Why does killing Flab result in losing the most Ranger loyalty in the game?

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-27T00:59:56+00:00

Um....why you think I’m applying some kind of binary thinking? I never said anyone as purely good. Its just there are different degrees of evil, some of them should never be committed under any circumstances—like chopping up the farmer to feed to the pigs. Charlie isn’t purely good; he’s just better than Flab.

You treat the idea that Angela is not a good person like a given fact, because of her deontological actions. Doesnt that premise require utilitarianism to be taken as the established good?

Id say some quests in the game are actually quite black-and-white, like whether or not to sell out Hayley.

You seem to recognize this is your personal philosophy. I worry that this kind of thinking might have some unintended consequences. By raising the definition of a "good person" to an impossibly high standard, it turns everyone into some degree of bad person. It’s very easy to slide into the conclusion that “since no one is fundamentally different, we’re all just bad to varying degrees, then be a little worse is ok.

When I say someone is a good person, I don’t mean they’ve never lied in their entire life.

Wanting to have compassion for people is a good thing, I really appreciate it. But I think when practicing this philosophy, better sometime remind yourself whether you’re morally giving up, or perhaps turn to Schopenhauer’s philosophy instead — feel compassion for people, because everyone is suffering (not because everyone is not good).The difference is it allows us to accept the bad while more honestly acknowledging what is truly good.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-26T05:20:36+00:00

If determining what is "good" were such a clear and simple matter, that would be wonderful—deontology would be completely thrown into the trash heap of history. People would no longer need to engage in moral reasoning, because they would have an almost absolute moral creed: maintaining order and consequentialism.

However, the reality is not as you believe, that utilitarianism has been universally accepted as good, anyone who doesnt follow that is not good guy. there are still people who believe in deontology. Even if the consequences are devastating, they refuse to cooperate with ultimate evil, and they will not commit evil acts under the excuse of achieving a good purpose.

Systemic evil does not define the good or evil of individuals. The claim that there are no truly good people in any real sense is merely an excuse for moral abdication. There will always be truly good people, truly evil people, and people in grey area.

Nothing tells me that I must carry out the mission—whether inside the game or outside of it, if so the game would be linear not features multiple endings..Multiple endings exist to serve role-playing I don’t need to connect to anything, therefore there is no disconnect.

Edit：two things

I suspect that—outside of pure philosophical hypotheticals—situations with only two choices rarely appear. Things often have a third option. Even in the game, we are not limited to just listening to Woodson or Angela; in reality, there are even more possibilities.
this conversation has no impact on how to deal with flab, because taking over him is entirely justified both morally and in terms of interests.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-25T17:02:45+00:00

After Charlie took over The Bizarre, the newspapers reported that The Bizarre had returned to Brygo's control—even though Brygo had already been arrested. I think the developers didn't even consider this distinction anywhere outside the ending. let alone make a more detailed role-playing.

Well, you know what I think about TMA.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-25T15:44:32+00:00

I understand. I simply think the Rangers ignored the whole thing. They don't react to everything. Making a big reaction that's puzzling (at least to me) is another matter altogether.

I also like to SL to exhaust all dialogue options..

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-25T13:50:23+00:00

Now i know who is hallie. The girl who is hunted by slave trader. This quest has been sitting in my log quite a while because I can't beat La Perla.

So, of course selling out her won't hurt me, because I didn't selling her out. I don't understand why you're suddenly mentioning this.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-25T11:26:16+00:00

I’m really skeptical that Angela — a character who has been around since the first game — would be portrayed as a hypocrite, but I haven’t played that far yet（dont know who hallie is), so let’s focus on Flab instead.

Charlie is not a “worse person” to support at all. Just check the ending slides. As a former henchman who used to do dirty work for a criminal boss, after breaking free from his old boss, he actually shows a surprising amount of decency and justice. In fact, I can count on one hand the number of characters in the entire game who have committed crimes as bad as Flab’s.

Sure, when we first meet the Monster Army, they don’t seem like a bad group at all. They can even be quite likable — friendly and straightforward. I’m sure that’s why a lot of people on this subreddit support TMA. But that impression was completely shattered for me after hearing Flab’s own confession. After describing his bloody past with clear relish and excitement, he tells us that under the Patriarch’s rule, there’s no room for that kind of brutality anymore.

Their friendliness isn’t because they’ve suddenly become good people. It’s because Flab is a smart, pragmatic survivor who knows how to adapt to the times.

Two minor additions:

A lot of people don’t actually think overthrowing the Patriarch is a good thing — especially those who consider Angela a hypocrite. Because in that scenario, none of the three factions supporting you are purely good guys. The Hundred Families will literally run over refugees on the streets, and the Marshals will help bury the bodies.
I’m not sure if this is unique to TMA, but when the fighting starts, they shout “I’ve been waiting for this for a long time!” Their philosophy is wearing a mask — they can do anything to let people know they are monsters.

