Worm Morality Debate Thread

Have you? We see the one time on screen that Sophia kills someone and it's an accident. WOG says her death toll is under 5 and all were largely accidents. Sophia wasn't running around killing by the dozens.

Not by the dozens, no. But secretly carrying lethal ammo? And using it on Grue and Skitter just because she's frustrated at them? She's a remorseless killer.

Don't know the WOG in this case, but the story speaks for itself very clearly with regards to Sophia.
 
Don't know the WOG in this case, but the story speaks for itself very clearly with regards to Sophia.
Except it doesn't. We only see the worst of her. We aren't shown the robberies she stopped, the rapes she prevented, the criminals she actually put behind bars. We see a small glimpse of her. If we had the same insight into Taylor she'd seem like a remorseless thug that would lie cheat and steal to get her way and didn't care about anyone but herself and her friends.
 
Your post claimed that pragmatism is more important then a society-created concept like ethics and morality, so crimes should be overlooked if it means a better help for latter.

I said:
So, to sum up. Ethics and Morals are social constructs. They have no weight other than what the society they originate in give them. Wormverse societies care more about living through January than locking up supervillains. Supervillains can fight Endbringers. Society is fine with moving the line for what is considered Birdcage worthy if society benefits in the process. Not being Behemoth'd will benefit society

I am making no claims about what I believe or what I think. I am making claims about how the wormverse appears to work. I can cite multiple instances where super dangerous villains are given pardons or commuted sentences because they are useful (Shadow Stalker, Glastig Uaine, Bonesaw, Skitter, Assault). An ethic of pragmatism is evident throughout the story.

So why is a worse crime seen as somehow different from a smaller one? Or what if a villain escalates/ Where exactly is the "line" before said pragmatism runs out?

What the hell are you talking about? A worse crime is seen as different from a smaller one because It's WORSE. Why are different crimes prosecuted differently in the real world? Because we weight them differently. The 'line' where pragmatism runs out is wherever the members of that society decide it is.

In our society, we have certain gut reactions to crimes that we would consider 'worse' than other ones. You keep using torture and murder as your go-to atrocities, so there's that. In our world things like rape, serial murder, and crimes against minors tend to be weighted differently. If you're honestly saying that you don't see a difference between the severity of these crimes, and those who commit them should be treated with equal severity when compared to things like Robbery, Resisting Arrest, and Grand Theft Auto, then you are really not someone I will ever be able to see eye to eye with.
 
Not by the dozens, no. But secretly carrying lethal ammo? And using it on Grue and Skitter just because she's frustrated at them? She's a remorseless killer.

Don't know the WOG in this case, but the story speaks for itself very clearly with regards to Sophia.

WoG is Interlude 19 (Where Sophia learns exactly why Batman ties ropes to people he dangles off rooftops) and the WoG repository in SB.
 
What the hell are you talking about? A worse crime is seen as different from a smaller one because It's WORSE. Why are different crimes prosecuted differently in the real world? Because we weight them differently. The 'line' where pragmatism runs out is wherever the members of that society decide it is.

In our society, we have certain gut reactions to crimes that we would consider 'worse' than other ones. You keep using torture and murder as your go-to atrocities, so there's that. In our world things like rape, serial murder, and crimes against minors tend to be weighted differently. If you're honestly saying that you don't see a difference between the severity of these crimes, and those who commit them should be treated with equal severity when compared to things like Robbery, Resisting Arrest, and Grand Theft Auto, then you are really not someone I will ever be able to see eye to eye with.
You're missing entirely what I was trying to say. I was saying when does said pragmatic thinking within the Worm-verse draw the line as far as what's acceptable to just ignore for the sake of "Usefulness".

And yeah, Bonesaw is a prime example of one that MOST DEFINITELY crossed the line for me.
 
You're missing entirely what I was trying to say. I was saying when does said pragmatic thinking within the Worm-verse draw the line as far as what's acceptable to just ignore for the sake of "Usefulness".

And yeah, Bonesaw is a prime example of one that MOST DEFINITELY crossed the line for me.

