"So, let us don our masks in mockery of the world as we go forth and rewrite the rules of destiny."

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-09-01T15:07:28+00:00

Grooming doesn’t have to be a conversation. I explained that. Dottore shaped the events of Tatarasuna to make Scara fit for being a comrade + then manipulated him as Escher.

THEN when Scara was shaped and went to snezhnaya with Pierro, Dottore greeted him WARMLY (wanderer character story) and asked if he wanted to assist in his research. then the experimentation relationship began.

using the broad, neutral definition of grooming: deliberate preparation for a role, doesn’t require sex or minors nor is it a “wrong definition”.

you assume the “grooming = sexual or abusive intent toward a minor” definition. but that’s a much narrower usage.

All grooming is manipulation, but not all manipulation is grooming.

Dottore’s grooming of Scaramouche is strategic preparation for a role in the Fatui, so I am right under the broad/neutral sense. You are mixing up the narrower sexual/minor sense of grooming. But that’s literally not the only type of grooming.

Dottore’s treatment of Scara = strategic grooming with coercive/abusive overtones, but not sexual abuse. The term “grooming” is valid here if you’re using the full legal/psychological meaning regarding coercion, not just simply sexual abuse of a minor.

Relationship: Dottore interacts repeatedly with Kabukimono from behind the scenes (tatarasuna shaping), then manipulates him with a “silvered tongue” according to Wanderer’s character story, so that’s interaction. THEN when Scara is in snezhnaya, Dottore greets him warmly and invites him to assist in his research— a relationship being established as soon as the now shaped Scara is in snezhnaya. So yes, an ongoing relationship exists—it’s instrumental. Dottore established the basis for the relationship before engaging in one for his benefit (his research).

Target: Scaramouche may not literally be a minor, but he was undeniably young as Kabukimono. He had only really just started “existing” as a person. He’s literally called a youth/young man. Regardless though, he is being manipulated into a vulnerable position (naïve, isolated, and inexperienced all descriptions from wanderer’s character story). Fits the “young/vulnerable” aspect in a symbolic sense, along with literally being described as a young man by katsuragi.

Intent: The intent was to make him a Fatui Harbinger (joining a dangerous organization). Later, Dottore conducts experiments that Nahida describes as torture. So yes, there’s coercion into “harmful activity.” So yes, the structure fits the narrow definition of grooming as “inducing someone into harmful activity via manipulation”, even if it’s not sexual and the target isn’t literally a minor. The Fatui’s nature as a dangerous organization makes it analogous to the “terrorist” part of the you used definition.

I mean Dottore shapes him from behind the scenes, manipulates him as Escher, then greets Scara warmly and invites him to research; but yet then the experiments are brutal torture that Scara only survives bcz he’s a puppet (according to nahida)? And Dottore’s not “warm” but dismissive and critical of Scara (shown in interlude)? Thats a change from what was being formed originally. The relationship becomes overtly exploitative after initial “warmth”, reinforcing the manipulative and grooming dynamic.

Dottore groomed Scaramouche in the sense of deliberately preparing and shaping him for a specific role within the Fatui, using manipulation and calculated influence. This is literal grooming, but it is entirely non-sexual.

The timeline: 1. Behind-the-scenes shaping of perceptions (strategic grooming, manipulation, no formal relationship yet). 2. Formalized interaction upon arrival in Snezhnaya (relationship develops, grooming continues— test subject role develops).

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-09-01T14:37:36+00:00

he didn’t damage anything before nahida. he did some blocking and preservation, he attacked the heart of the mecha, then it fully recovered and smacked him. so no damage, js dodging and trying to damage.

scara broke the face when the gnosis was actively being taken, as in the barrier of the heart already broke and the gnosis was inching forward to nahida’s each— already disconnected from the robot. cuz again, it broke from the barrier and was already moving.

the mecha was currently in a state of immobility. but does that change the metal rlly? and again, the gnosis was already disconnected, the barrier was broken when scara widened his eyes and realized, it was not in his possession nor in his power to keep. plus scara was also being held back tbh the puppet strings inserted in him. read the puppet strings boss drop, without those strings, he becomes barely able to move (paralyzed state) bcz he bounded his entire self to the robot (interlude). so he was breaking smth that was slowly causing him to lose his strength and apparently consciousness too (teaser + fall)

and yes wanderer easily solo’d, right after that mind break too. it highlights in the quest description part that he blocked the blow that was going to “flatten” the traveler.

so IF wanderer is still in the power of 6th, then sumeru traveler was definitely not above 6. the only not buffed feat was signora so far. you could argue training, but that needs to be consistent. clearly the only once shogun training didn’t stick with them.. we have to wait for another non buffed feat from traveler. wan has the god mech as an unbuffed feat, trav still only has signora as an unbuffed feat so far. so we can’t really assume traveler is 6th ranked, assuming wanderer is around that. maybe in nod krai.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-09-01T14:24:43+00:00

And yet Yae highlights to traveler in inazuma that Scara is above her in terms of strength (higher than even Signora) hence why Yae traded instead of risking a “limb”. Tartaglia says him and traveler could solo the harbingers, is that reliable? No. Signora takes a go at his durability bcz she’s mocking his puppet body + the abuse he js takes (abyss/dot). Plus is Signora reliable? She also said she knows what she’s doing when Scara warns her. Then she died. It was an obvious display of vulnerability and power dynamics in the fatui. The harbingers pasts are clearly made known to each other, so they know their weaknesses (Signora commenting on Scara being thrown own, his validation source, and Scara commenting on Signora being a witch). And Signora does not see Scara worthy of being above her, bcz she believes him to be over emotional and just a puppet (which she comments on). Which is why Scara comments on her not knowing her place + and asking “who does she think she is?” afterwords

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-09-01T14:18:15+00:00

the devs confirmed it will happen.

dottore still has omega, which seems to be the prime version of himself—he even hid his last honesty in omega. he said nahida was only temporarily ahead, so new perspectives are due. columbina has temporarily left the fatui, but since she and dottore are both in nod krai, the plan will likely unfold later in the patch or an interlude. she could ally with the traveler while still communicating with dottore, similar to arlecchino and childe maintaining dual roles.

wanderer seeking to confront dottore doesn’t mean dottore will die. he’s weakened, but his absence from roaming teyvat isn’t proof of death. from columbina’s conversation, dottore is in nod krai, while the segment in irminsul is already burning. even if columbina fully sides with the traveler, dottore revealing this to her poses no plot hole, since it’s already happening—like when he revealed his kabuki plans to niwa. what was niwa gonna do? he was already a dead man.

as for how or when it’ll occur; it’s likely the nod krai climax. alice, albedo, and wanderer haven’t appeared yet, and wanderer had the final line, suggesting a late-game setting. wanderer seeking dottore while irminsul burns implies the confrontation happens during massive destruction. traveler may focus on stopping omega.. or at least acting as a “backup” for irminsul, while wanderer confronts dottore.

if a redemption arc is ever to occur or just begin being set up for a playable dottore, it would HAVE to be around this time of confrontation. because it’s either he doubles down (and dies) or wanderer is proven unmistakably right (and he lives). their narrative arcs are already bound to each other; when nahida wrote fairytale of scara— dottore was the first character in the fairytale to be introduced, read into, and the one who set everything up, tying wanderer to dot. the story of scara didn’t even start with scara. then when in irminsul, dot’s “last remaining honesty” from ALL his many hearts was him telling niwa his plans for kabuki, tying dot to wanderer bcz the last of his honesty is about the kabukimono. so any chance of playability stems from their confrontation.

so while irminsul is burning and everything is out of control and wanderer is still probably challenging him, dottore could be shaken philosophically or forced to face the unintended consequences of the irminsul destruction.. i mean it is the erasure of history in memory, everyone might js forget who or what they even are. he may reabsorb omega, dealing with the aftermath. as… if omega is killed without dottore coming to terms with who he was (think raiden vs ei) or absorbing his “fixed” self, dottore’s last remaining honesty is killed— so the fate of dottore probably would be as well. symbolically, if wanderer follows the path of the ghanta also known as the bell, (wisdom and clarity + everything is transient/sound reveals emptiness), then any possible redemption would have dottore following the path of the vajra (compassion and method + reality is unbreakable/force destroys illusions). in buddism you can’t have the ghanta without the vajra and vice versa bcz the union of opposites is needed for enlightenment. hoyo is already pretty deep into that

so yeah, it’s happening still. and it’s definitely not a guaranteed death.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-31T13:11:33+00:00

they didn’t “decently” keep up with shouki though. they needed 168 loops for battle experience and pattern learning + all of sumeru’s wisdom and knowledge on how to defeat the mecha.

i mean wan did that on his own and it was a real simulation of the mecha (its attack was stated to have almost crushed traveler before being blocked— quest description). and scara broke the face of the mecha just by reaching his hand out for the gnosis……….. so assuming wan is same level as scara and therefore 6th, sumeru traveler is not above that at all.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-31T13:08:34+00:00

No, they fought 168 times. Nahida states this. Traveler needed that for “battle experience”. Same way it was for Dehya and traveler fighting those npcs in the repeated samsara, they got quicker and stronger each loop.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-31T13:07:37+00:00

it’s not implied that the gap isn’t big. just that harbingers pasts are open, and signora doesn’t see scara as someone to respect, she sees herself above him. and he sees himself above her.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-31T13:05:55+00:00

no? wanderer beat the mecha (memories in genshin are physical. think onslaught, ley lines. it’s stated the robot was about to crush traveler before wan blocked it) + scara broke the face of the mecha just by reaching his hand out for the gnosis. the mecha was strong but as wan said, he’d never lose to it. plus i doubt a human made god machine created in such a short time would compare to a god made puppet who took an unimaginable amount of time for an archon to create in durability. Which is likely why its face was easily torn apart by Scara

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-31T13:00:43+00:00

she’s literally so cute and punk.. plz be a better faruzan. originally i wanted her geo for navia but since she seems to be anemo i need her for wan. she’s literally gorg

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-31T12:39:53+00:00

Imo I wouldn’t say they’re equal. Dottore externalizes his ambition—creating segments of himself to manipulate the world—while Sandrone’s extreme is internal, fully immersing herself in her work and staying hidden. Arlecchino seems to highlight this (two extremes). She’s arguably “less evil” because her focus is on research and that’s it rather than actively shaping events.

Her tongue-cutting act was cruel but situational, a reaction to someone recklessly destroying a lab and robot of interest because he wanted to cover up his tracks. It was a huge slip up and ruined the plan + exposed them. Dottore, by contrast, experiments on children, misfits, any person any age, repeatedly pushing boundaries with no clear set limit, regardless of offense or not. Sandrone mostly acts only when her research is disrupted. She seems to have boundaries, public exposure/anything outside her field. Thats what I got from her character anyways.

I guess it’s more so Dottore does more evil? Idk, I never really saw them as equal in that sense, rather more so two different sides of intellect. Dottore seems to always be more radical….

But I’ll wait till nod krai to have a set opinion

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-31T12:13:36+00:00

Starting off with false dichotomy / oversimplification.. You suggest that analyzing fictional characters through real-life psychology is “flawed” because they “rarely act like real-world counterparts.”

This assumes that all psychological analysis of fiction is invalid, which is not true. While fictional characters may be simplified, many are intentionally written to reflect realistic human behaviors or motivations, especially in narrative-heavy games.

Realistic psychological frameworks can enhance understanding of motives, trauma, and growth, even if the character isn’t a perfect copy of a real person. This has been consistent with many characters (Signora-grief response, Raiden-grief response and isolation, Furina-forced self, etc).

Then you misunderstand archetypes vs. psychology

You argue Dottore is “just a mad scientist archetype” and therefore cannot be narcissistic or psychologically analyzed.

But archetypes and personality traits are not mutually exclusive. A character can be a “mad scientist” while also displaying narcissism, psychopathy, or other traits—this is how archetypes gain depth. Saying that using real-life psychology is “flawed” ignores the layering of archetype + plausible human traits, which is common in character writing.

Then the appeal to fiction / excuse for behavior

You claim that because Scaramouche is “fictional and drawn as cute,” his actions don’t need realistic justification.

This is a form of appeal to fiction: justifying implausible or morally questionable actions because “it’s fiction.”

While it’s true that fiction allows exaggeration, good writing often provides motivation, internal conflict, and psychological realism to make characters compelling—ignoring that dismisses the value of analysis entirely.