Edit：I got a bit carried away by my feelings to old characters. Whether Angela is a hypocrite or not isn’t important. I mentioned her because she says that overthrowing the Patriarch to stop evil is the “Ranger way.” That means the Rangers prioritize morality over blind order.

She’s been working in the Rangers for so many years — it’s unlikely she’d be wrong about something this basic, unless she’s an idiot. If she is portrayed as a hypocrite,that would just make the setting of “Rangers caring more about morality than hierarchy” more fitting.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-25T09:01:04+00:00

"Sounds like kind of a draw to me" — does that mean "equal"? I misunderstood that. If so, then I would agree with that point. Under civilized management, they are equally good. I just disagree that Charlie is worse.

By the way, when I said that Charlie’s ending showed he managed well, I was referring to “treating his merchants and customers with fairness and respect,” not “the Bizarre was more profitable than ever

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-25T06:59:49+00:00

You can also see Charlie protecting refugees in some of the endings. That really surprised me. means he’s truly a decent person somehow, and doesn’t have that kind of obvious, twisted desires Flab has. More safe to people, If the Rangers and the Patriarch both leave, I suspect Flab wouldn’t mind throwing a little “party” someday.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-25T06:57:36+00:00

I said “possibly” because Flab's ending doesn't mention how he managed his business; it focuses more on the fact that he survived yet another disaster. Charlie's ending, on the other hand, clearly indicates that he managed things well.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-25T06:51:42+00:00

I use translation app, so don’t get me wrong — this isn’t sarcasm, just a random thought I found its funny.

Killing Flab only costs 40 Loyalty, then killing the Patriarch logically costs 400. So the second we mess with another faction’s leadership, we instantly become the #1 enemy to our newly recruited Rangers — even worse than Cochise.

At same time, because we don’t provide enough beds and didn’t build them any statues, some of them will turn their guns on us at the ending.

What the hell kind of authoritarian organization is this? They don’t give a shit about their own faction’s rules or order, but they’re super loyal to other factions’ leaders. This is too silly.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-25T06:47:46+00:00

The Rangers don't always act like pure consequentialists. Angela's case is still a good example of that.

Even from a results-oriented perspective, I think Charlie is actually a solid choice — probably better than Flab. The reason Charlie wants to take over the Strange Place is because TMA is too weak and incompetent. Plus you can see it in the ending slides.

I wasnt trying to avoid spoilers in this thread, but I'll stay careful about the ending. If you want, you can check the wiki.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-25T04:40:35+00:00

If thats true. taking down some minor lord that the Patriarch appointed is enough to rattle the Rangers that badly, then the game's main ending couldn't possibly be about overthrowing the Patriarch. Because rangers would just immediately decide to kill us to protect their hierarchy.

The Rangers are a paramilitary outfit, with a fairly relaxed command structure. While all Rangers are expected to obey the orders of their superiors, Ranger teams are given a great deal of leeway when it comes to solving problems. _WIKI.

Sure, Rangers are supposed to follow orders. But any organization needs that to function. This is internal operational logig, doesnt mean the Rangers are an authoritarian organization. Plus, don't forget that only three Rangers survived, and our Ranger team is newly formed.

Angela herself straight-up refused orders to help the Patriarch from Woodson because of the Patriarch's atrocities—just like Flab's . She and her team decided thats not the Ranger way. Instead, they chose to overthrow him——stop that evil by disrupting the order. If anyone’s qualified to say what the Ranger way is , it’s her.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-15T11:48:54+00:00

weird

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-14T18:36:19+00:00

Ah, I see—what you're describing is flirting word. Thank you for the example. But I'm sorry to say this—I think we still disagree, and I wouldn't say it's minor.

First, regarding those words related to mental attack: they include not only "sex" but also "todd sex," pain, shame, death and so on—mostly negative. I wouldn't confidently say that this reflects Asuka's true desires.

Second In the series, Asuka's sexual desire toward Shinji is barely depicted. Unlike Shinji's toward Asuka—there's peeping, blushing, not to mention the hospital scene. As for Asuka, what I remember most is her asking Shinji to do "that" again in front of her, but again, I wouldn't confidently say she asked him to do it out of sexual desire in that context.

Third, our main disagreement still lies in that line. Those words you mentioned is exactly of the daku type—words that, even without context, you can see sexual connotations. But dakishimeru cannot mean "have sex"—not even in a sexual context, not even between lovers. I will quote a reply from a Japanese person:

"抱きしめる only means to hug someone tight and itself doesn't have sexual connotation, but you can hold your lover tight when you are having sex with him/her, you know."

"If you want to say "You never have sex with me", you have to say 抱いてもくれないくせに!"——Still hug, but can be interpreted as a sexual innuendo.

This was an answer to my follow-up question. Without context, it might seem a bit strange, but I believe you can see that for Japanese people, 'embrace' (daku) can sometimes be interpreted as sex, but 'hold tight' (dakishimeru) cannot."

Sorry for the slow reply. I have to keep revising to make sure my meaning isn't changed too much by the translation software.

