Esquestria: The House of the Sun - A pony cultist experience

[Sveta08]

-snip!

Click to shrink...

Ah! Thank you for the attempt. But! Just found it. Finally remembered how to spell cartographer and that led me right to it.

The Mirror Door!

Or maybe, directions are meaningless. And every last cartographer's efforts are simply a crude, primitive way of trying to situate themselves in relation to Glory. Perhaps, every last attempt at drawing a map, or setting a course, is just a filtered down attempt at understanding where the Glory is, and how far away or angled you are from its blinding light.

Click to shrink...

 

[DelightedOne]

Marker of how far she's fallen, more like.



Yes it matters. Eating something (or in this case, someone) that destroys people at least keeps the number of things destroying people the same. A fire lit carefully under specific parameters will cause far less damage than an uncontrolled wildfire. To say "it doesn't matter" is to excuse sloppiness, inefficiency, and surrendering better outcomes for mere convenience.

Click to shrink...

Yep. And besides that, Velvet only regularly has the capacity to help on the small scale while being able to harm on the larger scale(Regrettable Actions are tecnically always available with the gifts from the Wolf), it is rare for us to have an opportunity to influence things for the better for the World or a large group of ponies.

And considering the biggest positive impact she can make is by winning and stopping the Worm apocalypse... Yeah, Velvet's main issue remains the lack of power to do better and ours remains the lack of knowledge to do better(with a side of willingness for both).

 

[Steady Gaze]

I don't have a strong opinion on appeasing Smiles specifically, so I won't deny that it could've been a terrible idea from the outset. However, I would caution against using absolute terms to dismiss the question entirely. Is Velvet killing someone "just" to gain power acceptable? Consider the situation:

• The worms are on their way to give all of ponykind a fate worse than death.
• We are racing far worse psychopaths who are on their way to attain the powers of a god through any means necessary.
• We are also racing Celestia wising up to our misdeeds and burning us to a crisp, leaving us unable to address the above.
• There is no obvious more morally pure or capable replacement for us at hoof. We have a unique ability to employ all the lores.

If we step away, do nothing, and give up, that would've guaranteed (and likely will guarantee, if we do it now) a bad ending. (Recall the Master's plans for Equestria.) If we take our foot off the gas, it may or may not be a deciding factor in whether Equestria gets a worse ending. I like to think Velvet is attempting to gain power for good reasons (preventing the apocalypse, preventing a far less moral being from gaining the power) rather than bad ones (gaining power for power's sake), although what really matters is how the QM interprets her motivations when writing. If the QM writes Velvet as having already crossed the point of throwing any and all principles out the window, then all bets are off. But I don't see Velvet as being written as completely lacking a conscience; there is a lot of distance between outright psychopathy and being willing to kill in certain situations.

If we can grant that Velvet still has a conscience, then ideally, she would seek to minimize the harm she does and use what limited power she has to help ponies. Due to the capriciousness of voting, the uncertainty inherent in this game (like real life), and Velvet not having the power to fully author the story (like real life), it hasn't always worked out that way. (For example, Velvet hasn't had many fine moments with the WOLF DIVIDED.) But that doesn't mean the most ethical course is to voluntarily disarm herself or give up trying.

We don't know if that little bit extra power would prevent us or somepony we love from dying, or if it would be the difference between us or a villain winning the race, or if it would be absolutely necessary to avoid any other number of terrible events. These are the types of decisions people in the real world have to make all the time. Buy from <evil megacorp> or go without? Work for <evil megacorp> or be jobless? Be "pure" or survive? (Being "pure" comes from and is a form of privilege.) Add to that the fact that Velvet is the only pony around who has the skills and expertise to fill her horseshoes, and we are obligated to make these types of decisions constantly. Our role in this universe is quite analogous to "intelligence agency director" who has to constantly decide whether to do unethical and unlawful things in the national interest. There is no world comparable to ours where this role doesn't have to exist. Has Velvet made mistakes? Yes. Has she made mistakes in situations where she perhaps "should've known better"? Yes. Is she a bad pony? I personally don't think so, and it depends how you define "bad", but it's hard to dispute that she's still sympathetic in most aspects.

