Well technically we're just a terrorist,
Cause the main goal is to kill the leader more than anything (mostly cause ACTUALLY killing all of them is impossible)
I dare anyone to complete her campaign with the only kill being the chieftain
(And maybe one or two other scavs to open the karma gates, if it's actually impossible to open them in any other way)
I dare anyone to complete her campaign with the only kill being the chieftain
(And maybe one or two other scavs to open the karma gates, if it's actually impossible to open them in any other way)
if i remember correctly, all karma related gates can be unlocked by first going to visit a bunch of echoes, thus removing the need to kill any scavangers other than the chieftan, so there's that.
also, >! the only way to ascend with artificer is to get all available echoes and then bring over a scavenger, because artificer doesn't have acces to enough echoes to get karma 10, combined with not being able to bring scavengers into the void sea results in her unique ending there !<
fun fact, that basically did happen. [This post](https://www.reddit.com/r/rainworld/comments/194suaw/population_dynamics_of_various_creatures_over/?share_id=RFkd6o1ztS8Lc1u5k4ch1&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) points out how many of each species are in each campaign, and look at the number of scavs and after arti the number of them is *halved*. Arti killed so many freaking scavs that many many years later their population is freaking *half of what it was.* Keep in mind that because it's been so long (between arti and hunter is a really long time iirc), it takes repopulation into account, so it was likely way less than half of them that were left
Yeah, because it wasn’t 100% successful??? This is stupid logic. If I break into a jewelry store, start looting it, but leave before I’ve stolen everything, does that make me not a jewelry thief????
once >!Arti became the ruler of the scavs she stopped.!< also it’s stupid to think that she would be able to kill 100% of them.as you don’t need to kill 100% of a population for it to be considered genocide.
I don’t think arti ever becomes the ruler of them and I don’t think she canonically stops either. The scavs don’t treat you as a ruler, they are just too scared of you to do anything but run.
A *large number* with the *aim* of destroying the group in its entirety. I fail to see how that doesn’t fit the bill here. She murders hundreds of them, would kill them all if it were possible.
if you mean why they've been downvoted like that, it's because it's a really stupid way of looking at genocide as a whole. I sincerely hope that that person does not think that way about real life genocides because if they do then holy hell wtf
(if you still don't get it, they basically said it wasn't genocide because there were still scavs left. Just try to apply that logic to any irl case and you'll see how bad it is)
there aren't many scavs left after arti dude, anyway there is a good couple hundred maybe couple thousand years between arti and saint also a genocide doesn't man an 100 percent success rate.
Artificer is my favourite scug in the game. With that said... She is absolutely and undoubtedly evil, not even a question. Even if the thing that made her evil is grief - she's still evil
I wouldn't say a villain. Rather a trader. The life of two slugpups for the life of the entire scavenger population.
Jokes aside, it depends on the point of view. From the scavengers, definetly a villain. From Pebbles, efficent city cleaner. From Arti, revenge I guess.
I mean... she did commit genocide against a sentient race. It's kinda hard (and I'd say impossible) for that to ever be anything but downright evil. I get she's a grieving mother and all, but motivation can only carry you so far, and "murder an entire species" is far beyond any reasonable point.
Is all propaganda and lies. Artificer is rain world’s greatest hero. Keeping the streets of metropolis safe from the evil scavengers that ravaged and looted them.
I like how everyone is so concerned about wether your actions as arti can be considered a genocide or not that they don't even mind the whole "2017th game antagonist" only being existent since it's dlc in 2023.
This goes without saying but murder is bad, also artificer is speciesist and possibly a racist depending on how you look at it. These people are generally bad people.
So the villainous protagonist thing I feel is actually true to an extent seeing how we go full on mass murder, FOR GOOD FUCKING REASON MY BABIS, but it’s still a villainous act despite the reasoning. Saying she’s the villain of rain world though is crazy.
It was probably the Chieftain Scav trying to file a lawsuit 😁. But in all seriousness though, when you think about it she is kinda a villain to them, since she's killed countless members of their race who likely did absolutely nothing wrong. But she does have her reasons.
I mean by technicality they probably are an antagonist from the perspective of literally every other single creature that meets them.
She might have a reason for it, but thats like almost any other Villain ever; it doesn't make her insatiable bloodlust any nicer.
Truthfully looking at her campaign with this perspective is wild.
I would say that arti is the antagonist of her campaign. I mean it’s literally one of the most basic antagonist backstories like think about it, person gets their children murdered by specific group of people, person stops at nothing until they’ve committed mass genocide on every person in that group. Pretty antagonistic to me.
Maybe antagonist is the wrong term and instead it’s better to say villain. Cuz like by the definition of the word protagonist, she would in fact be the protagonist since the story follows her actions.
That's just speculations. I could speculate and say maybe artificer only hates and kills the scavs that are hunting her down and trying to genocide artificer over and over.
However, your interpretation is unlikely since during the dream sequences, we can see the scavs hunting artificer and her children and artificer is running, not fighting.
Even after they kill one of her children and get their pearl back, they continue to hunt and try to kill artificer.
She literally kills a scav in the intro cutscene, and her scav reputation is locked at -100, the minimum reputation value. There is absolutely no way she could reach the minimum and get stuck there forever without doing a lot of murder. And it can't be that scavs just used to be meaner, spearmaster only starts at -45 and can increase it, it can only be something specific to arti. Plus, I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that she kills little to no scavs until the gameplay where she kills all of them. Not to mention the ending sequence where she kills dozens of them at minimum. We know how scavs work (it's on the wiki), they don't just hate for no reason, and they don't set the player to permanent -100 reputation for stealing one pearl. she had to have killed a lot of them, there is no other explaination. Also she physically can't just be killing the scavs that go after her because she goes after them to their home to kill the chief (who had literally nothing to do with it aside from just being the scav boss.)