Well, in reading through Worm, the major thing that got you punished (through Birdcaging or vigilante justice) was in making Endbringer fights less winnable.

Now, your supervillain argument didn't make sense because of the following: Making Endbringer fights less winnable is not simply about bodies on the battle field. It's about morale, a faith in the rules of the truce, and a belief that the fights are worth fighting.

Tattletale actually discusses these things when she gives Taylor advice about the PRTs motives (anyone remember specific arc numbers?)

If less than heroic capes start thinking that the PRT is going to punish them no matter what they do, then they have no incentive to do anything other than ske-fucking-daddle when Endbringer sirens blow. So the PRT/Protectorate unofficially assures them that there will be unofficial leniency for participants, thus ensuring more cooperation (of course, villains have families, businesses, friends, etc and might have a motive to participate anyway but they're more likely to work with PRT/Protectorate forces during the fight and immediately after).

In return, the villains make it clear that they won't abuse the trust system, especially since the PRT/Protectorate/EVERYONE will come down on them for metaphorically shitting in the allegorical swimming pool.

This system actually pretty closely mirrors real world moralities (albeit undeveloped ones) as envisioned by Lawrence Kohlberg, a Piagetian psychologist, in that the villains can really only be counted on to do things that benefit them (but then again, so does Armsmaster at first, so....). But I digress.

The people who are 'crossing the line' are the ones who fuck up the system. S9 is an example, because they won't play by the rules. Heartbreaker (presumably, and any Heartbreaker-like Master) is another because he can't be trusted to not take advantage. Any cape who prevents the truce system from working are those who outweigh their usefulness, because they make the entire system fail.

This is not the ONLY line in the sand in the worm-verse. Obviously, people get Birdcaged for other things, like murder, but there is definitely still some wiggle room in those cases. Lung for example, is the only cape to go toe-to-toe with an Endbringer. He's probably killed people personally. The Protectorate doesn't come down on him though, because the cost to defeat him vs. the benefit to having him show up to an Endbringer attack is pretty unbalanced. Notice however, that the moment he gets taken out by Taylor (no cost for the Protectorate), at which point it's clear he doesn't plan to participate in the Endbringer fights (didn't show up for Leviathan in BB, right?), he gets Birdcaged toute de suite. There's definitely a line graph someone could plot of x) cost to apprehend/contain vs. y) utility of power/skillset. Bonesaw is a great example of that: as a medical tinker, her involvement with the Protectorate increases everyone's effectiveness by exponential leaps and bounds. Of course, given that her involvement comes after the Endbringer threat is dealt with is definitely more.... morally questionable. However, she's also a child with severe PTSD and Stockholm Syndrome, so cut her some slack maybe.

So yeah, the Protectorate is definitely super duper pragmatic, probably to a fault (and this is addressed in universe by various characters, including Taylor) but they're also operating under the assumption that they're all going to die otherwise. And the higher-ups know about the space whales who want to eat us. So... yeah, I guess if they are literally weighing multi-universal earth-wide extinction against ignoring someone being a murderer/torturer/etc (yes, even with a kill count in the triple-digits, because 999 is still less than 7.125 billion x however many earths there are by several orders of magnitude), then they might just let that guy slide.

Until he fucks it up for everyone else.
 
Now, your supervillain argument didn't make sense because of the following: Making Endbringer fights less winnable is not simply about bodies on the battle field. It's about morale, a faith in the rules of the truce, and a belief that the fights are worth fighting.
PFFFFT HAHAHAHAHAHA! Haaaaaa that was a good one. I needed a good laugh today XD.

So yeah, the Protectorate is definitely super duper pragmatic, probably to a fault (and this is addressed in universe by various characters, including Taylor) but they're also operating under the assumption that they're all going to die otherwise. And the higher-ups know about the space whales who want to eat us. So... yeah, I guess if they are literally weighing multi-universal earth-wide extinction against ignoring someone being a murderer/torturer/etc (yes, even with a kill count in the triple-digits, because 999 is still less than 7.125 billion x however many earths there are by several orders of magnitude), then they might just let that guy slide.
Then why have the PRT/Protectorate at all then? Just have everyone do what the fuck they wish as long as they come to Endbringer fights. Under this system, there's literally no reason why every city doesn't just get completely taken over by villains and then fight Endbringers.

