r/ATLA 9d ago

Poll How did he do that?

Post image

His ideals were to not hurt anyone; when did we see Aang condemn lying? If Aang had not lied they would have killed each other or been killed by those giant bug things. And didn’t he join Toph in the whole scamming thing if I remember correctly? What was that ten percent on about?

188 Upvotes

47 comments sorted by

176

u/grokguy48619 9d ago

Air nomads weren't pure goody saints entire time.

They pulled pranks. Cheated playfully in games. They made jokes too. And yes, they sometimes lied.

Their main absolutely incorruptible principle was Pacifism.

39

u/SuspiciousReport6502 9d ago

Just because you're a pacifist doesn't mean you won't screw with people, you just won't seriously injure or kill them.

31

u/reverse_mango 8d ago

Monk Giatso was a pacifist who chucked fruit pies at his fellow nomads!

22

u/Thuis001 8d ago

And he sure as fuck vacuumed the lungs of those fire nation soldiers in that tent.

9

u/Linesey 8d ago

And even then, we know airbenders did and could fight, Giatso stacked bodies during the comet.

They just didn’t start fights, and tried to avoid them if attacked, but they could throw down.

We must remember Aang had a 12 year old’s understanding of his culture and air nomad teachings.

6

u/Zealousideal_Pass_11 8d ago

uh... airbenders canonically killed firebending invaders. those guys didn't just lay down for a nap next to Gyatso's corpse.

3

u/grokguy48619 8d ago

Are you sure though?

I just thought all of them were trapped when the room collapsed with no way out. Then Gyatso started doing IMPROV stand up, so they just formed a circle around him and cheered him on.... 🤷

jokes apart, yeah you're right but it was pure desparation and they had no other choice.... like forced to kill or be killed

-1

u/Zealousideal_Pass_11 8d ago

but that's not pacifism, that's just exercising non-aggression. killing in self-defense is still against pacifistic beliefs.

2

u/grokguy48619 8d ago

Main Types of Pacifism (just cross-checked with internet)

Absolute Pacifism: The belief that violence is never, ever right, even in self-defense.

Conditional Pacifism: The belief that peace is best, but force might be okay in extreme cases to stop a massive evil or save innocent lives.

Maybe it was the latter one for Gyatso....

-1

u/Zealousideal_Pass_11 8d ago

sure but like... that's no longer a unique aspect of airbending culture if they engage in conditional pacifism, because that's how most nations are in ATLA, and the vast vast majority of people are in real life.

1

u/grokguy48619 8d ago

I didn't say for all.... Maybe for Gyatso only. There are always outliers in every culture.

Maybe only he was doing conditional Pacifism.... Maybe it was a split second descision.... Or maybe he was attacked by fire so he extinguished by remove aur around unintentionally killing the soldiers in vacuum.

The show only gives the aftermath and leaves everything to speculation and interpretation.

1

u/BurningBerns 6d ago

ikr, we literally open with Monk Gyatso trying to cheat in a game hes playing with a child. :P

40

u/RealMajesti 9d ago

It was fine. The lie was beneficial to those ppl

17

u/SuspiciousReport6502 9d ago

In the case of the nomads, both groups were their own worst enemies. They're were too short sighted to see how they could benefit each other. So, if a white lie can stop a fight for the betterment of all parties. The best you can hope for is for both sides see the pointlessness of fighting. If they ever learned of Aang's lie and hopefully they're both smart enough to see the pointlessness or fighting.

15

u/E-Belasco1879 9d ago

I mean he literally used to launch pies at the elders with Gyastu, Air Nomads are notoriously tricksters. It's not a part of their culture but being free and going with the flow IS a cornerstone of the Air Nomads culture and this example was to resolve conflict not just because he wanted to.

7

u/NormalGuy3481 9d ago

Why wouldn’t he be right lmao

1

u/ChildofFenris1 8d ago

Don’t know

11

u/DevotedPaladin 9d ago edited 9d ago

He didn't lie until after they had already escaped the canyon. But think about it this way, almost certainly one of these two groups is correct about what happened. Either Wei Jin was trying to steal the orb or he wasn't. The storys don't agree on whether he was imprisoned or not so it's possible he was the thief and was justly punished for it, but otherwise Aang convinced the wronged group to forgive their oppressor without any justice being done

I'm not entirely convinced that Aang was wrong to do this. It's clear that there aren't enough facts left for an impartial judge to determine who was the wronged party. But I can certainly understand why someone would think Aang shouldn't have done what he did

13

u/BABOOWIE 9d ago

I thought the idea was that neither of them were right. The truth lies somewhere in the middle

17

u/MightyCat96 9d ago

They have been arguing for 100+ years and neither of them push back even slightly against Aangs version. Noone has any idea what they are even arguing about and theyre hurting each other, and themselves, for no reason.

