Bitches Hate Canon(SI)(RWBY/So You Want to be a Vampire CYOA)

This jumping back and forth through time and viewpoint makes it a bit rough to read. It is understandable but might be better if you stuck to either a timeline, a viewpoint/location, or reordered the chapters so that the viewpoints are in bigger chunks.
 
Everyone's the hero of their own story.

And it is very easy to justify things to yourself.

And hey, when your options are either 1:try to mind wipe people so you don't have slaves so much as meat automata or 2:don't mind wipe people so you instead have slaves who internally scream at their literal inability to disobey you as you order them to do things that go against their wishes(even when those wishes are inherently VERY BAD THINGS)....

Honestly, which is worse to do?

I am emphatically not saying this is a good thing to do, but...well...

I'd peg this sort of thing as a anti-villainous thing to do.

No matter what, protagonist is yes; hero not so much.

Functionally speaking, as far as he's concerned, this would be roughly equivalent to killing all of them, then creating and controlling intelligent undead from their corpses. And notably he did go to some effort to try to make sure that he didn't get anyone who wasn't willing to go along with this in the first place--hence the unwiped lieutenants and sergeants.
Okay, yeah I meant hero, not protagonist.

But I am curious as to why he felt this necessary to do in the first place. Why not just kill them and be done with it? The Greater Good is a decent justification if you don't look past the paint disguising the Lesser Evil hiding underneath, but that's an excuse, not a goal. Why is he doing this and why this way? When would he stop doing stuff like this?
 
Okay, yeah I meant hero, not protagonist.

But I am curious as to why he felt this necessary to do in the first place. Why not just kill them and be done with it? The Greater Good is a decent justification if you don't look past the paint disguising the Lesser Evil hiding underneath, but that's an excuse, not a goal. Why is he doing this and why this way? When would he stop doing stuff like this?

Just because canon hasn't started yet doesn't mean that people are't dying. It doesn't mean that people aren't suffering.

And one man, no matter how mighty, can only do so much.

A hundred men can only do so much.

A thousand vampires might be enough to match the horrors of the world, if only just.

In essence, this is one of the potential outcomes of giving someone with a serious hero complex the potential to do a lot of good, and do it quickly, but only if they sacrifice some level of morality.

Because while a man alone can move mountains, it's likely to take him most of the rest of his life to do it.
 
These laws are pretty damn good. He even set up a way to fix laws or change them should problems arise. Though I do wonder how them not having any creativity is gonna affect their effectiveness. Because I can see that even with these laws there are bound to be difficulties.
 
These laws are pretty damn good. He even set up a way to fix laws or change them should problems arise. Though I do wonder how them not having any creativity is gonna affect their effectiveness. Because I can see that even with these laws there are bound to be difficulties.
They're informed by, but not based on, the Laws of Robotics. The Laws of Robotics were intentionally flawed. Three laws compliant is NOT a good thing.

That said, while they might be currently more or less personality-less, as they accumulate experience.... well...

"We are what we remember."

-Erik Pevernagie
 
They're informed by, but not based on, the Laws of Robotics. The Laws of Robotics were intentionally flawed. Three laws compliant is NOT a good thing.

That said, while they might be currently more or less personality-less, as they accumulate experience.... well...

"We are what we remember."

-Erik Pevernagie
I'm a bit confused about what you're talking about in the first part of your comment as I never even mentioned the three laws. Yeah the moment I heard the MC mention the three laws I was pretty worried. Then as he stated them my worry decreased, because it was better designed than the three laws.
 
I fail to see how what he did is less moral than just killing them.
To be fair, there are the moral implications of having complete and utter control of another sentient being. But that's not inherently immoral so much as potentially EXTREMELY immoral, depending on how and when such control is actually exercised.

It's generally accepted that humans cannot be entirely trusted to make their own decisions(hence why minors can void contracts) before the age of 18; on the other hand, between the effects of Genius and them having actual skills to work with, if not memories, I'd wager that if the 'training wheels' come off completely within five, it's within reasonable boundaries.
 
I fail to see how what he did is less moral than just killing them.

Because a large number of people, myself included, believe that ending someone's life is less bad than violating them, and that mental manipulations falls under that. I think it's connected to your underlying, gut-instinct belief in a soul, but I don't really have any proof about that.
 
