"Life's precious" rule

Kill or not

  • Kill

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • Not kill

    Votes: 4 33.3%

  • Total voters
    12

NotaNuffian

This does spark joy.
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
3,629
Points
183
Got a bit tired as I go through past me's draft and I understand I was going for "full kill murderhobo" mode with the flimsy excuse that my farmer turned monster is no longer human. Heavily inspired by shitty xianxias and trying to copy a ShinichixMigi relation, except here Migi is an abusive bitch who tries to take custody of everything, then YujixSukuna came along and I am deflated. Also, it was at recent times that I noticed that a trend from Master Chief, to Lith in Supreme Magus and Jake in Oracle Paths having a female inside of them instead of a grumpy alcoholic narcissistic guy who failed his first tributation. Hell, even the kind grandpas in xianxias emphasize on the words "kind" and "helpful", so my character is doomed from the start, especially now when I can't link myself to the MC.

Back to topic, anyone here an avid follower to this rule? I am neither talking about IRL nor am I referring to works that does not involve murder like the SOL School Days (Makoto totally deserves it) or Dog Days (this is the closest furry I will ever get, Rule34.xxx don't ruin me).

Like, don't place yourself in the situation where you are confronting someone who just killed your loved ones, because no matter what the law says and others preach, that damn motherfucker is dead and so is his family down the line.

Also not including BS faceless mobs, those cunts are EXP and lootbags, not Gregg from the neighbour town with his wife and two kids and was working for the BBEG for some spare as his mother was ill.

Like, the guy is trying to kill you, you found out that you can overpower him with some elbow grease. Then there is the complication of killing him or not.

1. Kill him and most likely (90~100%) retribution is coming your way, whether to you or to your loved ones.

2. Don't kill him and somewhat (30~?%) retribution is coming your way, whether to you or to your loved ones. Note that this 30% is the best case and if the person has a solid background ie father is a renowned lawyer, businessman etc, then the chances of retribution is 80~100%.

What would be your pick?

FYI, I gave my MC the choice to murder all the way and initially it was cathartic, then it got tedious as murdering often involves dealing with the web of relations. Either you do yourself a favor and burn the darn thing to the ground or suck thumb when you get constantly snubbed by the friends of someone you unalived.
 

Zirrboy

Fueled by anger
Joined
Jan 25, 2021
Messages
1,135
Points
153
Does it serve a purpose beyond revenge?
If, then yes.

Catharsis can save a few cases without, but killing out of uncontrolled anger over and over makes them seem a tad stupid
 

Psycholor

Writing Trash
Joined
Nov 8, 2021
Messages
173
Points
103
I mean, in the scenario you presented, with 30% chance of retribution vs 90-100%? Let the fucker live. Less likely to be a headache later.

If the percentages were closer, kill 'em. Bastards trying to kill me, don't know why I should be troubled with sparing his life. You forfeit your right to live as soon as you threaten the life or well-being of another person.
 

TotallyHuman

It's good to be home.
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
4,003
Points
183
That's why I always write my main characters as psychopaths who don't really care about this shit, writing this whole "boohoo I killed someone I feel so awful" is tedious, just as reading it.
As for your hypothetical situation, it really depends. I doubt I'd kill anybody, as my clumsy ass would get into jail immediately after the deed is done.
 

LordJoyde

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
223
Points
103
I don't really see the whole 'kill or don't kill' as a question of being human or not. Humanity is a falsehood in its own right. Why do we consider a werewolf who does not give in to instinct to have regained their 'humanity'? In my view, that werewolf only denied his humanity by not acting like a beast.

Our greatest priests live in temples clad in gold.
Our champions are just the most violent people around.
And just about every human 'saint' is a demon.

It is, in fact, when we reject our humanity that we can act like civilized people, because it is a firmly human thing to indulge and an utterly inhuman thing to abstain. So rather than basing it on the 'how human are you' factor, I would rather base it in the concept of 'true strength'. Keep in mind, what I mean has absolutely zero connection to being morally good or bad, but by the amount of 'legitimate strength' and power a character can radiate.

