If Dante really was a terrorist

[Loopy]

I should have made this topic sooner while the idea was new in my head, but anyway....I was playing DmC when one of my roomies came in.
She happened to walk in on the scene where Mundus is asking Dante why he killed his child; to which my roomie bascially asked me why I play a game where the main character is a child killer. I corrected her on that, but the idea stuck in my head.

So I'm wondering if Dante really was a terrorist (does things like Bob says in the boss fight), and Mundus was a good guy (was really helping humans, actually loved Lilith...things like that), would you guys still play the game?

How would you feel about the reversed roles?

For example if it was Dante who took the shot at Lilith, would it make you feel differently about his character?

I'm not exactly sure what I'm getting at with this topic, but I thought I'd give it a go.^_^

 

[Kam]

It's actually more entertaining to assume that dante already is that way. One thing I noticed is that "fox news" didn't have to try and lie very hard about dante. They called him anti-social, prone to violence, a sexual deviant, bad tempered, and plotting to destroy everything. He basically does all of those things throghout the course of the game.

Here's my favorite interpretation:
Mundus is a lot of things, but primarily a night club owner. He's got a wife and kid on the way, and he's tasked himself with two duties:
1) make sure the humans don't go to war over stupid **** and kill each other
2) maintain the hell gate

Dante shows up, kidnaps his wife and child (and gets both of them killed) then goes on a rampage that eventually ends with the destruction of the hell gate.Hell instantly and permanently merges with the human world; humans now exist within spitting distance of legions of violent and nightmarish hellspawn capable of tearing them apart. Forever. The world is effectively doomed, thanks to dante.

But hey, at least nobody will stay fat on those sodas or get lied to by the media anymore

 

[LysseC]

If Dante took the shot at Lilith, I would have simply thought, "Oh, good, he's taking Phineas's advice!". But that is not the point.

I can accept Dante being a morally dubious figure (and maybe even welcome the idea) in two cases:
1. he commits acts that are usually considered moral wrongs, but justifies them as necessary for reaching a good end, as in, for saving mankind. For example, accepting to fight demons in a situation in which there could be human casualties.
2. he commits acts that are morally condemned, without them being justificated by the fact he is fighting for a higher purpose, but his enemies do the same, or even worse. (In this case I am thinking about a scenario like the one of the TV show The Borgias, which I am currently obsessing about: the protagonists commit terrible acts, but their enemies are no less cruel, so I don't perceive the protagonists as evil).
Note that in both those cases I am assuming that the antagonist is not a morally good figure.

However, if you ask me if I would play a game in which the protagonist is a completely morally negative figure (as in, he commits wrong actions that cannot even be justified by the "higher purpose" of defeating a BAD antagonist), while the antagonist is the "good guy", maybe I would not play it so willingly. Or maybe I would still find it interesting, to put myself in the shoes of the typical "bad guy". It's like when you roleplay a character whose alignment is evil, you might be curious about how the mind of such a character works.

But maybe I would find it very disturbing the fact that the hypotetical "bad" protagonist we are talking about is Dante. Since one of the things that make Dante recognizable is the fact that he takes the side of good, having a bad Dante would make the experience more... extreme, I'd say.

...So, in the end, a wall of words to say that...I don't know. I think it would depend on the mood I am in. The only thing I am sure of is that I would not just rule out the possibility a priori.

 

[darkmanifest]

I can accept Dante being a morally dubious figure (and maybe even welcome the idea) in two cases:
1. he commits acts that are usually considered moral wrongs, but justifies them as necessary for reaching a good end, as in, for saving mankind. For example, accepting to fight demons in a situation in which there could be human casualties.

Oh, yeah, I would eat this up with a spoon. Like you said, I wouldn't like him if he was straight-up evil, he's not cunning enough for that (ala Light from Death Note, who was such a cool villainous protagonist for me because his battle of wits with L was amazing...I didn't LIKE Light, but I found him fascinating). But if Dante was truly morally grey, like a freedom fighter who to everyone else is just a plain-old terrorist, I really would have liked him. Because a lot of terrorists believe the awful things they do to the very people they're trying to save are for the greater good, and the worst part is when they kind of have a point, like Dante would, because he couldn't very well let the demons just stay in control. So if he has to mow down a few hundred humans just doing their jobs who don't know those jobs support soul-sucking demons, well, that's just how it has to be.

