Forum:Cream shouldn't have been a playable character in the first place

Forums: Index > General > Cream shouldn't have been a playable character in the first place

Okay, if you wanna be cowards, then go ahead and be cowards, you stupid nonbelievers. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 15:38, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

Come on, isn't anybody gonna reply to this anymore? I thought this got deleted because I wasn't getting any notifications of a new post. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 08:37, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

And here's why. It's wrong to make a character who doesn't like violence to commit violent acts. I mean, it's as though you or Shadow is holding her at gunpoint and saying "Do it or else you'll never see your mom ever again!" As a result, I am playing Sonic Heroes and Sonic Battle from scratch (as to right the wrongs) and I also refuse to have her in my Sonic Chronicles party. And due to Cream's non-violent nature, I can't even begin Team Rose's story due to the fact you have to defeat certain enemies in order to progress through the tutorial level, and I won't even be able to beat Amy's story in Sonic Battle due to one of the fights involving Cream in it. Sega should get everyone to destroy their copies of Sonic Advance 2, Sonic Heroes, Sonic Battle, and Sonic Advance 3, cos it's obvious they too didn't want her to be a playable character in the first place. Yuji Uekawa ought to be ashamed of himself for creating such a flawed character that just doesn't work in video games (aside from non-violent sports games). In addition, episodes 45 and 46 of Sonic X should be banned worldwide.DM Starkle 11:17, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Have you even read her page? I think that page or another page of her's (Like her Sonic X page) states that she doesn't approve of violence but uses it to defend her friends (or something like that). Sorry if I sound tempered as Iam in a bad mood. Yo It's Willaca Talk If You Dare! 07:04, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense at all. DM Starkle 07:50, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Actually DM Starkle, it sort of does make sense, since, she may not like violence, but will use it if she has to. And even so, it's mostly Cheese doing the fighting, that's why they designed him, so then he would be doing the fighting for her. Also, to clarify about Chronicles, she doesn't actually attack foes, she may stun then in whatever way possible, but she sends Cheese out to attack for her attack, and also, she's mostly a healer, so I don't see a reason to keep her behind for the violent acts. And even so, she could just defend. It’s Pink hereSonic is awesome... nuff said. 08:04, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

A true hero isn't the ones that can do it, but the ones that have too, and at times it's usually those who never ask for it. Cream, who is not only a pacifist but a child who shouldn't be in the middle of the fight against the Eggman Empire but was victim to Dr. Eggmans cruelty when her mother was taken from her. Insted of being an NPC and spend the whole game crying she decided to go rescue her herself, which is what every child would want to do for there parent. It is a rather responsable choice for a six year old and while she didn't directly rescued her own mother directly, she still contributed to the effort throughout Sonic Advance 2 with the aid of her chao to weaken Eggman's forces. While she is still a sweet little girl I think that the events of Advance 2 has hardened her a little that she (sort of) understands that Dr. Eggman is not just some bully but a mecha-terrorist which is why she insists to stay on as Sonic's friend than just leave the series with her mother. With times Sonic asks his friends for help or let them work independantly when it comes to trouble, he will make sure Cream will stay out of trouble than get into anything big.

I think what Sonic Team had in mind for Cream the Rabbit was not that of a damsel in distress but an unlikely civilian character who proudly rise above her restrictions to rescue those that are important to her. Which is a rather interesting and improtant moral to pass onto the audience, such as to never judges ones cover and to not simply give up when those you love are threatened. Also keep in mind that Cream isn't the only junior of the team. Tails is 8 years old himself. Unlike Cream however I believe that he never considers himself much of a child as he never had the propper upbringing of a child, his high IQ and his assistance to Sonic needs him to be mature at a level beyond a mind his age.

Also there is Charmy Bee, but I think thats ADHD or something.