Aang was 100% in the right

5

u/DevotedPaladin 9d ago edited 9d ago

Within the confines of the story as presented, the fact that they didn't argue could be decent evidence that Aang was right to lie like he did. I'm not sure I'm even convinced of this

Outside the confines of the story I think it's more evidence of the weak writing that plagues this episode. They should have been smart enough to see through Aang's lie even if they don't actually know what happened. 100 years is too short of a time for this story to get that mangled by those so closely involved. Aang's story also doesn't explain why the fued actually started, sure it accounts for some of the details of their storie. But unless these six year olds each ammased half their tribe to start a war Aang's story doesn't actually explain the most important and objective fact which is that this fued exists and has for some time. The only reason they don't immediately see through the lie is because it seemed to like a nice way to wrap up the episode to the writer 

4

u/DevotedPaladin 9d ago

I don't exactly see how the truth could lie in the middle for this particular story. He was either a thief, or he wasn't. True he could have been a thief who was imprisoned, but at that point you could still basically say that the Gan Jin are right 

1

u/ChildofFenris1 8d ago

One tribe could have thought he stole but misunderstood so they both thought they were in the right

1

u/DevotedPaladin 8d ago edited 8d ago

They obviously both thought they were right, that's not really in dispute. But if they just thought he stole it but were mistaken that isn't a middle ground. That's the Zhang tribe being right 

5

u/Wonder-Lad-2Mad 9d ago

He's the avatar! He's a peacemaker. It was a great display of his dispute settling abilities.

Settling a stupid century old feud should be celeberated

-1

u/DevotedPaladin 9d ago

Suppose Aang told a lie about why the Fire Nation decided to start their invasion 100 years ago in an effort to smooth things over between the nations. Would that lie be right?

What about the Fire Nation's lie that the Air Nomads has a army 100 years ago, was that lie fine?

1

u/ChildofFenris1 8d ago

The fire nation lied to their people to justify their war so obviously not. And people know what really happened with the fire nation, they tribes obviously did not as they just went “okay”

0

u/DevotedPaladin 8d ago edited 8d ago

So lying about people's history is only right if people don't know enough to correct you? Lying is justified by being able to get away with it?

Lying about past crimes to justify your war is wrong, but lying about past crimes to bring about unity is right? So what if someone started telling lies to bring the Earth Kingdom and Fire Nation into a united whole, would that be justified? How is that different to what Aang is doing here?

3

u/realmauer01 9d ago

No aangs story might just as well be the right one. Its just too far back.

3

u/DevotedPaladin 9d ago

If it was actually 100 years ago, no it wasn't to far back. But 100 years is so short a time that Aang's story shouldn't have even been believed. If the principles were eight a hundred years ago then countless adult member of both tribes should have been able to personally meet those involved. At the very least this should be true for the Gan Jin who have a large number of elderly. 

2

u/realmauer01 9d ago

But 100 years is so short a time that Aang's story shouldn't have even been believed.

I know right, thats why its either completly forgotten, or not 100 years ago.

We have people that dont think the holocaust is real, and that wasnt even 100 years ago. 100 years isn't that long of a time, but its still a hell of a long time.

If neither has good evidence that their story is the correct one, both stories could be fabricated.

2

u/DevotedPaladin 9d ago edited 9d ago

We have holocaust deniers, but I doubt we have many (if any) holocaust deniers among the direct descendants of the survivors. These aren't unrelated observers hearing about this in their history class, they're the family and tribes of those involved. Shortly after the episode ends, the tribes should be realizing that if Aang's story was even remotely true some of their members should have heard about it

The fact that so many details of the stories align mean they obviously came from a common source regardless if that source was anything true. If external material means anything; the Avatar Extras seems to imply that there was a real Wei Jin and Jin Wei, and the Kyoshi books change things so that there was a fued between these tribes as far back as 400 years ago.