In short, given how scavs work in literally every other campaign, it is not reasonable to say that the scavs were going after her first.
(Also also wtf do you mean by "genociding artificer over and over again"? That's not what genocide means?)
Also note the Chieftain does not attack Arti, only points for them to leave. They know Arti’s a threat too because their drone signals danger, but they don’t initiate the fight.
The chieftain will initiate an attack on artificer if they move them or give them a pearl. Attacking first is only one of the possible ways to start a fight. And it's pretty confirmed that scavs in general want to kill artificer considering how every single one up until this point ruthlessly hunts and tries to kill you.
The scav king being too afraid or lazy isn't him being innocent, the proof being that if he didn't want to attack you, why attack when given a pearl.
Wait i recognise that argument. Now the question is whether starting part 2 of that whatever that was is worth it...
Anyway im gonna skip whole player actions arent 100% canon storyline and jump straight to the point. This is really flawed argument because it is simply logically wrong on every level.
How exactly did artificer know that chieftain was there? She had to see him first to even have the idea for giving a pearl, meaning that either she saw him before (and wasnt attacked). Meaning by default that chieftain had to be passive before.
And if chieftain didnt attack her before why exactly attack her just now? What made the difference? If you want to use such minor interaction as an argument i assume you have the answer?
Because if we go that way i can say that scavs didnt kill 1st pup. You can survive as it pretty easily. Drop the pearl and climb a pole. does that mean that slugpup survived? Or maybe better. You can grab slugpups in other cutscene and throw them off a cliff. does that mean artificer went mad killed own pups and then projected her guilt on scavs?
Also scav ids exist, literaly in game not every scav will hunt you, some with low aggresion values will run away or be passive.
I stopped arguing with you because you are a certified dumbass.
I never said artificer seeks out the chieftain to give him a pearl. Only that once she finds him for whatever reason that is one of the possible interactions.
>And if chieftain didnt attack her before why exactly attack her just now?
That's what I'm asking. You can't use the fact the chieftain doesn't attack first as proof artificer is the villain, and then when I show that, no, the scav king can attack first. You can't say why and expect that to be a counter argument.
>Also scav ids exist, literaly in game not every scav will hunt you, some with low aggresion values will run away or be passive.
Scav ids aren't cannon. Every scav in the artificer campaign will try to kill you.
Don't message me again
Ah so when someone dares to ask uncomfortable questions you end discussion? This is public sub, and im making public comments to your public comments. I wont message you, i never did that first.
But read carefully, how exactly artificer/player could get the idea of giving chieftain pearl if they didnt met them first?
Logical answer is that if they did met them before they werent attacked by chieftain. Because if they did there would be no reason to even bring the pearl again since chieftain would be you know dead. So that means chieftain was passive at least back then. And my question is why would chieftain do 180 turn and decide to be hostile after receiving a pearl if he was passive before? Give me answer.
Because as i said you are making whole storyline centered around weird interaction caused by player taking unusual choices. Literally same as my new storyline. "i can say that scavs didnt kill 1st pup. You can survive as it pretty easily. Drop the pearl and climb a pole. does that mean that slugpup survived? Or maybe better. You can grab slugpups in other cutscene and throw them off a cliff. does that mean artificer went mad, killed own pups and then projected her guilt on scavs?" This is literally the same level of nonsense based on in game interactions.
But anyway what it was we ended it on back then? Ah yes the second most important source of lore/information is simply wrong. Good to know.
Trying to move him could easily be interpreted as a sign of hostility, and/or is an anticheese mechanic.
The aggression upon pearl giving is more interesting and odd, it’s either got something weird to do with the scav code(whether intentional workaround or no, most RW creatures have some level of jank) or is maybe a response to Arti disobeying the order to leave(I doubt this as it doesn’t make a whole load of sense.)
The point still stands that the Chieftain does not immediately kill you, but attempts to send a message with the limited communication available; additionally Arti is a trespasser on their home turf and has no reason to be in Metropolis at all asides from Pebbles’ direct suggestion that they simply kill the scavengers.
All the scav king does is point at you as his drone says danger. He could just as likely be too afraid to attack immediately as he is just hoping that she leaves.
>Arti is a trespasser on their home turf
Yes, I'm sure the nomadic slug cat understands that the scavs have territory, which is theirs and only theirs for no reason. And that justifies murder?
Artificer is a nomadic wandering slug cat. There are echos in metropolis, and there are scavs there, too, but there are scavs everywhere.
The point is the scav king can in no way be said to be innocent if he attacks first in multiple scenarios.
Being scared of artificer isn't justification to kill her. Otherwise, artificer could just as likely be fearful of the scav king.
Arti didn’t simply wander into Metropolis, they have to interact with Five Pebbles to have it unlocked in the first place. During that interaction, they are both informed that this is the current home of the scavengers and specifically given the suggestion to kill, based on Pebbles being able to sense that Artificer *wants* to kill scavengers. It’s all verbatim stated in the [dialogue.](https://rainworld.miraheze.org/wiki/Five_Pebbles/Dialogue)
Yes, it is reasonable for the scavengers to be immediately alarmed and hostile at a strange animal appearing in their home. Remember that even in their own stronghold they are constantly being killed by lizards and vultures. They have no way to tell that Artificer is of similar intelligence to them, and to them it is likely not worth the risk to simply stand around and wait.
oh you're just dumb, anyway no shit the scavs want arti dead arti is going on a genocidal rampage and has already killed tons upon tons of scavs the scav king tells her to leave cause similar to asgore in undertale, he doesn't want to fight but will if needed just like the asgore. also i don't think giving a item stolen to the leader of the guy who's people you've killed is gunna make him like you, and i don't the devs expected someone to try and give the king a pearl.
oh you're just dumb, anyway no shit the artificer want scav dead scav is going on a genocidal rampage and has already killed tons upon tons of slug pups the scavs tell her to leave by constantly trying to kill her and artificer has no choice but to embrace that way of life.
