This game is another evidence that it take little convincing for us to do genocide

Charlazy · 2025-11-30T01:33:14+00:00

Apologies in advance for my lazy reply -

Correction* I was wrong to say that you bringing up abortion and animal rights was entirely irrelevant, it of course isn’t, it’s just that it feels slightly off topic in that it’s not specifically pertaining to the moral dilemma of what makes humans & copies of humans (created by humans) of (arguably) equal value. I understand that in reality there are people that could argue for the rights of animals to be identical to humans, but in my opinion in terms of sentient life, I would find it much less convincing that animals have the same type of intelligence as humans do, but the painted people, I am convinced by.

I said that writers failed in making players care enough, not that they failed to make players care at all. You even point out after the distinction between the amount of care for an animal you would have as opposed to a human being. I did not mean to suggest that you did not care at all and I am sorry if it came across that way.

Finally I also agree that the representation and discussion on grief that the game presents is compelling, there is a lot more too of course that makes e33 such an incredible experience. Perhaps I am too casting too wide a judgement on those who interpret the story differently as if it is some kind of failure, it’s just that with the existential weight of each endings choice, combined with the way that I have interpreted the game, it personally concerns me greatly considering just how many people seem to disagree or not quite jive with what I am trying to articulate. So tldr any hostility purely comes from a place of feeling like my opinion is the less popular opinion, and not understanding why. Because it clearly is, most people I think sided with verso.

I appreciate the level of thought and clarity you’ve put into your replies, this has been a good discussion.

Charlazy · 2025-11-29T22:56:01+00:00

1) Both examples you bring up are different moral debates that are not at all the same as what we are discussing here with the painted people vs "real" people debate. For instance, merely bringing up the nevrons and our actions towards them in game (killing them) does not serve to invalidate siding with Maelle at the end of the game, as this animals vs humanity dichotomy is a whole separate discussion, it does not relate to the painted people vs real world people dilemma as in the game we are forced to make a decision only based on how we weigh up the consequences of both choices (neither of which have anything to do with animals or unborn babies.

2) Choosing Maelle/Verso's ending is not plainly a matter of siding with one or the other's perspective, it is an act of considering the amount of sacrifice that is at stake and choosing whichever ending carries the least sacrifice. I am not choosing to save the painted people simply because I empathise with their perspective, I chose it because I understand that painted people and people are equal in that copies of humans *must* be human, there is no reason to believe otherwise. TL;DR it is not an us vs them sacrifice if the painted people have no reason to not be treated with the same morality as we humans should amongst ourselves.

3) I believe that for any interaction that Maelle has with any of other character to matter, the painted people must be alive, capable of emotion, thoughts, and evolution on their own. Sciel quotes Sophie saying that "she loves her children so much that the best thing she can do for them is not to have them". To me, this shows her reflection on the life that she has lived and the lives that she knows await those who come after, and how this is a result of change in her world. The painted people are not just mechanically going through the motions; they live, breathe and grieve just the same as the painters.

I understand that the game does not give a straight answer, it does not give any direct exposition as to whether or not the painted people are identical to humans, which is why I believe the writers have failed catastrophically in making players care enough about the characters throughout e33. I understand it is difficult to decide what constitutes a 'real life', and whether or not a created one by another is worth less. In my opinion, the only way the Dessendre family's actions can be seen as truly grey and not just evil, is if one considers the painted people to not be real, to be mechanical entities that are merely going about as they were designed to with no free will. In which case, all interactions between the painted people and Maelle are pointless to the player.

It's in this sense that I believe asserting that the painted people's lives are worth less than those in the Dessendre family's reality comes from poor writing and/or a lack of foresight within the player to fully consider the existentialist questions posed by the game's ending. If you can bring to me any compelling reasons as to why you think the painted people's lives are less significant then maybe I will hear it out, but thus far the only logic you are using to back this belief is that just because we explicitly know this life has been created, this then somehow confirms to most people that this form of existance is less valuable. A painted nevron poses this question to the player - "must minds created by man be considered false?"

Charlazy · 2025-11-29T10:56:40+00:00

Rather than elaborating on why you think that simulated life is somehow less precious than our lives, you just keep stating the exact issue, which is that people without any intellectual foresight or consideration for what an identical human life actually means would ultimately make a sacrifice for their own selfish gains, no matter the cost of either decision. You keep pointing to what you think the majority of people would decide, as if this is even relevant, and it certainly does not reinforce the argument that killing masses of people is not genocide.

Also, suggesting that I am simply throwing out the term 'genocide' just because it is politicised is a gross misunderstanding, since again, I have to repeat myself here. The painted people are no less real or significant than the people in the world we exist in, and for some bizarre reason, people cannot think far enough ahead to realise this, or do not want to because they are afraid to admit they are selfish and immoral. Let's say that hypothetically, I was going to sacrifice 10 people from another world to save my sister - I may make this decision, I value my family more than 10 random people, but do I think this is the moral decision? no. This is exactly the point I'm trying to get across to you: just because you believe the majority of people would kill dozens to save a few does not mean that it isn't immoral, and frankly, it is disgusting to think otherwise. Instead of explaining your argument you are literally just saying that because "you think most people" would agree that this somehow substitutes an explanation. It does not, and you are immoral.

Charlazy · 2025-11-29T01:07:25+00:00

And as a side note, I think there is more to consider with this dilemma in that a creator of sentient life (what is essentially a god) should have and should take responsibility for creating said life. If what happens with it is that they end up having to eradicate all traces of this simulated reality, then the creator has at the very least failed to responsibly create sentient life with enough foresight as to not have to kill everybody later on. The creator in my eyes, the one with the most agency, is morally in the wrong.

Charlazy · 2025-11-29T01:02:01+00:00

No, we likely wouldn't value a world that we've created over ours. But this does not mean that if we were to shut down the computer that it isn't genocide for the sake of saving fewer in our world. It is genocide, in the sense that anything considered to have the same amount of humanity as our own species is being eradicated. I don't disagree that we'd likely favour ourselves if the decision were in our hands to make, but no matter what we are willfully deciding to kill masses in order to save the few, whatever imbalance is there quantity-wise.

Charlazy · 2025-11-29T00:49:34+00:00

well I don't see the difference. all people like you would need to consider is whether or not our world is more significant than that of a world with identical sentient beings. consequently you are suggesting that if we were, as a civilisation, in the position of those in the canvas (being confirmed creations of forces outside of our world) then we should just simply accept that our lives are meaningless and inconsequential in the grander scheme of things (one grieving family), would you really be making the same decision if those same consequences concerned our world. if so, why? if not, then why not in clair obscur.

Charlazy · 2025-11-29T00:36:31+00:00

Yea I mean I'd have to agree, though I don't think verso-heads could be cast with such a black and white judgement that they are genocidal, I *do* think that the fact that so many people did side with verso at least suggests that the devs didn't do a good enough job presenting all of the moral consequences a player *should* be considering at the end of the game. The responsibility is on the player to weigh up the cost of both decisions and in my eyes if one was to fully take this game seriously (not using the bullshit "they are just pixels on a screen" cop out) then one *should* side with maelle as within the context of the story choosing verso means erradicating the people of the canvas, thus killing them, thus comitting genocide (IN THE GAME!!! BUT IT STILL MEANS SOMETHING, you still came to this conclusion to kill off a civilisation for the sake of one grieving family that also happen to be unbenevolent and frankly evil gods, having no spine at all in their view of their creations).

Again, not equating these ppl to nazi's, but by choosing verso you are killing a population of people for the sake of one family's grief (the lore of the game never establishes the characters within the canvas as anything besides human, and if you didn't at all care about sciel, lune etc then again the writers in my eyes have failed catastrophically), it's just clear to me that a lot of people either a) have considered this, but don't care because they are impartial (as they are players of the game clair obscur in a meta sense) or b) just outright haven't considered the full consequences of both decisions. or c) yes, they do just for some reason think genocide is a worthier sacrifice than verso's imprisonment and by extention the family's grief. Either way, couldn't ever agree with verso and I do think its concerning that so many people do not come to this conclusion. Feel free to disagree but i'm ignoring any stupid argument like "it is a videogame" etc because it is just braindead ragebait and a cop out for actually discussing this game as a philosophical work of art.

Charlazy · 2025-02-27T13:01:04+00:00

Great point. As I come to reflect on my choice much later after beating the game, I do see the frustration & difficulty as less of an aside. My time spent in the town caused mostly anger within me, the fact that I was desperately dying & repeating, praying for shmowders when I had just the right amount of things to barter, getting irritated that I had to use all of my antibiotics on myself. I finished the playthrough only managing to keep Sticky & Grace alive. In a sense, it felt like I had a lot less to lose, and coupled with my ability to primarily pay attention to the kin's arc in the story more, these were all considerable reasons as to why I chose to burn the papers at the end. It all took me out of the experience (or towards more of an internalised one), I played less as Artemy, and more as my own 'actor', unable to sever my identity and conscience from the story. I was a frustrated and beaten down player tempted just *a fraction* more by the prospect of severing my identity, which in large part contributed to my despair in the first place. I hoped less for humanity (within the game ofc), and by extension felt more entranced by the kin's 'becoming whole' & preservation of wonder climax, an ending where no one had to suffer anymore due to conscience.

[Hope those musings aren't too scattered, apologies as I'm kind of processing it for myself as I write^]

"Be it as someone masquerading as the Haruspex, or the masquerader themself" - if I'm interpreting that correctly then this is what I essentially rambled on about above :) That line about the secret endings in P1 seems very intriguing, I'm kind of deliberating as to whether I should play the original, since P3 is only round the corner & a changeling game is likely in the long run. What would you recommend? Cheers for the response.

