#ethics town the trolley problem

[bi-biscuit]

Rulers are for the weak. /j

[obscure-uty]

During the Undertale Yellow Summer GamesDoneQuick stream, the runners talk about root beer and water bottles during the trolley problem. This is a reference to a popular TikTok edit with Starlo.

[Video description: A clip from the GDQ stream of Undertale Yellow of the third Wild East mission. The cutscene takes Clover, Star, and Ceroba to the fence to the west of town as the streamers talk.

Shayy: "So, how do you feel about the train problem?"

Kyoshi: "I have a very- I have an ethical dilemma to give to you all. It's very important, very important. Would you rather save..."

The camera pans to the train tracks.

Kyoshi, doing a silly voice: "...the five water bottles, or the roo beer?"

Wooffle, also doing the voice: "The one can of root beer!"

Shayy and Astra overlapping: "The root beer, the root beer!"

Wooffle: "Vote now on your phones."

Kyoshi: "It's faster to sacrifice the roo beer!" End description]

[chloe-caulfield94]

Bae is the good ending, actually

I would argue that not only is Bae the good and moral ending, Bay is the evil, immoral and - dare I say - selfish ending.

Let’s start by stating the obvious - the ending choice of Season 1 is a form of trolley problem.

A trolley problem is a type of thought experiment which presents you with a moral problem. The basic parameters are as follows: You find yourself near railroad tracks. There is a main track and a side track. There is a trolley coming down the main track. There are people both on the main track and on the side track. The people standing on the track the trolley is travelling down are in mortal danger. You can’t stop the trolley, or remove people from the track. The only thing you can do is to pull the lever and direct the trolley to the side track, thereby sparing people on the main track, but killing those on the side track.

Obviously, in the scenario we are analysing, the trolley is the approaching storm, the town of Arcadia Bay and all its denizens are located on the main track, Chloe finds herself on the side track and Max can pull the lever to divert the deadly danger from Arcadia Bay towards Chloe by using the photograph to erase the events of the week.

Since the last choice of Season 1 is a trolley problem, I think the moral solution is the same as with all other trolley problems – do nothing and let things happen. Let me explain.

Often, when presented with a trolley problem, people instinctively adopt a utilitarian approach. Utilitarianism is an ethical system which favours actions that decrease the amount of suffering in the world.

If there are two people on the main track and only one person on the side track, the utilitarian solution would be to pull the lever, because two deaths would cause more suffering in the world than one.

If there’s a young person on the main track and an old person on the side track, the utilitarian solution would be to pull the lever, because the young person hasn’t had the chance to live out their life to the fullest yet, so their death would cause more suffering.

If there is a person with a big family on the main track and a lonely person on the side track, the utilitarian solution is once again to pull the lever, because the death of someone who would be missed by many would cause more suffering than the death of someone who wouldn’t be missed by anyone.

I imagine that most people would be instinctively willing to agree with the first solution. Saving two people instead of one person? That makes sense. But I think (or at least hope) that most people would disagree with the next two examples, of the old person and of the lonely person. Who are we to judge who is more “worthy” of life and whose death would cause more suffering? But realize this - when you consider the quantity of lives at stake, your thought process is exactly the same as when you consider their quality.

If you choose to pull the lever in a trolley problem, you have usurped for yourself the right to judge who is more worthy of life. You have usurped for yourself the right to kill the people on the side track. Even if it’s an entire town on the main track and only one person on the side track. When you pull the lever and direct the trolley to the side track, you kill that one person. The fact that you saved the people on the main track doesn't erase that. Ends do not justify the means.

From my point of view, the moral answer to any trolley problem is to do nothing, because no matter how insignificant the life of the person on the side track may seem, nobody has the right to judge them unworthy of life.

A purely utilitarian approach to a trolley problem fails to take into account the substantive difference between letting things happen and actively causing someone’s death.

The final choice is made not on Monday, but on Friday. On Friday, Chloe is no longer in danger. Max can redirect the mortal danger from the town to Chloe, but it requires her action. On Friday, the "natural" course of events which doesn't require any input from Max is for the storm to level the town. If you sacrifice Chloe on Friday, you're killing her. You're pushing her back onto the barrel of Nathan's gun. But if Max sacrifices the town, she's only letting things that have been in motion since Monday proceed. She lets them proceed, because to stop the storm, she would have to kill someone. Max simply refuses to pay such a high price.

Having established the sheer immorality of sacrificing someone "for the greater good", let's move on to the selfish part. If Max sacrifices Chloe, that means she values her guilty conscience more than Chloe's life. That she doesn't want to live with guilt more than she wants to live with Chloe. Notice that when the storm comes, Chloe says it all happens for a reason and it couldn't be any other way. Only when she sees how distraught Max is, she does a 180 and offers her sacrifice. Her offer is mainly motivated by the desire to save Max from her guilt. The selfish thing would be to accept Chloe's sacrifice.

[tobiasdrake]

Okay I ranted about Mass Effect and "I reject your killing of that/those characters" in hashtags on that one post and now I'm going to rant about Life is Strange because that one too.

The ending to Life is Strange is complete unbridled bullshit. They set you up with the Trolley Problem by way of the famous Bay vs. Bae choice. Here's the thing? The choices don't make any fucking sense. Like. From a writing perspective, the choices on offer are wrong.

The premise they set up is that the tornado is caused by time travel. Every time Max time travels, it makes the tornado worse. No matter what the timeline, no matter how things change, the tornado gets worse and worse and worse. It's there if Chloe lives through her shooting, it's there if she dies in the shooting, it's there if Jefferson got arrested at the start of the game and Max never discovered her powers. It's. Always. THERE.

The tornado is immutable, the tornado is a consequence of Max's time fuckery, the tornado can never be stopped.

Okay. Gotcha.

So at the end of the game, they say, "Hey, do you want to use time travel again to stop the tornado?"

What the fuck are you on about? You've firmly established the tornado as the immutable product of time travel; How the fuck is more time travel the solution to a quantum mechanical phenomenon caused by time travel? Are you high?

They did this to force the player into a choice that's literally the Trolley Problem. Do you let Chloe die or do you let the entire city die? But it makes absolutely no goddamn sense.

Here's the other thing: For like half of the chapter leading up to this point, you go around helping people find shelter and using time travel to save them from the tornado. Choices in this chapter center on whether or not people find shelter so they can survive the storm.

And. Like. If the options are "It never happened" or "Everyone dies in the storm" then that entire section of the game is just a waste, right?

Which is, itself, a microcosm of the problems surrounding this ending choice. Because on the whole, both options render the entire game pointless.

If you choose to let Chloe die, then none of it ever happened. The entire game up to this point is completely unwritten. It never happened. In fact, the ending says it never should have happened. Jefferson gets caught immediately after Chloe dies so actually Max was making things worse this whole time.

The message they're trying to go for here is, like, you can't save everyone. Sometimes you just have to accept that there was nothing you could have done. But the way they sell it is absolute gibberish.

The actual moral of the "Save Arcadia Bay" ending is that Max was wrong to have ever come out of her shell and tried to help anyone. She should never have had a coming of age story. She should have kept her head down, made no efforts, and just let everything happen the way it should. It would all have been fine if she'd just fucked the hell off from the start. She was the problem all along.

Which is. Y'know. A pretty shitty ending, despite being the one the developer put the most effort into.

Conversely, if you save Chloe, then the whole town dies. Every single person, allegedly. This also means that everything you did was a waste of time because most of the choices are about personal relationships between characters who are all dead now. So, it all still happened but it's still all wiped out now.

So. Like. I reject both of these endings.

For me, the ending to Life is Strange is this: "Save Arcadia Bay" wasn't an option at all. It's metaphysically self-contradictory and thematically self-defeating. It's just there to give a "Correct Answer" to the Intro to Ethics 101 Trolley Problem. I reject its existence entirely.

For me, the ending to Life is Strange is an edited version of "Save Chloe" remixed with the "Let go of the things you can't control" theme. Max has to realize that nothing she can do will stop the tornado, that a problem created by time travel and exacerbated by time travel cannot be thwarted by further time travel. And instead, everyone just has to bunker down and weather the storm.

And they do. The people Max spent all that time saving, at least, make it out the other side alive. If you helped someone find shelter, they're alive after the storm. A lot of people probably still died in the tornado but the choices you made for the lives Max touched still count.

The game's got a direct sequel coming up that's going to use "There's two time dimensions!" as a way of milking Max and Chloe for further content while avoiding undermining the ending choice, but I don't even care. I have my version of the ending that's canon to me and I'm happy with it.

