One Piece Cb2405's Theory Topic: Will Kaido Die? Yes. Who Will Kill Him? Zoro
- Thread starter Cb2405
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,113
- Reaction score
- 7,130
- Points
- 9,250
- Salty Doubloons
- 2,765
While i do agree that Luffy won't kill Kaido, i think somebody else might swoop in and do the deed, like Blackbeard.
Luffy not killing his opponents isn't a weakness. As far as i remember Luffy has never outright refused to kill somebody. He has probably killed hundreds of fodder marines (throwing them off enies lobby, or into the fire in impel down, with cannon balls he threw back at them etc.), but with his big boss fights, so far, a mere knockout has been enough.
Circumstances always arose so that through the knockout his opponent has become unable to fulfill their ambition (crocodile and doffy got arrested, Moriah lost his zombie army, Morgans was made responsible for his actions, etc.).
Kaidos dreams and goals though, are a bit harder to destroy. If he is left alive, he can always come back to Wano. Unless he has a very specific reason to want to be there, like a prophecy about joyboy appearing there.
So if Kaidos dream turns out to be to fight and die in a giant destructive war against Joyboy in Wano, that would leave a way for Luffy to crush his dream: Save the people of the flower capital, and defeat Kaido without killing him.
Another way things could play out:
Kaidos enormous strength means he could always cause destruction again. So if he were to lose his strength, his dream would be over.
By the end of the raid, his crew will have been defeated or defected.
And we have already seen a way for people to lose the strength to battle. After fishman island, Hody and his crew were all aged by the energy steroids they've been taking.
If Shinobu manages to age a knocked out Kaido into his 90s, he would become harmless, and his dream would die.
Also, Zorro calling out Luffy for not killing his opponents would be very hypocritical, considering that both Kaku and Mr. 1 are still alive.
Luffy not killing his opponents isn't a weakness. As far as i remember Luffy has never outright refused to kill somebody. He has probably killed hundreds of fodder marines (throwing them off enies lobby, or into the fire in impel down, with cannon balls he threw back at them etc.), but with his big boss fights, so far, a mere knockout has been enough.
Circumstances always arose so that through the knockout his opponent has become unable to fulfill their ambition (crocodile and doffy got arrested, Moriah lost his zombie army, Morgans was made responsible for his actions, etc.).
Kaidos dreams and goals though, are a bit harder to destroy. If he is left alive, he can always come back to Wano. Unless he has a very specific reason to want to be there, like a prophecy about joyboy appearing there.
So if Kaidos dream turns out to be to fight and die in a giant destructive war against Joyboy in Wano, that would leave a way for Luffy to crush his dream: Save the people of the flower capital, and defeat Kaido without killing him.
Another way things could play out:
Kaidos enormous strength means he could always cause destruction again. So if he were to lose his strength, his dream would be over.
By the end of the raid, his crew will have been defeated or defected.
And we have already seen a way for people to lose the strength to battle. After fishman island, Hody and his crew were all aged by the energy steroids they've been taking.
If Shinobu manages to age a knocked out Kaido into his 90s, he would become harmless, and his dream would die.
Also, Zorro calling out Luffy for not killing his opponents would be very hypocritical, considering that both Kaku and Mr. 1 are still alive.
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 19
- Points
- 125
- Salty Doubloons
- 332
You're right.
Never mind that the author himself stated that the fights in the story are about dreams, and Luffy doesn't kill people, instead he kills the dreams. Forget that the author ever said stuff like that, and just dismiss it for your own personal biases. What the author says doesn't mean anything.
I was wrong. Luffy does, in fact, have no issue killing anybody. I was wrong to suggest that Luffy would not kill Kaido because he would only kill his dream instead. So, there's no point in suggesting that Zoro would kill Kaido like I did in this theory, because obviously Luffy is a mass murderer who has no problem killing people to achieve his goals.
Forget I ever mentioned it.
