I've Been Thinking: Mixing Moral Tests and National Emergencies in Stories · 4:12pm Dec 6th, 2021
Blog Number 175: Our Humanitarian Stories Edition
To summarize the summary of the summary: is it wrong to let a country get utterly screwed because one person fibbed a bit?
WARNING: loooooooooong blog post follows.
Where Did That Come From?
To summarize the summary: I've been thinking a bit lately. In my case, that usually means poking at things I'm looking at right now that I feel a little concerned over. (Minor note: I've been refocusing on Season Five here, if that helps). And then wondering if there's something to find, dig out, and ideally replace with an upgrade, or at least with something a bit healthier.
Believe me: I'm not doing this to be a smug "nyah nyah, I see something you don't" jerk. I've at least nominally got one eye on improving stories for everyone's benefit, whether that means saying "nah, it's fine as it is" or "scrap it RIGHT NOW!" So I'm sorry in advance if I stray off that path and step on toes in the process.
Recently, the thing that's bothering me and making me do all this wondering has been moral judgement in fiction, and MLP:FiM is a good example.
If I may nail it squarely: is there such a thing as misapplying moral judgement in a story because of a context-built slippery slope? I mean, you start off with good moral intentions, but then you tweak the logic of the story a bit here and there, and then you don't even notice or realize you've slipped a little off target and said something you weren't intending.
To summarize:
A major part of many stories - I'm only singling out MLP:FiM here because it's handily close - is that the hero or heroes demonstrate a virtue or virtues as the story goes along. So far, so non-controversial. Another major part is that the virtue or virtues are tested. Stop me if I'm boring you. Yet another major part is that the virtues are tested and then used as a selection process to determine whether said hero qualifies for success or failure. Er.... And a final major part is that the stakes of said story are high if they fail.
Now put this in the context of a national emergency with lots of bystanders involved.
You see the problem?
Moral Collateral Damage
The problem, as it seems to me, is threefold.
Firstly, that at some level "the hero(es) must be good people" can - because we love escalation and high stakes - get a bit warped into something more like "the hero(es) must be virtue paragons", which is already setting quite a steep bar to clear.
Secondly, that it gets tied judgementally into the plot. It'd be one thing if that was an incidental detail to the main thrust of the narrative - say, a military-esque quest to defeat a villain - but because we like our stories to be morally meaningful and cleverly interwoven and psychologically resonant, they're often tied together so that "defeat the villain" depends explicitly upon "being a virtue paragon".
And thirdly, that the rider to that muddling is going from a practical problem (stop the villain from causing a disaster) to a moral judgement (victims of that disaster deserve what they get).
That's already starting to introduce some troubling implications for what happens to the hero if failure is an option - because if we're reading this morally, that sounds like the hero deserves to lose against the villain if the explicit virtue test doesn't deliver an A+. And now put it in the context of a national emergency with lots of bystanders involved, and that sounds like everyone in the setting deserves to lose against the villain if the hero doesn't deliver an A+.
Hence "is it wrong to let a country get utterly screwed because one person fibbed a bit?"
The "Virtuous PAL Code" Theory of Hero-Villain Conflicts
I think you can see how that's relevant to pony, because the plots of certain episodes involve our heroes demonstrating loyalty, kindness, honesty, generosity, laughter (er... translate into virtue accordingly), and the ability to make up friendship speeches on the spot as a prerequisite to accessing the Insta-Win Magic Blast. Almost like the virtues/elements of friendship/harmony are basically PAL Codes you need to access the nuclear missile and blow up the bad guy.
So for the sake of what I shall call simplicity, I'll call this the "Virtuous PAL Code" Theory of Hero-Villain Conflicts.
My point isn't that the Virtuous PAL Code is bad storytelling or that you're a jerk if you don't have a problem with it. Fiction isn't that simplistic: for one thing, we love villains in fiction that in real life would be condemned as monstrous terrorists.
I also want to emphasize that I don't think anyone using the Virtuous PAL Code approach is deliberately setting up these implications or even has them in mind. As I pointed out, each step that leads to such a story makes sense on its own, either from a moral POV (you want heroes to show some virtue, after all) or from a storytelling POV (raising the stakes is largely a time-tested way of keeping your audience).
