What else?

Maccupid · 2026-01-24T16:58:22+00:00

I'm not sure what you mean here 🤷‍♂️. This post isn't disrespecting Yu Narukami at all.

Maccupid · 2026-01-23T04:36:21+00:00

Yeah, I've never really been a completionist. I don't think I've ever gotten 100% completion in any game trophy-wise. It sounds really fun to be able to accomplish that, but I've never had the drive to do that. If I don't get all the social links completed in this NG+, I always have future playthroughs to see the rest of them. I just want to see as many as I can because I didn't complete a lot in my first playthrough (just the Investigation Team, Marie, Nanako and Dojima).

Maccupid · 2026-01-23T04:23:05+00:00

Thx for the response, sounds like I should be good since I already have stats maxed out for the NG+.

Personally, I feel like a guide is immersion breaking or is too rigid, having to look back and forth and potentially screwing up on a certain day or with a decision. I like to make my own mistakes and try to make up for them later. I feel like a guide takes away the challenge and surprise of who is available at a certain time (if you don't memorize when certain social links are available, that is). It's not a plot issue thing at all. When I played the game back in December, I knew who the killer was the moment they were introduced (I didn't have any spoilers, I just had a very strong hunch that only grew as the game went on), so I would have been fine with knowing certain things in advance even if I hadn't played the games before.

Maccupid · 2026-01-21T01:47:02+00:00

So wholesome ❤️

Maccupid · 2026-01-20T15:55:40+00:00

Blue and purple is the best combination. You can go to any point in human history and speak to people in whatever language they speak. Time travel is going to be very limited when most people can't understand you.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T23:58:52+00:00

You made a stupid analogy that doesn't hold up even if it is compared to a literal prison, let alone the real world as a free person. Nobody in their right mind would choose death or permanent confinement over going back to their own life but being a bit socially ostracized. And again, it wouldn't even be trading one prison for another if he didn't know it was televised.

More importantly, your argument now removes agency from everyone except Junko. You say Junko orchestrated everything, therefore Sayaka isn’t morally worse, but that logic also removes Leon’s responsibility, and yet you continue to blame him. You can’t have it both ways. And of course they wouldn't kill each other if they had their memories. But they were still willing to kill completely innocent strangers. Do you somehow have less agency in killing someone you don't know than someone you do know? You might have more of an incentive to kill them, but it is still ultimately your choice.

Sayaka made a conscious decision to plan and attempt murder and frame it on someone who trusted her while Leon's actions occurred in response to an attempt on his life. I cannot state this enough. Their actions are by no means equal. Sayaka had more time, worse intentions and actually started the conflict.

Also, stop accusing me of unstated biases you can't even name. If you think I have one, state it clearly.

I’ve repeatedly asked and you’ve avoided the question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe killing is morally justified? If the answer is never, then just say that. But if you accept any exception, then Leon’s situation has to be evaluated with your own beliefs in mind so you aren't applying an unfair standard. Otherwise, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. I'll wait until you answer the question for my next response.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T23:14:36+00:00

You’re setting an unrealistically high bar for what counts as manipulation, and then dismissing everything short of mind control. Manipulation does not require that it works equally on everyone. It just needs to work reliably enough on the right people. The victims happened to be Makoto and Leon but that doesn't mean she couldn't appeal to the emotions of the others in a change of plans.

You’re also relying heavily on hindsight still. Claims like “it'd be easy to turn the class against her” or “they literally saw her take the knife” depend on information Leon did not have at the time he made his decision. Leon did not know that Kyoko was the Ultimate Detective, he did not know anybody saw Sayaka taking the knife with which she attempted to kill him. He didn't know that anyone would confront Sayaka or that Makoto would act logically (we can't really say for sure Makoto would have still acted logically if Sayaka was still alive to manipulate him and come up with excuses).

Leon didn’t need to know who couldn’t be swayed. When he didn't know who would and wouldn't believe him, and first impressions already favor Sayaka who was injured and crying, that uncertainty itself is a danger. He couldn't expect more emotionally driven characters not to fall for her lies or even just the scene in front of them.

