TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Wiki Headlines
We've switched servers and will be updating the old code over the next couple months, meaning that several things might break. Please report issues here.
Total posts: [119]  1  2  3  4
5

should (fictional) heroes kill/be violent?:

 101 Barkey, Thu, 14th Jun '12 11:32:22 AM from Bunker 051 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
War Profiteer
Still barbarians to worry about though.

And I've never found out how to really appease the AI in civ games. All they want is to demand, demand, demand. It's fucking obnoxious the levels of tribute and technology they constantly want from you.

I usually play a combination of peace and war. I turtle like a mofo and have a small garrison of 2-3 units in each town, and then I get one mobile group of maybe 4-5 units in a stack that acts as my response force. I sit around focusing purely on tech and infrastructure, and only declare war if it's extremely advantageous and I've been able to build up a good enough military to destroy them.
The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.
 102 Radical Taoist, Thu, 14th Jun '12 11:39:54 AM from the #GUniverse
scratching at .8, just hopin'
More true for V I guess, breadloaf. In III the AI couldn't handle small groups of fast units racing around the countryside and pillaging all their improvements, which would hardcore rape their production and growth. Taking entire continents by storm was relatively easy (at least before they developed that damned 2-square artillery).
Oh no, Civ 3, I totally agree. I tried playing pacifist for a long time. The world ended up a nuclear wasteland by the end.

In civ 4, you can be peaceful. I agree with Barkey, the AI is just hell obnoxious and idiotic when it comes to diplomacy, but if you can just go "this is a broken aspect of the game", then you can get around it. If you look at how the point-system works with respect to relationships, you actually don't need to give them that much if you do things such as "have the same religion", "get them to have same civics" and so on. You only really give a tech every like 30-40 turns, and given the whole game is only like 400-600 turns or something, it's like 10 techs you give away. No big deal when you're super far ahead anyway.

By Civ 5, the computer's ability to wage war is just completely lost. They have no idea how to handle no-unit stacking even while they're just as idiotic diplomatically speaking as all previous civ games, and so even the most powerful empires can barely crack a lightly defended player civ.

 104 Cassie, Thu, 14th Jun '12 3:54:41 PM from Malaysia, but where?
The armored raven
How is ruling a civilization relating to being pacifistic or violent as a single action entity?
What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...
 105 Barkey, Thu, 14th Jun '12 4:40:34 PM from Bunker 051 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
War Profiteer
The leader of that civilization is a single entity. People would definitely differentiate the difference between a pacifist or warhawk president, for instance.
The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.
 106 Midnight Rambler, Thu, 14th Jun '12 5:30:04 PM from Germania Inferior
JEZUS MARIA PANIE KURWA BOŻE
Thread Hop

It really depends on what fits with the setting. A pacifist hero in an otherwise anarchic, violent setting would feel awfully shoehorned-in and unrealistic. On the other end of the scale, a violent hero in a generally peaceful setting would really clash with the mood of the work as well.

edited 14th Jun '12 5:30:19 PM by MidnightRambler

"...and by 'the real world' I mean continental Europe."

Me
Side note:

Its important that when violence is used, it should be done WELL.

A "hero" who has no skill is just going to look silly.
 
One of my viewpoints was best explained by a thread on a tabletop RPG forum I just happened to be visiting (I don't play) where a GM complained that his players just callously executed a villain they had captured rather than giving him a less permanent punishment. After all, he was apparently planned to be a significant part of the future plot.

Upon probing from the threadgoers, it turned out they had battled this villain multiple times before, and each time they gave him the less severe punishment. And then he turned up again later doing villainous things again.

The conclusion was easily reached. If you want your protagonists to be the kind who spare their enemies' lives, and want the audience to agree with that viewpoint, a very important step is to include villains that establish that such an approach works.

 109 Pykrete, Fri, 15th Jun '12 11:47:34 AM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
Or at the very least, don't expect them to not say "fuck it" in regard to a villain for whom this observably hasn't worked several times in a row.

