VN Ren'Py Our Red String [Ch.13.3.4] [Eva Kiss]

[lorkdubo]

The update was a huge letdown and didn't meet many (I assume) if not most players expectations.

Seymour was introduced as a mysterious, enigmatic, sinister man, whose "love" towards Lena is extremely dubious. He presents the corruption part of the game perfectly, in contrast to some other love interests that are vanilla, happy and safe. This was spelt out by Eva multiple times. Seymour is the main antagonist, he is not good. Every conversation was a dance with the unknown of why he would approach Lena and how he would do it.
The other main antagonist is Axel. Eva also went out of their way to delete an early sympathetic side of him and made him even more ruthless and despicable to emphasize the corruption. If Axel embodies the physical corruption, an animalistic predator who physically drags Lena around like a doll, then Seymour is the mental corruptor, someone who manipulates and poisons Lenas mind so much that she falls further and further in depravity on her own, until she makes a move on him because he lets her think its her idea.

And instead we get Seymour awkwardly making a move on her and simply retreating like the simp he is. Unless that is a ploy to make him seem feeble (which I doubt), he and Eva had utterly lost droped the ball with the latest release. The inclusion of Arthur may seem harmless and if its just a cameo it may be, but it was an immediate warning label to me that he is there to make Seymour look milder, meek and "good", to fill in the actual corruption regards prositution that was deemed first in that pointless poll.

So yeah, I want evil Seymour, most of all I want him to be in control. Not the toothless cuck I worry about giving a heart attack whenever I let Lena allow him to fuck him.

A clear example of this archetype is John from A Mother's Love, where he is vile and a proper antagonist.

 

[Xupuzulla]

The update was a huge letdown and didn't meet many (I assume) if not most players expectations.

Seymour was introduced as a mysterious, enigmatic, sinister man, whose "love" towards Lena is extremely dubious. He presents the corruption part of the game perfectly, in contrast to some other love interests that are vanilla, happy and safe. This was spelt out by Eva multiple times. Seymour is the main antagonist, he is not good. Every conversation was a dance with the unknown of why he would approach Lena and how he would do it.
The other main antagonist is Axel. Eva also went out of their way to delete an early sympathetic side of him and made him even more ruthless and despicable to emphasize the corruption. If Axel embodies the physical corruption, an animalistic predator who physically drags Lena around like a doll, then Seymour is the mental corruptor, someone who manipulates and poisons Lenas mind so much that she falls further and further in depravity on her own, until she makes a move on him because he lets her think its her idea.

And instead we get Seymour awkwardly making a move on her and simply retreating like the simp he is. Unless that is a ploy to make him seem feeble (which I doubt), he and Eva had utterly lost droped the ball with the latest release. The inclusion of Arthur may seem harmless and if its just a cameo it may be, but it was an immediate warning label to me that he is there to make Seymour look milder, meek and "good", to fill in the actual corruption regards prositution that was deemed first in that pointless poll.

So yeah, I want evil Seymour, most of all I want him to be in control. Not the toothless cuck I worry about giving a heart attack whenever I let Lena allow him to fuck him.

This so much.
Seymour was shown as one thing for 12 chapters just to be a shitty simp in chapter 13,how the fuck can you be happy about that,like did you even paid attention to his previous scenes?
Also the sex scene is absolute ass,im sorry if you like it but it is,is an awful sex scene,even Robert has better ones.

 

[jollyjoker27]

The update was a huge letdown and didn't meet many (I assume) if not most players expectations.

Seymour was introduced as a mysterious, enigmatic, sinister man, whose "love" towards Lena is extremely dubious. He presents the corruption part of the game perfectly, in contrast to some other love interests that are vanilla, happy and safe. This was spelt out by Eva multiple times. Seymour is the main antagonist, he is not good. Every conversation was a dance with the unknown of why he would approach Lena and how he would do it.
The other main antagonist is Axel. Eva also went out of their way to delete an early sympathetic side of him and made him even more ruthless and despicable to emphasize the corruption. If Axel embodies the physical corruption, an animalistic predator who physically drags Lena around like a doll, then Seymour is the mental corruptor, someone who manipulates and poisons Lenas mind so much that she falls further and further in depravity on her own, until she makes a move on him because he lets her think its her idea.

