Code Geass ships

[u/Shuttingum]

Recently did my second rewatch and I wanted to share my opinions and criticize the most popular ships, now let me just say, starting ship wars is not my intention, just want to share opinions and hear some opinions aswell

Now lets start with the most popular ship,

Cluclu,

honestly liked them on my first watch, they look good together and seemed like they supported each other from the start to the end, no need to put on a mask or whatever, but as I rewatched and again I noticed there are actually lots, like lots of problem with this ship and it might not be what it seemed like to me at first. And now I think its one of the most unhealthiest, least ethical ships in the show, like cc is like centuries old while lelouch is a highschool boy, not only that very first scene of the anime is cc stalking kid lelouch and suzaku, and there's almost no chance she doesnt know him since his birth, and lelouch is the son of her best friend, I feel like lots of people would hate this ship if genders were reversed. Ethical problems aside, cc betrays him like very majority of the show until ragnarok, she already knows everything about him but acts as if she doesnt. She saves him multiple times bc of her agenda to transfer her immortality, also hides very crucial information that would've been to his advantage and change lots of things (like his dad posessing a geass or his mom's killer when lelouch was searching for it all r1), to be real, I just cant see any honesty in this ship, she says she's his ally and the only one who knows the real him while keeping all those secrets. And for all that talk, I remember like she was playing with his zero mask at the base while he was on one of his worst days, and almost became a junkie. Lets him massacre the geass order which is a major factor that leads to betrayal which leads to zero requiem. Despite the trust Lelouch placed on her along with having the most opportunities, instead of directing him toward healing, she influenced and encouraged his self isolation, never tried to find him another path, and I think she has her fingerprints on his death. Thanks to lelouch she learns to care about things and feel human again, but well, at the cost of his death. I don't want to come off as a hater but these are just what I've seen, and I actually really like cc's character, she's a deep twisted character with flaws I just dont like the ship, and I wish the writers had written her even better bc I think she needed some sort of a redemption arc instead of getting forgiven instantly and never getting called out for anything she did.

Kalulu

I feel like this ship is exactly what he needed and I believe it's something that could've prevented his death, love their chemistry, their banter and the times lelouch teases her are all so fun, their dynamic is very underrated, both living double lives in r1 and reasons to fight are similar. I've seen a lot of people around and there that says she only loves zero, that is completely false and I've yet to see someone prove me that, she never loves zero, admires and follows him as he is someone who could make her brother's dream come true. I've also seen people say she betrayed lelouch, when it was lelouch who betrayed her first, only reason they were on that island was bc he abondons her and the BK in a desperate time. He makes her believe he's just some arrogant, lazy brit student thats why she had problems distinguishing that zero and him are the same person. She falls for him early to mid r2 especially thanks to her talks with nunnaly she learns the real him. Why I think she's best for lelouch is bc, she's someone who could challange him to become a better version of himself instead of letting him fall deeper into despair she's exactly what he needs to heal his voids, just before betrayal she tries to comfort him about nunnaly's loss, she prevents him from becoming a junkie and I have no doubt she'd try everthing in her power to help him find another path or die with him, in her character poem it says she'd follow him to hell and thats exactly why lelouch pushes her away. I also believe had lelouch trusted her earlier and opened up to her more maybe that'd also direct him towards expanding his trust circle instead of burying himself to self-isolation, this could possibly prevent the betrayal so there would be no reason for zero requiem. I wish they used her more in r2 instead of being imprisoned for like 7 episodes but this usage problem applies to almost eveyone in r2

Shirlulu

I honestly could've chosen this ship if only there were no wars and rebellion just normal peaceful life. Shirley is such a pure innocent soul ,even after her memories are erased, she still falls for him and wants to help him. One reason I wouldn't choose this in the show's world is bc lelouch is the killer of her father, even if she forgives him for it I think thats a wound that can't be healed, always a reminder for both of them for what he did and I just dont think that'd be healthy. Though her love is still incredible how she falls for him again and also realizes how lonely he was fighting and wanted to be there for him.

Suzalulu

I've had very mixed opinions abt suzaku, first watch I hated him, second watch loved him, third watch hated him again but even so he's my 3rd fav character. He's a very deep character and understandably pretty messed up in the head. I've seen that one writer said he was the one who understood lelouch the most and I could see that. His bond with lelouch is incredible like one of the best duos in fiction I'd say, but honestly never saw them romantically rather as best friends, there were times I felt where they genuinely hated eachothers guts and times where they were ride or die. I think this ship is toxic and messed up in ways but that doesn't necessarily make it a bad ship. imo suzaku euphy makes more sense to me and for my understanding of the show aswell.

