yeahh I remembered that, I forgot that his name was homunculus, but you had me confused lol. In any case, I agree Isabelle is no saint, I think that's kind of the point, but some of her fans make people believe that she is the nicest person in the world lol. those are flora and lindsey
The nicest person out there would be... Maxine.
Weren't you claiming that you "don't want to debate", while distorting what I said? Did you change your mind?
But let's bite it. We're talking about characters in a work of fiction; but yourself was the one bringing up "in a realistic context". Well, in a realistic context you do not have access to the thoughts of someone else, and yet you're defending a character based on their... "intentions".
Yeah, but apparently I'm the one disconnected from reality. And the Moon is made of green cheese, right.
It's easy to ignore the fact that she was considering to kill Spinach, to the point that she voiced it to the MC, right? Because it contradicts what you want to believe.
Because a person killed by accident is less dead than one killed by sadism, right?
Oh wait, Kate is not a murderer. Unlike Isabelle
The difference that you see is in Hell's pavement. It's intentions - something that not even Isabelle herself cares about (for different reasons that I don't), as shown by when she slaps Lindsey.
People should be not judged by "intenshuns", but by their impact on the world around them.
"Emotional management issues" is a cool way to justify "being a dumb fuck and causing harm towards the others."
If we're going to play this card - that it's fine for people to cause harm to others, as long as they have some "emotional reason" to do so - I'm pretty sure that we could explain Kate's behaviour based on her background. Perhaps daddy not giving her enough attention, or some other dumb shit.
But nooo, that should be only applied when convenient. Never in a fair and just way. Right? Rules for thee, not for me.
What you're calling "common sense" is "to justify harm based on esoteric shit like intentions". I'm not buying it.
A rapist, kidnapper, sadist (Kate) is a less worse person who also engages in sexual abuse, also locks someone against their will, also traumatises someone else (with the MC - the pig-ghost), also shows signs of sadism (against Spinach), and is a murderer
Yes.
The character writing is indeed very good, the second best quality of the game after the drawings for me.
If you have a hard time retrieving written information - as shown by the fact that you don't even know when people are talking about the stolen chocolate hearts or the stolen locker - perhaps I'm not the one to blame.
Wrooooong~
And in no moment I contradicted that.
No, she can't "guess" that. But in no moment she questioned Lindsey to ask "why did you do this?" - she instead jumped at the gun, with her "IMMA GOING JUSTEEEEESSE", and slapped Lindsey. Acting without thinking, or without enough information to act, is itself immoral - it's how you get people harming each other while babbling "but my intenshuns were sooo good~ I should get a free pass to harm others!".
And killed her. By drowning. Oopsie, it's so convenient to not list it alongside the rest~
The info that you're asking to be spoonfed is easily retrievable from the context.
It was still the consequence of her actions. She's still killing someone, regardless of her "intenshuns" or zodiacal sign or the name of her sister or any other irrelevancy.
If we had access to her thoughts, perhaps we could judge her based on her "intentions".
You're conflating morality with legality.
It is because it shows that she's still willing to harm innocents in her pseudo-justice.
I do have arguments as shown over and over. Things don't magically stop existing because you want to pretend that you don't see them.
Refer to the above.
She is not just "overreacting out of anger and saying bad things". She is planning it.
A person who causes more harm to the others around them.Nah bro terrible person worse than the H
Now you're just lying, given that I mentioned Kate's actions over and over and over.
Still "conveniently" omitting that she killed someone. Or planned to kill Spinach, even acknowledging her innocence. Riiiiiight. But I'm totally the one being biased~.
It's blatantly obvious that you don't even know what I'm defending. (Or what you're defending yourself.)
Have you ever considered that one of the joys of fiction is that you can experience things that never happened, and get to know people who don't exist?Better not overthink it, it's a porn thread after all.
Such a condensed of bad faith, even the way you're writing smells the frustrated.If you have a hard time retrieving written information - as shown by the fact that you don't even know when people are talking about the stolen chocolate hearts or the stolen locker - perhaps I'm not the one to blame.
Wrooooong~
I'm attacking Isabelle but in no moment I defended Kate. Stop making shit up.
And in no moment I contradicted that.
I think that you really should improve your basic reading comprehension.
No, she can't "guess" that. But in no moment she questioned Lindsey to ask "why did you do this?" - she instead jumped at the gun, with her "IMMA GOING JUSTEEEEESSE", and slapped Lindsey. Acting without thinking, or without enough information to act, is itself immoral - it's how you get people harming each other while babbling "but my intenshuns were sooo good~ I should get a free pass to harm others!".
And killed her. By drowning. Oopsie, it's so convenient to not list it alongside the rest~
[As I said it was actually her homunculus, that is an attenuating factor; however Isabelle had no way to know it.]
The info that you're asking to be spoonfed is easily retrievable from the context.
It was still the consequence of her actions. She's still killing someone, regardless of her "intenshuns" or zodiacal sign or the name of her sister or any other irrelevancy.
If we had access to her thoughts, perhaps we could judge her based on her "intentions".
But that doesn't work here, with a first person narrator. Nor it would in real life unless you have a crystal ball to know someone else's intentions (or if you're a liar claiming to know them).
You're conflating morality with legality.
You don't even know what you're trying to debate. But yeah, I'm apparently I'm the one disconnected from reality... sure.
...anyway, since you brought legality up: in most countries she'd be still condemned. For example, in her native UK, it would be manslaughter. Her defendant could (and should) bring up the absence of malice in her actions to avoid elevating the crime to what's legally considered murder, but note that the difference is presence/absence of malice, not "intentions". Think on why.
Congrats for shooting your own foot. Twice.
It is because it shows that she's still willing to harm innocents in her pseudo-justice.
I do have arguments as shown over and over. Things don't magically stop existing because you want to pretend that you don't see them.
Refer to the above.
She is not just "overreacting out of anger and saying bad things". She is planning it.
["Since you brought legality up", part II: legally that's called premeditation. It is an aggravating factor behind crimes. Still, I'm discussing this from a moral point of view, not a legal one.]
A person who causes more harm to the others around them.
And we know how Kate turned out in the end. The MC mentions it (I think that it's at the start?)
Now you're just lying, given that I mentioned Kate's actions over and over and over.
Still "conveniently" omitting that she killed someone. Or planned to kill Spinach, even acknowledging her innocence. Riiiiiight. But I'm totally the one being biased~.
It's blatantly obvious that you don't even know what I'm defending. (Or what you're defending yourself.)
I'll spoonfeed it for you. I'm saying that:
1. People like Kate cause harm.
2. People like Isabelle cause MORE harm than people like Kate.
3. People should be considered "good" or "bad" based on the result of their actions, not on irrelevancies like intentions.
Have you ever considered that one of the joys of fiction is that you can experience things that never happened, and get to know people who don't exist?
That is why everyone is here - you can become a chad who fucks 9001 women by playing a game, you can follow your darkest fetishes (rape included) without actually harming someone else, you can even live what would never happen in real life.
Discussing what happens in a fictional work, including the morality of the characters - yes, even in a porn game! - only comes naturally from that.
Unless you think that those threads are better suited for "ANDRAID HWEN? WHY DEVELOPER ARE OF HATE PHONE USERS?" spam. ...I wouldn't be surprised if you do.
I rest my case.
Definitively not. They're planning four seasons for the game; one is complete, another is at the start.
At this rate you're simply grasping at straws, and can be safely brushed off as noise instead of someone actually discussing something.
It will be completed once my grandson has his heir.
I don't think anyone can think straight if someone stole their close relatives offering.
Losing some rationality under strong emotions is natural, but she clearly overdoes it.
Indeed.But I think thats some kind of artistic exaggeration to let MC have more participation(you need to do more stuff than just tell her to calm down or tell her the truth without think about what could happen) and magnify her personality no matter good side or bad side. It is still a porn game afterall.
