[ ][DRAMA] Your people are right. You were only ever kidding yourself. Violence is the only answer to violence. You've been...such...an idiot...
[ ][DRAMA] You're right. Nobody has to die. You'll make it so if that's not the case. That's always been your way; you hope for better. You won't stop now!
To me these choices are basically the same. They are both super extreme ideologies that ignore reality. Violence with no option for diplomacy is just as bad as diplomacy without violence to back it up. A balanced person can accept the necessity of both of these.
I am all for using diplomacy whenever we can, but being punished for not using it, even when it's the worst option? That is absurd. Having a villain like Freiza at our mercy and refusing to kill him because "no one should have to die?" That's even more absurd.
I mean look at the previous situation, with the alien attacking our soldier. Ignoring the likelihood of plan success, because that is largely a function of these traits to begin with, we were in the perfect position to ambush him and end the fight quickly. We were planning to go non-lethal and talk to him afterword. But because violence wasn't used as literally the last option, we were punished. The pacifist option would have forced us to give up our advantageous position and attempt diplomacy on unfavorable terms, ie. in the open, having alerted him to our presence, on a time limit and having to convince him to talk with a child.
Maybe this would have worked under the current system, but its such a ridiculous choice, I would never even think of choosing it.
What I want, and what I'm holding out for is a more nuanced character. A person with well-thought out beliefs. Someone who wants peace, works toward peace, is willing to negotiate, yet realizes that sometimes violence best choice. Not as a last resort, but as a matter of practicality. If a pre-emptive strike can save more lives in the long run we should do it, rather than being forced, whether by ideology or gameplay mechanics, to take diplomacy if it is the sub-par choice.
I mean seriously, in the previous situation, Kakara was so anti-violence that she didn't even consider the possibility that catching up to the invading scouts might lead to a fight. There is something wrong with a character who has such a massive blind spot.
And as previously explained, violence
is an option,
if absolutely required.
And yes, a balanced person can accept the necessity of both. A balanced person can
also summarily reject that doing so is "right" and seek otherwise unless there's no other option. Plenty of people do so in real life. There's been people who go further, and be absolute pacifists and achieved success.
And I look at the previous situation, and see it very differently. An alien, used to operating alone in enemy territory, has been discovered by a hostile force, yet despite being nearly twice as strong and highly skilled in combat, has not defeated the enemy, on account of holding back:
Cabba has been..."fighting," yes. The alien, from what you can see, is toying with him.
Instead trying to reason with this person,
after powering up to over 3 times what this alien has demonstrated to server simultaneously as a warning, an indication they shouldn't discount us simply by being a child and insurance for treachery. We then negotiate with the alien and its, who was part of a scouting force that was looking for a new home and was desperate enough to come to the ass end of the galaxy that is Garenhuld II. We don't want to go through the whole invasion nonsense, and
they don't want to deal with a civilization that could very well end up.
The problem with your thinking, as I see it, is two fold:
1) That we're in a "scarcity situation" where every advantage must be obtained in some sort of "optimal manner" with regards to such things, ignoring the fact that we're in a "post-scarcity situation", where we can literally afford such things without issue.
2) Said above thinking ignores that the "optimal solution" differs from person to person, depending on their skills and personality, and for someone like Kakara, non-combat
is optimal.
People have done this sort of thing IRL and achieved success. They didn't always
survive said success, but Kakara is
far more durable in that regard, to the point it's a non-issue for anything we can reasonably expect within the next several turns at minimum.
And your bias is
definitely showing, when you equate "a more nuanced character" and "well-thought out beliefs" with "yet realizes that sometimes violence best choice. Not as a last resort, but as a matter of practicality." And besides the question of
why you would want to take such a path, personally I find it much less interesting and fun, there's also the fact that you can't tell when a situation would be "better" if we take the violent approach, and from personal experience and studying, I'm of the opinion it's a lot less then people tend to think.
Of course, we
are a Seer, so we technically can tell, but do you know what it also allows us to do? Find the optimal,
non-violent solution.
I think this right here is one of the reasons this thread is getting so divided.
Just because people picked the gentle character over the blood-knight character does not mean everyone wanted to be absolutely anti-violence.
And just because she started as gentle, does not mean she can't become something else.
This is why we are having the current discussion. People clearly have different, and more complicated ideas of what this character should be besides "pure violence" and "pure non-violence."
Acting like the argument was somehow decided with the first vote of the quest and should never come into question is doing a disservice to the quest and the players. And acting like anyone who disagrees with your exact idea of what the character, or the quest, should be need to leave the quest is just rude and makes the discussion more hostile.
Basically I choose neither of the black and white morality choices presented here. I choose to hold out for better, more realistic, options. And if those never come, I would rather remain wishy-washy and irresolute, than doubling down on an extremist path, whether for violence or pacifism.
True, the first vote didn't decide it: that was the threads choice to upgrade Pacifism. And all the times we've chosen to follow such a path.
Kakara is
not "absolutely anti-violence". She is violence
only as a last resort/if absolutely necessary. So I genuinely do not get why people have a problem.
"And acting like anyone who disagrees with your exact idea of what the character, or the quest, should be need to leave the quest is just rude and makes the discussion more hostile." This is an interesting line, because that's not what I'm saying. I'm asking why people who object to/can't engage with a major part of the character and the quest are participating in said quest.
However, that line has a
thread of truth, in that person who disagrees with the direction the quest has gone probably
should remove themselves, partially or completely, from the quest. This is not rudeness, in my mind, but common courtesy: to continue to do so, especially if you continue to argue about your opinion, is toxic to discussion and makes it more hostile. This is something I hold even more firmly when dealing with quests and characters outside of the norm, of which a pacifist quest definitely counts as. It being a DBZ quest only increases the uniqueness.
This is something I apply to
myself, before you go accusing me of a double-standard.
And yes, if Kakara backs down from the pacifist path, I will likely be leaving the quest.
Anyway, I will admit that I have not been here since the beginning. If I had, I would have surely argued against the pacifism route but I doubt that would have won out in the end at any rate.
That being the case, what exactly are people's views of pacifism here?
Son Goku himself was a pacifist of sorts, since he tended to avoid deadly violence if not actual normal violence by way of example.
Are we, as the playerbase, trying to avoid deadly violence? Simple violence? Or just physical conflict altogether? Because, depending on which one people choose, it's completely possible to LOVE doing harm, or even straight up killing, and yet prefer to settle things in a peaceful way when at all possible.
And that's the thing; I don't mind pacifism but I WANT for Kakara to enjoy fighting her opponents when she has to.
Yeah, that's pretty much never going to be on the cards. Completely contradictory to her character. Sorry. :\
Personally, I'm aiming for "no violence, either" but with the acknowledgement that's near-impossible, and so am okay with "violence as a last resort".
And Goku was
not a pacifist. Something that PoptartProdigy has outright stated in-thread, so he is not an example to use for development.
