Can we agree the murder motives were some of the worst in the series?

[Knight]

I can see why this is fondly remembered as one of the best DRs, but the motives felt like garbage.

First murder was probably the best, tied with the final. Dude wanted to get home to his mom, fearing her wellbeing, and feared if he didn't, someone else would kill him. Honestly felt like a legitimate murder trial, legit motive, etc.

Second one was "I misinterpreted whether or not you wanted me to kill someone to get you off the island." It's not the worst motive, but... come on. She didn't bother asking for confirmation of something as serious as killing? It delves into the philosophy of whether or not it's even possible for a human to be a tool of another humans murder. The girl never realized she wasn't a tool until her execution. And she should've known what he thought after knowing him all those years.

Third "oh i lost my mind to despair disease" wow cool such a motive. I get how it sets up something about the story and what's going on off the island, but really? I just became an insane despair person so I killed people? This was my least favorite because borderline mind control was used to influence a murder.

Fourth "we're being starved to death and have no choice." I would understand coercing and tempting people to murder, but here it's literally "if you don't kill you die." He's not tempting them to murder, he's literally forcing them. He makes them exercise to hasten the starvation. Combine that with slow walking to drive the point home. In fact, killing here does the opposite, it even inspires hope. Monokuma's goal is to inspire despair, and he ends up botching it for a motive.

Fifth murder is probably tied with the first. Although his execution method was very convoluted, he had a great motive. Although, it seems a bit unfair even unintentional murder doesn't just get bumped down to manslaughter.




In DR1 the first murder was pretty much a similar motive to this first. Fear of getting killed, realizing if you don't kill someone else will. Another was a jealous rage, another was a manipulation combined with fear, another the suicide was a really dark part of the story too. But what made the motives so good was that Monokuma wasn't forcing them against their will. He wasn't mind controlling them. He wasn't starving them into it. He was just giving them motives and letting them decide. The goal was to get them to choose despair out of their own volition, fairly. But the third and fourth motives are literally anyone might do this, and even be considered justified in a court of law. If you could control someone's brain into doing a murder, the mind-controlled can't possibly be held accountable

[wizardman]

3rd isnt mind control, it is *remembering*. the killer is a terrible person with their memories restored.

anyway, people dont usually kill each other if they can avoid it, thats normal. dr1 just had a lot more psychos

[Knight]

Opprinnelig skrevet av spear (in the mountains):

3rd isnt mind control, it is *remembering*. the killer is a terrible person with their memories restored.

anyway, people dont usually kill each other if they can avoid it, thats normal. dr1 just had a lot more psychos

According to the lore, they were brainwashed by junko to begin with into becoming despair obsessed.

The whole purpose of them not remembering their past, aka before they were brainwashed into submitting to junko is rendered obsolete.

If she can pull that off idk why she doesn't just do it at the end of the game where she's trying to convince them to hit graduate.

[featherclaw]

The motives are meant to bring out the worst in people, to make them kill someone.
It really just wants to show how low some people are willing to sink.

Plot spoilers for SDR2:

In this game, the whole point for the "class trip" was to hopefully rehabilitate the remnants of despair from Junko's mind control. Inside the program they were not affected by it because their minds were set back to a time before she gained control over them.
Junko's goal here was not to create another killing game, it was to lure the future foundation into the program to destroy them from there, so it did not matter to her if the motives were unfair.

As for the points on DR1 motives, yeah xD The motives were more realistic, which makes it much sadder that they worked, but people be horrible, especially if there's something they really REALLY want, like a f*ckton of money, or for a horrible secret to stay secret.

[King Of Lolis]

4th was bs
locking them up without food till they kill
man that was bad as v3 first arc plot

[Hurkyl]

Opprinnelig skrevet av featherclaw:

Junko's goal here was not to create another killing game, it was to lure the future foundation into the program to destroy them from there, so it did not matter to her if the motives were unfair.

This is basically my pet theory too. The quality of the scenarios in the killing game reflect the goals of the mastermind.

Actually, I used to think that the mastermind just didn't care as much about the particulars -- but it strikes me that being lower quality actually helps with the goal they are trying to achieve with the killing school trip.

As for the points on DR1 motives, yeah xD The motives were more realistic, which makes it much sadder that they worked, but people be horrible, especially if there's something they really REALLY want, like a f*ckton of money, or for a horrible secret to stay secret.

This is something of an aside, but my interpretation of DR1's plot is that those are oversimplifications of the blackened's actual motive -- and, in fact those oversimplifications are precisely what the mastermind was trying to convince the world of.

E.g. Celeste accepted the premise of the killing game and was playing to win. Her FTEs reveal she has been in very high stakes competitions in the past, albeit with voluntary participation, and her final statements imply she had no confidence in the likelihood the "escape the game" option would be successful.

But by putting the money out there, Monokuma gets to tell the world it was pure greed that motivated Celeste, rather than survival.

It's possible that the prize might have tipped the scales for Celeste herself, but I think it's mildly likely she would have made her move even without the prize. Even if not, I think she was already really close to the edge.

[featherclaw]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Hurkyl:

This is something of an aside, but my interpretation of DR1's plot is that those are oversimplifications of the blackened's actual motive -- and, in fact those oversimplifications are precisely what the mastermind was trying to convince the world of.

Yeah, I guess that's what I was trying to say but did a poor job of doing ^^;
The motives in the first game were all things the characters were supposed to care about on a personal level. Your loved ones, a dark or embarrassing secret, unimaginable wealth, even Sakura's motive was very personal to her, seeing her friends doubt each other.

I can totally see how someone would think the motives in the second game are just bad in comparison, but the intentions of the mastermind have shifted. Each individual motive is still more or less the same, but executed on a much more shallow level, forcing the students' hands even more if you will.

[Keera]

You're dead on about the third motive, but I think you're misremembering the second one a little. She didn't kill because she misinterpreted that character's wishes, she did it because he was about to kill the victim himself, and doom himself to be caught and executed. She did it intending to sacrifice herself and save his life, with her being on the hook for the murder instead of him.

[flarefan]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Keera:

You're dead on about the third motive, but I think you're misremembering the second one a little. She didn't kill because she misinterpreted that character's wishes, she did it because he was about to kill the victim himself, and doom himself to be caught and executed. She did it intending to sacrifice herself and save his life, with her being on the hook for the murder instead of him.

But how could she possibly know he was about to kill the victim himself? Granted, I think that he would have, but regardless of whether the murderer was right or wrong in her interpretation, it was still an interpretation, not a known fact.