Jump to content

How the Girl Scouts ruin the timeline of Don't Starve


Recommended Posts

Hello! I am here today to discuss a very important(potential) plot hole in the Don't Starve timeline.

When examining a tent, Willow will say the line "I got all the badges in Girl Scouts."

This line ruins the game for me, and I hope it will ruin the game for you, as well.

From Willow's short cinematic, we see that she is haunted by nightmare creatures in the waking world, even as child. This leaves us with a few questions. To begin, we know that Maxwell was dragged into the constant in 1906. We currently do not know what happened in between 1906 and 1910, but around 1910 Maxwell begins to bring in the survivors we know today. If Willow is being attacked by nightmare creatures as a child, does that imply she is a child in (at least) 1906? Or perhaps just when William Carter (Maxwell) found the Codex Umbra, in 1904. if not, then that leaves us with the information that Willow was being attacked by the shadows before Maxwell even found them. This is a puzzling situation, but no matter the answer, here lies the problem. 
The Girl Scouts did not exist prior to 1912. On March 12, 1912, in Savanna, Georgia, Julliette Gordon Low founded what is now known as the Girl Scouts of The United States of America. If we assume that Willow is 20 years old at the absolute minimum, as a source I am not willing to refind seemed to suggest that she was in her mid-20s(Note this is years ago, and could be retconned or simply not true by this point), she would most likely have to be as old as at least 12, assuming she was captured by Maxwell in 1920 (Wilson is the last person to be captured, and he was captured in 1921. It is possible she was also captured in that year, though personally i find that unlikely. This, of course, assumes that Willow was a member of the girl scouts upon it's first year of it's founding. While my current research has turned up inconclusive about whether or Girl Scouts used a badge system for the original 18 girls, it is not impossible. It is, of course, unlikely, because the earliest reports of a badge system being used I could find was in this source (https://www.gshom.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gshom/documents/badges/Windows to the Past 1912 to 1919.pdf).
 

Badges were added later in 1913 (http://www.vintagegirlscout.com/badge101.html), but let's assume that Willow joined the Girl Scouts in 1912, when it was founded in Georgia, as one of the original 18 at 12 years old, and began working on badges the moment they had become introduced.  We know Willow was an orphan, and she was likely rather poor after she burnt the orphanage down. That would make several of these badges particularly hard to acquire, such as Cyclist (which requires that you own a bicycle), and Flyer, which requires you to have flown AN AIRPLANE 25 YARDS. Willow notes that "Music is boring" if you examine a pan flute, which does not mean she could not have acquired the Musician badge, but it something to note. Also of note, she notes that she "likes more exciting music" when examining the phonograph. Well, which is it, Willow?  We know she is able to tie knots, because she mentions that in her rope inspect. There is nothing to imply that  Willow has not  learned to fire a rifle, which I think is rather funny. When inspecting a Zeb, she says" Are horses supposed to only have two legs?" Despite Zebs clearly being Zebras, not horses, this implies she has never seen a real horse before, something she would have had to do to earn both the "Ambulance" badge and the "Horsemanship" badge.. Perhaps, though, she was merely joking. To herself.

 

She also hates baths, and thus the "Health" badge would require her to  take many. But she could have endured things she hated. She also cannot create honey poultices without use of an Alchemy Engine, and creating poultices is something one must do to earn the "Child Nurse" badge. However, one badge seems like it would be impossible to acquire. The "Swimmer" badge. Upon a  boat breaking in Don't Starve Together, Willow will say "I'm gonna drown!" and then proceed to. While some bring up the fact that the shadows pull you down, this is not true for Don't Starve Together. In fact, one character, Wurt, actually CAN swim, and because of this, suffers less penalty from both jumping into the ocean and having a boat break merely causes Wurt to wash up on the shore, with dialogue implying that she has swam to safety. There is a possible argument that this only happens not because Wurt can swim, but merely because she has gills. So perhaps, even if Willow could swim, it's her lack of water breathing that could make her drown from the boat. Except that wouldn't matter, because she still can't obtain the swimmer badge. In that badge's description, it says you "Requirements or examination must be sent to parents of candidate for permission." 

What does this mean? Well, even if the timeline is just perfect enough where it's possible that Willow was in the girl scouts when it was founded...


Willow couldn't have obtained all the Girl Scout badges because she is an orphan.

 

 

(If I made any mistakes, feel free to call it out in the replies!)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like with the other lad some time ago writing wall-of-text diatribes about 3 random background items from SW (a title made in collaboration with Capi Games - thus inconsistencies regarding lore could accumulate even more), concluding they meant a lot for DS/T timeline, I believe you as well dug too much into a pile of nothing-burger. Has it ever occurred to you a chunk of implied lore and story (as much as one can define a story for DS/T), perhaps.. just perhaps wasn't that well-researched by KLei with solid references? Or that it's set into "an alternative universe"?

Then there's also what Shosuko underlined as character-centered feature: Willow - a street-wise sassy child/orphan - could just be lying or ironically/sarcastically talking about stuff.

 

Is a nice mental exercise to individually fact-check particularities, details of supposed DS/T (or any other franchise) story/lore, but do keep in mind people can overlook things, get facts wrong or simply not caring enough about such accuracy. Sure you can call it a "plot hole". But first glance at how well defined is that plot and how much can you look at a supposed story beyond the general "people stranded in a wacky fantasy world/reality".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Tapirus said:

Well, I think Walter´s clothes looks too different to a 1912-1930´s boy scout.

d15d464f7abd5c7.thumb.jpg.cefc8f61adea24cfe9cd30207992ac79.jpg

56536.jpg.564ccb63eb7558b6cc51501bda856f4a.jpg

7368766918.thumb.jpg.ec04c7bbcf77503d519f1ff7347333ad.jpg

Hey here’s a thought- Maybe Walter is from a more recent timeline and could potentially be one of Charlie’s first victims she herself pulled into the constant?

With all the Pipspook in the game and the increasing number of Children playable characters- It would seem that the constant needs Children for Whatever reason..

Perhaps “Them” Feeds on Children’s innocence or care free life style, maybe they need that energy of a child or imagination that adults simply don’t have? 
Maxwells quote for examining a Pipspook implies that he even feels Quilt for what he has done to them... Yeah Cold Heartless uncaring Maxwell.

Since the Devs have mentioned time and time again that Willow did not know the new Walter character- Walter is obviously a newer Victim.

We have no idea how fast real world time flows when these people are trapped in the constant.. but the amount of tombstones, Pipspook and failed survivor skeletons imply that the current playable characters aren’t the only ones who have been there.

My personal theory is that Charlie has Kidnapped Walter because she saw first hand what Maxwells actions were on the throne- Maybe just maybe Charlie is trying to lure “Them” Back out again by using Walter as the freshest bait, Charlie showed some degree of Will and control in her short- where she wigs out between wanting things to look Pretty or Spooky.. Before finally both her forms merge together and she settles on a middle ground of being Pretty Spooky.

I defiantly do NOT think Charlie is evil.. I just think she doesn’t have full control over what she is doing, but at the same exact time- Neither does whatever forces are trying to control her.

Heavy evidence points to this with Year of the Carrat and Wintersfeast, Instead of making horrible monsters that want to kill everyone She races her sister Winona with Shadow Carrats, This fact is further evidenced by Wintersfeast Not only does one of Maxwells quotes reveal that Charlie brought one of his favorite holiday drinks into the constant just for HIM, but also when other survivors inspected and then ate the item “Holiday Cheer” These Quotes reminded them of the holidays and something joyful, or reminding them of Family.

If my Theory is correct and Walter is indeed meant to be the newest child character Bait to lure “Them“ out into the open... then we could be seeing the conclusion to Return of Them a lot sooner than I had originally thought.

*shrugs* But I could be wayyyy off so as with everything in life, don’t believe crazy made up fan theories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, x0-VERSUS-1y said:

Like with the other lad some time ago writing wall-of-text diatribes about 3 random background items from SW (a title made in collaboration with Capi Games - thus inconsistencies regarding lore could accumulate even more), concluding they meant a lot for DS/T timeline, I believe you as well dug too much into a pile of nothing-burger. Has it ever occurred to you a chunk of implied lore and story (as much as one can define a story for DS/T), perhaps.. just perhaps wasn't that well-researched by KLei with solid references? Or that it's set into "an alternative universe"?

I'm sorry the disagreements you have with other people involving lore have reached a point where you misrepresent their arguments as personal attacks against you.

It's very easy to dismiss literally any surface-level inconsistency as a "plot hole" and "Klei messed up"; it's harder and, if anything, more honest to give Klei the benefit of the doubt by doing the research before reaching that plot-hole conclusion. Disagreeing with whatever fan theory or fan speculation pops up on the Klei forums is fine and great. If you're going to engage with a theory or hypothesis (i.e. speculation) however, I advise you bring evidence to back up what you say and put your personal attachment to your own claims aside for the sake of advancing the conversation. The lack of evidence and personal attachment to opinions is why many speculation threads in general boil down to "which hypothesis/interpretation is your favorite" rather than "which hypothesis/interpretation is the most strongly supported". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, minespatch said:

Well... Willow is a woman in her early twenties soooooooooooooo

yes if you read my post it goes over the math of how it actually could potentially line up with what we previously (possibly) know about willow's age, i never argued that was impossible.

 

it is simply impossible that she could have obtained all of the badges

4 hours ago, x0-VERSUS-1y said:

Like with the other lad some time ago writing wall-of-text diatribes about 3 random background items from SW (a title made in collaboration with Capi Games - thus inconsistencies regarding lore could accumulate even more), concluding they meant a lot for DS/T timeline, I believe you as well dug too much into a pile of nothing-burger. Has it ever occurred to you a chunk of implied lore and story (as much as one can define a story for DS/T), perhaps.. just perhaps wasn't that well-researched by KLei with solid references? Or that it's set into "an alternative universe"?

Then there's also what Shosuko underlined as character-centered feature: Willow - a street-wise sassy child/orphan - could just be lying or ironically/sarcastically talking about stuff.

 

Is a nice mental exercise to individually fact-check particularities, details of supposed DS/T (or any other franchise) story/lore, but do keep in mind people can overlook things, get facts wrong or simply not caring enough about such accuracy. Sure you can call it a "plot hole". But first glance at how well defined is that plot and how much can you look at a supposed story beyond the general "people stranded in a wacky fantasy world/reality".

sorry i won't have fun anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Rinkusan said:

I'm sorry the disagreements you have with other people involving lore have reached a point where you misrepresent their arguments as personal attacks against you.

It's very easy to dismiss literally any surface-level inconsistency as a "plot hole" and "Klei messed up"; it's harder and, if anything, more honest to give Klei the benefit of the doubt by doing the research before reaching that plot-hole conclusion. Disagreeing with whatever fan theory or fan speculation pops up on the Klei forums is fine and great. If you're going to engage with a theory or hypothesis (i.e. speculation) however, I advise you bring evidence to back up what you say and put your personal attachment to your own claims aside for the sake of advancing the conversation. The lack of evidence and personal attachment to opinions is why many speculation threads in general boil down to "which hypothesis/interpretation is your favorite" rather than "which hypothesis/interpretation is the most strongly supported". 

You should probably "practice what you preach": I'm not the one "misrepresenting" any arguments (and I have no idea from where you got the "disagreements you have with other people involving lore have reached a point where you misrepresent their arguments as personal attacks against you" thing popping but hey, your opinion and good for ye; am mostly here to poke things and see what gives) - is not me who pointed at "plot hole" and "Klei messed up"; read the title again and first line from OP. I just gave a reason why that might be the case. And why "splitting the thread into four" as the saying goes might be just a nothing-burger: again, since at the end of day is a teen's fictional game, not a history compendium. Some elements might be just thrown there for vintage feeling (case in point - Walter default scout clothes aren't historical accurate), not to faithfully portray how things actually were in supposed period characters lived in or have deeper meaning for a supposed story/lore.