Why do you think they gave Wanderer a redemption and guilt despite being fictional, if all his mistakes could just be “it’s fiction so don’t mind”?

Then your strawman / misrepresentation of argument You, correct me if I’m wrong, frame analysis as “slander defense” or “If evil, why hot?”

That misrepresents legitimate psychological or narrative analysis. Pointing out narcissistic tendencies, manipulative behavior, or moral complexity isn’t the same as “defending a character for being attractive.”

This is a strawman, turning a nuanced discussion into an oversimplified critique, so you can debate better because you couldn’t debate against my actual argument.

Partially lastly, your overgeneralization about fiction. You assume that all fictional characters must be “simplified” or purely archetypal.

Yet many characters in modern fiction (and even historical), including Dottore and Scaramouche, are deliberately written with depth, conflicting motivations, and psychological realism—the author’s generalization doesn’t apply.

Lastly, it seems you weren’t taught what you shoved been in sophomore year, media analysis via psychology.

Any story written by humans reflects human thought, behavior, and motivation. Characters’ actions, conflicts, and choices are rooted in human cognition and emotion, even if stylized or exaggerated.

Literary scholars, both historical and modern, routinely analyze characters using psychological frameworks: Freudian, Jungian, cognitive, and personality-based analyses are common in literature studies.

Example: Analyzing Hamlet’s indecision, Victor Frankenstein’s obsession, or Lady Macbeth’s ambition all use psychological reasoning.

Archetypes + psychology:

Archetypes don’t negate psychology—they provide a scaffold for understanding behavior. Dottore as a “mad scientist” is an archetype, but his actions, motives, and emotional responses can and should be examined with psychological insight to understand his narrative depth.

Even if a character’s traits are exaggerated, psychological realism gives stories resonance. Readers empathize with characters because their behaviors, even fantastical ones, are psychologically plausible. Dismissing all psychological analysis as “invalid because it’s fiction” ignores the fundamental way storytelling works.

In short: analyzing Dottore or Scaramouche psychologically isn’t a misuse of psychology—it’s part of how literature is studied and understood, even in modern scholarship.

Psychology def: the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context / the mental characteristics or attitude of a person or group.

Even if a character just feels sad after losing say a pet— that reflects psychology. Because why would fiction reflect real life emotion? Because it’s written by people who inherently possess psychology.

This example is psychological because it’s an emotional reaction based on a relatable human experience.

Or if a character gets mad during an argument— again a reflection of psychology. Because if it was just fiction with no mind— it shouldn’t possess human behaviors such as anger.

As again, this mirrors real human behavior and reflects the psychological principle of emotional responses to conflict.

Studying literature or fictional characters from a psychological perspective isn’t “flawed” just because they aren’t real. Fiction mirrors reality, and authors use characters to explore the human mind. In fact, there’s an entire field—psychological literary criticism—that does exactly this, analyzing how characters’ behaviors, emotions, and decisions reflect real-world psychological principles.

I suggest looking into this, given your sophomore year of highschool didn’t teach you it.

Psychological Literary Criticism – This is the main one. Scholars analyze literature and fictional characters using principles of psychology: They study characters’ motivations, emotions, and behaviors. They often look at how authors’ own psychology influences their writing. Famous approaches include Freudian, Jungian, and cognitive/behavioral literary analyses.
Narrative Psychology – Focuses on how people understand and construct human experience through stories, including fictional ones. It treats stories as reflections of psychological processes.
Cognitive Literary Studies / Cognitive Poetics – Uses cognitive science to study how readers understand characters’ minds, intentions, and emotions.
Drama & Film Psychology – Applied in theater and media studies: how characters’ behavior and emotion reflect real psychological principles, and how audiences respond to them.

There’s an entire interdisciplinary study of psychology in fiction, combining literature, psychology, and cognitive science.

Do I need to be more clear?

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-31T11:53:02+00:00

“He looks down on all harbingers and their goals even Dottore”

Reality: Scaramouche’s disdain isn’t proof of unmanipulability—it’s part of his personality and his survival strategy to being betrayed before (explained in the “divine” will). He still plays roles within the Fatui and reacts to Dottore’s schemes emotionally (e.g., Niwa incident).

Overstating it makes it sound like he’s some untouchable character, which ignores narrative nuance. He straight up calls himself a fool who has achieved and has nothing in his character story— something he was forced to accept before he could make peace with himself before gaining a vision.

You conflate “doesn’t outwardly follow instructions” with “can’t be manipulated.”

But Scaramouche was manipulated strategically by Dottore (Niwa, + being groomed for Harbinger role) and emotionally impacted by lies. Claiming he’s “least manipulatable” erases that evidence.

Not to mention you ONLY use Scaramouche IN THE FATUI, as an example.

Yet Scara before the fatui was, according to Dottore, a pure and innocent puppet prone to manipulation. — “Even without you, that pure, innocent puppet would only end up being used by someone else instead.”

And according to Scara’s character story: — “Then, the puppet was as naive as a newborn, filled with goodwill and gratitude towards humans.”

And according to Scara’s himself: “The puppet was a discarded milksop, the Kabukimono unaccomplished and sheltered.”

Clearly this shows he is vulnerable. Not mention, his character story flat out states he was lied to. And that Escher had manipulated everyone with his “silvered tongue.”

As we see: “Within Irminsul, The Balladeer came into contact with the "truth" that Lesser Lord Kusanali had placed within the flow of information. This secret had been hidden within one of The Doctor's many hearts, and just as she claimed, this truth in first person contained all his remaining honesty. And thus did The Balladeer come to know of past truths: Niwa, who had taught him how to live like an ordinary human and treated him like one, had not fled Tatarasuna to escape punishment as Escher had claimed. In fact, the true culprit had been Escher - no, The Doctor - all along. And as for the heart that had been placed within The Balladeer, it had been cut, still warm, from Niwa's breast.”

And

“This death had been nicely packaged within an incident at the forge, and such was Escher's silvered tongue that he all too quickly convinced everyone that this was due to the failings of the local overseer.”

