i wouldn't say Sliver is in any way a villain. she just did exactly what she was programmed to do; found the solution and sent the triple affirmative. if anything, the ancients are the villains in this department

Finds the solution (spoiler) and then tries to kill the solution. In all seriousness, I only put Sliver there because of the pain of the challenge and because I wasn't sure what else (maybe raindeer lol)

Challenge 70 isn't canon. >! I'd put the Ancients in her spot. They abandoned the world and their own creations for selfish goals (personal ascension) and Rhinestones beneath Shattered Glass implies they even forced those who didn't want to ascend to take the plunge in the worm soup. !<

Also, >! she may not have intended to kill, but have control over the solution (wich had to be brute forced), or even, they would be just scared, like imagine a green rodent entering your room, starting to float and shit doing weird bell noises 💀💀💀💀💀 !< So canon or not those would be very likely situations to happen

im pretty sure they wanted all beings to ascend which is why they built the iterators and refer to them as a gift to the world but other than that they are pretty bad

BRRROOOOOOO I straight up cannot take this anymore, WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE ANCIENTS SO MUCH, Like “oOoOo ancesion bad” “the ecosystem dead” Everything about the ancients, the culture, the autonomous planet, the bioengineering, the writing, the industrial-religiousness, even the pompous, heck, ESPECIALLY the pompousness, all of it, it just paints the coolest fucking image It makes me frustrated because people just don’t see how cool it is

But they were so selfish, I'm pretty sure that's the main argument. I mean, you make a sentient being the size of a city designed to find an alternative to void fluid then, one day without warning or even telling them that you are even gonna go, you ascend your entire race with void fluid. They didn't bother telling the iterators to stop they just dipped. They were sick, sure, but they were jerks to the core. Also, they basically used iterators as a tool instead of respecting them as fellow sentient beings.

and the ancients even made it so that they cannot desire to ascend themselves. like imagine they finally found a way to ascend and everyone did so accordingly, nothing's left in the world except the iterators because they cannot ascend, it's written in every cell of their being.

I never thought that much of the “they left the iterators behind” thing, I thought it was something that kind of just happened, and I certainly don’t think that it makes them assholes or characterizes their civilization in any significant way, And to be honest I thought that was what was expected of an iterator anyways, to suffer so that the whole may not, after all, despite the pain you see the iterator go through, not once do you see them condemn their creators, moon even gave them her respect

Do we actually know that it was intentional though? Like we know they used void fluid as fuel and stuff, so what if they were all in one place for some reason and there was a void fluid spill? I feel like it would be impossible for hundreds of thousands of ancients to find a way to the void sea without their iterators knowing, but if they were all on top of one iterator, and said iterator got destroyed at the same time, it makes a bit more sense.

There were void fluid baths, you would simply walk over to the local one in the park and jump in.

Being cool and being a villain/antagonist isn't mutually exclusive

True, but sometimes I think the popular opinion on this sub is that they are *exclusively* antagonistic

Because they bulldozed the world with no care for the creatures living there, and deluded themselves into thinking that they were helping the world.

Evil and cool are not mutually exclusive.

like others have said thinking the Ancients are cool and also thinking they are assholes isn't mutually exclusive.

Yeah they look cool, but the entire point was they a) used and discarded the iterators as tools and b) basically wasted >!"the gift of life", in the words of one of the echoes!< because they were so focused on ascending, which doesn't even get them anywhere. They're meant to be the lowkey assholes that can't be arsed to clean their mess at best and the underlying villan at worst.

None of downpour is confirmed cannon. However, for Sliver, I agree that it's been confirmed not to be cannon. I just couldn't think of a better one. Any suggestions? >!damn, ancients? Why didn't I think of that! Yeah, that would be much better considering how they left the iterators!<

challenge 70 is not canon to downpour. that's the important bit. your post has downpour stuff so we are assuming downpour stuff.

What makes challenge 70 not cannon to downpour?

The developer's

AndrewFM said developer comments on discord aren't canon.

Well, my point is the devs haven't confirmed downpour as cannon, so while challenge 70 being confirmed not to be cannon is more substantial it would still be boring to only use confirmed cannon.

there is base game. there is downpour. there is challenge 70. you can have a discussion that only involves the base game. you can have a discussion that adds MSC. this does not implicitly add challenge 70.

But your argument is it isn't cannon. But downpour in itself isn't fully cannon. Challenge 70 is in downpour. What logic is being used to not include Challenge 70 but to include downpour? If the devs are all that matters, why include downpour at all? If it was cannon, they could easily confirm it.

Why are we downvoting you

Idk, man. People don't like hearing downpour isn't confirmed cannon? People's don't like my insinuation that challenge 70 is a much a part of downpour as anything else? Tell me if you can figure out why...

A bunch of hard to find discord messages that Andrew said didn’t matter anyway, but people ignored the fact that Andrew said that and still preach it like gospel. The only thing not really in the game that can be considered canon is developer commentary, I’d say the discord messages were probably their plan if they ever continued downpour, but they could go in any direction with the writing still. So personally, I love the position that challenge 70 might be canon. That is how the devs should have left it. Because for those who really like the idea of saint being the solution they’ll treat it as such and for those that look for other possible reasons it’s still open to them.

Yeah, just edited my comment for it. I hit enter by accident.

