【Essay】On the Psychological Patterns Revealed by Damon Choosing Private Meetings with the Mastermind

【Important Notes】

　　The author is not a professional.

    The author is not a native English speaker.

　　These are rambling essays, not an official character analysis. The author does not guarantee the accuracy of every plot detail.

　　Due to the author's writing style, discussions may appear cold regardless of the topic.

　　Personal opinion archive. If the reader disagrees, the reader is free to write their own piece.

　　If this isn't your cup of tea, feel free to leave the page.

　　——————————————

【Note 1】

In the following discussion:

Part One adopts a purely “in-story” perspective.

Part Two includes content from an “outside-story” viewpoint.

In Part Two:

As it involves exploring the original author's intent and narrative techniques, discussions of audience perspective are unavoidable.

Due to its involvement with the writing approach, certain sections will discuss characters as narrative devices rather than as individual human beings.

Part Two (which will be prefaced with a warning) may disrupt audience immersion and cause discomfort. Please proceed with caution.

【Note 2】

Regarding the terms “malicious presumptions” and “behaviour-goal oriented presumptions” mentioned in the text.

Such presumptions are not “personality analysis” of any form, nor do they genuinely represent the author’s actual views on the characters.

Rather, they serve as a defensive strategy to minimize the "what if I'm lucky " mindset when viewing the other party (for example, the Mastermind) as an enemy or potential enemy from a predetermined perspective, and when no new information or circumstances create a clear potential contradiction (for example, the student’s perspective).

This applies regardless of whether the subject of the presumption is the Mastermind or any other character.

【Note 3】

Content and theories discussed in the “outside the story” part are based on the author's personal experiences, perspectives, and reflections. They are not guaranteed to be accurate or truly consistent with the original work.

As the author is in “author mode” in this section, the writing style may be colder and detached.

　　——————————————

【Part One—The “In-Story” Perspective】

Now that I finally have some time and energy to do the things I enjoy.

Regarding Damon going to meet the Mastermind alone, I've actually always wanted to talk about that specifically.

Damon can choose to go alone to the most distant area (the boiler room at the end of the underground corridor) to privately confront the Mastermind about why he had disclosed Wolfgang's secret to him, ask for hint and explanation. This action actually revealed much about his psychological patterns—even the Mastermind himself claimed to be surprised by Damon's choice to request a meeting in such an isolated location.

This is not a civilized society, nor a contest governed by fair rules. The Mastermind behind the scenes is far from a “neutral host.”

The relationship between Damon (or any student) and him is not one of teacher and student, citizen and politician, contestant and referee—none of the civilized identities and relationships.

When power is absolutely unequal, external constraints are absent, and the other party harbors clear malice, such “confrontation” or any form of communication is fundamentally meaningless.

Unless one possesses actual leverage—something beneficial or threatening to the other party—to elevate one's bargaining position, otherwise, it's like the prey delivering itself right to the predator's doorstep.

It only amplifies negative consequences for one's own side. Such as being subjected to violence or psychological assault/influence, further exposing vulnerabilities (personal or group) that can be exploited, being further brainwashed, or being manipulated and used in reverse.

　　——————————

—Yes, extrapolating from the most idealized simplified model, one might arrive at this seemingly reasonable logical chain, like Damon did :

The Mastermind must orchestrate the 【mutual killing】game → Therefore, the Mastermind cannot personally harm students or interfere with the game → Therefore, the Mastermind is just a neutral bystander → Therefore, the real opponents and threats are the other students.

But this logical chain rests on a fatal presupposition:

—namely, that the Mastermind is entirely trustworthy, and everything they claim is completely true.

From a more realistic and complex perspective, and considering Damon's current information limitations in perspective:

How could Damon possibly know what kind of person the Mastermind truly is, what other genuine objectives they might have (beyond their stated goal of implementing the killing game), what action logic they would follow, or even whether the so-called “killing game” itself is real?

Damon doesn't know, and can't know.

