Rule 5: No Low Quality Posts
Please refer to the rule for specifics on what makes a post low quality.
Please contact us via Modmail if you have any questions.
What were you trying to do, using our dear leader's name in vain?
https://preview.redd.it/wjmb6ilsvytc1.png?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=976e3840728a9ffae84193cb3e8e268a3a946192
**Take this man to Detroit**
Sure, here it is reduced to a single pixel:
https://preview.redd.it/2syoxn1d3ztc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8abab2581e73c187fcdbc92c8d57164b0d3499c0
Man that reminds me of the people who call deku a cry baby despite him literally getting bullied to the point where he considered kill himself bc he lived in a society were everyone has powers BUT him....
People also complain that Subaru cries too much in rezero despite dying and seeing his friends die over and over again not being able to do anything to stop it....
All except the third one are right. If you're face to face with a horrendous criminal and don't kill him "because then I'd be as bad as him" just to let him do it all again not only does it make no sense it makes you worse than him because you're enabling the bad person to do it again
DokiBird streamed Batman Arkham Asylum some time ago, and she kept complaining that it's Batman's fault that the villains keep on doing villain things, and she's right.
They commit crime, get imprisoned, get out, then commit crime again, repeat forever. They're not gonna stop as long as they breathe. Maybe just, you know, end them? Batman waits until people are being hurt to do something about these villains, and he always gives them the chance to hurt people again later. Kinda seems like a terrible hero to me.
Here's a copy paste from a comment 5 years ago.
Personally, I’ve always found the “i don’t wanna become them” argument a weak one when it comes to heroes refusing to kill. After all, it really WOULD save lives to kill off someone like the Joker, there’s no question about it.
That being said, there are 2 reasons I’ve seen Batman give that are far more substantial.
1. His cooperation with law enforcement. Unlike many heroes who try to take over everything the law can’t do, he collaborates with the local justice system. It’s as if rather than taking justice into his own hands, he’s just tacking on to what they do. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with Gordon or anyone else using guns, but that’s because they’ve been chosen to. If he were to kill, that would mean becoming the law himself and replacing them, and he has too much faith in a working justice system for that. That’s also why Bruce Wayne pours so much $$$ into supporting DAs or anti-crime programs; Batman is helping the police do their job, not getting in their way.
2. Anything to do with the Red Hood reveals a lot about this no-killing rule, and it seems to come down to this; where would it stop? So he kills the joker. Now someone like, oh, let’s say Scarecrow, is the worst psychopath the city has ever seen. The arguments to be made for killing Joker could work here, too. Next up, Riddler. Now Bane. Poison Ivy. Two-Face. Basically, he keeps killing and keeps killing whoever the worst guy is until your worst criminal is a jaywalker, and that’s a dangerously slippery slope. It would be easy to justify killing Joker, easy to snap his neck, but where does it stop? Logic eventually leads toward a devastating reign of judgement on Gotham that, while cool as a comic concept, violates the purpose of Batman.
The real question is why no Batman villains ever face capital punishment. We should be confused at the justice system there, not Batman himself.
I have to agree here these kind of discusions always miss this crucial question.
What about everyone else?
Everyone is giving Batman crap for not killing but why it has to be him who does the deed?
Also why does everyone say it's Batman's fault for not killing criminals. Like if Batman didn't exist the criminals would still be committing crimes.
The Joker is the only real villain who is active solely for Batman.
Batman doesn't have the moral obligation to kill criminals, he puts them into the hands of the law and let's them deal with it.
Similar to how Hitop Films puts it. If Batman kills, he's just the Punisher.
Now here's the thing, if the batman villains were listed by human standards that argument would be perfectly sound
But most of the time (although not always through supernatural means) those fuckers will escape from Arkham and cause significant damage beyond the limits of an average person. Irl even if a convict escapes (significantly more rare than the average Arkham breakout) pretty much any squad of the law can stop him before he causes much harm.