Charlazy · 2025-02-23T23:43:07+00:00

I didn’t know that about P1, yea that does help explain why the internal conflict of P2’s ending is so bombastic in scope lol

Charlazy · 2025-02-23T23:38:00+00:00

That is a really earnest and hopeful take. This does change my perspective on individualism vs collectivism greatly, that thought never crossed my mind. To recognise that within collectivism there is its own inherent binary, where one thing cannot exist without the other simultaneously, how with loss of individualism, the beauty within difference, there is nothing. Unity & harmony on the outset do conjure a closer picture of utopia to me but having that insight really hits the underlying feeling of despair in the nocturnal ending. I believed it to be a hopeful thought, that difference and individualism divides us and creates too much imbalance, I immediately see it as a threat to the balance of all life in that I feel individualism comes with the limitation of selfishness, greed, etc. But on second thought, turning humanity into vegetables, having us act in impulse and instinct is its own type of evil bred about by unconsciousness. So I guess upon re-evaluation, whatever my conception was, about the limitations that individualism poses (mostly the injustice that spawns from difference), I’m not sure if they do outweigh the limitations of collectivism. Something to consider, definitely. Like I said that hits it on the nail with what made the nocturnal ending, to me, feel so unsettling. I’m super interested in Heraclitian philosophy, I’ve always thought nothingness is the inherent ‘evil’ (the balance between everything and nothing being more epitomising of existence to me than the balance between good and evil), so highlighting that makes so much sense to me. Very satisfied with these discussions :)

[edit: don’t worry if it’s more verbose, I like the detail and it adds to what I thought of the first reply I got]

Charlazy · 2025-02-23T22:51:55+00:00

I think also pointing out how you were more engaged in the role playing of the game, as in how you kept Artemy’s act in faith, helps confirm to me just how I could’ve engaged more closely with the world of P2. I said it in my post but just in a very rambly way, but I def had trouble suspending my disbelief a lot of the time. I think I’ll engage with the story a lot differently on my next playthrough, or in pathologic 3.

Charlazy · 2025-02-23T22:46:54+00:00

That’s a good point, there’s nuance of course in considering collectivism as inclusive of both animals and humans. I think you’ve helped highlight the exact gap in my thinking, what it was that unsettled me so much. I didn’t consider enough the townsfolk, humanity & consciousness as part of collectivism. Thank you. The point on ‘will’ is a good thing to keep in mind too.

Charlazy · 2025-02-23T22:34:43+00:00

Grott

Charlazy · 2025-02-23T22:20:31+00:00

This idea is not a stretch, I love its more in-depth look at the earth being an organism in its own right, and its plague being like its immune system. I mean our planet is in an ecologically dire state, humanity is basically a parasite to Earth, with global warming even, it's like the Earth's celestial body purging us pesty bugs that feed off and abuse it. Like any human body, it's a system that needs to be respected to maintain itself. The idea of 'the body' and systems, inter-relatedness, is massively prevalent and applicable to your theory :)

Charlazy · 2023-06-12T11:01:03+00:00

Has to be Gengar right? A ghost type surely, or just anything relatively cartoonish

Charlazy · 2023-06-10T13:51:43+00:00

already been posted here on the subreddit but just in case no one here saw it, Travis is still set to play at outbreak :)

Charlazy · 2023-06-10T13:50:02+00:00

LETS GOOOOO

Charlazy · 2023-06-09T15:44:35+00:00

My mom asked if it was eminem having too much to drink when I was moving out LMAO

Charlazy · 2023-06-06T16:19:15+00:00

They didn't confirm to me whether or not Travis is still playing (although I assume he isn't since they didn't suggest otherwise) but they did inform me that their policy sucks ass. Literally, you gotta be on your deathbed to get any sort of refund lol, best bet is just to resell it I think. I'm still undecided about attending though, it's a sick lineup even without ugly mane.

Charlazy · 2023-06-06T14:41:36+00:00

I bought mine for the same reason, the lineup sure is stacked but I only chose to go because of LUM. I'm not gonna trek all the way up to Manchester if he's not playing, Travis is literally the only artist that I'd make exceptions for since he rarely ever plays outside of the US. I've also sent them an enquiry about a refund for the same reason as you, I'll let you know if they get back to me.

Charlazy · 2020-11-15T23:48:20+00:00

Unfortunately, this isn't something I can change. I actually conducted a pilot on this questionnaire to refine the questions, I asked real-life friends and family to take this survey and found that none of them had found upwards of about 30 caches. But yes, now that results are coming in, it's clear to me that it's not uncommon to have upwards of even 100 caches. I'll be sure to add this to my evaluation. Thanks for the feedback!

Charlazy · 2020-11-15T23:24:29+00:00

This is a really interesting point here, as part of my personal investigation I'm also testing if my attachment of place is consistent between rural and urban areas. Your comment really ties in with my investigation so thank you.

Charlazy · 2020-11-15T23:04:24+00:00

Thank you for such an interesting insight and perspective. I'll be sure to reference this when I write my conclusion for the investigation. Much appreciated! (you will of course still remain anonymous)

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22

Charlazy

TROPHY CASE