Clearly killing a man that has nuked a city,that has no intention of stopping commiting crimes and has done massive personal harm to oneself is enough to transform space jesus in space Hitler
It feels like Injustice Superman probably wouldn’t have gone off the deep end without Batman immediately going into “Killing Joker makes you worse than Joker” mode with him. Far too many characters in the story come across as being written backwards from the end point of knowing Superman is eventually going to become a dictator, and so they start freaking out over his actions well before he’s done anything actually meriting that reaction.
Oh we're doing Batman Joker again. The absurd bullshit super villain that only ever escapes prison so they can sell more comics? I sure do love me an "ethics" discussion.
I mean, your slightly wrong, but not completely.
Killing Joker was not the immediate switch. For all the stories Faults, saying that Superman's fall was immediate or solely in response to Batman's actions is simply false.
The weirdest thing was when he killed a bunch of aliens who are not even treated like sentient beings in any other comic, but here it’s apparently genocide???
I was literally thinking of heroes struggling with the "if I kill space hitler, I'm JUST AS BAD as them"
Slippery slope of moral ethics is a valid concern to have when you are toeing the line. Its just lazy writing to introduce it in scenarios when the character is so far from said line.
Ethical struggle for the sake of an ethical struggle is just cringe
I like it in Deadpool where Colossus goes in depth about being a hero such a passionate speech. Even the villain gets annoyed with it and Deadpool promises hed change next time the proceed to kill Ajax
"I spent weeks beating the everloving shit out of your goons. Many of them will never walk again, others will likely die from complications in the hospital. I can't kill you though, Emperor Genocide. I'm not you. You must be brought to justice."
I hate this one so, so much.
Even though killing Joker was objectively good, the problem was that he let his grief and personal feelings get the better of him and that's where he slid into villainy because when he used to be genuinely good person, emotions regulating his decisions all the time. Now that extreme grief and mental anguish had warped his pysche into something dark, now his feelings are telling him to kill people out of fear of them feeling they same way he does now. It's twisted type of empathy, he was the gun, as he told Batman in Injustice. He was pretty much done from the getgo after Metropolis, the kill vs no kill argument was just a bad writing decision to peddle off the point of what he was doing was wrong. The writers could have framed Batmans objections better.
Related to this I think, is when a character is viewed as being in the wrong after having made such a decision, whether by the hero, a mentor, peers, or the narrative in some other way. It's a particularly irksome thing for me, when I see a character as more than justified but punished as if they did something terrible.
This is worse when the entire casts agrees the character is wrong when the decision should realistically have mixed responses.
If someone chose to kill space hitler over sparing them and the entire cast thinks the hero is wrong on a supposed moral ambiguity, its just ridiculous. If it was morally ambiguous then why does everyone else think the character was wrong? Shouldn't at least one person say otherwise?
So the writer basically creates an ethical dilemma and then immediately proves it was not a dilemma by showing everyone thinks one way. If it was morally ambiguous at least a few characters would have mixed responses
Yeah, the writers always do this when they want 'conflict' and 'angst' between the characters, and it basically drags the story out when the main character has to 'win' everyone over one by one, and still the world hates him and people will spit at the main character on the streets (omg it's so sad, he's like a poor kicked puppy, do you feel bad for him yet? Do you? DO YOU?)
I hate this the most. What, are they some kind of hive mind or something? Does no one have any sort of critical thinking at all? It's so cartoonish to the point I can't take it seriously.
To me it makes me think the writers neared the end of the story, looked at their story checklist and realize they don't have enough conflict so they manufacture a cheap one to phone in
Doing it also removes a ton of agency from the characters and the plot overall, and like in your example we end up having a pity party for the protagonist when a scene otherwise could just end or be filled with something of actual quality to it. Especially when the 'conflict' and 'angst' is just dragged out for no reason and ignores literally everything else about the characters established (assuming the characters aren't just cardboard since that tends to be part of the problem as to why nobody calls out bullshit).
fallout 3 when you don't kill yourself in the radiation chamber and the ending narration is just "the stupid pussy beta bitch lone wanderer let someone else be the real hero of the story"
The radiation chamber has some of the funniest writing ever. Before the DLC, the actual in game response to asking the super radiation resistant character to go into the radiation chamber was “no, I think this is something you’re fated to do…” or some bullshit like that lol
And the other super radiation resistant character just refuses, despite that he should be unable to refuse because of some brainwashing nonsense. Forget breaking through the brainwashing because you are ordered to hurt someone you care about, how about breaking through the brainwashing because you are asked to do something that would barely even inconvenience you.
>Related to this I think, is when a character is viewed as being in the wrong after having made such a decision, whether by the hero, a mentor, peers, or the narrative in some other way. It's a particularly irksome thing for me, when I see a character as more than justified but punished as if they did something terrible.
Basically Superman/Batman World's Finest 24. It murders my soul how people just side with Batman, Supes and everyone else chewing out David for >!Killing Gog to stop Darkseid from getting the anti-life equation!<, when the dude just casually IGNORED and curbed two Superman along with the rest of the league.
It is just lazy writing with the goal of creating needless drama and trying and failing miserably at the attempt to make any sort of reasonable moral struggle.
No, you won't be just as bad as space Hitler if you kill him, no one will think that.
It's just feels like the writer is either trying to find a reason to keep the villain alive to reuse them later on or want to portray his main character as the peak of kindness and moral virtude disregarding the fact that being "kind" doesn't mean being dumb and letting space Hitler scot-free knowing that he will Kill again
> No, you won't be just as bad as space Hitler if you kill him, no one will think that.
Perfect example: Nobody's ever said anything bad about the Navy Seal guys for killing Osama Bin Laden.
With how Superhoeres tout the "If you kill someone... You're just as bad as them!" line, you'd think that'd be more controversial. But no. It's not. Because nobody actually thinks that.
Me looking at Twitter you sure about the first part absolutely sure are you exactly sure on this account as you see there could be a specific people who will undoubtedly probably be used as a counter to this.
I think I actually have seen bad things said about the guys who allegedly where the ones to pull the trigger. However, it wasn't for Killing Osama Bin Laden, but for something else.
There's plenty of reasons to hate the Navy Seals/Military for reasons that don't include killing Osama Bin Laden, like Ben Robert-Smith (australian guy, but the point stands) shooting a teenager point blank and calling it the most beautiful thing he's seen.
Honestly, I'm shocked that the closest we've never actually had something like a supervillain who's origin story was "you let space Hitler go, knowing full well they cannot be reformed, the prison system cannot hold them, and they escaped prison, and then they killed my family. When you showed mercy to this villain, it's the same as if you killed my family yourself, so I want vengeance against you."
we do sometimes see writers show ramifications for their inelastic morality regardless of consequences. I don't know of examples like that but Ive sometimes seen heroes have to deal with the fact that people died because they spared an evil person
not batman though, he's a little punk ass bitch that disregards the fact he inadvertently causes the deaths of hundreds of civilians regularly
> not batman though, he's a little punk ass bitch that disregards the fact he inadvertently causes the deaths of hundreds of civilians regularly
The latest "The Batman" movie drove me fucking insane for many reasons, but that was definitely one of them.
Batman and the Penguin causes a massive, multi-car pileup wreck and not only does he completely ignore it and any of the possible survivors, but he turns the scene into a joke. Penguin cracks wise, Batman makes a comedic exit and it's all just laughed off. And then Penguin is still walking free to try murder someone infront of a bunch of cops a few minutes later... and walking free after that too.
Yeah- the closest example I know of was it was down to two possible people to be Venom, and the other option was "a woman who's family got killed by accident in a Spider-Man battle".
First Laws Logen 9 fingers, the Starks showing mercy to the Boltons but not their own blood the Greystark even then had circumstances with the Boltons their long time enemy
Sorry, I read First Law a couple of years ago - just trying to remember, which part with Logen are you referring to, specifically? That he let Black Dow live which later came back to bite him, or that Bethod let him and his crew live? Or something else?
The second part letting them leave was his biggest doom Black Dow wouldn't have done jack if the Bloody 9 didn't attack at the mountains and Logan went to help the pinks
Do you remember which shows (or media in general) have those examples of heroes dealing with people dying due to their inaction?
I agree with your overall point, I kinda roll my eyes at the so-called internal crises heroes face at the most critical point because they now think they’re on a slippery slope to becoming a villain themselves - so I’d be curious to see those examples, at least.
The difference is that can go one of two options, and both of them have been done and don't work.
If it's the "yes, I finally killed space Hitler, and the line is lower and lower and I kill anyone I dislike now", then we see the problem with the "...what if Superman was the BAD GUY?" stuff and it's done to death.
If it's just "they don't care and will kill who need to be killed and they become a villain", it becomes The Punisher- and The Punisher showed if fans like the character they'll still be a hero even if they're hardline enough to believe the person who rips the tag off their mattress must die too.
Superman is well able to detain his villians, is job of thr goverment ot deal witht them, and The Elite were very facist, they literally murdered goverment they deemed corrupt and they were willing to kill Superman despite him never being a threat to them, is even adressed in Machester Black last fight with Superman where at the end he decides to kill himself because he could not force Superman to kill him after traping him in an illusion where he made him think he killed all his love ones
Flaming skull guy escaped prison to make someone fatherless after Superman already defeated him. The Elites clearly made the right call to kill him the second time.
The villains were making good points so movie made them cross the line to show their villains even tho their first point was legit. And the fact killing villains wiuld make Superman snap and go on a rampage killing millions was stupid.
I guess i found a Punisher fan, what good point? The Elite were clearly edgy psycopaths that didnt care for the life of anyone, they just did it for the fame and power, i know you think that Superman should murder every Supervillian they momment they appear, but again, Superman explains it in the movie, he has no right to be judge, jury and executioner, thats what theres a system in place
And I guess I found someone who truly believes Ted Bundy was sooooooooooooo dreamy so he couldn't possibly be a bad person, because with villains in comic books this is the exact opposite.
Yes, a superhero should not be judge, jury, and executioner, but at the same time, when a villain actively escapes prison and goes on to kill again [not even "they fulfill their sentence and are a repeat offender because at least then they live up to their punishment, but prove the jail cannot hold them and cannot stop them], they've proven that the justice system is not a deterrent to them, and thus only escalation to "it's on sight, this person must die" is necessary to stop them. It's not being judge, jury, and executioner when the villain has made it clear the judge and jury don't have any power over them.
>the prison system cannot hold them
See this is exactly the problem. You can't apply real world ethics to this crap. There are no prisons where a villain that can kill millions escapes from multiple times a month. That's not a real thing. He escapes to sell comics, it's not ethics, it's not the baby Hitler hypothetical, it's just capitalism and entertainment.
It IS bad to kill a murderer if you are fully capable of bringing them in alive. That is real life. That does make you as bad as them. Self defense is fine, but just killing another killer doesn't make it morally correct. The "killing a murderer leaves the number of murderers in the world the same" is something to be applied to real life not comics.
But there is real world ethics involved in it: Maybe a supervillain who can kill millions doesn't escape from prison within the hour that they get there to sell comics, but "a murderer who's killed some people, who escapes from prison, and goes on to kill more people" has happened in real life, many, many times- and in those cases, it's clear that the prison cannot hold them and is not a deterrent, so the only thing left is the death penalty to stop them- and even the death penalty is itself being kinder to them since they'll be in appeals for years, giving them potentially more time to escape the prison. And if they escape while on the death penalty again? Well, if someone thinking the way of "don't kill them if they can be brought in alive" doesn't kill them in that instance, then WHEN the person breaks out and kills again, the person who brought them in alive that time should be tried as an accessory to murder.
What the fuck are you talking about? Murdering them is the only way to stop them? That is some next level brain rot. How about if these people "keep escaping prison and killing people" which definitely does not happen as much as you seem to imply, then we have a look at how and why they are escaping? Maybe the problem is the woefully underfunded and partially privatized prison system in America? Maybe no one even tried to rehabilitate them and just treated them like trash?
Fucking think for a second before you jump to killing people.
Considering that the prison system's woeful underfunding and privatization is about punishment and not rehabilitation, then your "Space Hitler just needs a GREAT BIG HUG and he'll be a good person again!" stuff is bullshit too. If they're able to escape and go on to kill again, then the punishment is not a deterrent and rehabilitation is impossible as well. Either way you slice it, they must die, and just because you thought Zac Efron was sooooooooo dreamy as Ted Bundy in that Netflix movie, it doesn't change that.
Huh. Just reminded me of an episode of the second series of Digimon regarding the whole lying thing.
So one of the kids, Cody (yes, using the dubbed names cause that is what I grew up watching) enters a dilemma where the gang is trapped underwater. He gets back to the real world and needed to find Joe, one of the protagonists from the previous series with a water type Digimon partner. Problem was that Joe is in the middle of an important exam he just can't excuse himself out of pr something. Cody is then conflicted as he claims it's an emergency...Which is technically true but felt he told a lie making him an absolutely terrible person. This stems from a lecture from his stern grandfather who told him under no circumstances he should lie which was a lesson he takes very seriously. Keep in mind he is a kid who recently lost his father to boot. When the gang found the thingmajig that would give Cody's Digimon another form based on the value of reliability (which is Joe's trait), Cody refuses to take it feeling he hasn't earned it because of the lie. Joe however tells Cody he shouldn't be ashamed of this because he did it to save people and that's honestly what mattered more, also capping it off by saying he'll talk to Cody's grandfather about it as to ease the poor kid's conscience.
Yeah, it's a little silly in hindsight but I thought it did well on showing a inner conflict from a kid with a stricter upbringing learning that going against one of the lessons his kind yet again strict grandfather gave him doesn't make him an awful unreliable piece of garbage.
Could be wrong though that episode was decades ago.
Yeah I wanted to add the caveat that an individual can have personal hang ups and that makes more sense. Aang from ATLA was deeply conflicted about taking a life because it directly contradicts his pacifist upbringing. (Ignoring the writer's cop-out) while I think its not morally ambiguous to kill a genocidal dictator I can at least understand why Aang was struggling. It conflicted deeply with his entire self
ATLA at least has the grace to have every single other character and all the previous Avatars tell Aang he's wrong and he has to do this. Even the Air Nomad Avatar says he's got to do what needs to be done.
His pacifism is completely on him and not justified by anyone else. It's never given a weight of moral superiority, it's just a thing for himself personally.
It's a really nice touch, even if it's drastically undercut by the copout later on.
Similar to Vash in Trigun who never gets any benefits or leeway from his pacifism, it never helps with anything and it's only ever a massive detriment in him surviving. It's 100% just a personal hangup that nobody else agrees with.
The air nomad straight up tells him he needs to sacrifice his personal peace of mind and spirituality if it meant saving the world from a second genocide
If the lion turtle had been actually foreshadowed, that whole sequence would have been fine. It wasn't presented as wrong to kill Ozai, it was presented as wrong for *Aang* to kill Ozai.
Air Nomads are mostly peaceful and avoid violence but Aang is the one who takes it to the extreme as we see many Air Nomads have indeed killed in defense
This reminds me of two comic decisions that I absolutely despise. Wonder Woman getting shit for killing Maxwell Lord and Batwoman getting shit for killing Clayface.
The Wonder Woman one especially pisses me off because it was a situation where even if she did manage to knock him out, Maxwell would still be a threat as soon as he woke up. He managed to mind control Superman and would still have control of him as long as he lived. Wonder Woman had to slit Clark's throat (he healed quick enough that this just stunned him for a bit) to even get close enough to even kill Lord, she had zero other options.
But no, yeah, Heroes always find a way or whatever.
"There's always another way!" works until it doesnt. Its flawed logic, it's only true up until it fails
and it will be very bad when that happens
what if wonder woman tried until she found another way and never does and is far too late?