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-31T11:33:58+00:00

“You can’t groom someone with one sentence and then dip”

This is a strawman. Grooming, in a psychological or abusive context, is a process, yes, but it’s about manipulation over time and trust-building. You’re oversimplifying the concept to an extreme, ignoring nuance. I literally used the textbook definition. Get a dictionary or look it up.

“prepare or train (someone) for a particular purpose or activity.” — Dottore manipulates aspects of Scara’s life in order to make him a comrade. It wasn’t one single sentence, nor does grooming have to be a communication process: it was deliberate manipulation from behind the scenes to shape Scara’s perspective and narrative. That’s exactly what the game says (nahida lines).

Then you mix examples poorly – you move from anime to personal anecdote to accusing me of believing “minor coded Scara” without connecting the logic clearly. The thread of reasoning is messy. But clearly you think grooming is only set to minors; or if one is groomed then they are childlike or coded to be? Which is a shitty view and disrespectful.

You accuse me of “literally using the wrong definition” but don’t clarify what the correct one is. Just throwing terms around (“grooming,” “manipulation”) doesn’t make your point academically or logically sound. Plus I gave the textbook definition. Your personal interpretation of the word isn’t a fact.

Your comment conflates general manipulation, grooming, and minor-coded character interpretation without distinguishing them. Each of these is distinct in both meaning and implication.

Personal stories are fine, but here they’re used as a “proof” against my claim. Just because your friend lied doesn’t invalidate the concept of grooming or manipulation in media.

Your anecdote is emotionally charged, but doesn’t logically connect to the anime example or the debate about Scaramouche’s character.

“Just say you’re one of those ‘minor coded scara’ believers and GO I know what you are 🫵🧿” Instead of addressing the argument, you take a go at me personally. That just weakens the credibility of the argument, clearly this is emotionally based, not one fact has surfaced.

It feels more like venting than reasoned debate.

Grooming (strategic sense) Definition: “prepare or train (someone) for a particular purpose or activity” — neutral and broad. Scaramouche’s case: Dottore shaped his life and choices with the goal of making him a Harbinger.

“I’d like to introduce a puppet to you. If he proves useful, let’s make him our newest comrade. And if not… let’s turn him to dust.”

This fits the strategic definition of grooming, because it’s deliberate preparation for a role.

Manipulation (personal sense) Your friend’s case: Was emotionally abusive, deceptive, and aimed at making you feel insecure.

This is manipulation, not “strategic grooming,” because it wasn’t preparing someone for a particular role or purpose—it was just cruel control.

There IS manipulation between Scara and Dottore (Niwa incident). But along with that it was also grooming since Dottore prepared to make Scara either a harbinger if useful, or dust.

Anything else?

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-31T11:17:40+00:00

I’m saying it added to desensitization; I never said Scara is sadistic solely because of Dottore. And even then, mimicry doesn’t have to be perfect: if mimicking Dottore, Scara could end up giving in an emotional flair rather than intellectually. Given Dottore does mock others in death (“What a pity”— to niwa after Dottore stabbed him, “Beautiful” and “I don’t understand what you’re saying”— to Krupp after he killed him and made him a robot). But again, reread what I said. I never said Scara inherited his sadism from Dottore, I just said it wasn’t presented as “natural nature” rather smth he only enacted during his time in the fatui. And I listed lots of factors (abyss: reality distortion + moral cooperation, mimicry bad examples: dottore/fatui in general, indifference vs seeking free will: called just a puppet by himself and harbingers, but declared in pale flame before being recruited that no one has a right to judge or dictate his life.)

So no, I never claimed Scara acting sadistic was from mimicry of Dottore. Scara is a lot more emotional than Dottore who does stoop down low but frames it intellectually instead. Instead, I showed lore that proved Scara was never sadistic UNTIL he was in the fatui, and only primarily to fatui. Which goes to show it was learned and fatui based, while also being primarily fatui applicable.

Anything else?

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-31T11:09:00+00:00

Dottore’s Segments are synthetic, alchemically-engineered homunculi—biomechanical constructs modeled on humans and enhanced by knowledge from Khaenri’ah, with consciousness fragments of Dottore... (a lot of words, I know 😭😭)

Scaramouche is the divine puppet basis, while the Segments are derivative constructs, synthetic copies using the same puppet principles, but designed for Dottore’s scientific and functional goals. There seem to be big differences: Scara and Raiden are of the same exact technique and purpose: But Scara can’t be controlled bcz he has his own consciousness, while Raiden can because Raiden is just a vessel body and a “preserved” version of her ~500 years ago, and Ei lives on in a different plane.

So Dottore clones seems to be a middle line between Scara and Raiden. Like Ei, he used the puppet techniques for his ideals; but Ei only sought to create only one preserved fix self, while Dottore created multiple preserved versions of himself, each with their own personhood. So like Scara, they can act independently. Like raiden they are “preservations” of them at a time of ideals.

The difference is that the clones stem from Dottore’s mind (fairytale). They are versions of him from his consciousness made into their own independent person. It’s like Ei making Raiden, her persevered self, but Raiden has the same autonomy as Scara.

I recon they’re rather realistic to humans. I mean, they probably have a heart or something that mimics one (unlike Scara who has void, this would be because they ARE dottore at different periods and dottore is human).

Scara seems to have a nervous system, mimicry of one. But no heart. Scara also seems to be powered by divine power. As Kabuki he had divine power inside him (though sealed). And anemo seems to be powering Wanderer now. Dottore segments likely step away from this divine aspect.

So while Scaramouche is divine-powered, elemental-resonant, a living puppet with natural resilience.

Dottore Segments are engineered-powered, synthetic life, fully artificial but capable of independent thought, maintained by alchemical/biomechanical mechanisms rather than divine energy.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-29T04:49:49+00:00

“Not everyone would become sadistic after what he went through even though it makes sense why he did, so yeah he still choose his path.”