In fact, that's exactly why I came away liking this new version of Vergil much more than the new version of Dante, especially after the events of Vergil's Downfall. All Dante's character conflict was cleared up after the Home Truths mission, very early on. If, instead, he had been striking out at the ruling order in any way he could, acknowledging and justifying all the destruction and death he was causing until someone like Kat who had the same kind of childhood and the same kind of pain showed him that he didn't have to be that way, I would have adored him. I liked Vergil more for seeing the struggle he went through on the path to evil; I would have liked Dante more for seeing him struggle to be good.

I feel like the game actually tried to do this - parallel Dante's ascent with Vergil's descent over the course of the story - and kind of chickened out of making Dante bad enough while not making Vergil good enough, causing a much more black and white conflict between them and therefore sucking a lot of complexity out of it. It shies away from that, hey, Dante's probably gotten a lot of people killing fighting demons and never cared, and hey, Vergil can show he gives a crap about Kat and still be willing to sacrifice her for the mission, and hey, Mundus isn't doing anything to humans that we don't do to each other. It veeeery lightly touches on all these things, but I never felt like it went deep enough.

As for Dante taking the shot...I wouldn't want him to have done it exactly as it was framed (to reveal how deeply messed up in the head Vergil was) but if it had been handled in a different way, had instead been used as the first time Dante actually regretted being a terrorist, the moment he's confronted with the difference between fighting for freedom and just getting revenge (I always thought this point in his conversation with Mundus later was excellent and sadly unexplored), then yeah, I think it could have been as defining a character moment for Dante as it was for Vergil.

...and I have drifted waaaay off course from the original question. Um. Yes, I would appreciate a somewhat evil Dante. I'm going to take a nap now, lol.

 

[Demi-fiend]

You know...

A certain country managed to hold back not one, but two superpowers.

They are deemed terrorists.

I will not tell you which country it is, because most would just agree with the mainstream propaganda and say that yes, they are indeed terrorists.

So, before you say, "in real life, terrorists are bad", think for a second... and look at the people you're calling "evil".

Not saying I agree with everything they do, but when two empires breathe down your neck and you manage to hold them both off, I'd say you're not entirely bad, after all.

I just found this offensive, that's all.

 

[CheeseKao]

If Dante was a terrorist, he'd plant his 'dirty bombs' everywhere.

 

[Demi-fiend]

Because a lot of terrorists believe the awful things they do to the very people they're trying to save are for the greater good...

 

[darkmanifest]

You know...

A certain country managed to hold back not one, but two superpowers.

They are deemed terrorists.

I will not tell you which country it is, because most would just agree with the mainstream propaganda and say that yes, they are indeed terrorists.

So, before you say, "in real life, terrorists are bad", think for a second... and look at the people you're calling "evil".

Not saying I agree with everything they do, but when two empires breathe down your neck and you manage to hold them both off, I'd say you're not entirely bad, after all.

I just found this offensive, that's all.

Fighting oppression is all well and good, but when you don't ask the other people being oppressed by those superpowers if they'd like to participate in that fight, and hey, maybe die for it when they don't want to, that's where things get really messed up. Same thing in DmC, actually, nobody asked the humans if they wanted to have trains derailed and whole city blocks demolished and demons merged into their reality before Dante and company went and did it. Justified retaliation crosses the line when you're turning the people you're fighting for into unwilling victims, or using them as pawns, or taking them as trophies when the fight's done. DmC has a lot of elements toying with this moral quandary (especially in the comic).

