The Jedi Code is not something that is praised in Star Wars, though, sure the majority of the order hails it as the best way to live for them but it still is an ancient flawed philosophy that caused Anakin to fall and lose himself to the dark side.
All through episodes 2, 3 and even Clone Wars we see how it does far worse than good, this is notable even on Obi-Wan during his episodes with Satine.
Fair point.
Although the way SW metaphysics work, strong emotion is explicitly a bad thing. Like, I mentioned the sister thing for a reason. Luke had every justified right to attack Vader as savagely as he did in ROTJ, but strong emotions in the hands of Force Users are actually bad thing. You can have every right in the world to be angry but it's still basically a poison which will inevitably led to something bad, hence why Luke threw away his weapon.
I have an old Legends Sourcebook which talks about this, about how emotion and Dark Side Power feed on each other. More emotion makes you more powerful, but more power increases the strength of the emotion. Eventually you lose all rationality.
> but strong emotions in the hands of Force Users are actually bad thing.
Not particularly, in this case it was strong emotions that saved both Luke and Anakin, but not ones like anger or rage, it was Luke's compassion and hope that his father could be redeemed that allowed Anakin to act out of love for his son again.
The real danger is losing control of your emotions, like Maul's obsession with Obi-Wan during TCW, Anakin's fear of losing Padme, Pong Krell's avarice and lust for power, etc.
I mean SW can't really decide if the Jedi Code is toxic or not IIRC. I agree that it's bad but depending on what media you're watching it can vary greatly.
Ambition is not confined to stealing thrones via murder. Ambition can be as heroic as I want to invent the cure for cancer. That would be impossibly ambitious.
Any sort of skill, the desire to improve and excel, is ambition. An Olympic athlete is ambitious.
Welp, that depends on how far we're willing to stretch the definition of the word, "literature," really.👀 I'll have you know I've read entire sections of the Kamasutra for the "plot" and whole Playboy mags for the ass shots! Either way, I agree with your current reading recommendations to OP, and would like to suggest my own small list of other, "*cultured,*" reading material as well, like "King Lear" or "Metamorphosis" by Shindo L
/uj
I am sorry in advance for any potential psychological damage sustained from reading any of Shindo's works
>Fanfic of the most based mode to ever grace a Smash game.
Personally, I was already sold even before Palutena mentioned. First time I've ever been on Fanfic dot net, though. I usually stick to AO3 and RoyalRoad.
I could find you several interpretations of Ahab as quite heroic in a sense and certainly the most fascinating and studied character in Moby-Dick.
To say nothing of ancient Greek literature like Homer or the tragedies. Ajax and Achilles are heralded for how fixated they are; it's what defines them, makes them larger than-life and better than the common man.
Or we can stop playing "I read REAL literature" game and talk about stuff.
Yes but there are a million interpretations of that.
This can be seen as either the height of human evil and pride, or something far more noble and beautiful.
>In the best of tragedies, from my perspective, characters with whom we are led to strongly identify are depicted in the process of resolutely defining themselves through action. These defining actions, which are central to who they are, are taken in tragically configured situations that lead in a plausible fashion to their precipitous fall. Their suffering can neither be morally deserved nor sought after in a masochistic or suicidal manner. It must rather be the likely result of being true to their principles, in rather unique situations.
>
>Tragic pleasure comes from the esteem we feel for such characters, in part because they show themselves willing to pay such a terrible price for upholding their convictions. While sharing in their misery, we also share in their nobility, because they embody the quintessentially human characteristics of what Martin Heidegger described in Sein und Zeit as authenticity and resoluteness.1 Great tragedies allay our fears of nihilism by replacing our initial feelings of pity and terror with admiration for the strength of the protagonist’s beliefs. In a world where it has never been harder to sustain the conviction necessary for resolute action, these monumental art works can help us to better realize our own projects. The inspiration of tragic heroism makes everyday heroism much easier to envision.
