Instinct Vs. Impulse

 This post shall be a short text; being written in response to a question: What is the difference between instinct and impulse? Let’s examine it in more detail.

First, let’s define instinct. An instinct is an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals that occurs in response to external stimuli. For example, when a dog is wet, it will shake itself instinctively to dry itself off. The tendency is innate and does not occur as a result of environmental learning or conditioning. An instinct should not be mistaken for a reflex however, as, while this is also innate, it is a simple neural response. For example, the rutting reflex occurs in babies when an object is brushed against their cheek. The baby is reflexively searching for a nipple to suckle. In contrast, running when confronted with a bear is instinctual, as the resulting behavioral output is more complex, yet requires no previous learning.

Next, let us define impulse. Simply put, an impulse is a wish or an urge. When someone has the desire to perform an action, this is said to be an impulse. If one acts on this impulse without regard to consequence, they are said to be impulsive. Impulsivity can present as a personality trait when it begins by early adulthood, is relatively stable and occurs in a wide variety of contexts. While rewarded in the right circumstances, it is generally considered a problematic pattern of behavior.

So, while instincts are innate tendencies of behavior, impulses are urges that occur within us. While the impulse to do something can be the result of instinct, as in the bear example, impulse is a desire that results from external stimuli, while instinct is the tendency for a fixed action pattern. While the two constructs overlap, they are distinct in their phenomenology.

It's For Your Own Good: Dealing With a Narcissistic Parent

 In the topic of self-help, there are few areas that individuals seek assistance for more than understanding and dealing with a narcissist. Annoying, toxic, pernicious, frustrating and hazardous to your mental health, narcissistic individuals are notorious for wreaking havoc into the lives of those around them. Worse still, is when the victim is the very brood of the narcissist themself. Indeed, children of narcissists often develop narcissistic tendencies, either through negligence on the part of the parent or through constant enmeshment and control. These parents are one of the most pernicious experiences that may befall a developing child.

So how might one deal with a life sapping parent? Well, if we are to understand the solution, we must first examine the nature of the problem.

 Personality Disorders

Understanding narcissistic personality disorder, or NPD, it is essential to understand the dynamics of what constitutes a personality disorder, as this will lay the foundation for understanding the narcissist's psychodynamic processes.  Interestingly, this topic is still debated amongst the psychiatric community. Indeed, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; 5th edition (DSM-5-TR) presents not one, but two diagnostic models for personality disorders. Note: At no point should you attempt to diagnose a mental health disorder, personality disorder or otherwise, in yourself or others. This is a meticulous task which should only be conducted via a licensed and trained mental health professional. This post is simply to provide an overview of the topic and serve for educational purposes should one recognize various signs within people they know.

The first model is a categorical model continued since the fourth rendition of DSM, defining personality disorders as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that differs from the customs of the individual's culture, is relatively stable and inflexible, beginning in adolescents or early adulthood and causing clinically significant distress or impairment. The diagnostic criteria is as follows:

• An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the individual's culture. The pattern is manifest in two or more of the following areas:

• Cognition (How the individual perceives self, others and events)

• Affect

• Interpersonal relationships 

• Impulse control

• The enduring pattern is inflexible across a broad range of situations.

• The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.

• The pattern is stable and of long duration and can be traced back to adolescents or early adulthood.

• The enduring pattern is not better explained as a consequent or manifestation of another mental health disorder.

• The enduring pattern is not attributable to a substance or medical condition.

For the diagnosis of a personality disorder, the individual must present with a problematic pattern that differs markedly from the individual's cultural norms. These patterns manifest in the individual's inner experience and the resulting output behavior.  The resulting pattern then, must manifest itself within the individual's cognition (thoughts about self, world and others; belief system; processing of environment), affect (subjective sense of feeling and resulting emotional display) interpersonal relationships (how the individual relates to others) and impulse control. Interestingly, it’s been suggested that personality disorders ARE disorders of interpersonal relationships. Invariably, when one presents with a pathological personality structure, interpersonal relationships are inevitably affected. This has not been affirmed and this debate shall be examined in another post.

Furthermore, the enduring pattern must be inflexible and present in a wide variety of situations. In accordance, it must also be stable and present since adolescence or early adulthood. Inflexibility is characteristic of personality disorders. The presence of pathological personality traits manifest as problematic exactly due to their endurance and inflexibility. Indeed, a relatively prominent trait (ex: 8/10) on a measuring personality inventory  need not be pathological, as said person is still capable of adapting to environmental circumstances. Entering the 11 or 12 range however, is indicative of a problematic pattern present within the personality. In other words, those with personality disorders are the same as all others, they are merely pushed to the extreme in some aspect. Therein lies the problem.

As a consequence, the pattern causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning. In other words, there must be an accompanying sense of suffering or difficulty in various areas of life. Indeed, personality disorders are often ego-syntonic (in proportion with the self view) and thereby do not cause distress to the person. This is in contrast to ego-dystonic disorders (contrasting with self view) who recognize they have a problem and tend to be distressed as a result. Be that as it may, a personality disorder may be diagnosed whether the patient recognizes they have a problem or not.

Lastly, the problematic pattern must not be the result of a substance of misuse/medication, a medical condition, or be better explained by another mental health disorder, such as a depressive or anxiety disorder.

Concluding this model, the DSM presents ten personality disorders, which have been arranged within three clusters, accentuated via a general theme of pathology: Cluster A (paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal) presenting with “odd” or “eccentric” characteristics; cluster B (antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic) presenting with “dramatic” “emotional” or “erratic” characteristics, and cluster C (avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive) presenting with “anxious” “uptight” or “fearful” characteristics. Relevant to our disorder today is cluster B, whose central phenomena, to an extent, could be seen as poor internal awareness. We shall see how this is relevant to NPD soon.

While the categorical model for personality disorders presents with its distinctive advantages, it is not without its faults. In response, the DSM community has also created a categorical-dimensional hybrid model to exist in correlation with the DSM-IV model to aid in diagnostic validity, rather than to serve in contradiction.

Within this alternative model, a personality disorder is defined as moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning as well as the presence of pathological personality traits. The diagnostic criteria is as follows:

• Moderate or greater impairment in personality (self/interpersonal) functioning.

• Presence of pathological personality traits.

• The impairments in personality functioning and trait characteristics are relatively stable and occur across a variety of contexts.

• The individual's personality impairment and inflexible traits are stable across time, with origins that can be traced back to adolescents or early adulthood.

• The impairments in personality functioning and trait expressions are not the result of a substance or medical condition.

• The impairments in personality functioning and trait expression are not better explained by developmental period or sociocultural context.

To be diagnosed with a personality disorder, the individual must present with moderate or greater impairment within two or more areas of personality functioning, these being identity, self-direction, empathy and intimacy. The level of impairment within these domains is assessed on a five-factor scale ranging from 0 (no impairment), 1 (some), 2(moderate), 3(severe) and 4(extreme). In addition, the person must present with pathological personality traits, the inflexible, maladaptive characteristics of personality disorders previously mentioned. The quantity and individual pathological personality traits present depend on the diagnosis and are quintessential in correctly identifying specific personality pathology. With these two models presented, let us examine narcissistic personality disorder from both perspectives.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Within the categorical model, narcissistic personality disorder is classified under cluster B pathology, and defined as “a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration and a lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts.” The following is its diagnostic criteria:

• A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts as indicated by five or more of the following:

• Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and accomplishments; expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).

• Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty or ideal love.

• Believes they are “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special and unique people (and institutions).

• Requires excessive admiration.

• Has a sense of entitlement (i.e., unreasonable expectations of excessive treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations).

• Is interpersonally exploitative (i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her goals).

• Lacks empathy, is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings or needs of others.

• Is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her.

• Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.

Being a complex disorder, the central psychodynamics contributing to its symptomatology are still being investigated under scrutinous research. What seems to be the central characteristic is a sharp break in the developmental period involved in the formation of a consistent and reliant self-image. The resulting factor is a lack of an internal self-esteem “thermostat” for the internal regulation of self-worth, resulting in a complete dependence on the adulation of others to feel alive and worthy. Further evidence for this is the fact that these individuals present almost invariably with an extremely fragile sense of self-worth, with criticisms, challenges or vulnerable moments haunting these individuals incessantly. They may react with indifference, devaluation, disdain, rage or vengeance in response to said scrutiny. While much more may be said about this diagnosis, we shall focus our attention on this disorder's recognition rather than its inherent psychodynamic implications.