The Mastermind's statements and verbal promises essentially didn’t have credibility; even assuming the promises were genuine, there's no guarantee the Mastermind himself would remain sufficiently rational or committed enough to avoid suddenly sabotaging the objective; or that the Mastermind doesn't have other objectives; or that uncontrollable emergencies wouldn’t occur.

Therefore, the fact that Damon cannot decipher why he received Wolfgang's “secret” and chose to secretly go alone to meet the Mastermind can only indicate that he harbors certain preconceptions in his psyche and thinking.

His behavior precisely proves that deep down, he truly perceives the Mastermind—logically utterly untrustworthy, and proven to be an anti-human violent kidnapper with no moral boundaries—as someone that not only can communicate but also will respond in a “reasonable” manner.

As some kind of neutral, trustworthy, dependable “harmless referee” who will abide by some kind of civilized society rules, or even as some kind of fair and reliable established authority.

Rather than an external enemy and malicious entity whose stance has long been declared, whose demonstrated clear capacity for slaughter/destruction is on full display(firearms), and who currently possesses complete physical control over the entire situation (surveillance, electric shock watches, information blockade, control over water and food supplies, etc.).

Rather than someone who might very well choose to kill him outright in an unpopulated location based on whim or unknown factors; or kill him to quickly initiate the killing game (in a isolated spot, with no witnesses, and no one aware of Damon's whereabouts), then frame his death on others; or even if not attacking immediately, use his words and actions themselves as ammunition for the next round of attacks (whether against the group or Damon himself).

For instance, spreading hints or clear indications of betrayal, publicly exposing footage of the meeting, or designing the meeting itself as a multi-layered setup with traps—countless possibilities... In a closed, lawless territory, a high-pressure pot with no escape, the implications of such consequences need no elaboration.

　　————

【Key Emphasis】

This point has been mentioned before, but needs reiteration.

The “killing game rules” promulgated by Tozu do not contain a clause stipulating that “only the first killer counts.”

This means that if a group genuinely accepts the framework of the killing game, there will be no constraints from rule-based cost-benefit calculations (since one person is already dead, killing another offers no benefit).

The worst-case outcome would not be “one member killed and one murderer executed,” but rather multiple members consecutively killing each other, triggering a cycle of internal collapse that could rapidly escalate into full-scale collective slaughter.

Under these conditions, any factor capable of inducing chain reactions of collapse and mass panic carries a high risk of igniting the fuse for a snowballing chain of destruction.

　　————

——To put it bluntly, even though Damon repeatedly claims “this isn’t a game,” his actual words and actions indicate he hasn’t grasped even the most fundamental realities—such as the true nature of his situation or who his enemies and allies really are.

He genuinely perceives his reality as some kind of “competition” or “game” governed by rules.

Rather than a sudden life-or-death crisis orchestrated by anti-human violent kidnappers—a crisis where close space makes it extremely easy, and entirely possible, for his own actions to trigger unimaginable catastrophic consequences that no one can stop.

In other words, even if his actions appear to fit certain templates of “resistance/non-conformity/independent thinking”, they are actually built upon a premise—having already 【abandoned critical thinking】, acknowledge and accept the brainwashing logic and “game” framework imposed by the Mastermind.

　　——————————————————

Moreover, this exposes that Damon subconsciously actually believes he shares some kind of equal status and relationship with the Mastermind, to the extent that he feels he has the conditions and qualifications to “question” him.

And he treats the Mastermind’s inflammatory/manipulative/weaponized words and actions—spread to achieve the setting goal of “triggering and perpetuating mutual killing”—as fair and transparent answers to his questioning, as well as objective, truthful information that can be directly accepted and believed.

【Metaphor】

—This kind of “questioning” is like the hostage questioning the kidnapper, the captive questioning the captor, the slave questioning the slave owner.

To put it more bluntly, it’s like the livestock questioning the butcher. Or, the character questioning the author.

When the Mastermind sets the stage, the background, the “rules,” the participants, and so on... and holds absolute physical control, in a sense, the Mastermind is like an “author”/“storyteller” free from any external or societal constraints.

And the finest authors always excel at making their manipulative techniques—even their very existence—invisible to the audience (like Damon).

