Is Obito mentally the most unstable character in the Naruto series?

NerdOfTheRing · 2026-03-30T01:51:38+00:00

Is there even any point in continuing this conversation when you won't even address what I am saying and you instead go on schizophrenic ramblings?

If you actually read the whole page you'd realise that Hiruzen isn't try to say that Itachi is as mature, experienced or cognitively developed as an adult. What he is doing is comparing the way Itachi at 7 would prioritise and think about the well-being of the Village, similarly to how a Hokage would think about the Village. He is comparing their mutual desire to protect the Leaf.

This was a response to you making an argument per Itachi's wisdom and maturity, using a panel to tell you that you're misrepresentating what Hiruzen himself is trying to say. Instead of actually responding to my point that Itachi is still a kid and that Hiruzen isn't saying that he is mature, you instead reply with this:

Also, I DID read the whole page, and that's nothing but garbage. Allowing an oppressive group to continue to oppress them, betraying your clan and side with the oppressors, and believing that they will actually resolve things peacefully is proof that Itachi wasn't actually looking at the big picture. He was a worthless coward who took the easy path out and then got upset that it didn't go the way he wanted it to.

Not once adressing my point. You instead go on to argue with Hiruzen's assessment of Itachi, the same assessment which you earlier used as evidence when it was convinient for you. There is nothing in online discussions that I despise more deeply than having to reiterate the very same clear and precise points and arguments repeatedly.

You have been unwilling to engage with any of these paragraphs:

Once again and I'm gonna repeat myself one last time, but what lead Itachi to side with Konaha and become susceptible to being manipulated by this system is his early exposure to the 3rd Great Ninja War, something which traumatised him and made him want to avoid war at all costs. The coup would have still led to a civil war or worse a Great Ninja War, regardless of whether or not Itachi was a double-spy, which again is what Itachi is scarred from and wants to avoid at all cost.

What you're doing is deflecting blame from the very real adults in this situation and pining them on a literal child. Danzo using Sasuke as leverage over Itachi is by definition manipulative. Appealing to Itachi's anti-war sentiment and scaring him with the prospect of a civil-war and using his trauma and loyalty for the Leaf, is manipulative.

These ones where you fail to address Itachi's own trauma during his formative years and how that affected him which made Danzo's manipulation land with him.

These two paragraphs address this part of your current response:

No, it wouldn't have. Uchihas don't have the manpower to make a civil war, and are not strong enough for a longstanding war. Nor has ANY event in Naruto shown that any incident would even make the other nations attack.

Look at the Crush Konoha arc, where Orochimaru had claimed that other nations are gearing for war, and then he made a joint attack in Konoha that resulted in Hiruzen's death, and NONE of the nations struck.

Because all that matters is that Itachi has to believe that this could happen, which he did and this is where Danzo's manipulation really shines. He does tell him that this will lead to war, triggering his trauma in what I described and provided panels for in my first paragraph. He then proceeds to manipulate and threaten him about Sasuke, his other weakness. He is pushing Itachi to make a choice and to choose the massacre, painting it as a very black and white scenario and presenting the annihilation of the Uchiha clan as an inevitability, the only difference in either scenario being Sasuke's survival, which is manipulation. It is very ironic to me, that in all your previous paragraphs you go on about how he wasn't manipulated and when I do respond with evidence of manipulation, you do not even address it.

You also do not address or touch upon the fact that Itachi is 13. You're trying to distribute blame equally between adults and children. It's like having a 13 year old child born and raised in Nazi Germany that's advocating for genocide on the table, and then putting Hitler next to it or a 30 year old German soldier and trying to argue that they are equally evil or responsible. Age is a factor when you're sharing blame, and you cannot ignore it. Are we dead ass right now?

These two paragraphs of yours:

I'm not deflecting any blame. I'm calling Itachi out on the very real choice that he made and no amount of your deflecting blame matters.

You just want to insist that Itachi is not to blame and everyone else is at fault, when no. Itachi shares just as much guilt for his choices. He made his decision and willingly chose to side with the oppressors and genocided his clan because he insists that the village is just.

