So recently I finished watching one of those if you are an anime an you should watch this, late 90s iconic series, Trigun. The story of Vash the Stampede is a very interesting one with a good story overall. It touches on many issues such as environmentalism and alcoholism, but one message is pushed in front of the viewer again and again. This is about the value of life and the rejection of killing (not just murder but killing in all circumstances). The characters themselves, from how they are introduced play on this message: Vash is a man, quite literally with a price on his life, who is (in the first conversation of the series) introduced as someone who kills men, women and children without hesitation and mercy. The two main female characters, Milly and Meryl, are insurance brokers who work to minimise damage to building at the risk of their own beings. They don't seem like the type to portray this message, but that is why they are chosen for this presumably.
A very cool wanted poster fanart of Vash: http://jax89man.deviantart.com/art/Vash-Wanted-Poster-2-0-298012281
The first real time we get an idea that Vash values his life and the life of others is the first fight scene. Not only does he, in an offhanded way, say he disapproves of suicide more than anything else but we hear reports of him destroying towns but miracoulously there are no casualties. This offhand comment is made a few more times and suicide does appear with one of the Gung-ho Guns but the other message that Vash does not kill others reappears too many times to mention throughout the series. Vash in fact goes out of his way to save the innocent potentially caught in the crossfire (especially when fighting these Gung-ho Guns). These seem like obvious messages that are not that out of the box. Suicide is not worth it and the life of others is just as valuable as yours. Not hugely groundbreaking messages.
Caine the Longshot, one of those Vash failed to save.
However the main problem the writer saw with this view was questioning whether or not is ever right to kill someone. Is it right to kill someone who would kill you or who would kill numerous others? These are difficult questions, in both cases you are protected by law but it is a question of morality, not legality, especially when it is set in a post-apocylypitic world. This question is in fact one of the main conflicts in the series, as an overtone to Vash vs Knives. The most notable expression of this question is in the backstory of Vash and Knives, on the spaceship SEEDS. Here Knives kills a spider to save a butterfly, as Vash was trying to free the butterfly from the web. Knives is attacked by Vash and Rem for this but says that the only way to truly save the butterfly is to kill the spider, because even if he does save the butterfly the spider will die of starvation in the long run. This idea then takes places on the ship when Rem is held at gun point by another of the crew, Rowen, and the captain, Joey, kills the crewmember (by sucking him out into space) to save Rem's life. Rem's philosophy, however, is that no one deserves to die, ever, and no one has the right to decide if someone else should die (no one has the right to kill in other words). Vash continues this philosophy throughout the series and tries to save as many people (innocent) and enemies as possible. He will disarm or injure his enemies (and even allow himself to be injured) but never kill them. He always (well with one real exception) finds a way to end conflict without himself killing anyone. He does this whilst others are always saying he needs to kill his enemy or others or himself will be killed.
However to say it is one constant reminder of the same message is wrong. Vash may constantly (throughout the first half of the series) spout out the messages of this philosphy when begging for his own life (or when begging for someone else's in fact) or when he is fighting or when he has won the battle and his enemy does not know why they are not dead. He seems to show and convince almost everyone that killing is never the right opinion and there is always a way around. But in the second half of the series Vash himself is thrust into the argument (rather than just sitting on one side) as when defeating the numerous Gung-ho Guns, they either kill each other, kill themselves or are killed by Vash's sidekick (sort of) the priest Wolfwood. Vash's failing attempts to save absolutely everyone continues as he fights the Gung-ho Guns and culminates in his killing of the most powerful Gung-ho Gun Legato when it seems he has no choice in order to save the lives of Milly, Meryl and countless others. Vash then has a huge conflict within himself, saying he is no better than a mass-murderer, for only killing one person in the most justifiable circumstanes. He is lost, he does not know what to think or do when he confronts his brother, until he is redeemed through Meryl, who he envisages as a new Rem, and is able to defeat his brother without causing death.
The high point of Vash's internal conflict, Legato's death, as depicted in a really detailed piece of fanart. http://wizyakuza.deviantart.com/art/Vash-and-legato-355707775
Wolfwood too personifies this struggle but in a much more real way. Rather than being brought up like Vash, on this doctrine that no one has the right to kill, Wolfwood is brought up on a more realistic philosophy that it is kill or be killed, and if you delay in your decision-making the choice will be made up for you. He continues to argue with Vash and struggle to adhere to Vash's philosophy until the two come to blows after he kills Zazie the Beast, one of the Gung-ho Guns, as Vash is convincing him not to kill anyone. Vash is convinced he can save everyone but Wolfwood's ideas takeover and in order to save Vash and numerous others he kills his enemy. As said, Vash and Wolfwood somewhat come to blows and then (after the two have made up) Wolfwood fights his teacher, Chapel the Evergreen, and after defeating him (for Wolfwood the personification of his doctrine) adopts Vash's doctrine that no one has the right to kill another, and lets his enemy go. Although this concludes in Wolfwood's death, as he ends up being shot, Wolfwood is happy as he dies, pleased that he knows he made the right decision in his heart. So just as Vash is redeemed by Meryl, Wolfwood is convinced by Vash and is the better (in terms of his inner peace) for it.
