# Games VS IDW: Sonic's morality #2

> Originally posted on [11 October, 2024 on my Tumblr](https://www.tumblr.com/blurredblu/764070917411422208/i-caught-wind-of-this-post-in-a-sonic-server-im) in response to a post arguing that IDW Sonic is moreso put in difficult situations as opposed to being fundamentally more forgiving than his Game iteration. Lightly edited for adding navigation headers and changing text formatting.

I caught wind of this post in a Sonic server I'm in! As someone who's quite passionate about Sonic's characterisation, this is something I'd like to add my thoughts to.

[TOC]

# Faulty premises of Sonic's character

Respectfully, I disagree with the thesis statement that IDW Sonic is the same as he is in the games but simply put in messier moral situations. Part of my own countering thesis is that the following parts about the analysis I've bolded and numbered about Sonic's worldview—

> (1) **[Sonic] also believes** that the past is irrelevant to ones present and future, and that **anyone (yes, anyone) can change -- for better or for worse**

> (2) he doesnt want to play executioner, he doesnt want to force a persons life into one path, **he wants everyone to be able to live life to its fullest, their way, their own way.**

> (3) *Sonic does not fight for justice*. **he fights for freedom**.

> (4) Sonic represents freedom, the present, and change [and] **will fight for these indiscriminately**.

—amount to the equivalent of glorified headcanon. More specifically, it is a headcanon of Sonic's moral thinking that IDW plays a large part in reifying of his character despite it not being in the games. (I also observe that the wording of the second bolded point echoes IDW Sonic's wording of his principles in IDW #2 that Amy swoons over, which contributes to my point).

# Responses to the faulty premises

## On point (1) – Sonic's belief in others being capable of change: the aspect of temporality

Let me first address (1). I agree with the observations regarding Sonic's tendencies to befriend rivals, roll with the punches, and not hold grudges against them; Sonic undeniably has an openness to characters who were previously antagonistic to him.

What I wish to point out that is missing about (1) is the *temporality* of Sonic's openness.

Sonic is a character who is defined by the present, a motif cemented thanks to '06. I hold that nothing in the games significantly suggests that Sonic acts according to people's potential goodness, so much as he simply reacts to what is right in front of him. If someone is trying to destroy the world in front of him, he will respond and fight them in defence of the world. If said someone is weak, helpless, or on the brink of death (e.g. Percival, Gawain, Merlina, or Metal in the OVA), he'll try to save them. This also falls in line with him not questioning Knuckles, Shadow, Blaze, or other characters turning a new leaf; if they cause problems, he will respond. If they are with him, he is with them in turn.

This is why the argument of bringing up Sonic's leniency with Merlina does not hold against the idea that IDW Sonic would 'talk it out' with King Arthur. When people say that, it's not forgetful or inconsistent of them to not bring up Merlina, precisely because Merlina was a different case. On her last legs, she is collapsed and helpless and receptive to Sonic's words, which are spoken in light of Sonic's knowledge of Merlina's worldview that she discloses hints of before her reveal and more explicitly during her boss fight. On King Arthur's last legs? He clutches onto his scabbard and says Sonic can't kill him even if he tried, because he is immortal. His will to fight and oppress his kingdom is still strong, it's just a matter of (re)gathering the physical strength for the task. Sonic does not hesitate to plant the three sacred swords and run through the despotic king as a result of King Arthur openly, in that moment and the moments before, showing any unwillingness to change.

This is because Game Sonic is a **[reactive protagonist, acting according to the information he sees in front of him](https://hackmd.io/g32iGPDNRqeBuU29S_s-8w?both=#The-games%E2%80%99-simple-reactive-Sonic)**.

## On points (4) – Differences in the Sonics' discrimination in judgement

This relates to point (4)—the indiscriminate nature of Sonic's actions and reasoning in IDW. The move that IDW makes, one that comes off as confused and inconsistent to Game Sonic, is its repeated, explicit insistence that Sonic's openness to antagonistic characters stems from fighting for others' freedom above all else as a principle he holds in basically all situations. (4) runs counter to what we know of Game Sonic: he is reactive and, in fact, exercises discriminate judgement in his actions towards characters due to responding to the information that's in front of him at the time. What Sonic does in IDW that he doesn't do in the games is espouse his beliefs in a character's potential for goodness when the character in front of him being openly, presently bad, oppressive, or harmful.

So the following point that relates a combination of (1) and (2)—

> he wants, with all of his heart, for everyone -- EVERYONE -- to get the chance to grow, to change, to laugh and cry and run and be whoever they want to be. to live.

