You can just torment the mf. Why get rid of em when you can make them miserable for as long as you want? Death is mercy, and mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. So logically, by maximizing the cruelty to the guilty, we are in turn maximizing the mercy to the innocent.
The one time it ever made sense to accept this logic is Call of Duty Black Ops II. There we have the choice to kill the big bad and take revenge for the horrible shit he’s done or take him to prison.
Killing the big bad and perpetuating the cycle of revenge just makes the dude a martyr and inspires his followers to just burn everything down. Which doesn’t happen if you leave him to rot in prison.
So in conclusion- digging two graves is a bad idea as it creates a grave surplus thus depriving a revenge-quest person from having to dig a grave for the person they a seeking to take revenge on, thus depriving them from the chance to work through their feelings and find a healthy(ier) outlet via manual labour?
But what if one needs to dig two graves to work through their feelings for one grave is not enough cardio?
the truth is the guy who made that proverb should have said 'Before you embark on revenge, dig x+1 graves, where x is equal to the number of people you want vengeance on', but I guess that sounds less catchy
Reminds me of Tales from the Borderlands. (Spoilers if you wanna play it.) The guy who raised one of the MCs gets the briefcase full of cash they're after in Chapter 1, and says something along the lines of how he's got the cash, doesnt need us anymore and how I won't shoot him for some reason while the game gives me the option to; I don't remember, I was busy shooting him before he could even finish saying "shoot."
In the universe of borderlands (my fucking favourite game ever) where almost everyone is a little bit crazy and doesn't mind murdering people. It seems a bit dumb to not think that the person you raised isn't gonna shoot you dead after saying you don't need them while holding a bunch of money... Then again a lot of people in the borderlands universe are kinda stupid
I don't know if the New U stations are canon but at least the vault hunters seem to be immortal in Borderlands so dying isn't that big of a deal in that universe
The New U stations are an odd thing in lore because they are cannon but for gameplay and stuff, they don't allow bosses to use them cause you could never beat them. But I think they are canon for some people in the borderlands games but it just takes them awhile to be recreation at one of the stations, but that is just my opinion on them.
The New-U stations are non-canon according to the main writer, who expressed regret at giving them funny dialogue because people started thinking they are canon. They‘re not.
BL3 even has a line pointing out they‘re non-canon.
me too, pending on the loot. I was totally looking forward to ice Castillo in Far Cry 6 cause I wanted that gilded 1911 he was swinging around, but alas...
Yeah tbh same man I'm cool with a mate who was "accused" of 1 murder he's alright. But another friend has been "allegedly" involved in 3 and it's starting to feel strange being around them at times.
Me when the villain is making salient points and has a sound argument against the status quo but also recreationally strangles kittens so we don't feel bad killing him.
"I'm not here to be a hero, I'm here to make you kneel before your sins when my judgment comes upon you. You will become your worst nightmare before your own eyes, don't be afraid of my morals, be afraid of being mortal"
I kinda fw Invincible, but there’s also times where he’s just way too soft. I completely understand that he’s a hero so killing isn’t really a good choice for him to make. But damn, there are times where he really just needs to. Tbf though, there’s also anti-hero characters that exist. Anti-hero characters are like the gray area in between hero and villain, so characters like Deadpool, Spawn, and Punisher. They do good by also doing bad.
When some heinous piece of shit who has killed thousands drops this dumbass line...
Always appreciated how lackadaisical Saitama was presented about just obliterating evil assholes.
Like killing them doesn't mean you HAVE to go on to kill everyone left and right, you can draw the line wherever you feel like... I think unhinged assholes like the Joker are ok to kill sometimes ya know?
Right? I’ve always thought this line is so dumb when it’s coming from some mass murderer. If you have killed many before and plan to kill again then me killing you is really just saving lives. It’s not like now that I’ve killed one person I’m going to get the sudden urge to keep doing it again and again.
It really only works when either the character isn’t really that bad or your character has a story reason to not kill aside from just the obvious moral issue of “I don’t want to kill someone”. If the main bad guy is just kind of an asshole then yes, killing him certainly makes you the evil one. Or if you’re Superman and your entire ideology and image relies on being a beacon of hope and humanity, you killing someone is a huge deal. Otherwise?… honestly just get to blasting
My take is someone whose reluctant to harm others hasn't sunk to the level of a kill happy manic, that it's when someone stops giving a dam about the lives and rights of other people(regardless of its people in general or say for example a ethnic group) that they sink so low.
This "argument" or whatever has always been stupid and I genuinely wonder who came up with this phrase. You're really telling me if I killed someone who commit genocide in order to stop further genocide, I'd be just as bad as them? Okay buddy.
Yeah, and why is it always "kill or spare"? Why can't I pick torture? Why can't I pick mind rewrite? Why can't I pick enslave? Why can't I pick 'beat him till he starts begging me to stop'? Why is it ALWAYS those two choices? Can no one seriously think of anything else? Why is it only those two? Why?
There is no way I could POSSIBLY be worse then them. Under any law, any court, any government and under any civilized community.
" If you kill me you will be just like me " is just a blatant lie , designed to conceal the fact that someone is begging for mercy. " Lmao no , I won't " would be my answer
If it was "revenge bad " story they would have made Abby a Saint. They would have shown her reasoning before she kills him and also they wouldn't show any of her wrongs (the boat scene in Abby's flashback)
TLOU2 will always remain a hell of a headscratcher for me. Like, if you wanted to go "Revenge bad" route... Dishonored had this figured out a decade and a half ago. Most games since then just fumble it, badly
Hell, in Dishonored you can still just kill everyone (even if in most cases "mercy" route is actually fucking worse than death) in the BBEG club and get a good ending. Just dont kill henchmen
Honestly, I can't think of anything the Dishonored series did that wasn't a giant W. Incredible powers, incredible story, massive attention to detail, insane replayability, and the best new game + system I've ever encountered in a video game.
I enjoyed Dishonored but its hard to argue that you arent trying to keep enemies safe from yourself in non-lethal runs. You are insanely capable of wiping out entire platoons of folks if you wanted, even in pacifist routes.
Kingdom come 2 did it well, you can absolutely revenge kill everyone the game lets you and still get good the good ending as long as choose the speech options about your character feeling remorse at the actions they felt they had to take.
Whether or not you went for revenge doesn’t matter, it’s if your character expresses an obsession with it through your speech options that gets you the “bad” ending.
I mean that part I get, like lets be honest Joel wouldve never let anything happen to her, but they couldve done a lot more storywise in the second game. Still liked it overall tho
I know it’s been repeated so much, but the problem with TLOU2 is that it’s just weird that Ellie wouldn’t kill Abby after spending the whole game killing other people in brutal ways while they scream for their lives
because TLOU isn't an RPG, you're playing as established characters who have their own desires and goals. You aren't supposed to have any agency over the outcome of the plot.
Yeah and thier desires and goals are fucking stupid. Goated writing tho, its totally not lazy to make 3 huge timeskips, kill off all side characters through stupid means and make a "revenge bad" story especially when its never justified as to why ellie would ever let her go for any reason at all...
Never thought too much about it, but this is a huge part of why the game caught so much heat. The characters are supposed to act against the player's wishes, and that's the point.
By the time I got to the end it was just "Man, this shit ain't even worth it anymore.". It wasn't even a case of being the better person, it was just exhausting by then
i think the game has an almost perfect story right until that moment. for some reason they take a game about revenge and how the apocalypse affects people, where ellie brutally kills dozens of people and try and force some message about forgiveness at the end. i mean it makes no sense and i feel like they were running out of time to proofread the script at that point.
MGR did this perfectly. Armstrong was like “my philosophy is that whoever wins the fight is actually the person with the correct opinion. By defeating me through violence, you’ll be proving my ideology right.”
And then Raiden was like “sounds cool I’m in”.
Killing Armstrong makes you similar to him, but ultimately the protagonist accepts that.
Oneshot spoilers I mean Oneshot kinda fits this? You’re killing an entire world or trapping one child in a glass dome forever. But that world technically didn’t really have any real people in it. At the end of the day though Niko did want to save them so I feel that was the best choice
I think the way you prevent the "kill 500000 mooks in a revenge plot and spare the Big Bad" problem is to either make the villain sympathetic or find a nonlethal means of punishing and disposing of the villain. Otherwise the audience feels kinda cheated if they went into the story expecting John Wick and getting a hamfisted morality tale
(yapping ahead) Like how in Limbus Company, there's a chapter inspired by the book Moby Dick (the entire book is just a massive revenge plot), in which Ishmael was so obsessed with getting revenge on captain Ahab (for sending the entire crew on a suicide mission to hunt the Pallid Whale, the game's Moby Dick, resulting in the crew except Ishmael being swallowed whole by it) to the point it was the only thing she (the game's Ishmael) could think about all the time, and that she'd throw her life away just to kill the captain (just like how Ahab is willing to risk her (the game's Ahab) and her crewmates' life to kill the whale). As you progress through the chapter, Ishmael slowly realised that her obsession for vengeance was consuming her whole, and that by letting Ahab take control of her life (Ahab in this game is extremely manipulative, she alone fueled her entire crew's hatred for the whale, and Ishmael's own obsession was a result of that), she'd become no different from Ahab (meaning if she killed the whale after killing her captain, Ahab would ultimately achieve the goal of killing the whale, either by her own hands or someone else under her guidance) and there'd be nothing left to live for in her (Ishmael) life, because she has fulfilled the ultimate goal that she has set. Instead, Ishmael chose to spare Ahab and pierced the whale's heart right before her captain's eyes (basically, she now wants to be free of Ahab's influence over her life, taking the first step by no longer following her obsession), stealing the kill as a result. Because to Ahab, killing the whale was even more important than her own life (she'd be willing to let Ishmael kill her as long as Ishmael helps her kill the whale) so witnessing that pretty much sent her into a mental breakdown
First of all no, killing one person isn't equal to killing thousands.
And second of all, if I let you live, you'll hurt even more people. Even if I prove you right, the lives and wellbeings of multiple individuals are far more important than losing an ideological argument against a dead man.
Rise of the Tomb Raider gives you the option to kill the final boss when you defeat him ( though he doesn't pull the "if you kill me" card ), but instead of walking up to him for the prompt you can instead walk away where the building just collapses in on him ( which I found out accidentally before having a good laugh )
I mean, the DLC pretty clearly describes him like a recovering addict as far as violence is concerned.
The issue with letting him kill Salt-Upon-Wounds after he surrenders is not the fighting back part, the game endorses that bit, hence why the best ending is the one where you drive off the Raiders but don't go overboard.
The problem with Joshua is more that you're letting him relapse, and his addiction is genocide.
To be fair, you are convincing a reformed genocidal maniac to not slip back into his ways by executing a different genocidal maniac who’s plans for genocide have already been stopped.
