How do you feel about characters who refuse to kill?

[monster]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

I think it's fair to say that Kira completely carried the Archangel in combat, and the Archangel post Alaska is regularly forced to fight forces that outnumber by several magnitudes. I think it's fair to assume there have been quite a few occasions where he's defeated 100 or more foes during the course of a battle.

Most battles are not as large as they may seem. That's why we got confirmed 30 kills for Shinn and 25 downs for Kira. Not to mention that most battles would also have other combatants fighting each other.

....a process that has given him abilities that are.......more than human! In fact, they are more than your average superhuman (coordinator)!



...and I find Kira's ability impossible to imagine having and find his actions rather confusing and unintelligible.


100%? No. I always assume there's a base chance of failure in pretty much anything I do. People screw up the most menial and trivial of tasks like walking, talking, and eating. Why would I assume I'd never screw up at simultaneously disarming several advanced robotic weapon systems from tens of thousands of meters away without harming their operators or any innocent bystanders/friendlies while simultaneously keeping them all from killing me?

Are you saying that you think Kira's preference not to kill is confusing and unintelligible because you don't think he should have a 100% certainty that he would be able to do so without causing any casualty?

I really don't think people would always wait for 100% certainty before committing themselves to a particular course of action. There is a certain amount of risk to many actions that humans take. Not to mention there is even a higher certainty of casualties if he decided to kill, while still having the chance of killing bystanders/getting himself killed.

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by Kira's condescension. It's not that he's insulting or rude, it's that he acts with the assumption that he knows better than everyone else and with the force to guarantee others compliance. Other people's free will, goals, and motivations do not enter into the equation. Kira thinks its wrong for you to be angry with your situation, fight, and die, so Kira will compel you to stop with his godly powers. His actions can be argued to be benevolent, but they're also tyrannical. Kira does nothing to solve the route cause of conflict, because he doesn't eliminate the individuals or the root causes that lead to them - he simply overpowers people and forces them to submit to his will.

I think you're misunderstanding something. A battle is a clash of wills.

[Joseph West]

To me it depends on what else the character does out side of killing, if they kill things sometimes but show other character traits that are honest and true then no problem with me. That's my personal opinion though as I don't see the need for it to happen all of the time.

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by monster

Most battles are not as large as they may seem. That's why we got confirmed 30 kills for Shinn and 25 downs for Kira.

I didn't watch all of Destiny, is that supposed to be their career total, or from a single battle? If it's the former, than it seems exceedingly low. If it's the latter, than I'd have to watch the battle to which it refers.

Are you saying that you think Kira's preference not to kill is confusing and unintelligible because you don't think he should have a 100% certainty that he would be able to do so without causing any casualty?

Yes, I believe it's confusing and unintelligible because it means he's either 100% certain of his success, or that he's willing to increase risk to the lives of his friends and bystanders to protect the lives of his enemies. Either way, I don't understand that outlook.

I really don't think people would always wait for 100% certainty before committing themselves to a particular course of action.

If I was taking an action that I felt would increase the risk of harm to myself, my friends, or other innocent people? I would. If I wasn't, I would always err on the side of their safety.

I think you're misunderstanding something. A battle is a clash of wills.

I feel there's something inherently disingenuous about allegedly caring enough about another person to spare their life, but not caring enough about that person to respect their goals, interests, and objectives. Kira's actions do not resolve the conflict which leads to the clash of wills, and in fact, Kira doesn't seem particularly interested in understanding his enemies. His refusal to kill seems to be more a means to absolve his personal feelings of guilt rather than a truly humanitarian act, and his selfishness frustrates me. In salving his own conscious, he's denying others' freedom to act according to their conscious without resolving the core issues that have led to their conflict and potentially increasing the risk to himself, his friends and bystanders to boot. I can't begin to identify with such a cavalier and logically self-destructive thought process.

[monster]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

I didn't watch all of Destiny, is that supposed to be their career total, or from a single battle? If it's the former, than it seems exceedingly low. If it's the latter, than I'd have to watch the battle to which it refers.

They're two battles where each of the pilots were highlighted.

Yes, I believe it's confusing and unintelligible because it means he's either 100% certain of his success, or that he's willing to increase risk to the lives of his friends and bystanders to protect the lives of his enemies. Either way, I don't understand that outlook.



