"If you kill Nazis you're just as bad as them" so? I don't care if my soul is stained, just that they no longer draw their hateful breath and use it to hurt others. I'll kill myself after the fact if I'm that stained after it all.
37:22 The reason Batman can’t kill changes a lot from writer to writer. Personally I’ve never liked the “Then I’ll just start killing everyone” angle. I prefer the idea that Batman simply values life that much. He knows the pain and loss caused by death, and Batman is his way of kinda conquering death itself. Batman values life. And there is some opportunity for nuance there. Such as Batman having to deal with someone who kills because they value life and see his villains as a threat to life. But that’s just my perspective.
two of those things can be true at the same time, he can believe life is precious and that everyone deserves a chance to do right and also believe that taking a life will lead him into a spiral of death and madness.
@@ExpertContrarian for the joker its a bit different. The joker at times WANTS Batman to kill him. In a sick sort of way bc you know....joker be jokering. But Batsy wont go that far bc if he does he breaks his rule. Othertimes he doesn't WANT to die but he knows The Bat wont kill him so he just does his stuff. Truth is Bruce believes that life is worth protecting and that no one is so far gone that they are beyond redemption.
I hate the hypocrisy of "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you." It turns the "I won't kill" into a blatant joke. I also always hated the "I killed all the minions but "I don't kill" the bad guy. That's just "I'm ok killing the poor, but the rich bad guy deserves a fair trial." ...I mean I guess that's realisitc.
There are ways to do them right. If the character is working around a loophole where they can't directly kill a character or if the character is taking away power or control from another. For the first example, imagine a villain that can not be murdered but is left to fall off a cliff. For the second, imagine a villain who loses everything their men, their influence, their money, their power and are left with nothing but the clothes on their back and their name.
@@65fireredAnd for the first example, which is most notably shown in Batman Begins, Bruce specifically draws the line at becoming an assassin, an “executioner” that would kill those who pose no threat to him or others due to his advanced capabilities. The times he does kills people, directly or indirectly, he is doing so in defense of himself and others when his usual capabilities are not enough to resolve the situation without casualties. He notably allows Ra’s to die not only to avenge his parents, whose deaths were indirectly caused by the League worsening Gotham’s poverty in a bid to destroy it, but also because he had no way to subdue or contain an individual like him in charge of an organization of similarly dangerous agents all with Bruce’s combat and espionage abilities, meaning his death was his only means of even just deterring the organization for a time. His initial attempt to pacify a deranged Harvey Dent failed, leaving him with a gut shot and, therefore, not at his full capacity while Harvey was actively holding a Gordon’s wife and children hostage, which forced Bruce to have to tackle him to get his son away from Dent, knocking off a platform. Then, of course, there’s Talia playing keep-away with a nuke she intended to let explode to destroy Gotham with, with Bruce’s only means to stop her being to crash her vehicle to get to the bomb as quickly as possible, which fatally injured her. Alternatively, Bruce spares Joker not just in defiance of his attempts to manipulate him into breaking any laws than he already does nor his own moral code, but also because he could afford to subdue him non-lethally due to his capabilities and equipment, with his many crimes against the city at even the highest levels of its local government system meaning he would have no chance to escape punishment or to bribe and extort his way out of prison with the handful of allies he had left. This interpretation of the “no-kill” rule, especially in Batman’s mythos, is one of the more nuanced takes, as it allows Bruce to retain his characterization of being merciful and idealistic, but also puts him in situations that would rationally warrant exceptions to the rule and portrays him as pragmatic enough to be able to do “what is necessary”, his more defensive killings contrasting against his enemies, who kill as an indulgence or self-righteousness.
@@mattd5240 the position that it is hypocratic is a hypocracy in itself. By that token inaction being counted as action means any time we turn on a light, any time we use our mobile phone, any time we have a hot shower, we're morally and provably responsible the destruction of the earths ecosystems. It's an untenable position.
The only story I know of that does a compelling version of the "If I kill I'm no better than the villain" argument is Monster. The story follows a surgeon who unknowingly saved the life of a serial killer, and has resolved to track down and kill his former patient before he can claim any more lives. Every experience the hero has on his quest is an argument against murder. (spoilers) He meets terrorists who sought a understandable cause, but accidentally killed innocent people in the crossfire. He befriends the kind elderly parents of a convicted killer, and witnesses their love for their son despite their acknowledgement of the horrible thing he did. A man who seeks revenge for the family he lost gets killed on his mission and causes his newfound family to grieve the same loss he sought revenge for. A detective's life is ruined when he shoots an unarmed criminal. A man who came from the same horrible background as the villain is an incredibly kind man who rose above the circumstances that made him. An assassin who loves sweet coffee gives up his trade when he lines up the crosshairs of his sniper rifle with his target, and sees the target adding sugar to his coffee. An old man who killed during the war lives the rest of his life repenting for it. Everything the protagonist experiences reinforces the idea that violence only perpetuates suffering and that empathy and kindness are the only way to improve the world. Everything, except for the actions committed by the antagonist, who regularly kills innocent people for no apparent reason; who regularly ruins the lives of those who have nothing to do with him; who's continued existence has only caused harm and bred more violence. Surely someone who's developed the appreciation for life that our hero fosters would come to the conclusion that the villain is only destroying those invaluable lives. Monster is the only work of fiction to stump me on the whole Do We Kill The Villain dilemma. If life is too valuable to end, and life is too valuable to let others end, what's to be done with irredeemable killers?
This is pretty much my reasoning for pacifism. Since we are unable to make clear judgment from our lack of perspective. We must instead remain impartial. It becomes a lot easier to maintain when you are both content in life and no longer fear death. The ideas of states and pacifism are at odds with one another. So I’ve decided to not advocate for pacifism through policy, but to just simply practice it. And that’s enough for me.
@@rotolotto I mean, Trigun is one where the protagonist is able to get away without killing because of his superhuman abilities. It is a very good and philosophically interesting series, especially as he is partially responsible for the plight of everyone around him, which he could have lessened or eliminated entirely by killing Knives long ago, and yet doesn't change his hard rule of not killing, but a human marksman in his place would probably be killing people if he wanted to have any chance of accomplishing anything.
44:00 this reminds me of a Midrash (Jewish tale that reinterprets a biblical story*) about the Hebrews fleeing Egypt and how the sea parted for them but then closed around the Egyptian army chasing them, leading the majority of the army to drown. The Midrash goes like this: the angels watch the escape, the parting of the sea, and the drowning of the Egyptians, and celebrate - this is it, the Hebrews are free and safe from slavery! - but God weeps. One of the angels asks, "why are you crying? This is a joyous occasion!" and God replies: "you forget, the Egyptians were my children too." *yes, fanfiction is an integral part of Jewish culture
I always like to learn more about Jewish culture, even though I myself am not Jewish, or even very super religious. :3. I find their stories to be very beautiful, at times tragic, and fascinating. I like learning about different cultures and their religions and stories. I just like learning about different people from all over the world. :3. Do you have any more stories like this? I'd love to learn and know more Jewish stories like this!! :3.
This is a widespread misunderstanding of this midrash. God says to the angels "My creations are drowning in the sea and *You* are singing?". Meaning that the angles have no right or reason to celebrate and sing. The Israelites on the other hand are obligated to sing God's praise as thanks for their miracle - The Egyptians drowning in the sea. That is why it's an integral part of everyday mourning prayer, the whole song and the mentions of it. Moreover, there's an another story with King Hezekiah, when the Assurians were killed by a divine miracle, had he sang praise hw would have become the Messiah. (As said in the Talmud in Sanhedrin)
I find that the hero who chooses not to kill because of the vast power difference between them and their charges and/or adversaries, like Superman or Invincible, are the most compelling version of the choice not to kill. Otherwise, I feel like on even ground, we let the Lord decide who lives lol
I like how superman scared the shit out of joker one time by telling him he doesnt have a no killing rule like batman, he just doesnt Feel Like killing
Invincible is a great mention of this, specifically because of the FASCINATING arc he goes through with his morality in the comics. No spoilers if you're show only, but there's a lot of interesting development that Mark goes through after Langstrom.
I just wrote a chapter with one of these cases. He grabs the guy's arm, and the MC is so fast that the other guy might as well be moving at a standstill. Then the thoughts come about the ways he could kill him. But he decides that the best thing to do is to talk the guy down instead of hurting him. The guy had a reason for what he almost did, but it didn't justify it, just like the MC wouldn't really be justifed if he did kill him. Now, if the other guy was even a little powerful, someone who he couldn't trust wasn't a real threat to him and his family, he would've dumped his body in the woods with some guilt, but that wouldn't have lasted.
My favorite form of Man vs Nature is Dungeon Meshi. They have to kill monsters in order to eat and survive as they navigate the dungeon. But you can feel Ryoko Kui's compassionate, scientific mind. They're enthusiastic and curious the monsters' biology, ecosystem, they use every part they can; they're respectful and reverent in the same way indigenous hunters are. Sometimes it feels less like a comedic DnD adventure, and more like a field guide written by a professor in love with nature!
Going off on a tangent here I also believe that the "redemption" of the villain, when they see the "error of their ways" or end up on the side of the "good guys" in a last hurrah and going out in a blaze of glory not only redeems them in the eyes of the viewer but also emphasises which side of the conflict are the good guys. Which can be easy at times when the Good vs. Bad plot is very black and white at times, but I think it plays an even bigger part in narratives where it might be a little more grey.
But even in the black and white narratives it really drives it in that the protagonists really are the good guys, which is easily portrayed in stories but we all know that real life is a lot more grey and nuanced. There aren't that many that are outright evil.
You can have a very good black and white plot, and you can have a bad grey plot there's other pillars that are required to be good and support the narrative. To me it's more a choice of the type of story you're trying to tell.
Ah... the last hurrah aspect of it sort of undermines the redemption at times. When you have a character doing deplorable things for a while now and then nearing the end, they choose to do good, I at times think to myself, "Why now?" Moreover, when the character gets redeemed in the eyes of their world because of that last act, after doing some really bad things, it at times leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it undermines all the harm and damage they've caused. This, however, does not include moments where the bad guy systematically begins making up for their deeds up until the point they are at the end of their life. This, in my opinion, works best because you can tell that the bad guy character is fully committed to repenting their actions instead of it being a spur of the moment decision because they know they are going to die.
My brother is a bigger nerd than me and I brought up the "Should Batman Kill?" argument up with him. His personal opinion? Yes, Batman should kill _some_ of his villains... but NOT their henchmen. He doesn't believe in the trope of the hero killing armies of henchmen and goons and letting the villain get a fair trial. It's understandable that most Henchmen are just people with a job, even if that job is harmful (that is unless there's a reason why they're all unnecessarily evil) I even brought up other Batman villains who are more sympathetic, specifically Poison Ivy and Two-Face. Yes while some versions of the characters are very sympathetic and are very possibly redeemable, their is a line that has to be drawn if Poison Ivy starts killing innocent people to use as fertilizer for man-eating, invasive plants. Even Two-Face, who is a very tragic character, if he decides to never change would have no choice but to be put down like a rabid dog. The rabid dog comparison makes sense because no matter how smart or loving a dog used to be, if they get Rabies it's all but over. There is nothing left of whatever it used to be, and ending that suffering is undoubtedly a mercy. Plus he brought up the real question of why doesn't Gotham have a Death Penalty or better prisons? The answer is obviously they don't unfortunately. Gotham is a corrupt city with no executioner and a vigilante who refuses to take a life. And despite rhe fact that I still defend certain villains and know *(DEPENDING ON THE WRITER)* that they have a chance at redemption and rehabilitation... There was absolutely no argument for Joker. The Joker has been UNIVERSALLY written to be more and more and more of a menace and it's just not fun anymore. He's so psychotically evil that I don't want to even really see him anymore, I legit just want the writers to make him die. Worst of all is the asinine edgelord nonsense logic of "If Batman kills Joker, Joker Wins!" It's just so dumb... I've heard too a really good reason why the No Kill Rule has been so argued about. The heroes of DC Marvel specifically have been portrayed in a way that their ideals are pretty much the same as they were decades ago. Meanwhile the villains have been paradoxically made MORE vile as time has gone on. It's like seeing the Lone Ranger or Zorro fight f**cking Ted Bundy or the Zodiac Killer. Sorry for the rant, but this argument has been a draining topic for a while.
joker was always physcopathic,but because in the silver age there was a comic code that toned down violence, but after Alan Moore wrote Swamp Thing nobody cared anymore and batman stories started getting darker again culminating in dark Knight Returns. Actually it was batman that remained toned down because when he was created he was a violent killer.
I personally think that the argument shouldn't be "If Batman kills the Joker, Joker wins" instead it should "If Batman kills the Joker, he stops being Batman". Or, as Red from OSP put it, _that is not Batman, is the Punisher in a furry suit_ which is pretty accurate. Batman is what you as a kid think a superhero should be, he's a protector of the innocent, the savior of the abused and an absolute nightmare for evil people. At the same time, (I do not claim this is the same with every kid) a child hardly understands what death is but knows that they should not wish that on others, therefore Batman should not kill. In addtion to this, evil should fear Batman precisely because he doesn't kill, he can get you a fate worse than death. But Bruce should let Dick and Jason take out the Joker and some other of his villians.
One thing I disagree with. Viewing a work of fiction as a writer’s means of communicating their personal beliefs is a dangerous fallacy. Even if they are intentionally doing so, there can be a disconnect between the author’s intention and the reader’s interpretation. As a writer myself who is working on a book with a villain protagonist, I find this as very important to point out. That’s like saying that since Walt is the protagonist of breaking bad, his morals, or even just the actions he gets away with, are justified by means of his success and fortunes. In the same vein, I could say that his initial dissatisfaction with his life was cosmic punishment for being mediocre or settling for mediocrity and assume that the writers are telling us to do whatever it takes, even immoral actions, to achieve our goals.
I don't actually think we disagree. Depictions of violent people, or even their success in such fictions, is not always an endorsement of said violence by thr author. In your example, the writers clearly didn't endorse Walter's meth making...because his life absolutely fell apart 😅. All works of art contain messaging. It's impossible not to communicate some message in a story. The difference is what is meant to be perceived and what is actually taken away.