So...did they get bonus XP for preemptively winning the future campaign altogether? tongue

edited 15th Jun '12 12:02:16 PM by Pykrete

 110 Barkey, Fri, 15th Jun '12 12:19:18 PM from Bunker 051 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
War Profiteer
^^

Yeah, with my tolerance a villain could be a repeat offender maybe 2-3 times at most before it's execution time. That GM was a weenie.

Hell, if you've plotted the slaughter of several hundred people even once, you're pretty much a goner either the first time or maybe the second time.
The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.
betaalpha
That GM's mistake was to allow the villain to be captured! After all, if the player characters punished the villain in a way that worked, he'd no longer _be_ a villain so he'd be no use as a reusable antagonist anyway.

Still, the main reason violence can be so bad at resolving problems is there's usually some family member will try for revenge, maybe several of 'em in fact. Or if it's a fantasy setting and you're feeling corny, have the dude come back as a lich or somesuch.

 112 Gabrael, Fri, 15th Jun '12 3:26:48 PM from My musings Relationship Status: Is that a kind of food?
2 tons of fun!
Haunting Ground was a fave of mine because you couldn't kill the baddies until a few boss fights. And if you refused to kill someone then there were always consequences from leaving them alive or killing them.

I also loved the idea your only real weapon was a dog. That was badass. :)
Upon death, I want to be cremated and blown in the face of my enemies.
I do think that fictional heroes show violence if possible and reason should come first unless someone is pointing armed with weapons although violence does not necessary equals killing, but I think killing should be even the last option although a lot of people of this alignment think that anyone can be reason with no matter how evil they are.

I watch this show called Monkey, Monk, and the Monsters Go West and there is one character who has a problem with using even non-lethal violence, while the rest of the chareacters have killed only one villain, but that is because there was no reason to kill any other villain, although I thought some of the villains whom were the murders and stalkers got off too easily, and should have been brought to justice.

Now with that said I did saw on the What Measure is a Non-Human comic book page that Batman kills depends on the writer, and that Superman kills individuals based on whether they have a heart beat , and I think these are way more terrible reasons to kill a person just because they are not human or do not have a heart beat as plants do not have heart beats, and the open page said that plants are not anthromorphize in media and that depends on where you live as in many shows and novel, which are related East Asian mythology had plants talking, as better reason to kill a non-human just as a human is whether they are pure evil or not. This makes them seem like hypocrites as they would kill a non-human or one with no heart beat, but refuse to kill a human and someone with a heart beat respectively who is pure evil although Batman was that way due to depending on the writer, which means that the writer who wrote that should take the blame for the characters hypocritical portrayal no one.

Also fighting does not necessarily involve a death match, but it could be a competition and martial pacifists do not see anything wrong it, although it is a matter of option, although some pacifists whom do not believe in use violence to any degrees look down on people who use violence as a last option or like a non-fatal competition and treats them as if they were complete monsters. If someone try to kill or rape the hero then they should not sit there and take it, but fight back.

edited 30th Nov '12 5:21:14 PM by Mika

 114 Tuefel Hunden IV, Fri, 23rd Nov '12 5:16:34 PM from Wandering. Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Watchmen of the Apocalypse
I think these questions and answers are entirely up to the individual work. It really does depend on how the story is written.

Barkey had a good example earlier with Batman and Superman. How many has the Joker alone killed? Hundreds? Thousands? What about the Penguin? etc. Same for Superman's villains. While the heroes use less lethal means the people they put away invariably escape and do more harm. Batman has had multiple patners of his die or become gravely injured from his enemies. The cost of their more merciful means is quite high. Not a single one of their foes is inclined to just give up or coorperate their very nature goes against it. They have to be pummeled. They also typically know the hero won't kill them but will do their best in most cases to kill the hero.

On the flip side we have the Punisher. Utterly Psychotic, violent, and unermerciful in the extreme. Any serious violent psycho he goes after tends to be a one time or one off thing. Because he kills them. They can't come back, fail to be contained, or threaten anyone. They are just dead. His enemies are frequently as dangerous as Batmans or Supermans to varying degrees. Their goons also tend to have very short life spans if they don't drop their shit and just leave.

