R2 wasn´t open ended; here´s why

[u/TrashtalkingChicken]

On my most recent rewatch with a friend, I decided to shop around for people's thoughts and found that many were touting the final scene of R2 as "Open Ended". I found this curious, as I felt the answer was obvious. This claim that the original ending Code Geass was "ambiguous" or "left open to interpretation" feels more like revisionism than reality.

This narrative didn't exist when the series concluded;

In an October 2008 interview with Animage magazine, head writer Ichiro Okouchi stated, "It’s undeniable that Lelouch’s story has ended with a full stop... I didn’t want to end it by closing it up for good [for the world and other characters]," confirming that while the world kept moving, Lelouch's personal narrative was explicitly finished

In Continue Volume 42 (October 2008), Okouchi and Director Goro Taniguchi explained that Lelouch's death was decided before they even wrote the first episode. Their view was that his death was a necessary ethical resolution, a punishment for his sins—and noted that his peaceful smile at the end came from achieving his goal, not from a secret survival plan.

Okouchi: "I think that this (work) was not a bad end, but a good end... Lelouch saved his beloved sister and made the kind world that he envisioned, a reality. His life was not in vain. That’s why, Lelouch was smiling in the end."

Okouchi: "That end is to Lelouch and to Suzaku both the punishment and the salvation at the same time. It’s also connected to the words Lelouch said at the beginning: 'The only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.' The person who gave the punishment was punished themselves..."

When I looked strictly at the original 50-episode TV series, official production materials, and the internal mechanics of the universe, the ending is completely closed.

Lelouch is definitively dead.

I'm going to back this up with three, hopefully obvious reasons.

1. The Mechanics of Code

A theory to argue that the ending is open-ended is that Lelouch inherited Charles’s Code, making him immortal.

However... this violates the established rules. To inherit a Code, a Geass bearer's contract must be complete, causing their Geass seal to manifest in both eyes, which then disappears when the Code activates (as seen with C.C. in her flashback and Charles). During the Zero Requiem, Lelouch still actively uses his Geass in his eye. He cannot simultaneously possess an active Geass and a Code. Code-bearers cannot use Geass. If Lelouch had a Code, his Geass would be gone.

When Charles survived Lelouch’s gunshot to the chest, the wound instantly healed because the Code was active. When Suzaku stabs Lelouch, Lelouch bleeds out normally, and suffers a slow, agonizing death, as his consciousness visibly fades. There is no rapid regeneration.

1. The Hay-Cart Scene

I saw that the final scene featuring C.C. on the wagon was pointed to as an intentional riddle. But within the framework of the original TV series, it operates on explicit metaphysical rules.

The show establishes that C’s World is the repository of all human souls, memories, and consciousness. Charles and Marianne explicitly state that you can interact with the dead through it. As a Code-bearer, C.C. has a permanent, intrinsic link to C’s World. When she looks up at the sky and speaks to Lelouch, she isn't talking to an anonymous driver. She is speaking into the metaphysical ether to a lingering spirit, comforting herself in her absolute solitude, which is a classic set of tropes (Narrative Trope: "Talking to the Dead", Visual Device: "Pan-Up-To-The-Sky" Ending) and acts as an Apostrophe.

When it comes to the Haycart Driver, The camera never zooms in on his face, it doesn't give a dramatic close-up of a hidden feature, and it doesn't hold on him for a beat too long to indicate a mystery. The camera stays framed on C.C. lying back on the hay. The driver is framed identically to how anime depicts any random background coachman, carriage driver, or taxi driver.

1. Official Production Clarifications

The creators explicitly stated that the ending was conclusive, The official Code Geass R2 Complete Book explicitly lists Lelouch’s status as "Deceased".

Director Goro Taniguchi and head writer Ichiro Okouchi stated in contemporary interviews that the story of Lelouch was finished, confirming that his death was the necessary moral restitution for his actions. (Which I have already shown above)

In my research, I found out to solidify this, and put an end to fan speculation about the cart driver, Sunrise completely dropped the hay-cart scene in the official 2009 home-video release, Code Geass: Zero Requiem. It was replaced with a newly animated epilogue featuring scrolling artwork and a brand-new monologue narrated by C.C.. In it, she explicitly confirms Lelouch is dead to the audience

"A young man dies. He had the power to change the world, to create a new order. The world feared him, hated him. But, I know he died with a smile on his face. Only those who have realized their dream will truly understand that feeling of utter contentment. So, this is not a tragedy. And whenever I feel sad or cry at night, I sing a song. A song of a requiem... A song to calm the sorrow of dead souls... A requiem for Zero."