[probsnothawkeye]

Twitter is dying which means im crossposting my long posts about Ethics Town because i promised Louis and also myself that i would be as annoying as possible about how much I love this show

Anways its Saturday again which means new @ethicstownpod which means new post talking about the new episode of Ethics Town

I know January said to stay the hell away from Ethics but I'm chomping at the bit to get more of this show so let's talk! Spoilers below as always

Louis. Louis I know you see this. This was such an EXCELLENT use of the trolley problem, both philosophically and just thematically. When I saw the title I was like 👀 And then the application of the trolley problem had me like !!!!!!! Also this show which starts with a murder (which January STILL hasn't told Artemis about and im shaking him by the collar like I'm a cartoon bully) keeps finding ways to get darker and I do mean that as a compliment

Ethics Town is horror in the way that real life is horror. People in Ethics are willing to do whatever to get their way and it's absolutely chilling to see

And January. Oh January. He's trying so hard and yet you just *know* it's not going to be effective. He's trying to protect the town from the mayor, protect Artemis from the truth. But it's never going to be what he intends for it to be. Ethics will chew him up and spit him out (and you can decide if I mean the philosophy or the town)

Which sidebar we GOTTA talk about Rhy Lawton's performance as January!!! Incredible doesn't even begin to describe his performance. He has made January the wettest cat of a man but has also almost made me cry with just the raw emotion and guilt in January's voice. When he said "I have a family" my heart broke fully in my chest. An excellent excellent performance that gets better each episode

Also Cai Gwilym Pritchard's editing. I have talked a lot about how good Cai's editing is. But my gods they truly are a marvel

I am once again demanding that everyone listen to Ethics Town

Its so so so fucking good

And Louis Hendry deserves the world

[ethicstownpod]

EPISODE 3 - THE TROLLEY PROBLEM - OUT NOW!

January begins to spiral as Phillipa Foot’s ‘trolley problem’ becomes a reality in Ethics. Artemis tries to get to know her mysterious host a little better.

ID: A red background with spiked red border. Text reads ‘episode 3 the trolley problem.’ At the centre of the image is the ethics Town logo. ED.

[pleuvoire]

one thing i could give gaim credit for, and the one part of it that i think can actually be called a genre deconstruction instead of just turning usual traits of the genre edgy and hopeless (hmm where have we heard that before!!!), is that when it talks about “saving the world” it’s very much talking about the entire world population rather than just “monsters are attacking this town and fighting them means fighting for world peace!” the way you usually get in toku. like the “seven billion lives” number sure gets thrown around a lot. so like, props for that, i am also the type of writer to try to really think about the broader implications of stuff so i respect it. however... what this ultimately means is that you end up with a bunch of people just standing around in conference rooms or in the forest talking about if they should let seven billion people die or only six billion people or if they should be trying to save all seven billion and it ends up so much this word game of abstract numbers and ethical debate divorced from any concrete illustration of the stakes. at least when typical toku heroes go “i’ll save the world!” when they just mean tokyo, you can actually see the monsters rampaging and attacking people and destroying buildings, and it feels real. gaim is just... people standing around debating about Trolley Problem, But For The Whole Earth. when i say this show bites off more than it can chew this is first and foremost what i mean. there’s no real sense of tension!!! so this one thing i’d give the show credit for actually ends up working to its detriment because it wasn’t executed right, lol

[gemwolfz]

the trolley problem is an infohazard in that the only 100% ethically sound solution is to be on the other side of town with no idea a trolley problem is happening. if you have even the slightest indication theres a trolley problem happening you have moral responsibility now

[lomohealthcare]

Front royal va

#Front royal va pdf#

#Front royal va professional#

#Front royal va download#

Other Pages about Front Royal-Warren County AirportĬopyright © AirNav, LLC. To start the listing process, click on the button below Explore the Blue Ridge Mountains, Shenandoah Valley, Skyline Drive, Luray Caverns. Visit your AT&T Front Royal store and find the best deals on the latest cell phones from Apple, Samsung, LG and more. If your business provides an interesting product or service to pilots, flight crews, aircraft, or users of the Front Royal-Warren County Airport, you should consider listing it here. Visit Front Royal, Virginia to enjoy nature and our quaint, country town. Would you like to see your business listed on this page? Whether you are a visitor, an investor or a permanent resident. Ride Smart Northern Shenandoah Valley provides commuter bus service between Front Royal and the DC area. The Chamber of Commerce of Front Royal-Warren County welcomes you to our community. Thats less than a mile from the intersection of US-522 and I. Virginia Regional Transit operates the Front Royal Trolley, which provides local bus service. Were located where its convenient for you, at 10 Riverton Commons Drive, Front Royal, VA 22630. If you are affiliated with Cass Aviation and would like to show here your services, contact info, web link, logo, and more, click here Front Royal is located at the intersection of US 340 and US 522. NOTAMs are issued by the DoD/FAA and will open in a separate window not controlled by AirNav.įBO, Fuel Providers, and Aircraft Ground Support WARNING: Photo may not be current or correct Other nearby airports with instrument procedures: KOKV - Winchester Regional Airport (14 nm N) NOTE: Special Take-Off Minimums/Departure Procedures apply Shop at your local MARTINS at 409 South St in Front Royal, VA for the best grocery selection, quality, & savings. Please procure official charts for flight.įAA instrument procedures published for use from 11 August 2022 at 0901Z to 08 September 2022 at 0900z.

#Front royal va download#

If you need a reader for these files, you should download the free Adobe Reader.

#Front royal va pdf#

Instrument Procedures NOTE: All procedures below are presented as PDF files. NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS IN EFCT, CTC ARPT MGR FOR DTLS AT 54. * for 12-month period ending 31 December 2020 right of centerline, 28:1 slope to clearĪirport Ownership and Management from official FAA records Ownership:Īirport Operational Statistics Aircraft based on the field: left of centerline, 6:1 slope to clearĤ2 ft. Panels that may or may not be lighted, on left (3.00 degrees glide path)Ģ4 ft. Panels that may or may not be lighted, on right (3.00 degrees glide path) The Front Royal Police Department is a full-service law enforcement agency. RY 28 RIGHT TFC FOR GYROCOPTERS, ULTRALIGHTS & GLIDERS. RY 10 RIGHT TFC FOR GYROCOPTERS, ULTRALIGHTS & GLIDERS. Runway Information Runway 10/28 Dimensions: Nearby radio navigation aids VOR radial/distance We will display through an unquestionable work ethic, our commitment to the community we serve, our families, and our agency.FAA INFORMATION EFFECTIVE 11 AUGUST 2022 Location FAA Identifier: Our conduct and demeanor display the highest standard of personal and organizational excellence. We will faithfully, and without bias, honor our obligations to the community. We will recognize the authority we hold and will treat others as we would like to be treated. We will maintain courage and strength in the face of difficulty, danger, adversity, and temptation. We will provide law enforcement personnel who take pride in performing their duties in a fair and equitable manner setting a high standard of which our citizens can be proud. We are going to solve problems in our community utilizing all resources as a government working together.

#Front royal va professional#

The vision of the Front Royal Police Department is to be regarded by our community and our profession as a proactive, professional and premier law enforcement agency in the Shenandoah Valley as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia.įurthermore, we recognize that our most valuable resource in this commitment is our people and we will strive to create a positive working atmosphere where creativity and participation abound. Safeguarding lives in our community through selfless service to others and the unwavering pursuit of justice for those in need.

[threebooksoneplot]

Episode 1: “We Like Mike” (Show Notes)

Content warnings: 

Skinhead discussion: 38:13—41:38 (racism, xenophobia, nazism, anti-semitism, brief discussion of 2012 mass shooting 40:00—40:18)

Discussion of Edward wanting to murder his class: 54:10—end

[00:03:56] Damn Shannon I don’t recall burning YOUR crops poisoning your well razing your house to the ground and salting the earth

[00:06:16]

[00:06:20] Read Lexie’s fic here!

[00:07:28] Lexie’s social media handles: AO3, fanfiction.net, tumblr

[00:08:06] Ashley Greene’s NFT. (Ashley Greene is the actor who played Alice in the Twilight movies, for anyone not in the know. Also note that we recorded this episode in April, shortly before the great NFT crash)

[00:11:16] Transcript of Shannon’s Life and Death summary:

Beaufort Swan “Beau” moves from Phoenix, Arizona to a small town called Forks, Washington to live with his father, Charlie, after his mother, Renee, gets remarried. He is decidedly not fucking happy about it and is loathe to be in Forks despite taking it upon himself to lie to absolutely anybody who asks him about it (ever the martyr.) While there, he struggles with the inadequate experience of what we know is called “being a goddamn teenager.” He crosses paths with a mysterious and not-cognito family, and when he quote-unquote “meets” his new Biology partner, he suddenly has more questions about Edythe and her strange but sudden hatred of him.

[00:13:30] The top Kristen Stewart’s Bella is wearing in the very first scene of Twilight:

[00:15:09] Wikipedia’s basic breakdown of economic info on the real-world Forks, WA

[00:18:59] Bella on her reading list in Twilight: 

It was fairly basic: Bronte, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Faulkner.

