#morality in computer games

[tangent101]

The Ethics of Empathic Powers in LiS:TC

One of the big selling points for Life is Strange: True Colors was that Max CaulfieldAlex Chen's magical powers would be empathy - more specifically a combination of Object Reading (through the strength of emotions felt concerning those objects), Emotional Intelligence (being able to manage your own emotions and understand the emotions of people around you), and Emotional Manipulation. Of these, the most questionable would be Emotional Manipulation, and it's an ability that Alex uses several times... with two significant events where that ability ends up with significant repercussions.

The two moments include a moment when Charlotte is feeling intense anger at her son, whose actions indirectly led to the death of her fiancé Gabe (Alex's brother), where Alex can... take in Charlotte's anger, and in the fear being felt by Officer Pike (where Alex again can take in the fear and help Pike overcome his paranoia and fear of the mining corporation Typhon).

Interestingly enough, this was an area where I disagreed with my spouse, as they chose not to manipulate Charlotte but did take in Officer Pike's fear. My reasoning was that if it is unethical to take in Charlotte's anger, then would it not be unethical to do the same for Officer Pike? What's more, Alex was in the wrong. She had stolen property from a Typhon employee and recruited someone to break the encryption on it to get evidence of potential wrong-doing by Typhon. Legally, the evidence is not admissible in a court of law as it was stolen and not a whistleblowing event from an employee.

(The smart thing to do in this case would have been to copy the data and then return the flash drive as "found when I was cleaning up" as it would lessen suspicion, and then deliver the evidence to a news organization as they are not a court of law.)

Here's the thing. Is it ethical to use emotional manipulation/control on a person to save your life? I would say yes. But is this to save Alex's life? No. Alex is threatened with arrest (and rightfully so), though the value of the flash drive is minimal. It would be a misdemeanor at best. The evidence on the flash drive is embarrassing and reveals that the company was covering up malfeasance but the financial value of the stolen property is... most likely under $100. What's more, if news organizations learned that Typhon had had arrested the sister of a man who died because of mining activity Typhon was involved in, especially given that it would be easy to access satellite phone records that reveal that Gabe did in fact call Typhon? It would most likely result in an investigation that causes Typhon a lot of trouble. Typhon was just trying to scare Alex. And it works.

So it's unethical to use Alex's abilities to influence Officer Pike. Using her Emotional Intelligence aspect of empathy to learn more about his fears of Typhon are allowable (if borderline questionable) as anyone with sufficient emotional intelligence would be able to determine this sort of thing just by reading body language and the like. (A lot of empathy is subconscious emotional intelligence rather than anything psychic, and people can unfortunately allow that psychological perception of a person to influence their own emotions - which makes me suspect emotional intelligence has two separate elements which are not necessarily equal - someone may have control over their own emotions and yet not be able to easily understand the emotions of those around them... and vise versa.)

One of the nice things about TC is that we actually see repercussions for Alex unethically using her empathic abilities - she flies into a rage if she chose to take in Charlotte's anger, and Charlotte refuses to side with her against Typhon because it doesn't matter to her now, and she suffers a bout of intense paranoia and fear if she takes in Pike's fear and likewise, Pike starts acting in a... unprofessional manner during the final confrontation with Diane and Jeb.

This is also one of the nice things about True Colors over the original Life is Strange... that we see actual ethical issues in play here. With Max and the Rewind, there is little actual ethical issues in play here over her use of her abilities. Even the ending choice is not a matter of a "Good End" and a "Evil End" (no matter what certain folk working for Deck Nine might claim) as we never had any evidence that the Rewind caused the Storm and the person who does accuse Max of causing the Storm also thought the Storm was a Category 6 Storm (which doesn't exist) (and he was also a 16 year old boy whose knowledge base came from watching movies - and his choice of movies that he enjoyed were... questionable.) The second Life is Strange game did start wandering down the road of ethics, but this was more building on what was more important: family or following the law (even when the law was unjust).

