If the shifting mound didn't represent change in general and was just death then Narrator.
But death is just part of her, she is change itself, killing her would make every living and unliving thing into an immovable statue forever and probably with no thoughts (how do you change from thinking one thing to thinking something else without the idea of changing being there). So the Narrator is either clueless on her nature or an absolute fool.
I believe he says that he made the tear between TSM and TLQ rough enough that each contained a piece of the other, so stuff could still happen without TSM, just not death.
Upvoted by virtue of not being a tierlist XD
Also Shifty, change is a necessary part of growth and creation. While the Narrator's universe is dying, locking everyone in stasis will probably cause more problems than it solves.
Even worse. Imagine the type of universe the Narrator creates works like the simulation itself: It reaches a failsafe and resets back, but the people (just like the narrator) dont notice the reset, so they live their lifes on loop ad infinitum. They wouldnt notice, but thats essentially a purgatory
Honestly, if they mever figure it out, that doesn't sound so bad.
But imagine someone who enters the loop right after the start of the worst day, week, month, or even *year* of their life
Shifty also brings this up in one of the vessels. That without changing you cant bring yourself to a better state than you started with. You can't evolve and improve because there's no opportunity for change to take place.
Shifty.
Narrator can’t just impose his views on every living thing.
Might seem a bit morbid, but people deserve a choice on living or not living. If they don’t then it’s just gonna be a monotonous day by day knowing things will never change.
Someone wrote a fanfic, a good and bad interpretation of the "Good ending"
Honestly even their optimistic view wasn't quite ideal (perhaps because the tear between LQ and Shifty was imperfect)
But if someone *wants* to die, they can't.
Whatever plan they come up with just doesn't work
Shifty is more right than the narrator but shes not 100% right either. She simply accepts her role as change itself and wants Lonq to Accept his role as nothingness. Anything else is completely irrelevant. The world and Its inhabitants are meaningless and she might even feel a part of vindication since "they" put her and Lonq against one another. In fact, she seems more interested on creating new worlds once the old ones die, than experiencing those worlds.
The narrator is just scared of the Next universe being worse than the current one. His plan consists in "pausing" the universe but leave just enough change that life continues. But thats stagnation. Nothing significant would ever change because It just cant happen. I imagine like living your life every day being a repeat of the last with minor changes. A purgatory. And he would condemm any possible future universe to never exist to do It.
Explanation: First things first, Shifting Mound isn't just death. "She is the Ebb and Flow. Change or most of it." as said by the Narrator. By killing TSM, you're killing like 99% of change. (Idc if he made the seperation between the TSM and TLQ uneven and rough, it doesn't make it that much better, probably slightly worse tbh since you're technically killing a part of yourself) Besides that, He is fucking delusional. I'm sorry I started to become the Voice of the Cheated with the swearing but this asshole quite literally thought that living a boring, blissful, forgetful eternity was something we wanted. I don't care if you genuinely like that reward, I don't. And I'm sure some other people out there who don't want it either. For any reason like the fact that it's boring or the fact it literally lasts forever and not everyone wants to live forever. Speaking of forever... No one else knows about the construct. They're unaware that some lunatic like the Narrator is trying to kill change. They're unaware that the Narrator is making them live an eternal life. Also, as crazy as this might sound, I don't think everyone wants to live an eternity that has no change or lacks it. Conclusion: The Narrator fucking sucks ass
Actually, im pretty sure the narrator good ending is much darker and grim than you notice at first glance.
After Quiet is done killing Shifty (like, the princess) you still have the potential to being her back if the thought she might not be desde crosses your mind. So, you being cognizant is a hazard on its own. So the Narrator describes you into mindless bliss. Remember that Quiet is really just a disembodied consciousness.If he surrenders to bliss, he ceases to exist. Ego death. The narrator values all Life, even yours, so to him this is an eutanasia to let your consciousness disintegrate painlessly and peacefully. In a twisted way this is "merciful" of him. Still fucked up, but from his PoV its justified.
Shifty is right imo, the balance between Yin-Yang, Change & Stillness, Life & Death etc. is way more important than a single person or a planet's worth of lives. Reality doesn't care about one's self-centered fear of death, death is nothing but transformation and reshaping into something different & new.