—has no real basis in the games to support it. It is a product of the comics' characterisation of Sonic. This, of course, is maintaining that Sonic is no executioner. Just because he doesn't prioritise the freedom of everyone doesn't mean he's a cold-blooded killer—by and large, he's more of a reactive protector of the weak and oppressed and will prioritise them over those doing the oppressing on a moment-to-moment basis.

## On points (2) and (3) – Freedom, oppression, Popper's paradox of tolerance, and likeability

There is also another, significant point to counter here on (3): that Sonic fights for freedom. This, I argue, is a misinterpretation of what Sonic is actually shown to fight for: against oppression. [I've expounded on the point before](https://hackmd.io/g32iGPDNRqeBuU29S_s-8w?both=#IDW%E2%80%99s-merciful-principles-first-Sonic-on-freedom-and-oppression) that it is a logical and moral misunderstanding to take Sonic's hatred of all oppression as a love for all freedom. In fact, if he were to enact point (2) on valuing everyone (not just people, or some, but everyone) living freely in their own way, it would functionally be him condoning or approving of acts of evil or oppression, because that would not challenge the prioritisation of characters' freedom to do so. Not only does this run counter to what is established in game material (the Sonic Adventure DX manual states that the only thing Sonic hates is oppression), it also enacts understandably disagreeable moral quandaries because IDW Sonic's thinking allows for Popper's paradox of tolerance to take root; Game Sonic's does not.

As a result, I don't find it convincing that IDW Sonic is the Game Sonic we know and love but put in more complicated moral situations. What is more the case is that IDW Sonic's very attitude prioritising freedom above all else is the reason those situations become morally complicated in the first place. That then challenges the idea that IDW was successful in getting Sonic's morality to be a topic of frequent discourse if the actual premise is that it's muddled to the point of allowing quite straightforwardly bad things to happen.

# Sonic, simplicity, and the Gordian knot

I think there is also something to be said about one very major difference between IDW and Game Sonic I don't see much discussion about. This relates to how IDW reacts to the idea he can't help Surge at all and his value system transforming to desperately want to be a saviour to people, the more complicated moral thinking, the whole nine yards surrounding this discourse.

Take the Gordian knot, which has "[come to denote a bold solution to a complicated problem](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Gordian-knot)". IDW Sonic tries to undo, or adds to, the Gordian knot. Game Sonic cuts through it.

In the games, Sonic's simple, pure heart is an antidote for complicated moral thinking. It's in his response to Elise after hearing about the extreme repression and responsibility she has to undertake, his reassurance to Chip amidst the little god's identity crisis and confusion that Sonic doesn't need a reason to help a friend, him stopping Gawain from killing himself and his approach to understanding what it means to be a knight.

Keep in mind, simple doesn't mean simplistic or simple-minded. Game Sonic is very, very iconic for keeping a cool head while still showing compassion while being an intent, sensitive listener (mountain of handkerchiefs anyone?). If you have time to worry, then run.

## Game to IDW as breeze is to bog

Game Sonic is the breeze that blows concerns away. In contrast, IDW Sonic is the bog that keeps you stuck knee-deep in them.

In IDW it's a mix of seeing:

- Sonic worrying and second-guessing himself,
- espousing beliefs and moral reasoning that is:
- different to what the games establish, and
- leads to questionable or outright negative circumstances or repercussions in the narrative.

With the aforementioned examples of Neo Metal, the Metal Virus, Mr. Tinker, Surge, and Kit, you would think they would lead to something material changing in Sonic's principles. The only change really comes into IDW Sonic's desperation at his own helplessness and impotence at effecting the change he wants to see in the world, shown in his attitude towards Mecha on Scrapnik Island.

From all of this, IDW Sonic takes on a very different narrative status in the comics than he does in the games, which, if I had to describe it, comes off as 'flawed character experiences some attempts to be punished by the narrative but plot armour demands he stays a admirable static figure'. This is a far cry from the surety, confidence, and poise that Game Sonic carries himself with. To repeat myself, I know which of them would overcome the Gordian knot.

# Conclusion

From IDW's Sonic thoughts to his actions and the consequences thereof, there is no refreshment, no clarity, no strength of conviction or steadfastness in purpose when it comes to his moral decision-making. It is flawed from the [very premises](https://hackmd.io/p_ROIp9LS-2Y4fBBuj2qHQ#Faulty-premises-of-Sonics-character) of (2), (3), and (4) and an oversight with the temporality of his openness in (1).

It is any wonder, then, that for fans who admire Sonic's character in the games who read IDW—which proceeds on the very basis of being continuous with games and where Forces left off—that they view IDW Sonic to be not only different to Game Sonic, but less likeable, too?