@@savagebooks7482I haven't watched the video all the way yet so forgive me if I'm missing something, I'm just going based on what you both said here. But I would like to point out the rare times where the villain succeeds in their goal. That still doesn't mean the villain's stance is endorsed. Look at Avengers Infinity War. Thanos succeeds in that movie. That doesn't mean that the writers of the movie agree with him or that he's supposed to be seen as correct. The consequences aren't a full picture of the message being conveyed.
And yes I know that some may poijt out he dies at the beginning of Endgame, but that's a different movie. I'm pointing out that in the one piece of media that is Infinity War, Thanos succeeded, without negative repurcussions like those that a character like Walter White had.
The writer's beliefs do shape the stories they make though. Certain telltale signs can point to a compromised moral compass. For example, the usage of protagonist-centered morality, where when the protagonists do it it's okay and they suffer no repercussions but when others do it it's punishable by death.
I'd like to also point out that a disconect between the author's intention and the reader's interpretation is, according to the Death of the author essay, not something that might but will inevitably happen. That is, because each person's interpretation is going to be formed through a lens made of the cultural context (which include personal beliefs) that shapes their perception, one that also affects the writer's understanding of the world around them. Now, going beyong the essay, my understanding is that this does not only mean that each person can have the same event happen before their eyes and see different things from each other, it also means that if someone writes about the event they won't be able to tell what happened, instead showing what they saw/understood that happened. And this is why, I think, a work of fiction is always about the writer's communicating their personal beliefs, because an objective viewpoint is not a thing in real life either.
7:34 "Obviously, not all characters die after being totally complete. In fact, I would say it's quite a rarity" Attack on Titan: "hold my beer" _kills all their characters one after the other when their personal arcs are complete across the entirety of its runtime_
I am making a fantasy story that does tackle that subject and that video was extremely valuable. Thank you. Basically my story tackles someone who is deathly afraid of hurting anyone because he knows he is extremely powerful with magic. On the other hand, he is dragged into trying to fight a vampire with flesh bending capabilities who is overtly showed as being pure evil and exactly what the hero fears he could become if he crossed the line. The protagonist knows that the villain is irredeemable and the story is about him contemplating if he should kill that vampire and, if he decides to, if he has the mental strength to forgive himself for breaking his morals.
39:08 Probably a bad example to use for this point because the reason Thor does this is not because he's superficially taking a moral high ground. It's because he knows he ACTUALLY can't kill Hela. She's stronger than him and he literally does not have the power to take her down.
I have always believed that killing a villain is not in the heroes best interests because in someway that will fundamentally ruin their idealism. But sadly a truly unrepentant villain will not stop until they are put down, but I believe the hero should always kill in self defense or be forced instead of killing in cold blood or rage.
To me the best no kill rules is when it's brought up as a potential flaw like batmam vs redhood film from 2009 the discussion that batman and jayson is so good and the film never says whose right
@@creed8712 they talk about that kind of batman says he can't cause it would cross a line he couldn't come back from and Jayson says he's not asking him to kill all of them just the joker. I think it was nuanced enough, and I think batman might believe / be afraid he's one bad day from becoming just like the joker
@@creed8712 I think thats the thing with Batman though is that he is a lunatic that keeps himself barely in check with his own rules. I think he sees himself as insane, after all his royge gallery is a reflection of himself so I think the painting was already there.
@@creed8712I always took the line “If I allow myself to go to that place, then I’ll never come back” as more of an extension of Batman’s philosophy as a whole. His whole driving motivation is that he values life above all as his whole life was shattered due to a random act of violence that took the lives of his parents. He follows that one rule strictly. To a fault even. He’s so stubborn that he won’t take a life even if it guarantees that other people will live. He just can’t do it. He doesn’t have it in him. So if he were to kill the Joker at Jason’s insistence, to “let himself go to that place”, then he’ll never be the same man from before. He’ll “never come back”. Admittedly, the explanation that “he’ll just be a violent murderer too if he kills the Joker” is probably what the writers were going for but that just never sat with me.
Yeah also it’s not really Batman’s fault for not killing the joker it’s the justice system in Gotham not giving him a death penalty after all the escapes and murders it’s like bro we know he’s gonna escape again and kill again why are we relying on Batman to do all the work.
I remember i saw an analysis of Under The Redhood: movie vs. Film. In it, it points out that comic batman feels like hes clutching onto the remnants of his parents ideology, he side steps responsibility and tries to save joker. Hes a broken man, thats the point. But in the film, hes accepts that jason os right, and even allows him to kill the joker by walking away. I like the comic variation explanation for why he doesnt kill. Hes not reliable and knows hes insane, and doesnt think he has the wherewithal to decide true right from wrong. Theres other comics where he debates other heros and even allows certain victims to kill their killers because he thinks that they are more sane than he is.
I like that aspect of self-reflection in Batman that prevents him from ever killing, but in that particular comic Batman is a massive hypocrite, he caused direct lethal damage to Jason to save the Joker (cutting his throat with a batarang) his actions make it seem like Batman simply values Joker's life more than Jason's and is willing to break his rule to prevent Joker from dying of all people.
"Thou shalt not kill" is actually a mistranslation. The actual words in the historical language are "Thou shalt not murder", which in context of the times is "killing outside of tribal group". And make no mistake, the crime of murder was a crime in biblical times, but it wasn't a blanket statement to never kill at all.
I really enjoy how the Witcher like plays on the normal story conventions of death and empathy with the monsters. It makes you really think about each monster in a different way and each human in a different way that’s super fun to read
Between this and the video by Hello Future Me, now I feel like I need to write a story based on chosen immortality vs the consequences of the deaths left in the wake of that choice.
One thing that I learned from George RR Martin is that killing to many characters, without at least exploring their ideology, backstory and function in the plot is a huge mistake, Martin made that mistake, kill to many characters, and replace them with characters that we known nothing about or he did the opposite exploit a fan theory only to promote his show to oblivion, no actually caring about continuity, characters alliances or development, only for marketing, when that character was already dead in the books, now he changed the strategy for one similar to Stephanie Meyer Twilight, putting a team against another, when his story can be basically resume as Shakespeare Hamlet. Anyone remember how nearly all the characters ended in that play?
Yeah, killing characters for shock, so you can keep the readers on their toes, is hard and more often than not bad. I have at least one case in my web novel where I set up intrigue about a couple of characters and then they die in a single large unstoppable event. Of the three, arguably four if you count a group of magical intelligent animals, all but one were also introduced not long before their deaths. I could've done stuff with them as characters, but I found killing them to be better as a means of exploring how that effects the main characters.
@@SearedBooks I already killed character in my nearly ten year story, like four years ago (counting my sabbatical) but the time is up for the next round of character, who narrative importance had lost relevance or basically was non, I really not want to give a exposition dump or reveal much before the ending of the Golden Age arc, before the truly dark part of my story really begins, I also already introduce some elements of cosmic horror, but now I want to introduce other elements like cosmic entities, but I am afraid that my story become so large that my readers lose track of the story, after all, I have been writing it for nearly ten years.
The mistake is making it your gimmick, rather than a tool to be used with precision and care. It's so obvious that such a gimmick would result in you running out of characters to kill for shock value AND the shock value would quickly diminish with each subsequent usage. It's the same problem with using obscene gore as a gimmick. If that's all you have going for you, and you just throw it around everywhere you get the opportunity for the sake of shock value, you're going to lose the effect very quickly and not any real substance to keep the story going. The Boys is a good example of this, IMO.
What do you mean? Where in asoiaf were characters just killed some got killed because of dirty war is some because of their own actions. Only in the tv show does that happen
I’m not sure you’ve actually read ASOIAF then, because there aren’t actually that many major characters that die and when they do there’s narrative intent to it.
Batman and Joker is definitely the example of this that most comes to mind for me. I don't think Batman's refusal to kill is necessarily right or wrong. The most flawed part of this eternal cycle of Joker murdering dozens or hundreds or millions of people, being captured and imprisoned, and escaping two weeks later is that it lacks creativity in retaining a nemesis. Joker is irreplaceable to the Batman franchise, and the aforementioned cycle seems to be the only direction in which the writers know to proceed. In the real world there are alternative outcomes. Criminals can be rehabilitated (most of the time). They cannot escape prison (most of the time). Criminals that commit acts so terrible or often can be executed (most of the time). Because Joker is too valuable to the franchise to ever be permanently taken out of the equation as an antagonist for Batman, none of these realistic outcomes are generally going to occur...at least in the long term. Joker always escapes, and the legal system never executes him. Or he's not really dead. Or whatever.
I feel like the joker problem is more a symptom of the never-ending nature of mainstream comics. Writers inevitably end up doing the same thing over and over again because the story potential has practically been used up years ago, but DC is never gonna stop making Batman comics.
Also a cop who can legally carry could "accidentally" discharge his fire arm in the back of the jokers head and nearly all of the cops would cover for him
People forget that in his initial appereances Joker always "died" at the Batman's hands from 1940 to 1943, yet he always came back from these impossible scenarios, Batman refusing to directly kill the Joker isn't the problem the problem is modern comics making him too overpowered and using him too frequently in big storylines, to the point it feels unrealistic that they wouldn't find a more permanent way to deal with him such as trapping him in the Phantom Zone or something.
Pretty much. Batman's no kill rule only seems so completely asinine because nearly every single aspect of it is caused by Dc having to continue to print batman comics. The comics have to continue, so no villain can ever be permanently retired, especially not the joker. The joker has to stay monstrous since otherwise he's no villain anymore to bank on, so he becomes viler and viler and continues to kill and do bad things. The alternative of having him locked up for good or rehabilitated aren't possible because again, then there'd be no villain joker to make bank on anymore. Meaning Gotham can never reform and stays ludicrously corrupt. Rinse and repeat for every other major villain. Because the status quo can never change, it looks completely silly that Batman holds onto ideals that do jack diddly squat for the city or its citizens and seems to blatantly benefit the villains, if anything. I feel like the no-killing rule could work in a completed story and whatnot, but imo fails because of the format.
The subversion of the disposable henchmen trope is one of my favorite things about Christopher Paolini's Inheritance Cycle. I'm rereading the books for the first time as an adult currently and I will die defending them. Paolini could easily have kept his Urgals as the "other" without a culture or individual personalities but he didn't. He chose to work them into the fabric of his story, to interrogate the problematic aspects of having an innately evil race in your fantasy world. I genuinely love him for that.
Death and killing are different, very different. The protagonist is either the recipient or the instigator, for an Englishman who hasn't been to war, killing is completely unknown, but as a child who grew into an adult, death was part of my life, family/friends died, but I never had the need or the desire to kill. So as a writer I understand the passage of life to death, and understand the associated emotions because I've had the misfortune to experience it and my life experience of those deaths has meaning. The difficulty is when it comes to writing about killing, I can use my imagination but unlike dying, its a story based on others recorded experience not my own, and I suspect since I'm not a psycopath the emotions I can try to articulate are necessarily less complete than those of my own experience. That is why I suspect many literary deaths are almost emotionless, the steely eyed James Bond killer, bang, dead, move on - no emotional impact on the narrative. Yet many interviews with elderly soldiers particulary from WW1 the emotional impact was so devastating and followed them though their lives, but very few written characters are able to articulate this. Thats why I think killers in movies (in particular) are as a character lacking - killing takes life but I suspect the real fact that those killing the impact on them is significant, but for whatever reason, no character in major fiction ever demonstrates this.
Ooo, I suggest you read the manga Fullmetal Alchemist. It has a lot of conversations surrounding death, including the toll it takes when you kill someone. It’s clear that the author did her research.
I honestly really hate the argument that killing is "realistic" in fiction. It's fiction, inherently unrealistic. And even reality can surprise us sometimes; in real life, execution is a highly-contentious topic, not least because it's inefficient in matters of money, investment and legal standards, leaving only emotional closure as the linchpin for the argument, which, as we all know, are easily-understood and simple to communicate to one another. Me, personally, I'm a fan of the argument of "Sure, the bad guys deserve to die, but that doesn't mean the hero is allowed to kill them". Not in the "I don't have to save you" angle, but in the way that we want heroes to have standards the villains don't hold to. A sort of framing of the hero and villain's violence that communicates when one is allowed and the other is not. Then again, I am also a fan of Red Hood and Venom so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also, there is potential to have a hero who kills minions but doesn't kill the boss; the minions are actively trying to kill the hero, and so the violence is retaliatory rather than vindictive. I am not sure how to write that one, though.
@@ExpertContrarian Perhaps I could have been clearer about what I meant. All rules for writing are arbitrary and prone to change; "realism" is not an indicator of writing quality but a trope authors can use to inform the tone of the story they're writing. The other snag on the realism argument is that what's realistic changes between people and environments. "realism" is less about what would actually happen in real life than what the speaker thinks is realistic. I prefer the word "verisimilitude", which means "the appearance of truth", for fiction.
38:29 Your Koizilla example is a poor example of someone purposefully killing minions since Aang wasn't in control at the time. Aang causing an avalanche in the Northern Air Temple also is a poor example of Aang contradicting his morals because he doesn't view those actions as fatal which we know from the scene where he tells Yangchen in the finale that he doesn't think he ever killed. If Aang knew/acknowledged that he had killed people with the avalanche but then still refused to kill Ozai, then sure at that point he would be contradicting himself, but as it is, Aang is just ignorant.
This is the first video of yours Ive seen and I could honestly listen to you talk for hours. It feels like you really know what you're talking about, thank you for making this kinda content.
Eragon basically has the perfect example of the karmic death as the mc uses magic to force empathy onto the antagonist who then commits suicide. That's where my mind went there and it's interesting, especially because the intent to kill was very much there, so it doesn't feel like it was meant to absolve the mc of the responsibility of killing, but more just to punish the antagonist for what they've done.
So, Avatar TLA got around this by taking away Ozai's Firebending. How do we feel about characters who don't kill their enemies but do permanently disarm them (ie: remove their powers, their tools, their limbs, etc)
I know some people see that moment as a deus ex machina, but it makes perfect sense symbolically- by defeating Ozai through wisdom and trickery rather than brute force, Aang completely disproves Ozai’s “might makes right” philosophy, humiliating him, robbing him of his strength, and forcing him to face punishment for his crimes. Additionally, Aang also preserves his people’s culture and spirit. It’s the ultimate symbolic triumph.