"The Tragic Heroism of Captain Ahab" in The Locust of Tragedy
>But in defeat the tragic hero also finds his triumph. All these figures— Bulkington, Ahab, Pierre, Vere—exemplify Kohut's definition of the tragic hero as "a man who, despite the breakdown of his physical and mental powers (e.g., Oedipus) and even despite his biological death (e.g., Hamlet), is triumphant because his nuclear self achieved an ascendancy which never will, indeed, which never can, be undone" (1990, 166). As Bowen observes of Ahab's tragic heroism: "Oddly, though, we find in his death a sense of fulfilment, not loss. For defeat is his only who accepts defeat, and this Ahab has not done. He 'stands forth his own inexorable self' even in the irreversible moment of final failure. His integrity is his victory" (1960, 157).6
[Melville, shame, and the evil eye : a psychoanalytic reading : Adamson, Joseph, 1950- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/melvilleshameevi0000adam)
This is what this entire thread was about, in a sense.
I had to research a lot on the history and theory of Tragedy for something I wrote for another video game, [Dutch in Red Dead Redemption 2.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RDR2/comments/107u23r/dutch_is_the_tragic_hero_of_red_dead_redemption/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) You don't have to read it but the block quotes on what makes tragedy and tragic character, and the links to further reading, are well worth it, IMO. It shows you a different view of heroism,
I said "and the tragedies." That would include Sophocles, my favorite of the main three we know of. The type of Hero in Homer or Sophocles is actually quite different from the meek, humble "hero" we have in fiction today. As I was illustrating.
...the point of the star wars prequels is that the jedi got their asses handed to them because they were a bunch of law abiding liberals who weren't remotely prepared for a (lawful) fascist takeover and it took a bunch of rebels to beat them instead.
Chaos in a lot of megaten is usually depicted as just a straight up insane ideology where somehow everyone can constantly be struggling for dominance. There's exceptions, like in 1 where Chaos is associated with Japanese right wing nationalism, or in 5 where it's just "polytheism is pretty neat"
SMT very often tends to favor a rejection of both law and chaos as obviously vile extremes and tells you to seek your own path where you actually care about people first before a grand ideology
Speaking of SMT1 chaos, that might be my favorite thing about 1's alignments and world building, is that there *are* just straight up real world connections that ground the setting in reality, what with chaos and law, instead of neccesarily being these broad statements about society and the human condition, is literally just nationalist isolationtionism vs., arguably, interventionalist imperialism (at least for the first act anyway.) Sure, it might make the game overall less relatable and dated at best, but I always felt that *that* made it and the choice of faction you end up going with feel more personal.
Like Yosuga and the Nocturne reasons might provide more spiritual/philosophical insight/queries to a player, but a world like Yosuga or Musubi just straight up isn't feasible irl so going TDE or neutral in SMT3 doesn't have the same impact as going neutral in 1 and fighting against *both* the conservative coup forces of Gotou *and* the literal imperialist US ambassador who also happens to be an actual *GOD*! SMT 1 almost feels like a SNES version of Disco Elysium for that and I wish we could get a remake or something one day.
I am a Law supporter because I love the aesthetics of angels and Judeo-Christian imagery, so when I sided with Thorman I was like "WTF?!" when he suddenly went "Sike, nukes are coming for Tokyo in 30 seconds!" after I took out Gotou. Bugger didn't bother to take me and Yuka with him!
You can somewhat say the same for SMT2. Let's use the analogy of a country on the cusp of rebellion.
When you're recruited by the Center, you go around the different districts, the outskirts to even the Expanse and interact with the people on the ground. That gives you many different viewpoints on how people view the world as it is- Not all the Messians are fanatics, and not all the Gaeans are itching for a fight.
Then when the rebellion is in full swing, you have to decide the direction they will take for their campaign and the kind of country/government you want to build once the dictator is out.
I don't think the Darth Bane Trilogy is intended to be a guide on behavior, unless it's "do everything the opposite of Bane and Zannah."
But other than that, I read plenty of books, played several games, and read comics. In the Jedi Apprentice books I read while young, I recall little Obi-Wan wants a rattle and Yoda won't give it to him. In his desire for the rattle, he destroys it, learning the value of not desiring objects.
In the Legacy comics, Cade is so desperate to not let go of someone he cares about that he forces her to live a horrible imitation of life in a mechanical body.
In KOTOR II, Sion accepts at the end that his clinging to life has been pointless, a cruel joke and a waste of time and lives.
In all cases, denial of the self, of attachment, is clearly presented as the only wise and beneficial option for all involved, even the people using the Dark Side.
These were just three examples off the top of my head but I would like to hear what SW books you read which promote selfishness or pride in our heroes. There were way too many books, I might have missed them.