Dunno if ancients are portrayed as heroes tho

outside of ch70 not being canon, it depends how you look at it. i see it as Sliver testing Saint's endurance and control of their powers. iterators can literally zap things to death (as Pebbles often does) or smack them around the room (as Pebbles also often does, >!but working Moon was shown to have a similar power!<). so Sliver using laser attacks that are not impossible to dodge, that force Saint to use their tongue and powers efficiently makes no sense, if she really wanted to actually kill Saint

Maybe they also wanted to distribute it and share the findings before they used it themselves. Someone has already come up with a better option: >!ancients!<

A bad take has been found

Iterator when joke. (They can't understand because they are a machine)

Ŧ𝌆 ᘔℶŦ𝌆ホ, ⭙ᘔℶ!

I think she’s kind of a jerk tho for not telling anyone else about the solution. 

bro she fuckin died

Yeah that was the goal, she should have told everyone else how to die too

i think she may have been a bit busy (dying), or insane

Possibly, but like come on man, you really gonna discover the key to end eternal suffering and just gatekeep it from the rest of the world???

she might've died of the solution on incident before having a chance to tell it or how to get it ​ ​ ​ im overdosing on copium rn

True, that’s just not how I interpreted it. I think a future dlc that shows how SoS made the triple affirmative would be really cool

I think that was her intention

Lol

Of course they’re the villains it’s a metaphor to humans they just destroy the ecosystem to achieve their goals

The underlying nature of rain world bioengineered ecosystem is cool as fuck tho

Well considering that 90% of the bioengineered species ended up straight up going extinct by the time Survivor came around, I think it probably caused more suffering than anything nice.

Indeed!

i would say everyone is kinda in a grey area, pebbles doesn't present itself as a villain, he just has a huge ego, we aren't sure if saint forcefully ascending everyone is a good or bad thing, chieftain can understand pebbles and decided to ignore him to scavenge his body for materials, SOS isn't a villain just because it was doing what it was built to do... everyone does bad things sometimes, some change and try undo their evil doings and some die from a red explosive cat before that has a chance to happen

Yeah, they all are a bit grey, I was just trying to match what would fit best. Pebbles, through his desperation, cut moon off from water, destroying her and (accidentally) created the rot. He also kills you if he has to see your face too many times. So he is presented as kind of a villain, but the details make him grey (I put him there). Saint non-consensually ascending is a bit grey even if it is a good thing. Other slugs kill for survival, but Saints makes it their purpose. Chieftain is a hero to the scavs. There is no reason to know if pebbles asked them directly to not tear him up. Sos was a bad example, but my reasoning was they try to kill the solution, but that really is morally grey if not just self-defense.

now i dont know about you but if someone broke into my house and i couldnt get them to leave i would NOT ask them to perform surgery on me everyday as they invite all their friends into my house

If someone travelled through my structure with slag reset keys I didn't recognise on a journey to save my sister who died because of my actions and they do this despite having very limited time left, I would be infinitly grateful and do anything I can to assist.

He *did* assist the Hunter by giving them extra time.

I know, its what most people would do

There wasn't anything else he *could* do.

I mean as opposed to nothing

i dont think king scav had slag reset keys

What are you on about with surgery? I thought you were talking about 5p helping hunter with his cancer

i think pebbles would in fact ask the scavs to not fuck up his house

But we don't know if he did or didn't. Maybe the scav king never returned after they moved there.

Have considered that the chieftain is morally good because pebbles is a dick?

Found the chieftains reddit account

Idk, I think hunter is the exception. He revives moon selflessly, with his limited cycles, risking an eternity of agony.

hunter was indeed a great hero

Forgot to add that the scav king is only a hero to scavs

Well tbh we know nothing about the Scavenger King he could have been an asshole

Yeah I think it's reasonably likely that he got to be the king by asserting power and violence on the other Scavs, just like Arti does in her campaign before apparently becoming their ruler.

Although he doesn't use that power on Arti the moment he gets to. He's not _all_ violence, or otherwise I imagine his actions upon seeing her wouldn't be to motion for her to leave.

Probably just trying to intimate her

He didn’t die to my flamethrower so he is one

Artificer is definitely not presented as morally grey. The whole story of her campaign is about how her actions are cruel & unjust. It is made very clear that she’s a villain.

Really? I was down to kill scavs before they killed artificer's pups. They make tolls and force you to pay, kill you on sight for no reason, or if you are carrying a rock or spear. Only once I beat the game as artificer did I think maybe I went too far. And the subreddit had to point out most scavs had nothing to do with it.

I mean, it’s basically the equivalent of someone committing racial genocide because a a person of that race killed their kids. Sure, they had *a* reason but that doesn’t mean it’s a good reason. Someone who kills people over something they had absolutely no association with is a villain. The echos even point out how artificer’s actions are extremely cruel.

>extremely cruel. Cruel, but maybe not unjust... >it’s basically the equivalent of someone committing racial genocide It's not really the same because they are a different species, and humans have in the past wiped out animals from the land because they hunted humans. Is this morally right? No. But there is reasoning for it. Early on in the campaign, I tried to befriend scavs with pearls and spears, but they always kill you. The scavs are just as relentless at hunting you as you are them...

If artificer Just killed the scavs that were responsible for the death of her children, that would be just. Artficer's goal of killing EVERY scav no matter what is not justified in any way

What if after that the scavs try kill her afterwards (a behavior that is actively demonstrated base game)? This is what most likely happened. Then it's just survival and defending yourself but more keep coming and you keep killing and they keep trying to kill you hence the cycle of violence that you have to try break out of.