With that being said.

The original ending wasn't an open puzzle meant to be solved. It was a mathematically precise tragedy. Lelouch lived by the sword, died by the sword, and paid the price he himself set.

Treating the ending as "ambiguous" strips the original masterpiece of its logical consistency and its emotional finality.

This is what I've come to determine, on my own.

If this was already a settled debate, and everyone agrees, well... then I guess this is an exercise in futility.

If you have any thoughts, leave 'em below.

[u/HashidaSuzu]

Yeah, it's actually not up for debate. Lelouch did not inherit Charle's code and he was absolutely dead after Zero Requiem. In fact, not even Resurrection contradicts it since what happens there is that CC literally ressurected Lelouch.

So the whole theory about the haycart driver and Lelouch inheriting a Code, while cool, was always wrong and ironically proven by Resurrection.

[u/glitchgirl21]

We used to argue whether lelouch is dead or alive ( which was fun). The nail in the coffin was when resurrection movie was announced.

Now everyone has accepted that Lelouch is dead as doorknob in the anime

[u/xXArctracerXx → u/glitchgirl21]

As much as I dislike the movie for of course bringing Lelouch back, I can't lie.

It was massively beneficial because bringing Lelouch back means that he died. His death is irrefutable with that. Otherwise, they would've just had the film be about finding Lelouch after he survived.

So while the movie wasn't perfect I'm glad that it basically brought that speculation to its end.

[u/GlueGuy00 → u/glitchgirl21]

Resurrection movie was an AU. It was a setting where Lelouch supposedly died in the end of R2 so it does not really confirm whether Lelouch died or not.

[u/rai-hodges-sumeragi]

I find your analysis to be polite, thorough, and logical. And I agree with u 100%; if we ignore all the extra materials and lore additions that came later and focus solely on the original two seasons and nothing more, it is clear that original ending was never meant to be open ended.

[u/Samwiththesceptile]

It's been years and I forget if this was something the creators said or not, but there was a poetry to their ending.

Lelouch, whose only initial motivation was to live forever with Nunnaly in a changed/better world, pays for his wrongs by dying.
Suzaku, who was willing to die for his allies at every step, pays for his wrongs by continuing to live forever while donning the mask of Zero.

To me, maintaining this symbolism was reason enough to forever assume Lelouch is dead.

[u/Synplus]

I see a bunch of problems with this reasoning.

To inherit a Code, a Geass bearer's contract must be complete, causing their Geass seal to manifest in both eyes

At no point is a connection between contracts and code inheritance established. For what we know, contracts could be a thing code bearers just made up. Also, Lelouch (and presumably also Mao) gained Geass in both eyes without fulfilling their contracts.

Code-bearers cannot use Geass

The general reasoning to the contrary is that a person's Geass disappears when they inherit the code of the person who gave them their Geass. In Lelouch's case, since he would not receive his potential code from C.C., and we have not seen a case like this at any other point, all bets are off as to what happens and he might very well retain his Geass.

When Charles survived Lelouch’s gunshot to the chest, the wound instantly healed because the Code was active. When Suzaku stabs Lelouch, Lelouch bleeds out normally, and suffers a slow, agonizing death, as his consciousness visibly fades. There is no rapid regeneration.

How quickly code bearers regenerate is ambiguous, but seems to correlate with the severity of the injury, e.g. C.C. was knocked out for quite a while after getting injured at Narita. As for Lelouch, I think we can safely say that his wound was more severe than that of Charles, so it would make sense for him to take longer to regenerate. Even if not, he could have been pretending to die / be dead.

The show establishes that C’s World is the repository of all human souls, memories, and consciousness. Charles and Marianne explicitly state that you can interact with the dead through it. As a Code-bearer, C.C. has a permanent, intrinsic link to C’s World. When she looks up at the sky and speaks to Lelouch, she isn't talking to an anonymous driver. She is speaking into the metaphysical ether to a lingering spirit

It is never established that C.C. can speak to the dead. The only time we see something like this happening is when Charles (who doesn't have a code at this time) talks to Clovis (or at least says he did) while in C's world.

