Post by mrperson on Feb 4, 2017 16:32:16 GMT
He is not in the least bit of a pacifist, nor does the character generally think of himself as one (except when a particular writer wants it to be that way). How could he be? He regularly places himself directly in the middle of conflicts, which is the polar opposite of pacifist behavior. In fact, I'd say much of the Master's criticisms are accurate.
Their main difference is he......
I think that the Doctor wants to be a pacifist and always tries to choose a path of non-violence but there are times when even he realises that you have to fight fire with fire and get your hands dirty. But he always seeks another way or gives a chance to his foes.
...that. It's only pointless violence that he has a problem with; push comes to shove, and he'll blow up a planet if he's got to (Remembrance of the Daleks; Time War <until it was rewritten>). He'll certainly kill something attacking him (The Green Death, Horror of Fang rock, etc). Perhaps the true reason he won't carry a weapon is prophylactic.
Of course, there has been at least one exception to this principle of necessary violence only: blowing up a cyberman fleet just to give Rory a humorous line. ("Would you like me to repeat the question?").
Oh. Right. And gunning down the general because Clara.
Their main difference is he......
...that. It's only pointless violence that he has a problem with; push comes to shove, and he'll blow up a planet if he's got to (Remembrance of the Daleks; Time War <until it was rewritten>). He'll certainly kill something attacking him (The Green Death, Horror of Fang rock, etc). Perhaps the true reason he won't carry a weapon is prophylactic.
Of course, there has been at least one exception to this principle of necessary violence only: blowing up a cyberman fleet just to give Rory a humorous line. ("Would you like me to repeat the question?").
Oh. Right. And gunning down the general because Clara.