[00:20:36] The “canonical” heights for Jasper and Emmett, respectively: 6’3”/190.5 cm and 6’5”/195.6 cm

[00:30:10] Scroll to the bottom of this old blog post to see Stephenie Meyer’s original fancasts for Twilight characters (She had Jackson Rathbone as an Edward possibility?? oh my god)

[00:30:41] Some old, pre-movie era edits of Emily Browning as Bella:

source

source

[00:31:02] Shannon is metaphorically on crack here. Gerard Way was actually who the fans wanted to play Edward, though Stephenie Meyer is an MCR fan and says their music inspired her when writing Jacob’s character (source.)

[00:31:21] Henry Cavill in gold contacts, looking about as unlike Edward Cullen as a white dude can look:

[00:34:18] Anyone else notice that Shannon says “Rosalie” super weird? She also says “pillow” weird. Ask her to say it sometime.

[00:39:36] The SPLC’s timeline on skinheads (cw: racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, injury, murder)

[00:42:27] A blog post on the Tiffany Problem

[00:48:44] Advice for Edward:

[00:52:13] Fanlore’s definition of “fanon”

[00:54:24] Fanlore’s article on AUs

[00:54:34] The filmmakers even shot this as a deleted scene! And you are not prepared for the sheer brilliance of this 2009 Youtube DVD rip set to an A+ song choice (sound ON and pay particular attention to the background actors)

[00:56:19] In this most iconic scene from the first Twilight movie, Bella walks into the forest with Edward (without being asked) to confront him about his vampirism

[00:56:28] Renesmee, for anyone not in the know.

[00:58:27] Alice walking into the Bio classroom after Edward’s finished snacking

[00:58:47] G references the Trolley Problem from philosophy/ethics

...and that’s all we’ve got for Episode 1 show notes! We hope you enjoyed this Happy Birthday Edward edition of 3B1P!

[ziracona]

Can you elaborate on the whole the needs of the many spock philosophy like how it's wrong or not always correct and has influenced nerd culture I'm interested since you brought it up

I can do my best.

It’s a famous line from The Wrath of Khan, which is spoken several times, most memorably at the end when Spock sacrifices himself to save the crew. That line became wildly popular, though, people ignore in the sequel, the crew ruin their lives to bring him back, and the central message is “The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many,” with even Spock later agreeing that, while not logical, it’s a deeply human sentiment, and not one that is incorrect either, and chooses it himself to save Chekov.

The only one that remained in popular conscious was the original (ironically the same fate many idioms suffer, such as the way people say “Blood is thicker than water” as a way to say family means more than other relationships, when in reality the full saying was “The blood of friendship is thicker than the water of the womb,” meaning the exact opposite of its common usage today).

Speaking on philosophy, I can’t say with cosmic approval that the whole ‘sacrificing the one for the many’ is wrong, exactly. That’s how morals and philosophy work. Humans create them to make them exist. We make justice and right and wrong and force them on the world, to be human. I know what I believe, and I thoroughly believe I am right, but I am sure so do people who wouldn’t agree, though that doesn’t make them right, or us both right, necessarily. But I do mean to acknowledge that, by nature, I can’t have the Word of God, in narrative terms, on what is and is not a correct moral stance. I might like to play Justice in a tarot deck, as it were, but I am not Judgement. It’s not good to blindly follow anyone’s opinions, and we have to do the best we can with life as we experience it, decisions as we reach them, and ethics without all the certainty we would like, based off of what we do know, and the best we can do.

That said, I stand firm that I am not wrong about this. While the films themselves and their reception probably factor in too, the big reason that quote was so wildly popular, and still is, especially in nerd culture, I postulate, is because of western culture as it has developed, and the intellectual superiority inherent in a lot of circles of nerd culture. At its core, the idea the many are worth more than the few or the one is a heartless and inhuman philosophy, and only can be. People have things like the trolley problem, questioning whether it’s right to change the outcome of an event so only one person who would otherwise have lived, dies, and three who would have died survive. At its heart, agreeing to those all circle you back to human sacrifice. If people are just numbers, there’s nothing ethically wrong with stabbing a virgin to death on an alter for good crops. It’s for the benefit of the whole to feed a few a year to the monster in the harbor, rather than have it attack and the whole town be in jeopardy. In modern life, that same philosophy translates pretty directly to stuff like the American approach to handling Covid, with so many companies, politicians, and people in power suggesting it’s just worth it to let our elders, disabled, and sickly die, for the economy to flourish, and the personal lives of the healthy to be not so diminished. Into things like eugenics, for the ‘betterment’ of the population in countable things like function in society, physical ability, health.

It translates into an individual being right to be sacrificed, so long as the outcome can be justified as the ‘greater good.’ Which is a murky and slidable concept at best, ‘greater good,’ and it becomes easy, if you try, to justify anything. To bomb innocent people on another country to avert chances of being bombed yourself, to shoot someone who could have been armed to drop the statistical chance of them opening fire on someone. That’s a big part of western culture and late-stage capitalism, and cultural self-righteousness, and a kind of cuthroat survival-of-the-fittest approach too. And it’s not very human. Basic morality, most would agree, begins at recognizing you’re not in the world alone, and we have a duty to try and respect that. Take no harm, do no harm. That’s not entirely possible, but it’s a worthy goal, and when you start considering people acceptable losses, in violence or negligence, you lose what made your community a community at all. Anthropologists consider the first sign of civilization having begun, to be a species using resources to keep elderly, sick, or injured alive past when nature would have taken them out. If, to borrow Sir Terry Pratchett’s phrasing, humans are this incredible wonder arising where the falling Angel meets the rising Ape, we are defined by humanity, or our lack of it. We need certain things to be human, and one of those has always been, even scientifically defined, empathy and community, even when illogical. Because we place value on the individual and on connections, not just productivity and net gains. If people become only numbers to a system, by definition that system has already become one not worth preserving, because it doesn’t protect or care for a single individual under its reign. It only protects numbers. And a system for the health of statistics first can’t be one that is used for the health of humans.

Nerd culture isn’t all bad, but a lot of facets are very self-important, and faux-intellectual. Especially since a lot of people move to nerd culture out of a sense of isolation, too many turn that loneliness into a sense of self-importance, not empathy for other people who are alone. And this idea that individuals should be sacrificed for the greater good makes sense looked at only as numbers, and if you can convince yourself you are too important to be the one being left behind, and there is some rightness in it, it feels powerful. And for a lot of people in power, that’s the way it really is. Throwing the weak to the wolves won’t ever really hurt you, or your own, if you are rich and powerful. It’s the people, who get hurt. While I absolutely believe we have a responsibility to other humans, even when it comes to putting ourselves in danger for them if they are in danger too, and self-sacrifice can be a noble thing, that’s a far cry from thinking it should be demanded people be ready to die or cut others lose, if it supports some bigger goal or bottom line. In truth, human life is a big complicated mess, and very few things can hold true every time.

I guess my bottom line being. If a world or a system considers everyone interchangeable, and none of individual value, secondary to the system and it’s goals itself, it has failed. If it goes too far the other way, and considers all individual freedoms, no matter how minute, more important than the collective good, it has also failed. A lot of western culture right now somehow manages to hit the bad side of both those ends of the spectrum at the same time. It’s a nice sounding line, and it’s true on some occasions, but so is the opposite. Unfortunately, you really only see much of it, in western media, anyway. Lots of stories have events like Life is Strange’s end basically trying to guilt the player into tossing Chloe in a volcano to placate a storm god before it destroys a town, as if it is fair to ask a teenager to die to stop something out of her control. It’s not that that’s a clear cut problem, or anything, but it’s really unfair to frame it as THE good/right thing to do, which it almost always is framed as, and it is so wildly rare to see something like the end of Last of Us, with the protagonist effectively screwing everyone in an apocalypse so his daughter won’t have to die.

I’m not sure how to phrase it quite right. I think a big part of it is, with human culture, we’ve had human sacrifice almost everywhere on the planet in some form, in our histories, and in ways we still do. But historically, there’s a massive difference in how that’s done. Some places killed slaves, or babies, or citizens selected at random, and took their lives to appease gods. And some cultures, there was an understood responsibility for the king or chief that if your people fell into ruin, you were expected to end your own life as a sacrifice. And those are such different concepts. One takes, often unwillingly, the most vulnerable members of society, and sacrifices them for the benefit of a machine they did not agree to participate in on such a level. And the other willingly extracts a price in times of need, from someone at the helm of a system, who signed on to such a responsibility. I think that distinction, who is asked to suffer and who gets to benefit from that sacrifice, is often lost in consideration, when it’s fundamental. And beyond that, humans are meant to be a little bit selfish. If we don’t love our mother or our spouse or best friend or child more than a stranger, if signing on to a connection with someone and sharing so much of your brief lifetime together doesn’t assign them more significance in your heart and life than everyone else, what’s the point? Damn right I’d save my sister before someone else. I should. You should pick yours if you have one over me.“I don’t think your girlfriend is more important than the whole world” “she is to me!” really was a line, back in the day. It’s hard, decisions and everything in life, but if it isn’t, you’re not doing it right. I don’t think any rule can really fit a situation like sacrifice every time as the right or wrong one, but it’s not supposed to. We are beings of connection, made up of memories and feelings and choices. Our lives are defined by our connections and our senses of self, and philosophy and society can’t be divorced from those things, without being divorced from humanity too. We all have a right to live. Not just when it’s more beneficial to everyone that we do.