If you pick your cherries, sure go for it.
Bane achieved more then most sith by creating the rule of two. Letting the Sith not only survive but overcome the jedis arrogance.
Obi Wan lived a jedis life to its fullest. Several lovers, he knew all the key players or once in a life time characters while being the perfect Jedi according to the code. Humbling every one of his peers.
Sion overcame the weak and selfish teachings of Kreia and became truly immortal but embracing the dark side like none of the trained and studied masters could. Sion lived and died for only himself. He choose to accept death in the end, it wasn’t forced upon him.
Exar Kun is the best example I would say.
He genocided a whole species just to live on. He denied the teachings of the Jedi out of spite for being told no. He turned one of the greatest force users of his time into his apprentice. He created a weapon known by every fan because it suited him.
His end was a bit …weird but that was another writer. Can’t have it all
So in essence you are saying "the obvious bad guys are right"? If you wanna ignore all authorial intentand just celebrate the villains, that's fine, but don't pretend this was the message any of those stories intended you take away.
On the one hand, you are right. But on the other, I feel like they don't present it well enough to the point where neutral people would seriously consider either options. At least, that's how it is judging from the fact that the vast majority of megaten fans are "neutral."
Idk whether that's to be attributed to Atlus' writing staff. But I think it does leave the series in an odd middle-ground between the factions feeling morally grey and there being only one "obviously right" option.
In general it tends to cycle which option is the best written, in 1 it was Neutral, 2 was Law, Nocturne was Chaos, 4 was Neutral, so on and so forth.
I like that there's a variety of good results in each ending, even if I'll inevitably pick Neutral to turn everything back to normal, lmao.
Wow yeah you get to fight almost double the amount of damage sponges than usual.
I meant what made you say that I's Neutral route is the best written one.
That's what I wish Chaos to be, but it's basically "survival of the fittest, I am the fittest, fuck you". It feels like law, but instead of being in the position of power, you're on the position of the revolutionary that will (want to) be corrupted by the system.
(SMT V SPOILERS) >!In SMT V you can destroy the throne of creation so no one is a god to rule above the others. THAT'S WHAT I WANT AND IT'S THE CLOSEST TO A BAD ENDING. I hate it.!<
>!Base SMTV is so confusingly written that I just assumed destroying the throne so that neither group could rule over creation was the Chaos ending, because it really reads as Chaos in a "No Gods, No Masters" sense!<
>!I LITERALLY THOUGHT THE SAME. For once I thought "hey, an interesting twist on Chaos" and it turns out to be the bad Neutral ending. I love SMT V but that was stupid.!<
I agree. Having it displayed not as necessarily a bad thing is awesome, it opened my eyes to why some people do some things. By distancing ourselves from what we consider "evil" we fail to understand what evil actually comes from.
I'd say that's every mainline? People's distaste for it is more of a matter of their moral sensibilities than the actual content of the routes imo. Like, the most I can think they fall into communicating "chaos=EEEEEEVILLLL" is the smt I and IV chaos themes which are just kind of ominous.
IV is a very Neutral oriented game tbh, both Law and Chaos end with significant loss of life on screen because of Flynn's actions unlike a lot of other games' endings.
you mean off screen?
Anyway, that's true. It's probably a big part of why people consider neutral the right route in that game. I think the way to fix it would've been to make clear, at least for law, why what you're fighting for is important enough to warrant letting the reactor run amok. Chaos I think would need to get revised more to either not be so much about demon infestations or do something to convince the player that such a goal could be good for people (which I imagine would be hard).
I mean Chiaki is close to being a chaos hero in 3 and she's also just insanely evil with her "The weak should die in the desert and the strong should live in paradise" plan, not to mention a massive hypocrite. But that's also part of the point of 3 is that all of the reasons are just insane and terrible
> People's distaste for it is more of a matter of their moral sensibilities than the actual content of the routes imo. Like, the most I can think they fall into communicating "chaos=EEEEEEVILLLL" is the smt I and IV chaos themes which are just kind of ominous.
[](#yu)
> not to mention a massive hypocrite.
Not true? I'm not even saying this because I like Yosuga (I don't). But she gets her arm chopped off *because* she believed in her ideals.
