Does Sonic Really Hate Authority?

[Speedi]

Or is his independent and free spirited nature just misinterpreted as him having some inherent beef with the law? Because personally I've never really got that vibe from him. Most of the time when Sonic's fighting against authority it's because he's defending himself from a false accusation or helping overthrow an evil king/emperor/dictator person. He's not actively shown ever antagonizing them and he was actively working with G.U.N in Shadow's game, to the point that he straight up feels bad for destroying their robots in the first level. Perhaps I'm just not looking at this from the right perspective, but I just don't see where this idea comes from.  

Disclaimer: I have not indulged in every piece of Sonic media... yet.

[Rabbitearsblog]

It's kind of hard to say because we don't get a lot of focus on the adult characters in this series.  Like you mentioned, the only times that Sonic went against authority was to defend himself from any wrong doing and there's nothing wrong with going up against authority if you were framed for something you didn't do.

[Diogenes]

I definitely wouldn't say he's proactively anti-authority, though he's not usually proactively much of anything. I think it mostly comes down to him not having an inherent respect for authority, so he won't hesitate to fight it if he considers it a threat or otherwise defer to it. It doesn't matter to him if it's a lone wannabe dictator, a military organization, or a rightful (as far as he knows) king, if they're using their power to hurt people he'll do what he can to stop it just the same. Likewise he'll treat a princess or a friendly god with the same casual tone he uses with all of his friends. Ultimately how anti-authority he comes off as is going to depend on who he's up against, and while there's definitely room in his character for it, they've never really pushed that angle very hard.

[Wraith]

It's mostly a misinterpretation used to dig at the comics/alternate takes on the character. The only thing Sonic actually hates are bullies. That could be an entire authority or an individual. Anyone that's abusing their powers is going to get a kick in the head, but if an authority isn't causing any problems hes probably not going to care.

[azoo]

Ideally, he does. Whether he actually does or not depends on whichever continuity you follow.

[Kuzu]

15 minutes ago, Wraith said:

It's mostly a misinterpretation used to dig at the comics/alternate takes on the character. The only thing Sonic actually hates are bullies. That could be an entire authority or an individual. If an authority isn't causing any problems hes probably not going to care.

I was actually just about to mention that.

Most of the anti-Authoritarian theming of Sonic's character mainly stems from how fans feel a "free-spirited" character shouldn't be "tied down". Its an overromanticized interpretation meant to combat how Sonic was pretty pro-Government in Archie/SATAM. I don't think that's entirely wrong mind you, but it's definitely not born from good faith. 

Sonic is ultimately a good guy at the end of the day; he rights wrongs, and saves people. He has a problem with people who abuse their power and lord it over others, but I can't see him just being anti-authority in general. It could be an interesting angle to explore with the character, but given how squeaky clean his image has become in modern times, I highly doubt they'll ever explore it in a meaningful capacity. 

[azoo]

17 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Most of the anti-Authoritarian theming of Sonic's character mainly stems from how fans feel a "free-spirited" character shouldn't be "tied down". Its an overromanticized interpretation meant to combat how Sonic was pretty pro-Government in Archie/SATAM.

A series made separate from the intent of Sonic Team, and far before their say had outreach.

I think it's pretty out of character for him to be actively for authority when Eggman's entire schtick is authority, and Sonic's insistence on his freedom is emphasized by comparisons to the wind in like basically every other Sega-made descriptor of him. And this isn't even to mention the "there always seems to be a bunch of police around when you don't need 'em" quote. Whether or not that was used in-game, it's definitely not out of line with Sonic's carelessness towards their rules in SA2. 

I feel at best Sonic is apathetic to authority, and when provoked is blatantly against it. If it stands in the way of his or other people's freedoms he's gonna have a problem and will raise hell. If it's not he stays out of it. Its not deep, but its definitely substantial enough to not rub off as purist talk. Which is why I say it depends on the continuity, rather than an overarching yes or no answer.

