Mushoku Tensei ~Isekai Ittara Honki Dasu~

Eighth page, first panel game me creeps.

The Royal Arc, the School Arc ... last long.

Really long.

 

I read trough the badly translated stuff ages ago.

And you can expect it to take forever.

Then it rushes like an virgin madman to the end prematurely.

Directly towards the endboss fighting.

 

xD

do you have a link to those badly translated pages. 

School Arc....

I hope it will be fast.

 

 

Implying Roxy and Shylpie not sexy as well.

The Royal Arc, the School Arc ... last long.

Really long.

I read trough the badly translated stuff ages ago.

And you can expect it to take forever.

Then it rushes like an virgin madman to the end prematurely.

Directly towards the endboss fighting.

xD

School Arc....

I hope it will be fast.

The only harem member I cared about was Eris, the rest were loli trash, the story and characters were very well done though, but I still wanted a sexier harem.......

Implying Roxy and Shylpie not sexy as well.

The only harem member I cared about was Eris, the rest were loli trash, the story and characters were very well done though, but I still wanted a sexier harem.......

It’ll take a while, but seeing

Spoiler

that fat fuck Darius

get comeuppance is almost on par with what happens to a certain POS royal in Shield Hero. Just wished it was drawn out more.

It's been years since I read this part of the LN, so I'll be looking forward to seeing it for the first time (technically) all over again, whatever happens.

Let me add some more context before you turn people away from the story.

Spoiler

Ruijerd is not a lolicon, he marries an adult woman (seriously, please don't use that word sparingly). Rudeus has to come to turns with killing to protect his family. Rudeus cheats and everyone in his family grills him for it. Claire (Zenith's mother) does behave poorly, but not abusively. She is just too prideful. And the Eris/son extra story was cut out due to controversy, no longer canon.

 

But yes, Rudeus remains flawed throughout the story. There are moments later on where he still fails but that's the whole allure of the story. Even with the memories and rational thinking of an adult, this story is about him actually growing as a person. And people have character flaws. He's not perfect.

I totally misremembered about

An important and continuous theme throughout this story is learning to cope with failure, and using it to improve oneself. Rudeus is the prime example since he uses his failed previous life as a lesson on how to live better in his new existence, but it also applies to pretty much everyone. They can become better people because they are flawed at the start, as we all are in real life. That's what makes them more realistic, more relatable, and ultimately more interesting IMO. I daresay a story about perfect paragons of virtue instead would be a snorefest.

Also, not that it necessarily applies in this particular case, but sometimes you happen to be in a situation in which there just isn't a right choice. The only options available are bad, terrible, and/or worst. Do you become a monster because you picked evil, even if it is the lesser one and there was nothing better?

Why all the arguments over good and evil anyway? It's not like a person can objectively label anything with those two terms.

Rape will never be worse than genocide, I don't care what those moronic feminazis say, there are plenty of inhumane actions that weigh heavier on that scale.

OMGOMGOMG!  Just found out this had a manga.  The light novel is seriously one of the best storylines I've read.  There's just the right amount of good and bad, hope and despair.

I personally dislike Rudeus more than Paul.. Two peas in a pod.

Guys, if you hate Paul that much, stop reading now and never touch the LN.
 

Spoiler

Rudeus also cheats on his wife.

Rudeus also kills people for his own interests. As do lots of other characters.

Zenith's mom behaves so bad toward her grandchild, it's basically mental child abuse.

Ruijerd is a lolicon.

Eris cuts off her child's arm during a fight.

 

If you can't accept flawed characters, you should just walk away now. There ain't no saints in that world. Except Doga of course.

Let me add some more context before you turn people away from the story.

But yes, Rudeus remains flawed throughout the story. There are moments later on where he still fails but that's the whole allure of the story. Even with the memories and rational thinking of an adult, this story is about him actually growing as a person. And people have character flaws. He's not perfect.

Also, I really don't understand what the hell stygg is going on about. Not to be rude, but this was maybe the second instance of Paul's "child abuse," in the entire story so far. The first time was when he thought Rudeus was bullying kids. He properly apologized for jumping to conclusions and not listening to his son, and they made up. This second time was when he was drunk and severely depressed, and he was absolutely horrified with himself once Gisu put his actions into context.

You want to know what I consider "bad?" Someone who is completely ignorant towards their negative actions and fully embraces them. What would it take for me to see Paul as bad? Simple - if he beat Rudeus, Norn, and Aisha frequently, was always drunk, and was a lazy piece of shit who did nothing. You're painting him out to be a demon when he was the knight of the town who helped protect it from monsters, is honest about his misdeeds (i don't remember if it's done in the manga, but when they find out Lilia is pregnant, Paul immediately admits that it was him - though Lilia also admits that she seduced him.), reflects upon his mistakes and tries to find forgiveness from those that he wronged.

Is he a paragon of virtue? Hell no. He has his faults and his scummy side. But if we weighed everyone's negative aspects more heavily, nobody on this planet would be a person worth spending time with.

Guys, if you hate Paul that much, stop reading now and never touch the LN.
 

If you can't accept flawed characters, you should just walk away now. There ain't no saints in that world. Except Doga of course.

ok it's obvious that we have different standards for what considered good and bad. so if cheating, child abuse and attempted murder isn't enough to be considered a bad person then where is your limit? what does someone have to do to be bad in your eyes because i'm really curious. be a serial killer? burn down an orphanage? commit genocide? i mean where is the limit?

Child abuse?

So Paul raped Norn and/or beat Rudeus on a regular basis and not just twice in 5 years?

