Saihate no Paladin - Vol. 1 Ch. 3 - Prayer

[Writerfromanotherstar]

My heart hurts and my eyes teared up

 

[Insignificant]

This manga is great. I'm moved by this chapter. Damn I wish the greatness of this manga will be the same in the future chapters.

 

[VersatileFaerie]

Ah, Marie, the ingredients show Mater is listening, she just technically can't answer back to you. My heart hurts for Marie. I hope Will soon opens up to them equally about the lamp and his previous life.

 

[SotiCoto]

This is getting intolerable...

... He is going to be called 9 when he is 8 but drawn like a 15-year-old. The age talk is meaningless drivel by this point.

A walking corpse that ostensibly (by type) has no internal organs somehow goes on about farming vegetables and good health, and despite being apparently a "mummy", she survives bursting into flames on a daily basis... which is THE guaranteed way to destroy a mummy. Doesn't seem to do a damned thing to her clothing either.

A guy made literally of bones and hair keeps going on about muscles and physique (and "Blood" isn't even a name, so much as yet another thing this guy doesn't have). What fuckin muscles?! He was described from the beginning as just "a skeleton"... which is the lowest form of undead. Translation error, transcription error, or retarded source material?

And I've gone this far without remarking on how much of a deranged stretch it is to have the protagonist raised by the undead. I mean you could count the number of undead types that aren't actively malevolent and mindless on one hand. So far NONE of the characters are remotely what they're claimed to be... so why even bother naming them as such?
I'd rather a generic isekai than this jumble of bad drawings and an arse-pull of an origin. This is what you get when you try too hard to be different and end up fucking it up.

 

[LeonGreenwood]

@SotiCoto they were human before, and they make these foods for him not for themselves
and he is a reincarnated person :v

 

[HfUfH]

@SotiCoto Dude, drop that know it all attitude of yours, it's really not helping your case. Just because you read a few fantasy novels or played some TTRPGs dosent make you a expert at fantasy settings.

Why are you spewing bullshit like they are facts? You say things like skeletons are the lowest form of undead or mummies are weak to fire but wheres your proof? We are shown explicitly that the mummy can handle fire and the skeleton is quite strong. Just because something is true in one fantasy setting doesn't mean it's true in another fantasy setting.

After spewing that bullshit, you go on to spew more bullshit about how most undead are malevolent and mindless even though 100% of the undead that we've seen so far are neither malevolent nor mindless.

What i am trying to say is there's nothing retarded about the translation, transcription or source of material. The retarded thing is you.

 

[SotiCoto]

@HfUfH : There is nothing to "drop", stranger. I always type like this, and to the best of my knowledge always have. I talk like this too. It is a part of who I am.

I don't "spew bullshit". I express my opinions, my deductions, and often my reasoning.
In this case though what I'm referencing is simply a matter of precedence. Not exactly the most stable of ground to be standing on, so to speak... but when D&D and every other fantasy setting that has been somehow inspired by it have portrayed "skeletons" as one of the most rudimentary and weak forms of undead, and mummies being weak to fire is similarly established (and generally backed up by them being ancient dried out corpses wrapped in plainly flammable bandages), then along comes a story like this and basically goes "we call this a skeleton, but shows none of the typical traits of one.... we call this a mummy, but it also shows none of the typical traits of one", then of course I'm going to call bullshit. This is like putting a dragon in the story and calling it a "lizardman". It is using an existing term that has certain expectations of it and then just flat out ignoring them. Why even bother using the words in the first place?

Anyhow, I can't really expect you to understand this. You're doing the same thing as the author: applying words to things that are established NOT to mean what you're labelling with them. Perhaps when you're going on about "spewing bullshit" you should move away from the mirror, as the bullshit you're seeing in there is clearly distracting you.

 

[HfUfH]

@SotiCoto The reason you're calling this bullshit is "Tolken made his His fantasy work this way so why aren't your fantasy setting like his?" Which is completely flawed because just because someone made his fantasy world in a certain way and everyone decided to copy him does not mean that this author has to do the same thing.

However for the sake of argument, let's say that authors are not allowed to have creative freedom.

Well, I'm glad you brought DnD into this, because A quick look at the monster stat blockd will prove your accusations of skeletons being weak to be incorrect. Let's use 5e because its most widespread.

The basic skeleton has a CR of 1/4. It's a bit stronger than your average guard but still relatively weak for a group of adventures. Wait, look at these other skeletal creatures, like a skeletal polar bear, a skeletal giant and its skeletal two-headed owlbear and these are pretty tough. Need a pretty big group of guards and other soldiers subjugate them, but I am sure, with powerful bankers told pay should not be much of an issue.

Wait, what is this? a skeletal beholder called a death tyrant? CR14? with 187 hitpoints? Jeez, I really hope there's not another skeletal creature this powerful than this. Whats that? a Dracolich? A powerful dragon that's bound to a phylactery so it doesn't die? has resistance on all magical effects? It has over 220 HP and is a CR 17 monster? Jeez, I really don't know if I think skeletons are weak creatures any more.

Now you might be saying, well those don't count because those are not humanoid skeletons, while the one in the manga is.

Well, lets look at some Powerful humanoid skeletons. Bone Lords are CR 15 monsters with 105 hp. They have 30 feet aura that allows all undead in the area to heal. They are a level 13 spell caster, and they can make 3 attacks per action.

edit: sorry about that I accidentally hit Submit, let's keep going.

In In addition, they can summon five Skeletons or zombies every six seconds.

Still not convinced? Well, let's look at another powerful humanoid undead. The Good old Death Knight. A CR17 monster with 180 hp, resistant to every single magical effect, is a 19th level spell caster and can hurl a fireball that does an average of 70 damage to all creatures within a 20ft sphere. In addition, it can make 3 melee attacks with its action, each attack has a +11 to hit and does an average of 27 damage per attack.

After reading through that, I'm really not sure where you got the idea that undead skeletons are very weak from.

 

[SotiCoto]

@HfUfH :

Well, I'm glad you brought DnD into this, because A quick look at the monster stat blockd will prove your accusations of skeletons being weak to be incorrect. Let's use 5e because its most widespread.

The basic skeleton has a CR of 1/4. It's a bit stronger than your average guard but still relatively weak for a group of adventures. Wait, look at these other skeletal creatures...

No need. You already proved me right just there. Insert Nelson "HA HA" soundbyte here.

The point was that the common "skeleton" is, generally alongside zombies, the weakest and most ineffectual form of undead.
I can't think of a single fantasy setting NOR edition of D&D where that isn't the case.
And "skeleton" is what the guy was labelled.

Other fleshless skeletal monsters are completely irrelevant because they're not called "skeletons". A Lich, for instance, is usually depicted as a ridiculously dangerous form of undead, even if it would look exactly the same as a skeleton once you removed its clothing... but it isn't called a skeleton. It is called a lich. And it isn't like Japan is unfamiliar with that term either.
The Death Knight you mentioned is basically the same thing but with platemail armour, some sort of large weapon, and presumably a lot of implied warrior levels. Yes, underneath it is entirely skeletal..... but it isn't "a skeleton". It is a death knight. They're not the same thing.
I don't know why you even bothered bringing skeletal animals into this. It wasn't necessary.

Near as I can tell you seem to have got some bizarre notion into your head that my complaint was about them being made of bones in general... but it wasn't. I know what a dracolich is, and a demi-lich for this matter. This may amaze you, but I'm not so utterly ignorant as you seem to assume, but while they are skeletal in form they are not called "skeletons". It was that the guy wasn't called "a death knight" or whatever, but simply labelled as "a skeleton".
There are three possible explanations, none of them particularly reassuring:
#1. The guy is actually a complete weakling, despite appearances.
#2. The mangaka mislabelled him.
#3. The translator fucked up.

The fact that there are other skeletons about that ARE complete weaklings just muddles things up further. I'm curious as to whether they're labelled the same in the original Japanese... but not hugely so.


Anyhow... you might be thinking "but he can change things if he wants, and he can call it a skeleton if he wants"....
Well sure. I can call a cat a dog too, but what good would that do besides generating needless confusion? By all conventional standards... it would be wrong.
When it comes to fucking about with names, re-applying the name for one thing to another serves no end besides defeating the purpose of said labels in the first place.


Near as I can tell, given they're all fully sapient and aware of their past lives, and in some sense the same consciousness inhabits the same body in the case of those two with some form of body... I'd probably classify those two as revenants of some sort. Brandon Lee would approve. As for the ghost... who knows? The sentience of ghosts varies with the source.



p.s. Don't even get me started on bone-golems. Man... fuck bone-golems. Looks like a skeleton, moves like a skeleton, reanimated bones like a skeleton... but not undead. Go figure.

 

[CrimsonxxMana]

@SotiCoto

... He is going to be called 9 when he is 8 but drawn like a 15-year-old. The age talk is meaningless drivel by this point.

The point about the age talk was to point out that this world has a different scale for ages than our world. A year in this world is defined as the transition out of winter. But we don't know how long the seasons are.

Given he looks older than 9 however and the fact it is being brought up then the seasons are longer than ours. This is not really a new concept as Game of Thrones has the exact same setup. They had 10 years of summer before winter and their longest winter was 3 years long.

Obviously this world is more consistent with their seasons otherwise they wouldn't use them to define age.

A walking corpse that ostensibly (by type) has no internal organs somehow goes on about farming vegetables and good health, and despite being apparently a "mummy", she survives bursting into flames on a daily basis... which is THE guaranteed way to destroy a mummy. Doesn't seem to do a damned thing to her clothing either.

It seems you weren't paying much attention when they basically said they used to be human. So why is it surprising they know about farming vegetables and good health?

Also, why does mummy have to follow your definition exactly? We don't know what powers mummies have in this world. Not every story portays mummies the same. Look at the Mummy movie franchise with Brendan Fraser. Imhotep could regenerate, summon massive tsunamis, summon massive sand storms, and suck the life out of living things.

A guy made literally of bones and hair keeps going on about muscles and physique (and "Blood" isn't even a name, so much as yet another thing this guy doesn't have). What fuckin muscles?! He was described from the beginning as just "a skeleton"... which is the lowest form of undead. Translation error, transcription error, or retarded source material?

He does clearly have residual muscle on his arms. Saying lowest form of undead is a bit weird because we don't know the rules of this universe fully. Undead might not be classed just based on their type.

Also I don't see much wrong with his description of being a skeleton. It honestly depends. At what point does a corpse become a skeleton? When its bone mass exceeds the remainder of the other body mass?

And I've gone this far without remarking on how much of a deranged stretch it is to have the protagonist raised by the undead. I mean you could count the number of undead types that aren't actively malevolent and mindless on one hand. So far NONE of the characters are remotely what they're claimed to be... so why even bother naming them as such?
I'd rather a generic isekai than this jumble of bad drawings and an arse-pull of an origin. This is what you get when you try too hard to be different and end up fucking it up.

We don't know how the world functions with regards to undead. So far, from what I've seen of the story, the undead are created from humans that have forsaken their "Good" Gods and sided with Stagnate the Immortal God.

They may all keep their intelligence and reason for all we know. But it is probably a sin for humans and thus they are hunted for it. I imagine most of them may even despise humans for persecuting them.

 

[SotiCoto]

@CrimsonxxMana

Firstly... A Song of Ice and Fire would be the only fantasy series I know of in any language that drastically changes the length of seasons, yet it still records fairly ordinary years in spite of that. There are maybe one or two others I can think of that just don't seem to have conventional seasons at all, or follow the season cycles of tropical climates. Either way, if it is different to the norm, it has to be made crystal clear. If you're in a position where you're uncertain whether there is something seriously strange about the setting OR the writer is just an inconsistent idiot... it is probably the latter.

Secondly... Humans knowing about such things is reasonable. Ex-humans knowing about such things isn't completely out of bounds. Ex-humans who don't need to do such things any more but continue to do them as a matter of course is more than a little suspicious. UNDEAD which by all rights should probably be non-sentient might possibly continue to do such things as a mindless repetition of what they did in life, but wouldn't be in any position to discuss it nor care about it.
And it isn't "my" definition of a mummy. A mummy is a preserved, dessicated corpse... even the usual bandages are secondary to that. They're always flammable. It is a core aspect of their being, much like vampires drinking blood. Don't even get me started on how many manga vampires are conveniently unbothered by sunlight. The less consistent the entity in question is with the word being used, the less point there is in even using the word. It'd be like calling a fox a rabbit. Yes you can do it, but you're just causing misunderstandings.
Oh, and for all intents and purposes, Imhotep in the film series "The Mummy" was ironically more like a lich.... or even a demi-lich. The damned thing was stupidly powerful.

Thirdly... the guy is depicted with arms of some sort. They looked covered. For all I know that could just be the material of his gauntlets or whatever. But either he has arms and the claims of him being just a skeleton are false, or he doesn't have arms and his talk of muscles is hollow. Inconsistency either way.
A skeleton in the undead sense is just what a skeleton is in the anatomical sense... but animated. No skin, no organs, no muscles, no sinews even. Moves by magic. Follows rudimentary commands. Is typically non-sentient... though that rule is often the first one to go if one wants named undead. And yes, this is the standard across both western and asian fantasy systems. Doesn't matter if it is D&D or a JRPG, skeletons and zombies are the two lowest forms of undead. If this one isn't then the name is deliberately misleading, which is a bad thing.... obviously.

And finally.... enough of the "we don't know" crap. Someone obviously fucked something up and you're willing to bend over backwards to make excuses for them. We DO know what a skeleton is. If the author or whomever else is trying to use the word skeleton differently then it is their responsibility to make it crystal clear that it isn't just a complete fuck-up on their part. The "we don't know" excuse could extend to just about anything and everything. "We don't know" that the translator isn't just making shit up on the spot that has nothing to do with the original Japanese, or even that the original Japanese wasn't a freakin code with everything deliberately renamed to fuck with our heads. We don't know that the circular thing drawn in the sky that vaguely looks like the sun isn't a fucking space-station floating above the planet.
The moment you start opening the "we don't know" can of worms then all the framework that makes it possible to follow a story and understand anything happening in it breaks down entirely.

 

[CrimsonxxMana]

@SotiCoto

Firstly... A Song of Ice and Fire would be the only fantasy series I know of in any language that drastically changes the length of seasons, yet it still records fairly ordinary years in spite of that. There are maybe one or two others I can think of that just don't seem to have conventional seasons at all, or follow the season cycles of tropical climates. Either way, if it is different to the norm, it has to be made crystal clear. If you're in a position where you're uncertain whether there is something seriously strange about the setting OR the writer is just an inconsistent idiot... it is probably the latter.

As I said it was established that the a year in this world happens after winter solstice. So depending on the length of the seasons the definition of a year would change.

It maybe the case that in A Song of Ice and Fire they record fairly ordinary years but that is simply because their definition of a year is probably the same as ours. The time it takes for the planet to make a complete orbit of their star.

I don't think it's unclear at all as if I was able to derive that a year is longer in this story I don't see why anybody else couldn't. The fact they don't clearly specify the length is neither here nor there. As long as they get across that it is longer that's all that matters.

Secondly... Humans knowing about such things is reasonable. Ex-humans knowing about such things isn't completely out of bounds. Ex-humans who don't need to do such things any more but continue to do them as a matter of course is more than a little suspicious. UNDEAD which by all rights should probably be non-sentient might possibly continue to do such things as a mindless repetition of what they did in life, but wouldn't be in any position to discuss it nor care about it.

I don't get why you're just saying they should probably be non-sentient. You aren't the author and the author is free to come up with whatever they like for this world they've created. You don't get to decide the story does or doesn't make sense because of your own personal biases on how creatures should be.

And it isn't "my" definition of a mummy. A mummy is a preserved, dessicated corpse... even the usual bandages are secondary to that. They're always flammable. It is a core aspect of their being, much like vampires drinking blood. Don't even get me started on how many manga vampires are conveniently unbothered by sunlight. The less consistent the entity in question is with the word being used, the less point there is in even using the word. It'd be like calling a fox a rabbit. Yes you can do it, but you're just causing misunderstandings.
Oh, and for all intents and purposes, Imhotep in the film series "The Mummy" was ironically more like a lich.... or even a demi-lich. The damned thing was stupidly powerful.

But it is your definition of what you think a mummy should be. This is an entirely different world. It doesn't have to share what you believe a mummy should be like.

I'm saying "your" definition here because you are the one trying to force the definition that is usually used in pop culture. Nobody else cares if the author has fun creating their own definition of what a mummy is. It's the same with vampires and other creatures of the night. It's not up to you to dictate what is acceptable or not.

Thirdly... the guy is depicted with arms of some sort. They looked covered. For all I know that could just be the material of his gauntlets or whatever. But either he has arms and the claims of him being just a skeleton are false, or he doesn't have arms and his talk of muscles is hollow. Inconsistency either way.
A skeleton in the undead sense is just what a skeleton is in the anatomical sense... but animated. No skin, no organs, no muscles, no sinews even. Moves by magic. Follows rudimentary commands. Is typically non-sentient... though that rule is often the first one to go if one wants named undead. And yes, this is the standard across both western and asian fantasy systems. Doesn't matter if it is D&D or a JRPG, skeletons and zombies are the two lowest forms of undead. If this one isn't then the name is deliberately misleading, which is a bad thing.... obviously.

If you checked the better quality images of Blood when he is showing his arm they are clearly some muscle strands. But regardless who cares is D&D or JRPGs that have skeletons and zombies as the lowest forms of undead. That's YOU trying to force your own ideas onto the story again.

Just take it for what it is. I seriously don't understand why you're so set on one definition. If it were up to you it seems we wouldn't have any new interesting stories if you're not willing for the creators to get creative with fictional creatures. I guess JoJo's Bizzare adventure is bad too because the vampires in that aren't real vampires.

And finally.... enough of the "we don't know" crap. Someone obviously fucked something up and you're willing to bend over backwards to make excuses for them. We DO know what a skeleton is. If the author or whomever else is trying to use the word skeleton differently then it is their responsibility to make it crystal clear that it isn't just a complete fuck-up on their part.

You're being a complete idiot. We don't know stuff because it's the beginning of the story. Not everything gets revealed at the beginning. You're saying we do know what a skeleton is. But what we would consider a skeleton in other stories doesn't necessarily have to apply here. You're saying a skeleton should be mindless, without reason, and be the weakest of the undead but those are concepts you've just attributed to them from other stories. It is clear that Blood isn't any of those things so you know that the definition you're used to doesn't apply here. It is clearly implied that at least this skeleton isn't like that. I'm not sure why you're fixated on everything having to be explicitly stated. And why it has to be done at the start. Plenty of stories omit details to be clarified later in the stories. Look at One Piece. We get glimpses of Observation Haki in the Alabasta arc. We don't get any sort of information on it until the Skypiea arc. And we don't get a full definition of what haki is until much later. Not everything has to conform to how you think it should be.

"We don't know" that the translator isn't just making shit up on the spot that has nothing to do with the original Japanese, or even that the original Japanese wasn't a freakin code with everything deliberately renamed to fuck with our heads. We don't know that the circular thing drawn in the sky that vaguely looks like the sun isn't a fucking space-station floating above the planet.
The moment you start opening the "we don't know" can of worms then all the framework that makes it possible to follow a story and understand anything happening in it breaks down entirely.

What are you on about exactly? Stories always have information we aren't privy to or hasn't been established yet. Saying "we don't know" doesn't unravel the story and make it incomprehensible. Otherwise every story would suffer from the same problem. You can literally pick any story with a plot that has some depth and find something that leaves us questioning. And the points you're questioning don't require overly complex answers. So why not just accept that we don't have the information right now? It doesn't all fall apart because we don't know how skeletons work in this world.

If you want to really have an issue with a story watch Dragon Ball GT. In the vary first episode it has issues. From a second set of dragon balls being on the lookput for 20+ years without anybody ever noticing. To somehow them activating when Piccolo, who is a warrior-type Namekian in capable of creating dragon balls, fuses with Kami. To Pilaf knowing the dragon balls are on the lookout and what they were. Despite the original Namkian sealing them away after creating them. Nobody would know of their existence except the original Namekian and maybe Mr. Popo. I could literally go on but there is nothing that could explain most of what is wrong with the first episode of this show.

Yet your issue is you don't understand the intricacies of a skeleton in this world. Really? Something that doesn't need much explanation is tripping you up? Do you not realise how pedantic that sounds?

 

[SotiCoto]

@CrimsonxxMana

As I said it was established that the a year in this world happens after winter solstice.

New Year is 10 days after the Winter Solstice in this world too... OR the Summer Solstice in the Southern Hemisphere.
Years weren't even measured as distinct units before the Romans, as I recall... but Winter marking the start of the year is the norm.

I don't think it's unclear at all as if I was able to derive that a year is longer in this story I don't see why anybody else couldn't.

You speculated that based on the misunderstanding that where the years start is anything remotely abnormal. As noted, you're making unreasonable leaps of logic based on the assumption that what you're presented is deliberate and correct, without having considered the simpler answer ... that it isn't. Anyhow, no one human is the baseline for human ability and understanding. Just because one human draws a particular conclusion doesn't mean others will do the same.
Nevermind that this particular branch of discussion came about because they were inconsistent in their reporting of years in the first place.

I don't get why you're just saying they should probably be non-sentient.

How many times do I have to explain the same thing to you before those two cogs in your head click together and understand it?
Am I that bad at explaining things, or do you just not WANT to understand what I'm saying?
It is a matter of communication. For a word to be useful for conveying information, its meaning requires a certain degree of consistency. The word itself is a shorthand for its entire definition, so to speak. If a word is used to mean something else entirely WITHOUT overtly redefining it first, the result is just a terrible muddle. I'm certainly not fond of defining things in accordance with the majority, but when it comes to language, that is the only way it can function.

You aren't the author and the author is free to come up with whatever they like for this world they've created. You don't get to decide the story does or doesn't make sense because of your own personal biases on how creatures should be.

And I'm free to stand in front of a crowd and tell them that they're all stinking, degenerate cunts who are better off dead... but that doesn't mean it is a good idea... NOR that I'm immune to counter-criticism.

But it is your definition of what you think a mummy should be.

And my definition is a direct close derivative of the opinions of hundreds of others who used the term before me and have reinforced a standardised expectation for the term. Don't go acting like my definition is some unique and trivial phenomenon.

It's not up to you to dictate what is acceptable or not.

I can dictate as I please... especially when, as in the case with this manga, misuse of a term without explanation nor redefinition is only going to cause misunderstandings that negatively impact the fiction in question.

You're being a complete idiot

... says the complete idiot. ¬_¬

Not everything gets revealed at the beginning. You're saying we do know what a skeleton is. But what we would consider a skeleton in other stories doesn't necessarily have to apply here.

Here we go again... getting really tired of your bullshit.
If the author goes and says "He is just an X" and X has a standing definition contrary to what is presented, it would be more of a wonder if you didn't treat it as suspicious. It would be more of a wonder if, like some sort of deranged conspiracy theorist, you instantly jumped to the conclusion that everything you know is now invalid and nothing applies any more... then start gibbering on the floor about actually being an isolated brain in a tank being force-fed an illusionary life.
No. The more sane response would be: "... No, that isn't an X".

What are you on about exactly?

I give up.
I don't have the patience to re-explain the same thing to you 20 times because you're too fucking stupid to understand it no matter how clear I make it.
Apply Ockham's Razor to the story... and don't reply again. I'll just block you if you do.

 

[CrimsonxxMana]

@SotiCoto

New Year is 10 days after the Winter Solstice in this world too... OR the Summer Solstice in the Southern Hemisphere.
Years weren't even measured as distinct units before the Romans, as I recall... but Winter marking the start of the year is the norm.

Winter solstice is the when the sun/star travels the shortest path through the sky. The fact that he is in a different world itself is enough to indicate this is probably going to be different unless the planet magically has the same orbit and orientation of ours. There is much variance in the universe. Even our planet had a longer year 350 million years ago because our orientation and orbit have been changing over time. Back then we had 20 more days in a year.

You speculated that based on the misunderstanding that where the years start is anything remotely abnormal. As noted, you're making unreasonable leaps of logic based on the assumption that what you're presented is deliberate and correct, without having considered the simpler answer ... that it isn't.

Except it is abnormal because we don't use Winter Solstice to measure our years anymore. Not to mention what I said above about their planets orbit and orientation probably being different. I should point out to you that it is infact correct by the way. He later points out his age would be older on Earth. He would be 2 years older(because their world considers you to be 1 at birth).

Anyhow, no one human is the baseline for human ability and understanding. Just because one human draws a particular conclusion doesn't mean others will do the same.
Nevermind that this particular branch of discussion came about because they were inconsistent in their reporting of years in the first place.

I never implied that. I was just making the point that I'm not the most adept at noticing this stuff and even I could infer the years are different compared to the two worlds. It should be apparent just from the fact the story went out of the way to explain this rather than just be even more vague about it and not cover it at all.

It is a matter of communication. If a word is used to mean something else entirely WITHOUT overtly redefining it first, the result is just a terrible muddle. I'm certainly not fond of defining things in accordance with the majority, but when it comes to language, that is the only way it can function.

The problem here is you've gone into this story expecting fictional definitions will be the same. When going into any sort of story you shouldn't just assume things. Especially things that were created in other fiction. Because those sorts of things more often than not do change on a story by story basis. Regardless of the fact that they have more common usages. If it were something outside fiction like money or physical laws then I would understand where you're coming from. But the simple fact that we see these fictional creatures acting unlike the most common interpretations doesn't need a whole section explaining how they're different from more common interpretations. You don't see Brendan Fraser's character in the Mummy having an internal dialogue or interaction with the other characters saying why Imhotep is different from more common interpretations of a mummy. It's just accepted. And any sort of differences are implied through his actions. So why can't you accept it within this case? And I should point out that the story from this point onwards shows us that while it is more uncommon for people to keep their memories and emotions it does happen. And it happens more in strong people. In a later chapter there are actually a bunch of sentient undead. Not to mention that it points out that any undead retains their strength from their living state. So if you the best swordsman in the world who could cleave mountains apart you can do that when you're dead too. No matter what you get turned into. Whether it be a skeleton or any other undead creature.

And my definition is a direct close derivative of the opinions of hundreds of others who used the term before me and have reinforced a standardised expectation for the term. Don't go acting like my definition is some unique and trivial phenomenon.

Like I said above. A definition originating in fiction is more than likely going to change. Maybe stop going into stories expecting it to conform. Because these definitions are the ones that actually constantly changing.

If the author goes and says "He is just an X" and X has a standing definition contrary to what is presented, it would be more of a wonder if you didn't treat it as suspicious. It would be more of a wonder if, like some sort of deranged conspiracy theorist, you instantly jumped to the conclusion that everything you know is now invalid and nothing applies any more... then start gibbering on the floor about actually being an isolated brain in a tank being force-fed an illusionary life.

It is invalid because the definitions originated from fiction anyway. And to have a place in fiction they are subject to change in fiction. Because they don't actually have a fixed definition. A common definition, yes. But unlike the laws of the universe they don't have to follow the common interpretation. That's why you don't see many stories that just completely change what we understand about the universe. Because it's hard to just invent new rules and have them be coherent in a story. That's why a lot of these fictional creatures inherit aspects from our own world.

If you really live your life like this, looking for some sort of worded explanation of why a fictional creature is different from the more commonly used interpretations of that fictional creature then I suggest you just stop reading anything that goes against the common interpretations. Stick to Brahm Stoker's Dracula and Mary Shelley's monster from Frankenstein. Because you're just going to keep running against this problem otherwise.

There are plenty of great stories that do this. This is also a very highly rated story so I think its more how you handle this than anything else. I think you need to go away and maybe re-evaluate why you have this propensity to de-merit a story just because it doesn't explain how it treats fictional creatures differently from more common definitions.

 

[SotiCoto]

@CrimsonxxMana

What did I say I'd do if you replied again?
What did I say?

That's right.

BLOCKED.


(And no, I didn't read anything you wrote this time. You wasted your time the same way you wasted mine before.)

 

[Matyos]

I just wanted to read some comments after each chapter as this is my first time reading this, but holy @SotiCoto in every chapter you are spewing things out of your ass, im fine with opinions but man you are an asshole

 

[SotiCoto]

@Matyos : Don't bother addressing me if you're just going to pick a fight, dickbag. You've made it clear enough in one sentence that your judgement is screwed.

 

[Matyos]

@SotiCoto just like you picked a fight with anyone who actually tried to explain simple and basic storytelling to you? Kinda hypocritical but no problem, i hope you have a good day because i think almost no one agrees with your opinions on this one.

 

[SotiCoto]

@Matyos : Do you lack basic reading comprehension? I complained about the badly written story, and someone else came along just as you did and picked a fight with me over it. It is right there on this page. It boggles the mind that you could even misinterpret that when it is right here for you to recheck any time you please.
Really... how do you even screw that up?

And it doesn't matter how many people disagree. It isn't a popularity contest.

 

[maisonaustyn]

Who shoved the stick up Soti's ass. It's literally every chapter you find something to bitch about in an otherwise decent manga.