You Bastard/Headscratchers


 * What is the logic behind this trope? Yeah, the audience is supporting characters doing things that would be horrible and immoral in real life, but... they aren't happening in real life. Do the creators think we should feel sympathy towards those poor, innocent non-existent people who are being forced to suffer the horrible fate of having terrible things not actually happen to them? Or do they think that audiences are so "desensitized" that if they see a murder in real life, they'll think it's a movie and start cheering?
 * Personally, after a long series of unfortunate incidents occurring in places very close to me, I have spent the past five years fearing the knowledge that the only thing dissuading people from finding joy in killing or observing death is the existence of consequences. There are far too many methods of ignoring consequences. (Also, thanks for the "they'll think it's a movie" part. Because only fictional deaths could possibly be enjoyed.)
 * I for one hate seeing anyone die in any medium when it can be avoided. It really says something about how desensitized our society has gotten when people can cheer in approval at the sight of thousands being murdered and feel like its OK because those people "weren't real". Sometimes we NEED to be reminded that it isn't OK, real or not. Not to say I'm of the opinion that watching too many violent movies, or playing too many M rated games will make you a sociopath, but most of these stories are about good guys saving the world right? Shouldn't we expect some amount of respect for human life from our heroes, especially when said hero is often some kind of super badass, and could easily neutralize his enemies none lethally if they wanted. Humanity needs good role models nowadays after all.
 * So fictional people dying should make us sad? I'd rather save my sympathy for real people, thanks.
 * Fiction is suppose to be emotional. Sympathy can be drawn to fiction in it is origin in real life. Experiences of people tend to be the origin of fiction.
 * Remember that not all protagonist are sadistic maniacs who enjoys killing people. Some of the characters geuinely have a legitimate reason to kill whether it is in self-defense or in the defense of other people.
 * "It really says something about how desensitized our society has gotten when people can cheer in approval at the sight of thousands being murdered and feel like its OK because those people "weren't real"." But surely the fact that the characters aren't real is much more important than you're giving it credit for. Morality is heavily dependent on the consequences of our actions - shooting someone is bad because it causes pain, carries a chance of serious injury or death, and causes distress to the family and friends of the victim - but in fiction we don't have those consequences so any moral judgement you may want to make is much more tenuous. There really is a qualitative difference between enjoying simulated violence and enjoying the real thing.
 * How about you go and prove that killing off fictional people is not OK first? And no, "It's just wrong" isn't a valid argument.
 * It's impossible to satisfy you. We already have but you're still complaining.
 * To the 'I for one' troper: Attitudes like that strike me as insulting. People can tell the difference between a fantasy and reality, and that what applies to one doesn't necessarily apply to the other. I reckon as long as you know that it's bad that real people get hurt, it's fine (Granted, some people glorify real-world violence, but that's not the fiction's fault).
 * Something interesting to ease the mood: that our brains actually can't tell the difference - it's been proven that when seeing fictional death and suffering our brain reacts the same way as if it was real.
 * But the whole point of fiction is to make you feel like it's real. Fiction lets you pretend that all this stuff is really happening. If you get used to seeing horrible stuff in fiction, eventually you'd get desensitized. It's not a matter of not being able to tell the difference rationally. It's an emotional thing.
 * Most stories don't want us to cheer for characters who kill by the thousands. If people do cheer, it's probably a case of Misaimed Fandom. If people are expected to cheer, it's probably a case of Designated Hero / Designated Villain.
 * It's called "they were evil so they deserved it".
 * Frankly it really doesn't matter if the violence is fictional. We have the stronger arguments (which proves Aristotle's point). I'd rather we keep our violence we keep our violence fictional.
 * Why do video game designers so often combine this trope with But Thou Must! or Stupidity Is the Only Option or similar tropes? They're not going to make us feel guilty for slaughtering a mook if they don't offer another option.
 * Because they are laughing at our suffering. The bastards.
 * Less amusingly: The average video game has shitty, shitty writing.
 * What is this, /b/? To the original troper, what makes the plot of a Railroaded video game any different from a completely noninteractive book or other piece of media?
 * Mostly that video game examples of this trope emphasize that it's the player himself who chose to commit all the atrocities. Other media tend to stick with "enjoying their suffering".
 * One thing that bothers is me; if we're bastards for watching a violent movie or playing a video game. What does that say about the creators?
 * That they need to pay the bills.
 * And that they're petty, angry hypocrites about needing to pay their bills.