Disliked Elements, Mechanics, and Tropes

[Wassup]

Honestly, I think the author had an Idea for how the story should go in the first chapter, but then decided to change it every chapter. That’s why the whiplash between chapters are so jarring. Even by chapter 2, it felt like the author changed her mind on how the story should proceed.

The dragon romance was dumb, it just added to the bloat. Too many characters were added, to the point I don’t even care to keep track of. The story has become convoluted, and in my opinion, it was around chapter 3 we could see the overt decline. Don’t get me wrong, the story had issues from the first chapter, but because I didn’t take the story seriously whatsoever, and because, let’s face it, it wasn’t that great of a story to start with, just something to kill time. Because of this I was able to easily ignore the issues and just push forward. But ever since the first chapter, the issues have become compounded to the point, I simply cannot ignore the issues anymore, and honestly, I don’t think the story is going to get any better.

Just personal opinion.

[The_Lady_Luck]

Yeah, I stopped reading the updates, because the childhood is just too much, too long. It could be so much shorter, while still introducing the characters it needs to introduce, and set up future plot.

I might give it another try, when it finally reaches the end of the backstory stuff.

It’s not the only IF that seems to feel the need to include too much of the MC’s childhood, even though the actual story takes place when they are grown up, but it is by far the worst.
(To be clear, I wouldn’t mind this so much, if the development of such IFs weren’t as slow, but it takes literal real-life years before we get to the actual story, with update after update of backstory fluff, and that burns out any ethusiasm I have)

Disappointing, because I like arthurian retellings.

[Gigalomania]

@Wassup

She would especially get killed, considering that her son is prophesized to destroy Camelot.

I can actually see her getting killed for this reason, sure.

@Wassup

And this is not some knight, it’s Lancelot, one of the 12 most important knights, the one most loyal to Arthur.

But for this one, I cannot. I’m sorry but this makes zero sense.

I really don’t see what makes you think that a Knight of the Round Table is more important than royalty. Morgana has royal blood. That alone gives her a higher status than the 12 knights. A princess isn’t going to be executed for attacking a knight. They would probably prefer to declare her insane, isolate her, or exile her rather than kill her outright.

@Wassup

most loyal to Arthur

Debatable.

@Wassup

I also don’t understand your “legitimacy” argument, you don’t need to be royal blood to kill other royal blood.

I mentioned legitimacy because you cited Morgana’s actions toward Arthur as a reason to execute her.

As for adultery, that is entirely Lot’s problem; no one else is going to resolve it for him. And even if he were to get rid of Morgana, it would not improve his reputation. Why? Because she’s the king’s freaking half-sister. Killing her could be a casus belli.

Should she suffer the consequences of her actions? Sure. But outright killing her? I don’t see that happening.

[Anna_B]

The conversation seems to have turned from “dislikes tropes” and has become a discussion on a specific game. I could be wrong, because I just skimmed through. But maybe stir it back to a broader point

[Wassup]

But for this one, I cannot. I’m sorry but this makes zero sense.

I really don’t see what makes you think that a Knight of the Round Table is more important than royalty. Morgana has royal blood. That alone gives her a higher status than the 12 knights. A princess isn’t going to be executed for attacking a knight. They would probably prefer to declare her insane, isolate her, or exile her rather than kill her outright.

Arthur is already the official heir to Uther, and at the end of the day, blood means little when you are a liability sibling like Morgana, someone would have killed her by now (not referring it to having to be an official order) that’s just how it is, she’s an extreme liability. She has no protection, other than what Lot gives her. They are more likely to kill her than isolate or imprison her, because if she’s free, she could make the succession messy, and if she’s isolated she’s a mage, so who knows what she can do. It’s not like Arthur has the cunning or bravery to not be bypassed or outmaneuvered.

Debatable

He is the most loyal, but the way he goes about it is dumb.

I mentioned legitimacy because you cited Morgana’s actions toward Arthur as a reason to execute her.

As for adultery, that is entirely Lot’s problem; no one else is going to resolve it for him. And even if he were to get rid of Morgana, it would not improve his reputation. Why? Because she’s the king’s freaking half-sister. Killing her could be a casus belli.

Should she suffer the consequences of her actions? Sure. But outright killing her? I don’t see that happening.

I mentioned the crimes she committed against Arthur and multiple others, crimes that would have gotten her killed, especially when she has no allies in the royal court.

I agree Lot should resolve it himself, my main gripe comes from the egregiously lazy and straight up tasteless writing that the author is doing in regards to this to keep it from happening. I disagree with the part on casus belli though, It’s quite clear Merlin holds the chains, Arthur is just the figurehead, and Merlin himself would not punish Lot, especially not after everything else Morgana did, which everyone should be up in arms about, but no one is because of plot armor and lazy writing. Executing her would restore some honor and reputation because it shows he’s not a complete punching bag.

I brought up, that at the very least, he should have divorced her, but I don’t see that happening, because the worldbuilding isn’t done well, its a mix of medieval culture and 21st century culture, so I don’t really know what’s taboo and what’s not. Even in the medieval culture here, you were allowed to get divorce in a case like this. And that was just Christianity, I’m sure whatever they practice in the story is even more lax. The issue is, that everything is so ill-defined.

[Wassup]

Just saw this. Got it

[comradelenin]

So, a couple times, I think a few on here but also in other places, I complained about the hero killing the villain being considered a bad thing when the villain is a total monster. Now because a common presentation of this is the “if you kill them, you’ll be just like them” trope and I kinda reflexively insinuated that most examples of the idea that the hero should spare a villain who absolutely deserves death were examples of this.

This lead people to assume that my complaint was the REASONING behind the hero being portrayed as wrong for doing so or righteous for sparing the villain and explaining that the reasoning involved was a different ideal being betrayed/upheld by killing/sparing respectively.

So I figured I’d put my actual thought process here since I’ve only ever clarified it mid argument:

The reasoning the story uses to condemn killing an extremely evil person is not the issue, it is that the story is saying that AT ALL. I find the idea that it is wrong to kill, for example, a rapist, murderer, spouse/child abuser, or other such criminals in that ballpark to be morally wrong in and of itself, and I find extreme displeasure in the suggestion that sparing such people, especially ones who are completely unrepentant being portrayed in the media I consume. It’s not about the specific rationale.

[Elemental]

@comradelenin

I find the idea that it is wrong to kill, for example, a rapist, murderer, spouse/child abuser, or other such criminals in that ballpark to be morally wrong in and of itself, and I find extreme displeasure in the suggestion that sparing such people, especially ones who are completely unrepentant being portrayed in the media I consume. It’s not about the specific rationale.

Bruh when a hero decided to take up the mantle, there also accepted the responsiblity and certain standards to live up to, because whatever the hero does, is passed on to the next generation of the society and if said hero kills the wicked, well that is saying that is ok to kill anyone that is evil and along the line that notion will eventually blur of who is evil or not and in the end creating a cycle of killing and bloodshed with more problems and consequences

[comradelenin]

Ok that last statement is pure slippery slope fallacy. Also, hero is a catch-all term for anyone on the side of good in this context. I’ve seen this sort of “spare the villain” nonsense to like, soldiers and rebels and such, who’re already killing people left and right.

[Anna_B]

First of all, the slippery slope isn’t a fallacy. It’s a very real concern. Secondly, there’s a difference between sparing a villain and handing them over to the proper authorities. Superhero’s, if they’re meant to be good and fighter for justice, shouldn’t be judge jury and executioner.

[Keller]

This is where the antihero comes in. Someone pretty much on the side of good but who has some pretty unheroic approaches or behaviors, such as killing.

You may think those killings are justified, do less harm than good, are a net good, or whatever, but they’re not cleanly heroic, because that’s not how we should want problems solved or problematic people dealt with.

We as readers can follow the story and often have enough information that we could decide this or that was justified or not, we are given all the information the author wants us to know to make it feel justified or not, but the person meting out justice in these situations is not so omniscient. They could be mistaken, they can get things wrong, they can create a narrative in their head and then only see the evidence that supports that narrative while discarding the rest. Often enough this doesn’t happen in fiction, because authors don’t want us to feel discomfort at the means, but vindication at the villain getting ‘justice’. And maybe they are. But if you put a real person in that situation and give them the same leeway, the slippery slope is very much worth paying attention to.

The common trope of killing your way through a bunch of faceless mooks only to realize that if you kill the one making the decisions for them, you would be just as bad as them, is dumb because of the internal dissonance, not because of the idea that killing people is always bad.

Some people do, really, viscerally, believe that killing people IS always wrong. That it IS always evil. No matter who the person is or what they have done. This, I think, is a sentiment worth analyzing on its own merits, and worth separating from whether a vigilante performing it is itself worse than separating the chain of investigating, catching, judging, and executing to different parties, because if you don’t believe in the end result in any situation, then the steps in between are just an excuse that muddies the waters.

In any society worth saving, the separation of roles (investigate/capture/adjudicate/punish) is a moral technology that reduces error and abuse. Vigilantes short-circuit that technology.

Of course, many vigilante stories exist with the premise that this perfect system of neutral justice has already failed and will never deliver justice in the particular case the story is covering without the vigilante’s actions.

That all said, in worlds where (a) guilt is certain, (b) nonlethal containment reliably fails, and (c) the threat is catastrophic, refusing to kill can be a dereliction, not a virtue. To say nothing of situations of active defense from lethal intent to oneself or others.

[Dryinspection]

I think in that theres also more of a discussion to be had regarding said containment. People talk about how batman lets the joker go because of his code and every time he escapes and does whatever next crime he does. In that sense I’d argue its more a failing of the prisons or law enforcement for continually not having facilities that are escape proof/ the author for making escapes seem so simple. At what point do you put the joker inside a prison of their own with guards that wouldn’t be push overs against external break out. Its the DC universe. Theres probably someone with a power able to.

Naturally of course its for plot reasons joker keeps getting out, but yknow. Its not really batman’s fault at that point unless batman is the one making the prisons. Theres also of course the argument that death can be an escape from a life sentence for the less supernaturally inclined. But thats a different matter.

[apple]

@Anna_B

Superhero’s, if they’re meant to be good and fighter for justice, shouldn’t be judge jury and executioner.

Yeah there are a lot of people who want every hero to be the Punisher and like, idk it’s good to try and have some semblance of an actually legal system beyond the whims of a capricious demigod’s idea of ‘justice’. There are places for both kinds of story, I don’t think murdery versus non murdery superheroes are inherently worse than the other.

[comradelenin]

@Anna_B

First of all, the slippery slope isn’t a fallacy. It’s a very real concern.

Slippery Slope Fallacy (29 Examples + Definition) - Practical Psychology

@Anna_B

Superhero’s, if they’re meant to be good and fighter for justice, shouldn’t be judge jury and executioner.

Why is everyone so focused on superheroes? I never specified superheroes.

@Keller

This is where the antihero comes in. Someone pretty much on the side of good but who has some pretty unheroic approaches or behaviors, such as killing.

Unfortunately, there’s a common convention where antiheroes also tend to be selfish, angsty, or have less than ideal motivations. Sometimes I want your usual idealistic hero who just doesn’t do dumb shit like spare Mecha-Hitler or whoever so we can have nine more seasons with the same villain.

@Keller

Some people do, really, viscerally, believe that killing people IS always wrong. That it IS always evil. No matter who the person is or what they have done. This, I think, is a sentiment worth analyzing on its own merits, and worth separating from whether a vigilante performing it is itself worse than separating the chain of investigating, catching, judging, and executing to different parties, because if you don’t believe in the end result in any situation, then the steps in between are just an excuse that muddies the waters.

Yeah, I know of this belief, and my own visceral opposition to it is why I hate this trope so much. “Killing is always bad and killing someone is morally equivalent no matter what” is a bad moral stance. These are stances that, in some cases, say that letting the innocent die is a lesser evil compared to killing the person doing the killing. That’s just repugnant.

@Dryinspection

. In that sense I’d argue its more a failing of the prisons or law enforcement for continually not having facilities that are escape proof/ the author for making escapes seem so simple. At what point do you put the joker inside a prison of their own with guards that wouldn’t be push overs against external break out. Its the DC universe. Theres probably someone with a power able to.

Yes, but Batman being a tactical genius and all, has to know this is the end result. And he COULD solve the issue of the Joker right away but chooses not to. No matter who else is at fault, so is he. He chose to be a hero in a system that desperately needs one, I say that does indeed give him responsibility to act in the best interests of the people.

@apple

idk it’s good to try and have some semblance of an actually legal system beyond the whims of a capricious demigod’s idea of ‘justice’.

Superheroes specifically are kinda predicated on these systems already being insufficient to deal with the particular threats they face. Like, I get turning in regular bank robbers but clearly, it’s not working for some of these other threats.

[Keller]

@comradelenin

Why is everyone so focused on superheroes? I never specified superheroes.

I only spoke about vigilantes, which of course applies to superheroes but also to John Wick, Bryan Mills, Dexter, Veronica Mars, Dr. Who, Reacher, Edmond Dantès, Robin Hood, the Leverage team, your average D&D adventurer, etc. Superheroes, of course, are the ones we see most often in a position to be killing people outside of the framework of the law in any kind of justified fashion. It’s a bountiful example set, sorry.

We could instead talk about literal executioners doing nothing but killing on the orders of the government in an impersonal fashion after a trial and everything. We could talk about people in armed conflicts (soldiers, guerillas, etc.), or police, or doctors assisting in suicide or euthanasia or whatever.

@comradelenin

I meant the other person. The one I quoted.

Funny, cause you said “Why is everyone” which implies everyone engaged in the discussion and not one specific person.

@comradelenin

Unfortunately, there’s a common convention where antiheroes also tend to be selfish, angsty, or have less than ideal motivations. Sometimes I want your usual idealistic hero who just doesn’t do dumb shit like spare Mecha-Hitler or whoever so we can have nine more seasons with the same villain.

Idealistic heroes are not murderers, it’s kind of the firmest line between a hero and antihero. Not grumpiness, actually.

@comradelenin

Yeah, I know of this belief, and my own visceral opposition to it is why I hate this trope so much. “Killing is always bad and killing someone is morally equivalent no matter what” is a bad moral stance. These are stances that, in some cases, say that letting the innocent die is a lesser evil compared to killing the person doing the killing. That’s just repugnant.

I’m somewhat in agreement with you, actually. My line isn’t that killing is never justifiable, but that in realistic scenarios outside of self defense, it very, very, very rarely is the best option. Fictional characters are easy to write off. Real people are more nuanced. Fictional scenarios are usually pretty clear, real scenarios are usually pretty murky.

[comradelenin]

@Keller

Idealistic heroes are not murderers, it’s kind of the firmest line between a hero and antihero.

That’s completely arbitrary. For most of history, most traditional heroes had no issue killing. You’re not automatically an antihero for using lethal force. It’s not automatically cynical to use lethal force.

@Keller

I only spoke about vigilantes, which of course applies to superheroes but also to John Wick, Bryan Mills, Dexter, Veronica Mars, Dr. Who, Reacher, Edmond Dantès, Robin Hood, the Leverage team, your average D&D adventurer, etc. Superheroes, of course, are the ones we see most often in a position to be killing people outside of the framework of the law in any kind of justified fashion. It’s a bountiful example set, sorry.

I meant the other person. The one I quoted. Because this stuff also happens for like, fantasy adventurers who are like, steps away from killing an evil overlord before deciding to take the moral high ground. Trouble with @Anna_B was that she automatically assumed all the scenarios I was talking about were superheroes fighting criminals and such in a place where law enforcement and modern criminal justice typically exist. In many examples, this is not the case.

@Keller

Real people are more nuanced. Fictional scenarios are usually pretty clear, real scenarios are usually pretty murky.

True but so many stories have this clear-cut scenario and then pretend killing the villain is still wrong.

[Anna_B]

@comradelenin

Trouble with @Anna_B was that she automatically assumed all the scenarios I was talking about were superheroes fighting criminals and such in a place where law enforcement and modern criminal justice typically exist.

I was just using superhero’s as an example… if you want to talk about heroes from a world without a modern justice system, that’s fine. But maybe specify that ?

In that scenario, I think you’re going to get a lot more people on your side. People who don’t like heroes killing are people who want justice and not vengeance. Which, in my opinion, is separated by the use of unnecessary violence. In a world with fair trials and maximum security prisons, I don’t think Batman should kill the Joker. But in a world where an evil wizard usurped the throne and ruined the kingdom, the band of knights sworn to defeat him may have to kill him. That’s probably the only realistic scenario.

[comradelenin]

@Anna_B

I was just using superhero’s as an example… if you want to talk about heroes from a world without a modern justice system, that’s fine. But maybe specify that ?

I mean I meant scenarios where jail isn’t like, e reliable option. My main issue with superheroes specifically is that it has repeatedly proven jail isn’t not reliable but it’s still said to be “wrong” to not trust the system to do its job.

@Anna_B

People who don’t like heroes killing are people who want justice and not vengeance. Which, in my opinion, is separated by the use of unnecessary violence.

I consider justice to be when the punishment is proportional to the crime committed, regardless of how said violence happens and who commits it and why.

[Qianyixia386]

I always thought the trope of heros not killing was dumb. If based on real world with realistic use of violence then it’s okay

But batman and comic books and even shonen anime are annoying as hell with this trope . I’m tired of stories where the heros use violence that would put right kill ppl in real life and frankly female characters , love interests and parents almost always die from realistic violence in these stories it’s only the villains who don’t . The hero angst over killing the villain while using violence that would leave some dead or a brain dead vegetable in real life. It really takes me out of the story .

You don’t get to have your hero angsting over killing someone while continually using violence that would kill someone in real life. It’s even more eyeroll worthy when the villain is a regular human. My favorite is jjw like I said these stories often have female characters usually a mother ,love interest etc dying to realistic use of violence it’s only the villains who gets this plot armour of being slammed through walls, head stomped,ran over etc and is relatively fine .

[Qianyixia386]

Now one thing I hate is this is specific to choice of games most of the " games" feel like novels in disguise. Novels that frankly if I were judging as novel wouldn’t be that good. It doesn’t help that a lot of the games have little to no real game mechanics and yes it possible for text based games to have actual game mechanics. Several of the Chinese /Japanese and other foreign interactive stories in the Google play store actually are like full RPGs. Tbf unlike choice games these text based games have music and visuals but they are still text based and don’t feel like novels disguised as games .

this wouldn’t be annoying if the games had the same level of writing as disco elysium ,last of us etc but the vast majority don’t I feel like if your gonna have text with no pictures the writing needs to be at a certain level . Also I feel like since these are more story based alot seem to lack character development I think partially it’s because so many give you the option to choose gender etc I have yet to see a story based game do that and still have as strong of writing as Last of us . Same with the romance options they often feel empty . I have never liked player sexual romance and yet to see a game convince me that it’s ever well done. Choice of games is worst in this dynamic so many stories clear as day where the cannon character was written as male or female and then all they did was change the pronouns to get more ppl interested which is silly. Choice of games does not dominate the interactive fiction in play store there are like several games that are more popular in this specific genre that don’t give you that option at all .