I'm assuming we're not using the legal definition because that's dumb. Legal jurisdictions don't cover all of fiction.

The discussion has not been tied a single temporal period, assuming that there's a single legal definition is incoherent. If I challenge a man to a duel in 2024 America and kill him then legally I am a murderer, but if I challenge him to a duel and kill him in 1804 then it's not murder. Do you see the problem?
The duel you're suggesting with that reference was, in fact, illegal though that law was frequently not enforced. And Burr was even indicted for murder! I'd have to do more research to know exactly why the NJ supreme court squashed that.
 
Why would you assume the people in this thread aren't using the legal definition? It's pointless to discuss these things if everyone doesn't agree on such fundamental ideas as "what constitutes murder",
The definition doesn't matter here, it's more of a personal opinion than anything else.

If you consider revenge murder, then fine, that's your opinion, not a fact.

I consider killing, in the case of revenge, just killing, not some brand murder crime from a legal document from someplace somewhere in real life. I don't even get the logic for going for that approach, especially if we are talking in the sense of some fantasy world anyway.
 
Last edited:
The definition doesn't matter here, it's more of a personal opinion than anything else.

If you consider revenge murder, then fine, that's your opinion, not a fact.

I consider killing, in the case of revenge, just killing, not some brand murder crime from a legal document from someplace somewhere in real life. I don't even get the logic for going for that approach, especially if we are talking in the sense of some fantasy world anyway.
"My endorsement of revenge killings cannot be described as an endorsement of murder, because I define revenge killings as not murder."
 
Is revenge killing in response to revenge killing still OK? Like, when does revenge stop being justified?
 
Is revenge killing in response to revenge killing still OK? Like, when does revenge stop being justified?
What? No, of course it's not okay! after all, the initial revenge killing was justified, but revenge killing in response to your revenge killing isn't justified because the first guy totally deserved it but you don't, right? This is clearly how it works, and not just the ramblings of someone caught up in their own bullshit who can't comprehend the idea of a cycle of revenge.
 
Basic clarifying questions about your position are not, in any way, 'gotchas'. 'Are killings in revenge for revenge killing justified, if you think revenge killings are justified' is not a gotcha, it's just... 'hey have you given the absolute bare minimum fucking thought to your position'.
 
"My endorsement of revenge killings cannot be described as an endorsement of murder, because I define revenge killings as not murder."
To be clear, this is how arguing in favor of any killing works. The moral category of murder is one that people commonly exclude any number of killings from.

Whether revenge killings can be reasonably argued to not be murder is an open question but the quote you're describing is not inherently unreasonable. "I think this killing is justified therefore it's not murder" is a stance held by almost everyone in one circumstance or another (except for extreme pacifists like Jains who are no doubt a minority of a minority). That doesn't mean that you have to agree with KC, but you need more of an argument then just describing a fairly bog-standard moral position.
 
Last edited:
Is revenge killing in response to revenge killing still OK? Like, when does revenge stop being justified?
Mcfluffles answer your questioned already, though in a sarcastic way.

But I will apply the answer in a more clear way. I can't answer this question because this is a question based on a hypothetical, which would obviously go in a thousand directions.

Is this a loved one who didn't know why it happened? Did the loved one know about it, and decided not to take on a path of revenge for a justified killing? Did the loved one knew about it, and think it was pretty funny to see the victim's family killed? Did the loved one was abused by the murderer and decided to try to kill the victim in retaliation of the revenge killing because they believed in some stupid bullshit belief of "honor thy parents"?

Again, it's difficult to answer this question, because it's based on a hypothetical. Personally, I don't know. But if I was the victim, the answer would be "fuck no."
 
Last edited:
Mcfluffles answer your questioned already, though in a sarcastic way.

But I will apply the answer in a more clear way. I can't answer this question because this is a question based on a hypothetical, which would obviously go in a thousand directions.

Is this a loved one who didn't know why it happened? Did the loved one know about it, and decided not to take on a path of revenge for a justified killing? Did the loved one knew about it, and think it was pretty funny to see the victim's family killed? Did the loved one was abused by the murderer and decided to try to kill the victim in retaliation of the revenge killing because they believed in some stupid bullshit belief of "honor thy parents"?

Again, it's difficult to answer this question, because it's based on a hypothetical. Personally, I don't know. But if I was the victim, the answer would be "fuck no."
Well, one scenario was already brought up: Kill Bill.

Would Nikki, daughter of Vernita Green aka Copperhead, be justified in going after the Bride?

If so, provided Nikki manages to kill the Bride, would BB be justified in going after Nikki, if the Bride never told her about the events of the movies?
 
To be clear, this is how arguing in favor of any killing works. The moral category of murder is one that people commonly exclude any number of killings from.