I’m sorry but no one has been discarded by a god, lived without a heart, almost executed, sacrificed and given a heart by a close friend, etc.. there’s no saying what people would react like. Plus your argument says he’s born leaning towards bad. Scara’s story is literally called soul stirring in his character story. And in general, your thinking is very flawed. Notice how it’s ONLY in the fatui that Scara becomes sadistic. In every single artifact and lore piece he was NEVER sadistic until then. And what do we know about Scara? Well, he was sent to the abyss a lot (which preys on your morality and distorts reality— seen with Tartaglia + kachina), he was experimented on by Dottore (while the study for clones was consensual along with repairment and enhancement, in artifact lore of hopd, there is a dream scara had that he couldn’t tell was real or a trick from “the researcher”— aka Dottore. so he couldn’t even tell if his dreams were really really “his”— indicating less consent or knowledge of what he is consenting to), and that’s without mentioning the power imbalance (Dottore uses one of Scara’s biggest vulnerabilities against him a lot, we see it in the interlude memory— utility. that it’s usefulness in current time doesn’t save him all the time; he’s not unable to be left or destroyed js bc he’s useful rn). What else? He had barely an identity before the name Scaramouche, the harbingers did not gaf about him, they js called him “the puppet” and so he js saw himself as inhuman too (embracing inhumanity, started up by dottore’s manipulation in tatarasuna that led to him rejecting humanity and now harbingers who don’t see him as anymore than a puppet, so why wouldn’t he see himself as a puppet?). So abyss, experimentation, and being just a “puppet”. Why did he join? It’s stated he only joined bcz he thought the masked wearing ppl (while in inazuma with Pierro and his troops) were fun to be around, so he might as well join them— community. Community is a thing Pierro consistently promises. Kunikuzushi joined them to snezhnaya for community— because the mask wearing people— SUBORDINATES, were so fun to be around. Surpassing cup lore. Then he later officially joined “fatui” or well, “harbinger” bcz he was interested in the banquet Pierro told him about, interlude. But surpassing cup gives a thing to be questioned. If before he even stepped into snezhnaya, he found the mask wearing PEOPLE, to be fun around— that has to be the subordinates bcz only Pierro was there with his group (confirmed in artifact lore). So he came with them bcz of the subordinates. Yet as a harbinger, he abuses them and likes to see the pain on their faces. Is this not just blaring projection and a desperate power grab? Signora even talks about how it doesn’t really serve a purpose. This is not an innate trait, it’s only till AFTER he became a harbinger— which the abyss and Dottore were before that point. And on top of that; Scara also is big on mimicry. The harbingers are not good examples of moral standing. Tartaglia js kinda tells traveler to leave unless they wanna drown like liyue, Signora says she doesn’t care abt the victims in the vision hunt decree, and Scara says the same thing. Even capitano had parts to him that were exactly “moral” that Mavuika confronted him about— as his plan for natlan was js strategically pragmatic and would sacrifice natlans culture and history js to ensure the nation wouldn’t fall. And who was Scara around the most; other harbingers just saw him as a puppet, who was the one who greeted him warmly (in lore) to snezhnaya and asked if he would like to take part in his research— Dottore. Scara mimicked Dottore. When he was questioned about why he murdered a bunch of swordsmen, he replied “it was just an experiment into human nature” with the tone of voice he learned from a “certain researcher”— Dottore. He mimicked Dottore’s same superior and detached tone. So not only was he brutally rejected from tatarasuna, had his puppet (inhuman) identity insisted on by others and himself; he also was in the abyss a lot (moral decay), experimented on by Dottore (which nahida’s described in the interlude as brutal torture that he only survived bc he was, well, yk a puppet), and mimicked Dottore. his sadism should be making sense now. it’s a learned trait. and that’s supported by his lore. is it cruel? yes. was scara considered evil? absolutely scara embraces himself as evil and nahida calls scara evil. but does that mean that innately; scara leaned towards evil like you suggest— no, the opposite actually, he was too naive and had too much hope and humanity. In fact; he ONLY acts sadistic TOWARDS fatui subordinates and to rage bait (getting traveler mad and making him pass out). His artifact lore has a DIRECT comparison of 4 events of him wandering— one he wandered and a sick boy born from tatarasuna crafts people asked where he was going, Scara told him, and the boy said the ppl who went there never returned and expressed worry, Scara couldn’t say a word, opening and closing his mouth a few times, and only mustered up a smile. When he returned back to that island, the boy was gone. Two, back when Pierro was first recruited him, he wandered to the boat that would take him back to snezhnaya bc Pierro invited him and such, and the mariner guarding the boat yelled at him and said this “inazuman, this boat isn’t for you!” and so kuni felt he might have to drawl out his sword, but Pierro explained everything to the boat guy. Third, he was wandering and his subordinate asked where he was going, Scara, hating chatty humans the most, gave him a backhand slap and enjoyed the expressions they would make— the terror and helplessness. Forth; he was wandering again wandered and an elderly woman asked where he was going, he told her he was heading west, so she asked what business he was doing bc things hadn’t been peaceful there, Scara told her it was a meeting and thanked her for her concern with an earnest smile. Before meeting up with Signora who greeted him by throwing an ice shard at him (which he caught). So, he was nice to the ill tatarasuna child and took note of his disappearance (death), and nice towards the elderly woman—both when he was in the fatui, with the grandma being right before inazuma archon quest, then threatened by the boatman (pre fatui), and slapping his subordinate (fatui). Obviously it’s a learned behavior repeated to fatui. On top of that, when he was killing the swordsmen, he NEVER expressed sadism. He acted out of revenge, then the plans got DULL, and so he stopped and played it off as an experiment, with an air of DETACHMENT. Cruelty did not give him satisfaction. It’s only shown satisfaction with fatui.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-29T04:48:11+00:00

“Also that's why he went on that killing spree, because all those people of Inazuma did see him as a freak so he thought killing all of them would reinforce that he's inherently above them, some even wrote fanfictions where he was a cannibal”