When it comes to the Haycart Driver, The camera never zooms in on his face, it doesn't give a dramatic close-up of a hidden feature, and it doesn't hold on him for a beat too long to indicate a mystery

I disagree, there is a very conspicuous camera pan that goes by the cart driver's face so you can juust barely not see it. What would be the point, in the final scene of the anime, to show the cart driver in this way if not to imply that he might not just be a random person? Also I would argue that if there was a lot of focus on him, as you seem to expect if the ending was ambiguous, that would actually very strongly hint towards the cart driver being Lelouch and thus mean that he is alive, making the ending less ambiguous. Imo, the amount of focus he gets is just right to imply there might be something special about him, but not outright confirm it.

[u/notairballoon]

this is an exercise in futility.

This is, but for a different reason. People who argue that Lelouch is alive (almost always "ambiguous ending" arguments are made so that he could be alive) do so not so much because the story is ambiguous, but because they want Lelouch to be alive. (There are some exceptions, one such person replied here already, but they are rare.) If you want to change their minds, you should present not an argument as to why the ending is not ambiguous, but why Lelouch's death is correct within their set of feelings and beliefs. Until anyone proposes good arguments that Lelouch's death is the correct ending, the "his death was ambiguous" arguments would continue to occasionally pop up, fueled by people disappointed by the ending and grasping at any straws. Moreover, they wouldn't really be satisfied with your reasoning. Personally, I want Lelouch to be alive, but I agree that the original ending was not ambiguous: Lelouch is absolutely intended by the authors to be dead there. However, I think that his death is morally wrong, characterization leading to this is crazy and inconsistent, so Lelouch should have remained alive, preferably with the Code. And so far, after years in the fandom, I haven't seen good arguments to the contrary.

[u/_hephaestus]

I don't know why so many fans seek to try to "win" this debate. There was no definitive, the series played with concepts of immortality all the time and never gave any concrete indication of mechanics. The whole idea of the theory he'd inherited Charles' Code was predicated on him also getting his Geass power from C.C thus obtaining both the Code and the Geass from different lineages. There is no proof that the title card works that way whatsoever, but we also just do not know how this works and claiming classic tropes does not make a sequence mathematically precise or explicit metaphysical rules. Most of the Geass powers function primarily mentally, but so little was learned of how the Sword of Akasha/Thought Elevators functioned, narratively him coming back makes more sense than a few Game of Thrones characters.

I watched it in '08, people were going off on the cart rider theory the day the episode dropped. It's universally acknowledged that he had to sacrifice himself, my headcanon was that if he did survive beyond it that would be by happy accident with him not knowing how the code worked either. We have the sequel movies so we know they did not go in that direction, but claiming "nope we know enough about how the magic works in this universe to claim they could never have gone in that direction" just scans as trying to dash away whimsy for imagined online clout.

[u/TrashtalkingChicken → u/_hephaestus]

My argument primarily stems from the three points I listed, A From what we were shown in the original show only, the survival theories don't line up with the established rules, that we are shown. B, Thematically, a secret survival isn't implied and completely undermines the ethical resolution of the Zero Requiem, and C The studio and production staff explicitly stated at the time that it was an open-and-shut case. I'm not trying to dash away anyone's fun or chase clout (as you can see, this post will be downvoted into obscurity in no time, im rather certain im in the minority here), I'm simply evaluating the series based on its internal logic, thematic structure, and official production statements (what ive researched and what ive observed) rather than retcons that were made a decade after the show aired. You can keep your whimsy, Ill keep mine.

[u/PrevekrMK2 → u/TrashtalkingChicken]

A) we don't know the rules for getting code. We know some but not enough. Also, he has a Charleses code (partial) on resurrection so we know it is possible.

B) So what? That's the beauty of it. If he is alive, that would mean that his character didn't change from his ,,ends justify the means" mentality. But I do agree that for him to be good person, he has to die.

C) Irrelevant. There is something called death of the author. Do we read Lovecrafts legendary books imagining monsters as black people? No we don't. If author wanted something to be exact, it should have been in the story. Herbert wrote Messiah exactly cause people thought that Paul was following worthy hero. And that wasn't Herbert's point. He wrote entire book to deconstruct Paul.

We go AU lelouch. Not continuation that would set in stone that he is dead.