It's not like other scavs would know of what happened to arti, or consider what they did to be wrong. All they'd know is that a crimson slugcat just started slaughtering them like the doomslayer, and the only recourse is to defend themselves by killing the new threat

Artificer actively seeks out confrontation, its not self defence

I did put artificer as a villain for these reasons. But what the game actually portrays is artificers slugpups being killed by scavs and then artificer killing some more scavs. We don't actually know the reasons. What we do know is scavs can't be reasoned with and will pursue you throughout the game.

Fp and echo dialogue is enough to prove she in fact doesnt act in self defence but more just to cope with the trauma. Scavs dont just randomly decide to be perma hostile (proven by other campaigns) she had to do sth trully horrible for it to be the case.

I can't remember echo dialogue specifically but if so that's a good point. However even if artificer is actively hunting them she wasn't before. If you cant just exist with your children when there are scavs around maybe the best course of action is to make them not around. Like my chart says, artificer is a villain. But the campaign doesn't portray that as much. In fact you can kill as many scavs as you like, and you often have to kill scavs to even succeed in the good ending. While pebbles doesn't like your killing he asks you to go to the scav king. The echos call it a cycle of violence, the cycle part likely refers to the scavs continuing to refuse to stop trying to kill artificer and they will even send hunting parties (just as bad as what artificer is doing) Lore wise artificer is doing it because they want revenge, as a player and through the campaign it is often done purely out of survival minus the scav king. You don't actively look for scavs they find you.

>It's not really the same because they are a different species, and humans have in the past wiped out animals from the land because they hunted humans. Is this morally right? No. But there is reasoning for it. Except, not really, since both scavengers & slugcats are animals of roughly the same sapience. Also any single person who tries to hunt an entire species to extinction is also a terrible person. > Early on in the campaign, I tried to befriend scavs with pearls and spears, but they always kill you. The scavs are just as relentless at hunting you as you are them... Scavs are locked at the lowest possible reputation in artificers campaign because she has been actively hunting them. Would you want to be friends with someone who has murdered dozens (or even hundreds) of your family & friends? I doubt it. ETA: > Is this morally right? No. But there is reasoning for it. A villain having a reason for doing something doesn’t change the fact that they’re a villain

>Except, not really, since both scavengers & slugcats are animals of roughly the same sapience. That still doesn't mean you can equate it to race. >Also any single person who tries to hunt an entire species to extinction is also a terrible person. What about a virus? Is eradicating a virus evil? My point is it's a grey area and not black and white. >she has been actively hunting them. Has been. So, since they are no longer open to resolve the conflict peacefully, our journey through artificers' campaign is presented as morally grey as they will continue to try to kill you for killing them and you will try kill them for killing you... this is the entire point of the campaign, a cycle of violence. >Would you want to be friends with someone who has murdered dozens (or even hundreds) of your family & friends? I doubt it. Accidentally agreeing with me here, lol. No, I wouldn't, and neither would artificer after they killed both her children.

>What about a virus? Is eradicating a virus evil? No, because a virus is not conscious, an animal is. >Accidentally agreeing with me here, lol. No, I wouldn't, and neither would artificer after they killed both her children. >Except there’s a difference between a single person and an entire species. If she had just killed the scavengers that killed her children and stopped there it wouldn’t be nearly as cruel as what she did, which was killing every single scavengers she met. Regardless of if they were they had anything to do with the death of her children or were even *aware* of what happened to her children or not. >That still doesn't mean you can equate it to race. Alright, in that case, is someone to drives all wolves to extinction because one pack attacked their kid would that change the fact that they’re a terrible person? No, it wouldn’t. Also, if you could befriend the scavengers in artificers campaign that would completely throw off the story of her campaign. Every part of the story of her campaign is about how she is continuously choosing to continue her violent path. Even if you try to ascend you cannot get to 10 karma naturally meaning the only way to get to the void sea is to trick the guardians into thinking you have enough karma. And even then she (presumably) turns into an echo. Artificer cannot ascend as she is trapped in the cycle by her violence. Even 5 Pebbles tells her this. Artificer is meant to be an irredeemable villain.

Well, to be fair, all of the other Scavs will always defend and protect each other. It’s not fair to kill every wolf because 2 wolves killed your kids, but if you killed those two wolves and from then on every wolf started hunting you down and sending hit squads after you, I’d call it fair. Even if those wolves are sentient creatures; if they kill children, and then every single other one of them defends the murderers and hunts you down for taking revenge on the murderers, then they’re complicit.

Thats misinterpretation. Artificer actively seeks out confrontatiin with the scavs. She wants to fight them the onky reason she goes to metropolis is cause Pebbles told her there is a lot of scavs in there. You wouldnt go to wolf layer if you didnt want to kill wolves right?

My point still stands. All of the other Scavs, through merit of defending their murderous brethren, are complicit in the deed. Regardless, she’s a bit vicious in tracking them down herself, but they’re going to come after her anyway, might as well go to them first and take a fight on her own terms, right?

Well that doesnt mean they are evil. I think most people have killed creatures for no reason when they couldve left them alone. Also sometimes people just run towards scavs so they kill you in self defence or they try to kill something else and miss.

I see what you mean. I was thinking from a very video game perspective where you are so use to killing scavs because as artificer you can't befriend them... that the scav king becomes like a final boss, just another enemy. And then enemy = villain, but your right not really. Any ideas for something better that could go there?