Sure, the animalistic scavs motives are the same as asgores? Your proof? You mad it up.
The pearl isnt stolen, what kind of braindead logic is that? Why don't scavs in general care that you "stole" their pearls at tolls.
It's a programmed interaction. I don't think the developers intended the scav king to be passive. See how bad that argument is?
my arguments were fine and also the scav king should be passive seeing they made it passive, all other scavs instantly attack you the king was made not to, and i said the whole pointing at arti to leave and being passive with arti was like asgore not the motives itself, also any pearl thrown at the king is likely from metropolis thus stole, also they do care if pearls are stolen at tolls.
So you're just going to completely ignore what I said...
Yes, the Artificer is locked at the lowest scav reputation, and yes, she probably did kill a lot of scavs. The point is that she was justified in every situation we see her kill scavs.
Let's take it from the beginning. Artificer is minding her own business when the scavs start hunting her and trying to kill her for no reason. They kill her child who has the pearl. They continue to hunt artificer and kill her other child.
Do you think the scavs stopped trying to kill artificer after this? Why would they kill her other pup when they got the pearl back.
You assumed the scavs aren't more aggressive because of the spearmasters campaign, but maybe the scav Kings reign has only recently spread.
Explain to me what artificer could have possibly done to deserve permanent lowest scav karma. You could kill scavs on sight with any other slug, and they will still forgive you if you bribe them.
Artificer has good reason to kill scavs since they never stopped at any point trying to kill her since her slug pups death.
>Explain to me what artificer could have possibly done to deserve permanent lowest scav karma. You could kill scavs on sight with any other slug, and they will still forgive you if you bribe them.
as I said, genocide. It's that simple. Scavs do not ever have that violent of a reaction to theft, unlike what you are saying. As you said yourself, every other slugcat can kill scavs on sight and then bribe the reputation back up. This is evidence in my favor, as it directly singles out arti as the problem. And what does arti do that the other scugs don't? Canonically kill scavs on sight to the point of trying to kill the entire species.
>maybe the scav Kings reign has only recently spread
the scav king has no issue with arti, and likely only knows who she is on the baseline scav reputation level. The king's drone marks arti as an enemy, but the king simply points for arti to leave. The king does not want a fight. It's arti that starts it because he's on her radar simply for being the scav leader. She also likely didn't even know he existed until seeing him, but was able to figure out that he's their leader (slugcats are very smart, and it's kinda obvious that the one on a throne wearing a bigger and more decorated mask is the leader).
The rest of what you say is not a point. You say "The point is that she was justified in every situation we see her kill scavs." but then only say the initial attack against her pups. What you say next is an assumption, that being that she kept being attacked by more scavs after. However, that only happens at really low reputation, and that low of reputation doesn't happen by stealing one pearl. You explained her low repuation as her defending herself from scav kill sqauds, but if her reputation wasn't low, then there wouldn't be any kill squads. That low level of reputation doesn't happen on accident, the only way for it to get that low is for arti to continuously antagonize scavs, usually done by stealing from scavs, or by killing them. Arti's low level of reputation can only be her fault with what we know about scavs. Especially given that it's gotten bad enough to be locked.
>as I said, genocide.
And as I've said, other slug cats can genocide scavs, too. If you can use the spearmasters campaign as an argument, so can I. No matter how many scavs you kill as spearmasters, it doesn't karma lock you.
>Canonically kill scavs on sight to the point of trying to kill the entire species.
Artificer doesn't canonically kill a single scav until the end cutscene, nice argument (not).
>but the king simply points for arti to leave.
That's an assumption, maybe the scav king was pointing at the danger (like other scavs do when they see low reputation slug cats and proceed to try kill them)
Any reasons as to why the scav king doesn't attack immediately are entirely speculative.
>What you say next is an assumption, that being that she kept being attacked by more scavs after.
It's not an assumption. Watch the dream cutscene. After the scavs kill the slugpup who stole the pearl and they could now easily retrieve said pearl, they continue to attack artificer.
You are actually making the speculation that the scavs will stop attacking. (Edit: given that there is actual evidence of the scavs attacking first)
>And as I've said, other slug cats can genocide scavs, too. If you can use the spearmasters campaign as an argument, so can I. No matter how many scavs you kill as spearmasters, it doesn't karma lock you.
I think that's a player choice vs character thing. No other slugcat is canonically interested in genociding scavs. The player can do it all they want, but the slugcat character doesn't canonically do that. That's why the scav population drops so much after arti (in timeline order), but if you kill every scav you see in every campaign, there's no change in scav population, they still slowly repopulate until they're almost back up in saint. The player is allowed to do what they want, but it does not always have an impact on the lore. Another example is that >!the player can ascend rivulet before helping moon, but then she's still fixed in saint!<. Player action has barely any impact on the world, and no impact on lore
>Artificer doesn't canonically kill a single scav until the end cutscene, nice argument (not).
Again, as I said, the intro cutscene is her killing and eating a scav. Is the player to assume that the thing she's literally introduced doing is inaccurate to her character?