Obviously I have my own ethical and social leanings, but I think it’s fair to say at least, and well outside of my more specific beliefs, if you cut people down to just numbers listed alongside everyone else’s, you lose humanity, and you shouldn’t make choices about or for people, that excludes considering them as individual humans. Almost all horrible things humans do to each other begin at dehumanizing the other person or people. If you’re the only one you give truly human significance to, or you and your own, it quickly becomes easy to justify almost anything.

[kitkatopinions]

I actually have watched the good place! Definitely one of my favorite shows. Now I'm wondering how RWBY would handle the trolley problem given that's essentially what the Atlas problem was, except since it's a thought experiment, there isn't some other way out to save everyone. Like May said, they have to choose. You can't save everyone in the trolley problems, regardless of variation. Sure would be cool to see what would happen if the team had to make choices... specifically ones that don't magically appear when they need to avoid making a choice. And that have consequences the narrative treats with appropriate weight. And that aren't dismissed with "we had no other choice," effectively denying their agency and responsibility. (I'm not bitter at all, what are you talking about? /s) -crtq

Dude, I know!

The problem we got in season seven seemed like a pretty straight forward Trolley problem - do you prioritize the good of the many even if it means the direct destruction of the few? They painted us that picture. Prioritizing the needs of the many and saving Altas, the evacuated people from Mantle, the Maiden, and the Relics from Salem would directly result in a loss of protection for the people who remained in Mantle.

But what's continually confusing is A. the way that 'prioritizing the needs of the many' was treated as inherently bad and wrong rather than someone attempting to do what good they could in a situation where there was no win. And B. The way that the 'answers and solutions' in season eight were handed to us.

In the event of a trolley problem, trap the five workers on the tracks. Send a group to guard the one trapped on the other tracks that the trolley isn't pointed at currently to ensure that no animals attack them while they're there. Send out an alert to towns hours away that there's a runaway trolley with no brakes that's about to run over five people, so to prepare to maybe have trolleys run into them and to maybe come help the people who are about to get run over from said towns that are hours away. Continue to make no move to help the five people directly about to get run over by the trolley.

In the event of a trolley problem, hope that randomly, the trolley does come to a stop before hitting the five people. Hang out some on the trolley tracks yourself while you wait for the people from the towns that are hours away to come stop the trolley. When the trolley starts moving again, watch as the person you stopped from switching the tracks sends in volunteers to desperately try to keep the trolley back away from the five people by throwing themselves in front of it in the hopes that it slows down.

In the event of a trolley problem, stop the people who are attempting to blow up the trolley before it can reach the five people on the tracks, since there’s also someone on the trolley, and leave the one person who’s on the tracks the trolley isn’t going to in order to go save said person on the trolley, but then leave them there. And then have him blow up the trolley from the inside anyway. And then the person who has been trying to stop the trolley this entire time is going to threaten to kill the one person on the tracks that the trolley was never facing towards because... reasons. So then destroy the entire tracks in general while moving most but not all of the people on the trolley tracks away and to a different very dangerous place that you know might be having a trolley problem itself very soon, by walking them across a rickety bridge, specifically to save one person. Oh, and by the way, the trolley is being rebuilt back where the tracks used to be, and no one is going to address the fact that people died in order to try to keep the trolley back and that there are people left behind where the tracks used to be who might be killed when the trolley reforms. But, hey, Team RWBY solved the Trolley problem! Just hope that everything works out and pretend that no one died so your moral high ground can’t be destroyed.

If RWBY had actually committed to the trolley problem they’d set up where there is no right solution and the beliefs of both the heroes and Ironwood can be challenged but not wholly disregarded, we would have wound up with such a good story. If they hadn’t held Salem back in crazy ways that made no sense and let there be real consequences, the season could’ve been so heavy and so good. And of course, I wish that they hadn’t turned Ironwood into a full villain at the speed of light to try and make Team RWBY seem like the only good option, but they really could’ve done a lot by presenting both viewpoints as not inherently evil, and just the complicated way that discussions of ‘ethical good’ don’t always have one clear answer. It’s such an intricate and interesting and nuanced concept, and it’s just sad that the way they handled it was juvenile, that they pulled their punches so much in order to try and create a version of events where Ruby doesn’t learn anything - despite the fact that she didn’t achieve her goal of saving everyone.

It could’ve been an amazing season, a challenging season. And instead what we got just wasn’t good.

[thelivebookproject]

Talking Books With @nerdisthebestcompliment!

[What is this and how can I participate?]

Important note: I haven’t changed or edited any of the answers. I’ve only formatted the book titles so they were clearer, but nothing else. Because I’m incapable of shutting up, my comments are between brackets and in italics, so you can distinguish them clearly.

----------------------------------------------

[Image description: a square titled “Know the blogger”. Name & pronouns: Jet, she/her; country: United States; three adjectives to describe her: creative, adventurous & independent /end]

1. What is a book that reminds you of "home"?

I would say The Book of Virtues by William J. Bennett. It is an anthology of stories teaching morals like compassion, honesty, persistence, etc. Growing up my family moved a lot, so home was never really a place, but rather my mom, my brother, and me all reading together. My mom used to read us a story from that book every night before bed and reading always brings back a million memories of reading it together. My mom also used to teach etiquette classes and would always pose ethical questions to us (I was 10 the first time I had to answer the classic trolley problem), so stories that make you question what it means to be a good person feel like home in more ways than one.

2. Last "impulse" book you ended up liking?

Last impulse book I ended up really liking was Dreams and Shadows by C. Robert Cargill. This was back before COVID when I could still browse at the library. . . It caught my eye because it has some neon orange shapes on an otherwise dark black and gray cover and the title sound nice and fantastical. It’s about magic and monsters that are hidden in the shadows of our world and two boys who’s lives are tied together by a wish. The world was really rich and imaginative and darker than stories about magic usually are, which I enjoyed. And it was one of those books where the author lays out all theses little details throughout the book and only at the very end does he reveal how it is all connected.

3. Do you have an absolute favourite book?

No, I’ve got about a dozen favorites, but there isn’t any one that really stands out from the others.

4. Where do you usually read (your bed, the sofa, the train, etc.)? 

I move around a lot when I read. I have a big wingback armchair and a sofa/bean bag hybrid thing I use a lot at home, but I am also working on turning my living room into my reading paradise, so I’m building a couple couches I can curl up on and plan on getting a papason and one of the hanging egg chairs too so I’ll have even more options. I also love reading at coffee shops... there’s a couple really great ones in my town that have really comfy couches and armchairs that I can spend a whole day reading in 🛋☕️📚

5. Top three most disliked tropes?

My most disliked tropes are probably 

Obsessive love

Love/sex as the end-all-be-all, only happy ending

Token diversity, gay/black best friend, Asian hacker, etc.

[Indeed, yikes]

Free space!

I’d like to recommend an author and a book that I don’t think get enough attention. 

The author is Walter Moers. He’s a German author and cartoonist who writes incredible fantasy novels with gorgeous illustrations. I’d definitely recommend it for fans of Lord of the Rings and fantasy fans who are looking for a good transition from YA to adult. 

The book is The Rest of Us Just Live Here by Patrick Ness. It’s a book about the kids who aren’t the chosen ones in a world where there are chosen ones. This is a book for fans of realistic fiction and those who can’t always see themselves in The Chosen One narrative. One of the main reasons I love this book is the way it addresses the reality of mental illness and shows that it is something that can improve, but won’t just magically be cured by the end of the book.

[I’ve read the book, but haven’t heard about the author. I’ll definitely check him out!]

You can follow her at @nerdisthebestcompliment, on Goodreads, and on Instagram.

----------------------------------------------

Thank you, Jet! This was really nice.

Next interview: Tuesday, 30th of March

[alexeiadrae]

Ethical Dilemmas, Slayers Edition

While I’ve explored the ethics of Lina casting the Giga Slave to save Gourry before, during this re-read of The King of the City of Ghosts on J-Novel I’ve been thinking more of the ethical dilemma that Milgasea, Sylphiel, Zel and Amelia are in, especially Milgasea and Sylphiel as they are the only two who understand Phibby’s objective. So if you knew that someone ridiculously powerful and accountable to no human rule of law was blackmailing an acquaintance into doing something that could potentially kill everyone in the world, what would you do? 

