I'm HALPING! [Worm AU fanfic]

How is root-beer insidious?....like really how can you compare a soft drink to the "Not a threat/nice guy' aura" ?

On the story note, looking forward to Taylor doing diplomacy with this Friendbringer and how he might come into conflict with his "brothers" or "sister" and keeping Taylor safe.

Also interesting to see a story where Taylor doesn't have direct control of the endbringer, a la "With friends like these..." and "... Who Needs Enemies?"

Once again thanks for all the stories you provide to us , O great and powerful Ack.

 

Taylor seems really off to me here. She's got to be under the influence of more than just an "I'm human" aura.

 

Oh God, I need more chapters stat until we reach a stopping point. Which admittedly may never happen.

 

It's from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, regarding a conversation between Quark and Garak.

Hence:

 

You noticed that too, huh? Way too confident, way too blasé. Weirdly combative with the Protectorate about the bullying.

 

I like.

Personally, I think it's the leadup to a noodle incident.

Friendbringers are already a thing. (there are others, those are just the first two that came to mind)

 

Kinda not a fan of how stupid Armsmaster is in this.

 

Yup.

Let me chance that to nomination for the first local Friendbringer then.

He's trying to follow procedure. Unfortunately for him, the book was never written for this situation and the whole 'sometimes you have to get away from the book to resolve something.' isn't something he's good at.

I suspect that there's some form of 'master/stranger' effect provided by Zach to Taylor to help her feel safe. That or she's simply so far outside her context of life, so beaten down by her pain and so angry at the physical manifestation of the pedestal of justice she put the Protectorate/heroes on braking on a subconscious level, that she simply has no fucks to give anymore.

If she had woken up to anyone short of Jack Slash or The Simurgh getting her out of the Locker? She'd probably side with them over the Protectorate at this moment. (possible exception for a local villain she has some actual antipathy for like Kaiser or Lung) Oh sure, tomorrow she'll think she was an idiot, but in this moment her emotional catharsis that someone is helping her (or Halping her as the case may be) is shoving too many endorphins through a system too damn starved of them for her to care.

 

Yup.

Okay, not sure if I'll ever explain it in canon, but here it is. Clockblocker has hacked Kid Win's requisition system and is waiting to see if anyone picks up on it.

That's how it's intended to be.

Thank you.

Yup.

Yup.

I was actually inspired in this fic by other 'human Endbringer' stories.

Caught that, did you?

Correct.

Not stupid. He's basically ignorant of the bigger picture.

Look at it this way. Parahuman attack at a high school. Two civilians badly injured, along with a Ward. All he gets told (by the girl with the agenda to not get her friends in trouble) is that he went off the deep end after a vaguely referred to 'prank', severely injured Shadow Stalker, then went off with some girl who may have been in on it.

He doesn't know that Taylor was in the locker, doesn't know the relevance of the locker at all, doesn't know that Taylor's anything but this parahuman's accomplice.

And a Ward has been injured, in her civilian identity. This is a really strong point. Someone's going to pay for this.

When he faces Zach and Taylor, they're not remorseful (because Taylor doesn't know and Zach doesn't care). Zach brushes off every attempt to get him to give himself up. Casually talks about killing heroes. Taylor does not help de-escalate the situation. Both of them verbally reject the idea of giving themselves up. They make allegations which he is willing to follow up once the perpetrator of the assault against a Ward is in custody, but there are priorities here, and his main priority is getting this dangerous parahuman into custody.

And then Zach walks toward Armsmaster. In a cop-vs-perp situation, that's when the gun would be out and aimed.

As readers, we all know what Armsmaster should be focusing on. He does not. And so it's handled badly.

 

It's easy for people to forget that law enforcement are not your friends. They're not there to be nice to you. They're there to uphold the law. Sometimes that sucks for you just as much as the other guy.

They can't just take you at your word that you're innocent, or that you have mitigating circumstances. If you're suspected of being a danger to the public, you will be arrested until they've had a chance to properly investigate. Because it's better for them to be wrong, than it is for them to be right but do nothing.

