Not everyone can function as an individual. "No man is an island." Inegalitarianism: well, actually, some can be an island if they want to be. And some can't. The NPC looks more or less like the [can't] zone.
Imagine brothers. One can't pass up a gacha or pachinko, and his brother has to drag him away. The other tries to introduce himself to everyone he meets, but he's super cringe, so the first brother has to drag him away. Neither can grow up to be independent, but if they stay together, they can be functional.
It would be better if anyone who couldn't function individually was instead dead, but they're not, so here we are.
There are innumerable flaws which lead the sufferer to see catastrophic hazards in everyday, unavoidable situations. Indeed the myriads are part of the solution. It's very unlikely that two flawed individuals will have the same flaw and be unable to cover for each other.
Speaking of obvious, there's an obvious failure mode. What if brother one drags his sibling to pachinko, while the other drags him into many awkward or dangerous social encounters? Why does the virtuous individual override the flawed one?
No really, I have no idea. I was hoping you'd know.
It does happen sometimes, or rather, sufficiently often. The flawed non-individuals go all [blind leading the blind], spreading contagious vice. Which is why it's better if they fail to exist, rather than attempting the janky patch job. Mutual babysitting can work - it's not like I've never seen it - but it's obvious the trends are dominated by the flip side.
One way it works is when the flawed individual recognizes the flaw as a flaw. Except they can't simply decide to not decide to do it anymore. NPCs. Can't make decisions for themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment