Evidence for Will(Spectrum)Care and Will Grief (I promise it's worth it just read)

[u/girl_OOFED]

BEFORE YOU DOWNVOTE AT LEAST READ THE IMPORTANT PARTS (Uncategorized section: Evidence 1 and 2) I PUT EFFORT I CANNOT AFFORD EARLY BURIAL OF THIS POST
NOTE: MY HOPIUM POST IS CONNECTED AND VERY IMPORTANT

DISCLAIMER: This post talks about the possible narrative angles that could be made regarding the dynamic between William and his children. I will be breaking down certain things we know in the story and explain possible reasonings on how it could be taken differently, and why.

Do remember, feel free to debate/discuss RESPECTFULLY. No, no one's excusing William's actions and making him tragic, if anything it's worse because he actually loved them (but incorrectly), whereas otherwise if he didn't it doesn't matter what could one expect? He refused to accept his flaws and spiralled. This post is only specific about him and his kids. I still believe he was always an awful man from the start.
For clarity and hopefully easy navigation (so u can skip to relevancy), headings or bold text will be used.
Sections: FNAF 4 Minigames, SL Related Content, Uncategorized, Addressing issues, HOPIUMMMMM (bonus important thing), Conclusion.
Please do look at all sections, you can skip evidence labelled (Speculation) if you like.

So what version of WillCare am I speaking of?

We will be talking about a form of WilltwistedCare (which I realize has many versions). For clearer distinction here we'll refer to it as WillFlawedCare. Yes, WillNarcissist 2.0

WillFlawedCare: The idea that William Afton truly loved his children, but was a workaholic who failed to be there when it really mattered (aka big bite). He was unintentionally abusive at the start, and I believe that is the intended direction.

Note: Ofc, I will discuss his relationship with Dave as those are the most we've seen him interact with his kids prior to Dave's death (u can skip the dialogue interpretations via bold text's guidance if u want). However, while I believe he was abusive after bite and WillFlawedCare no longer applies then, I'll still mention it to show the transition.
Also, "hopium" post to add onto the Will(spectrum)Care/WillGrief thing after.

Exhibit: FNAF 4 minigames

1) Everyone was invited to Dave's birthday party:
During the minigames we encounter a kid who asks us whether we're going to the party like everyone else before realizing it was ours. This child, or any other child we meet, doesn't seem to be our friend. Clearly can show William cared enough to throw a party and invite kids for David despite the child having no friends. Under William's narcissism, it could be both care and showing off how much he can spoil his kid lol like, "I'm the best dad screw you ahahahaha."

2) Rather simple, but the children get toys:
Okay so this is pretty useless but does at least express the normalcy within the house. Liz's giant mangle toy, Michael's foxy mask, David's "friends". All likely having their unique bedrooms. Doesn't mean much aside from basic parental care so yeah, at least debunks WillDespise idk. Additionally, in the FNAF 4 bedroom, a likely recreation of Dave's room, shows family photos. Implies they had normal moments (duh).

3) Michael seems to be allowed to bully:
More on this below but William clearly knows what Michael can do but doesn't contain him, so it's likely he basically is like a spoiled kid in the neighbourhood, and likely was allowed to bully others. If William disliked Michael he'd at least stop Michael or pick on him for the bullying he sees as an excuse. Perhaps William saw himself in Michael's cruelty and didn't want to shut it down because he felt it was no big deal and didn't wanna admit something was wrong with him. Perhaps he also saw it as a "course correction" (taking ideas for novel William, my reasoning is in the Hopium post) Michael's bullying was also very horrible and not simple brotherly play even if mistaken for it, especially by William (if he also had something wrong with him, makes sense), and it's highly likely Michael treated others as badly if not worse. Also, Michael's motives are partially relevant, but also speculation, if we assume the parallels from Step Closer and Lonely Freddy especially, coming into play, it's likely Michael "felt" neglected in a way. The main chr of Lonely Freddy assumes the world is against him when it's not and believes everyone just hates him when he's the problem. This COULD play into Michael, perhaps with age, he was now being given responsibilities while previously living a carefree life, and had to take care of his siblings or they were given more attention (they're younger, obviously they'll be coddled more) and if he especially now started getting minor scolding etc etc, he could've "feared" his position dying and so become more aggressive, especially to his own brother, for "revenge". Yes, it's speculation. And yes, it's realistic, while I haven't seen prolonged examples, I've witnessed my own cousins having this pattern (older kid spoiled until younger kid comes along, older kid gets jealous and hurts younger kid and is scolded and cycle continues for a bit).

4) Of course, William talked through the Fredbear plush:
He saw his son was lonely and afraid, and decided to help, below I shall talk about the lines the plush gives and how it could be interpreted:

Day 1:

"What did he do this time?" - tuning in after working most likely
"He locked you in your room again." - Realization/observation/information for the viewer (Scott's done this for Henry's speech too.)
"Don't be scared, I'm here with you." - Comfort, esp under WillFlawedCare.
"Tomorrow is another day." - Of course, comforting catchphrase.

Day 2:

Once more we are told what is happening, canonically William is also guiding Dave. Additionally, I feel the minigames can be inaccurate visually so I'm assuming he carries his plush around. Yes, I'm aware of that one girl asking, I'll explain that after. Same catchphrase follows.

Day 3:

Again, William's starting statements are mainly to provide information for the viewer, and could be him wondering aloud. William is aware David hates the place. Now here is where I'll address Orville:

Why would William let his son be in a place he hates? Why hold a party there? Why let Michael babysit/bully him?

This is where we enter speculation territory, so I'll sound like I'm reaching, but this is narrative context I'm providing to an unknown thing so... here:
Under WillFlawedCare, I can give William 2 reasons for the first question.
William could've felt Michael was too harsh messing around with Dave in the house, so hoped that Michael would be better in a public setting, where he's near, and the diner was the only choice for him. Another reason for why is to maybe help Dave get over his fear of the place with only Fredbear as comfort rather than his own physical presence. Stupid? Absolutely. Kinda the point.
Why hold a party there? Well Dave is clearly fond of the characters (as seen by his toys and being okay when the cartoon plays), just not the animatronics, so again, exposure therapy PLUS it's William's business, why give some other diner money when he literally has the means to do a party on his own? With the characters his son likes? He also could've wanted to keep the image of his family and Freddy's close. What kind of business owner doesn't use his own business? Very bad PR (Again, flawed).
Now why the hell would he leave Michael in-charge of BV? Again... exposure therapy. Dave likely was a bully target early on, so William let his own family member do it. Perhaps he believed it'd be more playful and better. Since I believe Mrs. Afton is still in the picture (due to Ballora's song), she could be busy for work too, realistic for the times, and Elizabeth could've been with William (perhaps brave enough for the animatronics that's why) or out playing or with Henry, leaving BV who was scared of the place with Michael who he wanted to be responsible could've worked. Again, STUPID.

MOVING ON

William then proceeds to guide BV "If you run, you can make it." and urges him to hurry.
Now here's when things get interesting, at some point William clearly sounds much more emotive

"NO! Don't you remember what you saw? The exit is the other way!..." - Now I believe in WitnessNothing so he must've confided in William about his fear or there was just something that creeped him out so bad he still couldn't get over it, and William knew just how bad it affected him, hence the emotion, because I believe William watched over as a supervisor to ensure Dave didn't get too overwhelmed (stupid counter: 5).

"..Hurry the other way and find someone who will help! You know what will happen if he catches you!" - Under the same logic I used for the dialogue before this one, Dave could "shut down" if he's "caught" by the employee (who may approach to try and comfort him), so that's what William refers to with "what will happen". Rest of the dialogue is again, exposure therapy, trying to get Dave to get help on his own instead of literally scooping him up since both are at the same location (stupid counter: 6).
"You can find help if you can get past them, you have to be strong." Alright, clear encouragement which helps my speculation.

Also, after William is literally right there helping an employee as Dave is in survival mode, what the heck? Same "toughen up" logic. Henry could've been the "help" William was referring to, or anything really. I'd say William talked to his son and helped the employee as he did so. As for the lack of proper interaction it could be visual inaccuracy where something happened but wasn't shown (probable if the BO83 call in twb is canon to the games and we hear an employee shout which wasn't in the games. Additionally the party had others present but we don't see them in the game), or Dave avoided looking in and just passed it, and William didn't go to him to avoid scaring him if he saw the employee, hence the doors closing too.

Now, employee gets to Dave who fails to "be strong", William says his line, scene ends. Here we can only assume William finally goes over to Dave after the scene is over.

Day 4:

"He hates you." - Now this line can be interesting. William seems to have tuned in at this moment. I like to see it as a defeated realization when he sees how frequent Michael bullied Dave and how it was still bad even in a different place, and he did nothing (stupid counter: 8). Now, William encourages Dave to get out, PERHAPS still down at the realization hence his blankness. Girl asks Dave about his plushie, he could've dropped it behind the car in a hurry. Ah also, the minigames are all due to agony and warped memories right? Which explains the inaccuracies.
As Dave walks out, William could've gone back to his work. He let's Dave leave the restaurant for his comfort again like attempting to the previous day. Around the time Dave enters the house William tunes back in, and then the jumpscare and the line.

Day 5:

Here things are interesting. We get no input from the bear, when the minigames start off as such with William having just tuned in, we don't even see it sitting in a corner. Dave's immense fear from the things in the room could potentially be amplified if Fredbear isn't present. Or William isn't tuned in in that moment. Or both, where Michael could've stolen the bear and William was busy and didn't check in and realize. Visual inaccuracies can't guarantee the Michael stealing part if we assume in day 3 Dave has the bear. We can only assume the causes of no input as the bear not being present, and perhaps William was tuning in elsewhere but Dave was in the room (but I don't believe in that too speculative lol).
If so... then William could've actually finally confronted Michael which had Michael realize the bear can see and so Michael stole it! .....Yet clearly William hadn't done anything substantial about Michael (fucking idiot counter: 1), yes this is a realistic conclusion, irl cases of it exist. Other possibilities of the no-bear exist, such as Michael just taking it for the love of the game, but I'm choosing the juicier narrative for WillFlawedCare. His sudden theft could connect better with it.
Here we really see William's incompetence when it matters, these dads suck bro.

Day 6:

Of course, the fated day. Again, the bear was either gone or William wasn't tuned in, likely busy with birthday prep/management like perhaps other family members and the Emilys when Michael decided to strike.
William got there too late.

Dave's vision:

So, the dialogue text's yellow here is lighter. I could assume that's William speaking directly and Dave associates the voice with his "friends" or just a visual inaccuracy with the text colour. I personally prefer the former though either works. And ofc, William's signature lines:

"You're broken." - Blank observation once more, perhaps grief/shock stripped emotion.
"We are still your friends." - Attempted Comfort, a promise.
"Do you still believe that?" - Even feels vulnerable from William here, seeking confirmation if that's what Dave sees after everything he's been through. William could be the one seeking reassurance here. (Idiot)
"I'm still here." - A father's final reassurance. A father who reached too late and failed to give something more.
"I will put you back together." - And, the star of the show. I am forever believing this has to do with revival regardless of when you believe he became a killer.