@@chriscortez2036 I wouldn't say that Aang disapproves Might Makes Right, so much as that he demonstrates the limits of that philosophy. The way Ozai and the Fire Nation conducted themselves was worse than immoral, it was unsustainable. The Avatar didn't destroy the Fire Nation, he saved it.
@@williamfinch9858Batman doesn’t ‘allow’ anything other than the Gotham Justice system to try Joker and determine his fate for themselves. If the people of Gotham are unwilling to sentence Joker to death, then Batman must not take on the role of executioner. Doing so would be declaring himself not a supplement to the law, but above it. That’s not his place and he knows it. That’s how you get Justice Lords.
Personally I find it interesting that Aang thought that taking away Ozai's bending was better than death. Fire comes from the spirit, the benders drive. In a way, he took a part of his soul. I've never been sure that living like that is better than dying. Especially when you think about the fact that he'd never leave prison. What kind of life is that? Would it end up being kinder to just take him out? I don't think he can be a part of the picture moving forward unless he denounces his title and becomes a normie but he's too narcissistic for that. I don't know what the right answer is but it's something I ponder
So I don't have an unhealthy obsession with characters that the writer had probably intended to be less than human, I'm apparently just ✨ahead of my time✨!
One of my favorite ways around the hero not killing is in lotr. In many stories, there is a theme of good triumphing over evil. At the end of lotr though, it is evil that destroys itself as Frodo and golem both succumb to the ring and fight over it, leading the ring to fall into the Mount doom and be destroyed. Frodo is thankfully saved and comes back to himself when the ring is gone, but in that moment he could not resist the ring’s temptation. I suppose this is similar to the “karmic death” you mentioned.
To quote a certain video-game "Father. Is it always moral to kill something that's....trying to kill you" - son of war. "Yes" - Dad of war. "Well, there ya have it lad" - Uncle of war
I have been writing a novel for years and an intrinsic part is who dies and why, killing for a purpose, genicide/euthanasia/eugenics. The killer as a psychopath, and one who kills and it kills their soul. Writing about killing is really tough, trying not to go into archetypes is really difficult. It is also really emotionally exhausting to write
One weird one where the hero actively chooses not to kill, and not just against the main villain but against ALL enemies, is Kira Yamato from Gundam Seed. Around the midway point of the first season, he's sick of all the killing. He can handle the fighting, but from that point on, he tries to avoid killing any enemy at all cost. The interesting wrinkle to that, though, is that he'd already killed dozens, and he has to reckon with that in a very personal way due to the fallout from killing the deuteragonist's best friend - notably the last death he causes before making his choice not to kill.
I used to not think too much about death in fiction, but lately I have been more and more disturbed by it. Not really in fantasy or sci fi where different societal rules apply, but more so in stories with grounded and realistic settings (Uncharted in particular unnerves me). And moreso by watching others reactions to it. Some crave the deaths of the antagonist and are annoyed that the protagonist does not want to kill. Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if they’d actually be comfortable with killing if not for the fourth wall protecting them. A little unfair of me considering the point of fiction IS to experience these things we can’t in a safe way, but I still feel it’s a valid point to raise. One day I want to write a story that really plays with how death is treated in fiction and how we feel about it… And not be preachy about it.
I'm not a fan of gleeful brutality in certain contexts. Borderlands is disconnected and cartoony enough that it doesn't bother me. The enemies are a parody of a human being. Wolfenstein, The New Order at least, puts weight on death while also showing that it's terrible. It's not a joke, and the game acknowledges the horror of all of it. For kinda related example. Banshee is a show with violence, but it's much more gruesome and stomach churning. Compare that to The Boys, where the deaths are more common and bloody, but they are cartoonist and lack weight. Also, the guy who plays Homelander also plays the sheriff in Banshee, so it comes full circle.
( ；-｀д´-) I don't know how to say this without coming across as a jerk. So I'm just going to say it. You've put far too much thought into this and you would be better off just easing off the pedal. Just write that story to get it off your chest.
This video was very thought provoking and made my analyse how i was treating death and killing in my own writing as well as in the fiction i consume. I will think for some time about this.
In Season 2 of Daredevil there was a great rooftop scene with Frank and Matt having an argument about killing. With some great lines like: "You hit them and they keep getting up. I hit them and they stay down" and "You are one bad day away from becoming me".
Mishandling death is what turned me off of the Jurassic World Franchise, where the baby sitter somehow got the most brutal gruesome death of the movie. I was like... WHY? That was funny in the theatre, but why are you making it funny for characters to die? Isn't this supposed to be action-horror? Aren't I supposed to be scared? Later I found out that scene felt funny because the movie was using the cinematic language of the karmic death on a character who had not been established to deserve it. Creating a jarring experience.
I hadn't been to this side of the channel as the livestream one actually has a vice on my watch time. This came out two weeks ago huh? If it's strict on the two weeks timeline I understand why this video came out. You ain't slick bro. Also, thank you for making this. The like meta art around talking about art as it's own artform has a very unnique feel to me and i'm glad people like you exist.
hi savage, im an addict in recovery. i found your channel about a month ago and ive been binging all of your videos. maybe its something about your voice with lofi music in the background, but you alone have made me interested in story telling in a way no one has before. most of the videos you make are about movies/shows/books that ive seen/read. and when i see a video about something i havent consumed, i watch it before watching your video. ive been watching channels like yours for years, but none of them come even close to scratching your expertise. i guess i just want to say thank you, and i hope you keep making videos, because they inspire me.
Worst example of this is probably thorfinn from Vinland saga. I get he saw the worst of the worst but his inaction causes more problems than he is trying to stop especially right now in manga. His "passivism" is wrong since passivism isn't "I will never fight ever" it's "I will use violence when it's the absolute last option and every other idea is not working"
Exactly! Even his father was willing to fight; it was just the last resort when all else failed. I’m hoping that thorfinn’s arc will get there eventually
@@orochisama2514i doubt it as the manga is ending soon. He's currently filled with arrows and used some no weapon combat to take down a few people at best. Even his brother is now up for war with everyone being heated by the sneak attack of the natives so he's probably going to see the fires of war in vinland
@@ivanbluecool Isn't that like the point though? Clearly he is gettibg consequences for these actions and while what he wants is a beautiful thing, it most likely can't be achieved. He is not an idiot, but he doesn't want to go back into killing people anymore because it ruined his life and he is naturally inclines towards hatred. Dunno, but think its intentional writing.
@@smb1905 he's literally called an idiot last chapter. Plus it's not the point since he fails at that even losing his brother for not being at least somewhat prepared. Plus his dad basically mastered what he's still not understanding even now in the first chapters and now he has arrows in him. . Thorfinn just fills the straw man for what people think passivism is and the other end canut s better at how he goes with war and conquest plus plague even.
This is a problem everyone has figured out already: Have a third character who's already morally compromised do the dirty work. Luke Skywalker can't kill the Emperor, Darth Vader can. Same thing with Batman, Joker, and Jason Todd.
Boring writing excuse. There would have been nothing wrong with Batman or Luke taking out either of those people. Are you already forgetting how many people Luke ended?
Luke wouldn't have a problem with killing Palpatine normally, we know Yoda intended to "destroy the Sith" and walked up to Palpatine's office to duel him, clearly with the intention to kill him, yet Yoda is meant to be the pinnacle of Jedi morality, Luke also blew up the Death Star in Episode IV. Rey directly kills Palpatine in the end of Episode IX too and she's just as moral as Luke, Obi-Wan killed Darth Maul in combat during Episode I, same with Grievous in Episode III, yet he is a perfectly moral Jedi as well. The only problem would be if Palpatine was beaten, surrendered and defenseless, like Dooku was when Anakin killed him, but Jedi don't have "no kill rules" merely a "not killing defenseless prisoners" rule. The reason Vader kills Palpatine instead of Luke is simply because Palpatine is too powerful to be defeated in a duel.
Hey that was one of the best video essay I watched in a long while. I was hooked the whole time. I will defitively check out the rest of your channel!!
Any hero who fights evil is a warrior archetype. A warrior who can't kill is a useless non-sequitur that destroys the archetype. In reality, to enter combat is to accept the risk of death for yourself and your opponent. And if the evil doesn't need to be stopped by any means necessary, it's not that evil, or at least you're not taking it seriously.
I’ve seen a couple people bring up the “I’ll kill all your henchmen but not the main bad guy” trope before, but am I the only one who doesn’t have a problem with it? Like in everyone of those instances, its waves of minions trying to kill the hero, while the main villain is completely defenseless and at the mercy of them. In other words, it’s the difference between killing in cold blood vs self defense.
That out group and in group thing skips a bit on that frequently those bad guy groups are trying to do something unapologetically wrong or evil. There was a reason star wars started with the empire glassing a planet :P Them just being different so we fight them is true, but then Thanos and co. is also trying to murder A LOT of people. This speaks in a lot of absolutes that rarely universally apply
Dude is a billionaire with magic and alien friends. Theres almost no reason anymore should have to die Send the joker to space or the phantom zone or something
Conflating all killing with murder is a mistake. Murder is morally wrong killing. It does not include self-defense, mutual combat, even war time collateral deaths (until it very suddenly becomes a war crime due to excess). As a great example, in Civil War, the issue was not over the deaths they caused. No one but no one complained about all the dead aliens in New York. Charlie Spencer was, unlike what his mother claimed, not murdered. Collateral damage. But that is what the movie was about. Not the death they caused, but the innocent death they failed to avoid.
I don't think Thor:Ragnarock shold be in "murder by inaction" section. Because Thor is not refusing to kill Hela on some moral basis. He just is not strong enough phisically. Bad example, really.
@@FoboS_IX In fact Thor is the one who effectively ordered her death. He told Loki to start Ragnarok, which he had to know would have killed her. It was the right call though, she was too dangerous to be left alive.
The text boxes you included in quotes, can you include the sources? I really liked some of them and I can't tell if you were quoting someone else or yourself.
Life is invaluable, but what makes it more complicated than that is justice and mercy, goodness, beauty and truth. You can't have true mercy without justice. True justice and mercy take into account what the victim needs, not just the villain. Justice is making things fair, mercy is only doing what's necessary, no more. Revenge and justice are not the same. Revenge doesn't take mercy into account. If a person uses their life to attack life, they become an abomination and forfeit their rights. They don't deserve to abuse the sacred gift of life. If i gave my child a gift, and they abused that gift, i would take it away. But mercy gives second chances, etc. So maybe take it away and giving it back later once they've learned. But if they have proven they won't learn. Or if its something big. Like the thing they abused wasn't a toy, but a pet, and the abuse was sadistic, I would not give them any more pets. If it was another child, i would need to get therapists, maybe send them to an institution. I'd still love and care for them but the bigger the crime, the harder it is to protect them from the concequences. So where do we send killers when we have nothing left on this earth that fits their crime? Nothing that can reform them or stop them? We send them out of this world. Sometimes that's the only option. To protect the innocent, you have to address the guilty. Our justice systems aren't perfect, but justice and mercy should not be disregarded. Life is sacred, but death is not the worst thing.
In original Gears of War the character Carmine was a character that was written to die He was a filler character to be in the squad until Augustus Cole joins the squad His name Carmine is a shade of red A reference to the red shirts from star trek But his character was so popular in the multi-player they made a new Character his younger Ben Carmine for the sequel Same voice actor and very similar personality This video made me think of this
I think Red Hood had a good answeer for Batman not killing. Not because its wrong, or that it would be the right or wrong for society but bc Batman himself feels that if he crosses that line he could become a bigger threat than the monsters he refuses to kill. I don't know if I agree with it... but it feels like something he would believe.
The "protagonist shall not kill" rule only exists in comics so that villains can be brought back again and again. That’s all it’s ever amounted to. As for Batman himself, it’s not for him to decide whether people should live or die. *The state*, however, should have absolutely given just about every villain in Arkham the electric chair years ago.
I'm a really big fan of the new Planet of the Apes series. It's noteworthy that Cesar has 1 kill, and he has nightmares about it. He lets a bunch of humans die through his actions but I don't think he directly does any of them (except Malfoy, who kinda did it to himself). He goes to lengths to avoid that until the Colonel kills his family, and feels bad about that too
16:20 you talk about how "orcs aren't people" but, that isn't the message in that story AT ALL. Orcs are people... they're just people who are trying to kill you and your family. Lord of the Rings is a war story, Orcs are enemy soldiers. It's understandable to kill enemy soldiers: war is a kill or be killed situation, you can't just not kill (or aid in killing, which is morally equivalent) when there is a war on. That's not one of the available options. This is NOT the same however as killing soulless henchmen. The deaths of enemy soldiers DO matter narratively: the act of killing another person changes the hero, even when it was done out of necessity. The hero can remain likeable, if they don't graduate from killing out of necessity to killing for sport, but they cannot remain unchanged by the act of killing. Cannon Fodder have to be soulless, or your reader is 100% going to say "hey, this hero is a mass murderer". I think this also applies to Man vs. Nature stories as well, because a war story is really just another version of that. Man vs. Nature is always really Man vs. Himself: and war stories are always that as well. The animal, or the enemy is always a representation of the hero's inner darkness. Aragorn never says as much, but if you read the entire book including the Appendices, you learn that many of the enemies are his relatives: some of the Ringwraiths, the barrow-wight, and the Corsairs. They represent tastes of what he might become if he were to take the Ring, precisely because he is a killer. Him being a warrior is presented as a necessity, but a dangerous one: one that actually causes him to face certain temptations which the hobbit characters don't, because they never kill. Also, Deadpool isn't likeable because he's good. Deadpool is likeable because he's funny, raunchy and entertaining to watch. Deadpool can kill people because he's not a good guy. Don't confuse anti-heroes and heroes, it's NEVER a problem for an anti-hero to kill a person because the entire point of anti-heroes is that they do morally questionable stuff. No one is out here claiming that Deadpool is the epitome of morality, we just like watching Ryan Reynolds in a skin tight suit dual-wielding katanas and cracking jokes. The entire point of Deadpool is to remove the necessity to think about the morality behind his actions by just up-front admitting that he's not a good guy. This is also a valid strategy for a writer and one that I personally think more authors who write historical fiction and non-fantasy fiction ought to use (instead of creating characters with incongruously modern attitudes towards social issues). Like, just make it clear that these people were #problematic, but that isn't a reason to not try and understand them. Because see that's the issue with the argument that "this story's hero is problematic" outside of fantasy (even within fantasy this can be a dumb argument when the character in question was never supposed to be heroic). So what? Problematic people are still people, who can be relatable and understandable. Having an emotional attachment to a character is not a reason to twist logic in order to justify that character's actions.
