Ok why is it that good guys always forget they can cripple the bbeg instead of just out right killing them?

You're forgetting the part where Sam shatters Carcer's fucking kneecap.

If you only remember parts you like to bitch about, you forget the parts that literally have what you want, happen.

If you have the means to do that, the fight is already over.

Vimes is a cop and pretty damn Lawful. He wants to take the guy in "by the book".

> "just" cut off a limb
> easily survive

Also, yeah, Vimes is lawful, but in that book he does kinda lock a torturer in a burning torture chamber

...

First of all he didn't have Carrots sword, so it would be pretty damn hard to literally disarm a man.

Second, you might be literally retarded if you think cutting someone limbs off is any safer than running them through if you don't have trained medical professionals on hand, of which Ankh-Morpork had only one.

I agree, and stopping the bleeding is just more work then it's worth.

Well that answers OP's question doesn't it?

I imagine severing limbs isn't "by the book"

This goes a bit into human psychology.

It's easier (mentally speaking) to lock someone in a room where they die than to kill them yourself.

The thing is, he could have easily done that and Carcer would have been fine, because they have an Igor on standby.

Ok yeah he shattered his kneecap but Carcer still had his knifes that he was extremely deadly with and damn near killed Vimes even with the broken knee clearly that wasn't enough to keep Carcer down

They had an Igor. Carcer could have been using his hands to kill people the very next day

...Did you forget the art where he goes back for him?

Because he's Sam Vimes. If he killed Carcer, or lopped off his limbs like a butcher, he wouldn't be Sam, he'd be the Beast. And on the streets, not being the Beast is the only thing separating you from the criminals. Void stares back and all that.

I mean I get the sentiment behind the non-violence shit, but I feel like there should come a point that most of the villains have long since passed.

Pretty sure there was a comment where Batman argued w/ Red Hood about this very thing:

>Bat: We can kill Joker, but where does the killing end? What's the line for who we kill?
>Hood: JOKER! JOKER IS THE LINE YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKER! JOKER IS IN A BOX THAT SAYS "IT'S OKAY TO KILL THIS GUY"

You literally do not understand the fundamental core of Sam Vimes, do you.
Vimes felt his hand begin to move of its own accord—

And stopped. Red rage froze.

There was the beast, all around him. And that's what it was. A beast. Useful, but still a beast. You could hold it on a chain, and make it dance, and juggle balls. It didn't think. It was dumb. What you were, what you were, was not the beast.

You didn't have to do what it wanted. If you did, Carcer won.

He dropped the sword.

Don't forget that Sam isn't represntitive of good guys in the books. Remember in the second Vimes book when Carrot staight stabs the assassin's guild leader without a second thought, or even a grimace? Stabs him so hard the sword goes through a stone colume.

And then Pratchett does the whole spiel about how you if you're ever in a boss fight you better hope they're a bad guy and not a good guy, cause a bad guy will go on and on about their plans, and motives etc, giving you some time. A good guy will just straight up kill you.

>why is it that good guys always forget they can cripple the bbeg instead of just out right killing them?
I guess it depends on the situation and how you define "cripple" because I feel like most heroes who are against killing someone outright would probably not like the idea of lopping someone's arms off for similar reasons. Also keep in mind you can't just literally de-arm someone willy-nilly and expect them to survive it.

Also it depends on the villain too. I feel like a lot would probably still be dangerous (or find a way to become dangerous again) even if they were crippled.

>Tourniquets
Why not just cauterize the wound? It's not like there aren't torches everywhere

The thing is, those are fantasy villains. Humans aren't actually like that. They don't keep coming back to torment their enemies in endless Christmas specials. They don't get kept alive for the audience's interest. Supervillains don't actually exist, I find OP's example of Carcer a good example. He gets taken down in a street fight, not by Superman. He's not ultimately villainous because of his power, he's a skilled fighter but dangerous because he fights dirty, not because he breathes fire or is super jacked and invulnerable to pain. He's bad because of his emotionless attitude to violence, not because he's superhuman. They're simply different media, I guess.