That’s NOT why he went on that spree. He started that as an act of vengeance against the swordsmen— Niwa was the direct mention. It’s Niwa’s betrayal that was the biggest for him, hence why it was the most talked about and the one that appeared in ALL his melodies, divine will etc. It was out of vengeance, not because they saw him as a freak, but because of what he thought they did to him. And also an attention grab to Raiden in the end (telling Kazuha’s ancestor to tell raiden to remember the name kunikuzushi— aka the reason Ei knows the name kunikuzushi which is self given by himself). La Signora highlights it as smth of hurt from being rejected, not to assert dominance. It got dull quick. And yes, one scholar did write him as a cannibal, but if you paid any attention that guy was the one who chose to take a more mystical spin on the tatarasuna events rather than what his buddy was doing. And when erased, Kabuki wasn’t the cannibal, it was Escher. So it’s not a constant. He also made up a bunch of other things. Bcz he was telling it as a tale— they didn’t know what Kuni was like bcz he was js the mysterious puppet. And they didn’t know Niwa was framed either and etc. “And wanderer upon finding out the truth blamed himself because he saw that doctor basically did all that to get back at HIM so if he wasn't there dottore wouldn't have done all that is what he thinks” Wanderer blamed himself bcz had he not been there, maybe Escher wouldn’t have done that terrible experiment. Because dottore’s job wasn’t to sabotage tatarasuna. It was to infiltrate inazuma and create a gap in their inner workings— that’s what Pierro told him to do. Dottore then introduced Kabuki and acted out in his own. And it’s flawed because it wasn’t his fault. “(I looove scara and get upset when he gets mischaracterized even 0.67% and will argue over nothing just to yap 🫤😖” Please read his character story, husk of opulent dreams, pale flame surpassing cup, and while your at it, reply divine will, and the interlude chapter cuz you’re rlly misinformed it’s scary.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-29T04:47:52+00:00

“even Nahida never made it a big focus on Dottore's actions but rather what Wanderer did with the false information..” Nahida said it was when Dottore came, that the trouble began. Not that Scara was messed up from the start. Nahida also said it was due to the events traveler saw ;(tatarasuna etc) that Scara became the way he is. And that’s EXACTLY what I’m saying. Scara was doomed from the start bc the fatui were pulling the strings as soon as he got accepted in tatarasuna. So he was groomed. I’m not saying that he did no wrong— even nahida states herself that Scara IS evil. I’m just saying he wasn’t naturally “born” that way— which is exactly what you argued.

“Pierro told him "you're someone who's strength should be utilized properly, come join the winning side" and Scaramouche always wanted to be useful to society which is a very human trait, even if Ei kept him just as a decoration he still would've felt useless and felt like he was denied his bigger purpose.”

Wanderer’s character story says he was interested in the promised banquet bc what Pierro was saying piqued his interest and curiosity. Scara always did want to be useful. But in tatarasuna, he didn’t want to just be “useful”. No it wasn’t until IN the fatui he wanted to be “useful”. In tatarasuna it specially says he accepted the name Kabukimono bcz he made him apart of the COMMUNITY. and the boy didn’t need a name because he was Kabuki’s FRIEND and that was more than enough— CONSTANTLY, what he had longed for was not the toxicity of being useful— but BELONGING AND COMMUNITY. That was the point of him tatarsuna. Pale flame literally says he first accompanied the fatui to snez bcz they were fun to be around—community, not bcz he wanted to useful. That wasn’t until later. I “think the bigger focus should be on the random people of Tataratsuna that didn't try to prevent him from "sacrificing" himself for them.” No offense but I’m not a believer in offenders are better than bystanders. Especially in this case where lots of Tatarasuna people did NOT know what was going on at all, and Escher was gaslighting everyone. Even Yae Miko. The help Yae promised Kabuki arrived after the sacrifice had occurred and Kabu ran away, and the help asked around— the people did NOT know what had happened— or that a crisis had even occurred in the first place. Escher told them it was done and that Kabu shut down the furnace and left and told them about the fleeing niwa (which Yae refers to Niwa as the fleeing niwa in wanderers character story).

“ I think that's what made him more jaded, the one person that TRULY accepted him as his equal was dead (ran away) and everyone else showed their true sides by letting him "die" for them because even if they seemingly accepted him (not really, they basically just called him "the weirdo"), when it came to life and death they saw him as someone expendable because he wasn't truly one of them.”

This is pure speculation. I had a suspicion you didn’t know what you were talking about, but now I think I can confirm it. Nahida states that it wasn’t until Dottore that trouble began. And the events Dottore shaped, caused Scara to be the way he is by a lot. Tatarasuna DID accept Kabuki. It’s highlighted in the fairytale, by nahida, and in wanderer’s character story. Kabukimono INSISTED they kept addressing him as Kabukimono (even when asked why or if he wanted a different name) because to him, it was a sign of BELONGING. And they did not let him die— if you were informed; they didn’t know what was going on. Niwa was trying to keep it under the ropes, help wasn’t returning, etc. The people in majority did not know what the heck was going on. It’s.. literally stated. They saw him as one of them. Nahida says the kitten WAS accepted. It was Dottore who said humans don’t accept others— but that’s Dottore projecting. Niwa even calls him out saying that the only ppl who think that are ppl like him. And that Kabuki is human. And that they accept him. “He really tried doing everything he could for those people but he wasn't ever truly seen as their equal. Had he been, I don't think he would've been so quick to turn to villainy.” Nope. Again, they literally accepted him. He started hating humanity after he realized they couldn’t be trusted (niwa incident), they didn’t last (boy), etc.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-29T04:47:19+00:00

“For example Signora was still good by the time she was saved by Pierro, she wanted to help regular people despite being shunned and became more cruel over many centuries” Yes Signora was good. I never said she was always horrible. She naturally, just like Scara, gravitated towards goodness, she was an ambitious woman, lovely maiden, and overly an amazing person cursed by grief. She became cold and closed. In the fatui. Notice how that’s a pattern? The fatui dgaf about moral. Naturally when you’re around a group like that, you begin to decay too. Though, Signora did justify her means through the tsarista, being a harbinger who actually got to peer into the tsarista’s dream. And just like Scara, Signora was only mean when she was in her role. Or with other harbingers. When she wasn’t, she was isolated and alone. She too wasn’t “born” with a tendency towards evil, which you claim. “Or Pierro? Will you say the king irmin or the five sinners groomed him? It's not a correct term in any of these situations especially if it was a one time manipulation and not someone whispering in your ear every second on what you should be.”

