bardictype
patreon
Writer's Blog: “Villains” and Their Optional Backstories
🕑 Added 2021-06-12 02:01:33 +0000 UTC(Contains minor spoilers for Chapter 10)
Oh, Vengeance. How thou dost give me a headache.
Vengeance is complicated. They’re not the “good guys,” they’re terrorists. But not the kind usually seen on TV, although they do love a good evil monologue.
Vengeance recruits from two separate pools of people.
The first type of person that Vengeance recruits is pretty easy for Button to hate (and even easier for Button to make fun of). This is the kind of person whom Button interacts with on Podium (or at least, Button interacts with the "lite" version). They're angry with their own lives for whatever reason and lashing out at anyone they think has it better. Even if these Vengeance members have sympathetic backstories or even (perish the thought!) make the occasional decent point (like the fact that Unity tends to bulldoze local non-Ment authorities, and that maybe just maybe Nick wasn’t the most qualified person to be UCRT’s leader when he was first granted the position), they lose any and all credibility because they’re so gosh darn ugly towards anyone who doesn’t wholly agree with their narrow viewpoint. They’re the clear-cut extremists. The kind that TV shows cast as the bad guys, because the moral complexity of their unrighteous cause can be neatly wrapped up within a 45-minute plot.
To put it more simply, these kind of Vengeance followers are jerks. My one rule as a kindergarten teacher has always been “Don’t be a meanie pants,” and this first sort of Vengeance member wears puffy pantaloons sewn from blind aggression and nastiness. They don’t play well with others at recess, and bite the other students.
The second kind of person whom Vengeance recruits, however, is the type that makes up the bulk of the organization. For lack of a better description . . . they’re “normal.” They’re the people whom Button meets at Reese’s party.
They’re freaking hard for me to write.
The issue of Ment rights (and ergo Unity as an organization that polices Ment criminals while also advocating for Ment acceptance) in Mind Blind is meant to be complicated in way that there’s no real-world parallel. Ments are more powerful than Lo-Pos. They can hurt people, even when they really don’t mean or even want to (Hi, Hope!).
As a result, many of the people who are drawn to Vengeance are people who have personally experienced what happens when a Ment, deliberately or not, abuses their power. Despite Unity’s propaganda, it happens, because Ments are people and people can be jerks (sometimes that first type of Vengeance recruit is instead born with psychic abilities).
In the second half of Chapter 10, Button gets a chance to talk with people who have, like Button, been on the receiving end of Ment violence. These people are victims, who deserve empathy and compassion. Because of their personal histories, they’re afraid. And to some extent, that’s understandable: If you get nearly mauled to death by a tiger, you may afterwards be afraid of all tigers. It doesn’t matter if the zookeeper claims that this tiger is a sweet little pussy cat who wants to cuddle, the tiger still has giant teeth and is capable of biting off your head.
Ments are people, however. People with the psychic giant teeth who can force you sign away your pension and then jump off a bridge if you trust them.
So, yeah. It’s complicated. And I’m a little terrified. Making Vengeance be a “pure evil” organization who do bad things for bad reasons would be infinitely easier, but it wouldn’t feel half as realistic (Within a super unrealistic premise, but nevertheless! Realism!).
I’ve ultimately decided to give players the choice on whether or not they want Button to listen to the backstories of Vengeance’s members. It’s tricky for this to happen organically, without me breaking the 3rd wall and writing: “Click here to read people attempt to justify the unjustifiable and do a disturbingly half-decent job of it.” I’m still working on these selections (Chapter 10’s last bit will be all out once this is done).
Button can sympathize with these Vengeance members, because they do deserve sympathy. Button can even emphasize to the point where they risk sliding down that slippery slope of equating Ments with tigers (because people really shouldn’t be dehumanized and compared to animals, even if it’s within an imaginary setting and metaphorically convenient).
Alternatively, Button can take a hard stance against Vengeance, because Vengeance’s actions and goals are undeniably horrific, and refuse to listen (this is also a choice for readers who simply don’t want to read those passages).
If I do my job right, it should be clear that sympathy for an individual is not the same as agreement with their actions, and Button will be able to form a nuanced stance on how they view Vengeance.
If I do my job wrong . . . well, hopefully you guys will let me know and give suggestions to improve!
Comments
Cas
I definitely enjoyed hearing their backstories and letting Button have moments of doubt, but ultimately deciding she is going to stop them. Because the alternative they have in mind is just as horrifying. When I play through my Er— more resentful Button, there is a danger of her falling down the slippery slope.
