The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [AdventureQuest] >> AdventureQuest General Discussion



Message

Veral77 -> The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/21/2019 8:55:06)

The concept of heroes not killing started off with older versions of Batman, Superman, etc. where comic book guidelines forbade it, and therefore, those heroes don't even use guns. Heck, original Batman, who did kill, used guns back then. However, such a concept is ridiculous when applied to stories where heroes actively use swords, spears, axes, and other weapons, such as this one. Weapons, at their core, are tools of killing. Unless you're somehow holding a giant kitchen knife, to say that heroes don't kill is the ultimate line of hypocrisy. Therefore, I can only cringe when the hero is disgusted at Nemesis killing Calladus or refuses to finish off Lt. Lore, given that same excuse. I mean, back in the good, old days of this game, Cyrus killed off Bradakhan, after the battle was actually over.



Lorekeeper -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/21/2019 9:26:12)

The Chosen is not Cyrus. Medrovian justice does not apply throughout all of Lore, nor does its honor system. Weapons are not only meant for fellow intelligent creatures, as other sapients don't come close to constituting the majority of the threats the Lorian wilderness offers. Likewise, the act of killing is not itself what is inherently frowned upon by current story standards, as you will notice from recent instances of the Chosen's wrath, but the meaning behind the action.

The precedent it sets, the actions it inspires, and the path it sets one - And by extension, those one inspires - on, now those are far more relevant considerations to make. Especially when even such beings as Ryuusei Cartwright, whose atrocities almost defied description, attained redemption — An important ideal on Lore.

These are but some of the in-world counterpoints to your opening premise. Implied points are further addressed by the evolution of individual narratives, the eclectic nature of a long succession of different writers, the significant difference of current standards to all mentioned points of comparison, and matters of role playing. Having set all of this aside, would you have a further point of constructive discussion to make?



Veral77 -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/21/2019 10:13:12)

"Different writers" is kind of a good point. That's why binge-watching Doctor Who results in realizing that the Doctor's own standards change like the seasons. Also, Medrovian justice not applying to all of Lore reminds me of the reason that Aquaman aligned himself with Superman in Injustice (Atlanteans have an old-fashioned sense of justice).



AliceShiki -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/21/2019 11:59:59)

I wouldn't say it's hypocritical to hold a sword while not wanting to kill, but it's somewhat counterproductive.

As in, if someone knows you have no intention of killing them even though you have a lethal weapon, they can abuse that and have a considerable advantage on the fight because they know they don't need to protect their lethal spots because the enemy knows you won't aim for them. Which can lead to an enemy with far less skill than you still winning the battle.

At the end of the day, a sword, just like a gun, is a weapon made for killing. While you can use it for other functions, it won't ever be as effective at anything else other than killing.



Veral77 -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/21/2019 13:05:35)

Again, my half-facetious remark of a sword being used as an unnecessarily complicated kitchen knife. Indeed, the "truest" form of blade is the guillotine. If people think of swords as anything other than a killing tool, it's because a sword is often decorated or designed very ornately, compared to the more "direct" design of a guillotine blade... Yes, I've been playing Dies Irae, in terms of my opinion on guillotines vs. other blades.



roobee -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/21/2019 14:16:36)

When we do battles against random monsters, do we kill them when we win? There are a bunch of humanoid monsters we face in random battles.



Veral77 -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/21/2019 15:30:25)

Modern western thought seems to be obsessed with making heroism and killing mutually exclusive, but Asians are known for adding a line in the middle of Jean Rostand's quote: "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a god." between 1 and 1 million: Kill a thousand men, and you are a hero. In other words, being a hero, especially a war hero, is inevitably to be a killer.



Strength.designer -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/21/2019 15:47:50)

This is a fantastical game though, and just like videogames(and manga etc) we can only assume that its constraints of what is feasible and possible do not completely align with the physics of our real world. So it may very well be possible for a character in the game to be able to fight with lethal weapons without killing if he so wishes, just fantastical worlds logic, and the "pop literature" is aboundant on examples like those.



Veral77 -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/21/2019 16:02:20)

Thing is, I consume fantasy media for the 2-legged cat people and giant flying lizards, not the illusion of moral purity. That's why I find stuff like Harry Potter and Once Upon a Time garish at best.



stratuscone -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/22/2019 3:40:44)

Gandalf once said that true courage is about knowing not when to take a life but when to spare one, whilst handing Bilbo a sword/dagger. And indeed he used Sting not out of a desire to kill the Orcs, but to protect Thorin. So yeah, holding a sword does not automatically make you a murderer. After all, a weapon is only ever as deadly as the hands (or intention) wielding it.



I Overlord I -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/22/2019 4:17:00)

quote:

Weapons are not only meant for fellow intelligent creatures, as other sapients don't come close to constituting the majority of the threats the Lorian wilderness offers.

I don't think killing a creature who doesn't know any better just because they're not as intelligent is more morally "just" than killing a sentient being who knows exactly what they're doing. Not that I'm defending the latter either, but there's a certain degree of accountability present there that simply isn't in the case of the former. At worst, the former is unadulterated speciesism.



Lorekeeper -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/22/2019 7:55:58)

What is just or right often doesn't begin to factor into it. A sapient threat could be dissuaded or rebuked. An intelligent predator, avoided or scared away. Other beings will like as not be more insistent.

Even other sapients can throw the moral quandary aside. When considering character agency, that of characters you aren't playing must factor in as well. Does fighting any given thinking being pose a moral dilemma? Perhaps. But whether to solve matters with reason or violence is not purely the Chosen's choice. You can't always stop someone else from choosing to fight you. I suppose one could take a postmodern approach and protest by simply standing still and allowing one of any number of threats with lethal intent to have their way, but that would not quite be the kind of defiance that makes a hero.



Veral77 -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/22/2019 13:59:49)

@stratuscone: Thing is, I said killer, not murderer. You can swing a sword without intent to commit murder, but given the physical attributes of a sword, its function is to kill. Again, many swords are oftentimes "fancy", and people tend to forget that, compared to a guillotine's blade.



s_venom -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/23/2019 17:18:08)

I think it should be taken into account that you need some sort of reason for a threat to stop attacking you.
This either can be done by showing the ability to combat the the threat (like holding the sword) or proving it the capability by actually using the sword.
It should also be noted that while swords are designed to mainly kill, it doesn't mean it can't be used for other things (however limited they are). We also need to take into account that there is magic in this world which allows in most cases to avoid killing. Even Most of the monsters that we fight doesn't necessarily die, but simply knocked unconscious (bar wars I believe).
Take mages for example, they might hold nothing in there hands, but could have more raw and destructive power in their hands then a single normal sword could ever have.

Regarding the game itself, you yourself gave the comic example; different writers have different ways of writing which might result in inconsistent behavior of our characters.



Veral77 -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/23/2019 18:06:24)

Well, sword is more an umbrella term for any weapon. The term, "those who live by the sword die by the sword" does not necessarily apply only to swords, or else someone will reply "those who live by the sword die by those who don't" and post an animated .gif image of a swordsman being shot by a gun.



Strength.designer -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/24/2019 1:40:04)

I don't think there is any moral questioning on killing animals(or monsters) for self-defense, obviously I'm not talking about hunting here, but rather defending your own life in self-defense, you sure don't expect that a lion in front of you encountered in the wilds will turn back and flee by his own accord right? You fight with everything you got because it's a wild creature, either you kill or you're killed.


Now for sapients beings it's an entirely different issue, you could be in peacce with that maybe because:

quote:

It should also be noted that while swords are designed to mainly kill, it doesn't mean it can't be used for other things (however limited they are). We also need to take into account that there is magic in this world which allows in most cases to avoid killing. Even Most of the monsters that we fight doesn't necessarily die, but simply knocked unconscious (bar wars I believe).


That's exactly what I posted before, and as far as I'm concerned it's just videogame/manga/anime logic, or else any game where your characters used weapons and the devs don't want to directly adhere to the feature of killing(as in games made for adults or teenagers etc) would be impossible to create. It's just fantasy magic that allows the character to use weapons and not kill, think of weapons more as fancy versions of fists, they're just an extension and a different(and more powerful, as they have power themselves) mean for the characters to express their own strength and overcome the foe's. Don't get me wrong, the foes do kill, but your character(you) doesn't.

