Sono Monban, Saikyou Nitsuki ~Tsuihou Sareta Bougyo Ryoku 9999 no Senshi, Outo no Monban Toshite Musou Suru~ - Vol. 3 Ch. 12

[MangaDex]

 

[ARealCoolGuy]

Yeah he was a massive A-hole, and he destroyed a town and murdered a bunch of it's citizens, as well as trying to invade the capital and murder a bunch of its citizens too, but all is forgiven because he said sorry guys 😃

 

[YamiWasTaken]

MEH. after destroying a city, it ends like that? MEH. DROPPED.

 

[exxeld]

bro literally beat him with benevolence what a baller lmao

 

[AnotherDuck]

Yeah he was a massive A-hole, and he destroyed a town and murdered a bunch of it's citizens, as well as trying to invade the capital and murder a bunch of its citizens too, but all is forgiven because he said sorry guys 😃

Well, he did get somewhat possessed by a demon. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have done so much without that. Or gotten a demon army to follow him.

 

[Elroy79]

Yeah he was a massive A-hole, and he destroyed a town and murdered a bunch of it's citizens, as well as trying to invade the capital and murder a bunch of its citizens too, but all is forgiven because he said sorry guys 😃

MEH. after destroying a city, it ends like that? MEH. DROPPED.

Yeah, the problem for me started when MC didn't really have a reaction to all of this in the previous chapter. This was the town MC apparently worked at for what appeared to be several years in that party. He was fairly close with the guild girl who died and got a lot of praise from fellow adventurers. I'm sure he hung out with a few outside of his party members unless author wants us to believe MC just did his jobs and went to his room. We see when he got to the capitol he doesn't do that. He was willing to join in a group celebration and eat with everyone, etc.

So, you'd think there'd have been at least some small reflection on the fact that his former teammate (dunno if I'd say friend) killed everyone in his old town and that might spark some measure of remorse, but no. Author goes directly to MC preparing for Nacht to attack...which is fine, but author could've spared a panel or two of MC reflecting on his loss.

So, with all that, I'm not entirely surprised that MC just forgave him. Seems some authors have an aversion to having MC's be judgmental in any capacity outside of gimmicks and jokes. This could've worked if MC forgave him personally for the slights against him, but held him accountable for the crimes he committed against innocents.

Well, he did get somewhat possessed by a demon. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have done so much without that. Or gotten a demon army to follow him.

That's understandable, but he willfully accepted the possession to get back at everyone. He turned into the manifestation of most edgelords you see on the interwebs and acted on all of his edgy, immature thoughts and dreams and killed people by way of embracing the evil power just to show everyone how better than them he was. Him being somewhat possessed doesn't absolve him of those crimes.

As I said, this could've worked if the author had MC forgive Nacht as a friend for the slights against MC personally and held Nacht accountable (at least in conversation) for the crimes he committed against everyone else. Even if the author didn't want Nacht to die by MC's hands, the author could've given MC a far more mature concept of good vs. evil than the immature concept we saw. The author did this with MC back a few chapters ago with the Gazelle chick, leader of the bandits, when she begged and pleaded for life (basically saying sorry not sorry like Nacht just did) and MC acknowledged the evil that she did to others and the fact she had to be judged for it. Not sure why the author suddenly got inconsistent here.

I mean, I'm not mad MC didn't kill Nacht. I'm fine with the message that Nacht died by way of the evil power consuming him after he started losing and pumping more evil power through his body. I get that message fine. My issue is with the author having MC be rather nonchalant about the whole thing outside of his stance on protecting others. Ok, well protecting others also means exacting proper judgment on those who manage to successfuly bring evil to others as well. That way you prevent them from doing evil again in the future when a protector is not around to stop them. Etc.

 

[AnotherDuck]

As I said, this could've worked if the author had MC forgive Nacht as a friend for the slights against MC personally and held Nacht accountable (at least in conversation) for the crimes he committed against everyone else.

There's no need to judge a dying man.

 

[Elroy79]

There's no need to judge a dying man.

Author had MC judge the soon-to-be-dead (dying) bandit leader, Gazelle, earlier as I said.

 

[AnotherDuck]

Author had MC judge the soon-to-be-dead (dying) bandit leader, Gazelle, earlier as I said.

Apples and oranges. There are so many things different it's not comparable unless you want to cherry pick.

 

[Elroy79]

Apples and oranges. There are so many things different it's not comparable unless you want to cherry pick.

Not really. You have two similar situations. Only difference is one character was on a quick death row due to their own evil choices and another character was going to die by way of their own choices through the course of a mini-arc where they turned evil. It's not cherry picking to point out that the author made an inconsistent choice in how the MC viewed both of these characters in similar situations because one was arguably MC's friend whereas MC was able to judge the previous character's evil actions done to other people. Suddenly MC is incapable of considering that with his former teammate?

