Ren'Py The DeLuca Family [Season 1] [HopesGaming]

[Thrill'n Flares]

One thing I think it is interesting about the MC is because he is not a 'true-believer' on how the mafia 'lifestyle' works on the surface. On a example, his attitude is the opposite from Trino - who's acts like a stupid fanatic minion (even it was just a ploy to lure the Delucas about his treason) - and several others inside the family. It is not just about him being on a forced contract, but he seems to be seriously annoyed and untrustful about his own situation.
It is just too easy to fall on a cliché in a mafia story when the MC's is or become a badass jerk from the beggining or worst, from anywhere on the story, like he wakes up one morning to be the ultimate alpha male who kicks everybody's asses.
On that matter, I saw some guys complaining about the MC on this thread, claiming him as a 'beta male' because MC seems to be too much 'weak', 'coward' or else. I think not. He is far more like a civilian who's forced to join an army between veteran skilled soldiers and the development of the character mostly fits that criteria, even if some of the players did not like it. Even on a fictional scenario, I think it is not any coherent a MC who was only a civilian, from nothing or nowhere, be stronger or way better than most of the harcore NPCs who's lived from years on that enviroment.
Another thing that makes the dev gain several points is even when the MC acts 'tough', like the Ombra mission, there is a background story that explains 'why' or 'how' his actions resulted on that outcome. It is not just from nowhere. Like a 'outsider', the MC is disdained from the very beggining even from the lowest ranks of the Delucas and he did not care about it, otherwise, he embraces being underestimated. It is not the way of the most of male MCs on several AVNs around and I think is one of the most interesting is his attitude towards the others and the situations around the story. And of course, his grumpyness! Just because I'm grumpy as hell!
Keep it up, Hopes.

I agree he is not a beta male. He is not an Alpha Male either. He is just to lazy. So idiots misunderstand laziness for beta male. I guess you could say he is the Alpha Geek Male. Cause he can out think just about anyone. Its just, like i said he is)to lazy. That has to do with the fact that he likes to underestimated. He does have an Ego like an Alpha male though. I say that, but its more that he himself is a sociopath. It shows through him corrupting Luna, Gracie and Isabel.

 

[Thrill'n Flares]

And it's not just regarding the girls' bedrooms either.

The fact that he also planted the camera in the Donna's office is a big No-No.
That office is the place where Cordia, Wilfred, (and sometimes Antonio) discuss matters of the Family behind closed doors.

Even if MC hadn't planted the camera in the girls rooms but just planted it in Donna's (Cordia's) office, he'd still be doing something that the Family wouldn't consider acceptable (why would they be? He's basically listening in on the Family meetings that only specified members are allowed to partake).

As I said in my previous reply, the excuse of "I needed information regarding my contract" has been used once already.
Once he has been forgiven, but getting caught twice?

lol if the person who planted the cameras was someone who was under Contract like MC but didn't have MC's level of importance to the Family, I'd imagine that person would be put to slept and never be woken up (like MC states in Cordia office event).

Im rationalizing the the fact that he was never given a choice and told (in no certain terms) to trust them, people he does not even know. He wanted out so he need more information. There was no other way for him even have a possibility of finding out. But yeah they will see event hat as being wrong. It all about your viewpoint.

 

[TheCrimsonRevenger]

I hate to burst your bubble this second time, but he is in the wrong. Did Gracie, Luna or Isabel have a hand in him being there? Are they keeping it secret why he is there? So yeah MC is in the wrong for invading their privacy in THEIR BEDROOMS. WHERE THEY CHANGE THEIR CLOTHES.

Nope. Still in the right. At the time, how does he know that Gracie, Luna, and Isabel/Antonio don't know anything?

And even if he knew for certain that they were ignorant of "the answer", he can't preclude the possibility that they all hold "pieces of the puzzle". Clues the full scope and value of which they might not even recognize themselves.

Know where people tend to keep/discuss alot of their secrets? In THEIR BEDROOMS. WHERE THEY CHANGE THEIR CLOTHES.

Sorry, you don't get to send me off to have gun fights with blood thirsty killers against my will and they cry victim because I invaded your privacy.

