I don’t normally review books, but this one had me gritting my teeth wondering why no one questions any of the actions taken by “the good guys”. The head of the corporation misuses its influence and wealth to solve his own problems outside of the law. The MC skirts rules banning torture in a system where players can obviously feel pain. He encourages mob mentality to bully and mock other players. The system itself is biased towards the MC and panders to them with gear and royal rep. But its “ok” because the MC is a “good guy” and his actions are “justified” by his troubled backstory and this is “just a game” anyway. Everyone just goes along with it with a laugh and occasionally admonishes the MC with a brief “I see what you did there, but don’t do it again”. I’m sorry for the poor review, as I generally like litrpgs and can suspend my belief for the sake of a good story, but I dislike the example these characters set. (What is ironic is that the MC started his vendetta by not wanting the player killers think that killing in-game means that they can kill just as easily out of the game. Following that logic, what precedent will the MC’s actions in-game set?)