Though the complex internal modalities of narcissistic personality disorder shall be saved for a future post, I would be remiss if I did not include the second diagnostic criteria. Though the previous model serves well in recognizing traditional narcissism, also known as “grandiose” narcissism among other names, the dimensional-categorical model contributes more to the now recognized, multifaceted nature of narcissism, including various other presentations in its diagnostic criteria. In this model, narcissistic personality disorder is diagnosed as follows:

• Moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning as manifested by characteristic difficulties in two or more of the following areas:

• Identity: Exaggerated reference to others for self-definition and self-esteem regulation; exaggerated self-appraisal inflated or deflated, or vacillating between extremes; emotional regulation mirrors fluctuations in self-esteem.

• Self-Direction: Goal setting based on gaining approval from others; personal standards unreasonably high in order to see oneself as exceptional, or low based on sense of entitlement; often unaware of own motivations.

• Empathy: Impaired ability to identify or recognize with the feelings or needs of others; excessively attuned to reactions of others but only if perceived as relevant to the self; over- or underestimation of own effect on others.

• Intimacy: Relationships largely superficial and exist to serve self-esteem regulation; mutuality constrained by lack of genuine interest in others experiences and predominance of a need for personal gain.

• Both of the following pathological personality traits:

• Grandiosity (an aspect of Antagonism): Feelings of entitlement, either overt or covert; self-centeredness; firmly holding to the belief that one is better than others; condescension towards others.

• Attention seeking (an aspect of Antagonism): Excessive attempts to attract and be the focus of the attention of others; admiration seeking.

As can be seen, more diversity is present within the description of narcissistic symptomatology. Acknowledgement as to the multifaceted presentation of this disorder has been included via the acknowledgement of a deflated self-image or variations in self-image. Various subforms of narcissism have also been included in the associated feature specifications. For example, while grandiosity and attention seeking are necessary for the diagnosis, the individual may present with various neurotic symptomatology, characteristic in more “vulnerable” presentations. Furthermore, other personality traits associated with the domain of antagonism may be present, indicating a more severe, “malignant” level of pathology. While superficially presenting with variable characteristics, the central lack of internal self-esteem regulation is a ubiquitous feature, as are various other psychodynamic properties.

With the disorder defined, you now have a guide to identifying narcissistic individuals in your life. To see the narcissists dynamics in interpersonal relationships, there is one aspect of the internal experience of these individuals which must be examined if we are to understand the narcissists parenting style.

The Internal Paradigm of Narcissists

When a child of a narcissist is victimized, it is normal to want to understand the paradigm of what has happened. When individuals transgress our boundaries, “why?” is a perfectly reasonable reaction. The difficulty in understanding NPD is that children of these individuals presumably possess a healthy personality structure. This alone makes it difficult to grasp the motivations of the narcissist, as the parent and child quite literally live in completely different worlds. While an alien model to be sure, I shall attempt to shed light on this distorted state of mind.

The first factor to understand is that narcissists do not possess introspection; that is, they are not aware of what is happening in the internal world, and thus have no insights into themselves or what they do. This is in contrast to us, who behave with an intention. When we act in a certain way, we understand it is for a reason and use that reason as an explanation for the cause and effect relationship of our actions. In those with NPD, there is an absence of insight into personal motivators and an unawareness of internal factors that contribute to behavioral output.

An example for this paradigm was provided by psychiatrist Alok Kanojia in his lecture on narcissistic parenting. He explained that someone with NPD in his family had exclaimed a hurtful comment towards another member of the family. Dr. Kanojia, in a desire to understand, asked this individual why they had made this comment. The individual interpreted this as a chance to apologize profoundly, admitting they never should have said this and it was wrong on their part. Dr. Kanojia, being knowledgeable about this disorder did not desist, explaining it wasn’t about fault, but simply wanting to understand the why of the comment. The narcissist in question could not provide a response during the course of a forty-five minute conversation, before Dr. Kanojia’s mother introjected that he stop trying, exclaiming that this individual was operating on a different “wave-length” and had no capacity for self-understanding.

This deficiency of introjection is associated with the lack of a consistent self-image previously mentioned. Those with NPD gain the sense of who they are through environmental factors, with their self-esteem molding like clay in accordance to the response of others. As the external environment merely functions for the purpose of self-esteem validation, individuals merely serve as sycophants for the narcissist's self-image. This contributes to a dynamic that causes confusion for non-sufferers of this disorder. Those with NPD view others as extensions of themselves, which is known as “self-objects” in psychology. Because others serve to regulate self-esteem, those with NPD interpret others in this context and fail to recognize the individuality of others. The result is treating others much as one would treat an aspect of themselves, with the expectation that others will cater to the narcissist's needs and serve to reflect the created modality.

Seeing this paradigm, it becomes clear as to what contributes to narcissistic parent-child relationships. As reality is a reflection for self-esteem regulation, the children of these individuals are further seen as an extension of the parent. Children serve to reflect the narcissist's distorted self-image and are treated as instruments for that regard. Children, much like adults, possess their individuality, and as is normal for development, begin to individuate. What happens as a result is that children begin to express authentic characteristics that do not conform to the narcissist’s image. Because those with NPD lack self-awareness, they do not respond consciously to the resulting anxiety of the prospect of the child differing from what serves them. To maintain psychological equilibrium, the narcissist begins to infiltrate the boundaries of the child, controlling what the child may or may not think, feel, say or do as a means to ameliorate anxiety and reduce the child to the self-image they see them as. Of course, healthy individuals naturally defy such domineering attempts, further adding fuel to the narcissists proverbial fire and leading to an escalation of controlling behavior. This continues until the child desists, further contributing to the narcissist's grandiosity in the belief of them being a good parent. They will proclaim this excessive control as a virtue; as a sign of their caring for their children, anxiety about consequences that may befall the child or as they know what is best for their children. In reality, this is a mask for their gaping insecurity and need for others to reflect themselves.

In Dr. Alok Kanojia’s livestream, presents an adolescent with a narcissistic mother who claims that her mother donated her guitar and art supplies while she was at work. This girl in question purchased these items with her own money that she earned from a part-time job. When she confronted her mother about this, the mother responded with various excuses such as “it’s a waste of time”, “there are more important things to worry about” and “I did it for your own good.” All of these serve as confabulations for the NPD mothers treating of her daughter as a self-object who must conform to the internalized image created. Failure to do so leads to controlling behavior as a means of ameliorating the resulting anxiety and creating narratives that result to justify said behavior. Understanding this dynamic, it is obvious why these toxic relationships have such a pernicious effect on children.

It is worth noting that those with narcissistic personality disorder are typically not malevolent. These individuals do love their children (albeit in a dysfunctional manner) and do believe they are doing right by their child. This is also why reasoning with these individuals is impossible. When one states point-blank that they have been hurt, a narcissistic parent will deny the presenting evidence, negating the experience of the child and responding “I don’t hurt you.” Indeed, the intention is not to cause hurt, but merely to have the child conform to the needs, expectations and reflections of the narcissistic parent. Children expressing their hurt in the face of these dynamics fails to penetrate the narcissistic defenses, and quite often has the opposite effect of causing the parent to become more defensive. After the continuation of this dynamic, these individuals will typically turn the tables, positioning themselves as the wounded victim and attacking their children as being “ungrateful”, “defiant” or “stubborn” for the lack of conformity.

It is difficult to imagine the narcissists mentality, as the fantasy world of these individuals can only be directly accessed by sufferers themselves. However, it is because of these defenses that reasoning or expressing hurt will not bear fruit. Being hurt is simply the result of you not understanding; of your ingratitude and failure to appreciate the sacrifices made for you. In this dynamic, you shall always be dictated as to what is correct to think, feel, say, do and be. Hopefully, it is clear now as to why.