A pathetically weak character that has a lot of power will kill everyone that they deem an enemy, for no other reason than "they might come back to trouble me again". They're bound by paranoia and fear, but hide it behind logical reasoning and 'who could blame me' for doing so as far as I've come to see.

A truly strong character then, will leave as many enemies as they can alive, no matter what. A second chance at battle isn't a bad thing for this type of character since a repeated fight with a former opponent, who is now stronger, should be perfectly in tune with their views and desires. It would need to be a completely confident battle maniac type, methinks. Or just a hero, depending on how you see it, granted that heroes don't leave people alive just so they can fight them again later. Maybe Goku would be a better example?

---

For your example, I think killing is the finer option, since the retribution is going to come anyway. What this scenery seems to need however, is a point when your character had slaughtered so many that people aren't going to try and take revenge anymore out of fear for their own wellbeing. As in, yes I want to kill you, but I just don't see that happening.
 

NotaNuffian

This does spark joy.
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
3,629
Points
183
Murder doesn't involve dealing with a web of relations, at least not all the time.
Well, unless the guy you killed is born from a rock, even a orphanage child has acquaintance, namely the folks he work with etc. Only the more useful network like a mafia head gets flagged out for drama though.
Does it serve a purpose beyond revenge?
If, then yes.

Catharsis can save a few cases without, but killing out of uncontrolled anger over and over makes them seem a tad stupid
I can come up with tons of reason, from deterrence to cutting loose ends.

To hell, it can even devolve to "I got bored" if a random reason is suffice.
I don't really see the whole 'kill or don't kill' as a question of being human or not. Humanity is a falsehood in its own right. Why do we consider a werewolf who does not give in to instinct to have regained their 'humanity'? In my view, that werewolf only denied his humanity by not acting like a beast.

Our greatest priests live in temples clad in gold.
Our champions are just the most violent people around.
And just about every human 'saint' is a demon.

It is, in fact, when we reject our humanity that we can act like civilized people, because it is a firmly human thing to indulge and an utterly inhuman thing to abstain. So rather than basing it on the 'how human are you' factor, I would rather base it in the concept of 'true strength'. Keep in mind, what I mean has absolutely zero connection to being morally good or bad, but by the amount of 'legitimate strength' and power a character can radiate.

A pathetically weak character that has a lot of power will kill everyone that they deem an enemy, for no other reason than "they might come back to trouble me again". They're bound by paranoia and fear, but hide it behind logical reasoning and 'who could blame me' for doing so as far as I've come to see.

A truly strong character then, will leave as many enemies as they can alive, no matter what. A second chance at battle isn't a bad thing for this type of character since a repeated fight with a former opponent, who is now stronger, should be perfectly in tune with their views and desires. It would need to be a completely confident battle maniac type, methinks. Or just a hero, depending on how you see it, granted that heroes don't leave people alive just so they can fight them again later. Maybe Goku would be a better example?

---

For your example, I think killing is the finer option, since the retribution is going to come anyway. What this scenery seems to need however, is a point when your character had slaughtered so many that people aren't going to try and take revenge anymore out of fear for their own wellbeing. As in, yes I want to kill you, but I just don't see that happening.
You, I like you. I will kiss you if I can.

The only problem is me dragging my feet for my MC to pass the
A pathetically weak character
phase to reach the supposed "no more fucks to give" phase.
That's why I always write my main characters as psychopaths who don't really care about this shit, writing this whole "boohoo I killed someone I feel so awful" is tedious, just as reading it.
As for your hypothetical situation, it really depends. I doubt I'd kill anybody, as my clumsy ass would get into jail immediately after the deed is done.
Like I said, my MC, because I dunno which role to give, was a common farmer who maybe went to forrest to kill rabbits once in a blue moon, I tried to make him the angry common man because that is what I am and still I am. And him getting drunk of suddenly becoming Superman did not happened, instead I gave the guy a coward's heart, fearing his newfound strength is blasphemy (which is true in a sense... gods are assholes in my supposed work).