>You literally do not understand the fundamental core of Sam Vimes, do you
I don't. I was talking about Batman.

I've never actually read discworld.

He unstraps one of his arms, all things considered it was a lot more generous than he had a right to expect.

time to import the joker rape memes

Pretty much this. I don't think you should violently murder every thug you go against, but when someone repeatedly slaughters large swathes of a city no matter how many times you catch him and throw him in jail, I feel like you've got more blood on your hands for not killing him.

meant for

This just stops the bleeding you have to then deal with closing the wound which mean cutting more off and using skin to bind it shut. Look up amputations in the civil war era to get an idea of what it takes.

Cutting off a limb also leads to rapid blood loss. A tourniquet won't stop it forever. Even if you get on one in time.

So in many ways this is very bad. You now have a massive burn to deal with as well as limb loss and blood loss. You still have to go about salvaging what is left with the arm to keep the person stable.

In both cases there is also the severe risk for infection. That pretty much kills everyone who survives the initial limb seperation. In modern times this is way more survivable. However, ethically mutilating someone is still pretty bad. Even criminals have rights.

If you are worried about him escaping to do more evil deeds that is more of a fiction tool. So there really is never a need to do this. It is harder to escape jail and live on the lamb than people think. Even more so in modern times. And even in batman's universe where he will never kill, reality would be him giving a speech about not killing the joker then the state executing his ass.

"Why not just give the guy 3rd degree burns, hope he doesn't go into shock, and hopefully he doesn't have any buddies waiting around while you perform emergency life-saving medical procedures that are 50/50 at best?"

Way to completely ignore the context of the whole thread.

>If you are worried about him escaping to do more evil deeds that is more of a fiction tool.

This, this, forever this.

I think you misjudge the effect of a broken kneecap in a setting that lacks proper medical care.

Sure carcer was still dangerous if you get too close, but that's pretty hard once his leg nealy useless.

Yes, a guy will totally survive you lopping off his arm and then lighting the stump on fire. That's totally better than just killing him. Absolutely a good dude thing to do.

It's fucking VIMES. If he could bring himself to do that he would be dead in a cave under Koom Valley a few years later. He's about as Lawful as it's humanly possible to get. Carrot would probably kill him, hell, even Moist or De Worde if he'd somehow let it get to that point, but Vimes wouldn't.

>Why bother with killing?
>We're the good guys, right? Can't we just cut off his arms, legs, tongue, eyes, ears and force him to eat shit for the rest of his life?
You're not kidding, right?

>Why bother with mercy and not just stab him straight in the heart
>why bother with mercy
You know mercy is the exact reason why the guillotine was invented, right?

Where's.

My.

COW?

>55405651
>Why bother with killing?
>We're the good guys, right? Can't we just cut off his arms, legs, tongue, eyes, ears and force him to eat shit for the rest of his life?
>You're not kidding, right?

No I'm not. I never once said chop off all his limbs and feed him shit. He could live a productive life with just one hand perfectly fine. Many people do. And besides, Vimes was almost 100% certainly Carcer had another knife, so Vimes would have just been disarming him (ha) out of self defense.

>He could live a productive life with just one hand perfectly fine
...But wouldn't that mean he could also still return to villainy with one arm just fine? In some degree at least?

Alright fine with no arms. Still very possible to live a productive life. Only he would have to get a job involving his legs. Doesn't really matter Carcer hung from the gallows that very night

>Doesn't really matter Carcer hung from the gallows that very night
Well then it's sort of a moot point isn't it?

Don't get me wrong. I understand what you're getting at, but if the villain doesn't rely on some sort of power that can be turned off à la Avatar then any efforts to nullify him without him dying would either do as little as leaving him unscathed in the first place or be so great that you might has well have killed him to begin with.