---
Why I think Oda's explanation of "Why Luffy and co don't kill their enemies" needs better appreciation. : OnePiece (reddit.com) -- reddit link for Oda's explanation of why Luffy doesn't kill his enemies
A lot of us know that Oda was asked this question once.
Luffy is like Goku. He doesn't kill people because he is hoping they will become good guys instead of bad guys later. Both Luffy, and Goku, possess this same characteristic.
Concerning dreams... Kaido's dream is weird because his dream is to die (destroying himself). His second dream is to start a world war (destroying all things except himself).
In other words, this theory was about Luffy being Goku, and Kaido being Freeza.
After being defeated by Luffy, who allows Kaido to live to change his ways, Kaido will perform a last-ditch effort to kill Luffy. Instead of Goku (Luffy) dodging the attack, and triggering Kaido killing himself with his own attack, as with the Freeza situation, Zoro will intervene and prevent Luffy from being killed because he took pity on Kaido.
The fact Kaido's dream is to die.... changes the element of the story where Luffy may attempt to save a person so they can try to accomplish their dream again. If Kaido's dream is to die, and Luffy allows him to live, then there's really no point in Luffy even extending that kind of proposal at all. However, even if Kaido wants to die, I don't think Luffy would end his life. So, that's why I think Kaido will force a situation where he is killed by Zoro instead.
Never mind that the author himself stated that the fights in the story are about dreams, and Luffy doesn't kill people, instead he kills the dreams. Forget that the author ever said stuff like that, and just dismiss it for your own personal biases. What the author says doesn't mean anything.
I was wrong. Luffy does, in fact, have no issue killing anybody. I was wrong to suggest that Luffy would not kill Kaido because he would only kill his dream instead. So, there's no point in suggesting that Zoro would kill Kaido like I did in this theory, because obviously Luffy is a mass murderer who has no problem killing people to achieve his goals.
Forget I ever mentioned it.
---
Why I think Oda's explanation of "Why Luffy and co don't kill their enemies" needs better appreciation. : OnePiece (reddit.com) -- reddit link for Oda's explanation of why Luffy doesn't kill his enemies
A lot of us know that Oda was asked this question once.
---
Luffy is like Goku. He doesn't kill people because he is hoping they will become good guys instead of bad guys later. Both Luffy, and Goku, possess this same characteristic.
Concerning dreams... Kaido's dream is weird because his dream is to die (destroying himself). His second dream is to start a world war (destroying all things except himself).
In other words, this theory was about Luffy being Goku, and Kaido being Freeza.
After being defeated by Luffy, who allows Kaido to live to change his ways, Kaido will perform a last-ditch effort to kill Luffy. Instead of Goku (Luffy) dodging the attack, and triggering Kaido killing himself with his own attack, as with the Freeza situation, Zoro will intervene and prevent Luffy from being killed because he took pity on Kaido.
The fact Kaido's dream is to die.... changes the element of the story where Luffy may attempt to save a person so they can try to accomplish their dream again. If Kaido's dream is to die, and Luffy allows him to live, then there's really no point in Luffy even extending that kind of proposal at all. However, even if Kaido wants to die, I don't think Luffy would end his life. So, that's why I think Kaido will force a situation where he is killed by Zoro instead.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,113
- Reaction score
- 7,130
- Points
- 9,250
- Salty Doubloons
- 2,765
I am well aware of that Statement by Oda.
What I meant by this is that Luffy not killing his enemies has never been shown as a weakness.
It has never negatively affected him, unlike for example Sanjis inability to hit a woman.
Not killing people is not an unbreakable code that Luffy lives by, and I don't think it's ever even been mentioned in the story that he generally doesn't.
He just doesn't kill his enemies, and he didn't have to up till now.
So with Kaidos wish explicitly being to die, I personally would not like it for him to be forced to kill or be admonished for not killing.
If Kaido has to die, i don't think it would be a strawhat who would do the deed.
I would prefer if Kaidos dream got crushed before someone else (Blackbeard?) killed him.