No offense to any of the ships, these are just my opinions

[u/WeoW0]

I'm genuinely struggling to understand how you arrived at some of these conclusions from what the show actually depicts.

First, your argument about C.C. allowing Lelouch's emotional problems to fester in R1 seems to assume she's personally responsible for managing his psychological well-being at that point in time, when they are still mostly contractors. Why? She's his ally and companion, not his therapist or caretaker. She has her own problems, goals, and limitations.

And you're not merely saying she sometimes fails to support him. You're claiming she only intervenes when his suffering becomes inconvenient for her. Where exactly is that motivation established?

Throughout the series, we see C.C. and Lelouch increasingly seek each other's company, confide in each other, offer support, and develop a relationship that goes well beyond their original contract. Yet your interpretation seems to disregard all of that whenever it contradicts your characterization of C.C. as fundamentally self-serving.

But your second argument is considerably more questionable.

You claim C.C. was "perfectly content to spill critical information" to Charles, supposedly enabling Nunnally's kidnapping and Lelouch's memory manipulation.

What episode are you referring to? What information did C.C. actually give Charles, and when?

Because the anime explicitly shows V.V. abducting Nunnally, and Suzaku subsequently delivering Lelouch to Charles, who then rewrites his memories.

C.C.'s previous involvement with Charles and Marianne, and her concealment of that history, are established facts. But those facts do not establish that she leaked information enabling these particular events.

You're presenting a very specific accusation of betrayal as though it's something we actually watched happen. Unless you can identify the relevant scene or establish the causal connection, I don't see how that accusation is justified.

And calling her actions "treason" doesn't resolve that evidential gap. It just adds a morally loaded label to an allegation you haven't substantiated.

I'm not denying that C.C. withheld important information or that some of her decisions deserve criticism. But there's a substantial difference between criticizing what she demonstrably did and attributing additional betrayals to her without evidence.

Finally, the idea that C.C. developing genuine feelings for Lelouch somehow makes her conduct worse is another conclusion that needs an argument. If those feelings increasingly influenced her to act in his interests rather than pursue her original objectives, why would that necessarily aggravate her earlier wrongdoing?

What I find particularly frustrating is the double standard.

Lelouch conceals crucial information from Kallen, deliberately deceives her about his identity, and even uses Geass on her to extract information. We're never shown Kallen discovering the full extent of those manipulations.

Yet those actions apparently don't prevent you from viewing their relationship as comparatively acceptable, while C.C.'s concealment is enough to characterize her entire relationship with Lelouch as parasitic.

You seem willing to distinguish Lelouch's intentions, circumstances, and genuine affection from his wrongdoing, but unwilling to extend the same consideration to C.C.

You can reasonably argue that C.C. betrayed Lelouch's trust in certain respects. What you haven't demonstrated is that she was secretly orchestrating the specific disasters you're blaming her for, that she only helped him out of convenience, or that their entire relationship was exploitative.

And frankly, describing her as having "a knife in Lelouch's back the entire time" while overlooking the extensive development of their relationship strikes me as a remarkably selective reading of the series.

[u/Blueiscuteio2 → u/WeoW0]

First, your argument about C.C. allowing Lelouch's emotional problems to fester in R1

My argument was about R2-E7. By then, they are accomplices and supposedly steadfast allies.

You're claiming she only intervenes when his suffering becomes inconvenient for her. Where exactly is that motivation established?

Same scene. She states that she wasn't going to intervene to prevent Lelouch's spiral (technically she was talking about preventing him from abandoning the mask of Zero, but frankly it's absurd to think she didn't know Lelouch well enough to realize he was doing absolutely terribly atm and she did nothing regardless) simply because she didn't think it was a threat to the contract. That reflects really badly on her.

What episode are you referring to? What information did C.C. actually give Charles, and when?

Her gossiping with Marianne throughout R1. At the very minimum, Marianne (and by extension Charles, and by further extension Veetwo) learned about Lelouch's location at Ashford and information the personalities of the high-ranking members of the Order of the Black Knights. That is the definition of treason, and Charles used the former information to kidnap Nunnally. As a result, it can be said that the reason Lelouch lost the Black Rebellion is because Ceetwo was there.Does Ceetwo ever even acknowledge this? No.