>Alright fine with no arms.
>Still very possible to live a productive life

Because crippling and mutilating people makes you the fucking bad guy, you catastrophic retard.

Why? Governments used to do it all the time. Theives got their hands chopped off. Murderers got worse. Not saying the government is good but they do make the law.

And people like you were left in the woods at birth. Is that a good thing too?

Good job, you've just outlined the problem with Sharia law: it's [THE CURRENT YEAR]. What I mean by that isn't some Marxist view or the myth of Progress, unlike those who unironically spout that argument, but moreso that the means and infrastructure of the government have improved to the point of making lesser punishments viable. Islamic law dictates that a thief must on the first offense have his right hand cut off, on the second his left foot, on the third his left hand, on the fourth his right foot and on the fifth put to death. This is perfectly fine for Arab tribes with barely any law enforcements that lack the means to imprison anyone except maybe enemy nobles for ransom or something. In society as we've known it since... let's say 1880, our understanding of psychology has improved and we have a prison system that can succesfully re-integrate petty thieves at least. Does Sharia law still fit? Is it still moral to cut off hands and feet in this context?

Governments used to do it all the time because there was no better alternative, chum. And even then they usually had the mercy to just kill you for lesser offenses and only reserve shit like chopping off all limbs or pouring molten lead down your throat for the guys they really, REALLY fucking hated.

This matters.

More than anyone, Vimes is invested in the idea of justice not only on the personal level--he gets that part--but the social level as well. He could have killed Carcer in self-defense and no one would have blamed him-- but to put Carcer on trial, to have Carcer sentenced to death and then killed by the legal apparatus means that the social justice still exists.

This is Pratchett, after all. To believe in a thing which does not exist makes that thing exist.

Carrot is totally unaware of the symbolic resonance of his actions when he does the right thing-- that's his shtick. He just IS good.

Vimes isn't. Vimes has to work for it. Vimes values the symbolic significance of the law because, when you get down to it, that symbolic power is the only real power stopping mob violence and butchery in the streets of Ank-Morpork.

>we have a prison system that can succesfully re-integrate petty thieves at least
>america

twin keckes

I'm a yuropoor though. It's widely known that America's for-profit system sucks.

Is this-- dare I say it-- a solid, well-thought out political opinion on Veeky Forums? Color me impressed.

>Not saying the government is good but they do make the law.
Laws meant to keep the common people down and to spread fear. Laws made by corrupt kings and tyrants.
Laws are not inherently good, nor just.

>Why? Governments used to do it all the time.
Woo! Child marriages and human sacrifices for everyone!

Don't pat yourself on the back too much though, most people who get caught as thieves are just learning new tricks by other inmates and will never get their shit together.

t. someone caught for burglaring

>Lawful

Any country that doesn't justify killing in self defense is weak, cowardly and will not survive for long. Like Sweden.

Yeah, but America in particular abandoned any pretense of following a legal method beyond for profit.

Sometimes you send someone to jail because they owe society, sometimes to punish them, never to rehabilitate them, and always to profit from their incarceration

Vimes WON. It clearly WAS enough.

10/10 bait you got me

>Humans aren't actually like that. They don't keep coming back to torment their enemies
>Supervillains don't actually exist

Pablo Escobar, Hillary Clinton, George fucking Soros, any evil dictator, globalist pedophile rings, muslims, etc, etc. The world is full of criminals that are too powerful to be taken down by following the law.

Yeah, just stab them in the leg.

You're a fucking idiot.

Pretty sure he was talking about the fact the Joker constantly pops up because it's a cartoon and they can't just delete a popular antagonist.

>Yeah, just stab them in the leg.
And try to miss the femoral artery while you do it.

I agree. I would be okay with pacifist good guys if they chopped bad guys' arms and legs off. Even Jedi master Obi Wan Kenobi had no problem chopping arms off. How are prison guards suppose to keep super villains locked up? They don’t have a chance. Maim the bad guys. Pluck their eyes out, break their back, etc, etc. They’ll live.