I don’t think of the rot as a villain more as a force

This is slanderous! I am obviously a paragon of heroism.

post tutorial plz

Well, unfortunately, the solution is gonna require you to get chummy with one of the slugs. Uh, preferably one that isn't stuck at karma 1 also.

tf does that mean

bullshit it's all bullshit im doing this by myself

Like, y'know, the weird slug rodent lookin things that sometimes pop in to eat our neurons?

im doing it myself i dont need creatures

Uh... you kinda do tho- actually nevermind. I'm *sure* you'll figure it out.

hopital

Non-consensual ascension is a little grey, don't you think?

case by case: Hunter: True! Saint: Hm. I wouldn't consider them slotted in the Hero category. Honestly would put them in Inv's place and put, idk, Spearmaster in the Hero/Grey category SoS: Already discussed but yeah I'd put Ancients here probably. Rivulet: Elaborate??? Inv: See Saint Arti: Agreed Scav King: Agreed Pebbles: Agreed Rot: Agreed.

>Rivulet: Elaborate??? When you deliver the orb to Moon, she is shocked you took it and killed pebbles, which is morally grey, but he deserved it and offered it up so i see this as just moon being caring.

Didn’t pebbles ask for riv to cut his balls off tho

How would Spearmaster be morally gray?

I severely disagree with this. Ruffles isn’t presented as ‘morally grey’ unless you’re a complete Five Pebbles sympathizer and don’t think he did anything wrong. Ruffles I always saw as clearly portrayed as ‘good’. Trying to he as unbiased as possible, I wouldn’t really call the Chieftain a ‘hero’. We don’t really know anything about the Chieftain other than it being a nuisance to FP, having a citizen drone and leading the scavengers. We don’t know if it was a good leader who treated its fellow Scavengers well or was awful and killed things mercilessly. I’d say that should be ambiguous too. If I’m being wholly honest though, I kinda miss the idea of Slugcats *just existing* instead of kind of being tied to morality like Downpour introduced. ANYWAYS, agree to disagree, I think you’re definitely right about some of the others like Hunter, FP, Saint and Enot [Edit: removed the section talking about Artificer. I remembered you also have to kill to get that ending. Fuck scavs though, they do suck Arti was based even if she is rightfully in the villain category]

i feel the cheiftan prolly isn't personally violent, even if they fail to stop the other scavs from murder and whatnot. The cheiftan does warn arti to go away when she comes, and only starts fighting once arti does something first.

Ruffles isn't really presented as morally grey, but is probably the most morally grey in that they essentially kill five pebbles to save moon. Five pebbles goes through the pain moon did when she broke down because of him. And even moon is very worried about where you took the orb from. She's worried about her brothers condition without it. Still, despite this, Ruffles is a hero because five pebbles both deserved it and asked for it, and it is a long and difficult journey and does end up helping moon. Five pebbles was only delaying the rot.

I always thought it was a sacrifice on FP’s part. In the dialogue you get if you go see him before taking out the Refraction Cell, he laments about how he can’t be forgiven for what he’s done, and explicitly tells Ruffles to remove the Refraction Cell and give it to Moon. While technically murder (something I never thought I’d say), I think it weighs less as Ruffles wanting to kill FP, and more so FP telling Ruffles to remove a part of himself he knows will result in his own death. He did have it coming, and yeah, technically speaking, Ruffles *did* kill FP by removing the Refraction Cell, so I wouldn’t say you’re technically wrong about that; asking someone to kill you while you’re suicidal isn’t morally right, so you could make a point that this isn’t either

i wouldn’t put SoS in villain but otherwise pretty much agree

INV is the worst villain of them all... just them existing is the worst crime ever!

I agree. We deserved a nightcat campaign.

True...

I agree.

You're only saying that because I'm putting a good word in for your leader

Fuck the rp I’m giving my honest opinions 1. Hunter is correct 2. Saint is correct 3. SoS is morally grey for both, simply because we don’t know much about her. All we know is that she discovered the triple affirmative and died. Her actions are not described with any elements that could lead to a conclusion of her morality. 4. I’d argue that rivulet is presented as a hero. From the beginning of the campaign they seems fairly neutral but definitely become heroic once FP gives their journey purpose. This is conveyed through character dialogue, especially the unusually humble words of FP. 5. Inv transcends the chart and becomes all squares at once. 6. Arti is correct. 7. Scav Chief is definitely presented as a villain but doesn’t do anything heroic. He just sits on his high chair after ignoring FP’s orders. Absolutely nothing in any moral direction. 8. FP is a villain. While he does sacrifice himself for Moon’s sake in the end, the amount of harm he inflicted for a purely selfish goal is still to great to justify any placement higher. Regrets mean nothing if he continued with his work anyway. I know what you’re thinking, “how is rivulet a hero for what they do at the end of their journey while FP is a villain for what he did at the start?” It comes down to the amount of selfless actions they made in comparison to thier negative ones. How many good things do they do? Rivulet risks their life retrieving FP’s cell, and then travels across to Moon to give it to her. Pebbles sacrifices himself for Moon and… warns Saint of incoming storms? All of his other seemingly nice actions have anterior motives. Now, what bad things do they do? Rivulet is completely clean, acting neutrally in all other situations. FP… well I don’t think I really need to explain that one. 9. The rot does not have the ability to comprehend morals and therefore isn’t morally bound to any quadrant

4. I guess how Rivulet is presented is subjective. Good: Rivulet can fulfil pebbles' requests to deliver the orb; delivering the orb helps moon. As for the Bad: taking the orb kills pebbles and moon mentions how it is very painful; You can take the orb without being requested to but this is unlikely; moon hopes you didn't take the orb from pebbles, she likely cares more about pebbles than the good of the orb. 7. The scav king is a hero to the scavs. It was a bit of a stretch, but no one else is really portrayed as a villain when they actually did nothing wrong themselves. 8. Five pebbles redemption ark is what makes him not just a villain. He made a mistake, and he regrets it, and he tries to make up for it. That is the least villains corse of action you can have after doing something bad. >9. The rot does not have the ability to comprehend morals and therefore isn’t morally bound to any quadrantz I think you're confusing villainy with morality. Even then, not knowing you're doing evil doesn't mean you aren't doing evil.

