Gundham versus Nagito: Does the End Justify the Means?
Chapter 4 is framed as the penultimate chapter before the game's final proper trial, or perhaps, it's "opening act" as Komaeda puts it. Looking over it once again, there are quite a few clear connections to be made on how this chapter relates to one of the game's previous chapters, the first trial. More specifically, how chapter 4's blackened, Gundham Tanaka, relates to the themes present in Komaeda's character all the way from that first trial, and how the narrative and the rest of the cast treat those similar themes very differently depending on each character.
During the fourth trial, there are some moments that I'd argue are supposed to parallel, or at least bring the player's mind back to, parts of the first trial, if not outright callbacks to it. A lot of them specifically have to do with Komaeda. Let's review them one by one:
Komaeda also briefly gets (falsely) accused before Gundham, as the one guy in the Strawberry house that wasn't at the lounge, therefore lacking an alibi. Ironically, Komaeda's explanation of his lack of alibi, the sound-proof property of the deluxe rooms, is what ends up exposing Gundham's own.
Komaeda gets called on again later in the trial to explain the method he arrived at Grape house, exposing it as the same technique the killer could've used.
This line said by Komaeda about the killer's plan, paralleling with how the plans of both the first and fifth chapter unfolded:
The fact that Gundham was said to "lure" out Mechamaru, as Komaeda also lured out Teruteru. However, this framing is inaccurate for both of them, since both laid out their intentions clear to their target, with Komaeda even doing it beforehand and giving time for Teruteru to prepare, and even helping him afterwards. Both of them did it for a specific cause they thought was moral, both of them saw it as self-sacrificial, and both could be said that they used underhanded tactics, with Gundham using his hamsters and rearranging the clocks vs Komaeda taking advantage of cleaning duty and hiding the knife under the table. Although, a main differentiating point in the fourth trial is that Gundham, both in his rebuttal and before his execution, gets offended at that implication, and the cast do treat both him and Mechamaru as equal willing participants.
Gundham bringing out the possibility of him becoming the victim complicating the trial further, while still serving his purpose even if it wouldn't have gone as initially planned, functioning as a reversal of how a similar plan played out in chapter 1:
Komaeda's coldness during the final stage of the trial to quickly convict Gundham as parallel to the immediacy that everyone turned on him in the first trial, both during the trial and according to his plan, but also afterwards.
I believe all these points serve as, if not as direct callbacks, to at least bring the player's mind back to chapter 1. But I think we can go even further, and directly compare the two "black sheep" of each case.
Social Darwinism: The Opening Act or Continuation of Themes Already Present?
Komaeda, on several ponts of the fourth trial endgame, comments that the trial is merely "the opening act". With the power of hindsight we can surmise that this is foreshadowing the next trial, and how this petty squabbling between the despairs will pale in comparison to Komaeda's ultimate sacrifice for the sake of hope. The truth is that this framing is more layered at second glance; the trial is the opening act because Gundham's display of self-sacrifice will pale in comparison to Komaeda's. As Hinata himself notes:
Gundham's killing of Mechamaru was itself a sacrifice, turning himself the blackened, so the others can eat and continue living. He himself stresses:
This self-sacrificial belief is deeply tied to his morals, and that is not a thing we can as well spot on Komaeda only in hindsight, it is something we already know he posesses, as the great catalyst of the first trial.
Indeed, we already see a pretty significant similarity between Gundham and Komaeda, alongside their connection during the fourth case itself; Gundham and Komaeda manage to play their respective but directly opposite parts in the case due to both of them entering and beating the Final Dead Room's challenge.
The Octagon and the "Ultimate Weapon" that it contains, the view of the building, something that the blackened, Gundham, used, is paralleled with the other "Ultimate Weapon" found in there, the HPA files. Both are used as indirect ways to spread discord and despair among the class; the tool meant for the killer was in the end used as an net positive to stave off the starvation, and Gundham is narratively given that dignity, judging from how his execution frames him and the rest of the cast's reaction afterwards, with Gundham being literally carried off to Heaven.