 

[TheCrimsonRevenger]

Not the same. One you can see them naked or in underwear or various ways of undress. While hearing what they say. The other you just hear what they say. One is just a violaton of women's privacy the other is a major violation of privacy and can be categorized as creepy. So technically the consequence should not be the same, but if there is a consequence then it will probably be the same either way.

Clues are often every bit as visual and they are auditory. Indeed, they're often more visual than auditory. So yeah, full gathering of proper intel requires both seeing and hearing. You can settle for one or the other if you must...but having both is always the ideal.

 

[Thrill'n Flares]

Nope. Still in the right. At the time, how does he know that Gracie, Luna, and Isabel/Antonio don't know anything?

And even if he knew for certain that they were ignorant of "the answer", he can't preclude the possibility that they all hold "pieces of the puzzle". Clues the full scope and value of which they might not even recognize themselves.

Know where people tend to keep/discuss alot of their secrets? In THEIR BEDROOMS. WHERE THEY CHANGE THEIR CLOTHES.

Sorry, you don't get to send me off to have gun fights with blood thirsty killers against my will and they cry victim because I invaded your privacy.

The thing is ignorance to knowledge is no excuse. That is just rationalizing doing something wrong. He went over the assumption they MAY know something without any reason to think they did know anything. It even has come out they knew nothing. Which constitutes its being wrong to invade their privacy. No rationalizing away the crime except in your rationalizing mind with nonsense.

 

[JJJ84]

Sorry, you don't get to send me off to have gun fights with blood thirsty killers against my will and they cry victim because I invaded your privacy.

Dude, you state that as if MC will have any choice in the matter (that is, assuming if his cameras/recorders ever get found out).
He basically lives with the Family.
And when he lives with the Family, he lives under Cordia and Wilfred's rules (just like Luna and Gracie does).

So MC can shout angrily at them saying "I'm doing this because you forced me into this contract!" thumping his chest or even try to get them to sympathize with him all he wants, all that just shows him trying to justify/rationalize/sugarcoat doing something very wrong, especially given he got caught once already by Cordia sneaking into her office and she was not pleased with it.

Therefore if Cordia and Wilfred decides to punish him (and I think they should, even if it's just a formality, to show that doing wrong things even when one might have good reasons for it has consequences), he would have no choice but to accept the said punishment.

 

[TheCrimsonRevenger]

Of course he has no choice but to accept their punishment. Prisoners and slaves never have much choice of anything except whether to accept their oppression, or rebel against it.

The MC has chosen to rebel. Rebellions tend to have consequences. Whether those consequences prove to be good or bad, only time will tell.

 

[TheCrimsonRevenger]

The thing is ignorance to knowledge is no excuse. That is just rationalizing doing something wrong. He went over the assumption they MAY know something without any reason to think they did know anything. It even has come out they knew nothing. Which constitutes its being wrong to invade their privacy. No rationalizing away the crime except in your rationalizing mind with nonsense.

He didn't know that at the time though did he? It's perfectly reasonable to believe the Mafia Don's own immediate family would be privy to the truth of why he was there. Or soon be made privy.

And in the beginning EVERYBODY is a suspect to the biggest question of all: Who's trying to murder him.

Yes, NOW the MC trusts that they're not trying to kill him. At least, not directly. And NOW he knows that only Wilfred and Cordia are privy to the terms of the contact he never even consented to. But the cameras are still valid. It's likely that sooner or later one of the Deluca kids...Anthony most likely...will be told the truth. Or discover it some other way. And as I already said it's possible ALL of them have pieces of the puzzle they're either unaware of, or hiding for some other purpose.

The Nookie is just a pleasant bonus.

At no point does the MC have ANY moral obligation to his captors beyond the ones he chooses to assume...and he can choose to abandon those assumptions as it suits him. Nobody on earth has a moral obligation to their jailor. It doesn't matter how nice your jailor is to you. You owe them nothing. He violated their privacy? Well they've violated his humanity. And continue to do so every single day he is bound to their service against his will. Kinda like a slave, now that I think about it. In fact it's probably a much more apt comparison than Prisoner/Jailor is.

Some slaves throughout history were definitely treated better than others. Some even got to live in the main house with the master. Some were even considered "almost family". But just because a master treats a slave kindly, doesn't change the implications of that relationship. And it sure as heck doesn't place the slave under any form of moral obligation to the master.

