[Mesnick]

[QUOTE=DreadBringer;849746]I mentioned Akira Date/Birth there...


I don't remember the events of OOO very well, but in the Date situation, he used to yell at Eiji to get out of the line of fire before or right after the shot. It seems to me that there was more of a story about the fact that two strangers cannot work together, and there was no particular desire initially. As for the danger for Eiji, Date did not know him as a person + initially had a negative impression after the events before the show. And Neon knows Keiwa much better and even defended him in front of Saya. Which at least shows that for the sake of her desire she is ready to go to great lengths. And one more difference: Date is a doctor. If he seriously harmed Eiji, he would have cured him himself.

Quote:

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.

The difference is that I don't consider all good deeds to be heroic. And I do not see heroes above ordinary people, only their actions. No one can be a hero 24/7, it's important to do the right thing at the right time.

Quote:

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.

Nicotine is more addictive than most illicit drugs, yet completely legal. The same goes for your examples. But still, in the case of murder, there is a difference. The victims of all the examples you have given can recover. Not all and not always, but they can. The resurrection from the dead is from the realm of fantasy and is impossible in real life. In the world of DHP, it's most likely doable, but it can still be hard for people (and most players are just regular people) to accept.

Quote:

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).

That is why you should not write down all good people as heroes, so as not to be disappointed later. But since we cannot read other people's thoughts, it remains to be judged by actions.

Quote:

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".

My position is that the causes must be taken into account in order to be eliminated. Punishment for bad deeds must follow and its severity must be determined by those whose eyes are not blurred. Here, perhaps, a strong problem in our different backgrounds. There are no jury trials in my country, which means that the attempts of criminals to play on feelings are more of a fantasy for me. All indulgences that they can receive depend on specific, predetermined circumstances. But I believe it is possible.

Quote:

Reasons (like backstory or such) don't elevate their morality.

I cannot agree here. If a person's father is a thief, his mother is a thief, all his friends are thieves and the most watched movie is "Ocean's 11", then shouldn't this be taken into account? That is, he, of course, heard that stealing is bad from some strangers who did nothing good for him. Therefore, simply punishment is clearly not enough here, a person needs to be explained why this is wrong. And be prepared that he will not understand and appreciate it.