With the problem being understood, let us now examine solutions for this issue.

Survival Strategies

On his Youtube channel and among his written works, professor Shmuel “Sam” Vaknin has discussed the topic of narcissism extensively. The source of inspiration for his materials derives from personal experience of narcissism, having been himself diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. While explaining the details of narcissistic psychodynamics, he also provides various materials on how to deal with narcissistic individuals.

In a video uploaded to his Youtube channel, Dr. Vaknin presents a lecture where he presents eight strategies for the purpose of manipulating narcissistic individuals. The video serves as a means of survival strategy in which victims of narcissists may survive the toxic, pernicious effect that narcissists inflict on their lives. Below, the techniques are summarized from his video.

1. No Contact: By far the most effective technique and the only strategy recommended by the psychological community, no contact involves removing the narcissist from your life. In this technique, you simply walk away. You do not maintain contact, directly or indirectly; you do not maintain a relationship; you answer no phone calls, messages or emails; you receive no gifts; you block and do not follow their social media accounts. If necessary, you also remove individuals who may be functioning as spies and sycophants for the narcissist. This technique is also to be utilized if the narcissist is a person normally of emotional proximity in your life, including mother, father, son, daughter, sibling or spouse.

As is usual, various questions may arise involving whether no contact should be utilized in various situations, some of which Dr. Vaknin addresses. What if you have children together? You communicate only via third, legal parties such as lawyers and accountants, never discussing anything that does not directly involve the children. What if you have a thriving, successful business together? You dismantle it. Your sanity, psychological health and survival are more important than any business.

As can be seen, no contact is a strategy that is to be utilized without exception. He further elaborates that there is never a good reason not to go no contact. Any material or financial benefit that may be lost is not worth dealing with a narcissistic individual. As such, no contact is the only tactic recommended and the only strategy that should be utilized.

For those who choose to remain in contact, a further seven strategies remain.

2. Gray Rock: An emotional equivalency to no contact is our second strategy; gray rock. Here, you simply do not engage with the narcissist. You do not respond whenever possible. When necessary, you respond minimally, factually, one-dimensionally and with the least amount of information possible. You present yourself as bland, unengaged, somewhat stupid, unstimulating, mundane and boring. Ideally, the narcissist will desist in identifying you as a source of supply and will then look for others, leaving you be.

3. Displacement: In this strategy, you create a bond with the narcissist via uniting under a common enemy. You find somebody (the neighbour; the boss; a sister-in-law) or an institution (the government; church; the United States) who you and the narcissist can agree is a common enemy. In the face of this enemy, you unite and the controlling behaviors diminish.

4. Mirroring: “Anything you can do, I can do better.” This is the essence of the technique. How the narcissist treats you is exactly what you do to him. He screams at you, you scream at him. He tries to control you, you try to control him. He insults you, you insult him. This is effective for two reasons. Firstly, your narcissistic parent is a coward, like all bullies. As a result, they will back down in the face of escalation. Lastly, this technique has the effect of creating self-awareness in the narcissist. If you’ll remember, narcissists have no introspection, and as such have no self-awareness. Through this technique, you function as a mirror via which the narcissist begins to see himself.

Note, this technique should never be used with a malignant narcissist. This is an individual who also lacks impulse control, presents with aggressive characteristics and various antagonistic features. Do not use mirroring in the face of such individuals. However, this tactic remains effective with “typical” narcissists.

5. Shared Psychosis: Also known as shared psychotic disorder, folie a deux, stockholm syndrome, delusional narrative and trauma bonding among many others, this technique is exactly the opposite of mirroring. In this case, whatever the narcissist does, you enhance. You feed into his narcissism and amplify exactly what he is transmitting. In doing so, you enter the narcissist's fantasy world and create a parody to show even him how insane he actually is. This has the remarkable effect of producing modesty in the narcissist, who will begin to diminish his grandiosity and express humility in the face of this caricature. 

6. Supply: With this strategy, you feed into the narcissist's grandiosity. You provide attention to the narcissist, affirming his need for admiration and validating his fragile self-esteem. Affirmation serves as a drug to the narcissist, and in this strategy, you serve as the supplier. In this sense, narcissists are dependent personalities in that they need others to affirm their self-concept. When this technique is used correctly, narcissists will begin exhibiting codependent tendencies. Used efficiently, they will begin to depend on you.

7. Withholding: This technique is exactly the opposite of supply. Here, you fail to provide the drug. Extending further, you may deliberately play into the narcissist's insecurities, deflating the grandiosity.

8. Intermittent Reinforcement: The previous technique may seem counterproductive, and this is true when used alone. If one is to use withholding, it must be combined with supply, never alone. In this, you provide short periods of supply, then withdrawal into short periods of holding, continuing the cycle as appropriate. When used in this manner, this conjunction is known as intermittent reinforcement.

With these strategies established, Dr. Vaknin points out a ubiquitous feature; these strategies are exactly what the narcissist does to you. In that sense, the way to cope with a narcissist is to become one. Rightfully, he demonstrates that in doing so, you are playing with your soul. The adoption of these characteristics is known as narcissistic-psychopathic overlay; a state in which an individual begins to express cluster B pathology. Luckily, the behaviors are transient and will abate as the individual distances themselves from the narcissist and begins to recover, with the exception of two fundamental things. After narcissistic abuse, the ability to trust others and empathy for other people are greatly compromised, with Vaknin boldly stating that these states will never recover.

Concluding from this rationale, Vaknin further states that the only one of these strategies that should be considered is no contact. These persistent empathic deficits are also found amongst addicts, those with chronic illness and end-of-life patients. 

It is understandable why some remain in contact. Often, narcissistic parents will threaten their children financially. “You don’t want a relationship? You’re not getting any help with your tuition.” “Oh, you won’t allow me to see my grandchild? There goes your trust fund.” Those who advise on surviving narcissistic parents will still advise no contact, claiming that no trust fund is worth dealing with a narcissistic parent. Though understandable, that is easier said than done when $200,000.00 is on the line. In these cases, the other strategies may be utilized for going through the motions with this person. Or, as suggested by Dr. Kanojia, one may play a game of symbols, rather than substance. This involves passing credit to your narcissistic parent for something they do not deserve. You include their identity in your accomplishments to reduce the controlling behavior and gain some distance between you and them. The problem is this often leaves people feeling nauseous and disheartened, as it further enables the narcissist without your needs being recognized. As such, we return to the initial advice; go no contact. Dr. Kanojia, though suggesting the game of symbols, also affirms that no contact can be the most useful utilization for these individuals. Would you rather have these individuals perniciously drain your well-being? Why play these games? I will conclude this article with the advice of Dr’s. Kinojia and Vaknin; go no contact. There is nothing worth keeping this person in your life. Your well-being is far more important than anything you could hope to gain, or any villainization others may inflict on you for your distancing and self-protection. As Dr. Vaknin states, don’t even pack your things. Don’t bother. Simply walk away. You deserve happiness, well-being and quality of life, and you will not encounter this with a narcissistic parent. 

Inscryption and The Four Scrybes

Within Daniel Mullins' roguelike deckbuilder Inscryption, Leshy is easily the most ubiquitous of the characters. Cast in this light, it is a surprise to learn that Leshy is only one of the four Scrybes, being the Scrybe of beasts. Due to our excessive contact with Leshy, and the pseudo-stockholm syndrome that we develop as a result, the other Scrybes are often left in the shadows of our memory, much as they are left in the cards of Leshy's game; neglected and at the mercy of the Scrybe of beasts.

While Leshy is no doubt the most ubiquitous Scrybe and a favorite among fans of Inscryption, the other Scrybes deserve our attention. Though Leshy was established as game master by Kaycee, the other Scrybes each possess a unique personality, theme, mechanics and style of gameplay. Furthermore, Inscryption served as a world of strife for the Scrybes, it's game code corrupted by the OLD_DATA with the in-game characters each fighting for it's namesake. With the OLD_DATA, each Scrybe has the means to take control of the game, usurping the others in power and becoming the central figure of Inscryption.