A slave's only moral obligation is to their own emancipation.

 

[c3p0]

At no point does the MC have ANY moral obligation to his captors beyond the ones he chooses to assume...and he can choose to abandon those assumptions as it suits him. Nobody on earth has a moral obligation to their jailor.

Is Luna his jailor? Is Gracie his jailor? Is Isabel his jailor? Also do the three have a saying in how Cordia and Wilfred does their mafia buisness? Even Antonio as the capobastone doesn't really have an influence on this. Isabel isn't even in the family buisness.

Would I do the same a try to gather everything I can in his situation? Yes. But I wouldn't say that is my right to do so and it is moral OK to do so. As JJJ84 said two wrongs don't make right.

 

[JJJ84]

He didn't know that at the time though did he? It's perfectly reasonable to believe the Mafia Don's own immediate family would be privy to the truth of why he was there. Or soon be made privy.

And in the beginning EVERYBODY is a suspect to the biggest question of all: Who's trying to murder him.

At no point does the MC have ANY moral obligation to his captors. Nobody on earth has a moral obligation to their jailor. It doesn't matter how nice your jailor is to you. You owe them nothing. He violated their privacy? Well they've violated his humanity, first. And continue to do so every single day he is bound to their service against his will. Kinda like a slave, now that I think about it. In fact it's probably a much more apt comparison than Prisoner/Jailor is.

Some slaves throughout history were definitely treated better than others. Some even got to live in the main house with the master. Some were even considered "almost family". But just because a master treats a slave kindly, doesn't change the implications of the that relationship. And it sure as heck doesn't place the slave under any form of moral obligation to the master.

A slave's only moral obligation is to their own emancipation.

That is just waaaaaaaaaaay too black and white way of viewing MC's situation.

Yes, in purely semantics, him being "in contract" could mean various things; that he's a hostage, prisoner, captive etc.
But in actual reality of MC's case, he hasn't really been treated as any of the above terms.

As per the contract, he's basically obligated to work for the Family, but the Family is not mistreating MC like they would a hostage/prisoner/captive.

- He has his own room (and not kept in an actual jail cell).
- He is actually given training for his contracts to build experience.
- He spends times withthe girls and actually dines with the Family members.

Yes, MC is put in life or death situations with being in the Family, but that's just what everyone who becomes part of the Family goes through.
Both Wilfred and Cordia also states "If he does not learn to get stronger, he will not survive in our world."

So he's not being put through this experience of violence because the DeLucas want to harm him any way, they want him to become stronger, to prepare for any trials he may face in the future.
He's not being mistreated, and other than his obligation to fulfil his contract for the family, he is left to his own devices and given as much freedom as possible as long as it doesn't harm the Family in any way.

Taking all that into account, I'd say you referring to them treating him as a slave (whether better treated slaves or not) or they are taking away his humanity is reeeeeeeeally stretching it.
There's just far too much shades of grey within his situation for him to be identified that way.


As for whether MC owes moral obligation towards the Family or not, you say he doesn't, but I disagree.
Strong sense of trust have already begun to develop between MC and the girls (which is obvious from Luna, Gracie, and Isabel's events), and even between MC and Cordia and Wilfred, where the Donna and Consigliere asks the MC to solve the issues each of the girls have.

If the cameras/recorders were revealed, it would be seen by the Family as a huge breach in trust.
The girls would be incredibly furious/sad with the MC, and both Cordia and Wilfred will be very upset yet also very disappointed with the MC (given how much they trusted him with).

The DeLucas, while having the MC be placed under their Contract, literally opened up their Family and their issues to MC and placed their trust in him (when they didn't have to)
So of course, moral obligation would be there from MC to the Family.
In the very beginning the Family members were complete strangers, but MC is still keeping the cameras/audio recorders and using them even after all this time, so I'd say the Family would have every darn right to be upset with him because what he's been doing is wrong.

 

[justsum]

Many moons from now when the game is complete there could be offshoots. Turn The Delucia Family into a franchise. Next in the shoot could be Luna Delucia or Gracie Delucia or The young Cordia herself.

 

[Rovenant]

I really love to see you all debating (some weeks ago it was all post of crap comments that you all know) so first i want to thank you all for making this waiting an amazing one.

