[DreadBringer]

Late reply..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

Here, however, the situation is quite different. Neon did not deceive Gamemaster, but her fellow riders. And not for the sake of mutual benefit, but for the sake of personal victory.

I mentioned Akira Date/Birth there.... My point there is also about how from examples above, because Emu bruised Kiriya or Keiwa attacked Ace doesn't mean that Emu is a violent friend or that Keiwa is a Rider attacker (I mean regardless of the intention of being mutual benefit, there are those who genuinely will pull drastic measures to achieve it or just naturally vulgar person, arguments also can be made too here about them avoiding pulling that method). Yeah she did something wrong there (and would it be wrong for Birth to have OOO get ganged on by Greeed?), to not let themselves die/suffer, but her and Birth also shouldn't be spun as actual terrible snake/conspirer.

Actually it'd take quite a lot to make her resort to that, the missions being forced, and escalating terms and conditions in high risk when losing that impacts whole life later, likely due to the DGP not getting actual entertainment. She has different position (and it's headcanon to think it's chosen path, the circumstances aren't known yet) and it should be considered when any other Riders are placed in her position, and... outside of that position, people like Daichi pulls those tactics only because he can. General example is that, someone who is normally against killing but is forced to at few occassion due to circumstances shouldn't be viewed as murder-happy or hypocritical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

Also, by your logic, would a billionaire who takes half a minute to donate 0.0001% of his income to charity be more heroic than a firefighter or a person who all day feeds the homeless just because he helps more people? But everyone has different opportunities. Therefore, for me, a hero is exactly the one who does good outside of his comfort zone.

Heroism (and morality in general) comes in spectrums. Yeah the person who all day feeds the homeless may be more heroic (firefighter and other occupations like soldiers, doctors, cops, etc. depends on the person, like I said before), but don't invalidate the others, there can be multiple heroes. And people aren't immediately shitty pos (morally grey to evil) for failing and did wrong once in a while (not recurring). Heroes shouldn't be viewed as something above human, they're still humans with needs and limits too and shouldn't be pushed past the point any other reasonable human would be. Anyone has capacity for good and bad, but what differentiates is looking at them as a whole and considering context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

But most people will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

You see, most people are kind. And most people do good deeds, if it does not harm them in any way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

And in real life, this is tantamount to murder, whatever Nolan's Batman says there. Everywhere, from Sweden to North Korea. So even if it is not prohibited by the rules of DGP, riders are still people, which means that not everyone is capable of killing, even if it is profitable.

For some reason regarding fiction people seem to only consider murder as a bad thing? (can be used to justify villains too as doing nothing wrong) There are much more bad things that can be done including daily and people being good or bad also isn't determined by the outcomes of their actions (which you seem to be determined if it'd kill someone or not/make someone survive). There can be various other bad things humans can do that doesn't involve murder (ranging from overlooked everyday stuff to heinous crimes) like sexual harassing, extorting, thievery, robbing, malicious slandering, deliberately ignoring crisis (apathy, not because they can't help), abuse (physical/verbal/control), objectification/dehumanization of someone (can be racism, or even viewing love interest as mere conquest), vandalizing, doxxing, physical or psychological torture, worker exploitation, etc.

There's a difference between someone's who's actually good, or someone who's just harmless, not having the power/ability to act on their desires (but already had warped mindset). There can be varying reasons for someone to do that, it's not always because it's the right thing to do. It can be also due to (also can be combined with being harmless above) wanting a reward, avoiding a punishment, or boosting their reputation. And really people can opt to not murder or do other bad things because it's in their best interest or counter-productive to their plan, not due to genuine standards. Which may get dismissed only due to the outcomes (depicting their claims as tsunderes for this).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

No, I'm just saying that these reasons exist. And without eliminating them from the haters also will not get rid of.

And there are reasons for this too. Again, morally upright means less than bad deeds.

I just really don't want to have the "reason" arguments promoted and validated because it can be used to, for reverse reason, absolve villains of any wrong they do; where there are people who justify villains as soon as they give a reason for their horrible actions, which have them being painted as not that bad or even"the true hero". Reasons (like backstory or such) don't elevate their morality. To condemn a hero for being hated because "there's a reason", sounds similar in treating the haters are completely blameless and right (thus there's someone else being wrong, in which your words "deserve it" sounds like those heroes themselves).