I kind of regret making him an illiterate bottom caste with no other skills than the random "hammering hot metal" and "boil random grasses to make herbal soup", because it limits him to swinging fists like a drunkard and going beast titan with the rock throws.

I made him into a monke.
 

vaurwyn

Everyone dies someday, but I'm procrastinating
Joined
Nov 30, 2021
Messages
151
Points
103
I have two stories, and in both of them the MC has a no-kill rule, but for some very different reasons.
In my first novel, the MC is a demon, who has no moral compass. He is willing to torture and torment anyone if it helps him, but he will never kill. This is because his core motivation is curiosity, and killing someone is losing an opportunity to learn what he knows, and what he will know. Living things are full of potential, while dead ones are not. This means he will go to extreme lengths, saving people regardless of whether they deserve it or not, and generally making the world a safer place, not because he cares about mortal's happiness, but because he considers them his possession and refuses to see them broken in a way he can't fix. No morality of any sort, just some all-encompassing greed.

In my second novel, the MC is a powerful cultivator, who worships the Tao and considers life to be sacred. No matter what, he will not kill sapients, and almost nothing could chage his mind. One of the reasons I made him that way is too counterbalance his OP factor. Lets take a cliché situation. The MC comes across a village who is attacked by bandits. He is a cultivator, so he easily defeats them. Now what? He doesn't want to kill them, so what does he do with them? release them? But then they will just come back and attack the village when he is not here. Imprison them? The village does not have the proper facilities. Take their weapons and abandon them back into the forest? That's the same as killing them, as the world is dangerous. No easy answers, and plenty of opportunity for character growth, no matter how OP he is.
(admittedly, none of my novels have progressed far enough to confront my MC's with these conundrums, but they are in my plans!)

Ironically, murder is often the easy option. You do it, and that is the end of it. You can now go about your day as if nothing happen, only perhaps murdering a few more poeple when they come for revenge. And this lets us have a lighthearted tone, glossing over the complexities and nuances of justice to continue our wacky adventures.
It can also be very cathartic. IRL, when we meet an insufferably arrogant idiot, we are bound by laws and morals, and can't really do anything. So it can feel really good to have these annoying traits magnified in the villains, and then see them ruthlessly crushed by our hero. I think this is why the face-slapping genre is so prevalent in cultivation stories.

I am not criticizing novels with a murderhobo MC, it is a perfectly valid direction to take your story in, but I often have problems when the Mc is presented as morally righteous when he clearly isn't. If I take the example of attacking bandits again, then I firmly believe my MC was morally correct. He had the power to protect himself and anyone he wanted without killing them.
Thats basically commiting murder because someone is an incovience to you, which is a horrible thing to do, no matter how evil your victim suposedly is. The only acceptable situation where you are in the right to kill someone is to protect your life or the life or the life of someone else, and even then only if you have no other options.
You totally have the right to make your MC a psychopath, or perhaps he is a child that is not thinking straight, or some other extenuating circumstances. As long as the novel is aware of it, the mc can either regret it or not care about it. As long as it is acknowledged, I can enjoy a villainous MC. What I hate is the senario where badits attack, the MC kills them, (escallating violence from theft to murder), and is then praised as a bastion of morality.
 

NotaNuffian

This does spark joy.
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
3,629
Points
183
I have two stories, and in both of them the MC has a no-kill rule, but for some very different reasons.
In my first novel, the MC is a demon, who has no moral compass. He is willing to torture and torment anyone if it helps him, but he will never kill. This is because his core motivation is curiosity, and killing someone is losing an opportunity to learn what he knows, and what he will know. Living things are full of potential, while dead ones are not. This means he will go to extreme lengths, saving people regardless of whether they deserve it or not, and generally making the world a safer place, not because he cares about mortal's happiness, but because he considers them his possession and refuses to see them broken in a way he can't fix. No morality of any sort, just some all-encompassing greed.