 

[AnotherDuck]

I don't think they're similar at all. One shows remorse and apologises, the other is arrogant to the end. One has some deep personal trauma and grievances driving him, the other is just a bastard. One is actually dying, the other is fighting for her life. The MC has a personal connection to one, while the other is a nobody. In one case MC is working as an executioner, in the other as a soldier.

There are just so many things that differs them that calling them "similar" or that there's some "only difference" is flat out wrong. Even from a modern legal position, they'd be judged very differently based on several factors.

 

[Elroy79]

I don't think they're similar at all. One shows remorse and apologises, the other is arrogant to the end. One has some deep personal trauma and grievances driving him, the other is just a bastard. One is actually dying, the other is fighting for her life. The MC has a personal connection to one, while the other is a nobody. In one case MC is working as an executioner, in the other as a soldier.

There are just so many things that differs them that calling them "similar" or that there's some "only difference" is flat out wrong. Even from a modern legal position, they'd be judged very differently based on several factors.

So, my point about the similarities were in direct response to your argument that, and I quote, "There's no need to judge a dying man." In which I said that the author had MC judge a previous character who was in the process of dying to which you tried to say that was "apples and oranges" to which I said "not really" and proceeded to point out the relevant similarities in regard to both characters situations as they applied to your argument. Despite your attempt here to try to point out obvious differences, my point still stands.

"Similarities" does not mean "The exact same." So, let me point these similarities out again based on your initial argument about not judging a dying person.

Gazelle - 1) At some point in time became evil for whatever reason. 2) By her own admission murdered, robbed, and harassed people. 3) By her own admission murdered, robbed, and harassed people in the capitol city. 4) Fought with MC to "fight for her life" as you put it. 5) Lost. 6) Banked on her gang remnants in the crowd to continue the "fight for her life." 7) Lost again. 8) Only became remorseful once she lost. 9) Was always a "dying woman" because her execution was broadcasted upon her capture. She was never in the process of not dying because despite what she thought, MC and company had everything under control and easily incapacitated her gang remnants. 10) Gazelle was a "dying woman" by way of her own evil choices. 11) Despite her last minute remorsefulness (if you go back and pay attention she started begging and pleading not to die = false remorse because she couldn't win). Despite this, MC still verbally judged her for her crimes while participating in her official judgment showing he had the ability to determine, on a philosophical scale and a moral scale mentally, right from wrong and not be soft on it.

Nacht - 1) We saw when he became evil and know the reason. The reason is not really relevant to my point, but it is to the reader because of impact. We know that Nacht caused MC problems in the past. We know he became evil because of his pride and inability to self-correct himself because of said pride. 2) We saw Nacht commit acts of evil against people. He destroyed an entire town and killed everyone in that town minus two people who were also close to MC. In fact, as I argued before, we can infer that the bulk of the town were likely close to MC. Or at the very least, held some sentimental value to MC. 3) Nacht fought with MC by way of his new evil powers. 4) Nacht lost. 5) Nacht was only a "dying man" by way of his own evil choices. He chose to become evil. He chose to kill an entire town of people. He chose to attack the capitol on behalf of the demons and to get his "revenge" on MC and is other former teammates. As I said he lost. He became a "dying man" in the process of that fight both by way of taking a losing blow and because of his arrogance, he kept trying to fight and his body couldn't handle the evil power. 6) During the course of his loss, Nacht went from arrogant to "remorseful" in a sense. He still broadcasted that he hated MC for...reasons, so he was sorry not sorry the same as Gazelle. 7) Only became apologetic because he lost. You and I both know Nacht would not have been remorseful had he had the upperhand in that fight which would've further fueled his delusions of grandeur.

Now, where these two differ which is relevant to the point of inconsistency and your attempt to argue against it, MC was mentally soft on Nacht as opposed to Gazelle. Heck, MC didn't even have a reaction to the fact Nacht razed an entire town MC used to live in and likely, as I pointed out, knew other people there which should've further fueled a mental judgment on Nacht during their conversation. All I'm trying to say is author could've had MC simply say, "Yeah, but you chose to do this evil and took lives, Nacht. For that, you have to be held accountable." We couldn't even get that because author wanted to put MC in some faux-positive-light through sentimentality when author spent several chapters showing us that MC and Nacht, after their first few team ups, didn't really have that good of a relationship and it deteriorated over time. So, all of this comes off as inconsistent.

I've spent too much time on this and so, going to leave this here and let it go.

 

[AnotherDuck]

So, my point about the similarities were in direct response to your argument that, and I quote, "There's no need to judge a dying man."

Yes, that's exactly what I said, and that only applies to one of those two characters. Only one of them is dying. "About to die" does not mean "dying". Having your body disappear is dying. I chose those words for a reason.

I said that the author had MC judge a previous character

He didn't judge either of them. He delivered a judgement made by whoever decided she should get executed.

and proceeded to point out the relevant similarities

I both disagree with that and can add that you left out a whole bunch of differences.

my point still stands.