But at the same time, I think that makes it extra-important to draw attention to stuff like this, because it's easier to miss, and because at least then we can consciously determine if this is the way we want our stories to go, rather than letting awkwardnesses slip under the radar.
The Bones You Build a Story With
"OK," I imagine I hear you say, "but what's this got to do with the Main Six using Friendship Lasers?"
It's got to do with... that, for the same reason it's got to do with most stories: because stories aren't just a bunch of stuff that happens. That's called "history".
Not all stories are explicitly moral, but because humans write them and because humans obsess over morality, we all-too-readily wrap up a story with moral ideology (I don't mean that in a bad sense: call it a moral framework, if you prefer, or a moral background).
MLP:FiM in particular is intimately tied up with a positive, uplifting moral ideology/framework/background, and not just because it shouts out a "Dear Celestia" at the end of each ep: I mean there are others, deeper, subtler, in the bones used to support it.
When, say, Twilight et al blast Tirek back to Tartarus, the writers were probably not thinking "Equestria deserves him if Twilight doesn't play nice with Discord" but probably were thinking "we ought to show Twilight wielding friendship as part of her character arc, let's tie that in with Discord needing to learn and value it more: ergo, let's use Tirek as the instrument to both". But since Tirek is simultaneously being used as a threat escalation for adventure drama threatening thousands, wires get crossed and suddenly you end up with that unfortunate implication because the thousands also now get caught in the moralistic crossfire. Namely, "Twilight is not being friendly with Discord" - something explored in much lower stakes with Moondancer later - in context rather jarringly means "goodbye, Equestria".
To put my response in real-world terms: you don't screw around in an emergency. Prioritize, you know?
And to put my response in a more relevant if generic way: really think before you plug something into a program. You might get bugs.
This isn't news: people readily point out when they spot (or think they spot) the wonky logic behind how a moral's presented, or when a character behaves a bit too badly (and presumably because this isn't an intentional characterization note).
As usual, it's complicated. There are layers, and at the same time as there are moral layers, there are all the neutral, practical layers of moving characters from A to B and making sure Event 1 leads into Event 2 and putting a bit of foreshadowing here whilst pulling a twist there, and the hardest part is that it's all too easy to lose track of those layers and just take it as a big pot of story soup mix.
As I said, MLP:FiM is intimately tied up with a positive, uplifting moral ideology/framework/background, and I salute that. And as paradoxical as this is going to sound, that's precisely why I want to poke at it and isolate any problems. Because I want it to do well, to stand up to scrutiny, and that doesn't mean sneering at it. That means looking for ways to patch it and improve upon it.
So anyway, the moral judgement thing...
Solutions from a Self-Confessed Armchair Critic
I'm hoping by now you have some idea why I think it's a bit iffy to structure a world-threatening quest using virtue-testing parts, not least because of the muddling of two separate issues (practical villain defeat vs. moral hero testing) to make unfortunate implications such as the Virtuous PAL Code. Namely, that it sounds like it's passing moral judgement over innocent bystanders who stand to suffer if the villain triumphs.
As for solutions...?
Solution One: Sharpshoot, Don't Bomb
I do want to suggest alternatives. If I'm going to complain, I might as well indicate what I'd prefer to see. OK, OK, something that carries the same humanitarian spirit while still telling a good story...
I suppose one solution would be to downplay the practical threat while keeping the virtue-testing.
Most of the Map missions would qualify, as the stakes for each are usually no worse than "local friends don't get along".
See, that's the gist. Instead of a threat with lots of morally problematic collateral damage, have the hero face a villain/threat that's more local, or who's out for them personally. This doesn't necessarily escape the implication that, if the hero fails, they deserve to fail, but at least there's less actual risk if the moral judgement goes wrong.
Or else it might be easier to turn into a more ethical consensual conflict: the hero has to opt into the test/conflict, not have it thrust upon them, and have some idea going in of what the stakes are. In which case, design your villain/antagonist/rival accordingly. In theory, "The Crystal Empire" could be re-jigged this way, since Twilight can opt into Celestia's test. Just replace the part wherein the whole country falls if she does it wrong, and you're good.