As has been discussed, if they convince Lina to runaway and abandon Gourry, Phibby would likely take more hostages and possibly even destroy towns until she bowed to his will. Basically I don’t see Phibby kicking back in Sairaag thinking, “oh well, time to kill the swordsman and find someone else to usher in the destruction of the world” if Lina went back home to Zeferia. So the only two viable options would be to let Lina face Phibby  (either alone or with support) or to kill Lina.

The safest option for the world would honestly be to kill Lina, and Lina even admits to this. However, this would mean killing an innocent teenager, and Phibby would likely kill Gourry out of spite (perhaps torturously), so it would be a death sentence for an innocent young man as well. I could also see Phibby tracking down the family members of whoever killed Lina to kill them before killing whoever killed Lina. So in addition to having the weight of those deaths on their mind, they would likely suffer for it, even if it was the best decision for the world.

Milgasea states the reason he decides to not kill Lina is because she desires to live and he does not want to become like Gaav and his minions. It is a very moralistic reasoning about respecting life no matter the consequences. It is hard to say for sure what Sylphiel’s reasoning is. Likely, as a cleric and healer, she has a do no harm ethic, though as anyone who is a healer can attest to, sometimes it is impossible and you have to go with the lesser harm. However what  encompasses do no harm and what is the lesser harm can be murky. And as the trolley problem shows, even though a choice may save more people, people have a hard time making that choice if it means being the one who has to take a life. So while it might have crossed Sylphiel’s mind, I can’t see her going through with it.

Initially I did wonder if Sylphiel might feel as though she would lose if she directly confronted Lina and then I decided that as a healer, Sylphiel would know what combination of potions to slip into Lina’s drink if she really wanted to. 

This also brings to question what Sylphiel would do if she had the power to cast a Giga Slave. While other people have different perspectives, my take is that Sylphiel would not cast it, not even to save Gourry. Reading the J-Novel translation, though, I did wonder if perhaps she did have it in her. That she nixed the safer option of killing Lina and decided to go to Sairaag on her own despite the looming threat of death indicates that she might think that saving Gourry would be worth the risk. But ultimately I also can’t ignore the fact that Sylphiel, who is driven by a moral code so strong she stood up to Copy Rezo and her hometown when they were under his sway, would likely be just as morally opposed to killing Lina as she would to casting a Giga Slave. 

Basically for Milgasea and Sylphiel it seems as though no matter to consequences, they will not take an innocent life. Whereas for Amelia and Zel, it’s more of don’t ask, don’t tell, we’re going to support our friend as she goes through Hell.

[2ofswords]

Since I am so tired of reading „I know Dankovsky sucks and his ending is horrible“, before every comment that defends him, I will now throw myself into the fires of discourse and write an essay about:

Why The P1 Utopian ending does not mean Danko is an asshole

(A bit of swearing and a lot of spoilers under the cut)

Since I already spoke about being tired of disclaiming a lot, here are some of them. Firstly: This is NOT a comparison and I am definitely not saying, that his ending is better than the ending of the Haruspex or the Changeling. That would be ridiculous and I wholeheartedly belief that the other characters have morally better endings. (Though I will make one ending comparison at the end of this essay just to make myself even more of a hypocrite and there will be a comparison of one aspect of all three P1 endings, that is not made to compare their general quality but… well… this specific aspect of the ending.)

Also this essay isn‘t about Dankovsky not being an asshole. This is not a character analysis, I am only talking about the ending and his relationship regarding his path towards it. There are entirely different arguments to be made about his character that I will not talk about. Surprisingly a character is not only defined by the outcome of their story.

And last but not least the weirdest disclaimer of them all: While my arguments try to defend Dankovsky in his ending I totally understand if you still think his ending makes him more of an asshole. Killing a lot of people is always a dick move and the decision is still a horrible one. I do not really want to argue that people are wrong for judging him based of his ending. I just want to explain, why we also do not have to feel ashamed for deciding to not judge him as a complete asshole based on the main outcome of his route and why his motivation isn’t only based on spite or even ruthless calculation. Also, I think that there is a lot to say about his decision, that isn’t really said and that these are interesting aspects. Sorry to say it, but I just wanted to have a catchy title. I just really love this ending and it’s complexity and wanted to discuss it aside of calling it the evil Danko ending.

So. Let’s start with the easy argument that some people are talking about.

Argument 1: Danko completely lost it and holding him accountable due to his rationality defies the point of his route.

This one is… one of the weaker arguments, but I will still elaborate on it. The entirety of his route is built upon loss and failure. While the Haruspex starts with a mob that wants to kill him and works his way up, the dynamic of his route is him seemingly starting on top of everything and slowly loosing his bearings and by the end of the story this man is already driven to madness. Being used as a pawn in politics, getting daily “fuck you”-letters from the Powers that Be, realizing your lives work is already destroyed and all of your colleagues are probably as doomed (and being the one responsible because he was their leader), realizing that Aglaya – who was the one person who seemed to be his ally at the end – used and betrayed him just like everyone else, having the one truly honestly kind person commit suicide at least partly because of his failures, witnessing his own helplessness against the plague (an enemy that should align with his expertise as a doctor), being hated from day one by almost everybody in town, realizing that the political allies are totally bonkers and also preparing to off themselves (Victor! You seemed moderately sane at the beginning. The betrayal!), getting almost beaten to death while trying to help the town while spending all these days in an hostile place that slips into chaos… yeah I think you really aren’t in the headspace for rational thought. It is a miracle that that guy hasn’t completely broken down and day eleven and to some extend day 9 and 10 are showing him as completely unhinged already, only leading up to a decision, that isn’t really made out of spite or coldness but rather desperation and blind tunnel vision. The day eleven mission involves him going on a rampage against a military squad because of a vague hint and he only checks after the killings, if Andrew is even there. That isn’t a calculated action it’s about a man being completely shattered and making everybody suffer because of that. (Which is also horrible, but an entirely different sort of tragedy.) By now he just shouldn’t be the one handling the situation at all but the local powers sure want to wash their hand of any guilt that they haven’t already attracted. Also – and more importantly – the Polyhedron literally is the one good thing happening to this man. After going into it on day 9 he thanks Khan for reminding him of a childhood he has forgotten! He has a shit week, he is completely beaten down (quite literally) and this is the one happy moment he finds in all this chaos. Clinging onto that is surely not rational, but it is human. We all know that the Bachelor has the tendency to survive on willpower alone and here clinging to the tower and its miracles is literally his only motivation to continue his route at all. Of course he is going to protect it at that point, if thinking about any other option bring nothing but utter misery and the acceptance of complete and utter failure. After all Dankovskys route is about the limits of his rational worldview and how it hinders him more that it serves him in a world, that isn’t defined by rational beliefs. Of course he will be out of it by the end and actually loosing his composure is an important part of his suffering and character development in the story. His ending is not a sign of rational thought but the last consequence of being enraptured in a web of circumstances that forbid him from making rational decisions in the first place.

Truth to be told, I don’t really like this as an argument. I love this thought as a peace of characterization. As much as I love his ending and the horrible consequences and the actual failure it imposes, when we look at the other playable characters. But it doesn’t really help us here. It doesn’t change the fact, that Dankovsky destroyed an entire town just for a dream, a man-made building, a promise of utopia that we never witness ourselves. He still destroyed so… so much! But… let’s look a bit deeper into the motivations behind that exchange.

Argument 2: The Trolley problem

“There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?” (Wikipedia)

There is a variation to this question and interestingly enough it is one of the morality questions Aglaya asks in Pathologic 2: Would you push a man down a bridge, to save the children from a train? The curious thing is, that we can see all healers giving the same answer, (even if we have the choice to choose differently, since it is… you know… a dilemma). Necessary sacrifice is a constant of all three routes and every single protagonist has to kill in order to save a larger amount of people. Still, the game never answers moral choices with a simple answer and here with the Utopian ending we can see the darker side of this moral dilemma in full force (to a lesser extend this also applies to the Humble ending, since it also involves the Trolley problem, albeit on a smaller scale.) If we take the Kain’s studies about the focus and the soul seriously and see the Polyhedron as a method to ensure immortality seriously – or if we at least assume that Dankovsky wholeheartedly believes in that concept – than protecting the Polyhedron at the cost of the town suddenly becomes the Trolley problem at a significantly larger scale. The Polyhedron could ensure the survival of humankind but only at the expense of the town and it’s infected inhabitants. After all death is to Dankovsky but an affliction that can be healed just like the plague and consumes far more victims (if not all of them even if one would survive the disease). And that poses the question: When does the Trolley Dilemma stop working? What if there are two million people on the tracks and one million on the other side? What if there are hundred people on one and ninety nine on the other? What about five million vs. four million and nine hundred thousand? Can a human life be counted against the life of several others? If we look at the game itself and the healers answer in their daily life, it seems kind of simple: Yes, it is possible. The effort of saving is worth dirtying your hands after all. Risking at least your own life seems like a fair deal and no route really works without at least some degree of human sacrifice. But on this larger scale… it seems absurd. And… well… it is. But still. If we just try to empathise with the Bachelors mindset. If there is a possibility to cure humanity’s mortality… if there is a sliver of possibility (and since Thanatica is destroyed the Polyhedron seems like the only possibility at this point)… what kind of sacrifice is worth preserving it?