What I meant by this is that Luffy not killing his enemies has never been shown as a weakness.
It has never negatively affected him, unlike for example Sanjis inability to hit a woman.
Not killing people is not an unbreakable code that Luffy lives by, and I don't think it's ever even been mentioned in the story that he generally doesn't.
He just doesn't kill his enemies, and he didn't have to up till now.
So with Kaidos wish explicitly being to die, I personally would not like it for him to be forced to kill or be admonished for not killing.
If Kaido has to die, i don't think it would be a strawhat who would do the deed.
I would prefer if Kaidos dream got crushed before someone else (Blackbeard?) killed him.
- Messages
- 43
- Reaction score
- 19
- Points
- 125
- Salty Doubloons
- 332
I have a few questions for you.
Has Luffy KILLED any major villains?
- I can't think of any that he killed, right now. Maybe later. (there have been a lot of them)
- Condition: They have to explicitly be stated to have died, and not just be shown to be defeated or have incurred bodily harm.
Has Luffy KILLED any minor villains?
- I can't think of any that he killed, right now. Maybe later. (there have been a lot of them)
- Condition: They have to explicitly be stated to have died, and not just be shown to be defeated or have incurred bodily harm.
Has Luffy KILLED any fodder characters?
- I can't think of any that he killed, right now. Maybe later. (there have been a lot of them)
- Condition: They have to explicitly be stated to have died, and not just be shown to be defeated or have incurred bodily harm.
- Extra Condition: In the case of "disposable characters" such as with fodder characters, since it's a comic book, they may have situations where they would continue living, but in a real context the person in question would have certainly died. For example, if someone were hit by a cannonball in One Piece, it may be assumed that they continued to live after although having incurred bodily harm. However, in a real world context, this person would have certainly died from the resulting injuries.
In the case of non-disposable and disposable character, non-disposable characters may not incur the same bodily harm as disposable characters may without applying a context that fits the narrative. For example, a fodder character may be hit by a cannonball and you may see this character again a few panels later in perfect health simply because their situation doesn't need much explanation. However, if one of the non-disposable characters incur significant damage then this damage weighs greatly on the character's personal narrative element. To summarize, fodder characters can incur more damage than normal characters may without having to explain what caused it or how they recovered from it. On the other hand, normal characters MUST explain what caused significant damage to them as well as how they recover from it. Therefore, fodder characters may incur LETHAL damage without explaining what caused it or how they recovered from it later. It is not necessary to assume that fodder characters have died in any situation unless they are explicitly stated to have died from the damage incurred.
To put it simply, the fodder characters have cartoonish survivability elements that allow them to survive lethal damage, and the reader should assume they always survive unless they are stated to have died as a direct result of the antecedent action; I.e., hit by a cannonball and either the narrator or some other character states the person(s) hit by the cannonball are dead or their bodies are shown to be damaged *beyond repair*. In the case of the Marineford War, it is assumed that many people died on both sides due to statements from people like Gecko Moria that he wished to turn the deceased fighters into members of his zombie army.
All of that needed to be explained because Luffy has flung cannonballs at fodder characters before, sinking ships, or causing what would be considered lethal damage to a person (or has done something very similar to this). The point is that in many situations where Luffy has seemingly killed a person and the reader might assume that person died -- it's not true -- that person didn't actually die as a result of the damage.
This may be true for... 99.9% of the time. There may have been one or two situations, as in with the Marineford War, where it may be assumed that someone had died as a result of Luffy's actions either directly or indirectly.
However, and this is a personal belief of mine, I think that is a major point in the story because Roger and Luffy possess the same spirit. That spirit has been trying to achieve a goal, and the spirit has been *changing* to try to create a *fate* that will achieve that goal. That might not make sense to you, or anyone, but what it means is that Roger was a failure. Roger's Spirit failed during Roger's lifetime because the way it *changed* did not achieve the desired *fate*. With that said, Luffy exists because Roger failed. Luffy is the spirit in a new body. Roger is Luffy. Luffy is Roger. Rather, Roger and Luffy are the Spirit in different forms.