Considering the question of summoning and keeping names around specifically, I don't know the exact answer, but there are some reasons it may make sense. Not retaining them makes them available for other players in the race. When Copper was still around, this was a very, very bad idea (directly endangering ourself and our family). We must weigh this carefully against how morally repugnant these names are. (I'd be intrigued by a plan to kill Mareinette for good, for example, despite the loss of her abilities. And I'd need to hear what Smiles does for us. Although mechanically, it could come down to "AP is everything".) Can we curb our pursuit of power for the sake of ethics and still avoid bad endings? That's the real question here, with the fate of ponykind hanging in the balance.

To summarize, I think the question is where the line is, not whether to play the game at all. Is Velvet killing someone "just" to gain power acceptable? I would answer yes, if it is "necessary", and we must make this assessment despite our imperfect information and even if we can be mistaken. That line is something our QM has commented on repeatedly through the years.

Aside: It might not be a bad idea to establish a committee of some trusted confidantes like Selene and Princess Cadance that we report our (mis)deeds to to give ourself some oversight. Although I'm sure the QM would immediately be interested in testing such a system by giving us more secrets.

 

[Wise Wolf]

I don't have a strong opinion on appeasing Smiles specifically, so I won't deny that it could've been a terrible idea from the outset. However, I would caution against using absolute terms to dismiss the question entirely. Is Velvet killing someone "just" to gain power acceptable? Consider the situation:

• The worms are on their way to give all of ponykind a fate worse than death.
• We are racing far worse psychopaths who are on their way to attain the powers of a god through any means necessary.
• We are also racing Celestia wising up to our misdeeds and burning us to a crisp, leaving us unable to address the above.
• There is no obvious more morally pure or capable replacement for us at hoof. We have a unique ability to employ all the lores.

If we step away, do nothing, and give up, that would've guaranteed (and likely will guarantee, if we do it now) a bad ending. (Recall the Master's plans for Equestria.) If we take our foot off the gas, it may or may not be a deciding factor in whether Equestria gets a worse ending. I like to think Velvet is attempting to gain power for good reasons (preventing the apocalypse, preventing a far less moral being from gaining the power) rather than bad ones (gaining power for power's sake), although what really matters is how the QM interprets her motivations when writing. If the QM writes Velvet as having already crossed the point of throwing any and all principles out the window, then all bets are off. But I don't see Velvet as being written as completely lacking a conscience; there is a lot of distance between outright psychopathy and being willing to kill in certain situations.

If we can grant that Velvet still has a conscience, then ideally, she would seek to minimize the harm she does and use what limited power she has to help ponies. Due to the capriciousness of voting, the uncertainty inherent in this game (like real life), and Velvet not having the power to fully author the story (like real life), it hasn't always worked out that way. (For example, Velvet hasn't had many fine moments with the WOLF DIVIDED.) But that doesn't mean the most ethical course is to voluntarily disarm herself or give up trying.

We don't know if that little bit extra power would prevent us or somepony we love from dying, or if it would be the difference between us or a villain winning the race, or if it would be absolutely necessary to avoid any other number of terrible events. These are the types of decisions people in the real world have to make all the time. Buy from <evil megacorp> or go without? Work for <evil megacorp> or be jobless? Be "pure" or survive? (Being "pure" comes from and is a form of privilege.) Add to that the fact that Velvet is the only pony around who has the skills and expertise to fill her horseshoes, and we are obligated to make these types of decisions constantly. Our role in this universe is quite analogous to "intelligence agency director" who has to constantly decide whether to do unethical and unlawful things in the national interest. There is no world comparable to ours where this role doesn't have to exist. Has Velvet made mistakes? Yes. Has she made mistakes in situations where she perhaps "should've known better"? Yes. Is she a bad pony? I personally don't think so, and it depends how you define "bad", but it's hard to dispute that she's still sympathetic in most aspects.