[tangent101]

Take Life is Strange.

Max's Choice at the end is gray morality.

On the one hand, you let nature take its course and a small town is destroyed, almost all of the homes destroyed (if not all), and many of those people who were at Arcadia Bay on a Friday at noon died including students at Blackwell Academy. (So we're talking probably 100 students, faculty, and another 100 or so people in Arcadia Bay who were not away at work - and Arcadia Bay is stated to have a depressed economy so those who live there have to work outside of the town. Also there is no Elementary School or Middle School so all kids from ages 5 to 14 were also out-of-town.)

On the other hand, you take a leap of faith, go back in time, and allow the girl you love to be murdered by Nathan Prescott. This is going to destroy Nathan's life. We're going to ignore LiS2 and other works for now and just based off of the original game, we have no proof that Nathan wouldn't get off on a Self Defense defense or that Jefferson was arrested for his involvement with Rachel - he was just brought in for questioning. But no matter what happens with Nathan... he ended a life, he had her blood on his hands. Max has to live with the fact that she murdered Chloe. She planned her death by knowing for a fact Nathan was going to murder her and hoping that the blood sacrifice of this teenage girl would keep a huge-ass Storm from destroying her home town.

Would anyone say that Sacrifice Chloe was a good ending if at the end of Sacrifice Chloe, the Storm hits anyway and destroys everything? No. Everyone would say Max made a dumbass move based on a hunch. But Max had no idea that letting Chloe die would in fact fix anything. It comes out of the blue. It's only with 20/20 hindsight that players have given the Sacrifice Chloe choice any semblance of morality. If those who had not chosen to kill Chloe never knew of what happens with Sacrifice Chloe... then they would insist that jumping into the past, blindly trusting that letting someone die would somehow magically fix everything, is quite immoral. But if those who sacrificed Chloe ended up killing the town anyway, with their choice being pointless... that would not darken the morality of the choice any more than it lightens the morality of the choice to let Chloe die in blood sacrifice to save a town.

Let's go one step further: What if it took an actual blood sacrifice to save Arcadia Bay, with Nathan Prescott chaining down Chloe in the bathroom and taking a blade to slice her throat open... does that make the choice less moral than his just shooting Chloe? I mean, the blood sacrifice saves a town! So why is his accidental shooting and thus sacrificing Chloe that way, more moral? And why is saving Chloe the less moral choice?

All are grey morality. And none of the choices are good ones. They both have negative consequences. The question is: which choice can you live with?

People think "gray morality" in fiction is about Both Sides Are Partly Right Actually but so much more often it's about choices having inescapable negative outcomes that have to be weighed against the benefits, or it's about having to choose between a series of bad options, or it's about making hard decisions about what you are willing to sacrifice to achieve the outcome you believe is good.

So often, I seem to see people angry that a story in a video game didn't present a Good Option with no collateral damage and no negative outcomes whatsoever, and if there are any downsides it's seen as the writers punishing you for the decision, because they see the primary purpose of stories to be moralizing rather than exploring the complexities of human experience. Or they argue that the collateral damage didn't really happen, or that the negative outcomes weren't really that bad actually, and thus miss the point altogether.

And I feel like it's important to remember that a narrative telling you a decision is difficult is not the same thing as the narrative telling you it is wrong.

[aliettali]

normal essay for normal people!

normal essay for normal people

fuckkkkk

[they-have-the-same-va]

The Prince in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, The Two Thrones, and Forgotten Sands shares a voice actor with Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Earth-1048) in the Insomniac Spider-Man games.

Voiced by Yuri Lowenthal

[dandyshucks]

prayer circle that I receive some sort of copy of pkmn su/mo from my family in 8 days so that i can run around alola and see my beloved 🙏🙏🙏

[tangent101]

Okay. Now let's take this two steps further.

