Snippysnap

[BG88HE_FD_PA]

Baleeted

[MegaMan]

The school regulations are intentionally left vague, both for loophole purposes (exploited quite a bit in DR1) and trial purposes here. Really, Monokuma is more than happy to twist and enforce rules as needed as long as it makes things more entertaining. He listened to Peko make her case for not being a person in one chapter, and he ignored Nagito's bombing destroying one of the monitors in the hotel restaurant which is a direct violation of another rule. Just because a student violates a regulation does not mean Monokuma is obligated to enforce it.

You're trying to apply rigid guidelines to the regulations, which does not work. "Anyone who kills a fellow student" can apply directly, indirectly, or even whether or not the culprit was aware they did it. It's incredibly easy for Monokuma to pin Gundham as the murderer because his actions put Nekomaru in a situation where he was dead whether or not he woke up. Chiaki was the blackened because the poison she threw is ultimately Nagito's cause of death.

[Pikaman20008]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย BattleDonut:

Guys, they were so nice to make a spoilers forum, stuff like this should be posted there... xD

Yep. I don't know why, but this keeps happening. :(

[Pikaman20008]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย RedBeard:

General discussion
Story Discussion (SPOILERS)

This topic is a general topic about the logic used in the game, not really the storyline. The other forum isn't a spoilers forum, it's a story forum that they've marked to automatically include spoilers.

No, wrong, it IS a spoilers forum, because you talk about later parts in the STORY which include SPOILERS! It is a forum made for topics that involve later game details so that people can talk about them and people who haven't finished the game don't have to worry about sopilers, that's why they MADE IT. But the problem is that people just keep posting these topics riddled with spoilers in the general disscussion forum, where anyone can see them. I do appreciate that most people put a spoiler warning in the post title, but really, more people should use the forum for spoilers like this. And also, even if this post is talking about the logic in the game, it makes reference to chapter 5 and later parts in the STORY. Which is why it should go in the STORY DISSCUSSION forum. Again, the main forum is just for anyone to talk about anything so long as people don't spoil the game so that newcomers can participate in the disscussion.

[vulmen.matrias]

I saw a reddit post earlier where someone fleshed out every rule/regulation from DR1 and DR2 and showed comparisons how under the logic Monokuma provided, it could go either way. (Nagito/Chiaki) I would totally have preferred slapping around Monokuma's earlier words about masterminds and who-planned-whats and such, but if he had targeted the AIs that would attempt to influence the Despairs into the right choice during the final trial...what do you think would happen? Junko already knew that Makoto/etc were out there and coming (that was her plan all along), so had to keep a handle on things.

Hence why Usami got the axe just by existing.

The ultimate point is that Monokuma will choose whatever is the most convenient rule for him/herself at the time, bending it as necessary.

Is it BS? Yes. I hated that stupid trial so hard. The fact they even had multiple "escape" attempts from the incoming execution was just a slap in the face. With the first escape they attempted, I already knew it was pointless. Monokuma had decided, it was going to happen. :(

[happydeathman]

STILL, you'd think that the characters would at least have made an effort to argue that Nagito's death was suicide, instead of just instantly giving up and deciding OH NO CHIAKI IS THE BLACKENED.

[MegaMan]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย happydeathman:

STILL, you'd think that the characters would at least have made an effort to argue that Nagito's death was suicide, instead of just instantly giving up and deciding OH NO CHIAKI IS THE BLACKENED.

...just like how they did at the beginning of the case, which played right into Nagito's hands?

[Pikaman20008]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย MegaMan:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย happydeathman:

STILL, you'd think that the characters would at least have made an effort to argue that Nagito's death was suicide, instead of just instantly giving up and deciding OH NO CHIAKI IS THE BLACKENED.

...just like how they did at the beginning of the case, which played right into Nagito's hands?

Yeah. And again, I don't see how it counts as suicide if it's at the hands of another person. I mean, yeah, in the real world, that would technically be suicide by cop. But Monokuma has explicitly made it clear and has said, and I quote, "If you kill someone, that's murder." In the terms of the game Monokuma is hosting, if one student is responsible for the death of another student in any way, that is considered a murder in his eyes and makes them the blackened.

[happydeathman]

...just like how they did at the beginning of the case, which played right into Nagito's hands?

Well? Monokuma's gonna do what Monokuma's gonna do, but what exactly would be WRONG with saying "no, ♥♥♥♥ it, this is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥," even if you can't win? AND HELL, maybe you can. You never know with that guy. I get the rationale behind it, but as has been pointed out on this thread, it's never been consistent.