Considering the question of summoning and keeping names around specifically, I don't know the exact answer, but there are some reasons it may make sense. Not retaining them makes them available for other players in the race. When Copper was still around, this was a very, very bad idea (directly endangering ourself and our family). We must weigh this carefully against how morally repugnant these names are. (I'd be intrigued by a plan to kill Mareinette for good, for example, despite the loss of her abilities. And I'd need to hear what Smiles does for us. Although mechanically, it could come down to "AP is everything".) Can we curb our pursuit of power for the sake of ethics and still avoid bad endings? That's the real question here, with the fate of ponykind hanging in the balance.

To summarize, I think the question is where the line is, not whether to play the game at all. Is Velvet killing someone "just" to gain power acceptable? I would answer yes, if it is "necessary", and we must make this assessment despite our imperfect information and even if we can be mistaken. That line is something our QM has commented on repeatedly through the years.

Aside: It might not be a bad idea to establish a committee of some trusted confidantes like Selene and Princess Cadance that we report our (mis)deeds to to give ourself some oversight. Although I'm sure the QM would immediately be interested in testing such a system by giving us more secrets.

Click to shrink...

I think you might really misunderstand my point. If anyone thinks Velvet is BAD... well, they should listen to Best Pony.

"You are not a bad pony, Velvet Covers."

Click to shrink...

But her cult made Canterlot burn. She got Twilight kidnapped and mutulated. She even stole her friend's free will.

"I said you are not a bad pony, Velvet Covers," she repeats herself.

Click to shrink...

But she went around Ponyville, helping them recover from a disaster that she caused. She fed Equestria to The Wolf Divided not once, not twice, but three times. And every time, simply to spare herself and those she loved. So that one daughter could live. So that she could keep blood off her own hooves for a little bit longer. So that she could spare the Princess of Love the loss of her Love.

"Velvet Covers, please listen to me. I'm not good with words, but… You are not a bad pony, Velvet Covers. You are a good pony."

Click to shrink...

How could Best Pony possibly think that?!

"But I need to tell you that… you are the best mare for the job, Velvet. Nopony else would have been able to do as much as you have. Anypony else who had tried would have done less… and would have committed more mistakes. If it wasn't you, Velvet, it would have been somepony else… maybe me. And things would have been worse."

Click to shrink...

Or worse, it might be nopony else, and the Worms devour Equestria root and branch.

Axe doesn't disdain us for Murder Most Foul. She's killed for power and will kill again. The power is actually worth it. There are actually Worms coming. Daybreaker actually is threatening to kill even more ponies.

She disdains us for trying to put a mask in front of our face so we don't feel guilty about the choices we're making. For threadbare justifications that fail to conceal the true justification of GLORY.

 

[Talon Tiger Dino]

No, I'm pretty sure Axe disdains the act itself of getting closer to the Alukite. It's a smaller expression of the same disdain she shows for Mareinette herself, despite how helpful that monster has been to the Velvet Estate and thus the struggle against the Worms.

And none of this changes how a consistent lack of care to mitigate harm for small things will lead to less ability to mitigate harm for big things. It may be hypocritical to overlook some instances of harm but not others, but behavioral change typically begins with a bit of hypocrisy, and I really would like to start arresting this downward moral spiral Velvet's been in. All it takes is more specific wording in our voting, really. Especially for Names who display problematic behavior right in front of Velvet! Biedde kept his stuff hidden, and Mareinette just Grails concerns away from her indiscretions, but Smiles just straight up threw a charred corpse of his own making at us. It's an actual case where we could go, "next time, don't directly or indirectly make the corpse, please," and he might actually humor us. Which also has a practical benefit of not having the giant obvious brick shithouse of a pony constantly going from a murder/fiery disappearance back to Velvet, which could lead to unfortunate investigations.

 

[DelightedOne]

It's an actual case where we could go, "next time, don't directly or indirectly make the corpse, please," and he might actually humor us. Which also has a practical benefit of not having the giant obvious brick shithouse of a pony constantly going from a murder/fiery disappearance back to Velvet, which could lead to unfortunate investigations.

Click to shrink...

Are we actually doing this? I mean, I agree, but I am curious on how it works for us to tell Smiles "Don't kill people when I ask for corpses, just go rob a random grave.", especially considering Velvet just... rolled with it because she is too busy/far on the Path to care.