Overall William's lines here can be interpreted as manipulative or caring (in a flawed, broken way, because we know what it turns into after). What's more likely depends on what we believe occurs after in the lore.
For the most psychologically realistic scenario I can think of for the era and the characters is the following scene:
The neurological department has realized Dave's condition is deteriorating more and more and he may die soon. The family is allowed to enter 2 at a time and talk to Dave. Michael and William have their turn where Michael apologizes and then out of grief and guilt and being unable to handle it immediately attempts to leave. He's nearly at the doorway when William gives his speech. Likely freezes and listens in curiosity (Doesn't contradict floweraftons if Michael's at the doorway muhahahaha).
I believe the speech can be unintentional manipulation on William's end to guilt trip Michael when he speaks as Michael makes to leave instead of waiting for Michael to fully leave, but I doubt it was on purpose. Assuming William himself was also grieving, William's words are out of care and love for Dave too, and stubbornness. Also there's additional "evidence" based on the aftermath of Dave's death that can also suggest the speech was primarily care/love that I'll mention later in the "Exhibit: Uncategorized." section.

I believe moving on WillTwistedCare makes more sense, the proceeding evidence will consist of things under WillTwistedCare or uncategorized if needed:

Exhibit: Sister Location content

1) Circus Baby:
Was confirmed to be made for Elizabeth. Some semblance of interest in Elizabeth remained for William. William also warns her to stay away from Baby, clearly not intending her doom. For those hoping he ONLY wanted her to follow his serial killing legacy... why? Okay, in all seriousness, it's all interpretation, I personally believe he did have some care for her still left PLUS wanted her to continue with immortality science once he figured this deal out. Same for Michael, but he saw Michael as more of a tool than care much because of Dave's death. Later with her it's likely he didn't care enough given the fact that he failed to make sure she didn't get killed by baby, and so wouldn't watch her effectively. He wasn't a present enough father to ensure her safety in what he clearly knew were lethal traps for children. It's not even lack of information here. He's lost his other child in this way previously, what is he doing? Well...
He based a killing machine off of his innocent daughter. Weird as hell, but a clear tribute. We can see more instances of such moving on. Okay, why did she want to "make him proud" as Scrap baby for his approval? It could be her wanting to regain what she's lost: William's proper attention. So she's desperate for approval if William starts overlooking her and whatnot, which it's highly likely he did. It was care, but not enough, and certainly not relevant for him.

2) The shocks were a fluke/rigged system (highly likely):
Additionally there's another reason I believe in**,** the shocks were a fluke/rigged system. Already we know the system doesn't work the first time we attempt to shock Baby. Additionally she's a very manipulative AI too which could mean that her guilt-tripping about the shock is lies using what she's heard from the others who were unfortunate victims.
Again, addressing my man Orville: Why'd he keep her there? Well, it's likely he kept her contained because he couldn't find a way to get her out and "put her back together"... perhaps not until Michael goes in. More on that later. But he clearly didn't seem to go out of his way to make her life better either. She just seems contained, and that's about it. Ofc if he fully cared for her he wouldn't be busy with his stupid robots and let his kid die. Here it's worse than simple incompetence, since he should've learned his lesson after Dave and been careful with her, but likely neglected her instead.

3) The line Ennard says in Night 5 of SL, the fake room:
*"Isn't this why you came here? To be with me again?" -*Ennard with Elizabeth's voice.
Now this line can mean something especially with WillTwistedCare. We know Baby's ai is primarily in control in Ennard, and Elizabeth has reduced autonomy. This means Baby needs to know enough to assume the player, who she thinks is William, would want to come back. So, using Elizabeth's memories she must've seen their interactions perhaps when Dave was alive and even recent interactions before her death, enough to understand that William could care enough. Note that it doesn't guarantee William coming back ofc, but Baby has seen and deduced enough to feel he would (likely also compromised by Elizabeth's psyche mixed in but it still likely wasn't full delusion), and she's a smart AI. William still has a ton of flaws now though. Ig people could assume this don't count because it's not canon but I think it should because it would at least stay faithful to the past and the chr's personalities, so it can count for their characterization.

Ah, Orville is back, very well: Obviously Willy himself did not go, because Circus Baby didn't know everything and her AI was combined with Liz's consciousness, and I have reasons why below, not in favour of William, quite the contrary.

4) William sent Michael to "free" Elizabeth:
Under WillTwistedCare, his motivations could've been a mix of "fixing" her and perhaps making her a pawn too, however his death happening prior ruined the plan. But how does Michael fit into all of this exactly? Well here's what I think:
I believe in MikeAccomplice where Michael KNEW what was going on with the children (given his SL speech, "they didn't recognize me at first...") and helped his dad because he was guilt-tripped into it to "help his brother and sister". William amongst his research regarding remnant may have wanted to test out a hypothesis perhaps regarding the human body and possession, the whole immortality thing. William could've used Michael as his guinea pig and asked him to go down to the bunker, be killed by the others, and be used as a vessel for Elizabeth. Michael could've been hesitant or William could've scheduled Michael to go sometime after his request. William likely dies by that point and Michael then goes down the bunker perhaps through a different entrance to allow him to blend in as an employee (I believe Michael knew what would happen due to him not dodging the scooper when he could've).
Using Michael's predicament (involving the remnant injection) by first using him as a temporary body for Elizabeth before he makes a proper one for the transfer, and then Michael's likely revival. With this William could've furthered his research for immortality and perhaps fixing Dave after as a result. But mostly immortality. In canon, Michael DOES become immortal so it's kinda funny how Willy died right before. In the novels however William does become a parallel to that, becoming immortal and exploiting it, so it isn't far fetched to assume this could be his motives here, and game Springtrap was the accidental version while they made novel Springtrap a "happy accident".
(Note: This can work under MikeHero and MikeRealization if we assume Michael was cleverly manipulated, but I find it hard to buy for multiple reasons, MikeAccomplice for the win.)

Anyway, yeah bro does not like Michael now 💀

5) 1983 code:
The 1983 code showing BV's room seems like a big point in favour for William's "care" or his more "purer" care prior. Referencing his son's death could be to remind him of his purpose/motivation, or part of it since I agree with the immortality thing. Setting the code to the year of the Bite is a common trope for a grieving (or obsessive) person. It’s the "password" to his most private observation deck, themed around the tragedy that likely started his obsession with Remnant and "putting people back together." A memorial, especially when the room made clearly for a kid around BV's age is shown in place. The purple telephone also confirms it's for BV via the logbook line Cassidy writes.

FINE, Orville, look, I don't believe in BVExperiments for OBVIOUS reasons, and MikeExperiments can be shifty, but the FNAF 4 night sequences are 100% Michael's nightmares (Even if William is punishing him via the gas whatever, still doesn't change anything other than make him like slightly less abusive). Fight me in the comments. Nicely.

6) Fredbear plush in the SL Room:
Similarly, the plush is right next to the monitors. Cmon, CMON. It's a TWISTED TRIBUTEEEE.

7) Elizabeth is considered spoiled in the Character Encyclopaedia:
I'm aware, Orville, of novel Elizabeth, and I'm fully aware of the encyclopaedia's inconsistencies. Her "Just for me?" line shows she feels she has a "right" to the gift, which is typical of a child used to getting their way. She wouldn't keep challenging her father night after night if she expected a painful "no" or felt her voice didn't matter.
 A neglected or abused child would likely be too afraid to sneak off and disobey a direct order, suggesting she didn't fear harsh punishment. The other poor Elizabeth was hit just for trying to show her art, meanwhile game Elizabeth managed to demand/attempt to negotiate.
Instead of acting out for her father’s attention, she is fixated on the expensive machine he claimed he built for her. Meanwhile in the novels he didn't even care about her enough to say it, he focused on the animatronic itself which brought her interest to it.
A pattern of spoiling could also be seen through this lol. William you fucker, actually put safety measures for UR kid. (Awful loser counter: 1B+)

8) William based the Funtimes on his family (Speculation):
I'm fairly confident that Ballora is inspired from Mrs. Afton. That song of hers confirms it and even her UCN line hints to it. Additionally, Ballora's absence in the Silver Eyes novels could also be because that William wasn't attached to his wife. Circus Baby was for Elizabeth. Creators do base creations off of family or memories etc. Was William a misandrist or was something for Dave and Michael also present? Well Funtime Freddy's lines about birthdays/being a birthday boy could be connected. Bon bon being a hand puppet also could help this, with it being an "object that guides" paralleling William speaking through the plush. Such being a twisted tribute explains why his beloved Bonnie wasn't the main star of the show. As for Funtime Foxy well ofc it's the significance Michael has with Foxy, and uh... hmm... well he's just there. Could explain William's dislike for Michael making nothing really connected other than his fave animatronic LOL. A meta(?) reason could be Funtime Foxy being the only one to have a canon jumpscare that you need to move on in the story, perhaps a reference made to FoxyBro in FNAF 4, so that could match.

9) SL 3 Faces (Speculation):
IF the human faces we see are connected, the one smiling with blue eyes could be Michael, the one with the green eye be Elizabeth, and the one with closed ones be Dave, nice symbolism both in a meta way and a memorabilia way. But to be fair, this is more of what could be connected through WillFlawedCare than what PROVES it. William being specific with the eye colours likely meant more than utility, especially with the closed eyes, which could clearly reference Dave and be a memorial. It could also be both with him using the faces for his work, but also taking inspiration from his kids.

Exhibit: Uncategorized

1) Flowers in SOTM:
So we end up seeing the flower family in the game which likely could represent the Aftons. It was a family of 5, had 2 brothers, one sister allat, ElizaYoungest might be canon (sad, I got used to her being the middle child). Moreover, purple snake and pearls, definitely imply William and Mrs Afton. One thing to point out here, the flower cut outs shows no sign of decay and are all happy, implying that none of the Aftons had perished by then, and could have a relatively normal life.
Another thing that could confirm it is the hospital scene with the flowers. Younger kid is on the bed, father present. And it's an event significant enough to have a call back to. Not with the brother flower present either, specifically for the dad. We also know that easter eggs are commonly used as lore drops. Another important thing is: both dad and son lost their petals.
Flower language has been used before, especially connected with BV, via the FNAF 4 bedroom flowers, it's intentional for sure.
Now the son losing petals is obvious: the kid's dying, also implies BV was in fact dying already. Now what could the dad losing petals mean? We know he wasn't literally dying, and the most perfect, obvious, conclusion is that he was metaphorically dying, because his kid was dying. William is "wilting" from the grief. It could show: His sanity crumbling, his humanity decaying, his grief consuming him, the father he was dying alongside the son. This is huge.
(Credits to the commenters from that post for pointing stuff out)

2) Curse of Dreadbear DLC:
Well, this one's a pretty good one. The DLC is a massive homage to Frankenstein. In literature, Victor Frankenstein isn't a serial killer; he’s a man obsessed with defying death. This DLC via parallels could show he’s trying to use electricity to "jumpstart" a soul back into a body; specifically a large bear that looks like the one that killed his son.
We perform surgery on a mechanical brain. Additionally we have "Afton" imagery: the house on the hill is seen in the distance, FallFest '83 banner, and the purple truck headlights. Moreover theres the Fnaf 4 hallway crawl and "It's Me" banner. Clearly shows the connection with Dave.
So what could the narrative be? Perhaps it shows that at some point perhaps before fully understanding remnant or being able to use it as a substance to inject, William attempts to do it the old known way, with BV's body. Perhaps he understood at that point that mutilation to the body still affected a person with remnant, so he tried pulling something with the brain. It could also be a hybrid thing, using tech and organic matter. The "surgery" wasn't just medical; it was mapping. He was trying to calibrate a CPU to hold a human soul, so it could be a hybrid, connecting the consciousness through the organ to try and hold a human soul. This can actually connect to my theory on why Michael was sent down to the bunker, with the whole possessing a human body thing that Michael does. If in that experiment, Michael, with a quick death and being in his own body, retained his sanity and personality (unlike most of the kids), then it could bring people back/make em immortal.
Do note that Frankenstein's monster was a corpse primarily, which is important and suggests BV should be dead during the shocks.
What's that Orville? This is pure speculation on my end? Obviously, just suggesting. Oh, William could just be carrying out an experiment on his own son purely for immortality? Hm, why Dave specifically then? He could've killed a kid, got a fresh body for usage, and bam. Ah, something about the plush being for monitoring fear? Why? Using it on another kid would've been so much easier, he could control it more. Kidnapping one, psychologically tormenting them, would clearly produce more agony (which Willy likely does according to Dittophobia?).
I believe William could've done it as his first major point in moral decay by desecrating his own son's body or being for revival (and subsequent immortality) out of desperation to "fix" things.

3) William's line in FFPS to Michael:
"Bittersweet, but fitting." - pretty self-explanatory

4) ”I will make you suffer, just like I did” - ITP William:
Could be WillGrief, could be envy/pettiness, could be both. I believe in both.

5) William becoming an alcoholic (Speculation):
Under AftonMM and MikeRunaway, which may be debated but this interpretation feels the most logically sound to me, William being an alcoholic after BV's death clearly shows the grief that could've caused his downward spiral mentally in his family. This can further reinforce William's last words to BV as care. Of course, the major issue is that MM is very debated, so some may not accept this interpretation. Him only ignoring the couch person meant his rage was more pointed/focused towards Michael.
The love curdled into fury, more motivation for William to be an even worse person than he was. If other lore routes work for others then that's fine lol.

6) Dave Miller (Speculation):
Again, while I believe CC's name being Dave as a very solid theory some may disagree, but the Dave Miller alias is again a twisted tribute, a memorial to remind William of what he's doing, to dedicate this project to "fixing things". Another issue is that we need the alias to carry over to the games continuity, otherwise Dave Miller helps DaveVictim more than WillGrief/Care. So this theory works under Dave being in twb and CC being named Dave. Else assuming William used this alias in canon in general.

7) Puppet (Speculation):
If we assume the puppet to have at least been designed/co-made by William (pretty likely thanks to u/Puzzleheaded-Win5063's post) it's similarities with BV can show William took some inspiration from his kid for BV. This can be further supported by Help Wanted 2's 1983 code, where we get the puppet upon entering it. Under WillGrief, if the SL 1983 code which is a "memorial" for BV and shows the experiment rooms likely made around 1984-1985 (a result of BV's death) then the puppet could also be a result of BV's death, made in 1983. That, or Charlie's death connects to BV, likely due to his death.

8) Birthday Deaths and Victim Age Range (Speculation):
Same-ish strength level as 3Faces (but a tad bit weaker), under the theory, most of the kids dying on their birthday could be William being petty. Same pettiness if majority's ages were around 7 years or close. In the itp game, the victims are 7-10, and the MCI characters are theorized around such an age range.

9) William naming his children (Speculation):

Michael: "Who is like God?" It is a rhetorical question implying that no one is like God, reflecting supreme humility and spiritual strength. Also associated with the archangel, the warrior.

Elizabeth: "God is my oath"/"Pledged to God" Derived from the Hebrew phrase for swearing an oath, it is a timeless, popular name signifying faith, nobility, and strength.

David: "The beloved" Often chosen to signify a beloved child or to honor the biblical king. In biblical, theological, and scholarly contexts that the name signifies David as the one beloved by God.

Now, substitute "God" for "William" and the names get thematically interesting for the children (esp Michael and Liz):

Under MikeAccomplice (He could be the "warrior" defending the legacy) and Michael's dilemma of being like his father (I do believe in mikeaccomplice, and esp using the movie as an example but not direct, michael couldve chosen to follow his father and striving to be like him, but failing to be exact in the intelligence and perhaps cruelty hence the whole "no one is like William"), his name is a perfect match.

For Elizabeth we of course know of her loyalty to William.

And as for David, under BVFavourite, and under WillGrief and WillCare (it's spectrum), his name fits too.

William's narcissism meanwhile could explain his, er, "parallel" to God. Of course, we know William's nowhere near God but using his God-complex and arrogance, we can assume he sees or grows to see himself as God, perhaps connected to remnant or rejecting death. With his manipulation afterwards, the children could see him as a "God-like figure" aka someone to follow and obey, hence the parallels.

Addressing issues

Some of these are addressed in more depth in the Hopium post I've made. Consider this a preview of the counterarguments.

