The Last, Only, and Very Final X% Hype Thread

[Xerres]

I am a pacifist and strongly against the death penalty and prison system in general for our actual government, but I still understand when direct violent action is acceptable and frankly necessary.

Once you are part of Team Meteor, once you are attempting to kidnap and torture children, when you willingly accept that wiping out a city of people is okay because you wanted a better life, then you are the aggressor and a lethal response is acceptable.

I have some sympathy for some of them, but for the most part they're just so damn self-absorbed and only care about what affects them. Its not regret for what they actually did, but regret for what that caused people to do to them in turn.

"Oh that Dragon Lady killed so many of us... all we were doing was invading her home and attempting to kidnap her young sister. How could she attack us like that!?!"

"My friend died sort of... I don't really care about the city we were bombing, its just that my friend is gone! And she only stopped being a terrorist when her family was going to die instead of other people's families. So sad."

Team Meteor started shit, and the fact they cry foul when people defend themselves, like that is the horrible crime, just really stretches my ability to feel any sympathy for the self-obsessed knobs.

[Oscarus]

You keep forgetting one, tiny weeny detail. 

Quote

"Team Meteor itself wasn't always bad. When Solaris led us, we had one strict goal: cleanse the city. We wanted Reborn to be pure again, but the people had to leave for that to happen.  So we started doing things to make them leave.

But then, everything changed. After she launched through the ranks, Lin started- struggling noises of having the souls being burned 

According to Caitlin, while Team Meteor was formed by Solaris years ago, the only goal was to have Reborn City to return to its original state; the village from Solaris' childhood. But Ame - League Chairman and Grand Champion - alongside most of the others League Representatives, would be strongly against it, thinking of it as a step back. So Meteors would be forced to have them leave. 

 

Yeah, "have them leave"; which means that citizens of Reborn City should abandon their current houses and move out to somewhere else. There was NO saying that they should be killed or anything - just have them move; that is it! Where they would like to move, that was not something Team Meteor would care. True, methods like polluting the air, ground and waters, or causing the blackout, would be used, to speed up the process and have the more stubborn ones bend... And I'm pretty sure there's a chance a few people with weaker organisms could die, but that was counting into "calculated casualties", which "could be avoided if they've listened". 

But when Lin became the leader... things turned by 180 degrees. She doesn't give a single fuck about Reborn City, let alone the entire region. Only power is what matters: power, and rule of fear. It was her and her alone to transform Team Meteor into what we see: an disreputable, villainous organization. Using influences, she corrupted the minds of large part of grunts into believing that no matter what they do, there will be a place for them in the "New World"; a place "far better and more beautiful than the current world, where they can be reunited with the loved ones". 

With that... Most of the Grunts started to feel unpunishable, and were assisting Lin in committing all kinds of atrocities. While more and more of them start to realize that "their New World" is not worth it, and it will never exist, they began to revert. But the damage done was irresistible; no matter what happens, it won't be like it was before. 

At least they acknowledge that, and are willing to change; and that's positive. Still... I cannot see those who were actively participating in this be let free - there have to be consequences. The only ones that could theorically be let, or have some smaller punishment like community services, are those who didn't want to work with Lin's Team Meteor, or did so very passively (refusing to partake in actions causing casualties, or staying aside). I think that if the could, they would leave. But they couldn't - they'd be killed if that happened (even bigger chances if they started to share stories from  behind the curtain). So, for them, it's a loss-loss situation: either punishment by law, or potential death. 

While I agree with the opinion of "If they didn't join Team Meteor, they wouldn't meet that fate", they did so because they wanted changes. Unhappy with their lifes and situation, wanting to seek new opportunities and chances, or simply owning a favor; they had different reasons to join Meteor, and with Solaris as charismatic, powerful leader who knew what and how to do, it was easier for them to join. Just like in Germany during the Interwar Years - the economy had never been worse, internal conflicts between nations living there, government being unable to control all of it... all of it caused very low morale within Germans which wanted to be powerul again: all what was needed is a certain Austrian painter with a charisma, intelligence and program, to create one of the most powerful (and feared) fractions in the world of the first half of the 20th century. 

Most of the Grunts (actual Grunts, not Orderlies or Cultists which united with Meteors later) aren't inheritly evil - they were unhappy with their situation, and joined Solaris to help him "cleanse Reborn out of filth" to both have a purpose and start to live a better life. But when Lin arrived and took over, she decided to turn the "group of faithkeepers" into terroristical organization, which began using fear, destruction and agony to make their goals come true. And those who already were with Solaris, had no choice but to align with her - regardless if they agreed with her and wanted "New World", or they wished to follow Solaris' goal more. 

 

As you see... Not everything is Black or White, good or evil. Evaluating entire Team Meteor as evil and destined to be destroyed, while some of them are there simply because they have no other choice, and strongly oppose their actions, is like saying that all Indians are antisocial and mistrustul toward White races, or all Brazilians love soccer - while it is true for some parties, it's definitely not for all of them. 

If they deserve the punishment, then they should receive them. But spare those who did nothing, or not much, to the others. We are humans, dammit, not some wild brutes; to tear and kill because we dislike each other or are in the different spheres of ideas. 

[Xerres]

I'm not suggesting all of Team Meteor is evil and has to be killed.

I am saying that they started the shit, they've been killing people this whole time, and that makes it a reasonable and logical action to kill in turn. Saphira did nothing wrong when she killed the Meteors attacking her house and family. She was forced into a situation by the Meteor dumbasses out to abduct children. Titania kills the Meteors she finds in the facility devoted to poisoning the cities' water supply because they're terrorists engaged in a terrorist activity of trying to kill people.

Having mercy on the Meteors is fine, once they've surrendered. Then you can sort out who was actively going along with the actions and who was forced into it, and the degree of punishment required then. But, they have to surrender first. If they remain a part of Team Meteor, then they're part of a campaign to murder a city, and you have to respond accordingly. It doesn't matter why they're part of Team Meteor, how good a person they think they are, what the hierarchy of needs tells about why they turn to unlawful behavior, they're killing people. You have to stop them from killing people.

Coming around back to my original point: Titania and Saphira are not in the wrong. They are not acting in an extreme manner. They are acting extremely reasonably. If Titania and Saphira happened to be on the train, or crushed in one of the buildings by the Tangrowth, or caught in the volcanic explosion, or caught up in any number of the horrible things the Meteors planned, none of the Team Meteor members we've seen so far would even lose sleep over having killed them. Maybe Taka. Maybe.

Until they surrender, until they stop presenting an active threat to the lives of everyone in Reborn City, meeting them with lethal force is the most logical way to defend yourself and others. Because until it affects them personally, none of them have shown themselves willing to stop. Taka's the most sympathetic by far, but he still has more blood on his hands than Titania or Saphira, and for him it wasn't to save anyone but himself.

[Oscarus]

8 minutes ago, Xerres said:

Coming around back to my original point: Titania and Saphira are not in the wrong. They are not acting in an extreme manner. They are acting extremely reasonably.

I haven't said they're wrong. 

I have said their methods are very extreme; which is not something you'd expect from a "good guys". Although... Spawn and Deadpool do exist too, so... 

 

Killing bad guys is perfectly fine for me... In cases they do deserve that. And by that I mean: those who are willing to hurt and kill for their personal reasons and show no remorse. But I get that they wouldn't come individually and ask "Excuse me Sir/Madam, but are you good with Team Meteor destroying Reborn City and killing off its innocent citizens", then either spare, terrify, injure or kill, depending on the answer. The actions taken are to be quick and with immediate effect, which obviously might bounce into the more "innocent" Grunts. 