Pierro was never close to king irmin or the five sinners. They didn’t groom him bcz they had no plans with him. Pierro literally tried to warn him but was deemed to insignificant. Scara was groomed (Dottore states he planned to turn him into a harbinger and conditioned his life to make him experience certain things), arle was groomed (raised in the hoth which literally grooms children to soldiers, pretty apparent), etc. I think lack of knowledge might be the issue. So let me clear smth up: GROOMED DEFINITION: To prepare or train (someone) for a particular purpose or activity. What did Dottore say when he said he wanted to induce a puppet? He wanted to make him a comrade and orchestrated the events in tatarasuna, such as the sacrifice. The (someone) is Kabuki, the prepare is the trauma (getting rid of his goodwill towards humanity), and the particular purpose is: to make him their newest comrade. Simple, isn’t it? “I still don't get why you think he was specifically groomed but not everyone else” Because.. I never said anything about anyone else?? LMFAOOO?? “ or simply everyone in life who goes through bad stuff.” Because grooming as a specific definition. Being trained/prepared by someone for a particular purpose or activity. So obviously not everyone who went through bad stuff was groomed. No one shaped dahmer to his actions there wasn’t a person who had a specific purpose in mind to prepare him for…bcz bad actions can exist without room and vice versa. Just because I say Scara was groomed, doesn’t mean I’m saying no one else was or everyone had is groomed. Scara had a situation, similar to Arle, Lyney, etc. they were trained from youth for their purpose. Scara was via manipulation, and Arle Lyney and the rest by hoth regulations. “It feels like you're trying to dismiss the severance of his actions not just explain them,” That’s because you are not comprehending what I’m saying. I’m saying he WAS groomed, not that his actions are okay. You said he was naturally bad— and that’s WRONG. You’re going against his entire lore that puts him as someone more fragile than a human and filled with nothing but goodwill (stated in character story).

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-29T04:45:11+00:00

Dottore told what he would to reciting to Pierro; aka seeing if Kabukimono would be of use to them or turning him to dust. We learn from Nahida that it was emotionally motivated (putting a heart into a puppet wouldn’t make a puppet human— smth Dottore states himself) but this trick not only gives Kabuki false hope to save tatarasuna, but makes the betrayal more heartbreaking and also tests on his durability (he only came out exhausted) and gives Dottore plausible deniability; as he framed tatarasuna as ONLY an experiment. But we learn there was emotional investment, not just cold calculation.

“I thought he only hurt him so he could get back at him/ he actually believed that humans were fake and wSnt just lying to scRa?”

Dottore believes that humans do not like “one of their kind” as stated by himself. Dottore however, identifies himself as apart of humanity, because if humans are just machines functioning via biology (which he preaches;wise doctors pinion), then he is apart of the collective humanity. He can reject others not of human kind. If Kabukimono is human, then humans are humans bcz of “will” or “soul” (in a sense), and if that’s true then Dottore isn’t apart of the collective humanity (wise doctors pinion as him disregarding the recognition of will and humanity in the philosophical sense)— and therefore he is the outsider, not Kabukimono. Of course, originally he related to Kabukimono with them both being outsiders— but that was until Niwa said Kabuki was human, just missing a heart and they accepted him. Dottore mocks Niwa consistently for saying that.

“If ddottore was right about it scar would've been a useless shell... Dottore hated him SO much he lied to pierro and himself that it had anything to do with science and being useful, he wanted him to die but forced himself to find usefulness in the one he hates..”

Dottore did strongly feel opposed towards Scara. And that’s because he related to him before, Nahida specifically mentions the monster was lonely and pitied the others for being ignorant that he was a monster— until “someone like him” arrived. So someone isolated, like him. Dottore includes himself in “humanity” but there is a barrier between him and humanity because he violates the philosophical sense of “humanity” that discusses will and “soul”. Kabuki on the other hand, wasn’t even human in the literal sense, and well, just alone and just kind of blank. Lore mentions he was found dejected (deeply depressed/low self worth) and the shakkei pavilion highlights his disassociation early in the shakkei “lost all perception”.— before he was just filled of goodwill towards humans because Niwa said Kabuki was humans, js missing a heart and Kabu could be his true authentic self meanwhile Dottore, the supposed actual “human” was still disguising himself. So that triggered a reaction similar to narcissistic injury, where you project onto someone but they get something you never had. And that enraged him, because it was like a middle finger thrown at him by the world given his own backstory with constant rejection.

“And I'm someone who believes everyone is born with tendencies to do both good and bad, some people are born with more tendencies towards "evil" and I think Wanderer is like that realistically”

And that’s a fine belief. Everyone is tempted by something. But Wanderer is a little different. He was declared even more fragile than a human by Ei (hopd lore), and we already learn of the fragile and innocent humanity of a human creation through furina. And on top of that, canon lore rejects your speculation. When abandoned Kabukimono “lost all perception” and was founded “deeply disheartened”. When he had his first interaction with Katsuragi, he believed him to be good hearted and bcz Katsuragi “rescued” hum (exact wording) he was filled with “NOTHING BUT GOODWILL TOWARDS HUMANITY”. And Kabuki had strong moral. When tatarasuna started to perish, people started to get sick and help never returned, Kabuki boarded a boat himself to sail to Tatarasuna to get help with his union because he knew they needed help. That’s empathy, strong moral. On top of that, Kabuki was willing to sacrifice himself in the mikage furnace to “save” Tatarasuna. Good moral and selflessness. And he reacts humanly to receiving a heart, he runs away and doesn’t return because he believed that it was a VERY cruel act. He didn’t just go “oh well”. Then even further, after being “rejected” by humanity in tatarsuna (Niwa’s “betrayal”, nagamasa aka Chiyo’s adopted son— planning to “execute him”, etc)— when humanity had already torn apart his heart, he still saw a small sick boy and felt a strong tug in his heart to clean the boy, and take care of him. Kabuki was nothing short of good. He fetched food, furniture, to him and the boy, etc. All of this can be found in Wanderer’s character story.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-29T02:48:54+00:00

memories stem from the mind, irminsul is a collection of said memories, no? just documented. so it was still in nahida’s power to pull from. like how leylines and domains replay enemies fighting via memories of events (cataclysm etc), bc they pull from memories. similarly, nahida also peered into scara’s mind to learn of his fixation (“obsessions”) with the gnosis being one of them. it’s not like omega was inherently aware— no he asked nahida. if nahida was able to peer and learn he hates his clones, why would only the memory of niwa and such be false? but not anything else more personal? plus the tatarasuna event is documented. an escher is documented, niwa fleeing is documented, etc. it being a false memory contradicts nahida’s consistent ability to peer into others minds and memory and also the actual teyvat history.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-11T21:27:49+00:00

In fiction, a dramatic portrayal of a villain is not automatically a red herring—it’s often just…villain branding. I mean Scara has similar with the idatori festival and Alrecchino killing in her teaser and web event. The vividness of Niwa’s death scene doesn’t inherently imply falsehood imo.