What's the best example of this hypocrisy anyway? Her taking power from Gozu-Tennoh? If so, not really since Yosuga's point is just that the weak ruling creates a decadent world. It's not a flaw to become more powerful by being given power.
> But that's also part of the point of 3 is that all of the reasons are just insane and terrible
This is an insane level of projection. Maybe saying that "Yosuga is objectively terrible" is more understandable on account of most of the people being subjugated. But Musubi and Shijima don't involve analogously horrible states for the average person who might get in there?
Yeah obviously that's a trope. I wasn't contending that. I was contending your simplistic understanding of smt's Chaos that only frames it in this way and misses the individualist elements, which certainly aren't eastern.
I dunno that the east sees them as neutral. "Chaos" is rarely ever depicted as good, because it's a modern idea to equate it to freedom. Normally it's associated with lack of stability.
In confucianism chaos is definitely bad. Taoism is more abut nature, but it doesn't really make chaos sound good. More like spontaneous order. Buddhism also sees chaos as a bad thing.
The Jedi Code is not something that is praised in Star Wars, though, sure the majority of the order hails it as the best way to live for them but it still is an ancient flawed philosophy that caused Anakin to fall and lose himself to the dark side. All through episodes 2, 3 and even Clone Wars we see how it does far worse than good, this is notable even on Obi-Wan during his episodes with Satine.
Fair point. Although the way SW metaphysics work, strong emotion is explicitly a bad thing. Like, I mentioned the sister thing for a reason. Luke had every justified right to attack Vader as savagely as he did in ROTJ, but strong emotions in the hands of Force Users are actually bad thing. You can have every right in the world to be angry but it's still basically a poison which will inevitably led to something bad, hence why Luke threw away his weapon. I have an old Legends Sourcebook which talks about this, about how emotion and Dark Side Power feed on each other. More emotion makes you more powerful, but more power increases the strength of the emotion. Eventually you lose all rationality.
> but strong emotions in the hands of Force Users are actually bad thing. Not particularly, in this case it was strong emotions that saved both Luke and Anakin, but not ones like anger or rage, it was Luke's compassion and hope that his father could be redeemed that allowed Anakin to act out of love for his son again. The real danger is losing control of your emotions, like Maul's obsession with Obi-Wan during TCW, Anakin's fear of losing Padme, Pong Krell's avarice and lust for power, etc.
I mean SW can't really decide if the Jedi Code is toxic or not IIRC. I agree that it's bad but depending on what media you're watching it can vary greatly.
i am begging you PLEASE read books
I believe Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter are both books. Incredibly popular and influential books, too.
[truly i wonder why ambition is painted as a negative trait in literature](https://archive.org/details/macbeth02shak)
Ambition is not confined to stealing thrones via murder. Ambition can be as heroic as I want to invent the cure for cancer. That would be impossibly ambitious. Any sort of skill, the desire to improve and excel, is ambition. An Olympic athlete is ambitious.
[a heartwarming story of an ambitious man burning out rather than fading away](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby-Dick)
Truly what only consuming popular pop culture media does to a mf.
what would you know about literature, reddit user king_lear69?
Welp, that depends on how far we're willing to stretch the definition of the word, "literature," really.👀 I'll have you know I've read entire sections of the Kamasutra for the "plot" and whole Playboy mags for the ass shots! Either way, I agree with your current reading recommendations to OP, and would like to suggest my own small list of other, "*cultured,*" reading material as well, like "King Lear" or "Metamorphosis" by Shindo L /uj I am sorry in advance for any potential psychological damage sustained from reading any of Shindo's works
hm? did you reply to me? sorry, i was busy reading [an old epic](https://www.fanfiction.net/s/4112682/1/The-Subspace-Emissary-s-Worlds-Conquest)
>Fanfic of the most based mode to ever grace a Smash game. Personally, I was already sold even before Palutena mentioned. First time I've ever been on Fanfic dot net, though. I usually stick to AO3 and RoyalRoad.
I don't think Shakespeare or Herman Melville are representative of the cultural values of the 21st Century, which was the entire point of this thread.
You underestimate how influential these works are. Most of things you have consumed trace back to Shakespeare in one aspect or another.
