Ser Pentrose

Stinger?  I'll give you some one fired a missile at a cow, I knew of some one that used claymore mines to duck hunt with (in Vietnam)  But Stingers are surface to air missiles and need a positive heat lock before you can fire them, and generally don't work under 20 meters.  A cow isn't going to be making enough heat to get tone.  (shooting stingers was a side job in my storied career).

If I were a betting man, based on it being Denmark, I would say an "Panserværnsvåben" (which is what I would call an AT-4CS) or a Dyssekanon M/85 (Carl Gustav M3).  Being as how both of those are designed to muck up a main battle tank, I'm going to assume there wasn't much cow left, and what there was left was well past medium rare.
 

Those things are incredibly hard to butcher and have almost no useful meat, relative to their overall mass.

Almost every writer I've heard talk about the process of creating a story (and I attend writing panels at sci-fi cons) has mentioned getting into an argument with one of their characters - and losing.

I've often wondered just how powerful a deity is, who can't sanctify a marriage without the permission of a preacher and/or a government official.

What?  You have a problem with hot chicks that can think out of the box?  So far out of the box that you can't see the box from where she is at.

Errr... the idea of promising the masses bread and circuses was already found in Rome well before the birth of Christ. And probably in parts of Greece, too. And in many other places if you count such instances as promising a starving people better living if they'll just help you toss the old chieftain out on his ear and put you in his place. Then there's any workplace where there is jostling for position amongst the employees.
My own conviction is that as soon as you have three or more people in the same place, politics appear. This is probably an exaggeration but the word itself is based on the greek Polis, or city. Possibly a good definition is that as soon as you have a decent size population that can support a city, politics rear their head. Even kings at times have to placate their people if they get hungry enough, after all. Or that guy who sees a golden opportunity to replace you may appear...

ASHLEY ≠ ΚΑΛΛΙΣΤΙ
After consulting my pineal gland, I am confident that this is correct.*
*Of course, Eris may reveal another truth to another observer that would be equally correct.  For further information, consult your pineal gland.

Hmm, maybe this is when she gets her Mark?
I can see Catalina saving up and splurging on one of those biofeedback cat-ear rigs that move the ears in response to the wearer's moods...or maybe being given a pair by her girlfriend!

That's really rude, you know. I have it on good authority that nine out of ten elder gods consider her one of the hottest eldritch horrors around.

Too bad. I shall resolve this by means of simple logic.
Let us posit this 'killing gene' exists -- a tall order, but I shall let you have that much. Some combination of genes makes it easy for a human to kill other humans. Or alternately, some form of training exists that allow humans to overcome their reluctance to kill. We shall label this condition A.
Next, we have the absence of this attitude or conditioning. These humans can still kill but only do so accidentally or in utter extremis; otherwise they are too restrained to actively seek the death of fellow humans.
First, let us posit a humanity in which the existence of A is ubiquitous and omnipresent -- this is the state you insist on. From there, there is a sliding scale going from large majorities possessing A existing towards the opposite end where it is either rare or nonexistent. Let us ignore the sliding scale and look at the murderous monsters inhabiting a planet where only A exists. Every time they enter conflict, they are satisfied only with the death of their opponent. Evolutionarily speaking, how well does this hypothetical species do?
I shall present the following hypothesis: not very well. This species would self-destruct in an orgy of violence very, very quickly.
If we go downwards on the sliding scale, it does better, of course. But as soon as we do, I am allowed ancestors that do not end all their conflicts with killing, and your original position falls apart. The End.

Politics is not a recent invention, as a manifestation of hierarchy and the pursuit of power among social animals we can safely assume it predates written history. As far as we know there have always been leaders who rode to war, and leaders who did not, in the same periods. The warrior king and the tribal chief riding with their hosts are romantic notions, but we must not succumb to primitivism. Soldiers are sent to fight whether or not the leader is present, and historically the presence of leaders was a matter of practical necessity. Either the leader stayed with the host to direct it or stayed with the host for security, they can only now command from afar due to advancements in technology.
 

 
It occurred to me tonight how much Pandora's life must be like the movie Groundhog Day.  It's been 23 years, and I think at least the premise has gotten out, that it's about a guy being stuck reliving the exact same day over and over.  And, there comes a point where he's figured out every good deed and the best way to fit them all in, has tried everything there is to try, and can go through the day doing amazing things, and be utterly and completely bored with it, because he's already done it so many times before.  If Pandora can predict everything with almost-complete accuracy, I can see how that would get old.
Note that, as a long-time fan of Highlander, Methuselah's Children, and Forever Knight and a number of other series with near-Immortal protagonists, I've thought about this more than I probably should, and I don't find this a likely outcome.  People always say that someone with a long lifespan will have seen it all and gotten bored with it all, to the point of life becoming unbearable.  I say, bull.  The world doesn't stay static.  It's not like a video game you've played too many times.  Real life people are infinitely variable, and the world itself changes all the time.  When I go home to visit my parents, after not living in that town for a couple of decades, it's a mix of old familar stuff and new interesting things, and the percentages shift further with every visit.  Even if you were tied to one geographic location, that location will change around you.  Given the ability to travel whenever and wherever you desire, it would be impossible to see the whole world, because by the time you reached your last destination, your first would be unrecognizable.
To quote a T-shirt, "Boredom is [almost always] a self-inflicted wound."  Granted it's sometimes something we choose as the lesser evil.  Stay at a job that doesn't challenge you, or risk being jobless if you can't find a better one?  Stay in a familiar town, or risk not finding anyplace as good when you travel?  People today have so many options it's incredible!

And now, I shall merrily continue to sing "This Is Halloween".
Although, I would like to have a store that sells Halloween stuff in January 

Neither -- in fact, none -- of your arguments negate my main point, which is that this absurd kill or be killed mentality you seem to posit as a necessity for survival is the exception and not the rule.
As to professionals arriving in minutes, why not? Much smaller communities then. All you needed was a good alarm bell and the help would be there quite speedily. In fact, a rather famous militia in the early days of America was called 'Minutemen' for precisely this reason...

*groans* Not THIS again. Look, Robert E. Howard wrote some cool fantasy books, but the entire POINT of society -- any society -- is banding together for mutual protection. This notion of an ancient barbarian world where men were men and could stand tall and proud in their loincloths whilst in the middle of a howling blizzard, holding their swords aloft in one hand and the severed head of an effete virgin-sacrificing sorcerer in the other, a just barely not-sacrificed virgin clinging to their leg, may all be well and good but it has very, very little to do with reality.
If you look at history and take a close look at the bits that don't get as much attention as the others -- that is, the boring bits without war in them -- you will see long stretches of time in which hunters hunted, farmers farmed and (eventually) craftsmen crafted. They certainly didn't walk around killing one another on a daily basis. In fact, it was even hard to kill one another if you didn't have a good weapon, and weapons might well be frowned on by society or monopolised by whatever ruling power held it together.
These days it is appallingly easy to kill. Even in societies where firearms are controlled, nearly any adult can become a lethal killer just by taking the wheel in a car. Drive half a ton of automobile into someone at sixty kilometers per hour and see how good they look afterwards. Or you can go to a hardware store and buy a good steel steak knife. How available were these some three thousand years ago? The answer is: not very.
But let's totally drop the 'society that turns us into effete civilised people' and look at some ten thousand years ago. Did people kill one another back then? Sure they did, but murder was still an aberration. Normally fighting only led to someone giving up. But even if you wanted to kill someone, this was actually hard work and might take time -- and the other members of your band of hunter-gatherers might well be spoilsports and try to stop you.
Remember the movements of tribes a few thousand years ago? Some three thousand years ago a bunch of bloody immigrant refugees arrived in Denmark and immediately started to act like they owned the place. Why did they do that? Well, the main reason was that they had lived somewhere else and then been forced to relocate when another bunch of people moved in where they used to live. Note that phrase -- FORCED TO RELOCATE. That's not quite the same as being systematically killed. Anyway, these buggers (my ancestors on my mother's side) took over, absorbed the less technologically advanced tribe that used to run the place and started to establish an agrarian culture.
And that agrarian culture turned out to be pretty boring, all about getting harvests in and very little about killing one another for fun on the weekends. How effete they must have been, what has the world come to.

I kind of want a sleepy Grace to walk up to both of them, telling them to keep it down, she has a test tomorrow, or something like that.  She could sneak up on them, being the "sleepy little ninja" that she is...

This made me laugh. My sleeping patterns have been completely messed up for weeks - I actually slept through the entire Thursday plus a couple of hours more - but suddenly I feel better knowing that at least I'll never sleep for an entire week. I know it's stupid of me to stay up too long because I know that I'll just end up sleeping the same number of hours I've spent awake no matter what, but I can't help it. There are just too many good cartoons to watch, books to read and forums to write on and absolutely nothing better to do with all my time.