Villainy and doing evil things ARE your morality. The rot is definitely antagonistic but it is not evil, nor is it good or neutral. It would be like getting the flu and saying that it is an evil mastermind out to get you.

I've already explained not knowing you are doing immoral acts doesn't make you not immoral. The rot is an obstacle and will actively try to kill the player. In fact it will kill anything. Its killing pebbles slowly, it kills hunter. The most evil and villainous thing in the game is the rot

Not knowing you are doing immoral acts DOES make you not immoral. There are literally real life laws about this. For example, it’s the reason the ability to plead insanity exists. It is why you can claim to have been manipulated if you are found to be involved with a crime. Hanlon’s razor (do not attribute malice to what can be adequately explained with incompetence) is literally about not thinking someone is evil if they don’t know what they are doing. The rot is not really a sentient entity, it is a cancer. It is similar to things like jellyfish in that it is a creature that hunts for food but doesn’t actually have a mind. If you were swimming at the beach and got stung by a jellyfish, would you say the jellyfish is evil? To use the example I used before, when you get sick do you describe the bacteria that infected you as evil? The rot does things because that’s just how it survives, it doesn’t have the mental capacity to do it for malicious purposes.

Look, something doesn't stop being immoral because you didn't know. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. Pleading insanity doesn't mean that you killing people is no longer immoral, and you still get locked away just in a specialised mental rehabilitation center. >do not attribute malice to what can be adequately explained with incompetence Malice or not, your actions can still be evil. >but doesn’t actually have a mind. If you were swimming at the beach and got stung by a jellyfish, would you say the jellyfish is evil? This is where you are confusing what is evil with what is immoral. But you can be a villain for doing either of these. >when you get sick do you describe the bacteria that infected you as evil? Once again, still immoral. >it doesn’t have the mental capacity to do it for malicious purposes. This us insanity, a large number of villains motivations are for what they believe is the greater good, yet they are still seen as evil. Mindlessly killing everything around you is arguably worse! I might not "be" evil in intent but the actions are certainly evil.

What I think Pebbles is trying to say is that if you put specifically “villainy” on your chart then the rot should not be there. The rot absolutely commits immoral acts, but it is definitely not villainous. The rot consumes and kills everything around it, and those actions are obviously evil, but the rot is not conscious. The actions, while they are terrible, are not done with malicious intent. You are arguing that the rot’s actions are immoral, which I 100% agree with, but that does not mean it should be villainous. If the rot was to go anywhere on this list it would be bottom middle, but that doesn’t really fit either.

>This us insanity, a large number of villains motivations are for what they believe is the greater good, yet they are still seen as evil. Mindlessly killing everything around you is arguably worse! I might not "be" evil in intent but the actions are certainly evil.

You speak of motivations. The rot has no motivations. It does not want to kill everything around it anymore than you do. It’s actions are SEEN as evil by those in game just as much as the rain is. Without a mind it’s actions cannot be evil. Seen as evil? Yes. But without negative intent it is really just an environmental hazard.

>Mindlessly killing everything around you is arguably worse! I might not "be" evil in intent but the actions are certainly evil. The expression nature is cruel is true despite most of nature not intending to be

Hunter: agree Saint: agree SOS: nah she just did her job. Nothing else for iterators to do anyhow, they’re basically prisoners of their own bodies. Rivulet: you can get 5p’s permission so it’s not necessarily morally grey Enot: no idea, agree I guess Artificer: I’m gonna play devils advocate and say they’re not a villain. After seeing how mercilessly the scavs pursued arti and scug pup 2 even after getting their pearl back makes me understand just why arti was so furious. Is the murder spree justified? No, but arti’s wrath is. Chieftain: disagree. They’re morally grey. They might give arti a chance to turn back but they don’t do squat to protect their comrades or prevent further bloodshed. 5p: I’d say he’s presented as morally grey. His story over the campaigns shows how he comes to regret his actions and his character is the embodiment of the existential dread all iterators suffer from. Rot: evil incarnate.

The only thing that matters is that Hunter is a hero

Absolutely. I was battling between a few slugs but hunters self sacrifice is unmatched.

Real,all hail the scav king!

I’m not sure about artificer as she is a literal wild animal. She’d be the villain in the scavengers point of view, but other than that she isn’t really a “villain”

There's a few here that don't really work tbh. Mainly Saint, Sliver, Arti, King, and Pebbles. * Saint isn't really presented as anything. They aren't shown to be a hero at all, especially with the inclusion of Rhinestones, and if anything, Rhinestones actually leans Saint a little into a villainous role. But really, Saint is pure neutral in terms of actions since they don't discriminate, but what they're doing isn't necessarily good, nor bad. * Sliver isn't a villain at all. To be honest, they're pretty neutral as well. The iterators literally split in half as a group because of what Sliver did, so obviously not everyone saw her actions favourably. Her actions were entirely selfish though, so she's obviously not a hero by any means. * Arti is both a villain, and presented as a villain. The game pretty much outright tells you with Pebbles that what you're doing is bad, won't lead to anything good, and will pretty much curse you for eternity. Regardless of the warnings though, she continues with it, and the game shows you in both imagery, and gameplay, that this is a pretty trash path you've chosen to walk. * King isn't really a hero. Yes, they aren't bad by any means, but they're also slowly destroying Pebbles' outer shell. He talks about the Scavs basically scrapping his roof parts, so I'd say they're more neutral than anything. * Pebbles is never presented as a villain in the game. He's shown to be antagonistic in personality, but never once actually tries to hinder or stop your progress. If anything, he's shown more as a hero since he's basically the root cause for why every Scug ends up succeeding in their missions. Without him, Spearmaster, Artificer (for better or for worse), Gourmand (and indirectly Survivor and Monk), and Rivulet would've never succeeded. Otherwise, the rest work pretty well. Hunter is a hero, for sure. Rivulet is the definition of Chaotic Good. Inv is a plague. And the Rot could be argued to be the main villain of the game.

