第二章-3
【Action Choices: Author's Deduction】
【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate Simulation】
【Special Constraint: Addressing the Mastermind's Threat Without Killing】
Action Choice 2:
The Action Implementer pretends to submit, then unexpectedly reveals the threat of the Mastermind and the gift package before the group, seeking protection. The Mastermind must either admit or deny the threat—either outcome creates a strategic deadlock.
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
The Mastermind distorts the Action Implementer's future actions as “violations,” using this justification to eliminate them.
The group fails to understand or believe the Action Implementer.
The Mastermind disregards their own established rules and kills directly.
——etc.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
The Action Implementer cannot control The Mastermind's decisions.
However, the Action Implementer can control their own response methods, leveraging the situation to attempt to limit The Mastermind.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Threatens the set goal.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Possesses basic controllability.
——As the worst-case outcome threatens the set goal, yet the Action Implementer maintains basic control over it, this action choice constitutes a 【Gambling Strategy】
————
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
【Set Goals: Personal Survival Rate】
【Special Constraint: Counter the Mastermind's threat without resorting to murder】
The Mastermind threatens me: “Accept the gift package and refrain from killing, or face death.” However, no explicit deadline is set.
Alright. Then I'll first pretend to submit, then suddenly and without warning publicly reveal the gift package and the Mastermind's threat to the group, seeking protection. The Mastermind must either admit or deny it—either way, it's a strategic deadlock.
At that point, they'll either admit to the threat or fulfill their promise by shattering the game's illusion, exposing that there's no fairness or freedom here—only the Mastermind's unilateral coercion and slaughter. Since they can break their own most basic rules, what guarantee is there that they'll honor the promise to “release those who pass the class trial”? If the group intuitively grasps this and consequently rejects the Mastermind's demands, the Mastermind's goal of “promoting mutual killing” is destroyed.
Alternatively, if the Mastermind denies the threat or reneges on the promise, it would expose their vulnerability to student intimidation—even implying the existence of a third-party authority beyond the Mastermind threatening the group. This would severely undermine the Mastermind's authority. To degrade from the “embodiment of rules” to “a person who can be forced to back down” or even “just one source of power” is a fatal self-weakening for authority.
In other words, no matter which path he chooses, it's a strategic deadlock.
Right. Based on the group's past behavior, I wouldn't expect them to grasp rational logic.
I might forcibly bind myself to the group through emotional and moral narratives, prompting them to activate intuition and empathy. By questioning the Mastermind, I'd subtly expose logical flaws in their rules, positioning myself as a victim/potential martyr.
Yes, this strategy rests on premises like “the Mastermind genuinely intends to enforce mutual killing,” “their assessment of the situation will prove entirely accurate,” and “the group possesses sufficient discernment.” At its core, it's a gamble, given the multitude of uncontrollable factors.
But I am a person in a desperate situation—possessing zero military strength, zero authority, zero trustworthy allies, and nowhere to flee—while being threatened that if I don't kill, I will die. And even if I succeed in killing, my own survival remains beyond my control.
In other words, because I have nothing left to lose, I fear the gamble less. Gambling, conversely, offers a sliver of potential control.
————————————————————————————————
【Commentary Supplement】
Even if we base our Deduction on the assumption that the Mastermind is entirely credible and completely fair, Eva's choice to be the first killer remains, to put it bluntly, the ultimate manifestation of short-sightedness.
She was unaware of the group members' capabilities, ignorant of their interpersonal networks, and lacked time to address any flaws in her plan, among other factors.
Furthermore, even if we temporarily set aside common Set Goals like Personal survival rate or Group survival rate, purely considering “eliminating the rival” (here referring to Wolfgang) as the sole Set Goal, other potential options would still be far better than “I personally go and kill him.”
————————
【Assumed Set Goals — Eliminate Rival】
Action Choice 1:
Covertly incite and instigate others (like Damon) to fight Wolfgang, forcing Wolfgang to maintain order while minimizing leaving direct evidence.
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
1. Nothing happens.
2. Intentions are discovered, action fails.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
The action implementer cannot control others' reactions or choices.
However, the action implementer can control their own words and actions to influence the situation's trajectory.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Threatens the set goal.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Possesses basic controllability.
——As the worst-case outcome threatens the set goal, yet the Action Implementer maintains basic control over it, this action choice constitutes a 【Gambling Strategy】
————
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
【Set Goals: Eliminate Rival】
The goal is to eliminate the rival.
Naturally, I cannot place myself directly in danger. It is the rival I aim to eliminate, not myself.
The best approach is to have others carry out the task. However, such a request cannot be made directly. With no basic relationships or reasons for anyone to obey me, making such a demand in this environment would be tantamount to suicide.
Therefore, an indirect method is preferable.
At present, Damon appears most easily provoked. Besides me, he harbors the deepest conflicts with the group and Wolfgang.
I needn't push him directly to murder. It suffices for him to act as my proxy against Wolfgang. Of course, if he chooses to kill on his own accord, that would be ideal.
In any case, sowing suspicion between him and Wolfgang is the most effective approach. Some people are like that—give them a hint, and they'll fill in the rest of the details themselves.
For instance, I could deliberately alter my handwriting and slip a note under the door into Damon's room—a suggestive phrase, perhaps—leaving him to imagine the rest.
I must leave no evidence directly linking back to me—the note is my only contact.
Of course, pinning all hopes on one method is unrealistic. This tactic can be repeated multiple times, and the hints needn't always point to Wolfgang. The goal is simply to ignite a chain of suspicion and chaos within the group.
There are roughly three possible stances Wolfgang might take.
First, a genuine, self-motivated guardian of order. Second, a momentary, impulsive hero. Third, a hypocrite/spy.
Once chaos begins, regardless of which type he is, he will be forced into a dilemma.
If he is the first type, he will have to repeatedly patch up the group's flaws. The better and more conspicuous his performance, the higher the group's expectations will become, until he ultimately fails to meet them and becomes an easy target.
Moreover, continuously repairing the group will make him an even more likely primary target for elimination by the Mastermind.
The Mastermind's Set Goals are to provoke mutual killing. The more stable and orderly the group, the greater the threat to the Mastermind's Set Goals. Therefore, any factor that might trigger the state of “group stability” is naturally more likely to be eliminated first by the Mastermind.
Thus, the more he patches the group's leaks, the faster he dies. Yet if he stops patching, he risks being targeted by the group's internal discontent and hostility.
If he's the second type, he'll eventually back down, cease trying to stabilize the group, and thus pose no threat to me.
If he's the third type, his unique role actually compels him to maintain his facade as a good guy even more. He can't act rashly, so let others test him and expose him instead—they'll take the bullet for me.
When others fight my battles and distract my rivals, not only does the pressure on me vanish, but I can also avoid putting myself in the spotlight. In the best-case scenario, I can even attempt to control the group.
If Damon or others actually move to kill Wolfgang, I can then expose them. This would eliminate the greatest threat (the lawyer), establish my own trustworthy image as someone willing to sacrifice personal ties for the group's good, and allow me to control the group that has just lost its pillar. It would also conveniently test each person's skill level and danger potential through the trial and murder events.
In short, it's a multiple-benefit move.
————
【Supplement】
Yes, this method is nearly identical to the tactics used by the Mastermind when he disseminates secrets.
However, there is a reason why the Mastermind's methods are effective at the strategic level.
If the Mastermind can employ such tactics, why can't Eva?
————————
【Set Goals—Eliminating Dissidents】
Action Choice 2:
Feign a public apology, playing the role of helpless and vulnerable. Seemingly seek assistance while actually presenting Wolfgang with an objectively unsolvable problem. Aim to elicit group empathy and create anxiety.
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
The group does not follow the anxiety manufactured by the Action Implementer.
The group instead turns hostile toward the Action Implementer.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
The Action Implementer cannot control others' reactions or choices.
However, the Action Implementer can control their own words and actions to influence the situation's trajectory.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Threatens the set goal.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Possesses basic controllability.
——As the worst-case outcome threatens the set goal, yet the Action Implementer maintains basic control over it, this action choice constitutes a 【Gambling Strategy】
————
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
【Set Goals: Eliminate Rival】
As mentioned earlier, Wolfgang generally adopts one of three stances, each requiring him to take front-and-center stage.