>bbeg

ugh.

>fact
Look at what he posted and ask yourself if he gives a damn about trifling things like facts.
In any event I am punching out of this reply chain before it gets worse.

Whatever you say, buddy.

well like, they'll live but to what end? you put someone in an i-have-no-mouth-and-i-must-scream scenario that doesn't mean you don't have blood on your hands, just not a death.

what is the advantage of having a prison full of armless legless blind Lex Luthors that you still have to feed and keep an eye on over a bunch of dead Lex Luthors who can't trouble you any more

I'm surprised it took this long

You're missing the general point. Is it ok to stab the bad guy? When he may or may not have a weapon? At what point is it not ok to stab the guy and at what point is it ok?

I admit it, I'm new.

Someone explain this meme.

Yeah, "radicals" in our prisons are the same. Just look up the backstory for almost any major terrorist: usually they went into prison for a petty crime first, walked after some years but were radicalised and prepared to die during those years in prison.

>The new face of Gondor
>sensible_chuckle.gif

tl;dr some turboautist loudly and publicly vented about how the term BBEG triggers his autism.

Okay, thanks.

Heretic

Doesn't matter. Stop being a fucking pussy and just do it.

>Dude don't kill him that'll make you a murderer and that's horrible!
>Instead just chop his limbs, pull out his tongue, gouge his eyes and also castrate him that's much more humane!

yeah cops like to talk a lot about how prison is for rehabilitation but i have yet to see one actual criminal walk out of there reformed.

they don't give a shit. no one gives a shit. us prisons are just a hole people get thrown into so you can pretend the problem is gone and when inevitably nothing has changed the community can shake their heads and say "tsk tsk i guess this is just human nature"

Pacifist good guys are just a sign of bad writing. They are afraid to kill off good villains. Instead of making the good guys dumb pacifists, make the bad guys smart enough to have an escape plan. Making all characters smarter is good writing.

It's.. It's on my list, user..

Eventually :^)

Then they'd be torturers and bad guys, not good guys.

>Like Sam could have just cut off Carcer's arms. Boom completely incapacitated. Or chop off the legs? That would be the simplest solution, the bad guy is incapacitated permanently, and not dead.
Jesus Christ. Some people consider dismemberment (or other crippling disabilities) to be worse than death...
...Take for instance Terry Pratchett's opinions before his time.

I often employ dismemberment on my foes myself as a player BECAUSE I consider it worse than death.

>to what end?
>what is the advantage of having a prison full of armless legless blind Lex Luthors that you still have to feed and keep an eye on over a bunch of dead Lex Luthors

Vigilantes can't be charged with "murder" by bleeding heart democrats.

because serial mutilation is so much better a charge

You wouldn't be chasing the villain if he didn't deserve to die. Letting villains live is how you get recurring villains.

if you have never consumed any fiction where the villain didn't deserve to die i hope things pick up after middle school

Do you call Obi Wan Kenobi a "bad guy"?

can i jump in and say him chopping some dude's arm off was poorly written and turning on his lightsaber could have been enough to scare off some shitter in a dive bar?

Name me a villain that doesn't deserve to die.

>enough to scare off some shitter in a dive bar?
Shitters don't get the death sentence in twelve system for being pussy bitches that back down at the sight of exotic weaponry.

>serial mutilation is so much better a charge

Yes. "Serial mutilation" isn't even a charge. The worst a democrat attorney general can charge you with is assault. Nobody will care that a mass murdering terrorist was assaulted.

He could have mind tricked those guys away.

It's Star Wars. A long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away chopping of someone's hand was just another way of saying hello.

That makes you a pussy.

You can, but it makes you a dumbass. People willing to pick fights aren't afraid just because you have a weapon. If you don't use it when you pull it out they aren't going to give you a chance to use it.