Fanart of D, a character from NIKKE: Goddess of Victory. Spoilers to the following event stories: LICENSE TO KILL, KILL THE LORD, and LORD FOR JUSTICE.
I'll talk about the artwork first. I've been having motivation issues lately so I decided to follow advice from an illustrator called Saito Naoki where if you have trouble starting an illustration due to worrying that it'll take up a bulk of your time, you should consider doing ワンドロー where you try to finish an artwork in just one hour. The limited time means you don't have to worry about spending too much time, and even if it doesn't turn out "good" (if that's something you worry about), you can internally wave that away with the excuse that you only spent an hour on it. It does help with the anxiety of starting another project, although I can't help but feel like I'm being chased while making the art.
In the end, I took 1 hour (+ 20 minutes for touching up the areas that I wasn't able to reach in just 1 hour) to finish this piece. Honestly, I'm not really proud of it, but I guess it is just like the excuse above. I only spent one hour; what's important is that I actually finished one.
Now then, let's talk about NIKKE's story. All three events related to D and K has been bangers after bangers; and I think they highlight my favorite part of NIKKE, that being the worldbuilding of the Ark itself. I do understand that dystopias have a bit of a bad reputation (tragedy =/= a good story) in the world of gacha game stories, but NIKKE is the only story I've consumed in this genre so I don't really have that gripe. I like the Ark as a setting, and I like to see how some of the characters that lived in its darkness cope with it. The stories of D and K especially appeal to me.
LICENSE TO KILL is the first one in the sequence, and it's basically a "the greater good" problem. On the scales weighing on the side of good is the CEO contributing money for free and accessible healthcare, researching rare illnesses, and finding alternative uses for mass-produced NIKKEs that are about to scrapped (even if the "alternative use" is not that good). On the scales weighing on the side of bad is the NIKKE trafficking, and the worsening of the conflict in the Outer Rim. From the perspective of the Ark, the Outer Rim doesn't matter, so the "greater" is naturally the Ark and thus what the CEO did is the greater good.
The situation of the mass-produced NIKKEs also makes the situation more difficult. There are two potential fates for the mass-produced NIKKEs: they are scrapped, or they are sold to the Outer Rim. One cana argue that given the latter, they at least have a chance to continue living, but another can argue that being sold to the Outer Rim is only delaying the inevitable and prolonging their suffering. It's an interesting scenario where both sides leave you feeling disgusted, and I'm just pleasantly surprised with the post-decision talk the Commander had with D and K, which also highlighted both of their philosophies.
D focuses on the slippery slope. Once someone commits a bad deed, they will be more inclined to do more in the future if left unpunished. The CEO is working for the benefit of the Ark right now, but who knows if his actions will escalate. To allow this gray area would mean providing an avenue for people to slip further into evil. And that is why, she chose to kill, for there is a reason to kill.
Meanwhile K plays into the gray area. Both situations have their merits and demerits. But ultimately a decision has to be made and after that decision is made, all we can do to preserve our mental state is to turn a blind eye and focus on the good of that decision rather than linger forever on what could've been. The decision resulted in some good, and that's good enough for K. And that is why, she chose to spare, for there is a reason to spare.
I honestly can't really say which philosophy is better. Both sides seem equally valid, and I'm not worldly enough to tell which is "objectively" better, if there is even an objective standard for this.
KILL THE LORD takes on a different angle compared to LICENSE TO KILL. Rather than a "the greater good" problem, it challenges whether it's better for someone to be blissfully unaware or aware and suffering. Of course, the event heavily tilts the decision in the favor of making them aware due to the implication of the flowers containing Mist, but we'll ignore the various ramifications and focus on the core philosophical idea.
On one side, you can let them be blissfully unaware. Without the knowledge that they are suffering, they will stay happy so long as they are ignorant. From the perspective of other people who are aware, they are foolish and should be pitied as they aren't even aware of their situation. But from their own perspective, they are happy in their bubble. Do we have the right to pop that bubble then?
On the other side, you can pop the bubble and make them see reality as it is. If not for you popping the bubble, they would have remained happy in their bliss. Are you willing to remain with them every step of the way to help them cope with reality? If you do not have that intention, do you have the right to make them miserable then? D's philosophy is closer to this, where she believes that it's important for people to see reality as it is.
The channel Unsolicited Advice (good channel on philosophy btw) once had a video discussing an AITA where a man was mad at his friend for letting him know that his wife is cheating on him. Had he not been aware, then he would've been comfortable in his bliss. I think that discourse is closely related to this one (although with many exceptions. We're intentionally ignoring the ramifications of the effects of Mist here, and also the fact that they are also inviting other members into the cult; furthermore, real life is also much more complicated)
Finally, LORD FOR JUSTICE deals with a separate issue about whether your sense of justice is based on your own decisions or based on your "environment" (organization, boss, etc). In K's case, what started as her own sense of justice had been perverted due to VII involving her in his various schemes. And while based on VII's moral compass, those are a necessary evil, they are still evil actions that violate K's existing moral compass.
Did K assassinate that politician because she has the same conviction as D, believing that the death of that politician leads to a better world, or because her boss believes so? There's an incongruity between herself and her orders and thus, she's regarded as a puppet now. The Commander's final decision (or lack there-of) puts the agency back in K's hands. The Commander did not tell her to rejoin or leave Perilous Siege, because that would be the Commander's decision based on the Commander's moral compass.
In the end of the event, K participated again in the activities of Perilous Siege, and while it did seem that the event accomplished nothing with K's character as she returned to what she has been doing. The important change is that this is now of K's volition rather than someone else's, one rooted on her own sense of justice.
I'm just really fond of these three events.
