2018/07/25 - Vegans Taste Better

[fenrirblack]

If they're that close to Babylon Gardens, what are the odds we get a couple of precocious fox cubs involved?

But worse than Pete and Dragon is Shifty-Eyed Mr. Steward.

But Pete and Dragon I mean Craig and Draig can do the "cute little animal threatens dire consequences because they're not a big powerful monster any more" looney tunes schtick.

They are dangerous. They lost everything and have nothing to lose which makes them the most dangerous of all along with Steward who’s in the same situation as them. I predicted before that they could team up in a blasphemous attempt to restore their powers. Neither one was very clever outside the game rules. But Pete (I refuse to called them Craig and Draig) is still a sociopath and Steward is an enigma which could make a dangerous team up especially if they gain control over the cult.
If this wasn’t a PG comic about talking animals I would be really scared about what they could and have been doing over the last year. The thought of half a dozen transformed humans locked in Kari’s basement has crossed my mind.

[Cesco]

Oh no! That's not just a rabbit, it's a pet called Zack! Eh, but you won't be able catch him, ex-puppies... There's also an entire community of critters ready to defend Zack (I mean, the Opener ). Shame on you, Darth Vader Sanchez! Don't ever think to catch a cub! Maybe they're talking about Tiny Tum, Custom Ink's son, since she's there praising the Opener. Yeah, praise his long ears! But, don't forget to praise also his cute and powerful cotton tail, eh. Poor Zach, as usual.

[Welsh Halfwit]

the same situation as them. I predicted before that they could team up in a blasphemous attempt to restore their powers. Neither one was very clever outside the game rules. But Pete (I refuse to called them Craig and Draig) is still a sociopath.

They are not Dragon and Pete.

They have their memories.

They do not have their abilities. They're having to develop new abilities to cope. You know, like children do? Whatever they WERE influences what they are, sure, but doesn't set out what they WILL BE.

And leave Tum alone, Cubs!

[Argent]

I predicted before that they could team up in a blasphemous attempt to restore their powers.

Blasphemy? Really? Great Kitsune is just a GM who borrowed the HP! world to run a LARP for a while.

[fenrirblack]

the same situation as them. I predicted before that they could team up in a blasphemous attempt to restore their powers. Neither one was very clever outside the game rules. But Pete (I refuse to called them Craig and Draig) is still a sociopath.

They are not Dragon and Pete.

They have their memories.

They do not have their abilities. They're having to develop new abilities to cope. You know, like children do? Whatever they WERE influences what they are, sure, but doesn't set out what they WILL BE.!

What they were was divine beings who have lived for millions of years and are used to a certain lifestyle. Three years and they were already trying to restore powers. You can change their names and what they are but they’ll still the same just like Joel/King was. You can’t tell me that the first chance they get to go to Egypt they won’t take it if it meant escaping mortality. What they WILL BE is a huge pain in the tail if the right situation presents itself. Dragon may change but sociopaths do not.

If Rick wants to develop them and make them into upstanding citizens be my guest. Until then they’ll still the same as they’ve always been if not worse now.

https://youtu.be/k8fNQ0PJR70?t=18

[RockstarRaccoon]

Geez, Rick isn't pulling punches with the fridge horror of predators in this arc...

...Then again, I guess it hasn't been "Fridge" for a while...

Always glad to see this comic doing what it does best.

[Zack_the_husky]

*Tosses out a bunch of crazy ideas from the 'Bunny Picnic' for Zach, then proceeds to get the heck out of dodge ftm seriously Rick stop making this so potentially ominous and horrifying*

[Obbl]

You can change their names and what they are but they’ll still the same just like Joel/King was.

And King changed

Dragon may change but sociopaths do not.

Pete is not a sociopath.

[Frank]

Does it count as camping if you're still kind of in your own backyard?

[fenrirblack]

You can change their names and what they are but they’ll still the same just like Joel/King was.

And King changed

Dragon may change but sociopaths do not.

Pete is not a sociopath.

Yes which is why I said was. He developed as a character after years of work and finding a relationship that healed his emotional scars.

[Obbl]

Pete is not a sociopath.

[fenrirblack]

Pete is not a sociopath.

Okay

[KJOokami]

Pete is not a sociopath.

Maybe you are privy to information some of us are not, but all of his behavior throughout the comic paint a picture of someone who very well could be a sociopath. The only instance we have of him showing remorse for objectively horrible behavior is a single scenario under ultra-specific circumstances which can't really be replicated, so we have yet to see whether it was even real or simply another manipulation of someone who realized he'd run out of other options and opted to try for sympathy.

There's no need to be so dismissive. It's a character. No one's being insulted by suggesting one of the characters might be a sociopath.

[D-Rock]

Just don't get too riled up, people.

[Obbl]

As a note, I'm not trying to be dismissive. Just, for reals, Pete isn't a sociopath. People like to simplify characters, and that biases their reading of the characters' actions. Because Rick writes characters with a lot of nuance, this happens a lot to any character that shows even occasional antisocial tendencies. If people don't like a character, that's their prerogative, but I'm going to correct inaccurate or biased readings of a character's actions because it's sad to see such misinformation coloring a person's attitude toward these characters.

[KJOokami]

As a note, I'm not trying to be dismissive. Just, for reals, Pete isn't a sociopath. People like to simplify characters, and that biases their reading of the characters' actions. Because Rick writes characters with a lot of nuance, this happens a lot to any character that shows even occasional antisocial tendencies. If people don't like a character, that's their prerogative, but I'm going to correct inaccurate or biased readings of a character's actions because it's sad to see such misinformation coloring a person's attitude toward these characters.

Hey, that's all fine and good. But Pete isn't just someone that "shows occasional antisocial tendencies". The core of his character is a manipulator, and one who most often manipulates others for his own personal gain, and who further shows little or no remorse for the downright cruel things he inflicts on others--while often simultaneously attempting to convince them that he's just doing it for their own good, or that it's their own fault. He's not always wrong, mind you, but gaslighting is gaslighting, regardless of whether there's some truth to it.

He shows many of the classic traits one would associate with sociopathy, and recognizing that fact is not diminishing or limiting his character either. Sociopaths are not all equal, and classifying someone as one does not make them less interesting as a character.

[fenrirblack]

As a note, I'm not trying to be dismissive. Just, for reals, Pete isn't a sociopath. People like to simplify characters, and that biases their reading of the characters' actions. Because Rick writes characters with a lot of nuance, this happens a lot to any character that shows even occasional antisocial tendencies. If people don't like a character, that's their prerogative, but I'm going to correct inaccurate or biased readings of a character's actions because it's sad to see such misinformation coloring a person's attitude toward these characters.

Inaccurate or biased readings of a character's actions? Are you kidding? How is kidnapping, psychological torture, and imprisonment an inaccurate reading? All for, and he admits it, for the purpose of him winning the game. The trail in heaven alone demonstrates several key traits of a sociopath. I was going to be nice and drop it but now I think I'm going to go all out. Sorry D-Rock. He did it again..

Glibness and Superficial Charm https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... questions/ & https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... 3/so-cool/

Manipulative and Conning- https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... somewhere/ & https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... e-woe-woe/ & https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... reful-now/
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... -you-know/
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying - https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... -da-judge/ & https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... he-scroll/
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt - https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... ite-space/ & https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... o-details/
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions - https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... christmas/ & https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... ing-blows/
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy - https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... -loves-me/ & https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... ligations/
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... -free-you/
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability - https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... he-scroll/ & https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... hese-days/
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle - https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... sundering/ & https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... -glitters/
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility - https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... -lifetime/
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

Antisocial Behavior- https://www.housepetscomic.com/comic/20 ... e-is-over/

You do realize I intensely studied King's psychology and behavior and at the same time Pete's since he was such a major part of King's storyline. This isn't like Joel's mom. There is more than enough evidence in the comics to prove this and it's not all nuance. I'm sorry if you choose not to believe that or if you have some bias. Next time someone brings it up, just leave it alone. It's not worth it.

Now we can either end this argument now and NO ONE comments again about Pete BEING or NOT BEING a sociopath or I can write an entire essay on why Pete is a sociopath and post it. Are we good? (Don't answer it's retorical.)

[CyberDragon]

Guys.

Zach is a main character.

This is Housepets, not Game of Thrones.

Zach will be fine.

[Argent]

What they were was divine beings who have lived for millions of years and are used to a certain lifestyle.

What they are is a couple of dependent minors with no powers. Comedy relief.

But Pete isn't just someone that "shows occasional antisocial tendencies". The core of his character is a manipulator

Just like a lot of (some might say most) D&D players. Pretty much all role-player and videogame characters fit the stereotype of the murder-hobo, and hardly anyone goes "what is it with Link walking into people's houses and smashing up all their stuff".

And, Fenrir, we don't ever see Pete when he's not operating under the threat of being turned into a mortal.

[TeflonCougar]

I can see a lot of those points of Fenrirblack also applying to Bino but he's just a jerk

[Dissension]

Now we can either end this argument now and NO ONE comments again about Pete BEING or NOT BEING a sociopath or I can write an entire essay on why Pete is a sociopath and post it. Are we good? (Don't answer it's retorical.)

Sorry, I know you said this part was rhetorical, but it feels a little over the top and I also don't recall granting you authority to dictate acceptable topics. Folks are gonna wanna discuss whether Pete is a pogo stick or sandwich shop or what-have-you and I am 100% on board for that discussion.

Also, when delivering an ultimatum, kindly refrain from use of red text, which many forums use to denote official 'moderator' posts. Housepets! mods tend to use blue, but I reckon it'd help avoid confusion.

In fact, ultimatums don't seem particularly civil, so let's avoid those entirely, yeah?

Likewise, when a moderator asks folks to be chill, spazzing out isn't the desired response. Flat-out telling a moderator one intends to do the opposite of what they ask is the quickest way to prove oneself a pastrami on rye.

[Argent]

Pete is a pogo stick

THIS IS NOW CANON!

[NHWestoN]

Pete is a pogo stick? I thought he was a ..... Maybe I'm too old for this forum...sigh.

[fenrirblack]

When you single handily make everyone on the forum mad at you. (Or at least all the moderators)

[CyberDragon]

Pete is a pogo stick

THIS IS NOW CANON!

Nah, he's totally a sandwich shop.

[Argent]

Pete is a pogo stick

THIS IS NOW CANON!

Nah, he's totally a sandwich shop.

OH YEH WHAT KIND OF SANDWICH? You don't know. Stumped you there, didn't I? Run rings around you logically. QED & all that.

[TOPCATDIGIANIMEFAN]

Uh ACTUALLY He's A Baby Fox Now"

[CyberDragon]

Nah, he's totally a sandwich shop.

OH YEH WHAT KIND OF SANDWICH? You don't know. Stumped you there, didn't I? Run rings around you logically. QED & all that.

Obviously, a Peanut butter and Grape Jelly sandwich because he was going to take Peanut Butter or Grape Jelly Sandwich as his avatar originally. Everyone knows PB&J sandwiches are the best avatars for sandwich shops.

[GameCobra]

*slips in his awesome and cool comment about Grape and Max sandwiches*

[KJOokami]

Just like a lot of (some might say most) D&D players. Pretty much all role-player and videogame characters fit the stereotype of the murder-hobo, and hardly anyone goes "what is it with Link walking into people's houses and smashing up all their stuff".

The key difference here being, however, that the pieces in this game are living, breathing, sapient beings. It's one thing to run people over in GTA5 because the physics engine makes it really funny to watch, and quite another thing to run someone down in real life. There is a point to be made, of course, that the celestial characters are much "greater" beings and therefore some might find it trivial to distinguish between "lesser" mortals and entirely inanimate objects; but this point is also weakened by the fact Kitsune has no trouble doing so (hence, including rules against harming mortals Pete and Dragon involve in their game).

It's a hard thing to measure because where people generally considered sociopaths (or even psychopaths) in our world merely believe themselves to be better than, or above, the people that they inflict harm on, in the world of HP! the celestials objectively are higher beings than the mortal cast. That said, I think it makes more sense to classify their psychological state based on human standards than it does to excuse their behavior because they happen to be sort of right about their superiority. Celestials may just be more inclined towards sociopathic tendencies than humans because of the fact they are already in many ways "better" than the mortals they manipulate.

And, Fenrir, we don't ever see Pete when he's not operating under the threat of being turned into a mortal.

This is a fair point. Still, I feel that it lessens Pete's agency in the matter. Whether their are consequences or not, Pete never really seems bothered by the things he does. It's never really framed in such a way that you get a feeling that Pete struggles to make the decision before he does it. It's just a forgone conclusion to him that his life is more important than anyone else's, and the ends will always justify the means.

Flat-out telling a moderator one intends to do the opposite of what they ask is the quickest way to prove oneself a pastrami on rye.

As someone who thinks that pastrami on rye is quite delicious, you are sending me mixed signals, Diss. :P

[Argent]

The key difference here being, however, that the pieces in this game are living, breathing, sapient beings.

Even dedicated pet lovers have no compunctions against taking over their pets lives to a much greater degree than Pete took over King's. Some of these interventions are arguably for their own good, others are just because they think their pets look cooler or tougher with their ears and tails docked, and nobody considers pet owners "psychopaths".

From Pete's point of view King was temporarily (for a mere lifespan) inconvenienced, and it was at least arguably to his own good. You wouldn't waste a second worrying about it if he was a this-world corgi. AND he was a LARP character on top of that!

[Obbl]

Not even his whole lifespan necessarily. Just however many years the game lasted (since after the game, they could change him back if he wanted easy-peasy lemon squeezey). I think it's fair that Pete wasn't that bothered by the predicament he was placing King in, when it really is just a blip in King's life and an absolutely infinitesimal speck of his conscious awareness taking into account his infinite afterlife. Plus Kitsune was overseeing the game and would have commented if Pete was taking things too far, and even Bahamut allowed that Pete's actions were not of malice nor overstepping the Heavenly order.

[KJOokami]

Even dedicated pet lovers have no compunctions against taking over their pets lives to a much greater degree than Pete took over King's. Some of these interventions are arguably for their own good, others are just because they think their pets look cooler or tougher with their ears and tails docked, and nobody considers pet owners "psychopaths".

Sapient, not sentient. "This-world" corgis are--near as we can tell--incapable of experiencing trauma in the same way, or for the same reasons, that humans do. A corgi might get upset if it starts to get hungry and isn't sure where it will get its next meal, but it isn't going to suddenly start reminiscing about its life and agonizing over all the things it has yet to do within that life. They don't feel regret or remorse for past actions, and they don't wonder about the uncertainties of their future. That's not even a remotely good analogy.

I think it's fair that Pete wasn't that bothered by the predicament he was placing King in, when it really is just a blip in King's life and an absolutely infinitesimal speck of his conscious awareness taking into account his infinite afterlife.

From a moral perspective, that's a horrifying way to quantify traumatizing someone. I can understand that Pete might not be troubled by it because he can see a bigger picture in play, but that doesn't really excuse the behavior. Hence my other comment:

It's a hard thing to measure because where people generally considered sociopaths (or even psychopaths) in our world merely believe themselves to be better than, or above, the people that they inflict harm on, in the world of HP! the celestials objectively are higher beings than the mortal cast. That said, I think it makes more sense to classify their psychological state based on human standards than it does to excuse their behavior because they happen to be sort of right about their superiority. Celestials may just be more inclined towards sociopathic tendencies than humans because of the fact they are already in many ways "better" than the mortals they manipulate.

This doesn't really make Pete's actions less sociopathic. It just means he feels he has a stronger case for inflicting harm on lesser beings than he would if he were also a mortal.

And that's the thing about the "Heavenly order", isn't it? Who is going to tell them their actions could be wrong? Are we operating under the assumption that something is okay simply because the Heavenly order said it was permissible? Or is it possible that they merely consider it permissible because they--like Pete--suffer from the inability to fully grasp the "unique" suffering of mortals who are unaware or unsure of the afterlife? Is it really acceptable to purposely traumatize someone if it's "all gonna be okay in the end"? Not to mention that even if we presume the Heavenly order is omniscient and knows that King will turn out okay after what was done, Pete most certainly is not, and did not know that King would come out better for the change. It turned out that way, which gives him an easy out, but he had no way of actually knowing what King would do with the sudden uprooting of his life. If he hadn't made friends with Fox, thus leading to his meeting Bailey, and so on, there's no telling whether he'd have actually changed the route he'd been on before becoming a dog.