And for the latest topic we where debating about:
The MC situation is a unique one.

Hostage topic:
-He was forced into this caotic world no matter what he wished. [Ok, its true, but we still dont know a lot about this. Was his mother the reason because all this happened? His father? Even if he was contract forced into this world he was already into (his own family and his friend is really close to everything).]

-He is imprisioned into the house and little other places. [Ok, again that is true, but thats not all what we know. If we dont believe the theory about the red flag operation, then the MC thinks that are outside forces trying to kill him, so is this family really keeping him as hostage? or saving him? Then again if you are a hostage why they leave you made close contact with the girls, and even encouraging it?.]


Moral obligations topic:
This is a completely subjective topic. But what we know is:

-He didnt like anything the first days. He even was in danger in this "safe" place.
-After some interactions he develop a friendly relationship with Luna, Gracie and Isabel. He used cameras/micro and, as c3p0 said, Luna, Gracie and Isabel didnt know anithing and even tried to help him. So Wilfred, Antonio or Cordia could be seen as "bad" people? of course (its enterely subjective because so far we dont know why the did everithing).

The Micro/Cameras started as a plan to uncover any plot against him. He was forced into everything and they did all they could to not help MC (im talking about Cordia and Wilfred) keeping the info in secret. And it wasnt just one attempt to kill the MC, so its kind of understandable the reaction. BUT being understandable doesnt mean the will not kill him because of what he did, this is the Mafia world.

And finally, what motives the MC to act? Well, i think the girls are the answer. You choose to go against M6 after knowing the danger in that, just to help Luna. You choose to put you in danger ignoring Antonio just to make Isabel happy (optional). When MC killed for first time it was traumatic, but he cared more about Luna reaction. MC was ready to jump into enemy hands and die for them.

Conclusions: The three girls (Gracie, Luna, Isabel) are the reason that MC have to act and help the family (at least, and so far we know). And if there is some "prisioner" and Cordia and Wilfred are the "bad" ones, then consider his mother and father "bad".

 

[TheCrimsonRevenger]

Is Luna his jailor? Is Gracie his jailor? Is Isabel his jailor? Also do the three have a saying in how Cordia and Wilfred does their mafia buisness? Even Antonio as the capobastone doesn't really have an influence on this. Isabel isn't even in the family buisness.

Would I do the same a try to gather everything I can in his situation? Yes. But I wouldn't say that is my right to do so and it is moral OK to do so. As JJJ84 said two wrongs don't make right.

He had every reason to beleive they were his Jailors/Masters when he planted the cameras. And frankly...they are. Again, they are nice Jailors/Masters. Sweet, and funny and sexy jailors/masters. But yes, they are absolutely, objectively, his de-facto masters/jailers.

A master who treats his slaves well is still a master.

They may have been thrust into that role almost(ALMOST) as unwillingly as the MC was...but they haven't rejected that role.

As JJJ84 said two wrongs don't make right.

This is a simplistic expression that gets thrown around way too much. It's just factually incorrect. Let's use an example from this very game.

Killing people is wrong.

Wrong Number One(Guys tries to kill Luna) + Wrong Number Two(MC Kills Guy First) = Right(Luna Lives long enough to one day avenge the victims of the Mysterious 6 and give MC lots of psychopathic babies)

Human history is built on a massive pileup of "wrongs" getting slap-patched together into a big messy bunch of "rights".

"Two wrongs don't make a right" is a cute little slogan we feed to children when we're giving them their very first introduction to morality. And it's a good foundation upon which to build a strong moral core as you move into adulthood...but if you get stuck there you'll never evolve. The real world is not that simplistic.

 

[Ahx]

He had every reason to beleive they were his Jailors/Masters when he planted the cameras. And frankly...they are. Again, they are nice Jailors/Masters. Sweet, and funny and sexy jailors/masters. But yes, they are absolutely, objectively, his de-facto masters/jailers.

A master who treats his slaves well is still a master.

They may have been thrust into that role almost(ALMOST) as unwillingly as the MC was...but they haven't rejected that role.

I think, leaving the MC alone will end up him being dead, so the Delucas took hold of him over a "Contract" to protect him from a bunch of assassins that are being sent after him or the danger that has been bestowed upon him for being a son of his father's.