René Rosé
Okay, DA handles mages poorly in general because the narrative explicitly correlates it to mental illness & physical disability. The entire Chantry VS Mage narrative hinges on using real life language and examples (tranquility = lobotomy, etc etc) showcase the horror of authoritative abuse while consisting increasing the danger of magic. Bioware rarely ever holds religion accountable and doesn't seem to actively want to topple the system but uses flimsy narratives like "change it from the inside depending on what divine you pick 😉". People with powers of any kind ARE still people, especially when the powers are not an analogy for something else. But they do have to be treated something differently, or at least, accommodated for differently because... powers as a concept with no baggage can be amazing just as they can be dangerous. Because it depends on the person. And even well intentioned people hurt others. It's a superlative skill that can cause harm or not depending on how its used. I'm not suggesting we force people to join government services or be treated like enemies of the state if they don't (Motherlands comes to mind) but powers do require some form of self or community maintenance. Also given the nuance of the worldbuilding that Mindblind is treading with Button, who is a bit of a double edged sword to Ments. It highlights a lot of the issues with having powers in CONJUNCTION with mental illness, social status and other things people decide to form prejudices against. I.E. Well-intentioned people being forced to be the audience of Button's thoughts and feelings non-stop. TLDR; I don't think you can swap out Ments for Mages in your argument. Powers, without the baggage of analogy, are tools. Sometimes people build their identities or their lives around their tools, but it's still a tool. A gun's a tool (despite many people thinking it's a toy that they build their identity around). The Safety VS Freedom is important to consider even on an individual level. Accommodations where you understand your powers more so as not burden yourself with both regular people problems AND powers allows you to form bonds and function in a community better. Despite what capitalism has sold you about individuality, it's worthless with a community. Freedom is fine and dandy, but its always costing someone else something, if only because of the way places like America have defined Freedom. Lost a bit of steam, and this isn't a shot at your comment, btw!!! There is something to be said about Bioware & many other medias handling of the matter! Just doesn't feel 1 to1, you know?
This discussion is vaguely reminding me of the mage discussion in Dragon Age, which is a discussion I’ve been embroiled in for the last 10 years so forgive me if I ramble. For anyone who doesn’t know a main plot point of the Dragon Age series is how to handle mages, because a person who can throw fire and lightning and sacrifice people in a blood ritual to make themselves stronger is undoubtedly a dangerous person. So the question becomes: can we be justified treating all members of a group with suspicion because of what they might do/are capable of doing? In my own opinion, no, we can’t do that. Because at the end of the day that person is still a person. If a dog bites you and you’re forever scared of dogs that’s reasonable. But it’s always a slippery slope comparing humans to animals. Humans can think and reason, a human should be intrinsically different to you than an animal. You should be able to differentiate someone who did you harm from someone else who is completely innocent. In my opinion Button can be a great example of this mindset if you play them right. Sure, they’ve been controlled and bullied by Ments basically their whole life. But everyone they’re really close to at the beginning is also a Ment. Their parents, their best friend, their brother, and their brother’s best friend. All of which go out of their way to protect Button. If *anyone* could tell you not all Ments are the same, it would be Button. Then there’s the topic of institutional discrimination. If Ments are only just starting to be accepted by the public we can assume they still face a great deal of distrust and everyday micro-aggressions. Hell, Vengeance is a whole terrorist organization dedicated to hating Ments, so flat out violent hate crimes are probably not uncommon too. It makes you ask yourself: how many Ments would never have turned to crime if they hadn’t been treated badly by society or the system? How much Ment crime could be solved with social and societal reform? I could literally write a 30 page dissertation on a topic like this, but I’ll TLDR with a snippet from a discussion I had in the Dragon Age community (obviously replacing ‘mages’ with ‘ments’): “I’m surprised more people don’t side against Ments, I mean it’s basically the gun debate right? Safety vs freedom. Most people decide it’s worth curbing a few freedoms for the safety of the masses.” “You do realize Ments aren’t guns right? They’re people. You can’t ‘curb the freedom’ of a *person*.”
Chigusa Eyes
I'm so excited!!! Honestly, I know my main Buttons do not agree with the methods + stances taken by Vengeance; but 1 views compassion as a necessity & listening to those you disagree with should still be done, the other would consider it interesting simply to lean into the mind in a non-Ment fashion of someone to learn abt their motivations etc ahhhhh I'm so excited
René Rosé
Superhero prejudice is always hard to portray in narratives without it being more harmful than not. I think a good way into making their justified argument somewhat skewed is making it obvious that it's not just terrorism that's the goal, but that well, they probably want powers and control in their own right. So they have solutions to one up Ments, or to become their own approved version--- any that gets across to me that, these people just don't like /certain/ people having power that they don't have. It's honest hatred at its core imo. But regardless I'm always up to listen to people who feel burdened, especially if I'm playing a character that has suffered tremendously because of this skewed power imbalance. I've played Nick's #1 pretty solidly in the game and I'm never gonna NOT do that, but it's always fun to flirt with the other side, if only so it reaffirms my choice in being so attached to my family and the people in my life! The whole forum scene was PERFECT, because my Button didn't want to say cruel things but decided to just rip the bandaid off and was weirdly /good/ at it, and felt miserable afterwards. Relationships are HARD and I feel like you've given us some solid variety and complexity! Mind Blind is a compelling IF! I'm sure whatever you push out will still be amazing, even if it needs a bit more work.
Skippy Hugo
Sounds interesting. I'd definitely listen to the backstories. But anyone who agrees with blowing up people are bad.