If I was taking an action that I felt would increase the risk of harm to myself, my friends, or other innocent people? I would. If I wasn't, I would always err on the side of their safety.

Ok, but that's the thing, he isn't increasing the risk to himself or his friends when he successfully disables his opponents. Not to mention his friends are also fighting, so they're not just relying on him.

I feel there's something inherently disingenuous about allegedly caring enough about another person to spare their life, but not caring enough about that person to respect their goals, interests, and objectives. Kira's actions do not resolve the conflict which leads to the clash of wills, and in fact, Kira doesn't seem particularly interested in understanding his enemies. His refusal to kill seems to be more a means to absolve his personal feelings of guilt rather than a truly humanitarian act, and his selfishness frustrates me. In salving his own conscious, he's denying others' freedom to act according to their conscious without resolving the core issues that have led to their conflict and potentially increasing the risk to himself, his friends and bystanders to boot. I can't begin to identify with such a cavalier and logically self-destructive thought process.

The problem with that reasoning is that killing them also prevents them to have any goal at all. War is not a goal, it's a means. By not killing when he doesn't have to, Kira allows the possibility of his opponents surviving this battle and, maybe, actually live their respective lives after the war. But if they really want to die in the war, then they can still do that on their own.

It is not Kira's responsibility to fix the causes of war. He's acting as a fighter in the battlefield, not a politician nor an activist.

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by monster

Ok, but that's the thing, he isn't increasing the risk to himself or his friends when he successfully disables his opponents.

Which pre-supposes his success, which means he's either far more confident of his abilities than I ever could be or he's being incredibly flip with the safety of his allies. Either way, I can't identify with it.

The problem with that reasoning is that killing them also prevents them to have any goal at all. War is not a goal, it's a means. By not killing when he doesn't have to, Kira allows the possibility of his opponents surviving this battle and, maybe, actually live their respective lives after the war. But if they really want to die in the war, then they can still do that on their own.

It is not Kira's responsibility to fix the causes of war. He's acting as a fighter in the battlefield, not a politician nor an activist.

Call me an heartless, old-fashioned bastard, but killing your enemies is a brutally efficient way to resolve a conflict, if a less than ideal one. Killing his opponents would be ending the problem one dead body at a time. Letting them live is creating a large pool of angry, vengeful enemies with no reason not to take another shot at killing him and his friends. Without a better solution to the conflict than killing his enemies, he's just playing a really irritating stall game.

[monster]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

Which pre-supposes his success, which means he's either far more confident of his abilities than I ever could be or he's being incredibly flip with the safety of his allies. Either way, I can't identify with it.

Not on just his abilities, but with the help of the technology. He's not doing anything on his own. In a work of science fiction, you have to allow the technology to be as useful as it needs to be. Otherwise the story falls apart.

Call me an heartless, old-fashioned bastard, but killing your enemies is a brutally efficient way to resolve a conflict, if a less than ideal one. Killing his opponents would be ending the problem one dead body at a time. Letting them live is creating a large pool of angry, vengeful enemies with no reason not to take another shot at killing him and his friends. Without a better solution to the conflict than killing his enemies, he's just playing a really irritating stall game.

By that reasoning, the most efficient way is to commit genocide, and I think that's a whole different topic than what we're discussing in this thread.

The most efficient is not always the preferred thing to do.

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by monster

Not on just his abilities, but with the help of the technology. He's not doing anything on his own. In a work of science fiction, you have to allow the technology to be as useful as it needs to be. Otherwise the story falls apart.

If push-button technology resolves all of a story's serious conflicts, it basically erases any possible dramatic tension. Presumably, Kira's skill is involved in the process somewhere, or else the Freedom Gundam would be an autonomous drone.

By that reasoning, the most efficient way is to commit genocide

Not really. Not all of an enemy population is going to actively oppose you with the same motive, strength and zeal. Members of today's enemy's populace can be an asset or ally tomorrow once the current conflict is satisfactorily resolved. Killing them all is a huge, unnecessary expenditure of resources that deprives you of future advantages and potentially prolongs the conflict by giving them no reason make accommodations. Even from a completely amoral perspective, genocide is a pretty stupid course of action.

[monster]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

If push-button technology resolves all of a story's serious conflicts, it basically erases any possible dramatic tension. Presumably, Kira's skill is involved in the process somewhere, or else the Freedom Gundam would be an autonomous drone.