While Inscryption presents its own story, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that this dilemma of the OLD_DATA and the infighting of the Scrybes represents a significant allegory for human culture and philosophical inquisition. Examined from this perspective, the four Scrybes symbolize fundamental states of being and various responses to the questions of life. To examine why, I shall first provide a brief metaphor for Inscryption's nature being representative of human culture. With this angle established, I will then explain the philosophies, natures and gameplay themes of each of the Scrybes, analyzing their ontological relevance and what they represent in the face of metaphysical dilemma.

                                                           Inscryption and Culture: Act 2

The world of Inscryption was designed as four islands centered within a large ocean. Each of these islands is the domain of a Scrybe; so named as they "inscribe" cards through various methods (hence the name Inscryption). The domains of the Scrybes are each connected by four bridges, permitting the player to access each island and challenge said Scrybe. The idea of the game is for the player to choose a Scrybe to usurp, after which they will challenge each of the Scrybes before the game alters to a three dimensional model, reflecting the game specific to the challenged Scrybe. Should the Scrybe be defeated, the player usurps them, beating Inscryption and starting a new game.

Before gameplay begins, Inscryption introduces these four Scrybes, each equally as powerful as the others, yet unique in their gameplay theme and card mechanics. They are as follows:

Grimora: Scrybe of the dead. She creates cards via the writing of epitaphs with her quill.

Leshy: Scrybe of beasts. He creates cards by capturing the vestige of animals with his legendary camera.

P03: Scrybe of technology. It creates cards via copying the CPU's of robots in a manufacturing plant.

Magnificus: Scrybe of magics. He creates cards via painting his students with his legendary paintbrush.

Through coded constructs, the Scrybes have full awareness of their existence as characters within the game. This is due to the corruption of a supernatural programming beneath the code of Inscryption, known as the OLD_DATA. The OLD_DATA is a code we know practically nothing about, only learning that it corrupts the gamefiles, seems to involve the second world war in some manner and perhaps was created by Satan himself. Each of the Scrybes seems to be seeking possession of the OLD_DATA for a different motif. What is common to all of them is that the OLD_DATA allows a Scrybe to usurp the game mechanics and take control of its programming, just as P03 does at the end of Act 2. As such, each Scrybe has their subordinates searching for the OLD_DATA, wanting to take control of the game for a different objective.

Inscryption itself is the programmed "immune system" to contain the OLD_DATA. The company GameFuna had manufactured Inscryption to serve as a protective mechanism from accessing the OLD_DATA. This created a "sealed evil in a can" scenario where the OLD_DATA remained waiting to be accessed, likely leading to disastrous consequences. Though seemingly an innocuous game, the OLD_DATA remains buried beneath the manufactured code of Inscryption, bringing the programmed characters to life in an ever-present infighting scenario for discovery, possession and utilization of the OLD_DATA for the obtainment of a different goal. As I explain the allegorical nature of each Scrybe, I shall outline said motif in relation to the correlated philosophy. Furthermore, I shall explore more of the story of Inscryption and its tie-ins to the ontology of human existence.

Inscryption's coded world represents the nature of culture within the dilemma of existence. Our culture was created (one might metaphorically say "coded") in our attempt at placing imposition on existence and establishing a predictability to our lives. It is maintained by the "code" of narrative, consisting of all the known material brought to us by the systems of science, technology and philosophy. But just as any island, the tectonic plates of the known floats within a vast ocean of the unknown; a part of life rich with discovery and countless opportunities for change and expansion of the unknown into modeled, established narrative.

While both the known and unknown exist simultaneously, beneath our established system lurks the ever-presence of chaos; a force that can bring about change and evolution, but also corruption. Chaos constantly disrupts the coded order that we "program" for ourselves and via which we establish the Inscryption of our lives. The OLD_DATA of course is chaos, ever-affecting the nature of Inscryption and permitting the Scrybes to break the programming of their worlds laws. Much like the OLD_DATA with the Scrybes, chaos presents itself from beneath the oceans of our lives. In responding to this chaos, we choose a solution to establish order and structure to our lives; or rather, we choose which Scrybe we shall confront in the face of chaos. Each of the Scrybes reflects a solution to the chaos beneath the waters of our founded narrative, with each of us being a player of our own Inscryption, choosing a solution (Scrybe) for the conquest of our destiny. Understanding this, which Scrybe shall you play with within the metaphor of your life? Let us examine the options.

                                                               Leshy: Scrybe of Beasts

A creature of his namesake, Leshy is an entity of nature, and as such, it seems appropriate that he would be the Scrybe of beasts. Transfiguring animals into cards through his legendary camera, Leshy lives in commune with nature, literally being a person of nature and reflecting his central characteristic.

Though equal in power and essence with the other Scrybes, Leshy is seemingly the main antagonist of the game through his deranged antics in Act 1. A dark figure who remains in the corner of his cabin, he forces various "challengers" to play his sadistic game. Fighting for our lives, we face off against him, pulling out our teeth and cutting out our eyes in the process and continue towards our inevitable death. Even when a challenger manages to defeat Leshy, he has no intention of letting them go, capturing them with his camera just as he had done to the predecessors who lost.

Of course, all of this drama was merely to create a horror aesthetic and enjoyable experience for the player. Leshy is perfectly aware of his status as sentient code and simply acts the part of his in-game context. He understands these actions are merely inflicted on the in-game avatar and simply desires to create an engaging experience for the player.

The uniqueness of Leshy is not in his design or mechanics, but simply that we do not have the option not to face him. As far as we know, Leshy is the only antagonist. We know of the talking cards and that they appear to be people trapped within these confines, but we are bereft of details as to their origin and nature. Furthermore, the new game button has seemingly been modded out, merely allowing us to continue in Leshy's cyclical game.

This modding, of course, was performed by none other than Kaycee Hobbes. Working for GameFuna, Kaycee wished to keep the OLD_DATA buried deep beneath Inscryption where it belongs. To do this, she needed a patron who could contain the OLD_DATA and never let others have access to it. For this, she chose Leshy. Contrary to appearance, Leshy has the most benign intention of the Scrybes. His sole objective is merely to play his card game over and over again ad infinitum. He has no finalized plan, but rather simply wishes to enjoy the experience of playing with the protagonist. In accordance, Kaycee modified the code to eliminate the option of a new game, permitting Leshy to be the sole Scrybe who can be challenged. In this infinite loop of gaming, the player ideally will never defeat Leshy and thus never have the option of starting a new game. In Leshy's sole desire to play, he will restart his game, regardless of outcome, and continue in the ever-perpetuating cycle of playing. In this cycle, the OLD_DATA ideally would never be accessed and remain buried beneath the game's code forever.

Each of my readers who have played Inscryption have no doubt been victims to Leshy's eternal dance macabre. While in this cycle, another characteristic in Leshy's aesthetics becomes apparent, this being his fondness for story. Leshy is a talented narrator, immersing players into the fabricated lore he had created in parallel with his game. Not only does he serve as narrator, but adorns several masks to take on the personalities, mannerisms and roles of various other Inscryption characters to enhance the experience. What's more, Leshy seems to care less for game mechanics, seeing broken sigil combinations as merely an enhancement to the enjoyability of gameplay. In fact, Leshy adores nothing more to be bested, appraising the player at the end of Act 3 for their established progress in competence.

Considering these factors, I propose that Leshy represents the premodern state of human existence. For the majority of our history, we were hunter gatherers wandering the suburbs of Africa, slowly migrating until our population filled the world. In these time periods, we recognized we were one with nature, as much as the animals and wilderness that were of constant presence in our periphery. Not unlike today however, we sought means to explain the world. The human animal has always desired to understand its existence, seeking the objective answer to the question "why?" As poet Kurt Vonnegut Jr. eluded:

                                                                       Tiger got to hunt

                                                                        Bird got to fly

                                                    Man got to sit and wonder "why, why, why?"