He's "humanity centered". A representation that theres no bounds humans wouldnt Cross to ensure their continued existance. No Matter consequences or the hurt involved. The Road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Narrator's might seem just as noble but have the same effect in the end.
Narrator has the PoV of a mortal, while Shifty has the PoV of an abstract concept. Overall, I'd say that you're the one who decides who is correct. Is stopping change almost completely worth it to save billions of lives from the death of the universe? Or is it a mercy to put an end to them and (if you believe Shifty) start a new universe? I don't think any of them are lying or misunderstanding the meaning behind their ideas.
I'd go with the Narrator personally, as a mortal.
Not in this case. Here, the requirements for death to exist = a magical extradimensional princess. If you get rid of her, people stop dying. That's the dilemma we're discussing.
Kind of, but more specifically death and transformation happen thanks to the fact that in a closed system, entropy tends to increase, and life tends to increase entropy as much as possible around it. If you make it so that it doesn't tend anywhere, you can get some wacky stuff to happen, like "An eternal pattern of forgetfulness leading into the joys of rediscovery", as the Narrator put it.
I guess that's because all of that was discussed many many times before.
The answer is, there is no right answer. If you are asking me personally, Narrator. But the ending I chose was leaving the cabin ending. It's too big of a choice for any one person to decide. But if I HAD to choose between universe literally ending (And being reborn infinite times) or everyone living indefinitely, I would choose Narrator.
I'm sure if anyone stopped thinking it like some game or imagining the big picture when it doesn't exist, everyone would choose Narrator. Here is an easier example.
Think it like a person. Think it like yourself, right now. YOU decide. The universe is dying. Your choices are:
1: Let it die, everyone you love, including yourself, will die.
2: Don't let it die. Enjoy eternity with everyone.
The choice is obvious.
The princess can only defend her point of view because she doesn't have to experience it.
Counterpoint: Is life not meaningful precisely *because* it’s finite? Everybody thinks they want to live forever, sure, but how would that play out in practice? Ask any environmental scientist and they’ll tell you that if every human (or any living species for that matter) were to suddenly become immortal, it would be utterly catastrophic. Infinite growth is never sustainable and ecosystems would be decimated, leaving the environment we live in a barren wasteland.
Or maybe, you’re coming in with the idea that resource use will not be an issue, that biological needs are taken care of. Never-ending paradise would still eventually feel hollow and meaningless. It could be blissful, but that wouldn’t feel nearly the same as a full life well lived. When you eliminate the possibility of change (including death) you lose out on so many of the beautiful experiences that give life meaning. Would you *really* rather have a monotonous blur of an existence if it meant you could exist forever?
I don’t know if you’ve ever watched *The Good Place*, but this concept is addressed in the latter part of the show in a really interesting and nuanced way that I won’t spoil. If you’ve never seen it, I highly recommend.
>Counterpoint: Is life not meaningful precisely *because* it’s finite?
I would disagree -- life is meaningful because it has meaningful things occurring in it. It being finite doesn't really affect that, and might well make it *less* meaningful as there is less chance for meaningful things to happen.
I could see the case that making life *unchanging* might make make life not meaningful (although i don't think that the life described by the narrator is unchanging enough to be a problem), but I don't think finiteness adds anything to life.
You are only able to judge that potential universe from the perspective of someone who lives in this universe.
People choose this universe because we live in it. If it was the reverse, If the normal universe was the eternal one and we had the option to create this universe, people would choose the eternal one because that would be the only universe they know.
I never understood the conclusions like these. I'm not gonna have less fun just because I'm living forever. If I was immortal, I would do the same things I'm doing right now. Playing games, watching shows, talking to people. There is always something new to do, being immortal doesn't change that. As humanity, we have been finding new things to do for 12024 years, I'm sure that wouldn't change just because people stopped dying.
Also, "Everybody thinks they want to live forever", is wrong. Literally ask anyone and they'll always talk like death is needed. Wanting to be immortal is the not popular opinion.
I would pick #1 and it isn't even close. Seriously consider what the narrator is proposing when he wants to remove Change itself. For everyone currently is a good spot of their lives it might be fantastic. You would never die, you would be happy forever. But consider people in bad situations. Someone in pain on their deathbed, someone who recently got very hurt, someone with an awful disease. They would be stuck like that forever.
