![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
luciazephyrSo TVT has this page on the DarthWiki called Warp That Aesop. People examine their media of choice and find the really bad messages that could be pulled out of the source. Some fail spectacularly (see them trying to make a bad message out of Tengen Toppa Gurren Laggan). Some, like the MGS ones, are pretty interesting.
One, though, completely baffled me when I read it.
The italics are mine because that's the part that made me go, "what the hell are you talking about." Because Philanthropy as I know it doesn't kill people at all, unless they've exhausted all other options. Murder in the name of their cause is not justified and should be heavily avoided. God knows they've never killed someone who hadn't really, really deserved it--
And here is where I realize that My Canon Is Not Your Canon. Because here's the thing- all that I just said is, to me, totally true. My Philanthropy does not kill people. My perception of Philanthropy is broadly colored by how I personally as a player approach the game. And I use non-lethal weaponry and techniques almost exclusively. Even before I started pacifist running, I always kept my kills as low as possible. I always used the M9 and the PSG-T before their deadly equivalents. That's just my personal philosophy showing in my gaming style.
But... I'm guess that's not how most of you guys play, huh? So is your Philanthropy like the one mentioned in the WTA page? Do Snake and Otacon kill sometimes? More than sometimes?
I like my version better (OBVIOUSLY :pacifist:) and I think I have support for it. In MGS2's Tanker mission, there's no reason for Hal to not have given Snake a SOCOM instead of an M9. But he did. Doesn't that mean they'd much rather tranq than kill someone? Or perhaps was that the MO until Sergei's mercenaries took the ship?
Just food for thought. I'm off to take a nap now.
-Lucy
One, though, completely baffled me when I read it.
Metal Gear Solid 2: Terrorism is brilliant, as long as you're doing it for your ideals and morals (whatever they may be), and not for your benefit. If you're not a terrorist or support their right to murder countless people because of their beliefs, you're a mindless sheep or you're still being educated in the true meaning of life.
The italics are mine because that's the part that made me go, "what the hell are you talking about." Because Philanthropy as I know it doesn't kill people at all, unless they've exhausted all other options. Murder in the name of their cause is not justified and should be heavily avoided. God knows they've never killed someone who hadn't really, really deserved it--
And here is where I realize that My Canon Is Not Your Canon. Because here's the thing- all that I just said is, to me, totally true. My Philanthropy does not kill people. My perception of Philanthropy is broadly colored by how I personally as a player approach the game. And I use non-lethal weaponry and techniques almost exclusively. Even before I started pacifist running, I always kept my kills as low as possible. I always used the M9 and the PSG-T before their deadly equivalents. That's just my personal philosophy showing in my gaming style.
But... I'm guess that's not how most of you guys play, huh? So is your Philanthropy like the one mentioned in the WTA page? Do Snake and Otacon kill sometimes? More than sometimes?
I like my version better (OBVIOUSLY :pacifist:) and I think I have support for it. In MGS2's Tanker mission, there's no reason for Hal to not have given Snake a SOCOM instead of an M9. But he did. Doesn't that mean they'd much rather tranq than kill someone? Or perhaps was that the MO until Sergei's mercenaries took the ship?
Just food for thought. I'm off to take a nap now.
-Lucy