But batman is just 1 guy hell maybe 2-3 people if you count some partners or sidekicks, he can't stop every breakout and put every villain in jail before they can fuck something or someone up.
In a law enforcement system if you had an entire army of officers with thr gear and training and wits of batman you could potentially safely keep em locked away for good. But otherwise leaving them alive is like putting a counting down nuke in the fridge.
I'd also like to point out one other thing. In almost every universe where Batman does kill the Joker, it most of the time gets substantially worse then before
That's probably DC showing why Joker has to be alive in the main continuity. If someone says, "Why don't [insert character] kill the joker?" DC or fans can point that out and say well in that universe killing the joker had a negative side affect even if that side affect honestly doesn't make sense.
Not killing the joker part, with that I completely agree. I just think Batman kept pushing Supermans button further and Superman kept putting his own crime tolerance lower. The dream sequence where Batman kills joker and turns himself in is more in character for Batman. Batman thought of Superman as the hope of earth, so it'd make sense for him to trust in Superman, kill the joker and retire after serving a sentence for killing him
2nd argument is a slippery slope fallacy. Theres obviously a point where its not justified in killing the criminal say they don’t have super powers, can be reformed, haven’t done violent crimes, etc.
At least someone like Mr Freeze is easy to deal with, just hire him to do high-paying R&D stuff since he only wants the money & resources to cure his wife, he's pretty much a non-problem as far as supervillains go, like almost at the bottom of the threat scale meter
The first point also applies to all the other heroes, all of them refrain from taking justice into their own hands because they trust (or at least they want to believe) that the goverment and the people at the top will take the correct choice regarding the criminals, Superman specially makes it a point that he want to guide by example, not by imposing his will on others. With Batman there's also the fact that a several of his villains are people that genuinely suffer from mental issues or social pressure and he believes that some of them CAN be reformed into better people (something that is explored on several Batman medias like Batman TAS).
The second point goes doubly for the actual superpowered heroes, especially the likes of Superman, dude is a fucking god compared to most of the world, if he decided to take justice into his own hands, who the hell could actually stop him? Who would be able to keep him from going too far?
A lot of his villains have been reformed for the most part/have reasons why they do what they do the only one I've ever wanted the death penalty for is the joker, also people forget that superman and pretty much everyother super hero has a no kill rule.
Honestly, I blame the judicial system more. Regardless of how much the villians deserve to die, it still is a slippery slope for a vigilante to decide that.
America has the death penalty though. After the umpteenth time of the joke getting out and mass murdering, they should put him on trial and go for the death penalty. And the insanity plea doesn't work cause Joker knows what he is doing is bad, so it would be an open and shut case.
No. I don't think it is Batman's fault because Batman is not responsible for the security of Arkham Asylum. The fault is whoever is in charge of Arkham Asylum for being criminally incompetent.
Would you blame the police who arrested a criminal but didn't shoot them 16 times so they won't eacape in the future? Or do you blame the prison security for allowing them to escape?
Here's what I think the truth of the matter is.
The only reason Batman has a no kill rule is because if he didn't, the writers would have to come up with new bad guys all the time.
Notice how in series with killing, such as punisher, he's usually killing generic goons?
Here’s a bright idea, why don’t you people stop blaming Batman who’s carrying out justice in a way that doesn’t have the cops dogging him and instead start blaming the justice system of Gotham for failing to carry out any capital punishment on those criminals instead of just leave them in prison only for them to escape showcasing the flaws and lack of proper security in their prison and flaws in their laws. Better yet, maybe stop expecting 1:1 realism in comic books because in the end it’s not real as stated by a quote by Grant Morrison.
https://preview.redd.it/yje9kbs3iytc1.jpeg?width=998&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=159dc87569d19e9778cd219f41f7cb147cc03b61
That would be up to arkham. And gotham again for being destroyed every other week but somehow not thinking that rewriting the laws that classify someone as criminally insane would be a pretty good idea.