Meanwhile the "weapon" that Komaeda acquires as a means to solve the murder ends up being used in a net negative way, with way more disastrous consequences and no sympathy given. There's a reversal in the way each "weapon" was used and how its use was treated depending on who used it.
There is also an additional reversal with the characters themselves, how Komaeda started out "approachable" and became "unapprochable" as the game progressed, even if he hadn't fundamentally changed as a person, mirroring how Gundham started out "unapprochable" and became "approachable" as the game progressed, even if he hadn't fundamentally changed as a person!
Back on track, Gundham continues his monologue stressing about the importance of living, or more appropriately, survival. Directly after his "insult to life itself" comment, he says some other interesting things:
Both him and Komaeda use a dog allegory to explain their beliefs/ideology! It's likey an intentional parallel so we can understand each character's points by relating them to each other, especially since no one else so far has used similar phrasing.
Gundham continues, and he takes his explanation towards a very strange path:
A "dog eat dog world", cannibalism necessary for one's survival, refusal of that survival being seen as a betrayal and a "violation of the natural order"...
During the start of his confession, he says similar things:
And even before that, during the trial, the things that he says are even more damning, and that I believe are the keys to the case:
Does this phrasing... remind you of anyone?
The "trampling" comment especially is very reminiscent of Komaeda's "stepping stone" concept.
There are even similarities to how the others react to their beliefs, with Komaeda being directly ostracised as creepy, but the others being more critical of Gundham than they were of Teruteru, Peko, Fuyuhiko and even the despair-ridden Mikan:
So what is the similarity in the beliefs of both Gundham and Komaeda? Or more like, in what way is it more pronounced in Gundham?
Social Darwinism is the belief that the strong in societ should thrive, while the weak should be discarded. This ideology, which is more a blanket term of ideologies of similar caliber, was an abridged version of Darwin's concept of "survival of the fittest": though Darwin's concept merely positions that there are environments in which certain individuals with certain traits will thrive better, while others will have difficulties or even die off, Social Darwinism turns this into a deontological policy for human society, in which the ones that are "ill-suited" for it are weaker and should be disposed of or at least greatly disadvantaged. To noone's surprise, those beliefs got entangled with eugenicist thinking.
You can spot this line of thinking in both Gundham and Komaeda (though I'd argue Komaeda has a more Nietzscean tint, and is not a complete absolutist), but I'd say it's even more pronounced in Gundham through his more overt animal references and turns of phrase ("trampled" as a wildebeest from his execution would do for example), and his overt connection with animals through the Dark Devas and his Breeder talent; after all, Social Darwinism is the narrow-minded and poorly understood application of biological concepts to social studies. Both of them appeal to the "nature" of things to justify their beliefs, but while Komaeda asserts the more ontological explanation that "that is simply the way things are", it is Gundham that turns it deontological, "the way things must be done", and therefore falls more in line with Social Darwinist thinking.
Both Gundham and Komaeda are framed as "out there" in their beliefs about the world, but both of them have their serious moments as well; the difference comes in that Komaeda's seriousness in his ideology puts him at odds with the group, even if he's working alongside them, meanwhile Gundham's seriousness in his ideology still aligns him with them. Despite his chuunibiyo exterior, after all, Gundham also joins in the Komaeda pile-up of the first trial, and he is the one to make one of the coldest remarks towards him as well.
To summarise a bit, Gundham believes the same things as Komaeda to a similar extent, if not worse, directly following the themes Komaeda has set out, while also expanding on them in a slightly different light. Being the actual blackened shakes things up a bit, but he brings up up the possibility of him becoming the victim himself, and how it would've made the case more difficult for the others in his advantage, tying himself thematically back to the first trial.