Roger failed... because he killed people.
Luffy will succeed... because he doesn't kill people.
The entire point of the contrast between Roger and Luffy is that Roger IS Luffy -- except Roger did things incorrectly.
There are two major characteristics that separate Roger and Luffy...
1. Roger knew about the Void Century before setting out on his journey. (knowing about the Void Century made Roger full of hatred)
2. Luffy did not know about the Void Century before setting out on his journey. (not knowing about the Void Century made Luffy normal)
A. Roger was willing to kill people to achieve his goals. There are many people who say Roger was a ruthless person and that he killed their entire crews and that they wanted revenge against Roger for this reason.
B. Luffy is not willing to kill people to achieve his goals. There isn't anyone who has a vendetta against Luffy because he has killed their entire crews. Nobody wants revenge against Luffy for that reason.
I believe the way Luffy's spirit changed involved those two elements. Roger was a failure because he killed people, and that was the major problem concerning how his fate had resulted (incorrectly). Luffy will be a success because he doesn't kill people, and this will relate to how his fate results (correctly).
Where Roger failed, Luffy will succeed for this very reason.
In other words, killing Kaido would change who Luffy is, and it would probably also result in him being unable to activate the One Piece later. (Roger probably wasn't able to activate the One Piece because of how he lived his life!). Killing a person, any person, may cause Luffy to change his own fate -- which relates to the activation of One Piece, and the Dawn of a New Age. He can't kill people lol
--
I want to cite precedent in this theory.
- There is significance in the fact that instances like the following have occurred:
1. There is a character, an old man, I forget his name, who trained Luffy, Sabo, and Ace when they were young. This old man was an old pirate captain, and his entire crew was killed by Roger, and his ship was destroyed. This act destroyed the old man's dream of being a pirate.
- Part of Luffy's fate, during his childhood, was encountering this man. The reader is supposed to connect the idea of Luffy's new fate, and Roger's old fate, with the fate of the old man to understand that Luffy is different than Roger is, but if you also understand that Luffy IS Roger then you get further understanding that Luffy was brought to see this person through fate because he needed to learn about the consequences of his own actions in his previous lifetime.
The old man existed to show Luffy the error of his ways during his lifetime as Roger.
Here is a picture of the old man and Luffy, Sabo, and Ace. Luffy remarks that the old man made the big bear turn away just by staring at him like Shanks!
Also... if Luffy just kills Kaido, then how would Yamato react to that?
You see, I don't think Luffy is intended to just kill him. That would make him monster-like. Villainous. It changes who he is.
Zoro, on the other hand, possesses two qualities that Luffy doesn't which are the following:
1. Zoro is a Pirate Hunter. He has killed to take bounties in the past whether dead or alive.
2. Zoro is a practical person. If he knows that Kaido is willing to kill, and that Luffy is not willing to kill, then he may decide to act where Luffy will not, and he may also spite Luffy for not being practical about his dealings with enemies.
Zoro will not understand why Luffy doesn't kill his enemies, especially one that is a powerful loose cannon like Kaido who could become a major problem later. That's my reasoning for why he'll be mad at Luffy for not ending his life after Kaido is defeated.
Lastly, sure someone else aside from Zoro could kill Kaido... maybe... the only person who comes to mind, however, would be Captain Kidd because he's one of the only other people able to inflict any kind of meaningful damage on Kaido that I can think of. Kaido requires what other people would refer to as an Ad-CoC attack to actually hurt him (Ad-CoC meaning Advanced Color of Conqueror's which is... already a shortened form... ugh). I think Ad-CoC is a stupid abbreviation, and I think people who use abbreviations/acronyms for stupid things like that are stupid themselves and try to make up for it by making normal words they use seem more complicated by turning them into abbreviations/acronyms.