Or else the virtue is construed as a tactical advantage (for instance, loyalty makes teamwork much more efficient, which gives the heroes an added advantage over an enemy operating solo, or an enemy prone to backstabbing its allies). A sort-of good example is how Twilight outsmarts Trixie in "Magic Duel". I'm spitballing ideas here.
Solution Two: Forked Coincidences are OK
Another solution might be to separate the virtue-testing as a side plot.
The most obvious example in MLP:FiM is... well, there you have me. I can't think of one off the top of my head.
The closest I can get to the idea is "The Crystal Empire", but hear me out: remove the "just a test" framing, and what is the plot really? Find the Crystal Heart and get it to the Crystal Ponies before Sombra arrives. As a happy coincidence, Spike gets to prove his hero bona fides (heck, the rest of the Main Six are conveniently written as doing a side mission too, albeit a more slice-of-life one). There's no is/ought confusion in that setup: "get the weapon in place" is pretty much it, and confronting fear (a test the villain set up) and enabling Spike's heroism is a happy bonus.
See, that's the point of this second solution. The practical threat can focus on practical skills, such as raw combat and magic power, strategy/tactics, teamwork, obstacles, and backup options if it isn't going well. Meanwhile, a character involved is fussing over their own virtue and wants to see if they can put themselves to humanitarian/heroic use. They have an epiphany/triumph (which can be causally connected: serendipity happens sometimes) and that helps them deal with the quest but doesn't depend upon it.
The point being that "is virtuous enough to pass the test" and "can beat the villain" aren't morally mixed up, but are effectively neutral coincidences that can overlap here or there if you want a tidy story. Just not to the point that the judgement in one spills over into implied judgement of the other.
(You'll appreciate "The Crystal Empire" would have to be rewritten for this to work, because as it stands now, the "just a test" framework blows this analysis to hell. But it could be rewritten. And quite easily, I think).
Solution Three: Your Villain Wants Virtue Too
And a third solution, I think, is to rejig your villain so that they're interested in passing the virtue test themselves.
The most obvious example in MLP:FiM is "The Cutie Map", where the antagonists thought they knew how friendship worked, and the entire point of the episode was partly a cautionary tale relevant to the virtue, and partly a humanitarian effort to rescue its victims, (in this case by persuasion and revelation). Yeah, it's implied Starlight was fixing to spread her power base to the rest of Equestria, but the actual conflict was so local in scope that it didn't need that add-on in order to function.
(Incidentally, I did have a fourth solution which was the mirror image of the last one: rejig your virtue test so it's more in line with your villain threat. Prioritize, you know? Have the Powers That Be basically agree with humanitarian principles and not need such steep tests, so all you have to do to keep the conflict going is emphasize the practical problems of getting and using the power it grants you. But I'm not going to insist on this as a fourth solution because, in practice, it's basically a version of the second solution already mentioned).
Exit Stage Right
Just to clarify, for my finisher: I want more and more solid stories, with more solid story structure.
I don't have a problem with works testing the virtue of the heroes so we can admire or gain insight into them.
I don't have a problem with crazy big epic adventuring storylines with nail-biting high-stakes drama.
And I am definitely not here to make you feel bad about liking what you like.
I just really want to make sure we're aware that it can get really problematic combining the two aspects without thinking, and that there are more and less thoughtful ways to do it, so that when the next round of stories is told, we can suggest improvements. And hopefully that'll bring them a little closer to what we would agree would be moral and humanitarian.
OK, that's all. I think I've belaboured the point enough. Prioritize, you know? 
Impossible Numbers, out.
- (Minor note: I did consider titling this "Naughty, Nice, or Neutral?: Muddling Over Moral Judgement, High Stakes, Innocent Bystanders, and Humanitarianism". Needless to say, it seemed a bit long-winded.
) - (Second minor note: please don't quibble over using "humanitarian" in a pony context. Firstly, I'm speaking more broadly too: MLP is merely convenient. Secondly, I just flat-out don't want to use clumsy sci-fi alternatives.)