[vulmen.matrias]

I...yeah. Exactly that. Nothing wrong with that...I know I was shouting that at the screen, multiple times.

We already did have a HUGE reaction from everyone, they were deeply maimed by it. But they mostly struggled with guilt for having to vote Chiaki; they never attempted to counter it "NO, that's wrong!" There's a term for this... Sheeple. (I jest...kind of) Every decision was just following Nagito's rabbit trail.

During it, I did wish they had bucked at the logic used there. Even so, the removal of her+Usami was too convenient for Monokuma. I doubt it would have changed the end result. "...I think."

[Pikaman20008]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย vulmen.matrias:

I...yeah. Exactly that. Nothing wrong with that...I know I was shouting that at the screen, multiple times.

We already did have a HUGE reaction from everyone, they were deeply maimed by it. But they mostly struggled with guilt for having to vote Chiaki; they never attempted to counter it "NO, that's wrong!" There's a term for this... Sheeple. (I jest...kind of) Every decision was just following Nagito's rabbit trail.

During it, I did wish they had bucked at the logic used there. Even so, the removal of her+Usami was too convenient for Monokuma. I doubt it would have changed the end result. "...I think."

Again, I don't see what the problem is here. Chiaki threw the poison that killed Nagito. According to Monokuma, that makes her the killer. Where is the faulty logic behind that?

[Sammy096]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย RedBeard:

It makes me, as the viewer/gamer, less interested in how the story is told if the logic and rules are flexible.

I have to disagree here. In this game's case, I would say it is much more entertaining and less predictable if the rules are flexible and full of loopholes. Also, you should focus on the intend of mastermind behind the plan. Gundham's plan was to kill Nekomaru, Nagito's plan was to get traitor unknowingly kill him.

[vulmen.matrias]

Yeah; once the hat was thrown in this trial, I knew everything that followed was just for entertainment purposes. Even Usami fighting back; I immediately was like "ugh...please, just stop." I get that it was for the drama of it all, and that's a majority of what fed it. Had to happen.

The main issue behind "It was BS" just falls back to how many interpretations can be taken from it. In the end; it's pretty clear what interpretation was used during the trial in particular. I never said the ruling didn't hold up; I just said it was crap. But every interpretation of it, is equally crap. Depends on the viewpoint.

Example; Nagito's Ultimate Luck was the weapon. He'd staged the weapons, he removed the other supplies for putting out fires (Sonia said as much), he essentially staged his entire death similarly as Gundham set up and staged Nekomaru. Without his Luck; it would've failed to play out as he desired. He essentially put the loaded gun in her hand and pulled the trigger himself. Same as saying without Gundham's knowledge of the Funhouse; that particular execution method would have failed.

From a writing standpoint, and from Monokuma's interpretation standpoint, their decision is justified and makes sense. But so are the alternatives. Point is; they're BOTH valid points of view. It's just the most convenient (and 'entertaining') one got selected.

[Pikaman20008]

But in the end, I think you will get your wish. They probably won't do a case similar to this. Because, well, where's the fun in that? They usually do new things with each case, so what's the point in retredding old ground? So yeah. they probably won't do something like this in future games.

[LimeCatMaster]

The "last touch" isn't really the literal "last touch", but rather the touch that made the weapon or circumstances actually deadly. In Nekomaru's case, Gundam lowered the elevator, which is what turned the trap deadly. For Nagito, he may have set up the poison and even impaled himself, but he was still alive. Chiaki was the one who threw the poison in such a way that made it deadly.

If you set up a booby trap, it's deadly at that moment. Thus, you'd be the blackened if it activates and kills someone. Same goes for poisoning food.

"Last touch" is simply a way to explain that the blackened in any given case is the person who causes a death, knowingly or unknowingly.

[Pikaman20008]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย RedBeard:

Let's put it into perspective: imagine that the story had Nagito poison the fire grenades, rigs a fire near the restaurant, and Chiaki had killed Sonia while attempting to save her from a fire. Do you think it makes any sense whatsoever that Chiaki is the blackened in that instance? If not, why then is it fine in the case of Nagito? The answer is it isn't. Neither of them make any sense. Nagito poisoned the object, he is the mastermind and he committed suicide.

No, see, that's a different case entirely. In that case it would be asking the same question that they did in chapter 2. If someone has someone else kill someone on the first person's behalf, then who's the killer? The person who did the deed or the person who set it up? With this, there are only two people involved, and yes while it could be interpreted that this would be a suicide, I think the students knew which interpretation Monokuma was going to apply to this situation. Hint hint, it's the one that ends with more dead students.