why did bhvr make the new survivor cause so many deaths?
In Jonah's backstory, he decrypts codes that were used to bomb civilians unintentionally making him a war criminal. It feels rushed and it doesn't affect him saying 3 paragraphs later it's not brought up again. To me, it feels like they were trying to do something similar to Yun-jin where their actions cause deaths but with Yun-Jin she was written as a strictly gray character with selfish flaws that make her unintentionally turn a blind eye to her co-worker. Jonah was written as a character we were supposed to care for and with perks that suggest he cares for others but killed more people than all killers backstories combined. with the hints of the CIA working with the Black vale (quote below), Bhvr seemed like they were going to have a story similar to Hopper from stranger things (season 1) of a Cop/government agent figuring out about the corrupt government and going rogue, but literally, the next paragraph basically retcons it and does a 180 switching the story making him decrypt coordinates for the US to bomb civilians. Hello?? How is he the survivor when the killer is an innocent woman killed by the same cult the is connected with the CIA. Which makes the survivor a villain and the killer the victim. What makes this situation even worse is that Its 2-3 paragraphs that don't add to the character at all (if anything takes away from it) without it would be a better story. I'm my opinion should change his story to the more rogue government agent vs corrupt government higherups that covered up the black vale. Recently BHVR have really been good with their survivor's lore but this one feels like 3 steps back
Quote: "He was put to work deciphering messages from signal stations around Europe. Archived footage found that for twenty-three years dozens had been operating in an unknown capacity. Simple blinks of light his complex codes that revealed disjointed information. It wasn’t much to go on, but he discovered the messages seemed to involve powerful and wealthy individuals from around the globe. The project was abruptly shut down. All agents involved were transferred to other assignments."
Comments
-
It was stated that none of the survivors were supposed to be truly good people. Survivors were all meant to be flawed in some way or the other, they are not that innocent.
For example we are told survivors did kill another survivor in the realm because he kept screaming and they wanted him to shut up so the killers won't find them. Jonah is not the first survivor to cause death, Talbot/Blight was picked by the Entity to be a survivor and he caused death without realizing it till he discovers it later, Nea caused the death of a guy who followed her because she marked his car, David harmed people and we were told he is an ######### long ago before they started using the tomes and Dwight almost caused his boss to kill someone because of the stuff he put in his coffee. What they made it clear for us is, these people are picked to be survivors because they showed guilt and remorse and didn't lose their humanity like the killers.
6 -
What a chad
2 -
Understandable but the main point I was trying to bring is it's not even what the story is about and only briefly mentioned if your actions killed 100s-1000s of people that you were trying to protect you won't just instantly forget about it and take a trip to chile. they seem to have multiple unfinished storylines within one survivor story. The beginning is the Childhood + CIA working for black vale, the Middle is the bombing, and the last part is the code in the cemetery. if they wanted to have the survivor in the same area as the killer why not just have the art museum where the paintings are on display In his hometown.
altogether it's nothing too bad, but the lore itself is very underwhelming and the bombing side plot makes it all the more confusing. Jonah doesn't really sound like a real person compared to the other survivors from this year Yun-Jin and Makalia.
0 -
m.
Post edited by oh_salutations on0 -
Your second paragraph really sums it up for me. I'm not getting Jonah as a character. His lore feels really disconnected and thrown together - it's a bunch of disparate pieces that don't seem to relate to each other, little of which strikes me as compelling. There's no cause and effect.
Having a survivor being an unwitting war criminal could have been a really interesting theme to work with (we already have Blight filling a similar role on the other side), but in Jonah's case, they don't do anything with it. It doesn't affect his personality or change his worldview, the story doesn't focus on the aftermath, and his narrative focus jumps back to Numbers Numbers Numbers immediately despite having a really good window to realize numbers aren't everything, there's lives behind the statistics, etc. Something to give the choice to include that event a purpose.
1 -
First off, Jonah is not a war criminal. According to the United States Naval Institute, "Accidents are not war crimes. Unintentional or collateral damage does not constitute a war crime, even when there are noncombatant deaths," and "The mere occurrence of unintended or accidental harm to noncombatants does not, and has never been considered a war crime." Jonah did not intend to hurt so many civilians, therefore, from every legal standpoint (which is the ONLY standpoint that this even remotely matters), he is NOT a war criminal.
The theme of Portrait of A Murder seems to be guilt for things WAY out of your control. Carmina believed she was guilty for her brother's death and her mother leaving, but neither of those were even remotely in her control. Her brother died because her father wasn't paying attention, and, while we don't know the circumstances of her mother leaving, it seems likely that her father was responsible for this too.
Jonah thought he was stopping rebels from overthrowing a young government when he decrypted the code. He had ZERO way of knowing that it was a decoy, but he still felt immensely guilty over it, leading him to divert money to those he hurt. He got found out, and his higher officer placed him back on the radio deciphers.
Could it have been handled better? Sure. How his story ends does ignore everything in Kwantana and his guilt is pushed aside. But he's still a pretty decent character who just needs a small touchup like that.
3 -
As a side note, I do find this chapter's lore interesting in the fact that the killer had zero responsibilities for the deaths of those around her, whilst the survivor can be linked (albeit unintentionally) to lots of deaths. I do like that unusual contrast.
0 -
kinda similar to plague/jane's whole thing.
0 -
But Jane isn't linked to any deaths?
1 -
no I meant because jane's done more wrong then plague.
0 -
But i don't recall Jane doing anything wrong at all, she worked hard against the prejudice in the industry and gave visibility to important issues that no one was talking about.
1 -
Best answer ^
Especially with the consideration of the legal perspective considering international warfare and such rather than tunnel vision on the moral / human one.
And on a small but separate note, I really like the idea of true Villains being a part of the survivor cast. Although currently we have none of these, and the characters people are really talking about in this thread are all only flawed in some way rather than being actually villainous. I like the idea of having a true villain as a survivor, an antagonist who actually sought out to harm others in pursuit of their own personal benefits. Yet now, in situations beyond their power or control, they must work together with (relatively) good people to survive, and the good people must reconcile with working together with people who utterly heinous and undeniably villainous. It'd make a contrast that's great storytelling as these two opposing forces are always rubbing each other the wrong way throughout the trials.
Perhaps the villainous person manipulates the others in the group into doing things his way, and ultimately sacrificing them to save his own skin. Perhaps the good person sacrifices the villainous person, sacrificing their morality, and ultimately proving that perhaps they weren't so good after all?
Survivors not all being good or even sympathetic is good to diversify the kinds of characters we see. Although David King is a team player at the end of the day, who is willing to put himself in harms way for the good of the group or another person, on release he was described as someone "you wouldn't want to be friends with" and is undoubtedly an #########, he's literally the "bully" archetype. People still like his character nonetheless.
Just me thinking thoughts, I don't really have a concluding bit to finish on.
0