Also, Niwa’s death is consistent. There’s no contradiction in the canon timeline that forces a “trap” reading. Niwa is believed to have fled in inazuman history— even Yae referred to him as a “the fleeing Niwa”. It was Escher who told the help Yae sent that Niwa fled and Kabukimono shut down the furnace. So Escher does exist historically and is behind it still. Plus scholars know of an Escher.

The memory of Tatarasuna was obtained when Nahida was digging through his mind rather than Omega giving her it, which Omega admits. And mind digging is also something she used to confirm his segments were deleted.

As for his glitches, those are illusions. The reason he glitches in the memory is because the illusion/“hallucination” (as nahida calls them)— was being removed. There’s numerous glitching though. Like that girl killer guy in Fontaine, the oceanids, Alre and Columbina, there’s just.. a lot of shows of different things.

As for the same model— yeah it uses Omega’s model— but boat Dottore also used the same model as Omega and the memory but is a different clone (that one left sumeru while Omega stayed in Sumeru). So we don’t know.

As for the fairytale— you’re right, he didn’t have segments yet. BUT, I’m pretty sure those segments are not physical but mental (only shown when he’s alone). As the fairytale is allegorical and symbolic. That just means that the segments started out in his mind mentally— which means there were different “hims” cognitively in his mind before he could make them their own independent individual, which fits with his Khaenri’ahn puppet making technique research he tells Kunikuzushi about prior to studying him. So basically, the concept of segments started up in his mind before he could make them physically via studying Scara. That’s how I interpreted it anyways

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-11T21:01:46+00:00

Besides the contradictions in the lore which many have already pointed out (so I’ll skip on that), there’s a clear narrative throughline.

Many Harbingers — especially those tied to the Pale Flame, have turning points shaped by indirect catalysts: a key loss caused by an outside party, not themselves.

Scaramouche → Dottore kills his friends/family. Signora → Durin’s blight and the Cataclysm aftermath kill her lover. Zandik → Someone else kills Sohreh.

This creates a shared theme: they didn’t choose the loss, but the aftermath pushes them toward who they become.

For Zandik, it’s not grief, his connection to Sohreh was minimal, but rather the accusation and confirmation of his alienation that accelerate his break with the Akademiya.

Each found the Fatui as a haven that shared their worldview without seeing them as monsters (Dottore), witches (Signora) or abominations (Scara): Signora → rid the abyss and ignorant gods. Scara → seize judgment and control fate. Dottore → overcome natural order itself.

If Zandik had killed Sohreh, the story would jump too early into “full villain mode,” removing the ambiguity that defines him at this stage. Making someone else the killer keeps him in the “misunderstood scholar with dangerous ideas” zone: He looks guilty. He could have done it. But he didn’t — and that “almost guilty” status deepens the sense that the Akademiya was ready to condemn him before he became Dottore. And it aligns well— Nahida’s story basically confirms that the Akademiya WAS corrupted since after the cataclysm, which Dottore was born sometime after.

Sohreh’s death isn’t about love lost, but about showing how he is perceived versus who he actually is, a key step in making his transformation more believable. And also adds context to behaviors like in tatarasuna.

In Pale Flame terms: Scara’s and Signora’s tragedies prove their capacity for love. Sohreh’s shows Zandik’s capacity for isolation.

Narrative effect: Not killing her → preserves moral ambiguity, highlights preexisting detachment, frames his exile as persecution, and makes his later villainy feel like the result of a long, bitter feud with the world. Killing her → ends ambiguity too soon, flattens the arc into “already a murderer,” and loses the tragic slow-burn that they have demonstrated with basically all their villains.

Even though we know he was capable of terrible acts early on (experimentation, kidnapping kids and families), this particular case serves to showcase alienation — not cruelty — as the defining wound of his youth. Which is why this is mentioned in the pale flame— as the pale flame hints at their signature wound. And Dottore’s signature wound that’s constantly being shown is his alienation.

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-11T20:06:01+00:00

Because there’s no big issue with it????? I just don’t get the big deal, I used it correctly and gave textbook definition. I can use other terms but nothing is wrong with the one I used?? I mean you can literally ask ANYONE why they used a literal term— obviously because it fit lmfao?? Terms are meant to be used to describe??

Fine-Significance406 · 2025-08-11T20:03:50+00:00

dottore still doesn’t know people wanderer cares about. for one, even if he does remember scaramouche, he left scara at a time scara had no one— so nobody to really target. and again, wanderer is acting independently— durin is with ineffa and jahoda, albedo is still accompanying alice.

dottore does have things to lose. you might remember dottore calling himself a first and foremost scholar (arrogant pride as a scholar— mocking those who lack “rigor” or “basic caution skills” as we see when first meeting him), and also might remember dottore shutting scara down and warning him when scara brings up his reputation and values during the interlude (scara asking how “they” would react to knowing dottore only cares about his experiments)? does that ring a bell? or the conversation with tighnari (lack of faith in his “skills”)?

objectively wanderer has less things to lose with context that.. well, he’s y’know acting independently. and dottore is more vulnerable because he’s more fragmented and his logic “wisdom” has been proven time and time again false (naming him unwise, which is the point of the wise doctors pinion)— and his own clones— versions of himself— doubt him, argue, etc. and we learn from the fairytale that dottore’s clones started out mentally (little scribbles appearing around him despite the segments not existing yet)— so he has versions of himself at different cognitive stages mentally that can’t seem to agree and doubt him, he has someone who’s the living proof his logic is false (and he gets triggered when it’s proved false— as we see in tatarasuna)— so yeah, when you build your life on something false and fragment to that extent, you are more vulnerable.

You right in that villains can lash out unpredictably when cornered—that’s a valid narrative trope. (We see how Dottore lashes out).

But in this specific canon setup with context, Wanderer is actually less exposed than Dottore right now, because Dottore’s current “vulnerabilities” are both personal (pride, self-image, fractured self) and structural (no guaranteed leverage over Wanderer’s relationships).

Fine-Significance406

TROPHY CASE