[Kuzu]

I mean, the fact you went to specify that is kind of my point; its not that Sonic is "anti-authority", some fans just hate the idea of Sonic serving under a monarchy due to the fact that they grew up with a continuity where that wasn't the case. And use the idea that "Sonic hates authority" as a means of lambasting what SATAM/Archie did. 

Sonic hates Eggman because he's a dick, not because he's an authoritarian. If Eggman wasn't a dick and used his resources for good, Sonic would more than likely just leave him alone. 

Like I said, if Sonic wasn't supposed to be a mascot for a children's franchise, I wouldn't mind them leaning into the idea that he has something against authority figures. But that idea veers him away from the squeaky clean image that Sega have built up for him, so I can't ever see that ever happening.

 

Sonic didn't even have anything against GUN personally, they were just in his way of trying to stop Eggman. Similarly, he stopped King Arthur because someone asked him to and because  once again, King Arthur was a dick. 

[Wraith]

The descriptions in older bios are vague enough for people to take what they want from them. I think Sonic would be more interesting if he was more of a rebel, but the Sonic we know in practice doesn't think twice about working with GUN or monarchs if they're not causing any problems. A lot of opportunities for friction in these instances aren't taken. The worst it ever got was him blowing off the president in Sonic X.

[azoo]

6 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

I mean, the fact you went to specify that is kind of my point; its not that Sonic is "anti-authority", some fans just hate the idea of Sonic serving under a monarchy due to the fact that they grew up with a continuity where that wasn't the case.

It's wasn't just a continuity where that wasn't the case, though, it's the main continuity. Like, the central source of the whole thing. Sonic's whole bit since day one has been how he's a free spirit, so I think it's justified to find disinterest or distaste for other canons that kinda run opposite of that.

7 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Sonic hates Eggman because he's a dick, not because he's an authoritarian. If Eggman wasn't a dick and used his resources for good, Sonic would more than likely just leave him alone. 

I just said that, though. Sonic wouldn't intervene unless if it were actively going against the freedom or better being of others. 

But he also wouldn't necessarily be reverent to the authority either, at least not like other continuities portray him. Even if various GUN people were just doing their job in the events of SA2, he was still enacting jailbreak, trashing their stuff and disrespecting their orders. He even breaks into the president's limo, steals a disc, says he's got this under control, and bails.

Even if Sonic doesn't hate the government or whatever, he acts as if he's above their jurisdiction. So he's kinda against the concept of authority, lesser the people behind it. Sonic's a punk. 

Whether that is ever pushed further in any case is uncertain and unlikely, but hence me saying "ideally" in my first post. lol

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

On 3/10/2021 at 12:10 PM, Kuzu said:

I was actually just about to mention that.

Most of the anti-Authoritarian theming of Sonic's character mainly stems from how fans feel a "free-spirited" character shouldn't be "tied down". Its an overromanticized interpretation meant to combat how Sonic was pretty pro-Government in Archie/SATAM. I don't think that's entirely wrong mind you, but it's definitely not born from good faith. 
 

A reminder that Sonic committed straight up treason no less than 2 or 3 times in Archie during the Pre-reboot and got into the first ever fist fight with Tails during an impending civil war during a world war there, which is not a good track record for someone that supposed to be pro-Government there.
 

If anything, Sonic isn’t so much anti-authority than he is anti-Orwellian. If the authority isn’t oppressive or stupid (which he flat out said was one of the reasons he went against his own in Archie the during his third act of treason), he wouldn’t have a problem with it. Which perfectly explains why he’s willing to break tons of government military hardware coming after him or stopping him from doing the right thing.

[Kuzu]

26 minutes ago, azoo said:

It's wasn't just a continuity where that wasn't the case, though, it's the main continuity. Like, the central source of the whole thing. Sonic's whole bit since day one has been how he's a free spirit, so I think it's justified to find disinterest or distaste for other canons that kinda run opposite of that.

