Remove ads

Containment Day Blues (worm/ SMT)

Reader mode
[X][tell] Yes

[X][Axiom] Light
-[X] Sub alignment Neutral

[X][Go] Captain's Hill

[X][Contract] …Is that puss in boots?
[X][Contract] A tiny woman with wings, dressed in white with a pink sash, her long blue hair pulled back into a loose ponytail. She has a Lightning quick tongue.
[X][Contract] A thing that looks like a man, dressed in green armor with a golden mask, a gun at their side.
 
@Lunaryon can we get some insight into the difference between Light-Chaos, Chaos-Light, Light-Neutral and Neutral-Light? I think we all have a good idea of what Annette's like, but because the four aforementioned alignments kind of overlap so much on the pro-human freedom front, we don't know which one fits her particular brand of rebelliousness
 
My impression is that the primary alignments are:
  • Light: Benevolent
  • Law: Controlling
  • Chaos: Violent
  • Dark: Malevolent
And the secondary elements are just that: secondary.

"Chaos > Light" is primarily violent, and only benevolent when it doesn't interfere with violence
"Light > Chaos" is primarily benevolent, and only violent when it doesn't interfere with benevolence
 
RadiantPhoenix said:
My impression is that the primary alignments are:
  • Light: Benevolent
  • Law: Controlling
  • Chaos: Violent
  • Dark: Malevolent
And the secondary elements are just that: secondary.

"Chaos > Light" is primarily violent, and only benevolent when it doesn't interfere with violence
"Light > Chaos" is primarily benevolent, and only violent when it doesn't interfere with benevolence
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is hilariously reductive for both Law and Chaos.
 
Xanah said:
@Lunaryon can we get some insight into the difference between Light-Chaos, Chaos-Light, Light-Neutral and Neutral-Light? I think we all have a good idea of what Annette's like, but because the four aforementioned alignments kind of overlap so much on the pro-human freedom front, we don't know which one fits her particular brand of rebelliousness
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So Light Chaos would be sort of Chaotic Good. Do the right thing, regardless of laws or social norms. The person who has no problem breaking the law, or people's knees to defend them from oppression.

Chaos Light is a bit hedonistic... Do what makes you happy, so long as it isn't crushing anyone else underfoot. The kind of person who sticks it to the man because they are the man.

Light Neutral is being someone out there to help others, who is motivated both by how doing bad things and hurting people makes her feel bad, along with enjoying seeing others happy.

Or to put another way - Li/C Annette joined Lustrum to stand up for an oppressed group, to help pull them out from under the yoke of society.
C/Li Annette joined because Lustrum was against the man, and also helped people, so helping those people learn to stand on their own two feet made the world a better place.

Li/L Annette joined because there was injustice supported by the legal system, and so for the betterment of all it needed to be torn down.

L/Li Annette saw a group trying to help, but who were already turning to violence and hoped to be a moderating force.

D/C Annette saw an oppressor using the law as a shield, and wanted to tear it all down and put the power in the people, not the law.

D/L Annette saw the system as corrupt and therefore not worthy of being followed, but that Lustrum had a better idea, a better means. Together they could fix the world, with her and Lustrum ruling over all.
 
So basically, Dark Law/Chaos is kinda like the factions at their most Extremist, whilst the Light versions is the factions at their most idealistic, and the L/li or L/D and C/Li and C/D are the factions at the most themselves but with more positive/negative elements emphasisied?
 
Light prefers to build something up to solve problems, while Dark prefers to rip down problems.

Law wants a system in place, where Chaos believes these systems only limit freedoms
 
Lunaryon said:
Light prefers to build something up to solve problems, while Dark prefers to rip down problems.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Huh. Good to know, and an interesting take that means it can also play into the wider Blue-and-orange morality that SMT has going on with it's factions

Lunaryon said:
Law wants a system in place, where Chaos believes these systems only limit freedoms
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly, been trying to figure out how to word this for a good while now, but you hit the nail on the head with the core of it here.