In truth, when free from external constraints, an author can do whatever they please with their characters and stories. The only limitations are the author's own value system, capabilities, and personal will.

The Mastermind's value system needs not to say more for now. In terms of capability, the Mastermind holds absolute dominance. And the Mastermind's current stated objective is to orchestrate the mutual killing game.

Therefore, the focus here was never about speculating and obsessing over the “surface truth.”

Such as what Wolfgang's secret truly is, whether Wolfgang is a bad person, whether Wolfgang is suspicious, and so on...

This is the path the Mastermind wants to manipulate his audience (like Damon) into thinking. Once they step onto this predetermined path, the likelihood of the Mastermind steering them toward his pre-set conclusion increases drastically.

The true focus lies in examining the Mastermind's “narrative intent”—why did they choose to let Damon know this information, and why in this specific manner and at this precise point in time?

—That is, what does the “author” and “storyteller” of this killing game want their audience (like Damon) to see, think, ponder, conclude, and ultimately act upon, when wielding their narrative hand?

　　——

In the absence of conflicting new information and at the strategic level, to minimize the “what if I'm lucky” mindset:

All settings, statements, and information released by the Mastermind, along with every behavior and individual they tolerate, silently condone, or actively encourage, should be preset/viewed from the Mastermind's perspective as explicitly identified content that benefits the occurrence and advancement of the narrative of mutual killing.

To the point that he is willing to bear the consequences of introducing risk (since any action inevitably increases the probability of risk occurrence) to support the action.

Similarly, any actions, words, or individuals that the Mastermind opposed, suppressed, or targeted should also be preset/viewed from the Mastermind's perspective as explicitly identified as detrimental to the occurrence and advancement of the narrative of mutual killing.

To the point that he is willing to bear the consequences of introducing risk to carry out attack actions.

From this perspective:

The Mastermind deliberately tolerates Damon and Eva's actions and words.

(Whether at the end of the prologue or during/after the first chapter's class trial)

The choice to set up math puzzles that clearly target Eva's talent.

Chose to suddenly release students' actual information files under the premise of knowing Eva's true talent, knowing she lied about her own talent, and with the group gathered in a confined space (more likely to trigger physical and psychological chain reactions).

Choosing to give Wolfgang's “secret”(an individual who repeatedly demonstrates behaviors and willingness to maintain group stability) to Damon, which was crafted to align with readers' cultural experience templates, employing highly ambiguous and negatively slanted phrasing (a wolf in sheep's clothing) designed to maximize readers' generated suspicion, yet providing no substantive content.

Furthermore, choosing to agree to meet with Damon and respond, using extremely vague yet highly suggestive language to direct Damon to fill the deliberate gaps with his own most persuasive speculations and imaginings to convince himself, thereby intensifying his suspicion of Wolfgang.　　

And so on...

—The meaning of this recurring pattern is self-evident, requiring no excessive deduction.

【Note】

As mentioned earlier, the terms “malicious presumption” and “behaviour-target oriented presumption” do not simplify or statically assume the Mastermind as a non-personified entity with absolute rationality, a singly-focused objective, incapable of acting randomly, possessing 100% control over the entire situation, or harboring absolute malice.

Rather, they represent a defensive strategic perspective adopted when viewing an enemy (such as the Mastermind) or potential enemy from a set perspective (such as the student's perspective) and when no new information or circumstances create a clear potential contradiction, to minimize the “what if I'm lucky” mindset.

This is not any form of “personality analysis.” It applies regardless of whether the subject of the presumption is the Mastermind or any other character.

　　————————————

After all, from the perspective of the Mastermind and purely from an efficiency/functionality viewpoint:

They most rapidly exhibit a tendency to fully accept the Mastermind as a trustworthy authority and embrace the Mastermind's predefined framework.

—Not only do they internalize the Mastermind's logic almost immediately upon his appearance, but they also immediately, spontaneously become thought agents of the Mastermind's ideology objectively.

They demonstrably exhibit internal aggression/hostility.

—Systematically undermining the group's self-identity, moral baseline, willingness to cooperate, psychological stability, will to survive, and will to resistance.