The very first thing in the game... is the Storm. Max wakes getting drenched and moves toward the lighthouse and sees the Storm... and dies. At that point she wakes up and is in the classroom. And for all the time travel, it's not until the end of the first day/chapter of the game that we learn the Storm is going to destroy Arcadia Bay in five days. In short, we see the Storm at the start of the chapter and at the end of the chapter we learn when and where the Storm hits. The Storm exists before Max has time travel abilities.

So then, the Storm is a predetermined point. It is going to happen. And the one major difference is that Max has time travel abilities and is thus able to avoid her fate of dying in the Storm. So then... Max gains time travel in order to avoid dying in the Storm. It's a most selfish reason to have an ability... and she promptly uses it to save the life of a stranger - and she had no idea that Chloe was the stranger she was saving, all she wanted to do was save that strange girl's life.

Now here's point two and where it gets even stranger. Because yes, you can say that this is a Trolley Car Problem but I'll state it's also very much another trope: Appease the Volcano God. Essentially, a human sacrifice is needed to keep an angry god from destroying things. And you are left to wonder: is it ethical to appease an angry god by murdering a life? Is it ethical to allow someone to kill themselves to appease that god (as in the film Birds of Paradise)?

What's more, is it works. Chloe dies and the angry god is appeased and even throws Nathan into jail for three years and throws Jefferson in jail for a short period of time though given Nathan gets out in three years on appeal, I'm willing to bet Jefferson does as well. But is it the ethical thing to murder someone to appease God? Because I know that Chloe at the start of Life is Strange would laugh in Max's face if she told her "your older self sent me to convince you to let Nathan kill you to save everyone in the town."

So it's not even a willing sacrifice. Older Chloe is murdering her younger self and relying on her best friend to do the deed. And in doing so she ruins Max's life. (Alternatively she stays with Max in the Save Chloe timeline and they find happiness together.)

Was it ethical for Abraham to just put a knife to his son's chest and plan on murdering him (and when God said "dude, I was drunk and joking, don't do it!" he ends up lopping off the tip of his son's dick instead and starts the whole partial-castration practice of circumcision, how wonderful)? No. It wasn't. And it sure as hell ain't ethical to take a leap of faith and murder Chloe hoping it saves a town full of people without even having a clue if it would work.

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.

[leofrith]

acv hate on my dash and i can't even be mad about it because they make some good points 😶

[anto-pops]

Do I aim for an eviler Durge run for my third playthrough or do I try to resist it…………. I’m conflicted

[surveillance-0011]

What I will say about the whole Garten of BanBan debacle, the brothers and any future banban posting.

On the matter of this game and its quality, it… definitely sucks. The sequel shows improvement with a better story and some humor but it’s still rushed, glitchy and made with mostly money or recognition in mind, by two folks who aren’t necessarily the best at taking criticism.

Speaking of Faris and Ghepo, they do have to take criticism better. A lot of folks, even if a little harsh or prone to being annoying about it, do just want to see them improve. I do, too. Especially considering the even worse (esp morally) trainwreck that is Introvert. From what I’ve seen (not a full playthrough, but clips and summary) it’s tasteless and also just. Confusing and falls flat. It’s fucked to fumble such heavy topics so bad and I believe they should just apologize for it and not make a sequel. Because of this I cannot really align myself with them. I’m also surprised people don’t really bring it up? Unless everyone is more in the dark abt it than I thought.

However they definitely don’t deserve death threats or other harassment. Yes, it’s the internet, so people will be harsh, but there were definitely people saying some fucked up shit to them. It’s unwarranted, even if the two have made many a faux pas and scummy… uh, whatever you call what they’re doing.

I hope that being off of Twitter will give them some more time to reflect on this whole situation and change the way they work. More importantly I hope they feel safe, and take some time to refresh. Even if I’m not their biggest fan (that’s an understatement) I do think the way this whole thing has been going is a bit more extreme than warranted and I’d rather see improvement than stagnation or a further downgrade.