Or better yet, just Birdcage them all, but have a system set up to let them out to face Endbringers, maybe lessen their sentences by how often they fight.
 
The Protectorate doesn't come down on him though, because the cost to defeat him vs. the benefit to having him show up to an Endbringer attack is pretty unbalanced. Notice however, that the moment he gets taken out by Taylor (no cost for the Protectorate
Armsmaster was building a tranq to put him down before Taylor showed up. The reason villains are allowed to operate is that one fighting them is harder given that the balance is not always in the heroes favor, after all the Underisiders (a minor gang) can take out most of the heroes in the city in the right conditions as seen during the charity ball. And Two the heroes can only act if they catch the villains in the act. The heroes have far more to lose if they start discarding the concept of a secret identity thus it's a lot better to avoid trying to attack the civilian ids of the villains. Not only would it make proving them guilty hard (due to the masks) but it gives the villains a reason to hunt down the heroes homes and kill them.

(didn't show up for Leviathan in BB, right?)
Lung was in prison for weeks before.
 
PFFFFT HAHAHAHAHAHA! Haaaaaa that was a good one. I needed a good laugh today XD.
This is obnoxious and unnecessary.

Then why have the PRT/Protectorate at all then? Just have everyone do what the fuck they wish as long as they come to Endbringer fights. Under this system, there's literally no reason why every city doesn't just get completely taken over by villains and then fight Endbringers.

Or better yet, just Birdcage them all, but have a system set up to let them out to face Endbringers, maybe lessen their sentences by how often they fight.

Great, go write this as a fic. Worm/Godzilla/Escape from New York. Sounds cool bro.

I'm extremely uninterested in continuing to talk to you on this matter. I mentioned that I don't think we'll be able to see eye to eye on issues of ethics/morality from the very brief sample of your perspective you put up here and I'm now sure of it.

So, yeah.

EDIT: I made an unfair assumption and removed it.
 
Last edited:
Not that it stops the villains from doing so anyway.

Oh? Because hero's homes are so often targeted? I don't recall New Wave ever being attacked by the city's normal villains, and the S9 went after everyone. In fact, as far as "Targeting the family", the people who come to mind first are Gavel and (in threats) Tagg.

Then why have the PRT/Protectorate at all then? Just have everyone do what the fuck they wish as long as they come to Endbringer fights. Under this system, there's literally no reason why every city doesn't just get completely taken over by villains and then fight Endbringers.

The protectorate was set up so that people who wanted to use their powers purely for good could band together in case a uber parahuman was created, and also because heroes don't kill in turf fights, keeping more capes alive for Scion.

Even IF you considered all those factors, the sum total of Taylor's crimes would be more then enough to not excuse her. And by accessory laws, the rest of the Undersiders would be just as guilty.

By what metric? Even Chevalier states that she probably saved more then she hurt.
 
Then all that talk of regret in the final chapter and last epilogue is bullshit.

You can't regret things if you do a net good?

You seem to hold an absolute view of this sort of thing.

What Cauldron did, on the grand scale, was useful and arguably necessary. But it wasn't enough. What Taylor did was, on the grand scale, useful and arguably necessary. But it wasn't enough. Regret is a very strong emotion, and a very easy one to have.
 
You can't regret things even though you do a net good?
Whats there to regret if you win?

See, this is what gets me about the ending. For all intent's and purposes, Taylor not only won, but proved her way of doing things worked. So her regret not only comes off as bullshit, but rather under-handed because it goes against everything she claimed how things should work. "Oh we should communicate and trust each other." and the next second it's "You got Bullet ants all over you and now I just mindraped you. DEAL."
 
See, this is what gets me about the ending. For all intent's and purposes, Taylor not only won, but proved her way of doing things worked. So her regret not only comes off as bullshit, but rather under-handed because it goes against everything she claimed how things should work.
The thing is Taylor has human empathy. She intellectually knows her actions helped save the human race but she still has feelings about the people she had to sacrifice to achieve that victory.
 
