New comment system cut off soo much.
+1 for the cup!

Depends on the Lore, but in a fair number if not most instances that does not hold true. Best to keep them entirely separate when used in a general topic. My reasoning basically comes from that group of people that do not know that an Orca (Killer Whale) is actually a Dolphin and not a actual Whale. Messy business and loads of disappointment that topic has caused.

Na, I feel this... If it does not have 4 legs it is not ( a standard/Western) dragon. Even the Asian (Eastern) tend to be depicted with at least 4 feet/claws/legs.

For me this is a more broad annoyance - my own parents would drive me insane with things like calling all vehicles a car [They had always had three when I was growing up and did not own an actual car from ~1995 to 2022 {I was born in 1989}]. To me it is like calling a Bison or Buffalo a Cow, or maybe a better extreme would be calling a goat a cow because it also makes milk. Yeah, that level of 'how does this person even breath' intellect.

Where is that * after alchemist; Terms and Conditions do apply.

Though it was mentioned that the other ones that make things that are equal to running a cut under warm-hot water overcharge to the extreme. So maybe (super*) would have been a better thing for me to write.

I do not know whether or not I am upset that, he did not say: "I am the weapon."

Well ...that happened.

Damn, I was not expecting this kind of comment! Ended up laughing for like half a minute. Simply amazing.

I completely missed the fixed arms on the chair because of those chair legs... but I did have good bit of a laugh at the MCs face on that first sword swing.

This is actually an incredible first chapter... The pacing was near if not perfect. It was a bit long in comparison to some others but it felt like it wrapped up a ton of major points by giving enough detail without bogging down everything as it went. It leaves you with the basics of what you need and left open many other hopeful points of where it is going.

If anything was a downside it might have put my feels on high-alert!

Not a hard win when the old one ends so early. I would even say a person should ready the old one cause they skipped a whole lot of stuff, like it was expected you read the other version already to fill the gaps.

I was giving some thought to a response, but my mind just somehow went broken record mode and started looping "just like Disney".

It really is hard to find something that is GOOD, and just stays GOOD through and through all the way to the end. Especially so if your "tastes" fluctuate on the finer points like mine do.

Nostalgia truly is an amazing brain drug though. Loved Dragon Ball back in the day, just do not ask me to re-watch it (well maybe DB but not DBZ). That is actually kind of relevant with how slows some of theses things release! are we hyping them up too much in the end? Honestly I could say this gives AI a tiny hopeful outlook, cause if you could have it make those adjustments... IP falling into the hands of the unwanted or those that do not do things justice could be redone, especially in a still image graphical format. Fine lines though.

I was going to disagree but I sadly do agree... far more than I would like to admit... The god of the Christian religion is just too nebulous in too many ways.

they mentioned it, but yeah... the disappointment. I hope the start going deeper when they pass the other version completely.

That is true but the first one stopped getting updated? (I think). There is a real possibility that they are going hyper speed to pass over what the old one covered in detail. Later chapters will have to give the judgment on that.

I do certainly agree it is fast especially in comparison but I personally do not get 20,50,100+ chapters in and continue to care about how good the first few are. It would have to have been an Epic or Masterpiece to warrant that kind of caring. just go ten or something chapters down the line and either 'drop it' or take a hit of nostalgia and never look back! ha-ha-ha!

Either you like this rendition or you do not. Read it because you like it or hate read or do not read at all. If you do not like it and can not forgive those points start the hunt for the next thing. Just do not do yourself the disservice of reading something you do not enjoy for the purpose of enjoyment.

Over defense was supposed to be 'Overly defensive'. I was a touch tired while writing and failed to write the proper forms. I used 'Overly Defensive' in a way generally referring to when we end up defending something beyond the point of its merits with a tendency to ignore unfavourable factors.

There was no Pre or Post Hoc in my statements. You appear to have combined the two separate issue into one instance - once again that is the problem with your position. You have not done well enough to clarify what factors your have considered; at first I assumed your position applied up to the point that where after eliminating the first four ghouls and defeating the crowd of puppet/ghouls that was protecting her after she made clear her intentions to kill him. The before and after of her being struck down in the process of clearing that second group is the defining point in this situation.

Your points on this are not clear enough to have proper understanding of your position. Does your position of capture/unnecessary killing start when she was disarmed/knocked down and does it stop when she got back up and started attacking again?

(I will temporarily ignore all other points for this vital clarification)

If you hold this idea on morality personally, than you may be over defense of your point. I used 70% as a minimum for the reason that it is/should be a reasonable percentage for a person estimating their own abilities to restrain an individual (It leaves room for error but for most purposes should be possible). In this story or IRL the illusion of being able to restrain a person/animal/entity has the potential to be just as or even more dangerous than not being able to restrain them in anyway. I can see you are getting hung up on specific that were never a specific, which is specifically why I wrote: "I would argue" denoting that it was not a hard fact and a general measure in my own opinion.
the reason you argument is moot is as stated: that even though it is correct for the moment that the event occurred, the follow up on what happens when you do that for that particular individual in the particular instance has already been shown. The weakness (of your argument) is that you did not put enough emphasis that what you were stating only applies up to that point and not beyond. If your point of morality did included the actions that happened beyond that point, then you need to seriously reconsider it but I assume you were not including the actions after the fact.