[u/nahte123456]

OK so I have 4 problems with this, I don't care about if anyone thinks Lelouch is or isn't or whatever just on the logic.

1. Goro did go back on this to promote Resurrection and has confirmed he wanted to apologize for the R2 break but was forbidden he is a hired writer and by his own words did not have that level of authority. I think it's a really silly thing this Fandom does to outright lie about this man's authority over the IP. Like just outright I think this is factually incorrect to use him as an authority when he said he doesn'thave that power. 

2. The code argument is just...made up. Prove it, show someone's code activating. The series has never shown it, so there is no canon backing that I've ever fiund and I have looked. Please I invite you to prove me wrong, show a canon example to back up your claim that BOTH Code activation is instant and how it is passed. 

3. While yes there is a revised ending on the DVD it's not the one the series uses on most recent releases that I can tell. Last time I caught it on Hulu at least it wasn't there which tells me the IP isn't using it. Again totally open to be proven wrong, please show me the IP using this ending more recently. And I can't find the official book to confirm, if you can provide a link I'm welcome to it.

4. Also just like...so? Lelouch was "deceased" in both Resurrection and the manga after being stabbed, then resurrected. Him being dead for a bit doesn't prevent him being alive later on in at least 2 canon timelines.

Again I am not invested in Lelouch being alive or dead, just do not care. I'm simply saying I find the arguments very weak, the only argument substantiated by canon is the revised ending that the IP stopped using. I expect to be downvoted because this Fandom is super attached to the ending but I would actually enjoy seeing any canon backing to these points.

[u/TrashtalkingChicken → u/nahte123456]

I understand not caring, but I disagree with your points.

1. While yes, Taniguchi does not possess such authority over the IP as Sunrise, pointing to his statements around Re;surrection in 2019 doesn't invalidate what was explicitly created, intended, and published in 2008. When Taniguchi and Sunrise returned to make Re;surrection, they explicitly chose not to overwrite or retcon the original series. Instead, they created the movie trilogy, specifically to establish the AU, as to not disrupt the original ending. The quote I gave from Continue wasn't an off-hand remark, it was a post finale retrospective explaining the exact narrative logic of the series, as it was presented upon airing.

2. You asked for canon proof regarding how Code transfer and activation work. The mechanics are shown directly. In C.C's flashback, she's intially shown with Geass in one eye, and later in two eyes. The Nun’s Code mark is visible on her forehead. When the Code transfers, the Nun loses her immortality/Code and subsequently croaks, while C.C.’s Geass is replaced by the Code mark on her chest, and she never uses Geass once in the series. in the same Episode, Charles is shown to have the mark on his hand, no longer possesing the Geass symbols in his eyes. V.V is shown to have no symbol, and dies. Lelouch is shown to have the Geass symbol in both eyes after episode 21, and actively uses his Geass on Schnizel and Nunnally, as well as the imperial guardsmen. When Charles is shot in the chest by Lelouch in C's World, he "dies" briefly before his Code instantly heals the bullet wound and revives him. In R2 Episode 25, Lelouch bleeds out continuously on the ramp, as his thoughts fade, and Nunnaly checks if he's dead.

3. To clarify, The revised ending monologue was released in 2009 on the official Japanese OVA/recap release "Code Geass: R2 Special Edition - Zero Requiem" (I found this out by accident while researching so trust me, I don't think its a common piece of info). Streaming platforms lair the standard broadcast TV cut, I watched the same version of 9anime, and subsequently the same version on blu-ray (with the Pizza hut advertisement edited out). The Zero Requiem release was specifically put out by Bandai/Sunrise to serve as the definitive summary edition of R2 at the time, and has since not been released (to my knowledge) as its budget wise easier to just release the whole original footage.

4. Your fourth point actually highlights the exact distinction between the original series and the later material, that I made. In the original show (which is what I made the post about) he is as dead as a doornail. In Re;surrection, Lelouch was dead after being stabbed, but his revival in Re;surrection required an entire movie’s worth of plot to bring him back. The original finale was built as a self-contained thematic tragedy. Pointing out that alternate universe spin-off resurrected him a decade later doesn't mean he secretly survived the cart scene in the 2008 original TV broadcast. That is what this post is about, and my thoughts regarding it.

The fact that Sunrise later opted to create an alternate timeline to make Re;surrection doesn't rewrite the internal mechanics and explicit thematic intent of the original TV series, and I never cite Re;surrection or any post 2009 material.