You yourself said that this was before the series properly established what Sonic's overall character was going to be, and other continuities were free to interpret the material however they wish. There was no "main canon" until roughly six years after SATAM was out. So hey, if your first exposure to Sonic was him serving under a monarchy, then guess what, that's what your interpretation of Sonic is going to be based on. Just because the main continuity veered into something else doesn't mean that people who have distaste or disinterest in SATAM are suddenly more valid than the ones who preferred its interpretations. 

The idea that fans are free to disparage other interpretations and continuities because it runs counter to their own has never sat right with me. There's enough leeway with Sonic to form all kinds of headcanons and interpretations that aren't anymore valid than the other. 

26 minutes ago, azoo said:

I just said that, though. Sonic wouldn't intervene unless if it were actively going against the freedom or better being of others. 

But he also wouldn't necessarily be reverent to the authority either, at least not like other continuities portray him. Even if various GUN people were just doing their job in the events of SA2, he was still enacting jailbreak, trashing their stuff and disrespecting their orders. He even breaks into the president's limo, steals a disc, says he's got this under control, and bails.

Even if Sonic doesn't hate the government or whatever, he acts as if he's above their jurisdiction. So he's kinda against the concept of authority, lesser the people behind it. Sonic's a punk. 

Whether that is ever pushed further in any case is uncertain and unlikely, but hence me saying "ideally" in my first post. lol

Because GUN was getting in Sonic's way and trying to apprehend him :V Of course he is going to defend himself, they were actively antagonizing him throughout the entire game. Notice how Sonic has no beef with GUN in any game after that and willingly works with them in some others. 

There's nothing really in the games that supports the idea that Sonic hates authority, unless you're reading REALLY hard into some actions, but given the lack of any real follow up on any of it, I'm not inclined to believe its actually true. 

I mean, there's a Sonic police car game for goodness' sake lol. 

5 minutes ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

A reminder that Sonic committed straight up treason no less than 2 or 3 times in Archie during the Pre-reboot and got into the first ever fist fight with Tails during an impending civil war during a world war there, which is not a good track record for someone that supposed to be pro-Government there.
 

If anything, Sonic isn’t so much anti-authority than he is anti-Orwellian. If the authority isn’t oppressive or stupid (which he flat out said was one of the reasons he went against his own in Archie the during his third act of treason), he would have a problem with it. Which perfectly explains why he’s willing to break tons of government military hardware coming after him or stopping him from doing the right thing.

Yea, I was just mostly explaining how some people just hate the idea of Sonic serving any type of monarchy or authoritarian figure despite the fact that he's done so in various continuities. 

[azoo]

23 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

You yourself said that this was before the series properly established what Sonic's overall character was going to be, and other continuities were free to interpret the material however they wish. There was no "main canon" until roughly six years after SATAM was out. So hey, if your first exposure to Sonic was him serving under a monarchy, then guess what, that's what your interpretation of Sonic is going to be based on. Just because the main continuity veered into something else doesn't mean that people who have distaste or disinterest in SATAM are suddenly more valid than the ones who preferred its interpretations. 

No, there was a main canon that wasn't shared with the rest of the world until years after SatAM was out. I don't know why you're pretending it didn't exist until 1998. It also is worth noting how the games don't represent any semblance of a monarchy at all, and are all about disconnected adventures on islands.

If the games had something established for themselves (whether or not we could see it), the games don't feature the stuff the other continuities have, and the "new" canon in '98 doesn't contradict it, then there is a thread here to be followed. And this is coming from someone who's first impression of the Sonic canon was from Archie, before realizing that wasn't what the series was really about.

Don't make that point out as if I'm being unreasonable.

23 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Because GUN was getting in Sonic's way and trying to apprehend him :V Of course he is going to defend himself, they were actively antagonizing him throughout the entire game. Notice how Sonic has no beef with GUN in any game after that and willingly works with them in some others. 

There's nothing really in the games that supports the idea that Sonic hates authority, unless you're reading REALLY hard into some actions, but given the lack of any real follow up on any of it, I'm not inclined to believe its actually true. 