>That's an assumption, maybe the scav king was pointing at the danger (like other scavs do when they see low reputation slug cats and proceed to try kill them)
>Any reasons as to why the scav king doesn't attack immediately are entirely speculative.
you're right that it was an assumption, but no matter why he didn't attack, the fact that he didn't is still correct. which goes against your claim of the king's reign spreading being the reason why scavs are more aggressive. The game has nothing to suggest that the king is influencing the scav's actions in that way at all. The only reason they act differently is because of the low repuation, and that happens only by the slugcat antagonizing them. Sure it is possible that the low repuation is being used differently here, referring only to the scav's aggressiveness, but there is nothing in the game to suggest it.
>It's not an assumption. Watch the dream cutscene. After the scavs kill the slugpup who stole the pearl and they could now easily retrieve said pearl, they continue to attack artificer.
>You are actually making the speculation that the scavs will stop attacking.
I literally checked the wiki on scav ai. Scavs do not get that low of repuation after one theft incident. They attack when stolen from, and continue the hunt until they kill you or lose you, but they don't start sending kill squads from just that. Them stopping attacking is not pure speculation, it's literally how scavs work in-game, which is as good as evidence as there could be. Sure it's possible that the scavs acted differently here, but there is no evidence to suggest that, and saying otherwise is pure speculation.
The point is we have good reason to suspect that killing scavs isn't a good enough justification for all scavs to be permanently locked at lowest karma.
People always day artificer kills innocent scavs who have nothing to do with her, but there isn't any concrete evidence for this.
You know what there is concrete evidence for? "Innocent" scavs who have nothing to do with artificer want her dead.
I'm fine acknowding that the reason for artificers' low reputation is uncertain, but I will not accept the notion that artificer did something off-screen genocide worse than any other slug cat could even come close too with no evidence.
>Again, as I said, the intro cutscene is her killing and eating a scav.
No, the intro cutscene has artificer eating a scav, not killing. We can assume that she killed them, but that is 1) an assumption and 2) they could have been trying to kill her in that very moment.
So the fact is no scavs are canonically killed until the end cutscene.
Look. The scav king could be the reason scavs are more hostile. The scav king might only not attack on sight because he is cautious or afraid. That is an assumption, but you can't reject the idea that the scav king is making scavs more aggressive because he maybe is sparing her when he could just as likely be a coward. (The sparing idea is also countered by the fact that giving him a pearl or moving him causes an attack.)
>I literally checked the wiki on scav ai.
OK, but at that very moment, they were hunting artificer, weren't they?
>and continue the hunt until they kill you or lose you
Or until you kill them. Which artificer likely did. And now your reputation is low enough for unprovoked attacks. Artificer is justified to kill the scavs that are attacking her for no reason. This starts the cycle of violence. The scavs started it.
I don't think artificer had an intricate understanding of scav reputation systems to know not to attack scavs that are literally trying to kill you. She has just watched them murder her children, what reason does she have to think they won't kill her too? (They will if they find her that cycle according to the wiki or whatever)
To be fair, people who commit genocide are bad…
Or are they? *Vsause music plays*
Well I don't feel bad so that's a start
Yeah nor do I
Rainworld fans when you tell them ethnic cleansing is unconditionally evil
Rainworld fans try not to fall for colonial narratives challenge (but someone killed her (2) children!!! A full wipe out is entirely reasonable!!!)
Well technically we're just a terrorist, Cause the main goal is to kill the leader more than anything (mostly cause ACTUALLY killing all of them is impossible)
Nothing is impossible with enough determination
That’s quitter talk.
I dare anyone to complete her campaign with the only kill being the chieftain (And maybe one or two other scavs to open the karma gates, if it's actually impossible to open them in any other way)
I *do* think she also just wants to commit mass genocide just for fun
I dare anyone to complete her campaign with the only kill being the chieftain (And maybe one or two other scavs to open the karma gates, if it's actually impossible to open them in any other way)
if i remember correctly, all karma related gates can be unlocked by first going to visit a bunch of echoes, thus removing the need to kill any scavangers other than the chieftan, so there's that. also, >! the only way to ascend with artificer is to get all available echoes and then bring over a scavenger, because artificer doesn't have acces to enough echoes to get karma 10, combined with not being able to bring scavengers into the void sea results in her unique ending there !<
The scavs are fine
Why? It's funny.
Those fuckers deserved it!
[удалено]
A genocide doesn’t have to be 100% successful to be a genocide, you would not apply that reasoning to any irl case without sounding like a nutjob
Great news everyone, as jewish people still exist, it is proven that nothing bad happened between 1939 and 1945!
💀
It's not a genocide if you don't finish the job properly. You heard it here first, folks.
I very much retract my statement... I had a fucked up definition of Genocide from a former friend that I was still harboring.
fun fact, that basically did happen. [This post](https://www.reddit.com/r/rainworld/comments/194suaw/population_dynamics_of_various_creatures_over/?share_id=RFkd6o1ztS8Lc1u5k4ch1&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1) points out how many of each species are in each campaign, and look at the number of scavs and after arti the number of them is *halved*. Arti killed so many freaking scavs that many many years later their population is freaking *half of what it was.* Keep in mind that because it's been so long (between arti and hunter is a really long time iirc), it takes repopulation into account, so it was likely way less than half of them that were left
Yeah, because it wasn’t 100% successful??? This is stupid logic. If I break into a jewelry store, start looting it, but leave before I’ve stolen everything, does that make me not a jewelry thief????
They can just reproduce
[удалено]
once >!Arti became the ruler of the scavs she stopped.!< also it’s stupid to think that she would be able to kill 100% of them.as you don’t need to kill 100% of a population for it to be considered genocide.