Since we know his father used to be someone important to the Delucas, they might've felt the need or responsibility to protect his son or for any other reasons. MC's new-made enemies might stay away, now that the Delucas are holding him as one of their own. No one wants to mess with the Delucas. Of course that won't sop everyone out there.

I've never seen them as his captors or masters, but babysitters.

Actually, calling them masters is not bad at all, since they are treating him as their student or their soldier and teaching him everything they can till this "Contract situation" is resolved, so he can survive on his own. Something like to that effect.

Slaves are the ones that are completely stripped out of their freedom. They have no say in anything but to obey their masters. It's not the same here. I'm not gonna make a bold statement here since there is still a lot to uncover. Till then we can't be sure if he's being kept for his sake or their's. Maybe both.

 

[JJJ84]

This is a simplistic expression that gets thrown around way too much. It's just factually incorrect. Let's use an example from this very game.

Killing people is wrong.

Wrong Number One(Guys tries to kill Luna) + Wrong Number Two(MC Kills Guy First) = Right(Luna Lives long enough to one day avenge the victims of the Mysterious 6 and give MC lots of psychopathic babies)

Human history is built on a massive pileup of "wrongs" getting slap-patched together into a big messy bunch of "rights".

"Two wrongs don't make a right" is a cute little slogan we feed to children when we're giving them their very first introduction to morality. And it's a good foundation upon which to build a strong moral core as you move into adulthood...but if you get stuck there you'll never evolve. The real world is not that simplistic.

I disagree.

In your example itself, it can be just as much interpreted as the following:

Wrong Number One(Guys tries to kill Luna) + Wrong Number Two(MC Kills Guy First) results in Wrong Number Three(MC now must live with the choice that he killed someone, even if it was to save Luna. And while you may say "It's because of the Contract", there are much more factors which came into play that resulted in MC actually being in that situation; his improved relationship with Luna, as well as him listening to her when she says "Let's go find the boss on our own." Many of these are choices that he himself made, and noone forced upon him)

And when I said that phrase, I meant it using the following example:

Wrong Number One(DeLucas force MC to enter into the contract) + Wrong Number Two(MC plants cameras/audio recorders without anyone knowing) results in Wrong Number Three(The Family gets their privacy invaded, Family secrets that MC shouldn't be knowing gets known gets leaked to MC, MC breaches the Family's trust)


Let's use another example:

Wrong Number One(Person Y murders Person X's Family) + Wrong Number Two(X kills Y) results in Wrong Number Three(while some would argue X is justified in killing Y to avenge his family, as you said killing is killing, and the previous wrong no.2 act doesn't make what resulted right).

Just because X did it to avenge his Family, doesn't mean he was in all the right to murder Y and he shouldn't be punished.
Real world doesn't work that way, and X would still be charged with murder, regardless of his righteous intentions/motive.

Same as MC's situation with DeLucas. Just because DeLucas forced him into the contracts situation, doesn't mean MC is in the right (even if he was trying to dig up info as an excuse) to just invade other Family members' privacy.
That's just an "eye for an eye" (I suffered, so you deserve a bit of it too lol) retaliation attitude, which would be very reckless in not just MC's but for anyone in a similar situation who has been wronged (like MC, or X).

 

[Cartageno]

This is a simplistic expression that gets thrown around way too much. It's just factually incorrect. Let's use an example from this very game.

Killing people is wrong.

Wrong Number One(Guys tries to kill Luna) + Wrong Number Two(MC Kills Guy First) = Right(Luna Lives long enough to one day avenge the victims of the Mysterious 6 and give MC lots of psychopathic babies)

Human history is built on a massive pileup of "wrongs" getting slap-patched together into a big messy bunch of "rights".

"Two wrongs don't make a right" is a cute little slogan we feed to children when we're giving them their very first introduction to morality. And it's a good foundation upon which to build a strong moral core as you move into adulthood...but if you get stuck there you'll never evolve. The real world is not that simplistic.

This has very little to do with what the saying means, how it is applied, and so on.

