Death Inevitable in Clair Obscur—And That’s Okay!

 

The following piece contains heavy spoilers and assumes the knowledge of the ongoing central themes and narrative of the game. It acts as an inquiry into morality and collective effort. Let's struggle and thrive.

Clair Obscur, without a doubt, is one of -if not the- most talked-about games this year. It is safe to presume it will remain a topic of discussion moving forward. Part of this is intrinsically tied to a proposed moral dilemma. 

Clair Obscur deviates from classical JRPG narrative tropes. It is certainly a character-based narrative however it doesn't act as a journey of a hero fated (not destined, we'll get there) to defeat an external force whose most often deemed as evil. Here, some might argue Expedition 33 was destined to battle an external force. Come Lumiere, a small residency in a smaller land of the continent, some of its folk didn't even know what existed beyond as the Lumiere was the only thing they ever knew. Others fought and failed. They knew the odds were insurmountable, yet the tenacity of Lumiere endured. The said (external) force in question is external in two ways, as to why it is: 

a) External to the expeditioners: Its motivations are unknown, with only the effects visible - the gradual erasure. 

b) It is literally external: The Dessandre family, creators of the canvas, exist outside the painted world. 

Despite this external force, labeling it as the ordinary ''evil'' would have been reductive. Clair Obscur, I profoundly think, does not necessitate that question. Instead, one's existence clings onto another (we'll also get back to this). The Dessandres possess a ''gifted'' ability to paint canvasses into existence, colloquially speaking. This is where the said moral dilemma emerges. Lumiere has a collective memory, and one could argue its inhabitants are sentient beings, capable of dying trivially (which we knew by Pierre who died in a car accident) outside the Gommage. The Gommage -the gradual wipeout of the collective memory and the lives- frames their struggle against oblivion. The art and gaze of Clair Obscur ornament this struggle as its backbone. 

Clair Obscur is one of the rare narratives where defeat feels inevitable and imminent. Yet, it reminds, in a constant, that tomorrow comes and you need to fight to see it. With each passing year, the countdown (of age) ticks downward by one. The younglings -the apprentices of Lumiere- depend entirely on the expeditions that come before them, You need to prepare the young generation, it's a collective effort that needs to be imbued fiercely, knowing they will all too son run out of time to study, to experience and to live. For those who come after, Gustave (and then Maelle after his fall) keeps writing his journal for the apprentices. In-game collectible journals also reveal the generational effort, the very reason why Lumiere never succumbs to darkness. The game flashes moments of beauty against all odds, giving death a form, rhythm, and aesthetic, arguably in a French sensibility. Its themes resonate with dark romanticism. 

Moving forward: even if we deem the expedition destined to defeat the Paintress, they are also smugglers. Their victory comes at the cost of their existence, as seen when Aline's defeat (and exit from the canvas) causes Lumiere's inhabitants to blip out of existence. While gaps remain, it's widely inferred that Aline is the ''one who paints life.'' as in she is the one who painted the people after gestrals and such who were initially painted by a child Verso. She sustains Lumiere, breathes Vero's soul into its inhabitants (though the ''how'' remains unexplained), but her physical state deteriorates daily, possibly driving her to need to desaturate the canvas hence the gradual wipeout. She clings to this sort of pocket reality so fiercely that despite prior attempts to free her from it, she always returns to maintain it. 

Here, I believe the narrative frays slightly. I understand the conflict between Team Verso and Team Maelle, but it's crucial to note that Maelle is no longer purely herself but a fusion of Maelle and Alicia all the while painted Verso remains Verso, yet only the painted Verso. This distinction matters: in the end, it's Alicia, not Maelle, who approaches Verso not as the painted entity but as if the ''real'' Verso who is by far long gone. Alicia desperately tries to cling to her memories of Verso (similar to her mother). Meanwhile, painted Verso is quasi-immoral (as long as the canvas exists), crying out that he doesn't want this life as he is wearied by his role inside the canvas. It's also crucial to stress this was not the first rodeo of theirs. It is strongly implied even if Verso died, he would have been repainted. The part that I am unsure of is how his memory serves. We know gestrals come back to life but they are different persons, the person they knew is gone, a sort of reincarnation. This doesn't apply to the humans until they are repainted and judging from the end of Act 2 and Maelle's ending, they preserve their memory. I believe this is one of the key foundations of Verso's desire to end the canvas. 

What, then, is painted Verso? A habitant? Yes. Has he been to Lumiere? Yes. Is he one of them? Yes and no. He's very capable of connecting to Lune and Sciel, even if on the surface level. But then, he has access to some knowledge that the others don't. Is he a liar? Yes, but not pathologically, a type of ''He who guards the truth with lies'' character. Is he selfish? Without delving into its ontology, colloquially speaking again, he is both selfish and selfless. His selfishness stems from his divergence: his experience is unlike the others; and he will outlive them. We cannot fully grasp ''what it's like'', but I sympathize deeply. Verso's ending was perfect in execution: Monoco and Esquie, his initial creations in a childhood innocence, embrace the fact (perhaps knowing deep down it was coming), while Sciel is gutted and Lune seethes, frustrated, aligning with their characterization. Yet this moment is also problematic. Expedition 33 uncovers a truth that reshapes their reality. As sentient beings, couldn't a way exist to preserve them? 