For example... I scratched my ass. An idiot might say "ISMA" instead to seem cool and intelligent, but in reality they're stupid for turning the words I Scratched My Ass into an acronym. Ridiculous. Like we need to start making a list of important abbreviations and acronyms and as we're going along... NSC (National Safety Council)... wtf ISMA? (I Scratched My Ass).
Do you see the level of idiocy in statements like that? lol that's one acronym/abbreviation I don't need in my vocabulary
Has Luffy KILLED any major villains?
- I can't think of any that he killed, right now. Maybe later. (there have been a lot of them)
- Condition: They have to explicitly be stated to have died, and not just be shown to be defeated or have incurred bodily harm.
Has Luffy KILLED any minor villains?
- I can't think of any that he killed, right now. Maybe later. (there have been a lot of them)
- Condition: They have to explicitly be stated to have died, and not just be shown to be defeated or have incurred bodily harm.
Has Luffy KILLED any fodder characters?
- I can't think of any that he killed, right now. Maybe later. (there have been a lot of them)
- Condition: They have to explicitly be stated to have died, and not just be shown to be defeated or have incurred bodily harm.
- Extra Condition: In the case of "disposable characters" such as with fodder characters, since it's a comic book, they may have situations where they would continue living, but in a real context the person in question would have certainly died. For example, if someone were hit by a cannonball in One Piece, it may be assumed that they continued to live after although having incurred bodily harm. However, in a real world context, this person would have certainly died from the resulting injuries.
In the case of non-disposable and disposable character, non-disposable characters may not incur the same bodily harm as disposable characters may without applying a context that fits the narrative. For example, a fodder character may be hit by a cannonball and you may see this character again a few panels later in perfect health simply because their situation doesn't need much explanation. However, if one of the non-disposable characters incur significant damage then this damage weighs greatly on the character's personal narrative element. To summarize, fodder characters can incur more damage than normal characters may without having to explain what caused it or how they recovered from it. On the other hand, normal characters MUST explain what caused significant damage to them as well as how they recover from it. Therefore, fodder characters may incur LETHAL damage without explaining what caused it or how they recovered from it later. It is not necessary to assume that fodder characters have died in any situation unless they are explicitly stated to have died from the damage incurred.
To put it simply, the fodder characters have cartoonish survivability elements that allow them to survive lethal damage, and the reader should assume they always survive unless they are stated to have died as a direct result of the antecedent action; I.e., hit by a cannonball and either the narrator or some other character states the person(s) hit by the cannonball are dead or their bodies are shown to be damaged *beyond repair*. In the case of the Marineford War, it is assumed that many people died on both sides due to statements from people like Gecko Moria that he wished to turn the deceased fighters into members of his zombie army.
All of that needed to be explained because Luffy has flung cannonballs at fodder characters before, sinking ships, or causing what would be considered lethal damage to a person (or has done something very similar to this). The point is that in many situations where Luffy has seemingly killed a person and the reader might assume that person died -- it's not true -- that person didn't actually die as a result of the damage.
This may be true for... 99.9% of the time. There may have been one or two situations, as in with the Marineford War, where it may be assumed that someone had died as a result of Luffy's actions either directly or indirectly.
However, and this is a personal belief of mine, I think that is a major point in the story because Roger and Luffy possess the same spirit. That spirit has been trying to achieve a goal, and the spirit has been *changing* to try to create a *fate* that will achieve that goal. That might not make sense to you, or anyone, but what it means is that Roger was a failure. Roger's Spirit failed during Roger's lifetime because the way it *changed* did not achieve the desired *fate*. With that said, Luffy exists because Roger failed. Luffy is the spirit in a new body. Roger is Luffy. Luffy is Roger. Rather, Roger and Luffy are the Spirit in different forms.
Roger failed... because he killed people.
Luffy will succeed... because he doesn't kill people.
The entire point of the contrast between Roger and Luffy is that Roger IS Luffy -- except Roger did things incorrectly.
There are two major characteristics that separate Roger and Luffy...