 

[ses]

Smiles killing ponies he decides to is part of his "Behind the scenes actions" that gives him +1 Smiles Progress per turn in the wake. It has absolutely jack diddly squat to do with what we asked him for for his AP. He just happened to multitask with what he was already doing. The only way to stop him from doing such is to unsummon him. That's the literal only way to stop him from giving himself +1 Smiles Progress is to deny him Wake access.

"A Sacrament, like a betrayal, cannot be taken back"

This is not the kind of game where we play the genie game with clever write ins. If you don't want smiles to act like smiles then unsummon him. That's the only option our QM will give us.

(EDIT: Or speedrun his befriending I suppose, which was already our plan anyway. Smiles is explicitly the least able of our faction to do his own task, so tossing a bunch of fluttershy/selene AP until his task is done would also work. So I suppose this issue is already being resolved by what we were already planning on)

 

[Wise Wolf]

No, I'm pretty sure Axe disdains the act itself of getting closer to the Alukite. It's a smaller expression of the same disdain she shows for Mareinette herself, despite how helpful that monster has been to the Velvet Estate and thus the struggle against the Worms.

And none of this changes how a consistent lack of care to mitigate harm for small things will lead to less ability to mitigate harm for big things. It may be hypocritical to overlook some instances of harm but not others, but behavioral change typically begins with a bit of hypocrisy, and I really would like to start arresting this downward moral spiral Velvet's been in. All it takes is more specific wording in our voting, really. Especially for Names who display problematic behavior right in front of Velvet! Biedde kept his stuff hidden, and Mareinette just Grails concerns away from her indiscretions, but Smiles just straight up threw a charred corpse of his own making at us. It's an actual case where we could go, "next time, don't directly or indirectly make the corpse, please," and he might actually humor us. Which also has a practical benefit of not having the giant obvious brick shithouse of a pony constantly going from a murder/fiery disappearance back to Velvet, which could lead to unfortunate investigations.

Click to shrink...

I mean, I fully expect Velvet to correct Smiles about the method he chose. You're more optimistic about that having a lasting impact on his behavior than I am, but time will tell. And sure, we should send Selene along to limit the disasters that Freedom and Desire can get up to on their little road trip. Supervision is likely to do more than words, in my view.

But I'm not going to tell myself that it's better that he killed a noble; it's not. We sent an unscrupulous Killer out to do a task, and lo and behold, he killed. It will happen again. He's not going to be bound, and we should be aware that when we send the Giant Cat out to do a task in a world of mice, he might kill one that catches his eye, and act accordingly. And when we send a supernatural revolutionary instigator out with experts directed to show him the levers of power in Equestria, we should know what we're signing up for.

Additionally, on a practical note, the bonds of Knock on our summoned names doesn't give us plenary power. QM has noted more than once that we can't dictate a bunch of details of how they do the tasks we set them.

 

[Sveta08]

Goodness, glad I re-found where that message was. Got a little thing to spool together after a bit.
But for now! ... other parts of the message of The Mirror Door are useful!

... especially considering Velvet just... rolled with it because she is too busy/far on the Path to care.

Click to shrink...

Forgive me for calling this part out. It's not in-fact the quentisential argument or the most... crux of the point, but it's a clean demonstration of the emotion and question there and the thought about it!
Thus, Quotes!

You can't really describe it… no, you can. You definitely can describe it. The problem is that the only word that truly fits, right now, is more than a little worrying. Worrying, and perhaps shameful. Still, there is no other way to put it.

You are obsessed. Because you are here and Glory is right there and in your whole life you have never been this close.

Click to shrink...

The sharp walls demand a price of blood. You pay it with your dreams.

The shifting tunnels narrow and tighten around you. You shed off your hesitations to gain passage.

The light nearly blinds you. You stop fighting its glare.

Click to shrink...

Simply put... Velvet is close. Desperately, unfathomably close. The first in an era. The hopeful hoof.
Everyone thinks they are capable of truly wresting the tides of fate with their own hooves. Capable of changing the wheels on which society turns. And, frankly, most can to a... worse end.
gestures Wolf-ward
Aiming for something else requires different concessions. Ambition. Hesitation. Morality. Honor. Love.