I disagree. I don't think you have a point.

"Similarities" does not mean "The exact same."

I've never stated as much. This is just you exaggerating what I said for the purpose of having an easier argument to refute. That's what's called a strawman argument.

Despite her last minute remorsefulness (if you go back and pay attention she started begging and pleading not to die = false remorse because she couldn't win)

Exactly. False remorse. That's not remorse, unlike what he showed.

. Despite this, MC still verbally judged her for her crimes while participating in her official judgment showing he had the ability to determine, on a philosophical scale and a moral scale mentally, right from wrong and not be soft on it.

He was put into that position by someone. She had already been judged. It was his job to deliver said judgement.

During the course of his loss, Nacht went from arrogant to "remorseful" in a sense. He still broadcasted that he hated MC for...reasons, so he was sorry not sorry the same as Gazelle.

I disagree with that interpretation. At that point, he's actually dying (in a way that the word literally means, not some figurative alternate interpretation of it) with no chance of talking his way out of it. He has nothing to gain from appealing to some kind of pity or sympathy. MC took it as genuine, and I think he's a far better judge of that than you.

You and I both know Nacht would not have been remorseful had he had the upperhand in that fight which would've further fueled his delusions of grandeur.

Would've, could've, should've, didn't. What happened, happened. What didn't happen, didn't happen.

MC was mentally soft on Nacht as opposed to Gazelle.

In the end, Nacht apologised. Gazelle screamed for him to change his mind. That's the difference between listening to someone's last words, and ending them. That's what makes MC not inconsistent.

All I'm trying to say is author could've had MC simply say, "Yeah, but you chose to do this evil and took lives, Nacht. For that, you have to be held accountable."

Sure, he could've done that. But it wouldn't be according to his character. It's like kicking someone who's down and won't rise, as opposed to stepping on someone who's fighting to get back up.

 

[Elroy79]

Going to reply one last time...

Yes, that's exactly what I said, and that only applies to one of those two characters. Only one of them is dying. "About to die" does not mean "dying". Having your body disappear is dying. I chose those words for a reason.

Sure "about to die" doesn't have to specifically mean dying, I guess? If you want to argue semantics, I guess. I mean if you want to be nitpicky now while at the same time trying to act like me saying "similarities" somehow means "exact same?" They are both in the process of leaving the world forever, in finality, etc. I'm sure you understand the concept, so, stop being unnecessarily obtuse about this just to try to hold on to a point.

But to be overly semantical about this, here's Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of "dying:"
1. a: approaching death
: gradually ceasing to be
b: having reached an advanced or ultimate stage of decay or disuse
2: of, relating to, or occurring at the time of death or dying

Notice the first one is simply "approaching death." So, suffice to say, they were both in a stage of imminent death. Their deaths were irreversible. They were both at their end-of-life timeline. Period.

He didn't judge either of them. He delivered a judgement made by whoever decided she should get executed.

Dictionary definition of "judge" Merriam-Webster version, here for verb as in taking an action:
transitive verb
1: to form an opinion about [something] through careful weighing of evidence and testing of
2: to form an estimate or evaluation of
3: to hold as an opinion: Guess, Think
4: to sit in judgement on: Try
5: to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation
6: Govern, rule
intransitive verb
1: to form an opinion
2: to decide as a judge

So, we see that the term "judge" does not always only mean an official judgement given by someone of authority. Can mean giving one's opinion of something or making one's on judgement about something, which is what MC did.

I both disagree with that and can add that you left out a whole bunch of differences.

Of course I left out differences. I said relevant similarities to your attempt to rebut my point.

I disagree. I don't think you have a point.

I'm aware. I disagree with your disagreement and don't think you have an adequate point against my point.

I've never stated as much. This is just you exaggerating what I said for the purpose of having an easier argument to refute. That's what's called a strawman argument.

I never said that you stated that. I said what I said because I perceive that's how you're acting because you're failing to allow for simple concepts that are similar for the sake of, as you say, "having an easier argument to refute." If I say grass and trees are a type of plant and that makes them similar and you want to come in and deep dive on their obvious differences (grass doesn't have branches and leaves, etc. for example) to argue against an obvious concept of similarity, that's you being unnecessarily nitpicky and kind of missing the point.

One is about to die by way of execution.
The other is about to die by way of a fight and power corruption.
Both are about to die. (Which was the general point)
You somehow want to argue how this is amazingly different and doesn't fit my general point that in both instances the person MC was dealing with were about to die and MC only passed a mental and verbal judgement on one and not the other.

Since you want to go the path of calling out logical fallacies one could call this a red herring.

Exactly. False remorse. That's not remorse, unlike what he showed.

Nacht literally told MC that he hated him in the midst of what you perceive to be a sincere apology and you are trying to argue that this is some extreme difference?