Also retconning is a thing:

image.png.fafeaf675b4c6f287f94205bfc73c2

 

Quote

 

  

37 minutes ago, BreadScientist said:

sorry i won't have fun anymore

Do have whatever you want and post whatever you feel is correct and whatnot, I just put forth another perspective. It makes perfect sense what you wrote from an accurate historic pov, my take provides an alternative/excuse on the game "plot hole" aspect: perhaps details are there only for an aesthetic purpose - the mentioned vintage feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, x0-VERSUS-1y said:

You should probably "practice what you preach": I'm not the one "misrepresenting" any arguments (and I have no idea from where you got the "disagreements you have with other people involving lore have reached a point where you misrepresent their arguments as personal attacks against you" thing popping but hey, your opinion and good for ye; am mostly here to poke things and see what gives) - is not me who pointed at "plot hole" and "Klei messed up"; read the title again and first line from OP. I just gave a reason why that might be the case. And why "splitting the thread into four" as the saying goes might be just a nothing-burger: again, since at the end of day is a teen's fictional game, not a history compendium. Some elements might be just thrown there for vintage feeling (case in point - Walter default scout clothes aren't historical accurate), not to faithfully portray how things actually were in supposed period characters lived in.

Also retconning is a thing:

image.png.fafeaf675b4c6f287f94205bfc73c2

 

 

Diatribe (noun) - a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something. This was what you were misrepresenting as I was suggesting that you not take disagreements against lore opinions personally. Also, could you elaborate on the "am mostly here to poke things and see what gives" comment? 

I was criticizing this rhetorical question from you: "Has it ever occurred to you a chunk of implied lore and story (as much as one can define a story for DS/T), perhaps.. just perhaps wasn't that well-researched by KLei with solid references?" Just having this view isn't what I'm criticizing; what I was criticizing was how dismissive and effortless this claim is because you didn't bother to give any evidence prior to the reply that I'm currently responding to. This reply from you - with regard to evidence - is MUCH BETTER because now you're mentioning tangibles that I can work with as opposed to your previously vague and effortless non-argument. That being said, if you're trying to imply in your parenthetical statement that my criticism should be directed at bread because of the title, then no, I shouldn't direct this at bread because he has a coherent argument with actual evidence for why Willow's claim of having all the badges isn't true, and he didn't even conclude that this was a plot hole to begin with (see the first line of the OP and the bolded conclusion). And EVEN IF he actually made the definitive claim that this is a plot hole, notice how I specifically said that it's "more honest to give Klei the benefit of the doubt by doing the research BEFORE reaching that plot-hole conclusion". I do NOT have a problem with plot-hole arguments; I have a problem with lazy plot-hole CLAIMS that can be used to dismiss any surface-level inconsistency in existence regardless of whether there's a valid explanation for that inconsistency. 

I'm surprised you're making this argument regarding aesthetics as someone who read one of my lore threads where I made it clear to be super-skeptical of appearance-based evidence exactly because some of those visual nitpicky elements could easily have been artistic choices instead of lore-significant details. With that being said, however, I still don't see much contradiction between Walter's outfit and the Boy Scouts' outfit, especially the 3rd picture. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the retconned-dialogue argument. Are you trying to say that every piece of dialogue, including Willow's tent comment, is invalid to the lore because Klei has the power to change any character quote at will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, minespatch said:

5e03be01de71f_wilsonwut.png.36258d5ea9185e56306cf506c5a91366.png............?

they called me he several times

 

what are you trying to say

4 minutes ago, Rinkusan said:

Sorry about that; thanks for clarifying. I have a tendency to default to male pronouns when it comes to people I don't know on the internet :x

it's okay, no harm done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, to reply to the OP, I think the bolded conclusion is pretty spot on as well as @Shosuko's suggestion that she's a liar. Dialogue in general needs to be viewed from the lens of the character instead of being taken at face value (see the character quotes for Nightmare Fuel and the Deerclops).

All that aside, the fact that one of the developers even reacted to Shosuko's comment is pretty telling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clarify, though.

