Demon Lord 3

If we've lost our true hearts, what's the point of a mission? If we've lost our hearts, then isn't this mission just empty talk? Can we maintain our so-called position when we return? Can we still follow the path we once intended? This test might be difficult for us to complete and understand. If what I just thought was truly a test, then what should we choose? Thinking of this, I voiced my thoughts, and everyone had different opinions. Some insisted on completing the mission. After all, we were here to complete it. Perhaps these people didn't exist, and their lives and deaths were irrelevant to us. We were here to complete the mission, because this world is essentially a world of assassins. There are only missions, no emotions, no compassion. If everyone demanded compassion, assassins would have starved to death long ago. A killer's job is to complete missions and earn enough money. That's what a killer is. Perhaps the profession of assassin shouldn't exist, but sometimes, if it doesn't, what purpose does it serve? Existence alone might offer a sense of restraint, but without it, everything would seem to return to calm, leaving the world in tatters. Perhaps most of the world's inhabitants were killers, those in so-called dangerous professions. Without it, where would they go? Others held different views. They believed in honoring their true feelings and not being trapped by the mission. Even if the mission's desire was deep and they had everything they desired, they should not lose sight of their own hearts and kill those they shouldn't. But what if the mission simply demanded killing? These people might not understand the question: "Wait, if we don't resist, perhaps we'll be the only ones to die." From then on, a third voice emerged within the team: "Adaptability." Why should we adapt? Because things aren't absolute. If we commit to completing the mission without regard for anyone's feelings or concerns, killing without hesitation, we're just murderous monsters. But if we consider people's feelings, killing those who deserve it and letting go of those who shouldn't, then are we truly living people? After saying this, a fourth voice emerged. Those who were more resistant to this idea believed it was fundamentally flawed. The true judge of whether someone should be killed or not is never a single person. Perhaps my childhood was traumatized by family ties. So, when I apply the relationship between someone who hurt me and me to the relationship between them, I automatically bring myself into the picture. For example, when I was little, my younger brother always snatched my chicken legs, and my parents favored boys over girls. Perhaps this has been etched in my mind, becoming an indelible memory. When a sister comes to me and tells me that her family favors boys over girls and that they're bullying her, I subconsciously kill them without hesitation, believing they deserve to be killed. But we don't see the other side. Nothing is absolute, but we can't be the judge. We have no right to define whether someone should be killed or not. If this is the case, then we fall back on the first idea: we don't need to define things, we define them by the task. We say that killing is the right thing to do, but what is the task? Is the task the sole criterion for judging everything? Of course not. But if we don't complete the mission, then what is the purpose? If even the mission isn't the sole criterion, then what should we use to judge? Thinking of this, my mind nearly exploded. If the mission can't be judged, then it goes back to the second point: completely following one's heart. If we really follow the second view, then it seems impossible to be a killer. If a completely good person follows one's heart, even stepping on an ant would make them sad. Then wouldn't being a killer be a waste of God's gift? They should become a great benefactor, a Buddha, and be worshipped. Then, the unrealistic fifth view emerged: just leave it to fate and let it be. This is truly unrealistic. How could God answer your questions for no reason? Therefore, in my opinion, the fifth view is the most unrealistic, and I think the most compromising.