One would think all this would blow the case wide open: Gundham is a picture perfect image of Komaeda's worldview and plans for both chapter 1 and 5; Gundham is both an ultimate and an outcast, with a strong but unlikely relationship with another Ultimate, that sacrifised himself by commiting a morally dubious action so everyone else can live, an end that justifies its means... So, what is the difference between these two characters? Or more like, why are they treated so differently by both the narrative and the fandom?
Cowardice vs Courage and the Construction of Machismo
As I've pointed out above, Gundham and Komaeda are very similar characters when it comes to their beliefs, and one could say Gundham is deeply intertwined in the themes of Komaeda's character, a fact that is darkly ironic considering it happens in the trial where Komaeda is the most detached from everyone's motivations. And yet, the treatment of each of them from the fandom is quite different; Komaeda has his layers, but they seem to have crystallised into their own reductive archetypes by now, some with a slight derogatory shade to them: the hope-obsessed weirdo, the woobie, the yandere, the calculating killer, or the incompetent, annoying killer. On the contrary, Gundham's characterization is very consistent, if not stagnant; him being the lovable edgy eccentric or theater kid, whose mannerisms border on melodramatic, but never mean-spirited and always endearing. If any fanworks touch on the fourth trial, it's always with gravity, with him portrayed as the hero who had to make a difficult choice, the tragedy of the situation in general being often the focal point. It is a rather different situation from Komaeda because, though there are times where the tragedy of the situation is portrayed from his point of view, he is never really portrayed as heroic, neither by the game nor the fandom.
Playing through the fourth trial, I think I have the answer for the difference in their treatment, though it could be seen as rather inflammatory, but, by comparing their similarities in their situation, one can more easily discern their differences, and thus more easily come to a conclusion when it comes to their reception as characters. I want to note that this does not invite discourse on the personal level, since the examples I'm going to use for their differences in interpretation stem from the game itself, so I assume one can be free to, not even critique them, just acknowledge them as a factor in reception, as many people have already done, especially when it comes to Danganronpa. With that said, let me arrive to my point: Machismo. Gundham is treated with more dignity narratively, from the rest of the cast and even from the fandom because his decisions and presentation during the trial are framed through more traditional, or at least understandable, masculine means.
Machismo is a loose collection of traditionally masculine ideals, that prioritise aloofness, rationality, toughness, dominance and control both over oneself and the perception of oneself by others. The list of some of the main traits that wikipedia defines for someone to value or posses machismo are:
Posturing: assuming a certain, often unusual or exaggerated body posture or attitude.
Treating their wife as a display of an aloof lord-protector: women are loving, men conquer
Bravado: outrageous boasting, overconfidence.
Social dominance: a socio-culturally defined dominance; macho swagger.
Protecting one's honor or pride: believing in protecting the ego in spite of potential risk.
Hardworking: Being able to provide through hard work and labor, often taking tough and demanding jobs
A willingness to face danger
Let's go over each of them and how they relate to Gundham in this trial one by one:
Posturing: It is Gundham's main defining trait in general, but especially in this trial. He gleefully takes up the role of the overconfident villain, especially when his classmates discover of his more selfless motive, acting that way to protect them emotionally from his death.
Treating their wife as a display of an aloof lord-protector: In this chapter, it is implied that Sonia and Gundham have become a Thing™, and in his Overlord of Ice roleplay, one assumes that this is the more charming version of the trope, especially since its rare for one to see a confirmed relationship within canon without overdrawn shenanigans. But I'd argue, even the tame version requires scrutiny, especially when it actually gets turned up to eleven in the trial; Sonia pleads and cries for Gundham, even when he's reveal as the blackened, and he remains in his cold aloof exterior, reprimanding her for "forbidding a man of going to his death". While it is to hide both his concern, and make her move on from him quicker, it is undeniably cold and borderline chauvinistic. One could say though, that in the end this relationship and even the coldness which he treats Sonia in the end humanises him as flawed but tough.
Bravado/Social Dominance: Speaks for itself, especially when he leans into his villain role during the trial.