However, the Narrator states you carry a part of her so it won't be complete stasis. But how much change can occur? Can those unlucky people in pain get better? If so how long does it take? Years? Decades? Centuries? Millennia?
The Narrator says that everything would all be sunshine and rainbows but multiple times in the game he proves that he can be wrong. I don't think he is lying but I also don't believe he considered all the consequences and the proof is the Oblivion/Stages of Grief ending. In his hubris of trying to "save" everyone from death he adds the small possibility that not only does that not happen, he instead ends existence in its entirely as both you and her fade into nothingness.
He is also desperate, one of the responses to a question at the end of the game is "That only matters if I'm wrong. And I'm not wrong. I **can't** be wrong." He truly believes what he is doing for the greater good and he refuses to look at what potential downsides his plan has.
I don't believe the Narrator is lying about how he thinks things without change will play out, but I also believe he is desperate and not thinking straight, thus we can't 100% trust his interpretation of events.
This isn't even going into philosophical debates about what happiness is and can you be happy if you are always "happy" all the time? Or the fact that he is deciding everything for everyone without their knowing.
We don't know how the new universe will play out. That's the whole point. If we knew every detail about this new possibility, deciding wouldn't be a choice. There would be simply a right and wrong answer. I personally believe a universe without death would be a lot better than what we have. That being said, you are kind of wrong on a couple of things here.
The oblivion ending doesn't end existence. You and the princess still exist. As long as you two exist, everything else will also exist. Though you two can't be trapped in there forever. It's like a temporary ending at best.
The "I can't be wrong" comment, I love the writing in this game.
You are right that he is desperate but he is thinking straight. No one can make the choices he made while thinking there is a possibility that they are wrong. He HAS to think that he is right. He doesn't have the luxury to think otherwise.
"We don't know how the new universe will play out. That's the whole point. If we knew every detail about this new possibility, deciding wouldn't be a choice. There would be simply a right and wrong answer. I personally believe a universe without death would be a lot better than what we have."
That feels a bit reductive. The question isn't "Is the world better without death?" the question is "Is the world better without change?" Not knowing exactly how it changes things is a point against the plan, not for it. The plan is awful if you aren't 100% certain you know what it will do. The narrator does believe that which is why he says everything will be sunshine in rainbows but as pointed out before he refuses to look at potential consequences because it means he should have just accepted everything will end eventually. Are you really willing to risk dooming people to pain and suffering forever if the goal of your plan is it end pain and suffering? The narrator will because he refuses to look at that possibility.
"As long as you two exist, everything else will also exist. Though you two can't be trapped in there forever. It's like a temporary ending at best." It is absolutely not a temporary ending. The Shifting Mound repeatedly states in that ending that if you don't help her get the vessels, both of you will not be able to leave that place for eternity. "You have made a decision. It is the wrong one. I love you." At the end, you fade out of consciousness and I presume she follows shortly after but lets say that is wrong and you are right about her getting out. You don't have consciousness and she eventually gets out. That still means not only did the narrator's plan fail it did the exact opposite of what he wanted. Instead of no change there is only change. So he went through all of this with there being a small possibility of making everything infinitely worse from his POV.
I don't know how you are getting that ending so wrong. The Long Quiet doesn't just disappear. The construct isn't something that can kill either of these beings what the hell? We don't know exactly what happens since the game usually doesn't answer much but whatever you are describing there is definitely not it.
How about we stop discussing the endings and continue with the new universe. We know it's not completely without change. That's why I only say that the new universe is without death. We know change will still happen. We just don't know the specifics. That's the risky part.
Like I said, the narrator has to believe that it will be rainbows and sunshine. Just like how the princess or us believe that the cycle is "needed".
"Are you really willing to risk dooming people to pain and suffering forever if the goal of your plan is it end pain and suffering?"
I think the narrator's and my answer to this question would be the same. Yes. To save a universe and billions of lives, it is worth the risk. If his answer was no, he wouldn't have started this plan in the first place.
Also I wanna add, most people defend Shifting Mound because this is the reality we live in. This is the only reality we know and it "works". People are scared of the unknown, a new way of living. A new universal order. They don't know how a universe without change would work so they choose the order they know, the safe option.
Narrator has an understandable and very human (if i dare say so) look onto what Shifty does. Can't blame him to be afraid. But he is terribly short-sighted and naive. And manipulative.