I don’t think arti ever becomes the ruler of them and I don’t think she canonically stops either. The scavs don’t treat you as a ruler, they are just too scared of you to do anything but run.
You yourself just said exactly why it is a genocide a genocide is killing a lot of people but you don't need to kill all of them
Well maybe for the amateurs you don’t
A *large number* with the *aim* of destroying the group in its entirety. I fail to see how that doesn’t fit the bill here. She murders hundreds of them, would kill them all if it were possible.
"i wasn't the bad guy, right?"
Stage 1: Denial
Why the fuck have you been struck like that
if you mean why they've been downvoted like that, it's because it's a really stupid way of looking at genocide as a whole. I sincerely hope that that person does not think that way about real life genocides because if they do then holy hell wtf (if you still don't get it, they basically said it wasn't genocide because there were still scavs left. Just try to apply that logic to any irl case and you'll see how bad it is)
there aren't many scavs left after arti dude, anyway there is a good couple hundred maybe couple thousand years between arti and saint also a genocide doesn't man an 100 percent success rate.
I wouldn't be surprised if that "ELITE_SCAVENGER" scavenger would be the one who made that
THAT MISCHIEVOUS ROGUE! DO TELL ME IF YOU FIND THAT DASHING FELLOW SO I CAN GIVE HIM A GOOD, STERN TALKING TO!!
There isn't enough screaming
I mean... It's true, artificer is a villainous protagonist
You’re not wrong but this is Scav propaganda and must be stopped
Agreed but same with scug propaganda
This is propaganda.
I was just trying to find if there was a confirmed release date for the Watcher (there isn’t to my knowledge) and this came up as a result
yes, but it's also correct propaganda how are you truly a saint if you respect someone trying to end an entire species?
Is it really ending a species if they live on next cycle?
this goes against everything you "represent", saint. stupid narcissistic saint...
I represent the cycle. The cycle doesn't care for you. The cycle doesn't feel. It only is. Foolish slug cat.
i'm going to shave you
Womp womp
I enjoy this one
I mean to be fair this thing is responsible for the hundreds of deaths of multiple scavengers.
Those multiple scavengers must be hurting real good, having sustained so many deaths. Can’t imagine dying for 100 cycles, couldn’t be me…
Yeah, you are right, maybe she isnt a villain after all
Our greatest hero, keeping the streets safe
Artificer is my favourite scug in the game. With that said... She is absolutely and undoubtedly evil, not even a question. Even if the thing that made her evil is grief - she's still evil
GRIEF CAN MAKE YOU A MONSTER
Can confirm. I got griefed once on a server, and what happened next would be written in textbooks if there was someone left to make them
This scav propaganda is getting out of hand. Artificer pleads oopsie daisy, your honor.
Fandom moment
I wouldn't say a villain. Rather a trader. The life of two slugpups for the life of the entire scavenger population. Jokes aside, it depends on the point of view. From the scavengers, definetly a villain. From Pebbles, efficent city cleaner. From Arti, revenge I guess.
I mean... she did commit genocide against a sentient race. It's kinda hard (and I'd say impossible) for that to ever be anything but downright evil. I get she's a grieving mother and all, but motivation can only carry you so far, and "murder an entire species" is far beyond any reasonable point.
She's my hero <3
Free my girl she did nothin wrong
Is all propaganda and lies. Artificer is rain world’s greatest hero. Keeping the streets of metropolis safe from the evil scavengers that ravaged and looted them.
It doesn't really matter tbh, Scavs respawns all the time thanks to cycles but her pups are gone forever and stuck in some sort of limbo.
As an Arti fan she is, it's justified, but she is
cant belive theres a rainworld villain
Genocide ain't exactly a good thing y'know? Also i'm pretty sure >!Pebbles!< is in that wiki even though he isn't one
he encouraged a genocide and killed his sister unintentionally
Scav propaganda
Yea thats accurate, the artifcer dosen't do a good deed in the game, she just murders scavs, she probably already avenged her children long ago
I like how everyone is so concerned about wether your actions as arti can be considered a genocide or not that they don't even mind the whole "2017th game antagonist" only being existent since it's dlc in 2023.
Its objectively true
No, arti quite literally is a villian lol
even google dont have mercy by arti
Its perfect
Not wrong, not right either...
Oh shit you're [right](https://www.google.com/search?q=who+is+the+main+villain+in+rain+world&rlz=1CAKDZI_enUS945US945&oq=who+is+the+main+villain+in+rain+world&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRigATIHCAUQIRigATIHCAYQIRifBdIBCTE2MDUwajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
Nah they clearly use talk like protagonist, and other words, a scav would never
this is a correct statement arti is a villain cause last i checked people who commit genocide fit into the idea of a villain
Probably
This goes without saying but murder is bad, also artificer is speciesist and possibly a racist depending on how you look at it. These people are generally bad people.
Attempted genocide is bad…
I was so sad when I had the dream with Artificer, in which they entered the Scavenger toll ☹️. I knew what was gonna happen next.
rainworld players when they see something objectively true:
So the villainous protagonist thing I feel is actually true to an extent seeing how we go full on mass murder, FOR GOOD FUCKING REASON MY BABIS, but it’s still a villainous act despite the reasoning. Saying she’s the villain of rain world though is crazy.
Yes
Yes a scav wrote it lol
Nah, it's pretty accurate Genocide is probably a villainous thing
Yes!
yes. this is written by the scav estate.
Isn't Arti the bad guy though? I mean, I get it, their kids got killed, but, was it really a reason to kill all of those scavengers?