I myself have my own answer to that question. In Germany the Constitution starts with the sentence “Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar” or: “Human dignity shall be inviolable.” (This is the official translation though a more direct translation would be “Human dignity is inviolable” which is more of a statement and less of a law) Even if the effect of that sentence in politics is very debatable and it is incredibly vague and not really a usable sentence as a law… I really like it. The human rights as a concept as well as equality can be concluded from the fact, that human dignity is something that cannot – under any circumstance – been taken away and is always a thing that must be considered just by being human. It is… nice. And it also means, that a human being cannot be seen as a mere object and has its own agency. A human being is not quantifiable in their existence by any parameter, be it birth, skin colour, gender, sexuality, religion, interests, talent, job, body, etc… It is incredibly important… and incredibly interesting in our scenario. Because if life isn’t quantifiable at any circumstance… the Trolley Dilemma has a solution. There is no way to tell, if one life can outweigh several others and deciding over their lives is something and judge over the worth of their live is something one should never do. Thus Dankovsky’s choice to save the Polyhedron and outweigh the lives of the infected seems morally wrong.

But… is that the answer the game has? Well… the artbook of Pathologic 2 states that the design of the game is about enforcing ambiguity and I would argue that the first instalment is no different. Firstly: In times of crisis lives become quantifiable. That is part of the tragedy. The healers’ lives are suddenly worth preserving, while others appear as nameless numbers in a daily statistic and caring about the individual dignity seems impossible. As already said the act of killing in order to preserve life is almost mandatory in every single run. So, what about human dignity? Can it even be preserved under such a dilemma? (And there is probably a point to be made about everybody being dolls and thus not even a being with dignity and agency at all… but I digress) Especially doctors have to face this dilemma and they have to make these judgement calls, weather they like it or not. The game doesn’t answer it but makes different variations of the same dilemma that we may judge differently. The Utopian ending is one variation.

What I want to say is, that – if we take the Kains’ believes seriously and see the survival of miracles against the law of nature not only as progress but as a question about human mortality itself – the question if the Polyhedron is worth saving is a very different one. I personally think that the idea of the focus still feels too esoteric to be a real point of interest but on the other hand… it is not like we haven’t some proof when we visit Khan and listen to his testimony. It is not that this place is above it’s miracles, and we know that a lot of the mysticism is grounded in reality, be it by the very real ways of the Kin or the past existence of Simon. So only thinking of the polyhedron as an abstract concept is… well doing it a disservice if we take the other parts as serious. Yeah it is made out of it’s own idea but… you know being like “it cannot exist but it can sure puncture the earth and kill everything” is… a weird way of thinking and it sure is a McGuffin (and even called that in the Artbook) but as we said, the game is about ambiguity and the only way to look at its existence is not only “evil tower of doom”. Is it worth keeping? Eh… I wouldn’t say so myself. I still think the Utopian ending is pretty shit and seeing the tower as salvation for our mortal lives is pretty farfetched. But the question for this essay is: Is it wrong to think, it is worth keeping? And from Dankovsky’s perspective, who sees it as the only possible chance of curing human mortality… Well… the answer at least isn’t as simple anymore. But – and now we are getting somewhere – the argument about the complexity of human value can be also made without even relying on Kain-Bullshit.

Argument 3: The Utopian Ending is the only ending, that completely gets rid of the plague (at least from Dankos point of view)

But wait you say, the other endings also defeat the plague! There even is a cure, something our beloved Bachelor of Medicine never archives. What is this lunacy?

Well here is the catch: A cure does not destroy its disease. Or at least it is an unreliable method. Sure, if everyone is cured and/or the disease helps to build antibodies, then it does help to get rid of it. But the sandpest seems to leave the bodies and not finding these remnants and antibodies is one essential part of the Bachelor’s route. It is the reason Rubin needs a living heart in the first place. The disease doesn’t seem to stay and no antibodies seem to be developed. (And even if I try to avoid material of Pathologic 2 in this analysis since there are differences in the Canon I still at least want to mention, that the Panacea as well as the shmowder do indeed not help against the disease after it is cured and a person can be reinfected. I do not know, if the same is the case in one and if you can test it out.) But if there are no antibodies, the cure could only eradicate the disease if every single infected person is cured at the same time. Good luck with that! That’s not bound to be a complete mess in this town!

This is backed up on day 12 in the Bachelor’s own route. When he is presented with the options the other healers have, he always asks both of them the same question: How does that ensure the future of the town? The Haruspex makes a cure yes. But what if the disease returns? After all the underground water he talks about still exists and there is no telling, if it will ever reemerge. It already happened once… The Haruspex doesn’t answer with “no, that will never happen”. He says that they will have enough cure if this is the case. An optimist, I see. And definitely not a satisfying answer if we consider a scientific perspective. What if the cure runs out? What if they find out too late and the plague spreads outside of town? A cure is not a waterproof system against plague. (You know what works better though? A vaccine.) Daniil’s mission was always to eradicate the disease and this would not do the trick. Having only a cure is risky. And it might not be a permanent solution.

The same applies for the Humble ending. If one asks the Changeling what would happen if the blood of their sacrifice runs out she answers “There will always be people willing to sacrifice themselves” Which is… just great. Constant human sacrifice just doesn’t seem that sustainable. And it also means that there will be constant loss of human life. Something that might even lead to more sacrifice in the long run (although that would be a reaaaaly long run considering how long the sacrifice of the Clara’s bound is supposed to last.) But it sure as hell doesn’t make the plague disappear. What if there are no willing sacrifices? What if Clara is gone and there is no one to perform a miracle? Clara’s ending relies on faith by nature and putting your trust in it is easy from a player’s perspective but even harder when there are lives at stake, the success unsure and these questions to consider.

Dankovsky’s ending is built upon uprooting the plague and eradicating it. The problem is that it is everywhere and not easily destroyed. As Lara very adequately realised: There is no source. His ending is the consequence of that goal and even if it loses in every other aspect, this is the one, where it wins. It actually destroys the problem itself. Building a new town and keeping the tower it cannot reach, actively minimalizes the possibility of the plague reappearing. And a more permanent solution might save more lives than one that sounds more humane at the beginning.

Okay, to defend the Haruspex for a change of pace: In his route he actually does believe that his method eradicates the disease as much as Dankovsky is convinced that his solution does the trick. For him the source is the Polyhedron and the way, it wounds the earth. With it removed the plague will not reappear. But why should Dankovsky share this belief? No one tells him! The inquisitor says that the Polyhedron is the root of evil but there never is any actual proof for that. Even If the Polyhedron is partially responsible and Danko actually does acknowledge this, it is the bloody mess of underground fluids that are in fact the source (which is ironically confirmed by the Haruspex himself). As he tells the inquisitor herself at the last day: The source and the cause can be too different things. It already seeped through Andrey’s spiral to the upper layers. The damage has already been done and in fact the Polyhedron is now the only save place, where nobody is infected. Everything else needs to be destroyed to eradicate the disease but why even destroy the Polyhedron? Wait. Why even destroy the Polyhedron? What good would that even do if we would consider it? What the fuck would Dankovsky even do with the destroyed Polyhedron, how would that save the town?

Argument 4: Dankos ending isn’t about the town vs. the polyhedron at all!(From his perspective. It totally is for the player though!)

I experienced something weird while playing the Bachelor’s route in P1. And with that I mean that I experienced something weird, that I wasn’t already expecting. After hearing so much about the fabled Polyhedron love, assuming that he sacrifices the whole town for its sake and hearing from the inquisitor in Pathologic 2 again and again how obsessed he is, I waited for the revelation. The moment Dankovsky would completely lose it and become utterly and undeniably obsessed with the children’s tower. That moment… never happened. Or well… it happened remarkably late and with less impact than I thought. Until day 9 the tower isn’t even a point of interest to the Bachelor, which is two thirds of his route. But even after you witness the miracles of the Polyhedron yourself, you still can argue against its glory. You can agree with Aglaya on day 10, that it seems dangerous (even if that could also be tactics, but until this point there is not really a reason for that). Hell, you can tell Peter on day 12, that his ideas will always only exist in his mind and blueprints and that the new town they will create will not work out! That is so weird, if the result of his run is, that he sacrifices the town for the Polyhedron! Why is there always an option to speak against the miracle we want to save? Isn’t that completely strange?