 

Actually, if you look at my fanfic (which I should "show" here soon, as everyone else do), you'll notice one thing - the protagonist... does the EXACT SAME THING. Pushing through and destroying enemies on his way; in the first two days of being in the Reborn Region, he and his Pokemon have killed around 10 Grunts and injured over twice as many! 

Obviously, it is somewhat in his blood - his entire childhood he had spent in a region in which there had been a long, bloody war, with his parents being leaders of their respective nations. It's obvious that influenced his young mind. 

Spoiler

But as the time spent in Reborn was going on, he began to see how his actions were wrong and caused more damage to the mental health of survivors than he would rather to; having that kind, emotional side of him - covered for the last 13 years - to slowly show up 

 

By the time Labradorra was liberated, he was constantly calling himself a "monster", showing remorse of his actions and beginning to mistrust himself, especially when his darkest secret was discovered by his allies, making them doubt whether the one who they wanted to proclaim a new leader is actually worthy of that. 

While it is a way, perhaps the best one to deal with those... it still has its downsides, as: having those more remorseful and kind ones die in a crossfire, causing the more brutal and stern survivors to be more enraged and cause more demolition. Also some people might start to see you as "no better than the ones you kill"; murdering the murderes will decrease the number of murderers, those who are against murders will start to despise you... but I guess that's the pay for some salvation, right? 

[Vulnona]

8 hours ago, Xerres said:

Coming around back to my original point: Titania and Saphira are not in the wrong. They are not acting in an extreme manner. They are acting extremely reasonably.

While I find your argument that Saphira and Titania are acting out of self-defense in an unprovoked attack convincing and to hold merit, I am surprised to hear that killing people is "extremely reasonable". 

If Titania and Saphira were portrayed as reluctant or killing by accident (for example, they had no idea that Hyperbeam or Aegislash could be lethal), I could totally understand it - but they are clearly portrayed as bloodthirsty. They actively strive for the kill. Saphira probably has a better excuse because she shoots down Meteors who assault her home, but Titania actively goes after grunts and kills them. Just by comparison: your player character renders grunts harmless by merely defeating them. By that logic, that would have been an option for Titania as well. The fact that she still chose to murder them is... chilling.

As excusable as the circumstances may be, I think it's always jarring to hear murder be referred to as "extremely reasonable". 

Similarly, the "guilt by association" argument is probably more complicated than that. Like Oscarus said, the Meteors caught within Lin's new association face a tough choice. As of right now, almost every Meteor who defected has died or faced a similar fate. Not only are they facing cognitive dissonance regarding Team Meteor's ideals (old vs. new), but they also have to decide between staying and staying alive or leaving and probably dying. In situations like these, it becomes incredibly easy for the human mind to justify self-preservation, even over the lives of others. So while that certainly doesn't make Meteors innocent, it's also not as clear-cut as "they're guilty by association" and deserve to be cut down. Reborn never forces a clear moral statement onto the player, but it certainly makes it clear that Titania's rampage isn't heroic and/or appropriate. Amaria threw herself off the waterfall and Team Meteor found and treated her wounds, only for the same grunts to be killed by Titania. While the game and the characters certainly cut Titania some major slack regarding her actions, it certainly doesn't portray it as "extremely reasonable". 

[Xerres]

In a humanist or academic sense I can absolutely step back and acknowledge that there are extenuating circumstances to the situation many of the Meteors find themselves in. Declaring a group to be 'The Enemy' and then unilaterally deciding their lives are forfeit is a terrible idea that will lead to terrible things.

However, when I say Titania and Saphira are responding reasonably, I'm referring to just that, their response. Violence has been forced on them, they are in a situation of having to engage with a known terrorist group that has committed mass murders. Stopping and saying "Are you guys holding guns and wearing those terrorist cult uniforms not so bad?" is not a reasonable expectation.

They treated Amaria's wounds, that's certainly nice of them. From our position, outside the story, we can see they aren't bloodthirsty evil doers. From Titania's position, she just got down there, and a terrorist cult just took Amaria away and locked her out. What's more reasonable: "The members of the cult that attempted human sacrifice are maybe doing something nice." or "The members of the cult that has helped perform terrorist actions have taken away a wounded person, oh crap oh crap oh crap."

Unlike the Meteor's, whose only regrets seem to be that they had to suffer what they put others through, Titania obviously regrets killing them when she finds out the truth. Because she isn't a bloodthirsty villain, or dissociating herself from the impact of her actions like the Meteors, she's doing what it seems needs to be done in her situation. Her situation being trapped in a terrorist hideout.

I can judge the actions to be inappropriate in hindsight, but I can't fault the response based on the information she has. Whatever reason people may have for joining the Meteors and staying on even while the group begins mass murdering, they have to accept that its the consequence of their actions that put them in a position that forces others to respond in violence. I accept that many can't leave because they fear they'll be killed, but that isn't Titania or Saphira's fault. Your situation is terrible, but you're part of a terrorist group, you've been killing people across the city, and people will fight to not be another of your victims.

[The Swordsman]

17 hours ago, Xerres said:

Until they surrender, until they stop presenting an active threat to the lives of everyone in Reborn City, meeting them with lethal force is the most logical way to defend yourself and others. Because until it affects them personally, none of them have shown themselves willing to stop. Taka's the most sympathetic by far, but he still has more blood on his hands than Titania or Saphira, and for him it wasn't to save anyone but himself.

Ghestisis actively tried to kill the player and is one of the darkest canon villains, yet the player did not kill him in return. Pokemon trainers hold at max 6 pokemon, powerful creatures capable of mass destruction that have made personal weapons obsolete, it is literally child's play in the Pokemon universe to disarm your opponent and force them to surrender. Lethal force was never a logical or necessary option.

[Xerres]

I didn't have a choice on killing Ghetsis, because its still a kid's game, and the story must remain light. So killing him or not means nothing, there was never a possibility of doing it, and in a story for a kid's game things will work out fine.

From the perspective of someone actually being forced to live in a city actively under attack by a terrorist organization, the idea of demanding people hold to the ideal of non-lethal opposition is ridiculous. Like you say, Pokemon have replaced ordinary weapons. Pokemon can be deployed with lethal intent. The MC is almost killed by a sneak attack from a Tyranitar. If I approach everything non-lethally, and without the protections of being the main character in a pre-set narrative, then that's admirable. But if the person I tried to take in non-lethally has an extra pokeball with a Hydreigon and that Hydreigon bites my head off while I'm trying to bring them in, then my admirable corpse will be tossed in with the rest of the bodies.

It is a terrorist organization deploying weapons with lethal intent. In ideal circumstances, I agree that non-lethal solutions are best and a peaceful resolution is the greatest possible outcome. But I do not expect people who are being shot at to stick to my ideal principles, and stop their assailants non-lethally. I accept that their life, and the lives of others, have to take precedence over the ideal solution. If you are faced with mass murderers wielding lethal weapons, and you lack the protection of a main character's plot armor, then it is a logical response to act with lethal force of your own to secure your safety.

Ideally if there is a man waving a gun around and threatening people with it, I would still be happiest if they were non-lethally subdued and taken into custody. But if you happen to be a black man in 1950's Alabama and the guy waving a gun is wearing a white hood, I will understand if you shoot them first. Extreme example, but Team Meteor is trying to massacre a city of people, and if you weren't the MC then you'd just be another of their victims aboard that train.