What was it.... oh was it in the word for arsenal? Or.... really? Couldn't use the word whetstone for easy search? Blast it all. Found it all the same.

The morning came, and you got out of your bed, and you collected your saddle-bag, and you went to the room that the Daughter-of-Axes had claimed only to find her grinding her great axe against a strange stone.

And when the two of you left your estate, you did not mention to her even a single word about whether she should kill the guards or not.

Because you know that you have to, and you know that you will.

But you are also too disgusted to admit that this is yet another line you have agreed to cross.

Click to shrink...

There's more to that quote than just that, and useful and useful besides. But, that's the point we are at I think.
The kerfuffle is much more now what is the Use, that we can get from a life.
looks back at Marienette
What a turn to ponder such things....

 

[Steady Gaze]

I think you might really misunderstand my point.

Click to shrink...

Ah… sorry for misunderstanding. So if I were to try to understand better, your real position is that

murder for power

Click to shrink...

is not actually wrong for Velvet, since we have the good reason of the worms, but the real issue is that, first, she pretends that her reasons for killing are not actually for power, and second, she pretends that she cares about collateral damage? I can see it more now that you've clarified, but if I might explain myself for reference…

You say none of a series of justifications matter:

Does it matter?

Click to shrink...

The format sounds like you're listing all of the justifications that you think are worth considering, and you leave out the justification that is sufficient (and worth considering). And then you say the issue is a "moral atrocity"

But at least Axe isn't going to let anyone sugarcoat murder-for-power as anything less than the moral atrocity that it is.

Click to shrink...

without saying you believe it's a "justified moral atrocity". So I found it hard to read this other than as an expression of disapproval of that idea, even in the current situation.

Additionally, if we look at the main dictionary definition of the word "murder"

The killing of another person without justification or excuse, especially the crime of killing a person with malice aforethought or with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

Click to shrink...

it carries the connotation that the speaker believes the killing is unjustified, which the rest seems to agree with. If one wants to refer to it neutrally, one can easily choose the word "killing".

To put to death.

Click to shrink...

So I would find it clearest if we were to say "Velvet kills for power".

Also, I wasn't responding just to you. We also have another expression (correct me if I'm wrong Jen)

I'm in Wise Wolf's camp on this one. Velvet has concluded that it is acceptable to murder people to obtain power. Who the target is doesn't matter. It's still murder.

Click to shrink...

She's killing someone for her own personal gain, and killing someone who's done bad things would make it easier for her. But that wouldn't make it right.

Click to shrink...

"Cool story, still murder."

Click to shrink...

of the idea that killing for power is still murder and is wrong for Velvet, even despite the circumstances. So both Jen and I have misunderstood your position in the same way.

 

[Wise Wolf]

Ah… sorry for misunderstanding. So if I were to try to understand better, your real position is that

is not actually wrong for Velvet, since we have the good reason of the worms, but the real issue is that, first, she pretends that her reasons for killing are not actually for power, and second, she pretends that she cares about collateral damage? I can see it more now that you've clarified, but if I might explain myself for reference…

You say none of a series of justifications matter:

The format sounds like you're listing all of the justifications that you think are worth considering, and you leave out the justification that is sufficient (and worth considering). And then you say the issue is a "moral atrocity"

without saying you believe it's a "justified moral atrocity". So I found it hard to read this other than as an expression of disapproval of that idea, even in the current situation.

Additionally, if we look at the main dictionary definition of the word "murder"

it carries the connotation that the speaker believes the killing is unjustified, which the rest seems to agree with. If one wants to refer to it neutrally, one can easily choose the word "killing".

So I would find it clearest if we were to say "Velvet kills for power".

Also, I wasn't responding just to you. We also have another expression (correct me if I'm wrong Jen)



of the idea that killing for power is still murder and is wrong for Velvet, even despite the circumstances. So both Jen and I have misunderstood your position in the same way.

Click to shrink...

I don't think it's really possible to have a morality debate in a horror setting without accepting that an action that is morally horrible may yet be justified by a greater horror. Those things just aren't in contradiction in my mind, as they seem to be in yours.