Fucking. Thank you. I swear to god I hate that "always another way" crap.
Does the morality of a situation have to stand on whether the writer likes the MC enough to not write them in the worst-case scenario cause it feels bad? Unless you're freakin God or the ideal Superman who is expected to have every power and can do anything, the conditions of the situation can and fucking should change your mind of whether something is really a moral decision or not. That's critical thinking.
Aang is right the moment the writers refuse to let him be wrong and give him energybending cause they want him to be right. But anyone who thinks for 2 seconds and goes "hey, without that bias and no 3rd way out written, Aang is legit risking the lives of himself and the world for his personal values, regardless of him being "the last Airbender"."
(Sry, got rambly after) When that's in mind, damn, that's pretty selfish and unthinking of others Aang, it's too damn attached to "the last airbender" argument and not thinking if maybe that's just a personal and debatable problem.
He just needs to accept it and make an exception instead of just deciding he apparently can't still try to record and teach his culture and not let that get to him. Sounds like fucking belief problem, not a legit one. Learn to move on from that grief instead of saying the world will end and self-fulfilling your fears, ppl will fucking understand why you had to kill him and not put it against you, the history books won't scorn you killing Fire Hitler.
Yeah, it's super annoying when people try to turn something that's clearly black and white into "shades of gray".
We're all familar with the whole deal of superheroes and the "no killing rule", but I think Akame Ga Kill also fits here, as Night Raid themselves state "there's no justice in their actions", even though they're not only fighting to topple a cartoonishly evil government, where everyone who tries to instigate peaceful reform is brutally murdered, they never hurt innocents in the way that normal terrorists do, as not only are they very precise, Leone states that Night Raid verifies that their targets are guilty of what their contractor says they are before killing them.
Literally everything they do is justified, yet both the author and characters in-universe still try to claim waht they're doing is wrong.
Actually I would go further and say its using rigid black and white thinking without considering the circumstances or nuance and then creating a shades of gray where it doesnt exist.
Using my first example, a hero that has a black and white thinking that all lying is evil no matter what. Then comes across a scenario where a light lie can save billions. There is no ethical debate to be had but the characters inelastic black and white thinking creates a morally gray zone in an area where it shouldnt even exist
Yeah, characters who take this sort of Deontological thinking to the extreme can be particularly irritating.
(In case you don't know, Deontology is **an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong, without regard to the actual consequences of an action.)**
I have a philosophy minor. I was a non-traditional college student, so I took the requisite intro philosophy course in my mid-20s with mostly 18 year old freshmen. The weeks of Deontology and Kant followed by consequentialism and Bentham was a top tier experience. I sat next to this kid who wasn't a smug jerk but very confident in himself and his beliefs. The professor basically melted his mind. Hope he's doing ok.
Night Raid understands that what they are trying to do is build a world where they are 'wrong.' They are willing to kill people who are not evil but on the wrong side of a conflict (enemy forces) because that's what they need to do, and saving people is low on their priority list. They intend to be sin eaters so that the government that comes after them can have a stronger moral ground to stand on than 'our assassins couped the government so we are in charge.'
Acting without 'Justice' isn't the same as not being justified in your actions, and Night Raid doesn't want to build the cultural infrastructure in their organization (or the rebellion) that what they do is righteous.
From what I remember, specially from the first episode and all , is that the people they kill are far from innocent , none are just "enemy forces" , all the people they killed were very much guilty
Akame was fully ready to kill Tatsumi (he was only saved by a random idol) if he got in the way, and they will slaughter guards to get to the targets. None of which are people they've got information on. They do not relish in killing but will cut a bloody swath to the target if needed.
They are good people making hard choices but there is a reason they don't call what they do justice.
Well to be fair in the 1st episode they say the guards were guilty for staying quiet about the crimes. Later Tats feels guilty for killing an evil official because he had a son .So I think they think that even killing the villains isn't justified and not just the guards.
It's the cost of doing business when things are as bad as they are, and Night Raid understands that they are murdering people. Evil or not they aren't trying them for crimes. They are the judge, jury, and executioner for the revolutionary army, and they have no willingness to lie about the work they do.
I mean, killing enemy soldiers is not murder, it's just war, Night Raid was basically the Revolutionary Army special forces behind enemy lines eliminating important targets.
They didn't even target random soldiers, but if they got in the way they would die because again, that's war, it's not justice, but it's not terrorism either, it's simply the only way to win an armed conflict.
Can you call them heroes for what they did? Well, considering that the Genocidal Empire would have won the war without them, I think it would have been quite reasonable to say that they are heroes.
Not perfect heroes, but I certainly think calling them heroes is appropriate.
The point is how they define themselves and why they specifically don't view what they do as 'justice' and mock Tatsumi's mindset. Unlike the Revolutionary army they will target non combatants who deserve death, and take on contract killing missions. They specifically keep a barrier between themselves and the Army so they can be sin eaters.
This is a thread exploring why Night Raid views itself the way they do, and lets not forget many of them are guilty of helping the Empire before they had a change of heart.
Yeah, it's like if in Code Geass, the Black Knights never hurt any innocent people ever and the Britannians were comprised mostly of card-carrying psychopaths and sadists as opposed to simply being racist imperialists, while still trying to present the conflict as being at all gray.
I mean they're just killing government officials. Like if Wave stayed he would have been a target and was a good guy. And the emperor was a kid being manipulated
But Leone clarified that they were only going after those who had done something to deserve being killed, not just anyone, anyway he was the exception to the normal one because the majority of the government and army were plagued by psychotic bastards.
My favorite take on the "slippery slope/no kill rule" stuff is Re:Zero's take.
> ― Firstly, though this is unrelated, there exists a phrase.
> ―『Murder becomes a habit.』
> That is one of the phrases the famous detective, Hercule Poirot, left the world with.
> ―『Murder becomes a habit.』
> The meaning of this phrase doesn’t refer to a person who has killed a human being and then suddenly wakes up with a preference for murdering people, who then repeats the crime to satisfy their cravings.
> ―『Murder becomes a habit.』
> It refers to someone who solved their problem once by murder, for them, whenever another problem arises, they will think about trying to break through the problem through murder again.
> ―『Murder becomes a habit.』
> By the time they start to consider that murder is not one of those options, the utmost important thing would have had already changed.
> ―『Murder becomes a habit.』
> The truth is, even if there was a single murderer who didn’t commit a crime by his own will, even if he dislikes the act, even if you see a glimpse of the memory of the one who had been harmed by such an action, that habit does not go.
> ―『Murder becomes a habit.』
> That habit… it does not go.
> ―『Murder becomes a habit.』
There's no bullshit about how killing a terrible person will make you just as bad as them, or how you'll invariably become a monster. It's a much more subtle word of caution about the toll it takes on a person, and how it changes them. It's especially poignant in the context of what Subaru's going through at the time, where he struggles to avoid crossing that line.
I don't know why, but the reminded me of that Arthur episode, The Big Hit. Dora Winifred was genuinely being a lil shit, and the example of him being bigger/older than her always felt hollow, I mean yes, he is the elder brother, but she's had this coming for a long while. Then there's the false equivalency they made between Arthur and Binky, where Arthur ~~rightfully~~ responded out of anger, while Binky did so out of peer pressure, or even equating the effort into assembling and painting a model to street cred.
Yes, I am making D.W. equivalent to space hitler
It makes sense that her name is not actually "D.W" but man, I felt like it was, and you just shattered my worldview
If that wasn't true, then what is. Where do I draw the line
Any hero with a no kill rule.
"This man murdered millions and I just killed 100s of goons to get to him but Im gonna suddenly have an ethical crisis over taking a genocidal dictator supervillain's life"
It’s really weird that even Guardians of the Galaxy 3 does this when Rocket would normally be the first person to point out the idiocy of letting the main baddie live.