And instead we get Seymour awkwardly making a move on her and simply retreating like the simp he is. Unless that is a ploy to make him seem feeble (which I doubt), he and Eva had utterly lost droped the ball with the latest release. The inclusion of Arthur may seem harmless and if its just a cameo it may be, but it was an immediate warning label to me that he is there to make Seymour look milder, meek and "good", to fill in the actual corruption regards prositution that was deemed first in that pointless poll.

So yeah, I want evil Seymour, most of all I want him to be in control. Not the toothless cuck I worry about giving a heart attack whenever I let Lena allow him to fuck him.

100% true. In short: Seymour has now been relegated to what Ed may have been supposed to be at one point (? - was dropped too early in development to know for sure) and Arthur is now brought back to take over what we expected Seymour to be. All pretty strange but what do I know - maybe there´ll be more twists. It´s not like I really played the Seymour route anyway but with Arthur now in it, I might actually reconsider. Purely for scientific reason, off course.

 

[Joshua Sanders]

13 full is only about seimour aswell? or was it only the beta?

 

[Roderick2]

Hey, fellas! Can someone provide a Mega link of the new version?

Thanx in advance!

 

[soprano31]

Hey, fellas! Can someone provide a Mega link of the new version?

Thanx in advance!

 

[spiderpity]

what if Seymour is actually Lena's father?

 

[Gicoo]

what if Seymour is actually Lena's father?

Could be, mainly debunked by patreons/steams strict guidelines against incest.
Still, Seymours past lover, Lenas unknown father, Ians parents being unfaithful (or something like that) leave a couple of possibilities open.
If Emmas remark about being adopted wasn't a throw away line, she could also be a candidate.

 

[BigAlzBub]

what if Seymour is actually Lena's father?

While the author has done incest content before, that was in a time when Patreon weren't going on a rampage against anyone who dares make this sort of content.

 

[Xupuzulla]

what if Seymour is actually Lena's father?

I dont think hes the father but i can see Lena mom being Seymour first and only love....

 

[Erectosaurus]

Going to laugh if Ian gets content with Louise while still never getting any Ivy content. Feels like Eva has a specific grudge against this pairing for whatever reason

 

[Gicoo]

Going to laugh if Ian gets content with Louise while still never getting any Ivy content. Feels like Eva has a specific grudge against this pairing for whatever reason

Ian could already fuck Louise, so that ship has been sailed. Ivy's, meanwhile, hasn't even left the port.

 

[Roderick2]

Ian could already fuck Louise, so that ship has been sailed. Ivy's, meanwhile, hasn't even left the port.

Better than that, he got a threesome with her and Lena.

BTW, nothing new in the "final version"... Or did I miss sometinhg?

 

[Turret]

The update was a huge letdown and didn't meet many (I assume) if not most players expectations.

Seymour was introduced as a mysterious, enigmatic, sinister man, whose "love" towards Lena is extremely dubious. He presents the corruption part of the game perfectly, in contrast to some other love interests that are vanilla, happy and safe. This was spelt out by Eva multiple times. Seymour is the main antagonist, he is not good. Every conversation was a dance with the unknown of why he would approach Lena and how he would do it.
The other main antagonist is Axel. Eva also went out of their way to delete an early sympathetic side of him and made him even more ruthless and despicable to emphasize the corruption. If Axel embodies the physical corruption, an animalistic predator who physically drags Lena around like a doll, then Seymour is the mental corruptor, someone who manipulates and poisons Lenas mind so much that she falls further and further in depravity on her own, until she makes a move on him because he lets her think its her idea.