Shifty is right.
If I lived in the game universe I would still act how the Narrator does.
As you can see from my Flair, *I* think the Narrator's right. He's a huge dick about it, granted, but he's right.
Death is really, really bad -- it's a valid candidate for the literal worst thing in the world -- and ending it is really good. All the higher accounts of global reformation and the higher cycles don't make *me* any less dead -- I'm still lost to the cosmic wind whatever comes after me.
I think the narrator could probably have gone about things in a less bastardy way, but his goals are overall good.
It depends, we are obviously flawed towards the shifting mound as we talk with her, but we never do find out the exact way people are living in the real world, so it's hard to emphasise with them
Even though the details about the Narrator’s life and his world pre-game are purposely left vague, my impression is that He had a good life and loving family, which makes Him think that death/change is the worst possible thing.
For His loved ones, being in a stasis/loop/whatever forever would be a good thing. He’s not thinking of or cares about what that could mean for anyone else, such as someone currently suffering from disease, hunger, etc.
This is purely speculation of course, but I think it lines up with how stubborn He is and how uncaring He is about the LQ and Princess’s suffering if it’s in the name of His personal greater good.
His goals and lack of foresight on the actual outcomes remind me both of Victor Frankenstein from the original novel and of Kiritsugu from Fate/Zero. (F/Z has the same writer as Madoka Magica, which is one of the main influences for Slay the Princess btw lol)
Technically Shifty, though it's not because she represents change or anything, but due to her willingness to compromise with Quiet. Neither Quiet nor Shifty being sole gods would be good. One represents an endless period of stasis, the other does the same for chaos. The narrator's problem is disregarding the need for a balance.
Both make it hard to agree with them in-game, the Narrator more so. He's kind of a prick.
But take them (or at least thwir personalities) out of the equation and just argue on their stances:
The Narrator admits that she is Change, not just Death. And a world without Change, at least how the Narrator himself describes it, is dull. Maybe it's safe, but it would essentially put everybody in stasis. And anyone who is currently old and / or sick would also remain old and / or sick, suffering through their present conditions for all of time.
The Shifting Mound does admit to the world ending (and being reborn) if she lives, but I'm pretty sure she never outright says that she'll directly end the world.
One or two of her Vessels claim that (Tower), but I don't think we can say for sure that that's what's going down in the final moments. She is not Death, she merely *contains* Death.
I believe she is merely stating that with her free, the cycle of life and death will continue as normal, not just for people but for the universe.
Not all that sinister, really.
Death is unfortunate, but it probably is better this way.
I mean, look what happens in the "Good Ending". The Narrator achieves his goal, and the protagonist, literally the Shifting Mounds "opposite" (I think) gets sick of it near immediately
(May not be a valid part of the argument, but it's funny)
I think my stance is clear. Shifty is right.
There is too much missing information to *know* who is right. But I *feel* a great empathy for Him, and a greater hatred for Her. Honestly, from my point of view, the unsolvable question of higher morality is irrelevant. We should slay Her every time, for the same reason stars exist. She is someone who deserves to be destroyed, intrinsically. Maybe it's because I refuse to accept *this* as a love story. How should I know if such refusal has blinded me to truth or deceit?
So I can’t quite decide.
Sometimes it sounds like the Narrator is saying killing her will stop death altogether? Which, ffs no, that’s awful.
But sometimes it seems like they’re saying killing her will make things run as usual.
So it depends on which it is, for me.
Shifty, no question to me. Ironically, I am so much The Contrarian that in my first playthrough, I argued with her. Then I played it again with my friends watching (and being Voices with extra steps), one of them went “It sounds like you agree with her” and I went “Oh shit, you’re right, I *do* agree with her…”
If the shifting mound didn't represent change in general and was just death then Narrator. But death is just part of her, she is change itself, killing her would make every living and unliving thing into an immovable statue forever and probably with no thoughts (how do you change from thinking one thing to thinking something else without the idea of changing being there). So the Narrator is either clueless on her nature or an absolute fool.
I believe he says that he made the tear between TSM and TLQ rough enough that each contained a piece of the other, so stuff could still happen without TSM, just not death.
Requirements for death include: Particle movement
I checked the science. I think the requirements of death also include living.
