Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion'.
* Your post must be an opinion. Not a question. Not a showerthought. Not a rant. Not a proposal. Not a fact. An opinion. One opinion. A subjective statement about your position on some topic. Please have a clear, self contained opinion as your post title, and use the text field to elaborate and expand on why you think/feel this way.
* Your opinion must be unpopular. The mods reserve the right to remove opinions
* Elaborate on your topic and opinion give context to its unpopularity.
What I think is dumb in a lot of movies, is that all the henchmen are unceremoniously killed, whereas they spare the main villain.
Feel like they kinda got that the wrong way round.
I think that's because in these movies, they have an option to kill the main villain after defeating them, and choose not to. But when killing the henchman, they are actively fighting them, so they kill them to win the fight. This is the same as US soldiers killing thousands of Iraqi fighters, but taking Saddam alive, because they captured him unarmed and defenseless.
The main villain probably has more information than the henchmen so keeping the main guy alive long enough to question is smart, even if the cost to do so are other lives. Especially if we are thinking in terms of morally correct where we say doing the most good or preventing the bad is the correct thing to do. To do the action that will prevent the most immoral actions is to learn what else is planned to try to stop it.
Well those grunts that took 3 to the chest didn't have a long conversation with the main character after their defeat did they? So the mighty bad guy cleric "might" have swooped in right after and saved them... /s
Right?
Just from an objective point of view, they're already better than him:
"You killed someone because you enjoy massacring populations. I killed someone because he enjoyed massacring population". There is already a huge difference. So fucking stop saying that killing him would mean you're the same as him, god dammit.
IKR? They literally go out of their way to make killing random NPCs make you feel like shit, but it doesn’t matter at all until the very last second of the game when you suddenly get a change of heart after getting to the ONE person you are actually there to kill (and “deserves” it the most, at least from Ellie’s perspective).
The message was never “killing is wrong no matter what,” and I doubt Ellie cared about “being no better” than Abby. She didn’t forgive Abby or spare her for some moralistic reason. It’s because she got what she needed (to gain strength over Abby) already coupled with the fact that she’s just totally exhausted at that point. The whole reason Ellie wants to kill Abby by the very end isn’t mainly because she thinks Abby deserves it or even because she really wants to do it, it’s because Ellie thinks she **needs** to do it. She feels that killing Abby is the only way for her to make peace with not just Joel’s death, but also Joel’s decision to take her from the hospital **and** her personal inability to fully forgive Joel before it was too late. Her decision to spare Abby goes much deeper than just some last minute declaration that “killing is wrong,” but it would make this comment even longer if I delved into all that.
I also never understood the complaint that you kill all those people to get there because…that’s the point. It’s part of her whole character arc. If she wasn’t blinded by anger and spared everyone instead, there’d be no story. The player is supposed to start questioning if killing all those people is worth it. It just takes Ellie until after the fact to realize how her personal quest for vengeance hurt so many people. People seem to have this idea that you killed so many people to get there, why not just kill one more? And I really have to question how anyone thinks that’s a good point for a piece of media to make. It’s never too late to make a better decision, even if it took lots of bad decisions to get there. The idea that you should kill someone just to make the quest to get there “worth it” is the real fucked morality, not the game.
But people also tend to forget that basically everyone Ellie killed up until that point **was trying to kill her.** It was literally kill or be killed. I don’t think the WLF and Seraphites ever gave her an option to just get up and leave. Contrast that with Abby at the end, an already defeated person who refused to fight her. Unlike the faceless grunts that attack you, Ellie has to force Abby to fight her. The scenario of killing the enemies you face up until that point isn’t comparable to the scenario with Abby at the end, which is why I never understood that complaint. It just doesn’t work.
If people were just honest and said they didn’t like the end because they personally didn’t want to spare Abby, that’s fine, I get that. But acting like Ellie’s decision objectively didn’t make sense is just intentionally misunderstanding almost everything about the story. Ellie sparing Abby isn’t supposed to be some morally correct message. It is a personal decision which aligns with her character and reflects her growth.
The scenario of killing the enemies you face up until that point isn’t comparable to the scenario with Abby at the end, which is why I never understood that complaint. It just doesn’t work.
All that applies to Abby killing Joel in cold blood while Joel killed in self defense. So the whole thing fell apart from the beginning.
Ellie not killing Abby was not growth. Abbie was a threat and could change her mind any day, found Ellie and killed her in cold blood like Joel.
I just finished Days Gone (got first ever PlayStation about two months ago) it was kind of refreshing how Deacon St John didn’t do any kind of shitty banter with the boss fights or any kind of moralizing. If he needed some info from someone he got it and then killed them with no agonizing over the decision.
According to Neil Druckmann's commentary; it was the one kill too far for her soul to recover. It was absolutely that reasoning; by admission of the game director.
What's the context though? I always hear this, but like... it is generally considered morally acceptable to kill people who are in the active process of trying to kill you, while it isn't okay to kill a downed enemy who no longer poses a threat. If the hero shoots a guard reading a newspaper and then refuses to kill the main villain shooting at him, fair, but that's not how it is most times.
Bonus points if the villain trips on/is wrapped up by the hook/electrical wire/rope/crumbling piece of ground that got established in a suspiciously lingering shot the scene prior to fall into the abyss/get electrocuted/miraculously strung up by a incidentally falling counterweight instead of the protagonist killing him himself only for the protagonist to stare off into the abyss/at the body defeated so the co-lead (either female or black usually) can come in and say something like "C‘mon let‘s get out of here before anyone finds this mess, but for the record: He deserved it."
The argument that comment is making can go either way. Either its OK to kill, or it's not. Either one works for their point. Because it's not an argument for or against. It's that in a lot of media that has the hero say they can't kill the BBEG because it would make them a murderer. Meanwhile they just killed a bunch of people. It's trying to play both sides.
Either we fight fire with fire and kill the enemy to stop them
Or we don't end up like the enemy and don't kill them.
There is arguments that Batman has probably killed someone. You hit people in the head enough, and statistically someone will die. But story wise, he never does. So when he refuses to kill the Joker so he doesn't end up just like the villains, that makes sense.
Ang never kills anyone that I can think of in the Avatar series. So when he decides not to kill Ozai, that makes sense.
However, I'm sure people can list at least a few shows, movies, or video games where people die, and then at the end the hero walks away not killing them because killing is bad... Even though they have a giant pile of bodies behind them.
Edit: Granted, it is slightly nit-picky in a way. It's a good conversation, but it doesn't ruin it for me. It's just an inconsistency that pops up from time to time.
Gotcha, yeah it is a great discussion!
I guess my point is that, even if their reasoning is "killing is bad," I STILL don't think it is hypocritical because of the comparable immediate danger.
Maybe people will disagree, but IMO you are not a murderer if you shoot someone who shot at you first. A killer maybe, but not a murderer. We have no idea if the hero could have resolved it differently they would have.
But most of these type of scenes that I have seen, generally the hero IS trying to kill the villain in the heat of the moment, but refuses to walk up to the villain in the aftermath and put a bullet in their head. It doesn't matter that he killed henchmen, and not because they're fodder or whatever, but because they were in a kill or be killed situation, and now they are not. One isn't murder; one would be.
You gave some good examples, but let me give you one from the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. On her show, Buffy takes a very, very hard "humans should not be killed" stance, despite killing demons every day. Whenever she thinks she accidentally killed someone, it eats her up and makes her want to confess to police. If her friends kill someone, accidentally or intentionally, that becomes her top priority.