But the key thing to remember between the Batman/Super type heroes and the Punishers is the story they are put into and the varying circumstances of their situations and the world they live in.

More then a few stories play with morality angle in relation to the situation the characters find themselves in. Some characters have little choice as they are in no reasonable position the majority of the time to grant mercy to an enemy. Such as fighting monsters, fighting a war in general, saving the day requiring the destruction or death of an enemy due to story mechanics and plot. etc.
"Who watches the watchmen?"
 115 Nick The Swing, Fri, 23rd Nov '12 5:51:21 PM from Ya really wanna know? Relationship Status: Dating Catwoman
BFS Enthusiast
My own character, Matthew, is only violent in proportion to what is being done toward him.

If you show yourself to be a Kick the Dog happy Complete Monster then that is pretty much the only scenario where he'll be obliged to disintegrate you with a Wave Motion Gun Sword Beam.

In my view, a hero needs to be prepared to do what is necessary to save the maximum number of people, but never eager to have to sacrifice. Peaceful and life preserving means should always be used first before an I Did What I Had to Do scenario or Necessarily Evil.

And if you need to ask yourself if the ends justify the means, most likely, they don't.
 116 Pykrete, Fri, 23rd Nov '12 7:53:17 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
Not a single one of their foes is inclined to just give up or coorperate their very nature goes against it. They have to be pummeled. They also typically know the hero won't kill them but will do their best in most cases to kill the hero.

I can't think of as many for Superman, but Batman's at least got a couple that turned around. Catwoman at the very least.

Still, yeah, the Joker isn't particularly likely to clean up his act, and every chance he's been given usually results in a mass murder within a few days.

edited 23rd Nov '12 7:54:07 PM by Pykrete

 117 Tuefel Hunden IV, Fri, 23rd Nov '12 8:29:31 PM from Wandering. Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
Watchmen of the Apocalypse
Catwoman was always less dedicated bad and closer to the middle. Joker, Penguin, Riddler, Scare Crow, Mad Hatter, Two Face, Poison Ivy, Bane, Ras Aghoul, etc are hard core mentally deranged life time carreer criminals, serial killers, and honestly terrorists tha make Bin Laden look chummy.

All of them have not only a negative effect on society in general they have a net negative effect on the regular criminal elements by recruiting thugs from them and encouraging them in their brand of crime.

Sheer amounts of property damage, environmental damage, loss of life and limb, financial losses, and extraordianary measures to even try to contain them has cost society far more then they are worth as individuals or the vaule of Bat Man's code. But Bat Man values his code so highly he is willing to repeatedly endanger society.

The kicker is from the perspective of Bat Man, the society he is part of, and the general context of the story his attitude and the outcomes he achieves are more highly valued or shared in a general sense.
"Who watches the watchmen?"
 118 drunkscriblerian, Fri, 23rd Nov '12 10:12:30 PM from Castle Geekhaven Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
In your opinion should fictional heroes use violence/kill to solve their problems or should pacifism and non violence have more prominence on fiction?

In general, I think people should make the kind of fiction they want to see. Violence exists, and its a storytelling tool. Using it should not be anathema, but depending on it is basically like depending on any other single thing. Your story will suffer for it.

Personally, I've grown less fond of the violence level in the average movie and choose my viewing accordingly. I've also never been a fan of bloodless violence. In my own work I try to touch on the reality of violence and the consequences it can bring.

In my mind this was one of Joss Whedon's greatest contributions to pop culture; he popularized the Mauve Shirt. He made us care about background characters even as they died. He's famous as "that guy who kills people" but really, not too many people actually die in his shows. We just know them so we notice more.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed.

~Cora M. Strayer~
 119 Barkey, Fri, 23rd Nov '12 10:21:55 PM from Bunker 051 Relationship Status: [TOP SECRET]
War Profiteer
Catwoman is also more of a grey character than a villain. She's a thief, and she's in it for the money, and actually has a conscience to a point. She wouldn't needlessly kill someone.
The AR-15 is responsible for 95% of all deaths each year. The rest of the deaths are from obesity and drone strikes.
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 119
 1  2  3  4
5


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy