T/F: 'Killing is the cardinal sin in writing'

[DokiDokiTsuna]

To quote a random internet person: "If you have a character who kills anyone, be it a good character or a evil character, they need to have remorse for what they’ve done, go to jail, or die."

• True
• False

Show results

And I'm just thinking....eeeeehhhh....false? It really depends on the story.

To give the most obvious example, there are plenty of darker stories where we actively root for protagonists who have probably killed hundreds of people: can you say MANDALORIAN? ^^ Sure, he isn't trigger happy or anything, but when he does need to kill someone he doesn't think twice about it.

And speaking of Star Wars: in war stories you may well end up rooting for people who have killed THOUSANDS. Enemy fodder deaths are very low-tier in the world of fiction. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

However, I think this opinion might hold water if you narrow it to something like "killing major characters is the cardinal sin in writing" or "murder is the cardinal sin in writing".

When you have one character kill another character that the audience has already grown attached to, there should definitely be consequences (and there usually are).

And murder- which I define as the killing of innocents: people who have no means or intention of doing harm- that's kind of serious too. Even bounty hunter characters can't get away with stuff like that: in fact, the difference between 'good killer' and 'bad killer' characters is often 'which one is willing to shoot a baby in the face'? Whichever one it is, that's the one the audience will want to see dead. ^^;

[Kiweevil]

My villain kills a lot of people, but in her eyes, they are bad people. She does what she does because she thinks she is improving the world for her and her loved ones, even if it means killing. I don't feel like she feels remorse for killing any of them, save for one particular character which I'll avoid mentioning for spoiler's sakes. And I think a lot of characters are set up this way. I think it's because a lot of characters, especially villains, kill off other characters because they think it is justified. So why would you feel remorse if it is justified?

And if your villain kills "innocents" just for the sake of killing, then you have a serial killer, who probably also isn't remorseful. You know, because they're a serial killer.

[spadedigsbutts]

I feel like making there have to be remorse every time really limits characterization. Not every character will feel remorse for a variety of complex reasons. There’s been a trend lately of sanitizing media in a way where all stories are expected to Impart very clear morals to the readers like they’re idiots in a super hand holdy way and I’m just BIG OOF

[user400]

Only 3 possible outcomes? HAHAHAHAHA!!!

Whoever was the genius to type that sentence can take their keyboard and shove it up their anal cavity.

Telling others what they can and cannot do with their own characters? Holy crap some people!

[Iris-Grimoire]

Reminds me of the 'themes are bad' and 'nothing disturbing can happen in a story ever, a child might see it' people. You aren't encouraging murder just because the murderer isn't immediately removed from the story or the connection between characters, holy shit. Some karma is nice, but especially in a story with a large cast, you can't account for everyone like some vengeful god, some people will get away and not care and that's life - but it can be unsatisfying if people were expecting something.

[GabiWolf]

I like Deadpool, that is all.

[rajillustration]

I am all about those gray area characters. The world just isn't so black and white, especially if you have stories about war and mercenaries.

[AVXP]

you can't account for everyone like some vengeful god

Actually you can if you're the writer.
That's pretty much your position in the story. You decide fates and how things work.

The only time I've seen a quote like this, it was in relation to world building.
Like, murder in a world with no consequences is meaningless or less meaningful.
Like, um, once you show that (seemingly) main characters can die on a whim- there goes any attachment from the reader(s).

So death needs weight and I think that's why they suggest one of those three outcomes.
What we are mostly showing is- good character kills bad character (and I don't think they mean fodder) -
and nothing happens.....
That is not the good guy "doing first". That good guy is reacting to the bad guy's action.
Justice: cause and effect.

So then if not that, WHY kill a bad guy?
The point is THAT BAD GUY already did (bad) stuff and it's them being killed (revenge, avenge) for it.

And for those on a limb, bad guy kills worse bad guy for redemption fits into this circle.
That's the method Star Wars and countless other shows use.