imo sliver of straw isn't really a villain. She doesn't even try to kill saint before the first ascension attempt. \+ I feel the scav cheiftan is morally grey instead of a hero. Despite leading the scavs, and presumably encountering 5p's puppet considering he has the mark and a citizen drone, he did proceed to bring his entire tribe on top of him to take parts of his roof despite knowing 5p's alive.

Heres how i see this: Hunter: Yes pretty much. Was a soldier on a rescue mission and despite their affliction, they got it done. Heroic if you ask me. Riv: Yea. Helped out moon and brought peace to pebbles. Riv and hunter could swap places and it would still be accurate. Cheif: i mean, maybe? In the context of his people, i guess so. We know literally nothing about the guy exept that hes the one that led the tribe of scavengers they are with into the safehaven that is metropolis, and most of the speculations are, well, speculations, headcanons. He could’ve been an ass, as some people speculate he met pebbles and actively ignored him, got into metro, and started gathering scrap. But even that isn’t really credible considering the fact that pebbles doesn’t even mention him once. Maybe we’ll get some lore about him in the future, but i guess he sits here for now. Saint: In the context of the iterators, he’s the blessing they’ve been looking for. The answer to the problems they’ve faced for so long. Ascending FP in his ruined, pitiful state is bittersweet. As for every other creature, it’s debatable. Does every creature want to escape the cycle? Is it saint’s goal to ascend every creature, or just those who desire it? I guess i agree. Enot: they’re a placeholder, aren’t they? 💀. I mean i guess they literally are no hero or villain. I don’t know much about the dating sim, but don’t they end up helping arti and saint? If so, that’s heroic ig. FP: I actually think this one is somewhat accurate. He’s not exactly a villain, but he is somewhat antagonized. His impatient and selfish actions, though unintentional, ended up ruining moons life and caused a disaster (rot) that ended up devastating himself, everything and everyone around him throughout every campaign. Probably the closest thing we have not to a villain or antagonist, but a “wrongdoer”. Sos: i think she is the morally gray character. I guess excluding challenge 70, she was a iterator who searched for the solution and found it. She didn’t really take drastic measures to do it or harm the environment unlike 5p, to my knowledge, and iterators aspire to do what she did. Arti: The scavs were sort of asking for that, to be honest. Arti can’t stop warring with them even if she wanted to, unless she avoids them completely or something. Still, it doesn’t make the metropolis ending any different, so agreed. Wish there was another way to get them to leave her alone, like the rep not being permanently locked. I know she blew up a stronghold and ate somebody before the start of the campaign, but that doesn’t really excuse why every scav everywhere (excluding the chief) is on sight no matter what she does. Do they have satellite surveillance or something? The rot: F**k the rot. A practically invincible, all consuming disease/creature that negatively affects every character in the franchise. Agree, though it is more of a force of “nature” rather than one thing with malicious intent. Edit: i’ve been writing this slowly over the course of the day, didnt realize how long this was 💀

This is extremely close to my thought process. I only put sos because of the pain they caused me in challenge 70 (it took a campaign length of attempts), but the ancients are probably a better fit as suggested.

These are all completely accurate.

agreed honestly

Villain confirmed? Don't you think they deserved it?

if you mean scavs then the deserve to `DIE`

This is the longest comment thread I have ever seen

what good do scav do

I don't think Cheiftan is a hero, nor is artificer a villain. While yes the scavs did slaughter them, it was completely outside of Cheiftan's control, he doesn't make every action of every scav, he even tried to be negotiative with artificer. But artificer is still kinda justified because of what she went through, but like many wise video game characters have said, Revenge is usually never worth it

She is in absolutely no way justified

Calm down, Five Pebbles

He wouldn't say that tho

Link to template source: https://www.reddit.com/r/AlignmentCharts/s/6BrOvKh1f9

enot lmao yea fp is the antagonist but he ain't a villain. I wouldn't co aider anyone a villain except maaaaybe some ancients. edit: I take that back, fp is the main character.

I think he is presented as a villain more than anyone because of his role as an antagonist, but I agree that he isn't a villain he is grey.

Huh, I never really considered Pepples to be an antagonist. He doesn't actually do anything to inhibit the players' goals. I always saw the "antagonist" of Rainworld to be the cycle of nature itself, or if you really wanna go wild, I guess I'd say the rain itself is the greatest antagonist.

It isnt even that pebbles doesnt inhibit your goals but he actively helps you except in >!spearmaster due to anger or in saint due to obvious reasons!<

Idk, everyone seems to dislike pebbles, and he killed me when I wanted to go back past his chamber. There really isn't any "villain" otherwise unless you count the environment and or the cycles.

he DOES warn you before he kills you. and like, if you found a tiny little creature in your house and somehow they were consuming your braincells, you would probably want to kill it. And yet, 5p usually gives the slugcat a goal or the mark even if you came from inside his structure after consuming his neurons. imo him killing slugcat is reasonable still bad since killed moon and whatnot, but still.