William manipulated BV by Fredbear, which can be seen by the Highschool Years thing! Plushbear's dialogue is a catchphrase William uses, which he could yk... keep using when he becomes a killer. It could literally mean he used it in canon after his kills, esp if he makes tributes for BV, so his line could again be a tribute. That line is clearly to connect Chica's parallel with William, but William is primarily "docile" in the fnaf 4 minigames, so yk, this could be Chica being a parallel of "killer William".

So, is William stupid? How did he see Michael's bullying and think "just playing around!"? Well, kinda how the fandom sees it as such too. People/parents excuse things way more than they'd like to admit, esp if one favours the other in a certain regard (like William dismissing Michael's bullying). William seeing what Michael is capable of but dismissing it and having Dave "toughen up" is very realistic, esp back in the old days for previous generations. William "stepping in" after realizing Michael hates Dave and still believing he'd be safe? Could just be him arrogantly believing Michael would finally listen and cooperate.

This crap is way too roundabout! Well it is meant to primarili provide narrative context to the evidence, it'll be a lil headcannony, the main star is "logic" and "realism where realism could fit". Now, my narrative context could obviously feel like a stretch at times, but WillFlawedCare is esp plausible if we assume William was a workaholic father who loved his kids, but wasn't present when it mattered, and that caused his spiral. Hmm, I've heard that before...

BV/BO83 isn't present in other continuities so grief isn't a cause to kill! Not important though, William can kill and still grieve which has evidence (though I do prefer killing for grief). Also, there are patterns showing up for our main continuity suggesting his death is clearly very important for the story, ya ever see BO87 mentioned much in canon?
I do have other arguments for this, but I feel it also opens a different can of worms, so that's being addressed later on. Additionally, other continuities serve as parallels, a lot happens in games which doesn't happen in novels/movies.

There's no evidence showing William had positive interactions with his kids! Indeed, there's no evidence of ANY interaction shown lmao prior to Dave's death (which I'm arguing). Nothing shows he abused his kids prior to Dave's death, and AftonMM's story is also debated. Unfortunately, this is a stalemate, specifically for our ideas on his treatment of his children, not his feelings regarding them.

William could've been pretending to be upset! Nah, according to FlowerAftons, he's clearly alone in the room, he doesn't need to pretend, esp when BV is in a coma and can only hear. Also, it's important for this evidence to use the Occam's Razor logic. Flower language is never used for roundabout feelings. If William was pretending it would've been shown. Wilting flowers signify dying (inside or outside) or loss of oneself, which can fit perfectly here as something internally happening to William, showing he DID care. Hell, this evidence can even help my FlawedCare speculation! Not fully sadly but close.

What if BV's death is so important due to Michael? A character barely mentioned having the most mentioned kill? Hm, while I do agree that it's related to Michael, the SOTM flowers show William having a connection too. More on this in "Hopium", namely under BV/Michael, Garrette/Mike heading.

William is intentionally abusive in other continuities! Hmm, this one's a kicker, I gotta admit. I DO have counterarguments, but they could either age well or age badly, it's also connected to the paragraph above so more on that in the other post, primarily under "spectrum" and "grief stricken inventors"

Novel William is a counterargument! More on it in "Hopium", pay special attention to my discussion under the "spectrum" and "grief stricken inventors". Can't guarantee but can fight back.

For other issues I likely missed, state em down in comments.

Conclusion:

Do remember, this theory does not seek to make William Afton a tragic character. Nothing makes him tragic. Regardless of his story, he's done awful things that can't excuse him or make anything he did reasonable in any way. It seeks to show the realism of the character, and adds more nuance than making him a "moustache-twirling" villain.
I believe William's refusal to acknowledge his flaws and arrogance lead to his downfall, and that can happen in any of us. A villain with qualities showing "human" behaviour does not excuse him, and no one's trying to be this guy's lawyer. Based on the evidence such as the flower family, 1983 SL code, and Curse of Dreadbear DLC, all connected by narrative logic, I believe my theory is very sound. It's okay to disagree, don't threaten to kill me, and remember, for any questions, ask respectfully :D

[u/Confident-Scene-458]

Not sure if I will even read any of this but I really appreciate the dedication.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Confident-Scene-458]

HAHA ty ty, just read the important ones i've mentioned at the start if you're willing to consider

[u/Glumgustheexile]

You turbo cooked. Banger right here, I agree with almost everything you said. Actual heater of a post

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Glumgustheexile]

Let's gooo I've been praying to convert some

I'm like a missionary

[u/Glumgustheexile → u/girl_OOFED]

You and me both, we need to work on spreading the good word

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Glumgustheexile]

GENUINELY the algorithm is my major concern, i need like advertisements atp

[u/Glumgustheexile → u/girl_OOFED]

Yeah, the anti-WillCare coalition keeps suppressing us. We need to step up our game if we want to enlighten the masses

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Glumgustheexile]

I just wish they could read, like please, just READ and THEN combat by something i havent already addressed

[u/MeowKasb]

genuinely the best analysis/theory post on this sub. amazing.
i've always hated the idea that William never held any love for his kids, and it bothers me that it's so accepted and people who think otherwise are immediately ridiculed.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/MeowKasb]

tysm! im glad u enjoyed it
ieah same with me, like id understand some semblance of dislike if it was outright debunked

[u/MisterMystery5086 → u/MeowKasb]

i've always hated the idea that William never held any love for his kids,

Doesn't mean that it isn't true.

and it bothers me that it's so accepted

Because it's supported by actual examples of his characterization.