As for BanBan on this account? I haven’t said much about it but I do have redesigns and a slight rewrite I intend to share, mainly for fun. I do not see this as something that supports or apologizes for the Brothers, or something meant to bully them or anything either. Just a little creative experiment.

[tangent101]

And likewise, it makes you wonder: is it better to remain in hiding? Don't forget, Chloe asked for Max to hide in the closet because her presence would cause trouble. Furthermore, you can't talk Chloe into letting Max hide the weed - even just tossing the joint out the window would have David smell something but have no proof. So you are stuck with these choices that make no sense.

Seriously. Hide the weed, he has no proof. He never searches for Max in the closet. And by Max witnessing David hitting Chloe... sure, it's not defending Chloe but it lets Chloe know that she has a witness. And Max could even tell Joyce the truth: I was hiding in the closet because Chloe was scared my being over would cause trouble with David, especially after I chased him off from picking on Kate Marsh.

LiS kind of forced you into certain choices that ultimately make little sense when you consider what time travel would allow... and the fact that if Max caused the Storm, Chloe's death should not undo that Storm - ultimately, it's Max who has to die. Can you imagine Chloe letting Max return to the past to die?!? She would rip up the photo herself and insist that it's a foolish choice. In fact, Sacrifice Max would require Max to Rewind, not tell Chloe that Max is going to sacrifice herself, and then go back in time with that Choice.

There are many ways the game could change if we just had a little more time and imagination on what Max could do, especially with Chloe giving her ideas. :)

Something I love about Life Is Strange is the moral ambiguity of all the choices.

I don't think a single decision in the game is an open and shut case of doing right or wrong. You can debate all day what someone should do in that situation and the "right" answer is going to boil down to your moral beliefs.

I think a good example would be taking the blame for Chloe's weed or not.

It's easy to make a case for why standing with Chloe is a good thing. She's a long term friend who has a shitty home life and just did something incredibly kind for Max (Giving her William's camera) moments before. Standing with her and protecting her from David is an act of loyalty that shows how much Max still cares about her wellbeing. Therefore making it a very understandable choice.

However, I do feel like you could argue that Max shouldn't be expected to take the blame. If she takes responsibility for the joint that isn't hers, David threatens the scholarship that got into Blackwell. That's a huge finical blow that will put Max's educational opportunities in jeopardy. It's not an empty threat either as we learn from Mark in Episode 2 that David has told Wells that Max is dealing pot.

So in that regard is it selfish of Chloe to expect Max to loose a major opportunity for her? Or is it selfish of Max to let someone she cares about get hurt? Are both choices selfish since either outcome screws one of them over? Or are neither really that selfish since both girls are placed in a really bad spot?

I could make a post like this about of the choices. All of them are wrong to a certain extent just as much as they are right. Nothings black and white and a lot of the choices simply boil down to "Who do you want to screw over more?" Which is an interesting moral dilemma as it means you can never really win.

[fates-theysband]

might do something phenomenally ill-advised

[euphorial-docx]

no because neil druckmann’s tlou2 palestine/israel allegory thing to push his zionist views makes no sense from a writing standpoint. because i fucking hate the group meant to represent israel too. what was he trying to do with that.

[prokopetz]

With DND 5e being set up to cause DM burnout, can you give examples of tabletop systems that facilitate easy DMing? I love running a tabletop game but don't have the time to deal with 5e or homebrew anymore.

(With reference to this post here.)

This is an area where you're going to get a lot of bad advice, because there's no such thing as a tabletop RPG that's "easy to GM" in the abstract. Some systems make greater or lesser demands of the GM's time and skill, but the reason that Dungeons & Dragons has a massive GM burnout problem is a bit more subtle than that – indeed, D&D's GM burnout problem is considerably worse than that of many games whose procedures of play place much greater demands on the GM!

It boils down to the fact that games are opinionated. Even a very simple set of rules contains a vast number of baked-in assumptions about how the game ought to be played; in the case of tabletop RPGs, those baked-in assumptions include assumptions about what kinds of stories the game ought to be used to tell. The players of any given group, of course, also have assumptions – some explicit, many unexamined – about how the game's story ought to go. It's rare that these two sets of assumptions will perfectly agree.