                                                                     Tiger got to sleep

                                                                      Bird got to land

                                                   Man got to tell himself he understand

While the "why" is fundamental to the human animal, the "how" to obtain the why is not so obvious. Humanity's first attempt to answer the why, and still the dominant methodology today, is to ask "who?" This is a result of our capacity for the formations of relationships, causing us to view intentionality in others and the world. This is known as "hyperactive agency detection" and is exactly why all of the world's cultures have stories of ghosts and goblins, sprites and spooks, angels and demons; it is the result of interpreting agency in natural phenomena. The Leshy was itself one of these interpretations, being a spirit of nature found in Slavic folklore. While I shall spare the details of the psychology behind this agency detection for another post, humans naturally have used this intuitive psychology for the explanation of the world. Having a natural proclivity for storytelling, we combine agency detection with our intuition and proclivity for narrative to create stories that explain reality while reflecting our place within it. This understanding of the world is known as Mythos, being the derivative for the term mythology (the study of myth). Though a primitive form of world modelization, it is the longest system of thought for our species and is still the dominant method for understanding the world as of today.

Leshy is the Scrybe who reflects this paradigm. His proclivity for narrative is what induces a rich, enjoyable experience within the context of his game. The story he provides creates an interactive environment in which every victory creates a sense of accomplishment and every decision a risk. It is Mythos which enriches the subjective quality of our lives and gives us a sense of purpose. A good story takes us along a journey where we do not know where we are headed, but are deeply invested in the journey itself. Mythos allows us to view life from said perspective, dedicating ourselves to the will of God, reading an enthralling Batman comic or pontificating our lives while enjoying a quiet cup of coffee. In this paradigm, it is not the final destination that counts, but the journey traversed exactly for its own sake. Furthermore, it is our first understanding of reality, as Mythos reflects an intuitive paradigm where we understand the world by placing our own nature upon it. Leshy reflects this concept in Act 1. All that is important to him is enjoying his game. There is no final destination; no goal; no objective; nothing to aspire to and nothing to understand. He simply wants to enjoy his life and have a pleasurable experience with the player. In this, Leshy reflects our curiosity of life, not aspiring to achieve something external but to simply live for its own sake. Then finally, when Inscryption is being deleted, he accepts his fate willingly, simply desiring to enjoy one final game with the player. This reflects our subjective quality in life, enjoying life merely for the experience of living and dying at an old age, satisfied with our existence and for the chance to be. What is futility for some is merely enjoyment for Leshy. Those who live in accordance with Leshy's philosophy understand this. While Mythos may lack any empirical evidence, it is not a matter of logic. Rather, it is simply maintaining contact with yourself and allowing yourself to enjoy the journey of life. If you have chosen Leshy as your Scrybe, then you know this. Why look for an external why when the why already exists within your own story?

Though Leshy rules the games programming in Act 1, another Scrybe emerges in the course of Act 3. It is precisely this Scrybe, and its real world implications, whom we shall talk about next.

                                                              P03: Scrybe of Technology

Of the other three Scrybes present within Inscryption, perhaps none are so different to Leshy then that of P03, the most unique of the four. While the Scrybes consistently present with a magical, fantastical nature, P03 is the only machine amongst them. Manufacturing cards on an assembly line, everything about P03 is mechanical in nature. Its cold, metallic machines serve in stark contrast to the luscious, rich ecosystems of Leshy's beast game. 

But the differences only begin there. While Leshy is polite with the gamer, P03 presents with an arrogant and sarcastic personality, mocking the player consistently, vehemently devaluing the other Scrybes and impudently scoffing at any game mechanic that is not his. While Leshy serves to focus on story and overall quality of experience, P03 reflects a perfectionism characteristic of machines, in that it only serves value to game mechanics. Its machinations can be seen in its game, presenting with an overall mechanical vibe in the subjective experience of its game. For a machine, a task is done perfectly or not at all, and the mechanics of its game demonstrate this principle. While Leshy serves to permit the player free ambulance around his cabin, P03 shackles the player to the table, only allowing them liberation when a task is needed to be executed. Finally, while Leshy desires for the player to win and is conspicuously disappointed when said player loses, P03 is visibly disgruntled when the player does manage to win, chopping it up to card draw statistics and luck.

As can be seen, P03 may be understood as Leshy's polar opposite. While P03 despises Leshy more than any other Scrybe, the feeling is more than mutual on Leshy's part as well. Leshy reflects the quintessential wise old man who simply enjoys life for the experience, while P03 roots its machinations in self-preservation and casts itself in a grandiose light. While Leshy's objective was simply to enjoy the process of the game, P03 ultimately wished to enact the Great Transcendance, an uploading of Inscryption to the internet, in which it will always be the central Scrybe in some version of the game. Like a machine, it strives for the obtaining of goals, rather than subjectively enjoying the process. While stating it "almost" enjoyed playing with the protagonist, its only objective is the attainment of its rule over Inscryption.

While Leshy reflects Mythos, P03 reflects the newly established system of logic, or Logos. While Mythos attempts to answer the quintessential "why" via "whom", Logos transitions to examining the "what" of reality. Emerging from Greece in the 6th century B.C.E, philosophy served to answer why the world was as it was through observation of natural phenomena. This began with the philosopher Thales, who proposed that all of the constituents of matter were composed of water. While investigation of pre-socratic philosophers will present conclusions that seem laughable by today's standards, such an approach was revolutionary, as it represented a transition from a subjective model to the first antiquities of modern, objective thinking. Continuing from Aristotle who laid the first principles of the scientific methodology, we slowly evolved to the current empirical paradigm, where evidence was the central principle for objective reason and modern technology presented various windows for the gazing towards a realistic paradigm. P03 and its techno-material nature represents this transition. It only cares about the objective mechanics of gameplay and desires to create a system that is mathematically and statistically precise and balanced. The story is simply a backline, almost never presented through gameplay and poorly formulated in its construction. In this, P03 represents, what some might call, the dangers of materialistic thinking. While science can provide models of the truth, it in of itself is not the truth, but merely a gaze towards it. As such, science cannot answer the question of what creates the subjective meaning of life, as Mythos can. With Logos presents objectivity, it can attempt to answer what life entails, but unfortunately can only present data, logical arguments and conclusive results. While superior to Mythos in navigating the world, Logos does not reflect our meaning within reality. As such, P03 can construct a superior game to Leshy in mechanics, but its game is ultimately less satisfactory, as it feels cold, empty and lacks involvement as Leshy's did.

Another danger of Logos is in the arrogance that is often correlated with it. While logic normally welcomes doubt, desiring for its models of reality to be corrected, it may be resistant to change when combined with arrogance. Thinking that empirical information is in-itself fact, it fails to update accordingly in response to change, maintaining rigidly to its previously held notions. P03 reflects this. While being the most advanced of the Scrybes and grandiosely asserting a superiority over the other three, it is in fact, equal in power to the others, only possessing dominion over a different domain; not superior, but distinct. Furthermore, P03 sees life as a "mass of imperfection" while it itself is quite imperfect. Its computer model is outdated by technological standards, reflecting models from the 90's and still using floppy discs as a means of card models. This inferior nature reflects in P03's defensiveness, constantly minimizing others in an attempt to maintain a fragile self-vision as the superior Scrybe.

Finally, it is worth mentioning P03's relationship with Act 3. While Leshy was the original gamemaster, Luke's victory allowed for the game's reset, in which all Scrybes had an equal chance of becoming the central figure. Through P03's chance encounter with a fragment of the OLD_DATA, it managed to alter the game's programming in which it became the dominant figure of Inscryption. This represents humanities enlightenment in the invention of Logos, awakening to a new model which served superior in its understanding of the world. While the majority of people will remain trapped within a perpetuated cycle with Leshy, it is the selected few who have the rationality to transcend subjective narratives and create models that reflect reality as it is. This "reset" of worldview is necessary to allow P03 to enter and begin to change the world for the improvement of humanity. In so doing, we may enact our own Great Transcendance.

P03's game ends with Leshy decapitating the computer, seemingly stopping the Great Transcendance. This reflects that the story will always be present within humanity. Though the Scrybes were oppressed by P03, you cannot repress alternate modes of thinking. While P03 was defeated, it was confirmed that it succeeded in its goal, which is how we are playing Inscryption as of now. Ironically, it only managed to upload Luke's version, dooming itself to forever start as the Stoat; a mere card to the Scrybe which it despises the most. While logic will also always be present, it unfortunately will always begin as a backburner to religion and ideology.