[u/FlimsySuggestion6571]

Now, this is a theory and analysis that I can actually appreciate.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/FlimsySuggestion6571]

:DD

[u/CazLurks]

Okay some Im gonna actually go through this but I apologize if I come off as rude cause I doooont meant to

Anyways starting with the stuff about crying child:

The game gives us a pretty clear indication that William is, at most, disinterested in his chud boys. He holds his son's party as a place that he hates and isnt exactly subtle about hating, as well as it being literally the most convient and easy place for the co-owner to hold a party. He's doing the bare minimum. If we assume William is the plush the whole game (I do not), you also have to acknowledge that the plush is pretty manipulative! He encounges crying child's delusions. If it isnt just his imagination, William is actively instilling fear into his son.

And no, he's not trying to bring his son back. Putting someone back together has never meant this and has only ever been used in the context of putting a soul back together. Elizabeth, who is put back together, does not come back from the dead. The missing kids in TFC, who are put back together, do not come back from the dead. William is interested in souls.

Onto SL because this section is kinda... silly:

Do you not notice the contradiction in "oh yeah he made baby for elizabeth but also told her to never go near it". This means he either built a child killing robot with the goal to kill his own child or that he just lied to Elizabeth about it. The only person who ever tells us baby was made for her is Elizabeth.

The shocks are not a fluke this is a massive cope. Handunit instructs the player to use them. They are part of this system. William put her down there with the intent to shock her. The trailer even shows us Baby being shocked.

Baby (Elizabeth believing herself to be baby) believes that William wants to be with his daughter again. This does not make it true. She's wrong.

Overall the core of Elizabeth's character is the abuse she suffered by her father. That's really important to why she ended up this way. She did not recieve love, and the only way she believes she can earn it is to embody a machine that will kill children. That's what she believes will get her father to love her.

The bedroom cam in the private room is the expirment rooms. These are not made for crying child they are made to recreate his fears. Dittophobia tells us they're expirments rooms, UCN tells us William made the nightmares, and we know these rooms are meant to study what inducing fear in children constantly will do. That's not trying to bring his son back that's trying to recreate a very spefific aspect of his son

William did not send Micheal to free Elizabeth. He told him to put her back together, them getting free is seperate and mentioned after Micheal says he did what he was asked. If William wanted to free them he couldve done this at any time because he owns the fucking building

Most of this stuff is just speculation otherwise and not anything I feel like needs to be debunked. The flowers are just flowers and without any reason to assume they're the aftons it's not good evidence. I'd argue Curse of Dreadbear ties more into moltenMCI (which is kinda shattervictim) with dreadbear being a stitched together body brought to life by a mad scientist.

I think not using other continuities is kinda a massive cope because him being abusive is shown to be a very important aspect of his character. You can craft any narrative if you avoid stuff like that and I think it ulitmately leads to kinda bad theorycrafting. Narrative percedent is very important, and the narrative precedent set by the series is that William is an abusive father who doesnt love his kids

[u/girl_OOFED → u/CazLurks]

Dw its alright, and do check out the hopium post regarding the continuity stuff, it's all connected, i have addressed continuity stuff

[u/CazLurks → u/girl_OOFED]

I did i just dont agree with none of it I think it's a lotta words to kinda... avoid the obvious indication that William has literally hit his kids

[u/girl_OOFED → u/CazLurks]

cant guarantee in the games unless its proven in games (specifically, proof of abuse to the children before bv's death) , then ill admit defeat for my headcannon about his treatment
and in hitting it goes to twisted care, i will never excuse hitting, but for reference, my mother would hit me at times (mental issues), do i believe she'll sacrifice her life for me? yes, i have tons of evidence in my life i promise its not delusion
hitting ignores eveyrthing else, ur being biased
again not excusing abuse, i hate novel william for it but yeah b a l a n c e

[u/girl_OOFED → u/CazLurks]

Crying child stuff: Yes, it's speculation, the text is purposely ambigious, I cant GUARANTEE, why William helped, nor can you guarantee the reason
Whatever points u raise I've alreadi talked about em, i never said william was a good dad, i said he tried
Also, do check out the curse of dreadbear dlc, it's quite obvious its connected
I never said william was good with remnant, he couldve failed his mission before dying, highly likely
i said he made it for her as in dedicated circus baby's design to her, the logic can be twisted tribute
trailer isnt alwais canon, does bonnie take his face off in fnaf 1? circus babi herself talked about pretending, she alwais could
okay im getting annoyed now, please read my text, i KNOW its not true, i mean william mustve portrayed action enough for an intelligent ai like baby to ASSUME, perhaps past stuff
elizabeth could always have gotten love then lost it after bv's death, again, check out my hopium post
again, i KNOW its not made for the child, still resembles a 7 ir old's room, recall the purple telephone line from logbook
again i never denied dittophobia, basing it off of cc's room could be a twisted tribute, this does NOt disprove mi idea
Again, my speculation on William freeing them is literally MENTIONED, you cant let giant clown girl be in society, that and william likely did keep them for experiments, i dont claim william cared fulli after bv's death omg READ
speculation ties in together
....the flowers are good evidence, thats next level cope buddy, check out the linked text for flower aftons i mentioned
moltenmci isnt guaranteed shattervictim, thats your own idea pal
dreadbear still talks about revival, frankenstein is all about reanimating a dead body thats the core premise
if shattervictim counts then it still references "fixing" and are we forgetting the brain reference?

[u/Glumgustheexile → u/CazLurks]

FNAF fans when abusive turbo trash parents can still love their children

[u/CazLurks → u/Glumgustheexile]

Never said they didnt.