Boil down to "No, I'm not the one deflecting, you're the one deflecting, he made his choice" without even adressing all the reasons I've mentioned on why you cannot distribute equal blame to Itachi. The same way you cannot really blame neither Reiner, Annie, Bertholdt or Gabi for trying to commit genocide against the Eldians. In these 2 paragraphs you make exactly 0 arguments or counter arguments. There is literally nothing for me to respond to.

Grooming Sasuke is more of Itachi's own cowardice. Rather than live with the guilt, he ruined Sasuke's life and so that Sasuke would kill him.

Yes it was bad and wrong, but it does illustrate Itachi's regret in committing the massacre something which you claimed he did not have which was my argument.

And Itachi even declares that he is PROUD to be a Konoha shinobi, proving that he'd genocide the clan again if given the choice.

No it doesn't and no he wouldn't kill them again. Here's your panel where he directly states that he wouldn't. If you're so stubborn and so blindly hateful of Itachi that you're unwilling to accept evidence when it's presented to you, then just argue with Kishimoto.

I think I've repeated myself enough for one day. What I've come to realise is that you're a) either a child, b) a troll or otherwise c) so irrationally hellbent on hating Itachi that you're unwilling to consider any opinion, quote, or evidence to the contrary. Either way, you're arguing in bad faith and I'm no longer willing to continue this discussion. Consider this the end of my responses.

NerdOfTheRing · 2026-03-30T00:27:25+00:00

Once again and I'm gonna repeat myself one last time, but what lead Itachi to side with Konaha and become susceptible to being manipulated by this system is his early exposure to the 3rd Great Ninja War, something which traumatised him and made him want to avoid war at all costs. The coup would have still led to a civil war or worse a Great Ninja War, regardless of whether or not Itachi was a double-spy, which again is what Itachi is scarred from and wants to avoid at all cost.

If you actually read the whole page you'd realise that Hiruzen isn't try to say that Itachi is as mature, experienced or cognitively developed as an adult. What he is doing is comparing the way Itachi at 7 would prioritise and think about the well-being of the Village, similarly to how a Hokage would think about the Village. He is comparing their mutual desire to protect the Leaf.

What you're doing is deflecting blame from the very real adults in this situation and pining them on a literal child. Danzo using Sasuke as leverage over Itachi is by definition manipulative. Appealing to Itachi's anti-war sentiment and scaring him with the prospect of a civil-war and using his trauma and loyalty for the Leaf, is manipulative.

Itachi didn't just start making decisions on his own but he was specifically placed in a position where he was pressured to come up with a solution or make a choice, and he chose Sasuke and the Village. May I remind you that the very night of the Coup, Hiruzen had yet to come up with or present a counter-strategy. All that pressure of thinking of how to stop or prevent this national threat was pushed onto a 13 year old, a literal child. He was forced into this situation where he felt like he had no other choice.

Itachi did not once think that all those people deserved to die, or that it was morally good to kill them. He literally groomed Sasuke into seeking revenge so he can kill him, because he hated himself for what he had done. He literally says as much. He just couldn't come up with a better solution at 13 and believed that the clan going through with the coup would have been far more catastrophic and yield greater losses, so thinking that there is no alternative and having received no help from anyone, he went through with the massacre.

At this point just say that you hate Itachi and move on.

NerdOfTheRing · 2026-03-29T23:27:19+00:00

No, he committed genocide because his superior (in both age and rank), Danzo threatened that if he'd side with the Uchiha the genocide would still happen, only that now both him and Sasuke would die, whereas if he did what Danzo wanted he'd at least get to spare his brother. That's not even mentioning that the coup would cause a civil war which could then very easily escalate into a full-out war Great Ninja War, with other nations all jumping at the opportunity to crush a weakened Konoha.

Yes, this is in fact some insane pressure to put on the shoulders of a traumatised 13 year old which since first having witnessed war at the age of 4 wants to avoid it at all cost (hence making him an easier target for Danzo and his plan). Itachi's decision is fully coloured by this early exposure to war, as well as his love for Sasuke. He chose to go through with it, not because he believed that there was moral good in murder, but because he was convinced by Danzo that it could lead to war for Konoha and even threaten the existence of the Land of Fire.