[HakuryuYukio]

9 hours ago, Vulnona said:

Similarly, the "guilt by association" argument is probably more complicated than that. Like Oscarus said, the Meteors caught within Lin's new association face a tough choice. As of right now, almost every Meteor who defected has died or faced a similar fate. Not only are they facing cognitive dissonance regarding Team Meteor's ideals (old vs. new), but they also have to decide between staying and staying alive or leaving and probably dying. In situations like these, it becomes incredibly easy for the human mind to justify self-preservation, even over the lives of others. So while that certainly doesn't make Meteors innocent, it's also not as clear-cut as "they're guilty by association" and deserve to be cut down. Reborn never forces a clear moral statement onto the player, but it certainly makes it clear that Titania's rampage isn't heroic and/or appropriate. Amaria threw herself off the waterfall and Team Meteor found and treated her wounds, only for the same grunts to be killed by Titania. While the game and the characters certainly cut Titania some major slack regarding her actions, it certainly doesn't portray it as "extremely reasonable". 

I'm gonna assume that all event's of the original games actually happened in the Reborn Universe, since some NPC's in the game namedrop Kanto, Johto etc. and make references like "a 10 year old stopping an entire organisation".

 

Did it ever occure to those meteor grunts to ask themselves: "Hm... you know there have been many organisations in the past like Team Rocket, Team Aqua, Team Magma etc. and every one of them failed to reach their goal. Why should Team Meteor be any different?"

 

The "Lin will control Arceus(a Legendary)" argument really isn't a strong one since similar stuff has happened in the past:

a) Team Rocket created Mewtwo but failed to control it.

b) Team Aqua and Magma had the Orbs but still failed to control Groudon and Kyogre which almost lead to the destruction of Hoenn.

c) Cyrus had the red chain but easily lost control of Dialga and Palkia because of the Lake Trio. And in Platinum, Giratina literally dragged him to "hell" despite the Time Space Duo being present.

d) N had Reshiram/Zekrom and yet he still lost to the protagonist

e) Ghetsis managed to fuse Kyurem with Reshiram/Zekrom and it still wasn't enough.

f) Lysandre had Xerneas/Yveltal in the Flare HQ but couldn't even awaken them.

g) Lusamine thought that she could control the ultra beasts which didn't end well for her

 

All they had to do is take a look at the history of the pokemon world and they instantly would have known that this Meteor fiasco would end the same way which is total desaster.

 

I'm still sticking with my "guilty by association" argument. They should have known better from the beginning.

 

[Vulnona]

5 hours ago, Xerres said:

In a humanist or academic sense I can absolutely step back and acknowledge that there are extenuating circumstances to the situation many of the Meteors find themselves in. Declaring a group to be 'The Enemy' and then unilaterally deciding their lives are forfeit is a terrible idea that will lead to terrible things.

However, when I say Titania and Saphira are responding reasonably, I'm referring to just that, their response. Violence has been forced on them, they are in a situation of having to engage with a known terrorist group that has committed mass murders. 

I like that you distinguish between an academic and an in-situation perspective because I think that makes a huge difference. Also, I really appreciate the argument that Titania is working with limited knowledge of the situation here. 

 

5 hours ago, Xerres said:

Stopping and saying "Are you guys holding guns and wearing those terrorist cult uniforms not so bad?" is not a reasonable expectation.

Absolutely - but I don't think anyone said that would be a better response, right? This would, indeed, seem naive at best. 

 

5 hours ago, Xerres said:

They treated Amaria's wounds, that's certainly nice of them. From our position, outside the story, we can see they aren't bloodthirsty evil doers. From Titania's position, she just got down there, and a terrorist cult just took Amaria away and locked her out. What's more reasonable: "The members of the cult that attempted human sacrifice are maybe doing something nice." or "The members of the cult that has helped perform terrorist actions have taken away a wounded person, oh crap oh crap oh crap."

Absolutely. I agree. 

 

5 hours ago, Xerres said:

Unlike the Meteor's, whose only regrets seem to be that they had to suffer what they put others through, Titania obviously regrets killing them when she finds out the truth. Because she isn't a bloodthirsty villain, or dissociating herself from the impact of her actions like the Meteors, she's doing what it seems needs to be done in her situation. Her situation being trapped in a terrorist hideout.

Again, strong point - which, however, ultimately undermines Titania's choice of killing the Meteors. There is a reason she feels appalled by her actions now - and learns from them.

 

5 hours ago, Xerres said:

I can judge the actions to be inappropriate in hindsight, but I can't fault the response based on the information she has. Whatever reason people may have for joining the Meteors and staying on even while the group begins mass murdering, they have to accept that its the consequence of their actions that put them in a position that forces others to respond in violence.

I think this is where we begin to disagree. While I think the argument of limited knowledge of the situation gives Titania a good reason to react in a more drastic way than necessary, I still don't think that it necessitates killing people. As the Swordsman pointed out, there are reasonable alternatives, and given that these Meteors probably protected themselves with their Pokemon before being cut down, we may even infer that Titania first battled them and then killed them anyway. 

There are good reasons for why lethal force should be a last resort. 

 

(I see your big post. I'll have to reply to that with a keyboard, wait a sec.)

34 minutes ago, Xerres said:

From the perspective of someone actually being forced to live in a city actively under attack by a terrorist organization, the idea of demanding people hold to the ideal of non-lethal opposition is ridiculous.

Yeah... but it's also more complicated than that, I think.

Firstly, most people generally don't want to kill other people. Even if you're threatened by an armed mugger, a soldier, whover - most people would rather choose to flee, bargain, or somehow try to incapacitate the aggressor rather than outright killing them.

Secondly, there's a difference between accidentally killing someone in self-defense and actively going after aggressors because they attacked first. The former is absolutely understandable, the latter is what Titania did.

 

34 minutes ago, Xerres said:

If you are faced with mass murderers wielding lethal weapons, and you lack the protection of a main character's plot armor, then it is a logical response to act with lethal force of your own to secure your safety.

Yup - and that would make Saphira's reaction more understandable than Titania's. Because Titania's safety wasn't ever in danger - it was Amaria's. Therefore, Titania had no reason to actively and expressly kill Meteor grunts.

 

34 minutes ago, Xerres said:

Ideally if there is a man waving a gun around and threatening people with it, I would still be happiest if they were non-lethally subdued and taken into custody. But if you happen to be a black man in 1950's Alabama and the guy waving a gun is wearing a white hood, I will understand if you shoot them first. Extreme example, but Team Meteor is trying to massacre a city of people, and if you weren't the MC then you'd just be another of their victims aboard that train.

Yeah - if there is the danger that you'll be shot in a few seconds, sure - shoot first (or run very fast), ask questions later. But you make it sound like every Meteor grunt picks off people on the street and executes them right away. As of right now, Team Meteor attacked on a larger scale (the train bombing at the beginning, the PULSE-Pokémon attacking cities, and so on), but the grunts were pretty harmless by comparison. Which means that Titania would not have been in any danger after incapacitating the grunts' Pokémon. So that makes her actions seem way more drastic than they needed to be.

After all, you - the main character - manage quite nicely with your non-lethal actions. Ciel and Samson don't kill the grunts they incapacitated at Agate. No one did so far - except for Saphira and Titania.

And yes, that absolutely backfires for the player when they are knocked out by Lin at Titania's gym - but would the alternative really be better?

Would we really live in a better world if we just killed every threat we came across?

I absolutely agree that self-preservation is a powerful drive and that there are circumstances under which you can excuse almost everything - but Titania didn't act under such circumstances.

 

(By the way, I sound very Titania-cricital here, but I actually love the character. Especially because she grows as a character and learns from her mistakes.)

Edited March 24, 2022 by Vulnona

[Xerres]

I will say that I'm not saying violence is good or desirable. Taking a life or causing grievous injury, even when you 'know' someone 'deserves' it or you have no choice, will leave a deep impact on most people. It isn't a glorious thing or something to aspire to, its terrible and destructive, and its rare that someone isn't affected by it.

