• Hello everybody! We have tons of new awards for the new year that can be requested through our Awards System thanks to Antifa Lockhart! Some are limited-time awards so go claim them before they are gone forever...

    CLICK HERE FOR AWARDS

Sora a MURDERER?



REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS
Status
Not open for further replies.

Genocide

All you need to know.
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
9,768
Awards
3
Age
35
Location
Yo mama
I suppose this can be debatable.

Well, since Sora has been killing people (Organization members), Nobodies, Heartless, etc throughout the games, would that make him a murder? Esp. since he killed Org. 13 people in COM? It's still murder, right? Taking the life of someone else. I guess this can go with Riku too.

I know that Nobodies don't have feelings (so sad) and that they're half a person, but they're still people aren't they?

Hmm...

It depends on how you mean people.

If you mean people as in just a body and soul, then yes. Sora's a murderer, and deserves to go to hell.

If you mean people as in people like us, then no. Heartless, nobody. They're not people. No matter how you personify them, they lost what made them people.

If you ask a nobody to stop killing people, I'm pretty sure he'd say "no" Had he any other choice but to stop them? I'm pretty sure if they asked him for his help, he'd be more than happy to oblige.

If you treat anobody like a person, it'll be a person. A bad person, but on no less. Don't treat them like people and "what you see is what you get." A bad guy killing innocents for his own personal gain.
 

Rix

:)
Joined
Nov 17, 2006
Messages
4,357
Awards
2
Age
33
In my point of wiew, I have never considered Sora as a murderer, but to put it in this way, Sora killed them to protect himself.. Remember that those who attackked Sora mostly had the intentions to kill Sora so they are no better than Sora.
 

Ikkin

Bronze Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
1,517
One thing you have to remember about the word "murderer" - it's a word with both moral and legal implications, and shouldn't be thrown around as lightly as it tends to be (at least online). It's not a word that you use for anyone who has ever killed a person before. You don't call someone who fought in a war a murderer (at least I hope you wouldn't), because calling someone a murderer is saying that what they did was morally wrong and that they deserve to be punished for it.

So, the question shouldn't be "is Sora a murderer?" It should be "is Sora a killer?" (Which, usually, does not have the same connotations - someone can be a killer without being a bad person - see the soldier example again)

It's more interesting to think about it group by group, though, considering the relevance of destroying Heartless, Nobodies, "unlocked" people like Maleficent in the first game, etc.

Heartless, I think, probably don't have much moral weight at all. While they might have been a part of someone that was transformed, they really aren't anything like a person. They're basically a big ball of heart-seeking instinct and reflexes, and thus, probably not sentient. Also, destroying Heartless actually makes it possible for the original person to come back, which is a good thing. Sora's probably as much a killer for destroying Heartless as you would be for taking an antibiotic, really.

Nobodies are more tricky. The game doesn't help this by having the character who says the most about what Nobodies are be someone who'd have reason to fudge the facts to suit his own ends - I don't think we can take proclamations like "Nobodies do not deserve to exist" as fact in the KH world. Yen Sid is a more trustworthy source, but even he's brought into question by having his explanation placed right after we've been with Roxas for two hours in which this explanation was challenged.

Ignoring the game's conflicting hints, we still can pick some things up about the Nobodies that could help here, though. They can think and plan, they're self-aware, and, unlike Heartless, they're sentient. They might not be people, but it'd be far easier to argue that there's something there that could be killed.

Of course, this is complicated by the fact that the destruction of a Nobody is necessary for the Nobody's Other to be able to return. I don't think this would really affect whether killing a Nobody would make you a killer (though it might affect whether killing a Nobody would make you a murderer), though.

The "darkness unlocked" people are a pretty interesting case, too. The best example is Maleficent, considering that her darkness was literally unlocked by Ansem-Riku's fake Keyblade. Dragon Maleficent seemed to act like a Heartless. Unlike a Heartless, however, she wasn't just part of a person - she was still all herself, just taken over by darkness. If she wasn't somehow resurrected, she'd probably still be dead, unlike the Heartless, whose destruction enables the person to come back to life.