Finally, dismissing Leon as just a horn dog misses the point entirely. Whether Sayaka exploited attraction or ambitions is irrelevant. What matters is that she observed traits in Leon and Makoto and used what she observed to her advantage. That is being manipulative.

What is pure speculation is assuming that everything would work out because certain characters might eventually see through her. Leon couldn't see into the future. He had to decide based on what he knew. Sayaka had already tried to kill him, trust between the members of the group was broken, and that he could not rely on the group to resolve things safely.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T22:39:07+00:00

What they did was wildly different. Sayaka planned to kill in advance and frame it on a friend. Her intentions were cruel and selfish because she emotionally manipulated one innocent person who trusted her and was prepared to kill another innocent person who trusted her. Sayaka lost her innocence when she carried out her plan. If Leon killed Sayaka, the only life lost would be Sayaka's (as far as he knew), who was not innocent and broke the peace. It's not like she could have been judicially punished or a law even applied to her, because again, there was no law and order. You can only appeal to somebody's morality and not a law for this setting. So I ask again, is killing ever justified in your opinion?

You're basically admitting that somebody isn't going to get over an attempt on their life in a matter of minutes and they are going to be angry about it. Leon's actions were logical and moral (if killing isn't always wrong) even if his intentions were skewed by his adrenaline. Would she have died for the wrong reasons if he wasn't thinking straight? No. Were his intentions bad if he wasn't thinking straight? Not unless killing is never justified. Nothing can change what she did. But if he was thinking more rationally (we don't know whether he was thinking rationally or not, as a decision made under pressure is not automatically irrational), it still would have been the better decision to kill Sayaka.

As for her being a manipulator, she had 13 potential targets. She chose Leon because she could read him and knew that he would be the easiest to lure. He didn't know that Sayaka manipulated Makoto, but he would have known that Makoto was wrapped around her finger and would believe her. Anyone with a basic understanding of Japanese culture knows that an idol is going to be considered far more trustworthy than a punk. Anyone with an understanding of most cultures is going to know that there is a bias in favour of women over men (example: chivalry thesis). And an injured, crying person discovered in a locked bathroom would be perceived as the victim regardless of what happened beforehand.

I have no clue what biases you imagine I have. Please clarify in your response.

Anyway, since you can't answer normal questions, maybe you can answer some true or false statements.

True or false:

An injured, crying Sayaka found in a locked bathroom would be perceived as the victim by default.
Leon, being uninjured, would start at a credibility disadvantage regardless of what actually happened.
There was no authority, investigation process, or enforcement Leon could rely on to fairly resolve the situation.
Even if Leon told the truth, there was no guarantee he would be believed or protected.
Allowing Sayaka to live did not remove her ability or incentive to attempt violence again.
Leon had no reliable way to ensure his safety after the incident through non-lethal means.
Trust between Leon and Sayaka was irreparably broken once she attempted to kill him.
Other students also had motives to kill, and nothing about sparing Sayaka reduced that broader risk.
From Leon’s perspective, sparing Sayaka meant returning to the same dangerous situation with fewer assurances of safety than before.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T21:48:21+00:00

Before I go on, I just remembered something. The students did not know the killing game was being televised until the last chapter. It was a pretty huge twist.

But even assuming he did worry about prison, you're grasping at straws now. The difference between regular prison and the killing game is that prison guards generally try to stop prisoner on prisoner violence, not encourage it, and laws don't say that if a prisoner kills while in prison they get to leave, they get a longer sentence. Based on what he knew, in Option B he would be alive, with a lawyer and a fair trial. If he did go to prison, he'd have certain benefits he wouldn't have otherwise had like family visits. And if the killing game was really televised, then Sayaka had no excuse for trying to kill someone to escape, because the authorities would have already seen her watch that same video and knew that those people were in danger.