Beyond that... I do believe that Velvet has done some things that are morally horrible and unjustified, like Wolfing the Tribal Gate. And concealing Selene from Celestia so they she could literally groom her into a loyal minion/daughter. And yet, I agree with Jade that Velvet is a good pony. No other pony in the story would have striven with so much ambition for saving Equestria, and wielded this great power with the combination of this much positive impact and few atrocities.

 

[JenMGold]

lso, I wasn't responding just to you. We also have another expression (correct me if I'm wrong Jen)
of the idea that killing for power is still murder and is wrong for Velvet, even despite the circumstances. So both Jen and I have misunderstood your position in the same way.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I'm definitely taking a harder line than Wise Wolf is. If I'm interpreting it correctly, his position is that Velvet is doing and permitting some bad things, but that they're (mostly) lesser and necessary evils compared to the alternatives; that she should acknowledge them as such, and not try to escape responsibility for them, but they're still justified. And doing them and even doing some things that went too far to be justified doesn't make Velvet a bad person. While I tend to take the position that calling certain evils "lesser" or "necessary" is not a mitigating factor for their evilness, and Velvet is a bad person for doing them.

I don't have a strong opinion on appeasing Smiles specifically, so I won't deny that it could've been a terrible idea from the outset. However, I would caution against using absolute terms to dismiss the question entirely. Is Velvet killing someone "just" to gain power acceptable? Consider the situation:

• The worms are on their way to give all of ponykind a fate worse than death.
• We are racing far worse psychopaths who are on their way to attain the powers of a god through any means necessary.
• We are also racing Celestia wising up to our misdeeds and burning us to a crisp, leaving us unable to address the above.
• There is no obvious more morally pure or capable replacement for us at hoof. We have a unique ability to employ all the lores.

If we step away, do nothing, and give up, that would've guaranteed (and likely will guarantee, if we do it now) a bad ending. (Recall the Master's plans for Equestria.) If we take our foot off the gas, it may or may not be a deciding factor in whether Equestria gets a worse ending. I like to think Velvet is attempting to gain power for good reasons (preventing the apocalypse, preventing a far less moral being from gaining the power) rather than bad ones (gaining power for power's sake), although what really matters is how the QM interprets her motivations when writing. If the QM writes Velvet as having already crossed the point of throwing any and all principles out the window, then all bets are off. But I don't see Velvet as being written as completely lacking a conscience; there is a lot of distance between outright psychopathy and being willing to kill in certain situations.

Click to shrink...

I would say that Velvet does still have something at least resembling a conscience, but she definitely doesn't have any actual morals. She has things that sometimes make her feel bad, and a series of justifications for individual acts that don't hold up under scrutiny of her wider patterns of behavior.

She doesn't like killing personally, but she's quite willing to consign huge amounts of people to death by proxy, and it's hardly like she hasn't gotten her own hooves quite bloody before. She cares for her family, but the fact that she was willing to use the WOLF to put Soft Sweeps back together as a (presumably? mostly?) free-willed zombie is poof enough for me that she doesn't care about them for their sakes (the WOLF might be a preferable alternative to the worms, but it certainly isn't a preferable alternative to WINTER), she cares about them because having them around makes her feel good. She clearly has some sort of personal standards - she evidently considers embezzlement to be gauche and beneath her - but that isn't the same thing as being virtuous, and I'm not convinced that those standards wouldn't also get abandoned if she was really feeling a truly harsh financial pinch. I don't think she's ever been in a situation where she's been at truly imminent risk of losing her comfortable lifestyle, after all.

I'm fairly confident she isn't a psychopath, if only because she lacks the impulsiveness associated with ASPD. But I think it's worth looking at these criteria for ASPD from the DSM-IV (these aren't all the criteria, and the ones from the DSM-5 are rather more complex - I'm not trying to play internet psychologist here, I just think it's worth considering how well she matches some of these, and the implications of that):

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations.
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing.

Click to shrink...

3 to 6 don't apply, but 1, 2, and 7 certainly do.