Anyway, point being: I think the topic of Pete's psychological state (or even the rest of the celestials, for that matter) is a little less open-and-shut than you're giving it credit for. It's not exactly something that keeps me up at night, but it's interesting to consider the moral implications of everything that's gone down.

[Obbl]

Kevin's tail and ears were docked as a puppy in the Housepets! universe. Take that as you will.

that's a horrifying way to quantify traumatizing someone.

You keep using this word.
I don't know, I feel like we're not nearly as fragile as you seem to think. Children, yes, but adults? We suffer far worse in our lives naturally than King did unnaturally. Having your life turned upside down is difficult and disorienting, but it happens to people all the time, and people even purposefully do it all the time. We slowly adjust to the new reality and figure out how to live.
Especially given that King's actual transformation and kidnapping were very low trauma because he was anticipating the whole experience to be some temporary "It's a Wonderful Life" gig. When we have no reason to fear for our lives (and King didn't), it's easier to adjust without trauma. And he's obviously frustrated with the situation (and bemoans his treatment), but he very clearly (I would think) is not traumatized.

Anyway, point being: I think the topic of Pete's psychological state (or even the rest of the celestials, for that matter) is a little less open-and-shut than you're giving it credit for. It's not exactly something that keeps me up at night, but it's interesting to consider the moral implications of everything that's gone down.

Yes, perhaps I should not have been arguing directly that Pete is not a sociopath (diagnoses are super difficult and in this case there's more subjective perspectives to consider), instead that he is not an irredeemable monster which is often what "sociopath" is shorthand for and was the point that Fenrir seemed more to be driving toward.
It definitely is interesting to consider, though ^^

[D-Rock]

The celestials are said to be almost completely omnipotent, though even then, I noticed that Cerberus still took the time to specify that Bahamut himself was "infinite." They seem to have a view of the big picture that mortals can't begin to understand.

While we're used to dealing with black and white morality, or more likely many shades of gray, but when it comes to some of these Celestial entitites, they seem to be working with, as TV Tropes put it, "Omniscient Morality License."

We may not like it at all, but they know what and how it works in regards to how deities are handled in many works.

Also, the players of U&U were severely limited in what they could do in the game to begin with.

[KJOokami]

Yes, perhaps I should not have been arguing directly that Pete is not a sociopath (diagnoses are super difficult and in this case there's more subjective perspectives to consider)

I actually meant to put something along these lines in my comment, but I think I forgot to. Obviously I'm no expert, and to truly get a diagnosis would require both that I be a professional in the field and also for Pete to be an actual being I could talk to at length and analyze with an incredibly careful scrutiny. And even then, it's not an exact science, and I might still never know for sure. So it's important to keep in mind that I'm just speculating on the psychology of a mind I will never and can never actually interact with in any meaningful way. The fact I can even think about the character in this depth just goes to show what a good job Rick has done in crafting him~

instead that he is not an irredeemable monster which is often what "sociopath" is shorthand for and was the point that Fenrir seemed more to be driving toward.
It definitely is interesting to consider, though ^^

This I agree with 100%. :3

[Elwood Blutarsky]

If we're placing bets I'm taking the bunny. Miles' cubs have never hunted successfully and I highly doubt they are going to start now.

[Champion Wallace]

If we're placing bets I'm taking the bunny. Miles' cubs have never hunted successfully and I highly doubt they are going to start now.

I don't know if they've never hunted successfully. They were pretty young when they left the woods for suburbia, but who knows, maybe a wolf's idea of father-cub time is hunting rabbits. Ya know, like lion pouncing lessons.

[Dissension]

Flat-out telling a moderator one intends to do the opposite of what they ask is the quickest way to prove oneself a pastrami on rye.

As someone who thinks that pastrami on rye is quite delicious, you are sending me mixed signals, Diss. :P

Aww, dude, you'll always be a pastrami on rye. <3

[Welsh Halfwit]

Flat-out telling a moderator one intends to do the opposite of what they ask is the quickest way to prove oneself a pastrami on rye.

As someone who thinks that pastrami on rye is quite delicious, you are sending me mixed signals, Diss.

Aww, dude, you'll always be a pastrami on rye. <3

Can I ask what I'd be?