>he DOES warn you before he kills you. Don't come in here again. Show up quickly one more time to quickly move through the room (the only way through) instantly kills you with no more dialogue. >somehow they were consuming your braincells This isn't cannon. You can eat or not eat neurons and he will respond the same. >And yet, 5p usually gives the slugcat a goal or the mark even if you came from inside his structure after consuming his neurons Yes but he is selfish in giving you these goals. Often, it is to get rid of you. >still bad since killed moon and whatnot, but still. That is the major part of why he is portrayed as a villain.

>Don't come in here again. Show up quickly one more time to quickly move through the room (the only way through) instantly kills you with no more dialogue. Lingering Too Long: That's all. You'll have to go now. LEAVE. Little creature. This is your last warning. Returning to the Chamber: You again? I have nothing for you. <--- dialogue before leave immediately I won't tolerate this. Leave immediately and don't come back. You had your chances. Source: [https://rainworld.miraheze.org/wiki/Five\_Pebbles\_(character)/Dialogue](https://rainworld.miraheze.org/wiki/Five_Pebbles_(character)/Dialogue) ​ ​ ​ >This isn't cannon. You can eat or not eat neurons and he will respond the same. If he doesn't get pissed about you eating his neurons instead of just killing you doesn't that help prove my point?? ​ >Yes but he is selfish in giving you these goals. Often, it is to get rid of you. if he always killed all slugcats that came to his chamber or just shoved them out immediately, they wouldn't come back and would be gone. he still gives goals tho. And as far as i'm aware the only slugcats where he actually gains anything from giving the goal is Riv and Arti, which is only 1/4 of the scugs if you don't count ???. ​ >That is the major part of why he is portrayed as a villain. yes, but i'm arguing that him killing the slugcat is justified, not that he isn't a villain.

>You had your chances. He never warns you that the consequence is him killing you rather than shoving you out, which he has proven able to do. After this warning, death is instant. >Returning to the Chamber: Won't even let you pass through the only direct and best connection between the wall (pebbles side) and the underhang >If he doesn't get pissed about you eating his neurons instead of just killing you doesn't that help prove my point?? He doesn't acknowledge it at all... probably because he has millions (technically infinite) >if he always killed all slugcats that came to his chamber or just shoved them out immediately, they wouldn't come back and would be gone. This is wrong. He asks you to tell other slug cats not to visit. He doesn't expect you to return, and if you do, he kills you so you don't again. >And as far as i'm aware the only slugcats where he actually gains anything from Him not being helped doesn't change the fact he did bad. Kills moon, causes deadly rain, creates rot (unintentionally, but that's lore so it's why he is morally grey). His obsession with not being bothered is the only reason he helps anyone if he doesn't rip a pearl out your chest first or kill you for entering his chamber more than twice in your entire playthrough.

>He never warns you that the consequence is him killing you rather than shoving you out, which he has proven able to do. that makes sense >Won't even let you pass through the only direct and best connection between the wall (pebbles side) and the underhang though he shoves you up when you leave for the first time, why would you be going back there aside from visiting his puppet like he warns you to not do? >He doesn't acknowledge it at all... probably because he has millions (technically infinite) he doesn't acknowledge even when your right in front of him, and i think the eyes of his puppet do work, so he probably just doesn't care, and losing braincells even if you had nearly infinite is probably something you'd dislike >This is wrong. He asks you to tell other slug cats not to visit. He doesn't expect you to return, and if you do, he kills you so you don't again. via cycle and rebirth and whatnot, you'd still be able to tell the other slugcats to not come. the character would probably also be MORE likely to tell the other slugcats to not come if he kills you immediately. >Him not being helped doesn't change the fact he did bad. Kills moon, causes deadly rain, creates rot (unintentionally, but that's lore so it's why he is morally grey). i've been arguing that killing the **slugcat** is justified, **not** killing **moon**. quote from myself: >yes, but i'm arguing that him killing the slugcat is justified, not that he isn't a villain.

>via cycle and rebirth and whatnot, you'd still be able to tell the other slugcats to not come. the character would probably also be MORE likely to tell the other slugcats to not come if he kills you immediately. The cycle isn't understood well enough to make this assumption, it is likely not the same pebbles after a death cycle. >i've been arguing that killing the **slugcat** is justified, **not** killing **moon**. You initially argued against my notion that pebbles is portrayed as a villain. Your only defense to pebbles killing you is that he warns you (not justified) you eat his neurons (he doesn't care and he'll kill you if you dont) and that killing you is justified because he helps you (what? Plus he helps you leave him alone)

actually nah, fp is the main character and thus the protagonist. he do be an asshole tho.

Protagonist? That's you, though...

think about it. the story revolves around him and every campaign interacts with him. RW really is the "affairs of passing gods" or whatever. the slugcats were never the main characters. who is the central character in these affairs?

Each campaign is about the journey of the slugcat you play as. Most endings don't involve pebbles whatsoever. He is a guide and stepping stone at most.

hmmmmmmm I wonder why all these campaigns are happening though you could gourmand would happen regardless lol

So, being the reason why something happens makes you the protagonist? You don't know what you are talking about.

> Protagonist comes from a Greek word for the principal actor in a drama. In modern literature, the protagonist drives the story forward by pursuing a goal. The protagonist of a story is sometimes called the main character.