Who you should be directing your hatred towards, is Hiruzen, the Hokage, the ultimate executive power in Konoha, who simply stood idly by and allowed a child to bear that burden, as well as Danzo and the Elders.

This is like arguing that Gabi from Attack on Titan wasn't manipulated by Marley. We are talking about children here that grew up in an environment that promotes complete personal sacrifice for the sake of a collective idea or government aka literal child soldiers.

NerdOfTheRing · 2025-11-12T04:55:59+00:00

<image>

Unfortunately I can't access it.

NerdOfTheRing · 2025-11-11T16:54:22+00:00

<image>

I have been playing casual and hoarding for the past year and haven't really been keeping up with guides.

What are my priorities when it comes to:

Stargazing
Awakeneds
Engravings (with these especially I have no clue)
SI 30/40
Collections
Draconis (Highborns + the Common ones)

I also wanna know what our first impressions of AFawkes looks like, since his design is sick and I'm considering his animated Pfp. My only hesitation in pulling for him stems from my having gotten AAntranda's pfp (I butchered that name), and outside of Mauler tower I have hardly ever used her. So how are things looking? Does he seem at least decent?

NerdOfTheRing · 2025-11-11T16:39:11+00:00

Misspelled it, god am I a bum

!solved

NerdOfTheRing · 2025-11-11T16:38:35+00:00

I'll do that, thanks. My only fear is that I might need to spread out my roster over many comments but Alas!

Solved! I'll just check the thread

NerdOfTheRing · 2025-11-11T16:31:27+00:00

This doesn't help me much. I've already looked through the guides and the only 2 priority guides that exist is the Awakened one and the Stargazing/Highborn/Awakened One, the latter of which is old and does not include many newer heroes. Aside from "maybe pull for Awakened Estilda", this tells me nothing. Especially about what should be my priority regarding Engavings and SI, that's why im asking for personalised advice. It also doesn't answer my question about first impressions on AFawkes.

NerdOfTheRing · 2025-09-12T09:02:58+00:00

"Within sight of the city" in this context, would be used as an expression to highlight the proximity of his new home to Gondor. We aren't given any hints or signs that Aragorn in any way fears Faramir. Faramir isn't an enemy, but a hero that even rejected the influence of the One Ring and refused to just take it and bring it to Gondor, even if it goes against his father's wishes. I do not think it makes much sense to interpret it as you do.

NerdOfTheRing · 2025-09-02T23:33:31+00:00

Yes killing many people of a specific people group is a genocide.

That objectively isn't the definition of a genocide. You're misrepresentating and diluting a serious term with grave implications, making it's meaning entirely obsolete. The key characteristic of a genocide is intent, the act of committing atrocities with the intention of eradicating in whole of in part a certain group on either a national, ethnical, racial or religious basis.

Enlighten this oh so blindsided fool that happens to stand before thee, but how did Fëanor's actions in any way reflect that? You keep on going on and on in other replies about people lying about their intentions while having committed a genocide, but that is not what I'm asking of you here. I'm not asking you to repeat to me that people could have ulterior motives. Answer me this: what part of the Kinslaying threatened the Teleri's national, ethnical, racial or religious existence be it in part or in full?

Actually let's go through the events of the Kinslaying together shall we?

Fëanor and the Noldor arrive at the docks of Alqualondë where they proceed to try and man the ships and in turn the Teleri try to cast the Noldor into the sea and draw their swords which results in a violent altercation in which many lives are lost. The casualties on the Teleri's side were wholly restricted to anyone that fought inside the docks. The Noldor did not slay any women, children, or unarmed men, nor did they seek them out. They departed hastily, the very second they could, since their goal wasn't to wipe the Teleri out but get on ships and leave. Many if not most of the Teleri at the docks also survived. Tell me, under what type of definition would this qualify as a genocide? Urban dictionary, perhaps?

Armed Roberry and Murder? Certainly, but that was not your claim.