I really like the idea that "friendship" is essentially the nuclear launch code. The tests the box-form EoH put each of the Mane 6 through was making a friend of someone who could have easily (and justifiably) been an enemy. That strict requirement had to be fulfilled by each of them to produce the key objects. So, if Applejack hadn't gotten the magic bit from the Flim-Flam brothers' shill all that time ago, that part of the code would be missing and Equestria would have been doomed to enslavement under Tirek no matter what anypony else did. The EoH (in all its various forms) is completely amoral, doesn't care about any consequences to its primary wielders or innocent bystanders, and it just requires a certain set of predetermined behaviors to activate.
That's actually an acceptable story element. This is perfectly fine when we're talking about an uncaring mechanism, but not so great when it's supposed to be an arbiter of morals. I'd like to see a story where the EoH gets things terribly wrong because of factors outside of its operating parameters, and the ponies have to compensate for that because they are more adaptable and (dare I say it?) human. Oh, wait...
5614368
The problem I have with that fandom interpretation - apart from what I just said - is that this would be a fine and workable worldbuilding element... in a completely different show. A show that was openly cynical and self-critical.
But MLP:FiM presents itself as neither. No one in-universe questions those awful implications, and instead they act like Friendship/Harmony/What-have-you are the Big Good of the setting. Internally, the only question the characters ask is how to play the game right, not why it's played this way or why the rules are so weird. Coupled with the show's overall feel-good tone, it all feels less like a cleverly subtle self-deconstruction and more like just an unnoticed accident of writing.
As for the arbiter of morals... well, especially in later seasons, you could argue that the Force of Harmony is exactly that, which if anything makes the "unquestionable Big Good" problem even worse.
That's ultimately my point, especially for feel-good stories in general: it can't be done both ways. We can have the cynical interpretation, but then it should be more clearly presented as such. Or we can insist on our overall optimistic approach, in which case implications like that ought to remain off the table, due to inherent tone-content incompatibility.
5614413
Depends your view of the matter I suppose. Do bad choices not have negative consequences? Is the greatest good obligated to do everything to ensure a comfortable outcome for all, regardless of the principals it would have to violate to do so?
In any event, I don't see that as the case with the Tree of Harmony. There are certain constraints it must work within, but it's also expanded and developed it's methods over time to reach more people.
And what ever else they may be, the Main Six where never perfect exemplars of their elements, merely willing followers of them. "Harmony" has already gone out of it's way to allow them to be bearers.
I'm sleepy and mildly incoherent but the way I look at it is the story where they fail the moral test but win anyway is a story where one bad thing is eventually replaced with another.
It's kind of a corruption thing, like if Twilight had just horn lasered Tirek to death immediately, it might have worked, but also that Twilight becomes a Tyrant Unto Herself soon after.
So I think we focus on virtue tests in stories because anyone other than the supremely virtuous wielding the level of power that is available to such characters in narratives, anyone who is not so virtuous inevitably becomes a villain
Basically, the Batman quandary
Hmm... I think there is a distinction depending on what level the test operates - that is, in-universe and out-of-universe.
Like, the moment I (and maybe everyone) saw that title, I thought straight away of Celestia's test in The Crystal Empire, and I've always had Big Issues with that, cause it's a very worrying thing for the monarch of Equestria to do when real lives are on the line. It's her responsibility to prioritise the greater good and take the action which most supports that.
However, I don't think a writer nesscesarily has the same responsibilities. The implications you get don't quite connect the same way for me there - I have thought things like "boy, they'd have been screwed if Tirek attacked halfway through the season", but only in the sense that the plot (like most plots) relies on a certain amount of "luck" and good timing. It never really seemed to me that the possible failure would have a moral element - the harm Tirek does is his own fault (and Discord's), not that of those incapable of stopping him.
To clarify... just because the hero prevails by turning their virtues into victory, doesn't mean that it would be just for their failure to doom all. (I mean, I'm sure there are works which have said or implied as much, but I don't think FIM is one of them.) If the "test" isn't imposed in-universe, it's just a storytelling device, generally used in the pre-ordained certainty of success.
5614455
This, too - how you see the Tree's conciousness working and what you think it's aware of matters a lot, at least in this specific case. Certain takes could certainly paint it as poorly as Celestia in the previous season, but those aren't the takes I... take.
(You thinking about this did bring up those interesting other approaches, though.)