So yeah, I think in future Sonic games, Cream will just be the side character. Either NPC or side-kick, depending on the game. HEck in my game she is the tutor to chao raising.--Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 08:06, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

@Pinkolol16: Don't you know any better? Cream also doesn't like it when others are sad or hurt. So she shouldn't be ordering any attacks at all. DM Starkle 08:13, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Like what Mystic Monkey stated. She know's Eggman is a crazy, evil scientist (or in his case "Mecha-terrorist") and since Sonic Advance 2 she's been standing up for herself. And due to Eggman attacking Sonic & co she has no choice but to commit violence. She can't just sit there. Yo It's Willaca Talk If You Dare! 08:24, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

All the reasons I am not destroying my games with Cream in them. :)--Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 08:29, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Yo It's Willaca Talk If You Dare! 09:00, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

"And due to Eggman attacking Sonic & co she has no choice but to commit violence. She can't just sit there."

Yes she can. I mean, why would a violence-disliker commit any acts of violence? DM Starkle 10:12, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Um.. who's to say that she did attack? Do recall she has a pet chao that fights for her like a pokémon. What if it wasn't Cream who attacked but Cheese in order to defend her frightened mistress? Only aftwerwards she realises she can help her mother with Cheese's help.--Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 12:40, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Are you people forgetting something? She also hates it when others are sad or hurt. DM Starkle 13:18, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

I hope you know that in most Sonic games that Cream's playable in, she attacks robots. And robots can feel or have emotions. Well, maybe except for a few of Eggman's robots, but not the ones you find in regular stages and things like that. Lightning the Hedgehog

I am pretty sure robots do not have emotions or pain receptors. They only behave in pain or act alive usually for comical effect. Though Cream is sensetive when it comes to gizoids.--Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 15:04, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I was refering to robots like Orbot and Cubot when I said that. Lightning the Hedgehog

Yah I don't think she will hurt robots with an AI compared to sentient beings. usually stabdard enemy robots like badniks are automated or have sensor controls. Can't exactly say a motorbugs one direction strategy no matter what is exactly genius.--Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 19:59, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've understood, Cream just doesn't like hurting people, but if you played Sonic Battle, you'd understand why she does, because she had to protect those she cared about. And in Amy's story in Sonic Battle, the three characters are just training and no-one actually gets hurt, so I don't know why you can progress in that story. Myself 123 16:10, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

I have played Sonic Battle, I beat the whole game years before I realised my wrongs, so last month I decided to delete my save data and start anew to right my wrongs. Same deal with Sonic Heroes. As for Advance 2, I no longer own the physical copy due to a faulty cartridge, but I cheated my way through it on an emulator so that I could beat the game without having to play as Cream. DM Starkle 20:14, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

SpyroSonic2000 – We all have our own styles we won't change TALK – 20:24, June 6, 2012 (UTC) Okay, DM, why do you hate Cream so much? And why are you wanting everyone to throw away games? Heck, some of those you mentioned are some of my fave games in the series! And why do you not want to play Team Rose just because Cream does not want to fight? And also, like the others are saying, she will fight when she has to or her friends are in danger.

Who said I hated her? It just bugs me that she commits acts of violence when it's against her nature. And the stuff you people say about "she will fight when she has to" makes absolutely no sense at all. Like I said, it's against her nature, and as you should all know, she also hates it when others are sad or hurt. I can just imagine her going "Poor little Mr. Robot... Why did I ever hurt you?" DM Starkle 20:51, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Again, her chao does most of the work and it's usually out of defending Cream. Also the standard enemies have the IQ of a toaster. You can make more sentient AIs on LittleBigPlanet. I wouldn't be suprise if the standard badnik is sensored control than rely on advance AI to judge it's situation and itself.--Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 20:52, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Also, she can't hurt a robot because robots don't have feelings or emotions. The only ones I can think of that do are Orbot and Cubot, and Cream showed sympathy for Cubot when he couldn't have dinner in the DS version of Sonic Colors. Lightning the Hedgehog

That's not true, because Cream hates those two robots - it says so on her page. And do not remove my message this time, please. DM Starkle 21:30, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

She also knows Gizoiids are more sentient than standard robots and is friends with Gemerl.--Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 20:57, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of that episode when Derpy Hooves had a speaking lines. She was boicotted for it, when most of her true fans love her for being derpy. Point is that going skitz on a series because of one character is sutpid and unfair.--Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 20:40, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