My contention is that, given their situation, Titania and Saphira acted in a logical and reasonable way. Logic and reason doesn't always mean the best possible outcome, especially when based on a limited perspective, but they're the best tools available to end up at the best outcome you can manage. Again, the fact that these situations are forced on Titania and Saphira is what drastically alters my opinion of what their logical and reasonable courses of action should be. They aren't out for glory or to take something for themselves, they're under attack and acting in defense of themselves and their loved ones.

I have far less sympathy for the Meteor characters than I do for Titania, because her regret is for the pain she caused to others, not the pain brought on herself by outside forces acting on consequence of her actions. The deaths in the WTC are tragic, but I consider Titania a victim of the actions of Team Meteor in creating the situation where she's pushed to an extreme.

I think if I were an actual person in the shoes of the Main Character, and I didn't know the Plot would protect my life, I would act with lethal intent. Because I would terrified of the people that have already acted with lethal intent to me. My perspective would not be a player who wants a hero to have great ideals that I can aspire to (I love you Superman!), but a frightened victim of a terrorist attack who doesn't want to be killed by these dangerous people. I extend the perspective to Titania and Saphira, believing they're acting on fear and a fight-or-flight response to their situation. It doesn't lead to the best outcome, but its understandable and human, I won't judge them thinking that I would have more control in the same circumstance.

[Vulnona]

2 minutes ago, Xerres said:

My contention is that, given their situation, Titania and Saphira acted in a logical and reasonable way. Logic and reason doesn't always mean the best possible outcome, especially when based on a limited perspective, but they're the best tools available to end up at the best outcome you can manage. Again, the fact that these situations are forced on Titania and Saphira is what drastically alters my opinion of what their logical and reasonable courses of action should be. They aren't out for glory or to take something for themselves, they're under attack and acting in defense of themselves and their loved ones.

I agree Titania and Saphira act with the best of intentions for themselves and their loved ones.

However, I am not convinced that killing people is the best option available to them. They are indeed forced into a situation they would otherwise not have partaken in, but they still have options.

 

8 minutes ago, Xerres said:

I have far less sympathy for the Meteor characters than I do for Titania, because her regret is for the pain she caused to others, not the pain brought on herself by outside forces acting on consequence of her actions. The deaths in the WTC are tragic, but I consider Titania a victim of the actions of Team Meteor in creating the situation where she's pushed to an extreme.

Yup, I agree with you here. As stated above, the Meteor characters - though faced with a tough choice - still chose to become part of a... hm... "make-people-leave"-organisation that evolved into a fully-fledged terrorist organisation. Even if they may have been well-intentioned extremists, they still had a say in the path they chose to take, so I, too, have less sympathy for them than I have for Titania.

But I also don't think that Titania's actions as a victim excuse her morally.

 

13 minutes ago, Xerres said:

I think if I were an actual person in the shoes of the Main Character, and I didn't know the Plot would protect my life, I would act with lethal intent. Because I would terrified of the people that have already acted with lethal intent to me. My perspective would not be a player who wants a hero to have great ideals that I can aspire to (I love you Superman!), but a frightened victim of a terrorist attack who doesn't want to be killed by these dangerous people. I extend the perspective to Titania and Saphira, believing they're acting on fear and a fight-or-flight response to their situation. It doesn't lead to the best outcome, but its understandable and human, I won't judge them thinking that I would have more control in the same circumstance.

Absolutely! I would be terrified as well.

Human life is fragile and delicate, and you probably only have one, so you maintain it at all costs.

But since you mentioned the fight-or-flight response: that doesn't automatically mean killing the threat. It means fighting back until someone is no longer dangerous to you. In Titania's case, that could mean battling someone, knocking them unconscious, causing them to flee, tying them up, locking them in a room... or just plain sneaking by.

Also, fight-or-flight is a defense mechanism. That doesn't mean actively going after a target - it means fighting it off until the danger has passed. By that definition, Titania is well past that.

 

I think that in the WTC scene, Titania is the character we are supposed to sympathise with. We have met her and Amaria, we know how much she cares about her, and we know she's "one of the good guys". But in a similar vein, the game also calls this into question. How far are we willing to sympathise with her? At which point does she become more like the villains? What makes her so different? Showing us the dead meteor bodies, hearing things from their perspective, how frightened they are of Titania and how traumatised they are, and how disproportionate they perceive Titania's reaction - it makes you think twice about whether Titania is really morally justified here.

I mean, after all, you have mentioned throughout your posts that you find it hard to sympathise with the Meteors because their motives are flimsy and they don't really care about the harm they cause to other people.

But lets have a little thought experiment.

Say, for example, that each and every one of these Meteor grunts was convinced that their New World would be beneficial to everyone. A promised land without falsehood, without crime, without war or strife. And they (probably rightfully) assume that almost every person in the world will be happier in this New World.

By that measure, wouldn't they have to logically and reasonably assume that to reach this end, they can excuse almost every means? After all, what's a little death compared to a shiny New World where everyone is happy?

Judging by their intentions alone, their actions would be immensely well-justified.

By your own criteria, which you listed as

• fighting to ensure that no harm comes to loved ones
• acting out of good intentions
• acting in a situation that is forced upon you

the Meteors may actually have the moral high ground here. In our little thought experiment, they act out of the best of intentions, they want to ensure that everyone (not just their specific loved ones) is happy in the New World, and they may feel that our unjust, cruel world is forced upon them (since they have no wish to exist in such a world/situation).

According to this thought experiment, the Meteors' actions should now be morally justified according to your criteria. Moreover, they should be perfectly reasonable and logical.

But would you actually agree?

Probably not, right?

With utilitarian ethics, you can justify almost everything. Even the utmost atrocities. The ends justify the means.

But at some point, we also have to look at the merit of the action itself. With killing, that's usually pretty low. We seem to have a moral intuition that irrevocably taking someone's life is seldom excusable.

The common moral intuition is that depriving someone of their life is reasonable and logical only in very, very few cases (like, for example, tyrannicide or killing someone to preserve your own live when failing to do so would mean certain death for you or all parties involved). Those are typically cases in which failing to kill the person would violate a more important virtue (like ensuring the safety of many people, upholding humanist and democratic values/ensuring that they continue existing, or protecting your own life - the most important thing you own). And I would argue that Titania wasn't in such a situation. Sure, she was stressed and hungry and afraid for Amaria's well-being, but not every person in such a state leaves a bloodbath on the ground.

I think it's safe to say that - as much as we can sympathise and understand Titania - her reaction was still disproportionate, and it's not what I, from my point of view, would describe as "reasonable and logical".

[Oscarus]

30 minutes ago, Xerres said:

I didn't have a choice on killing Ghetsis, because its still a kid's game, and the story must remain light. So killing him or not means nothing, there was never a possibility of doing it, and in a story for a kid's game things will work out fine.

Unova games were more for teenage audience, but I agree with the "kid's game" argument - it is basically showing that being evil won't cut it in real life, and virtues like mercy, friendship and bonds are stronger than pure power, domination and destruction. All mainline games have taught us at least one valuable lesson:

• Kanto: Hard work pays off 
• Johto: Traditions are an unseperable part of life 
• Hoenn: Never mess with forces of nature 
• Sinnoh: We are just humans; nobody's perfect 
• Unova: No thing is inheritely/purely good or bad 
• Kalos: Be happy with what you have, do not regret lacking something
• Alola: Combining past and future is both possible, and positive 
• Galar: Don't rush. Take your time and analyze 

1 hour ago, Xerres said:

I accept that their life, and the lives of others, have to take precedence over the ideal solution. If you are faced with mass murderers wielding lethal weapons, and you lack the protection of a main character's plot armor, then it is a logical response to act with lethal force of your own to secure your safety.