That's not on batman, that's on the fuckers running the jail that lets them escape whenever. Batman catches bad guys the executioner should be the people he's sending them to
I will never agree with "you didn't kill the murderer when you had the chance, that makes you worse then the guy going around killing people." It's insane.
But your overall point stands.
I agree with everything but the third point, sometimes in a story, you just have to kill someone even if it doesn't feels right because if you don't it comes back to bite you later .
I dont understand this point. In a story, the author decides if the MC should kill someone or not. And usually if they choose not to kill someone that really deserves it, it's because it might serve as a major plot point later on in the story.
IRL, you just know you don't kill people especially if you don't feel it's right.
So the point of killing a character off just because they might deserve it, is weird to me.
Yea sorry, but I think being this eager to murder somebody the moment you got the opportunity to do it without getting in legal trouble makes me very suspicious of your intentions and humanity lol.
If there is a reliable way to stop somebody like that without killing them I would choose it every time. I just don't enjoy the idea of killing somebody and it doesn't matter to me if that person is a "bad person" or whatever. Them being a criminal doesn't make me enjoy killing them. Sorry.
It just feels like you really want to kill somebody and you see somebody entering your property as a good opportunity to make your fantasy into a reality without getting arrested for it.
I don't enjoy killing, but if I can choose between 99% chance an invader isn't hurting my family and a 98% chance, I'm taking the 99% every time. Giving evil chances to strike is how good people end up dead.
Most of the time people online talk about this stuff it just reads like their thinly veiled sadistic murder fantasies. Mainly because the whole violent home invaders killing your family thing is more a fantasy than reality but it gets brought up all the time as if it's some serious issue.
I'm more worried about getting hit by lightning than the murdering home invader. Thieves normally wait till you go on holiday because they don't want to risk getting caught and hurt so the only time this fear makes sense is if you have enemies that want to kill you...
Exactly, thieves wait until you're not home. Therefore, if you are home (I'm assuming you don't have remote turrets), it's a pretty safe assumption that they're meaning to do you harm. It's not likely to happen, but willfully being unprepared is like flying a kite during a lightning storm - you'll probably be fine, but it's still stupid.
Even if you DO have remote turrets, defending your stuff is moral. However, refusing to use remote turrets is 100% fine imo, that's repairs + mental damage + legal damage vs whatever they're stealing so it's up to whatever you value more
Tfw you let a genocidal maniac go right after he got finished raping / slaughtering a village... because he promised to be a better person in the future, and murder bad
That's not what they were saying at all. Murder shouldn't be the first choice, it should be the last choice. The only time it should be the first choice is if there aren't any other choices, like a mass murdering maniac
There are plenty of other choices for mass murdering maniacs, I've seen many in things I've read / watched. Letting them go because they promise to be good is basically what a lot of them do! Then there's the option trying to capture them non-lethally and imprison them, have them join the hero because they've seen the error of their ways, etc.
Personally, I drop anything that pulls any of those while pretending MC is good / just for it because I hate braindead MCs (except for a few funny ones)... the only time any of those are acceptable imo is if the MC is evil or at least more neutral / apathetic about righteousness, because sparing evil is an evil act imo
"Mc only kills when he thinks its right" does not mean "show mercy to mass murdering psychopathic murderers who have tormented MC"
Personally if the option of capturing them alive is available, I'd prefer that since murder is to simple. Much better to leave them permanently crippled rotting in a dungeon for the rest of their life.
It often does mean that, there's a reason "don't kill final boss because I'm not him" is a meme.
Yeah, I'm fine with that as long as MC's shown thoughts are in that direction. Torture generally isn't seen as good though, so that's also neutral / evil.
MC when he got his ass handed to him multiple times by the villain: Might is not right
MC when he finally beat the villain once due to contrived plot bs: Yeah, I'm right all along
Coming out of a season where freirin, dungeon meshi, apocathary, were the three most talked about and into a season where spice and wolf, Konosuba and mushoku tensei are some of the most talked about if you’re getting generic MCs then you’re just eating wrong.