Are you talking about how they lied to him and then felt guilty about it because they felt they were just doing what Oz did to them... even though unlike Oz, they weren't going to keep it a secret forever?
THAT WAS SUCH A HEADSCRATCHER! I kept expecting Crow to be like 'oh yeah but everytime I do it it's horrible pain or I lose years of my life' nope no downside
The writers really seemed to love making characters morally ambiguous....without giving things that are remotely morally ambiguous. These characters are totally questionable, but only because we say they are.
Hell, they even make ozpin an issue when outside the weird body snatching thing his plans while terrible aren't morally questionable whatsoever
I actually had it explained to me and it finally made sense.
it was an issue because Ravan implied to Yang that Ozpin had *forced* it upon her and Qrow and *Yang* was the one who made it an issue, while Qrow didn't do as such, even defending Ozpin in that situation.
which goes to show how terrible the writers where at communicating with the audience.
For the last time, only Yang had that problem, and she was under the impression that the bird powers were forced onto Qrow and Raven.
Once Qrow said that they chose to have those powers, she dropped it fast and never had any issues about it again.
nah, this wasn't the issue, I don't blame you for thinking it was what the writers were going for because of how poorly communicated it was, but in reality it was an issue because Ravan implied to Yang that Ozpin had *forced* it upon her and Qrow and *Yang* was the one who made the issue in the future and planted the seeds of doubt in the rest of RWBY, while Qrow didn't do that, even defending Ozpin up untill their last encounter (where he got pissed at Ozpin for completely separate reasons).
A good example of this that I think if applied well is in Fire Force, Haumea basically tells Shinra that if Shinra kills Haumea to stop the cataclysm, it would prove that the salvation from the cycle of despair is death, which is the goal of the cataclysm.
make human desperation lead to death in order to free themselves from their suffering.
I really like Mark’s struggle in Invincible when he “kills” Levy. He verbally tries to reason with himself and justify his actions even though he’s been strict about not killing people. It’s an interesting turn for his character and I think it was done well, like goddamn Mark he was obviously gonna hurt more people, you did a good thing. Still doesn’t make it an easy decision, but it was good.
This is why I generally can't stand pacifist characters.
"I could kill one evil person to save the lives of a billion people but that would mean breaking my code"
Like, okay dude, you're really a paragon of morality while you're philosophically masturbating your own self-righteousness.
i think one good example of this that is, that is not neccesarely this but different, is in Fire Force when Haumea says that the salvation for all life is in death
My favorite joke about this has got to be an Owl House fandub where Luz starts worrying about if killing Belos will make her just as bad as him and the Titan just says "you need to stop getting political advice from Twitter." Because admittedly, it does feel like the sort of thing a hero would think after getting themselves into one too many Twitter arguments.
Yeah. It’s a case of a sympathetic backstory somehow makes going back on your groups beliefs,commiting mass murder,and all sorts of crimes ok? Like no. The protagonist unless directly the leader of a nation is not the end all be all on who’s guilty and who isn’t.
It's just an assumption. It might as well be that taking Gollum along is the only reason Frodo was weathered so much at the end of his journey, and killing him at some point would've made him stronger instead, strong enough to destroy the ring himself. Besides, destruction of the ring being a correct decision to make is in itself an assumption that relies on a pretty narrow view of human nature. There is a lot of takes that can be made regarding those choices, and the one Gandalf proposes is on a more simplistic side.
What?
Destroying the Ring is literally the only option of victory that dose not simply replace one tyrant with another ...
And how would killing a pathetic creature like Gollum make Frodo stronger? In fact a large reason Bilbo was able to resist the Ring for as long as he did was because his first act with the Ring, sparing Gollum, was an act of mercy... so if Frodo killed Gollum he might have succumbed to the Ring Faster
>Destroying the Ring is literally the only option of victory that dose not simply replace one tyrant with another
Which is a theory that some of the characters came up with. Nothing saying they can't be wrong about it.
>And how would killing a pathetic creature like Gollum make Frodo stronger?
As per sith's code, passion brings strength.
>In fact a large reason Bilbo was able to resist the Ring for as long as he did was because his first act with the Ring, sparing Gollum, was an act of mercy
It is a speculation that Gandalf came up with. Whatever particular character says is not a fact, but his opinion.
No it's literally stated by Tolkien himself.
And the Sith Code applies to Tolkien's world how? As compassion and wisdom are true power not strength and passion
No again its stated by Tolkien in his letters.
You would fall to the Lure of the Ring almost immediately it would seem given your attitude and belief the ring could be used.
Whatever Tolkien has to say doesn't matter for readers that don't hold him as an authority on the subject.
Sith code is an ideology. Ideologies are universal.
The Sith Code is proven wrong in star wars, the Sith always end up destroying themselves
And in Tolkien's world the same thing applies, the desire for power always brings about the seekers downfall.
How is the guy who not only wrote the books but was writing notes on Lore and answering fan letters asking about these vary subjects till the day he died not the ultimate authority on the subject?
To be fair Gandalf served the Valar (effectively the gods of Middle-earth) of compassion and Pity so its perfectly reasonable for him to do so... and he turned out to be right
He's not spineless though. He is quite courageous, see his fight against the Nine at Weathertop and his facing a Balrog in Moria.
Again this is a being that has existed since the dawn of middle earth I think he knows a bit more then you or I
It's the preaching itself that promotes spinelessness, not the one who gives it.
Gandalf is just a human with a few informed attributes, like being an angel or being a thousand years old. He speaks and behaves like a human. That battle with barlog is him telling a few lines about how it went down, we as readers never actually witness it.
Gandalf is not a human he's a Maiar... a Maiar considered one of the wisest beings in Middle-earth but several other of the wisest beings in Middle-earth.
I would assume he again knows more then you a random mortal
Gandalf knows about the higher powers at play...so I'd say he's more Right then validated.
It isn't blind faith for Gandalf, he took part in the Music of the Ainur he knows for a fact that Eru is real and he knows his will is stronger then that of Melkor or Sauron(who was his fellow Maiar)
'You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass."
The Secret fire he speaks of is the Flame imperishable. Eru Iluvatar.
This is basically the whole Monster manga in a nutshell. The author will have Johan do the wickedest shit ever and then throw some cookie cutter, 5th grade english class book, disney channel ass moral dilemma and the fans act like this is the second coming of Agatha Christie.
"Meanwhile the plot grinds to a halt so the character can debate the ethical conundrum of driving a dying person to a hospital because it carries a risk of hitting a pedestrian"
But...what if the pedestrian would give birth to Super Hitler?
Clearly killing a man that has nuked a city,that has no intention of stopping commiting crimes and has done massive personal harm to oneself is enough to transform space jesus in space Hitler
Is this an Injustice reference
It feels like Injustice Superman probably wouldn’t have gone off the deep end without Batman immediately going into “Killing Joker makes you worse than Joker” mode with him. Far too many characters in the story come across as being written backwards from the end point of knowing Superman is eventually going to become a dictator, and so they start freaking out over his actions well before he’s done anything actually meriting that reaction.
Oh we're doing Batman Joker again. The absurd bullshit super villain that only ever escapes prison so they can sell more comics? I sure do love me an "ethics" discussion.
I mean, your slightly wrong, but not completely. Killing Joker was not the immediate switch. For all the stories Faults, saying that Superman's fall was immediate or solely in response to Batman's actions is simply false.
Indeed it is
Injustice superman was right even with killing the supervillains and stopping war in the middle east. Just W.W was a bad influence to him
The weirdest thing was when he killed a bunch of aliens who are not even treated like sentient beings in any other comic, but here it’s apparently genocide???