He was put into that position by someone. She had already been judged. It was his job to deliver said judgement.

Yes, it was his job to deliver an official judgement on her, he did not have to deliver or even form a mental nor verbal judgement on her when she tried to get out of it. Or in this case, the author did not have to show us this, but the author did. MC did not deliver a mental nor verbal judgement on Nacht when he "apologized." I'm not really understanding what's hard to get here for you and starting to wonder if you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I disagree with that interpretation. At that point, he's actually dying (in a way that the word literally means, not some figurative alternate interpretation of it) with no chance of talking his way out of it. He has nothing to gain from appealing to some kind of pity or sympathy. MC took it as genuine, and I think he's a far better judge of that than you.

Again, as I said. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand the concept. She's about to be killed for her crimes. Nacht is in the process of dying due to his choices. Both are in a state of transition to a state of death due to their choices.

You want to be overly semantic about it because your interpretation supports your issue and obfuscates the overall point that I was making that MC gave an opinion on her actions and didn't with Nacht and you don't think that someone should judge a dying man. When in reality we do that all the time. Old criminals are in the process of dying. If they got away with their crime in their youth and somehow evidence and investigations catch up to them, they get "judged" by the legal system and by extension the public for their crimes while, yes, some of them might have a disease that's in the process of killing them or nature is taking it's course.

I sure hope you don't get all semantic with me about that analogy from real life, either.

Would've, could've, should've, didn't. What happened, happened. What didn't happen, didn't happen.

Sure, and what happened did happened. You keep wanting to declare that Nacht "apologized" and keep ignoring that in the midst of this apology, twice Nacht told the MC that he still hated him, and I quote:
Chapter 12, page 59, panel 1. Nacht: "I hate you so much that I just want to kill you!!" (This was right before he said "sorry" on the next page.)
Chapter 12, (this one doesn't give a page#), panel 3 . Nacht: "I hate that attitude of yours." (This is right after he said "sorry" on the previous double page scene.)
And again, Nacht only apologized because he lost. Everything about Nacht's behavior and attitude allow us to safely infer that had Nacht not lost, he wouldn't be "remorseful" about anything.

In the end, Nacht apologised. Gazelle screamed for him to change his mind. That's the difference between listening to someone's last words, and ending them. That's what makes MC not inconsistent.

Both were "remorseful" for their actions because they lost and were about to be held accountable whether directly for Gazelle or indirectly for Nacht. Not sure what's difficult about this to get and apply to their situations as an obvious similarity. Instead, you want to nitpick on obvious differences. Again, you do not have to state that you are approaching this from some strange perspective that when someone says "similarity" that it must mean something close to "exact same" when the similarities are pretty obvious enough to support my original point.

Sure, he could've done that. But it wouldn't be according to his character. It's like kicking someone who's down and won't rise, as opposed to stepping on someone who's fighting to get back up.

I mean, that's been the entire point of my criticism and me pointing out that he did it with Gazelle and didn't do it with Nacht and pointing out that MC and Nacht didn't really have a good relationship. It's not kicking someone when they're "down" to tell them that they were wrong. That's some sentimentality stuff there. Do you suddenly, when you see someone is upset that they did wrong just not say to them that they did wrong because you just want to be a nice person?

At this point, we're going to have to agree to disagree and move on.

 

[AnotherDuck]

Sure "about to die" doesn't have to specifically mean dying, I guess? If you want to argue semantics, I guess.

The difference is important here. That by definition means it's not semantics.

I mean if you want to be nitpicky now while at the same time trying to act like me saying "similarities" somehow means "exact same?"

That's on you and your erroneous interpretation. I clearly said you didn't say it was exactly the same.

They are both in the process of leaving the world forever, in finality, etc. I'm sure you understand the concept, so, stop being unnecessarily obtuse about this just to try to hold on to a point.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me unnecessarily obtuse. I could just return the words right back.

But to be overly semantical about this, here's Merriam-Webster's dictionary definition of "dying:"

Since you want to be overly semantical, you don't get to whine about me using semantics. But you did, so you want to have the cake and eat it.

Their deaths were irreversible. They were both at their end-of-life timeline. Period.

She didn't know that. Period.

So, we see that the term "judge" does not always only mean an official judgement given by someone of authority. Can mean giving one's opinion of something or making one's on judgement about something, which is what MC did.

And he did so fairly and entirely consistent with his character, in both cases.

Of course I left out differences. I said relevant similarities to your attempt to rebut my point.

That's called cherry picking. You pick the truths that suit your argument and leave out anything that might contradict it. My point stands.

I never said that you stated that. That's how you're acting because you're failing to allow for simple concepts that are similar for the sake of, as you say, "having an easier argument to refute."

Same thing. You don't get to argue that that's somehow different while also arguing that "dying" is the same despite that I've stated what differs about the situations and why the term only applies to one of them. You're basically saying it's not what you said, but what you meant. There's no meaningful difference there.

You somehow want to argue how this is amazingly different and doesn't fit my general point that in both instances the person MC is dealing with are about to die and MC only passed a mental and verbal judgement on one and not the other.

Of course it's different. MC understands that. I understand that. You don't. That's why MC does what MC does, and I think it's consistent, while you don't. This is a problem of your understanding of the story and characters.

Since you want to go the path of calling out logical fallacies one could call this a red herring.

In what way?

Nacht literally told MC that he hated him in the midst of what you perceive to be a sincere remorseful apology and you are trying to argue that this is some extreme difference?

He vented most of his emotions. Emotions are often contradictory. Do you not understand how people work? There's absolutely nothing that says you can't hate someone while also feeling remorse for what you've done against them.

Yes, it was his job to deliver an official judgement on her, he did not have to deliver or even form a mental nor verbal judgement on her when she tried to get out of it. Or in this case, the author did not have to show us this, but the author did. He did not deliver a mental nor verbal judgement on Nacht when he "apologized."

She was a one-off villain. He was an arc villain. That means we need more explicit descriptions of her, since we haven't seen much of her. On the other hand, we know who Nacht is. There's no need to be explicit about everything when the subtext is already there. Other than all of the other reasons.

I'm not really understanding what's hard to get here for you and starting to wonder if you're arguing just for the sake of arguing.

I've explained my view of it clearly. So at this point I think you're the one arguing for the sake of arguing, especially since you're still at it after you said you'd stop.

Again, as I said. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand the concept. She's about to be killed for her crimes. Nacht is in the process of dying due to his choices. Both are in a state of about to transition to a state of death due to their choices.

No, he is transitioning to a state of death. She is about to transition to a state of death. I'm sire you're intelligent enough to understand the concept.

The biggest difference there is that Nacht knows it's inevitable. She doesn't. She thinks she has a chance, and is panicking because of it. There's a huge difference between accepting that you're dying, and doing everything you can to avoid it. I mean, they're pretty much opposite.

When in reality we do that all the time.

And even if someone is on death row, they get their last meal or last words or whatever. Unless they refuse it.

Since you like to talk about what-ifs, what would happen if Nacht survived that and was captured instead? Personally I don't think he'd end his days much differently than she did.

Sure, and what happened did happened. You keep wanting to delcare that Nacht "apolgoized" and keep ignoring that in the midst of this apology, twice Nacht told the MC that he still hated him, and I quote:

And I explained why that doesn't matter. If the characters, the story, and the author treats him as remorseful, and her not quite as much, it doesn't matter what wild theories and misinterpretations you have.

Both were remorseful for their actions because they lost and were about to be held accountable. Not sure what's difficult about this to get and apply to their situations as an obvious similarity. Instead, you want to nitpick on obvious differences.

One was actually remorseful for his actions and one was only faking it, because one was dying while accepting it and the other fighting for her life. Not sure what's difficult about this to get and apply to their situations as an obvious difference. Instead, you want to nitpick on obvious similarities.

the similarities are pretty obvious enough to support my original point.

They're obviously not, as I described. There's just too much that's both different and relevant. You're pretty much saying grass and apples are similar because they both green and grow, when I'm talking about what I'd like to eat. That's the level of wrong you are.

That's some sentimentality stuff there.

Imagine that, emotions appropriate for the situation. Nothing wrong there. Entirely consistent with his character.

Do you suddenly, when you see someone is upset that they did wrong just not say to them that they did wrong because you just want to be a nice person?

So, someone I disliked because he was an asshole died. I didn't have any urge to tell people what an asshole he was and that he deserved to die. I'm not sad about it, but my first instinct isn't to judge someone like that. I'd probably behave like what MC did here. But if it's someone I'm personally killing because they deserve it, I might just let them know why.

Again, both Gazelle and Nacht fought for their life.

Not while ranting. Only Gazelle did that. Nacht was already dying at that point. Actually dying, not just about to die.

You only want to see

Are you a mind reader? Do you know why I'm actually having the opinions I'm having? Or are you just projecting something that's easier to argue against?

This is the whole point. Of course you don't agree with it and I'm aware of it at this point, but its the whole point about the character inconsistency.

Yeah, and there's none of that. Well, not in this case.

 

[Elroy79]

So, to be fair about my last proclamation that it would be my last post, I'm bored at work, when I should be working and decided to look at this forum after purposefully ignoring it for a while. So, if I'm a bit more flippant than usual, it's because this has become repetitive and I'm taking it less seriously than previously. So, here we go...

The difference is important here. That by definition means it's not semantics.

It is semantics. I gave the clear, cut definitions (that you ignored) that one of the top definitions mean "approaching death" and it's fitting to this context. You want it to be different because "the difference is important here" to you so you can maintain your argument.

That's on you and your erroneous interpretation. I clearly said you didn't say it was exactly the same.

Now, you said that because I called you on how you came a it, sure. And yet, you're still acting that "similarity" has to somehow be so close that it might as well be "exact same" by the way you're hemming and hawing and doing mental gymnastics to say that they are not similar just to deny one simple point about the MC not casting judgment on one over the other.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me unnecessarily obtuse. I could just return the words right back.

You are being unnecessarily obtuse about it when we've spent this much time arguing over two events with two characters that anyone at this point might have conceded are similar.

Since you want to be overly semantical, you don't get to whine about me using semantics. But you did, so you want to have the cake and eat it.

You started being overly semantical about words. I didn't. I was keeping it all conceptual and thematic. You wanted to act like similar doesn't mean, I don't know according to dictionary.com, "resembling without being identical" by constantly pointing out the differences that to you somehow make out to be a detrimental difference to my point when they aren't..

She didn't know that. Period.

How does someone NOT know that their execution is coming when it was told to them EVEN after she saw that her last attempt at rescue failed? This is what I'm talking about when I say you're being unnecessarily obtuse just to maintain this argument. You're ignoring obvious things from the narrative of the story to maintain your position.

And he did so fairly and entirely consistent with his character, in both cases.

No. He didn't. He did so with one and not the other. With Nacht all he did was fight against him on behalf of the capitol. He really said nothing to Nacht about his behavior, like I said.

That's called cherry picking. You pick the truths that suit your argument and leave out anything that might contradict it. My point stands.

I picked the relevant examples to the context of the argument we've been having. The other "differences" I've attempted to show weren't really differences so them being "different" to you is moot to the point.

Same thing. You don't get to argue that that's somehow different while also arguing that "dying" is the same despite that I've stated what differs about the situations and why the term only applies to one of them. You're basically saying it's not what you said, but what you meant. There's no meaningful difference there.

Again, I gave the dictionary definition for "Dying" and yet you're still going on and on and on about how I'm trying to say it's something that it's not. I get that you want to try to force me to say that it's only applicable to someone who is at-the-moment-in-the-physical-state-of-dying, but that's not how language, how words work in reality. Dying, by definition, can be applied to someone "about to die." Just as that can be applied to someone in a state of physically-in-the-process-of-their-end-of-life-cycle.

But once again, this shows the red herring nature of this side argument. Again, anyone would've likely conceded by now to my point about the dying thing with the obvious factual observation of the narrative that both characters were in a state of transition into death so that applies from a philosophical point. I get why you don't want to do that because then it's one part of the premise that leads to my point of inconsistency.

Of course it's different. MC understands that. I understand that. You don't. That's why MC does what MC does, and I think it's consistent, while you don't. This is a problem of your understanding of the story and characters.

I beg to differ that "MC understands that" as that's the whole point of my contention (as well as others' contentions) here. I also beg to differ that you understand the story and characters outside of a selective view of what's impactful to you and what likely emotionally moves you.

In what way?

In the way that I've been alluding to in this reply. By now someone would've likely conceded to the obvious, Gazelle was about to die, Nacht was about to die, let's move on from that argument since it obviously applies. Instead, you kept complaining that it doesn't and that "dying" means something different than someone in a state of imminent death or at some point at the final timeline of their life. I mean, you're still going on about that.

He vented most of his emotions. Emotions are often contradictory. Do you not understand how people work? There's absolutely nothing that says you can't hate someone while also feeling remorse for what you've done against them

Yes. And I understand how emotional maturity works and that someone's emotions can portray what they're really feeling in the moment and overall. If I'm still angry at someone and I "apologize" to someone for something I did to them in that same fit of anger, how in the world do I truly mean that apology if I'm still processing the emotion that caused the action in the first place? And why on Earth would the person on the receiving end of my action naively actually believe me when they can see the evidence that I am still angry with them? Emotions tend to cloud judgment. If I am still allowing the emotion to control me, how can I have possibly processed the logical facts that I did something wrong to someone when I'm hyped up on the feelings that I used to justify the wrong doing? That doesn't make sense. That's why "crimes of passion" are still criminal offenses.

I'm also glad you brought up that Nacht felt "remorse" for what he done to MC. Nacht felt no remorse for what he did to everyone else since his "apology" was only directed to MC. Yet, to you it was oh so sincere. Yet, if MC (or author) were thinking properly and not being sentimental (or in author's case trying to portray MC in an emotionally-pulling positive light) they'd have both considered that. Yet, another stain here.

She was a one-off villain. He was an arc villain. That means we need more explicit descriptions of her, since we haven't seen much of her. On the other hand, we know who Nacht is. There's no need to be explicit about everything when the subtext is already there. Other than all of the other reasons.

And I said, we could've at least gotten a one-liner from MC. That was my compromise. Yet, we didn't even get that. I never said the author needed to go into significant detail about everything. But MC is...well...the Main Character, the author should at least try to be consistent with him.