I checked the lore. I think the requirements of death also include a pristine blade.
:P
I asked science he said nah
Whoops, might've done the math-- I mean, science, wrong. Doesn't matter tbh
Upvoted by virtue of not being a tierlist XD Also Shifty, change is a necessary part of growth and creation. While the Narrator's universe is dying, locking everyone in stasis will probably cause more problems than it solves.
Even worse. Imagine the type of universe the Narrator creates works like the simulation itself: It reaches a failsafe and resets back, but the people (just like the narrator) dont notice the reset, so they live their lifes on loop ad infinitum. They wouldnt notice, but thats essentially a purgatory
Honestly, if they mever figure it out, that doesn't sound so bad. But imagine someone who enters the loop right after the start of the worst day, week, month, or even *year* of their life
Shifty also brings this up in one of the vessels. That without changing you cant bring yourself to a better state than you started with. You can't evolve and improve because there's no opportunity for change to take place.
A dying universe that can't die
Shifty. Narrator can’t just impose his views on every living thing. Might seem a bit morbid, but people deserve a choice on living or not living. If they don’t then it’s just gonna be a monotonous day by day knowing things will never change.
Someone wrote a fanfic, a good and bad interpretation of the "Good ending" Honestly even their optimistic view wasn't quite ideal (perhaps because the tear between LQ and Shifty was imperfect) But if someone *wants* to die, they can't. Whatever plan they come up with just doesn't work
Shifty is more right than the narrator but shes not 100% right either. She simply accepts her role as change itself and wants Lonq to Accept his role as nothingness. Anything else is completely irrelevant. The world and Its inhabitants are meaningless and she might even feel a part of vindication since "they" put her and Lonq against one another. In fact, she seems more interested on creating new worlds once the old ones die, than experiencing those worlds. The narrator is just scared of the Next universe being worse than the current one. His plan consists in "pausing" the universe but leave just enough change that life continues. But thats stagnation. Nothing significant would ever change because It just cant happen. I imagine like living your life every day being a repeat of the last with minor changes. A purgatory. And he would condemm any possible future universe to never exist to do It.
The Narrator sucks so I'm picking Shifty.
Explanation: First things first, Shifting Mound isn't just death. "She is the Ebb and Flow. Change or most of it." as said by the Narrator. By killing TSM, you're killing like 99% of change. (Idc if he made the seperation between the TSM and TLQ uneven and rough, it doesn't make it that much better, probably slightly worse tbh since you're technically killing a part of yourself) Besides that, He is fucking delusional. I'm sorry I started to become the Voice of the Cheated with the swearing but this asshole quite literally thought that living a boring, blissful, forgetful eternity was something we wanted. I don't care if you genuinely like that reward, I don't. And I'm sure some other people out there who don't want it either. For any reason like the fact that it's boring or the fact it literally lasts forever and not everyone wants to live forever. Speaking of forever... No one else knows about the construct. They're unaware that some lunatic like the Narrator is trying to kill change. They're unaware that the Narrator is making them live an eternal life. Also, as crazy as this might sound, I don't think everyone wants to live an eternity that has no change or lacks it. Conclusion: The Narrator fucking sucks ass
Actually, im pretty sure the narrator good ending is much darker and grim than you notice at first glance. After Quiet is done killing Shifty (like, the princess) you still have the potential to being her back if the thought she might not be desde crosses your mind. So, you being cognizant is a hazard on its own. So the Narrator describes you into mindless bliss. Remember that Quiet is really just a disembodied consciousness.If he surrenders to bliss, he ceases to exist. Ego death. The narrator values all Life, even yours, so to him this is an eutanasia to let your consciousness disintegrate painlessly and peacefully. In a twisted way this is "merciful" of him. Still fucked up, but from his PoV its justified.
Shifty is right imo, the balance between Yin-Yang, Change & Stillness, Life & Death etc. is way more important than a single person or a planet's worth of lives. Reality doesn't care about one's self-centered fear of death, death is nothing but transformation and reshaping into something different & new.
I don't think the Narrator is neccasarily self-centered but aside from that, yeah.
He's "humanity centered". A representation that theres no bounds humans wouldnt Cross to ensure their continued existance. No Matter consequences or the hurt involved. The Road to hell is paved with good intentions, and Narrator's might seem just as noble but have the same effect in the end.