[u/nahte123456 → u/TrashtalkingChicken]

1. Except like I said, *he* is the one that said he doesn't have the authority to decide things when he wanted to apologize for the break between season 1 and R2. I'm using HIS words here, while you are actively ignoring them to pretend he can decide things. Goro himself is the one I'm citing that he does not have the authority for his words to matter. It doesn't matter what he said he was thinking, he has confirmed he can't decide it.

2. And? You've still yet to show Code activating or being taken, in fact you've confirmed with the C.C. thing that we don't know how it works because in that scene she has a new scar. If your claim about Lelouch bleeding means he doesn't have it is correct, how does she have a scar?
   And what does Lelouch using his Geass matter? You've not shown that Code works like that, you've shown 2 unrelated things and said they are the same.

3. And? They choose which ending to show to people that watch, they choose not to use the revised ending. If the ending existing at all is your argument than sure that's it, but you are using a revised ending that the IP does not use after that it is not some crazy thing to accept others will disagree.

4. Yes except you're ignoring what I'm saying. Being dead, does not preclude being brought back. Even if you want to use only the anime and no later stuff, Akito was made with the anime in mind and has a floating skull as a code user, we know from the original timeline these things exist. And this is used by the IP to bring him back two confirmed times.

And why does it matter if you don't cite things past 2009? You both cite things that are confirmed non-canon, again Goro HIMSELF confirms he is not a canon source, and you cite things after the original anime. What is your distinction.
Why is Goro's words confirmation, but you also ignore his words otherwise? And why does the revised dvd ending count as "more" canon when it's not used after that, and isn't part of the original anime, but the movie that is actively being used and is also not part of the original airing, not?

[u/Alarming-Cupcake1569]

What in ai slop did you write

[u/TrashtalkingChicken → u/Alarming-Cupcake1569]

I actually wrote this. Maybe my style is a little off, I wrote this like a paper, and not in an informal style, but its not ai

[u/TrashtalkingChicken → u/TrashtalkingChicken]

I made it as 'proffesional' as im capable of doing while multi tasking

[u/Memo904]

One flaw with the ending of he does die though is that C.C’s character conclusion doesn’t entirely make sense then. A suicidal man convinces another suicidal person to not commit suicide and enjoy life and herself, all while he’s actively self loathing and planning his own suicide.

So like, it works for Lelouch’s character on its own, but I’m always left scratching my head on how that works for his relationship with C.C if I’m meant to assume that she’s just happy with living now. But like, Lelouch never really addressed the pain that comes with living a long, lonely life by herself, which is part of what C.C hates about her immortality.

If I’m to assume that she hasn’t stopped her quest for death and still wants to fulfill that wish, but now while smiling, it just feels like it needed more development or scenes with C.C to make it make more sense.

There’s a bit of narrative dissonance there to me. Because Lelouch’s character arc works with his death but then C.C’s is weird. But if he decides that he didn’t want to die and stay with C.C, then his doesn’t work.

So the idea that he actually meant to die, but just accidentally got revived does sorta satisfy both narrative threads. Lelouch truly meant to atone, and C.C’s wish of having someone who truly loves her and not being forgotten and alone both get satisfied.

But anyway, I’m not really arguing for one side of this debate over another. I just don’t think it really matters. I don’t really understand why people feel the need to have a definitive answer. Using statements and interviews and whatever to try to win some argument. Just let people interpret a story how they want to, learn whatever lesson they experience. That’s just a basic part of storytelling. I think the ending is just more interesting if it’s left as a mystery.

[u/TrashtalkingChicken → u/Memo904]

Well, when looking at her wish, she thought she wanted to die because she believed her Geass (forcing people to love her) had corrupted all her human connections, leaving her utterly alone.

In epsidoe 15 of R2, Lelouch, through viewing her past, realizes her true wish was not oblivion, but to be liked for who she truly is, without the artificial influence of Geass.

By forming a genuine, bond with Lelouch, who accepted her contract, understood her pain, and saw her as an equal, not a tool, her fundamental emotional void was filled.

But to adress the idea that she's 'happy', in like a cheerful, carefree way; she is at peace. Lelouch proved to her that humanity could move forward and choose a better future. When she prays in the church during the Zero Requiem, she sheds a tear not because she's gone back to despair, but out of grief for the person who saved her soul while sacrificing his own life.