And instead we get Seymour awkwardly making a move on her and simply retreating like the simp he is. Unless that is a ploy to make him seem feeble (which I doubt), he and Eva had utterly lost droped the ball with the latest release. The inclusion of Arthur may seem harmless and if its just a cameo it may be, but it was an immediate warning label to me that he is there to make Seymour look milder, meek and "good", to fill in the actual corruption regards prositution that was deemed first in that pointless poll.

So yeah, I want evil Seymour, most of all I want him to be in control. Not the toothless cuck I worry about giving a heart attack whenever I let Lena allow him to fuck him.

Hi!

You might remember that some players, like e.g. Doom and myself, from early on voiced our opinion that Seymour is NOT the evil bastard a majority of players seemed to think.There were several, sometimes blatant, hints into the direction that Seymour is a hard, calculating business man, but there is more to him outside his business self.

I think a majority of players misread the antagonist label. The business part of Seymour is one who knows how the system functions and is good at playing the big game. Seymour does not care if some businesses go down if it advances his and his friends agendas, in so far he is the antagonist of parts of Baluart, but that does not make him evil like e.g. Artur is. Seymour is simply good at being a business man. Some people might not like it, but to make an omlett you need to break some eggs. While the economy is not quite the zero sum game a lot of people believe, there is more to it than simple theory says, it was, is and will be a tank of sharks. That is one side.

If you play a Lena who has really good relations with Seymour you can learn quite a bit about him. Some things the players who could not wait to antagonise him never saw it seems. How this update played out, with Seymour NOT an evil bastard, was something that surprised me not really. Seymour can be a puppet player when it comes to business, but he is less so in private with people he likes. He can be altruistic if he wants to be or is reminded to by people close to him.

Besides, one of the biggest hints for such a"turn of events" as the new update was is actually the person Seymour was based on.

 

[SearingFive]

“I want to be the architect of your orgasm”. Man, shut the hell up Seymour! Can't pump harder, so he then proceeds to masks his inadequacy with these lines. Future cuck in the making. I'll jump out of the window if Robert is the one who cucks Seymour.

 

[Gicoo]

He quotes Nietsche, in particular interpreting the ubermensch or child as "master" so that it describes it himself, his gloating animation is labeled "evil" in code and that label fits, he blackmails Lena into a fancyier form of prostitution, ordering her to insert sextoys into her, all under the label of artistic expression. Utter disregard to the common folk, classist and elitist. He is too educated to argue with ignorance, he knows what he does makes the mayority suffer and very few benefit. Compare him, Agnes, the mayor candidate and Arthur VS Perrys dad, homeless guy, Emma, Ed and Molly. Hmm, I wonder who the wholesome, friendly, morally upstanding people with integrity are in these two groups.

He is morally bad, the current portrayal of a misunderstood well meaning extremist isn't consistent with his previous introduction and buildup.

While ORS very likely won't lead to rape and murder as GGGB could, Seymour and Axel were the closest you have to engaging with vile, corrupt scum, without them directly being rapists (Axels scenes are forceful and dominant, but sort of consential in porn logic as in Lena could back out and just decides not to).

 

[fatpussy123]

Hi!

You might remember that some players, like e.g. Doom and myself, from early on voiced our opinion that Seymour is NOT the evil bastard a majority of players seemed to think.There were several, sometimes blatant, hints into the direction that Seymour is a hard, calculating business man, but there is more to him outside his business self.

I think a majority of players misread the antagonist label. The business part of Seymour is one who knows how the system functions and is good at playing the big game. Seymour does not care if some businesses go down if it advances his and his friends agendas, in so far he is the antagonist of parts of Baluart, but that does not make him evil like e.g. Artur is. Seymour is simply good at being a business man. Some people might not like it, but to make an omlett you need to break some eggs. While the economy is not quite the zero sum game a lot of people believe, there is more to it than simple theory says, it was, is and will be a tank of sharks. That is one side.