 

You assume he's a friend. He's already shown he'll do stuff Taylor doesn't like if he feels it will help her in some way... and his complete lack of morality.

God, now I'm picturing Taylor as Jiminy Cricket, with Zack as Pinocchio, learning to be a real boy while Taylor guides him as his conscious.

Of course this is Worm, so Jiminy Cricket has been replaced by Skitter...

He should have listened to Assault, and let Miss Militia do the talking.

Still thinking his is gonna lead to a noodle incident.

You just love being clear, concise, and completely ambiguous all at the same time, don't you?

 

I kinda want Kid Win to make a joke about why he did it and get chucked in master/stranger now. Because the whole thing is amusing to me.

Yes. But Zach is clearly trying to not upset Taylor here. In the same way a parent does things to help their kid and with all the condescending 'I know better then you' that is implied by that. At least that's my read on the situation. Zach is there to help Taylor. Zach's inhuman mindset and purple and green morality are whats causing issues here. Zach does seem to listen to her, but if push comes to shove Zach will step in 'for her own good' like any parent I've ever known.

Edit: at least that's what I think the author's conveying here. Once we have more data points we can draw new/better conclusions.

 

In some people's stories (particularly since we're talking about Taylor), it would just be bad writing, not a Master effect or whatever. Glad to have confirmation that you didn't just have a really off day or something.

As for Armsmaster, my only real issue is this bit:

Isn't that what happens with Lung on a fairly regular basis? When the parahuman criminal clearly outclasses all available forces, you let them get away. Better luck next time.

Looking back at it, I guess it depends on how he's taking Miss Militia's line just before that. Perhaps he means this statement in a less immediate sense than it seemed to me on my first read-through.

 

I think that's a lot of long standing issues talking there. Lung gets away with that, on Armsmaster's watch. How much do you think Colin hates that? Now some no name cape without even a mask is trying to do the same thing right in front of him. In a school. The man might not be the best at expressing himself, but I think if he were more prone to speaking out he would be all but screaming that at Zach. This is man who faces a walking affront to his ideals and his ego literally every time Lung is out and about. Who works insane hours specifically in the hope he can finally, finally take down Lung. I don't know if he was a member when Lung arrived and fought the Protectorate the first time, but if he was then it's fair to guess his first impression of Lung was the defeat and possible death of several members of the team of heroes he was on at the time. How long has it been since then? How many times has he tried to get the backing to make a strike to bring in Lung?

Zach's inadvertently pushing some of his buttons here. Zach literally does not care about who they are and deep in his ego Armsmaster can't emotionally believe that Zach wouldn't know who Armsmaster is. The fact Armsmaster is approaching this with the level of professional detachment and iron willed control he displays is really a testament to the mans dedication to his craft. I don't like Armsmaster as a character in general, but I have to acknowledge that this is a really rough situation for him due to his own issues and simple ignorance of who/what Zach is.

Armsmaster is going to have to accept that Zach isn't something he can handle right now, he needs more data, he'll need a new halberd (or attachments theirof) to deal with Zach. But until he tries, he doesn't know that. Diplomacy isn't in Armsmaster's toolkit, so he doesn't think in those terms.

I honestly feel bad for Armsmaster in this situation. He is the unfortunate guy who drew the short straw here. Frankly I think Ack's giving the character a really fair showing considering what Armsmaster knows. It's an old lesson I was taught by my first DM playing D&D: "Yeah, but I'm asking [Character]." (I got in so much trouble because of that lesson it's hilarious.) That lesson, along with "Yeah, but does [Character] know that?" is useful in writing and I think Ack's working it beautifully. Sure it's easy to write Armsmaster as a blunt black/white idiot, but I don't believe Ack is.

 

I didn't mean to imply otherwise. That particular statement just struck me as factually odd.

 

Ah. Sorry if it seemed like I was jumping you there.