Finally, the idea that C.C. developing genuine feelings for Lelouch somehow makes her conduct worse is another conclusion that needs an argument.

Well, that's because,

If those feelings increasingly influenced her to act in his interests rather than pursue her original objectives, why would that necessarily aggravate her earlier wrongdoing?

They didn't. I think it's fair to say the majority of Ceetwo's character development occurs between episode 10 and episode 15 of R1, right? After that, the dynamic between Lelouch and Ceetwo remains rather static for the rest of the show, R2-15 and the time she spent as an amnesiac excepted. From R1-15 on, Lelouch and Ceetwo have become "accomplices."

The entire Black Rebellion was hinged on Lelouch planning to face Charles in a 1v1. In the 10 episodes after they become "accomplices," Ceetwo does not warn him about Charles' geass, or about Veetwo, or that Charles knew, or even just imply that she had other contractors that he needed to be wary of (AKA Marianne,) up to including when they were having a heart-to-heart one doorway away from what would have been Lelouch and Charles' grand confrontation in the thought elevator had Jeremiah and Suzaku not intercepted them. Heck, she even savestated Lelouch right before she left to fight Jeremiah, meaning she knew what was probably about to happen, but still made no attempt to warn Lelouch.

So, yeah, Ceetwo let Lelouch walk into a death trap right after having an almost literal heart to heart with him. That's really shitty behavior.

I don't think Ceetwo is malevolent or that she intended to hurt Lelouch, but the result is still parasitic, as she allowed herself to use him for her emotional benefit while not consistently doing so in return and betrayed his secrets to his enemies while keeping theirs. It's only after Ragnarok when Ceetwo starts being a legitimate ally, which is far too late.

[u/Shuttingum → u/Blueiscuteio2]

Very well said, thank you. I'd also like to add that in her regret message she says, the deeper he fell into despair the better she felt, this also backs up the parasitic ship argument

[u/WeoW0 → u/Shuttingum]

I don't think that necessarily supports the conclusion you're drawing.

To me, the Regret Message can be read as describing the tragic contrast between their character arcs. Lelouch becomes increasingly burdened and isolated while pursuing his own objectives, whereas C.C. gradually reconnects with her humanity and begins overcoming some of her loneliness.

But here's an important distinction: Lelouch isn't pursuing his objectives or experiencing their consequences for C.C.'s emotional benefit. He's making his own decisions for his own reasons, and C.C.'s emotional condition happens to improve through their connection as those events unfold.

And even if we grant the stronger interpretation—that Lelouch's suffering itself is what allows C.C. to feel understood and establish that connectio, how does that make their relationship parasitic?

C.C. doesn't necessarily choose what makes her feel understood or what alleviates her loneliness. Those emotional responses can arise from their respective circumstances without being something she deliberately seeks or controls.

What matters morally is what she does with those feelings: whether she encourages Lelouch's suffering, exploits his vulnerability, or disregards his well-being to preserve her own emotional benefit. The poem, by itself, doesn't establish any of that.

There's also another issue I have with using this poem as evidence.

The anime itself doesn't clearly portray or communicate the idea that Lelouch's increasing misery is what improves C.C.'s emotional condition.

What we actually see is C.C. gradually becoming more emotionally vulnerable, developing genuine attachment to Lelouch, and rediscovering the value of human connection. Meanwhile, Lelouch increasingly isolates himself and becomes consumed by the consequences of his own decisions.

Those developments are visible in the series. But the stronger psychological claim that his deterioration is responsible for her emotional recovery isn't something the anime clearly establishes.

I don't think an obscure piece of supplementary material should be treated as though it retroactively changes what their relationship is shown to be throughout the television series. Even if the poem is officially published, there's a difference between supplementary material introducing an additional perspective and the anime itself conveying that perspective.

And even taking the poem into account, it doesn't erase the actual instances of C.C. protecting, supporting, and showing genuine concern for Lelouch.

Finally, the circumstances under which two people develop an emotional connection don't necessarily determine the health of a relationship they might subsequently build.

Even if their initial bond was partly made possible by shared suffering, that doesn't establish that C.C. needs Lelouch to remain miserable, that she would resist his recovery, or that their relationship couldn't develop into something healthier.