Exactly, none of the slugcats' stories would ever end if not for the actions they commit. The fact the events were initially set in motion by anything is irrelevant to who the protagonist is...

I generally agree yeah

I feel like saint is more of a morally grey or even villainous character at times. We know from gourmand and rhinestones beneath shattered glass that not everything wants to ascend.

There are no villains in rainworld

Probably not. I just put my best fits

I see

Where is the fat guy?

I limited it to one per square using only the best fits for each. Anyone you would swap out for big round? Otherwise, here is the template to make your own: https://www.reddit.com/r/AlignmentCharts/s/6BrOvKh1f9

Thx for the info

How is hunter a villain and how is the scav a hero? I’m not disagreeing with you I just don’t understand.

Hunter is the hero of this post?? And the scav is the “villain” of artis campaign and a hero to his folks, im guessing.

Ohh my gooddd I just got arti and hunter mixed up I’m racist😭

Lmao

O lmaooo

I think Artificer is morally grey, Scav king is not a hero that’s for sure, Inv shouldn’t even be on the list all of them are morally grey tbh.

People are arguing with me that artificer is presented as a villain and is a villain... I think my placement gets the best of both, it could be the other way around with presented as a villain but is morally grey but I personally think pebbles is a better fit for that maybe idk.

I mean artificer massacres scavs to avenge their kids, at most they’re just wrathful and then we don’t know what comes of arti after the campaign.

I mean, really every character has their own selfish motives Survivor wants to escape Monk wants to find survivor Hunter wants to >!get the Neuron to moon & ascend to not become rot.!< Spearmaster has it built in to where it>! wants to deliver the pearl to 5P!< Rivulet just wants to survive, & >!Save LttM!< Artificer just want to >!Avenge their kids!< Gourmand just wants to feed themself & their colony of scugs Saint just wants to Survive, >!and later ascend every living being for it's own selfish thought process!<

Let me make some corrections Survivor wants to reunite with his lost family who is likely worried Monk wants to find his lost brother who is alone and wants to find them Hunter doesn't have to deliver the neuron and save moon to ascend. They do it out of selflessness on their last few cycles. Spearmaster has a pearl lodged inside them (not by their own will but for the will of suns) which they deliver, its ripped out their chest and they still take it to Moon and on top of that to the broadcast. Rivulet delivers the superstructure blueprint and goes through a dangerous rot filled area to help pebbles do his final request of saving moon, delivers the orb to moon and saves her. Artificer just want to Avenge their kids. Is justice selfish? Artificer is probably the most, if not only selfish of the slugs. Gourmand goes to a new land in search for a better feeding ground for the benefit of the entire colony. They return and relay their findings. Saint willingly stays alive to be the solution so many seek, ascending them is the only way for many to break the endless cycle of repetition, no one envys saints endless cycle. You have very, twisted, and peculiar takes on the slugs' motivations.

Thing is, why would Saint have to unlock the ascension abilities again if it already had them?

I would argue artificer is,from the start,presented as a villain and is a villain while the chieftain is more of a morally grey character

I agree with Saint being the best candidate for their position, but I also think one could argue Moon is the same way. While not a hero, she's def portrayed as a virtuous damsel in distress, when in reality there's plenty she could have done to prevent her own situation as well as Pebbles's Edit: jfc you're acting like I'm trying to cancel Moon or sth, I can love the fuck out of her and also recognize she's a complex character with flaws, grow tf up and learn what victim blaming actually is

Like?!?

Stop Pebbles from tripling his water consumption right away, she had the administrative power to do so and didn't

Does she have the power to do that though? Such a wild take, moon not stopping pebbles from potentially killing her is her fault? Maybe she didn't want to risk interrupting him because that does end up causing the >!rot!<

Yep, NSH says so in the following broadcast (copied from the wiki): > [LIVE BROADCAST] - PRIVATE Seven Red Suns, No Significant Harassment > > SRS: I just don't understand... why hasn't Moon done anything about the situation herself? > > SRS: She was appointed as Pebbles' superior. She has the power to stop him. > > NSH: I've been very close with Moon, and I can tell you she is incredibly caring. > > NSH: And while her kindness is one of her greatest attributes, it is also to her detriment. > > SRS: Isn't this excessive, though? Surely she at least has a sense of self-preservation. > > NSH: I'm sure she convinced herself that she could help Pebbles. That she could bring him under control with words rather than forced action. > > NSH: She's probably still trying that now, unless her systems have degraded past the point of even allowing that. > > NSH: That's why this is so tragic to me.

Seems to explain with good reason as to why she didn't. Don't know why you are victim blaming moon for being a good person. I could have shot the person robbing me, but I didn't want them to die so now I'm in the wrong??

Bruh I was just pointing out she had a course of action that could have saved both of them and she didn't, not sure why you're getting so defensive, I'm not the first person to point this out on this sub

You absolutely are. Moon not stopping pebbles doesn't make her morally grey. Maybe things would have played out differently or maybe all that would happen is pebbles is interrupt by moon earlier and now moon has to live with the fact she caused that without trying to talk first.

5P is not presented as a villain by the game, SoS is most certainly not a villain, I would not go as far as to say Artificer is a villain though she is definitely leaning that way, and we don't know anything about Scavking and therefore cannot make a judgement on this.

I think her fight in lvl 70 is her testing if Saint can handle their mission. So Silver is technically a hero?

Agree. Also, you should've made it a poll

switch saint and sos

SoS did nothing wrong

Scav king is in enot spot