Within my one web novel, there is a lot of weight put on killing and the morality related to that. But I have something specifically related to the orcs example. There are a people who have conquered most of the world, and their brutality makes the main character's stomach churn, but he's far more brutal when it comes to actually fighting, his targets are not the same. At a point, he develops a virus that could target them and then alone, but he can't bear to use it, because genocide is a step way beyond anything he can justify. Then he learns that they are basically predisposed to evil as a result of a couple of biological factors I won't get into. So he tries to actually work with one of the two leaders of the empire. But it falls through, and ultimately, after calling a council of all of his allies, he puts it to a vote and they unanimously agree to deploy the virus. This is a choice that nobody else who've suffered under them for much longer cares about, they consider them a blight that can't be fixed. So, this goes with the whole incongruous moral views for a fantasy story thing a little. But I think I justify and build up my MC as somebody who has these views for a reason. he's far from some paragon of morality that feels like he's been dropped in a world where that doesn't make sense.
Deaths can be impactful on "completed characters", but done poorly it feels so, so cheap lol And I guess that is the catch with death tropes. If the audience think it was useless or stupid in any way, you have usually cheapened your story.
@@OhNoTheFace That’s why I hated Professor X’s death in Logan. It was cheap, pointless, and came right as he was approaching the turning point of his character arc. It was so poorly handled and it was a waste of Patrick Stewart’s talent.
The only time a "villain sacrificing themselves as redemption" has ever worked for me is in Transformers: Armada, and they did it twice! The most impactful was the first one, Starscream- he had defected more towards anti-hero, and had become friends with a human, Alexis, because she was the first person to acknowledge him as a being, not a tool for battle. While the Autobots and Decepticons are still squabbling, Unicron (who is as big as fuckin Saturn) has arrived to eat the Earth. Starscream tells Galvatron that he always tried his best for him, but Galvatron still abused him because it was never good enough. They fight, Starscream is bolder than he's ever been. Galvatron is insulting him the whole time, yet still constantly giving Starscream ways out- he doesn't actually want to hurt him. But Starscream is sick of the war going nowhere, mournful now that he's seen how Optimus Prime treats his men and it was never a matter of being "good enough," and angry that the two sides are still standing around while Unicron is about to enter the atmosphere and kill Alexis. Starscream deliberately steps into the path of Galvatron's sword, and is run through, forcing Galvatron to face the harm he's done to Starscream. Starscream tells Optimus and Galvatron that the only way for Unicron to be defeated is if the two of them let go of their pride and work together, because they're only thinking of themselves, and not taking the lives of their troops and the Earth seriously. He asks that they please, please, do it for him. Starscream puts his entire energy store into his laser cannons, and fires at Unicron in the sky, screaming with grief and rage. Being stabbed, with his energy depleted, he can't move out of the way when Unicron strikes him with lightning. His screaming body grows silent as he disintegrates in the light. We cut to Alexis at the space station, and the pendant she has- made of the rock Starscream brought to her from the moon- cracks in two. She runs to the window, and sees a far-off laser inching towards Unicron, but the length of the space is too far; it ebbs away without even touching Unicron. He proved one person cannot do it alone. In the finale, Optimus and Galvatron are at the mouth of Unicron, a black hole. Of course, the gravity is immense, and everything around them is getting sucked in. Galvatron loses his footing, and Optimus grabs his hand, both of them hanging over the precipice. Optimus still holds him, even though the bar they're hanging onto is starting to crack from the weight of both of them. For complicated plot reasons, Galvatron could effectively be a nuke if eaten by Unicron, and kill him if the black hole is destroyed. Galvatron asks Optimus to let go. Optimus refuses, begging for them to find another way. Galvatron says that the war will end here, and they're out of time. Galvatron sees that the bar is about to snap- he takes out his sword, and cuts his own arm off to keep Optimus alive. As he falls into the black hole, he yells goodbye, and to find their men, they need him. A lot of the series is unmemorable, but seeing that as a kid wrecked me for a week. I still get teary-eyed watching Starscream's futile pleas as he's dying, RIP the armada king
Heroes are in most times vigilantes making them not the police or state hired security. By letting them off people it gives rise to vigilantism where people take the law into their own hands and cause more problems than it solves Sure batman can off joker but what's stopping him from doing that to bank robbers when it's all the same in cleaning up the streets. Superman did this in justice league tas future universe by making the villains tomatoes basically causing brain damage in a police state. Spider man gets praise when he snaps or venom takes over which is honestly horrible to see cheers when you go evil but that's media in a nutshell. Heroes shouldn't end lives unless it's the absolute last option and no other choice is left. The law should change if that's the case to trial and remove the villains through court if they want to do it then but that too would lead to more problems
Batman killed a ton of people before an editorial mandate for him to become more child friendly and have a kid sidekick. The shadow was more popular than Batman in his time and the shadow killed a ton of villains and criminals.
i mean, the difference between joker and bank robbers is that the bank robbers aren't prolific mass murderers and terrorists who are known to enjoy mutilating and massacring people for fun? batman wouldn't turn into a mindless killing machine without morals if he killed one massively evil person, and its a little disingenuous to treat joker and petty criminals as the same thing. i do agree that killing should be the last option though (which is what the joker has pushed things to imo). I think some people cheer when heroes snap and go for more permanent solutions because the endless revolving door for main villains has produced a sort of fatigue around the 'stick him in jail like thats going to fix anything' moral ending (and also it can be fun to explore a more dark side to a normally very upright character). I think thats why i personally also like seeing storylines where the hero tries and maybe succeeds at reforming villains or at least connecting to them and changing them (like batman and flash and spiderman and wonder woman in certain storylines) rather than just beat em up and toss em in jail, because its an actual attempt at a solution to the problem of people taking their issues out on society
The thing about heroes killing is that many times people forget that heroes aren't cops and They aren't there to uphold The law, They're there to help people, every life They take is more and more Trust that They lose with The Common people, and that would interfere with their ability to help, i Mean, would you really trust a superhero with your child If They have a reputation of getting into big fights and killing people? I wouldn't
@@hariman7727 counterargument to that: who is that? Having flimsy ideals and not inspiring Hope by being a great hero made The shadow forgetable Expanding on that, helping people is The most important thing for a hero, not punishing evil or even seeking justice per say but Just helping people, of course that Means The other things i listed come with It but helping people is The top priority, that's why Superman saves The cat, that's why one of The most iconic Batman moments of all time is him holding out his hand for Ace at The end JLU. Heroes don't uphold The law and They don't work for us, They Just help
9:13 ok but killing off Loki, the character who has fake died at least 3 times, and who's fate was unknown at least two more times, a character who is always 3 steps ahead of everyone and KNOWN for his plan and circumstances never being what they seem....killing him off set the most confusing freaking tone ever. Most people didn't believe in his death even after End Game. Some fans didn't believe other characters like Gamora had died in Infinity War and I legitimately think it's because Loki's death set a tone of nothing being what it seemed. Overall, killing him wasn't a mistake. Killing him in such a straightforward way, and then being done with him WAS. Like he hadn't known about Thanos since Avengers and it hasn't been heavily implied that he as king was preparing for Thanos. All that promise and no payoff, no character consistency, no theme consistency. ....But you know what would have been a brilliant execution of the death trope, setting the serious tone, as well as fulfilling two character arcs, forcing a character to carry on the embodied virtues etc? Thor being killed off in the begining of IW. He could get a huge battle with Thanos AND his minions. He and Loki could fight side by side as brothers one last time. He's already had the perfect character arc, he's already king. For a moment you think they'll win, but they're alone, and they can't outlast Thanos. So Thor sacrifices himself to save Loki and whoever else. Loki is left with a kingship he never wanted, a hero role he was never suited for, a task to warn Thor's allies who see him as an enemy. And everyone wishing it had been him instead of Thor, included himself. He has no choice but to rise to the occasion, bringing his arc full circle to an inverted version of his first appearance in Avengers. "I do not come with glad tidings." -Loki "I've got red on my ledger, Ms. Romanoff. I would think you would understand that." -Loki "Ah, the would-be king. The Avengers must be truly desperate." -Thanos "You must be glad he's dead. Now you've gotten everything you've ever wanted." -Sif maybe. There's just SO MUCH POTENTIAL OK. Of course I would prefer to bring Thor back to life, maybe like, through the efforts of Loki, but only after the arc is complete. Then they could take what remains of Asgard and go settle on an unpopulated planet and then boom. They've been fulfilled as characters and written out of the story. Anyway I'm done. They ruined my boys arcs and all i can do is mourn.
The Teen Titans cartoon makes my brain hurt. I have to assume the cartoon version of Terra didn't sleep with the cartoon version of Slade. 🤪 But seriously, awesome video, excellent consideration and exploration of the subject and it different debates and aspects!
Regarding 35:08 If you're not familiar with it, I think you should check out the anime Trigun (1998), I don't want to give away too much but the main character and the situations he finds himself in immediately came to mind.
Second comment but i wanted to say more LOL In the story i have been working on for a very long time, I’ve needed an invading force to come to the “protag’s country” I thought.. Orcs! But Orcs are always depicted as evil mindless barbarians. But… the Romans called the Mongolians barbarians, too. Mongolians! One of, to my admittedly limited knowledge, the most effective military forces in history And apparently! I learned that Mongols is actually an insult akin to idiot or dumb. Which is just so far from the case! They have lives and culture! I want to try and represent that. They’re invading, yes. They are the “antagonists,” yes. Adrian is forced to kill many of them, because he’s a soldier. But, my hope is, if i write it well, to give the audience a taste that there is more to them than simply evil minions. All we get to see is their military, so of course it will shape our view. But, in the sequel, we get to GO to the Mongolian country and experience their culture! Art and music and food and people living their lives! This isn’t necessarily an… excuse (?) to condone ancient invasions or conquests. Rome was not pretty in that regard, yet we still venerate it. There’s so much more to history and culture that we simply don’t get to see. I hope, in my story, i can further push the envelope on making everyone feel like they are people, not just good or bad, our side or theirs. I want to include differences in perspectives, regions, philosophies, mythologies and religions. A step toward that, I think for me, is actually trying to understand more about languages. I don’t think I’ll ever speak fluent Mongolian (Not sure if that’s an accurate title of the language, I just did a quick google search) Hell, I can hardly speak English! But I think in my case it helps immensely to have at least a passing understanding of how a language might sound or how it might be interpreted differently than others And yes, AoT was a MAJOR inspiration for this line of thinking. I’d also attribute at leSt some of it to World of Warcraft, too. I think, when I was 12, it was probably the first time that the undead weren’t all evil, the orcs werent all mindless war machines. I mean… WoW doesn’t stray from those tropes very far, but it was my first glimpse into the reality that perspective shapes our views. As someone with Autism, I always related to the “Outsider Horde”
Super heroes have taught me that the no-killing rule doesn’t apply to demons, aliens, or Nazis.
Love thy neighbor.
Unless thy neighbor is a nazi, fuck that guy.
I know, right?!! I'm pretty sure even Lucifer and/or Satan hates the Nazis. #EverybodyHatesTheNazis.
I always thought everyone else was on the same page.
Are nazis not demons and aliens?
"If you kill Nazis you're just as bad as them" so? I don't care if my soul is stained, just that they no longer draw their hateful breath and use it to hurt others. I'll kill myself after the fact if I'm that stained after it all.
Hello Future Me drops a video on Immortality the same day Savage drops this video on death? Are the writing UA-camrs okay?
I hadn't seen his new video dropped ... Something to check later
I thought the same thing!
Howdy Doc Sherman!
Just finished watching that one..
Went straight from that video to this one 😭
37:22 The reason Batman can’t kill changes a lot from writer to writer. Personally I’ve never liked the “Then I’ll just start killing everyone” angle. I prefer the idea that Batman simply values life that much. He knows the pain and loss caused by death, and Batman is his way of kinda conquering death itself. Batman values life. And there is some opportunity for nuance there. Such as Batman having to deal with someone who kills because they value life and see his villains as a threat to life.
But that’s just my perspective.
two of those things can be true at the same time, he can believe life is precious and that everyone deserves a chance to do right and also believe that taking a life will lead him into a spiral of death and madness.
What pain and loss comes from letting supervillains like the Joker die?
@@ExpertContrarian for the joker its a bit different. The joker at times WANTS Batman to kill him. In a sick sort of way bc you know....joker be jokering. But Batsy wont go that far bc if he does he breaks his rule. Othertimes he doesn't WANT to die but he knows The Bat wont kill him so he just does his stuff. Truth is Bruce believes that life is worth protecting and that no one is so far gone that they are beyond redemption.
@@FacelessnotFaithless He’s not any different.
@@ExpertContrarian hugh?
I hate the hypocrisy of "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you." It turns the "I won't kill" into a blatant joke.
I also always hated the "I killed all the minions but "I don't kill" the bad guy. That's just "I'm ok killing the poor, but the rich bad guy deserves a fair trial." ...I mean I guess that's realisitc.
There are ways to do them right.
If the character is working around a loophole where they can't directly kill a character or if the character is taking away power or control from another. For the first example, imagine a villain that can not be murdered but is left to fall off a cliff. For the second, imagine a villain who loses everything their men, their influence, their money, their power and are left with nothing but the clothes on their back and their name.
@@65fireredAnd for the first example, which is most notably shown in Batman Begins, Bruce specifically draws the line at becoming an assassin, an “executioner” that would kill those who pose no threat to him or others due to his advanced capabilities.
The times he does kills people, directly or indirectly, he is doing so in defense of himself and others when his usual capabilities are not enough to resolve the situation without casualties.
He notably allows Ra’s to die not only to avenge his parents, whose deaths were indirectly caused by the League worsening Gotham’s poverty in a bid to destroy it, but also because he had no way to subdue or contain an individual like him in charge of an organization of similarly dangerous agents all with Bruce’s combat and espionage abilities, meaning his death was his only means of even just deterring the organization for a time.
His initial attempt to pacify a deranged Harvey Dent failed, leaving him with a gut shot and, therefore, not at his full capacity while Harvey was actively holding a Gordon’s wife and children hostage, which forced Bruce to have to tackle him to get his son away from Dent, knocking off a platform.