In my second novel, the MC is a powerful cultivator, who worships the Tao and considers life to be sacred. No matter what, he will not kill sapients, and almost nothing could chage his mind. One of the reasons I made him that way is too counterbalance his OP factor. Lets take a cliché situation. The MC comes across a village who is attacked by bandits. He is a cultivator, so he easily defeats them. Now what? He doesn't want to kill them, so what does he do with them? release them? But then they will just come back and attack the village when he is not here. Imprison them? The village does not have the proper facilities. Take their weapons and abandon them back into the forest? That's the same as killing them, as the world is dangerous. No easy answers, and plenty of opportunity for character growth, no matter how OP he is.
(admittedly, none of my novels have progressed far enough to confront my MC's with these conundrums, but they are in my plans!)

Ironically, murder is often the easy option. You do it, and that is the end of it. You can now go about your day as if nothing happen, only perhaps murdering a few more poeple when they come for revenge. And this lets us have a lighthearted tone, glossing over the complexities and nuances of justice to continue our wacky adventures.
It can also be very cathartic. IRL, when we meet an insufferably arrogant idiot, we are bound by laws and morals, and can't really do anything. So it can feel really good to have these annoying traits magnified in the villains, and then see them ruthlessly crushed by our hero. I think this is why the face-slapping genre is so prevalent in cultivation stories.

I am not criticizing novels with a murderhobo MC, it is a perfectly valid direction to take your story in, but I often have problems when the Mc is presented as morally righteous when he clearly isn't. If I take the example of attacking bandits again, then I firmly believe my MC was morally correct. He had the power to protect himself and anyone he wanted without killing them.
Thats basically commiting murder because someone is an incovience to you, which is a horrible thing to do, no matter how evil your victim suposedly is. The only acceptable situation where you are in the right to kill someone is to protect your life or the life or the life of someone else, and even then only if you have no other options.
You totally have the right to make your MC a psychopath, or perhaps he is a child that is not thinking straight, or some other extenuating circumstances. As long as the novel is aware of its virtue, I can enjoy a villainous MC. What I hate is the senario where badits attack, the MC kills them, (escallating violence from theft to murder), and is then praised as a bastion of morality.
Nah, from the start, the voice in my MC's head already classified him as a monster for murder, even my MC agrees that he himself is a murderer and will clntinue to do so so long as people wants to kill him.

My MC is not much of a samaritan, he will not go out of his way to save a person, only at his convenience though.

He also has the habit to "burn the web", ie kill everyone and anyone related to the ones he killed (when they are nobles or of important roles) in order to cut loose ends. This makes him highly unfavorable to other higher ups and most of them either want him dead or use him.


Also, about the whole "murder bandits are not cool", I tend to disagree. From my MC and my own perspective, bandits spawned from the lack of food and money for many men and their families, mostly from the lower castes. This might make them a victim to their circumstances, but it also disgusts me that they often pick weak targets and act generally like trash. That is just spreading the pain down the chain.

IRL, bandits are those with ambitions but lack in all the other aspects to fulfil their wildest dreams, so they become hired guns when paid and robbers when not.

The debate of killing them can be discussed, but by no virtues are killing bandits lawfully evil as you are stopping agents of chaos, it just makes you somewhat morally evil for killing maybe desperate men. But to be fair, how many "good bandits" are out there?
 
Last edited:

vaurwyn

Everyone dies someday, but I'm procrastinating
Joined
Nov 30, 2021
Messages
151
Points
103
Nah, from the start, the voice in my MC's head already classified him as a monster for murder, even my MC agrees that he himself is a murderer and will clntinue to do so so long as people wants to kill him.