I always felt like that dlc isn’t advocating for you to be non-violent, it’s advocating for measured violence and knowing when to stop.
You become like Flowey after having played the pacifist run and playing the geno run to see all of that world has to offer, even if it involve killing everyone you saved and loved, even if it implies losing yourself cause you were able to try, cause you thought you were above consequence.
In neutral the point of not killing Flowey is to prove that his philosophy "it's kill or be killed" is wrong. To prove to the child murdered cause he didn't fight back against an afraid/hateful village that killing, causing harm is not the only, nor the best way to defend yourself.
Modern warfare 2019 has a bit like this in the story mode granted the bad guy doesn't outright says "you'd be just like me" but it does give you the option to kill or let him be taken by the police
That shit was a diabolical move by the developers. You literally see this dude kill a woman’s husband and child right in front of her and you expect me to not give him some .357?
Dispatch. You get the option to strangle the monster who killed your father (and tried to kill your friends 20 times), and the game thankfully doesn't pretend like you became Darth Vader after doing that.
Got stuck on the ocean QTE for ten minutes before I realized I'm supposed to absolve Abby of her sins. Turned the game from a 10/10 to a 5/10 because of the loss of player agency tbh
My friends who said "Heroes dont kill, ill let shroud live" were shocked how fast i pressed kill, its ridicilous to imagine robert would let a guy who killed 2 generations leave alive. I belive in redemption until blood is spilled intentionally, then no way back for you.
I belive in redemption until blood is spilled intentionally, then no way back for you.
My brother in Christ the game is specifically about redeeming ex villains. Coupe,punch up and malevola have all committed second degree murder. Invisigal and flambe have both attempted murder. Sonar eats people if you fire him (unless he's just pretending to intimidate you but even then he's definitely killed people)
The game is entirely about redeeming these people. How are you supposed to be redeemed if you have committed any crimes bad enough to need to be redeemed?
Even then the fact that some, perhaps even most villains are redeemable through time and effort like Dispatch shows doesn't mean everyone is. Red Dead Redemption 2 is also a game about redemption; doesn't mean Micah is redeemable. In Telltale's The Walking Dead Lee is a convicted murderer who gets a second chance at life; doesn't mean the St. Johns are redeemable.
I'm not saying that everyone can be redeemed, I'm just saying that's it's ironic to say that once someone intentionally takes a life they are impossible to redeem when half of the main cast that gets redeemed are murderers.
Heroes are like the #1 source of mercy and never killing anyone, so it's not like your friends are delusional for letting Shroud be captured instead of murdering him.
It's fine if you wouldn't do that, but Heroes have always been held (and hold themselves) to a higher moral standard, and your friends simply roleplayed as that, I'd say.
I'm not sure where you got that "redemption" part. Not killing and showing mercy isn't the same as redeeming, or forgiving, or forgetting.
Also he says 'please' before the option to kill appears which makes me want to kill him more. As well as him having a 'All according to plan' expression if you spare him. He deserves to die. He escaped prison once already.
Played it over the weekend and felt the same kind of way. Shroud is just one of those guys where letting him live is dooming more people to die. Kind of like Batman not permanently finishing off the Joker. You can allow yourself to take that high ground and pretend to be a better person for it, but how many more people do they have to kill before you get off that high horse?
I left him alive for the sake of going for a completely "good" ending, but I definitely won't ever go that route again, nor did I think it was the "right" thing to do.
I can say that i went and said id kill him and killed him while romancing mandy. There wasnt a thing as a bad ending in anything but the ending name being more neutral than bad or good. I think only thing i did bad was telling mandy it felt good to kill him. She was kinda put off but didint mind (Thats why shes the goat). Tho i meant it more like im relieved he isnt just able to break out and kill randoms again.
Not gonna lie, I was fully intending to go all in on the "everyone deserves a second chance" mantra, but then he threatened Beef too and I didn't even think when I pulled the trigger
I thought the idea of him living was a greater punishment.
That "what the fuck, robert" line is gold and now he's gonna have to live through his life without his dumb ass prediction app, experiencing the need to make his own choices like that every day. I find the idea of him fucking up every decision he has to make from now on to be hilarious. The dude crumbles under actual pressure.
"Can't we wait until we get home" guy makes smarter decisions than him
Reminds me of THOSE media when the antagonist gets defeated, almost gets killed and then the mc comes in and says "But if you kill them, you'll be just as bad as them...!"
It's such a stupid fucking "moral dilemma". Like what, I either let them live and go on to commit more atrocities, or I kill them and be done with it? There's an objectively correct answer here.
Okay I am starting to feel you people are getting too bloodthirsty.
I am seeing WAAAY too many of this type of posts
It just reminds me of this Tales from the Crypt episode were a death row executioner gets fired because they passed a law banning the death sentence, so he then goes out of his way to execute criminals, except he starts taking it too far to the point were he tries to kill a hooker just for being one.
He is stoped before he kills her and just as he is being sentenced they bring back the death sentence.
And when is his turn to get executed he cries and begs and shouts about "THE GOVERNOR IS GONNA CALL I KNOW IT", in the most undignified way possible.
TLDR, yeah maybe being a bloodseeking maniac aint a good thing, hot take I know
Not really I mean if we keep normalizing "yeah lets just shoot "the bad guys" no questions asked" we are gonna end up in this type of situation.
Were the definition of "the bad guy" gets murky and now the person doing the vigilante justice becomes "the bad guy" while asking to being heard out unlike it was done to the previous victims.