Then, of course, there’s Talia playing keep-away with a nuke she intended to let explode to destroy Gotham with, with Bruce’s only means to stop her being to crash her vehicle to get to the bomb as quickly as possible, which fatally injured her.
Alternatively, Bruce spares Joker not just in defiance of his attempts to manipulate him into breaking any laws than he already does nor his own moral code, but also because he could afford to subdue him non-lethally due to his capabilities and equipment, with his many crimes against the city at even the highest levels of its local government system meaning he would have no chance to escape punishment or to bribe and extort his way out of prison with the handful of allies he had left.
This interpretation of the “no-kill” rule, especially in Batman’s mythos, is one of the more nuanced takes, as it allows Bruce to retain his characterization of being merciful and idealistic, but also puts him in situations that would rationally warrant exceptions to the rule and portrays him as pragmatic enough to be able to do “what is necessary”, his more defensive killings contrasting against his enemies, who kill as an indulgence or self-righteousness.
I don't see the hypocrisy in the former. The latter it definitely is, though.
@@mattd5240 the position that it is hypocratic is a hypocracy in itself. By that token inaction being counted as action means any time we turn on a light, any time we use our mobile phone, any time we have a hot shower, we're morally and provably responsible the destruction of the earths ecosystems. It's an untenable position.
Thank you. Any use of of "I don't have to save you" is lazy as hell
The only story I know of that does a compelling version of the "If I kill I'm no better than the villain" argument is Monster.
The story follows a surgeon who unknowingly saved the life of a serial killer, and has resolved to track down and kill his former patient before he can claim any more lives. Every experience the hero has on his quest is an argument against murder.
(spoilers)
He meets terrorists who sought a understandable cause, but accidentally killed innocent people in the crossfire.
He befriends the kind elderly parents of a convicted killer, and witnesses their love for their son despite their acknowledgement of the horrible thing he did.
A man who seeks revenge for the family he lost gets killed on his mission and causes his newfound family to grieve the same loss he sought revenge for.
A detective's life is ruined when he shoots an unarmed criminal.
A man who came from the same horrible background as the villain is an incredibly kind man who rose above the circumstances that made him.
An assassin who loves sweet coffee gives up his trade when he lines up the crosshairs of his sniper rifle with his target, and sees the target adding sugar to his coffee.
An old man who killed during the war lives the rest of his life repenting for it.
Everything the protagonist experiences reinforces the idea that violence only perpetuates suffering and that empathy and kindness are the only way to improve the world. Everything, except for the actions committed by the antagonist, who regularly kills innocent people for no apparent reason; who regularly ruins the lives of those who have nothing to do with him; who's continued existence has only caused harm and bred more violence. Surely someone who's developed the appreciation for life that our hero fosters would come to the conclusion that the villain is only destroying those invaluable lives.
Monster is the only work of fiction to stump me on the whole Do We Kill The Villain dilemma. If life is too valuable to end, and life is too valuable to let others end, what's to be done with irredeemable killers?
This is pretty much my reasoning for pacifism.
Since we are unable to make clear judgment from our lack of perspective. We must instead remain impartial.
It becomes a lot easier to maintain when you are both content in life and no longer fear death.
The ideas of states and pacifism are at odds with one another. So I’ve decided to not advocate for pacifism through policy, but to just simply practice it. And that’s enough for me.
Ayyyy that's my favorite manga! Excellent series. Urasawa is master at fleshing out characters, even minor ones
@@neetfreek9921 I can't say I agree with your perspective, but I do understand your logic, and applaud your choice for how to practice it.
Trigun (particularly Maximum) as well.
@@rotolotto I mean, Trigun is one where the protagonist is able to get away without killing because of his superhuman abilities. It is a very good and philosophically interesting series, especially as he is partially responsible for the plight of everyone around him, which he could have lessened or eliminated entirely by killing Knives long ago, and yet doesn't change his hard rule of not killing, but a human marksman in his place would probably be killing people if he wanted to have any chance of accomplishing anything.
44:00 this reminds me of a Midrash (Jewish tale that reinterprets a biblical story*) about the Hebrews fleeing Egypt and how the sea parted for them but then closed around the Egyptian army chasing them, leading the majority of the army to drown. The Midrash goes like this: the angels watch the escape, the parting of the sea, and the drowning of the Egyptians, and celebrate - this is it, the Hebrews are free and safe from slavery! - but God weeps. One of the angels asks, "why are you crying? This is a joyous occasion!" and God replies: "you forget, the Egyptians were my children too."
*yes, fanfiction is an integral part of Jewish culture
I always like to learn more about Jewish culture, even though I myself am not Jewish, or even very super religious. :3. I find their stories to be very beautiful, at times tragic, and fascinating. I like learning about different cultures and their religions and stories. I just like learning about different people from all over the world. :3. Do you have any more stories like this? I'd love to learn and know more Jewish stories like this!! :3.
Except free will doesn’t exist in the Bible so it just makes it hilariously evil
This is a widespread misunderstanding of this midrash.
God says to the angels "My creations are drowning in the sea and *You* are singing?". Meaning that the angles have no right or reason to celebrate and sing.
The Israelites on the other hand are obligated to sing God's praise as thanks for their miracle - The Egyptians drowning in the sea.
That is why it's an integral part of everyday mourning prayer, the whole song and the mentions of it.
Moreover, there's an another story with King Hezekiah, when the Assurians were killed by a divine miracle, had he sang praise hw would have become the Messiah.
(As said in the Talmud in Sanhedrin)
I find that the hero who chooses not to kill because of the vast power difference between them and their charges and/or adversaries, like Superman or Invincible, are the most compelling version of the choice not to kill. Otherwise, I feel like on even ground, we let the Lord decide who lives lol
I like how superman scared the shit out of joker one time by telling him he doesnt have a no killing rule like batman, he just doesnt Feel Like killing
Invincible is a great mention of this, specifically because of the FASCINATING arc he goes through with his morality in the comics. No spoilers if you're show only, but there's a lot of interesting development that Mark goes through after Langstrom.
I just wrote a chapter with one of these cases.
He grabs the guy's arm, and the MC is so fast that the other guy might as well be moving at a standstill.
Then the thoughts come about the ways he could kill him. But he decides that the best thing to do is to talk the guy down instead of hurting him.
The guy had a reason for what he almost did, but it didn't justify it, just like the MC wouldn't really be justifed if he did kill him.
Now, if the other guy was even a little powerful, someone who he couldn't trust wasn't a real threat to him and his family, he would've dumped his body in the woods with some guilt, but that wouldn't have lasted.
My favorite form of Man vs Nature is Dungeon Meshi. They have to kill monsters in order to eat and survive as they navigate the dungeon. But you can feel Ryoko Kui's compassionate, scientific mind. They're enthusiastic and curious the monsters' biology, ecosystem, they use every part they can; they're respectful and reverent in the same way indigenous hunters are. Sometimes it feels less like a comedic DnD adventure, and more like a field guide written by a professor in love with nature!
Just double checking: Dungeon Meshi is the same as Delicious in Dungeon, right?
@@liambryant4953 Yes
nah
@@bottleofgreed4415shush
@@liambryant4953honestly fans who want to flex vs clear communication is annoying.
Going off on a tangent here I also believe that the "redemption" of the villain, when they see the "error of their ways" or end up on the side of the "good guys" in a last hurrah and going out in a blaze of glory not only redeems them in the eyes of the viewer but also emphasises which side of the conflict are the good guys. Which can be easy at times when the Good vs. Bad plot is very black and white at times, but I think it plays an even bigger part in narratives where it might be a little more grey.
But even in the black and white narratives it really drives it in that the protagonists really are the good guys, which is easily portrayed in stories but we all know that real life is a lot more grey and nuanced. There aren't that many that are outright evil.
You can have a very good black and white plot, and you can have a bad grey plot there's other pillars that are required to be good and support the narrative. To me it's more a choice of the type of story you're trying to tell.
Ah... the last hurrah aspect of it sort of undermines the redemption at times. When you have a character doing deplorable things for a while now and then nearing the end, they choose to do good, I at times think to myself, "Why now?"
Moreover, when the character gets redeemed in the eyes of their world because of that last act, after doing some really bad things, it at times leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it undermines all the harm and damage they've caused.
This, however, does not include moments where the bad guy systematically begins making up for their deeds up until the point they are at the end of their life.
This, in my opinion, works best because you can tell that the bad guy character is fully committed to repenting their actions instead of it being a spur of the moment decision because they know they are going to die.
The last hurrah rarely ACTUALLY redeems them 😂 it’s in fact the laziest and weakest way to do a redemption arc and often fails to be convincing
My brother is a bigger nerd than me and I brought up the "Should Batman Kill?" argument up with him. His personal opinion? Yes, Batman should kill _some_ of his villains... but NOT their henchmen. He doesn't believe in the trope of the hero killing armies of henchmen and goons and letting the villain get a fair trial. It's understandable that most Henchmen are just people with a job, even if that job is harmful (that is unless there's a reason why they're all unnecessarily evil) I even brought up other Batman villains who are more sympathetic, specifically Poison Ivy and Two-Face.
Yes while some versions of the characters are very sympathetic and are very possibly redeemable, their is a line that has to be drawn if Poison Ivy starts killing innocent people to use as fertilizer for man-eating, invasive plants. Even Two-Face, who is a very tragic character, if he decides to never change would have no choice but to be put down like a rabid dog. The rabid dog comparison makes sense because no matter how smart or loving a dog used to be, if they get Rabies it's all but over. There is nothing left of whatever it used to be, and ending that suffering is undoubtedly a mercy. Plus he brought up the real question of why doesn't Gotham have a Death Penalty or better prisons? The answer is obviously they don't unfortunately. Gotham is a corrupt city with no executioner and a vigilante who refuses to take a life.
And despite rhe fact that I still defend certain villains and know *(DEPENDING ON THE WRITER)* that they have a chance at redemption and rehabilitation... There was absolutely no argument for Joker. The Joker has been UNIVERSALLY written to be more and more and more of a menace and it's just not fun anymore. He's so psychotically evil that I don't want to even really see him anymore, I legit just want the writers to make him die. Worst of all is the asinine edgelord nonsense logic of "If Batman kills Joker, Joker Wins!" It's just so dumb...
I've heard too a really good reason why the No Kill Rule has been so argued about. The heroes of DC Marvel specifically have been portrayed in a way that their ideals are pretty much the same as they were decades ago. Meanwhile the villains have been paradoxically made MORE vile as time has gone on. It's like seeing the Lone Ranger or Zorro fight f**cking Ted Bundy or the Zodiac Killer.
Sorry for the rant, but this argument has been a draining topic for a while.
chill
chill
joker was always physcopathic,but because in the silver age there was a comic code that toned down violence, but after Alan Moore wrote Swamp Thing nobody cared anymore and batman stories started getting darker again culminating in dark Knight Returns. Actually it was batman that remained toned down because when he was created he was a violent killer.
I personally think that the argument shouldn't be "If Batman kills the Joker, Joker wins" instead it should "If Batman kills the Joker, he stops being Batman". Or, as Red from OSP put it, _that is not Batman, is the Punisher in a furry suit_ which is pretty accurate.
Batman is what you as a kid think a superhero should be, he's a protector of the innocent, the savior of the abused and an absolute nightmare for evil people. At the same time, (I do not claim this is the same with every kid) a child hardly understands what death is but knows that they should not wish that on others, therefore Batman should not kill. In addtion to this, evil should fear Batman precisely because he doesn't kill, he can get you a fate worse than death.
But Bruce should let Dick and Jason take out the Joker and some other of his villians.
@@davidmauriciogutierrezespi5244 Nightwing doesn't kill
One thing I disagree with. Viewing a work of fiction as a writer’s means of communicating their personal beliefs is a dangerous fallacy. Even if they are intentionally doing so, there can be a disconnect between the author’s intention and the reader’s interpretation. As a writer myself who is working on a book with a villain protagonist, I find this as very important to point out. That’s like saying that since Walt is the protagonist of breaking bad, his morals, or even just the actions he gets away with, are justified by means of his success and fortunes. In the same vein, I could say that his initial dissatisfaction with his life was cosmic punishment for being mediocre or settling for mediocrity and assume that the writers are telling us to do whatever it takes, even immoral actions, to achieve our goals.
I don't actually think we disagree. Depictions of violent people, or even their success in such fictions, is not always an endorsement of said violence by thr author. In your example, the writers clearly didn't endorse Walter's meth making...because his life absolutely fell apart 😅. All works of art contain messaging. It's impossible not to communicate some message in a story. The difference is what is meant to be perceived and what is actually taken away.
@@savagebooks7482I haven't watched the video all the way yet so forgive me if I'm missing something, I'm just going based on what you both said here. But I would like to point out the rare times where the villain succeeds in their goal. That still doesn't mean the villain's stance is endorsed.
Look at Avengers Infinity War. Thanos succeeds in that movie. That doesn't mean that the writers of the movie agree with him or that he's supposed to be seen as correct. The consequences aren't a full picture of the message being conveyed.
And yes I know that some may poijt out he dies at the beginning of Endgame, but that's a different movie. I'm pointing out that in the one piece of media that is Infinity War, Thanos succeeded, without negative repurcussions like those that a character like Walter White had.
The writer's beliefs do shape the stories they make though. Certain telltale signs can point to a compromised moral compass. For example, the usage of protagonist-centered morality, where when the protagonists do it it's okay and they suffer no repercussions but when others do it it's punishable by death.
I'd like to also point out that a disconect between the author's intention and the reader's interpretation is, according to the Death of the author essay, not something that might but will inevitably happen. That is, because each person's interpretation is going to be formed through a lens made of the cultural context (which include personal beliefs) that shapes their perception, one that also affects the writer's understanding of the world around them.
Now, going beyong the essay, my understanding is that this does not only mean that each person can have the same event happen before their eyes and see different things from each other, it also means that if someone writes about the event they won't be able to tell what happened, instead showing what they saw/understood that happened. And this is why, I think, a work of fiction is always about the writer's communicating their personal beliefs, because an objective viewpoint is not a thing in real life either.
7:34 "Obviously, not all characters die after being totally complete. In fact, I would say it's quite a rarity"
Attack on Titan: "hold my beer" _kills all their characters one after the other when their personal arcs are complete across the entirety of its runtime_
I am making a fantasy story that does tackle that subject and that video was extremely valuable. Thank you.