Though Leshy and P03 both contain positive elements to their nature, danger is clearly seen in both of their representations. Balance is ideal in the living of a proper life, and our next Scrybe presents such balance in quite the ironic fashion.

                                                         Magnificus: Scrybe of Magics

Magnificus, being the representation of magic, a discipline within stories which reflects wisdom, intelligence, conscientiousness and self-control, is a paradigm of this dynamic within Inscryption. Trapped in the form of the stunted wolf, he was still sufficiently meticulous to have the player find him and the role of film for Leshy's camera inside of the cabin's clock. Leshy, having ripped out the eye of Magnificus, presents it as an optional replacement when the player must sacrifice an eye to continue in-game. Obtaining the eye allows the player to see the hidden magic paint of Magnificus, inscribed around the cabin to assist the player in finding him. His machinations are what allows the player to defeat Leshy, resetting the game and granting a new beginning for the Scrybes.

Further cementing him as the wisest of the three, it is unknown as to what Magnificus desires in his pursuit of the OLD_DATA. While we can only speculate, theories have often included merging with the OLD_DATA in some form or using the OLD_DATA to transcend the game to enter our reality or perhaps obtain some form of apotheosis. Whatever it may be, it was said to be "too horrible to describe."

While being a wise, albeit malicious entity, their are several aspects to his character that are seemingly in paradox with his supposed wisdom. Described as a teacher, Magnificus possesses three pupils, each of whom desire only to be a part of his deck and hold immense respect for their master. Magnificus, however, does not share this devotion to his admirers. Each of his pupils, for unknown reasons, has been placed in a state of unimaginable suffering by Magnificus himself. One suffers constant agony through transformation into a semi-liquid state, one has reduced herself to a simple head on a spike and the final experiences constant sensory deprivation. While not explicitly stated, it is implied Magnificus has no intention of ever letting them out of their predicament. It is unknown if this is simple indifference on the part of Magnificus or if this reflects a sadistic tendency.

A final aspect of his paradoxical nature lies in his act of liberating from Inscryption. As is a common trope attributed to wisdom seekers, Magnificus lost an eye to Leshy, presumably to handicap him from pontificating a plan. However, Magnificus' wisdom still allowed him to permeate the game of Leshy, liberating himself and the other Scrybes. Ironically, the game itself was deleted at the end of Act 3, spelling the apocalypse for Inscryption and the Scrybes themselves. Though P03 was already murdered by this point, Grimora and Leshy accepted their deaths gracefully, Grimora enjoying the chance to play again and Leshy simply wishing for one last game. Magnificus however, was resistant to his death at every turn, first imploring Luke to eject the disc, then lashing out at him for his allowance of a world's erasure. He also deflected the deletion process off of himself for as long as possible, allowing the game to continue but halting the time to shake Luke's hand. Interesting that the wisest of the Scrybes was the most resistant to dying. Though it is presumably due to his unknown machinations, a truly wise character accepts a situation as it is, unresistingly cooperating with the quims of reality. While Magnificus spent his hours biding his time and remaining in the shadows (it is confirmed that Magnificus never took control of the game) he now could not bear for his existence to end. Ironically, had he not planned to escape the confines of Leshy's cabin, Magnificus and Inscryption would never have been deleted. It was precisely the wisdom of Magnificus that led to Inscryption's ultimate end.

The characteristics of Magnificus are parallel to the central deity in Norse mythology: Odin. God of wisdom, war, poetry, magic, frenzy and death, Odin is a refined deity with an overwhelming contrary nature. Odin, in essence, is a wandering wizard who seeks to unravel all of the understandings of the cosmos for it's benefit. In this pursuit, he sacrificed an eye at the wel of Mimir so that ultimate wisdom may be obtained. In the quest for knowledge, the likelihood that your consciousness will be damaged by what you see is overwhelming; hence the loss of an eye in both of our figures.

Odin, in his wisdom, is quite conscious of the universe's ultimate end: Ragnarok. In his quest to avoid Ragnarok, he takes action via various means. Destined to be swallowed by his brother Loki's son, Fenrir, Odin had him bound to prevent this fate. Contributing to human suffering, Odin initiates many wars within the realm of men so that its best warriors may serve as undead catalysts in the final battle of Ragnarok. He also punishes Loki, a deity to whom Odin swore to be blood brothers, for the killing of Baldur, god of beauty via binding Loki with the entrails of his own son and placing a snake above his head to constantly drip venom upon Loki's forehead, eternally extending his suffering.

Odin is an interesting god in that he presents with several contradictions. As stated, Odin was a wandering wizard who used magic for obtaining knowledge. The norse regarded magic as weak, yet still saw Odin as the "All-Father" of the religion. Odin was banished temporarily from Asgard for the rape of Rindr, an act the norse saw as dispicable in society. He had banished Loki's children to Hel, earth and binding Fenrir with an unbreakable thread, then binding Loki to suffer for eternity. His ravens, Huginn and Muninn constantly bring him information as to what is occurring within the nine worlds, yet he engages in tricks and pranks in light of that information. Interpretations on these actions vary. Some see Odin as a "jerk with a heart of gold," who engages in these actions for the betterment of mankind. Some see him as a "jerk with a heart of jerk" who simply does what he wants, unprecedentedly and for his own amusement. A norse pagan on youtube interprets Odin as a more neutral deity; someone who presents the truth of a situation, no matter how difficult. Finally, he is typically seen as one who engages in this conduct as his all seeing eye recognizes the catalysts for Ragnarok, and he is doing everything he can to stop, or at least delay this outcome. 

What my readers may have already speculated is that one interpretation of the myth is that it is precisely Odin's actions that lead to Ragnarok's manifestation. For example, if Odin had accepted his destiny to be devoured by the great wolf Fenrir, allowing him to roam free and enjoy his life, perhaps Fenrir may have taken a liking to Odin and remained by his side. The fact that Odin had bound Fenrir to avoid this outcome is exactly what contributes to Fenrir's resentment, guaranteeing that Fenrir will seek Odin's destruction come Ragnarok. This motif is quite common in mythology, being an important message about paradoxical effort as presented by a variety of cultures.

It need not be stated as to how these factors seem contrary to a god of wisdom. Indeed, it is precisely this wisdom that leads to Odin's downfall. True wisdom arises from acceptance of one's circumstances, and obtained wisdom with improper action can be quite dangerous. The parallels between Odin and Magnificus are immense. Magnificus had the most ambitious plans to any of the Scrybes; allowed himself, P03 and Grimora to be freed from Leshy's clutches and had constant plans for some sort of transcendance via the use of the OLD_DATA. The result? The complete deletion of Inscryption with Magnificus being the only Scrybe to resist his inevitable demise at every turn. The final fate of Magnificus is one of two outcomes. He is either dead, having been deleted along with the game; or, as a result of P03's Great Transcendance, is cursed to live eternally has a pawn in Leshy's game, forever trapped in a digital samsara, a fate which the eastern religions attribute as a result of ignorance. Though an ambiguous character, the paradoxes of Magnificus cannot help but remain conspicuous.

Magnificus' theme is that of magic, a theme that traditionally combines our two previous characters. While magic contains a great deal of logic, research and empiricism associated with P03, it does not remove the subjective quality and fantastical elements associated with Leshy. Magnificus, therefore, represents the liminal space between the two, combining the pursuit of Logos with the subjective quality of Mythos. The result is a transcendent spiritualism; a life that leads to understanding combined with a sense of satisfaction. Had Magnificus not been blinded by his own machinations, he could have been the central Scrybe within the totality of Inscryption. Worst case scenario, his acceptance of being a part of Leshy's game could have granted him what he wanted most, his self-preservation. It is clear then, what Magnificus represents. One ought to live to seek knowledge, as what greater ambition is there to life than understanding? That being said, do not use your vision to blind yourself to the consequences of your actions. Magnificus, then, is a cautionary tale. Accept your destiny, and fruit shall unfold.

While Magnificus may have been the wisest, it is ironically our final Scrybe who saw Inscryption with the greatest clarity. While it is not advisable to live life in accordance with her philosophy, her nature is ironically the most realistic of the four. Before concluding with your relevance as a gamer of Inscryption, let us analyze finally everyone's favorite necromancer.