The fact that you do not agree that killing a person with a disease that could wipe out the planet as a morally good thing shows how weak your moral stance is. Being moral is about doing what is right, it is not about doing what makes you personally feel good at your convenience. Not killing a person that you know for certain will wipeout the plant; I would love to see some reasoning for that.

I am now interested in this as well. Does he get stopped, does the skill fail, does a space/barrier skill work as normal but he is immune to it....

Is there a major difference to the return home and travel versions... I am now wondering if there are floating islands... cause that can really become something.

I threw some lines at their comments, I do not blame you for not wanting to engage with them. It just really just really hit me when you mentioned the quip about lack of understanding, really reminded me of the saying: "the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions".

I think you are spot on when you say subjective in this context. Though I do, after some thought, know what it is that you "do not understand". Like any decent, thinking person you likely have no idea how they came to such a flawed conclusion. Why they throw out insults when their "argument" is exceptionally weak.

The use of an IRL example in a Fantasy setting may have been the wrong move though. Not being able to shift ones mindset fully between the two might have been the crux of the issue. It excuses nothing, it just may help prevent things like this in the future - lol consider this last bit advice I wish I could give myself and have stick!

I understand a bit where they are coming from, and I do actually agree with you. But I would say that when you throw out a line such as: "what mc is doing is literally stupidity" you should give a finite point for it. Cause even if you are correct it will give your statement more "weight" and help the person you addressed a better chance to understand or possibly even a future reader.

For this specific instance we already know the immediate result of such actions. The thing that makes this an issue in my mind is that sparing someone is generally a good thing (though that can be biased from the existing relationship if there is one). The issue at hand for this one has two MAJOR points with more that I likely did not even think of: The MC has no way to disarm/disable/subdue the girl in any meaningful fashion that would make ability a non threat, Secondly she is a self confessed/professed murder Whom has admitted to try to trap and kill him directly.

So to me the moral argument goes out the window with those elements. In a "normal" IRL example those extra factors do not exist, but in this story the do, so the argument was never a one to one comparison with IRL situations and became incorrect. It was more like super humans/mutants with untold variables. though I will say in an IRL example if the threat can/has been disarmed/subdued without danger - that is the point where it starts to become gray; too further dirty that point the gray is also dependant on what happens after you decide on an action, if you just took out a couple of seven year-olds - that is in a different realm of taking out known repeat offends that the 'System' will not properly contain and I known for retaliation.

Sometimes it is easy to have an answer, but most of the times it is not. I am not saying waste your breath but maybe a touch more with a specific detail, may take you a long way?

I get where you are trying to go with this and in a way you are correct. This is just not a situation this applies to. This is a premeditated attempt at first degree murder. The other people involved can be categorized in the realm of harassment, even if it is extreme it is still arguably in the realm of harassment.

Setting up a trap/ambush to kill without mercy on a specific (innocent) target, while also involving an innocent 3rd party as collateral damage is an apex of crime (IMO). The only way that he should subdue her and it be considered Morally Good is if he can make her a non-threat with I would argue a minimum of 70% certainty. If not without certainty of such a high percentage to secure her there exists chance for her to escape.

The problem in this instance is that he can not guarantee control. That is the issue; You can try to argue that a self admitted (attempted) Murder should be captured, but it falls through because we already have the context for what happens in this specific instance. Making a potentially valid argument moot in this specific context; the choice was made and in the realm reason was wrong. The thing that makes your point have merit is that in the moment -capture is what a decent person should do but fails to encapsulate that if it can not be done then killing her is the morally good thing to do because her powers can not be supressed and she is an active and willing threat every moment afterwards. (A point specific to the story/world it exists in)

Though in a real world application we do not have that future sight or such ...so sadly we can only use our best and preferably trained judgment to lead to the best outcome. (made more realistic and easier to argue with the lack of "super" powers and magic [like] abilities)
To address your point of 'don't kill unnecessarily', you have to have the potential/ability to neutralise the threat. With powers of that nature that would mean putting her in a unconscious state (or suppress her ability) AND have the ability to keep her in it.
Morality is a hard thing to exist with; Good Morality in the moment does not always equal such in the long term. Worse yet perspectives can change it in many untold ways. It would be Morally Good to save a person, but also Morally Good to kill the same person if they carried a disease that would wipe out the planet even if that is something that they have been infected with by means outside their control. A topic that can have such a situation is not an easy one and falls apart to too many specific examples when tested against general Ideas.