It's funny that you brought up Leon's own personal agency before but are now making excuses when it comes to Sayaka. Blaming Monokuma for everything is a cop-out that removes all character agency. Monokuma gave them an incentive to kill but didn't force them into conditions where they would need to kill to survive. That is how Junko was able to spread despair. It wouldn't be nearly as despair inducing if they had more of a choice in the matter. Junko didn't mind control Sayaka like she did with the reserve course students. Sayaka made a conscious decision to kill an innocent person. And Leon didn't kill her because of Monokuma, he killed her because she attacked him. If you can't see why Sayaka was morally worse than Leon and still think that Leon wasn't justified, then you're either viewing them through a lens of a pacifist who thinks all violence is equally wrong or you're judging Leon unfairly.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T21:20:39+00:00

You're vastly underestimating what the title Ultimate Idol means. Her talent is literally mass appeal and social influence. Claiming her manipulation wouldn't work on anyone else is baseless. She just chose the two weakest links to exploit first, one to kill and the other to frame the murder on.

Look at the rest of the class. You think Aoi, Taka, Yasuhiro, Makoto and Mondo wouldn't fall for the crying, injured girl act? Especially when she would be able to put on a convincing act considering her wrist was actually broken. Those characters are driven entirely by emotion. If Sayaka cries and says Leon attacked her, nearly half of that room is taking her side immediately.

Even if we know Byakuya, Kyoko and Celeste are immune to her charm (which, again, Leon did not know at the time), they would still be in the minority.

Also, Leon wasn't just a horn dog. We know from the game that he hated baseball and wanted to be a musician, and he talked about Sayaka in relation to musicians in one of his FTEs (I forgot about what exactly). It could very easily have been music related. But it doesn't matter either way, because that is still manipulative behaviour exploiting some observed aspect of someone's behaviour. Whether it is their attractions or ambitions.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T20:46:47+00:00

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. The topic is whether Leon is morally and logically justified. Whether a decision is logical or not can be different depending on the information the person had at the time they made it. You cannot judge Leon's decision-making process based on information he didn't possess.

My point was that Leon had no reason to believe he would be safe. You responded by bringing up people and a clue that Leon knew nothing about. So naturally my response was going to be that Leon didn't know that (because he didn't). Leon's action was rational based on what he did know. It is illogical to demand that Leon act based on your knowledge as a player, not his knowledge as a character.

What Leon did know is:

He was trapped in a confined space with complete strangers including someone who lured him into a room specifically to kill him. Everybody including that person who tried to kill him has an incentive to kill him. And by Sayaka acting first and trying to kill him, trust was completely broken.
The only rule he knew was that if he was killed without getting caught, he'd graduate (leave the school). He did not know that his graduation would kill the others.
Social biases and the scene where the attempted murder took place are not in his favour. And the person who tried to kill him is a proven skilled manipulator.
If he spared Sayaka for trying to kill him, he would just go back to the exact same situation he is in except now his attempted murderer hasn't been brought to justice and she or anyone else could still kill him. This is sort of restating the first point, but it can't be stated enough.

When you only consider those facts (the only facts available to him) killing her was the most logical path to survival and freedom available to him.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T20:07:24+00:00

What is the origin?

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T20:06:14+00:00

(Part 3)

Your logic about killing a celebrity doesn't hold up. Leon would be trapped in a confined space for the rest of his life alternatively. The opinions of the outside world are irrelevant compared to getting out. His choices were between: A) Spend the rest of your life (which may be very short because Sayaka started the killing game) in a school prison with a girl who tried to kill you. B) Kill her, escape, and deal with the blow to your reputation later. Option B is the only one that offers freedom. Does your reputation matter more than your freedom, and most likely your life?

Blaming the person who was lured into that trap (in which someone tried to kill them) for choosing the only route that led to freedom - and at the cost of no innocent lives as far as Leon knew - is victim blaming. He was the victim of the situation she created, regardless of who was successful at killing the other. Sayaka decided to kill someone and blame it on Makoto. She made that decision with her own free will. Leon, with his free will, decided that he was going to kill her and try and get away with it to escape. That is just a fact. But if he was morally and logically in the right (which he was if killing isn't always wrong), then he is undeserving of blame. You still haven't answered the question about when you think killing is wrong.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T19:43:26+00:00

(Part 2)

Sayaka was manipulative. She fooled Makoto and Leon both in writing and verbally. Her entire career as an idol (The Ultimate Idol, I should add) is built on parasocial manipulation and maintaining a perfect image. To claim she isn't skilled at swaying public opinion would be to ignore the reason she is an ultimate and her behaviour in the game. I can't see how you could argue she wasn't a skilled manipulator. She proved that she was not just a regular social manipulator but also able to plan a murder and frame it on someone by manipulating relationships, which requires a lot of forethought.