 

Yes, obviously, this is an extremely minute detail and it is not at all important. I actually started writing this post before I even knew what I was going to say the problem was, because I knew that I could find some historical inaccuracy given lots of small pieces of dialogue and lots of specific rules about what you needed to do to earn badges

I think, technically, yes, it is a plot hole, but I also agree that it does not matter. I thought this would be a fun thing to research, and I was right, because I got to learn a lot about the early history of the girl scouts along with reading a LOT of Willow quotes. I don't think there is some deeper lore as to why this is, because I don't think Klei had read the very same girl scout handout I found, and I could have easily gotten things wrong, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BreadScientist said:

(Wilson is the last person to be captured, and he was captured in 1921.

Okay this is at least the second, if not the third time I've seen this statement.  WHY are people just automatically assuming Wilson was the last one?  Was it said by a dev in a livestream somewhere, or something? I've just never seen any evidence of that in the game itself, or even the shorts.  (Also they said "around 1920", they never gave a specific year.  Again, unless I missed something.)

Yes, the Girl Scouts didn't exist until she was maybe 12-ish and some of the badges would be harder to get than usual without access to certain things...so maybe Willow was IN the girl scouts, kinda thought about getting badges, got a few that were easy, and then lied to sound like she's cooler at camping than she is.  : P 

Fun fact:  I myself was a Girl Scout!  I don't remember what all badges I got (my fingers keep wanting to type "badgers" XD) but I did get some.  Including some of the specific ones on the picture below.

(random memories/descriptions of my time in the Scouts spoilered below, to keep from cluttering up the page)

Spoiler

I can still remember the legendary "Lock-Ins" (they actually used my design idea for the commemorative t-shirt one year.  HA!), sitting around a tree on a chilly damp Iowa morning and learning old folk songs that came with gestures, and that one song that started:  "On my honor, I will try..."  (which is the beginning of the official Girl Scout Motto).  We went on hikes in the woods occasionally, where we were told to wear long socks (ticks!) and clothes that weren't too loose so they wouldn't catch on things, bring a canteen, and put your hair up out of the way.  That "Three Little Angels" song will be in my head FOREVER.  Also the "little hunk of tin" (also known as "little acorn brown") and that one to the tune of "Turkey in the Straw" about walking around the corner to the doughnut shop.

Wait!  I think I found the version of the uniform I wore!  This looks dang familiar, anyway. 

girlscoutuniform.png.f4577eee2f1aa0960596aad695a6e2ea.png

I never had that many badges, but I did have some of the ones specifically shown here.  I did have those wings, and the big three-part thing looks familiar, and...someone stop me before I wrack my brain analyzing the whole damn picture.  Also you can't really tell here, but the little green things on the sleeves are a pattern of four-leafed clovers.  We hardly ever actually bothered with the ties in my troop(s) except on like, formal picture days.  I think under it you were supposed to wear like neutral or brown tights, and some kind of sensible shoes.

Later on, since I'm a massive geek...I repurposed just the dress part into Link's tunic for a Halloween costume.   YES REALLY.  XD

(and speaking of resembling people...OH GOD, on the Wikipedia page for the Girl Scouts?  That one black-and-white picture of a smiling Scout from the '70s looks SO MUCH like _me_ at that age!  XD  I didn't have glasses then (and wasn't BORN yet in 1973) but other than that...that is just WEIRD.  : P)

I imagine at least SOME of this stuff is still true today, though I imagine different areas' chapters have somewhat of their own tweaked rules/activities.

6 hours ago, Lumberlocke said:

If anything doesn't quite line up, just assume that a wizard did it:sure:

FTFY.  (sorry, couldn't resist).

So...basically I'm ignoring the entire stupid argument that seems to have broken out while I was typing this and looking up pictures...and instead reminiscing about my own time as an actual Girl Scout, decades after Willow might've been one (or not).  Hey, at least it's still somewhat relevant!

...Notorious

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Please be aware that the content of this thread may be outdated and no longer applicable.

×
×
  • Create New...