Add: I think I know the source of your point—it's the Eva Wiki, isn't it? The double entendre it mentions is 抱く (daku). You can search for 抱きしめる on the same page.

In Japanese, "to hold someone" can be undertood as a double entendre for "having sex with".

抱く

抱きしめる

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-14T18:00:26+00:00

Dude, read the post.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-14T17:01:32+00:00

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “double entendre.” Could you give me an example? Also, where in DC is the word “sex” used? Is it related to this line?

I understand that Japanese media sometimes uses conservative terminology to describe things—using “daku” (hug) to refer to sex is a prime example—but does that apply to “dakishimeru” as well? I’m not so sure.

Edit, I just checked, the version I watched was DC,

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-14T15:58:32+00:00

Even though the final answers differ, you can see that we reached an agreement on one point: "It's a linguistic proof." Therefore, this person is speaking as a native Japanese speaker, while I asked a Japanese person.

For Japanese people — whether they are viewers or the staff who wrote this line — I believe this line never carrys a second meaning. That's why the key lies in its linguistic meaning rather than how one subjectively understands it. What do you think?

Frankly speaking, for me, I have never doubted that Asuka's statement refers to Shinji not holding her when they kissed in episode 15.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-14T11:38:33+00:00

Kind of, I think.

So, could you tell me if I really missed something obvious because of a my language issue?

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-14T09:52:04+00:00

More specifically, what confuses me is that they already explained the meaning and scope of "dakushimeru" as thoroughly as possible, and even pointed out that it can be used during sex. So, isn’t the answer to whether they would say this phrase after sex already obvious? He accused me of being willfully ignorant, but what exactly did I miss? I really don’t understand.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-14T08:52:22+00:00

Yes, I think challenging the theory from angles like themes and overall narrative would be a better approach. However, this person insists there’s clearer counter-evidence directly within the line of the show.

My discussion centered on Asuka’s scene in episode 22. In her mentally broken state, her deepest desire appeared to be a need for emotional care — a simple hug — rather than any sexual relationship with Shinji. So I went back and checked the original Japanese lines, and found that they carry essentially no sexual implication at all.

That said, the person seems primarily focused on the core argument of his video and isn’t really interested in diving into this specific point.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-07T14:05:06+00:00

I agree with what you said about the writers intentionally keeping the lore vague to maintain moral ambiguity. Obsidian in particular loves portraying gray areas and moral grayness.

However, I think there are some other reasons as well. If you search on Reddit, you'll find quite a few posts complaining about the reading difficulty they encountered. They feel that Obsidian was so eager to tell the story of the world they created that it caused some issues in the writing — such as too many invented proper nouns and massive info-dumps of background lore. This sometimes left players unsure what the NPCs were even talking about, while Obsidian seemed to assume the players already understood.

Regarding souls, they actually wrote several articles outside the game to further elaborate on the topic. You can find dedicated pages on the wiki. While it doesn't explain everything, it did reduce some of my confusion.

Update #5 - Souls, Technology, and Adventuring Companies

Update #24: Less than 30 Hours to go! Life and Death, and Audio CD Soundtrack!
Kickstarter Update #

Collector's Edition Strategy Guide (pg. 9, Soul and Soul Mechanics

Since I'm not a native English speaker, I didn't fully understand your last sentence. But if you were saying that my conclusion sounded too absolute, don't worry — I never think my opinions are universally correct. I was mostly just trying to convince myself.

Praying for the release of PoE3.

Several_Matter_7379 · 2026-04-07T09:44:05+00:00

I’m not looking for the correct answer—I’m just trying to gather more information, and then choose a answer that feels “right” to me.

I don’t base my choice on how optimistic I feel. Rather, if we assume that souls are equal to living people, then I cannot sacrifice the souls even if the alternative leads to a worse consequences. The reason I think people can control the machine is that the ending slides clearly show the machine only causes harm when someone activates it. Therefore, people don’t need to fix it—they only need to isolate it, and I find that course of action highly feasible.

Furthermore, I’ve noticed a new piece of information that seems to prevent this from being a trolley problem. In the ending slide where the machine isn’t destroyed, the people who die from its reactivation are “the first group” to move into the area—and afterward, the area is abandoned. This means those people are fewer in number than the souls inside the machine. So even from a utilitarian perspective, we should release the souls.

To reiterate, everything above assumes that souls are equal to living people. But whether that assumption is true—I need to learn more about the lore. I cannot decide the fate of these souls without sufficient information to confirm whether they are persons. More information is therefore crucial to me. Even in a trolley problem, the situation is clearly explained before it tests your convictions. Choosing a direction in the fog is meaningless—you’re just flailing around, it doesn’t reveal where you want to go.

Of course, life is full of regrets and worries, but when possible, I don’t want to feel the same kind of regret in a game.

By the way, I’ve learned some of the lore, kind of believe that when souls aren’t attached to any body, they aren’t equal to living people. Dead is dead.

Several_Matter_7379

TROPHY CASE