My MC is not much of a samaritan, he will not go out of his way to save a person, only at his convenience though.
Then there is no problem. I don't usually like it when the author writes "I am a bad person, but I am giong to save the good guys every time, just repeating how little I care before demonstrating the opposite.", and it becomes clear the author just wanted to make the Mc relatable. However, this is a criticism of execution, so you might have done it very well in your novel, and whether or not I like it does not matter.
He also has the habit to "burn the web", ie kill everyone and anyone related to the ones he killed (when they are nobles or of important roles) in order to cut loose ends. This makes him highly unfavorable to other higher ups and most of them either want him dead or use him.
In my eyes, revenge is a vicious cycle, which leads to no good, especially if you kill everyone. Your enemy killed your father, so you killed him and his subordinates. Suprise suprise, they had a family of their own, who took revenge by killing you and your entire family. Then, your family's family retaliates, and the cycle continues.
You know the saying that we are all connected by six degrees of separation? That would mean that after 3 of these cycles, the entire earth would be implicated. This is why I don't like the philosophy of "returning hatred by ten times' '. The saying "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was supposed to show you could not retaliate with more violence that you received, and even then some thought it was too harsh.
Another thing to consider would be the power vacum created by sensless murder. It is remarkably easy to end up causing more harm than good.

Again, however, this is me being fed up with the nonsensical "destroy the entire sect" plot that is often mishandled in cultivation novels. You might have handled it very well in yours, and your character does not need to same conclusion I do, as long as I understand him.
Also, about the whole "murder bandits are not cool", I tend to disagree. From my MC and my own perspective, bandits spawned from the lack of food and money for many men and their families, mostly from the lower castes. This might make them a victim to their circumstances, but it also disgusts me that they often pick weak targets and act generally like trash. That is just spreading the pain down the chain.
I agree that banditry is not cool. I agree that what they are doing should not be tolerated. They need to be stopped. That's fine.
My issue is on how you stop them. For me, killing needs to be a Last Resort
If you are in a battle for your life, or you can protect yourself but not your companions, then it becomes self defense. killing is justifiable. However, if you had the option to knock them out and decided that you would prefer killing them, then you become a murderer especially if they are only robbing you, and are of no threat to anyones life, being only after valuables.
As far as I know, this is also what my county's laws say.

As a side note, what you find acceptable or not can depend on what you believe justice is.
I personally believe in reformative justice. I don't think anyone in the world, not even Hitler or a serial killer, should be tortured or be killed just for the sake of them enduring pain or death. I think that doing that would only serve to increase the suffering in the world.
I believe justice should be a preventive measure. When we lock up a criminal or kill a war tyrant, the goal is not to punish them for their misdeeds, or offer retribution. It is simply to make sure they do not have to commit the crime again, and to try and reform them, so they can reenter society and live a peaceful life as any other citizen. Our justice system needs to lower the amount of suffering in the world, not add to it. This is why I disagree with the death penalty.

However, there are plenty of different philosophies. One of them is punitive justice, which I will cite because it is almost the opposite of my ideals, and should illustarte how wide and complexe this issue is. It goes something like "That man did a bad thing, so it is only fair that we do something bad to him." There, justice means re-establishing some kind of equilibrium.
So, if you believe in punitive justice, and that these bandits are deserving of death, it would be okay for you to kill them. Except, you still have no right to be juge, jury and executioner. There is a reason we hold lengthy trials where there needs to be a defending lawyer. What if the bandit was coerced? What if he was a spy, maintaining an act to save you afterwards? It is unlikely, but what do you know? Who are you to judge?

Basically, the only situation where you could kill them would be self-defense, and killing them because you can't be bothered to look after a dozen prisoners is not an acceptable excuse.
Of course, maybe the MC has never thought deeply about his acts. He has been raised in a brutal society, and it is logical that he would kill whithout discrimination. Or maybe he is a pragmatist, who will gladly sacrifice some immaterial morality to save himself weeks of headaches dealing with logistics. That's fine, but it does not change the fact that whose actions are morally reprehensible.
IRL, bandits are those with ambitions but lack in all the other aspects to fulfil their wildest dreams, so they become hired guns when paid and robbers when not.