In short:

Every human has the right to freedom. But one's freedom ends when other's freedom begins. If that freedom is disrupted, we have to cut short the attacker's one. 

1 hour ago, Xerres said:

Extreme example, but Team Meteor is trying to massacre a city of people, and if you weren't the MC then you'd just be another of their victims aboard that train.

All thanks to Ame... 

My only regret is that we couldn't repay her for that... ...

1 hour ago, HakuryuYukio said:

The "Lin will control Arceus(a Legendary)" argument really isn't a strong one since similar stuff has happened in the past:

a) Team Rocket created Mewtwo but failed to control it.

b) Team Aqua and Magma had the Orbs but still failed to control Groudon and Kyogre which almost lead to the destruction of Hoenn.

c) Cyrus had the red chain but easily lost control of Dialga and Palkia because of the Lake Trio. And in Platinum, Giratina literally dragged him to "hell" despite the Time Space Duo being present.

d) N had Reshiram/Zekrom and yet he still lost to the protagonist

e) Ghetsis managed to fuse Kyurem with Reshiram/Zekrom and it still wasn't enough.

f) Lysandre had Xerneas/Yveltal in the Flare HQ but couldn't even awaken them.

g) Lusamine thought that she could control the ultra beasts which didn't end well for her

Arceus is the strongest of them all - an allmighty deity. The only worry is that she couldn't control it (like Mewtwo, Groundon/Kyogre, Xerneas/Yveltal, Ultra Beasts, Eternatus). But if she did, loyal Grunts wouldn't be worried, as the chances of having someone/-s to stop it (like Lake Guardians and Giratina in Sinnoh, Reshiram/Zekrom in Unova, Xerneas/Yveltal in Kalos, or all our friends) are theorically non-existent. 

If Lin actually manages to control Arceus, then without some thicc plot armor we cannot win. 

 

[Xerres]

34 minutes ago, Vulnona said:

I think that in the WTC scene, Titania is the character we are supposed to sympathise with. We have met her and Amaria, we know how much she cares about her, and we know she's "one of the good guys". But in a similar vein, the game also calls this into question. How far are we willing to sympathise with her? At which point does she become more like the villains? What makes her so different? Showing us the dead meteor bodies, hearing things from their perspective, how frightened they are of Titania and how traumatised they are, and how disproportionate they perceive Titania's reaction - it makes you think twice about whether Titania is really morally justified here.

I mean, after all, you have mentioned throughout your posts that you find it hard to sympathise with the Meteors because their motives are flimsy and they don't really care about the harm they cause to other people.

But lets have a little thought experiment.

Say, for example, that each and every one of these Meteor grunts was convinced that their New World would be beneficial to everyone. A promised land without falsehood, without crime, without war or strife. And they (probably rightfully) assume that almost every person in the world will be happier in this New World.

By that measure, wouldn't they have to logically and reasonably assume that to reach this end, they can excuse almost every means? After all, what's a little death compared to a shiny New World where everyone is happy?

Judging by their intentions alone, their actions would be immensely well-justified.

By your own criteria, which you listed as

• fighting to ensure that no harm comes to loved ones
• acting out of good intentions
• acting in a situation that is forced upon you

the Meteors may actually have the moral high ground here. In our little thought experiment, they act out of the best of intentions, they want to ensure that everyone (not just their specific loved ones) is happy in the New World, and they may feel that our unjust, cruel world is forced upon them (since they have no wish to exist in such a world/situation).

According to this thought experiment, the Meteors' actions should now be morally justified according to your criteria. Moreover, they should be perfectly reasonable and logical.

But would you actually agree?

Probably not, right?

The flaw I personally see in the thought experiment is that they don't believe it, not when violence affects them. True believers would think that continuing the cause would bring their murdered sister back, or that it doesn't matter if a certain father dies in a bombing, he'll be back once they bring in the New World.

I actually would say, if their perspective was true belief that they'll remake the world to something perfect, then it is reasonable and logical to accept any losses in pursuit of the goal. Because they aren't real losses, you'll fix everything in the end, and it will be like nothing happened. Morally objectionable? Absolutely, its repugnant and disgustingly self-centered. But if your perspective really is that you'll fix all the death you caused and no one will even remember the hurt, then yes. There's a logical train of thought that the ends justify the means, when the ends will reverse the impact of the means. For an end point of everyone happy and never knowing they were sad, causing the sadness first can be acceptable. There's an ethical discussion to be had there, but I don't remember enough of the primary philosophies behind ethics to really discuss it. I think its the Kant school of thought that would disagree with the utilitarianism, or something like that. 

Academically I could call it a puzzler, but practically, with us not being morons, we know it's stupid and these people are ushering in the apocalypse. So I go off the fact that their 'belief' in this new world seems to disappear when they are the ones losing something, being hurt. This evaporates their potential high ground, because their position is "It doesn't matter what other people lose, if I get what I want then I'll give it back to them maybe." and devolves to "Oh crap, what if I'm wrong!?!" when they lose something. In essence, they're only willing to gamble with other people's money.

For Titania, I think her actions cause her more pain in the end and are a mistake. But her perspective, landing into a hostage situation where her friend has been captured by a terrorist cult. A group, we need to remember, already severely injured the person they just captured (Amaria was still recovering when we met up with them before the impromptu diving contest.) I still believe Titania's perspective is fear that the people that already hurt her friend, and just took her hostage, will do it again.

Where I'll concede its not a fully logical action to kill the first Meteors she saw, is that she got stuck outside their hideout. Taking people hostage herself and gathering information would have done more for her. But since its a hostage situation, where someone already injured once by the hostage takers is now at their mercy, I believe fear and fight-or-flight emotions would be in full effect. And I think that with only the single pokemon with her, and an unknown number of enemies inside, even someone as tough as Titania would be scared that she's going to be overwhelmed. Taking prisoners while you're horribly outnumbered is a leap of logic I wouldn't expect from most people.

 

And I will reiterate that violence doesn't lead to great outcomes, but I consider it an understandable and logical response when in a high pressure situation facing people who engage in lethal force frequently. Try to show mercy to the wrong person, and you'll have some Tyranitar sneak attacks coming your way.

 

Edit: I'll throw in that Titania is dehumanizing the people she's fighting to shield herself from guilt, and that does cause her to be more impulsive. I still believe its driven by fear, for herself and her friend, but the dehumanizing tendency 'greases the wheels' on that logic train to lethal action. That said I continue to consider lethal force justifiable in a hostage situation where terrorists have taken a former victim into their stronghold, but the pattern of dehumanizing people is bad and leads to bad outcomes. Which is why she's hit with the guilt after learning they helped Amaria instead of hurting her.

I suppose I'll sum up my argument to say I consider the actions terrible, and believe it leads to a worse outcome, but I don't put the 'moral responsibility' on Titania. Given her stressed perspective, I think she acts as reasonably as most people can. I still put the moral failing on the Meteors, for forcing people into a situation where they have to make snap decisions under high stress. I believe Titania's flow of logic is more reasonable than given credit for, and that most people would respond similarly.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Xerres

[Oscarus]

1 hour ago, Xerres said:

My perspective would not be a player who wants a hero to have great ideals that I can aspire to (I love you Superman!), but a frightened victim of a terrorist attack who doesn't want to be killed by these dangerous people.