I've explained my view of it clearly. So at this point I think you're the one arguing for the sake of arguing, especially since you're still at it after you said you'd stop.

Sure you did, I'm still not understanding what's hard to get. Actually, now I do. Pride, maybe?

No, he is transitioning to a state of death. She is about to transition to a state of death. I'm sire you're intelligent enough to understand the concept.

Po"tay"toe," Po"tah"toe. You are still on this red herring. Both are about to die. Simple as that. I'm no longer going to hem and haw about this with you. You know where I stand on this.

The biggest difference there is that Nacht knows it's inevitable. She doesn't. She thinks she has a chance, and is panicking because of it. There's a huge difference between accepting that you're dying, and doing everything you can to avoid it. I mean, they're pretty much opposite.

Again, both tried to fight the inevitable. Even when Nacht's power was corrupting him and he lost the arm, he was trying to fight until he couldn't. Same thing with Gazelle and her remnant gang. I get you don't to see the similarities, but they're there. Again, by this point, someone else likely would've conceded this point and moved on.

And even if someone is on death row, they get their last meal or last words or whatever. Unless they refuse it.

Where did I say someone shouldn't get last words or last anything? Gazelle got to mouth off a few last words. This is a strawman.

Since you like to talk about what-ifs, what would happen if Nacht survived that and was captured instead? Personally I don't think he'd end his days much differently than she did.

He should receive the death penalty since it was shown that's a thing in this world. Also, my point about if Nacht won was to counter your point that Nacht's apology was oh so sincere to you as opposed to Gazelle's apology.

And I explained why that doesn't matter. If the characters, the story, and the author treats him as remorseful, and her not quite as much, it doesn't matter what wild theories and misinterpretations you have.

It matters.

One was actually remorseful for his actions and one was only faking it, because one was dying while accepting it and the other fighting for her life. Not sure what's difficult about this to get and apply to their situations as an obvious difference. Instead, you want to nitpick on obvious similarities.

I, at least, admit there are obvious differences, but you fail to admit there are obvious similarities, yet I'm somehow the one nitpicking on this?

Let me put it this way. Even if author didn't have the arc with Gazelle, I'd still be able to say that MC was inconsistent in his morality, as are many manga, manwha, and definitely manhua characters, because he was shown to be a character with certain morals, such as getting upset when someone endangers his teammates and/or friends, but didn't react to hearing about Nacht endangering his previous teammates and friends at the previous town. Even killing them.

No, instead, as usual, the author wants to try to put MC in a morally superior positive light that comes off as flawed and inconsistent.

They're obviously not, as I described. There's just too much that's both different and relevant. You're pretty much saying grass and apples are similar because they both green and grow, when I'm talking about what I'd like to eat. That's the level of wrong you are.

They are. You've chosen to focus on the emotional impact of Nacht's ending arc and Nacht's oh so sincere apology that it's blinded you to anything else and any attempt to get you to see that is met with heavy resistance.

That's fine, but it shows.

So, this got toooooo long and I had to break it in half due to character limitations.

 

[Elroy79]

Imagine that, emotions appropriate for the situation. Nothing wrong there. Entirely consistent with his character.

Not really as I said above. He had barely any reaction to the deaths Nacht caused (like he did with Gazelle, go figure), nor did he have a visible reaction to the attempted murders of his two former teammates/friends.

The author wants to invoke sentimentality in the story when the author wans to invoke it and not when it clearly should be there. Again, inconsistent.

So, someone I disliked because he was an asshole died. I didn't have any urge to tell people what an asshole he was and that he deserved to die. I'm not sad about it, but my first instinct isn't to judge someone like that. I'd probably behave like what MC did here. But if it's someone I'm personally killing because they deserve it, I might just let them know why.

Are you the MC of a story? Do you have a narrative written about you where readers can only SEE your character through your actions, your words, your dialogue with other characters, etc.? People can only deduce your character's consistency or inconsistency through these things?

MC is a character in a story. A good story should have coherence in plot, worldbuilding, but most of all, characterization.

Not while ranting. Only Gazelle did that. Nacht was already dying at that point. Actually dying, not just about to die.

Sigh...the point was that they were both in a state of contention against their situation. But, I will concede that I misspoke and should've been more clearer. I've learned with you that you are very semantical and if words and phrases don't fit your interpretation then you will nitpick about it. So, to rephrase. Both were fighting in some way against their situation and against MC before their death. Does that work for you now?

Are you a mind reader? Do you know why I'm actually having the opinions I'm having? Or are you just projecting something that's easier to argue against?

One does not have to be a mind reader to make a judgement about someone based on their interactions with them. Wrong one may be about said judgement, but either you are misrepresenting yourself on this and my judgement is wrong due to your misrepresentation of yourself or you are representing yourself properly on this and my judgement is sound.