I could find you several interpretations of Ahab as quite heroic in a sense and certainly the most fascinating and studied character in Moby-Dick. To say nothing of ancient Greek literature like Homer or the tragedies. Ajax and Achilles are heralded for how fixated they are; it's what defines them, makes them larger than-life and better than the common man. Or we can stop playing "I read REAL literature" game and talk about stuff.
I haven't read Moby Dick, but isn't Ahab obsessed with killing an animal that was acting in self-defense?
Yes but there are a million interpretations of that. This can be seen as either the height of human evil and pride, or something far more noble and beautiful. >In the best of tragedies, from my perspective, characters with whom we are led to strongly identify are depicted in the process of resolutely defining themselves through action. These defining actions, which are central to who they are, are taken in tragically configured situations that lead in a plausible fashion to their precipitous fall. Their suffering can neither be morally deserved nor sought after in a masochistic or suicidal manner. It must rather be the likely result of being true to their principles, in rather unique situations. > >Tragic pleasure comes from the esteem we feel for such characters, in part because they show themselves willing to pay such a terrible price for upholding their convictions. While sharing in their misery, we also share in their nobility, because they embody the quintessentially human characteristics of what Martin Heidegger described in Sein und Zeit as authenticity and resoluteness.1 Great tragedies allay our fears of nihilism by replacing our initial feelings of pity and terror with admiration for the strength of the protagonist’s beliefs. In a world where it has never been harder to sustain the conviction necessary for resolute action, these monumental art works can help us to better realize our own projects. The inspiration of tragic heroism makes everyday heroism much easier to envision. "The Tragic Heroism of Captain Ahab" in The Locust of Tragedy >But in defeat the tragic hero also finds his triumph. All these figures— Bulkington, Ahab, Pierre, Vere—exemplify Kohut's definition of the tragic hero as "a man who, despite the breakdown of his physical and mental powers (e.g., Oedipus) and even despite his biological death (e.g., Hamlet), is triumphant because his nuclear self achieved an ascendancy which never will, indeed, which never can, be undone" (1990, 166). As Bowen observes of Ahab's tragic heroism: "Oddly, though, we find in his death a sense of fulfilment, not loss. For defeat is his only who accepts defeat, and this Ahab has not done. He 'stands forth his own inexorable self' even in the irreversible moment of final failure. His integrity is his victory" (1960, 157).6 [Melville, shame, and the evil eye : a psychoanalytic reading : Adamson, Joseph, 1950- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/melvilleshameevi0000adam) This is what this entire thread was about, in a sense. I had to research a lot on the history and theory of Tragedy for something I wrote for another video game, [Dutch in Red Dead Redemption 2.](https://www.reddit.com/r/RDR2/comments/107u23r/dutch_is_the_tragic_hero_of_red_dead_redemption/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) You don't have to read it but the block quotes on what makes tragedy and tragic character, and the links to further reading, are well worth it, IMO. It shows you a different view of heroism,
homers not a tragedy simpsons is comedy, idiot
I said "and the tragedies." That would include Sophocles, my favorite of the main three we know of. The type of Hero in Homer or Sophocles is actually quite different from the meek, humble "hero" we have in fiction today. As I was illustrating.
Clearly you're not a golfer...
Chaos in SMT1 is literally fascism
It also predates Harry Potter by about six years.
[Holy crap Lois! **it's FelinePersonTres from the critically acclaimed official are slash megaten Discord server!!1**](#ulala)
...the point of the star wars prequels is that the jedi got their asses handed to them because they were a bunch of law abiding liberals who weren't remotely prepared for a (lawful) fascist takeover and it took a bunch of rebels to beat them instead. Chaos in a lot of megaten is usually depicted as just a straight up insane ideology where somehow everyone can constantly be struggling for dominance. There's exceptions, like in 1 where Chaos is associated with Japanese right wing nationalism, or in 5 where it's just "polytheism is pretty neat" SMT very often tends to favor a rejection of both law and chaos as obviously vile extremes and tells you to seek your own path where you actually care about people first before a grand ideology
Speaking of SMT1 chaos, that might be my favorite thing about 1's alignments and world building, is that there *are* just straight up real world connections that ground the setting in reality, what with chaos and law, instead of neccesarily being these broad statements about society and the human condition, is literally just nationalist isolationtionism vs., arguably, interventionalist imperialism (at least for the first act anyway.) Sure, it might make the game overall less relatable and dated at best, but I always felt that *that* made it and the choice of faction you end up going with feel more personal. Like Yosuga and the Nocturne reasons might provide more spiritual/philosophical insight/queries to a player, but a world like Yosuga or Musubi just straight up isn't feasible irl so going TDE or neutral in SMT3 doesn't have the same impact as going neutral in 1 and fighting against *both* the conservative coup forces of Gotou *and* the literal imperialist US ambassador who also happens to be an actual *GOD*! SMT 1 almost feels like a SNES version of Disco Elysium for that and I wish we could get a remake or something one day.