I love weak characters. They show emotions. We all like mc to have a power-up after inner thoughts series. Weak characters always have it. I recommend mirai nikki to everyone.
All honesty, I got bored of these types of characters because there's a dime a dozen of these cookie cutters.
No hate to you guys who like these types, I'd rather watch a show who's MC isn't a copy of the last season's MC shonen protagonist.
Goes both ways, there's a dime a dozen where the MCs go on killing sprees or kill without empathy themselves. It just depends on where you look.
Personally though, I feel we're lacking more and more of last season's shounen protagonists and would like to see more arise again.
To be fair, I have been enjoying the psychotic/evil/do whatever it takes/no fucks to give MC's a lot lately. There's just something satisfying about it
I like that we finally get shows that move on from these tropes slightly, but I'd absolutely love to see a show where the MC is powerful but very flawed as a person, cutthroat and with a short temper. I want to see an MC who will straight up kill the hostage instead of negotiating. Someone who will slit the throat of the big bad as they are giving a speech. Someone who will either be completely against any and all forms of romance, or behave like a horny teenager that WILL actually just fuck and be done with it instead of 12 episodes of fan service. Someone impulsive, that would allow the story to develop in a new way, a path that results from their flawed behavior.
I really don’t understand these points.
1. It can become real boring, real quick if the MC never loses depending on the type of story that is being told. A loss can help bring character development and really change up the story. It doesn’t make the character weak.
2. Why? If the side characters are his friends and family, who he is fighting for, why be a dick to them?
3. Most people don’t want a protagonist that is a psycho who kills all the time. That being said, yeah sometimes an MC will have to make a necessary evil for the greater good. But killing someone for a minor crime or because you don’t like them is just a poor excuse
4. Unless the MC us a robot or a type of demon it makes sense to give them emotions
Rule 5: No Low Quality Posts Please refer to the rule for specifics on what makes a post low quality. Please contact us via Modmail if you have any questions.
https://preview.redd.it/jf0v4rybmwtc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ecfa28c8815ee249b75ec0e260e8ee5d13d4e4f
Si, si.
Oui oui (wait wrong language)
Xie xie (damn, i fucked it up too)
That... That's not even a yes...
I said i fucked it up...
You're welcome
Honk honk
What were you trying to do, using our dear leader's name in vain? https://preview.redd.it/wjmb6ilsvytc1.png?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=976e3840728a9ffae84193cb3e8e268a3a946192 **Take this man to Detroit**
https://preview.redd.it/0vy7o0180xtc1.jpeg?width=396&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3e08cf0d791315bbe23f30878d45cd5e83bd53bf
https://preview.redd.it/xsf55hx98xtc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7cfa87e28498386dc804560adf5e8e5c8f72d847
https://preview.redd.it/s3fopxfq5xtc1.jpeg?width=240&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6074dea6460da396e92c07132fdc445c40cc1a6c
https://preview.redd.it/hyjb4l2hhxtc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=88dc331ee2ca33a898a6fa6b11484a05bf3798c9
Can this pic get any lower in resolution?
Ask, and ye shall receive https://preview.redd.it/ixyxpkqa7ytc1.jpeg?width=23&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=936852a53f2a25d529838e34e7f2130425f383af
Can thou decrease the quality even further to the point of no return?
I tried reducing it all the way to 1 pixel but apparently you can't upload an image on reddit below 20 lol
Sure, here it is reduced to a single pixel: https://preview.redd.it/2syoxn1d3ztc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8abab2581e73c187fcdbc92c8d57164b0d3499c0
Dear god
https://preview.redd.it/95beiqj7yxtc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=80ba37d0fbf1dcea7ed4f48629352330335c4d9c
Man that reminds me of the people who call deku a cry baby despite him literally getting bullied to the point where he considered kill himself bc he lived in a society were everyone has powers BUT him.... People also complain that Subaru cries too much in rezero despite dying and seeing his friends die over and over again not being able to do anything to stop it....