For starters, any moral exclamation is a rough outline and not 100% - there will always be counterexamples. This applies to both the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" as well as to your otherwise correct axiom "Killing people is wrong". E. g. your second example isn't a "wrong" - preventing somebody from a crime can easily be justified and is here.

Then you do not apply it as such as an equation. These are actions, not static objects. And just as you can do two mathematically incorrect steps and come to the right conclusion, by pure chance you can do so by making two morally incorrect steps - however that doesn't make the steps correct.

Then the event you describe as "right" doesn't have a moral value (although one can say that Luna avenges, i. e. kills again, would also make it wrong).

"Two wrongs don't make a right" means: just because somebody wronged you, you are not correcting that by wronging them in return. As I said, there are exceptions, but this isn't one of them.

 

[TheCrimsonRevenger]

This has very little to do with what the saying means, how it is applied, and so on.

For starters, any moral exclamation is a rough outline and not 100% - there will always be counterexamples. This applies to both the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right" as well as to your otherwise correct axiom "Killing people is wrong". E. g. your second example isn't a "wrong" - preventing somebody from a crime can easily be justified and is here.

Then you do not apply it as such as an equation. These are actions, not static objects. And just as you can do two mathematically incorrect steps and come to the right conclusion, by pure chance you can do so by making two morally incorrect steps - however that doesn't make the steps correct.

Then the event you describe as "right" doesn't have a moral value (although one can say that Luna avenges, i. e. kills again, would also make it wrong).

"Two wrongs don't make a right" means: just because somebody wronged you, you are not correcting that by wronging them in return. As I said, there are exceptions, but this isn't one of them.

That's actually pretty much the point i've been trying to get across. People are arguing that the MC is somehow doing something wrong or immoral for spying on his masters/captors. Spying on people is generally an immoral act. But context matters. Mitigating circumstances matter. An act that's completely immoral in one context is perfectly moral in another. Human history is a messy pile of wrongs and rights feeding into and onto each other perpetually. Ultimately we just try to do the most right and least wrong possible in the context of the situation.

That's what the MC is doing. The most right and least wrong he can reasonably do in the situation that has been forced upon him.

Also, the nookie.

 

[c3p0]

He had every reason to beleive they were his Jailors/Masters when he planted the cameras. And frankly...they are. Again, they are nice Jailors/Masters. Sweet, and funny and sexy jailors/masters. But yes, they are absolutely, objectively, his de-facto masters/jailers.

And why are Luna, Gracie and Isabel his jailors? Can you write you reasons?

This is a simplistic expression that gets thrown around way too much. It's just factually incorrect. Let's use an example from this very game.

Killing people is wrong.

Wrong Number One(Guys tries to kill Luna) + Wrong Number Two(MC Kills Guy First) = Right(Luna Lives long enough to one day avenge the victims of the Mysterious 6 and give MC lots of psychopathic babies)

Human history is built on a massive pileup of "wrongs" getting slap-patched together into a big messy bunch of "rights".

"Two wrongs don't make a right" is a cute little slogan we feed to children when we're giving them their very first introduction to morality. And it's a good foundation upon which to build a strong moral core as you move into adulthood...but if you get stuck there you'll never evolve. The real world is not that simplistic.

Yes, it is a simple statement but in my eyes true to the core.

For your example:

• Killing people is wrong. (Assumption A)

Wrong Number One(Guys tries to kill Luna) [1]
If I'm a pedant: Where is the assumption A in this? As you have written "Guys tries to kill Luna" what is an action in the future and not an action done. Sure, most likely in this situation this will end with a death, so with some liberty this falls in to assumption A, but technical no.

Wrong Number Two(MC Kills Guy First) [2]
This ends with assumption A, but also prevent [1] to be fulfilled.

So they aren't any two wrongs here based only on assumption A. Even if we add assumption B (Trying to kill people is wrong), will you say that the action at all were right?

A police office in service who kill someone to prevent others to be killed (even himself) or one who does it in self defence, makes the action of killing not right, it only makes that action so, that the person who have done it wouldn't recieve a penalty for it.

 

[JJJ84]

But context matters. Mitigating circumstances matter. An act that's completely immoral in one context is perfectly moral in another. Human history is a messy pile of wrongs and rights feeding into and onto each other perpetually. Ultimately we just try to do the most right and least wrong possible in the context of the situation.