I think you might really misunderstand my point. If anyone thinks Velvet is BAD... well, they should listen to Best Pony.

Click to shrink...

Wise Wolf brings up here up that interaction with Jade in Turn 14. But that was a long time ago, and Velvet has certainly gotten a lot worse since then. In turn 14, she felt a lot of guilt for her actions. But that isn't really true anymore. She absolutely does now display "Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing."

And frankly, I think Jade was wrong even back then. Velvet helped her, personally, and her view of Velvet was skewed as a result. I think it was intended otherwise at the time (though I obviously can't speak with any actual authority regarding OurLadyOfWires's intentions), but looking back on it with the benefit of hindsight, that doesn't look to me like Jade helping her friend who was in a dark place. It looks like her being an enabler for Velvet's increasingly immoral and destructive behavior, and keeping Velvet on the wrong path at a critical moment when Velvet could have changed for the better.

We don't know if that little bit extra power would prevent us or somepony we love from dying, or if it would be the difference between us or a villain winning the race, or if it would be absolutely necessary to avoid any other number of terrible events. These are the types of decisions people in the real world have to make all the time. Buy from <evil megacorp> or go without? Work for <evil megacorp> or be jobless? Be "pure" or survive? (Being "pure" comes from and is a form of privilege.) Add to that the fact that Velvet is the only pony around who has the skills and expertise to fill her horseshoes, and we are obligated to make these types of decisions constantly. Our role in this universe is quite analogous to "intelligence agency director" who has to constantly decide whether to do unethical and unlawful things in the national interest. There is no world comparable to ours where this role doesn't have to exist. Has Velvet made mistakes? Yes. Has she made mistakes in situations where she perhaps "should've known better"? Yes. Is she a bad pony? I personally don't think so, and it depends how you define "bad", but it's hard to dispute that she's still sympathetic in most aspects.

Click to shrink...

As you say, we don't actually have any way to know for certain what the long-term consequences of our actions will be. Committing to an "any action is justified, so long as it contributes to what I consider the greater good" position gets you some really entertaining villains in fiction, people who are willing to commit atrocity after atrocity simply because they believe that the end goal will be worth it. And I take a hard turn to extreme consequentialism when playing video games, because I can look up a wiki, figure out with absolute certainty the exact results of the choices I make, and conclude on the basis of those certain outcomes which choice will produce the most good - in RPGs, my character tends to be less of an actual character and more of a bizarre chameleon thing that adopts whatever attitude and opinions maximizes beneficial outcomes in that conversation, with no consideration for consistency.

But of course, that's not how it works in real life. There is always the potential that you might be misunderstanding things, or missing critical information. And when you do something immoral to gain some benefit, you never actually know whether you'll actually gain that benefit. So we seem to take the opposite conclusions from that uncertainty. You conclude (I think) that since you can't know for certain what the long-term consequences will be ahead of time, whether you intend for those consequences to be good or bad decides whether your actions are justified. I conclude that since you can't know the long-term consequences, what matters is the very immediate results of your actions - very much a "first, do no harm" position. I think it's better to accept the potential of long-term bad consequences for doing good things than to hope for long-term good results from doing bad things - take the certain good and the uncertain evil over the certain evil and the uncertain good, regardless of the perceived scale of each.

Plus, means have a way of overtaking the ends they're intended to support. Let's say, to give Velvet the benefit of the doubt, that she wants to protect the world from the worms, and she decides that requires reaching GLORY. She wants to reach GLORY, and she decides that requires her to become more powerful. She wants to become more powerful, and she decides that requires befriending the Names. She wants to befriend the Names, and she decides that requires sacrificing innocent lives. Will she next want to sacrifice innocent lives, and conclude that she needs to devise some system to maximize the efficiency of the slaughter? All to ultimately serve the purpose of stopping the worms, of course. The poisoned dreams she has Selene sending out to drive people to unhinged violence and unthinking servitude to her simply provides her with the corpses she needs to buy the approval of Marienette and Smiles, who provide her with the assistance she needs to obtain power, which will allow her to reach GLORY, which will let her defeat the worms. But that's absurd. She'd be destroying vast numbers of innocent people in body and soul... to prevent the destruction of vast numbers of innocent people in body and soul. And "how many of us do you have to kill to keep us safe?"