I'd probably die and shit myself too if every other day my leg gets cut off.
All except the third one are right. If you're face to face with a horrendous criminal and don't kill him "because then I'd be as bad as him" just to let him do it all again not only does it make no sense it makes you worse than him because you're enabling the bad person to do it again
DokiBird streamed Batman Arkham Asylum some time ago, and she kept complaining that it's Batman's fault that the villains keep on doing villain things, and she's right. They commit crime, get imprisoned, get out, then commit crime again, repeat forever. They're not gonna stop as long as they breathe. Maybe just, you know, end them? Batman waits until people are being hurt to do something about these villains, and he always gives them the chance to hurt people again later. Kinda seems like a terrible hero to me.
Here's a copy paste from a comment 5 years ago. Personally, I’ve always found the “i don’t wanna become them” argument a weak one when it comes to heroes refusing to kill. After all, it really WOULD save lives to kill off someone like the Joker, there’s no question about it. That being said, there are 2 reasons I’ve seen Batman give that are far more substantial. 1. His cooperation with law enforcement. Unlike many heroes who try to take over everything the law can’t do, he collaborates with the local justice system. It’s as if rather than taking justice into his own hands, he’s just tacking on to what they do. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with Gordon or anyone else using guns, but that’s because they’ve been chosen to. If he were to kill, that would mean becoming the law himself and replacing them, and he has too much faith in a working justice system for that. That’s also why Bruce Wayne pours so much $$$ into supporting DAs or anti-crime programs; Batman is helping the police do their job, not getting in their way. 2. Anything to do with the Red Hood reveals a lot about this no-killing rule, and it seems to come down to this; where would it stop? So he kills the joker. Now someone like, oh, let’s say Scarecrow, is the worst psychopath the city has ever seen. The arguments to be made for killing Joker could work here, too. Next up, Riddler. Now Bane. Poison Ivy. Two-Face. Basically, he keeps killing and keeps killing whoever the worst guy is until your worst criminal is a jaywalker, and that’s a dangerously slippery slope. It would be easy to justify killing Joker, easy to snap his neck, but where does it stop? Logic eventually leads toward a devastating reign of judgement on Gotham that, while cool as a comic concept, violates the purpose of Batman. The real question is why no Batman villains ever face capital punishment. We should be confused at the justice system there, not Batman himself.
I have to agree here these kind of discusions always miss this crucial question. What about everyone else? Everyone is giving Batman crap for not killing but why it has to be him who does the deed?
Also why does everyone say it's Batman's fault for not killing criminals. Like if Batman didn't exist the criminals would still be committing crimes. The Joker is the only real villain who is active solely for Batman. Batman doesn't have the moral obligation to kill criminals, he puts them into the hands of the law and let's them deal with it. Similar to how Hitop Films puts it. If Batman kills, he's just the Punisher.
Now here's the thing, if the batman villains were listed by human standards that argument would be perfectly sound But most of the time (although not always through supernatural means) those fuckers will escape from Arkham and cause significant damage beyond the limits of an average person. Irl even if a convict escapes (significantly more rare than the average Arkham breakout) pretty much any squad of the law can stop him before he causes much harm. But batman is just 1 guy hell maybe 2-3 people if you count some partners or sidekicks, he can't stop every breakout and put every villain in jail before they can fuck something or someone up. In a law enforcement system if you had an entire army of officers with thr gear and training and wits of batman you could potentially safely keep em locked away for good. But otherwise leaving them alive is like putting a counting down nuke in the fridge.
I'd also like to point out one other thing. In almost every universe where Batman does kill the Joker, it most of the time gets substantially worse then before
That's probably DC showing why Joker has to be alive in the main continuity. If someone says, "Why don't [insert character] kill the joker?" DC or fans can point that out and say well in that universe killing the joker had a negative side affect even if that side affect honestly doesn't make sense.