I mean, there's a Sonic police car game for goodness' sake lol. 

For the first bolded, a game with some really bad writing all across the board. For the second bolded, some microbic Japan only arcade game that matters about as much as the one where he flies a rocket ship or makes popcorn.

Gonna have to put "ideally" in the biggest, boldest text possible for you to get what I'm sayin'. So let me do that.

Ideally Sonic would be portrayed in a way that isn't really supportive of authority. In an ideal characterization the guy doesn't find himself abiding to what they say more often than not, and outright lashes against it when it threatens his or other's ways of life. He can care about people and want to help them on prospect of being good or bad people, regardless of what they stand for, but that doesn't have to mean he equates to being a law abiding whatever or active supporter. If he isn't written this way then I feel like it underutilizes his character, but I can't be surprised by how a corporation could be wishy-washy on how this is expressed.

If you can't read that from my past several posts and wanna minimize it to a "nope wrong" then yeah man, nah. 

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

10 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

13 minutes ago, CrownSlayer’s Shadow said:

 

Yea, I was just mostly explaining how some people just hate the idea of Sonic serving any type of monarchy or authoritarian figure despite the fact that he's done so in various continuities

At this point, it’s getting petty. As long as the voice inside drives him to run and fight what he knows is wrong, it doesn’t matter who is wrong and who is right to him. And I feel that summarizes the core of who he is.

[Natie]

All I know about this is it being a little piece of flavor text meant to bolster his "cool punk rebel" image sega wants him to have but won't fully commit to.

[Diogenes]

7 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

Because GUN was getting in Sonic's way and trying to apprehend him :V Of course he is going to defend himself, they were actively antagonizing him throughout the entire game.

I mean the "normal" good guy thing to do would be to trust them to give him a fair trial, verify his innocence, and release him, not beat up a bunch of cops, evade arrest, and break out of jail.

Like, compare to the strangely similar premise of Super Mario Sunshine. Two well-known heroes, two evil doppelgangers, two arrests. Mario goes along with it all, the arrest, the trial, the community service (until the game kinda just forgets about all that and you're free to do whatever). Sonic gives the cops the finger and escapes, multiple times.

[Kuzu]

15 minutes ago, azoo said:

No, there was a main canon that wasn't shared with the rest of the world until years after SatAM was out. I don't know why you're pretending it didn't exist until 1998. It also is worth noting how the games don't represent any semblance of a monarchy at all, and are all about disconnected adventures on islands.

If the games had something established for themselves (whether or not we could see it), the games don't feature the stuff the other continuities have, and the "new" canon in '98 doesn't contradict it, then there is a thread here to be followed. And this is coming from someone who's first impression of the Sonic canon was from Archie, before realizing that wasn't what the series was really about.

Don't make that point out as if I'm being unreasonable.

I'm not trying to claim you're being unreasonable, but you're clearly getting defensive over the idea that somebody could prefer the idea that Sonic works under a monarchy simply because it stands at odds with what the games established. 

15 minutes ago, azoo said:

For the first bolded, a game with some really bad writing all across the board. For the second bolded, some microbic Japan only arcade game that matters about as much as the one where he flies a rocket ship or makes popcorn.

Gonna have to put "ideally" in the biggest, boldest text possible for you to get what I'm sayin'. So let me do that.

Ideally Sonic would be portrayed in a way that isn't really supportive of authority. In an ideal characterization the guy doesn't find himself abiding to what they say more often than not, and outright lashes against it when it threatens his or other's ways of life. He can care about people and want to help them on prospect of being good or bad people, regardless of what they stand for, but that doesn't mean he has respect. If he isn't written that way then I feel like it underutilizes his character, but I can't be surprised by how a corporation could be wishy-washy on how this is expressed.

If you can't read that from my past several posts and wanna minimize it to a "nope wrong Sonic has never been about this" then yeah man, nah. 