If you play a Lena who has really good relations with Seymour you can learn quite a bit about him. Some things the players who could not wait to antagonise him never saw it seems. How this update played out, with Seymour NOT an evil bastard, was something that surprised me not really. Seymour can be a puppet player when it comes to business, but he is less so in private with people he likes. He can be altruistic if he wants to be or is reminded to by people close to him.

Besides, one of the biggest hints for such a"turn of events" as the new update was is actually the person Seymour was based on.

It's very easy being nice to the people who are nice to you. The marker for goodness isn't in how you treat those close to you, but how you treat people who you don't directly stand to gain from treating them nicely. As an example holding doors open for a date is nice gesture, but doesn't actually reveal your character because you could be doing so as a way to get in good standing. On the other hand, holding the door open for strangers who you have nothing to gain from probably reveals more about your character.

All that to say that of course Seymour is nice to Lena if she is nice to him. That doesn't change that he is a blackmailer. He directly blacklists Lena from her main source of income in order to get her to work for him and satisfy his fetishes. On the paths where Lena is into him he still blacklists her before proposing his contract to her. If Lena tries to refuse the blackmail is brought up. Also, saying that these practices are industry standard is not actually a refutation of the claim that he is immoral. It just means that the industry standard is to be immoral.

Nothing from this Seymour update has changed any of the facts or contradicted this understanding of Seymour. The only thing we learned that besides being a horrible person, he also is inept.

 

[ffive]

How this update played out, with Seymour NOT an evil bastard, was something that surprised me not really. Seymour can be a puppet player when it comes to business, but he is less so in private with people he likes. He can be altruistic if he wants to be or is reminded to by people close to him.

The idea that Seymour might be actually completely innocent and nice older guy kind of doesn't quite align with how Lena is on more than one occasion rewarded Smarts points if she opts to avoid getting closely involved with him. I mean, if Lena having a relationship with him is supposed to be perfectly normal romance route, why is it a smart thing for Lena to avoid it?

 

[Turret]

He quotes Nietsche, in particular interpreting the ubermensch or child as "master" so that it describes it himself, his gloating animation is labeled "evil" in code and that label fits, he blackmails Lena into a fancyier form of prostitution, ordering her to insert sextoys into her, all under the label of artistic expression. Utter disregard to the common folk, classist and elitist. He is too educated to argue with ignorance, he knows what he does makes the mayority suffer and very few benefit. Compare him, Agnes, the mayor candidate and Arthur VS Perrys dad, homeless guy, Emma, Ed and Molly. Hmm, I wonder who the wholesome, friendly, morally upstanding people with integrity are in these two groups.

He is morally bad, the current portrayal of a misunderstood well meaning extremist isn't consistent with his previous introduction and buildup.

While ORS very likely won't lead to rape and murder as GGGB could, Seymour and Axel were the closest you have to engaging with vile, corrupt scum, without them directly being rapists (Axels scenes are forceful and dominant, but sort of consential in porn logic as in Lena could back out and just decides not to).

Being able to quote Nietzsche makes you evil? Oh my God, now I know I am evil! Joking aside, while Nitzsche has some big blunders in his philosophy, there are parts where he nailed it, no matter what the Naysayers (many who never read anything written by him) blabb.
But philosophy aside, most of what you describe here happens if you antagonise Seymour from the get go, it simply does not happen if Lena and Seymour have a good relationship. In addition, if Lena is close with Seymour and Emma, Lena can sponsor a talk between Seymour and Emma (in some future update).
As for the morally upstanding people comparison, it might be cynical, but I would take a competent as... mayor, who get´s at least some things done over the morally upstanding, but incompetent mayor Perry´s Dad is, whose failure hurts the whole city, any day.
Seymour is morally really bad only on the antagonise him from the start paths. His current portrayal is consistent with the Seymour on the Lena and Seymour have a good relationship paths.

It's very easy being nice to the people who are nice to you. The marker for goodness isn't in how you treat those close to you, but how you treat people who you don't directly stand to gain from treating them nicely. As an example holding doors open for a date is nice gesture, but doesn't actually reveal your character because you could be doing so as a way to get in good standing. On the other hand holding the door open for strangers who you have nothing to gain from probably reveals more about your character.
All that to say that of course Seymour is nice to Lena if she is nice to him. That doesn't change that he is a blackmailer. He directly blacklists Lena from her main source of income in order to get her to work for him and satisfy his fetishes. On the paths where Lena is into him he still blacklists her before proposing his contract to her. If Lena tries to refuse the blackmail is brought up. Also, saying that these practices are industry standard is not actually a refutation of the claim that he is immoral. It just means that the industry standard is to be immoral.
Nothing from this Seymour update has changed any of the facts or contradicted this understanding of Seymour. The only thing we learned that besides being a horrible person, he also is inept.

You are argueing with meta knowledge here, since we can see Seymour (or other characters) at their worst if we play enough paths. But that is futile here since the various paths represent different universes. On the paths were Lena and Seymour have a good relationship, Seymour is not a blackmailer. Unless it was reworked during an update, if Lena and Seymour are close, he proposes his exclusive contract before(!) doing any blacklisting.

Besides, I never said Seymour is fully good or so, as your argumentation assumes. I argue that the Seymour on the paths where Lena and him have a good relationship is not an evil bastard. He is still im- or amoral in his choices, but he has growth potential and is nicer than many think. As I said, play some path variants where you can learn more about him.

The idea that Seymour might be actually completely innocent and nice older guy kind of doesn't quite align with how Lena is on more than one occasion rewarded Smarts points if she opts to avoid getting closely involved with him. I mean, if Lena having a relationship with him is supposed to be perfectly normal romance route, why is it a smart thing for Lena to avoid it?

As I wrote above, I do not say Seymour is a pidgeon feeding do-gooder. He is a shrewd business man, who is also im- or amoral with many of his choices. He is not really good, he resides in a morally grey area. Seymour as depicted in the game and the new update in special has the potential to get "better" (e.g. Lena can sponsor talks between him and emma, he is a lot more inclined to do the right thing if Lena and he have a good relationship and Lena nudges him to) Unlike Artur, Seymour has not gone beyond the moral event horizon so far and still has potential to become a better person, esp. if people close to him give hints or initiate stuff.
Nevertheless Seymour is, as said, mostly im- or amoral in his choices. Going by his favourtie philosopher I would say amoral. and this is a part of him for good. Even if Lena and friends can nudge Seymour to become a better person, part of him will stay amoral. And a Lena in a close relationship with him will undoubtedly be influenced by this towards a morally more grey stance. The couple smart points Lena can get is for seeing this and if she wants to stay a "pure" do-gooder.

 

[Gicoo]

Being able to quote Nietzsche makes you evil?

Read the entire sentence. Quoting Nietzsche one its own isn't evil, interpreting his work in a certain way is. Just how Nazis interpreted the ubermensch as the ideal german man who had the justification to stand above everyone else.

most of what you describe here happens if you antagonise Seymour from the get go, it simply does not happen if Lena and Seymour have a good relationship

Seymour doesn't blackmail Lena when she likes him, but he does if she refuses him.

You rhetoric that Seymour is technically good if Lena and Ian don't oppose him because they themselves chose to be opportunistic, career-and money driven in specific playthroughs, doesn't hold up. Its just an absence of evil in Lenas and Ians limited perspective.

He is not really good, he resides in a morally grey area.

He is a flat out criminal and just too rich and clever to get caught.


Sure, Seymour can do good things, like paying for Lena's mother hospital. His overall intent is to make others indebted to himto worship him.

There is no indication that Seymour would change and become good or redeemed. This was initially suggested with Axel, but droped to make him consistent with his character, his role and progression throughout the story as the clear antagonist. The same was with Seymour until he uncharacteristically and narratively inconsistenly mellowed down in the latest update.