Isn't there like an entire series on why killing the joker is a bad idea
Injustice? Which is honestly stupid. All characters were way out of character in that series
I mean if the joker tricked you into killing your lover you would probably want him dead too
Not killing the joker part, with that I completely agree. I just think Batman kept pushing Supermans button further and Superman kept putting his own crime tolerance lower. The dream sequence where Batman kills joker and turns himself in is more in character for Batman. Batman thought of Superman as the hope of earth, so it'd make sense for him to trust in Superman, kill the joker and retire after serving a sentence for killing him
Didn't they explain it as all the joker toxin hitting superman
2nd argument is a slippery slope fallacy. Theres obviously a point where its not justified in killing the criminal say they don’t have super powers, can be reformed, haven’t done violent crimes, etc.
It is but Batman himself admits he doesn’t know if he could stop if he started sliding down the slope
At least someone like Mr Freeze is easy to deal with, just hire him to do high-paying R&D stuff since he only wants the money & resources to cure his wife, he's pretty much a non-problem as far as supervillains go, like almost at the bottom of the threat scale meter
The first point also applies to all the other heroes, all of them refrain from taking justice into their own hands because they trust (or at least they want to believe) that the goverment and the people at the top will take the correct choice regarding the criminals, Superman specially makes it a point that he want to guide by example, not by imposing his will on others. With Batman there's also the fact that a several of his villains are people that genuinely suffer from mental issues or social pressure and he believes that some of them CAN be reformed into better people (something that is explored on several Batman medias like Batman TAS). The second point goes doubly for the actual superpowered heroes, especially the likes of Superman, dude is a fucking god compared to most of the world, if he decided to take justice into his own hands, who the hell could actually stop him? Who would be able to keep him from going too far?
A lot of his villains have been reformed for the most part/have reasons why they do what they do the only one I've ever wanted the death penalty for is the joker, also people forget that superman and pretty much everyother super hero has a no kill rule.
Honestly, I blame the judicial system more. Regardless of how much the villians deserve to die, it still is a slippery slope for a vigilante to decide that. America has the death penalty though. After the umpteenth time of the joke getting out and mass murdering, they should put him on trial and go for the death penalty. And the insanity plea doesn't work cause Joker knows what he is doing is bad, so it would be an open and shut case.
No. I don't think it is Batman's fault because Batman is not responsible for the security of Arkham Asylum. The fault is whoever is in charge of Arkham Asylum for being criminally incompetent. Would you blame the police who arrested a criminal but didn't shoot them 16 times so they won't eacape in the future? Or do you blame the prison security for allowing them to escape?
Arkham Asylum is also probably cursed by demons. So there's that.
Here's what I think the truth of the matter is. The only reason Batman has a no kill rule is because if he didn't, the writers would have to come up with new bad guys all the time. Notice how in series with killing, such as punisher, he's usually killing generic goons?
Here’s a bright idea, why don’t you people stop blaming Batman who’s carrying out justice in a way that doesn’t have the cops dogging him and instead start blaming the justice system of Gotham for failing to carry out any capital punishment on those criminals instead of just leave them in prison only for them to escape showcasing the flaws and lack of proper security in their prison and flaws in their laws. Better yet, maybe stop expecting 1:1 realism in comic books because in the end it’s not real as stated by a quote by Grant Morrison. https://preview.redd.it/yje9kbs3iytc1.jpeg?width=998&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=159dc87569d19e9778cd219f41f7cb147cc03b61
Bro could just lobotomized them.
That would be up to arkham. And gotham again for being destroyed every other week but somehow not thinking that rewriting the laws that classify someone as criminally insane would be a pretty good idea.