DM,you obviously don't know anything about Cream. She's polite and well-mannered not a girl who doesn't commit to violence. And Im' pretty sure nobody "commits to violence " as you say. There's a diffrence between defeating and enemy and being violent. Violence is ruthless killing,Sonic and co. don't just kill people. I'm pretty Sonic never killed eggman. If anything, I'm pretty sure Cream killed Emerl,but even then it was because he turned into a crazy murderer. So,what you're saying is really stupid,because nobody in the Sonic Games is supposed to be violent. You're the only violent one,and also the discrimitive one~♥Snegg♥ 21:18, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

It's not stupid. And violence is not ruthless killing, because what would you call fighting games? Do you call knocking out people not violence? And every character in the Sonic games is violent, especially Knuckles, since he's a sucker for that kind of stuff. DM Starkle 21:30, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Amen. I like trains Riolus are coming for you 21:20, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Pacmansonic138 – Watch out! You're gonna crash! Ahhh! TALK – 21:25, June 6, 2012 (UTC) Per Pink, she uses violence when she has to.

That doesn't make any sense at all. DM Starkle 21:31, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

SpyroSonic2000 – We all have our own styles we won't change TALK – 21:33, June 6, 2012 (UTC) She does not like to use violence, but she will use it if she has to, even if she does not like it.

And like I already said, that doesn't make any sense at all. DM Starkle 22:08, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Pacmansonic138 – Watch out! You're gonna crash! Ahhh! TALK – 22:15, June 6, 2012 (UTC) May I ask, how does it not make sense?

Because the character dislikes violence, and also doesn't like it when others are sad or hurt. If such characters don't like violence, they shouldn't commit such acts. It's their fault for not liking violence in the first place. DM Starkle 07:21, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

She's only playable a few games, so don't complain. I complain about her appearances in the Main Series of games. She's only been in Heroes, Colors and Generations. Pikatwig 23:11, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Genesjs – "I don't die. I just go on adventures." TALK – 03:52, June 7, 2012 (UTC) (if you wish to see a shorter version of this argument, look down below at the "TL;DR version) No offense DM, but its you who isn't making any sense. Your arguments about why Cream should've never been a playable character is only going on the fact that, by heart, she's a pacifist. And its also basically the only argument you're presenting as to why certain episodes of Sonic X should be banned, along with the entire events of several games, just for this one aspect of her character. You also aren't presenting any solid evidence as to why its "obvious" that SEGA never wanted her to be a playable character in the first place. There are plenty of other characters in media who, while they aren't too fond of violence in general, resort to it for various reasons. Going by your logic, those characters even outside of Sonic "aren't workable" just because of such traits. That's like saying that a villain who thinks he's doing good is crappy because he isn't thinking about doing evil deeds to make people miserable, and therefore makes him an ineffective villain. I most certainly think many people who're familiar with Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame" (whether its the original novel or the Disney movie) wouldn't call him an ineffective villain because of this argument. He thought he wasn't doing anything wrong, and he almost burned Paris to the ground because of his inability to see that he's doing any wrong at all. And yet here you are, presenting arguments which, using Frollo as an example, say that he shouldn't do any of the evil things he did because he was a high ranking member of the church and because he was supposed to be a respectable leader in the story he's presented in. If you're going to make an argument like this against a character, then you should try presenting arguments that actually make sense and have some validity to them. Nothing that you said so far, IMHO, has either quality. EDIT: Here's another, more straight-forward, example: A male stalker stalking a female (ex GF, love interest, etc.). You'd think that if he'd love her that much he'd do whatever she asked of him, right (in this case, leaving her alone)? Wrong. In most real life cases, the stalker is completely incapable of realizing just how much damage his actions could cause towards his love interest, and (depending on how obsessed he is with her) would resort to hurting and even killing something/someone if that's what it took to make sure that the female got "the best lover in the world" (in such cases, its always the stalkers themselves). I'm sure most of us grew up with stories in which true love = No harm, right? That, if found, true love can bring much bliss to the couple? Let's say a stalker like this is the villain of a certain story. Does the fact that he's even willing to hurt his love interest if she doesn't accept him, even though some of us may think he shouldn't have to resort to that option because he's supposed to love her enough not to hurt her, make in an ineffective character in the story? I don't think so, because I think its the fact that these ideas and emotions conflict with each other inside the stalker is what makes him an effective character in the first place, and therefore makes him more terrifying. So I can't see how he'd be a crappy character just because you'd expect him to follow one type of nature to the letter and nothing else, because it wouldn't work for the kind of character he's supposed to be in that story. TL;DR version: Just because a character is forced to do things that goes against his/her general nature doesn't make them ineffective/crappy characters that should be completely censored from existence. All your arguments are going by are the fact that, just because she's a pacifist by heart, she should be completely censored from the face of the Earth just because she's frequently brought into situations to where she's forced to use violence, while completely disregarding just how justifiable those reasons usually are. There are plenty of characters like this in other Media that and I can assure you that if you bring arguments like this against them their fans will be eager to explain to you how your arguments don't make any sense. One example I can think of is the character Frollo from Hunchback of Notre Dame: he starts out as a decent person (in the original novel) but he ends up becoming a shadow of his former self once a certain person enters his life, making him go from his original nature to a homicidal, lustful psychopath. Does the fact that he does multiple things that goes against his original nature make him in ineffective villain that should be completely censored? I don't think so. Here's another example: A stalker with a crush. Does the fact that he's willing to inflict harm on others if it gets in the way of his ultimate objective, depite the fact that some of us may believe that he shouldn't do such things because he supposedly loves her, make him an ineffective character in any story he's featured in? If the story is about a stalker who can't seem to grasp the fact that the lady doesn't want him, then again I don't think so, because he's supposed to be a character with conflicting natures and desires in that story, which is supposed to make him more effective and scary when he really loses it. If you're gonna be making any arguments like this against a character, make sure that they actually make more sense and have some validity to them, because IMHO your arguments have neither sense or validity to them.