I am saying maybe we should ask questions first and shoot later.
Download Video
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
"If you kill me, you'll be just like me" villains when they see that I had already slaughtered all of their henchmen
https://preview.redd.it/5m5f9s310r8g1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7714e4425d02c9de52739e4faaf9d5ab11b3a54c
HE DID WHAT NOW
Genocide (Chara made him do it)
Ohhh okay. Just following orders. Not his fault.
We’re normal men. We’re just innocent men
Average Nazi war criminal defense
did pacman show really go that hard?
The ping pong episode was so peak
Me!?
https://preview.redd.it/pdimxdkwcr8g1.jpeg?width=398&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2f24421ee798d76feedff231a9182aa9001cacb1
https://preview.redd.it/wqs9eqfwpr8g1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8bd267250350c4918758527ce595dead240e8add
https://preview.redd.it/9ijcoo2slr8g1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7b3d93fcbab276df46fa2c46cd51df940ce629be
YES YOU
You want Von Lycaon to do what?
Reread the flair if you're confused
https://i.redd.it/8owrsvsy3t8g1.gif
You do know what you want.
https://preview.redd.it/5jtgmnv9ks8g1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6be44fc0d3a37e1741a5ae6ad31198684282b5a
Who's the artist for this
He's the owner of Frozen Mom's Yogurt Company
This description jumps from 0 to 100 to 0 real quick
Just like most of this show tbh
Free the yellow ones
The Pacinator did snowgrave
"You'll be just as ba-" they've been trying to make my life impossible for the past 10 years and you want me to spare this mf?
Ezio forgiving Rodrigo Borgia after 15+ years of killing templars 💀
You can just torment the mf. Why get rid of em when you can make them miserable for as long as you want? Death is mercy, and mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. So logically, by maximizing the cruelty to the guilty, we are in turn maximizing the mercy to the innocent.
"In fact, im probably worse"
The one time it ever made sense to accept this logic is Call of Duty Black Ops II. There we have the choice to kill the big bad and take revenge for the horrible shit he’s done or take him to prison.
Killing the big bad and perpetuating the cycle of revenge just makes the dude a martyr and inspires his followers to just burn everything down. Which doesn’t happen if you leave him to rot in prison.
No, they’re just sleeping.
If you kill a killer, the amount of murderers in the world stays the same.
Thats why you need to do at least 5 at a time.
https://preview.redd.it/woqp2gmvbr8g1.jpeg?width=736&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a8d7907f5295016e73a56b3fcd141e8e01bcff7a
https://preview.redd.it/mdscbflpjr8g1.jpeg?width=1096&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9cfaace34788702afb27db4947dbefe311da0a72
So in conclusion- digging two graves is a bad idea as it creates a grave surplus thus depriving a revenge-quest person from having to dig a grave for the person they a seeking to take revenge on, thus depriving them from the chance to work through their feelings and find a healthy(ier) outlet via manual labour?
But what if one needs to dig two graves to work through their feelings for one grave is not enough cardio?
What if you just dig one big the size of 2 instead of separate ones
This goober had the business model all figured out
https://preview.redd.it/11n81b6vlr8g1.jpeg?width=743&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=695c1fff0619d9ab9c543e089811c5cc94e0e44f
the truth is the guy who made that proverb should have said 'Before you embark on revenge, dig x+1 graves, where x is equal to the number of people you want vengeance on', but I guess that sounds less catchy
Kill two
https://preview.redd.it/99pig4p1dr8g1.jpeg?width=1266&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b3a72ad41fe1340c9a5ce090a22e7bd280d30f99
HOLY SHIT
HE'S RIGHT
Distant Stains of Time
MFW a former Liberian child soldier who ruthlessly kills everyone in his path will also ruthlessly kill me:
Death note:endgame
https://preview.redd.it/qhal9ydqcr8g1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=101981b55df55a390ec30bbe452eeac5348d5f57
Kill all killers and then yourself so that there is 0 killers
Jax pfp
https://preview.redd.it/ze0p5tudcr8g1.jpeg?width=736&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=86b9f1981376a54ef56c1c71df78750f4bc99af4
https://preview.redd.it/6nvg13zktr8g1.jpeg?width=877&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d75d241b8a25cb36be791d460543a1cf2f971efb
What?
*bonk*
"If you kill me, you'll be just like me"
Aight, bet
"Your rides over, mutie'
Time to die.
https://preview.redd.it/45epvm0b5s8g1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39d3a7463d8c5685e92b9b83457e9c429f0aa227
God Bless the Enclave
This is from fallout 2 or from 1? i never knew
Fallout 2. It's the opening cinematic iirc
Thanks!
I like how almost all the replies to this immediately recognise this gif XD
Reminds me of Tales from the Borderlands. (Spoilers if you wanna play it.) The guy who raised one of the MCs gets the briefcase full of cash they're after in Chapter 1, and says something along the lines of how he's got the cash, doesnt need us anymore and how I won't shoot him for some reason while the game gives me the option to; I don't remember, I was busy shooting him before he could even finish saying "shoot."
In the universe of borderlands (my fucking favourite game ever) where almost everyone is a little bit crazy and doesn't mind murdering people. It seems a bit dumb to not think that the person you raised isn't gonna shoot you dead after saying you don't need them while holding a bunch of money... Then again a lot of people in the borderlands universe are kinda stupid
The most common last words in Borderlands tend to be “what are you gonna do, shoot me?”
and then you’ve got one of my favorite side quests ever: “SHOOT ME IN THE FAAAAAAACE!!!”
