Last thread hit bump limit.
Previous thread: >>284789 →
Continuing from my last post: >>294025 →
Once again, Velvet's basic argument here seems to be that killing in self defense or in defense of others is okay, but she draws a line in the sand at doing it for profit. It would be hard to justify Littlepoop's actions at the slaver colony by this logic.
Self-defense, as far as I'm concerned, is right out. She attacked them, and they were the ones defending themselves; again, the morality of who the slavers were or what they were doing doesn't factor into the equation here. As to the defense of others, you could argue that she was acting in defense of the slaves, but on the other hand the slaves didn't ask for her help, and she had no direct connection to them that justified getting involved.
Also, she drew the train ponies and arguably the entire town of New Appleoosa into her fight against their will, and got the train ponies killed. Does rescuing a few slaves balance out the equation and justify the loss of all that innocent life? Again, it's not particularly important what you or I might think about this; the issue is that these questions ought to have been weighing heavily on Velvet's mind for most of the past few days, but by all appearances they haven't. Really, the author has a pretty nice opportunity here to create a difficult moral dilemma for Velvet, and develop her character by having her try to solve it, but unfortunately this seems to have gone over his head as usual.
We also have LP's actions since
the train scene to consider. Between the farm scene and their first meeting with Gawd, there was an entire scene in which LP and Calamity butchered another group of raiders. That wasn't in self defense at all, nor was it in defense of others; they walked up, picked a fight with the raiders, and then killed them all. Here is exactly what happened:>Velvet Remedy crouched beside me, tending to a gash in Calamity’s side. To her credit, she’d actually tried to talk to the raiders. They returned her hello with some extremely perverted suggestions, at least one of which involved necrophilia. That’s when Calamity started picking off the ponies who had taken sniping positions on the roofs.
So basically, they were walking along the road and they came across a group of raiders. Velvet made an effort to talk things out, the raiders insulted her, and Calamity started shooting. Does this sound like self defense or defense of the innocent to you?
Granted, the raiders probably would not have let them pass and it would have escalated into violence one way or the other, but from Velvet's perspective this shouldn't matter; Calamity was the one who opened fire, so technically their side initiated the conflict. Plus, they could have just as easily turned around and found a way around the settlement, which is what what Velvet would likely have favored.
Anyway, now let's hear Littlepoop's side of the Gawd-contract debate:>I felt like I was bleeding out, dying. But the more they yelled at me, the more I realized I had already chosen my course. I just had to make them understand why.>“Silver Bell.”
Oh yeah, Silver Bell. I'd almost forgotten about her. As I recall, Deadeyes, for some reason, made an entry in his accounting ledger in which he confessed to being responsible for the farm attack that killed her parents. Well, I suppose that's a good enough reason to murder somepony as far as Littlepoop's logic goes. So, the question is: does the additional moral justification of Deadeyes being an icky meanie-pants baddie-pone who deserves a horrible poopoo death solve the ethical dilemma for Velvet, and also for Calamity who for some reason has a problem with murder for hire all of a sudden? Let's find out.
Littlepoop goes on to explain what she read in the ledger: that Deadeyes sent his evil meanie-pants poopoo henchmen to murder Silver Bell and her sister's parents in front of them. They also did it really slow and gruesome and made it really really painful, probably with ball-torture and butt stuff and everything, and they did a lot of other bad meanie-pants stuff too, like prank call a bunch of pizzas to Silver Bell's farm that she didn't order, and they left flaming doodie bags on her front porch that she had to step on to put out, and...and...
Anyway, you get the point. Blah blah blah, Deadeyes was a baddie and this justifies turning him into worm food; we've heard this bit before. How do her friends react?>Calamity spoke first. “Well, now, that changes things.”
Of course it does. Killing for material gain is always wrong, even if it's not material gain you're receiving as compensation for killing, but is just the regular type of material gain you normally get from doing the type of killing you normally do anyway. But, if the pony you're killing is BAD, well that just changes everything now doesn't it?>Velvet Remedy shook a little, but stayed firm. “What does it change?”
Velvet Remedy taking a moral stand for once? In my
Fallout Equestria? It's more common than you think lol not really
.>Velvet Remedy shook a little, but stayed firm. “What does it change?”>“Ain’t murder no more,” Calamity stated without reservation. “It’s justice.”>Velvet shook her mane. “Revenge, you mean.”
What's vexing to me about all of this is that kkat clearly wants to explore some complex moral questions in this story, but obstinately refuses to put even a tiny bit of serious thought into the questions he wants to explore. The only character in this story with any clearly-defined ideals is Velvet Remedy, and she almost goes out of her way to avoid adhering to them most of the time. Everyone else seems to (loosely) follow a basic-bitch white-hats-vs-black-hats code of morals that basically amounts to: "bad stuff is bad, unless the pony you are doing bad stuff to is also bad, in which case bad stuff is good."