What do Carmina’s crows represent in her lore

ShamelessPigMain

So I found some free time recently to finally start reading over the Artist’s lore, and I’m pretty confused so far. I know each killer is supposed to have some kind of fundamental emotion that compels them to bring NOED every match (The Pig and her jealousy, the Plague and her devotion, the Trickster and his terrible fashion choices), but Carmina just seems like a nice painter with a dead family.

The part at the end is really confusing for me too. When the crows begin to shred apart the bad guy—great job choosing one of only two continents on Earth that don’t have crows by the way—It’s pretty clear that Carmina has wrath, but she’s also pretty happy about her art coming to life, so is that (crazed artist who wants to make their art real shenanigans) supposed to be her central motivation?

I’m also completely stumped by what the crows eating her friends is supposed to represent. Wrath burning out of control seems a bit generic for her, since she is such a neurodivergent minor unique character, but I really don’t have any other clues from her.

Plus, isn’t a bit contradictory that the crows represent/provide comfort and care when she’s at the bridge, but then fury when she’s in the desert? I can’t think of anything that could possibly unify those two things in meaning. Any ideas?

DeadByStreetlight

To really answer that question we need to wait for a carmina tome.

I think the crows protect her in a cruel way. They are the manifested thoughts that she wanted to express and sort through painting. But the crows can only exist because Carmina gives them strength through her painting. The sad end is that she succumbs to the crows, since she actually only experiences suffering and therefore they are the only ones who seem to stick by her.

Tr1nity

She like brd.

Entity give brd.

Art lady happ.

Crit

So due to the lore we know that crows are the intervention in her life as the entity. The same as in trappers. It makes the antagonist think it's helpful while the entity makes them their puppet

Valik

I Agree 100%

Her lore is incredibly bad, in my opinion.

I'll tell you my convictions first, by beliefs about Behavior's approach second, and finally - I'll answer your question.

~

The best killer lore writing revolves around misallocated convictions (much like you pointed out) which leads to some demented vice that the Entity twists. The Blight sought to understand the Entity and survive at all costs - twisting him into a half-entity monster, The Deathslinger was brutal and ruthless on his path to revenge, The Oni butchered hundreds in his attempt to purify strength in a zealous pursuit of crafting the perfect warrior culture, The Trickster viewed the sounds of dying victims as authentic humanity ripe for sampling, The Doctor loved to hurt people and relished in their agony, the Hag ate people before the Cannibal was cool, The Clown was addicted to the feeling of power he felt when taking a life. Villains. Evil. DLC characters often get this right as well - Ghostface, Shape, Cannibal, Pig - these are all compelling characters because of the extreme depths of their evil and depravity. Amanda believed that people deserved to die, that they did not deserve the second chance that she had. Ghostface is a psychopath that views other humans as pawns in a thrilling gambit to win clout. The Shape was simply pure evil.

The BEST Lore for killers is based off of ones that had some form of deadly ambition that was EASILY turned into a threat. Killers that had a core ambition that made them a terror in the real world before the Entity claimed them - their powers are twisted gifts of the Entity that embody their core traits before they were taken. Twisted and vile - but created as tools to serve their great Entity.

The BEST lore for killers - in my opinion - is what shows how they are evil and horrifying.

~

BEHAVIOR, however, prefers a different approach.

The Trapper was a sad and confused man, the Wraith was tricked into doing bad things, the Spirit was merely a victim, The Twins were social outcasts, etc. They want you to feel BAD for the killers - a sense of sympathy. Even in circumstances like the Hag and the Plague, they really dial up the abuse in hopes that they become more attractive as underdogs. The Hag was tortured and cannibalized, the Plague tried to lead her people through a time of great sickness and death. But, in their lore, none of these characters truly have the marks of a killer in them. Phillip, the Wraith, was not a killer - really - he unwittingly helped bad people and sentenced them to a similar demise. Why is Phillip, the crusher operator, an invisible tree man wrapped in gauze and ringing a supernatural bell with a skull-spine axe? Never explained. The writers wanted you to feel pity for Phillip more than they cared to explain why he is terrifying, why he has his abilities. This can be seen even in the Hillbilly and the Huntress lore - they were just confused children that were abused and neglected in their surroundings.... it's not their fault they turned out like this! Look, the Huntress tries to help little girls! Don't you feel bad for her?? The spirit came home from school and was brutally hacked to death by her father for no reason - she died full of grief and confusion. Why is she chasing strangers around and slashing at them with a shattered-glass sword? Uhhh... Angy. Ok?

The Artist embodies this perfectly. They honestly did not give a rat's tail about her lore's relation to her being a killer. They did everything they could to make her sympathetic. Her family is shattered. Her brother is killed and she bears the blame of her own mind and the voices of those around her. Her art is her only avenue of reprieve. She uses her platforms to speak against rich people, she is brave and strong in spite of her disabilities. The mafia tortures and kills her and her friends. Oh the humanity! Do you not feel moved? Do you not feel bad for such a tormented soul?

Behavior, in many of their original characters, does everything that they can to try and make them sympathetic victims of circumstance. Trying to turn them into horrifying slashers that send shivers down the spines of those unfortunate enough to know their names ... that's the road less traveled. The creators of these characters want the Killers to be like twisted versions of survivors - they're not bad people, the Entity just twists them into something evil. Making a threatening and scary killer is less of a priority than making a morally gray killer that is in some way sympathetic. Behavior wants killers to be tragic.

~

To answer your cleverly structured and legitimately hilariously written question, eNtiTY.

The crows were, in some way, motivated by the Entity - who structured her life to develop her into a killer that could be harvested.

Does that make sense? No, not really? Well neither did the Wraith.

Behavior doesn't care if it makes sense or if it's aligned.

I cannot tell if they do not pay their creative writers enough to care, or too much to fire.

There is no true overarching concept because her lore is riddled with grief, anger, idealism, apathy, expression, isolation. Completely contradicting concepts that flow into one another without reason or direction.

It would be easy as cake to make her a house-of-wax style killer that uses blood to make her ink runny. That she kills people she feels are bad and uses their corpses to fuel her art - maybe even feed crows. Eccentric and dangerous, confused and filled with conflicting emotions that find certain clarity in the art of killing. Yeah, it could be good - and it probably would have been written as such if the writing team wasn't crunched for time, talent, and budget.

As it stands though - you are correct to question it. It simply is not well written.

If you're looking for a deeper meaning, there really isn't one.

If the writer comes out tomorrow and reveals some deep analogy and layered allegory that was created by such a complex string of events - it wouldn't matter; they failed at their job to convey the depth of their thoughts into a concise script. If they had something smart to say, they didn't say it. You're looking for logic where there either never was any - or where it was accidentally and catastrophically misplaced.