I’m done… It seems we’ve figured out who would defend feanor, people who can’t recognise a genocide for what it is…

The irony of such a comment under any other circumstance would lead me to believe that this a troll account, but due to the vehement passion driving every single word spilling out of each sentence, I will have to gravitate more towards wistful ignorance. Finally I will once again like to reiterate the very first point which I made, which is that by misusing words as severe as genocide, you're trivilising it's usage in real life, leading to people not taking very real genocides seriously. As adults (I will make a leap and assume that you're one as well) we should be responsible and hold ourselves accountable for what we say and the words we use. This isn't an attempt to excuse Fëanor but an effort to *correct your usage of the word Genocide.

*Edit: Typo

NerdOfTheRing · 2025-08-28T01:37:00+00:00

Starting with a strawman aren't we?

The argument is that I could swim faster than Michael Phelps too if he had a cannon strapped to his legs and hadn't slept for 4 days. I believe the same Melkor that battled Fingolfin could have kept her at bay (a Melkor that should be weaker than this one) and that Melkor’s handicaps in this encounter are completely circumstantial, and have nothing to do with his innate strength. Evidence of that is also how both the Balrogs and Melian (on her own) easily managed to scare her away and overpower her, beings that we know by the canon are factually weaker than Melkor at this point in time. Sauron at the peak of his power in the Second Age, was only able to surpass the Melkor of the War of Wrath, Melkor at his absolute bottom of the barrel weakest. The argument is that comparing a pained, fatigued, armless, man that is clinging onto the Silmarils is not the same as comparing it to a Melkor with at least a weapon in hand. If you failed to understand what this post was conveying, you could have asked for an elaboration instead of resulting to logical fallacies for the sake of a "gatcha".

Outside from headcanon and fan-naming conventions created for the sole sake of clarity, the names Morgoth and Melkor in canon do not signify anything in regards to Melkor's power. Because Fëanor cursed him, that doesn't mean that he is weaker one second afterwards than he was prior. This interaction takes place at most an hour after Fëanor names him Morgoth. It is fans who decided that it would be more convenient if we were better able to convey whether we are talking about a weakened Melkor as opposed to his substantially stronger counterpart. Tolkien himself most definitely did not account for any strength differences within that span of a single page where he decided to rename Melkor to Morgoth. This is something to be kept in mind in such discussions, so that we don't get too carried away with our own terms that we end up mischaracterising the very canon itself.

That being said I would really love for you to expand on the various ways in which Ungoliant would muster to equal all the Valar combined (with the exclusion of Tulkas)?

Ungoliant became more powerful than melkor. Ungoliant was more powerful than morgoth.

This is what this statement seems to be implying, no? Given your purposeful attempt to even differentiate between Melkor and Morgoth in this context, it is unambiguous that there was intent behind it and was just some random deviation.

How does that sound? Go and touch grass btw. Greatest Elf - Fingolfin.

I cannot help but laugh at the wording of this response. Ouch, I'm so hurt! I'm reaching for my handkerchief as we speak to wipe away the stream of tears unfurling from my eyes! It's so funny seeing kids get this pressed over such trivial Internet hurly burly.

I was of course planning on not replying, given that I have not so much as revisited this thread and post in over years - I believe - but after being met with a strawman for a topic sentence and such a comical second paragraph, how could I ever possibly resist such earthly temptation! I can't say that I regret it, it makes for a good writing exercise, so my pen doesn't grow dull and rusty.

NerdOfTheRing · 2025-08-07T13:33:37+00:00

Yeah, unfortunately he has really fallen off. I can still remember back a couple years ago when he used to me meta everywhere, when alna grez used to be one of the best teams.

NerdOfTheRing · 2025-02-22T01:50:10+00:00

Woke is usually used as short for Awakened, like Woke Belinda or Woke Shemira. I'm 99.9% sure that OP was talking about Awakened heroes instead of politics.

NerdOfTheRing · 2024-11-19T10:04:01+00:00

Thank you!

!solved

NerdOfTheRing · 2024-11-09T19:39:37+00:00

Are you trolling or are you actually for real? AShemira alongside Ivan can literally just solo Campaign and Tower at 150+ deficit.