1. Roger knew about the Void Century before setting out on his journey. (knowing about the Void Century made Roger full of hatred)
2. Luffy did not know about the Void Century before setting out on his journey. (not knowing about the Void Century made Luffy normal)
A. Roger was willing to kill people to achieve his goals. There are many people who say Roger was a ruthless person and that he killed their entire crews and that they wanted revenge against Roger for this reason.
B. Luffy is not willing to kill people to achieve his goals. There isn't anyone who has a vendetta against Luffy because he has killed their entire crews. Nobody wants revenge against Luffy for that reason.
I believe the way Luffy's spirit changed involved those two elements. Roger was a failure because he killed people, and that was the major problem concerning how his fate had resulted (incorrectly). Luffy will be a success because he doesn't kill people, and this will relate to how his fate results (correctly).
Where Roger failed, Luffy will succeed for this very reason.
In other words, killing Kaido would change who Luffy is, and it would probably also result in him being unable to activate the One Piece later. (Roger probably wasn't able to activate the One Piece because of how he lived his life!). Killing a person, any person, may cause Luffy to change his own fate -- which relates to the activation of One Piece, and the Dawn of a New Age. He can't kill people lol
--
I want to cite precedent in this theory.
- There is significance in the fact that instances like the following have occurred:
1. There is a character, an old man, I forget his name, who trained Luffy, Sabo, and Ace when they were young. This old man was an old pirate captain, and his entire crew was killed by Roger, and his ship was destroyed. This act destroyed the old man's dream of being a pirate.
- Part of Luffy's fate, during his childhood, was encountering this man. The reader is supposed to connect the idea of Luffy's new fate, and Roger's old fate, with the fate of the old man to understand that Luffy is different than Roger is, but if you also understand that Luffy IS Roger then you get further understanding that Luffy was brought to see this person through fate because he needed to learn about the consequences of his own actions in his previous lifetime.
The old man existed to show Luffy the error of his ways during his lifetime as Roger.
Here is a picture of the old man and Luffy, Sabo, and Ace. Luffy remarks that the old man made the big bear turn away just by staring at him like Shanks!
Also... if Luffy just kills Kaido, then how would Yamato react to that?
You see, I don't think Luffy is intended to just kill him. That would make him monster-like. Villainous. It changes who he is.
Zoro, on the other hand, possesses two qualities that Luffy doesn't which are the following:
1. Zoro is a Pirate Hunter. He has killed to take bounties in the past whether dead or alive.
2. Zoro is a practical person. If he knows that Kaido is willing to kill, and that Luffy is not willing to kill, then he may decide to act where Luffy will not, and he may also spite Luffy for not being practical about his dealings with enemies.
Zoro will not understand why Luffy doesn't kill his enemies, especially one that is a powerful loose cannon like Kaido who could become a major problem later. That's my reasoning for why he'll be mad at Luffy for not ending his life after Kaido is defeated.
Lastly, sure someone else aside from Zoro could kill Kaido... maybe... the only person who comes to mind, however, would be Captain Kidd because he's one of the only other people able to inflict any kind of meaningful damage on Kaido that I can think of. Kaido requires what other people would refer to as an Ad-CoC attack to actually hurt him (Ad-CoC meaning Advanced Color of Conqueror's which is... already a shortened form... ugh). I think Ad-CoC is a stupid abbreviation, and I think people who use abbreviations/acronyms for stupid things like that are stupid themselves and try to make up for it by making normal words they use seem more complicated by turning them into abbreviations/acronyms.
For example... I scratched my ass. An idiot might say "ISMA" instead to seem cool and intelligent, but in reality they're stupid for turning the words I Scratched My Ass into an acronym. Ridiculous. Like we need to start making a list of important abbreviations and acronyms and as we're going along... NSC (National Safety Council)... wtf ISMA? (I Scratched My Ass).
Do you see the level of idiocy in statements like that? lol that's one acronym/abbreviation I don't need in my vocabulary
Last edited: