Love it to make this one. Everything feels so... intimate 🥰

Commission to @charles12-13

hey havent posted here in a while have some pricefield (ill post griddlehark later)

CW: bruises (this was a comm based on "this action will have unforeseen consequences" on ao3)

And ends up wearing the skinny one because Angela won.

Thanks to the both of you, @boneless-binted and @dykemoira

BOOP

And that’s how Moira lost a finger

A cute pricefield commission to @charles12-13

Certain things are never justified

One of the reasons I am captivated by the Bae vs Bay dillema is that it perfectly exemplifies the difference between "pure" utilitarianism on one hand and rules-based utilitiarianism as well as deontology on the other.

To put it simply, under "purely" utilitarian ethics, actions are judged solely based on their outcome. Ends justify all means.

Under rules-based utilitarianism, actions are generally judged based on their results, but with some exceptions. Some actions, which violate fundamental values and principles, can never be considered justified, even if they would bring about positive results.

And under deontological ethics, actions are judged based not on their outcomes, but rather based on whether they conform to the moral duties resting on the person performing the action.

Do you see the difference? Under "pure" utilitarianism, ANY action can be justified, as long as it produces the result you deem positive. Doesn't matter how vile the action is, it can be justified, as long as the situation is "exceptional" enough.

Under the latter two approaches, certain actions are so reprehensible, that they can never be justified, no matter what outcome they would produce.

Now, you'd think that murder, that is intentionally causing the death of another human being outiside of the context of self-defence, is something so reprehensible that we'd all agree it's never justified. Unfortunately, the Bae vs Bay dillema, the fact that it even is a dillema, proves that some people are able to rationalize even murder, "for the greater good".

And yes, Max intentionally taking Chloe from the safety she enjoys on Friday and thrusting her back in front of a barrel of a gun on Monday, is murder. Bay Max intentionally, as a result of her conscious decision, causes Chloe to die. She willingly causes Chloe's death, which wouldn't happen otherwise. If Max does nothing on Friday, Chloe lives. It's Chloe's death that requires Max's conscious input. It doesn't matter it's Nathan who's pulling the trigger, the same it doesn't matter it's not you behind the steering wheel if you push someone into traffic.

If Bay Max ever stood trial, she would be found guilty of murder - she intentionally caused another person's death with her actions. And no, "destiny" is not a valid defence in criminal court. And no, the fact that Chloe was originally in danger and it was Max who saved her life doesn't matter, because it doesn't make Chloe into Max's property that she can freely dispose of. It matters that on Friday, when the final choice is made, the original danger has already been averted and it requires Max's conscious decision and intentional action to recreate that danger and push Chloe into it. And no, nobody can "okay" their own murder. Especially a depressed, abused teenager.

In contrast, if Bae Max ever stood trial, she would be acquitted. Because to be held responsible for something, you need to at least be able to predict the consequences of your actions. Max had no intent to destroy the town, which is why she couldn't be found guilty of murder. She couldn't even be found guilty of manslaughter, because on Monday, when she performed the action which brought about the Storm, it was impossible for her to predict that would be the result. You can't retroactively ascribe Max's state of mind from Friday to her action on Monday. To find someone guilty, the action and intent have to exist simultaneously.

To my chagrin, a lot of people are willing to justify murder. To them, utilitarianism excuses even the intentional taking of another person's life, as long as it produces a result which they consider "a greater good" or at least a "lesser evil".

So I'm going to give a different example, which hopefully will illustrate to everyone that "pure" utilitarianism is a flawed ethical system, leading to monstrous, inhuman conclusions. There's one thing that hopefully nobody would ever try to excuse.

TW: sexual assault

Let's consider a hypothetical scenario, in which the terrible crime Max saves Chloe from on Monday is not murder, but rape. It's not a far-fetched scenario, since the "photo sessions" Jefferson and Nathan subjected their unwilling models to were a form of sexual assault. Given Jefferson's ramblings about "taking away the innocence and corrupting" the teenage girls he abducted and how both him and Nathan kept calling their victims "whores" and "sluts", the repulsive sexual undertone of their violence is clear. And who knows what Nathan would've done to Chloe had she not mustered the last bits of her strength to flee from his dorm room?

So in this different scenario, Max has the option to push Chloe from the safety she enjoys on Friday back into danger on Monday. But not to be murdered. To be raped.

I beg of you, please tell me you wouldn't still choose the Bay in that different scenario. Please tell me you at least find rape to be so evil of an act that you would always prevent it, without even considering the results from a utilitarian perspective. Please tell me you would never let someone be raped, not even to stop a tornado with multiple fatalities.