Most humans would act that way. Only countless, the strongest and the most well-prepared ones (or the unaware and/or insane fellas) wouldn't feel fear for themselves. But they would... for the others (unless they're soulless) 

Because even if I could protect myself against terrorists and their assaults, how would others - weaker than myself - fare? Answer: they wouldn't! Whether they survive or die in those situations is luck-based, and still the chances are like 1:1000 or lower. If I happened to be in Reborn universe, and was as strong and competent as my OC, I wouldn't be worried about my well-being (...unless Meteors have snipers, then I would have to be very cautious). But... I'm sensitive about other human beings, and many of them are casuals, that couldn't protect themselves from terroristic attacks. In addition to that... I'm just one, and just a human - I would not be able to protect all of them, at once, all the time. 

And if was no better than some random, casual Trainer... I'd get the fuck outta there asap. 

I'm not brave or courageous - I'm a coward, and a weakling. And would hide or run away, just to be safe. I believe many others would do the same, if they were the target of a destructive attack with near zero chances of survival. 

31 minutes ago, Vulnona said:

But since you mentioned the fight-or-flight response: that doesn't automatically mean killing the threat. It means fighting back until someone is no longer dangerous to you. In Titania's case, that could mean battling someone, knocking them unconscious, causing them to flee, tying them up, locking them in a room... or just plain sneaking by.

Or using Electric-type Pokemon to paralyze or do some electroshock therapy on them. That would immobile them and minimize the risks of them being dangerous. Not nullify, because there is no way to nullify it - even if you kill them, the others (especially those close to the victim) will wish to avenge, making the remaining more dangerous. No matter what they've done, how many crimes they've committed... Meteors are humans too; they feel various emotions, just like the others. Saying that they don't feel emotions because they're evil, is wrong. Even villains can sense them. They do this differently from "normal" humans, yet still do. 

38 minutes ago, Vulnona said:

Say, for example, that each and every one of these Meteor grunts was convinced that their New World would be beneficial to everyone. A promised land without falsehood, without crime, without war or strife. And they (probably rightfully) assume that almost every person in the world will be happier in this New World.

Well... Weren't they? 

I think that every time Grunts mention, directly and not directly, New World, it can be pinned for the definition above: the perfect world, not touched by the palm of evil; Heaven but on Earth. 

And for that, the "end justifies the means" method is applied - because they think that no matter what will they do, all of this will be forgotten, and all negative effects will be nullified. Now, part of them know that... that they've been mistaken, and their hopes and dreams were dashed. 

 

[Oscarus]

19 minutes ago, Xerres said:

I'll throw in that Titania is dehumanizing the people she's fighting to shield herself from guilt, and that does cause her to be more impulsive.

My point exactly! 

While committing murders on Meteors and their allies, she justifies herself saying that all of this happened because of them... and you, the protagonist - because you've read her diary... her very personal diary, left in the middle of the room, opened on a page on which there are written words that pierced Amaria's heart, with Amy being in the room basically next to living one. 

Oh, and apparently Taka's death was also his fault, because he was the one to magically switch places with Lin while she was about to get pierced right in the chest... I know she loves fairy tales but even so, even in them that wouldn't make any sense! 

At the beginning, it seems reasonable. But the deeper we get, the more desperate that becomes, and Titania's explaining starts to sound more like wimpy excuses. In the fanfic, Oscar even calls her out on that, claiming them to be "nothing more than a pathetic excuses of a pathetic Gym Leader", which is both an accurate description, from his point of view... and a hypocrisy to some degree. 

Still, his point of view has always been screwed by the war he has experienced since being born, so that could work as a partial justification of his equally-bloody actions. Partial, as some of his acts could NEVER be justified. 

But so are actions of other murderous characters - nobody ain't saint 

[Vulnona]

28 minutes ago, Xerres said:

I actually would say, if their perspective was true belief that they'll remake the world to something perfect, then it is reasonable and logical to accept any losses in pursuit of the goal. Because they aren't real losses, you'll fix everything in the end, and it will be like nothing happened. Morally objectionable? Absolutely, its repugnant and disgustingly self-centered. But if your perspective really is that you'll fix all the death you caused and no one will even remember the hurt, then yes. There's a logical train of thought that the ends justify the means, when the ends will reverse the impact of the means. For an end point of everyone happy and never knowing they were sad, causing the sadness first can be acceptable.

I like how you say that it's totally reasonable and yet repugnant and self-centred at the same time ;)

As soon as we contrast moral values/virtues, anticipated consequences, actual consequences, context, and moral intention, it becomes a really tough situation to navigate.

But if the Meteors - under the assumption that they all believe 100% in the New World and the rightness of their actions - act to the best of their reason and logic, then we cannot really fault them for their actions, can we?

This is where we arrive at an unacceptable conclusion because...

 

34 minutes ago, Xerres said:

Academically I could call it a puzzler, but practically, with us not being morons, we know it's stupid and these people are ushering in the apocalypse.

Yup, that's the common sense assessment. But technically, we don't know. That's the frustrating part. As you stated earlier, in life, you have to make decisions without perfect knowledge of a situation - like Titania did. And sometimes, the information we're lacking can change everything. 

But if we only assign value to an action by its consequences or context alone, then we can't really make moral decisions at all because we just don't have that knowledge prior to the action, or even afterwards. Our range of knowledge is limited.

So as a shortcut, we have developed "common sense"-morality. If it seems logical according to our empirical experiences, then it's probably a good idea to do. But that leads to situations in which we are left puzzled once our empirical experience no longer serves as an orientation. So we have to look for other criteria. And since without perfect knowledge, we can't really count on consequences or full context, we have to also look at other things: moral values, virtues, maxims, that kind of stuff.

But even with these, you could make a good case for the Meteors being justified in their violent approach.

After all, with the right arguments, we can portray even atrocious acts as reasonable and logical.

 

55 minutes ago, Xerres said:

Edit: I'll throw in that Titania is dehumanizing the people she's fighting to shield herself from guilt, and that does cause her to be more impulsive. I still believe its driven by fear, for herself and her friend, but the dehumanizing tendency 'greases the wheels' on that logic train to lethal action. That said I continue to consider lethal force justifiable in a hostage situation where terrorists have taken a former victim into their stronghold, but the pattern of dehumanizing people is bad and leads to bad outcomes. Which is why she's hit with the guilt after learning they helped Amaria instead of hurting her.

I suppose I'll sum up my argument to say I consider the actions terrible, and believe it leads to a worse outcome, but I don't put the 'moral responsibility' on Titania. Given her stressed perspective, I think she acts as reasonably as most people can. I still put the moral failing on the Meteors, for forcing people into a situation where they have to make snap decisions under high stress. I believe Titania's flow of logic is more reasonable than given credit for, and that most people would respond similarly.

I think we agree on lots of points here!

I like your insight into Titania's mind in how she internally justifies her actions by dehumanising the Meteors, and I also think that Team Meteor bears lots of the moral responsibility of how the situation escalated. I agree with every point except that killing the Meteors is a reasonable thing that most people would do under the exact same circumstances as well. That's the only aspect I am of a different opinion about. I think most people would be hesitant to kill another person, even under such harsh circumstances. I think they would absolutely knock people out, throw them in the water, electrocute them and whatnot, but intentional murder in this case is a bit too much in my opinion.

 

By the way, I'd like to take this moment to say that I like the way you build and communicate your arguments :)

 

[The Swordsman]

2 hours ago, Xerres said:

I didn't have a choice on killing Ghetsis, because its still a kid's game, and the story must remain light. So killing him or not means nothing, there was never a possibility of doing it, and in a story for a kid's game things will work out fine.

From the perspective of someone actually being forced to live in a city actively under attack by a terrorist organization, the idea of demanding people hold to the ideal of non-lethal opposition is ridiculous. Like you say, Pokemon have replaced ordinary weapons. Pokemon can be deployed with lethal intent. The MC is almost killed by a sneak attack from a Tyranitar. If I approach everything non-lethally, and without the protections of being the main character in a pre-set narrative, then that's admirable. But if the person I tried to take in non-lethally has an extra pokeball with a Hydreigon and that Hydreigon bites my head off while I'm trying to bring them in, then my admirable corpse will be tossed in with the rest of the bodies.