One of the big tropes here is "lots of remorse" makes up for terrible deeds.
lol

[burginlewis]

Dexter.

That is all.

[Rodimus13]

I don't normally comment but given my position....

I, in the first ep, killed off the entirety of the human race. This was so we could explore what would happen to that the humans made and left behind. To see what last ditch things humans did for or against their own creations in the form of the after shocks felt a century later. This was part of creating the world.

Later... I took a character and had them die (people cried over a robot) to force the MC to start having a reason to look into the oddness of things and realize there is more going on that what they were all programed for. Not only that, but it allowed me to show a safe guard humans had put in the bots.

This has the added effect of creating more tension in the story during parts because I have now shown that just because a character is loved doesn't mean they'll escape unharmed.

Death is fine, when done properly. Cause death happens. By accident, or otherwise. It's only a problem when it's done too much.

But hey, my tally is at 7 billion humans, 1 robot, and a bunch of malfunctioning zombie robots. I am prob biased here.

[AVXP]

Dexter.

That is all.

I know what Dexter is, the show about the serial killer, but looking at a bunch of papers written about the show - Google the moral ambiguity of Dexter and you'll find tons of info. Interestingly, they all seem to echo the same sentiments....

Anti-hero and all ...
It's a (bad) serial killer that kills other (worse) people -
along with a few innocents - and that still serves his purpose and overall goals.(so a little less serial than serial?)
There's hope for a redemption arc for his character....
Women (they said this, not me) still look for the good in him and the fact that he's handsome doesn't hurt.
They flashback/hint at his childhood being the reason/blame for him being this way, etc....
He has an attractive girlfriend, (which I guess removes the loner/loser aspect?)
==================
My girlfriend is watching a show called something like Me, Us or Us or something....
It's got a stalker as the main character.
So maybe Dexter is showing us a new slant for anti-hero stuff.

[Iris-Grimoire]

Yeah, but you're not an in-story god unless you're writing a big meta tale. Try to account for everything,everything and you'll have more endings than The Lord of the Rings. I mean literally trying to make sure every character gets their dues, fair or unfair, is padding if it doesn't contribute to the story and themes.

Not every murder has to be meaningless, not every murder has to be meaningful. Star Trek tried this with the well known Skin of Evil debacle - everyone jokes that red shirts die for nothing all the time, so they kill a meaningful character the same way you kill a red shirt, and everyone hates how understated it was(then they tried to show the impact in the next episodes, didn't work, so they just straight up revived her seasons later). Not everyone can get a grand funeral, not everyone must be cremated as soon as possible to move on with the plot. It's about balance, not doing all of one or the other, which is why we're disputing that it can't be a cardinal sin.

Also, bad guy does bad thing and gets bad karma, good guy does good thing and gets good karma is a really black and white worldview that doesn't even start to reflect IRL. Again, not every story needs to be that, some can be gray, and this is why you can't just stamp 'no' on making a big death happen and that's it - there are stories with a place for that, just like there are stories where retribution and/or redemption is forever imminent.

[Darth_Biomech]

Somebody should tell that person that Hays Code is not a thing for like 60 years already. What bunker did they crawl up from?

Now then, for something much worse - for instance, a rapist? I'd say the only appropriate and just story progression is either death (preferably painful and\or karmic), or thorough remorse, repentance, and atoning for their deeds (and then death).

[AVXP]

"killing major characters is the cardinal sin in writing" or "murder is the cardinal sin in writing".

@Iris-Grimoire : I think that's what you're responding to.

there are stories with a place for that, just like there are stories where retribution and/or redemption is forever imminent.

That's why I mentioned world-building because that's where I think these rules are established. I think you are talking about Tasha Yar, the security officer on Star Trek The Next Generation. She was established as a major character and then was killed off early in the show. Much to the surprise, shock and dismay of fans.