If we take the town vs. polyhedron conflict serious then… yeah it is. But is this all, what his end can be about? I would argue against it. Because what finally tips him to his solution and completes his view on the map of the town isn’t the Polyhedrons glory: It is the towns underground water and the Haruspex telling him, that the deeper layers are infected. That is, when he flips his shit and he even has an “oh no, it can’t be!” moment. Weird, isn’t it? If he would be set about destroying the town, why agonizing over this information? But from his point of view it is a nail in the coffin, the realization, that the whole towns ground is seeping with infection and if not eradicated, it will reappear. The Bachelor doesn’t have a cure and the Haruspex, while promising that he has a solution, sure as hell doesn’t explain how that would work and insists on arguing his own case without interference. (Which is completely understandable but doesn’t clear the situation.) The Bachelor has no means on his own to fight the plague outside of destroying the town. This is his only option to call of the bombardment of the Polyhedron and the tower and from his point of view, destroying the tower would archive absolutely nothing. It is free of infection, why destroy it? What would ripping it out do aside from letting even more blood seep out? In his own case, this would be completely useless, thus destroying the Polyhedron does not save the town! When the Bachelor flips the switch and guides the trolley in a different direction, he isn’t guiding it from hitting the Polyhedron to hitting the town. He guides the trolley from hitting the town and the polyhedron to only hitting the town! And by the way to only hit the town which his infected people while everybody else evacuates in the tower. (Which is confirmed by his ending cutscene, where people are actually present. After all it takes the healthy to built the new town). In his own mind, the Bachelor is saving people, not killing them! He does what he can so that the most of them survives and in his case, destroying the town is the only method to ensure victory at all.

If we stick to his own route – as I am doing right now – we have two counterarguments against this theory. The first one: But isn’t that only the failure of finding a better method? And: yes it is. As we already discussed in the first argument, the Bachelors story is about failure and the game itself is about necessary sacrifice, lose-lose situations and making the best out of a desperate hopeless scenario. Which leaves us with the question: Could Dankovsky have found a better solution? And… maybe. If he was more attentive, made different choices, would have been nicer to the Kin… There always are “ifs” but I would argue that the ones in this scenario are… pretty small odds for a change. He does genuinely try to inspect the abattoir and find a solution and ensure it’s safety and is almost punched to death as a result. The Kin regard him with absolute hostility, and for a good reason but it doesn’t help his case. Without Burakh’s knowledge and caste-rights making a cure would be (almost) impossible. He isn’t allowed to do any normal doctoring the one time, he tried to gain some blood from dead people, multiple guards had to die in order to ensure this absolute act of evil to go unnoticed. Thus he has to rely on Rubin’s secret lab. The possibility of Simon and his powers against the plague also aren’t usable… The Bachelor doesn’t even get to see his corpse after all. What choice does he have other than eradicating the cause itself? It’s definitely not the elegant solution that he was hoping for but there is a reason for him switching to inspect everything after ruling out a living plague carrier. These are the desperate means of finding a solution when his own knowledge of medicine has already failed him and the hopes of providing such medicine are already dwindling. Saving the town is simply not an option, the moment itself becomes the source of the plague.

The second counterargument is this one: Why not side with another healer, when they provide a better solution? And this is also a very valid argument. And thus, the moment it becomes an option, we as the Bachelor can choose to do so. If he has the cures that are necessary to ensure another healers victory, it is completely possible to avoid that ending. He doesn’t have to stick with it as well as the other healers do not have to, so judging him based on the other routes being better outcomes becomes obsolete. He has the ability to use these options, but if we lack the cures, his own solution is the only one. (Of course you can also save the other characters bound and then still decide to destroy the town, but using this scenario as his only motivation, when you can totally decide for yourself is a bit harsh, isn’t it?)

Of course, this argument collapses the moment we play any other route and he is trying to convince us to save the Polyhedron and abandon our own plans. However his own route can be considered his own perception of the story and our knowledge, how much he knows about the others paths is pretty limited and dependant of our choices as the player. Also, seeing his character and the changes made with that in mind, we can actually explain, why they appear. Of course, everybody tells Artemy how much the Bachelor is in love with the tower, when we’re not seeing it to that extreme in his route! It is necessary to fulfil his role in the Haruspex route. Of course, both the Bachelor and the Haruspex will appear as demons in Clara’s route. They do offer nothing but destruction from her point of view and both solutions seem destructive and spiteful, if they try to convince her. Everybody seems on board with seeing the characters in her route differently, but I think that the same applies to the Bachelor and the Haruspex in each other’s route, since their roles in the game changes. Or at least the perspective changes based on the others worldview. The Haruspex seems a lot more dangerous and his medicine a whole lot shadier, while the Bachelor seems to be more in love with the tower and ready to abandon everything for it, because it seems that way in comparison to the other persons knowledge of the situation. This is also backed up by the doll ending, where the Bachelor is being called out as the villain most of the time. In other routes he appears more villainous than in his own route, because we do actually have the means of comparison. But this is our perspective and not actual character motivation. We as the player do have the choice to work toward an ending. We can with our knowledge of the game go the extra mile to secure enough cures from the very beginning and help another healer. We are aware of the fact, that Clara and Artemy are other playable characters and we know from the very beginning that their beliefs have to be of value and their solutions will be backed up by their own routes. We know the opposition these characters stand in and while we see the different routes we may judge them for ourselves. And while Clara definitely knows and the other two healers show some sensibility towards this opposition (the “left hand, right hand”-quote comes to mind), at least the male healers are basing their decision upon their beliefs and not some outside point of view (while Clara watches and not-so-silently judges them). They even try to help each other and even provide the key insight to their own plan’s destruction (the Bachelor guides the inquisitor eyes to the Polyhedron and its structure, while Artemy outright tells Daniil of the underground infection). Of course they do not have the full picture! How could they, this entire game is about them not having it and making terrible mistakes! Dankovsky doesn’t have the ability to judge his own solution how the player does. And while judging his ending based on this information is completely valid and sensible, implying that he knows this detriment and still goes through with everything feels… a bit unfair to say the least. The conflict of the town vs. the polyhedron is an important debate in the game. And yes, Dankovsky’s role is being the advocate of the polyhedron, but man, this guy has the tendency to get manipulated into advocating random shit! The town vs. polyhedron debate is as present with him, as it is with the Haruspex. With the Polyhedron being the source in his route, he really has no choice but to remove it. After all, this guy really has no reason, to protect the Polyhedron. Of course he doesn’t! He would never sacrifice the town for the sake of his own ideology!

Argument 5: Let’s talk Nocturnal!

I promised one comparison, didn’t I? Still, we are now diving into abstract talk about the games’ themes and less about character motivation. Consider this more of a bonus and a different thought and less as an argument for Dankovsky himself. Comparing one ending to a different one does not make one of these characters more or less of an asshole. And comparing Pathologic 1 to Pathologic 2 obviously doesn’t tell us anything about the canon of either of those games, since they have vastly different results and we have no idea what the Bachelor’s endings will look like in Parhologic 2 (though I would be surprised if we couldn’t destroy the town and save the Polyhedron. But who knows, in Artemy’s case the army only pisses off.) Still, I think it is very interesting to talk about both of these endings side by side.

And I will begin this comparison by telling you that I love this ending! I am so happy that it exists and I think it is glorious and I think it’s existence is really important. I am so happy that Artemy has a reason to destroy the town. But is this okay? Or – as a comparison – is this a better idea than the one Dankovsky had?

I would argue that these endings have a lot in common. They both preserve their own ideals and establish a radically new order at the cost of the town itself. They both kill a shit ton of people for the miracles they have witnessed along the way. One could even argue that the Nocturnal ending is more horrifying. Firstly, more people die. While the Bachelor saves the uninfected, Artemy saves only those who “live with earths will” which seems to be like… the ten guys chilling in the abattoir and some of the kids. We know that there are only mere hundreds of people left of the kin and since everybody in the termitary doesn’t seem to count… who even gets saved? It’s at least as vague as the question who isn’t infected and can be saved at the Utopian end. But – more importantly – Artemy definitely has a choice in that matter and decides to sacrifice the town for the sake of the past. (If you’re not me. In my playthrough I got the courier note twenty minutes before 22:00 and the game was like “what are you going to do, such a hard choice” and I was like “I literally do not have the time to get this thing to town hall”. And then Aspity was like “you made your own conscious and completely willed decision” while Artemy just awkwardly stared at her…) But even disregarding that, the ending is surprisingly similar. Yet I see no one judging either the Haruspex or his ending for being overly cruel and well… killing a lot. Actually, I only read posts defending it and saying that it is as morally okay as the diurnal ending and could also count as a good end. And… I kind of agree. The sacrifice of the diurnal ending is pretty steep and destroying some species – while the worms, herb brides and albinos definitely show human qualities – is pretty fucked up as well and preserving them can seem worth the cost. (Oh my, do not say we arrived at the problem of human value again!) Still… It is destroying the town for its miracles. That is literally what this ending is about, yet our asshole sense does not tingle at all! Why is that?