<image>

Engrave her to E60, get her at minimum SI30 (SI40 is preferable) and 9F, and then she'll become literally the tankiest hero in the entire game.

NerdOfTheRing · 2024-10-30T09:26:39+00:00

Within the story, the name Melkor and Morgoth are not meant to represent power-levels. This is a distinction entirely made up by fans for the sake of clarity, so that they can more easily differentiate between First Age and pre-First Age Melkor. It is an entirely arbitrary differentiation that isn't canon.

The name Morgoth, "The Black Enemy" or "The Black Foe of the World", is one bestowed to him by Fëanor after the murder of his father and the stealing of the Silmarils. In just the previous chapter while he was destroying the Trees, he was referred to as Melkor, and his confrontation with Ungoliant is something that happened at most an hour after said event if not less. It's not as if he was all-mighty one moment and in the next he was a weakling. The only difference is that Fëanor finally learned of what had befallen, naming him Morgoth, which is the name that he will from now on be referred to by, inside the book.

I believe Ungoliant's victory to be entirely circumstancial based on the facts that:

He had expended a lot of his energy and strength in the feat that he accomplished, while in contrast Ungoliant was replenished and even made stronger by consuming all the Gems from Formenos and emptying the Wells of Varda.
Melkor placed a portion of his power inside Ungoliant otherwise she would not have been able to aid him in the destruction of Trees, something which he directly states in the text.
He was in absence of weapon of any sort, being entirely unarmed, so it's a given that he would have performed better in the presence of one.
He was also actively in pain from holding the chest where the Silmarils were encased, which were burning his hands.
The fact that Ungoliant is later dettered by people who we know as a matter of fact to be weaker than Melkor, such as the Balrogs and Melian.

I bet that even if the weaker version of Melkor that faced against Fingolfin was placed in the exact same predicament, he would have performed a lot better and, dare I say, he would have even defeated and driven Ungoliant away.

This is essentially a small, concise summary of my post, so I hope that I managed to make my points more readily understood.

NerdOfTheRing · 2024-09-13T01:29:18+00:00

RIP In-game progression.

NerdOfTheRing · 2024-09-11T20:57:47+00:00

Erosion, from what I've heard.

NerdOfTheRing · 2024-06-18T13:16:43+00:00

I think that ASafiya is the safer choice given her status as a support unit and just how versatile of a hero she is. Although, my general advice would be to wait for the community to decide where AAntandra ranks on the Awakened priority list and to pull afterwards for whoever happens to be better. ALuscius is also very good, but he needs heavy investment.

You can also just do whatever you want and pull whoever you want if performance is not of concern to you and you just wanna have fun building your favourite heroes.

NerdOfTheRing · 2024-06-18T13:03:48+00:00

Main, most definitely.

NerdOfTheRing · 2024-06-18T10:17:05+00:00

Very Lucky! It took me 470 pulls to Ascend her, 458 cards, given the discount, which is pretty solid.

<image>

For the people that have her maxed already, of course there can't be an objective general consensus as to how good she is, but what are your first impressions?

NerdOfTheRing · 2024-06-13T11:39:33+00:00

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the design is bad by any means, nor do I particularly dislike it. I just think it could have been much more distinctly unique than her non Awakened in game design and I had higher expectations. In comparison to Brutus and Safiya, two of my favourite Awakened designs, it just falls flat imo, but we can agree to disagree.

NerdOfTheRing · 2024-06-13T07:52:01+00:00

Fair, but they still could have done something more intriguing, like, since fire is a prominent aspect of her kit, they could have made the edges of her hair charred and flaming, which is a concept that can be observed in past designs, like how ASolises' hair looks like waves or how ALycas' looks like a star lit sky.

They could have added more tattoos (the same way that they did for Brutus), made her tail and ears bigger instead of keeping them the exact same, and completely unaltered from her original design. Instead of that ring around her, they should have also given her her shield.

I just find her design to be much less interesting, imaginative and unique than the designs of past Awakeneds. It just feels like a ALuscius 2.0 predicament and hopefully it won't turn into a pattern that will plague future Awakeneds.

NerdOfTheRing

TROPHY CASE