OP was asking if Sonic hates Authority, not about if our ideal version of the character should hate authority. 

Sure, IDEALLY, Sonic could potentially hate authority, but that's not the reality of it is it. The reality of it is that Sonic opposes anyone who's being a dick whether they're authority or not because he hates evil as a general concept as opposed to being anti-authoritarian. 

 

6 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

I mean the "normal" good guy thing to do would be to trust them to give him a fair trial, verify his innocence, and release him, not beat up a bunch of cops, evade arrest, and break out of jail.

Like, compare to the strangely similar premise of Super Mario Sunshine. Two well-known heroes, two evil doppelgangers, two arrests. Mario goes along with it all, the arrest, the trial, the community service (until the game kinda just forgets about all that and you're free to do whatever). Sonic gives the cops the finger and escapes, multiple times.

That's true, but it's something the games never really elaborate or build on ever. It's a cool concept sure, but it's one that Sega will likely never build on, because that's not the image of Sonic that they want nowadays. There have been plenty of chances of fleshing out Sonic's character like that, but they're clearly not interested in that idea and are content with keeping him as a marketable mascot. 

Its rather noticeable that this was the era of Sonic where his character was becoming more diluted as more flawed characters like Shadow, Blaze and Silver were taking center stage. 

[SBR2]

He did talk about there always being a lot if cops around when you don't need them.

In general he hasn't shown to be anti-government but that's only because that's not what the series is about. All political messages are mostly just standard nature good pollution bad but honestly I guess it's easy to read Sonic as anti-authority. He's a bit of a hippie/"SJW" when you think about it so he probably would be against people in authority harming people. 

[Kuzu]

Man, this reminds me how the movie's early descriptions made Sonic out to be some juvenile delinquent who was causing chaos across the country, only for the movie to portray him as a cinnamon roll who just wanted friends. 

 

 

[azoo]

26 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

I'm not trying to claim you're being unreasonable, but you're clearly getting defensive over the idea that somebody could prefer the idea that Sonic works under a monarchy simply because it stands at odds with what the games established. 

That would be because the games are the main continuity, dude.

26 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

OP was asking if Sonic hates Authority, not about if our ideal version of the character should hate authority. 

Sure, IDEALLY, Sonic could potentially hate authority, but that's not the reality of it is it. The reality of it is that Sonic opposes anyone who's being a dick whether they're authority or not because he hates evil as a general concept as opposed to being anti-authoritarian. 

The only things Sonic has fought against besides demon monsters and rivals are authoritarian figures.

Or at the very least, people who want to control the state of things for other people, and he doesn't agree with it. Eggman wants to take over the world and force everyone to partake in his carnival empire, Sonic will have none of it. GUN wants to hold him captive (possibly as cover up story) while taking care of Eggman themselves but Sonic will have none of it. Erazor controls Sharha's life and wants to decide the fate of Arabian Nights and Sonic will have none of it. Merlina wants to control the fate of her universe and their people and Sonic will have none of it. Sonic even argues Tikal's methods at the end of SA1 because trying to control the situation by containing Chaos rather than resolving the problem within.

It's a recurring bit.

And I mean, if you want to argue that ideals don't matter, then I guess from that angle anything can go for how you decide to interpret a character. To me saying that holds no water and seriously arguing it seems like reducing the point of discussing it to an subatomic level, but yet here we are.

[Kuzu]

12 minutes ago, azoo said:

That would be because the games are the main continuity, dude.

Which was the point me and Wraith were making; that fans of the main continuity claim Sonic is anti-authoritarian as a means to disparage the continuities where Sonic is serving under someone else.    

Quote

The only things Sonic has fought against besides demon monsters and rivals are authoritarian figures.