Actually, this kind of fate probably makes more sense for Clayton and Scar than actually becoming Heartless - after all, Xehanort was supposed to be the only one who retained human form as a Heartless, and Scar ended up as a ghost (which shouldn't have happened had he actually been defeated as a Heartless). Perhaps this is what happens to those whose hearts are eaten away by the darkness rather than simply being stolen?

The problem here is, while the thing that Sora killed probably wouldn't have much weight on its own, it necessitates the death of the person who was turned into that, which could be reason enough to call him a killer for it.

Then, there's the final example, which is someone who was actually a person that was killed by Sora's group - Shan-Yu. Well, it is possible that he was in the "darkness unlocked" group, but it's never stated out loud, so, I'll ignore that possibility.

So, basically, you probably could call Sora a killer. I don't think he ever really did anything wrong, though, considering that everything that he killed was trying to kill him first.

...well, apart from Demyx, but even that was in the heat of battle.


And, some responses to things in this thread I wanted to respond to:

Meh. I wouldn't consider it murder. When I think of murder or killing, I tend to imagine a bit more gore and such. All the heartless do is just puff into black smoke and release munny and HP/MP orbs.

...that's certainly an interesting definition. xD I don't really know if it works, though; Final Fantasy X monsters disappeared into pyreflies which basically showed that they were killed and sent off to the Farplane, for instance, which is kind of a reversal of that.


ohh i see what you mean now about the DN thing. Yeh, I suppose the moral is similar and whatnot, like is it right to kill someone whose done wrong.

...actually, I'm pretty sure the moral question at the heart of Death Note isn't really whether it's right or wrong to kill someone who's done something wrong - it's about who has the right to enforce that, or at least, that's what it becomes. There's really nothing in Death Note that suggests that the death penalty is wrong, just that taking justice into your own hands is.

And that's not really related to Sora's case, because he's not out looking for bad guys to kill; he's trying to protect his friends and fighting for his life.


Disney would lose their franchise and popularity if they made a children's video game with a goddamn murderer as the main character.

So no.

This little cartoon character doesn't actually kill people.

Game wouldn't be rated E or E10+ if he did.
=/
And if he did, Disney would lose a helluva lotta cash.

E/E-10 ratings are based on a lack of anything graphic, not necessarily a lack of killing. I'm sure there's lots of strategy RPGs out there where your little people kill lots of other little people that are rated E because nothing bad is actually shown.

And if you think killing = murder, than Disney's already got away with that lots of times in their G-rated movies. Mulan's the best example (think how many Huns were killed in that avalanche).


As for Sora being a murderer by 'killing' members of the org.13, if you remeber that in final mix, namine tells sora that axel has not 'died' but has returned to become the person he once was, a human. So Sora is kinda doing the org. a favor don't you think?

That's not from Final Mix, that's from the KHII novels. ;) Still can probably be used.

Not really sure if Sora was doing the Organization a favor, though. They do have personalities separate from their Others which would get forced under - they wouldn't really be the same people. Though, Roxas and Namine did seem happy enough about it.


i would say...he is a murderer........but not the bad type...........
the one that Saving the World kind of Murderer.......:bored:.......but the true answer.....
yes.
enough said.

There is no "saving the world kind of murderer" or "not the bad type [of murderer]." The very meaning of the word murderer rules these things out.


Sora just kills everything without feeling anything >_>

Re-watch Sora's reaction after Xigbar, Luxord, Saix, and Xemnas' first two deaths, and tell me if you still think that.


If you good defeats evil that is not murder. (keep in maind I am talking about videogames here) .

Why limit it to video games? It's the case in real life, too. If you shoot someone who's threatening to kill you and your family, you wouldn't be convicted of murder.


Just to point this out to people who may not have noticed this yet. What the hell is the point of this topic? I mean it's like disscussing what happens when you fall into a black hole. nobody really knows for sure wether Sora was "Purifying" the worlds or what not I quite frankly i don't think anyone really cares.

This does though bring up a familar topic that I read once. "Sephiroth is made of three moogles standing on each others shoulders. Discuss..."

I mean this discussion is really pointless. It's amazing anyone actually replied to it.

Pointless or not, it's fun to speculate. ^^

And I bet someone could give you some fairly good evidence for Sephiroth being made of three moogles standing on each others' shoulders. XD


If you mean people as in just a body and soul, then yes. Sora's a murderer, and deserves to go to hell.