Protecting one's honor or pride: After the trial ends, he gets convicted and is almost off his execution, he only has one complaint regarding his fight with Mechamaru; it was a fight, and both of them fought courageously, he didn't use any underhanded/cowardly tactics. Both of them knew the risks, and both faced eachother head on.
Hardworking: He provided the rest of the cast food by committing the murder and putting his life in danger for it as well.
A willingness to face danger: self-explanatory, if his narration of his encounter with Mechamaru is anything to go by.
I'd even argue that Gundham being the blackened, and a successful one at that, adds point to his overall "machismo".
However, despite all this, there is a very important point in which his stoic exterior is undercut. During the trial, before he is made the prime suspect, he interjects on one of Komaeda's musing about how he "would've died for hope", saying that his wish is selfish:
Except... After he confesses his guilt and starts further explaining his motives, he says that "killing for the sake of living" is perfectly justified:
What he says to Komaeda is merely a projection of his own guilt, not just a lie, but hypocritical, especially when we consider how extreme his own darwinian views go, encroaching themselves to the entire concept of "life", than merely "hope". Due to his stoic and masculine exterior (and general traits as I've highlighted above), even deception and hypocrisy that are criticised in Komaeda, become necessary and tragic in Gundham.
Speaking of Komaeda, once we review all the macho traits that apply to Gundham, it's clear that he falls short on all of them:
Posturing: Before the "reveal", he's pleasant but overlooked, and his performance during it doesn't make matters better. He's too eager, earnest, overconfident and insecure to earn any short of respect.
Treating their wife as a display: Another part that humanises Gundham is his, specifically romantic and heterosexual, relationship with Sonia, the one other person that got close enough to understand him and connect with him, which moreso pronounces Komaeda's isolation, if not abandonment, especially from the one other person he notes that have much in common. There's even a parallel with Sonia and that other person, Hajime, once they find out that their respective partners may not be what they seem, asking them to explain themselves and refusing to believe it. But while Sonia keeps begging for Gundham's life and keeps standing by his side even after being convicted, Hinata feels betrayed, and distances himself from Komaeda throughout the game. A further possible reason for that could be that Hinata's own ego as a man had been bruised for being deceived by someone he trusted and saw as an equal.
Bravado/ Social Dominance: Almost none, whatever he gains he gains by working on the downlow and by making timely suggestions to the Ultimates, branding him as passive, if not deceitful.
Protecting one's honor or pride: He himself says on multiple occasions he doesn't care what happens to him as long as the others and their ideals live on. He only breaks this in chapter 5, when in the eyes of the rest of the class he has fully crossed the line into villainy.
Hardworking: His investigations are kept lowkey and usually he never reveals his findings untill critical moments, and sometimes to the detriment of Hinata and the rest of the cast.
A willingness to face danger: There are multiple similar situations that Komaeda finds himself in, but they're always cast as duplicitous and villainous, even if it's for the uncovering of the killer, such as his Russian Roulette bit in this very chapter.
From this comparison, we can see that Komaeda lacks almost every masculine trait that Gundham has exhibited as per this list. As I said at the start, by figuring how much these two characters have in common, we can more accurately find out what they don't, and I think all the criteria from this list fit neatly into what I've noticed.
All in all, though Gundham and Komaeda are more similar than one might think at first, their treatment in the game and by the fandom differs, because Gundham exhibits an expected list of masculine traits that are automatically read as "heroic", meanwhile Komaeda's lack of those traits and more unconventional methods automatically read as "cowardly", "villainous" and, dare I say, feminine.
So, to answer the titular question, does the end justify the means? Or, more like, when does the end justify the means? My answer to that, having explained everything I've noticed, is that the end, no matter it's effectiveness or morality of its means, can be perfectly justified when the person acting toward it is read as a "hero", or sufficiently masculine man. Any character or person that falls short that description, no matter it's effectiveness or morality of its means, is almost always portrayed as unjustified.
