructively violent, he gets a really fortunate example in the planet Babari, but whereas Gowas actually comes down to their level to see that they have developed writing, music, and culture, Zamas literally looks away from that to see and point out the violence of the Babari... and then he doesn't notice or acknowledge the presence of the Babari elder who pacifies the warring factions at the end of it. Nope, it's just 'mortals are violent and evil and never change', despite all the evidence to the contrary even in his most favourable example. He doesn't even try to engage with Gowas's counter-argument in good faith or come down from his lofty perch to see the truth of the matter; he's too busy chopping a mortal in half and enjoying it.

I'm talking exclusively about the anime as I'm an anime watcher (I read the manga version of that arc out of curiosity but I still rely on the anime for discussions). In the anime the scene on Planet Babari goes quite differently. In the future nothing has changed. Sure the babari have learned to build huts, but in the end they once again fight each others. Gowasu doesn't even attempt to rationalize the situation, all he can do is a quiet grunt. To make matters worse, the two are suddenly attacked by a feral babari, so Zamasu killing him is really just self-defence (and Gowasu was completely shocked, he couldn't even process what was happening).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpCHqbvw9c

I understand that all your arguments revolve around the manga characterization of Zamasu, which I do not like. I find it a lot more generic and shallow, so I won't comment on it (also because I don't know a lot about it, I followed Super through the anime). Suffice to say that Zamasu in the anime takes a lot more time to fall from grace, and absolutely does not seek to destroy the Earth (not even when he loses his sanity).

As for his intentions, they are objectively good. He wants to create peace and destroy evil, which he perceives as mortals. He sees them as the root of every war and conflict. This is what I was talking about. His sense of justice became tainted, but the intentions at the core were not.

[Koitsukai]

Zamasu thought he was the good guy, while Moro knows he is the bad guy. That's the biggest difference I see between them. I think the edge goes to Zamasu because I feel there's an evil bonus in pretending it was all in good faith. Like dude, you wiped out multiple universes, mortals and gods, how much evil do you have to be to try and tell me it was for the greater good?

A pretty close race, though.

[LoganForkHands73]

I appreciate that. It makes him a more unique character, in a show where every antagonist somehow gets redeemed or is forgiven. Zamasu had his own ideals, they might have been questionable, but he stick to them until the very end. There is dignity in that.

Fair enough, but I'd say there's nothing dignified about Zamasu by the time Trunks bisects him. He's actually sacrificed all of his ideals by that point and become an ugly, raving beast.

I mean dignified from a writing perspective. It's annoying when you have a villain with intricate ideals and plans, who just throws everything away because someone had a discussion with them (looking at Naruto, I know that show does this a lot). With Zamasu you have an example of a villain who doesn't need redemption nor does he seek it, because in his mind there's nothing to atone for. That makes him even more badass. He never doubts himself, he never has regrets, he is a methodical person with a clear objective and will stop at nothing to achieve his goal.

That's true, but he did shift the goalposts quite a bit by the end of the arc. He was all about god supremacy until he realised that all the other gods would naturally want to stop him, so he justified eradicating all of them along with all mortals. Vegetto punches a hole in Zamasu's ideology by pointing out that he made himself part-mortal in the process, which does seem to give Zamasu some pause. This is purely my interpretation of that scene, but I think it's clear from Zamasu's body language that he really didn't think about the ramifications of that until Vegetto brought it up. Then he quickly makes up yet another justification because he can simply never be proven wrong: "oh yeah I totally meant to do that by, erm, taking mortal sins upon my body, too deep and symbolic for you ningens to understand". He can barely even convince himself with that so he starts bawling. Unironically, it's great writing of a narcissistic sociopath.

But he is for all intents and purposes a God. That's why I disagree with your comparison to irl nazi. He is not a mortal with a God complex, he is an actual God, he is naturally superior to mortals. And the vast majority of Gods in Dragon Ball are absolutely lawful neutral. They don't care about mortals, they are inferior creatures. Their lives are meaningless, and if they die, oh well. That's why Zamasu doesn't see multiversal omnicide as such a morally terrible thing, he's not a mortal, so he has a different mindset.

Regardless, to answer OP, I would say Moro is clearly more evil. Evil actions with good intentions are better than evil actions with evil intentions.