Thus, he gains easier acceptance and followers from the group. Yet simultaneously, his position is the most complex, fragile, and constrained—he cannot openly express hostility, division, or aggression. As long as the group's dynamics disallow it, he remains bound.
Therefore, I have no need to vie with him for that spotlight position or rush to control the group. That position offers no real benefit; it would only drain me endlessly and ultimately endanger me.
I need only preempt him by publicly feigning a sincere apology to win the group's sympathy. Then, Wolfgang will have no grounds to guard against me in public, which would instead cast him as a dictator.
Then I simply play the role of a helpless, vulnerable member of the group. Using panic and anxiety as my justification, I throw him objectively unsolvable, trap-like problems, guide the group to follow my stance, undermine his image, and steadily wear him down.
For example: “What if the Mastermind suddenly cuts off our water and food? I'm so scared. You're so capable, you can definitely save us, right?” — That kind of question.
No matter how skilled he is at group manipulation, when the group repeatedly sees him fail to solve problems, disappointment, resentment, and even hostile backlash will naturally arise.
I don't need to attack him personally; the group will do it for me. And for him to attack me, he must first overcome the group's consensus.
Even if he manages to placate the group, it will cost him immense effort, draw the attention of the Mastermind, and increase his own death rate.
Of course, it's entirely possible the group won't follow my lead.
In that case, I wouldn't lose much—at worst, I'd be seen as a useless complainer.
But this image actually lowers my visibility on the group's danger radar, making future actions easier.
————————
【Assumed Set Goals Change — Abandoning the Elimination of Rival】
Action Choice 3:
Feign a public apology, allowing Wolfgang to continue managing the group.
Worst-Case Outcomes Deduction:
The group rejects the apology. Action Implementer becomes guarded against and ostracized.
Action Implementer Controllability Deduction:
Action Implementer cannot control others' reactions or choices.
However, the Action Implementer can control their own words and actions to influence the situation's trajectory.
[Determining the Nature of Action Choices]
Severity of harm to set goals from the worst-case outcomes?
Threatens the set goal.
Is this controllable by the Action Implementer?
Possesses basic controllability.
——As the worst-case outcome threatens the set goal, yet the Action Implementer maintains basic control over it, this action choice constitutes a 【Gambling Strategy】
————
【Perspective Swap Simulation Sketch (Author → Character POV)】
【Note】:
Perspective swap sketching ≠ speculating on the character's actual psychology and motives.
Perspective swap sketching = The author “places themselves” in the character's position and conducts quick simulations with the sole condition of “serving the current set goals.”
【Set Goals: Abandon Eliminating Rival】
Why the rush to eliminate rivals?
Regardless of his stance, as long as Wolfgang remains and acts to patch the group's weaknesses, isn't he the perfect shield?
The Mastermind's goal is to ignite mutual killing. Thus, any entity hindering this objective will naturally be prioritized for elimination.
A united group undermines the Mastermind's ability to provoke mutual killing. Consequently, “Stabilizer” members who could potentially unite the group are most likely to be targeted first.
Therefore, the better Wolfgang's group maintenance is, the greater his value as a shield becomes—I don't even need to lift a finger, as someone else simultaneously draws both the Mastermind's and the group's potential firepower.
Groups are unstable. Judging by their fickle behavior when the Mastermind issues rules, even if they currently endorse or follow someone, they're likely to switch sides in the next instant.
And it's not just Wolfgang. The physically weak 14-year-old Toshiko, the psychologically vulnerable Mark, the easily incited Damon, the gullibly kind-hearted Diana, the hot-tempered Grace, the reckless Jett and Cassidy... Isn't this group full of exploitable shields?
The Mastermind is the greatest threat. The only true danger who wield instant-kill weapons and absolute control over the entire system.
My primary focus should be on avoiding being targeted first by that greatest threat.
Therefore, doing nothing—letting the shields die for me while I gather intelligence—is the most rational choice.
——————————————————————
【The following are the author's personal reflections. Please read with discretion.】
Even if we temporarily set aside moral, ethical, and humanity-related considerations, and look solely at the strategic and aesthetic levels, Eva's approach is like... well, devoid of any sense of beauty.
Regarding Eva's murder plan itself, since Chapter One's class trial is highly suspicious, I'll set that aside for now to avoid confusion and revisit it later.