Circumstances may have some degree of influence, but there would also be limit as to what the Family would be willing to accept regarding what MC does, before he gets into the "red-alert" territory of actions which the Family would find unacceptable.

Spying on the Family (Donna's office, all the girls rooms etc), is a serious invasion of privacy which would be in that "unacceptable" territory from the Family's POV.

Now if we flip it all over onto MC's POV, you've been stating from beginning till now, MC is totally in the right and is morally correct to spy on the Family (just for the sake of gathering intel regarding his contract).
I find that to be incorrect.

While one can give a bit of sympathy to his situation, by no means does that really justify what he's doing. As I said before (and saying it again lol), the Family has entrusted MC with a lot of things that they would never trust anyone else in the Family to (such as trying to heal the mental scars/issues of Luna, Gracie, Isabel and Cordia), so by continuous use of it from the beginning till now.
He may try to rationalize/sugarcoat it but that doesn't mean he's in the right.

And MC, when he's in the wrong clearly realizes that he is (even if he may not openly admit it out loud). Examples of such situations are with Luna in "My name is Luna" event, and with Isabel & Gracie in "The Blizzard Princess" event.

Also, since he installed the cameras/audio recorders, the game has shown glimpses of him every now and then of being wary of people (such as Gracie) figuring out that the cameras/audio are installed.
If he is so righteous and 100% morally correct in his POV why would he be wary of such a situation?

That's because he knows if he gets caught (red-handed) with the cameras/audio recorders, he will not be able to talk his way out of it claiming that he was "right", since what he did was a totally wrong thing to do, not just towards the Family, but his own actions as general even if "intel gathering" excuse is used.

There are also some scenes which further expand this:

1) Cordia's "Don't Peek" note
After the girls pink paint bomb incident to their bath room and they're forced to share bathroom with the MC, he is given a note by Wilfred which is from Cordia saying "Don't peek."
While this scene is played for laughs and I don't think it's gonna have any major influence on the storyline in general, it gives hints as to Cordia's personality (and Wilfred also, since he literally says to MC "Consequences of peeking.......will be severe.").

2) Cordia catching MC in her office
MC got caught red-handed in her office snooping around in secret.
This is what Cordia says to MC then:

"I am not happy with you sneaking around." (yup, and the word "not" is in bold in game too)
Can't get any more obvious than that, regarding what Cordia would think of MC doing behind the Family's back.

She forgave him once, because snooping around wasn't a too serious offense and she was understanding of how he feels being sympathetic of his situation. But if she and Wilfred catches him with the cameras/audio recorders would she react the same way once more?
I'd say no. I wouldn't expect her (and Wilfred) to be so forgiving this time around.


Well, I'd say the only way that the MC would be able to make everything right is to own up to what he did, and take responsibility for his own wrong doings.
While he can state the reason why he installed the cameras was to find more info, he shouldn't deny what he did wrong (because what he did/doing, was/is indeed wrong), and accept any punishment that Cordia and Wilfred hands to him.
That would show his growth as a character.

Trying to shift the blame (to the Family) or talk his way out of it like he sometimes did till now would basically be that he's unwilling to bear responsibilities (even for things that he did which wronged others), and would diminish his value as a character.

 

[schinoize]

MC's relationship with the DeLuca family outside of the 3 LIs is an interesting one. I would differentiate between the 3 LIs and everyone else (mostly Lady Cordia/Wilfred).

Sure they've been treating him alright so far. However, the fact that he's had no say about the situation he's in and he's still left in the dark about the reasons why overshadows pretty much everything else for me. Doesn't make me dislike them, but can't expect MC to simply go along with all the plans his parents/Wilfred/whoever possibly made since he was a young kid.
Imo he doesn't owe them, for anything.
That's probably also why I had only little issues going for the NTR route. I don't dislike Antonio, but I also don't really care either. Indifferent, that's how I feel towards them after everything that has happenend so far.

About the tapes, it obviously only gets more complicated the deeper the relationship to the 3 LIs get. There's probably no way back now though. Might have been wrong from the start, but in the grand scheme of things it didn't really matter, at least for me. About the one in the office, I'm, again, pretty indifferent. Lady Cordia probably already knows. About cameras, big no from me in general haha.