So if we agree that there's at least one act so vile that it can never be justified, no matter how "exceptional" the situation might be, no matter what the consequences of preventing that act might be, don't you think that murder should also be considered an unjustifiable action? It's not appropriate or even possible to compare different types of atrocities, but you could make an arguement that a victim of rape at least has a chance to overcome their trauma and continue their life. A victim of murder has no such chance.

Why is the clash of "pure" utilitarianism with rules-based utilitarianism and deontology so important? I apologize, I know I'm going to fulfil Godwin's law, but I think it's warranted this time.

Some SS and NKVD members were simply sadists, relishing at the opportunity to murder and torment others with impunity. But some were people who bought into the deplorable, false narrative that in exceptional circumstances, like war or revolution, great sacrifices simply had to be made. That some people, whose continued existence was a threat to the nation, had to be removed. Regrettably, they had to be killed. But their murder was justified, as it would produce a greater good for the rest of society.

If you're a "pure" utilitarian, you can be persuaded to commit any atrocity imaginable. If you are willing to intentionally take a human life outside of the context of self-defence, then under right circumstances - war, revolution or some other calamity - you could do anything, as long as a persuasive arguement is made that it's "a lesser evil" or that it will lead to "a greater good" or that it simply "has to be done".

But if you acknowledge that there are some actions, like murder, which are never justified, then you remain immune to such arguements. No matter the circumstances, you would never commit certain acts of evil. You have at least some basic red lines. And that makes you a moral person.

I don't understand that section of the LiS fanbase, at all

I'll never understand folks who sacrifice Chloe and also gush over how cute she is with Max or how cool of a character she is. Okay, don't murder her then. Is there something I'm missing? Her life or death is up to you. If you decide to kill her, then she obviously is not that important to you. Certainly not your "number one priority".

Go bask in your glory of an everyday hero who'd be willing to kill their own friend for "the greater good" instead of crying crocodile tears over Chloe's coffin.

An especially egregious example of such mentality is fetishizing Chloe as a "tragic" character, a member of the 27 Club with an 8 year head start. Dude, you're the one turning her life story into a tragedy. You're the one killing her. You're the one depriving her of a happy ending, of a fresh start. I don't understand the morbid interest in Chloe's story viewed through that lens.

The story of a troubled kid who everyone gave up on, including her family, her friends and even herself, who died a stupid death that could've been prevented had she had at least one person standing in her corner (but as it turned out, there was nobody willing to stick by her) is not interesting or captivating. It's simply revolting. And to tell you the truth, quite unoriginal in its inhumanity and banal in its cruelty. Look out the window and you'll see hundreds of stories like that. Is this the sort of story you wish to write with your choices?

At least I can understand Chloe Price haters. They sacrifice Chloe, because they are lusting to murder the person they are seething with hatred towards. They sacrifice Chloe, because they are deriving sick pleasure from handing down the death penalty for the unforgivable crime of being a troubled teen. That mindset is condemnable, but I can at least understand it, even though I would never think or feel that way, not about Chloe, not about anyone else.

But I cannot comprehend the mindset of celebrating the character that you judged unworthy of survival, less important than others, whose life you chose to spend as a resource. We get it, you performed the incredibly complex analysis of "one is less than multiple", you proved you possess "the strongest of wills to make the hardest of choices".

You decided that there were others "who should live way more" than Chloe and you swung the headman's axe. I salute both your strength to usurp for yourself the right to judge who is more worthy of life and your courage to immediately kill to enforce your swift and wise judgement. I personally, being a coward, faced with a choice to sacrifice a human life to stop a tornado would refuse to do so and let the events unfold, as I feel I am in no position to ever judge who should live and who should die. I guess that's just my weakness and liberal, tree-hugging concern for human dignity speaking.

But could you please stop smiling over the coffin of your victim? Could you please stop recollecting all the moments of joy and friendship that you selfishly decided to take back, that you erased, that you prevented from ever hapening? Could you please stop celebrating the friend that you used for five days to make yourself feel better about your past mistakes and to go through a coming-of-age adventure, who you then discarded like a toy you got bored with, making sure that she never experienced any of the things you did?

Go have fun with all the people you saved instead of performatively mourning the person whose life you deemed so insignificant you chose to willingly cause her death. Sadistic fate set her up as the Price to be paid. And in your blind obedience to evil destiny, you chose to pay with her life. Whether that made you feel bad or sad was irrelevant to her as she died alone, abandoned and afraid, in a pool of her own blood.

On a related note, don't you think Bay Max keeping Chloe's belongings is deeply disturbing? The belongings of a girl who saw Max for the last time five years ago? I'm fairly certain that if you asked the Monday, pre-parking lot Chloe (so the one who is murdered) if she wished for her personal belongings to pass to Max in case of her death, she would respond with an emphatic "no". I wonder, would Bay Max lie to Joyce, telling her that she got to reconnect with Chloe before her murder (she didn't, since she erased all the time she had spent with Chloe). This only goes to show that Bay Max is totally out of character - basically a creepy body snatcher.

Specific love versus general attachment

I love finding parallels between Life is Strange and other stories. Recently I found one such parallel in a most unexpected place – while re-watching the Matrix trilogy. In Matrix: Reloaded Neo was presented by the Architect with what was essentially the Bae vs Bay dilemma. And he chose Bae, without a moment’s hesitation!

In one of my previous posts I argued that in any trolley problem, the moral solution is not to pull the lever, as nobody has the right to judge the person on the side track unworthy of survival and to deprive them of their life, even if it would save the lives of the people on the side track. No matter if it’s one life versus a hundred, or a thousand. Of course, you could keep raising the stakes. One life versus a million. One life versus a billion. The most extreme trolley problem would be the one in which one life would be pitted against all other human lives in existence – one person on the side track, the entire human race on the main track.

Neo was presented with such a dilemma. Sacrifice one person or the entire human race will die. He was told by the Architect, the program in charge of the Matrix, that a system crash was imminent, which would kill all human beings connected to the Matrix, thus wiping out mankind for good. Neo was then presented with two doors. One would lead him to the Source, a part of the Matrix Neo, being the anomalous Chosen One, had to reach in order to prevent the crash. The second door would lead him to the part of Matrix where Neo’s beloved, Trinity, currently found herself in mortal danger, pursued by the murderous Agents. Neo was told, in no vague terms, that he could save mankind from extinction, but to do so, he had to leave the woman he loved to die alone.

I reject the notion that Neo didn’t believe the choice he’d been presented with was real. Neo had no reason to doubt the Architect’s words. On the contrary, he quite clearly believed that the Architect told him the truth. In the last moments of the movie Neo relays to Morpheus a warning of an impending machine attack against Zion, which is another thing the Architect told him about. If he believed the Architect’s words about the attack, he also believed his words about the system crash. Why the system crash ultimately didn’t take place is of secondary relevance. Many things in Neo’s cycle went differently than in previous ones, in no small part thanks to Agent Smith serving as the wild card. What is important is that Neo believed the choice was real. The woman he loved or the entire human race.

Neo immediately, without a second thought, went for the door leading to Trinity. The Architect mocked him for being an irrational, primitive being driven by chemical reactions in the brain.

I know the Architect scene in Matrix: Reloaded is often cited as the foremost example of overwritten dialogue which talks a lot but doesn’t say much. Having re-watched it, I disagree. I think the style of the Architect’s dialogue fits his character (he’s a program, his mind is completely alien to us humans – it’s no wonder he speaks in a way difficult to understand). But the contents of his dialogue lines I find genuinely thought-provoking.

In his speech, the Architect contrasted two types of attachment to others. Love and “general attachment”. He said that Neo was very different from the previous Chosen Ones. Because while all Chosen Ones felt a profound attachment to the rest of mankind, those who had come before Neo had only experienced it in a very general way. But Neo’s experience was far more specific. Instead of the general attachment of his predecessors, he felt a specific form of attachment. Love. His love for Trinity.

The Architect was able to comprehend general attachment. When Neo asked him what would the machines do if they lost humanity as their primary power source, the Architect replied there were levels of survival he was willing to accept. If the machines lost their source of power, many, perhaps most of them would die. But some would survive. Their kind would live on. That’s the only thing that mattered to the Architect. Because he was only generally attached to his kind. But he was unable to care about specific machines. He was incapable of love. Of caring about individuals. It was an alien concept to him. Something he ridiculed as a result of chemical reactions in the brain of a primitive creature. In the Architect’s mind, rational creatures never form specific attachments, only general ones.

I am fascinated by the Bae vs Bay dilemma, because to me it seems so obvious. Of course you’re not going to leave your friend to die alone, abandoned and afraid! But to my surprise, there are a lot of people for whom the choice is a no-brainer in the other direction. How could you not sacrifice your friend to save many others? This sentiment always baffles me. Not only the willingness to sacrifice a friend, but the conviction that it’s the obviously right thing to do?