Was...was that intended as satire? Uh. In case it wasn't, lemme address this part: "If you're disarmed, how are you going to protect your family and yourself from an intruder?" There was an article floating around the web recently about a seven-year-old boy who accidentally killed his two-year-old sister with the rifle his parents gave him as a gift. So the parallel question to me is "If you're armed, how are you going to protect your family from yourself?" This is not to say arming oneself and fighting back is inherently bad, only that it comes with its own set of dangers that people tend to discount because they're so busy looking to fight outsiders than they no longer pay attention to those they're harming on their own side.

 

[Demi-fiend]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/05/01/10-shocking-gun-control-myths/

 

[crush]

Fighting oppression is all well and good, but when you don't ask the other people being oppressed by those superpowers if they'd like to participate in that fight, and hey, maybe die for it when they don't want to, that's where things get really messed up. Same thing in DmC, actually, nobody asked the humans if they wanted to have trains derailed and whole city blocks demolished and demons merged into their reality before Dante and company went and did it. Justified retaliation crosses the line when you're turning the people you're fighting for into unwilling victims, or using them as pawns, or taking them as trophies when the fight's done. DmC has a lot of elements toying with this moral quandary (especially in the comic).
Was...was that intended as satire? Uh. In case it wasn't, lemme address this part: "If you're disarmed, how are you going to protect your family and yourself from an intruder?" There was an article floating around the web recently about a seven-year-old boy who accidentally killed his two-year-old sister with the rifle his parents gave him as a gift. So the parallel question to me is "If you're armed, how are you going to protect your family from yourself?" This is not to say arming oneself and fighting back is inherently bad, only that it comes with its own set of dangers that people tend to discount because they're so busy looking to fight outsiders than they no longer pay attention to those they're harming on their own side.

I must agree that this guy in the vid didn't take his history lessons. He is not the best spokesman.
It's simply impossible for India to win against England WITH guns and would had India in a more sticky situation than it was.
This is not the french revolution where sissy aristrocrats are your enemies. But the Empire with a record of enslaving and colonized entire nations and races.
Gandhi instead drove the human heart, and this is because it's known as a big deal.
If he made a attempt to upturn the Brits, then it would just be reinforcements and genocide and he will be known as the unnamed man who was hung drawn and quartered. And we will still have britain in the middle of Asia.

By the way...buying a seven year old firearms is a silly idea as arming your alsatian or dorberman with spikes and letting it loose in a shopping mall. The results will be messy and very, very predictable.

 

[Loopy]

I must agree that this guy in the vid didn't take his history lessons. He is not the best spokesman.
It's simply impossible for India to win against England WITH guns and would had India in a more sticky situation than it was.
This is not the french revolution where sissy aristrocrats are your enemies. But the Empire with a record of enslaving and colonized entire nations and races.
True. It's like DmC. How are regular people supposed to fight back against something like that without causing more trouble or having extreme violence in return?
Let alone the fact that the Empire thought they were doing these people a favour, actually thought they were helping these people by doing what they did. It reminds me of what Mundus said to Dante about how he gave humans structure and prosperity by ruling them, but Mundus was in the wrong and ruling for his own gain.
Gandhi instead drove the human heart, and this is because it's known as a big deal.
If he made a attempt to upturn the Brits, then it would just be reinforcements and genocide and he will be known as the unnamed man who was hung drawn and quartered. And we will still have britain in the middle of Asia.

By the way...buying a seven year old firearms is a silly idea as arming your alsatian or dorberman with spikes and letting it loose in a shopping mall. The results will be messy and very, very predictable.

Very true. Also, arming a dog is like doing with with a rabbit>_<

 

[darkmanifest]

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2013/05/01/10-shocking-gun-control-myths/

And...? Guns are only as safe as the people allowed to use them. And unfortunately a lot of people are friggin' idiots who can't be trusted to use a carton of eggs responsibly, let alone a lethal weapon. I do think the solution is more education about responsible weapon usage and less paranoid gun control. It's definitely not letting everybody arm themselves at will and hope God can sort 'em out.

 

[darkmanifest]

Very true. Also, arming a dog is like doing with with a rabbit>_<

That is the most adorable stupid thing I have ever seen. Sadly it reminds me of people who actually do attach small blades to the feet of roosters and set them loose in cockfights.