Just the way I see things.



I Overlord I -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/24/2019 3:04:12)

quote:

I don't think there is any moral questioning on killing animals(or monsters) for self-defense, obviously I'm not talking about hunting here, but rather defending your own life in self-defense, you sure don't expect that a lion in front of you encountered in the wilds will turn back and flee by his own accord right? You fight with everything you got because it's a wild creature, either you kill or you're killed.

In real life, sure, but a lot of wild animals/monsters in Lore are capable of at least limited communication. That being said, you could apply this exact framework in the justification of killing even sapient beings in self-defense.

I think I'm just uncomfortable with saying "[x] deserved to die." Most recently, the War-Torn Dragon. Yes, if we hadn't stopped it, it would've killed countless others after killing us (which it still managed, in any event), but it was heavily implied that the corruption and influence of Zhilo made it behave in the fashion that it did.

Dragons, as we know, are one of the more intelligent species in Lore. Thus, is killing a sapient being under the influence of mind control (which is akin to a wild beast) because there were no better options truly just or simply necessary (keeping in mind that we, the Chosen, are the embodiment of War now)?



Veral77 -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/25/2019 17:55:33)

In the case of a mind-controlled dragon, hitting it hard enough might snap it awake (I was going to make an Arifureta reference, but where said dragon was hit might make the post NSFW), but if you hit it too hard, and it dies, then that's what it is.



aintlifebeautiful -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (9/29/2019 15:36:40)

this is true but would you not beg for ur life? i would



Veral77 -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (10/1/2019 18:41:26)

Also, killing creatures... other than human makes for cheap and ultimately meaningless edge. For example, in both AQC and AQW, an "evil choice" is to kill Wolfwing, so even if you decide to kill someone in cold blood, it's not "human". Worthless. This might make more sense in AQW context, rather than AQC context, but while I spared Wolfwing, I made sure to send the younger Lionfang brother to his execution. As opposed to, say, Batman, where he spares the Joker all the time, but then kills off some of the one-off villains, like Dracula, for being "less than human" to say nothing of his intent to kill Superman in Batman vs. Superman. It's not worth my time, if I'm not killing fully living, fully breathing homo sapiens sapiens. That's why Fire Emblem, a Nintendo game, is so deliciously refreshing. Baring story essentialness, killing people (like fully living, fully breathing homo sapiens sapiens) results in their death, as it should... Also, my computer doesn't think that essentialness is a word.



AliceShiki -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (10/1/2019 19:22:09)

I have no idea what you're talking about in this last post tbh, but you cannot kill Wolfwing in AQ. Most you had available was back in the Devourer Saga that you could attack the wounded Wolfwing without hearing him out first.

Also, AQ never cared rather or not someone was Human or not, Cyrus and the Nightbane Family are some of the simplest examples I can give on that regard.

Also, Wolfwing is clearly someone that has the best interests of Darkovia in mind when he acts, so it would make 0 sense for him to be put in an antagonist's light.



Veral77 -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (10/1/2019 19:35:40)

Yes, but a very similar decision happens in AQW. I find it an odd coincidence that both happened to Wolfwing.



Lorekeeper -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (10/1/2019 19:43:22)

Your point is boiling down almost entirely to distaste for the fact that the player character defeating certain opponents non-lethally does not satisfy your preference for killing sapient beings, which I would remind you that Wolfwing absolutely qualifies as. Erimus being a werepyre does not in any way render him so unthinking or insensate that there is no gravitas or evil in attacking him when he's vulnerable and approaching peacefully (The AQ choice that you appear to be comparing an AQ event with).

I submit to your consideration that the narrative direction, past and evidently also present, failing to completely comply with preference that appears to be sine qua non to your enjoyment, does not constitute an inherent flaw with the story itself. It certainly does not render it worthless, or support any conclusion other than the perfectly acceptable possibility that it simply may not be to your taste. What is becoming less acceptable, however, is the absence of benefit of the doubt or good faith being assumed or offered.

Let's start over from the cornerstone of a simple correction to your assumptions, and discuss constructively from that point onward if this conversation is to continue at all.

Your arguments, as evidenced by the most recent one, are predicated on the assumption that every victory in combat in AdventureQuest is inherently lethal unless shown otherwise, and that the resulting death is simply undone on the spot if the character reappears. This is completely incorrect, and in fact the opposite of the norm.

May I request that, in consideration of this, you collate your thoughts into a concise and more cohesive premise? I thrive on criticism, and would enjoy it if you took the opportunity to present yours constructively.



Primate Murder -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (10/2/2019 0:24:40)

@ Cray

You actually raise an interesting point that I was wondering about for a while - how does Death decide who gets to die and who gets to live in Lore?

We know that Galanoth's parents have been killed by Akriloth and, presumably, stayed dead. Same with many of the villains who have been, and stayed, vanquished.

We know that Wallo and Shii have been sent back to life. Furthermore, the AQ Guide to History and Lore specifically states:
quote:

in fact, Death lets pretty much everybody that dies go, giving him more power as they die again

So what's the criteria? Does Death just randomly think, "Hey, that guy seems cool, let's send him back' and 'I don't like your face, you stay dead', or are there some universal constraints limiting who can and cannot be returned?



Lorekeeper -> RE: The hypocrisy of saying "don't kill" whilst holding a sword (10/2/2019 12:18:25)

The source of that quote in the Guide is the following statement from Falerin:

quote:

Though on Lore the Reaper as servitor of Death does death's will most cleverly... living beings die and return to life and die again.

I have said it before and I am sure it is in the quote archive somewhere but what powers death is not the dead. It is not their anima either, not directly. Not their souls. Though Death has been known to employ all of them. What empowers the demi-power, and lesser or greater powers in other realms that fill the same position, is the act of dying itself. No energy transition is perfect when a being dies energy is released. Only some remains with the being. Which is why a ghost cannot by force of will just resurrect their body. They lose anima and mana and dying. Where does that go...

Kalanyr has spoken to part of it. I will speak to the rest... the Anima goes to death. He reaps it. Harvests it. Absorbs it as his own.

Lore is to death a huge self-sufficient energy station. And the number of constant death, life, and redeath that occurs leads him to immense power.

In some pantheons death value their position and its importance and thus abhor returning from death to life (in negative or positive directions). On Lore it very much appears that Death does not care about the functional necessity of his position. Rather he likes the infinite free meal he gets ...


This was further explained by the Rider himself during The Burning Solstice part 6: The Question.

quote:

You: Wha- What is this...?
DEATH: YOU ARE FINALLY WHOLE AGAIN.
You: ... You... I know you. But how? Are you the real Death?
DEATH: ALL WHO HAVE DIED KNOW ME, FOR ALL THAT THEY LOSE BECOMES ME.
DEATH: MOST TAKE WHAT IS LEFT AND MOVE ON. SOME RETURN, REGROW IN LIFE, AND DIE AGAIN.
DEATH: STILL FOR MOST THIS IS A CHOICE. ONE I PERMIT.
DEATH: YOU KNOW ME BETTER THAN MOST, FOR TRY AS I MIGHT I CANNOT HOLD YOU.


It is therefore established that there are two primary factors affecting the likelihood of resurrection from the part of the dead themselves. The loss of energy, as it stands to reason that it is possible to lose so much (Be it through age or exceptional causes) that one simply cannot transition back to inhabiting a body as a living soul, and choice. As a related variable, the presence of mind to make that choice is another variable.

The Chosen's recent fall shows an example of how extenuating circumstances can render a soul so exhausted as to be nearly insensate, and therefore ill-equipped to make the choice to return. Giving in to the instinct of moving on is a far easier path to take. And of those able to make the choice, it is not the majority that prefer resurrection. Rather, it tends to be specific walks of like that compel the choice, particularly those that involve encountering deadly hazards from a young age.

Of course, it's also entirely possible for Death to make the choice for you.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.140625