I cannot comprehend that mindset. I cannot understand why Neo would leave his beloved to be murdered by Agents, even if it would save the entire human race. I cannot understand why Max would leave Chloe to be murdered by Nathan, even if it would spare Arcadia Bay from the Storm.

Because if you are unable to care about a single person specifically, why in the world would you care about a group of people?

If you are unable to care about a loved one or a friend to the point you would do everything to save their life, then you are most certainly unable to care about a group of people to the point you would perform what is essentially human sacrifice to save them.

If you are unable to love one person, you are unable to love a group of people. This is clear when we contrast Neo with the previous Chosen Ones. Neo was capable of love. This allowed him to defy the Matrix and ultimately liberate mankind from its shackles. The previous Chosen Ones, who were only capable of general attachment to others, chose to perpetuate mankind’s enslavement by the machines. Because they didn’t love their fellow human beings. How could they? They were unable to care about individuals specifically. So they were unable to care about collections of individuals as well.

If Neo were unable to care about Trinity to the point he would do everything to save her life, why would he care about mankind in general to the point he would go through all the hardship associated with being the Chosen One to save it?

If Max was unable to care about Chloe to the point she would do everything to save her life, why would she care about Arcadia Bay in general to the point she would be willing to push someone in front of a barrel of a gun just to spare it from a hurricane?

I’ve never seen anyone accusing Neo of being a monster, or a sociopath or selfish or any of the other epithets lobbed at Bae Max, even though Neo chose his own Bae over a million Bays. And I completely understand him. The mindset allowing one to leave someone they care about behind, to die alone, is incomprehensible to me. As if it was the mindset of a completely alien creature, like the Architect.

old piece that i ended up taking down, but i quite like it so i'm reposting it again. ❤️

M stands for Max!

For the longest time, I wondered what does this symbol mean. Stickers with this symbol can be found both on Chloe’s truck and in her room. It’s a white cross on a dark blue background. The only thing it reminds me of is the Scottish flag, although it’s not quite it – the Scottish flag is not square, its cross is thinner and the background is lighter.

I didn't think the flag hypothesis was correct (although I couldn't rule it out completely – Chloe proudly displays a huge-ass US flag in her room, which is the only large flat surface in her room not defaced with graffiti), but I kind of wanted it to be.

“Price” sounds like a British last name. So perhaps she is indeed of Scottish ancestry (and maybe even a great granddaughter of captain Price himself, the one of Call of Duty fame). This coupled with Max being Irish (“You’ve got that Irish luck, Caulfield”, as Chloe put it) would give their relationship a "Romeo and Juliet” vibe. Two scions of nations that have been at odds for centuries being friends and falling in love? How romantic! Love truly can blossom over any division! I’m of course joking. I know that the Irish and the British have been on generally friendly terms for decades now. But the difficult history is still there. So I don’t think their British and Irish ancestry would be any kind of problem. But it could be a source of friendly banter between them and an opportunity for their friends to make humorous comments.

But today a fellow LiS fan enlightened me that it's a nautical communication flag. It means the letter "M". Why "M" though? Why not "C" for "Chloe" or "P" for "Price"?

"M" for "Max" of course! Chloe's always had Max on her mind. Just like she wrote in her diary in BtS, if Max came back, she would take her back in a heartbeat, no questions asked. And that's precisely what she did, saying "welcome home, Max" five minutes after their reunion, before she even knew Max saved her life, even if Max gave her stink by saying to "give her a break, because she was going through changes too" (sure, moving to a different town is comparable to losing a parent).

Notice that this symbol is found on the windshield of Chloe's truck on the passenger's side, where Max sits. And in Episode 3 this symbol is visible on Chloe's cabinet as the camera pans through the room, right before we see Max lying in Chloe's bed.

These flags are used to communicate between ships when they are out of earshot. So Chloe, unable to communicate with Max verbally (over the phone, which Max didn't pick up), placed these flags all over, subconsciously trying to send a signal to her lost friend, to summon her back.

Because Max and Chloe are always together. Even when they are not.

Just following the line with dark colors and sad feelings.

I invite you to watch a video essay on the Bae vs Bay dillema made by a friend of mine, for which I helped write the script.

Love in October

Lost Records x Life is Strange

I placed this order a few months ago thanks to @b3nsn0w-blog for commissioning me!

The idea was extremely cool <3 hope everyone is doing well ( ˶ˆᗜˆ˵ ) If you are interested in a drawing or a project do not hesitate to send me a message!