The debate of killing them can be discussed, but by no virtues are killing bandits lawfully evil as you are stopping agents of chaos, it just makes you somewhat morally evil for killing maybe desperate men. But to be fair, how many "good bandits" are out there?
I don't wholly agree with your definition of IRL bandits, but this post is already really long, so we will just agree to disagree.
However, my view is that whether the bandits were "good" or not if of no consequences as to whether I can murder tham or not.
To illustrate this, let us take an extreme example. I am a german soldier executing jews, and I dutifully do my job commiting genocide. We agree that I am a horrible person. Later, you learn that by luck, every one of my victims also happened to be bandits, but I didn't not know that. Does that exonerate me? I don't believe it does, because whether or not the men I killed were evil or not had no impact on the severity of what I did.
 

NotaNuffian

This does spark joy.
Joined
Nov 26, 2019
Messages
3,629
Points
183
Another thing to consider would be the power vacum created by sensless murder. It is remarkably easy to end up causing more harm than good.
This is also one of the topics that I wish for my MC to explore as he slaughters those that hold power.

Rarely he gets lucky and someone more capable takes the rein.

Most of the times he just creates anarchy everywhere he goes. People losing their sole breadwinner, their homes and even a figurehead to maintain order. Then the dark desires of humanity start to show its ugly head. Cheery.

For the record, no one likes him. Ranging from paupers to kings, he is a natural disaster that many wish to put down.

As for the six degree, what my MC pursues is fear. If you can't be loved, make sure that they fear you more than hate. Hate gives them the motivation to harm, fear makes them run away.
 

SakeVision

Sama/kisama
Joined
Jul 30, 2021
Messages
1,013
Points
128
I would kill people if I could get away with it, just as most people would, even if they won't admit it.

But there are consequences. It's a crime, and police will be on your ass. As well as friends and relatives on the quest of vendetta.

Most murderhobo stories are just power fantasies where such factors don't apply.
They are shallow.

Also, I won't even address the tl;dr false dilemma presented in the op.
 

Maromar

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
20
Points
18
Like, the guy is trying to kill you, you found out that you can overpower him with some elbow grease. Then there is the complication of killing him or not.

1. Kill him and most likely (90~100%) retribution is coming your way, whether to you or to your loved ones.

2. Don't kill him and somewhat (30~?%) retribution is coming your way, whether to you or to your loved ones. Note that this 30% is the best case and if the person has a solid background ie father is a renowned lawyer, businessman etc, then the chances of retribution is 80~100%.

Interesting. Normally, I'd say no. Killing is messy, especially when it has to be done through violent means. I do have my own compunctions against ending life but I also just really don't want to have to deal with a corpse or the disco cop the corpse snitched to.

Whatever "retribution" you'd be getting would realistically be dodged better through legal means if the person is still alive anyways, so why would I be motivated to end a dude even if my state's Stand Your Ground law and the .45 in my 9 both want to me to worship Khorne today? That's work. I haven't even edited and uploaded my novels to SH yet. What makes you think I'm going to expend that kind of effort?
 

Bartun

Friendly Saurian Neighbor
Joined
Dec 9, 2020
Messages
636
Points
133
Got a bit tired as I go through past me's draft and I understand I was going for "full kill murderhobo" mode with the flimsy excuse that my farmer turned monster is no longer human. Heavily inspired by shitty xianxias and trying to copy a ShinichixMigi relation, except here Migi is an abusive bitch who tries to take custody of everything, then YujixSukuna came along and I am deflated. Also, it was at recent times that I noticed that a trend from Master Chief, to Lith in Supreme Magus and Jake in Oracle Paths having a female inside of them instead of a grumpy alcoholic narcissistic guy who failed his first tributation. Hell, even the kind grandpas in xianxias emphasize on the words "kind" and "helpful", so my character is doomed from the start, especially now when I can't link myself to the MC.