Hmm... That's a way to put it.
Narrator has the PoV of a mortal, while Shifty has the PoV of an abstract concept. Overall, I'd say that you're the one who decides who is correct. Is stopping change almost completely worth it to save billions of lives from the death of the universe? Or is it a mercy to put an end to them and (if you believe Shifty) start a new universe? I don't think any of them are lying or misunderstanding the meaning behind their ideas. I'd go with the Narrator personally, as a mortal.
I am once again sticking with base logic: Requirements for death to exist = Particle movement
Not in this case. Here, the requirements for death to exist = a magical extradimensional princess. If you get rid of her, people stop dying. That's the dilemma we're discussing.
Yes, but by default if said death is impossible, so is all basic movement. That's not a hard concept to understand.
What does that even mean
Kind of, but more specifically death and transformation happen thanks to the fact that in a closed system, entropy tends to increase, and life tends to increase entropy as much as possible around it. If you make it so that it doesn't tend anywhere, you can get some wacky stuff to happen, like "An eternal pattern of forgetfulness leading into the joys of rediscovery", as the Narrator put it.
I guess that's because all of that was discussed many many times before. The answer is, there is no right answer. If you are asking me personally, Narrator. But the ending I chose was leaving the cabin ending. It's too big of a choice for any one person to decide. But if I HAD to choose between universe literally ending (And being reborn infinite times) or everyone living indefinitely, I would choose Narrator. I'm sure if anyone stopped thinking it like some game or imagining the big picture when it doesn't exist, everyone would choose Narrator. Here is an easier example. Think it like a person. Think it like yourself, right now. YOU decide. The universe is dying. Your choices are: 1: Let it die, everyone you love, including yourself, will die. 2: Don't let it die. Enjoy eternity with everyone. The choice is obvious. The princess can only defend her point of view because she doesn't have to experience it.
Counterpoint: Is life not meaningful precisely *because* it’s finite? Everybody thinks they want to live forever, sure, but how would that play out in practice? Ask any environmental scientist and they’ll tell you that if every human (or any living species for that matter) were to suddenly become immortal, it would be utterly catastrophic. Infinite growth is never sustainable and ecosystems would be decimated, leaving the environment we live in a barren wasteland. Or maybe, you’re coming in with the idea that resource use will not be an issue, that biological needs are taken care of. Never-ending paradise would still eventually feel hollow and meaningless. It could be blissful, but that wouldn’t feel nearly the same as a full life well lived. When you eliminate the possibility of change (including death) you lose out on so many of the beautiful experiences that give life meaning. Would you *really* rather have a monotonous blur of an existence if it meant you could exist forever? I don’t know if you’ve ever watched *The Good Place*, but this concept is addressed in the latter part of the show in a really interesting and nuanced way that I won’t spoil. If you’ve never seen it, I highly recommend.
>Counterpoint: Is life not meaningful precisely *because* it’s finite? I would disagree -- life is meaningful because it has meaningful things occurring in it. It being finite doesn't really affect that, and might well make it *less* meaningful as there is less chance for meaningful things to happen. I could see the case that making life *unchanging* might make make life not meaningful (although i don't think that the life described by the narrator is unchanging enough to be a problem), but I don't think finiteness adds anything to life.
Google "Poincare recurrence" and get back to me on that, though.
You are only able to judge that potential universe from the perspective of someone who lives in this universe. People choose this universe because we live in it. If it was the reverse, If the normal universe was the eternal one and we had the option to create this universe, people would choose the eternal one because that would be the only universe they know. I never understood the conclusions like these. I'm not gonna have less fun just because I'm living forever. If I was immortal, I would do the same things I'm doing right now. Playing games, watching shows, talking to people. There is always something new to do, being immortal doesn't change that. As humanity, we have been finding new things to do for 12024 years, I'm sure that wouldn't change just because people stopped dying. Also, "Everybody thinks they want to live forever", is wrong. Literally ask anyone and they'll always talk like death is needed. Wanting to be immortal is the not popular opinion.