He's a god by Dragon Ball standards but let's be honest, Zamasu is just a dude like all Kaioshin. In terms of his motivations, he's a very human villain. He walks, talks, eats, drinks, he has flaws and ambitions, he can be hurt and killed (pre-Super Dragon Balls of course) -- the only difference is that he happened to be born from a tree in the Kaioshin Realm. He's only superior in the sense that Donald Trump was born "superior" to all of us in an ivory tower with a small loan of a million dollars. By the time they were introduced in the Buu arc, the Kaioshin were already eclipsed by the protagonists and of course Zamasu himself is physically inferior to Goku. There's no evidence that he was ever even involved in the creation of any mortals so what right does he have to claim entitlement to end them, especially across universes and timelines he has zero jurisdiction over?

The gods of the Dragon World do what they do because it's their job, to maintain some vague sense of balance throughout the cosmos. Even the most aggressive ones don't constantly murder and destroy indiscriminately, with nothing but hate in their hearts.

[Magnificent Ponta]

I'm talking exclusively about the anime as I'm an anime watcher (I read the manga version of that arc out of curiosity but I still rely on the anime for discussions).

Ah, fair enough. I'm on pretty much the inverse of your position, in that I'm a manga reader, I followed Super through the manga and have less knowledge about the anime side overall.

Additionally, I guess that I think of comparisons with Moro (a manga-only character, at present) as most fairly made by using manga Zamas in any case, but it's interesting to see an anime-based perspective on him.

As for his intentions, they are objectively good. He wants to create peace and destroy evil, which he perceives as mortals. He sees them as the root of every war and conflict.

I have to be honest - "these mortals have the problem of being too violent. I propose to rectify this by slaughtering them all" doesn't strike me as being particularly well-intentioned or well-reasoned on Zamas's part.

Does he ever entertain a solution to the problem of Mortal violence other than exterminating everything, in the anime? He certainly doesn't in the manga - after all, Black is just Zamas who's been left alone to think through what he wants to do and draw up plans to that end for about a year, and then had the opportunity to start doing it for another three years - that's pretty much all the difference that exists between them.

On another note, I find it pretty peculiar that it's never acknowledged by Zamas that the line between Gods and Mortals is totally permeable in Dragon World - Mortals are completely capable of becoming Gods, by various means. Goku was offered the literal Godhood of Earth in DB #194, and Dende, a totally mortal Namekian child, ascended to Godhood in DB #393 (installed by a Mortal, ironically enough).

Moreover, hasn't the literal deity of Goku and Vegeta been established? They are Super Saiyan Gods, and it's not just a figure of speech. Sure, none of these Gods are Kaioshin - but then again, neither is Zamas. What makes a Shin-jin God inherently 'superior', as such, to a Saiyan God? They have a more exalted Cosmic position, to be sure, but that just gives them a specific job to do, and so seems more a difference of degree rather than kind. Moreover, while Mortals can't become Kaioshin, as that's given to Shin-jin, they can ascend to the role of Gods of Destruction, which is the obverse in status and function - the possibility was mooted for Goku and Vegeta in the Future Trunks arc, and Toppo is a mortal who is Belmod's understudy.

I'm not sure how Zamas can sustain his Gods-Mortals dichotomy given the broader scope of Godhood in Dragon World. It seems about as superficial as everything else he maintains.

[SupremeKai25]

I have to be honest - "these mortals have the problem of being too violent. I propose to rectify this by slaughtering them all" doesn't strike me as being particularly well-intentioned or well-reasoned on Zamas's part.

Because destroying mortals was a means to an end, not the end in itself. He wanted to destroy mortals, in order to create multiversal peace and restore the cosmos to its utopian state. Good intentions, bad way to go about them.

It comes down to what you think is worse. Starting from the fact that killing a person is morally wrong, do you think it is more despicable if you kill that person because you genuinely think they are evil and dangerous, or because you need to eat? Perhaps there is more honor in straight up admitting you are evil instead of deluding yourself that you're in the right, but I have less respect for a villain who has no ulterior motive for committing genocide.

I'm not sure how Zamas can sustain his Gods-Mortals dichotomy given the broader scope of Godhood in Dragon World. It seems about as superficial as everything else he maintains.

Every God is like this, not just Zamasu. They don't consider Goku and Vegeta Gods just because they gained divine energy, that's why they were allowed to participate in the Tournament of Power (only mortals can participate).