...woah, that's a bit much. o_o; Do you think every person who's killed in self-defense deserves that?
 

I

The Show Must Go On
Joined
May 31, 2006
Messages
1,197
Location
Elsewhere
This thread reminds me of abortion debates. You have some people who say that because an unborn child has never had a life and was never sentinent or self aware or whatever they use to defend their point, getting an abortion isn't murder; those against abortion say that because the child is developing and even though it's not 'alive' yet, it's not dead either - just because you don't want the child doesn't mean you have the right to kill it.

My point - even though Sora thought the Organisation and all the other sentient villains were 'evil', he still had little right to kill them. Yes, there were some who attacked Sora with the intention of doing him harm, but the majority of the time it was because Sora had provoked them in whatever fashion. Also, has anyone ever noticed how Sora never expresses any kind of emotion after killing these individuals? No remose, no anything - almost exactly how some would describe Nobodies. My opinion: Sora's no better than a psychopath.
 

Ikkin

Bronze Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Messages
1,517
My point - even though Sora thought the Organisation and all the other sentient villains were 'evil', he still had little right to kill them. Yes, there were some who attacked Sora with the intention of doing him harm, but the majority of the time it was because Sora had provoked them in whatever fashion. Also, has anyone ever noticed how Sora never expresses any kind of emotion after killing these individuals? No remose, no anything - almost exactly how some would describe Nobodies. My opinion: Sora's no better than a psychopath.

I must disagree about several of your claims:

a) "The majority of the time it was because Sora had provoked them in whatever fashion" - this is true in a grand total of two cases - Demyx in Hollow Bastion, and Pete in Timeless River. And Sora leaves Pete alone once he realizes Pete wasn't doing anything wrong.

Most of the time, Sora is either forced into a fight or is trying to stop the villains from doing something evil and harming his friends. Even in the two cases above, Sora thinks this is what he's doing, he's just mistaken.

Using the Organization (minus Demyx) as examples:
- Larxene - forced Sora to fight.
- Marluxia - tryed to use Sora as a puppet, then break his heart, then kill him. Was also a threat to the safety of the worlds.
- Xaldin - was trying to turn Beast into a Heartless, threatened to take Belle, and basically ruin Beast's life.
- Xigbar, Luxord, and Saix - were under orders by Xemnas to kill Sora because they had no further use for him. Luxord also had the added wrong of turning Sora's friends into cards with the implication that they'd only return if Sora won.
- Xemnas - was trying to create a new world for himself using Kingdom Hearts, was a potential danger because Kingdom Hearts was broken and needed to be completed again, and tried to kill Sora.

The Disney villains weren't just sitting around drinking tea either; I'd say Sora has plenty of justification for fighting them.

b) Sora does show emotion, regardless of whether you noticed or not. Oddly enough, it's the Nobodies who Sora cares the most about... at least after Axel's death (and I'm pretty sure that's intentional). Sora's definitely not his normal perky happy self after the deaths of Xigbar, Luxord, Saix, and (the first two times) Xemnas. I don't think you can say he's not bothered by it.

Of course, he doesn't actually say anything to that regard, really... you just need to watch his face. ;)
 

Gildragon

Theatre Messiah
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
3,569
Awards
3
Age
35
Location
Spokane, WA
Website
www.youtube.com
Why limit it to video games? It's the case in real life, too. If you shoot someone who's threatening to kill you and your family, you wouldn't be convicted of murder.

Sometimes when I give my moral opinion it is attacked. I am not limiting myself to just videogames but I was referring to it. It is no inttelligent I think to go in to moral good or evil baes of a vidoegame characer being a murderer when he is on the side of good. unless you are limiting that discussion to video game reality
 

TwoAcross

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2008
Messages
45
Nah, it's not murder. Here's why.

The Heartless are creatures of instinct, formed from the darkness in people's hearts. Goofy more or less defined the problem in KH2 when Sora expressed doubts about using the Keyblade... while I can't remember the exact words, it was something about how Sora has to keep destroying the Heartless or they would continue to harm others... which is totally accurate. The Heartless must be stopped, or they will continue to destroy people and worlds.

The Nobodies, while closer to a person than the Heartless, even possessing intelligent thought, do not truly exist at all. That being said, Sora is not truly harming anybody (or anything for that matter) at all.