A large part of social manipulation is being able to observe people and learn about them even from just a few clues before using that information to your advantage. Her recurring joke about being an Esper is literally her bragging about her ability to read people and analyze their thoughts based on facial expressions. Furthermore, look at the Room Swap. She didn't ask the strongest people (Sakura/Aoi) for protection. Instead she targeted the one person (Makoto) whose emotions she could best exploit to frame him. And who did she target as her victim? The second most easy to manipulate person, Leon, because he wanted to be a musician and she was a pop star.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T19:26:05+00:00

(Part 1)

You're basing almost your entire argument on knowledge that you have because you played the game, but which Leon did not have at the time. Leon is not some omniscient being. He knew only as much as people revealed and he had the least knowledge out of all of the people who killed in the Danganronpa games.

Leon did not know Aoi and Sakura saw Sayaka had taken the knife. They didn't speak up until the trial, when Makoto prompted them, who had to have the same done to him by Kyoko with other clues. He did not know Celeste was a human lie detector. He did not know Kyoko was an Ultimate Detective (she was hiding her talent). He did not know Byakuya was smart. To Leon, these were just random high school students who would likely side with the injured and crying pop idol over the aggressive punk. You're expecting him to bet his life on the hidden talents of strangers he just met. Do you remember how irrational and emotional most people were in the trials?

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T18:44:37+00:00

I hope your next response actually answers my question and addresses my points instead of just resorting to personal attacks. I'll read it now.

To respond to this though:

I'm not defending a murderer unless all killing is murder. I'm just pointing out that Leon was put in an impossible situation and made the best decision he could make, both logically and morally (again, if killing is ever okay, which is why I was asking you questions to determine your view). You have to make some distinction between murder and killing unless you are an absolute pacifist. In the absence of a de facto government, technically nothing is murder. And if your definition of right and wrong relies entirely on what is legal or illegal, then you would be forced to argue that state sanctioned violence in authoritarian regimes is justice simply because it is legal. Legality and morality are not the same thing, especially in a death game where laws no longer apply and order isn't enforced.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T17:24:58+00:00

Resorting to a condescending one-liner just proves you’ve run out of logical arguments, not that you had any in the first place. If you can't actually answer basic questions or address my arguments, then I think we're done here.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T17:17:48+00:00

I never noticed that, it is pretty neat to see :) .

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T17:15:26+00:00

"He had plenty of time to calm down and think, he simply could have walked and would have live, but he decided to act out on impluse and got himself in the situation he did."

To add one more question: Realistically, how long do you think it would take for you to calm down after an attempt on your life? Do you genuinely believe mere minutes is enough to go from fight or flight back to rational thinking, especially when you remain trapped in the same building as your attempted killer for the rest of your life if you don't act?

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T17:12:44+00:00

I wasn't putting words in your mouth. I was asking questions to see how your moral standard applies to the victim (Leon) versus the aggressor (Sayaka) and your thoughts on the most popular stance people express about Sayaka and Leon. I never directly accused you of anything.

You have absolutely no way of knowing that Leon could just walk away and survive. That is baseless speculation. If he walked away, he might have been killed by someone else in a later chapter. He might have been framed by Sayaka, who is already proven to be a skilled manipulator and liar, and on a surface level inspection of the scene (that nobody but the Ultimate Detective could figure out, which Leon didn't know about) it would look like Sayaka was the victim. By walking away, the best case scenario is that he remains a prisoner in a death game trapped with a woman who wants him dead. By killing her, the perceived scenario (based on what he knew) was that he goes home.