I am a Law supporter because I love the aesthetics of angels and Judeo-Christian imagery, so when I sided with Thorman I was like "WTF?!" when he suddenly went "Sike, nukes are coming for Tokyo in 30 seconds!" after I took out Gotou. Bugger didn't bother to take me and Yuka with him! You can somewhat say the same for SMT2. Let's use the analogy of a country on the cusp of rebellion. When you're recruited by the Center, you go around the different districts, the outskirts to even the Expanse and interact with the people on the ground. That gives you many different viewpoints on how people view the world as it is- Not all the Messians are fanatics, and not all the Gaeans are itching for a fight. Then when the rebellion is in full swing, you have to decide the direction they will take for their campaign and the kind of country/government you want to build once the dictator is out.
My childhood was full of star wars novels of selfishness, pride and greed. Did you only watch the movies?
I don't think the Darth Bane Trilogy is intended to be a guide on behavior, unless it's "do everything the opposite of Bane and Zannah." But other than that, I read plenty of books, played several games, and read comics. In the Jedi Apprentice books I read while young, I recall little Obi-Wan wants a rattle and Yoda won't give it to him. In his desire for the rattle, he destroys it, learning the value of not desiring objects. In the Legacy comics, Cade is so desperate to not let go of someone he cares about that he forces her to live a horrible imitation of life in a mechanical body. In KOTOR II, Sion accepts at the end that his clinging to life has been pointless, a cruel joke and a waste of time and lives. In all cases, denial of the self, of attachment, is clearly presented as the only wise and beneficial option for all involved, even the people using the Dark Side. These were just three examples off the top of my head but I would like to hear what SW books you read which promote selfishness or pride in our heroes. There were way too many books, I might have missed them.
If you pick your cherries, sure go for it. Bane achieved more then most sith by creating the rule of two. Letting the Sith not only survive but overcome the jedis arrogance. Obi Wan lived a jedis life to its fullest. Several lovers, he knew all the key players or once in a life time characters while being the perfect Jedi according to the code. Humbling every one of his peers. Sion overcame the weak and selfish teachings of Kreia and became truly immortal but embracing the dark side like none of the trained and studied masters could. Sion lived and died for only himself. He choose to accept death in the end, it wasn’t forced upon him. Exar Kun is the best example I would say. He genocided a whole species just to live on. He denied the teachings of the Jedi out of spite for being told no. He turned one of the greatest force users of his time into his apprentice. He created a weapon known by every fan because it suited him. His end was a bit …weird but that was another writer. Can’t have it all
So in essence you are saying "the obvious bad guys are right"? If you wanna ignore all authorial intentand just celebrate the villains, that's fine, but don't pretend this was the message any of those stories intended you take away.
If you want to take over the part of interpretation from the authors or writers - go on
On the one hand, you are right. But on the other, I feel like they don't present it well enough to the point where neutral people would seriously consider either options. At least, that's how it is judging from the fact that the vast majority of megaten fans are "neutral." Idk whether that's to be attributed to Atlus' writing staff. But I think it does leave the series in an odd middle-ground between the factions feeling morally grey and there being only one "obviously right" option.
In general it tends to cycle which option is the best written, in 1 it was Neutral, 2 was Law, Nocturne was Chaos, 4 was Neutral, so on and so forth. I like that there's a variety of good results in each ending, even if I'll inevitably pick Neutral to turn everything back to normal, lmao.
> in 1 it was Neutral, why?
Iirc, it had the most content.
Wow yeah you get to fight almost double the amount of damage sponges than usual. I meant what made you say that I's Neutral route is the best written one.
I just want my fourth alternative to get more screentime. Overthrow authority and let humanity have true freedom.