I find that, with Red Shirts they do all three things to clear the collective conscience..
1) they died because of their own inadequacy or mistakes - froze up in fear or just got caught slipping...
2) Kirk has been shown to be very remorseful with his follow up actions, threats to solve the murder or...
3) They are almost always avenged.
4) They do get burials when possible (even when it's a bad and unsafe idea)

I think most of us create worlds we do wish exist- ones with strong lines of justice.
I remember being very young and death was only a result of awesome action.
And then when death hit too close to home, I started doing meaningful deaths and killing off main characters to model after real life. Funny how that works.

Where do you draw your line and where/how did you find it?

[IndigoShirtProd]

I was always under the impression that rape was a cardinal sin in writing. I think it's because often rape portrayed as not a good thing but a justified thing. Or its fetishized; both portrayals, unfortunately, happen in a lot of media and is usually waved away.

Now murder is very interesting to me be in most societies it's seen as a bad thing, the worst thing a person can do. However in media, and sometimes in real life, it's entirely justified: An eye for an eye, The mutilated corpse of the main character's family member for the mutilated corpse of the main villain's family member. You know, as it goes. Usually people are alright with a murderer as long as the people their killing are somewhat bad and the murderer has some redeeming qualities i.e. Deadpool. I like him too, still a murderer. Am I okay with a character I like killing other people, not really.

Killing a main character or a well loved character without some repercussions is a horrible idea that should never be attempted. If the death does drive the plot, incite character development, or change the world/setting, then what was the death even for. An example of a poor choice in killing off a character was in the Divergent book series. Spoilers if you care, but the main character Tris dies at the end of the book series. I admit I didn't read the last book (I read the other two but stopped after the second), but big part of the themes of the series was bravery in the face of a dystopia, fighting for a better life for everyone, and doing so even though the resistance might be small. Plenty of people could have placed themselves in Tris' shoes the person at the center of a revolution, But them she dies in the most schmuck way possible. Not in a climactic fight or in generally heroic way. She gets offhandedly by the villain whom so does not face off with( at least from what I understand). This was a poor way to end the series given the themes and character development. Kill the main character, but at least make it mean something.

So I guess my bottom line is, fictional murder is cool, regardless of who gets killed, at long as it matters to the overall plot.

[baasinsimple]

I'd say that it isn't protagonist-centric, but you need to have characters who react differently to other things, Geralt of Rivia can kill, hell he makes a business out of it, but he isn't inhumane, he kills if he needs to but if he can save someone, he will and if he fails he carries it with him. Yennefer on the other hand is okay with just leaving people to die, it doesn't make her a terrible character, but that's one of her flaws. You need to have clear reasons and consequences for someone's actions, and I feel like that's more what the person was getting at.

For example, a character murders another person, let's say... no. Well why are they that way? Are they sociopaths? Sure. What do they do with the body? Dispose of it? Well, what are the consequences of that? It's a step-by-step process.

[Iris-Grimoire]

It changes from the story. I'm not the kind of person that would ever make a death meaningless, but I've watched/read/seen so many stories where it was done great (however no luck in remembering because usually I just go 'hey that character arc was neat' and the middle is the first I forget), so I do think there's always a place for odd resolutions, as long as you play it by ear and see if your story needs that or not.

[Darth_Biomech]

I think it's because often rape portrayed as ... a justified thing.

My mind fails and BSODS at that thought. It's impossible. Portraying rape as justified is inconceivable. You can justify revenge, theft, murder, torture, genocide, even cannibalism... But not rape.

[IndigoShirtProd]

Rape is sometimes used as revenge or it is the start of a "loving" relationship. Some writers will find any way to justify or condone an act as horrible as rape.

And that's another thing about fiction though. It's a philosophical question: " Should we justify murder, theft, torture, genocide, and cannibalism in media because it's not real?"

I don't know if I can entirely.

[Darth_Biomech]

By "justification" I meant "there's a reason that felt logical and necessary, at least from the POV of the character", not really the "let's portray this thing as maybe good or normal" aspect of it.