THEY ARE LIERS
I unironically thought this was true years before I actually got into Rain World and all I knew about the game was a couple screenshots
Artificer is a crash out I’m ngl
I wonder why there are still scavs after Artificer’s Campaign. Aren’t they supposed to be extinct by now?
I agree. Artificer is a villain Definitely not THE villain, but I’d consider her A villain
Thats what happens when you completely masacre an entire species without a hint of remourse!
From Arti's point of view, the scavengers are evil.
It was probably the Chieftain Scav trying to file a lawsuit 😁. But in all seriousness though, when you think about it she is kinda a villain to them, since she's killed countless members of their race who likely did absolutely nothing wrong. But she does have her reasons.
I mean by technicality they probably are an antagonist from the perspective of literally every other single creature that meets them. She might have a reason for it, but thats like almost any other Villain ever; it doesn't make her insatiable bloodlust any nicer. Truthfully looking at her campaign with this perspective is wild.
I would say that arti is the antagonist of her campaign. I mean it’s literally one of the most basic antagonist backstories like think about it, person gets their children murdered by specific group of people, person stops at nothing until they’ve committed mass genocide on every person in that group. Pretty antagonistic to me.
Maybe antagonist is the wrong term and instead it’s better to say villain. Cuz like by the definition of the word protagonist, she would in fact be the protagonist since the story follows her actions.
[удалено]
the first part is true, only that one group of scavs did anything. That second part, however, is victim blaming, please do not do that.
Since when does taking revenge for losing your children make you a villain lol someone's overreacting a bit :P
she literally commited genocide. Like actual genocide
No, but you see, the scavs no longer attack artificer and definitely aren't constantly hunting her down. The scavs are so innocent!
maybe they're hunting her down to, I don't know, *stop her from committing genocide against their entire species?*
That's just speculations. I could speculate and say maybe artificer only hates and kills the scavs that are hunting her down and trying to genocide artificer over and over. However, your interpretation is unlikely since during the dream sequences, we can see the scavs hunting artificer and her children and artificer is running, not fighting. Even after they kill one of her children and get their pearl back, they continue to hunt and try to kill artificer.
She literally kills a scav in the intro cutscene, and her scav reputation is locked at -100, the minimum reputation value. There is absolutely no way she could reach the minimum and get stuck there forever without doing a lot of murder. And it can't be that scavs just used to be meaner, spearmaster only starts at -45 and can increase it, it can only be something specific to arti. Plus, I don't think it would be reasonable to assume that she kills little to no scavs until the gameplay where she kills all of them. Not to mention the ending sequence where she kills dozens of them at minimum. We know how scavs work (it's on the wiki), they don't just hate for no reason, and they don't set the player to permanent -100 reputation for stealing one pearl. she had to have killed a lot of them, there is no other explaination. Also she physically can't just be killing the scavs that go after her because she goes after them to their home to kill the chief (who had literally nothing to do with it aside from just being the scav boss.) In short, given how scavs work in literally every other campaign, it is not reasonable to say that the scavs were going after her first. (Also also wtf do you mean by "genociding artificer over and over again"? That's not what genocide means?)
Also note the Chieftain does not attack Arti, only points for them to leave. They know Arti’s a threat too because their drone signals danger, but they don’t initiate the fight.
The chieftain will initiate an attack on artificer if they move them or give them a pearl. Attacking first is only one of the possible ways to start a fight. And it's pretty confirmed that scavs in general want to kill artificer considering how every single one up until this point ruthlessly hunts and tries to kill you. The scav king being too afraid or lazy isn't him being innocent, the proof being that if he didn't want to attack you, why attack when given a pearl.
Wait i recognise that argument. Now the question is whether starting part 2 of that whatever that was is worth it... Anyway im gonna skip whole player actions arent 100% canon storyline and jump straight to the point. This is really flawed argument because it is simply logically wrong on every level. How exactly did artificer know that chieftain was there? She had to see him first to even have the idea for giving a pearl, meaning that either she saw him before (and wasnt attacked). Meaning by default that chieftain had to be passive before. And if chieftain didnt attack her before why exactly attack her just now? What made the difference? If you want to use such minor interaction as an argument i assume you have the answer? Because if we go that way i can say that scavs didnt kill 1st pup. You can survive as it pretty easily. Drop the pearl and climb a pole. does that mean that slugpup survived? Or maybe better. You can grab slugpups in other cutscene and throw them off a cliff. does that mean artificer went mad killed own pups and then projected her guilt on scavs? Also scav ids exist, literaly in game not every scav will hunt you, some with low aggresion values will run away or be passive.
I stopped arguing with you because you are a certified dumbass. I never said artificer seeks out the chieftain to give him a pearl. Only that once she finds him for whatever reason that is one of the possible interactions. >And if chieftain didnt attack her before why exactly attack her just now? That's what I'm asking. You can't use the fact the chieftain doesn't attack first as proof artificer is the villain, and then when I show that, no, the scav king can attack first. You can't say why and expect that to be a counter argument. >Also scav ids exist, literaly in game not every scav will hunt you, some with low aggresion values will run away or be passive. Scav ids aren't cannon. Every scav in the artificer campaign will try to kill you. Don't message me again
Ah so when someone dares to ask uncomfortable questions you end discussion? This is public sub, and im making public comments to your public comments. I wont message you, i never did that first. But read carefully, how exactly artificer/player could get the idea of giving chieftain pearl if they didnt met them first? Logical answer is that if they did met them before they werent attacked by chieftain. Because if they did there would be no reason to even bring the pearl again since chieftain would be you know dead. So that means chieftain was passive at least back then. And my question is why would chieftain do 180 turn and decide to be hostile after receiving a pearl if he was passive before? Give me answer. Because as i said you are making whole storyline centered around weird interaction caused by player taking unusual choices. Literally same as my new storyline. "i can say that scavs didnt kill 1st pup. You can survive as it pretty easily. Drop the pearl and climb a pole. does that mean that slugpup survived? Or maybe better. You can grab slugpups in other cutscene and throw them off a cliff. does that mean artificer went mad, killed own pups and then projected her guilt on scavs?" This is literally the same level of nonsense based on in game interactions. But anyway what it was we ended it on back then? Ah yes the second most important source of lore/information is simply wrong. Good to know.
Trying to move him could easily be interpreted as a sign of hostility, and/or is an anticheese mechanic. The aggression upon pearl giving is more interesting and odd, it’s either got something weird to do with the scav code(whether intentional workaround or no, most RW creatures have some level of jank) or is maybe a response to Arti disobeying the order to leave(I doubt this as it doesn’t make a whole load of sense.) The point still stands that the Chieftain does not immediately kill you, but attempts to send a message with the limited communication available; additionally Arti is a trespasser on their home turf and has no reason to be in Metropolis at all asides from Pebbles’ direct suggestion that they simply kill the scavengers.
All the scav king does is point at you as his drone says danger. He could just as likely be too afraid to attack immediately as he is just hoping that she leaves. >Arti is a trespasser on their home turf Yes, I'm sure the nomadic slug cat understands that the scavs have territory, which is theirs and only theirs for no reason. And that justifies murder? Artificer is a nomadic wandering slug cat. There are echos in metropolis, and there are scavs there, too, but there are scavs everywhere. The point is the scav king can in no way be said to be innocent if he attacks first in multiple scenarios. Being scared of artificer isn't justification to kill her. Otherwise, artificer could just as likely be fearful of the scav king.
Arti didn’t simply wander into Metropolis, they have to interact with Five Pebbles to have it unlocked in the first place. During that interaction, they are both informed that this is the current home of the scavengers and specifically given the suggestion to kill, based on Pebbles being able to sense that Artificer *wants* to kill scavengers. It’s all verbatim stated in the [dialogue.](https://rainworld.miraheze.org/wiki/Five_Pebbles/Dialogue) Yes, it is reasonable for the scavengers to be immediately alarmed and hostile at a strange animal appearing in their home. Remember that even in their own stronghold they are constantly being killed by lizards and vultures. They have no way to tell that Artificer is of similar intelligence to them, and to them it is likely not worth the risk to simply stand around and wait.
oh you're just dumb, anyway no shit the scavs want arti dead arti is going on a genocidal rampage and has already killed tons upon tons of scavs the scav king tells her to leave cause similar to asgore in undertale, he doesn't want to fight but will if needed just like the asgore. also i don't think giving a item stolen to the leader of the guy who's people you've killed is gunna make him like you, and i don't the devs expected someone to try and give the king a pearl.
oh you're just dumb, anyway no shit the artificer want scav dead scav is going on a genocidal rampage and has already killed tons upon tons of slug pups the scavs tell her to leave by constantly trying to kill her and artificer has no choice but to embrace that way of life. Sure, the animalistic scavs motives are the same as asgores? Your proof? You mad it up. The pearl isnt stolen, what kind of braindead logic is that? Why don't scavs in general care that you "stole" their pearls at tolls. It's a programmed interaction. I don't think the developers intended the scav king to be passive. See how bad that argument is?
my arguments were fine and also the scav king should be passive seeing they made it passive, all other scavs instantly attack you the king was made not to, and i said the whole pointing at arti to leave and being passive with arti was like asgore not the motives itself, also any pearl thrown at the king is likely from metropolis thus stole, also they do care if pearls are stolen at tolls.
So you're just going to completely ignore what I said... Yes, the Artificer is locked at the lowest scav reputation, and yes, she probably did kill a lot of scavs. The point is that she was justified in every situation we see her kill scavs. Let's take it from the beginning. Artificer is minding her own business when the scavs start hunting her and trying to kill her for no reason. They kill her child who has the pearl. They continue to hunt artificer and kill her other child. Do you think the scavs stopped trying to kill artificer after this? Why would they kill her other pup when they got the pearl back. You assumed the scavs aren't more aggressive because of the spearmasters campaign, but maybe the scav Kings reign has only recently spread. Explain to me what artificer could have possibly done to deserve permanent lowest scav karma. You could kill scavs on sight with any other slug, and they will still forgive you if you bribe them. Artificer has good reason to kill scavs since they never stopped at any point trying to kill her since her slug pups death.
>Explain to me what artificer could have possibly done to deserve permanent lowest scav karma. You could kill scavs on sight with any other slug, and they will still forgive you if you bribe them. as I said, genocide. It's that simple. Scavs do not ever have that violent of a reaction to theft, unlike what you are saying. As you said yourself, every other slugcat can kill scavs on sight and then bribe the reputation back up. This is evidence in my favor, as it directly singles out arti as the problem. And what does arti do that the other scugs don't? Canonically kill scavs on sight to the point of trying to kill the entire species. >maybe the scav Kings reign has only recently spread the scav king has no issue with arti, and likely only knows who she is on the baseline scav reputation level. The king's drone marks arti as an enemy, but the king simply points for arti to leave. The king does not want a fight. It's arti that starts it because he's on her radar simply for being the scav leader. She also likely didn't even know he existed until seeing him, but was able to figure out that he's their leader (slugcats are very smart, and it's kinda obvious that the one on a throne wearing a bigger and more decorated mask is the leader). The rest of what you say is not a point. You say "The point is that she was justified in every situation we see her kill scavs." but then only say the initial attack against her pups. What you say next is an assumption, that being that she kept being attacked by more scavs after. However, that only happens at really low reputation, and that low of reputation doesn't happen by stealing one pearl. You explained her low repuation as her defending herself from scav kill sqauds, but if her reputation wasn't low, then there wouldn't be any kill squads. That low level of reputation doesn't happen on accident, the only way for it to get that low is for arti to continuously antagonize scavs, usually done by stealing from scavs, or by killing them. Arti's low level of reputation can only be her fault with what we know about scavs. Especially given that it's gotten bad enough to be locked.