They can directly disregard themselves and the group’s life safety and real interests, executing internal attacks and sabotage without hesitation.

— Ignoring external enemy’s gunfire and threat of execution, as well as the group's potential emotional implosion.

They remain unaware of this and consider themselves superior.

— Showing no apology or damage control, justify their destructive actions as “providing help” or “revealing the sober truth,” while attributing all reason of negative feedback to external factors (especially Eva).

They possess the attack capability that can inflict real harm and threats.

— Physically, they have enough strength and action ability; psychologically, their very existence and words and actions inherently carry cognitive and mental contamination capabilities.

From the perspective of the Mastermind, what could be more suitable than such “characters” as proxy agents to push forward their own objectives?

— Whether as the first-strike, self-detonating bomb or as long-term, slow-acting poison.

　　————————————————————————————————————————

【Note: The following is Part Two, involving an “outside-story” discussion】

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

But this is also where it gets interesting.

Damon is the protagonist, or rather, the "vessel for the audience's projections".

The qualities Damon possesses, or the direction he is crafted toward, in a sense, exactly represent the general audience 【us】.

—He is an ordinary person. Not a beast, nor a saint.

This means that Damon's perspective and his cognition are the subjective filter that the audience will most easily, and almost unavoidably, “put on” and be subtly and imperceptibly influenced by while watching this story.

To put it metaphorically, he is a “camera” with a preset trajectory and angle, equipped with an already colored lens, annotation subtitles and commentary audio track with specific interpretive directions.

And given that this story is currently taking the form of a “playable semi-first-person game”, this “camera” becomes the only pathway for the audience to experience and observe the story world.

Ironically, Damon claimed others were all twisting his words and intentions, yet his own perspective was very likely the most massive and primary twisting in this story—a narrative trick crafted through a perspective-filter manipulation.

However, achieving such a level of narrative trickery cannot rely solely on the protagonist/one character alone.

In writing, to truly influence the audience subtly without their awareness—or even when they are aware, to still be affected—requires numerous precise arrangements and manipulations across various elements. Success hinges on pressing many specific “trigger keys/buttons.”

To put it more literary—only when every stitch and thread is sewn with precision, every word and phrase placed with accuracy, only then could possibly the filter become one with the eye, could possibly the hand of narrative touch reality beyond fiction.

　　————

If we speculate based on one possible narrative direction (the relatively orthodox one), then Damon's narrative positioning and function as the protagonist of this work may, in a certain sense, have some resemblance to Natsuki Subaru in the early stages of Re: Zero—one trapped by “themself.”

—That is, by borrowing the skin of a familiar, pre-established template (Danganronpa/Isekai) that audiences can easily slot into traditional genre narratives, fosters quick identification with the protagonist and blind trust in their perspective, make audiences to overlook the protagonist's cognitive distortions and disconnect from reality, creating a protagonist disguised as a traditional “hero” who is actually serving as an ironic—or even a educational sample type of protagonist.

Meanwhile, Damon and Eva (one of his similarity mirror-image character, or rather, an amplified/extreme comparison version of his certain traits) currently share far too many similarities in their patterns, words, actions, and influence.

Such as ignoring the actual situation, swiftly internalizing the Mastermind's logic and starting infighting, meeting privately with the Mastermind, inciting chaos or spreading potential chaos, ignoring real-world consequences, and objectively becoming thought agents for the Mastermind's ideology...

Based on the current storyline, Damon likely also shares similar traits with Eva in the following aspects (though Eva exhibits them more extreme).

Specifically, possesses traits such as being resistant to learning from mistakes and adjusting behavior due to psychological defenses and ingrained thought patterns;

Difficulty in self-reflection and re-evaluation;

Reluctance to accept external feedback or information that doesn't align with his established mental models;

While overestimating his individual uniqueness/importance, while simultaneously underestimating his systemic influence/harmfulness;

While feeling superior about pointing out others' “mistakes”, while simultaneously utterly blind to the more fatal errors he himself commits in the same field;

Blindness to why the current state of affairs—regarded as “normal” or “expected”—exists and can exist;

Habitually and unconsciously interpreting everything through self-projection, etc.

