Remove ads

Cliches you can't stand

Reveen said:
Then they ain't fuckin' ninjas now are they?



Yeah, but, y'know. They're not meditative monks who can kill a bull with one punch and shit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fine. No ninjas. . . just spies who assume the role of someone or something else so they can strike out at you at the last moment.
 
The whole idea that murder is wrong in absolutely every situation.

Say you are a plucky go lucky hero trying to save the world, and you're fighting this dude who really wants to fuck it hard. I mean Fleece Johnson on some nice booty fucking hard.

It won't be the same, a lot of people are going to die painfully, and suddenly morality kicks in when you have been doing nothing but murdering people up until that point in self defense (well, sort of).

However, guess what?

You can get away with not killing him. Just subject him to a fate worse than death.

There you go your hands are clean except not because you are still a murderer, and instead of giving the bad guy a quick death you've made his life the pits.

So, now you're a hypocrite and worse than a murderer. You're a sadomasochistic maniac.

Just because the writer wanted to force some morals down people's throat at the last moment.
 
Brock Lesnar said:
The whole idea that murder is wrong in absolutely every situation.

Say you are a plucky go lucky hero trying to save the world, and you're fighting this dude who really wants to fuck it hard. I mean Fleece Johnson on some nice booty fucking hard.

It won't be the same, a lot of people are going to die painfully, and suddenly morality kicks in when you have been doing nothing but murdering people up until that point in self defense (well, sort of).

However, guess what?

You can get away with not killing him. Just subject him to a fate worse than death.

There you go your hands are clean except not because you are still a murderer, and instead of giving the bad guy a quick death you've made his life the pits.

So, now you're a hypocrite and worse than a murderer. You're a sadomasochistic maniac.

Just because the writer wanted to force some morals down people's throat at the last moment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...Can you please name an example of a story where this happened?
 
Fernandel said:
...Can you please name an example of a story where this happened?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A lot of them actually.

New 52 Superman in particular. In the Return to Krypton storyline after what he did to H'el.

The person in question was trying to destroy the universe.

"NO, WE CAN'T KILL HIM IT'S WRONG!"

Is what he does when Jor El almost finishes the job. The act of doing so leaving H'el horribly mutilated (the skin is ripped away from his body, and he looks like something out of a horror story) instead of giving him a quick death.

Doesn't stop there.

Superman proceeds to beat him up, and trap him in a time-loop where he is repeatedly destroyed for all of eternity.
 
Actually, no wait.

Just looked at the issue again.

H'el didn't even know he was destroying the universe. It was just a side-effect of his time travel gone wrong that he wasn't aware of.

So, it's even worse.

The bad guy did not know what he was even doing to the universe with his time-travel, and was trying to save Krypton. Albeit in his own twisted way.
 
Both the "Heroes never kill!" And the "No they totally should!" Are equally obnoxious and should go hate fuck each others brains out and leave the rest of us alone.

One needs to recognize that there are situations where a nonlethal solution isn't possible and/or is an unreasonable standard depending on the situation.

The other needs to realize that there actually is moral weight to killing another person regardless of how justified it is and a laissez-faire attitude to it is pretty fucked up. Soldiers get PTSD for a reason.
 
Reveen said:
Both the "Heroes never kill!" And the "No they totally should!" Are equally obnoxious and should go hate fuck each others brains out and leave the rest of us alone.

One needs to recognize that there are situations where a nonlethal solution isn't possible and/or is an unreasonable standard depending on the situation.

The other needs to realize that there actually is moral weight to killing another person regardless of how justified it is and a laissez-faire attitude to it is pretty fucked up. Soldiers get PTSD for a reason.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Trigun balanced it out the best I think between the two. Vash the Stampede is the pacifist done correctly.
 
Fernandel said:
Haha, oh yeah.

I would like it if Atheists in fantasy settings acknowledged the existence of "Gods" as powerful beings, but rejected them being actually divine in nature and deserving of respect.

I mean, I think that's what my reaction would be.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, but that's the sort of attitude that gets you turned into a little girl and thrown into World War One.
 
Janus said:
T Don't forget you've also omitted the Templars, who were basically martial artists and Medieval bankers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yah knights could kill you unarmed or armed with multiple different weapons but if we are going for church orders might as bring up the Knights of St. John who were not just monks and knights were also doctors and had their own navy which was a massive thorn in the Ottoman empire's side and were the only thing that had been keeping the barbary pirates in check so when napoleon removed them from the picture by kicking them off malta the Barbary pirates ran wild.

Or for a bit of odder history there is always the order of St. Lazarus that until the disastrous battle of Giza in 1244 primary consisted of knights who were inflicted with leprosy and only started recruiting knights who weren't lepers after that battle wiped out the entirety of the order's knights.
 
As the "big three" knightly orders of the Crusades you can count the Templars, the Hospitallers (Knights of St John, later Sovereign Military Order of Malta for the Catholic Branch and Order of St John for the Protestant Branch) and the Teutonic Order (meant is: German Order).
 
I have to admit I think the templars are a tad over used.

I mean there were are major orders like the Hospitallers, and the Order of the Holy Sepulchre both of which are still around, the Teutonic order which still exists as purely religious order or some of the more colorful of the smaller military orders like the Knights of St Lazarus or the knights of Santago people could make use of instead of simply the templars always being involved.
 
Well, the smaller orders haven't made much of a impact, and Hospitallers and Teutonic Order still exist (the Hospitallers even in four versions). Templars are convenient in that they were big but are now long dead.
 
Reveen said:
Both the "Heroes never kill!" And the "No they totally should!" Are equally obnoxious and should go hate fuck each others brains out and leave the rest of us alone.

One needs to recognize that there are situations where a nonlethal solution isn't possible and/or is an unreasonable standard depending on the situation.

The other needs to realize that there actually is moral weight to killing another person regardless of how justified it is and a laissez-faire attitude to it is pretty fucked up. Soldiers get PTSD for a reason.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Susano said:
Well, the smaller orders haven't made much of a impact, and Hospitallers and Teutonic Order still exist (the Hospitallers even in four versions). Templars are convenient in that they were big but are now long dead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Kind of like the Shao Lin.
 
Susano said:
Well, the smaller orders haven't made much of a impact, and Hospitallers and Teutonic Order still exist (the Hospitallers even in four versions). Templars are convenient in that they were big but are now long dead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It likely helps as well that their demise was so famous as opposed to some of the smaller orders who while sometimes more colorful would require research to look into.
 
Fernandel said:
Pretty sure people "bathing less" in the EME has been exaggerated, though.

I mean, peasants and soldiers are gonna want a bath after a hard day's work and exercise to wipe off the sweat and dirt no matter what people say about miasma bullshit.

But communal baths were indeed a big thing in ancient times and the Midlle Ages. Especially hot springs.

Nobody ever writes hot springs episodes for medieval stories. :(
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Would Spice and Wolf count? :V (actually I don't know if there is a hot springs chapter in the LNs.)
 
Reveen said:
Both the "Heroes never kill!" And the "No they totally should!" Are equally obnoxious and should go hate fuck each others brains out and leave the rest of us alone.

One needs to recognize that there are situations where a nonlethal solution isn't possible and/or is an unreasonable standard depending on the situation.

The other needs to realize that there actually is moral weight to killing another person regardless of how justified it is and a laissez-faire attitude to it is pretty fucked up. Soldiers get PTSD for a reason.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This is why I think people bitching about a game with non-lethal options not allowing a perfect non-lethal run are making a kind of dumb argument.

On that note 'Choice' systems with narrative but no (or minimal) gameplay consequences. A minimal example would be Bioshock where choosing to spare little sisters nets you less ADAM, until you fill out your frequent savior card and get a plushy full of ADAM in gratitude.

So either way you're going to get the ADAM and probably before the deferred pay-off makes things more difficult for you.

I'm sure that this is meant to provide gameplay balance but the whole point of the moral decision is that it's supposed to be hard or at least inconvenient to take the high road.
 
Last edited:
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top