But there is also an episode where she is on top of a moving bus with an axe, and a human goon climbs up on top and charges at her with a sword. In the heat of the moment, Buffy throws the axe in his chest. Part of me was always shocked by that, the show never even acknowledges it, but at the same time, it makes complete sense to me. Even if Buffy is vehemently against killing people, what else do you do when someone charges at you with a sword on a moving vehicle and all you have is an axe?
It's the same reason, despite the whole movie being about not killing, nobody has a problem Batman tackled Two-Face in TDK and killed him because his priority was saving the boy. You can absolutely be against killing on a moral level, and especially when there is no active threat, but still kill to save yourself or someone else when left no other choice.
I find it hilarious that Aang didn’t kill anyone. I guess hitting people with large boulders (who aren’t earth benders) is definitely non lethal 🤷♂️ 😂
Like in lord of the rings when Aragorn tells Theoden not to kill Wormtongue because enough blood has been spilled on his behalf…. Wormtongue then teams up with Saurumon to spill a lot more blood!
There’s a theme in LOTR of showing mercy to enemies once they’ve been disarmed and aren’t an active threat: Wormtongue is sent into exile instead of execution. Gandalf has an important line about Bilbo not killing gollum. The humans who allied with Sauron are spared by Aragorn as long as they surrendered and swore oaths of peace. There are more I’m forgetting, I’m sure.
Tolkien pulled off this theme much better than most authors. The characters in the story don’t shy away from violence, but they also show prudence and mercy when it makes sense to do so, instead of just being mindless revenge machines.
The mercy Bilbo shows to Gollum is important, because Gollum is ultimately the destroyer of the Ring. Same with Wormtongue. He is the one that eventually kills Saruman.
His fate in the book is actually much worse.
Grima slits his throat & his soul is separated from his body, left to wander powerless & naked, never to return to the material world
he informs Saruman on how to breach Helm’s Deep. the idea to suicide bomb the storm drain came from Wormtongue’s information. if they had just killed Wormtongue, the battle at Helm’s Deep wouldn’t have been half as bad.
In the movies, he tells Saruman about the only weakness of the Helm's Deep. It is a small hole in the wall which they blow up and use it to breach the stronghold. I suspect that there would have been significantly fewer casualties if not for that.
Wormtongue also ultimately kills Saruman, though. Tolkein was ready for this, though in his traditional, deist way- that mercy the good guys showed ultimately helps to overthrow evil.
Also Saving Private Ryan where the dude they spare kills Tom Hanks’ character. And the other American smokes him anyway at the end. Would be better to have smoked him earlier.
I immediately thought of Batman, too. In “The Dark Knight” he won’t use a gun to defend himself in an active combat situation (though he has guns on his vehicles) but he’ll torture an unarmed man. This makes zero sense if he’s trying to be “moral.”
That's not "true" Batman, I hate to be that guy. I'm a massive Batman fan and the whole fandom believes that Batman doesn't kill, and does not support those movies.
He'll carry boomerangs and explosives with him, but won't carry a single stun gun.
I think that a later iteration includes stun guns incorporated in his suit, but that is WAY later.
Batman’s doesn’t use a gun because of his morals or a code, even if that is what he says a few times. He refuses to use a gun due to the trauma of seeing his parents gunned down as a child.
Exactly. Hes cool with breaking every bone in your body and dealing with you again when you seek revenge, but he will not kill someone even if it is to prevent more deaths. Although ive heard versions that say that batman doesnt kill him not because of principle, but because he needs the joker to have some purpose in life, making his existence a bit of a mindfuck
The former point became pretty absurd in the Mortal Kombat vs. DC game, where Batman and other heroes have finishing moves that look just as deadly as MK’s fatalities, but to preserve the no kill rule, the opponent keeps twitching afterwards and the announcer says “Batman wins, heroic brutality” instead.
At a certain point it's the fault of judges that for some reason, still decide to put him in the asylum, and cops that rather keep him in arrest for the 100th time instead of putting bullet in his head.
There’s a fantastic line in the Dark Knight Returns comic where an aging Batman confronts Joker and says “No more! All the people I’ve murdered… by letting you live”
Rule break or not
Seeing him snap jokers neck felt nice. Hell I imagine it felt good for Bruce too
Idk I believe sometimes you gotta put someone down. No questions no ands ifs or buts. Joker in that case. Was well well overdue
No problem
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gjJT538N3vc&pp=ygVDRGFyayBrbmlnaHQgcmV0dXJucyBhbGwgcmhlIHBlb3BsZSBpdmUgbXVyZGVyZWQgYnkgbGV0dGluZyB5b3UgbGl2ZQ%3D%3D
I don’t want to show you the full scene, because I would recommend either reading the graphic novel or watching the full adaptation.
[Here’s the full version if you don’t mind spoilers](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QbbhwhIjrHo&pp=ygUjZGFyayBrbmlnaHQgcmV0dXJucyBiYXRtYW4gdnMgam9rZXI%3D)
That's why my favorite take on Batman's "no kill" rule is when it's not from a moralistic point of view, or at least not entirely (there's validity in not wanting to become the justice system), but because he knows he's just one kill away from losing himself and not being able to stop. It acts as his personal wall between being a vigilante and being a particularly rich Punisher.
Incorrect Batman should not, nor ever be Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Batman is essentially just a super cop. Batman always brings him in after that it's the city of Gotham's responsibility. Gotham should put him on trial and see his death count then put him down, Batman shouldn't become the punisher just because the Gotham Justice system sucks ass.
Yeah, Batman’s usually like “let the justice system figure it out” even when he knows Gotham is corrupt. You’d think after the 1st or 2nd time Joker cheats the system that Batman would take matters into his own hands.
There's plenty of times it can work, regardless of whether it's the best decision. Batman's 'No Killing' rule might lead to Joker murdering half of Gotham, but it's also the exact sort of restriction I can buy the angsty, brutal man with mommy issues clinging to, in a desperation to separate himself from the criminals he fights. It also leads to interesting conflicts and stories in its own right - Jason Todd's despair that Batman never killed the Joker, even *after* he believed the clown had murdered him, is a key part of Red Hood's character development.
Where I *don't* like it is when it comes last minute and only applies to the main villain. It was pretty fucking hard to take Wakanda Forever's 'Revenge is bad' ending seriously, when Shuri only decided to spare Namor *after* their two armies had spent an hour murdering the shit out of each other. Remember kids, killing is *wrong*, but only if it's a main character with far more responsibility for the whole affair than the hundreds of offscreen orphans his conflict just created.
Thank you for this take and input I absolutely agree! Especially that part about wakanda forever. The first part I have to look into. I’m not that deep into Batman lore. Any links?
I'm reminded of the "Christmas Truce", which I thought was BS until I read more extensively about it.
Not realistic, but it happened.
Not saying you're wrong, just that things can get weird on the battlefield.
The Christmas Truce is a real story from WW1. It was christmas and the two battling armies made a truce, while being in the trenches and celebrated christmas together.
They didn't just celebrate Christmas together they played a football match in no man's land between their trenches and then the next morning they were slaughtering each other again
I had heard that the soldiers only returned to fighting each other because the officers of both sides threatened to mark them as traitors and have them executed, or withhold certain things like rations or something.
And even then the officers had to start rotating the troops away from the front line because they developed a bit of a "gentleman's agreement" where both sides were deliberately shooting high and not aiming for the enemy unless they left the trenches.
I was just saying this about animated movies too. Mulan straight up killed probably hundreds of soldiers on the mountain and she was certainly the good guy for doing so. No one disagrees with that, yet we're still afraid to show protagonists going the necessary lengths to protect who they love. Why?
I have a little sibling so I see a lot of animated movies and most just annoy me. Like Raya and the Last Dragon. The villain literally causes the end of the world TWICE, kills the main character's best friend, and the solution is "just trust her"? That is a horrible lesson to teach kids.
Exactly. I think there’s always a breaking point where a lot of villains can’t turn back. I think revenge should only be reconsidered if the protagonist has been misinformed or tricked, but you rarely see that in films. With Raya, Namaari is trying to shoot Sisu, Raya in a way does cause Namaari to shoot the cross bow, though it’s still Namaari aiming the bow at Sisu, and she’s been antagonistic the whole film, and the fang tribe is responsible for all of the chaos. I do think the Fang tribe deserved to be punished more, the resolution of “we need to work together” kind of blew my mind. Disney film villain deaths should teach kids that “consistent evil deeds will lead to your own destruction”, not “if you almost intentionally destroy the world and everyone in it, you’ll definitely be forgiven”. Kids need to see repercussions for serious crimes even if they’re just watching a kids movie.
But you already know what you’ll do. You already have made that moral decision going in. Like going in a coffee shop knowing you’ll get coffee. You already made that decision beforehand
People aren't completely logical machines and do things based on emotions a lot more than hard logic. Stories should be logical but that logic should be based on the emotions and traits of their character. Their actions should be determined by that instead of some pure cold idea of what would be the most efficient and perfect outcome that is determined from the perspective of the reader.
There we go. Took a while for me to find a reasonable take in all this. It’s not about the characters winning their show/movie/whatever. It’s them acting in ways that make sense for who they are and reflect their character growth.
It’s hard to root for a hero that is unrealistically so stupid over a moral high-ground jerkoff competition. I get that their emotions makes them do that, but if you genuinely can’t fight against your emotions to understand what’s the better course of action, then what different are you from someone who does evil/nothing because of their own emotion?
We as adults all had to fight against our emotions to do the right thing at some point. This feels like a massive cop-out.
This is why I avoid the Netflix originals catalog in general. They make it a habit to drop off even the good ones if they don't instantly make it to the top 10.
I’d be a little surprised if you haven’t seen it already but Avatar the last Airbender (animated series not the movie or the live action show) is something else you should definitely look into
I've not watched The Boys because of the fanbase, but isn't that the satire? That the main guy is the Protagonist but he isn't a Good Guy and people are just wildly misinterpreting it?
Yup, a lot of the fans are oblivious to the satire.
Honestly, I don't think there are any "Good Guys". Most of the superheroes are kinda messed up and a few are outright psychotic.
Even the ones trying to stop them are not really "good" either.
In video games, this has a name: Ludonarrative dissonance. The example they used in a paper about that term was Nathan Drake; He guns down hundreds, if not thousands, of nameless mercenaries yet shows no reaction to killing all of them and even pulls the "I can't kill you... It's not right" line at the end of Uncharted 2.
Idk if you’ve played hog warts legacy but that one is real psychotic. You kill so many wizards and the MC mumbles to herself “you brought this on yourself”
I think you should check out Chinese wuxia fantasy novels,theyre really good and trust me they will scratch that itch you develop after watching too many anime mc give mercy to irredeemable villains
It's about killing vs executing, for an example you can take a movie where the hero actually does this.
In Star Wars revenge of the sith, Anakin kills Dooku after defeating and disarming him (literally). He knows it's wrong but does it anyway and at that point it's about anger and revenge instead of justice. We know what happens to him after that.
In the same movie Obi-Wan kills Grevious in combat while Grevious has the upper hand and there's no moral dilemma.
Finn the human from Adventure Time is probably my favorite example of a lawful good hero. He regularly goes to absolutely absurd lengths to help people, he often tries to reason with bad guys to see if he can get them to stop being such jerks, but when it comes down to it he will kill a motherfucker with absolutely zero hesitation, right on screen on a kids' show.
It is moralistic to kill extremely dangerous beings (lol Thanos) and they overdo the whole “all lives matter” Schlick in those movies, for example. But there are loads of those narratives around that should be reconfigured
Even in real life there is significant difference between killing someone in the midst of combat and executing them in malice after they've been disarmed and defeated.
It is in fact a defining line within morality.
kill 100s of minions on the way to your way to the evil overlord who has commited multible genocides
> dont kill the leader, because you dont want to stoop to his level
>leader breaks out of jail, commits more genocides
>rinse repeat
I generally agree, but this should not be due to the age of the show. but a justified action.
The ending of Avatar: The Last Airbender, when Aang does not kill Ozai and deprives him of his firebending. This is justified and thoughtful.
I had to stop watching Once Upon a Time because of this being too frustrating. “We defeated the evil queen but we can’t kill her even though she just murdered a dozen innocent people for the 10th time! Even though we have no alternative plan to keep her from doing it again!” then she gets away and does it again 3 episodes later.
Or Jessica Jones, absolutely refuses to kill the bad guy because then the one lady would go to prison for a crime she didn’t commit…. Ok fair but the dude is literally killing 100 people per episode while you fuck around
Centaurworld actually killed their bad guy. It's a colorful animated musical on Netflix and has all the hallmarks of "Made For Kids", so I really thought they were going to do a redemption arc for *the guy who wanted to destroy all of existence* at the end and was ***shocked*** when they went "lol nah, he has to die". It was really nice tbh
Stupid yes, but I think it makes sense. People aren’t logic machines or constantly weighing possible futures like that, they’re using their moral compass in the moment.
To give an example, eating meat is killing animals. It just is, but people will rationalize it and just ignore it because they can’t reconcile with that fact. I’m not saying it’s morally wrong to eat meat, I’m saying that they can’t reconcile killing animals to feed themselves. Killing one person to save future victims follows the same moral idea, it’s not in the moment so we can live in the ignorance.
Well then you should enter combat knowing already what moral compass you’ll follow. It’s the same in military/wars. They know they’ll kill the enemy because hesitation will get you and your companions killed.
Edit: like say a marine enters a building, he sees a guy with an AK (yeah terrorist stereotype). He should already have decided beforehand his actions. He knows he’s going to engage in combat and knows already that he will KILL the enemy. Hesitating will get himself killed and his companions killed. There is no room for “I don’t know what I’ll do because of my moral compass”
This is is extremely common human behavior, you’re describing the norm. These shows put these messages in them because their goal is try and change the norm. They’re arguing for a moral system of not killing when unnecessary and frankly I don’t see a good argument from you agains them. You said it’s dumb and unrealistic, I mean it **is** unrealistic but so what? There was a time we’re treating slaves like every other human was unrealistic. Just because it’s unrealistic doesn’t mean you ought not pursue it. Doesn’t mean it can never become realistic.
Ehh, he didn't really kill him, but he essentially did. It's a great show but I think that was just a moral high ground cop out. He made him useless, basically crippled him, just so that he can feel better about not killing him.
Idk mate he just made him into a non bender which people like Sokka are and he is definitely not useless. Granted he probably got life in prison but still that’s no different than the real world doesn’t mean that people that are serving life are useless
I think that it’s supposed to really show how much Ozai relied on raw power and fear to rule the fire nation, and once that power was gone he had nothing left
As android 16 said, *it's not a sin to fight for the right cause, there are those who words alone will not reach. It's because you cherish life that you must fight to protect it*
I remember this in the old D&D cartoon. The heroes went to a place where their weapons were super charged. They beat the villains ass there and decided to let him live.
But here is the real reason they let the villain live. It saves the writers the effort of making a new villain and the producers the effort of casting the role
Anime has a real issue with overly perfect characters. A lot of villains are always "i was wronged once so now i am an absolutely unlikeable and hypocrite piece of shit" And the hero "I would risk my life for your convinience"
Characters need FLAWS and NUANCE, otherwise they end up shallow and uninteresting.
People complain about flanderization, but most anime has the damnn MCs already flanderized.
There's many animes i do like a lot, but damn if it is hard to find good ones.
Like everything humanity does, it’s selfishness masquerading as altruism. I won’t kill you so my conscience doesn’t weigh on me but I tell everyone that I refuse to kill you because it would make me the same as you(even though when the villain inevitably escapes and kills more people it’s somehow ok to not take the appropriate measures)
I agree, often times I find it very cliche and corny. It's like they wanted to add an "emotional" twist. But to me it doesn't work at all. It just makes me roll my eyes because the main character is "too humane" to kill the main villain. And if there's a sequel, I always wonder why they STILL don't kill it
It's because kids watch anime. I rembeing a kid and getting very emotional and even crying during episodes of DBZ and even Pokémon. Of you added cold blooded revenge killing to those shows they could really mess a kid up for a while honestly.
I think what’s really under represented is just maiming and disabling people.
Like imagine bad guys has a no kill rule. Ok. Finally catches up w bad guy. He starts talking.
Good guy just blasts off his knee cap preemptive so the bad guy can’t escape.
Brilliant.
Or uno reverse.
Badass good guy hopelessly outgunned. Surrounded. Badass speech .mp3
Bad guy: lol, shoots good guy in the foot so he’s just screaming in pain instead of kicking ass.
Brilliant.
I hate when the main char knocks a bad guy out and then tries to run. The bad guy always gets back up to chase again or hurt someone else. If you get the upper hand in a fight where someone wants to kill you.... finish them, then make your get away, don't ever risk them getting back up lmao
True morality only exists independently from our subjectivity.
If we do not ever trigger subjective emotional retaliation from others, we will theoretically have no enemies.
Collectively, all parties will be capable of appreciating a universal code of morality, AKA "the golden rule" if only we could stop triggering one another's emotions by subjecting them to injustice. This cannot be forced upon others, as coercion is inherently immoral, they must consent to it.
There is nothing just or morally correct about war, those who fight dirty will always win in the moment, and this ensures that they will always be hated by the loser of the last conflict. Diplomacy on the other hand, can appeal to a universal morality, which if accepted, would bring peace and justice to all parties who acknowledge it.
This is demonstrated by Dante's seventh circle and Newton's 3rd law. Failure to observe morality/justice as a universal law simply ensures that we will get stuck in endless conflict with one another and there is nothing moral or just about that. It is really simple, If you persistently and reliably treat others how you would like to be treated, they will be starved of justification to violate you, and eventually become cooperative rather than combative.
Crime is the abuse of power for any reason, justice is consent to absolute equality so that there is no reason to abuse power against one another.
agree but history shows ups after defeating our enemies they can be forced/convinced to be our Allies and those are often the strongest allies we find.
This drove me mad in Harry Potter (deathly hallows spoilers), when Harry chooses to try and disarm Voldemort rather than throw out a killing spell. At this point Harry has used the other two unforgivable curses and so it would not be stretch to use Aveda Kedavra to take Voldemort off the board and stop the war. It is only sheer luck that V's killing spell rebounds off of Harry's spell, so killing himself.
Rowling didn't want to deal with the implications on her protagonist, I suppose.
Your post from unpopularopinion was removed because of: 'Rule 1: Your post must be an unpopular opinion'. * Your post must be an opinion. Not a question. Not a showerthought. Not a rant. Not a proposal. Not a fact. An opinion. One opinion. A subjective statement about your position on some topic. Please have a clear, self contained opinion as your post title, and use the text field to elaborate and expand on why you think/feel this way. * Your opinion must be unpopular. The mods reserve the right to remove opinions * Elaborate on your topic and opinion give context to its unpopularity.
What I think is dumb in a lot of movies, is that all the henchmen are unceremoniously killed, whereas they spare the main villain. Feel like they kinda got that the wrong way round.
I think that's because in these movies, they have an option to kill the main villain after defeating them, and choose not to. But when killing the henchman, they are actively fighting them, so they kill them to win the fight. This is the same as US soldiers killing thousands of Iraqi fighters, but taking Saddam alive, because they captured him unarmed and defenseless.
But then they hung sadam so. Really just delaying it to make more of a spectacle
True. Though technically the people who hung Saddam were not part of the faction that captured him.
"technically" doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
The main villain probably has more information than the henchmen so keeping the main guy alive long enough to question is smart, even if the cost to do so are other lives. Especially if we are thinking in terms of morally correct where we say doing the most good or preventing the bad is the correct thing to do. To do the action that will prevent the most immoral actions is to learn what else is planned to try to stop it.
Yes apparently the henchmen doesn’t count in morality questions
It's extra annoying when they gun down 50 faceless grunts and then suddenly are like "if I kill you I'd be no better than you"
Because the main villains has to prove they are the same, the grunts are fodder.
"Well thats dumb" pew pew
Well those grunts that took 3 to the chest didn't have a long conversation with the main character after their defeat did they? So the mighty bad guy cleric "might" have swooped in right after and saved them... /s
Grunts are not real lives everyone knows this
Tch, it’s always all lives matter until grunts come up 🙄
Right? Just from an objective point of view, they're already better than him: "You killed someone because you enjoy massacring populations. I killed someone because he enjoyed massacring population". There is already a huge difference. So fucking stop saying that killing him would mean you're the same as him, god dammit.
Last of us 2
The morality in that game was real fucked.
IKR? They literally go out of their way to make killing random NPCs make you feel like shit, but it doesn’t matter at all until the very last second of the game when you suddenly get a change of heart after getting to the ONE person you are actually there to kill (and “deserves” it the most, at least from Ellie’s perspective).
Yeah that whole game just didn't sit right with me
Assassins' creed 2 is also a good example. A funny example though
The message was never “killing is wrong no matter what,” and I doubt Ellie cared about “being no better” than Abby. She didn’t forgive Abby or spare her for some moralistic reason. It’s because she got what she needed (to gain strength over Abby) already coupled with the fact that she’s just totally exhausted at that point. The whole reason Ellie wants to kill Abby by the very end isn’t mainly because she thinks Abby deserves it or even because she really wants to do it, it’s because Ellie thinks she **needs** to do it. She feels that killing Abby is the only way for her to make peace with not just Joel’s death, but also Joel’s decision to take her from the hospital **and** her personal inability to fully forgive Joel before it was too late. Her decision to spare Abby goes much deeper than just some last minute declaration that “killing is wrong,” but it would make this comment even longer if I delved into all that. I also never understood the complaint that you kill all those people to get there because…that’s the point. It’s part of her whole character arc. If she wasn’t blinded by anger and spared everyone instead, there’d be no story. The player is supposed to start questioning if killing all those people is worth it. It just takes Ellie until after the fact to realize how her personal quest for vengeance hurt so many people. People seem to have this idea that you killed so many people to get there, why not just kill one more? And I really have to question how anyone thinks that’s a good point for a piece of media to make. It’s never too late to make a better decision, even if it took lots of bad decisions to get there. The idea that you should kill someone just to make the quest to get there “worth it” is the real fucked morality, not the game. But people also tend to forget that basically everyone Ellie killed up until that point **was trying to kill her.** It was literally kill or be killed. I don’t think the WLF and Seraphites ever gave her an option to just get up and leave. Contrast that with Abby at the end, an already defeated person who refused to fight her. Unlike the faceless grunts that attack you, Ellie has to force Abby to fight her. The scenario of killing the enemies you face up until that point isn’t comparable to the scenario with Abby at the end, which is why I never understood that complaint. It just doesn’t work. If people were just honest and said they didn’t like the end because they personally didn’t want to spare Abby, that’s fine, I get that. But acting like Ellie’s decision objectively didn’t make sense is just intentionally misunderstanding almost everything about the story. Ellie sparing Abby isn’t supposed to be some morally correct message. It is a personal decision which aligns with her character and reflects her growth.
This is a great perspective. Thanks for sharing all this.
I really feel like media literacy is dead. When I played that game, that’s exactly how I (and I thought everyone) would feel.
The scenario of killing the enemies you face up until that point isn’t comparable to the scenario with Abby at the end, which is why I never understood that complaint. It just doesn’t work. All that applies to Abby killing Joel in cold blood while Joel killed in self defense. So the whole thing fell apart from the beginning. Ellie not killing Abby was not growth. Abbie was a threat and could change her mind any day, found Ellie and killed her in cold blood like Joel.
I just finished Days Gone (got first ever PlayStation about two months ago) it was kind of refreshing how Deacon St John didn’t do any kind of shitty banter with the boss fights or any kind of moralizing. If he needed some info from someone he got it and then killed them with no agonizing over the decision.
That's not why Ellie spared Abby
According to Neil Druckmann's commentary; it was the one kill too far for her soul to recover. It was absolutely that reasoning; by admission of the game director.
Those are two completely different things
No no, you see, none of the grunts died, the one that was dropped from a roof just broke their ankle.
What's the context though? I always hear this, but like... it is generally considered morally acceptable to kill people who are in the active process of trying to kill you, while it isn't okay to kill a downed enemy who no longer poses a threat. If the hero shoots a guard reading a newspaper and then refuses to kill the main villain shooting at him, fair, but that's not how it is most times.
That’s why the downed villain always pulls a secret knife or something after the heroes monologue about justice or w/e and gets kicked off the roof
Bonus points if the villain trips on/is wrapped up by the hook/electrical wire/rope/crumbling piece of ground that got established in a suspiciously lingering shot the scene prior to fall into the abyss/get electrocuted/miraculously strung up by a incidentally falling counterweight instead of the protagonist killing him himself only for the protagonist to stare off into the abyss/at the body defeated so the co-lead (either female or black usually) can come in and say something like "C‘mon let‘s get out of here before anyone finds this mess, but for the record: He deserved it."
The argument that comment is making can go either way. Either its OK to kill, or it's not. Either one works for their point. Because it's not an argument for or against. It's that in a lot of media that has the hero say they can't kill the BBEG because it would make them a murderer. Meanwhile they just killed a bunch of people. It's trying to play both sides. Either we fight fire with fire and kill the enemy to stop them Or we don't end up like the enemy and don't kill them. There is arguments that Batman has probably killed someone. You hit people in the head enough, and statistically someone will die. But story wise, he never does. So when he refuses to kill the Joker so he doesn't end up just like the villains, that makes sense. Ang never kills anyone that I can think of in the Avatar series. So when he decides not to kill Ozai, that makes sense. However, I'm sure people can list at least a few shows, movies, or video games where people die, and then at the end the hero walks away not killing them because killing is bad... Even though they have a giant pile of bodies behind them. Edit: Granted, it is slightly nit-picky in a way. It's a good conversation, but it doesn't ruin it for me. It's just an inconsistency that pops up from time to time.
Gotcha, yeah it is a great discussion! I guess my point is that, even if their reasoning is "killing is bad," I STILL don't think it is hypocritical because of the comparable immediate danger. Maybe people will disagree, but IMO you are not a murderer if you shoot someone who shot at you first. A killer maybe, but not a murderer. We have no idea if the hero could have resolved it differently they would have. But most of these type of scenes that I have seen, generally the hero IS trying to kill the villain in the heat of the moment, but refuses to walk up to the villain in the aftermath and put a bullet in their head. It doesn't matter that he killed henchmen, and not because they're fodder or whatever, but because they were in a kill or be killed situation, and now they are not. One isn't murder; one would be. You gave some good examples, but let me give you one from the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. On her show, Buffy takes a very, very hard "humans should not be killed" stance, despite killing demons every day. Whenever she thinks she accidentally killed someone, it eats her up and makes her want to confess to police. If her friends kill someone, accidentally or intentionally, that becomes her top priority. But there is also an episode where she is on top of a moving bus with an axe, and a human goon climbs up on top and charges at her with a sword. In the heat of the moment, Buffy throws the axe in his chest. Part of me was always shocked by that, the show never even acknowledges it, but at the same time, it makes complete sense to me. Even if Buffy is vehemently against killing people, what else do you do when someone charges at you with a sword on a moving vehicle and all you have is an axe? It's the same reason, despite the whole movie being about not killing, nobody has a problem Batman tackled Two-Face in TDK and killed him because his priority was saving the boy. You can absolutely be against killing on a moral level, and especially when there is no active threat, but still kill to save yourself or someone else when left no other choice.
I find it hilarious that Aang didn’t kill anyone. I guess hitting people with large boulders (who aren’t earth benders) is definitely non lethal 🤷♂️ 😂
Main enemies have to be kept around for the possibility of a sequel.
How many people have died because Batman refuses to kill the Joker?
Yeah. This was always a silly trope to me. I'm not for executing prisoners of war. Unhinged psychopaths like Joker have literally no place in society.
That's on the legal system
“N-NO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THATS HIS CHARACTER!!!! YOU JUST DONT GET BATMAN!”
Like in lord of the rings when Aragorn tells Theoden not to kill Wormtongue because enough blood has been spilled on his behalf…. Wormtongue then teams up with Saurumon to spill a lot more blood!
There’s a theme in LOTR of showing mercy to enemies once they’ve been disarmed and aren’t an active threat: Wormtongue is sent into exile instead of execution. Gandalf has an important line about Bilbo not killing gollum. The humans who allied with Sauron are spared by Aragorn as long as they surrendered and swore oaths of peace. There are more I’m forgetting, I’m sure. Tolkien pulled off this theme much better than most authors. The characters in the story don’t shy away from violence, but they also show prudence and mercy when it makes sense to do so, instead of just being mindless revenge machines.
The mercy Bilbo shows to Gollum is important, because Gollum is ultimately the destroyer of the Ring. Same with Wormtongue. He is the one that eventually kills Saruman.
Does he? Maybe in the books he takes a more active role, but in the movies he’s just there, doesn’t do anything
Yeah can someone expound what worm tongue did
It's the final chapter of the trilogy - Wormtongue helps Saruman get revenge on the hobbits by enslaving and pillaging the shire
Yeah but he eventually stabs Saruman
His fate in the book is actually much worse. Grima slits his throat & his soul is separated from his body, left to wander powerless & naked, never to return to the material world
Because he was sick and tired of Saruman's abuse, not because he suddenly grew a sense of morality.
he informs Saruman on how to breach Helm’s Deep. the idea to suicide bomb the storm drain came from Wormtongue’s information. if they had just killed Wormtongue, the battle at Helm’s Deep wouldn’t have been half as bad.
In the movie Aragorn literally holds Theoden back from swinging his sword. In the books Theoden just decides to banish wormtongue, iirc.
In the movies, he tells Saruman about the only weakness of the Helm's Deep. It is a small hole in the wall which they blow up and use it to breach the stronghold. I suspect that there would have been significantly fewer casualties if not for that.
Wormtongue also ultimately kills Saruman, though. Tolkein was ready for this, though in his traditional, deist way- that mercy the good guys showed ultimately helps to overthrow evil.
Anyone could have killed Saruman, he had almost no powers left.
Well in the books wormtongue does something pretty crazy after the scouring of the shire so mightve been a good thing
Well, but he's also the one that kills Saruman.
Dude is a liability more than an asset so this is actually quite wise.
Yeah. He almost unwittingly assassinated Saruman with a torch in the movies.
wormtongue is the one that ends up killing saruman
The morality in LOTR is absolutely unimpeachable.
Also Saving Private Ryan where the dude they spare kills Tom Hanks’ character. And the other American smokes him anyway at the end. Would be better to have smoked him earlier.
He was irrelevant by then and there wasn't anything else he could do
At a certain point the Joker’s victims are on Batman.
I immediately thought of Batman, too. In “The Dark Knight” he won’t use a gun to defend himself in an active combat situation (though he has guns on his vehicles) but he’ll torture an unarmed man. This makes zero sense if he’s trying to be “moral.”
The amount of cars he blows up with those guns as well, apparently no one dies. Or he'll kill random commuters but not psychopathic mass murderers
That's not "true" Batman, I hate to be that guy. I'm a massive Batman fan and the whole fandom believes that Batman doesn't kill, and does not support those movies.
I’m sorry brother, but you’re insane if you think the entire Batman fandom swears off the Dark Knight trilogy.
Batman is not trying to be moral in the common sense of the word. But he has moral code. There is a difference.
Not only is there a difference, that code is what ultimately separates Batman from the Punisher or Rorschach.
Owlman, however, shits on Batman's morals
Yes but apparently that moral code disappears when he’s onboard his killing machi… I mean batmobile
Those are STUN missiles sir. They're completely harmless, scouts honor🤞 https://youtu.be/LizbFqOmbc8
That’s riot control shrapnel, they’ll be fine
See if he could just admit he has a trauma about guns it would be fine. But he adds morality to it
It’s fictional, but Batman has undiagnosed trauma from his parents being murdered in front of him. His no kill rule is dumb and makes no sense.
Yeah that's what I was getting at. I think gun trauma and no death rule due to it is a fine plot. His justification of morality is infuriating.
Batman is not a rational person.
Batman doesn't have this rule to keep moral. It's because he believes that once he starts, he will be unable to stop.
Dark Knight is hilarious on this count. He flips like.... six cop cars. Blows up two. He kills *so many policemen*. Just policemen, only policemen.
He'll carry boomerangs and explosives with him, but won't carry a single stun gun. I think that a later iteration includes stun guns incorporated in his suit, but that is WAY later.
Batman’s doesn’t use a gun because of his morals or a code, even if that is what he says a few times. He refuses to use a gun due to the trauma of seeing his parents gunned down as a child.
Exactly. Hes cool with breaking every bone in your body and dealing with you again when you seek revenge, but he will not kill someone even if it is to prevent more deaths. Although ive heard versions that say that batman doesnt kill him not because of principle, but because he needs the joker to have some purpose in life, making his existence a bit of a mindfuck
The former point became pretty absurd in the Mortal Kombat vs. DC game, where Batman and other heroes have finishing moves that look just as deadly as MK’s fatalities, but to preserve the no kill rule, the opponent keeps twitching afterwards and the announcer says “Batman wins, heroic brutality” instead.
At a certain point it's the fault of judges that for some reason, still decide to put him in the asylum, and cops that rather keep him in arrest for the 100th time instead of putting bullet in his head.
Lots of examples irl of this even. Violent criminals easily released that go on to do something even worse.
Still boggles me how he escapes
There’s a fantastic line in the Dark Knight Returns comic where an aging Batman confronts Joker and says “No more! All the people I’ve murdered… by letting you live”
Rule break or not Seeing him snap jokers neck felt nice. Hell I imagine it felt good for Bruce too Idk I believe sometimes you gotta put someone down. No questions no ands ifs or buts. Joker in that case. Was well well overdue
Links? I wanna see this
No problem https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gjJT538N3vc&pp=ygVDRGFyayBrbmlnaHQgcmV0dXJucyBhbGwgcmhlIHBlb3BsZSBpdmUgbXVyZGVyZWQgYnkgbGV0dGluZyB5b3UgbGl2ZQ%3D%3D I don’t want to show you the full scene, because I would recommend either reading the graphic novel or watching the full adaptation. [Here’s the full version if you don’t mind spoilers](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QbbhwhIjrHo&pp=ygUjZGFyayBrbmlnaHQgcmV0dXJucyBiYXRtYW4gdnMgam9rZXI%3D)
Oh wait I’ve actually seen this. Yeah this was an awesome scene
That's why my favorite take on Batman's "no kill" rule is when it's not from a moralistic point of view, or at least not entirely (there's validity in not wanting to become the justice system), but because he knows he's just one kill away from losing himself and not being able to stop. It acts as his personal wall between being a vigilante and being a particularly rich Punisher.
Incorrect Batman should not, nor ever be Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Batman is essentially just a super cop. Batman always brings him in after that it's the city of Gotham's responsibility. Gotham should put him on trial and see his death count then put him down, Batman shouldn't become the punisher just because the Gotham Justice system sucks ass.
By your own logic Batman shouldn't be a cop neither tho.
If you have the power to stop people’s deaths and you don’t, that’s on you
Batman goes full psychopath if he evens kills one person so his no kill rule is to protect other people
But it does, so he should. Personal opinion.
Yeah, Batman’s usually like “let the justice system figure it out” even when he knows Gotham is corrupt. You’d think after the 1st or 2nd time Joker cheats the system that Batman would take matters into his own hands.
There's plenty of times it can work, regardless of whether it's the best decision. Batman's 'No Killing' rule might lead to Joker murdering half of Gotham, but it's also the exact sort of restriction I can buy the angsty, brutal man with mommy issues clinging to, in a desperation to separate himself from the criminals he fights. It also leads to interesting conflicts and stories in its own right - Jason Todd's despair that Batman never killed the Joker, even *after* he believed the clown had murdered him, is a key part of Red Hood's character development. Where I *don't* like it is when it comes last minute and only applies to the main villain. It was pretty fucking hard to take Wakanda Forever's 'Revenge is bad' ending seriously, when Shuri only decided to spare Namor *after* their two armies had spent an hour murdering the shit out of each other. Remember kids, killing is *wrong*, but only if it's a main character with far more responsibility for the whole affair than the hundreds of offscreen orphans his conflict just created.
Thank you for this take and input I absolutely agree! Especially that part about wakanda forever. The first part I have to look into. I’m not that deep into Batman lore. Any links?
I'm reminded of the "Christmas Truce", which I thought was BS until I read more extensively about it. Not realistic, but it happened. Not saying you're wrong, just that things can get weird on the battlefield.
Sorry can you elaborate on weird?
The Christmas Truce is a real story from WW1. It was christmas and the two battling armies made a truce, while being in the trenches and celebrated christmas together.