I do believe I'm making perfect sense here. Why would a character commit violent acts if they hated it? If there's anyone to blame, it's themselves for not liking violence in the first place. Characters who don't like violence should not commit any violent acts at all, and that's why Cream shouldn't have been a playable character to begin with. DM Starkle 07:21, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Genesjs – "I don't die. I just go on adventures." TALK – 07:26, June 7, 2012 (UTC) And also completely censor her character from existence in the process, at the cost of retconning several entire events in the Sonic Mythos in various continuities? Anyway, I can see that its pointless to argue with you on this matter. Should've listened to myself and just kept my mouth shut on this forum, but oh well, I tried.

No, not completely. She'd just be reduced to a cutscene character. DM Starkle 07:36, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Alright DM here's another example.

Let's say there's 2 best friends (let's call em' Friend 1 & Friend 2). Friend 2 get's bullyed at the park (let's say beaten' up). And Friend 1 stand's up for Friend 2 (despite Friend 1 not approving violence) and beats the bully's up to protect Friend 2. Would this make Friend 1 a bad friend? No as he is protecting his best friend from danger. Now let's say that Friend 1 didn't protect Friend 2 from the bully's and just sat there and didn't do anything at all. Would that make him look like a bad friend? Yes as he didn't do anything to protect Friend 2 and would look like a bad friend. Or in my case "a huge dog". Yo It's Willaca Talk If You Dare! 07:37, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Actually the first scenario makes Friend 1 a bad friend and the second scenario doesn't. DM Starkle 07:43, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

How does Scenario 1 make Friend 1 a bad friend? He's protecting him.Yo It's Willaca Talk If You Dare! 08:24, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Now that doesn't make any sense at all. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 08:50, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Technically she is reduced to a cutscene character these days. At least take part in side missions in Generations.--Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 08:46, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

[sigh] I'm just gonna leave now before I get agro. Yo It's Willaca Talk If You Dare! 08:53, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Your Honor, the defense would like to submit evidence to refute the prosecution, DM Starkle's, claims.