Basically my story tackles someone who is deathly afraid of hurting anyone because he knows he is extremely powerful with magic. On the other hand, he is dragged into trying to fight a vampire with flesh bending capabilities who is overtly showed as being pure evil and exactly what the hero fears he could become if he crossed the line. The protagonist knows that the villain is irredeemable and the story is about him contemplating if he should kill that vampire and, if he decides to, if he has the mental strength to forgive himself for breaking his morals.
39:08 Probably a bad example to use for this point because the reason Thor does this is not because he's superficially taking a moral high ground. It's because he knows he ACTUALLY can't kill Hela. She's stronger than him and he literally does not have the power to take her down.
I have always believed that killing a villain is not in the heroes best interests because in someway that will fundamentally ruin their idealism. But sadly a truly unrepentant villain will not stop until they are put down, but I believe the hero should always kill in self defense or be forced instead of killing in cold blood or rage.
To me the best no kill rules is when it's brought up as a potential flaw like batmam vs redhood film from 2009 the discussion that batman and jayson is so good and the film never says whose right
The problem there is it does unintentionally paint Batman as a complete lunatic who’s one bad day away from being a mass murderer
@@creed8712 they talk about that kind of batman says he can't cause it would cross a line he couldn't come back from and Jayson says he's not asking him to kill all of them just the joker. I think it was nuanced enough, and I think batman might believe / be afraid he's one bad day from becoming just like the joker
@@creed8712 I think thats the thing with Batman though is that he is a lunatic that keeps himself barely in check with his own rules. I think he sees himself as insane, after all his royge gallery is a reflection of himself so I think the painting was already there.
@@creed8712I always took the line “If I allow myself to go to that place, then I’ll never come back” as more of an extension of Batman’s philosophy as a whole. His whole driving motivation is that he values life above all as his whole life was shattered due to a random act of violence that took the lives of his parents. He follows that one rule strictly. To a fault even. He’s so stubborn that he won’t take a life even if it guarantees that other people will live. He just can’t do it. He doesn’t have it in him. So if he were to kill the Joker at Jason’s insistence, to “let himself go to that place”, then he’ll never be the same man from before. He’ll “never come back”.
Admittedly, the explanation that “he’ll just be a violent murderer too if he kills the Joker” is probably what the writers were going for but that just never sat with me.
Yeah also it’s not really Batman’s fault for not killing the joker it’s the justice system in Gotham not giving him a death penalty after all the escapes and murders it’s like bro we know he’s gonna escape again and kill again why are we relying on Batman to do all the work.
I remember i saw an analysis of Under The Redhood: movie vs. Film. In it, it points out that comic batman feels like hes clutching onto the remnants of his parents ideology, he side steps responsibility and tries to save joker. Hes a broken man, thats the point. But in the film, hes accepts that jason os right, and even allows him to kill the joker by walking away.
I like the comic variation explanation for why he doesnt kill. Hes not reliable and knows hes insane, and doesnt think he has the wherewithal to decide true right from wrong. Theres other comics where he debates other heros and even allows certain victims to kill their killers because he thinks that they are more sane than he is.
I like that aspect of self-reflection in Batman that prevents him from ever killing, but in that particular comic Batman is a massive hypocrite, he caused direct lethal damage to Jason to save the Joker (cutting his throat with a batarang) his actions make it seem like Batman simply values Joker's life more than Jason's and is willing to break his rule to prevent Joker from dying of all people.
"Don't want kids to a corpse lying on the ground."
Immediately plays Tarzan clip that shows the shadow of a body being hung. As if thats better! Lol
Not that it makes much of a difference, but it's more seeing the Shadow silhouette of a body, not the person itself.
I actually never noticed it until some other video pointed it out
"Thou shalt not kill" is actually a mistranslation. The actual words in the historical language are "Thou shalt not murder", which in context of the times is "killing outside of tribal group".
And make no mistake, the crime of murder was a crime in biblical times, but it wasn't a blanket statement to never kill at all.
So it was more acceptable to kill others in your group than those outside of it? Seems backwards to me
So, it's not a flawless, inerrant book
@@Richard_Nickerson there are errors in our understanding and translation, not errors in God's Word.
@@hariman7727However, it's a little weird his word would be as susceptible to confusion and deliberate corruption as regular messages.
@@KingOpenReview and it's our job to work to understand better and not make those mistakes, while also preventing people from abusing the Word of God.
I really enjoy how the Witcher like plays on the normal story conventions of death and empathy with the monsters. It makes you really think about each monster in a different way and each human in a different way that’s super fun to read
Between this and the video by Hello Future Me, now I feel like I need to write a story based on chosen immortality vs the consequences of the deaths left in the wake of that choice.
There's one already written, and it's called Full Metal Alchemist.
@@Lord_Phoenix95 Hoenheim actually just the goat of all time
One thing that I learned from George RR Martin is that killing to many characters, without at least exploring their ideology, backstory and function in the plot is a huge mistake, Martin made that mistake, kill to many characters, and replace them with characters that we known nothing about or he did the opposite exploit a fan theory only to promote his show to oblivion, no actually caring about continuity, characters alliances or development, only for marketing, when that character was already dead in the books, now he changed the strategy for one similar to Stephanie Meyer Twilight, putting a team against another, when his story can be basically resume as Shakespeare Hamlet. Anyone remember how nearly all the characters ended in that play?
Yeah, killing characters for shock, so you can keep the readers on their toes, is hard and more often than not bad.
I have at least one case in my web novel where I set up intrigue about a couple of characters and then they die in a single large unstoppable event.
Of the three, arguably four if you count a group of magical intelligent animals, all but one were also introduced not long before their deaths.
I could've done stuff with them as characters, but I found killing them to be better as a means of exploring how that effects the main characters.
@@SearedBooks I already killed character in my nearly ten year story, like four years ago (counting my sabbatical) but the time is up for the next round of character, who narrative importance had lost relevance or basically was non, I really not want to give a exposition dump or reveal much before the ending of the Golden Age arc, before the truly dark part of my story really begins, I also already introduce some elements of cosmic horror, but now I want to introduce other elements like cosmic entities, but I am afraid that my story become so large that my readers lose track of the story, after all, I have been writing it for nearly ten years.
The mistake is making it your gimmick, rather than a tool to be used with precision and care. It's so obvious that such a gimmick would result in you running out of characters to kill for shock value AND the shock value would quickly diminish with each subsequent usage. It's the same problem with using obscene gore as a gimmick. If that's all you have going for you, and you just throw it around everywhere you get the opportunity for the sake of shock value, you're going to lose the effect very quickly and not any real substance to keep the story going. The Boys is a good example of this, IMO.
What do you mean? Where in asoiaf were characters just killed some got killed because of dirty war is some because of their own actions.
Only in the tv show does that happen
I’m not sure you’ve actually read ASOIAF then, because there aren’t actually that many major characters that die and when they do there’s narrative intent to it.
Batman and Joker is definitely the example of this that most comes to mind for me.
I don't think Batman's refusal to kill is necessarily right or wrong. The most flawed part of this eternal cycle of Joker murdering dozens or hundreds or millions of people, being captured and imprisoned, and escaping two weeks later is that it lacks creativity in retaining a nemesis. Joker is irreplaceable to the Batman franchise, and the aforementioned cycle seems to be the only direction in which the writers know to proceed.
In the real world there are alternative outcomes. Criminals can be rehabilitated (most of the time). They cannot escape prison (most of the time). Criminals that commit acts so terrible or often can be executed (most of the time). Because Joker is too valuable to the franchise to ever be permanently taken out of the equation as an antagonist for Batman, none of these realistic outcomes are generally going to occur...at least in the long term. Joker always escapes, and the legal system never executes him. Or he's not really dead. Or whatever.
I feel like the joker problem is more a symptom of the never-ending nature of mainstream comics. Writers inevitably end up doing the same thing over and over again because the story potential has practically been used up years ago, but DC is never gonna stop making Batman comics.
Also a cop who can legally carry could "accidentally" discharge his fire arm in the back of the jokers head and nearly all of the cops would cover for him
People forget that in his initial appereances Joker always "died" at the Batman's hands from 1940 to 1943, yet he always came back from these impossible scenarios, Batman refusing to directly kill the Joker isn't the problem the problem is modern comics making him too overpowered and using him too frequently in big storylines, to the point it feels unrealistic that they wouldn't find a more permanent way to deal with him such as trapping him in the Phantom Zone or something.
Pretty much. Batman's no kill rule only seems so completely asinine because nearly every single aspect of it is caused by Dc having to continue to print batman comics.
The comics have to continue, so no villain can ever be permanently retired, especially not the joker.
The joker has to stay monstrous since otherwise he's no villain anymore to bank on, so he becomes viler and viler and continues to kill and do bad things.
The alternative of having him locked up for good or rehabilitated aren't possible because again, then there'd be no villain joker to make bank on anymore. Meaning Gotham can never reform and stays ludicrously corrupt. Rinse and repeat for every other major villain.
Because the status quo can never change, it looks completely silly that Batman holds onto ideals that do jack diddly squat for the city or its citizens and seems to blatantly benefit the villains, if anything.
I feel like the no-killing rule could work in a completed story and whatnot, but imo fails because of the format.
The subversion of the disposable henchmen trope is one of my favorite things about Christopher Paolini's Inheritance Cycle. I'm rereading the books for the first time as an adult currently and I will die defending them.
Paolini could easily have kept his Urgals as the "other" without a culture or individual personalities but he didn't. He chose to work them into the fabric of his story, to interrogate the problematic aspects of having an innately evil race in your fantasy world. I genuinely love him for that.
Death and killing are different, very different. The protagonist is either the recipient or the instigator, for an Englishman who hasn't been to war, killing is completely unknown, but as a child who grew into an adult, death was part of my life, family/friends died, but I never had the need or the desire to kill. So as a writer I understand the passage of life to death, and understand the associated emotions because I've had the misfortune to experience it and my life experience of those deaths has meaning. The difficulty is when it comes to writing about killing, I can use my imagination but unlike dying, its a story based on others recorded experience not my own, and I suspect since I'm not a psycopath the emotions I can try to articulate are necessarily less complete than those of my own experience. That is why I suspect many literary deaths are almost emotionless, the steely eyed James Bond killer, bang, dead, move on - no emotional impact on the narrative. Yet many interviews with elderly soldiers particulary from WW1 the emotional impact was so devastating and followed them though their lives, but very few written characters are able to articulate this. Thats why I think killers in movies (in particular) are as a character lacking - killing takes life but I suspect the real fact that those killing the impact on them is significant, but for whatever reason, no character in major fiction ever demonstrates this.
Ooo, I suggest you read the manga Fullmetal Alchemist. It has a lot of conversations surrounding death, including the toll it takes when you kill someone. It’s clear that the author did her research.
The closing line of your analysis was perfection. Great work!
Aang didn't kill anybody. He just put them in situations where living is impossible.
I honestly really hate the argument that killing is "realistic" in fiction. It's fiction, inherently unrealistic. And even reality can surprise us sometimes; in real life, execution is a highly-contentious topic, not least because it's inefficient in matters of money, investment and legal standards, leaving only emotional closure as the linchpin for the argument, which, as we all know, are easily-understood and simple to communicate to one another.
Me, personally, I'm a fan of the argument of "Sure, the bad guys deserve to die, but that doesn't mean the hero is allowed to kill them". Not in the "I don't have to save you" angle, but in the way that we want heroes to have standards the villains don't hold to. A sort of framing of the hero and villain's violence that communicates when one is allowed and the other is not. Then again, I am also a fan of Red Hood and Venom so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
Also, there is potential to have a hero who kills minions but doesn't kill the boss; the minions are actively trying to kill the hero, and so the violence is retaliatory rather than vindictive. I am not sure how to write that one, though.
That’s just a bad premise. Using your logic, absolutely nothing matters in the story because “it’s just fiction bro”
@@ExpertContrarian Perhaps I could have been clearer about what I meant. All rules for writing are arbitrary and prone to change; "realism" is not an indicator of writing quality but a trope authors can use to inform the tone of the story they're writing.
The other snag on the realism argument is that what's realistic changes between people and environments. "realism" is less about what would actually happen in real life than what the speaker thinks is realistic. I prefer the word "verisimilitude", which means "the appearance of truth", for fiction.
38:29 Your Koizilla example is a poor example of someone purposefully killing minions since Aang wasn't in control at the time. Aang causing an avalanche in the Northern Air Temple also is a poor example of Aang contradicting his morals because he doesn't view those actions as fatal which we know from the scene where he tells Yangchen in the finale that he doesn't think he ever killed. If Aang knew/acknowledged that he had killed people with the avalanche but then still refused to kill Ozai, then sure at that point he would be contradicting himself, but as it is, Aang is just ignorant.
This channel is goldmine for writers 🎉
This is the first video of yours Ive seen and I could honestly listen to you talk for hours. It feels like you really know what you're talking about, thank you for making this kinda content.
Eragon basically has the perfect example of the karmic death as the mc uses magic to force empathy onto the antagonist who then commits suicide. That's where my mind went there and it's interesting, especially because the intent to kill was very much there, so it doesn't feel like it was meant to absolve the mc of the responsibility of killing, but more just to punish the antagonist for what they've done.
So, Avatar TLA got around this by taking away Ozai's Firebending. How do we feel about characters who don't kill their enemies but do permanently disarm them (ie: remove their powers, their tools, their limbs, etc)
It's at least better than what Batman allows the Joker to get away with for sure.
I know some people see that moment as a deus ex machina, but it makes perfect sense symbolically- by defeating Ozai through wisdom and trickery rather than brute force, Aang completely disproves Ozai’s “might makes right” philosophy, humiliating him, robbing him of his strength, and forcing him to face punishment for his crimes. Additionally, Aang also preserves his people’s culture and spirit. It’s the ultimate symbolic triumph.
@@chriscortez2036 I wouldn't say that Aang disapproves Might Makes Right, so much as that he demonstrates the limits of that philosophy. The way Ozai and the Fire Nation conducted themselves was worse than immoral, it was unsustainable. The Avatar didn't destroy the Fire Nation, he saved it.