Or at the very least, people who want to control the state of things for other people, and he doesn't agree with it. Eggman wants to take over the world and force everyone to partake in his carnival empire, Sonic will have none of it. GUN wants to hold him captive (possibly as cover up story) while taking care of Eggman themselves but Sonic will have none of it. Erazor controls Sharha's life and wants to decide the fate of Arabian Nights and Sonic will have none of it. Merlina wants to control the fate of her universe and their people and Sonic will have none of it. Sonic even argues Tikal's methods at the end of SA1 because trying to control the situation by containing Chaos rather than resolving the problem within.

It's a recurring bit.

And I mean, if you want to argue that ideals don't matter, then I guess from that angle anything can go for how you decide to interpret a character. To me saying that holds no water and seriously arguing it seems like reducing the point of discussing it to an subatomic level, but yet here we are.

Notice how most of these figures are inherently evil people who want to cause Sonic harm, and have no sympathetic or much depth to begin with. Sure, if you really want gleam something from that fine, but it kind of doesn't hit as hard because the games never build on the idea that Sonic opposes those figures because he hates what they stand for, as opposed to just being against evil as a concept. 

If the series REALLY wants to push the idea that Sonic is some punk who hates authority, maybe have him oppose an actually GOOD authority figure?  Maybe have him do something that would put him at odds with the rest of the characters? As it stands though, almost every authority figure is inherently evil or morally corrupt, so it doesn't exactly support the idea that Sonic is some rebel when the people he opposes are evil to begin with. 

 

 

A good example of this is the episode of Sonic X where Eggman repairs the Moon and it causes a lunar eclipse. Everyone is convinced Eggman was trying to help, but Sonic wasn't having it and went about destroying his control towers and unintentionally causing trouble for citizens. Everyone assumes Sonic has gone rogue due to hating Eggman, and it culminates in a fight with Knuckles. Then Sonic reveals that Eggman was controlling the entire thing to make himself look good, making everyone who bought into Eggman look like an idiot and absolving Sonic of any of the potential wrongdoing. When Knuckles even asked why didn't Sonic say anything, Sonic just assumed everyone would have figured out as if it to rub it in everyone's faces. 

That's not interesting, that's annoying. 

[Piko]

I wouldn’t say he’s anti-authority, moreso anti-oppression. He doesn’t seem to mind authoritarian figures as long as they’re not using their power to do harm.

[Diogenes]

11 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

If the series REALLY wants to push the idea that Sonic is some punk who hates authority, maybe have him oppose an actually GOOD authority figure?  Maybe have him do something that would put him at odds with the rest of the characters? As it stands though, almost every authority figure is inherently evil or morally corrupt, so it doesn't exactly support the idea that Sonic is some rebel when the people he opposes are evil to begin with. 

If the series agreed with Sonic's anti-authority position, it'd only make sense if the authority figures were all bad.

[Kuzu]

7 minutes ago, Diogenes said:

If the series agreed with Sonic's anti-authority position, it'd only make sense if the authority figures were all bad.

But like I said, it calls into question if that's actually anti-authoritarian or if just stopping the generic evil empire from doing evil things.  Mario constantly beats Bowser's kingdom back, does that make him anti-authoritarian? 

That's why it's something that needs to be elaborated on and called into question more. The closest game to actually do that was Black Knight, where Sonic opposes Merlina's idea of a never-ending world to prevent it's destruction and escape her sadness. Sure, Sonic is still ultimately right, but Merlina isn't just some generic overlord who wants power, but someone with a genuine motive for what she's doing which gives a bit more weight to Sonic's actions than if he were just fighting someone that was inherently evil. 

But that's the game that some people have claimed isn't that good as people say it is, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Wraith]

28 minutes ago, Kuzu said:

 

 As it stands though, almost every authority figure is inherently evil or morally corrupt, so it doesn't exactly support the idea that Sonic is some rebel when the people he opposes are evil to begin with. 

 

 

 

If this was true the series would be suggesting most authority is inherently corrupt, which would be a pretty clear cut anti-authority position to take. 

 I don't think Sonic paints every authority as corrupt, though. It just leans into the basic idea that there are good and bad ways to lead people. Simple characters, simple world, simple perspective.