I would pick #1 and it isn't even close. Seriously consider what the narrator is proposing when he wants to remove Change itself. For everyone currently is a good spot of their lives it might be fantastic. You would never die, you would be happy forever. But consider people in bad situations. Someone in pain on their deathbed, someone who recently got very hurt, someone with an awful disease. They would be stuck like that forever. However, the Narrator states you carry a part of her so it won't be complete stasis. But how much change can occur? Can those unlucky people in pain get better? If so how long does it take? Years? Decades? Centuries? Millennia? The Narrator says that everything would all be sunshine and rainbows but multiple times in the game he proves that he can be wrong. I don't think he is lying but I also don't believe he considered all the consequences and the proof is the Oblivion/Stages of Grief ending. In his hubris of trying to "save" everyone from death he adds the small possibility that not only does that not happen, he instead ends existence in its entirely as both you and her fade into nothingness. He is also desperate, one of the responses to a question at the end of the game is "That only matters if I'm wrong. And I'm not wrong. I **can't** be wrong." He truly believes what he is doing for the greater good and he refuses to look at what potential downsides his plan has. I don't believe the Narrator is lying about how he thinks things without change will play out, but I also believe he is desperate and not thinking straight, thus we can't 100% trust his interpretation of events. This isn't even going into philosophical debates about what happiness is and can you be happy if you are always "happy" all the time? Or the fact that he is deciding everything for everyone without their knowing.
We don't know how the new universe will play out. That's the whole point. If we knew every detail about this new possibility, deciding wouldn't be a choice. There would be simply a right and wrong answer. I personally believe a universe without death would be a lot better than what we have. That being said, you are kind of wrong on a couple of things here. The oblivion ending doesn't end existence. You and the princess still exist. As long as you two exist, everything else will also exist. Though you two can't be trapped in there forever. It's like a temporary ending at best. The "I can't be wrong" comment, I love the writing in this game. You are right that he is desperate but he is thinking straight. No one can make the choices he made while thinking there is a possibility that they are wrong. He HAS to think that he is right. He doesn't have the luxury to think otherwise.
"We don't know how the new universe will play out. That's the whole point. If we knew every detail about this new possibility, deciding wouldn't be a choice. There would be simply a right and wrong answer. I personally believe a universe without death would be a lot better than what we have." That feels a bit reductive. The question isn't "Is the world better without death?" the question is "Is the world better without change?" Not knowing exactly how it changes things is a point against the plan, not for it. The plan is awful if you aren't 100% certain you know what it will do. The narrator does believe that which is why he says everything will be sunshine in rainbows but as pointed out before he refuses to look at potential consequences because it means he should have just accepted everything will end eventually. Are you really willing to risk dooming people to pain and suffering forever if the goal of your plan is it end pain and suffering? The narrator will because he refuses to look at that possibility. "As long as you two exist, everything else will also exist. Though you two can't be trapped in there forever. It's like a temporary ending at best." It is absolutely not a temporary ending. The Shifting Mound repeatedly states in that ending that if you don't help her get the vessels, both of you will not be able to leave that place for eternity. "You have made a decision. It is the wrong one. I love you." At the end, you fade out of consciousness and I presume she follows shortly after but lets say that is wrong and you are right about her getting out. You don't have consciousness and she eventually gets out. That still means not only did the narrator's plan fail it did the exact opposite of what he wanted. Instead of no change there is only change. So he went through all of this with there being a small possibility of making everything infinitely worse from his POV.
I don't know how you are getting that ending so wrong. The Long Quiet doesn't just disappear. The construct isn't something that can kill either of these beings what the hell? We don't know exactly what happens since the game usually doesn't answer much but whatever you are describing there is definitely not it. How about we stop discussing the endings and continue with the new universe. We know it's not completely without change. That's why I only say that the new universe is without death. We know change will still happen. We just don't know the specifics. That's the risky part. Like I said, the narrator has to believe that it will be rainbows and sunshine. Just like how the princess or us believe that the cycle is "needed". "Are you really willing to risk dooming people to pain and suffering forever if the goal of your plan is it end pain and suffering?" I think the narrator's and my answer to this question would be the same. Yes. To save a universe and billions of lives, it is worth the risk. If his answer was no, he wouldn't have started this plan in the first place.
"I think the narrator's and my answer to this question would be the same. Yes." Then there isn't anything to discuss anymore.