Whether revenge killings can be reasonably argued to not be murder is an open question but the quote you're describing is not inherently unreasonable. "I think this killing is justified therefore it's not murder" is a stance held by almost everyone in one circumstance or another (except for extreme pacifists like Jains who are no doubt a minority of a minority). That doesn't mean that you have to agree with KC, but you need more of an argument then just describing a fairly bog-standard moral position.
Agreement with KC isn't even in question. Pointing out the absurdity of the multiple oblique "what do you mean I endorse murder" posts in light of their finally-stated justification is.
 
Well, one scenario was already brought up: Kill Bill.

Would Nikki, daughter of Vernita Green aka Copperhead, be justified in going after the Bride?

If so, provided Nikki manages to kill the Bride, would BB be justified in going after Nikki, if the Bride never told her about the events of the movies?
This scenario doesn't match with the questions I have brought up in my response to mandemon, so I can't answer this one.

Agreement with KC isn't even in question. Pointing out the absurdity of the multiple oblique "what do you mean I endorse murder" posts in light of their finally-stated justification is.
Except you didn't point anything out, you just accused of me of supporting murder and mocked me for my reasoning for revenge killing.
 
This scenario doesn't match with the questions I have brought up in my response to mandemon, so I can't answer this one.
I'd think it matches at least this one:
Is this a loved one who didn't know why it happened?
Nikki just witnesses the Bride killing her mother, she has no idea why this woman wants to kill her mom, and the Bride doesn't explain anything. So, would Nikki be justified in getting revenge in response to this revenge killing?

Similarly, if Nikki gets her revenge on the Bride, would BB (the Bride's daughter) be justified in getting revenge on this woman (Nikki) who was really intent on killing her mother (the Bride), if she wasn't aware of why it was happening?
 
Funny of this is that Tarantino was suposed to answer that in a future movie about Kill in which Nikki would try to get revenge, also Gogo(the crazy japanise girl with a chain and ball) was suposed to have a sister who also will have a shot at revenge. but between the fall out of tarantino and Uma it seen it isnt happeing.

Which is hilarious because without it kill bill is pretty much a stright face revenge story "I did bad thing, they did bad thing to me, that is bad, I did bad thing to them and I run into the sunset, totally and morally good". Which....cmon.

Funny thing another movie about revenge is pretty much hatefull eight, which in some ways it about "law justice" which is long, tedious but in theory "Fair" and "Frontier" justice met by own hand which is satifiying but also...problematic(term used i the movie).

Like, it intersting because aside of one or two chararter, EVERYONE is awfull and everyone suffer a karmic end, even if some crime we dont know if happen. so maybe we should analize that movie because it better about revenge
 
I was in fact just thinking about this very scene. Rarely does the fact that the targets, or even those in the way of the targets, might have people that would themselves want revenge on the revenge seeker, come up in-story. Like, the Bride killed and maimed a lot of the Crazy 88, do their loved ones get a shot at revenge? Just Nikki? What about all the people she killed working for Bill, do their loved ones get a shot too?
To be fair, Beatrix Kiddo, the Bride, doesn't seem like the kind of person who really cares that much about the prospect of death by violence, or about avoiding same. It isn't until her endgame that she even realizes her daughter is still alive, as I recall.

Yeah, it's almost like it's an opinion. Crazy right?
So just to be clear, do you feel that it is desirable to have internally consistent or well-reasoned opinions?

Or are you fine with the idea of going through life with inconsistent, irrational, and hypocritical opinions?

What? No, of course it's not okay! after all, the initial revenge killing was justified, but revenge killing in response to your revenge killing isn't justified because the first guy totally deserved it but you don't, right? This is clearly how it works, and not just the ramblings of someone caught up in their own bullshit who can't comprehend the idea of a cycle of revenge.
I think Mandemon was asking Kingcrusader, but to be clear I agree with you. I suspect Mandemon does too.
 
Last edited:
It isn't until her endgame that she even realizes her daughter is still alive, as I recall.

Kinda she realize before(which is why she dosent snipe bill in fact) it no until the end that she get to talk to her, during that Bill force her to admit that...yeah she very much enjoy killing each of the squad which show indeed the prospect of death by violence isnt unknown to her
 
This scenario doesn't match with the questions I have brought up in my response to mandemon, so I can't answer this one.
Why not? It's a fairly simple scenario with well-understood parameters. We know who these characters are and how they relate to each other.

Kingcrusader, if there is a general right to take violent, lethal revenge on people who have wronged you, then this right must necessarily extend to taking revenge on people who (in their own minds) were taking revenge on your loved ones, community, favorite band, or whatever. The entire point of revenge is that grievances are not adjudicated by an organization, but by an individual or small group deciding that they have been wronged.

It turns out that individuals are very good at deciding they've been wronged by other people who in their own minds were just avenging a wrong against them.

Everyone thinks they're a righteous and decent person who's just trying to get by in a world that has it in for them in particular. Most of us learn to be self-aware about it after a while.

