Violence do work most of the time and sacrifices have to be made to get people to even notice the problem.
However from what I've read, Cephas did everything wrong. Backstabbing own workmates and kidnapping Alicia. Getting used by conspirator and working with bandits. My goodness that is a lot of bad optics and not even can be used as a martyr.
Don't remember if I missed it, did they say anything about him ever helping commoners to rise up?
@phil777@Hollow7F you say that but I've so very rarely seen anyone complain when the "bad guys" are killed.
Did you mean perhaps "it's wrong when someone I arbitrary feel deserves life is killed by your plan"? Because even villains and their minions are usually living, breathing beings, with desires and likes and dislikes.
Even lowly guards, ordered to stop the hero for scant coin and slaughtered, are people. Even horrible criminals who deserve everything they get are people. Sacrificed for the hero's plan.
I'm personally ok with some bad guys dying, but it seems interesting you think that no-one should be killed, ever, for any reason whatsoever.
@Red225 what? when did i say i care about bad guys dying?, i think u misunderstood me, yes villains and bad guys are ppl, no one is saying they arent but what i am saying is that one person doesnt get to decide who else gets sacrificed.
If Cephas was part of a resistance and they all had the resolution to die for their cause then its up to them, but Cephas is one dude that took a decision that will affect everyone either guilty or innocent, his plan to destroy the country will likely kill 90% commoners and 10% nobles. He's in the wrong for the decisions he made. Like @kaikalaila said he has done a lot of wrong things.
in an adventure story there will be some deaths, its unavoidable, but intention is a thing, if we take your example:
''Even lowly guards, ordered to stop the hero for scant coin and slaughtered, are people. Even horrible criminals who deserve everything they get are people. Sacrificed for the hero's plan.''
How did they tried to stop the Hero?, did they care about the cheap pay more than the life of the hero? did they forced the hero to kill them by attacking relentlessly?, did they take pleasure in killing?, were they innocents that really needed the money?.
Im not denying their humanity, but they are responsible for their decisions, imma put an example from another manga here:
Spoilers for Tensei Shitara Slime Datta Ken
This dude is participating in a extermination war because he needs the money for his family:
Then everyone but him dies at the hand of the MC of the manga, then facing death he proceeds to confess:
He admits that he knew it was wrong but still participated, hes then killed by the MC, and we feel bad coz we knew his story, but we also understand that the choices he made led him to his grave.
I tent to rant, but my main points are:
> bad guys can get a redemption if they work for it, they may not get a happy ending but at least a neutral ending is at their grasp
> deciding for everyone else is wrong
> while every villain or bad guy is human and have their own circunstances this does not excuse the bad things they do
> we care about the MCs coz we are presented with their story, if we spend 60 chapters with a dude and his friends and 1 or 2 chapters with an antagonist we arent going to care for them in the same amount we care for the MC, even if they have a good fucking explanation for the shit they do.
Plot device fodder in a manga are usually not, just off the fact that the majority of manga "writers" are incompetent. It's 1D villains as obvious by the "bandits".
@comeonnow Have you thought about what comes after abolishing the monarchy and nobility? The world doesn't suddenly turn into an utopia, on the contrary - read up on dekulakization and the Soviet famine. It's not all black and white - if you remove all of the people that know how to operate your country + the most successful producers you'll just create even more misery for the average person. For what purpose? Equity? Sure, everyone will be equal in the misery that will ensue, for a time at least, until new successful people raise to the top and stabilise the mess left behind. Though another genius can surely come up with a plan to destroy the pillars on which their country stands again, because they are "oppressing" the poor.
@criver if you go by plot importance no-one except the hero, his allies and the villain matter. The villagers in trouble who need saving? One note characters who are nothing more than an NPC with a quest marker over their heads. The princess telling you to save the kingdom? Just a pretty face with one line of dialog.
If you think one dimensional bandits and villains aren't worthy of life because they are one dimensional, why are village person a and b any more worthy?
(They are, because they aren't actively getting in the way and don't deserve a dog's death. But if you're judging people by how much personality they have... Some village people - the background filler - don't even have faces.)
@Hollow7f I'm glad to hear your reasoning! So your point is more "your plan shouldn't get anyone uninvolved killed"?
I doubt all but the most hardcore soldiers would actively be happy in being chosen to, say, bait the enemy into a trap and be sacrificed, but you'd be happier that people signed up with the understanding they might get killed are the ones dying, right? And it'd be even more ok if it's some of the enemy's soldiers?
But you'd be unhappy if some bystander is used as sacrificial bait.
That's much more reasonable than saying "no-one at all should be sacrificed".
@Red225 You misunderstood me. These side characters could have been fleshed out, but they were not. It's the author's incompetence or laziness that made those 1D plot devices. They are simply not what you claim them to be because of the writing. To be sure - they could have been, but they are not.
Whether Cephas is right or wrong in doing what he does is sadly an irrelevant discussion considering that there's about a 90% chance that he's only being used by other nobles in other countries to further their goals. That's how the story usually goes: take an idealist who also happens to be an extremist and let him do the dirty work for you.
That said, if Cephas gets defeated and that'll be the end of the story arc, I'll be disappointed. Not only was him being the bad guy way too obvious from the start, but there is indeed an amount of similarity between him and Slow, which makes the latter going all "I'm the hero and I'll never forgive you yadda-yadda" ring a bit false to my ears.
@Red225
Welp, see, I'm a Canadian, and we've abolished the death penalty. The philosophy behind this is that if you take someone's life, (barring any fantasy resurrection spell or ability) it's permanent and cannot be undone. We'd rather this person mends their way or spends time in prison. Confinement until their natural death is ok. Forcibly ending their days is not. =/ Makes you no better than what you're trying to get rid of. By killing someone, you also set the precedent for more executions, which could very well target yourself as well, either justly so, or unjustly.
@Hollow7F The problem is WHY is Cephas doing the opposite? Why was Slow Denning doing the opposite before the unnamed Japanese protagonist took over his body? Even Slow Denning needed an outside influence to turn his life around. It is indisputable that if the MC did not take over Slow Denning's body, then Slow Denning would've been just as bad as in the anime that he's based off of. That's why this looks hollow from a writing standpoint. The MC had explicitly seen that Cephas was struggling with his decisions, that he could potentially be a good person. What did the MC do? Fuck all. The author had the MC do nothing.
he wants to destroy everything in order to equalize everyone
False. He wants to abolish the monarchy. His goal is not to have the commoners suffer. And here's the MASSIVE problem. Neither Alicia nor Slow nor ANYONE talks about whether innocent lives will be lost. Literally the only thing Alicia says is that she recognizes corruption in the nobility and monarchy but that as a member of the monarchy, she can't support this. That sounds like such massive selfishness and lack of care. She could've said anything at all, but nope.
because of him every commoner is in a shittier situation than before, he just gave all the asshole nobles the perfect excuse to freely discriminate against them, now commoners will suffer even more in order to be able to rise up by using hard work, all the assholes nobles will go ''hey we cant let this commoner hold a rank or receive recognition, what if hes a traitor like that Cephas!''
Please, tell me how that's at all any different from the current situation where the nobility literally already does that to the commoners with absolutely no punishment.
Again, the problem is that none of this is actually discussed by the characters. This just looks cheap as hell.
@criver First of all, my main issue has ALWAYS been about how this is being shitty writing. The characters themselves don't explain anything. Again, as I literally said in my first post, yes, there are probably good reasons to not do what Cephas is doing. I can think of quite a few. However, no one says anything. Literally the only response is from Alicia who says that she recognizes the corruption and suffering of commoners but that she, as princess, cannot support this. That looks like selfish trash.
Now, I'll address the substance of your argument. Yes, please tell me all about the one historical example of dekulakization and ignore the fact that there have been numerous successful revolutions. Yes, please tell me how the Soviet Union is the ONLY example of political revolution. Not like there's been the Velvet Revolution or the Jasmine Revolution. I'll even give you the best case scenario with the French Revolution. Led to massive wars and suffering alongside the abolition of the monarchy. Even the French Revolution is still seen as a generally good thing because it produced a significantly more equal society not only in France but also in neighboring countries that responded.
The difference is that even in an equal society, yes, you can still have leaders and a hierarchy. The difference is that you don't have it based on some inheritance and blood. Am I saying modern republics are perfect? No. Am I saying they're more equal than having a bloodline nobility and monarchy? Yes, I am saying that.
And again, the MASSIVE problem is that there has literally been no discussion of this in the story. It's just cheap-ass fighting with no acknowledgment of the issues.
@comeonnow In my book "they didn't say anything" is not a strong argument for vilifying the nobility - if anything we are shown numerous "good" nobles throughout the manga. But I do see where you are coming from. Sure, the writing is bad, nothing we can do about it.
I don't believe I need to point out the difference between the revolutions you listed, the one I did, and what's happening in the manga. I simply believe that the naivete and stupidity of Cephas will lead to something closer to the outcome from the Soviet "revolution". A further argument towards this is the reliance on magic in this fictional world - they'll basically kill off the competent mages in a society relying on those for its functioning. I shouldn't need to explain how that may be an issue.
@criver It's not just a "they didn't say anything". It's that Alicia, a member of the royalty, specifically "tried" to respond, but her only answer was crap. All that she said is that as a member of the royalty, the class that Cephas specifically criticized as benefitting from the suffering of the commoners, she could not accept his attempts To not have the commoners suffer. She even specifically acknowledges the validity of his arguments. She had every opportunity to respond with even something, but she didn't. It's shallow writing, although I get that we generally agree on this point, although maybe not in terms of degree of criticism.
As for the example, yeah, no, not really. First, literally no proof that Cephas wants the destruction of high tier magic users. His whole reason for hating the nobility is that they simply abuse the commoners and then discard them at the first convenience, as happened with him and his mother. If a person or group does not do that, then he should, theoretically, be fine with them. There is no evidence he considers high tier makes to be like that. If there is any evidence, please show.
Separately, the French Revolution is a lot more like this case than you have been willing to admit. Although the causes are complex, one of the major issues was discontent with the ruling elite. Additionally, the Russian Revolution was a lot less similar to this than you'd like to believe. That revolution came on the back of a string of military losses and major economic issues in the country, neither of which are present here. We could debate the merits of either comparison, but my point here is that it's more complicated than you suggest.
That's not how it works in reality though. At the point where an actual revolution happens his wants will be irrelevant. He's not going for a bloodless revolution so you cannot honestly believe that the nobility won't be made the scapegoat, if not by him, then by the mob under him, or people seeking to profit from this. This happened in both the French and the Russian revolutions. This whole revolution is based on the generalization of the ruling class as oppressors - you can make your conclusion about how this experiment will end.
Separately, the French Revolution is a lot more like this case than you have been willing to admit.
The philosophy behind this is that if you take someone's life, (barring any fantasy resurrection spell or ability) it's permanent and cannot be undone. We'd rather this person mends their way or spends time in prison. Confinement until their natural death is ok. Forcibly ending their days is not. =/ Makes you no better than what you're trying to get rid of. By killing someone, you also set the precedent for more executions, which could very well target yourself as well, either justly so, or unjustly.