 

[Loopy]

And...? Guns are only as safe as the people allowed to use them. And unfortunately a lot of people are friggin' idiots who can't be trusted to use a carton of eggs responsibly, let alone a lethal weapon. Not only that but also crazy or mentally unstable people owning guns, and also regular people who have genuine gun accidents that result in serious injury or death. I do think the solution is more education about responsible weapon usage and less paranoid gun control. It's definitely not letting everybody arm themselves at will and hope God can sort 'em out.

You can educate, and that would really help; but there's always going to be a group who say 'these people have guns, so I must have a gun to defend myself. I'm maintaining my rights. If this person does something I think is aggressive to me, I will kill them.' I've heard that reason. But it's a vicious circle of buying guns to defend themselves from others with guns.

Not exactly related to guns, but I've also seen videos of police officers in America abusing their use of tasers and laughing as they fired at people. I've also seen court cases where police were stripped of their job for using the threat of a taser to make a woman take off her clothes. That's just a sick abuse of power. It would be bad enough if it was one or two incidents like that, but it seems to happen more than that.
So if police are like that with a taser, what's a regular person going to be like with a gun?

 

[Demi-fiend]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chicago-struggles-combat-gun-violence-article-1.1271786

Two "gun-free" zones... and yet they have the highest violence statistics. Hm.

Yep, gun-control is a real help to society.



Sure, you can have all the gun-control you want. It won't stop people from fighting corruption, anyway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22066082

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/mexican-vigilantes-seize-town-arrest-police_n_2968463.html

So if police are like that with a taser, what's a regular person going to be like with a gun?

So... because the police abuse unarmed citizens, your thought process goes immediately to "punish the police through the corrupt law system", instead of actually arming responsible, law-abiding citizens to ward off the the very system that screwed you over to begin with?

Ok... let me put this another way.

You can say that "people are irresponsible", all you want. That's not going to stop the inevitable civil war that will take place this year.

Jobs are being shipped overseas and weakening the economy. Police are, as you said, raping and tasing people left and right.

You really think people are just going to take this lying down?

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/01/anonymous-calls-for-war-to-overthrow-us.html

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternativ...america-within-90-days-get-ready-2610162.html


And I never said that training wasn't a requisite for owning a firearm. Of course you have to train before having one.

But I don't even have to post these vids. Each and every one of you will see soon enough.



Hitler took the guns.

Mao took the guns.

Stalin took the guns.

Pol Pot took the guns.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/communist-party-usa-cheers-obamas-gun-grab/

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html



“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” — (Thomas Jefferson)

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])

 

[Demi-fiend]

Posted due to the fact you can only post 5 vids per post:

 

[Kam]

And...? Guns are only as safe as the people allowed to use them. And unfortunately a lot of people are friggin' idiots who can't be trusted to use a carton of eggs responsibly, let alone a lethal weapon. I do think the solution is more education about responsible weapon usage and less paranoid gun control. It's definitely not letting everybody arm themselves at will and hope God can sort 'em out.

my opinion on this has always been strict licensing and testing. Cars kill people, so not only do you have to take a gauntlet of tests and applications to apply for the right to operate one, but as you get older you have to periodically come back and get retested to make sure you haven't lost your ability to stay safe while driving.

I don't see how guns should be different. Take all appropriate tests, get all the appropriate screening, attain a license, and periodically renew your license so people are sure you haven't gone crazy in the last few years

 

[XDmC12345X]

Well it wouldnt be about a hero itd be about a villian, the game woudnt make much sense so maybe not, if you played as mundus well maybe

 

[Loopy]

Well it wouldnt be about a hero itd be about a villian, the game woudnt make much sense so maybe not, if you played as mundus well maybe

The game would be too easy as Mundus. That guy's too powerful. He'd just have to click his fingers and that would be enough to kill a load of demons
I wouldn't mind something about how Mundus came to power and how he fought the demons to become king.

 

[crush]

Is that transformer body the true form of Mundus?
If that is so, I can't imagine Sparda being bros with him. I mean...just look at the size of him.