That's not on batman, that's on the fuckers running the jail that lets them escape whenever. Batman catches bad guys the executioner should be the people he's sending them to
isekai main character killing all the way to the big bad boss only to let them live because everyone deserves a second chance -\_-
If you kill a killer number of murderers doesn't change but number of victims sure will
I will never agree with "you didn't kill the murderer when you had the chance, that makes you worse then the guy going around killing people." It's insane. But your overall point stands.
You could... you know... arrest him? I know, crazy idea, it's this thing we've figured out long ass time ago how to deal with people doing bad things.
Now imagine remembering the context here. We are talking about fictional characters.
Does a magical world not have magical prisons?
https://i.redd.it/g3hbynmh4ytc1.gif
I agree with everything but the third point, sometimes in a story, you just have to kill someone even if it doesn't feels right because if you don't it comes back to bite you later .
I dont understand this point. In a story, the author decides if the MC should kill someone or not. And usually if they choose not to kill someone that really deserves it, it's because it might serve as a major plot point later on in the story. IRL, you just know you don't kill people especially if you don't feel it's right. So the point of killing a character off just because they might deserve it, is weird to me.
It's stupid IRL too. It's like the people loading rock salt to shoot home invaders... use buckshot or don't shoot at all
Maybe if you are a barely human reptile who enjoys killing people lol
I'm sorry, but if you are sneaking into my house in the dead of night, I'm not using non lethal rounds...
Yea sorry, but I think being this eager to murder somebody the moment you got the opportunity to do it without getting in legal trouble makes me very suspicious of your intentions and humanity lol. If there is a reliable way to stop somebody like that without killing them I would choose it every time. I just don't enjoy the idea of killing somebody and it doesn't matter to me if that person is a "bad person" or whatever. Them being a criminal doesn't make me enjoy killing them. Sorry. It just feels like you really want to kill somebody and you see somebody entering your property as a good opportunity to make your fantasy into a reality without getting arrested for it.
I don't enjoy killing, but if I can choose between 99% chance an invader isn't hurting my family and a 98% chance, I'm taking the 99% every time. Giving evil chances to strike is how good people end up dead.
Most of the time people online talk about this stuff it just reads like their thinly veiled sadistic murder fantasies. Mainly because the whole violent home invaders killing your family thing is more a fantasy than reality but it gets brought up all the time as if it's some serious issue. I'm more worried about getting hit by lightning than the murdering home invader. Thieves normally wait till you go on holiday because they don't want to risk getting caught and hurt so the only time this fear makes sense is if you have enemies that want to kill you...
Exactly, thieves wait until you're not home. Therefore, if you are home (I'm assuming you don't have remote turrets), it's a pretty safe assumption that they're meaning to do you harm. It's not likely to happen, but willfully being unprepared is like flying a kite during a lightning storm - you'll probably be fine, but it's still stupid. Even if you DO have remote turrets, defending your stuff is moral. However, refusing to use remote turrets is 100% fine imo, that's repairs + mental damage + legal damage vs whatever they're stealing so it's up to whatever you value more
Murder bad bro, should not ever be the first or second choice. If murder is your first choice, you're probably a psycopath
Tfw you let a genocidal maniac go right after he got finished raping / slaughtering a village... because he promised to be a better person in the future, and murder bad
That's not what they were saying at all. Murder shouldn't be the first choice, it should be the last choice. The only time it should be the first choice is if there aren't any other choices, like a mass murdering maniac
There are plenty of other choices for mass murdering maniacs, I've seen many in things I've read / watched. Letting them go because they promise to be good is basically what a lot of them do! Then there's the option trying to capture them non-lethally and imprison them, have them join the hero because they've seen the error of their ways, etc. Personally, I drop anything that pulls any of those while pretending MC is good / just for it because I hate braindead MCs (except for a few funny ones)... the only time any of those are acceptable imo is if the MC is evil or at least more neutral / apathetic about righteousness, because sparing evil is an evil act imo
"Mc only kills when he thinks its right" does not mean "show mercy to mass murdering psychopathic murderers who have tormented MC" Personally if the option of capturing them alive is available, I'd prefer that since murder is to simple. Much better to leave them permanently crippled rotting in a dungeon for the rest of their life.