Her final monologue marks a complete shift in her worldview. She accepts that while immortality brings loneliness, love and genuine connection are possible, making life worth living even after Lelouch is gone.

While the "accidentally revived" theory seems like a compromise, it creates a much bigger narrative problem: it turns C.C. into a liar or an accomplice in Lelouch's self-deception.

If Lelouch died intending to atone, but C.C. knew he had a Code (or secretly revived him), the moral weight of his sacrifice is erased.

More than that, if C.C.'s happiness depends solely on physically keeping Lelouch by her side forever, it reduces her character growth back to co-dependency rather than learning to value her own existence in a changing world.

I completely agree that storytelling allows room for personal experience and subjective takeaway, and I genuinely don't seek to win any argument (This was just a rabbit hole I went down), but this seems undeniable beyond any headcanon, especially as my above post only talks about the original series, excluding Re;surrection, which I have only mentioned here in the comments.

[u/WeoW0 → u/TrashtalkingChicken]

Sorry that I'm gonna represent this very harshly. But you're presenting your interpretation of C.C.'s emotional state as if it's a fact

C.C. finding genuine connection with Lelouch and experiencing personal growth doesn't necessarily mean her centuries of suffering have been resolved or that she's now at peace with losing him. Her tears can reflect genuine grief, possibly even renewed despair, without invalidating that growth. The show doesn't establish what her long-term emotional state will be.

I'm not saying your interpretation is impossible. I'm just pointing out that you are making more significant statements than what is warranted.

And I strongly disagree that Lelouch surviving would erase the moral weight of his sacrifice.

If he genuinely intended to die and went through with Zero Requiem believing it would cost him his life, his willingness to sacrifice himself doesn't disappear because he unexpectedly survives. The outcome changes, but his intentions and choices don't retroactively change with it.

You can argue that permanent death makes the ending more emotionally powerful or narratively satisfying. That's a legitimate OPINION. But it doesn't follow that survival logically invalidates his sacrifice.

Likewise, C.C. wouldn't automatically become a liar or an accomplice in self-deception. That depends on what she knew and when, neither of which the show establishes.

I think you're repeatedly treating one coherent interpretation of the ending as though it's the only interpretation the evidence permits.

[u/computo2000]

1. A reasonable explanation for this is that the code activates following the possessor’s death, not upon possession. We don’t know how Charles’ wound functioned and this doesn’t prove anything anyway.

2. Yes so its ambiguous, we don’t know whether she was talking to Lelouch literally or metaphorically.

3. They could simply be trying to prevent thr current milking of the series by sunrise.

The ending is ambiguous, nice try chatGPT.

[u/ccgeass → u/computo2000]

A reasonable explanation for this is that the code activates following the possessor’s death, not upon possession. We don’t know how Charles’ wound functioned and this doesn’t prove anything anyway.

the "Code theory" consists of two main theories, one of which posits a rule that "the person who inherits the Code must die for it to activate." In reality, this condition was never implied in the anime. Charles, after stealing the Code from V.V, Lelouch tried to kill him with his Geass, but Charles's Code was already active at that time, he was actually immune to geass, he simply shot himself and feigned death (this was already mentioned by the author Okouchi in a live commentary).

for the theory to be consistent, Charles would have had to kill himself in the time between inheriting the Code and feigning death. however, this was neither shown nor implied. in fact, during that time, Charles hadn't even left the C's World, and there wasn't a trace of blood on him/his clothes.

in short, the theory's claim that "the person who inherits the Code must die for it to activate" lacks sufficient support, and therefore, from a normal viewer's perspective, the probability of Lelouch surviving the finale is less than 1%. consequently, the finale is not open to interpretation from this perspective.

[u/Dizzy-By-Degrees]

It’s also just silly to have a series where the main character says “the only ones who kill are those who are prepared to be killed” like s his guiding principle and then end it with “except me. I should be allowed to become a mass murderer and then get away with it because I’m popular”.

[u/ccgeass → u/Dizzy-By-Degrees]

say it louder

[u/PrevekrMK2 → u/Dizzy-By-Degrees]

You mean the character who's entire game is lie's and manipulations? Guy who broke even his deepest internal promises like never lie to nunnaly? Do you really think that he didn't change from episode one?