It is a terrorist organization deploying weapons with lethal intent. In ideal circumstances, I agree that non-lethal solutions are best and a peaceful resolution is the greatest possible outcome. But I do not expect people who are being shot at to stick to my ideal principles, and stop their assailants non-lethally. I accept that their life, and the lives of others, have to take precedence over the ideal solution. If you are faced with mass murderers wielding lethal weapons, and you lack the protection of a main character's plot armor, then it is a logical response to act with lethal force of your own to secure your safety.

Ideally if there is a man waving a gun around and threatening people with it, I would still be happiest if they were non-lethally subdued and taken into custody. But if you happen to be a black man in 1950's Alabama and the guy waving a gun is wearing a white hood, I will understand if you shoot them first. Extreme example, but Team Meteor is trying to massacre a city of people, and if you weren't the MC then you'd just be another of their victims aboard that train.

Didn't stop him from trying to kill you and all of this is almost entirely from a out of universe perspective with no regard at all to the setting and it's history. The whole thing of you're only alive because main character is entirely divorced from the context of the story, or do you seriously think the good characters of Reborn would suddenly not try to intervene when they did before just because the person about to killed in front of them isn't "special." Heck realistically a person's ability to train pokemon is due solely to their ability and compassion for their pets, not some special main character status and you're forgetting said weapons are not tools but living creatures. To be blunt you killing grunts right and left does nothing to improve your chances of survival or taking them down, by doing so all you've changed is the reluctant grunts are now fully motivated as they try to avenge their friends, just another cog in this vicious cycle.

 

By this logic you shouldn't even try the non lethal solution at all because you're not special, well guess what? Cops don't have that special main character status in real life and the conditions they are called into are not always ideal but they are expected to disarm the criminal, with lethal intent being a last resort and is heavily scrutinized. Not even trying under that reasoning is not logical, its moral cowardice and in that case seriously why are you even playing at being a vigilante in this scenario? If the risks of your own death are indeed far too big for you and you already survived one attack, why bother personally chasing Meteor down to their base? This reasoning also isn't why Titania kills the grunts, heck she is fully honest about how they weren't really a threat to her.

 

[pokemonmaster3556]

1 hour ago, Vulnona said:

With utilitarian ethics, you can justify almost everything. Even the utmost atrocities. The ends justify the means.

But at some point, we also have to look at the merit of the action itself. With killing, that's usually pretty low. We seem to have a moral intuition that irrevocably taking someone's life is seldom excusable.

The common moral intuition is that depriving someone of their life is reasonable and logical only in very, very few cases (like, for example, tyrannicide or killing someone to preserve your own live when failing to do so would mean certain death for you or all parties involved). Those are typically cases in which failing to kill the person would violate a more important virtue (like ensuring the safety of many people, upholding humanist and democratic values/ensuring that they continue existing, or protecting your own life - the most important thing you own).

This is a very frequently cited debate between Kantian ethicists and utilitarians, so it's really cool to see it get brought up here! Further reading about potential objections to this argument can be found here (The Rights Objection to Utilitarianism – Utilitarianism.net), but in general the argument is rather compelling.

 

8 minutes ago, The Swordsman said:

To be blunt you killing grunts right and left does nothing to improve your chances of survival or taking them down, by doing so all you've changed is the reluctant grunts are now fully motivated as they try to avenge their friends, just another cog in this vicious cycle.

 

This reframing of the situation is a fair counterpoint to the utilitarian view from the same perspective, but I don't actually agree with how it's reframed in this case. Let's discuss the events of what happen in the game for a moment and the role of the protagonist (and the gym leaders like Titania)

 

1. We start with the train bombing, which gives the main character some context.
2. We see Ame and some cops torture a meteor grunt
3. We get recruited by Julia, a gym leader and effectively therefore a sheriff type figure, into helping to raid a meteor factory
4. We are given Cut by Amaria and Florinia, again two gym leaders and effectively the law enforcement, to help them fight PULSE Tangrowth
5. We are once again officially given passage into Jasper and Beryl Ward and help the law enforcement. Optionally, we get a Growlithe effectively making us a police force member.
6. We stage a vigilante rescue of a bunch of kids from an insane man torturing them
7. We work with Amaria to help with another factory
8. We try to stop PULSE Camerupt, as we are on the Island and it is going to blow up. Life or death situation
9. Randomness recruits us to help with the whole El situation

I could keep going, but the general trend up until when Ame dies is that we are deputized and actively encouraged to do what we're doing. In essence, we are the police, and the gym leaders act as our superiors. When Ame dies, the government (which is basically a dictatorship prior to this) falls into disarray and we are one of the main leaders of the government that emerges alongside Adrienn and Victoria.

 

I'd actually argue that the gym leaders are the people in charge of their respective communities, and we've seen from Pokemon canon (aka Black and White) that gym leaders are the equivalent of a military/police. Is it wrong of them to use lethal force in most situations? Absolutely! But I don't think an active hostage situation is one where the police or military would be condemned for use of lethal force unless it caused said situation to become worse. Framing it as such, Titania's actions were seeing a known dangerous threat that had killed and harmed many innocent people in the past kidnap a loved one, and she was basically a policewoman, not a vigilante. Her position was one which is absolutely justified in the context.

[Xerres]

2 minutes ago, The Swordsman said:

Didn't stop him from trying to kill you and all of this is almost entirely from a out of universe perspective with no regard at all to the setting and it's history. The whole thing of you're only alive because main character is entirely divorced from the context of the story, or do you seriously think the good characters of Reborn would suddenly not try to intervene when they did before just because the person about to killed in front of them isn't "special." Heck realistically a person's ability to train pokemon is due solely to their ability and compassion for their pets, not some special main character status and you're forgetting said weapons are not tools but living creatures. To be blunt you killing grunts right and left does nothing to improve your chances of survival or taking them down, by doing so all you've changed is the reluctant grunts are now fully motivated as they try to avenge their friends, just another cog in this vicious cycle.

 

By this logic you shouldn't even try the non lethal solution at all because you're not special, well guess what? Cops don't have that special main character status in real life and the conditions they are called into are not always ideal but they are expected to disarm the criminal, with lethal intent being a last resort and is heavily scrutinized. Not even trying under that reasoning is not logical, its moral cowardice and in that case seriously why are you even playing at being a vigilante in this scenario? If the risks of your own death are indeed far too big for you and you already survived one attack, why bother personally chasing Meteor down to their base? This reasoning also isn't why Titania kills the grunts, heck she is fully honest about how they weren't really a threat to her.

 

Why is the main character doing any of this at all? There's no real choice to not be a vigilante, it progresses the story.

The perspective I take is to divorce myself from the feeling of being the 'Main Character'. I drop the pretense of power and control I have knowing the Hero Will Win, and I try to understand how I would react to the events in piecemeal.

I would like to believe that I could live up to some higher ideal, but I think my reality, and the reality for most people, is that we aren't as good as we want to think we are. So I don't judge as harshly when people react out of fear or anger, not when its a situation they were forced into. And I feel less sympathy for the people who forced others into that situation now being subject to the same fear themselves.

In a vacuum, or an ideal progression of events, I agree wholeheartedly that non-lethal action and preferably non-violent action is the best choice. But I don't think people can be judged by what the perfect choice was. The stress of the situation the Meteors has forced leads to choices that aren't ideal, but that I believe are often the best that can be expected by people in high-stress scenarios.

