Tsuuhan de Katta Youtou ga Gachi Datta ~Tameshigiri Shitara Kuukan ga Sakete Isekai ni Tobasareta Ageku, Densetsu no Yuusha da to Kanchigai Sarete Ko…

[Tic_tac_potato]

Bro is CLEARLY falling upwards 😭😭

 

[Valve]

Factually true, yet no less of an act of dubious morality. Being the cause of death, even in self defense, doesn't always absolve you of your actions. Especially when as displayed by the MC, those casualties were wholly unnecessary.

After the fact logic, nothing morally dubious about protecting yourself first and not waiting for someone else to come save you before you get hurt for real, especially when you do not know if they can or not.

 

[Shinigamisama]

His, then she?
Step aside Goddess, it's time for the Church of Souji to take the spotlight.

It's only a matter of time until all of them become his harem.

 

[anak_sampah]

I don't really care about the hole in plot or anything. I like this direction

 

[jhxe02]

I received no Goddess' Blessing because I am a God!

 

[HolyKnightX]

Well, this is the third time I have seen something similar happen.

Also. Using their separate fears to break them: the Priestess was there being no Goddess and assaulted. The Princess assault. And the Warrior rejection.

 

[Miserys_End]

After the fact logic, nothing morally dubious about protecting yourself first and not waiting for someone else to come save you before you get hurt for real, especially when you do not know if they can or not.

It's not about surrendering to violence, it's about not being a murderhobo who uses self-defense as a shield.

--edit--
Yes Valve, once again you really are that

 

[blulaz]

Horny ahh zombies 😂

 

[Kreate]

There's nothing about the MCs "family line" bro. Do you even read?

The Souji (the MC) doesn't have the blessing because he wasn't summoned. He even says so IN THIS CHAPTER.

Sorry, i think i replied while half asleep and managed to mix in another unrelated series.
Major brainfart

 

[ryuumajin]

"You must be the chosen by God himself to be able to defeat Zoe. I shall worship you forever and ever and ever,"
"Please don't megapunch me for ever and ever and ever,"

 

[latenightreader]

His, then she?
Step aside Goddess, it's time for the Church of Souji to take the spotlight.

It's only a matter of time until all of them become his harem.

Centuries later a priest and a couple of nuns will get freaky in his name

 

[Giga]

Thanks for this chapter as well, Andy.

---

"Big breasts are skeery and baaad~" is a horse corpse that's rotted to almost nothing but bone at this point, and this author's doing his part to beat the absolute hell out of it. He knows he gets bonus points for Semirena's tareme--those aren't supposed to be very popular nowadays, either.

---

After the fact logic, nothing morally dubious about protecting yourself first and not waiting for someone else to come save you before you get hurt for real, especially when you do not know if they can or not.

It's not about surrendering to violence, it's about not being a murderhobo who uses self-defense as a shield.

You both have a point, but I agree more with Valve's position.

On one hand, the killing of innocents is still the killing of innocents. There is no way around that, as an unquestionable evil in itself.

On the other hand, rolling over and being killed yourself because someone actually evil is trying to bind your hands with the lives of innocents isn't an act of righteousness.

If you kill those innocents, then yes--their blood is ostensibly on your hands. "Ostensibly" because it appears to be so--but the devil is in the details: the evildoer is the one who bound your hands with the lives of those innocents, and effectively smeared your hands with their blood. Indeed--that evildoer is the actual murderer, who took their lives indirectly by forcing your hand. It isn't as if you would have chosen to kill them on your own; and yes--you could have chosen not to take those lives, but what would you accomplish by allowing yourself to be slain? Would your (self-righteous) suicide stop the killer from killing others after he's done you in? Would it stop him from repeating the performance, since it worked perfectly well on you? How about his master who commissioned his killing, whom you're out to stop--would your suicide stop him, too?

That sort of thing is a moral trap that's empowered by those who can't see past the emotional effects of innocent deaths--a very common trap because it's so effective. When someone's evil enough to do something that dirty to ensure his evil continues, it's likely you'll have to do hard things to put an end to that evil and/or him. The fact that few people today have that kind of fortitude--or anything approaching it for that matter--is exactly why the world is as it currently is.

 

[Miserys_End]

Thanks for this chapter as well, Andy.

---

"Big breasts are skeery and baaad~" is a horse corpse that's rotted to almost nothing but bone at this point, and this author's doing his part to beat the absolute hell out of it. He knows he gets bonus points for Semirena's tareme--those aren't supposed to be very popular nowadays, either.

---

You both have a point, but I agree more with Valve's position.

On one hand, the killing of innocents is still the killing of innocents. There is no way around that, as an unquestionable evil in itself.

On the other hand, rolling over and being killed yourself because someone actually evil is trying to bind your hands with the lives of innocents isn't an act of righteousness.

If you kill those innocents, then yes--their blood is ostensibly on your hands. "Ostensibly" because it appears to be so--but the devil is in the details: the evildoer is the one who bound your hands with the lives of those innocents, and effectively smeared your hands with their blood. Indeed--that evildoer is the actual murderer, who took their lives indirectly by forcing your hand. It isn't as if you would have chosen to kill them on your own; and yes--you could have chosen not to take those lives, but what would you accomplish by allowing yourself to be slain? Would your (self-righteous) suicide stop the killer from killing others after he's done you in? Would it stop him from repeating the performance, since it worked perfectly well on you? How about his master who commissioned his killing, whom you're out to stop--would your suicide stop him, too?

That sort of thing is a moral trap that's empowered by those who can't see past the emotional effects of innocent deaths--a very common trap because it's so effective. When someone's evil enough to do something that dirty to ensure his evil continues, it's likely you'll have to do hard things to put and end to that evil and/or him. The fact that few people today have that kind of fortitude--or anything approaching it for that matter--is exactly why the world is as it currently is.

It's not that I don't agree that there might be situations where the hostages would be injured or even killed, but this wasn't one of them. Practically any one of the hero's party could have disabled the villagers without killing them, but the author chose to hamfistedly force his OC into the limelight.

OTOH what I disagree with is Valve's general attitude twords the life of others. Their comment history is full of overly violent solutions and a flagrant disregard for personal responsibility.


--edit--
Of course Valve, you are just that