It's not factually right, or wrong really. In the world Armsmaster wishes he occupied, that's what would happen. (Piggot would approve!) But the real world just doesn't reflect that. The laws are written as if Armsmaster's world was reality, but the PRT/Protectorate's practices are adapted to reality. As a street tough might put it: Shit sux yo.

 

It didn't, no worries. I just don't like realizing I've communicated poorly, and I tend to respond by clarifying even if a clarification won't really serve any useful purpose at that point.

(I didn't have anything else to say about the rest of your post because it struck me as well-reasoned and accurate.)

 

The issue becomes, just what counts as "when push comes to shove." That's the inherent problem when dealing with someone/something with a purple/green morality.

And I'm not so sure it's a purple/green morality situation to start with. Zach literally thinks anything is good and right as long as it "helps" Taylor, and things are only bad if they hurt her. Although given his lack of personal plans/ideas, he will default to 'halping' whoever is in front of him when Taylor is not present, hence saving Sophia's mother.

Morality implies emotion, and so far Zach has shown the emotional depth of Data in the first episode of Star Trek: TNG; AKA none.

 

I thought that's what blue/orange morality was: ethics defined along an axis that is, if not incomprehensible to humans, then at the very least incompatible with our traditional values. I don't think any mainstream human ethicist is going to advocate picking a specific individual and practicing strict utilitarianism with regard to that person alone. Instead of "right" and "wrong" (white/black), we have "helps Taylor" and "hurts or hinders Taylor" (blue/orange).

It's possible that I've misunderstood the trope, or that "purple/green" is used differently than "blue/orange" (I've seen the latter used several times, but this thread is my first time hearing the former.)

I am intrigued by this claim. Why do you say so?

 

Nope. Intentional. I'm actually showing rather than telling Zach's powers here.

Basically, he doesn't want this punk thinking he can get away with it. So he's putting it out there as firmly as he can, before the kid gets any ideas.

Unfortunately, he's preaching to the wrong choir. Zach knows he can get away with it. Just as Armsy knows he can take Zach. Trouble is, only one of them is right. And it ain't Armsmaster

That was before he located Taylor. Up till that point, it was "I am here to help." When he found her, it became, "Hello, Taylor Hebert! I am here to help you!"

He does show emotion, but it's almost impossible to tell. When he said "No," just before breaking Taylor out of the locker, for instance. It's never very strong.

 

Morality is essentially another way of saying "right or wrong." What is right or wrong is NOT instinctual, they're ingrained societal imperatives.

For example, A person everyone today would call a sociopath, when put back in say... ancient Greece would be known as one of their greatest leaders, or an epic hero.

Another example from ancient Greece. Back then it was normal and expected for men to strip naked, coat themselves in olive oil, and wrestle in the nude. I'm sure most (american at least) men's involuntary shudder at that mental image will tell you everything you need to know about its "morality" today. (note: I have no problem with gay men)

When broken down to it's most basic structure (it's, naturally, far more complex in reality), enough of a population feels a certain act is "wrong," so they form rules/laws against that act. Eventually the belief that act is wrong becomes a part of the society as a whole, and it starts to be "morally reprehensible" to do that act. The tie-in is, that those beliefs that an act is right or wrong are based on emotional reaction.

A killing is morally wrong because we take a look at the effects and are horrified, even if we're the one who did it.

For the majority of human history, a killing was just that, the end of a life. In many cases it was a good thing, proof of your manhood or some such. Therefore, it wasn't morally wrong. It could even be morally right.

The same works for positive morals, as seen by the actions of people portrayed as heroes by the population. Look at Odysseus from the Iliad and Odyssey, and compare his actions to Superman, or Batman, or any of the modern day "heroes." You'll find more in common with the villains than the heroes in that example.

All that's not even getting into the various moral states sex has been under over the millennia.

At any rate, I'm 1/2 asleep while typing this, so might not be the best explanation, but should get the basics of what I mean across.