The gods of the Dragon World do what they do because it's their job, to maintain some vague sense of balance throughout the cosmos. Even the most aggressive ones don't constantly murder and destroy indiscriminately, with nothing but hate in their hearts.

Does it really make it better though? I mean, Beerus destroyed half a planet (how many millions/billions of innocent lives is that?) because he ate a bad cake. That should tell you how much the average God cares about mortal lives.

[LoganForkHands73]

The gods of the Dragon World do what they do because it's their job, to maintain some vague sense of balance throughout the cosmos. Even the most aggressive ones don't constantly murder and destroy indiscriminately, with nothing but hate in their hearts.

Does it really make it better though? I mean, Beerus destroyed half a planet (how many millions/billions of innocent lives is that?) because he ate a bad cake. That should tell you how much the average God cares about mortal lives.

The difference is intent. At the time that arc of Super was released, it was shown that Beerus is meant to be seen as an inscrutable agent of the universe -- it's his job to destroy. He takes no sadistic pleasure in doing it, he just has to do it. There's no particular rhyme or reason behind his destruction according to Elder Kaioshin, but without him, there would be no room for the Kaioshin to create new life. He was presented as a primal force of nature. Considering his reputation, Beerus was pretty lenient -- just produce some good food on his plate and he'll spare your planet.

Of course, later Super arcs would establish much more greyness behind this. We're introduced to Zeno, Beerus's boss -- if he does not perform satisfactorily, Zeno will destroy him. It's also established that Beerus's methodology for selecting targets is terrible compared to other Destroyers. The better Hakaishin destroy with total precision and indifference, only blowing up decadent or evil civilisations when they absolutely have to, no different to a game hunter having to cull an oversized population occasionally. It's not nice work but it's considered necessary in the Dragon World. Caring too much about mortal lives can be a huge detriment to the job, as demonstrated by Sidra's unwillingness to destroy when necessary dragging his universe down to rock bottom on the tier list. Ultimately, they truly work for the greater good of mortals, otherwise they'd all end up in an overpopulated shithole like Universe 9.

Zamasu has purely malevolent motivations for killing, despite his claims. There's no good excuse for racially-motivated genocide. Especially on that scale. If he really had such "good intentions", he would just blow up planets from space, leave the populations none the wiser. But no, he had to sadistically terrorise populations into submission. There's no excuse for that. It's like Android 17 said -- if everyone's going to be erased in the blink of an eye by Zeno's hand, well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. No point raging at a hurricane. What's less comforting is when two grinning psychos come down one day and start blowing up cities and eating babies and telling you you're all sinful abominations who don't deserve life.

Zamasu had a good motivation. But that doesn't mean he had a good motivation.

[Magnificent Ponta]

Because destroying mortals was a means to an end, not the end in itself. He wanted to destroy mortals, in order to create multiversal peace and restore the cosmos to its utopian state. Good intentions, bad way to go about them.

It comes down to what you think is worse. Starting from the fact that killing a person is morally wrong, do you think it is more despicable if you kill that person because you genuinely think they are evil and dangerous, or because you need to eat? Perhaps there is more honor in straight up admitting you are evil instead of deluding yourself that you're in the right, but I have less respect for a villain who has no ulterior motive for committing genocide.

You really can't separate the solution Zamas has in mind from his overall intention here. When a dictator engages in a violent round of 'ethnic cleansing', one doesn't try to say that their intentions were good in trying to reduce ethnic strife or normalise race-relations within their territory, because that would just be a distortion. One simply condemns them as a Genocide and has done with it.

If Zamas had ever seriously entertained a different solution than slaughter to the problem of mortal violence, there might have been some merit in saying that he had good intentions, but I'm pretty sure his disdain for their violence and his violent, destructive 'solution' to it comes as a mental 'package deal'. And if, therefore, it was always going to be like this, how can it be excused as done with good motive?

Every God is like this, not just Zamasu. They don't consider Goku and Vegeta Gods just because they gained divine energy, that's why they were allowed to participate in the Tournament of Power (only mortals can participate).

It's true that 'Cosmic Officiants' such as the Gods of Destruction are specifically excluded from attending (for want of a better term for this clade of God), but this is simply for Zeno's viewing pleasure (particularly in the manga; though it's worth noting that in the anime version, Toppo actually becomes a God of Destruction mid-combat, and is permitted to continue).