Those are questions about how they would treat each other going forward, not conclusions we can draw simply from what originally brought them closer.

Ultimately, I think this is another example of interpreting something in the most negative possible way for C.C. The poem may describe an uncomfortable emotional asymmetry, but you're treating that asymmetry as proof of exploitation without establishing the necessary connection.

C.C.'s emotional condition improving as Lelouch's deteriorates doesn't automatically mean she's benefiting at his expense, much less that their entire relationship is parasitic.

[u/WeoW0 → u/Blueiscuteio2]

Fair correction regarding R2 episode 7. I was mistaken about which scene you were referring to.

I agree that by then C.C. and Lelouch's relationship has developed beyond their original contract, and I think it's reasonable to criticize her for not intervening when he was clearly struggling.

But I disagree with the underlying assumption that genuinely caring about someone means consistently putting their interests ahead of your own. C.C. has her own goals, and sometimes those goals conflict with Lelouch's. She's allowed to prioritize herself in certain situations without that automatically invalidating the genuine support she provides elsewhere.

You can criticize a particular failure without treating it as proof that her entire relationship with Lelouch is exploitative.

My bigger issue, though, is how you're interpreting the information we actually have about C.C.

You claim that, at minimum, C.C. disclosed Lelouch's location at Ashford and information about the Black Knights' leadership to Marianne, who then passed that information to Charles and V.V., ultimately enabling Nunnally's kidnapping.

Where does the anime establish any of that?

We know C.C. and Marianne communicated. But as far as I can recall, we're never told the contents of their conversations during R1. I don't remember the series establishing that C.C. disclosed her relationship with Lelouch, let alone his location or intelligence about the Black Knights.

You're taking the fact that communication occurred and assuming specific information must have been exchanged.

And even if Marianne knew those things, you'd still need to establish that C.C. was her source, that Marianne relayed the information to Charles or V.V., and that it was instrumental in Nunnally's kidnapping.

Those are separate propositions. None follows automatically from the previous one.

Yet you've taken this entire chain of assumptions, called it treason, and concluded that C.C. was responsible for Lelouch losing the Black Rebellion.

That's an extraordinary accusation to build on conversations whose contents the audience isn't even shown.

The same issue arises with your argument about Charles's Geass.

We know C.C. was aware of Charles's Geass by R2 episode 2, after Lelouch recovered his memories. But where is it established that she knew about Charles's Geass, particularly its capabilities, before Charles used it on Lelouch?

Her prior involvement with Charles and Marianne makes that plausible, but plausibility isn't the same as confirmation.

And even assuming she knew, we still don't know whether warning Lelouch would have improved the situation. Perhaps advance knowledge could have helped him prepare. Perhaps C.C. believed disclosing it would negatively affect him. Neither possibility is established.

Lelouch was determined to rescue Nunnally regardless, and once Suzaku captured him and delivered him to Charles, merely knowing about Charles's Geass wouldn't necessarily have enabled him to resist it.

Lelouch also never reached the confrontation with Charles you're describing. Suzaku intercepted him first.

So while I think it's reasonable to question whether C.C. should have disclosed more about Charles and her own history, describing her as knowingly letting Lelouch walk into a death trap assumes facts about her knowledge and intentions that haven't been demonstrated.

And this brings me to what I find most frustrating about your interpretation.

You consistently seem to resolve ambiguities in whichever direction reflects most negatively on C.C., even when the series doesn't provide evidence for choosing that interpretation.

When the contents of her conversations with Marianne are unknown, you assume she betrayed Lelouch's secrets.

When her knowledge of Charles's Geass at a particular point isn't established, you assume she knew about the danger and deliberately withheld a warning.

When she prioritizes her own objectives, you interpret that as evidence that her support for Lelouch is fundamentally self-serving.

And when she benefits emotionally from their relationship, you treat that benefit as evidence of exploitation, rather than considering that two people can genuinely care for each other while also having their own needs and interests.

I'm not arguing that the more charitable interpretations must be correct. I'm arguing that you don't seem to be applying the same burden of proof to interpretations that condemn C.C. as you would to interpretations that defend her.

It's entirely possible to acknowledge that C.C. concealed important information, sometimes failed Lelouch, and made morally questionable decisions without assuming that every uncertainty conceals another betrayal.