To be fair, his last words are "Thank you"
I don't know if the New U stations are canon but at least the vault hunters seem to be immortal in Borderlands so dying isn't that big of a deal in that universe
The New U stations are an odd thing in lore because they are cannon but for gameplay and stuff, they don't allow bosses to use them cause you could never beat them. But I think they are canon for some people in the borderlands games but it just takes them awhile to be recreation at one of the stations, but that is just my opinion on them.
The New-U stations are non-canon according to the main writer, who expressed regret at giving them funny dialogue because people started thinking they are canon. They‘re not.
BL3 even has a line pointing out they‘re non-canon.
Though it did give us one of the funniest quests from Handsome Jack
It is a fun sidequest, which also contributed to people thinking it‘s canon.
It has the same issue as the Vita-Chambers in Bioshock, because they super weird with writing (and Bioshock makes them canon for some reason???)
Also me shooting handsome Jack at the end of 2, the second the shield around him comes down after killing the warrior
Me patiently waiting for Handsome Jack to stop yapping so I can shoot him in the f*cking face:
He was actually taking the heat off of you
"If you kill me" say no more
“Now, I know that sounds bad-“
I’m gonna be lowkey honest
I tend to judge and decide
If they done really bad shit I either kill them or if they’re just a normal guy doing normal crimes I let them go
I’m a man that either goes down the none lethal route or I let them live for another day
Tbh it depends in rpgs how bad of a person they are and if I'm fucking sick of them
^
me too, pending on the loot. I was totally looking forward to ice Castillo in Far Cry 6 cause I wanted that gilded 1911 he was swinging around, but alas...
As if that could be enough to make you as bad as the villain (it's not, not by a lot)
Yeah tbh same man I'm cool with a mate who was "accused" of 1 murder he's alright. But another friend has been "allegedly" involved in 3 and it's starting to feel strange being around them at times.
"Mate" mods, dump this guy's tea
NO
https://i.redd.it/qpu2h534kr8g1.gif
Based mod, tea is a peak beverage
I love tea, mothafuckaaa’
https://i.redd.it/d4yk165v3s8g1.gif
Got any good recommendations?
British. Admins, dump this guy's tea.
could be australian
You see, hero. Killing me would be as bad as me destroying those 10 cities so really, you would become as evil as me
"If you kill me you're just like me"
Me when the villain is making salient points and has a sound argument against the status quo but also recreationally strangles kittens so we don't feel bad killing him.
Media propagandizes us even if it's unintentional, since they regurgitate and repackage the morality of the status quo? Tell me it ain't so
"I kicked a puppy" -Joker, probably
https://preview.redd.it/2uyxsltrwt8g1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=41961b45685fa3976a4b1821057345a60fb712a4
DO YOU FEEL LIKE A HERO YET?
“I’m here because you can’t accept what you’ve done, it broke you”
"I'm not here to be a hero, I'm here to make you kneel before your sins when my judgment comes upon you. You will become your worst nightmare before your own eyes, don't be afraid of my morals, be afraid of being mortal"
I wish I could erase that game from my memory, so I could play it for the first time again
When the trillion dollar company tells you that fighting back against abuse is immoral
This is why I don't like invincible
I kinda fw Invincible, but there’s also times where he’s just way too soft. I completely understand that he’s a hero so killing isn’t really a good choice for him to make. But damn, there are times where he really just needs to. Tbf though, there’s also anti-hero characters that exist. Anti-hero characters are like the gray area in between hero and villain, so characters like Deadpool, Spawn, and Punisher. They do good by also doing bad.
“If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remains the same.”
Not if I kill hundreds of killers at once.
https://i.redd.it/5te2gsbw5r8g1.gif
https://preview.redd.it/5lqz79hycr8g1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9fd1ec8b49befa1e3120ec9946c79e3408800a2a
Sineater time
When some heinous piece of shit who has killed thousands drops this dumbass line...
Always appreciated how lackadaisical Saitama was presented about just obliterating evil assholes.
Like killing them doesn't mean you HAVE to go on to kill everyone left and right, you can draw the line wherever you feel like... I think unhinged assholes like the Joker are ok to kill sometimes ya know?
Right? I’ve always thought this line is so dumb when it’s coming from some mass murderer. If you have killed many before and plan to kill again then me killing you is really just saving lives. It’s not like now that I’ve killed one person I’m going to get the sudden urge to keep doing it again and again.
It really only works when either the character isn’t really that bad or your character has a story reason to not kill aside from just the obvious moral issue of “I don’t want to kill someone”. If the main bad guy is just kind of an asshole then yes, killing him certainly makes you the evil one. Or if you’re Superman and your entire ideology and image relies on being a beacon of hope and humanity, you killing someone is a huge deal. Otherwise?… honestly just get to blasting
My take is someone whose reluctant to harm others hasn't sunk to the level of a kill happy manic, that it's when someone stops giving a dam about the lives and rights of other people(regardless of its people in general or say for example a ethnic group) that they sink so low.
"You'll be just like me-"
"So, somehow you're more infinitely important than the innocent lives you've taken? Whatever you say, narcissist."
https://preview.redd.it/0xn0wtc73w8g1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=29a5fee837472032576e5c1cc519f37f6fc35475
This "argument" or whatever has always been stupid and I genuinely wonder who came up with this phrase. You're really telling me if I killed someone who commit genocide in order to stop further genocide, I'd be just as bad as them? Okay buddy.