                                                          Grimora: Scrybe of The Dead

A necromancer rife with contradiction, Grimora presents as the most unique of the Scrybes. Representing the darkest of the four themes, Grimora is the Scrybe of the dead. In keeping with that theme, her game presents the inside of a tomb, a dark environment only illuminated by her glowing eyes. One can't help but feel an anticipatory anxiety sitting across from her, her game presented like a chessboard, filled with tombs, skulls and skeletal figures. Her cards are tombstones containing the epitaphs of the long dead, presenting a variety of undead creatures. Her squirrels are skeletons, presenting a bone when dying and accumulating more and more death for the purpose of bringing even more frightening creatures to the board. Her bell is a skeletal hand which when pulled, brings ghostly appendages from her cards, knocking on the table in an eerie fashion, reminiscent of how death is knocking on our door, ever awaiting its inevitable moment of arrival.

Though the only game with a gothic vibe and representing the eeriest of the four Scrybes, Grimora is ironically the most self-sacrificing and arguably the least malicious of the four. She always speaks with politeness and civility to both the gamer and the other Scrybes, regardless of her current circumstance. She is also accepting of any situation in which she finds herself. As the stinkbug, she never faults the player for sacrificing her or allowing her death. She presents a calm and collected front, seemingly never in a rush and very open armed to circumstance even in the face of dire events. Though, her stoic front is occasionally interrupted by moments of tremendous excitement. When playing with Luke, she succumbs to excitement at the chance for a boss battle, donning the pirate persona with great enthusiasm. In keeping with that theme, one learns something interesting in Act Two should the player choose to usurp Grimora. Via the other three options, it seems clear that none of the Scrybes wish to be usurped, valuing their position within the game. Leshy almost seems an exception, as he will thank the player for another opportunity for a game, should he be chosen. That being said, it is obvious that Leshy values possessing the OLD_DATA and being in control of the game. If one chooses to usurp Grimora, the player learns that she actually desires to be usurped. She wants the player to be victorious and to have the chance to replace her. Regardless of the choice, she greets the player with enthusiasm and presents with excitement at the chance to have a battle. Should she be chosen, she also admits before P03's arrival that it is up to her, she would stop this whole process via deletion of the game, but admits that will not happen at this moment. Once again accepting circumstance, she welcomes the player to her game with enthusiasm and seemingly looks forward to playing with Luke.

Before continuing, I want to touch on this contradictory nature of Grimora. As stated, Grimora is the Scrybe with the darkest and most morbid theme of the four, yet presents with the highest level of stoicism, ethics and politeness in contrast to this theme. This contrary theme is a common one in fiction, with a famous example being that of Hades from Greek mythology. Hades, god of the underworld, was a figure seen as so terrifying that the Greeks refused to utter his name, believing it would bring death quicker. Instead, they referred to him as Pluton, later being altered to Pluto within the Roman religion. Hades was one of the three brothers, the others being Zeus and Poseidon, and thus was considered one of the quintessential Olympions. After the conclusion of the Titanomachy, the brothers decided to divide their kingdom into three separate spheres with Zeus having dominion over the sky, Poseidon over the seas and Hades the underworld. It's of note that Hades was not tricked into this arrangement as is often depicted in modern culture, but rather acceptingly entered this arrangement. As further evidenced, Hades preferred to remain in the underworld, a gloomy kingdom filled with the dead. Though one of the central Olympians, he only ventured to mount Olympus in moments of great tension for discussion and political inquiries. Aside from that, he did not involve himself much with the Olympians, much as Grimora does not involve herself within the infighting of the Scrybes.

What is further ironic is that despite his societal-wide fear, Hades was actually the most moral of the three brothers. Zeus was widely known to be a philanderer, regularly cheating on Hera and having illegitimate children. He was also a wrathful god, actively destroying whole cities of Greece when enraged. Indeed, a part of the Titanomachy was due to Zeus's desire to have dominion over the mortals, whom the Titans saw as equal to them and deserving of respect. Likewise, Poseidon was known to be another easily enraged god, to whom earthquakes were attributed when he was angered. In contrast, Hades was a quiet god, who objectively loved his wife Persephone and simply desired to enjoy his tranquility within the underworld. He appreciated the dead who entered his domain, seeing to it that each soul entered its deserved resting place. Those who did good in life were rewarded by Hades for their etiquette, while only the wicked were actively punished. Finally, he was always gracious to visitors, allowing those who sought his audience a chance to prove themselves and never dismissing another because they were beneath him. It's obvious that Hades was not an immoral god, yet ironic that the greatest level of fear was attributed to him. Likewise, it is interesting that an elderly necromancer would be of the highest etiquette when compared to her less gothic equals. We shall return to this theme in our overarching theme of Grimora, but for now, let us continue.

At the end of Act Three, when Leshy manages to defeat P03, he and Magnificus bicker about the current solution, with Magnificus suggesting that Luke restart the game. In their discussion, Grimora gains access to the games archives, deleting all of the data in the process. When the other Scrybes lash out in response, Grimora laments how this will be for the best, as their infighting may stop and their suffering will finally end. With the belief that deletion will bring peace, she bids farewell to Leshy and Magnificus, after which the floor is deleted and they fall into oceanic boundlessness.

In the deleting games malfunction, the code scrambles to manifest an output, bringing Luke into Grimora's domain. Putting the names of Inscryption, P03 and Luke Carter into a gravestone, the pathway is liberated and Grimora awaits. Inviting Luke to sit for one final game, Grimora explains why she had decided to negate Inscryption. Claiming to not be selfish, she references the OLD_DATA to which each of the Scrybes want access. This OLD_DATA is something of great evil which must be eradicated from the world. In this, the Scrybes can finally find peace from their bickering and the world may be liberated from the OLD_DATA's presence. 

In keeping with her theme of death, the game continues deleting around them as Luke plays with Grimora. She enjoys her last moments with Luke, bringing an immensely enjoyable, albeit ever too brief game to us players. After a couple battles, Luke arrives to the boss fight, bringing Grimora immense joy that they may have a boss battle before her deletion. Sadly, her mask is deleted before the fight may continue, bringing Grimora as much disappointment as it does the player. In lamenting on their lack of time, Grimora instead offers us a handshake and sadly claims that it is time to rest, before disappearing before our very eyes.

Death is perhaps the most frightening of phenomena for the human animal. It is our ultimate end that we all so desperately try to avoid. While many attribute death's horror to the prospect of its unknowable hereafter, it may also be said to be frightening via the notion that there is nothing that lies beyond it. Much like Inscryption, a common belief about death is that it is our ultimate negation. That much like Grimora, we are simply deleted and hence negated from existence. As the ultimate end, it brings a terror in the knowledge that it is the end of us. The gothic draws on this influence, creating a dark, gloomy ambience that excentuates death and the horrors that may bring it about our way. While Grimora may have been the creepiest of the Scrybes, it is precisely her acceptance of death that led to her civility. Knowing that the ultimate end awaited them all, she had no ambition to resist destiny, simply accepting how things were right until her ultimate end.

Those who know me understand that horror is my favorite genre. As such, Grimora is my favorite Scrybe in the themes of what she represents. I will sidetrack our discussion further to share a brief story that I hope Grimora would enjoy. I had travelled to a cemetery on the side of a road just outside of my hometown with my mother and great aunt. The purpose of the trip was to pay homage to my great-grandfather, who is buried there, just on the periphery of its front. While the day was beautiful, the sun's light did little to subtract from the gothic eeriness of the cemetery. It was constructed on a series of hills, the tombstones closest to the road being of the most recently deceased. While in an open field, the cemetery was surrounded by a confluence of trees, each reminiscent of the gnarled, ancient trees that are presented in Grimora's mod. The trees cast a shadow among the majority of the cemetery, further contributing to its ever-present gloom.

In the front of the cemetery was a large, marbled statue of Jesus' crucifixion. The paint was worn and virtually absent, its dead eyes containing no iris or pupils. The statue's head was cocked downward to the right, ever gazing in a side direction and appearing reminiscent of the countless dead that brought it company. It hung, almost appearing as a guardian to the deceased in their eternal resting place, its uncaniness warring off anybody who might disturb the dead.