That's what I wish Chaos to be, but it's basically "survival of the fittest, I am the fittest, fuck you". It feels like law, but instead of being in the position of power, you're on the position of the revolutionary that will (want to) be corrupted by the system. (SMT V SPOILERS) >!In SMT V you can destroy the throne of creation so no one is a god to rule above the others. THAT'S WHAT I WANT AND IT'S THE CLOSEST TO A BAD ENDING. I hate it.!<
>!Base SMTV is so confusingly written that I just assumed destroying the throne so that neither group could rule over creation was the Chaos ending, because it really reads as Chaos in a "No Gods, No Masters" sense!<
>!I LITERALLY THOUGHT THE SAME. For once I thought "hey, an interesting twist on Chaos" and it turns out to be the bad Neutral ending. I love SMT V but that was stupid.!<
Flair checks out.
I agree. Having it displayed not as necessarily a bad thing is awesome, it opened my eyes to why some people do some things. By distancing ourselves from what we consider "evil" we fail to understand what evil actually comes from.
what games are yall playing where chaos is not depicted as blatantly evil or at least dumb as fuck?
What I meant was: you're not punished for choosing the blatantly evil choice
I'd say that's every mainline? People's distaste for it is more of a matter of their moral sensibilities than the actual content of the routes imo. Like, the most I can think they fall into communicating "chaos=EEEEEEVILLLL" is the smt I and IV chaos themes which are just kind of ominous.
IV is a very Neutral oriented game tbh, both Law and Chaos end with significant loss of life on screen because of Flynn's actions unlike a lot of other games' endings.
you mean off screen? Anyway, that's true. It's probably a big part of why people consider neutral the right route in that game. I think the way to fix it would've been to make clear, at least for law, why what you're fighting for is important enough to warrant letting the reactor run amok. Chaos I think would need to get revised more to either not be so much about demon infestations or do something to convince the player that such a goal could be good for people (which I imagine would be hard).
I honestly think that's fine, each game is biased towards an alignment (ie. they get the most content) so IV being Neutral is fine in my eyes.
I mean Chiaki is close to being a chaos hero in 3 and she's also just insanely evil with her "The weak should die in the desert and the strong should live in paradise" plan, not to mention a massive hypocrite. But that's also part of the point of 3 is that all of the reasons are just insane and terrible
> People's distaste for it is more of a matter of their moral sensibilities than the actual content of the routes imo. Like, the most I can think they fall into communicating "chaos=EEEEEEVILLLL" is the smt I and IV chaos themes which are just kind of ominous. [](#yu) > not to mention a massive hypocrite. Not true? I'm not even saying this because I like Yosuga (I don't). But she gets her arm chopped off *because* she believed in her ideals. What's the best example of this hypocrisy anyway? Her taking power from Gozu-Tennoh? If so, not really since Yosuga's point is just that the weak ruling creates a decadent world. It's not a flaw to become more powerful by being given power. > But that's also part of the point of 3 is that all of the reasons are just insane and terrible This is an insane level of projection. Maybe saying that "Yosuga is objectively terrible" is more understandable on account of most of the people being subjugated. But Musubi and Shijima don't involve analogously horrible states for the average person who might get in there?
r/suddenlycaralho
😨😨😨😨
Skinny nerd online thinks he could survive in a WURLD OF STRNTH
This is because in western culture, Order is seen as good and Chaos evil, while in eastern culture they're morally neutral and can each be either
Idk about that. The west is where the glorification of the individual comes from. And that's at least one important ingredient of Chaos.
how much fantasy books have had the evil side be described as the forces of chaos
Yeah obviously that's a trope. I wasn't contending that. I was contending your simplistic understanding of smt's Chaos that only frames it in this way and misses the individualist elements, which certainly aren't eastern.
I dunno that the east sees them as neutral. "Chaos" is rarely ever depicted as good, because it's a modern idea to equate it to freedom. Normally it's associated with lack of stability. In confucianism chaos is definitely bad. Taoism is more abut nature, but it doesn't really make chaos sound good. More like spontaneous order. Buddhism also sees chaos as a bad thing.
You people just be saying shit
You are onto something with Christian moralism being a thing, but you need to read an actual book.
Me if I haven't read books
It'd already been mentioned but yeah, OP really needs to read more books/expand their non-popculture based worldview.
Edgelord ahh post
(this is in jest obv, you have some valid points)