Yeah, and why is it always "kill or spare"? Why can't I pick torture? Why can't I pick mind rewrite? Why can't I pick enslave? Why can't I pick 'beat him till he starts begging me to stop'? Why is it ALWAYS those two choices? Can no one seriously think of anything else? Why is it only those two? Why?
There is no way I could POSSIBLY be worse then them. Under any law, any court, any government and under any civilized community.
Yeah I dunno why games and shit only give you those two options, there are way worse things you could do to someone than kill them
Plot twist: it's not a metaphor. The villain is possessed by the Do Evil Shit Spirit which will now take you as a host.
MIITOPIA MY GOAT
I could still kill the mf and then myself, its not like i killed all his goons anyway
in watch dogs, icut maurice mid sentence while he was yappping about how itd make me feel better to kill him
https://preview.redd.it/auv7cu5jir8g1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=d78fb68a974bf8afd019bbc9bb7e0fb018e428f1
" If you kill me you will be just like me " is just a blatant lie , designed to conceal the fact that someone is begging for mercy. " Lmao no , I won't " would be my answer
"No I won't. For one thing, I'll be alive"
"Whatever. Joshua, put a cap on General Gobbledigook here."
Now someone gets it.
Gods most complicated moral dilemma buckling under the sheer weight of my purest “nuh uh”.
https://preview.redd.it/ge3iyi7m0s8g1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=7ec696bdd7c66a3692e234c2d9b6e285b05dfa68
type shit
I fucking hate The Last of Us Part 2 for not being allowed to kill her
I have seen some fans say that the plot isn't just "revenge bad" and honestly i have no idea of how it isn't.
If it was "revenge bad " story they would have made Abby a Saint. They would have shown her reasoning before she kills him and also they wouldn't show any of her wrongs (the boat scene in Abby's flashback)
TLOU2 will always remain a hell of a headscratcher for me. Like, if you wanted to go "Revenge bad" route... Dishonored had this figured out a decade and a half ago. Most games since then just fumble it, badly
Hell, in Dishonored you can still just kill everyone (even if in most cases "mercy" route is actually fucking worse than death) in the BBEG club and get a good ending. Just dont kill henchmen
Honestly, I can't think of anything the Dishonored series did that wasn't a giant W. Incredible powers, incredible story, massive attention to detail, insane replayability, and the best new game + system I've ever encountered in a video game.
I enjoyed Dishonored but its hard to argue that you arent trying to keep enemies safe from yourself in non-lethal runs. You are insanely capable of wiping out entire platoons of folks if you wanted, even in pacifist routes.
Kingdom come 2 did it well, you can absolutely revenge kill everyone the game lets you and still get good the good ending as long as choose the speech options about your character feeling remorse at the actions they felt they had to take.
Whether or not you went for revenge doesn’t matter, it’s if your character expresses an obsession with it through your speech options that gets you the “bad” ending.
I already hated the first part for being forced to save ellie, but that's a hot take I guess
I mean that part I get, like lets be honest Joel wouldve never let anything happen to her, but they couldve done a lot more storywise in the second game. Still liked it overall tho
I know it’s been repeated so much, but the problem with TLOU2 is that it’s just weird that Ellie wouldn’t kill Abby after spending the whole game killing other people in brutal ways while they scream for their lives
yeah right?I just spent the last 4 hours slaughtering the shit out of anyone i came across pulling tricks on 'em and this is where you develop morals?
because TLOU isn't an RPG, you're playing as established characters who have their own desires and goals. You aren't supposed to have any agency over the outcome of the plot.
Yeah and thier desires and goals are fucking stupid. Goated writing tho, its totally not lazy to make 3 huge timeskips, kill off all side characters through stupid means and make a "revenge bad" story especially when its never justified as to why ellie would ever let her go for any reason at all...
Never thought too much about it, but this is a huge part of why the game caught so much heat. The characters are supposed to act against the player's wishes, and that's the point.
I personally would’ve given up killing Abby too by the end of the game
By the time I got to the end it was just "Man, this shit ain't even worth it anymore.". It wasn't even a case of being the better person, it was just exhausting by then
i think the game has an almost perfect story right until that moment. for some reason they take a game about revenge and how the apocalypse affects people, where ellie brutally kills dozens of people and try and force some message about forgiveness at the end. i mean it makes no sense and i feel like they were running out of time to proofread the script at that point.
MGR did this perfectly. Armstrong was like “my philosophy is that whoever wins the fight is actually the person with the correct opinion. By defeating me through violence, you’ll be proving my ideology right.”
And then Raiden was like “sounds cool I’m in”.
Killing Armstrong makes you similar to him, but ultimately the protagonist accepts that.
“Killing me won’t bring your family back!”
“No, but you won’t be taking away others’ anymore.”
https://preview.redd.it/5nwx1ccyur8g1.jpeg?width=1242&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d2c280f9b9bd2e156be2840d555cddc2d272d183
https://preview.redd.it/7na5cxorar8g1.jpeg?width=608&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9c8be14f4e23301e982198fa8fa6b140a26a9ef5
Oneshot spoilers I mean Oneshot kinda fits this? You’re killing an entire world or trapping one child in a glass dome forever. But that world technically didn’t really have any real people in it. At the end of the day though Niko did want to save them so I feel that was the best choice
Holy shit I feel like a lovecraftian character encountering something eldritch.