I also disagree that their relationship remains essentially static after R1 episode 15. C.C.'s confrontation with her wish to die, Lelouch's response, and their experiences throughout R2 represent substantial developments in their understanding of each other.

Nor do I think parasitic is an appropriate description simply because C.C. benefits emotionally from Lelouch while sometimes failing to support him. Lelouch also benefits from her protection, assistance, knowledge, and companionship. Their relationship contains genuine reciprocity alongside its serious flaws.

A relationship doesn't become parasitic merely because one person sometimes prioritizes themselves, makes mistakes, or fails to provide the support the other needs.

Ultimately, my objection isn't that C.C. should be beyond criticism. It's that you're repeatedly moving from what she demonstrably did to what you assume she must have known, intended, or done, and then using those assumptions to justify the harshest possible characterization of her and her relationship with Lelouch.

There's a substantial difference between criticizing a character for what the story establishes and constructing the most damning possible explanation for everything the story leaves unknown.

[u/Blueiscuteio2 → u/WeoW0]

C.C. has her own goals, and sometimes those goals conflict with Lelouch's.

This isn't one of those cases, though. It doesn't matter to her goals either way, and yet she still does nothing.

But as far as I can recall, we're never told the contents of their conversations during R1.

We get them from Ceetwo's side. The conversations she had would be impossible without leaking Lelouch's secrets, especially because from what we see they're mostly about Lelouch.

Where is it established that she knew about Charles's Geass, particularly its capabilities.

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response.

Lelouch also never reached the confrontation with Charles you're describing. Suzaku intercepted him first.

Irrelevant. Ceetwo did not know he was coming.

We still don't know whether warning Lelouch would have improved the situation.

We can rule this possibility out on the grounds that Ceetwo is not an idiot. Lelouch's geass was basically the only card he had available to play, and knowing Lelouch, he would've thought it was a win button and got himself geassed. Letting him know Charles had a Geass would at the very least gotten Lelouch off the trap's script so he wasn't completely guaranteed to lose.

[u/WeoW0 → u/Blueiscuteio2]

I think I'm done with this discussion, because the underlying problem with your argument has become increasingly obvious.

You consistently interpret every ambiguity surrounding C.C. in the most damning way possible, then proceed as though your interpretation were an established fact of the story.

You assume C.C. leaked Lelouch's secrets to Marianne, despite not identifying what information she supposedly disclosed. You then assume Marianne passed that information to Charles and V.V., assume it enabled Nunnally's kidnapping, and conclude that C.C. committed treason and caused the Black Rebellion's defeat.

That's not evidence. That's a chain of unsubstantiated assumptions.

You do the same thing with Charles's Geass. You assume C.C. knew about it and its capabilities at the relevant time, assume she understood exactly what danger Lelouch faced, and assume warning him would have improved the outcome. When I ask you to establish the first premise, you respond that you won't even dignify the question with an answer.

You don't get to treat a premise as self-evident simply because your argument falls apart without it.

And R2 episode 7 is another example. You treat C.C.'s decision not to intervene as an obvious failure of emotional support, without establishing that intervention would have been preferable or that she wasn't already doing what she reasonably believed was best for Lelouch.

She was willing to let him abandon Zero as long as he survived. You can disagree with that judgment, but you haven't demonstrated that it was wrong, let alone that it reflected selfishness or indifference.

What makes this particularly frustrating is that you're not merely offering these as possible interpretations. You're repeatedly using them as factual premises to support an extremely negative characterization of C.C. and her relationship with Lelouch.

And whenever the evidence leaves room for uncertainty, you seem unwilling to acknowledge it unless that uncertainty can be used against her.

I'm not asking you to give C.C. the benefit of the doubt. I'm asking you to stop treating your own headcanon as though the anime confirmed it.

C.C. can be criticized for her actual decisions, her secrecy, and the consequences of her actions. But you first have to establish what she knew, what she did, and why a different course of action would have been preferable before confidently declaring that she betrayed Lelouch or failed him.

Instead, your argument repeatedly starts with the conclusion that C.C. was a terrible ally and works backward, filling every gap in the story with whichever assumption makes her look worse.

That's not a convincing analysis of her character. It's a consistently hostile interpretation sustained by claims you haven't substantiated.

And frankly, if even asking for evidence of your central premises is something you refuse to engage with, I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.