Fortunately, perfect agreement isn't necessary, because tabletop RPGs aren't computer games, and it's always possible to tweak the outputs of the rules on the fly to better suit the desired narrative experience. In conventional one-GM-many-players games like D&D, this responsibility for monitoring and adjusting the outputs of the rules so that they're compatible with the narrative space the group wishes to explore falls principally on the GM.

Now, here's where the trouble starts: the larger the disconnect between the story the rules want to produce and the narrative space the group wants to explore, the more work the GM in a conventional one-GM-many-players context needs to do in order to close that gap. If the disconnect is large enough, the GM ends up spending practically all of their time babysitting the outputs of the rules, at the expense of literally every other facet of their responsibilities.

(Conversely, if that gap is large and isn't successfully closed, you can end up with a situation where engaging with the rules and engaging with the narrative become mutually exclusive activities. This is where we get daft ideas like "combat" and "roleplaying" being opposites – which is nonsense, of course, but it's persuasive nonsense if you've never experienced a game where the rules agree with you about what kind of story you should be telling.)

And here's where the problem with Dungeons & Dragons in particular arises. The rules of D&D aren't especially more opinionated than those of your average tabletop RPG; however, the game has developed a culture of play that's allergic to actually acknowledging this. There are several legs to this, including:

a text which makes claims about the game's supported modes of play that are far broader than what the rules in fact support;

a body of received wisdom about GMing best practices which consists mostly of advice on how to close the gap between the rules' assumptions and the players' expectations (but refuses to admit that this is what it's doing);

a player culture which has become increasingly hostile to players learning or knowing the rules, and positions any expectation that players should learn the rules as a form of "gatekeeping"; and

a propensity to treat a very high level of GMing skill as an entry-level expectation.

Taken together, all this produces a situation where, when the rules and the group disagree about how the game's story ought to go, the players don't experience it as a problem with the rules: they experience it as a problem with the GM. A lot of GMs even buy into this perception themselves, which is how you end up with GM advice forums overflowing with people telling novice GMs that they're morally bad people for being unprepared to tackle very advanced GMing challenges right from the jump.

(At this point, one may wonder: why on Earth would a game develop this sort of culture of play in the first place? Who benefits? Well, what we're looking at in practice is a culture of play which treats novice and casual GMs as a disposal resource whose purpose is to maximise the number of people playing Dungeons & Dragons. Follow the money!)

So, after all of that, the short answer is that there isn't a specific magic-bullet solution to avoiding D&D's GM burnout problem – or, at least, not one that operates at the level of the rules, because there's no particular thing that D&D as a system is doing "wrong" that produces this outcome; the problem operates almost entirely at the play culture level.

In practice, two things need to happen:

Placing a greater expectation on the players to learn and understand the game's rules; and

Selecting a system where the gap between the story the rules want to produce and the narrative space the group wants to explore is small.

It's that second one that's the real trick. In order to minimise that gap, we need to know what kind of narrative space your group wants to explore, and that might not be something you have a good answer to if you don't have good lines of communication with your players.

(As an aside, there's a good chance that we're going to see dipsticks cropping up in the notes insisting that their favourite system short-circuits this problem by being perfectly universal and having no baked-in narrative assumptions. These people are lying to you, and lending credence to the idea that there's any such thing as a universal RPG is a big part of how we got into this mess in the first place!)