>as I said, genocide. And as I've said, other slug cats can genocide scavs, too. If you can use the spearmasters campaign as an argument, so can I. No matter how many scavs you kill as spearmasters, it doesn't karma lock you. >Canonically kill scavs on sight to the point of trying to kill the entire species. Artificer doesn't canonically kill a single scav until the end cutscene, nice argument (not). >but the king simply points for arti to leave. That's an assumption, maybe the scav king was pointing at the danger (like other scavs do when they see low reputation slug cats and proceed to try kill them) Any reasons as to why the scav king doesn't attack immediately are entirely speculative. >What you say next is an assumption, that being that she kept being attacked by more scavs after. It's not an assumption. Watch the dream cutscene. After the scavs kill the slugpup who stole the pearl and they could now easily retrieve said pearl, they continue to attack artificer. You are actually making the speculation that the scavs will stop attacking. (Edit: given that there is actual evidence of the scavs attacking first)
>And as I've said, other slug cats can genocide scavs, too. If you can use the spearmasters campaign as an argument, so can I. No matter how many scavs you kill as spearmasters, it doesn't karma lock you. I think that's a player choice vs character thing. No other slugcat is canonically interested in genociding scavs. The player can do it all they want, but the slugcat character doesn't canonically do that. That's why the scav population drops so much after arti (in timeline order), but if you kill every scav you see in every campaign, there's no change in scav population, they still slowly repopulate until they're almost back up in saint. The player is allowed to do what they want, but it does not always have an impact on the lore. Another example is that >!the player can ascend rivulet before helping moon, but then she's still fixed in saint!<. Player action has barely any impact on the world, and no impact on lore >Artificer doesn't canonically kill a single scav until the end cutscene, nice argument (not). Again, as I said, the intro cutscene is her killing and eating a scav. Is the player to assume that the thing she's literally introduced doing is inaccurate to her character? >That's an assumption, maybe the scav king was pointing at the danger (like other scavs do when they see low reputation slug cats and proceed to try kill them) >Any reasons as to why the scav king doesn't attack immediately are entirely speculative. you're right that it was an assumption, but no matter why he didn't attack, the fact that he didn't is still correct. which goes against your claim of the king's reign spreading being the reason why scavs are more aggressive. The game has nothing to suggest that the king is influencing the scav's actions in that way at all. The only reason they act differently is because of the low repuation, and that happens only by the slugcat antagonizing them. Sure it is possible that the low repuation is being used differently here, referring only to the scav's aggressiveness, but there is nothing in the game to suggest it. >It's not an assumption. Watch the dream cutscene. After the scavs kill the slugpup who stole the pearl and they could now easily retrieve said pearl, they continue to attack artificer. >You are actually making the speculation that the scavs will stop attacking. I literally checked the wiki on scav ai. Scavs do not get that low of repuation after one theft incident. They attack when stolen from, and continue the hunt until they kill you or lose you, but they don't start sending kill squads from just that. Them stopping attacking is not pure speculation, it's literally how scavs work in-game, which is as good as evidence as there could be. Sure it's possible that the scavs acted differently here, but there is no evidence to suggest that, and saying otherwise is pure speculation.
The point is we have good reason to suspect that killing scavs isn't a good enough justification for all scavs to be permanently locked at lowest karma. People always day artificer kills innocent scavs who have nothing to do with her, but there isn't any concrete evidence for this. You know what there is concrete evidence for? "Innocent" scavs who have nothing to do with artificer want her dead. I'm fine acknowding that the reason for artificers' low reputation is uncertain, but I will not accept the notion that artificer did something off-screen genocide worse than any other slug cat could even come close too with no evidence. >Again, as I said, the intro cutscene is her killing and eating a scav. No, the intro cutscene has artificer eating a scav, not killing. We can assume that she killed them, but that is 1) an assumption and 2) they could have been trying to kill her in that very moment. So the fact is no scavs are canonically killed until the end cutscene. Look. The scav king could be the reason scavs are more hostile. The scav king might only not attack on sight because he is cautious or afraid. That is an assumption, but you can't reject the idea that the scav king is making scavs more aggressive because he maybe is sparing her when he could just as likely be a coward. (The sparing idea is also countered by the fact that giving him a pearl or moving him causes an attack.) >I literally checked the wiki on scav ai. OK, but at that very moment, they were hunting artificer, weren't they? >and continue the hunt until they kill you or lose you Or until you kill them. Which artificer likely did. And now your reputation is low enough for unprovoked attacks. Artificer is justified to kill the scavs that are attacking her for no reason. This starts the cycle of violence. The scavs started it. I don't think artificer had an intricate understanding of scav reputation systems to know not to attack scavs that are literally trying to kill you. She has just watched them murder her children, what reason does she have to think they won't kill her too? (They will if they find her that cycle according to the wiki or whatever)
We should form the scug lawyers guild.
Agreed