@@williamfinch9858Batman doesn’t ‘allow’ anything other than the Gotham Justice system to try Joker and determine his fate for themselves. If the people of Gotham are unwilling to sentence Joker to death, then Batman must not take on the role of executioner. Doing so would be declaring himself not a supplement to the law, but above it. That’s not his place and he knows it. That’s how you get Justice Lords.
Personally I find it interesting that Aang thought that taking away Ozai's bending was better than death. Fire comes from the spirit, the benders drive. In a way, he took a part of his soul. I've never been sure that living like that is better than dying. Especially when you think about the fact that he'd never leave prison. What kind of life is that? Would it end up being kinder to just take him out? I don't think he can be a part of the picture moving forward unless he denounces his title and becomes a normie but he's too narcissistic for that. I don't know what the right answer is but it's something I ponder
So I don't have an unhealthy obsession with characters that the writer had probably intended to be less than human, I'm apparently just ✨ahead of my time✨!
Bro has a voice like a gentle landslide
One of my favorite ways around the hero not killing is in lotr. In many stories, there is a theme of good triumphing over evil. At the end of lotr though, it is evil that destroys itself as Frodo and golem both succumb to the ring and fight over it, leading the ring to fall into the Mount doom and be destroyed. Frodo is thankfully saved and comes back to himself when the ring is gone, but in that moment he could not resist the ring’s temptation. I suppose this is similar to the “karmic death” you mentioned.
Id say Frodo cheated, he had Samwise Gamgee (the one person is the whole mess the Ring could not effect).
To quote a certain video-game
"Father. Is it always moral to kill something that's....trying to kill you" - son of war.
"Yes" - Dad of war.
"Well, there ya have it lad" - Uncle of war
I have been writing a novel for years and an intrinsic part is who dies and why, killing for a purpose, genicide/euthanasia/eugenics. The killer as a psychopath, and one who kills and it kills their soul. Writing about killing is really tough, trying not to go into archetypes is really difficult. It is also really emotionally exhausting to write
One weird one where the hero actively chooses not to kill, and not just against the main villain but against ALL enemies, is Kira Yamato from Gundam Seed. Around the midway point of the first season, he's sick of all the killing. He can handle the fighting, but from that point on, he tries to avoid killing any enemy at all cost. The interesting wrinkle to that, though, is that he'd already killed dozens, and he has to reckon with that in a very personal way due to the fallout from killing the deuteragonist's best friend - notably the last death he causes before making his choice not to kill.
Vash from Trigun is an interesting case of a character with a "don't kill" rule and how it struggles to be maintained and even exist in a cruel world
did my guy have to use the eng dub of old FMA to jumpscare the shit out of me and completely break my groove while listening 😂😂
I used to not think too much about death in fiction, but lately I have been more and more disturbed by it. Not really in fantasy or sci fi where different societal rules apply, but more so in stories with grounded and realistic settings (Uncharted in particular unnerves me). And moreso by watching others reactions to it. Some crave the deaths of the antagonist and are annoyed that the protagonist does not want to kill. Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if they’d actually be comfortable with killing if not for the fourth wall protecting them. A little unfair of me considering the point of fiction IS to experience these things we can’t in a safe way, but I still feel it’s a valid point to raise. One day I want to write a story that really plays with how death is treated in fiction and how we feel about it… And not be preachy about it.
Considering the many versions of gladiator fights throughout history I’d say it’s a pretty high chance they would lol
@@neetfreek9921but that’s still a barrier between you and the violence
@@creed8712 Ah I misread. Poor example now, but I think the historical leniency on killing still stands.
I'm not a fan of gleeful brutality in certain contexts.
Borderlands is disconnected and cartoony enough that it doesn't bother me. The enemies are a parody of a human being.
Wolfenstein, The New Order at least, puts weight on death while also showing that it's terrible. It's not a joke, and the game acknowledges the horror of all of it.
For kinda related example.
Banshee is a show with violence, but it's much more gruesome and stomach churning. Compare that to The Boys, where the deaths are more common and bloody, but they are cartoonist and lack weight. Also, the guy who plays Homelander also plays the sheriff in Banshee, so it comes full circle.
( ；-｀д´-)
I don't know how to say this without coming across as a jerk. So I'm just going to say it.
You've put far too much thought into this and you would be better off just easing off the pedal.
Just write that story to get it off your chest.
This video was very thought provoking and made my analyse how i was treating death and killing in my own writing as well as in the fiction i consume. I will think for some time about this.
In Season 2 of Daredevil there was a great rooftop scene with Frank and Matt having an argument about killing. With some great lines like: "You hit them and they keep getting up. I hit them and they stay down" and "You are one bad day away from becoming me".
When Jamie says "the things I do for love," before that in the pause I couldn't help but think of Courage the cowardly dog
How did this entire video go by without Tenma and Johan being mentioned?
Mishandling death is what turned me off of the Jurassic World Franchise, where the baby sitter somehow got the most brutal gruesome death of the movie.
I was like... WHY? That was funny in the theatre, but why are you making it funny for characters to die? Isn't this supposed to be action-horror? Aren't I supposed to be scared?
Later I found out that scene felt funny because the movie was using the cinematic language of the karmic death on a character who had not been established to deserve it. Creating a jarring experience.
You’re getting upset at yourself? I didn’t find it funny. You created a narrative in your head to get upset over
wait just a damn second I am just learning about this, you called it death? That shit sucks. what the hell. we all have to do that? fuck!
Yeah, ceasing to exist is a real bummer.
I hadn't been to this side of the channel as the livestream one actually has a vice on my watch time.
This came out two weeks ago huh? If it's strict on the two weeks timeline I understand why this video came out.
You ain't slick bro. Also, thank you for making this. The like meta art around talking about art as it's own artform has a very unnique feel to me and i'm glad people like you exist.
hi savage, im an addict in recovery. i found your channel about a month ago and ive been binging all of your videos. maybe its something about your voice with lofi music in the background, but you alone have made me interested in story telling in a way no one has before. most of the videos you make are about movies/shows/books that ive seen/read. and when i see a video about something i havent consumed, i watch it before watching your video. ive been watching channels like yours for years, but none of them come even close to scratching your expertise. i guess i just want to say thank you, and i hope you keep making videos, because they inspire me.
To quote red from osp
Here have some kittens
You have been warned! This is not Puppy Level! We are at Kitten Level Existential dread! 🙀🙀
Worst example of this is probably thorfinn from Vinland saga. I get he saw the worst of the worst but his inaction causes more problems than he is trying to stop especially right now in manga. His "passivism" is wrong since passivism isn't "I will never fight ever" it's "I will use violence when it's the absolute last option and every other idea is not working"
Exactly! Even his father was willing to fight; it was just the last resort when all else failed. I’m hoping that thorfinn’s arc will get there eventually
@@orochisama2514i doubt it as the manga is ending soon. He's currently filled with arrows and used some no weapon combat to take down a few people at best.
Even his brother is now up for war with everyone being heated by the sneak attack of the natives so he's probably going to see the fires of war in vinland
I mean, that's the point of the manga, best example being Hild calling him a idealistic idiot in one of the lastest chapters
@@ivanbluecool Isn't that like the point though? Clearly he is gettibg consequences for these actions and while what he wants is a beautiful thing, it most likely can't be achieved. He is not an idiot, but he doesn't want to go back into killing people anymore because it ruined his life and he is naturally inclines towards hatred. Dunno, but think its intentional writing.
@@smb1905 he's literally called an idiot last chapter. Plus it's not the point since he fails at that even losing his brother for not being at least somewhat prepared. Plus his dad basically mastered what he's still not understanding even now in the first chapters and now he has arrows in him. .
Thorfinn just fills the straw man for what people think passivism is and the other end canut s better at how he goes with war and conquest plus plague even.
This is a problem everyone has figured out already:
Have a third character who's already morally compromised do the dirty work.
Luke Skywalker can't kill the Emperor, Darth Vader can.
Same thing with Batman, Joker, and Jason Todd.
Boring writing excuse. There would have been nothing wrong with Batman or Luke taking out either of those people. Are you already forgetting how many people Luke ended?
Luke wouldn't have a problem with killing Palpatine normally, we know Yoda intended to "destroy the Sith" and walked up to Palpatine's office to duel him, clearly with the intention to kill him, yet Yoda is meant to be the pinnacle of Jedi morality, Luke also blew up the Death Star in Episode IV.
Rey directly kills Palpatine in the end of Episode IX too and she's just as moral as Luke, Obi-Wan killed Darth Maul in combat during Episode I, same with Grievous in Episode III, yet he is a perfectly moral Jedi as well.
The only problem would be if Palpatine was beaten, surrendered and defenseless, like Dooku was when Anakin killed him, but Jedi don't have "no kill rules" merely a "not killing defenseless prisoners" rule.
The reason Vader kills Palpatine instead of Luke is simply because Palpatine is too powerful to be defeated in a duel.
Usually in Exorcist and Supernatural manga/anime the protagonist's stance on killing is having a rule against killing humans no matter what.
Hey that was one of the best video essay I watched in a long while. I was hooked the whole time. I will defitively check out the rest of your channel!!
Beautiful video, very important subject and you so thoroughly broke it down and made us all experts, thank you.
It's funny you show sue storm among those heroes since she's threatened other characters with expanding forcefields inside them.
Any hero who fights evil is a warrior archetype. A warrior who can't kill is a useless non-sequitur that destroys the archetype. In reality, to enter combat is to accept the risk of death for yourself and your opponent.
And if the evil doesn't need to be stopped by any means necessary, it's not that evil, or at least you're not taking it seriously.
Man I appreciate you making a video like this, and I hope you're doing okay. Seeing the emotion in your opener is contagious.
I’ve seen a couple people bring up the “I’ll kill all your henchmen but not the main bad guy” trope before, but am I the only one who doesn’t have a problem with it?
Like in everyone of those instances, its waves of minions trying to kill the hero, while the main villain is completely defenseless and at the mercy of them. In other words, it’s the difference between killing in cold blood vs self defense.
I'm pretty sure this is how Al Capone skirted the justice system
That out group and in group thing skips a bit on that frequently those bad guy groups are trying to do something unapologetically wrong or evil. There was a reason star wars started with the empire glassing a planet :P
Them just being different so we fight them is true, but then Thanos and co. is also trying to murder A LOT of people. This speaks in a lot of absolutes that rarely universally apply
Dude is a billionaire with magic and alien friends. Theres almost no reason anymore should have to die
Send the joker to space or the phantom zone or something
Sure, but they also can’t do that because Joker is too popular not to bring back.
@@magnusprime962 obviously that's the only actual reason it's ever been
11:39 killing bugs still has the word kill in it.
Conflating all killing with murder is a mistake. Murder is morally wrong killing. It does not include self-defense, mutual combat, even war time collateral deaths (until it very suddenly becomes a war crime due to excess).
As a great example, in Civil War, the issue was not over the deaths they caused. No one but no one complained about all the dead aliens in New York. Charlie Spencer was, unlike what his mother claimed, not murdered. Collateral damage. But that is what the movie was about. Not the death they caused, but the innocent death they failed to avoid.
I don't think Thor:Ragnarock shold be in "murder by inaction" section. Because Thor is not refusing to kill Hela on some moral basis. He just is not strong enough phisically. Bad example, really.
@@FoboS_IX In fact Thor is the one who effectively ordered her death. He told Loki to start Ragnarok, which he had to know would have killed her. It was the right call though, she was too dangerous to be left alive.
Great video! I subscribed!
The text boxes you included in quotes, can you include the sources? I really liked some of them and I can't tell if you were quoting someone else or yourself.
Im in the middle of a story that deals heavily with death so i needed this thank you
Life is invaluable, but what makes it more complicated than that is justice and mercy, goodness, beauty and truth. You can't have true mercy without justice. True justice and mercy take into account what the victim needs, not just the villain. Justice is making things fair, mercy is only doing what's necessary, no more. Revenge and justice are not the same. Revenge doesn't take mercy into account.
If a person uses their life to attack life, they become an abomination and forfeit their rights. They don't deserve to abuse the sacred gift of life.
If i gave my child a gift, and they abused that gift, i would take it away.
But mercy gives second chances, etc. So maybe take it away and giving it back later once they've learned. But if they have proven they won't learn. Or if its something big. Like the thing they abused wasn't a toy, but a pet, and the abuse was sadistic, I would not give them any more pets. If it was another child, i would need to get therapists, maybe send them to an institution. I'd still love and care for them but the bigger the crime, the harder it is to protect them from the concequences.
So where do we send killers when we have nothing left on this earth that fits their crime? Nothing that can reform them or stop them? We send them out of this world.
Sometimes that's the only option. To protect the innocent, you have to address the guilty. Our justice systems aren't perfect, but justice and mercy should not be disregarded.
Life is sacred, but death is not the worst thing.
Y'know what your comment made me realize?
if fictional characters were real, then writing would be the most unethical job on earth!
In original Gears of War the character Carmine was a character that was written to die
He was a filler character to be in the squad until Augustus Cole joins the squad
His name Carmine is a shade of red
A reference to the red shirts from star trek
But his character was so popular in the multi-player they made a new Character his younger Ben Carmine for the sequel
Same voice actor and very similar personality
This video made me think of this
I think Red Hood had a good answeer for Batman not killing. Not because its wrong, or that it would be the right or wrong for society but bc Batman himself feels that if he crosses that line he could become a bigger threat than the monsters he refuses to kill. I don't know if I agree with it... but it feels like something he would believe.
The "protagonist shall not kill" rule only exists in comics so that villains can be brought back again and again. That’s all it’s ever amounted to.
As for Batman himself, it’s not for him to decide whether people should live or die. *The state*, however, should have absolutely given just about every villain in Arkham the electric chair years ago.
My only complaint is that it took 35 minutes before the title (therefore the promised topic) came up. Good video overall.
I'm a really big fan of the new Planet of the Apes series. It's noteworthy that Cesar has 1 kill, and he has nightmares about it. He lets a bunch of humans die through his actions but I don't think he directly does any of them (except Malfoy, who kinda did it to himself). He goes to lengths to avoid that until the Colonel kills his family, and feels bad about that too
Doesn't he strangle Winter?
