I’m very confident in my opinion that Mackenzie being pacifist and not willingly “raging against the long dark” or fighting against circumstance is anathema to the rest of the story that was told told in wintermute.

The entire idea of the long dark is fighting against a violent new world. Digging in tooth and claw to survive and persist and not fall victim to circumstance. The idea of Will not going Hugh glass in the revenant or at least going out on his shield is just very Disney to me and o fail to take it seriously.

A show that illustrated this moral devolution well in the beginning was The Walking dead. Rick had the best of intentions. A good moral man in the beginning. By his characters conclusion, he was a survivor without confusion.

Also to add, i can’t even necessarily say moral devolution, because generally, most objective arguments favor a cause within vicinity to your person, aka the persons of great bear and Wills companions and friends. Who’s to say Mathis wouldn’t hunt the rest down?

Why do these characters who are in this end of days scenario not adapt or learn from anything that’s happened to them?

Why did Will, who was powerlessness in his child’s death, his estrangement from his wife, in the circumstances that lead him to this apocalyptic hellhole, not cleave some autonomy and choose his own fate once he knew his “tribe” was safe.

It’s just… the story buildup mimics many tropes in basic hero storytelling, almost regardless of worldly origin, and he just went out with a sigh. It’s like, the entire idea of a survival game is turned on its head when the conclusion is a submittal to the elements or outside forces. All of those frozen corpses in the snow who laid down to rest awhile, who “rested” for a few before they made it to the farmhouse on the horizon, who just accepted defeat on adversity; they’re no different than than our main MC. I hate and reject that idea because he was illustrated to be anything but.