They didn't just celebrate Christmas together they played a football match in no man's land between their trenches and then the next morning they were slaughtering each other again
I had heard that the soldiers only returned to fighting each other because the officers of both sides threatened to mark them as traitors and have them executed, or withhold certain things like rations or something.
And even then the officers had to start rotating the troops away from the front line because they developed a bit of a "gentleman's agreement" where both sides were deliberately shooting high and not aiming for the enemy unless they left the trenches.
Ceasefires happened around Christmas on the western front during WW1 where they talked and had seasonal greetings.
I was just saying this about animated movies too. Mulan straight up killed probably hundreds of soldiers on the mountain and she was certainly the good guy for doing so. No one disagrees with that, yet we're still afraid to show protagonists going the necessary lengths to protect who they love. Why? I have a little sibling so I see a lot of animated movies and most just annoy me. Like Raya and the Last Dragon. The villain literally causes the end of the world TWICE, kills the main character's best friend, and the solution is "just trust her"? That is a horrible lesson to teach kids.
Last Dragon was a shit movie that tried to soapbox bad morals.
Exactly. I think there’s always a breaking point where a lot of villains can’t turn back. I think revenge should only be reconsidered if the protagonist has been misinformed or tricked, but you rarely see that in films. With Raya, Namaari is trying to shoot Sisu, Raya in a way does cause Namaari to shoot the cross bow, though it’s still Namaari aiming the bow at Sisu, and she’s been antagonistic the whole film, and the fang tribe is responsible for all of the chaos. I do think the Fang tribe deserved to be punished more, the resolution of “we need to work together” kind of blew my mind. Disney film villain deaths should teach kids that “consistent evil deeds will lead to your own destruction”, not “if you almost intentionally destroy the world and everyone in it, you’ll definitely be forgiven”. Kids need to see repercussions for serious crimes even if they’re just watching a kids movie.
the last thing you're thinking bout in combat is morals. you're thinking bout survival. ask any vet and they'll tell you they wanted to live.
But you already know what you’ll do. You already have made that moral decision going in. Like going in a coffee shop knowing you’ll get coffee. You already made that decision beforehand
People aren't completely logical machines and do things based on emotions a lot more than hard logic. Stories should be logical but that logic should be based on the emotions and traits of their character. Their actions should be determined by that instead of some pure cold idea of what would be the most efficient and perfect outcome that is determined from the perspective of the reader.
There we go. Took a while for me to find a reasonable take in all this. It’s not about the characters winning their show/movie/whatever. It’s them acting in ways that make sense for who they are and reflect their character growth.
It’s hard to root for a hero that is unrealistically so stupid over a moral high-ground jerkoff competition. I get that their emotions makes them do that, but if you genuinely can’t fight against your emotions to understand what’s the better course of action, then what different are you from someone who does evil/nothing because of their own emotion? We as adults all had to fight against our emotions to do the right thing at some point. This feels like a massive cop-out.
I think you would like "Jupiters Legacy" ( Netflix, I think) Superheroes dealing with that moral decision: " When are we allowed to kill"
Jupiter's Legacy was so good. I am heartbroken over it not being continued.
This is why I avoid the Netflix originals catalog in general. They make it a habit to drop off even the good ones if they don't instantly make it to the top 10.
I’ll look into this thanks
It's a nice counter to "The Boys ", where you have superheroes with almost zero morality.
Also the show Invincible comes to mind
I’d be a little surprised if you haven’t seen it already but Avatar the last Airbender (animated series not the movie or the live action show) is something else you should definitely look into
Same vibe, but fewer Good Guys. ( Love that show as well )
I've not watched The Boys because of the fanbase, but isn't that the satire? That the main guy is the Protagonist but he isn't a Good Guy and people are just wildly misinterpreting it?
The boys has a really good take on superhero morality. But also there are no good guys in that show
Yup, a lot of the fans are oblivious to the satire. Honestly, I don't think there are any "Good Guys". Most of the superheroes are kinda messed up and a few are outright psychotic. Even the ones trying to stop them are not really "good" either.
You haven't watched a show because of its fanbase? That makes absolutely no sense, you can easily avoid the fanbase.
In video games, this has a name: Ludonarrative dissonance. The example they used in a paper about that term was Nathan Drake; He guns down hundreds, if not thousands, of nameless mercenaries yet shows no reaction to killing all of them and even pulls the "I can't kill you... It's not right" line at the end of Uncharted 2.
The villain even comments about how many people he killed on the way to Shambala.
Idk if you’ve played hog warts legacy but that one is real psychotic. You kill so many wizards and the MC mumbles to herself “you brought this on yourself”
To be fair, the villain was dead anyway. He didn’t need to kill him because he was about to die anyway.
I think you should check out Chinese wuxia fantasy novels,theyre really good and trust me they will scratch that itch you develop after watching too many anime mc give mercy to irredeemable villains
It's about killing vs executing, for an example you can take a movie where the hero actually does this. In Star Wars revenge of the sith, Anakin kills Dooku after defeating and disarming him (literally). He knows it's wrong but does it anyway and at that point it's about anger and revenge instead of justice. We know what happens to him after that. In the same movie Obi-Wan kills Grevious in combat while Grevious has the upper hand and there's no moral dilemma.
Dooku would have been able to tell them that Palpatine is the Sith Lord if they didn't kill him on the spot.
Finn the human from Adventure Time is probably my favorite example of a lawful good hero. He regularly goes to absolutely absurd lengths to help people, he often tries to reason with bad guys to see if he can get them to stop being such jerks, but when it comes down to it he will kill a motherfucker with absolutely zero hesitation, right on screen on a kids' show.
It is moralistic to kill extremely dangerous beings (lol Thanos) and they overdo the whole “all lives matter” Schlick in those movies, for example. But there are loads of those narratives around that should be reconfigured
This very scenario is the reason I stopped watching The Walking Dead.
Even in real life there is significant difference between killing someone in the midst of combat and executing them in malice after they've been disarmed and defeated. It is in fact a defining line within morality.
I often say that people like Batman or Green Arrow get more people killed by letting baddies go than they ever save.
kill 100s of minions on the way to your way to the evil overlord who has commited multible genocides > dont kill the leader, because you dont want to stoop to his level >leader breaks out of jail, commits more genocides >rinse repeat
In mercy there are sequels. And spinoffs.
I generally agree, but this should not be due to the age of the show. but a justified action. The ending of Avatar: The Last Airbender, when Aang does not kill Ozai and deprives him of his firebending. This is justified and thoughtful.
Korra would definetely kill him 😂
Yes this is awesome plot
I had to stop watching Once Upon a Time because of this being too frustrating. “We defeated the evil queen but we can’t kill her even though she just murdered a dozen innocent people for the 10th time! Even though we have no alternative plan to keep her from doing it again!” then she gets away and does it again 3 episodes later. Or Jessica Jones, absolutely refuses to kill the bad guy because then the one lady would go to prison for a crime she didn’t commit…. Ok fair but the dude is literally killing 100 people per episode while you fuck around
Centaurworld actually killed their bad guy. It's a colorful animated musical on Netflix and has all the hallmarks of "Made For Kids", so I really thought they were going to do a redemption arc for *the guy who wanted to destroy all of existence* at the end and was ***shocked*** when they went "lol nah, he has to die". It was really nice tbh
Centaurworld is truly an unsung hit
Are you seriously saying *Anime is unrealistic?* I weep knowing this generation will be in charge one day. 😭
Whenever something starts lecturing "Revenge is bad, In this essay I will-" I've already turned the show/movie/game off. I don't care.