16:20 you talk about how "orcs aren't people" but, that isn't the message in that story AT ALL. Orcs are people... they're just people who are trying to kill you and your family. Lord of the Rings is a war story, Orcs are enemy soldiers. It's understandable to kill enemy soldiers: war is a kill or be killed situation, you can't just not kill (or aid in killing, which is morally equivalent) when there is a war on. That's not one of the available options. This is NOT the same however as killing soulless henchmen. The deaths of enemy soldiers DO matter narratively: the act of killing another person changes the hero, even when it was done out of necessity. The hero can remain likeable, if they don't graduate from killing out of necessity to killing for sport, but they cannot remain unchanged by the act of killing. Cannon Fodder have to be soulless, or your reader is 100% going to say "hey, this hero is a mass murderer". I think this also applies to Man vs. Nature stories as well, because a war story is really just another version of that. Man vs. Nature is always really Man vs. Himself: and war stories are always that as well. The animal, or the enemy is always a representation of the hero's inner darkness. Aragorn never says as much, but if you read the entire book including the Appendices, you learn that many of the enemies are his relatives: some of the Ringwraiths, the barrow-wight, and the Corsairs. They represent tastes of what he might become if he were to take the Ring, precisely because he is a killer. Him being a warrior is presented as a necessity, but a dangerous one: one that actually causes him to face certain temptations which the hobbit characters don't, because they never kill.
Also, Deadpool isn't likeable because he's good. Deadpool is likeable because he's funny, raunchy and entertaining to watch. Deadpool can kill people because he's not a good guy. Don't confuse anti-heroes and heroes, it's NEVER a problem for an anti-hero to kill a person because the entire point of anti-heroes is that they do morally questionable stuff. No one is out here claiming that Deadpool is the epitome of morality, we just like watching Ryan Reynolds in a skin tight suit dual-wielding katanas and cracking jokes. The entire point of Deadpool is to remove the necessity to think about the morality behind his actions by just up-front admitting that he's not a good guy. This is also a valid strategy for a writer and one that I personally think more authors who write historical fiction and non-fantasy fiction ought to use (instead of creating characters with incongruously modern attitudes towards social issues). Like, just make it clear that these people were #problematic, but that isn't a reason to not try and understand them. Because see that's the issue with the argument that "this story's hero is problematic" outside of fantasy (even within fantasy this can be a dumb argument when the character in question was never supposed to be heroic). So what? Problematic people are still people, who can be relatable and understandable. Having an emotional attachment to a character is not a reason to twist logic in order to justify that character's actions.
Within my one web novel, there is a lot of weight put on killing and the morality related to that.
But I have something specifically related to the orcs example.
There are a people who have conquered most of the world, and their brutality makes the main character's stomach churn, but he's far more brutal when it comes to actually fighting, his targets are not the same. At a point, he develops a virus that could target them and then alone, but he can't bear to use it, because genocide is a step way beyond anything he can justify. Then he learns that they are basically predisposed to evil as a result of a couple of biological factors I won't get into. So he tries to actually work with one of the two leaders of the empire. But it falls through, and ultimately, after calling a council of all of his allies, he puts it to a vote and they unanimously agree to deploy the virus.
This is a choice that nobody else who've suffered under them for much longer cares about, they consider them a blight that can't be fixed.
So, this goes with the whole incongruous moral views for a fantasy story thing a little. But I think I justify and build up my MC as somebody who has these views for a reason. he's far from some paragon of morality that feels like he's been dropped in a world where that doesn't make sense.
Always happy to see a black content creator on UA-cam👏🏽 there’s not nearly enough
omg thank you for the spoiler alerts, I haven't seen evangelion 3.0 yet, so seeing that pop up I was able to jump right over that bit.
Deaths can be impactful on "completed characters", but done poorly it feels so, so cheap lol
And I guess that is the catch with death tropes. If the audience think it was useless or stupid in any way, you have usually cheapened your story.
@@OhNoTheFace That’s why I hated Professor X’s death in Logan. It was cheap, pointless, and came right as he was approaching the turning point of his character arc. It was so poorly handled and it was a waste of Patrick Stewart’s talent.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge.
The only time a "villain sacrificing themselves as redemption" has ever worked for me is in Transformers: Armada, and they did it twice! The most impactful was the first one, Starscream- he had defected more towards anti-hero, and had become friends with a human, Alexis, because she was the first person to acknowledge him as a being, not a tool for battle.
While the Autobots and Decepticons are still squabbling, Unicron (who is as big as fuckin Saturn) has arrived to eat the Earth.
Starscream tells Galvatron that he always tried his best for him, but Galvatron still abused him because it was never good enough. They fight, Starscream is bolder than he's ever been. Galvatron is insulting him the whole time, yet still constantly giving Starscream ways out- he doesn't actually want to hurt him.
But Starscream is sick of the war going nowhere, mournful now that he's seen how Optimus Prime treats his men and it was never a matter of being "good enough," and angry that the two sides are still standing around while Unicron is about to enter the atmosphere and kill Alexis.
Starscream deliberately steps into the path of Galvatron's sword, and is run through, forcing Galvatron to face the harm he's done to Starscream.
Starscream tells Optimus and Galvatron that the only way for Unicron to be defeated is if the two of them let go of their pride and work together, because they're only thinking of themselves, and not taking the lives of their troops and the Earth seriously. He asks that they please, please, do it for him.
Starscream puts his entire energy store into his laser cannons, and fires at Unicron in the sky, screaming with grief and rage. Being stabbed, with his energy depleted, he can't move out of the way when Unicron strikes him with lightning. His screaming body grows silent as he disintegrates in the light.
We cut to Alexis at the space station, and the pendant she has- made of the rock Starscream brought to her from the moon- cracks in two. She runs to the window, and sees a far-off laser inching towards Unicron, but the length of the space is too far; it ebbs away without even touching Unicron. He proved one person cannot do it alone.
In the finale, Optimus and Galvatron are at the mouth of Unicron, a black hole. Of course, the gravity is immense, and everything around them is getting sucked in. Galvatron loses his footing, and Optimus grabs his hand, both of them hanging over the precipice. Optimus still holds him, even though the bar they're hanging onto is starting to crack from the weight of both of them. For complicated plot reasons, Galvatron could effectively be a nuke if eaten by Unicron, and kill him if the black hole is destroyed.
Galvatron asks Optimus to let go. Optimus refuses, begging for them to find another way. Galvatron says that the war will end here, and they're out of time. Galvatron sees that the bar is about to snap- he takes out his sword, and cuts his own arm off to keep Optimus alive.
As he falls into the black hole, he yells goodbye, and to find their men, they need him.
A lot of the series is unmemorable, but seeing that as a kid wrecked me for a week. I still get teary-eyed watching Starscream's futile pleas as he's dying, RIP the armada king
Fantastic video! Amazing content here
its "thou shalt not murder" NOT "thou shalt not kill"
Ten points just for the Reboot reference!
12:15 Ah Tuvix, you were taken from us too soon. And they made her an Admiral despite murdering you.
If you can’t let it go, it wasn’t ever worth having to begin with.
since you've mentioned it somewhat, I'll just say that the last wish is a MASTERPIECE.
Heroes are in most times vigilantes making them not the police or state hired security. By letting them off people it gives rise to vigilantism where people take the law into their own hands and cause more problems than it solves
Sure batman can off joker but what's stopping him from doing that to bank robbers when it's all the same in cleaning up the streets.
Superman did this in justice league tas future universe by making the villains tomatoes basically causing brain damage in a police state.
Spider man gets praise when he snaps or venom takes over which is honestly horrible to see cheers when you go evil but that's media in a nutshell.
Heroes shouldn't end lives unless it's the absolute last option and no other choice is left. The law should change if that's the case to trial and remove the villains through court if they want to do it then but that too would lead to more problems
Batman killed a ton of people before an editorial mandate for him to become more child friendly and have a kid sidekick.
The shadow was more popular than Batman in his time and the shadow killed a ton of villains and criminals.
i mean, the difference between joker and bank robbers is that the bank robbers aren't prolific mass murderers and terrorists who are known to enjoy mutilating and massacring people for fun? batman wouldn't turn into a mindless killing machine without morals if he killed one massively evil person, and its a little disingenuous to treat joker and petty criminals as the same thing.
i do agree that killing should be the last option though (which is what the joker has pushed things to imo). I think some people cheer when heroes snap and go for more permanent solutions because the endless revolving door for main villains has produced a sort of fatigue around the 'stick him in jail like thats going to fix anything' moral ending (and also it can be fun to explore a more dark side to a normally very upright character). I think thats why i personally also like seeing storylines where the hero tries and maybe succeeds at reforming villains or at least connecting to them and changing them (like batman and flash and spiderman and wonder woman in certain storylines) rather than just beat em up and toss em in jail, because its an actual attempt at a solution to the problem of people taking their issues out on society
The thing about heroes killing is that many times people forget that heroes aren't cops and They aren't there to uphold The law, They're there to help people, every life They take is more and more Trust that They lose with The Common people, and that would interfere with their ability to help, i Mean, would you really trust a superhero with your child If They have a reputation of getting into big fights and killing people? I wouldn't
@@nicholassgobero counterargument: The Shadow.
@@hariman7727 counterargument to that: who is that? Having flimsy ideals and not inspiring Hope by being a great hero made The shadow forgetable
Expanding on that, helping people is The most important thing for a hero, not punishing evil or even seeking justice per say but Just helping people, of course that Means The other things i listed come with It but helping people is The top priority, that's why Superman saves The cat, that's why one of The most iconic Batman moments of all time is him holding out his hand for Ace at The end JLU. Heroes don't uphold The law and They don't work for us, They Just help
Missed a great opportunity to cover Death from the Sandman.
Death can also be a beautiful thing
I was tabbed over for the transition but I can recognize the mom sobbing in Hereditary even though I only saw that movie the once. Yeesh.
The shadow does it best.
"and spreads them": Maul being spreaded in half lol
9:13 ok but killing off Loki, the character who has fake died at least 3 times, and who's fate was unknown at least two more times, a character who is always 3 steps ahead of everyone and KNOWN for his plan and circumstances never being what they seem....killing him off set the most confusing freaking tone ever. Most people didn't believe in his death even after End Game. Some fans didn't believe other characters like Gamora had died in Infinity War and I legitimately think it's because Loki's death set a tone of nothing being what it seemed. Overall, killing him wasn't a mistake. Killing him in such a straightforward way, and then being done with him WAS. Like he hadn't known about Thanos since Avengers and it hasn't been heavily implied that he as king was preparing for Thanos. All that promise and no payoff, no character consistency, no theme consistency.
....But you know what would have been a brilliant execution of the death trope, setting the serious tone, as well as fulfilling two character arcs, forcing a character to carry on the embodied virtues etc?
Thor being killed off in the begining of IW. He could get a huge battle with Thanos AND his minions. He and Loki could fight side by side as brothers one last time. He's already had the perfect character arc, he's already king. For a moment you think they'll win, but they're alone, and they can't outlast Thanos. So Thor sacrifices himself to save Loki and whoever else.
Loki is left with a kingship he never wanted, a hero role he was never suited for, a task to warn Thor's allies who see him as an enemy. And everyone wishing it had been him instead of Thor, included himself. He has no choice but to rise to the occasion, bringing his arc full circle to an inverted version of his first appearance in Avengers.
"I do not come with glad tidings." -Loki
"I've got red on my ledger, Ms. Romanoff. I would think you would understand that." -Loki
"Ah, the would-be king. The Avengers must be truly desperate." -Thanos
"You must be glad he's dead. Now you've gotten everything you've ever wanted." -Sif maybe.
There's just SO MUCH POTENTIAL OK. Of course I would prefer to bring Thor back to life, maybe like, through the efforts of Loki, but only after the arc is complete. Then they could take what remains of Asgard and go settle on an unpopulated planet and then boom. They've been fulfilled as characters and written out of the story.
Anyway I'm done. They ruined my boys arcs and all i can do is mourn.
I wanted to write a short rant about the DBZ example but then Isabella's Lullabay started playing and all my cynicism faded away.
Which is funny because goku killed all the time in Dragon Ball
35:04 😩 Finally, the center cut/point of this video.
From the creators of heroes live long enough to become the villians. Comes villians who live long enough to become the hero with redemption lol
The Teen Titans cartoon makes my brain hurt. I have to assume the cartoon version of Terra didn't sleep with the cartoon version of Slade. 🤪 But seriously, awesome video, excellent consideration and exploration of the subject and it different debates and aspects!
How about let’s talk about the morality of Savage Books absolutely killing it with his content recently?
Regarding 35:08
If you're not familiar with it, I think you should check out the anime Trigun (1998), I don't want to give away too much but the main character and the situations he finds himself in immediately came to mind.
Second comment but i wanted to say more LOL
In the story i have been working on for a very long time, I’ve needed an invading force to come to the “protag’s country”
I thought.. Orcs! But Orcs are always depicted as evil mindless barbarians. But… the Romans called the Mongolians barbarians, too. Mongolians! One of, to my admittedly limited knowledge, the most effective military forces in history
And apparently! I learned that Mongols is actually an insult akin to idiot or dumb. Which is just so far from the case! They have lives and culture! I want to try and represent that. They’re invading, yes. They are the “antagonists,” yes. Adrian is forced to kill many of them, because he’s a soldier. But, my hope is, if i write it well, to give the audience a taste that there is more to them than simply evil minions. All we get to see is their military, so of course it will shape our view. But, in the sequel, we get to GO to the Mongolian country and experience their culture! Art and music and food and people living their lives!
This isn’t necessarily an… excuse (?) to condone ancient invasions or conquests. Rome was not pretty in that regard, yet we still venerate it. There’s so much more to history and culture that we simply don’t get to see. I hope, in my story, i can further push the envelope on making everyone feel like they are people, not just good or bad, our side or theirs. I want to include differences in perspectives, regions, philosophies, mythologies and religions. A step toward that, I think for me, is actually trying to understand more about languages. I don’t think I’ll ever speak fluent Mongolian (Not sure if that’s an accurate title of the language, I just did a quick google search)
Hell, I can hardly speak English! But I think in my case it helps immensely to have at least a passing understanding of how a language might sound or how it might be interpreted differently than others
And yes, AoT was a MAJOR inspiration for this line of thinking. I’d also attribute at leSt some of it to World of Warcraft, too. I think, when I was 12, it was probably the first time that the undead weren’t all evil, the orcs werent all mindless war machines. I mean… WoW doesn’t stray from those tropes very far, but it was my first glimpse into the reality that perspective shapes our views. As someone with Autism, I always related to the “Outsider Horde”