 

Most people I know have no trouble distinguishing that which is disgusting and that which is evil. Ask you average North American how they feel about eating insects, and they'll go 'EWWWWWWW!'. But most of them know that there are other cultures where bugs are a staple food, and they have no problem with that.

 

I used Purple/Green rather then Blue/Orange for two reasons:
1. Avoid mentioning that website, lest it ensnare others in its labyrinthine depths.
2. To convey just how off Zach's logic seems to be.

Blue/Orange is, as I understand it, a moral/ethical code that doesn't accord with standard human ones, but is still consistent. Zach's code seems to be sufficiently malleable that he can go from 'Data not found.' to 'Killing is a fine method of conflict resolution' to 'Killing is only to be used when alternatives are unavailable.'
The first was the result of a nuanced, relatively in depth conversation with Sophia espousing her views.
The second was Taylor saying it is so.

That's a rather marked contrast. The point brought up by Edale about 'what qualifies as push comes to shove' is also quite relevant. But I suspect we'll need more data points to chart that one out. Presumably based on what we know, physical harm to Taylor and restriction of Taylor's freedom. Mind, I suspect Zach would approach the Protectorate trying to imprison her and Danny trying to ground her with the same 'No.' response.

Which is part of the fun of reading this story, seeing such a massively clashing world view and how people interact with it.

 

I would argue that's not evidence of malleability of his code at all. The code (helps Taylor: good, hurts/hinders Taylor: bad) remains unchanged; all that changes are his assessments of specific actions in relation that that static code, and they change because of the acquisition of new evidence: namely, that killing people emotionally hurts Taylor.

It's like deciding that eating pigs is morally wrong after reading about a new scientific study that demonstrates that pigs have human-level intelligence and are capable of communicating with researchers about abstract concepts using a language of tail gestures and farts. It's not that I've updated my morality; it's that I've updated my concept of "pig" to fall under "sentient and sapient," which means that my pre-existing belief that one shouldn't eat sentient sapients now prohibits me from eating pig.

 

*shrug* either or. Like I said, we require more data points to work from. Which we shall, by the authors grace, have in time.

 

My point with that example was that homosexuality was a normal part of human society at one point. It was something viewed as neither unusual or disgusting.

Then people started saying it was wrong, then stories such as the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah started spreading around, and the societal view shifted from it being normal to it being unnatural. And once the view spread around that it was unnatural, it was only a matter of a few generations until it became viewed as immoral.

I don't know the actual figure, but I imagine the number of people killed over the millennia for practicing the "evil" of homosecuality number in the millions. Even today you have a few people killed every year over this.

The societal view that homosexuality is immoral lasted millennia, and has only really started to fade away in the past 50 or so years.

And yes, there are still quite a few people out there that consider homosexuality as evil.

(note: still no problems with gay people myself)


And as for the insects thing... They're really good protein. Just chocolate coat them and you won't know what you're eating.

 

I'm of the school of thought that people can consider something moral or immoral and be wrong, so a lot of these arguments just aren't that compelling to me.

 

There's the whole question of how much morality is subjective and how much is objective, but it really does seem like it objective morality doesn't really exist, in which case it's all subjective so thinking something is moral or immoral is just based on your personal beliefs and thus can seem wrong to another. All makes perfect sense.

 

It's possible for something to be actually bad for you and not be seen as morally wrong (smoking, drinking to excess). Theoretically, then, there could be something that has a sum total effect of being good for you and actually be seen as morally wrong. Say, abandoning someone else in a disaster situation when not doing so might doom you as well. It saves your life, but it won't make you any friends.

In which case, I'm pretty sure that I can state that 'morality' =/= 'good'.

Zach's worldview is very simple. Help Taylor Hebert. If she wants something to happen, make it happen, within the constraints of how she says it can happen.

Deceptively simple, hey?

 

Ah yes, the monkey paw effect by way of a 'genie' with limited imagination and a utilitarian mindset centered around you the wisher. Always fun to watch, especially when people start tripping over themselves trying to 'out lawyer' the problem.