Wolfwood's death. http://i591.photobucket.com/albums/ss358/keyroon/wolfwoodv2.jpg
A huge part of this philosophical doctrine is the idea of a clean slate, that anyone can start afresh and change. This is because it means that no one should be killed because they can still become good people and do good in the world. They do not deserve to die for something they have done in the past, the future is full of potential. This is the whole reason for living according to Rem and Vash (all possibilities are available). This also plays into the much theme of Revenge and Forgiveness, which is underlying in many of the early epsiode plots. Often the reason people will want to kill another for revenge. For example, the whole premise behind the conflict in the fourth episode is vengence against the man called the Reaper. Time and time again we are told revenge is not a sufficient reason for killing, if any reason could be, because of this idea of a clean slate due to endless possibilities for the future. This idea also helps Vash get over the fact he has killed others, Legato to be specifc. He realises his future is what matters and that he cannot change the past.
I love how someimages can look with just the most simple effects.
The value of family also plays a big role in choosing not to kill someone. Not only are you hurting the one who you will kill but also their family. They become victims of grief. The best example of this in episode 19 which is based around two families, the Freeze and Polo families (which seem sort of like gangs at the same time). The whole reason the guy wants to kill his captive is because he killed his daughter. Vash tries to convince the man not to kill his hostage because he has a family as well and in the end the would-be killer just can't go through with it. We could also imagine this would just create a vicious cycle of revenge and pain. The pain of others, especially family is bought up time and time again.
Wicked wallpaper of Vash and Wolfwood. Too bad I can't find a link of the original artist.
The last reason others will kill is to save another, or in other circumstanes, a group of people. This is explained above though as something that is not always necessary because there is no certainty that they will actually kill until they pull the trigger. After killing the crewmember the captain of SEEDS feels regret because he knows this. Again the future has infinite possibilities and no one is irredeemable. So we have explored two reasons why killing is not right, but are there any reasons to die for (because Vash is just as concerned with stopping self-sacrifice)? One reason people die or get killed in the Trigun universe is their pride. They aren't willing to meet the ridiculous demands of the one holding the gun. Vash (in episode 18) is willing to put aside his pride to save the life of another by stripping and pretending to be a dog. Onlookers even comment they would rather die than do this, but Vash and the philosophy in Trigun values life too highly for that.
Are there even examples of self-sacrifice that meet approval? Well there are two from memory. The first is on the Sandsteamer when the driver is willing to sacrefice his life in an attempt to save his passengers because it is his job. It seems the lives don't have so much of an emphasis (although this wins him sympathy from the viewer) it is his duty. He must do this because he has promised to do. One's duty and honour (not pride) is seemingly given some value in the Trigun series. The other example is in episode three when the gun makers is finally willing to fight against the bank robbers. He does not do this to save money (his family's death, which stopped him fighting, serves as a stark reminder than no amount of money is worth life) but it is for equality. The idea that everyone is equal is also placed above life and rightly so, in both Trigun and our own history. Equality could even play a part in why no one is fit to judge if someone else should live or die (in other words why no one has the right to kill). I suppose we could say Wolfwood's death shows the value of beliefs in what is right and strength of these is potentially worth one's life. This is especially true if your views are right (but who says what is right and wrong). Wolfwood's death just shows that not killing your enemy brings peace and happiness, more so than killing them.
So I feel as though I have established all of the writer's/director's ideas and given the justifications for them. However there are two pieces of the puzzle that leave you feeling uneasy and unaccepting of the philosophy presented. The first is Vash's killing of Legato and the second is Wolfwood's death. As I have said, Vash's redemption by Meryl and his treatment of his brother and Wolfwood's mood are sort of shown as victories over these difficulties but they don't fully cover up the failings that sometimes killing has to happen. Yes we can argue that Legato is not truly human and does not deserve to be treated as such, but then should all mental sociopaths be put to death? He does show some sympathy towards the slave girls in the bar and does show emotion (albeit inappropriately) so he is not above redemption surely. Likewise, we can argue Wolfwood does not have the same power as Vash so he should not follow the same philosophy, but then why should we (as humans like Wolfwood) follow it ourselves? Why do the writers leave these pieces of the puzzle open? Yes Wolfwood's death is emotional for the viewers and Vash's killing of Legato leads him to seeming fall in love with Meryl, but these can be done without undermining the philosophy presented. Why is it done then? I think it is done for purely this reason. To have people discuss and question the doctrine and work it out for themselves. What worth is it pushing heavily philosophy views on people if they don't think it through and accept it for themselves? What is a life worth? Is there any reason to kill another? Is there anything that is worth risking your life?
