Completely Inconsequential Hot-Takes 2: People Take Too Long to Post New Threads

[Batcathat]

I deliberately used protagonist and antagonist instead of hero and villain because I think that works better, but regardless, if you'd like to watch a movie where all the 'tagonists, both pro- and an-, absolutely keep to their ethics and you would applaud them all for it, I would again recommend In Bruges.

Yeah, I've heard good things about it, maybe I'll give it a shot.

And obviously it's not automatically a better story just because a character sacrifices their morality, it's just I find it so silly when, say, the entire world is at stake so the heroic protagonist is obviously willing to die to stop the antagonist, but doing something dishonorable to stop them is obviously off-limits. At that point it just comes off as selfish and stupid to not be willing to feel bad to save the day, I think.

As a rule of thumb, if youre willing to sacrifice them, they arent your ethics to begin with. Its one thing to be in a no win situation where theres no ethical choice, but thats different from just making an exception because of your emotional state.

Because of your emotional state? Sure, I agree. What I'm talking about is the hero deliberately limiting themselves when the consequences for failing are immense.

And ethics should depend on the situation, I wouldn't normally use violence of any kind against another person, but in an extreme enough situation I would certainly be willing to. Does that mean that my ethics, that apply in all other situations, doesn't exist?