For example:

As he repeatedly mentions, he clears his mind after every debate to prepare for the next competition.

And when he met with the Mastermind, he baselessly claimed that only he took the secrets disseminated by the Mastermind seriously, yet didn’t consider the potentially disastrous consequences of his own words and actions.

For instance, he habitually uses his own cognition and experience as the sole standard to quickly judge and categorize others and the outside world (a variant of self-projection), and to point out “mistakes”.

But he stops there, won't further explore questions like: "If not doing it this way, then how? (non-constructive)

Or what those “other possible paths” actually signify.

Or whether others and reality might be fundamentally different from his imagined and projected versions (beyond his cognitive scope)—that is, whether his own judgment standards/premises might be flawed.

Like he repeatedly looks down upon others' “blind trust,” only to end up trusting the most untrustworthy person—the Mastermind—the fastest.

This shares the same underlying logic as Eva's genuine trust in the Mastermind's promise, to the point that she chooses to kill in order to participate in the killing game.

The only difference lies in that final divergence——whether truly decides to kill within less than four days, and the objective outcome involves using the execution mechanism to carry out mass murder against the entire group, and actually commits the act.

Consequently, he is currently likely won’t delve deeply into understanding or reflecting on various matters, nor will he retain outdated “useless information.”

His current distance with Eva——　　

Who cannot see the world beyond “herself”,  

Unable to see others, unable to recognize others as “independent human beings”,

Where all seen things are reflections and mirror images of herself (self-projection),

Unable to perform the most basic calculation of real-world interests and consequences and risk calculation, taking the privileges and protections afforded to her for granted, while simultaneously attacking and undermining the very existences that provide such benefits,

Believing that all external existence revolves around herself and should revolve around herself, and presumes to possess some kind of absolute control over the external world (the illusion of omnipotence), externalizing responsibility for all self-determined choices to the outside world, wallowing in a self-constructed identity and narrative of “The innocent victimized all-around genius,” thereby eliminating her own subjective agency and the possibility of change and growth,

All words and actions, regardless of the claimed intent, and all external feedback, whether positive or negative, ultimately results and effects to maintaining the reinforcement of the self-destructive and others-destructive cycle of self-delusion and self-fulfilling prophecy.

Essentially, she neither exists nor can exist beyond the closed loop of lies she has created for herself,

Ultimately becoming a disposable pawn used by the malicious to harm both others and herself by a one-time self-destructive explosion, from the start to the end.

—is not that far. In fact, it could be said to be just one step away.

But precisely because this one step away, Damon is not beyond salvage.

　　————

So, if the narrative direction truly follows this path, Damon would need to witness more consequences.

He needs to repeatedly see more direct, more brutal, more painful, more irreversible consequences—ones he cannot evade by justification through defense mechanisms—resulting from his own words, actions, and habits, or from those of his similarity mirror-image characters (amplified/variant/extreme versions of his traits).

However, if it follows this more orthodox direction, then factors exceeding the semi-real world setting—such as the ability to “restart” and rectify past mistakes through return by death looping, as Subaru possesses—will most likely be nonexistent.

Moreover, even along such a path, Damon's character arc and narrative direction actually need not necessarily follow a positive trajectory of “confronting pain, learning, reflecting, and growing.”

A negative direction—one of “avoiding consequences, indulging in laziness, self-deception, and self-destruction”—can, if handled well, achieve equally powerful, even more impactful effects.

After all, witnessing a relatable character with genuine change potential choose self-deception and self-destruction themselves, may leave a deeper impression and achieve narrative goals more powerfully than seeing a relatable character with obvious flaws mature and find rebirth.

However, this represents only the relatively orthodox narrative path. Currently, other less traditional or even more revolutionary approaches are entirely possible.

There's actually much more I'd like to write, but continuing would stray too far from the topic. I'll stop here for now.

　　————————

【Rejecting Malicious Responses—Distorting the Author's Intent, Misrepresenting Article Content, or Emotional Attacks】

【The Author Reserves the Final Right to Refuse to Respond】