I have to preface this with a caveat--I don't remember everything that's happened in the story, as--and though this is not meant to be a criticism of Kredim's work--there's a lot of time between releases. Consequently, there are holes in my memory of the story, so feel free to correct me if what I'm saying actually contradicts the story--I'd appreciate a reminder.
the guy killed innocent people? "you killed innocent people, i have to stop you" isnt morally sound?
That was not part of my stance.
To be clear, I don't think the innocent should suffer blanket punishment with the guilty; the guilty should be isolated and punished according to their wrongdoings without mercy.
You missed the above.
and thats ignoring that theres no reason to think he wont come back, after hes done torturing the neighborhood association to death, whos to say him and kimujina wont attack Kaboku directly and cull everyone over 40 personally?
Going by that logic, doesn't Hadesman have a solid reason to think the same of them? Keep in mind that Kaboku first drove him out--then they killed someone important to him on mere guilt of association.
only the few that Hades kidnapped knew, the rest of the town knew nothing about it?
My preface considered, I did go back to find--via a haphazard selection--Hadesman in chapter 74 explicitly stating his intent to "destroy" the village in its entirety--the implication that he intends to kill the villagers indiscriminately (because it'd be "too much trouble" to sort the perpetrators from the innocent) was so clearly made as to effectively be explicit. Even so, going further in the chapter shows that he defers to what appears to be Kimujina's preference to wait until the festival ends, to avoid involving the outsider tourists. He went on to specifically target those Neighborhood Association (I think that that's the group's name) members.
That said, I reread up to chapter 77--what I'd indeed forgotten was that Hadesman's raid
did result in casualties (that weren't confirmed to have been innocent or guilty), so Kikuru's reasoning
probably wasn't hollow, but a
probably valid justification. After all, those killed weren't proven guilty at all.
I was likely wrong, but the situation still seems like what I see throughout many manga/LN: killing a human is a terrible, unacceptable thing, but it's fine if the target is nonhuman--even if intelligent.
As he explains it's literally his job to go and save them lol. The villain unleashed a ton of monsters onto the town to kill a bunch of people, where undoubtedly some innocent people got killed/mauled. It would be a failure of his duties to embrace some kind of alternative justice and just let the monster just kill a bunch of people
Yes, it's as you say--even if Kikuru's approach to the situation seems to focus on one side. For all that talk about getting rid of weapons to avoid the carnage of war and such, the world still has vicious conduct nevertheless; even a local god is a victim of it.
Hadesman would have been much more successful in avenging Fone had he not chosen such an emotionally charged and thereby simplistic means of going about it. You don't help your case by building one against yourself.