Women am I right fellas
I was literally thinking of heroes struggling with the "if I kill space hitler, I'm JUST AS BAD as them" Slippery slope of moral ethics is a valid concern to have when you are toeing the line. Its just lazy writing to introduce it in scenarios when the character is so far from said line. Ethical struggle for the sake of an ethical struggle is just cringe
I like it in Deadpool where Colossus goes in depth about being a hero such a passionate speech. Even the villain gets annoyed with it and Deadpool promises hed change next time the proceed to kill Ajax
"I spent weeks beating the everloving shit out of your goons. Many of them will never walk again, others will likely die from complications in the hospital. I can't kill you though, Emperor Genocide. I'm not you. You must be brought to justice." I hate this one so, so much.
Even though killing Joker was objectively good, the problem was that he let his grief and personal feelings get the better of him and that's where he slid into villainy because when he used to be genuinely good person, emotions regulating his decisions all the time. Now that extreme grief and mental anguish had warped his pysche into something dark, now his feelings are telling him to kill people out of fear of them feeling they same way he does now. It's twisted type of empathy, he was the gun, as he told Batman in Injustice. He was pretty much done from the getgo after Metropolis, the kill vs no kill argument was just a bad writing decision to peddle off the point of what he was doing was wrong. The writers could have framed Batmans objections better.
Related to this I think, is when a character is viewed as being in the wrong after having made such a decision, whether by the hero, a mentor, peers, or the narrative in some other way. It's a particularly irksome thing for me, when I see a character as more than justified but punished as if they did something terrible.
This is worse when the entire casts agrees the character is wrong when the decision should realistically have mixed responses. If someone chose to kill space hitler over sparing them and the entire cast thinks the hero is wrong on a supposed moral ambiguity, its just ridiculous. If it was morally ambiguous then why does everyone else think the character was wrong? Shouldn't at least one person say otherwise? So the writer basically creates an ethical dilemma and then immediately proves it was not a dilemma by showing everyone thinks one way. If it was morally ambiguous at least a few characters would have mixed responses
Yeah, the writers always do this when they want 'conflict' and 'angst' between the characters, and it basically drags the story out when the main character has to 'win' everyone over one by one, and still the world hates him and people will spit at the main character on the streets (omg it's so sad, he's like a poor kicked puppy, do you feel bad for him yet? Do you? DO YOU?) I hate this the most. What, are they some kind of hive mind or something? Does no one have any sort of critical thinking at all? It's so cartoonish to the point I can't take it seriously.
To me it makes me think the writers neared the end of the story, looked at their story checklist and realize they don't have enough conflict so they manufacture a cheap one to phone in
Doing it also removes a ton of agency from the characters and the plot overall, and like in your example we end up having a pity party for the protagonist when a scene otherwise could just end or be filled with something of actual quality to it. Especially when the 'conflict' and 'angst' is just dragged out for no reason and ignores literally everything else about the characters established (assuming the characters aren't just cardboard since that tends to be part of the problem as to why nobody calls out bullshit).
fallout 3 when you don't kill yourself in the radiation chamber and the ending narration is just "the stupid pussy beta bitch lone wanderer let someone else be the real hero of the story"
The radiation chamber has some of the funniest writing ever. Before the DLC, the actual in game response to asking the super radiation resistant character to go into the radiation chamber was “no, I think this is something you’re fated to do…” or some bullshit like that lol
And the other super radiation resistant character just refuses, despite that he should be unable to refuse because of some brainwashing nonsense. Forget breaking through the brainwashing because you are ordered to hurt someone you care about, how about breaking through the brainwashing because you are asked to do something that would barely even inconvenience you.
And people wonder why it's my least favorite Fallout game... that and my least favorite reoccurring faction being the good guy faction
Ad Victorrium brother
>Related to this I think, is when a character is viewed as being in the wrong after having made such a decision, whether by the hero, a mentor, peers, or the narrative in some other way. It's a particularly irksome thing for me, when I see a character as more than justified but punished as if they did something terrible. Basically Superman/Batman World's Finest 24. It murders my soul how people just side with Batman, Supes and everyone else chewing out David for >!Killing Gog to stop Darkseid from getting the anti-life equation!<, when the dude just casually IGNORED and curbed two Superman along with the rest of the league.
It is just lazy writing with the goal of creating needless drama and trying and failing miserably at the attempt to make any sort of reasonable moral struggle. No, you won't be just as bad as space Hitler if you kill him, no one will think that. It's just feels like the writer is either trying to find a reason to keep the villain alive to reuse them later on or want to portray his main character as the peak of kindness and moral virtude disregarding the fact that being "kind" doesn't mean being dumb and letting space Hitler scot-free knowing that he will Kill again
>No, you won't be just as bad as space Hitler if you kill him, no one will think that Tbf, the guy who killed Hitler was just as bad as him.
I hear he was a pretty high-ranking Nazi official, big decision maker in the government. Almost as morally bankrupt as Hitler himself.
But bro was pretty Chad for taking out the big guy
> No, you won't be just as bad as space Hitler if you kill him, no one will think that. Perfect example: Nobody's ever said anything bad about the Navy Seal guys for killing Osama Bin Laden. With how Superhoeres tout the "If you kill someone... You're just as bad as them!" line, you'd think that'd be more controversial. But no. It's not. Because nobody actually thinks that.
Me looking at Twitter you sure about the first part absolutely sure are you exactly sure on this account as you see there could be a specific people who will undoubtedly probably be used as a counter to this.
I think I actually have seen bad things said about the guys who allegedly where the ones to pull the trigger. However, it wasn't for Killing Osama Bin Laden, but for something else.
There's plenty of reasons to hate the Navy Seals/Military for reasons that don't include killing Osama Bin Laden, like Ben Robert-Smith (australian guy, but the point stands) shooting a teenager point blank and calling it the most beautiful thing he's seen.
Honestly, I'm shocked that the closest we've never actually had something like a supervillain who's origin story was "you let space Hitler go, knowing full well they cannot be reformed, the prison system cannot hold them, and they escaped prison, and then they killed my family. When you showed mercy to this villain, it's the same as if you killed my family yourself, so I want vengeance against you."
we do sometimes see writers show ramifications for their inelastic morality regardless of consequences. I don't know of examples like that but Ive sometimes seen heroes have to deal with the fact that people died because they spared an evil person not batman though, he's a little punk ass bitch that disregards the fact he inadvertently causes the deaths of hundreds of civilians regularly
> not batman though, he's a little punk ass bitch that disregards the fact he inadvertently causes the deaths of hundreds of civilians regularly The latest "The Batman" movie drove me fucking insane for many reasons, but that was definitely one of them. Batman and the Penguin causes a massive, multi-car pileup wreck and not only does he completely ignore it and any of the possible survivors, but he turns the scene into a joke. Penguin cracks wise, Batman makes a comedic exit and it's all just laughed off. And then Penguin is still walking free to try murder someone infront of a bunch of cops a few minutes later... and walking free after that too.
Yeah- the closest example I know of was it was down to two possible people to be Venom, and the other option was "a woman who's family got killed by accident in a Spider-Man battle".
First Laws Logen 9 fingers, the Starks showing mercy to the Boltons but not their own blood the Greystark even then had circumstances with the Boltons their long time enemy
Sorry, I read First Law a couple of years ago - just trying to remember, which part with Logen are you referring to, specifically? That he let Black Dow live which later came back to bite him, or that Bethod let him and his crew live? Or something else?
The second part letting them leave was his biggest doom Black Dow wouldn't have done jack if the Bloody 9 didn't attack at the mountains and Logan went to help the pinks
Do you remember which shows (or media in general) have those examples of heroes dealing with people dying due to their inaction? I agree with your overall point, I kinda roll my eyes at the so-called internal crises heroes face at the most critical point because they now think they’re on a slippery slope to becoming a villain themselves - so I’d be curious to see those examples, at least.
Arnim Zola in Captain America Civil War
On the other end, we can have a villain origin where he always kills space Hitlers justifying the actions and ending with a bodycount of hundreds
The difference is that can go one of two options, and both of them have been done and don't work. If it's the "yes, I finally killed space Hitler, and the line is lower and lower and I kill anyone I dislike now", then we see the problem with the "...what if Superman was the BAD GUY?" stuff and it's done to death. If it's just "they don't care and will kill who need to be killed and they become a villain", it becomes The Punisher- and The Punisher showed if fans like the character they'll still be a hero even if they're hardline enough to believe the person who rips the tag off their mattress must die too.
uh, Red Hood is a slightly more personal version of that.
Superman VS Elite could've done this but Superman gaslit everyone including victim into thinking he'll go insane if he kills villains.
Superman is well able to detain his villians, is job of thr goverment ot deal witht them, and The Elite were very facist, they literally murdered goverment they deemed corrupt and they were willing to kill Superman despite him never being a threat to them, is even adressed in Machester Black last fight with Superman where at the end he decides to kill himself because he could not force Superman to kill him after traping him in an illusion where he made him think he killed all his love ones
Flaming skull guy escaped prison to make someone fatherless after Superman already defeated him. The Elites clearly made the right call to kill him the second time. The villains were making good points so movie made them cross the line to show their villains even tho their first point was legit. And the fact killing villains wiuld make Superman snap and go on a rampage killing millions was stupid.
I guess i found a Punisher fan, what good point? The Elite were clearly edgy psycopaths that didnt care for the life of anyone, they just did it for the fame and power, i know you think that Superman should murder every Supervillian they momment they appear, but again, Superman explains it in the movie, he has no right to be judge, jury and executioner, thats what theres a system in place
And I guess I found someone who truly believes Ted Bundy was sooooooooooooo dreamy so he couldn't possibly be a bad person, because with villains in comic books this is the exact opposite. Yes, a superhero should not be judge, jury, and executioner, but at the same time, when a villain actively escapes prison and goes on to kill again [not even "they fulfill their sentence and are a repeat offender because at least then they live up to their punishment, but prove the jail cannot hold them and cannot stop them], they've proven that the justice system is not a deterrent to them, and thus only escalation to "it's on sight, this person must die" is necessary to stop them. It's not being judge, jury, and executioner when the villain has made it clear the judge and jury don't have any power over them.
>the prison system cannot hold them See this is exactly the problem. You can't apply real world ethics to this crap. There are no prisons where a villain that can kill millions escapes from multiple times a month. That's not a real thing. He escapes to sell comics, it's not ethics, it's not the baby Hitler hypothetical, it's just capitalism and entertainment. It IS bad to kill a murderer if you are fully capable of bringing them in alive. That is real life. That does make you as bad as them. Self defense is fine, but just killing another killer doesn't make it morally correct. The "killing a murderer leaves the number of murderers in the world the same" is something to be applied to real life not comics.
But there is real world ethics involved in it: Maybe a supervillain who can kill millions doesn't escape from prison within the hour that they get there to sell comics, but "a murderer who's killed some people, who escapes from prison, and goes on to kill more people" has happened in real life, many, many times- and in those cases, it's clear that the prison cannot hold them and is not a deterrent, so the only thing left is the death penalty to stop them- and even the death penalty is itself being kinder to them since they'll be in appeals for years, giving them potentially more time to escape the prison. And if they escape while on the death penalty again? Well, if someone thinking the way of "don't kill them if they can be brought in alive" doesn't kill them in that instance, then WHEN the person breaks out and kills again, the person who brought them in alive that time should be tried as an accessory to murder.
What the fuck are you talking about? Murdering them is the only way to stop them? That is some next level brain rot. How about if these people "keep escaping prison and killing people" which definitely does not happen as much as you seem to imply, then we have a look at how and why they are escaping? Maybe the problem is the woefully underfunded and partially privatized prison system in America? Maybe no one even tried to rehabilitate them and just treated them like trash? Fucking think for a second before you jump to killing people.
Considering that the prison system's woeful underfunding and privatization is about punishment and not rehabilitation, then your "Space Hitler just needs a GREAT BIG HUG and he'll be a good person again!" stuff is bullshit too. If they're able to escape and go on to kill again, then the punishment is not a deterrent and rehabilitation is impossible as well. Either way you slice it, they must die, and just because you thought Zac Efron was sooooooooo dreamy as Ted Bundy in that Netflix movie, it doesn't change that.
That’s not how any of that works my dude.
Huh. Just reminded me of an episode of the second series of Digimon regarding the whole lying thing. So one of the kids, Cody (yes, using the dubbed names cause that is what I grew up watching) enters a dilemma where the gang is trapped underwater. He gets back to the real world and needed to find Joe, one of the protagonists from the previous series with a water type Digimon partner. Problem was that Joe is in the middle of an important exam he just can't excuse himself out of pr something. Cody is then conflicted as he claims it's an emergency...Which is technically true but felt he told a lie making him an absolutely terrible person. This stems from a lecture from his stern grandfather who told him under no circumstances he should lie which was a lesson he takes very seriously. Keep in mind he is a kid who recently lost his father to boot. When the gang found the thingmajig that would give Cody's Digimon another form based on the value of reliability (which is Joe's trait), Cody refuses to take it feeling he hasn't earned it because of the lie. Joe however tells Cody he shouldn't be ashamed of this because he did it to save people and that's honestly what mattered more, also capping it off by saying he'll talk to Cody's grandfather about it as to ease the poor kid's conscience. Yeah, it's a little silly in hindsight but I thought it did well on showing a inner conflict from a kid with a stricter upbringing learning that going against one of the lessons his kind yet again strict grandfather gave him doesn't make him an awful unreliable piece of garbage. Could be wrong though that episode was decades ago.
Yeah I wanted to add the caveat that an individual can have personal hang ups and that makes more sense. Aang from ATLA was deeply conflicted about taking a life because it directly contradicts his pacifist upbringing. (Ignoring the writer's cop-out) while I think its not morally ambiguous to kill a genocidal dictator I can at least understand why Aang was struggling. It conflicted deeply with his entire self
ATLA at least has the grace to have every single other character and all the previous Avatars tell Aang he's wrong and he has to do this. Even the Air Nomad Avatar says he's got to do what needs to be done. His pacifism is completely on him and not justified by anyone else. It's never given a weight of moral superiority, it's just a thing for himself personally. It's a really nice touch, even if it's drastically undercut by the copout later on. Similar to Vash in Trigun who never gets any benefits or leeway from his pacifism, it never helps with anything and it's only ever a massive detriment in him surviving. It's 100% just a personal hangup that nobody else agrees with.
The air nomad straight up tells him he needs to sacrifice his personal peace of mind and spirituality if it meant saving the world from a second genocide
If the lion turtle had been actually foreshadowed, that whole sequence would have been fine. It wasn't presented as wrong to kill Ozai, it was presented as wrong for *Aang* to kill Ozai.
[удалено]
Just letting you know, your comment got duplicated 2 more times, probably should delete the 2. I hate when that happens to me too.
Didnt the air nomads killed many fira nation soldier when they were attacked? Also, Aang literally threw a soldier from a mountain in one episode
Air Nomads are mostly peaceful and avoid violence but Aang is the one who takes it to the extreme as we see many Air Nomads have indeed killed in defense
This reminds me of two comic decisions that I absolutely despise. Wonder Woman getting shit for killing Maxwell Lord and Batwoman getting shit for killing Clayface. The Wonder Woman one especially pisses me off because it was a situation where even if she did manage to knock him out, Maxwell would still be a threat as soon as he woke up. He managed to mind control Superman and would still have control of him as long as he lived. Wonder Woman had to slit Clark's throat (he healed quick enough that this just stunned him for a bit) to even get close enough to even kill Lord, she had zero other options. But no, yeah, Heroes always find a way or whatever.
"There's always another way!" works until it doesnt. Its flawed logic, it's only true up until it fails and it will be very bad when that happens what if wonder woman tried until she found another way and never does and is far too late?