Back to topic, anyone here an avid follower to this rule? I am neither talking about IRL nor am I referring to works that does not involve murder like the SOL School Days (Makoto totally deserves it) or Dog Days (this is the closest furry I will ever get, Rule34.xxx don't ruin me).

Like, don't place yourself in the situation where you are confronting someone who just killed your loved ones, because no matter what the law says and others preach, that damn motherfucker is dead and so is his family down the line.

Also not including BS faceless mobs, those cunts are EXP and lootbags, not Gregg from the neighbour town with his wife and two kids and was working for the BBEG for some spare as his mother was ill.

Like, the guy is trying to kill you, you found out that you can overpower him with some elbow grease. Then there is the complication of killing him or not.

1. Kill him and most likely (90~100%) retribution is coming your way, whether to you or to your loved ones.

2. Don't kill him and somewhat (30~?%) retribution is coming your way, whether to you or to your loved ones. Note that this 30% is the best case and if the person has a solid background ie father is a renowned lawyer, businessman etc, then the chances of retribution is 80~100%.

What would be your pick?

FYI, I gave my MC the choice to murder all the way and initially it was cathartic, then it got tedious as murdering often involves dealing with the web of relations. Either you do yourself a favor and burn the darn thing to the ground or suck thumb when you get constantly snubbed by the friends of someone you unalived.

Depends entirely on what kind of world you live in, what kind of laws, or how they enforce them. I guess most people would kill if they could get away with it. Even in real life with all its laws people still kill for the dumbest reasons, muggers kill for a wallet or for a pair of shoes, others kill because you are supporting a different sports club, or because you belong to a different tribe/religion, the list goes, and it is long.

What people don't take into account when writing is that killing someone is traumatizing for the average person, even if someone tries to kill you or your loved ones, once the adrenaline is gone you receive the full-blown of what you've just done. People cope with it in different ways, but even those super-stoic killers like particularly hardened soldiers in war are often overwhelmed by the guilt of having to kill someone, even when you have no other choice and "is necessary". Killing is a horrifying experience, and a humbling one, it makes you realize your own mortality and how fragile life is, and most people who have killed are very adamant to NEVER kill again. It takes a lot to "get used to it" and the only ones who do are psychopaths who enjoy it or fanatical ones that absolutely hate their victims.

I personally put my MC on the side of "not to kill" as she is someone who believes in the sanctity of all life. Her companion is someone who chooses "not to kill" unless is absolutely necessary, even when he has the power to kill very easily.
 

AliceShiki

Magical Girl of Love and Justice
Joined
Dec 23, 2018
Messages
3,530
Points
183
Mmmmmmm... I'd say it really depends on the circumstances?

If it's a story where the MC kills people regularly, then I don't see much purpose in sparing one specific enemy, it might just come back to bite you later. Might as well go full murder-hobo at this point.

If it's a story where the MC isn't used to killing people, then I'd say sparing someone makes a lot more sense, because like... Well, it's hard to actually push yourself to do it, even if it might have bad consequences... Though at the same time, the setting might have more appropriate ways of dealing with the enemy (like throwing them into jail), so that there would be no need for killing in the first place.

And then there are also specific circumstances unique to a given scene... Like, in a "kill or be killed" situation, or in a desperate situation where the MC has to kill someone to save their loved ones and the like... One can even play on the emotional conflict of the MC in this kind of thing if the MC never killed anyone before and stuff.

Oh, and then there are also the stories where killing someone might actually make others try to seek revenge against you, which might end up making it be for the best to spare the other party... Unless this will also have bad consequences (for example, a corrupt ruler that thinks that they are invincible because someone strong is backing them... If you can't convince the ruler to give up on being evil/corrupt/etc, killing them might be the only option even if it means that their backers will come for you) that is. Then it has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

So really, it's hard to give an answer to fit any possible situation... I'd say the MC shouldn't just mindlessly kill anyone that crosses their path though. It's usually better to solve things peacefully if you can.
 
Top