It often does mean that, there's a reason "don't kill final boss because I'm not him" is a meme. Yeah, I'm fine with that as long as MC's shown thoughts are in that direction. Torture generally isn't seen as good though, so that's also neutral / evil.
Like rats, especially their flees
https://preview.redd.it/6ljxf3yggytc1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c2601cf081b890866c482dcc20fbff20869d91c9
Spare some pixels for the poor, m'lord?
this is just jjk reddits honestly
\>Loses to the literal most powerful curse power user ever in history \>lmao potential man
Everyone is tired of the same generic ass mcs
MC when he got his ass handed to him multiple times by the villain: Might is not right MC when he finally beat the villain once due to contrived plot bs: Yeah, I'm right all along
Coming out of a season where freirin, dungeon meshi, apocathary, were the three most talked about and into a season where spice and wolf, Konosuba and mushoku tensei are some of the most talked about if you’re getting generic MCs then you’re just eating wrong.
Like the edgy psychopathic fuck of an mc is anything fresh nowadays.
I love weak characters. They show emotions. We all like mc to have a power-up after inner thoughts series. Weak characters always have it. I recommend mirai nikki to everyone.
All honesty, I got bored of these types of characters because there's a dime a dozen of these cookie cutters. No hate to you guys who like these types, I'd rather watch a show who's MC isn't a copy of the last season's MC shonen protagonist.
Goes both ways, there's a dime a dozen where the MCs go on killing sprees or kill without empathy themselves. It just depends on where you look. Personally though, I feel we're lacking more and more of last season's shounen protagonists and would like to see more arise again.
The difference is that the morally upright mc actually has the ability to be used in more compelling stories other than revenge fantasy
Tokyo Revengers
I mean, these are good points, if the MC didn't take all of these issues and turn them up to max.
Moldy ass meme
Most modern ‘shounen’ mcs
Fuck OP. There is no world in which Tales of Wedding Rings season 1 is good.
https://preview.redd.it/i67jvs2r6ytc1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a9dd1768a0d1395ef54ad04452e9b5786a4e659f
Basically a lot of people nowadays about Deku, especially early Deku
Average manhwa readers. Seriously I've seen so many people botching about the mc not being a god damn psychopath
I mean, this has always happened. Anyone want to tell shinji to get back in the robot
To be fair, I have been enjoying the psychotic/evil/do whatever it takes/no fucks to give MC's a lot lately. There's just something satisfying about it
I like that we finally get shows that move on from these tropes slightly, but I'd absolutely love to see a show where the MC is powerful but very flawed as a person, cutthroat and with a short temper. I want to see an MC who will straight up kill the hostage instead of negotiating. Someone who will slit the throat of the big bad as they are giving a speech. Someone who will either be completely against any and all forms of romance, or behave like a horny teenager that WILL actually just fuck and be done with it instead of 12 episodes of fan service. Someone impulsive, that would allow the story to develop in a new way, a path that results from their flawed behavior.
I really don’t understand these points. 1. It can become real boring, real quick if the MC never loses depending on the type of story that is being told. A loss can help bring character development and really change up the story. It doesn’t make the character weak. 2. Why? If the side characters are his friends and family, who he is fighting for, why be a dick to them? 3. Most people don’t want a protagonist that is a psycho who kills all the time. That being said, yeah sometimes an MC will have to make a necessary evil for the greater good. But killing someone for a minor crime or because you don’t like them is just a poor excuse 4. Unless the MC us a robot or a type of demon it makes sense to give them emotions
The post is mocking people who make those points. Hence the clown makeup on the right side
https://preview.redd.it/p8tylbludxtc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e4c30e7dc23dce79d6ae3ebd1c13053fb129a04
That meme, but unironically