I present... Mega Man X. The character.--Akamia^{(Talk)(Want to see what I've been doing?)} 10:16, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Yo It's Willaca Talk If You Dare! 10:19, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Think about it. He argues that Cream should never have been playable because of her dislike of violence. *desk slam* Mega Man X shares this character trait with Cream. *Ace Attorney-style zoom* Mega Man X is the main character of his series! *zoomed out again* If Cream doesn't make sense, neither does Mega Man X! *dramatic finger point* But if the prosecution can make sense of Mega Man X, then the same reasoning can be applied to Cream the Rabbit!--Akamia^{(Talk)(Want to see what I've been doing?)} 10:27, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

The defense would like to present more evidence.

Please have a look at... Phoenix Wright of Ace Attorney.

Phoenix Wright is a lawyer. Criminal defense, in fact. He takes on clients charged with murder, and literally only them so far. He always gets the short end of the stick with his cases, coming back from near-impossible victory, yet he always finds the truth. There is only one problem; He can't always do it without doing something he doesn't like first. That includes accusing an innocent witness to buy an extra investigation day. This is similar to Cream in that he does something that he doesn't like to do (even hating having to do it), simply because he must.--Akamia^{(Talk)(Want to see what I've been doing?)} 10:39, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Even though you're one of the admins, you don't make any sense either. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 11:08, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Refute my evidence, then. Cream's situation matches X and Phoenix Wright both. The former actually succeeds in becoming a full pacifist eventually, the latter has a different problem of the same nature, and still deals with it. Explain both of them.--Akamia^{(Talk)(Want to see what I've been doing?)} 11:15, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Genesjs – "I don't die. I just go on adventures." TALK – 11:18, June 7, 2012 (UTC) @DM: Or maybe you just don't want our arguments to make sense.

None of you are making sense! The only thing that makes sense is that violence-dislikers like Cream should not commit any act of violence at all and if there's someone in danger, it should be left to someone else. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 11:23, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Objection! What if there is no "someone else" to leave it to?--Akamia^{(Talk)(Want to see what I've been doing?)} 11:26, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

They do nothing. They can only blame themselves for not liking violence (and other things they dislike) in the first place. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 11:35, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Genesjs – "I don't die. I just go on adventures." TALK – 11:28, June 7, 2012 (UTC) You know, I can't decide if you're a Troll or you're just delusional. Real life doesn't work that way, DM, and I pity anyone who believes that. People do what they gotta do, even if its something they don't want to do, and the same applies to fictional worlds as well. To my understanding Sonic never wanted to have Eggman come into his life and make everyone miserable and at constant risk of some danger, and yet he fights against him in order to protect what's precious to him (in this case, his friends and world) instead of just running off someplace to avoid conflict and letting other people worry about the mad doctor, yet I don't see you chewing him out.

That's because the blue blur himself doesn't mind violence. His little rabbit friend does. And what I'm saying is true - someone who doesn't like violence doesn't commit such acts. All of you just don't know any better. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 11:35, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

She doesn't LIKE to fight, but she HAS to. I'm pretty sure Badniks won't listen to Cream's begging. And if you didn't have time to wait or the police to save your amly if there was a murderer in your house, would you just wait or fight the guy? Fact is, she doesn't LIKE to fight, but she will if she has to. Honestly, your making a bigger deal out of this than it has to be.Time Biter "The Rift" 11:39, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

When she HAS to. Everyone keeps saying that! It doesn't make any sense at all! What I've been saying all along makes perfect sense. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 11:59, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Genesjs – "I don't die. I just go on adventures." TALK – 11:43, June 7, 2012 (UTC) (I change my mind: I'm gonna argue with you for a little bit more) Sonic approving of violence himself or not isn't the point. Point is, he never asked to have the life he's got with Eggman, he just wanted to have a life full of mindless adventure, yet he's contantly forced into doing something he originally didn't want to do yet he did it anyway because he wanted to protect something. Cream basically does the same thing, because what's precious to her is often threatened and the only way she can make a difference in the final outcome is if she gets her hands dirty. Somehow I doubt that you'd let your parents get murdered right in front of you if, say, you're a pacifist yourself but know full-well that you can do something to prevent anyone from getting killed.