Am I the only one who's REALLY concerned with the wording of those laws? The emphasis was on "innocent" and "guilty" in regards to how actions should be taken. The obvious problem I see that is not addressed anywhere is what does "innocent" mean? Innocent of legal crimes? Innocent of moral hypocrisies committed? Guilty has the same problem, guilty of what? Legal guilt? Guilty conscience? As you've currently laid out your laws I can see all kinds of ways I could leap through loopholes, the kind of stuff I'd do if you were a player trying to assemble a quick, "loyal", and OP army in a game I was running.

The laws themselves are pretty solid, but the lack of direct definition for "innocent" or "guilty" makes them hilariously easy to circumvent and thus largely worthless. I applaud the subtle foreshadowing if this is an intentional Chekhov's gun and I'm happy to provide more criticism if it was a genuine OoC oversight.
 
Am I the only one who's REALLY concerned with the wording of those laws? The emphasis was on "innocent" and "guilty" in regards to how actions should be taken. The obvious problem I see that is not addressed anywhere is what does "innocent" mean? Innocent of legal crimes? Innocent of moral hypocrisies committed? Guilty has the same problem, guilty of what? Legal guilt? Guilty conscience? As you've currently laid out your laws I can see all kinds of ways I could leap through loopholes, the kind of stuff I'd do if you were a player trying to assemble a quick, "loyal", and OP army in a game I was running.

The laws themselves are pretty solid, but the lack of direct definition for "innocent" or "guilty" makes them hilariously easy to circumvent and thus largely worthless. I applaud the subtle foreshadowing if this is an intentional Chekhov's gun and I'm happy to provide more criticism if it was a genuine OoC oversight.

I'd say this was both IC and OOC oversight. And now i'm kinda facepalming.

...

I meant to add a 'no trying to subvert these laws' law, on the other hand. Which i might edit in.
 
. Kill
keep light out,which, well
, which
immediately standup, bowing my head in
stand up
. I
Stories which i….might be
I...
but i would have added
I
that such a...varied
... varied
students. Is a...Mr. Drake… home?"
... Mr.
know my name i don't know my--" He starts to panic.
I
 
Well, good on you, did you remember that the three laws of robotics are from a book, which is all about how they do not work?

Just remember the case of telephone speech, every single one of your serfs has a unique understanding of those rules you gave them, those differences will cause them to go into conflict between themselves and other people.

Adding a "Do no subvert these laws" law will cause them to Inquisition each other whenever they believe that one them "subverted" a law.

Without a power that makes people understand you the way you want to be understood, people cannot really understand you and a power that does that would effectively be a type of brainwashing, where you add the information without their own natural biases, differences in memory and hearing and so on from modifying the words and intent.

Without a power that makes your serfs understand each other, ie. make them a hive mind essentially, they will perceive your rules being broken by others, due to lack of information and misunderstandings. IE. On of them thinks another saw a grimm and left it alive, without any reason, thus attacking and trying to subdue the rulebreaker, the rulebreaker defends themselves and tries to subdue his perceived rulebreaker, the second person, they will then proceed to either get a lucky incapacitate or kill each other.

A unique problem of sorts simply because unlike actual people, they cannot disobey and HAVE to punish and pursue rulebreakers.
 
Last edited:
Well, good on you, did you remember that the three laws of robotics are from a book, which is all about how they do not work?

Just remember the case of telephone speech, every single one of your serfs has a unique understanding of those rules you gave them, those differences will cause them to go into conflict between themselves and other people.

Adding a "Do no subvert these laws" law will cause them to Inquisition each other whenever they believe that one them "subverted" a law.

Without a power that makes people understand you the way you want to be understood, people cannot really understand you and a power that does that would effectively be a type of brainwashing, where you add the information without their own natural biases, differences in memory and hearing and so on from modifying the words and intent.

Without a power that makes your serfs understand each other, ie. make them a hive mind essentially, they will perceive your rules being broken by others, due to lack of information and misunderstandings. IE. On of them thinks another saw a grimm and left it alive, without any reason, thus attacking and trying to subdue the rulebreaker, the rulebreaker defends themselves and tries to subdue his perceived rulebreaker, the second person, they will then proceed to either get a lucky incapacitate or kill each other.