I concur, there are ways and ways of surviving and thriving, and as social creatures with a wide range of communication methods and decent powers of calculation, fatal force should be the exception, not the rule. Of course, there is a lot of violence in recorded history, but it is abundantly clear that more violence is practiced than strictly warranted.

Or tiring him out?
My main point is: I refute this ridiculous assertation that 'kill or be killed' is the only method that works. Inside the same species there tends to be several ways a confrontation may be resolved. Fight, flight, posture and submission. The same goes for humans, to a large degree. Have you ever seen a burgeoning fight where one side clenches their fists and the other responds by throwing up their hands and saying, "Hey, I didn't want a fight!"? I have. Several times.
In fact, I would say that actually resolving every fight with killing would be contrasurvival. You very quickly get an awfully shallow gene pool that way...

What about farmers and potters and masons and smiths and weavers? And all the other common civilian occupations from the days of yore? These people aren't guards or soldiers (except when conscripted and torn away from their lives, often given rapid training in the simplest of arms) and often depend on the guards and soldiers to defend them from threats and to keep the peace.
I can understand fighting and even killing if one has to, but if one doesn't have to, they shouldn't. Get away and contact the police or such. The topic of Fighting versus Running and Hiding has been on my mind a lot as my work has been teaching the employees what to do in an active shooter situation and is even planning on having a drill on it soon.

In my mind this is as it ought to be.  Hope for the best (resolve the boar situation without loss of human or animal life) and act on it. 

but plan for the worst, in this case pack an elephant gun.  I don't think a shotgun would have done the job with a single shot at anything besides point blank range, which Raven was not at.  Boars are really bloody-minded creatures.

I almost put this in "All things Ashley, but decided that just because my cat's name is Ashley that would be pushing it.
We got Ashley as an adult stray.  She hasn't been exposed to kids after we took her in, 11 or 12 years ago. I don't know what her life was before we rescued her, but it didn't seem to involve children.  Or maybe it did and it was a bad thing for her.  Either way, she's dealing with them right out side her window now. There is some where between 2 and 20 kids playing in the court yard between the apartment building.  Being loud, but not too loud, just, you know kids playing out side.  Tag it sounds like.  Sort of comforting to listen to, in a weird sort of way.  At least to me.  To Ashley, not so much.  I've seen her have less of a reaction to being in the same yard with a semi trained German Sheppard that was trying to chase her down.   It's sort of funny watching her freak out and go run and hide in the bathroom closet, that being as far from the windows as she can get.  I go get her, pet her and give her some milk and she calms down for an hour or so.  Then it's back to hiding in my shirts.  I know it's not her just trying to get milk, she more or less gets that on demand if I walk into the kitchen nook and she's awake.

I'm not sure if this goes here or in things that make you worried.
I sorta want to take the 1928 Book of Common Prayer and convert the 1st and 2nd lessons to the lolcat Bible versions.  And do it daily as a blog feeding into the book of faces.
It's possible that this is an idea caused by sleep deprivation.

It may be an unwarranted assumption, but it's not odd that we assume exposition given by a character is correct. It's because it's such a common device in fiction going back a long, long way. Shakespeare has tons of it, particularly in his historical plays, where there are battles that wouldn't fit into the theater. In radio it can hardly be avoided unless you have an anonymous narrator.
There are exceptions. In a mystery, you can hardly avoid having different stories from different people or it wouldn't be a mystery, would it? But, still, you expect the detective to be telling the truth as he or she sees it.

If you don't care about the characters and their plight, then Undertale will lose most to all of it's impact. A lot of people love the game because they find the characters endearing and become invested in their plight. No one piece of media or art is going to appeal to everyone. Anyone who thinks that everyone will enjoy a given piece of art is either deluding themselves, naive, or foolish. A piece of art can appeal to a large number of people, but not everyone. There are simply too many varying opinions and tastes of what is good for that to be possible.
As for the question of why to not kill Undine, why should you kill Undine? Sure, she's trying to kill you with magic spears, but that doesn't mean you should answer violence with violence. It's entirely possible to just run from her and get away. With the exception of one or two fights at the end, all monster encounters can be dealt with by dodging the attacks and defusing the incident or just running away from it. If one is going for a Pacifist run, they don't even need the Fight command at all(though you can still use it and get pacifist as long as you don't kill the monsters, presumably to prevent punishing accidents). The game berates players that killing monsters, because the setting is treating those deaths with much of the weight of killing an actual person. Someone is dead because of the player's actions. Possibly it was in self-defense, which is understandable, but it does mean the player didn't try for a better outcome and answered violence with violence.