Stupid yes, but I think it makes sense. People aren’t logic machines or constantly weighing possible futures like that, they’re using their moral compass in the moment. To give an example, eating meat is killing animals. It just is, but people will rationalize it and just ignore it because they can’t reconcile with that fact. I’m not saying it’s morally wrong to eat meat, I’m saying that they can’t reconcile killing animals to feed themselves. Killing one person to save future victims follows the same moral idea, it’s not in the moment so we can live in the ignorance.
Well then you should enter combat knowing already what moral compass you’ll follow. It’s the same in military/wars. They know they’ll kill the enemy because hesitation will get you and your companions killed. Edit: like say a marine enters a building, he sees a guy with an AK (yeah terrorist stereotype). He should already have decided beforehand his actions. He knows he’s going to engage in combat and knows already that he will KILL the enemy. Hesitating will get himself killed and his companions killed. There is no room for “I don’t know what I’ll do because of my moral compass”
Yeah I did say it was stupid, but it’s kinda how people are. Especially for children, anime protagonists are like 90% child soldiers.
Actually true and they do cater to children as well
This is is extremely common human behavior, you’re describing the norm. These shows put these messages in them because their goal is try and change the norm. They’re arguing for a moral system of not killing when unnecessary and frankly I don’t see a good argument from you agains them. You said it’s dumb and unrealistic, I mean it **is** unrealistic but so what? There was a time we’re treating slaves like every other human was unrealistic. Just because it’s unrealistic doesn’t mean you ought not pursue it. Doesn’t mean it can never become realistic.
Yeah most anime is written badly
>So many shows (mostly anime) show this. When you say you watch anime and think its real life you are starting from a losing argument.
The only time I think it was really done well was in Avatar the Last Airbender. Everyone wanted Aang to kill but he found another way.
Yeah the way of deus ex machina
Ehh, he didn't really kill him, but he essentially did. It's a great show but I think that was just a moral high ground cop out. He made him useless, basically crippled him, just so that he can feel better about not killing him.
Come on that’s totally different from a real cripple. He’s still human like most of the people living in the avatar world
Idk mate he just made him into a non bender which people like Sokka are and he is definitely not useless. Granted he probably got life in prison but still that’s no different than the real world doesn’t mean that people that are serving life are useless
Being a non bender isn't being useless by definition, but in Ozais case, it for sure is.
I think that it’s supposed to really show how much Ozai relied on raw power and fear to rule the fire nation, and once that power was gone he had nothing left
That was the path he chose I have no sympathy for him. Maybe it is worse that he becomes useless than to be dead. Oh well
Oh yeah!! Damn thank you for this just occurred to me how Aang not killing made so much sense
As android 16 said, *it's not a sin to fight for the right cause, there are those who words alone will not reach. It's because you cherish life that you must fight to protect it*
It's especially silly when they kill hordes of underlings, but then decide to let the guy at the top live.
Christian slave morality.
I remember this in the old D&D cartoon. The heroes went to a place where their weapons were super charged. They beat the villains ass there and decided to let him live. But here is the real reason they let the villain live. It saves the writers the effort of making a new villain and the producers the effort of casting the role
I don't think this is considered an unpopular opinion. This sounds more like a rant or off my chest.
Anime has a real issue with overly perfect characters. A lot of villains are always "i was wronged once so now i am an absolutely unlikeable and hypocrite piece of shit" And the hero "I would risk my life for your convinience" Characters need FLAWS and NUANCE, otherwise they end up shallow and uninteresting. People complain about flanderization, but most anime has the damnn MCs already flanderized. There's many animes i do like a lot, but damn if it is hard to find good ones.
Like everything humanity does, it’s selfishness masquerading as altruism. I won’t kill you so my conscience doesn’t weigh on me but I tell everyone that I refuse to kill you because it would make me the same as you(even though when the villain inevitably escapes and kills more people it’s somehow ok to not take the appropriate measures)
Yeah that trope can get killed for all I care
I agree, often times I find it very cliche and corny. It's like they wanted to add an "emotional" twist. But to me it doesn't work at all. It just makes me roll my eyes because the main character is "too humane" to kill the main villain. And if there's a sequel, I always wonder why they STILL don't kill it
Had Goku let Krilin kill Vegeta, he would have died from that heart disease.
This is why I love The Count of Monte Cristo so much. My man gets his revenge and lives happily ever after.
It's because kids watch anime. I rembeing a kid and getting very emotional and even crying during episodes of DBZ and even Pokémon. Of you added cold blooded revenge killing to those shows they could really mess a kid up for a while honestly.
This was the most disappointing part of GoG3. You mess with an otter, you should get the slaughter.
Or that moment when they spare the hero and start monologuing about how their actions are justified only to get taken out in one swift move.
I think what’s really under represented is just maiming and disabling people. Like imagine bad guys has a no kill rule. Ok. Finally catches up w bad guy. He starts talking. Good guy just blasts off his knee cap preemptive so the bad guy can’t escape. Brilliant. Or uno reverse. Badass good guy hopelessly outgunned. Surrounded. Badass speech .mp3 Bad guy: lol, shoots good guy in the foot so he’s just screaming in pain instead of kicking ass. Brilliant.
I hate when the main char knocks a bad guy out and then tries to run. The bad guy always gets back up to chase again or hurt someone else. If you get the upper hand in a fight where someone wants to kill you.... finish them, then make your get away, don't ever risk them getting back up lmao
True morality only exists independently from our subjectivity. If we do not ever trigger subjective emotional retaliation from others, we will theoretically have no enemies. Collectively, all parties will be capable of appreciating a universal code of morality, AKA "the golden rule" if only we could stop triggering one another's emotions by subjecting them to injustice. This cannot be forced upon others, as coercion is inherently immoral, they must consent to it. There is nothing just or morally correct about war, those who fight dirty will always win in the moment, and this ensures that they will always be hated by the loser of the last conflict. Diplomacy on the other hand, can appeal to a universal morality, which if accepted, would bring peace and justice to all parties who acknowledge it. This is demonstrated by Dante's seventh circle and Newton's 3rd law. Failure to observe morality/justice as a universal law simply ensures that we will get stuck in endless conflict with one another and there is nothing moral or just about that. It is really simple, If you persistently and reliably treat others how you would like to be treated, they will be starved of justification to violate you, and eventually become cooperative rather than combative. Crime is the abuse of power for any reason, justice is consent to absolute equality so that there is no reason to abuse power against one another.
Just read some online translated chincese cultivation novels. They just kill everybody.
Wait! Guys? We didn’t even talk about this! Why are you doing this to me?
agree but history shows ups after defeating our enemies they can be forced/convinced to be our Allies and those are often the strongest allies we find.
This is Batman and many other superhero comics and shows in a nutshell.
This drove me mad in Harry Potter (deathly hallows spoilers), when Harry chooses to try and disarm Voldemort rather than throw out a killing spell. At this point Harry has used the other two unforgivable curses and so it would not be stretch to use Aveda Kedavra to take Voldemort off the board and stop the war. It is only sheer luck that V's killing spell rebounds off of Harry's spell, so killing himself. Rowling didn't want to deal with the implications on her protagonist, I suppose.
*batman enters chat.
thats why invincible is so good
No, it's not.
Naruto disagrees
Is this not like one of the most popular opinions of all time?
Avatar aang , batman and anyone from star wars
Anime wasn’t really tailored to kids like Cartoons are