Kinda she realize before(which is why she dosent snipe bill in fact) it no until the end that she get to talk to her, during that Bill force her to admit that...yeah she very much enjoy killing each of the squad which show indeed the prospect of death by violence isnt unknown to her
Well, there's a difference between enjoying killing people one sees as enemies, and having a strong motivation to avoid a violent death oneself. But Beatrix, specifically, doesn't seem like the kind of person who really expects to die in bed of old age.
 
Been watching a lot of anime lately... no matter how bad they are. I've been leaving then running in the background while I do things, and I'll glance at it now and then to keep myself up-to-date with whatever's going on in the series.

And the one cliche I've been getting sick of lately... That harem cliche where a bunch of cardboard cutout characters suddenly fall for the main character even though they barely did anything at all. There's no buildup, no character-building moment for why they would fall for the MC, etc. They're in love, just like that. I see this in reverse harems too, lol. Where the female MC was simply nice to the guy one time by picking up his books for him, and all of a sudden he's following her around like a puppy.

Why is this suddenly almost in half of the animes I've been watching lately? I suppose it's because the anime streaming service was tracking what I was watching and then kept on recommending me more like it, not even realizing that I wasn't all into it at all and only had it on to have something on while I was doing something and not because I was truly a fan of that type of thing. I think I might have to change tracks and end up watching Magical girl shows instead. just to get away from this. lol

The only mordern harem storyline I've liked was the one in "My life as the next villianesse: All routes lead to doom!"

and that's because I can totally see why everyone loves Katrina, aka Bakarina.
 
That harem cliche where a bunch of cardboard cutout characters suddenly fall for the main character even though they barely did anything at all.

I don't know as that's even limited to harems, it just stands out more due to repetition. Everyone wants to get to the good part (for their preferences re 'good part'), so things get glossed over.

-Morgan.
 
At least with a single main love interest, it's more forgiven because without other dozens of interests vying for the MC's attention, there's more time for the anime to go "Yeah, we kind of spoilered things by straight up telling you viewers that this is the MC's love interest. BUT!! Here's the follow-up 3 episodes selling you why you should become invested in this romance... even if it was very sudden!"

like they'll focus extra on scenes in the rest of the anime where they build up the romance to make us like this pairing.

Like in the anime "The Saint's Power is Omnipotent," the summoned woman (the saint) and a certain blond man seem to click right away in the first episode, and it's obvious that they'll get together... but they made it interesting in that they didn't get together right away. They rightfully cited that they literally just met and really didn't know each other... so they were taking their time to know each other. So there were a lot of character moments where they had bonded with each other.

And surprise, the saint's power is fuelled by the power of ~*love*~ so this ended up being critical to the main plot too. XD
 
Also there is a lot of incentive to push anti-vengence narratives because the people that do the most actions that would prompt vengeance are the people at the top.

I would personally ascribe the ideal of "vengeance is bad" as owing more to the cultural influence of Christianity in the United States wherein forgiveness is viewed as not only ideal but in fact obliged in the Christian tradition. Even for people who aren't part of that tradition, it's very hard to avoid the influence of Christian ideas even in the increasingly-secular US society.

But at the same time, the notion of a revenge plot is pretty common fodder for US pop culture to the point where "a man goes on a violent spree of revenge against the individuals who kidnapped, harmed, or killed his loved ones" is a cliche action movie plot. And in most films whose stories involve such scenarios, we're meant to cheer on the vengeance in question. The audience in such stories is often very clearly supposed to sympathise with the protagonists' desire for revenge, no matter how ruthless or excessive they are in their violence.
 
Revenge is bad stories have existed basicly as long as there have been stories.
And keeping people from seeking it (or doing it only in formalized and limited ways) has been a major part of every society.
 
One tendency I've noticed in harem fics is that the attraction spreads.
The first few characters might be carefully developed and set up to both like the MC and be willing to join.
Later characters are more carelessly shoved in, being done on whim or even from an enemy.
And random side characters will still show attraction even if they aren't joining the harem.

This is further aggravated by the tendency for any random side character to be an attractive woman.
Which gets more and more pronounced as the story goes on.

One example I remember had an Adventurer Guild Receptionist who was a friendly, attractive woman.
She talked about her boyfriend.
Then 50+ chapters later, after a few story arcs in different areas they come back to that same guild.
They meet the same receptionist.
Who spontaneously decides to talk about how her boyfriend dumped her.
And how attracted she is to the MC.
She didn't join in the story, she was just a random side character.
It wasn't even an inciting incident or sub-plot, just a random aside!

Notably when the character was first introduced there was lots of "romantic" shenanigans and her talking about her boyfriend was a contrast/advice discussion that helped make the world seem bigger than just one guy.
Later when they came back, things had sort of settled into a holding pattern and it gave the impression that the author felt obligated to show the MC was still hot even though the main couples were stuck in the harem-waiting-line. (After all, you can't actually have the harem happen in story, that would require they follow up on all the awkwardness and promises they are holding off.)
 
Back
Top