#oghhhhh

It’s honestly pretty fucked to imagine that if Eva and Damon HAD actually trusted the others, there would have presumably been no CH1 kill at all. Despite me OoC agreeing with Damon and Eva (to a degree, of course. I don’t think people’s talents are LESSER, Damon please), the game’s narrative ironically proved that Wolfgang’s ideology (to a DEGREE) was… correct? Which I just frankly find interesting in itself, because it’s an emotion vs logic debate. Logically, Damon and Eva have a point. Saying that NOBODY will ever kill and that you can trust a bunch of strangers is, objectively, not a great idea. In terms of logic, you don’t know these people. You don’t know lengths Tozu is willing to go to GET these people to kill. Putting blind faith into others is, from a logical perspective, not a good idea. Perhaps even a terrible idea. And yet. And YET.

If Eva and Damon HAD trusted the others, had put their “blind faith” in the others despite how seemingly “illogical” this trust could be, there would have been no death this chapter. Sure, we don’t know for sure if everything would have been peachy— maybe another motive down the line would have gotten people to kill. But at least, in CH1, there would have been no death.

Wolfgang’s whole ideology—this idea of trusting everyone unconditionally—might seem bad on paper, but in terms of the narrative, it COULD have very well worked… if it had been applied universally. For all his talk about trusting the group, he didn’t extend that same trust to Damon and Eva. He outcast them, treated them as “other,” and that exclusion just pushed them further away. And that’s the irony, right? If Wolfgang had actually practiced what he preached—if his trust had encompassed everyone, including Damon and Eva—things might have played out differently. Eva wouldn’t have felt so alienated, Damon wouldn’t have been so wary, and there’s a solid chance they wouldn’t have kept secrets or escalated to murder (in Eva’s case). If the trust had been universal and consistent, I genuinely believe this strategy could’ve worked.

And, funnily enough, for all of Eva and Damon’s talk about how trusting everyone was naive and stupid, it’s Something to realize that Eva’s decision to kill was also driven by emotion. Just in the opposite direction. Eva didn’t kill because it was the most “logical” course of action. Murder in that situation was a terrible move. But her distrust of the others—this belief that they couldn’t be trusted, that she couldn’t rely on them to keep her safe—pushed her to act out of fear, frustration, and anger. Those are all emotions, not logic.

It’s ironic, isn’t it?

Damon and Eva criticized the others for making decisions based on feelings, yet Eva’s murder was entirely bound up in the same emotional thinking. The only difference is that where the others were putting faith in the group, Eva put faith in nobody. It wasn’t logic that made her decide to kill—it was her mistrust, her isolation, her sense that she had no other choice. She felt backed into a corner, so she lashed out in the worst way. In trying to avoid the “emotional trap” of blind faith, she fell right into the emotional trap of fear and suspicion.

The exact thing she criticized ended up defining her actions—just in reverse.

The trial even hammers this idea of emotion vs logic, trust vs distrust: During the trial, signs seem to point to Diana being the culprit. it would have been perfectly logical to vote her based on what they had. Despite not having proof, Damon chooses to trust Diana’s character in the pathos route. That emotional choice ends up being the correct move. In this instance, it is trust (emotion, not logic) that saves everyone. (I’m sure it’s a bit different in the logic route, but I went with pathos in my run, so that’s what I’m more familiar with.)

Going more into personal thoughts here…

I’d even argue that Wolfgang bringing a knife is what ultimately led to his death. Sure, I get it— this is all my hypothetical musings. But thematically, the ideas are there: Wolfgang talks a big game about trusting the group, but when push comes to shove, he doesn’t trust them enough to come unarmed. Diana, on the other hand, fully embodies that trust and faith, and it ends up positioning her as the only person who could have saved him. But because Wolfgang brought a knife, Diana couldn’t help him. His distrust becomes physically embodied with the knife, a tangible barrier Diana cannot cross. In a sense, if you believe in this hypothetical, the situation parallels Diana’s dynamic with Eva— in both the cases of the victim and killer, Wolfgang and Eva, Diana was willing to extend a hand, but the other’s distrust is what kills them.

From a logical perspective, and even from our outsider’s perspective, I think we all agreed with the “logical” words and actions from some of these characters (at least, to an extent). By the end of the trial, I had a small, lingering thought in my head of “Of course this happened. You all didn’t take precautions! You can’t rely on blind faith alone!” It’s only natural to think that, isn’t it?

It’s easy to justify distrust, to say it’s “logical” to protect yourself, to look out for your own safety above all else. And honestly, from an outsider’s perspective, it feels like the smart thing to do. Who wouldn’t hesitate to trust strangers in a life-or-death situation? It feels reckless to rely on people you don’t know, to put faith in their morality or goodwill. Stupid, even.

But I feel like that’s where the narrative turns everything on its head. The same logic that vindicates Damon’s mistrust— “See, someone did kill, I was right to doubt them” — also ends up showing how destructive that mistrust really is. Damon and Eva’s refusal to trust the others didn’t prevent the murder: it caused it. When you step back and think about it, the “stupid” choice— to trust, to take a leap of faith— is arguably the perfect counter to the cycle of suspicion, paranoia, and self-preservation that is inherent within a killing game. Trust, as risky and illogical as it seems, is the only thing that CAN break that trap. If everyone had trusted each other, then no one would have died.

HEY

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS MEAN

what?

What?!?