Of course the pilot's skill is involved, but also his intention and the technology available. All three are involved.

The point remains that he has a good reason to be confident enough to choose to do what he does. You can't base it on what's available to you to assess how confident a character can be in taking a particular action.

Not really. Not all of an enemy population is going to actively oppose you with the same motive, strength and zeal. Members of today's enemy's populace can be an asset or ally tomorrow once the current conflict is satisfactorily resolved. Killing them all is a huge, unnecessary expenditure of resources that deprives you of future advantages and potentially prolongs the conflict by giving them no reason make accommodations. Even from a completely amoral perspective, genocide is a pretty stupid course of action.

Then it doesn't matter either way because there is more than enough enemies left to fight if they so choose. There is no such thing as ending a problem one dead body at a time when potentially dealing with a whole nation. Effectively disabling them is just as adequate a solution as it removes them from the battlefield in most cases.

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by monster

You can't base it on what's available to you to assess how confident a character can be in taking a particular action.

If I'm being asked to identify with him, then I have to. Identification is experiencing an empathetic reaction from an encounter or experience. At no point did I say "Kira can't be that confident". I said "I can't identify with how confident Kira is."

Then it doesn't matter either way because there is more than enough enemies left to fight if they so choose.

If they don't choose, they aren't an enemy. If they do choose, you kill them. That's how war works. Those spared are those lacking the motivation to fight or who are too weak to do so. Killing those individuals only has a negative impact on achieving your goals, as it inspires your enemies to fight harder, engenders future resentment, and deprives you of future economic allies.

There is no such thing as ending a problem one dead body at a time when potentially dealing with a whole nation.

I can think of several wars in the past where the problem was absolutely resolved one body at a time. If anything, the failure of many recent 20th and 21st century conflicts to achieve their goals has been a direct result of the aggressor's lack of willingness to fully eliminate their enemies.

Effectively disabling them is just as adequate a solution as it removes them from the battlefield in most cases.

That doesn't resolve a war, that resolves a skirmish, They retreat, re-equip, and return, with improvised weapons and terrorist attacks if necessary. War doesn't require material to be conducted, only people with sufficient motivation to resolve a conflict with violence.

[monster]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

If I'm being asked to identify with him, then I have to. Identification is experiencing an empathetic reaction from an encounter or experience. At no point did I say "Kira can't be that confident". I said "I can't identify with how confident Kira is."

The point is to put yourself in his shoes and understand him that way, not to understand him in your own shoes, so to speak.

If they don't choose, they aren't an enemy. If they do choose, you kill them. That's how war works. Those spared are those lacking the motivation to fight or who are too weak to do so. Killing those individuals only has a negative impact on achieving your goals, as it inspires your enemies to fight harder, engenders future resentment, and deprives you of future economic allies.

It works the same way with targets you can disable.

I can think of several wars in the past where the problem was absolutely resolved one body at a time. If anything, the failure of many recent 20th and 21st century conflicts to achieve their goals has been a direct result of the aggressor's lack of willingness to fully eliminate their enemies.

Would any of your example involve only one person or a concerted effort by one side?

That doesn't resolve a war, that resolves a skirmish, They retreat, re-equip, and return, with improvised weapons and terrorist attacks if necessary. War doesn't require material to be conducted, only people with sufficient motivation to resolve a conflict with violence.

Except the point about refusing to kill unnecessarily is not about the war, but about the battle. Re-equipping damaged equipment also takes its toll.

[VORTIA]

Originally Posted by monster

The point is to put yourself in his shoes and understand him that way, not to understand him in your own shoes, so to speak.

And as I continue to tell you, and without dragging this straight into Godwin territory, I can't. I cannot put myself mentally in Kira's shoes, because my mind can't fit into those strange bananas. I'm sorry you seem to think I should be able to, but I can't find a way to make his decisions and actions make sense and reverberate with me.

[monster]

Originally Posted by VORTIA

And as I continue to tell you, and without dragging this straight into Godwin territory, I can't. I cannot put myself mentally in Kira's shoes, because my mind can't fit into those strange bananas. I'm sorry you seem to think I should be able to, but I can't find a way to make his decisions and actions make sense and reverberate with me.