I think the way you prevent the "kill 500000 mooks in a revenge plot and spare the Big Bad" problem is to either make the villain sympathetic or find a nonlethal means of punishing and disposing of the villain. Otherwise the audience feels kinda cheated if they went into the story expecting John Wick and getting a hamfisted morality tale
(yapping ahead) Like how in Limbus Company, there's a chapter inspired by the book Moby Dick (the entire book is just a massive revenge plot), in which Ishmael was so obsessed with getting revenge on captain Ahab (for sending the entire crew on a suicide mission to hunt the Pallid Whale, the game's Moby Dick, resulting in the crew except Ishmael being swallowed whole by it) to the point it was the only thing she (the game's Ishmael) could think about all the time, and that she'd throw her life away just to kill the captain (just like how Ahab is willing to risk her (the game's Ahab) and her crewmates' life to kill the whale). As you progress through the chapter, Ishmael slowly realised that her obsession for vengeance was consuming her whole, and that by letting Ahab take control of her life (Ahab in this game is extremely manipulative, she alone fueled her entire crew's hatred for the whale, and Ishmael's own obsession was a result of that), she'd become no different from Ahab (meaning if she killed the whale after killing her captain, Ahab would ultimately achieve the goal of killing the whale, either by her own hands or someone else under her guidance) and there'd be nothing left to live for in her (Ishmael) life, because she has fulfilled the ultimate goal that she has set. Instead, Ishmael chose to spare Ahab and pierced the whale's heart right before her captain's eyes (basically, she now wants to be free of Ahab's influence over her life, taking the first step by no longer following her obsession), stealing the kill as a result. Because to Ahab, killing the whale was even more important than her own life (she'd be willing to let Ishmael kill her as long as Ishmael helps her kill the whale) so witnessing that pretty much sent her into a mental breakdown
Me when I'm in Phantom Pain because of a Metal Gear (it's really Solid)
But you kill a killer, you save countless lives. You keep them alive and you're endangering more lives you wish to protect
First of all no, killing one person isn't equal to killing thousands.
And second of all, if I let you live, you'll hurt even more people. Even if I prove you right, the lives and wellbeings of multiple individuals are far more important than losing an ideological argument against a dead man.
Genuine question OP, what games are like this with this option?
Red Dead Strawman 4
Rise of the Tomb Raider gives you the option to kill the final boss when you defeat him ( though he doesn't pull the "if you kill me" card ), but instead of walking up to him for the prompt you can instead walk away where the building just collapses in on him ( which I found out accidentally before having a good laugh )
There's a new vagas DLC where the "good" dialog options are convincing someone not to kill a genocidal maniac.
You mean Joshua?
I mean, the DLC pretty clearly describes him like a recovering addict as far as violence is concerned.
The issue with letting him kill Salt-Upon-Wounds after he surrenders is not the fighting back part, the game endorses that bit, hence why the best ending is the one where you drive off the Raiders but don't go overboard.
The problem with Joshua is more that you're letting him relapse, and his addiction is genocide.
To be fair, you are convincing a reformed genocidal maniac to not slip back into his ways by executing a different genocidal maniac who’s plans for genocide have already been stopped.
I always felt like that dlc isn’t advocating for you to be non-violent, it’s advocating for measured violence and knowing when to stop.
Undertale, I didn't even know there was another ending since flowey wasn't there to tell me
Undertale isn't like this, because Flowey never goes "you'll be just as bad as me if you kill me".
In fact he goes the complete opposite route of "kill me or you have no balls".
Errr, slight difference tho
You become like Flowey after having played the pacifist run and playing the geno run to see all of that world has to offer, even if it involve killing everyone you saved and loved, even if it implies losing yourself cause you were able to try, cause you thought you were above consequence.
In neutral the point of not killing Flowey is to prove that his philosophy "it's kill or be killed" is wrong. To prove to the child murdered cause he didn't fight back against an afraid/hateful village that killing, causing harm is not the only, nor the best way to defend yourself.
I also killed the seahorse guy
This you ?
https://preview.redd.it/cme5oiddkr8g1.jpeg?width=1013&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5812f46aef46b3541141458f45590381ac73425c
I did always think that was a major design flaw
Modern warfare 2019 has a bit like this in the story mode granted the bad guy doesn't outright says "you'd be just like me" but it does give you the option to kill or let him be taken by the police
We have Black Ops 2 RIGHT HERE.
That shit was a diabolical move by the developers. You literally see this dude kill a woman’s husband and child right in front of her and you expect me to not give him some .357?
Dispatch. You get the option to strangle the monster who killed your father (and tried to kill your friends 20 times), and the game thankfully doesn't pretend like you became Darth Vader after doing that.
https://preview.redd.it/aqbr7tte7r8g1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0a5f47788bb205463ed90d3efcc5445362a99e98
Ellie tf2
ellie the fortress of us 2
Got stuck on the ocean QTE for ten minutes before I realized I'm supposed to absolve Abby of her sins. Turned the game from a 10/10 to a 5/10 because of the loss of player agency tbh
Spoilers for 'Dispatch' play it yourself.
My friends who said "Heroes dont kill, ill let shroud live" were shocked how fast i pressed kill, its ridicilous to imagine robert would let a guy who killed 2 generations leave alive. I belive in redemption until blood is spilled intentionally, then no way back for you.