Would choosing these factions influence how easily Taylor affects Law and Chaos in BB? Or is that going to be far less relevant? I can guess we're not being pigeonholed into a Side yet, but will this affect how easy it is for us to choose something antithetical to our Axiom?
 
Lunaryon said:
Light prefers to build something up to solve problems, while Dark prefers to rip down problems.

Law wants a system in place, where Chaos believes these systems only limit freedoms
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmmm...

What would each alignment's Annette say and recommend about Taylor's bullying problem if:
  1. They were around for it
  2. There wasn't a massive crisis dropping right before the next schoolday

I'm thinking a Law-leaning Annette would say something along the lines of "there should have been systems in place to protect you, or that you could turn to, but there weren't, and that's the problem."

While a Chaos-leaning Annette would say something more like "the solution to this is to beat up your bullies and the problem is that the system will stop/punish you for it."

EDIT: and maybe Neutral would be, "that fucking sucks. Let's pursue all of our options."
 
Last edited:
Lunaryon said:
Light prefers to build something up to solve problems, while Dark prefers to rip down problems.

Law wants a system in place, where Chaos believes these systems only limit freedoms
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
So you are telling me that light law could for example create a parallel government to the one still in the city with Taylor in charge/first among equals.

Also, as a sidenote but, what would each annette's reaction be if/when she learns what Emma was doing to Taylor
 
RadiantPhoenix said:
While a Chaos-leaning Annette would say something more like "the solution to this is to beat up your bullies"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, she'd say that Taylor should handle this however Taylor wants and not let anyone tell her she can't.

That Taylor wants to break their kneecaps, slit their throats, and generally go postal on them is entirely her own wants. Chaos merely says she should do what she wants without any restrictions. The violence of that is all on her.
 
The3rdCorinthian said:
No, she'd say that Taylor should handle this however Taylor wants and not let anyone tell her she can't.

That Taylor wants to break their kneecaps, slit their throats, and generally go postal on them is entirely her own wants. Chaos merely says she should do what she wants without any restrictions. The violence of that is all on her.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
She'd say that the problem is that the rules don't allow Taylor to break Emma's kneecaps for this.

"Let humanity choose its own fate" is Neutral
 
Last edited:
RadiantPhoenix said:
She'd say that the problem is that the rules don't allow Taylor to break Emma's kneecaps for this.

"Let humanity choose its own fate" is Neutral
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...You do realise that Chaos and Law are meant to be ostensibly decent positions taken to absolute extremes, right? Like, Yes, Chaos IS Freedom, taken to it's absolute limit. Freedom from morality, from ethics, from anything except having the power to accomplish what you want. It devolves to violence because that idea taken to it's extreme becomes a world of might makes right - a world without Laws.

You're saying that it's because the rules wouldn't let her break Sophias Kneecaps - And it's sophias - but like... The problem Chaos would have is there being rules at all. It's in the Faction Name, girl.

Like. It strikes me that you're not seeing Law and Chaos as distinct ideologies that try to argue something and just various flavours of Baddies with neutral being 'the good ending'

Also - I think you misunderstand what the franchise is going for with 'Humanity chooses it's own Fate'. It's not about Freedom, it's about acknowledging the Risk of what you're doing. The entire point of most (not all, but many) Neutral endings is that it's ultimately kicking the can down the road, and in the meantime, Humankind might not learn its lesson or change for the better. That you might end up in this position again. Choosing it is then an act of faith that humankind can, in fact, be better, and grow. But whether we fail to do so or succeed, it's on our own merits, not ebcause of God or Demons.
 
This is why I don't think Annette or Taylor are even remotely Neutral, neither of them are willing to kick the can down the road and have faith.
 
