<p>You're being too literal.  You're hearing "when two Teigu users fight, one of them dies" and assuming that this is an infallible statement of an inviolable rule of the universe.  That's silly.  If you consider the actual context of when this statement is made, or just be less literal about it, you'd realize the statement is merely saying "these things can be pretty lethal when used to that end, and similarly for the people who possess them".  In even shorter terms: "they're powerful, dude!"</p>

<p>Consider some similar examples:</p>

<p>"Two men enter, only one man leaves!" ... and then the other one leaves a little later and less happy.</p>

<p>"There can be only one." ... unless we simply resolve to leave each other alone.  Also, are we aliens, or what, because there's probably lots of us if so.</p>

<p>"One ring to rule them all." ... but utterly fail to have any usable power over the majority of those it was supposed to rule.</p>

<p>"The greatest sword ever forged." ... because we have totally measured all swords across all history and agreed upon an uncontroversial and objective measurement of greatness for said swords.  Also we clearly defined what a sword is ahead of time, so this is not an ambiguous statement.</p>

<p>"You pay for the whole seat, but you'll only need the edge!"</p>

<p>None of these things are literally true and inviolable and any violation of them in a story is not a plot hole.  Indeed, their violation in stories is usually <em>the entire point</em>.  It demonstrates how the characters are not infallible, and the heroes and top-tier villains need to demonstrate how amazing they are by overcoming them.  They are either statements of potent intent (Sauron wanted the ring to rule them all, but Dwarves didn't care and Elves were too savvy and resistant), or statements to underscore the gravity of the situation (the Thunderdome is serious business, so best get amped).  </p>

<p>Now, constant violation of the statement <em>can</em> take the edge off of something.  If you routinely find yourself needing far more than the edge of your seat, you will become inured to statements to the contrary.  You may have expected Teigu fights to be routinely deadly and brutal, but if you see several things to the contrary you will start taking the matter less seriously.  This would be a flaw in story structure (or the reader/viewer just being jaded), but not a plot hole.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-09-14T03:33:08.910Z
2015-09-14T03:33:08.910Z
zibadawa timmy
<p><strong>Unmarked Spoilers.</strong></p>

<hr>

<p>There are several fights in the second half of the anime between Teigu users who both walk away alive after the battle. The rule that was established,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>namely, that if two Teigu users fight each other, one of them is guaranteed to die,</p>
</blockquote>

<p>seems to create many plot holes. (The list is of examples and is not supposed to be exhaustive.)</p>

<ol>
<li>Wave and Tatsumi fight (actually Wave beats Tatsumi)</li>
<li>Leone and Run in the royal palace.</li>
<li>Bols vs Leone and Akame</li>
<li>Kurome vs Leone and Mine</li>
</ol>

<p>Is this the case, or is there some reason given in the anime that explains this apparent contradiction?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-08T16:57:21.690Z
It's either an over-exaggeration to show that the Teigu are powerful weapons, or it's meant for a "serious" fight, i.e. a fight to the death (duh!).
Gao
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-08T23:45:49.887Z
Well, technically all of them die except for Akame in the anime... so it kind of works.
FatalSleep
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-09T22:42:10.560Z
@SecretEvilRadio I was expecting some explanation of that rule in the context of the fights mentioned.
Mindwin Remember Monica
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-03-09T22:46:08.993Z
@FatalSleep Then the rule could be written as "When two teigu users fight, none of them can become immortal" - And indeed there are no immortals humans in that universe
Mindwin Remember Monica
<akame-ga-kill>
Doesn't the rule "When two Teigu users battle, one is guaranteed to die" create plot holes?
# Doesn't the rule "When two Teigu users battle, one is guaranteed to die" create plot holes?
Posted by: username_0 on 2015-03-08
**Unmarked Spoilers.**

---

There are several fights in the second half of the anime between Teigu users who both walk away alive after the battle. The rule that was established,

> namely, that if two Teigu users fight each other, one of them is guaranteed to die,

seems to create many plot holes. (The list is of examples and is not supposed to be exhaustive.)

1. Wave and Tatsumi fight (actually Wave beats Tatsumi)
2. Leone and Run in the royal palace.
3. Bols vs Leone and Akame
4. Kurome vs Leone and Mine

Is this the case, or is there some reason given in the anime that explains this apparent contradiction?
**Tags:** akame-ga-kill
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It's either an over-exaggeration to show that the Teigu are powerful weapons, or it's meant for a "serious" fight, i.e. a fight to the death (duh!).  
> **username_2**: Well, technically all of them die except for Akame in the anime... so it kind of works.  
> **username_0**: @SecretEvilRadio I was expecting some explanation of that rule in the context of the fights mentioned.  
> **username_0**: @FatalSleep Then the rule could be written as "When two teigu users fight, none of them can become immortal" - And indeed there are no immortals humans in that universe  
---
## 1 answers
### Answer by username_3 on 2015-09-14. Score: 7
You're being too literal. You're hearing "when two Teigu users fight, one of them dies" and assuming that this is an infallible statement of an inviolable rule of the universe. That's silly. If you consider the actual context of when this statement is made, or just be less literal about it, you'd realize the statement is merely saying "these things can be pretty lethal when used to that end, and similarly for the people who possess them". In even shorter terms: "they're powerful, dude!"

Consider some similar examples:

"Two men enter, only one man leaves!" ... and then the other one leaves a little later and less happy.

"There can be only one." ... unless we simply resolve to leave each other alone. Also, are we aliens, or what, because there's probably lots of us if so.

"One ring to rule them all." ... but utterly fail to have any usable power over the majority of those it was supposed to rule.

"The greatest sword ever forged." ... because we have totally measured all swords across all history and agreed upon an uncontroversial and objective measurement of greatness for said swords. Also we clearly defined what a sword is ahead of time, so this is not an ambiguous statement.

"You pay for the whole seat, but you'll only need the edge!"

None of these things are literally true and inviolable and any violation of them in a story is not a plot hole. Indeed, their violation in stories is usually *the entire point*. It demonstrates how the characters are not infallible, and the heroes and top-tier villains need to demonstrate how amazing they are by overcoming them. They are either statements of potent intent (Sauron wanted the ring to rule them all, but Dwarves didn't care and Elves were too savvy and resistant), or statements to underscore the gravity of the situation (the Thunderdome is serious business, so best get amped).

Now, constant violation of the statement *can* take the edge off of something. If you routinely find yourself needing far more than the edge of your seat, you will become inured to statements to the contrary. You may have expected Teigu fights to be routinely deadly and brutal, but if you see several things to the contrary you will start taking the matter less seriously. This would be a flaw in story structure (or the reader/viewer just being jaded), but not a plot hole.
---