I think there are two arguments for this difference between our outlook on the Nocturnal and the Utopian end. The first one is that the Kin and its culture is very endangered and protecting it just seems more morally sound than protecting some rich dudes. Which is very fair and the Kains are very fucked up. Buuuut, it isn’t like there is the termitary quest that preludes the diurnal ending. Finishing the game doesn’t exactly mean that we abandon the Kin. Part of its beliefs and culture, yes. Definitely, and as I said I still think the Diurnal and Nocturnal ending are pretty balanced. But a part of the Kin is assimilated and is coping and while protecting its culture and very real traditions is completely valid, the Nocturnal ending also destroys parts of the Kin (the Termitary part) as ill fitting for living with the earth…. So… hm… It’s not as easy as saying “but you help the Kin in one and some rich dudes in the other”, since the Kin itself are also torn and we are still only allowing a specific way of living. A specific worldview containing the miracles of the town… On the other hand, the polyhedron and its miracles can also be considered endangered and unique. It is a one of a kind structure as is the miracles it can provide. The Stamatins are pretty unable to reproduce it, as the game likes to tell us and destroying it would destroy all hopes of a one in a time event to come to life. Also there are talks about the Utopians being a faction of the entire town with one third of the population agreeing on their beliefs (as it is the case with the other ideologies). And the plans Peter and Maria make do sound interesting, dreamlike and… well unique. Something that can also only happen in this circumstance. But alas… we do not know that much about it and their word is only what we have. And this is the second aspect that makes the Nocturnal ending more relatable: Buildup. We witness first-hand what this Nocturnal world would be (sometimes for better and sometimes for worse), we know the beings and the miracles of the earth. We do not really get in touch which the utopian ideas and only have the rambling of good old Georgji which… yeah that doesn’t help their case! But there are kids calling this new town an “eternal adventure” a miracle that can come to live and I would say, that this thought is quite beautiful. And it certainly is unique, which is the main argument of the Nocturnal ending. Wonders, plague and miracles. Destroy one and the other will vanish. So… what is worth keeping a miracle? The answer now seems even harder to grasp. Maybe even impossible.

But we also do not have every puzzle peace. I still have hope for the two different routes and with them there are the possibilities of new realizations and also new endings. I myself am really curious if we either get an option to save the town or a reason to destroy the Polyhedron as the Bachelor. (And I am very curious as well, if Clara will get a second ending. What would that even be? An all destruction ending to set everyone free???) There also could be more elaboration on the Polyhedron and its inner workings. Maybe we will even understand what the Kains are talking about! There are some allusions to a more concrete Kain worldview. The nut-game while very disturbing makes the entrapment of the soul way more real and gives the focus some context. (It also doesn’t only connect it with the polyhedron since “anything can be a focus. A polyhedron, a room, a nut”.) The same applies to the clocks and their connection to the save system, which makes the miracles of the Kains way more real. And I digress. Only time will tell.

Conclusion:

I think it is clear by now, that this way too long text isn’t really about giving answers and more about perspective. I myself would say that the Bachelor’s choice is terribly misguided most of the time and the only possible method to save anything at best. But I do not think that it is made with its destructive force in mind. What I wanted to show is, that the motives and the narratives surrounding this ending are way more complex and also really, really interesting. (I just wanted to gush about this game!) As are the characters that comment on the situation at hand. And reflecting on how we judge them can say a lot about our own view and the world (this one as well as the Town on Gorkhon).

[stories-by-rie]

10 Tag Game

I was tagged by @jess---writes on my main (rokokokokolores) but since this is my writeblr, I hope it’s okay I post it on this blog. Thank you so much for tagging me, the questions really were wonderful! I am very lazy, however, so I just answered them and didn’t create new questions on my own. Everyone who reads them and likes them, feel free to do them as well!

1. What’s surprised you most about your current project(s)?

I am currently working on The Assassination of Keiko Ito, and the whole thing was the most extreme form of pantsing I ever did, so every new scene was a surprise. But I think that moment where I introduced a random object in chapter two and my MCs ended up ‘needing’ it in chapter twelve was a big surprise.

2.  Do you characters serve your plot or create it? How?

Both? Both. Both is good. Honestly, I don’t really think about this concerning my writing at all, and I haven’t read on this matter enough to give a solid answer. But with my projects, I think characters are more important, because a good character can be a plot, but a plot can’t be a character. Does that make sense? I don’t know.

3. What piece of writing advice always stays with you?

This one where eight authors share advice and everyone thinks it’s a joke. Every single one of them, and I am absolutely not kidding. I think this is the only writing advice I need to follow and I am ignorant to all the rest.

4. (eesh this one’s a bit of an essay... but I can’t stop thinking about it now!) Maggie Stiefvater wrote about the fact her characters were questions she asked. For example, Gansey was questions of privilege and what you owe the world when you have it. (click here to read the article) What questions would some of your characters be?

This is such a hard question, which is the reason I actually answered it last ^^ I actually think I  create my characters in a similar way?

Kora – Kora asks the ethical question of the trolley-problem. It fascinated me since my youth and in taoki she is confronted with it, and decides to make a decision.

Simon – Simon is the questions of what happens when you have solid principles and how you react when they are challenged to their very fundaments.

Keiko – (how vague can I phrase this without being too spoilery?) Keiko is about inner conflicts with yourself. *awkward cough* I’ll just leave it at that.

5. Have you ever cut scenes you love for your project? How did you come to that decision?

Yes, I totally have. There are three or four scenes in total that I cut out of taoki even if they made sense plot wise. They were good scenes generally, but I figured that I had just created them to info-dump and that is not a good reason for a scene to exist in my opinion. Some were really cool, but didn’t match the ending once I rewrote it. So there are several reasons to cut a scene for me, but not in a ‘kill your darlings’ way. That’s actually not a reason why I would cut one. Even if it’s not necessary to the story, a ‘filler’ scene can still be useful. If I love it, someone else will like reading it too. I could ramble about this forever, probably ^^

6. What do you struggle with as a writer? How do you try to overcome that struggle?

I would say style is very tricky for me. I know I could improve more if I read more, but with uni I got just enough time to write, so it’s a bit hard at the moment. I also struggle with settings a lot. It just never seems so relevant while I write? Or I have a clear imagination of it but can’t find the right words to make it clear. So I work on it in later drafts and check with betas, but it’s definitely hard.

7. Do names of characters and places come to you out of nowhere, or are they a conscious decision? If they’re a conscious decision, how do you come to that decision?

Oof. So. Both. Again. With some characters I will just assign a random name and accept it. Some characters get a name because they have a special meaning and it’s some sort of (lazy) foreshadowing or just something for me to be happy about. Examples would be Simon form taoki, a random name, and Kora who I named after Persephone, since she is an assassin, so it seemed to fit to call her after the goddess of the underworld. With places, it also is both. I usually use some generators for towns and the like, but also I ask myself: How do we name places in our world? So that’s how I decided on Goldstein (Goldstone) in In the Land of Twilight. It’s a town that was built in front of the Goldberg (Golden Mountain) so they built the houses with its stone and hence named the town after it. Does it make sense? I hope so ^^ But even with names of places from generators, I try to think of a sense. Annville in taoki has got a tiny myth tied to it, even if I took the name from a generator. It’s a great chance to work on world building!

8. What’s the deepest rabbit hole of research you’ve fallen down for any of your WIPs?

So. Many. Probably astronomy to built and define taoki’s magic system though. The magic in it comes from the stars and it gets deep into physics (I think I chatted with you, Jess, about it once on your discord? Don’t you study something with Physics?). I watched countless youtube videos about it, interviewed about four people who understand it more than me and I was so obsessed with it. I still am.

9. What sort of scenes do you look forward to writing?

Hm….. Emotionally packed ones, I think. Or the ones responsible for a WIP’s existence (even though those tend to get cut out of it in the end? Really weird).

10. What are your favourite things about writing?

EVERYTHING! Just kidding, absolutely not everything. But a lot. I love the process which allows me to escape in a different world, to create and use my fantasy. I love to assign personalities to characters, to see them interact with others. I adoooooore creating magical systems. The sound of my keyboard when I am doing a sprint. To interact with other writers. To read some of my writing after a long time and finding out that it isn’t as trashy as I thought it was. All of that.