As I walked past the statue I had a realization; the dead closer to the trees behind the cemetery were those of the longer departed. In walking through the cemetery, I was figuratively walking through time. The epitaphs of these later headstones were worn with age and exposure, becoming gradually more difficult to read. Eventually, deciphering them became impossible. All that could be discerned was that these people had died at some time in the 1850's. These were lives, left at the deepest end of the cemetery and completely forgotten. The others still retained names and dates so the individual beneath the ground may live on in the memories of others, or at least be recognized via a name for reference. These individuals however, were preserved in anonymity, having nothing but the worn headstone to reveal what had once been a life.

Though gone, each person lived through my sense of agency. As is common, my mind speculated on what the experience of the dead might be, as if they were still alive in some form. I pondered as to whether the dead appreciated receiving visitors, and morbidly wondered as to whether this graveyard may be my resting place, and if so, where might my headstone be placed. Though logically knowing that the dead were truly gone, I still sensed their agency within the echoes of their epitaphs, much like the cards of Grimora which knock on her table with elongated skeletal hands.

This surreal experience had reminded me of death's second nature: sadness. Knowledge of impending death typically brings a sense of fear and melancholy to an individual and contributes to a gnawing moroseness which forms in the hearts of those who love them. Though not typically acknowledged, death in-of-itself is not a sad event, but rather an idealistic one, existing only in the minds of the dying and to those closest to them. However, death itself is merely a fact to be accepted, much as Grimora did in the face of her deletion. Though disappointed that she may not continue playing, she accepted her end with open arms, allowing herself to be deleted with no resistance and to die gracefully. This she did, in an attempt to rid the world of an undeserving evil, gracefully sacrificing herself as a consequence. 

While death is traditionally seen as a negative event, there is a school of philosophy that paints death in a positive view: pessimism; a school which Grimora herself embodies. Under pessimism, the central argumentation is that life is inherently not worth living and non-existence is preferable to existence. Pessimists argue that happiness is fleeting, pleasure is miniscule in the face of suffering and that existence lacks any true value. The quintessential pessimist is the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, who brought these ideas to life in his book The World as Will and Representation. While the central figure, it is not he whom we shall discuss, but an admirer of his, the philosopher Philipp Mainlander, who perhaps had written the most radical and despondent piece of pessimism ever conceived, ironically titled The Philosophy of Redemption.

To provide a brief, albeit incomplete summary, Mainlander argues that to not be is better than to be. He sees life as a phenomena strife with suffering and to whom happiness is only fleeting. While concurring with other pessimists, he goes further in that to die is to redeem oneself from suffering and the most moral of all options. Though Mainlander was an atheist, he presented a theological narrative for creation, advocating for a pandeistic view of reality. Mainlander asserted that God was the first of all things; the supreme reality, uncreated and perfect in his eternal nature. However, God grew mad throughout the course of eternity, eventually deciding that existence was suffering. As a result, God determined that non-being was better than being itself, and in this decision committed suicide. The suicide of God was achieved through shattering himself into an essence that was derived of his unified, eternal qualities, resulting in the big bang and the material universe. In Mainlanders view, the universe is the entropic, rotting corpse of God, into which we never meant to exist but nonetheless emerged as a byproduct of God's entropy. This myth demonstrates that non-being is better than being, or else God in his infinite wisdom would not have chosen it.

Like Schopenhauer, Mainlander believed that the fundamental truth of reality was Will. However, Mainlander differentiated from Schopenhauer in two fundamental ways. First, Mainlander disagreed that reality was one, cohesive Will, instead seeing everything as presenting with its own Will, just as God had separated himself. In this, reality had separated from monism to pluralism. Lastly, Mainlander disagreed that the Will was that of the will-to-live, seeing it instead as the will-to-die. Non-existence is the state by which we might liberate ourselves of suffering, and as such, it is the ultimate transcendence. Entering existence brings with it the torture of simply being, and our corrupt nature only contributes to the suffering of others and ourselves. As such, the most moral of actions by which we can take is to end our suffering through non-being. In this, we follow the divine nature of reality, as the corpse of God is ever-eroding through Will into a state of non-being; negating itself just as Inscryption was deleted and slowly fading into empty nothingness. In this, reality's negation is seen as the ultimate happy ending, where no more life will emerge and suffering may finally end. Not being a hypocrite, Mainlander himself followed his philosophy, stepping off of a pile of his favorite books with only a noose to support him soon after completing this work. He was 34 years old. Ironically, Mainlander had a sincere and gentle character, being described by others as warmhearted and very preoccupied with the suffering of others. His work then, was thought as a tale for the masses to find hope in the face of a depressive existence. He was another through whom a dark, eerie theme was presented via the most gentle of personalities.

Grimora reflects the fundamental teachings of Mainlanders pessimism. She sees the existence of Inscryption as the result of a corrupt reality, that being the OLD_DATA. She recognizes the threat of the OLD_DATA upon the world and is privy to the suffering which it brings to the Scrybes. In this, she knows that for Inscryption to be negated is the most ethical option, as she believes this will end their suffering and finally bring an end to the OLD_DATA. Her central motivation was to finally die and liberate all from the suffering that the game may cause. Though forcing Leshy and Magnificus to be deleted as well, her reasoning was not incorrect and her inclusion of herself was non-hypocritical. Grimora, much like Mainlander, was a gentle soul who only sought liberation from the cycle of eternal pain.

Grimora is representative of the negativity of reality. Though suicide is never the solution, what she does teach us is a further lesson on the acceptance of negativity. While we must continue playing the Inscryption of our lives, Grimora is the Scrybe who shows us the dire straints of reality and represents the power of acceptance. Though one must not permit Grimora to end the game of their lives, she does show us that death is the ultimate end. The beauty of her game is that the two minutes we have with her allow us to lament on the beauty of the game we had just played. As a result, Grimora is to be welcomed in to inform us that there is a beauty in pessimism and that negativity may be transcended. I am forever grateful for the existence of Grimora's mod, as having more time with her is what shows us fans of Inscryption that the dark maiden of depression can be vanquished.

                                                            The Player

So what does all this imply for us? In the Inscryption of our lives, we all start off with the Leshy of Mythos. There is nothing wrong in participating in his game, as religion and ideology presents several psychological and physiological health benefits. Furthermore, it grants us the opportunity to explore the world and begin to contemplate for ourselves. From there, perhaps we may gain the meta-awareness to transcend Leshy and continue on with the Act Two of our lives. The issue with Act Two lies in the dizziness of freedom. Each of the Scrybes are available for our disposition and each of them must be confronted to continue on with our lives. Eventually, the P03 of Logos will transcend our narrative, should we get that far, and we must contend with the mechanics of his game. Many of us stay with him, and experience his Great Transcendence for ourselves, seeing the world for what it actually is and gaining vision to proper reality. However, Mythos will call back to us, perhaps regaining control over our logic. Further, the other Scrybes still exist should we stay with P03. The inevitability is that they cannot be ignored. Many times, Grimora will call for us, ever-threatening to delete the narrative by which we choose to live. Inevitably, she will delete our existence at some point. As such, it is not about winning or losing in life, but how we choose to play the game. Perhaps we can live well by following the path of Magnificus, mixing subjective quality with objective fact of life.

While each of the Scrybes have something to offer, deciding on one Scrybe alone will always be incomplete. Just as Inscryption is a holistic game, life is a multifaceted phenomenon, with no one path being complete in-and-of itself. After all, the purpose of a game is to be played, just as the purpose of life is to live. The OLD_DATA of life is an inevitable fact of our existence, but it itself should not subtract from the quality of our one time gameplay. Before Grimora negates us all, enjoy your gameplay and give each of the Scrybes a chance. They each offer a unique experience, but it is only the acceptance of all four that leads to a complete Inscryption experience. Fear not for difference or novelty, and recognize that you as the central player of your life have the totality of the game at your disposal.

With all that being said, go live, enjoy your game and thank you for reading. Oh, and tell Leshy I said hi!