Whats there to regret if you win?

See, this is what gets me about the ending. For all intent's and purposes, Taylor not only won, but proved her way of doing things worked. So her regret not only comes off as bullshit, but rather under-handed because it goes against everything she claimed how things should work. "Oh we should communicate and trust each other." and the next second it's "You got Bullet ants all over you and now I just mindraped you. DEAL."

"what's there to regret if you win" seriously? So if a soldier fought in a war that we can look back on and say was the right choice and tell you that he regrets an action taken during the war, a bad choice that got a friend killed or the like, that that regret is bullshit?

I mean, obviously, people never look back on their actions or hard decisions and want to do something different, perhaps partially due to the benefit of hindsight.
 
Last edited:
The thing is Taylor has human empathy. She intellectually knows her actions helped save the human race but she still has feelings about the people she had to sacrifice to achieve that victory.
Why? Whats the point. Victory has been built on the backs of countless dead people in the past. If anything, caring is pointless because they're dead. Nothing can change that, and there will be future conflicts were people will still suffer and die for a "greater good". So really, there's no point in regret.

"what's there to regret if you win" seriously? So if a soldier fought in a war that we can look back on and say was the right choice and tell you that he regrets an action taken during the war, a bad choice that got a friend killed or the like, that that regret is bullshit?
That's basically how political leaders would sell it. It's all about the great victory they desire no matter how many dead bodies is used to achieve it. And then years would go by afterwards and treat it like it was no big deal for the people who were never involved. If a soldier would make the exact same choice because of a "greater good" then showing regret is essentially meaningless and empty.

I mean, obviously, people never look back on their actions or hard decisions and want to do something different, perhaps partially due to the benefit of hindsight.
Yet there have been a ton of people both here and on SB who'd totally defend and justify everything Taylor did as well. Hell, she gave justifications for her crap all the time and we're just supposed to accept that as fact. This is another reason why her regret is bullshit at the end, because she claims regret many times in the story. How exactly is the regret real if the person just goes right back to what they claim they hated to do or don't want to do anymore? It's basically like hearing a drug or alcohol addict: Sooner or later you get sick and tired of them falling off the wagon over and over until you can no longer believe them anymore that they want to be sober.
 
Why? Whats the point. Victory has been built on the backs of countless dead people in the past. If anything, caring is pointless because they're dead. Nothing can change that, and there will be future conflicts were people will still suffer and die for a "greater good". So really, there's no point in regret.
Do you have human emotions? Because you really don't seem to understand how feelings work. They are by their nature illogical and based not on what works but on what you feel. A general might sacrifice a 100 men in a diversion to achieve some strategic goal but he will still likely feel guilt and remorse that those men died by his orders.
 
Do you have human emotions? Because you really don't seem to understand how feelings work. They are by their nature illogical and based not on what works but on what you feel. A general might sacrifice a 100 men in a diversion to achieve some strategic goal but he will still likely feel guilt and remorse that those men died by his orders.
But again, whats the point? It doesn't matter how much regret said general has, he's still going to have those soldiers killed. Regret is just a subjective concept, people dying is an objective fact.

I fully believe that if a person would make the exact same choice everytime, then any regret they feel is meaningless, hollow and just a lie.
 
But again, whats the point?
Emotions don't have a point. They're an involantary reaction to events.

Regret is just a subjective concept, people dying is an objective fact.
ALL EMOTIONS ARE A SUBJECTIVE CONCEPT YOU NITWIT.

I fully believe that if a person would make the exact same choice everytime, then any regret they feel is meaningless, hollow and just a lie.
Well that's because you're a crazy person.
 
Emotions don't have a point. They're an involantary reaction to events.
True. But by that definition of subjective as it applies to other people, I can just as easily say that I disagree with said reaction. Why not just act with stoicism in the face of mass death? If your job means you have to constantly be surrounded by it, then all emotions do is get in the way of the job.

Well that's because you're a crazy person.
Again, that's your subjective opinion.
 
Back
Top