My brother in Christ the game is specifically about redeeming ex villains. Coupe,punch up and malevola have all committed second degree murder. Invisigal and flambe have both attempted murder. Sonar eats people if you fire him (unless he's just pretending to intimidate you but even then he's definitely killed people)
The game is entirely about redeeming these people. How are you supposed to be redeemed if you have committed any crimes bad enough to need to be redeemed?
Even then the fact that some, perhaps even most villains are redeemable through time and effort like Dispatch shows doesn't mean everyone is. Red Dead Redemption 2 is also a game about redemption; doesn't mean Micah is redeemable. In Telltale's The Walking Dead Lee is a convicted murderer who gets a second chance at life; doesn't mean the St. Johns are redeemable.
I'm not saying that everyone can be redeemed, I'm just saying that's it's ironic to say that once someone intentionally takes a life they are impossible to redeem when half of the main cast that gets redeemed are murderers.
Yea, that is fair. Coupe in particular was a career hitwoman.
It's not about morals anymore spiderman, its about revenge.
Heroes are like the #1 source of mercy and never killing anyone, so it's not like your friends are delusional for letting Shroud be captured instead of murdering him.
It's fine if you wouldn't do that, but Heroes have always been held (and hold themselves) to a higher moral standard, and your friends simply roleplayed as that, I'd say.
I'm not sure where you got that "redemption" part. Not killing and showing mercy isn't the same as redeeming, or forgiving, or forgetting.
Also he says 'please' before the option to kill appears which makes me want to kill him more. As well as him having a 'All according to plan' expression if you spare him. He deserves to die. He escaped prison once already.
Played it over the weekend and felt the same kind of way. Shroud is just one of those guys where letting him live is dooming more people to die. Kind of like Batman not permanently finishing off the Joker. You can allow yourself to take that high ground and pretend to be a better person for it, but how many more people do they have to kill before you get off that high horse?
I left him alive for the sake of going for a completely "good" ending, but I definitely won't ever go that route again, nor did I think it was the "right" thing to do.
Terrific fucking game, though.
I can say that i went and said id kill him and killed him while romancing mandy. There wasnt a thing as a bad ending in anything but the ending name being more neutral than bad or good. I think only thing i did bad was telling mandy it felt good to kill him. She was kinda put off but didint mind (Thats why shes the goat). Tho i meant it more like im relieved he isnt just able to break out and kill randoms again.
Not gonna lie, I was fully intending to go all in on the "everyone deserves a second chance" mantra, but then he threatened Beef too and I didn't even think when I pulled the trigger
I thought the idea of him living was a greater punishment.
That "what the fuck, robert" line is gold and now he's gonna have to live through his life without his dumb ass prediction app, experiencing the need to make his own choices like that every day. I find the idea of him fucking up every decision he has to make from now on to be hilarious. The dude crumbles under actual pressure.
"Can't we wait until we get home" guy makes smarter decisions than him
Here's a based MC
https://preview.redd.it/atjdjw99ar8g1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ef00d173ec1f6fc327363427bf2364643d8ce4c
After all, we are just a human aren't we?
Enjoy getting the bad ending regardless of what else you did the entire game.
“If you kill a killer, the number of killers in the world remains the same” mfs when I kill multiple killers:
https://preview.redd.it/vr1d32owdt8g1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=261913b5081f0536965e12b442e1a2a0df31d55c
Reminds me of THOSE media when the antagonist gets defeated, almost gets killed and then the mc comes in and says "But if you kill them, you'll be just as bad as them...!"
Another personality added to my collection
These takes in games are always stupid. No, pretty sure you and your goons were just trying to do something quiet terrible comparatively.
Most thinking like this is just genuinely lazy
Mfers expecting me not to choke the life out of Shroud at the end of Dispatch. "Everyone will remember that" yeah they fucking better
I'm so glad Ghost of Yotei didn't go that route
It's such a stupid fucking "moral dilemma". Like what, I either let them live and go on to commit more atrocities, or I kill them and be done with it? There's an objectively correct answer here.
Typa' shit i did with Darko in GTA 4.
Yes, of course i killed random punks for small change. but at least that shit got me somewhere other than overdosing on dope and regrets.
plus, the execution cutscene goes hard.
Okay I am starting to feel you people are getting too bloodthirsty.
I am seeing WAAAY too many of this type of posts
It just reminds me of this Tales from the Crypt episode were a death row executioner gets fired because they passed a law banning the death sentence, so he then goes out of his way to execute criminals, except he starts taking it too far to the point were he tries to kill a hooker just for being one.
He is stoped before he kills her and just as he is being sentenced they bring back the death sentence.
And when is his turn to get executed he cries and begs and shouts about "THE GOVERNOR IS GONNA CALL I KNOW IT", in the most undignified way possible.
TLDR, yeah maybe being a bloodseeking maniac aint a good thing, hot take I know
sounds like skill issue of him being crazy in the end then.
To be fair I meant videogame villains, irl i believe execution is a last resort when judgement and incarceration is impossible.
Also the prision system needs heavy retooling so it can become a place of actual reformation and reintegration into society.
Becauae as it is, is anything but.
I feel this is two different situations ngl
Not really I mean if we keep normalizing "yeah lets just shoot "the bad guys" no questions asked" we are gonna end up in this type of situation.
Were the definition of "the bad guy" gets murky and now the person doing the vigilante justice becomes "the bad guy" while asking to being heard out unlike it was done to the previous victims.
I am saying maybe we should ask questions first and shoot later.
It didn't stop shitty writing in the meantime.
The only game that did it right was KCD2 the best game this year