That changes everything. You have convinced me that Paul is evil.

ok it's obvious that we have different standards for what considered good and bad. so if cheating, child abuse and attempted murder isn't enough to be considered a bad person then where is your limit? what does someone have to do to be bad in your eyes because i'm really curious. be a serial killer? burn down an orphanage? commit genocide? i mean where is the limit?

loitering, there is nothing that could possibly get me to forgive someone for loitering, a special layer of hell just for loiterers

 We dont have to ignore any points when you arent making any. no one has said Pauls actions were justified or that any of the things he did were "okay", everyone is simply saying that doing those things dont define his character and make him a "bad man" and they certainly dont justify the harm you  wish on him, especially after her repented for his actions, sought and received the forgiveness of the people he harmed, and thats a more reasonable reaction then the one youre presenting

Setting aside whether it's sympathetic or not, or whether he should gets redemption. Solely on what he did in the past, he's a scummy person.

 We dont have to ignore any points when you arent making any. no one has said Pauls actions were justified or that any of the things he did were "okay", everyone is simply saying that doing those things dont define his character and make him a "bad man" and they certainly dont justify the harm you  wish on him, especially after her repented for his actions, sought and received the forgiveness of the people he harmed, and thats a more reasonable reaction then the one youre presenting

ok it's obvious that we have different standards for what considered good and bad. so if cheating, child abuse and attempted murder isn't enough to be considered a bad person then where is your limit? what does someone have to do to be bad in your eyes because i'm really curious. be a serial killer? burn down an orphanage? commit genocide? i mean where is the limit?

i'm the one who ignored the facts for my convenience? i seem to be the only one who actually looks at the facts. you guys are the ones who just pretends that he didn't cheat on his wife, didn't beat his son, didn't try to murder someone in his drunken anger.

please explain how i'm ignoring the facts. tell me how any of this is ok. not a single one of you can defend your points and all you try to do is go for an emotional argument or a straw man. 
can a single one of you just make a constructive argument already?

 We dont have to ignore any points when you arent making any. no one has said Pauls actions were justified or that any of the things he did were "okay", everyone is simply saying that doing those things dont define his character and make him a "bad man" and they certainly dont justify the harm you  wish on him, especially after her repented for his actions, sought and received the forgiveness of the people he harmed, and thats a more reasonable reaction then the one youre presenting

 

 

Now, I respect your opinion about Paul, and I don't mind discussing whether he is decent or evil or whatever, but there is no point in discussing anything, if you keep ignoring key facts for your own convenience. At this point, it just looks like you have some sort of personal feud against this John Smith, whom Paul reminds you of.

i'm the one who ignored the facts for my convenience? i seem to be the only one who actually looks at the facts. you guys are the ones who just pretends that he didn't cheat on his wife, didn't beat his son, didn't try to murder someone in his drunken anger.

please explain how i'm ignoring the facts. tell me how any of this is ok. not a single one of you can defend your points and all you try to do is go for an emotional argument or a straw man. 
can a single one of you just make a constructive argument already?

maybe im just secretly an angel because i've never cheated on someone i loved, never beat my child, never tried to murder someone.
maybe i'm the weird one

Anyone can be an angel, when they live in paradise.

Unfortunately, Paul doesn't. He doesn't even live in our world. And you seem to keep ignoring that Paul's circumstances are different from yours.

It doesn't help that your little experiment paints Paul as someone whose wife left after he became an alcoholic, when he only became alcoholic after a year of searching for his missing family (not just his wife), and after succumbing to the thought that all the people he cared for might be dead already because he didn't put enough effort looking for them.

Now, I respect your opinion about Paul, and I don't mind discussing whether he is decent or evil or whatever, but there is no point in discussing anything, if you keep ignoring key facts for your own convenience. At this point, it just looks like you have some sort of personal feud against this John Smith, whom Paul reminds you of.

Don't push the fact that you've either never committed mistakes that you regret or have never regretted your actions onto others. The fact that you feel that way proves only your youthful, naive zeal. I've done some pretty shitty things while drunk. Does that make me a bad person? You're arguing that only the absolute worst things a person's done should be considered during a character evaluation. The rest of us argue that maybe we should take a less openly critical and judgmental approach.

 

I wonder which of us is more reasonable?

maybe im just secretly an angel because i've never cheated on someone i loved, never beat my child, never tried to murder someone.
maybe i'm the weird one

im judging people based of their actions? man i am just terrible, i forgot that everyone is pure and innocent no matter their actions.

again how can your bar for whats considered decent be so low? how far does he have to go to be considered bad, mass rape? genocide? 
how am i the only person that has any normal expectations? how can i be the only one who considers cheating, child abuse and attempted murder bad?
 

Don't push the fact that you've either never committed mistakes that you regret or have never regretted your actions onto others. The fact that you feel that way proves only your youthful, naive zeal. I've done some pretty shitty things while drunk. Does that make me a bad person? You're arguing that only the absolute worst things a person's done should be considered during a character evaluation. The rest of us argue that maybe we should take a less openly critical and judgmental approach.

I wonder which of us is more reasonable?

You're judging a person based on a few poor choices that they admit are horrible things. That's extremely unfair. You're forgetting the 7 years Rudeus spent in Buina Village of almost nothing but pleasant memories with his family. 

 

At least Paul has the decency to know when he's made mistakes and properly apologize for them. That's already better than some parents, who know that they are wrong but are too prideful to admit it openly. Someone here was going on about how he "most likely" cheated again after the Metastasis incident, but he didn't He remained faithful to Zenith and Lilia even after these events transpired.

im judging people based of their actions? man i am just terrible, i forgot that everyone is pure and innocent no matter their actions.

again how can your bar for whats considered decent be so low? how far does he have to go to be considered bad, mass rape? genocide? 
how am i the only person that has any normal expectations? how can i be the only one who considers cheating, child abuse and attempted murder bad?