And I could only blame myself for not liking violence in the first place. See? It works out just fine in real life. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 11:59, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

@DM: Basically what you're saying that if you didn't like touching people and someone was falling from the top of a building and you could very well catch them, you would leave it to someone else to save them. Time Biter "The Rift" 11:46, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

@ DM: I'm sorry, but it doesn't work "just fine". You know just as well as I do that if you did that, you might end up a broken person in the long run. That's not "just fine" at all.--Akamia^{(Talk)(Want to see what I've been doing?)} 12:01, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

How would I end up a broken person? -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 12:26, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Genesjs – "I don't die. I just go on adventures." TALK – 12:05, June 7, 2012 (UTC) No it doesn't, DM. You'd basically let your own mother and father die potentially brutal deaths which you yourself could've prevented if you had simply lifted a finger to do something, and your excuse for taking part in negligent homicide would be "it'd go against my nature of not liking violence.". Do you honestly believe that people would let you off the hook if you gave them that kind of argument?

Of course. They've heard of those kinds of people who don't like violence, so yeah, violence-dislikers would be let off the hook. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 12:26, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me DM but are you just ignoring facts here because you simply don't agree with them and think they're all silly? It's rather immature way to take critism and opposing logic. Just because Cream the Rabbit puts up a fight doesn't neccisarily means she enjoys it. Yes I agree with you it is in her nature not to fight, but that doesn't mean she has a choicewhen situation comes for it, in which case I believe her actions were out of both defence and rescue than just breaking robots.--Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 12:14, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, she does have a choice when the situation comes for it. It's not much of a choice, it's more like "leave someone else to it". -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 12:26, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

DM, that is a horrible reason. Time Biter "The Rift" 12:29, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

How so? Please elaborate. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 12:32, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

It's a horrible reason because only a truly lazy, horrible person would wait for someone else to do it while the ones they love are in danger. You COULD have done something. Not doing something would be as bad as the crime itself. You may as well have been the murderer. What if it was your OWN life at stake too? No one would come, just you and someone about to kill you, with absolutley NO reason at all. You would rather be killed that resort to the LEAST bit of violence? Time Biter "The Rift" 12:39, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. It would be my own punishment for not liking violence in the first place. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 13:02, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

I swear DM, you have some of the worst excuses ever. And I hate being rude. Time Biter "The Rift" 12:15, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

@ DM: You would end up a broken person through the trauma of watching your parents die right before your eyes. The trauma of witnessing it, and not doing anything about it, even though you knew you could have. In this hypothetical situation, you could have saved their lives. You didn't save their lives. If that doesn't break you, I don't know what would. Even the strongest believers of pacifism can only take so much pain before they finally crack. This applies to everyone else, too. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about. I am a pacifist myself.--Akamia^{(Talk)(Want to see what I've been doing?)} 12:34, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It wouldn't break me at all. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 13:02, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Genesjs – "I don't die. I just go on adventures." TALK – 12:37, June 7, 2012 (UTC) This is ludicrous... Fine, enjoy your inane views on pacifism, because it won't change the fact that a large majority of people in the world are going to disagree with you, and not just when it comes to fictional characters either. I've dealt with amateur Trolls who could give better arguments than what you've been giving me and everyone else here who tried to explain their disagreements with you. Just remember that if you're going to share your opinions with others willingly then you better expect opposition of some kind, especially valid opposition because not everyone is going to agree with you. Not on your views regarding pacifism, at least. In fact, I'm sure most other pacifists would be disgusted by your logic, and that's saying something. I don't think I have anything more to say here, so enjoy anyone else who decides to keep arguing with you.

No they wouldn't disagree with me at all. They'd strongly agree with me. Pacifists wouldn't be disgusted by my logic. And why are we talking about pacifists anyway? Cream isn't one. Nowhere on any of her articles (game, Sonic X, Archie) does it say she's a pacifist. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 13:02, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

DM, I am thoroughly disgusted with your logic concerning pacifism. You don't understand it at all. It wouldn't break you at all...? Who are you, an unfeeling robot? And for the record, you said it yourself, Cream is a character who doesn't like violence. That's pacifism, buddy. Cream is a pacifist.