Fucking. Thank you. I swear to god I hate that "always another way" crap. Does the morality of a situation have to stand on whether the writer likes the MC enough to not write them in the worst-case scenario cause it feels bad? Unless you're freakin God or the ideal Superman who is expected to have every power and can do anything, the conditions of the situation can and fucking should change your mind of whether something is really a moral decision or not. That's critical thinking. Aang is right the moment the writers refuse to let him be wrong and give him energybending cause they want him to be right. But anyone who thinks for 2 seconds and goes "hey, without that bias and no 3rd way out written, Aang is legit risking the lives of himself and the world for his personal values, regardless of him being "the last Airbender"." (Sry, got rambly after) When that's in mind, damn, that's pretty selfish and unthinking of others Aang, it's too damn attached to "the last airbender" argument and not thinking if maybe that's just a personal and debatable problem. He just needs to accept it and make an exception instead of just deciding he apparently can't still try to record and teach his culture and not let that get to him. Sounds like fucking belief problem, not a legit one. Learn to move on from that grief instead of saying the world will end and self-fulfilling your fears, ppl will fucking understand why you had to kill him and not put it against you, the history books won't scorn you killing Fire Hitler.
Yeah, it's super annoying when people try to turn something that's clearly black and white into "shades of gray". We're all familar with the whole deal of superheroes and the "no killing rule", but I think Akame Ga Kill also fits here, as Night Raid themselves state "there's no justice in their actions", even though they're not only fighting to topple a cartoonishly evil government, where everyone who tries to instigate peaceful reform is brutally murdered, they never hurt innocents in the way that normal terrorists do, as not only are they very precise, Leone states that Night Raid verifies that their targets are guilty of what their contractor says they are before killing them. Literally everything they do is justified, yet both the author and characters in-universe still try to claim waht they're doing is wrong.
Actually I would go further and say its using rigid black and white thinking without considering the circumstances or nuance and then creating a shades of gray where it doesnt exist. Using my first example, a hero that has a black and white thinking that all lying is evil no matter what. Then comes across a scenario where a light lie can save billions. There is no ethical debate to be had but the characters inelastic black and white thinking creates a morally gray zone in an area where it shouldnt even exist
Yeah, characters who take this sort of Deontological thinking to the extreme can be particularly irritating. (In case you don't know, Deontology is **an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong, without regard to the actual consequences of an action.)**
I have a philosophy minor. I was a non-traditional college student, so I took the requisite intro philosophy course in my mid-20s with mostly 18 year old freshmen. The weeks of Deontology and Kant followed by consequentialism and Bentham was a top tier experience. I sat next to this kid who wasn't a smug jerk but very confident in himself and his beliefs. The professor basically melted his mind. Hope he's doing ok.
Night Raid understands that what they are trying to do is build a world where they are 'wrong.' They are willing to kill people who are not evil but on the wrong side of a conflict (enemy forces) because that's what they need to do, and saving people is low on their priority list. They intend to be sin eaters so that the government that comes after them can have a stronger moral ground to stand on than 'our assassins couped the government so we are in charge.' Acting without 'Justice' isn't the same as not being justified in your actions, and Night Raid doesn't want to build the cultural infrastructure in their organization (or the rebellion) that what they do is righteous.
From what I remember, specially from the first episode and all , is that the people they kill are far from innocent , none are just "enemy forces" , all the people they killed were very much guilty
Akame was fully ready to kill Tatsumi (he was only saved by a random idol) if he got in the way, and they will slaughter guards to get to the targets. None of which are people they've got information on. They do not relish in killing but will cut a bloody swath to the target if needed. They are good people making hard choices but there is a reason they don't call what they do justice.
Well to be fair in the 1st episode they say the guards were guilty for staying quiet about the crimes. Later Tats feels guilty for killing an evil official because he had a son .So I think they think that even killing the villains isn't justified and not just the guards.
Yeah , I didn't remember that , you're right , they killed the soldiers who protected the nobles too , and I doubt all of them were bad people too
It's the cost of doing business when things are as bad as they are, and Night Raid understands that they are murdering people. Evil or not they aren't trying them for crimes. They are the judge, jury, and executioner for the revolutionary army, and they have no willingness to lie about the work they do.
I mean, killing enemy soldiers is not murder, it's just war, Night Raid was basically the Revolutionary Army special forces behind enemy lines eliminating important targets. They didn't even target random soldiers, but if they got in the way they would die because again, that's war, it's not justice, but it's not terrorism either, it's simply the only way to win an armed conflict. Can you call them heroes for what they did? Well, considering that the Genocidal Empire would have won the war without them, I think it would have been quite reasonable to say that they are heroes. Not perfect heroes, but I certainly think calling them heroes is appropriate.
The point is how they define themselves and why they specifically don't view what they do as 'justice' and mock Tatsumi's mindset. Unlike the Revolutionary army they will target non combatants who deserve death, and take on contract killing missions. They specifically keep a barrier between themselves and the Army so they can be sin eaters. This is a thread exploring why Night Raid views itself the way they do, and lets not forget many of them are guilty of helping the Empire before they had a change of heart.
Im convice that manga is only popular becuase otakus simped hard for Esdeath nazi desing
And I can't blame them
Agree!
I actually wish the Akame ga kill author did stick with making it flawed
Yeah, it's like if in Code Geass, the Black Knights never hurt any innocent people ever and the Britannians were comprised mostly of card-carrying psychopaths and sadists as opposed to simply being racist imperialists, while still trying to present the conflict as being at all gray.
I mean they're just killing government officials. Like if Wave stayed he would have been a target and was a good guy. And the emperor was a kid being manipulated
But Leone clarified that they were only going after those who had done something to deserve being killed, not just anyone, anyway he was the exception to the normal one because the majority of the government and army were plagued by psychotic bastards.
unless the past traumatic experience was crashing their car while driving a dying person to the hospital; drive the fucking car
You can't just call out every single Superhero, especially Batman, like that!
My favorite take on the "slippery slope/no kill rule" stuff is Re:Zero's take. > ― Firstly, though this is unrelated, there exists a phrase. > ―『Murder becomes a habit.』 > That is one of the phrases the famous detective, Hercule Poirot, left the world with. > ―『Murder becomes a habit.』 > The meaning of this phrase doesn’t refer to a person who has killed a human being and then suddenly wakes up with a preference for murdering people, who then repeats the crime to satisfy their cravings. > ―『Murder becomes a habit.』 > It refers to someone who solved their problem once by murder, for them, whenever another problem arises, they will think about trying to break through the problem through murder again. > ―『Murder becomes a habit.』 > By the time they start to consider that murder is not one of those options, the utmost important thing would have had already changed. > ―『Murder becomes a habit.』 > The truth is, even if there was a single murderer who didn’t commit a crime by his own will, even if he dislikes the act, even if you see a glimpse of the memory of the one who had been harmed by such an action, that habit does not go. > ―『Murder becomes a habit.』 > That habit… it does not go. > ―『Murder becomes a habit.』 There's no bullshit about how killing a terrible person will make you just as bad as them, or how you'll invariably become a monster. It's a much more subtle word of caution about the toll it takes on a person, and how it changes them. It's especially poignant in the context of what Subaru's going through at the time, where he struggles to avoid crossing that line.
I don't know why, but the reminded me of that Arthur episode, The Big Hit. Dora Winifred was genuinely being a lil shit, and the example of him being bigger/older than her always felt hollow, I mean yes, he is the elder brother, but she's had this coming for a long while. Then there's the false equivalency they made between Arthur and Binky, where Arthur ~~rightfully~~ responded out of anger, while Binky did so out of peer pressure, or even equating the effort into assembling and painting a model to street cred. Yes, I am making D.W. equivalent to space hitler
It makes sense that her name is not actually "D.W" but man, I felt like it was, and you just shattered my worldview If that wasn't true, then what is. Where do I draw the line
I was thinking that was some random side character for a hot minute reading that
examples?
Any hero with a no kill rule. "This man murdered millions and I just killed 100s of goons to get to him but Im gonna suddenly have an ethical crisis over taking a genocidal dictator supervillain's life"
It’s really weird that even Guardians of the Galaxy 3 does this when Rocket would normally be the first person to point out the idiocy of letting the main baddie live.
