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.