Honestly, I really do want to believe you. Except I have to go back to you've clearly stated earlier:

Originally Posted by VORTIA

Certainly, most moral people, if given the ability to incapacitate a criminal or enemy without killing them, would do so.

Just look at the part I highlighted i bold. It's like you're contradicting yourself because you won't accept that these characters are given their respective abilities per their respective stories.

I think the problem is what you alluded to earlier that your suspension of disbelief was broken, but as I said earlier, I'm not trying to debate the quality of the story here. Strictly with respect to understanding the character, I'm just asking you to accept what a show presents to us as to the abilities of this type of characters. So you and I may not be able to accomplish these amazing feats, but they can. And given that they can, your statement that I quoted above applies to them.

[ayanami0000]

At first it's pissing me off when they don't want to kill their enemy. But that was before I watched One Piece. Strawhats never killed their enemy. And I think that's cool!

[Sebi47]

I know one crew who will never kill anyone. The Strawhats. They have a sword man who doesn't cut and there boss can make a hand the size of a house and still all opponents stay alive (real mystery).

[Guernsey]

Originally Posted by Sebi47

I know one crew who will never kill anyone. The Strawhats. They have a sword man who doesn't cut and there boss can make a hand the size of a house and still all opponents stay alive (real mystery).

To be fair One Piece is pretty much a world of badass where people can survive getting punched by sad big hand and still survive. Also, One Piece is a really ridiculous series with equally ridiculous characters with weird powers and skills.

[David375]

There are some characters that follow the no-killing policy that I am ok with, like Vash from Trigun. Mostly because it's some central part of their character, like how Vash differed from Knives on an emotional level that gave him the drive to never intentionally kill.

However, there's some stuff that's just inexcusable. I only just found out recently that Saito of Zero no Tsukaima never actually "killed" anyone -- he supposedly always used the back side of his sword to KO people but not kill. From the action sequences like in the finale of Season 2, I never would have guessed this, and feel that it really ruins the moment of epic rage rather than evokes respect for his ability to fight without killing.

Basically, if they aren't going to kill, they should state it up front and have a darn good reason not to (Ex. Suou Pavlichenko of Darker than Black: Gemini), or get over it and start kicking some a** the right way. No need to beat around every semi-violent bush. As long as they follow this rule, I'm mostly OK with not killing.

[AntonKutovoi]

Originally Posted by Sebi47

I know one crew who will never kill anyone. The Strawhats. They have a sword man who doesn't cut and there boss can make a hand the size of a house and still all opponents stay alive (real mystery).

Pffft. I just remembered that bad filler, where Nami killes a fruit user by pushing him into the water.

[Archon_Wing]

I notice in filler/non canon movies even characters generally less-inclined to kill will do so more.

Take a thought of Goku's movie kills vs series kills from Dragon Ball.

I guess filler lives don't matter as much.

[SPARTAN 119]

Originally Posted by David375

However, there's some stuff that's just inexcusable. I only just found out recently that Saito of Zero no Tsukaima never actually "killed" anyone -- he supposedly always used the back side of his sword to KO people but not kill. From the action sequences like in the finale of Season 2, I never would have guessed this, and feel that it really ruins the moment of epic rage rather than evokes respect for his ability to fight without killing.

Really? Perhaps not on screen, but in the scene where he shot down all those dragon riders in the Zero fighter, I find it unlikely that between the bullets, the fall, and fact that Zero no Tsukaima dragons seem to explode in huge fireballs when shot, that all of the riders survived. In fact, I think the LN described how fire from the fighter's guns literally tore one of the riders apart, but I'm not sure, it's been a while.

As for the second season ending battle, not sure if I can say for sure there were no fatalities in that. Where did you see hear this?

With regard to characters that refuse to kill in general, it depends on the situation and character in question. Realistically speaking, I think like many people, I would use deadly force as a last resort to defend myself (or others) from someone threatening me with deadly force, but would obviously prefer to avoid it. I suspect it would make more sense if a character was a normal person thrust into such a situation to refuse to kill, or be shocked at what they had done if they were forced to, if they are someone who was previously a normal person, however, if, for instance, they ended in a situation where violence was commonplace, I suspect they would eventually end up desensitized to it.

The thing that makes less sense is a character that would not use a certain weapon, for instance, (usually a firearm) to defend themselves under any situation. IDK, maybe I'm just a pragmatist and, if was forced into combat, would use any advantage I could get!