Why you have the opinions that you have outside of the story and our observations of the story is irrelevant to me. If something outside of the story and our observations of the story is influencing your opinions, that's a matter for you to consider as it's influencing your position on the argument and not the evidence at hand.

Yeah, and there's none of that. Well, not in this case.

There is character inconsistency, you disagree. That's fine. I disagree with your disagreement.

Again, at this point, as I said, most of this is repetitive and although I started this reply due to boredom after declaring I wouldn't reply anymore, but by the time I got to the end it was exhausting because of the repetition.

 

[AnotherDuck]

[Bad arguments]

I was about to say something, but all you do is blame everything on me, claim I need to yield to your definitions and arguments, while you refuse to budge even a millimetre on anything at all, and claim that any argument going against your point is not relevant while everything for your point is relevant. At this point I don't even need to read what you wrote since I know it's objectively wrong anyway, because you've repeatedly shown you don't know how arguments work.

At the base of it, there are several arguments you've failed to counter:

• There are many significant differences in what actually happened between those two events.
• There are many significant differences between the Nacht and Gazelle.
• There are many significant differences between how MC feels about and views Nacht and Gazelle.

Any single one of those, including "he just wasn't feeling it", accounts for not being a robot and acting "similar" in both situations. A character does not have to act the same way every single time a "similar" situation appears without being inconsistent. Unless you mean "inconsistent" as strictly meaning "not the same", then the entire argument is pointless. But it is anyway.

it doesn't matter what wild theories and misinterpretations you have.

It matters.

Okay, you keep having those wile theories and misinterpretations. I think that's a good way to sum everything up.

 

[Elroy79]

I was about to say something, but all you do is blame everything on me, claim I need to yield to your definitions and arguments, while you refuse to budge even a millimetre on anything at all, and claim that any argument going against your point is not relevant while everything for your point is relevant. At this point I don't even need to read what you wrote since I know it's objectively wrong anyway, because you've repeatedly shown you don't know how arguments work.

It's not about yielding to my definitions, but this is hypocritical as you were/are doing the exact thing you're complaining about here. Again, anyone not being overly obtuse would've conceded the thematic point. "Ok, man, I see what you're saying, you're saying they were both about to die. I get that. I can clearly see that from both scenes." And moved on.

Could you do that? Nope.

At the base of it, there are several arguments you've failed to counter:

• There are many significant differences in what actually happened between those two events.
• There are many significant differences between the Nacht and Gazelle.
• There are many significant differences between how MC feels about and views Nacht and Gazelle.

Any single one of those, including "he just wasn't feeling it", accounts for not being a robot and acting "similar" in both situations. A character does not have to act the same way every single time a "similar" situation appears without being inconsistent. Unless you mean "inconsistent" as strictly meaning "not the same", then the entire argument is pointless. But it is anyway.

Ok. You think this. We've established that you think this. You have not proven this to me nor have I proven my position to you. Get off your high horse as if you achieved something. You didn't. You like to speak about interpretations, that's about all you've done is argue your interpretation of the evidence. Which is fine. I did not pull in too many interpretations minus 1-2 (the what if about Nacht being one of the 2). Everything else I said came directly from the story.

Because you couldn't accept simple thematic concepts "they were both about to die," "they were both unapologetic until they lost," etc. etc. we meandered about going round and round in repetition. That wouldn't have happened had someone not been stubborn about what the story showed versus what they wanted to interpret in the story, but wow, that's also what you accuse me of doing. Either way, there's a difference. You definitely didn't achieve anything in regard to showing what the story actually showed in a counter to my point. You were entirely reactionary to everything I said. I don't recall you providing any actual counter evidence from the story outside of your different interpretations on what evidence I brought from the story. I've yet to see these major differences outside of the ones you cherry picked from my cherry picks as you called it. So, this proclamation that I "failed to counter...several arguments" doesn't really do anything for me.

While characters are people and in reality people are dynamic, this is bad storytelling to make a character not act according to the rules the author laid out in the story UNLESS the author gives an adequate reason for the change. So, if an author puts a character in two similar (I know you disagree, but whatever) situations in which the author had the character act one way in the earlier situation and another way in the later situation, that is incoherent. You'd call it inconsistent in reality if you knew your buddy well and you knew how your buddy would respond to a situation and suddenly they respond a way you're not used to. You'd want to know the reason why. THE REASON (Emotional, stress, life changes, whatever) MAY BE A JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR CHANGE IN RESPONSE OR BEHAVIOR, BUT IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT IT WAS AN INCONSISTENCY IN THEIR BEHAVIOR AND/OR CHARACTER. It is the same with characters.

Please. Don't ever write a story.

Okay, you keep having those wile theories and misinterpretations. I think that's a good way to sum everything up.

Same to you.

 

[nninja_strike]

Wait is the guild receptionist dead?