Pacifists would take whatever steps they needed to, if it meant for a peaceful result. What you're suggesting we, the pacifists, would strongly agree with is disgusting.--Akamia^{(Talk)(Want to see what I've been doing?)} 13:07, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

It's not disgusting at all. And just because Cream doesn't like violence doesn't make her a pacifist. Send an e-mail to this guy - kingtheunknown@yahoo.com - because that's what he too says, that just because someone doesn't like violence, doesn't make them a pacifist. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 13:17, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Genesjs – "I don't die. I just go on adventures." TALK – 13:11, June 7, 2012 (UTC) ... Everyone, I strongly advise that you don't get into this issue with DM any further because I think it's quite obvious at this point that not only does he want to listen to what anyone has to say to the contrary on what he thinks, but also because I think it'd be pointless to talk to someone who contradicts himself by asking "why are we talking about Pacifists?". I'm personally going to assume this kid is just trying to Troll us, so I'm not gonna give him the satisfaction of more reactions from me on this particular subject. I've already made the mistake of commenting on something in which I knew full well that my arguments probably wouldn't get anywhere in anyway, and I'd rather not make any more.

You calling me a kid? I'm almost 22. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 13:17, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

I concur.--Akamia^{(Talk)(Want to see what I've been doing?)} 13:15, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Kid or troll should we just drop it? DM is a Sonic fan who doesn't like Cream. Big frikkin' do. If he wants to burn his Sonic games with Cream in them let him.--Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 14:45, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do like her. Who said I didn't? As a matter of fact, in my own fan universe, Cream happens to be the cousin of two of my characters. And I'm not gonna destroy my games, I'm just gonna refuse to play with Cream, that's all. -DM Starkle- I believe in you, Sonic... Generations prototype! 14:49, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Has it ever occured to you that shemay be a pacifist who practices the non-aggression principal? Pacifists have been known to use violence for self-defence or other reasons. Myself 123 18:03, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

I tihnk DM is banned for a week. Lets keep this thread up as a monument to his wisdom.-Mystic Monkey is a proud MonoBook Wikian. 21:29, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

Genesjs – "I don't die. I just go on adventures." TALK – 21:36, June 8, 2012 (UTC) Actually, it's been changed to 3 days. However, even though I'll admit that I also find DM's logic and general attitude questionable I recommend that we the Admins should try to act a little more mature when it comes to expressing our opinions on another person's intelligence, otherwise it may accidentally make us look bad. But that's just me. Either way, I think it'd be wise for anyone who disagrees with DM's arguments in this forum to not comment on it at all, since it's quite apparent he won't listen to any opposing arguments. It'd save everyone else a lot of trouble.

I've went ahead and locked the page for everyone except Admins. -- 21:41, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

I want to elaborate on my point: Pacifism is an ideology, and as such, there are different principles that a practitioner may or may not follow. In Cream's first canonical appearence, it never mentioned that she was a pacifist, it wasn't until the highly story-driven Sonic Battle that Cream displayed signs of pacifism. At the start of the story, Cream seems to practice the nonviolence priciple with minor signs of non-aggression; she was willing to train with Amy and Emerl although she wasn't entirly happy about it, and the dialogue implies that non-one was hurt or injured during the training (amy was merely tired because of all the training). When it comes to actual fighting, Cream displays the nonviolence principle and refuses to defend herself against the Phi series robots. However, when she sees Emerl getting severly damaged by Chaos Gamma's onslaught, she believes that it is necessary to fight to defend herself and those she cares about, swithing from the nonviolence principle to being a complete non-agressive pacifist. As for her actions in Sonic Heroes and Sonic Advance 2, perhaps she only decided to become a pacifist after she had been in battle a couple of times and understood the true consequences, though it is known for Sega (and most game developers, for that matter) to change the presonalities of their characters as they see fit. If you (DM Starkle) refute this, then I have no choice but to consider this a lost cause and move on. Myself 123 21:54, June 8, 2012 (UTC)