As for Organization XIII, they're just more advanced Nobodies... but however human they may look, they are still nothing, and they still do not truly exist. Therefore, destroying them falls under the same principles as destroying the lesser Nobodies.
 

Sora788

New member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
762
Location
Chaos Empire.
Website
jijun.livejournal.com
They are there because they each had strong hearts in their lifetimes, and so their bodies did not fade into darkness when their hearts became Heartless. IMO, the Nobodies do exist, because by saying they are not meant to, it implies that they do exist but they are not supposed to.

The crime of murder, in its basic form, is the unjust killing of another person. Note the word "unjust". Self-defense doesn't qualify for that, and that's basically what Sora was doing: protecting himself and his loved ones from people who wished them harm. The same goes for the idea that killing Sabor was animal cruelty: when an animal tries to maul you to death, you have every right to take out your Keyblade, spear, gun, or whatever weapon you happen to have on you and defend yourself.

So Sora is not a murderer in the technical sense, he was merely defending himself and his friends.

I think that was well put :) Self defense = Sora not a murderer ^_^

rats, looks like I posted on the wrong thread!

Oh well here's why I think he is not a murderer

Well technially if we are talking Org wise no, because according to Yen Sid Nobodies do not truly exist at all.

Ok he kills heartless but this is because the heartless kill other people, I see heartless like a wild animal, or say a savage dog. If a dog attacks a human in my country the animal is put down so as not to hurt another living human being. Perhaps the savage dog was a bad exaple, so we'll use a wasp, even though the wasp has yet to do harm, you kill it, so it will not do any harm to anyone.

As for the disney Villians, I see them as evil dictators or evil leaders. Now allthough this is cold blooded murder, the person cannot be trusted, and are hurting innocent people and destroying innocent lives, now unfortunatley theonly 100% certain way to stop this person and make sure they never harm another living being is in-fact death. Whilst it does seem a little like murder, the person needs to be stopped to insure that innocent lives are safe.

I see Sora as sorta like the law inforcement, now sometimes, you do infact have to shoot a dangerous suspect to ensure your own safety and those around you. So if you see Sora as a policeman then it doesn't look like brutal murder at all, just doing a public service... Not that I'm all for the death penality or anything, I'm just saying somtimes a dangerous suspect must be stopped and if they are about to hurt somone you have to take action.

I'm not sure which thread you'll read so I'll post this on both threads.


lol even though you love somone it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be stopped, I mean Sora in friendship loves Riku (No I do not think they're gay... You immature people) Well, anyway in a friend way Sora loves Riku and cares very much for him, but Sora fought him instead of joining sides with him when they were inside Monstro because he was hurting himself and others.

Don't worry, i read it lolz. Thanks for your point of veiw, gave a different perspective! :)

Cause we are obsessed,we have nothing better to do,we like discussing games that we like,and we are the way we are.
Is that ok now for ya?
Oh whatever,the thing is,that when you like something really much,you try to find answers on ur questions,even if it is useless or fake.

Thanks for the backup. haha, i tend to ask many questions....


I suppose this can be debatable.

Well, since Sora has been killing people (Organization members), Nobodies, Heartless, etc throughout the games, would that make him a murder? Esp. since he killed Org. 13 people in COM? It's still murder, right? Taking the life of someone else. I guess this can go with Riku too.

I know that Nobodies don't have feelings (so sad) and that they're half a person, but they're still people aren't they?

Hmm...[/QUOTE

hey... didn't I gave you the idea yesterday. lol

Sora is a murderer, he kills ppl.. to save the world lol.

Lolz, i had this question wondering in my mind for a longg time now...


---

I have read all the answers and posts and whatnot. Thanks for writing, i see that some people see me a weird person to even ask such a question since it's just a game, but hey, I ask a lot of questions about games. Well, I guess that's just what I do.



Sora's not a murderer, but he's just defending himself. I kinda wish that he didn't kill Marlaxia because he was my fav. Org 13 member :'(
Since I haven't played the game COM, can anyone tell me why Sora killed him, or how it got to that point? I suppose you can put it in a spoiler box since I'm sure some people don't want to know the answer to that yett.

thanks!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top