Most batman and atla do this right. Uphold that rule universally, or make a struggle out of that rule, (chill of the night from batman brave and bold or the sand benders stealing appa) and use that experience to test and grow
I was thinking more of a Inertia vs Flash situation where Flash doesn’t kill the no-kill rule (despite really really wanting to) and instead taking away his connection to the Speed Force, leaving him essentially a statue and placing him in the Flash Museum, forced to look upon the man he murdered.
I hate the trope where there's clearly an urgent matter going, but characters spend too much time is spend on a already concluded issue.
Example, the people who captured the princess are about to get away. Do you
A. Move past the goon asap once you defeat him?
B. Listen to his dying monologue?
most of the time the hero comes off as hypocritical in this scenario to us. if the goons and villains are both irredeemable, why not just kill the goons and the villain? and if the goons AREN'T irredeemable, the hero comes across as being pretty evil.
Difference between killing in combat and executing someone without trial. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of heroes like that would be complex fine with the villain getting executed after a proper trial in a court of law
It's really awful ludonarrative dissonance when the basic gameplay loop is killing people, then this one established as very evil NPC is apparently not okay to kill.
Like, either have the PC not be hitting people with a sword or don't.
my version of it is "I personally don't kill but I recognize that there are some threats that are too large to contain or reason with"
One character refuses to kill anyone because her family has a very oppressive and bloody history and she's afraid of becoming like them
she also has a moment when she gives her husband a tool to kill the villain after them and it messes with her but he reminds her that he's the one who did it not her so she's not to blame
Also there's the "Don't act on hate" trope that I use
An emotion that everyone feels but to act on it and to harm another with magic while under its influence is considered the biggest taboo in my series: an act that corrupts your soul- the greater your power level the more corrupted you become
That’s why it’s my favorite trope to see that concept inverted. Having the heroes realize the damage they’re causing or the faceless minions being revealed to be deeper than presented.
It wasn't implemented well imo. It could've been but it was very clumsily done. It doesn't make sense for Ellie's character and the games pacing lessen the impact. I think it's fixable, and I think the fix is easy. You don't even need to cut anything, just move it around
i felt it made sense but I can understand why some other people didn’t like it. Ellie sees lev and ends up realizing that if she kills Abby, Lev is just going to be put down the same path Abby sent her down.
See I understand that, but I feel like it just isn't done quite right enough because it partly hinges on the player to care about Lev and Abby. The issue is the pacing holds that back for me. All the seemingly random cuts to long flashback sections didn't make like Abby.
I like the idea that it becomes a slippery slope. Superman goes from killing one super villain to becoming dictator of the whole planet, enacting his narrow vision of justice without any od his usual moral restraints.
kinda different but EPIC does it amazingly since [spoilers] giving mercy ends up being the biggest mistake of the MC's life, and they end up going down a way darker path cause of it
It really depends on how it's done. If it's clear WHY that would be bad or make sense for the character or for the story, sure. But stuff like the event portrayed here is just cringe
It's like the classic "Kiryu never killed anyone" meme in the Yakuza series. He DOES kill, but only in self defense
I liked how War for the Planet of the Apes handled it, where the movie makes it clear that every time Caesar kills someone it is meant to be horrible and wrong. His not killing the main villain is his last chance to save his soul from being completely lost.
Like, the trope we're talking about is the "can't kill the villain responsible for the problem because it makes you 'no different than them' but just fine killing the goons"
What warcrime are you even talking about? Why are you being so hostile???
If you’re writing a story in our world, then yes. But a fictional story set in a world with it’s own laws and interpretations? There are no war crimes really.
It still is really hypocritical from a character writing standpoint for the character to have a moral debate over killing a villain when-
Better Trope: Not killing a villain because actually its just a fun relationship dynamic and nobody was hurt in the process and instead you smooch them.
Metal Gear Rising did this right, where the main guy eventually goes "Okay maybe the strong do opress the weak, but you know who's the weakest of all? Those who hurt the innocent and defenseless" and then he slices the bad guy into a thousand pieces while metal plays in the background.
I like how Batman: Under The Red Hood handles this. It's not that he thinks he'll be just as bad if he kills Joker, but he's afraid if he slips and makes an exception once, he can never trust himself to not do it again. It's just to easy to start killing, but he has no idea how hard it is to stop.
The other way is to consistently apply the difference between killing enemy combatants in active combat and killing a defeated and captured prisoner of war without trial. One is an accepted part of combat, the other a war crime
Oh yeah, and also when the evil is frfr about to end the world
In Atla, I did like how they went about that trope though! Because it was about Aang's, a child's, aversion to killing.
He would've. And on the good side no one was against that.
It was still an internal struggle that was justified
With characters like Batman or Edward Elric their no-kill rule is core to their character. Having them break their rules would be a disservice to their characters.
When/if it comes to light that the villain mirrored the hero’s journey previously, including slaying all on their way to a destination, following through, then corrupting, then ‘maybe,’ but that’s usually not it.
Problem is, once you kill a villain, someone more competent may take their place. And a competent villain is much more problematic for the hero's hidden backers than just an evil, murderous one...
This is why I love Drakengard. Drakengard takes the idea of how the protagonists have to be insane to kill tons of goons without issue and runs with it.
If a hero character refuses to kill the villain due to moral standing- then they need to either have a no kill rule, or realize-
how they made a mistake by mowing down so many lives in order to get there in the first place. At that point, it would probably be a case where the protagonist realizes that they are just the same as the villain, which would erase the whole "I won't stoop down to your level" thing, but it could-
The inverse is pretty bad too. "Oh I could never possibly kill anyone, it's such a bad thing to do. Oh no I have no choice now I must take a human life, this will taint my soul for eternity"
Immediately slaughter 27 bad guys in the next scene.
Comments
Woke: Not killing a villain purely to stick to your ideals, allowing justice to be dealt by those they’ve wronged.
Bespoke: Not killing a villain out of spite knowing there are much worse fates than death
Example, the people who captured the princess are about to get away. Do you
A. Move past the goon asap once you defeat him?
B. Listen to his dying monologue?
"This person slaughtered my family but if i kill them im as bad as them"
WRONG.
I dont think the two thing have anything to do with each other lol.
most of the time the hero comes off as hypocritical in this scenario to us. if the goons and villains are both irredeemable, why not just kill the goons and the villain? and if the goons AREN'T irredeemable, the hero comes across as being pretty evil.
meanwhile you can be in his face that you can count the polygons, swinging at him with a big ass sword and it will keep missing
Yeah, sleeping with large open chest wounds.
They're not dead.
Though, there may be some exceptions if the MC proves to be more villainous or worse than the antagonist.
then kill two!
Like, either have the PC not be hitting people with a sword or don't.
One character refuses to kill anyone because her family has a very oppressive and bloody history and she's afraid of becoming like them
An emotion that everyone feels but to act on it and to harm another with magic while under its influence is considered the biggest taboo in my series: an act that corrupts your soul- the greater your power level the more corrupted you become
Batman has his no kill rule to not be the one to take someone’s loved one away, like he suffered
Avatar Aang has it out of Air Nomad pacifism, as the last one, his actions have tremendous weight
Of course, joker is sent to the electric chair
Otherwise the trope is ass.
It's like the classic "Kiryu never killed anyone" meme in the Yakuza series. He DOES kill, but only in self defense
But you probably massacred your way through goons upon goons
Like, the trope we're talking about is the "can't kill the villain responsible for the problem because it makes you 'no different than them' but just fine killing the goons"
What warcrime are you even talking about? Why are you being so hostile???
Like, yeah, I guess you can go "uhm actually they would be commiting a warcrime" but also... very rarely is that in mind during writing.
It still is really hypocritical from a character writing standpoint for the character to have a moral debate over killing a villain when-
Vizzini's ghost: wait what
Either stab them and end it oooooooorrrrrrrr you go enemies to lovers for reasons……….. I might be biased on this topic lmao
The story is saying that the villain is inherently worth more, by virtue of their position of power.
If you think there's inherent value in human lives, or believe in equality, it is just jarring and immeraionbreaking.
In Atla, I did like how they went about that trope though! Because it was about Aang's, a child's, aversion to killing.
He would've. And on the good side no one was against that.
It was still an internal struggle that was justified
With characters like Batman or Edward Elric their no-kill rule is core to their character. Having them break their rules would be a disservice to their characters.
It's a numbers game, after all.
I rarely see it mentioned in your sort of... stupid and irritating trope roundup type contexts.
If a hero character refuses to kill the villain due to moral standing- then they need to either have a no kill rule, or realize-
Immediately slaughter 27 bad guys in the next scene.