I firmly and wholeheartedly believe a third way was possible. Many would agree. But it's not mine or our call. We aren't the arbiters of that world. This point unfolds in two ways: 

a) Narrative Arbitration: Expedition 33's finale aligns with the game's title. It's a contrast and the creators arbitrate their art as they see fit to create a final to anchor the structure of their narrative, reducing player agency and trivializing, even, some mechanics (e.g., social links). This seems to be unavoidable in some scenarios even in games with expansive choices, with larger pools of possibilities available. Your designed avatar never acts exactly as you would unless the options align perfectly as you interpret them.

b) Flawed Perspectives: You play two characters with distinct, arguably flawed motivations. Adopting Maelle's or Verso's (hey, Theory of Mind) inevitably limits you. If someone argues ''This didn't have to happen'', I'd agree again. I think Verso already knows it when he confronts Maelle with ''We are all hypocrites'' line, in the end, both characters fulfill their self-satisfaction. 

The third way is hinted at: Renoir sees through Alicia's lie but chooses to put her belief in her; Verso also does so as he questions why she doesn't exist (which we already know at that time Alicia too is in a weakened physical state) and re-enter the canvas. The family's fractured nature explains this. Renoir, trapped in learned helplessness, and Alicia, convinced his papa won't listen. We know little of their outside lives beyond Verso's death tearing them apart. Had they negotiated, a third way might have emerged. But as flawed humans, they couldn't see it. This serves the narrative, but in-world, it's deeply unsettling and I get why.

Recall that Lumiere's inhabitants (and perhaps reality itself) are governed by the Dessandres. Dessandres are a Greek Pantheon-esque dynamic where familial conflict dooms innocents. Lumiere isn't ''emergent'' from what we could understand but instead deliberately painted, yet they exhibit sentience and partial agency (e.g., Gustave's suicidal deliberation in Act 1). Still, their reality hinges on the painter's will. What happens if the family dies out? Even if the ''gift'' is hereditary, running in blood, would descendants uphold the responsibility? Or would Lumiere simply vanish? We know Aline did (and presumably Alicia will) spend most of their time painting, residing inside the canvas, deluding themselves. I can't necessitate the canvas needs somebody to maintain, unless I am missing something. Frankly, I might be missing a lot but it's one of the conclusions we can arrive at. 

Going back to the moral dilemma which stems from unilateral decision carried by power wielded without accountability. The Dessandres' dominion over sentient beings -who may or may not understand their plight- mirrors existential vulnerabilities in our world. In theory, we are vulnerable to a catastrophe, a calamity traveling at c and is beyond our perception (e.g., Higgs collapse), a frame of instant. The ''blip'' in Clair Obscur mirrors Thanos' snap in Infinity War to dramatize the scene, to give people (as much as in-world characters) time to react but still. It's also a poignant metaphor for power's arbitrariness. 

Perhaps Clea could have mediated, offering a third option if certain conditions were met (e.g., defeating her and maximizing social links). I accept that the third way is a missed opportunity, that could gamify narrative even better. But we have to work with what we are given, not our unfilled fantasies. Verso shouldn't have power over innocents, but the fact remains (categorically) that he does. I have to decouple that fact from a moral proposition. This is why Clair Obscur resides on fragile, shaky ground. In Severance, outies and innies share a body; an innie's biological death is also the outie's meanwhile the metaphorical death (the disappearance of an innie's) does not necessarily reflect upon outie's life. In Clair Obscur, extinction is absolute. 

Some questions remain. Does the act of creation impose ethical obligations on its creator? Personally, I find this more complex than it initially appears, primarily because humans are deeply flawed beings, governed in part by the collective unconscious. I want to say yes, but there are degrees of freedom. In some contexts, a didactic tone applies, and perspectives must be semi-restricted - leaving no room to equivocate. Here, failure warrants shame and criticism. Yet in other contexts, I don't believe this is necessary at all. And the distinction itself could be ambiguous. Then you might as well ask can the creators of a world be held accountable for the suffering of its inhabitants (or in our world, for their piece of work) even if their intentions are not inherently malevolent? I would like to say yes again but there are levels to it. 

Some parts of the game are akin to Bostrom's simulation argument and Leibniz's theodicy. If Lumiere folk are capable of perceiving their existence as real (in other words they have a distinct ''What it's like'' feeling exclusive to each and every one of them), does its artificial roots negate its value? Then, if the Dessandres are akin to gods to that reality, must they justify their actions, or is their power itself the sole arbiter of morality? 

This paper doesn't claim to exhaust every discussion. I was not really imagining it would do so anyway. The painting's event happened as real as they could get within their frame of reference, witnessed at least by the family, preserved until they too wiped out of existence. Their extinction doesn't necessarily demand a realist vs. idealist debate or appeals to Tegmark. We need to (re)realize this is art operating by its own set of rules and must be judged by its own merits. We must engage with as such, extracting meaning where we can to apply to our world, not go by our world to judge its worth or validity.  

It appears to me that death remains an inevitability in Clair Obscur and that's okay.

*For those who don't know, outies in Severance (2022, Dan Erickson) are a group of workforce enacted by Lumon (the company that enables people to attain such technology) whose memories are severed and don't know much of the outside world besides some basics of their semantic (and perhaps procedural) memory, has no access to the episodic memory of their outies. Their motivations may differ from their outies (such as an innie wanting to quit but their outie rejecting it).