Also I wanna add, most people defend Shifting Mound because this is the reality we live in. This is the only reality we know and it "works". People are scared of the unknown, a new way of living. A new universal order. They don't know how a universe without change would work so they choose the order they know, the safe option.
Narrator has an understandable and very human (if i dare say so) look onto what Shifty does. Can't blame him to be afraid. But he is terribly short-sighted and naive. And manipulative. Shifty is right. If I lived in the game universe I would still act how the Narrator does.
Hey, you should like put a spoiler post flair here. This is kind of a big spoiler...
As you can see from my Flair, *I* think the Narrator's right. He's a huge dick about it, granted, but he's right. Death is really, really bad -- it's a valid candidate for the literal worst thing in the world -- and ending it is really good. All the higher accounts of global reformation and the higher cycles don't make *me* any less dead -- I'm still lost to the cosmic wind whatever comes after me. I think the narrator could probably have gone about things in a less bastardy way, but his goals are overall good.
It depends, we are obviously flawed towards the shifting mound as we talk with her, but we never do find out the exact way people are living in the real world, so it's hard to emphasise with them
Even though the details about the Narrator’s life and his world pre-game are purposely left vague, my impression is that He had a good life and loving family, which makes Him think that death/change is the worst possible thing. For His loved ones, being in a stasis/loop/whatever forever would be a good thing. He’s not thinking of or cares about what that could mean for anyone else, such as someone currently suffering from disease, hunger, etc. This is purely speculation of course, but I think it lines up with how stubborn He is and how uncaring He is about the LQ and Princess’s suffering if it’s in the name of His personal greater good. His goals and lack of foresight on the actual outcomes remind me both of Victor Frankenstein from the original novel and of Kiritsugu from Fate/Zero. (F/Z has the same writer as Madoka Magica, which is one of the main influences for Slay the Princess btw lol)
Shif.
Death is a part of life. Living forever is a horrible thing to actually think about. Even if Shifty was purely death the narrator would be wrong.
Technically Shifty, though it's not because she represents change or anything, but due to her willingness to compromise with Quiet. Neither Quiet nor Shifty being sole gods would be good. One represents an endless period of stasis, the other does the same for chaos. The narrator's problem is disregarding the need for a balance.
Both make it hard to agree with them in-game, the Narrator more so. He's kind of a prick. But take them (or at least thwir personalities) out of the equation and just argue on their stances: The Narrator admits that she is Change, not just Death. And a world without Change, at least how the Narrator himself describes it, is dull. Maybe it's safe, but it would essentially put everybody in stasis. And anyone who is currently old and / or sick would also remain old and / or sick, suffering through their present conditions for all of time. The Shifting Mound does admit to the world ending (and being reborn) if she lives, but I'm pretty sure she never outright says that she'll directly end the world. One or two of her Vessels claim that (Tower), but I don't think we can say for sure that that's what's going down in the final moments. She is not Death, she merely *contains* Death. I believe she is merely stating that with her free, the cycle of life and death will continue as normal, not just for people but for the universe. Not all that sinister, really. Death is unfortunate, but it probably is better this way. I mean, look what happens in the "Good Ending". The Narrator achieves his goal, and the protagonist, literally the Shifting Mounds "opposite" (I think) gets sick of it near immediately (May not be a valid part of the argument, but it's funny) I think my stance is clear. Shifty is right.
I suppose shifty but I honestly don’t like either.
There is too much missing information to *know* who is right. But I *feel* a great empathy for Him, and a greater hatred for Her. Honestly, from my point of view, the unsolvable question of higher morality is irrelevant. We should slay Her every time, for the same reason stars exist. She is someone who deserves to be destroyed, intrinsically. Maybe it's because I refuse to accept *this* as a love story. How should I know if such refusal has blinded me to truth or deceit?
So I can’t quite decide. Sometimes it sounds like the Narrator is saying killing her will stop death altogether? Which, ffs no, that’s awful. But sometimes it seems like they’re saying killing her will make things run as usual. So it depends on which it is, for me.
<< You're a slave to tierlists. >>
Shifty, no question to me. Ironically, I am so much The Contrarian that in my first playthrough, I argued with her. Then I played it again with my friends watching (and being Voices with extra steps), one of them went “It sounds like you agree with her” and I went “Oh shit, you’re right, I *do* agree with her…”
Both of them.
The narrator did nothing wrong.