A unique problem of sorts simply because unlike actual people, they cannot disobey and HAVE to punish and pursue rulebreakers.
'do not subvert these laws' is not 'watch each other to see if you subvert a law'. Since each law is forced upon each target, they would self-monitor for any believed abuses...not watch each other.
 
Because a large number of people, myself included, believe that ending someone's life is less bad than violating them, and that mental manipulations falls under that. I think it's connected to your underlying, gut-instinct belief in a soul, but I don't really have any proof about that.
He executed them by their death and Ascension to vampires. He then ensured their deaths by erasing their minds. Electing to use their corpses to do the most good. I fail to see the dilemma. The soul was expelled when he turned them into vampires.

You are conflating the soul with the brain. The soul is separate and inviolable. The flesh is the encounter suit for the soul.
 
Last edited:
He executed them by their death and Ascension to vampires. He then ensured their deaths by erasing their minds. Electing to use their corpses to do the most good. I fail to see the dilemma. The soul was expelled when he turned them into vampires.

You are conflating the soul with the brain. The soul is separate and inviolable. The flesh is the encounter suit for the soul.

Not exactly.


Three days later, all of them had turned. But before they had all turned, I separated one out, asking the woman to point me at one of the worst among them.
I open my eyes and see the man looking at me, confused but still very much terrified. I blink. I try to snap a few more times.

On the fifth try I get it, and the man's expression goes blank.

...Okay then. Still feeling pretty nasty, but now there's a dash of added humiliation. Wonderful.

"What is your name?" I ask testingly.

"I...don't know." The man murmurs.

"I ORDER you to tell me your name." I thunder. I want to know if there's even a trace of memory left.

"I don't know it." The man answers, a tone of true sorrow in his voice. "I don't know my name i don't know my--" He starts to panic.

...Note to self: Don't issue a order that's impossible to complete. "I order you to stop trying to tell me your name." I cut him off and a look of mild relief crosses his face before he slips back into a sort of....passivity.

I pause, and reflect.

"You are henceforth to be known as Serf A001." I command simply. "Or, in long form, Serf Group A, Designation 001."

This is all pre-Turning. The best case scenario, that means he programmed one of them before turning them into a vampire, but if we assume consistency then that means he programmed them all pre-turning to get around any problems with their vampiric abilities interfering with the programming.

The wording is a bit vague: it doesn't clarify whether it's before turning ALL of them, or just before turning that one.
 
Not exactly.





This is all pre-Turning. The best case scenario, that means he programmed one of them before turning them into a vampire, but if we assume consistency then that means he programmed them all pre-turning to get around any problems with their vampiric abilities interfering with the programming.
It is still an execution. It doesn't matter. The bastards got off easily. While the flesh is not as important as the soul there are rules. These bandits broke the most important of those rules. They raped, tortured and murdered men, women and worst of all children. There are cruel and painful deaths proscribed for those crimes among the mountain clans
 
Last edited:
Not exactly.





This is all pre-Turning. The best case scenario, that means he programmed one of them before turning them into a vampire, but if we assume consistency then that means he programmed them all pre-turning to get around any problems with their vampiric abilities interfering with the programming.

The wording is a bit vague: it doesn't clarify whether it's before turning ALL of them, or just before turning that one.
The keyword was 'all'.... i meant separated out one of the turned ones....as the commanding should make clear. Can't command anything unturned.
 
It is still an execution. It doesn't matter. The bastards got off easily. While the flesh is not as important as the soul there are rules. These bandits broke the most important of those rules. They raped, tortured and murdered men, women and worst of all children. There are cruel and painful deaths proscribed for those crimes among the mountain clans

But that's an entirely separate argument. The first argument was that he already killed them and was building a new being, a way to circumvent the morality argument. Mind, this circumvention can be argued to not work if you believe that purely materialistic beings still deserve the rights given to sentient beings, like I do, but it wasn't an argument of morality. Your argument right here is an argument of morality, so you can't continue an argument using the argument of morality to back up an argument that morality is irrelevant.
 
Back
Top