The3rdCorinthian said:
...You do realise that Chaos and Law are meant to be ostensibly decent positions taken to absolute extremes, right? Like, Yes, Chaos IS Freedom, taken to it's absolute limit. Freedom from morality, from ethics, from anything except having the power to accomplish what you want. It devolves to violence because that idea taken to it's extreme becomes a world of might makes right - a world without Laws.

You're saying that it's because the rules wouldn't let her break Sophias Kneecaps - And it's sophias - but like... The problem Chaos would have is there being rules at all. It's in the Faction Name, girl.

Like. It strikes me that you're not seeing Law and Chaos as distinct ideologies that try to argue something and just various flavours of Baddies with neutral being 'the good ending'
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think that "the solution to our problems is to punch the bad guys in the face, and anything that stops us from punching the bad guys in the face is also bad" is a common philosophy that people hold to, and I think it aligns well with what I've seen of Chaos factions/endings.

EDIT: the kinder, gentler Chaos endings
 
Last edited:
RadiantPhoenix said:
I think that "the solution to our problems is to punch the bad guys in the face, and anything that stops us from punching the bad guys in the face is also bad" is a common philosophy that people hold to, and I think it aligns well with what I've seen of Chaos factions/endings.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
but that's not what Chaos actually is when taken in moderation, it's "do what the fuck you want and anyone who says otherwise can fuck off"

If Taylor wants to break Sophia, that's her right
if Taylor wants to drop out of school and ignore the trio entirely, that's also her right.
 
Xanah said:
but that's not what Chaos actually is when taken in moderation, it's "do what the fuck you want and anyone who says otherwise can fuck off"

If Taylor wants to break Sophia, that's her right
if Taylor wants to drop out of school and ignore the trio entirely, that's also her right.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...if do whatever you want with no regard to the rules, power to strongest might equals right is the 'Moderate' chaos, what do you consider extreme chaos?
 
Lunaryon said:
...if do whatever you want with no regard to the rules, power to strongest might equals right is the 'Moderate' chaos, what do you consider extreme chaos?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
let me rephrase;

Moderate Chaos is the kind of person who goes through life not caring what other people think of them, your Anns, your Ryujis, your Yusukes. Extreme Chaos are those who want to tear everything down because they can't do something; Your Akechis, your Adachis, your Shos.

(yes, I know I just used all Persona examples, but it's what I'm most familiar with.)
 
RadiantPhoenix said:
EDIT: the kinder, gentler Chaos endings
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay, for some of the worst Chaos endings, I could have understood you.

But like... SMT2? Strange Journey Redux? Hell, SMTV ends with trying to allow for many different deities and faith - and there, yes, conflict breaks out, because the conflict in chaos is a result of people with different ideologies clashing with each other. The violence is secondary, the point is the freedom to choose.

This is not Warhammer 40k.
 
RadiantPhoenix said:
I think that "the solution to our problems is to punch the bad guys in the face, and anything that stops us from punching the bad guys in the face is also bad" is a common philosophy that people hold to, and I think it aligns well with what I've seen of Chaos factions/endings.

EDIT: the kinder, gentler Chaos endings
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No thats neutral where you kill everyone who's doing insane stuff until only sensible people are alive.
 
Xanah said:
let me rephrase;

Moderate Chaos is the kind of person who goes through life not caring what other people think of them, your Anns, your Ryujis, your Yusukes. Extreme Chaos are those who want to tear everything down because they can't do something; Your Akechis, your Adachis, your Shos.

(yes, I know I just used all Persona examples, but it's what I'm most familiar with.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ahhh, to pull from the meme - the Moderate Chaos Neutral Hero is none other than Featuring Dante from Devil May Cry
 
It sounds like we have some very different interpretations of what Order and Chaos mean, so I think it would definitely be nice to have some author-given examples of concrete scenarios and what the different-alignment characters might say about them.

EDIT: And I think "what does this-alignment Annette have to say about the bullying situation" is a nice example to use.

Who/what do they blame, what solutions do they offer, how do they comfort Taylor about it, etc.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top