And police are an example, their poor training in America leads them to quickly escalate conflict in far too many situations. Because despite the higher standard we should be holding them to, we don't prepare them to hold that standard. Is Titania trained to keep composure in a high stress scenario with lives at stake? Really I don't know the answer to that, but I assume no. I think most of the heroes of the Reborn story are people who have been forced to handle a situation well outside anything they've prepared for. The fact that so many hold the higher standard is admirable, and it highlights their difference from what I'd consider normal people's reaction. Titania doesn't meet the standard, creating her contrast, but I don't put the weight of the moral responsibility on her. She's someone in an extreme situation, who has come up short of the highest moral standards, but its a situation she never should have been in, and I see her as reacting to it in a way that tracks with how most would react to it. Imperfectly, in absolute terms, but well within reason and logic for the information her perspective allows.

 

23 minutes ago, Vulnona said:

I like how you say that it's totally reasonable and yet repugnant and self-centred at the same time ;)

 

- Well reasoned discussion things. -

I agree with every point except that killing the Meteors is a reasonable thing that most people would do under the exact same circumstances as well. That's the only aspect I am of a different opinion about. I think most people would be hesitant to kill another person, even under such harsh circumstances. I think they would absolutely knock people out, throw them in the water, electrocute them and whatnot, but intentional murder in this case is a bit too much in my opinion.

 

By the way, I'd like to take this moment to say that I like the way you build and communicate your arguments :)

To the first there, I'll just say I don't equate 'reasonable' with 'good' or even 'desirable'. If we're both dying of thirst in the desert, and I have a canteen of water, and you kill me for it, I consider that reasonable. For you. Its consistent and reaches a goal: keeping yourself alive. Not good for me, but there's a logic train of though. A horrible train, nasty scenario, but it is what is in that case.

The second point, I'll say you're right, because I'm painting too broad a brush. People will react differently, depending on temperament. Timid people running and hiding, for example, is a very valid and likely response that I didn't put forward. I'll re-phrase to say that I think acting with lethal intent would be common enough that it would be hard to judge as an unreasonable action for a person to take. It does depend on how you react to stress.

Though knocking people out is probably murder. People don't just go unconscious for a few hours, they get back up or die. Same for throwing in the water and electrocution. In a struggle against a lethal threat, anything but 'run away and hide' is very likely to be lethal or very dangerous to whomever you're struggling against. And 'run away and hide' doesn't get your friend back from the terrorist cult, so accepting the risk of killing will be a pre-requisite. Though Pokemon physics may deflate that medical argument on my part, I'm not sure.

Last line there, thank you, that's very nice to say and I appreciate it.

[Kenneth]

Has the second wave of beta testing started?

[Green Bean 501]

2 hours ago, Kenneth said:

Has the second wave of beta testing started?

I doubt it would have started this fast

[Oscarus]

V19: officially introduced and revealed 

 

Entire Reborn fandom: https://youtu.be/2U_OkCsexjw

[Vulnona]

On 3/24/2022 at 11:31 PM, pokemonmaster3556 said:

I'd actually argue that the gym leaders are the people in charge of their respective communities, and we've seen from Pokemon canon (aka Black and White) that gym leaders are the equivalent of a military/police. Is it wrong of them to use lethal force in most situations? Absolutely! But I don't think an active hostage situation is one where the police or military would be condemned for use of lethal force unless it caused said situation to become worse. Framing it as such, Titania's actions were seeing a known dangerous threat that had killed and harmed many innocent people in the past kidnap a loved one, and she was basically a policewoman, not a vigilante. Her position was one which is absolutely justified in the context.

I really like that argument - never thought of it that way! 

 

On 3/24/2022 at 11:07 PM, The Swordsman said:

By this logic you shouldn't even try the non lethal solution at all because you're not special, well guess what? Cops don't have that special main character status in real life and the conditions they are called into are not always ideal but they are expected to disarm the criminal, with lethal intent being a last resort and is heavily scrutinized. Not even trying under that reasoning is not logical, its moral cowardice and in that case seriously why are you even playing at being a vigilante in this scenario? If the risks of your own death are indeed far too big for you and you already survived one attack, why bother personally chasing Meteor down to their base? This reasoning also isn't why Titania kills the grunts, heck she is fully honest about how they weren't really a threat to her.

I find your line of argument very convincing. I think that's also what's bothering me about this scene. 

 

On 3/24/2022 at 11:40 PM, Xerres said:

To the first there, I'll just say I don't equate 'reasonable' with 'good' or even 'desirable'. If we're both dying of thirst in the desert, and I have a canteen of water, and you kill me for it, I consider that reasonable. For you. Its consistent and reaches a goal: keeping yourself alive. Not good for me, but there's a logic train of though. A horrible train, nasty scenario, but it is what is in that case.

Okay, so... if you define 'reasonable' as 'consistent' and 'reaching a goal', then we fully agree. Originally, I thought you meant 'appropriate'. 

 

On 3/24/2022 at 11:40 PM, Xerres said:

Though knocking people out is probably murder. People don't just go unconscious for a few hours, they get back up or die.

Yup, you definitely have a point here! 

 

 

[pokemonmaster3556]

On 3/24/2022 at 4:33 PM, Oscarus said:

• Kanto: Hard work pays off 
• Johto: Traditions are an unseperable part of life 
• Hoenn: Never mess with forces of nature 
• Sinnoh: We are just humans; nobody's perfect 
• Unova: No thing is inheritely/purely good or bad 
• Kalos: Be happy with what you have, do not regret lacking something
• Alola: Combining past and future is both possible, and positive 
• Galar: Don't rush. Take your time and analyze 

I do actually want to ask about these. I do agree that lessons can be learned from the main series games, but I had a somewhat different interpretation of what lessons could be learned from each game, and I'm curious about how you reached a few of the ones you mentioned

 

1. Kanto - I got a somewhat different message from this one (maybe it's because I played FRLG first). The rival was the one who was focused on really working hard and winning the league in the story, but lost not because of a lack of effort but instead due to a lack of care for his Pokemon. Similarly, Team Rocket as a villainous group are ultimately in the wrong because they exploit Pokemon. The applicable theme that I got therefore was that working together allows us to reach greater heights than we would separately (AKA team work makes the dream work)
2. Johto - I do get how you got to this one, given how big a role legends and the past play in Johto. Me personally, I interpret it as something more akin to "The passage of time is inevitable, so we should adapt and grow with those times while not forgetting our past", but that's way less snappy.
3. Hoenn - I think I flat out disagree with you on this one, unlike the previous two. Again, I'm looking at the remakes here, but I always saw it more as working with nature is better than working against. This is primarily supported by things like the Delta Episode, the design of cities like Fortree and Sootopolis, and even the secret base mechanic. I feel it's more in line with Aldo Leopold's work on the wild where we SHOULD be part of the natural world.
4. Sinnoh - I don't really see how you got this one. Is it because Cyrus wanted humanity to be "perfect" by removing emotion from the world? I can't really remember where perfection is brought up in these games, so please lmk!
5. Unova - Yeah, they were fairly on the nose with this one XD
6. Kalos - Also don't get this one. Is this based on Lysandre's motivation?
7. Alola - This one is... interesting. While the setting does feature a strong mix of past and present, ultimately I think the message and lessons are moreso built around Lillie's story arc of independence and being willing to blaze your own path. This is further supported by Kukui's push to start an Alolan league and the villains (the Aether Foundation) representing control, while team Skull were ultimately not evil due to being people trying to find their own way in a sense.
8. Galar - Is this one just cause Rose was like "Energy crisis 1000 years from now? Better take hasty action now to stop it"? Because if so, I can't really agree to it ngl, since it doesn't really have parallels elsewhere in the story that I know of. Happy to be corrected tho!