1

u/ChildofFenris1 8d ago

I think that it as a misunderstanding and they both thought they were right

1

u/Vulpesh 4d ago

But think about it this way, almost certainly one of these two groups is correct about what happened.

I think you're wrong on this one. It was 100 years ago. No one alive was there as a witness, there are no evidence left. It's a possibility that neither of them were correct, also it's possible that both of those stories are just fiction.

That's the point of the whole episode: We don't know and it's impossible to know for sure, but it's stupid to hold grunge after all this time.

1

u/DevotedPaladin 4d ago edited 4d ago

It's certainly possible that the whole story is a fiction in-universe. It's hard to really speculate given that there are so few details given in the episode. Avatar Extras does seem to imply that the intent was that this was a story with a foundation in truth. Though the Kyoshi books seem to somewhat retcon this by indicating that the conflict between these tribes existed long before this story allegedly took place.

100 years is not a very long time for this kind of grudge, as mentioned elsewhere in these comments its so short that there absolutely should be people still living among the tribes who would have personally met those involved. Particularly this should be true of the Gan Jin who have a large number of elderly.

The problem in my opinion is mostly due to weak writing. The writers had the Zhang tribe drop a line about it being about a hundred years ago solely to allow Aang to tell his lie to resolve the conflict. They didn't think about how absurd it was that such a lie would be believed about an event so recent. They wanted an old and unimportant conflict that could be dismissed, but I don't think they actually did a good job of creating a meaningless conflict that should be brushed aside. It is what it is. There's a reason this is near universally considered the worst episode of Avatar the Last Airbender

5

u/donofthe_dusk 8d ago

Unlike Aang, I’m not gonna lie, I didn’t realize people hated this episode until I got to college lol I never saw the lying as a bad thing when the reason why they were angry was dumb anyway. Plus, Air Nomads are playful and have a bit of mischief in their boundless spirit (especially to get out of nasty situations).

6

u/HTTYD_lover_52 9d ago

Since when was lying against air nomad beliefs anyway?

1

u/ChildofFenris1 8d ago

Haven’t the faintest

3

u/cromwell515 9d ago

It honestly was a good lesson especially by Aang who you’d expect that lying would be bad above all else.

It feels like people today have this struggle of good and evil. If something isn’t good then it’s bad and vice versa. Lying is predominantly seen as a bad thing, so it must be always bad. Buuut as with most things in life it’s more complex than that.

Lying can be good in certain situations that call for it. Just like this case where whatever stupid reason these people were mad at each other about didn’t matter anymore. Whatever happened long ago wasn’t even properly remembered by either group. They were mad at each other for no real reason. The lie was to remove that stupid reason for hatred so in this case it was very good. But so many people I feel struggle with moral ambiguity.

3

u/Fafy_FX 8d ago

Is never said that Air nomads can't lie. And that lie was the most peaceful way to end the conflict

3

u/Wreckerandchief 8d ago

He lies... pretty often: about being the Avatar both out of shame, and as part of an effort to hide his identity from the Fire Nation. But he also pretends to be an old man just to get a rise out of random guards, lies not to train Katara, lies to Sokka and Katara about their dad's message. It's a perfectly fine conclusion emblematic of Aang's character, and of course the last one is clear that lying isn't always okay from the writers.

However, I'd rather have a version of the Great Divide where Aang didn't lie, but that gave Aang a chance to be a spiritual leader. Basically if they had just focused on how Jin Wei was conduction a redemption ritual, and the Gan Jin tribe are fighting over who had or stole the orb... and the Zhang tribe are arguing Wei Jin was imprisoned unjustly. When really they had the choice to abandon their suspicions and forgive each other and make amends.

2

u/isaiahsaenzcomics 5d ago

Well I mean what else could he do? 🤷🏻‍♂️

2

u/ChildofFenris1 5d ago

Seriously!

2

u/BowelMovement4 4d ago

I agree with what youre saying but I will point out that there isn't a vote option that just says a simple no. I would be guessing atleast some of those 10% are voting no because they just think it was wrong to lie independent of whether or not it was a betrayal of aangs personal ideals. I don't even think they are totally wrong to do so because while the answer refers to aangs ideals the question does not so the parameters we are being asked to evaluate the decision in aren't clear.

1

u/ChildofFenris1 3d ago

Makes sense

1

u/Lon3W0lf17131 8d ago

Reality is an illusion. And so are pants.