I can definitely see it, though I've only read Sower so my view's incomplete. There's some lip service paid by her dad early on about her needing to learn humility which def rings true, but I don't think much comes of that nor does it present much a problem, it kinda just gets softened when she acknowledges that she'll be trying to learn from everyone. Same with her mercenary nature when she Harry and Zara start their road trip, Harry's rightfully unnerved by how different she is from how she presented herself before, but then she just starts softening up. Thoigh to an extent she can kinda control her hyperempathy: if she's not looking at the hurt she doesn't have to feel it.

I think there's something of a wish fulfillment element in her; a lotta folks feel at times that things are gonna go bad and that they're among the few willing to acknowledge it, I reckon that part resonates strongly.

I dunno, I liked her. So often "good" characters in fiction end up willfully ignorant, and I find it refreshing when good is not soft or dumb, haha, which I felt she hit well. Plus she seemed humble in some ways to me, like deferring to Zara, confident in the stuff she could back up. And Earthseed resonated with me.

EDIT: I can also see her frankness as potentially coming across as abrasive, but I do also wonder if that and her confidence/arrogance would be seen as less unlikable in a male protagonist, haha. Gender can definitely be a factor in mary sue discourse/judgements.

Interesting! You cited Pathologic as a source: one thing I found with the original in particular is that it became easy to contextualize the moment to moment moral decisions as just elements to be considered within the scope of the gameplay.

A lot of punch can potentially be lost when what's supposed to be a tough moral decision becomes less about the narration itself and more: "well this event gives me a permanent debuff if I do decision x, so let's not do that". "Hm, this choice gives me +5 Hope, but -5 Food. I'm low on hope atm though, can afford to lose the food".

Is this sort of gamifying a concern for you in crafting the narrative? If so, do you feel you can address or incorporate it?

Could you elaborate on "mechanical consequences"? Aside from narrative consequences, I can't quite picture the core gameplay loop being substantively changed, though that may be because I don't quite have a sense of the genre either.

I'd hazard that for some reason they want to try and reduce the perception of how avoidable the accident was. Cut out the guy warning everyone, then there's a lot less culpability landing in the laps of those who disregarded the warnings.

How would the existing power structures be changed when it's specifically in the interests of those with the power to keep it as such?