My point is that the distinction drawn at the Tournament of Power is not a hard-and-fast definition of worth, unlike Zamas's prejudices that Gods are superior to mortals, and mortals should not survive. What should Zamas make of someone like Toppo, as a mortal who is in the process of ascending to a Godhood on par with even the most exalted Shin-jin?

[SupremeKai25]

Zamasu has purely malevolent motivations for killing, despite his claims. There's no good excuse for racially-motivated genocide. Especially on that scale. If he really had such "good intentions", he would just blow up planets from space, leave the populations none the wiser. But no, he had to sadistically terrorise populations into submission. There's no excuse for that.

Zamasu only terrorized the population of Earth. He wiped out countless civilizations across the cosmos, but he reserved the worst judgement for the earthlings. This is because the earthlings created the Time Machine, thus defying divine law. Only the Gods are allowed to meddle with time. Furthermore, they can only travel to the future, because travelling to the past would inevitably shatter the time-space continuum (which is what Trunks and Cell foolishly did). Even Gowasu said that whoever went back to change the past was a complete fool. That's why Zamasu took his time with the earthlings, instead of downright wiping them out. Even so it is stated that the vast majority of Earth's population was annihilated during the initial assault from Zamasu.

When confronted with the sin of time travel that he committed, Trunks doesn't even try to defend himself or claim he has the moral high ground. He simply accepts he is an evil sinner and moves on. Zamasu was 100% right on wanting to punish the mortals for time travel. If anything it's surprising Beerus didn't try to punish Bulma for creating a time machine, especially when he knows very well how fragile the time-space continuum is.

Also Zamasu doesn't want to blow up planets. That's what sets him apart from every other villain. He doesn't take pleasure in the destruction he is spreading throughout the cosmos, and even laments how unfortunate it is that he must lay waste to entire worlds. He simply takes solace in the fact that eventually, when all mortals are destroyed, he will remake the cosmos as a golden utopia. It is telling that Zamasu built his base of operations in a lush, pristine forest. At his core he remains a Supreme Kai, and all Kais cherish life and nature.

Because destroying mortals was a means to an end, not the end in itself. He wanted to destroy mortals, in order to create multiversal peace and restore the cosmos to its utopian state. Good intentions, bad way to go about them.

It comes down to what you think is worse. Starting from the fact that killing a person is morally wrong, do you think it is more despicable if you kill that person because you genuinely think they are evil and dangerous, or because you need to eat? Perhaps there is more honor in straight up admitting you are evil instead of deluding yourself that you're in the right, but I have less respect for a villain who has no ulterior motive for committing genocide.

You really can't separate the solution Zamas has in mind from his overall intention here. When a dictator engages in a violent round of 'ethnic cleansing', one doesn't try to say that their intentions were good in trying to reduce ethnic strife or normalise race-relations within their territory, because that would just be a distortion. One simply condemns them as a Genocide and has done with it.

Okay then give me an example of a villain with good intentions. They are villains, of course they will make questionable choices and actions, that doesn't make their intentions any less noble and tragic.

[Magnificent Ponta]

Okay then give me an example of a villain with good intentions. They are villains, of course they will make questionable choices and actions, that doesn't make their intentions any less noble and tragic.

In Dragon Ball? I don't think there is one. It's only barely an exaggeration to say that Dragon Ball can hardly scratch together a working set of noble heroes, let alone villains.

There are perhaps villainous characters who tend to be easier to identify with than others, but that's more because of their pettiness/lack of grandiosity (though Zamas is grandiose from head to toe) - but I don't think Dragon Ball has any noble villains.

If you mean the concept of noble villainy generally, my feeling is that it tends to be expressed in characters who are so constrained by circumstances and entanglements beyond their control, that they end up having to act in such a way against their own personal inclinations or scruples (e.g. theft to pay for sick or hungry dependants, or, say, a character working for a mob boss because he has a loved one as a hostage to their 'good conduct').

Given Zamas's hugely privileged position, I don't see how he can ever meet such a standard of nobility in his actions - particularly with his self-serving "They-Make-a-Desert-and-They-Call-it-Peace" type of approach, which is hardly the necessary approach to take.

[FoolsGil]

I feel Zamasu is more evil, but only because he's able to cause genocide on a much wider scale.