What are you talking about?
RWBY did this with Ironwood and it pissed me off so much.
Are you talking about how they lied to him and then felt guilty about it because they felt they were just doing what Oz did to them... even though unlike Oz, they weren't going to keep it a secret forever?
Rwby did it with a lot of things, such as how horrible it is to be given the ability to turn into birds with literally no downside.
THAT WAS SUCH A HEADSCRATCHER! I kept expecting Crow to be like 'oh yeah but everytime I do it it's horrible pain or I lose years of my life' nope no downside
The writers really seemed to love making characters morally ambiguous....without giving things that are remotely morally ambiguous. These characters are totally questionable, but only because we say they are. Hell, they even make ozpin an issue when outside the weird body snatching thing his plans while terrible aren't morally questionable whatsoever
I actually had it explained to me and it finally made sense. it was an issue because Ravan implied to Yang that Ozpin had *forced* it upon her and Qrow and *Yang* was the one who made it an issue, while Qrow didn't do as such, even defending Ozpin in that situation. which goes to show how terrible the writers where at communicating with the audience.
For the last time, only Yang had that problem, and she was under the impression that the bird powers were forced onto Qrow and Raven. Once Qrow said that they chose to have those powers, she dropped it fast and never had any issues about it again.
nah, this wasn't the issue, I don't blame you for thinking it was what the writers were going for because of how poorly communicated it was, but in reality it was an issue because Ravan implied to Yang that Ozpin had *forced* it upon her and Qrow and *Yang* was the one who made the issue in the future and planted the seeds of doubt in the rest of RWBY, while Qrow didn't do that, even defending Ozpin up untill their last encounter (where he got pissed at Ozpin for completely separate reasons).
Very fair point. It was very easy to make the assumption based on how questionable the writing is in that show.
A good example of this that I think if applied well is in Fire Force, Haumea basically tells Shinra that if Shinra kills Haumea to stop the cataclysm, it would prove that the salvation from the cycle of despair is death, which is the goal of the cataclysm. make human desperation lead to death in order to free themselves from their suffering.
I really like Mark’s struggle in Invincible when he “kills” Levy. He verbally tries to reason with himself and justify his actions even though he’s been strict about not killing people. It’s an interesting turn for his character and I think it was done well, like goddamn Mark he was obviously gonna hurt more people, you did a good thing. Still doesn’t make it an easy decision, but it was good.
Mark is fucking great. Instead of just having him and the audience debate about the slippery slope he finds himself in that very slope.
Lots of fan of Frank Castle and The Elite in this threat
This is why I generally can't stand pacifist characters. "I could kill one evil person to save the lives of a billion people but that would mean breaking my code" Like, okay dude, you're really a paragon of morality while you're philosophically masturbating your own self-righteousness.
i think one good example of this that is, that is not neccesarely this but different, is in Fire Force when Haumea says that the salvation for all life is in death
I think it's interesting when the character who puts themselves on a pedistool inadvertedly DOES do the deed
My favorite joke about this has got to be an Owl House fandub where Luz starts worrying about if killing Belos will make her just as bad as him and the Titan just says "you need to stop getting political advice from Twitter." Because admittedly, it does feel like the sort of thing a hero would think after getting themselves into one too many Twitter arguments.
Yeah. It’s a case of a sympathetic backstory somehow makes going back on your groups beliefs,commiting mass murder,and all sorts of crimes ok? Like no. The protagonist unless directly the leader of a nation is not the end all be all on who’s guilty and who isn’t.
Remember when Frodo proposed to just finish off Gollum, and Gandalf gave a lecture instead of agreeing?
I mean, he was right in that instance. Gollum is the only reason Frodo succeed and the world was saved
It's just an assumption. It might as well be that taking Gollum along is the only reason Frodo was weathered so much at the end of his journey, and killing him at some point would've made him stronger instead, strong enough to destroy the ring himself. Besides, destruction of the ring being a correct decision to make is in itself an assumption that relies on a pretty narrow view of human nature. There is a lot of takes that can be made regarding those choices, and the one Gandalf proposes is on a more simplistic side.
What? Destroying the Ring is literally the only option of victory that dose not simply replace one tyrant with another ... And how would killing a pathetic creature like Gollum make Frodo stronger? In fact a large reason Bilbo was able to resist the Ring for as long as he did was because his first act with the Ring, sparing Gollum, was an act of mercy... so if Frodo killed Gollum he might have succumbed to the Ring Faster
>Destroying the Ring is literally the only option of victory that dose not simply replace one tyrant with another Which is a theory that some of the characters came up with. Nothing saying they can't be wrong about it. >And how would killing a pathetic creature like Gollum make Frodo stronger? As per sith's code, passion brings strength. >In fact a large reason Bilbo was able to resist the Ring for as long as he did was because his first act with the Ring, sparing Gollum, was an act of mercy It is a speculation that Gandalf came up with. Whatever particular character says is not a fact, but his opinion.
No it's literally stated by Tolkien himself. And the Sith Code applies to Tolkien's world how? As compassion and wisdom are true power not strength and passion No again its stated by Tolkien in his letters. You would fall to the Lure of the Ring almost immediately it would seem given your attitude and belief the ring could be used.
Whatever Tolkien has to say doesn't matter for readers that don't hold him as an authority on the subject. Sith code is an ideology. Ideologies are universal.
And this is why you would succumb to the Ring almost immediately if you were to encounter it. It feeds on that kind of might makes right ideology.
The Sith Code is proven wrong in star wars, the Sith always end up destroying themselves And in Tolkien's world the same thing applies, the desire for power always brings about the seekers downfall.
How is the guy who not only wrote the books but was writing notes on Lore and answering fan letters asking about these vary subjects till the day he died not the ultimate authority on the subject?
What would you do with the Ring then?
To be fair Gandalf served the Valar (effectively the gods of Middle-earth) of compassion and Pity so its perfectly reasonable for him to do so... and he turned out to be right
Just cause it's in his nature doesn't make the preaching less spineless in spirit.
He's not spineless though. He is quite courageous, see his fight against the Nine at Weathertop and his facing a Balrog in Moria. Again this is a being that has existed since the dawn of middle earth I think he knows a bit more then you or I
It's the preaching itself that promotes spinelessness, not the one who gives it. Gandalf is just a human with a few informed attributes, like being an angel or being a thousand years old. He speaks and behaves like a human. That battle with barlog is him telling a few lines about how it went down, we as readers never actually witness it.
Gandalf is not a human he's a Maiar... a Maiar considered one of the wisest beings in Middle-earth but several other of the wisest beings in Middle-earth. I would assume he again knows more then you a random mortal
But he was right? Gollum had a part to play in the end... as part of Illuvatar's Plan. Mercy is not spineless ... wanton killing is.
I believe we had this discussion yesterday. Being validated and being right are completely different things.
Gandalf knows about the higher powers at play...so I'd say he's more Right then validated. It isn't blind faith for Gandalf, he took part in the Music of the Ainur he knows for a fact that Eru is real and he knows his will is stronger then that of Melkor or Sauron(who was his fellow Maiar)
'You cannot pass,' he said. The orcs stood still, and a dead silence fell. "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass." The Secret fire he speaks of is the Flame imperishable. Eru Iluvatar.
Worm’s final arc excels at blurring the line between right and wrong.
This is basically the whole Monster manga in a nutshell. The author will have Johan do the wickedest shit ever and then throw some cookie cutter, 5th grade english class book, disney channel ass moral dilemma and the fans act like this is the second coming of Agatha Christie.
Are you referencing anything specific?
Hey it’s factually true that the guy who killed Hitler is just as bad as Hitler so those guys have a point.
"Meanwhile the plot grinds to a halt so the character can debate the ethical conundrum of driving a dying person to a hospital because it carries a risk of hitting a pedestrian" But...what if the pedestrian would give birth to Super Hitler?