Is the extreme I suggested a bit of a slippery slope allegation? Yes. But the slippery slope is only a fallacy when you don't actually have any evidence about the slipperiness of the slope in question. But we've seen Velvet already slide quite far down that slope, so being concerned that she might continue sliding down it doesn't seem unwarranted.

Of course, that's a moot point anyway. As the quotes Sveta posted show, stopping the worms isn't even ultimate end goal for Velvet anymore. They're enough of a consideration to receive some mention on most turns, but the true thing driving her now is desire for GLORY for its own sake. For the ultimate evidence of that:

You are Velvet Covers.

And this... is one of the rare moments you have where you can think about things.

And you really mean think about things.

This is not one of the quiet periods you have in your office, back at the Bureau, where you can ruminate on the decisions you should make. This is not one of those peaceful afternoons, usually during the weekend, where you can relax without a care in the world. None of that.

Instead, this is one of those rare moments where you can ponder the... the depth of what you are doing. The profoundness of the things you want to, have to, get done.

And for better or for worse, the only conclusion you can reach is that...
...well, you just need more power.

But "power" is such a broad term, isn't it? Because what gives a pony more power? And when you think about it, what doesn't give a pony more power?

Bits can make a pony feel powerful. Having friends, or servants, can make a pony feel powerful. The ability to kill somepony. The means to ensure that somepony stays alive.

All of those things are, in a sense, a manifestation of power.

So yes, you need more power. But so does every maid and butler in your estate, and every pony you ever saw in the streets, and even your youngest daughter. Everypony wants to be able to do something, and once that's done they realize they want to do more.

So what is it that you really want?

...

You ask yourself that, as you look down at the empty scroll parchment you have in front of you.

You know that writing your thoughts down is a little foolish. After all, magic and other means exist to restore even destroyed paper. And if you have the means to spy on others through the Lores, then those same means could be used against you. Still, you couldn't resist the urge to pick a scroll and a writing pen. You couldn't pass on the opportunity to get this multitude of thoughts out of your head and onto somewhere you can look at.

But when you ask yourself what you really want, and light up your horn to try and figure out an answer, the only word that you manage to write is...

GLORY​

... but of course. What else would it be?

Click to shrink...

There is absolutely nothing noble about what Velvet is doing anymore. There is no justification that this is all in service of stopping a greater evil. This is, without any ambiguity, an exercise in pure vanity and self-interest at this point. She wants to become a Long, and likely more than that. A Name, perhaps even an Hour. Protecting people isn't the point.

Now, to be very clear, I'm not trying to throw out some blanket condemnation at any of the irl players here, or rage about how things haven't gone the way I would have wanted, or something like that. As I said before, this is a Cultist Simulator quest - from the very first threadmark, I expected this to end in committing horrible atrocities with very flimsy justifications (and eventually no justifications at all) for utterly self-serving reasons. I'm hardly going to throw a fit about that proving correct, and she's still not as degraded and monstrous as I would expect of a Know so close to ascension.

But I am very confident in asserting that we have a villain protagonist on our hands here. She still has her sympathetic aspects, or at least is able to pretend to be sympathetic well enough to be convincing and even maybe believe some of her own lies. And if she wins, she'll certainly work to keep anything from threatening her new position. At this point, the world has been thoroughly wrecked enough that her victory seems like the least terrible option that has much chance of success. But that doesn't make her some sort of anti-hero who's just doing what needs to be done.

 

[spiderhellian]

Hmm. That was quite convincingly argued. Stealing from the poor pony prisoners is an interesting data point in this regards — for the life of me I can't really remember why we did it, but we did, and it's hard to argue that was even some brutal necessity.

I especially appreciate that the increasing pursuit of Glory is nigh-inherent to the story, or setting, of Cultist Simulator.

And as both the setting — and our selves — decayed, and the Glory grew ever closer, that side of the crossover has taken on greater weight. I'm curious if after we do reach the Glory (assuming away quite a lot of difficulty!) — whether our choices will speak more the other half.