[medicinemane]

So, I decided I wanted to check out this modpack that had looked interesting, so I go and download the curseforge app (cause modpacks are kind of a pain to launch without a launcher... as in I'm not sure how you even do it)

Dear god, which a fucking monster. They've got fucking ads running all over the fucking place

Instadeleted it, you do no get to serve me ads under any circumstances, if you do fuck you, I'm not using you. You're not a website, you're an app, and if you're pounding me with ads regardless of what I'm doing, then I don't think you're secure (and even if you are fuck you)

So I've had to track down an alternative one called uh... GDLauncher. Can't say for sure, but so far seems much much better... seems like an opensource launcher that's just a launcher and that's it

Not that any of you play modpacks so not that this matters, but that curseforge shit was just so bad I had to complain

[boorines]

bf!wonwoo thoughts

genre: fluff, suggestive

-

bf!wonwoo who thinks everything is better if he does it with you. playing games on his computer? wordlessly hands you a controller so you can play with him. reading a book? it’s much more enjoyable if you’re resting your head on his shoulder while he turns the pages for you. wonwoo who always has your favourite mug ready when he pours himself a cup of coffee. he refuses to leave bed in the morning if you’re still asleep, only willing to start his day when you start yours. he’ll trace patterns into the skin of your arm or run a finger along the curve of your cheek while you sleep, smiling sheepishly if your eyes blink open. wonwoo who says shopping for groceries is 100%, definitely, always a two person job. doesn’t matter if it’s only to pick up a carton of milk, he’s coming with you. says it’s for ‘moral support’ (he would superglue himself to you if he could).

bf!wonwoo who is so subtly flirty it drives you crazy. eye contact with frequent glances at your lips. sly smiles and once overs, then twice overs, when you try on a new dress. a hand darting out to wipe pasta sauce off the corner of your mouth. two hands wrapping a scarf securely around your neck. wonwoo who takes every opportunity to dote on you. in private or in public. slides your joint hands into his coat pocket as you walk together. opens his coat and pulls you flush against him when you’re not warm enough for his satisfaction. picks fluff out of your hair like it’s second nature. wonwoo who notes the way your cheeks flush pink and laughs, placing a kiss to your nose. wonwoo who follows up with a kiss to your lips when your ears bloom the same shade as your cheeks. “why so shy?” he whispers. but he knows.

bf!wonwoo who thinks the sound of your laughter is the prettiest he’s ever heard. so he does everything that he can to hear it. cheesy pick up lines when you fuss over the stove with him in the morning. stupid dad jokes that make you chuckle with a roll of your eyes. his eyes trained on you as a comedy film plays on tv, praying he catches your soft laughs at the scripted jokes. wonwoo who won’t hesitate to coax them out of you if he has to. soft pokes at your stomach, victorious when you splutter out a laugh. fingers tickling the soles of your feet as they rest on his lap, pulling whiny giggles from your throat. wonwoo who has a deep frown on his features when he sees your face wet with tears and your eyes bloodshot. wipes at your cheeks and places soft kisses to your hair, warm and soothing. relieved when you give him a watery smile. makes a mental note to never let you nip to the corner store alone, even if you relentlessly insist.

bf!wonwoo who gets a little jealous even if he pretends not to. wonwoo who simmers a little when you smile sweetly at the old friend you bump into in the frozen foods aisle. wonwoo who can’t help but let out a gruff sigh when you tell him how that friend had a penchant for cracking the silliest jokes. he mumbles under his breath when you question the change in his demeanour, getting sulkier the longer it takes for you to catch on. and when you do? the shy smirk you give him makes him short circuit. wonwoo who is quick to press his lips against yours the second the door closes behind you. wonwoo who mutters things like ‘mine’, ‘my baby’ and ‘no one but me’ into the crook of your neck. wonwoo who grins smugly when you nod feverishly, pressed against the door. wonwoo who peppers your skin with kisses, returning your need for him tenfold.

-

written with @waldau in mind! since wonwoo is ur ult <3 thank u for reading and enjoying my work, ur reblogs make my day!!

[they-have-the-same-va]

Dr. Curtis Conners aka The Lizard (Earth-1048) from Marvel's Spider-Man 2 shares a voice actor with Reed from Goodbye Volcano High.

Voiced by Mark Whitten

(Requested by @werewolf-cuddles)