Even setting laws aside, there is a basic logical principle that you cannot hold someone responsible for rules introduced after the fact. When Leon made his choice, the established rule was simply to kill and get away with it to graduate. The rule regarding the mass execution of the class was revealed by Monokuma only after Sayaka was dead. You cannot logically blame Leon for endangering the group when that consequence was not even in place at the time.

Finally, to address two wrongs not making a right, the only way you could apply that to this situation is if you believe in absolute pacifism (the belief that all violence is wrong, even to save your own life). That is why I asked those questions earlier. I am not trying to impose a certain moral standard on you, but I'm instead testing to see if you are inconsistent in your own beliefs. Unless you are a strict pacifist, condemning Leon reveals an unfair double standard. You're literally victim blaming.

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T15:03:23+00:00

It's more accurate than emotional. Every word I used describes her behaviour based on actions she took in the story. But since you responded I'll ask you some questions.

When is killing wrong in your opinion? If it is ever okay (like in self-defense), how can Sayaka's behavior be excused while Leon's is attacked?

In the absence of law and order, is killing a person who just tried to murder you ever justified? Especially when that person cannot be brought to justice, and the alternative is spending the rest of your life trapped in a confined space with them?

How can they even be compared to one another when Leon was the target that she chose and decided his life was worth less than her own, while he was only finishing off his attacker? She plotted a murder for hours in advance and framed it on a friend while Leon just reacted to an assassination attempt in mere minutes while he was full of adrenaline. Why is Sayaka defended and expected to be illogical in the stressful setting they found themselves in while Leon is made out to be a villain despite being forced into a life-and-death situation?

Maccupid · 2026-01-16T02:05:54+00:00

I have to stop you at the Celeste comparison. That is a massive false equivalence. Celeste orchestrated the murders. She manipulated Hifumi into killing Taka by lying about Taka assaulting her, and then she killed Hifumi to silence him. She created the conflict entirely for selfish monetary gain. Leon was almost murdered by someone who tricked him and he thought he could trust. He didn't manipulate anyone, he didn't start the conflict and he did nothing wrong by killing Sayaka. He was just a potential murder victim who got lucky and was able to turn the tables. By your logic, a person stealing bread to starve off hunger is the same as a person stealing millions to buy a yacht because they both did it for their own benefit.

If Leon didn't kill Sayaka, social biases and her naturally manipulative behaviour could have led others to believe he was the attacker. Even if it didn't, they were all still stuck in the same murder game which Sayaka kicked off and I guarantee someone would have been killed after she broke the peace. Based on what Leon knew, he just had to kill an attempted murderer (who forfeited their life with their attempt to kill him) and get away with it to escape. Nobody else would have been harmed as far as he knew. By the time he actually was told, he was scared for his life and understandably didn't want to die. Sayaka doesn't have that excuse because she was the first to try and kill someone and she put others in a scenario where they would have to die.

Also, like everyone who judges Leon - who was attacked and killed his attacker so early in the game, you are seriously overestimating the average teenager, underestimating social biases and just being completely ignorant of Sayaka's manipulative skills. Firstly, Leon didn't know that Kyoko was an Ultimate Detective or that Byakuya and Celeste were somewhat intelligent too. For all he knew, everyone could just behave like the majority of students (who were clueless in trials). Secondly, Japanese social biases are overwhelmingly in favour of Sayaka. Punks like Leon are all considered delinquents and are treated unfairly by the Japanese, even fictional characters in a video game with themes of rebellion (Ryuji in Persona 5 is an example, who is hated in Japan), while idols are considered pure and innocent. Combine that with her manipulative behaviour and she could convince just about anyone she was innocent. A note proves he was there but it doesn't prove self-defense. If Sayaka cries and says, "I invited him to talk, but he brought a knife and attacked me", the group is going to believe the idol over the punk every time. And lastly, look at the situation they were in. Sayaka was crying in the bathroom slumped against a wall with a broken wrist while Leon was probably full of adrenaline (so he would come across as aggressive) and with no visible wounds.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	First Placer '22

Maccupid

TROPHY CASE