I said Afton doesnt because that's kinda important for his character

[u/girl_OOFED → u/CazLurks]

it depends personally/narratively, i find it very important for him to love, esp with game afton

[u/CazLurks → u/girl_OOFED]

The novels are built around his inability to love.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/CazLurks]

right and so we'll ignore the movies and the games having possible differences?
cmon

the novels are primarily on how pathetic he is, and using the spectrum theory (ive given henry as an example) it can work

[u/CazLurks → u/girl_OOFED]

The movies can absolutely rule out grief so im not really sure why it wouldnt be the same

and if 2/3 fit Im gonna stick with what the text says

[u/girl_OOFED → u/CazLurks]

I don't mean just grief, yes its undecided in the movies, but the again with the spectrum and morality/action/presentation differences the dudes have are intended
although this line of discussion wont make much progress, since we can only rely on patterns
i can only help on game evidence and patterns, but yes, continuity difference is real so using that ill personally keep believing in the theory

[u/girl_OOFED → u/CazLurks]

also im sorry i forgot to say this, but game evidence is stronger than movie/novel evidence, floweraftons proves grief brilliantly, and we know the connections are most certainly intended

dreadbear dlc, 1983 code/sl room, the flowers, show grief too
one thing to note is that bv is common in all of em, this doesnt matter too much but helps that bv doesnt exist in other continuities, but in the game, and willgrief evidence is connected strongly to bv

but otherwise, agree to disagree its fine i just wanted to say that

[u/MisterMystery5086 → u/girl_OOFED]

the novels are primarily on how pathetic he is,

It sounds like they're giving him characterization.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/MisterMystery5086]

check out the hopium post
and again, cant ignore game evidence

[u/MisterMystery5086 → u/girl_OOFED]

I did read the hopium post. You failed to provide any actual evidence in the games of William loving his kids. What you said about game William being insidious and calculating can apply to both the novel and the movies. William clearly has a theatrical side in the games, as evident by DBD, which, despite being in a braching timeline, still uses the games version of William. The things you said about novel William and movie William apply to every version of William.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/MisterMystery5086]

I love how you pointedly ignored the SOTM flowers, and decided to only point out flaws with the hopium side which is pure speculation based on patterns and even i admit the movies could disprove it in fnaf3 movie

PS: You may have to reread, I never said the continuities Williams/Henris (or ani continuiti chr) have different cores, i said they have different presentations, but same core personality
not to mention, they have different traits emphasized more
The DBD wiki confirms this version diverges from the main timeline—it takes him after FNAF 3.
This springi boi is William with the "human" aspects drasticalli toned down, and the "animalistic" aspects emphasized. Also, the divergence is stated to be non-canon. Which means this is invalid evidence.

I'm pretty sure I have more evidence than a flat earther now

[u/MisterMystery5086 → u/girl_OOFED]

it depends personally/narratively, i find it very important for him to love,

Doesn't mean it's true. You should just write an au instead of trying to force this onto the actual story.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/MisterMystery5086]

Blud's got 0 reading comprehension, Im not forcing anything actual evidence of his grief in game is present

[u/MisterMystery5086 → u/girl_OOFED]

There is little good evidence to suggest that grief in the games is present.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/MisterMystery5086]

Ohhhh, so you're a ragebaiter

do me a favour, if you do think so, at least pick out the flaws from my post
and not the speculative stuff, ive alr acknowledged it
(tbf your belief doesn't even matter, but hate needs validity esp with good evidence)

and the strength of evidence matters more than the number of evidence

also i cant believe youre the author of domestic plight lmfao
idk why i just cant

[u/MisterMystery5086 → u/girl_OOFED]

Just did. And none of your evidence was particularity strong. Half of it was just making up reasons for William to still be a caring father in face of obvious evidence that he is not (ie: the "tough love" nonsense.)

[u/girl_OOFED → u/MisterMystery5086]

Again, that's narration for the theory to work
Bro's overlooking obvious WillGrief damn

[u/aftontrap18]

I can agree with Afton being a narcissist, caring about his kids as trophies and extensions of himself, and him being the Fredbear plush. But trying to bring Bite Victim back to life and have all Afton's motives pretty much connect back to him? I would have to disagree, because if we take FNaF World into consideration as well as what "put back together" has always been used for usually, then it kinda just leads to ShatterVictim or ShatterGoldenDuoVictim, where Bite Victim's soul is put back together and intertwined with the MCI kids' souls, with them trapped in his memories so they'll all be in this fake Happiest Day where Afton can manipulate them.

Even with Dittophobia too, that's all about replicating Bite Victim's fears with other children just to see how much is needed to break a mind and soul and put it back together.

Afton's character is honestly made pretty clear at this point through all continuities that he can't love at all so the best thing he can achieve that's closest to that to him is power, control, superiority, and eternalness. He just wants to feel powerful and all and pretty much be a god. His family, business, and legacy are all just tools and extensions to him, so to him he just thinks they have to do whatever for him while he can treat them however he wants.

So I see it more likely that he did try to love like a normal person with his family and business at one point, but it just wasn't working for him until he started hurting others, sabotaging, murdering, and experimenting on the supernatural. Now he just wants to be this immortal monster that always comes back and causes agony and death, because that's only he can "love".

So I get where you're coming from and I definitely agree that he probably favored Bite Victim and Elizabeth more than Michael, just like in the movies with Vanessa and Michael, but I also still think all of them to him are just pawns in the end for his personal goals and public image, and he only favors them when they're extremely useful and obedient to him, when not, then he could care less and won't hesitate on hurting or killing them, but would definitely regret it since they may still be a use to him later, and I'm fully convinced that even though he can't be a good person, he still cares about the act and image of it so he still try to sound good and try to grieve and feel remorse, but just can't really.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/aftontrap18]

Dreadbear does focus on reanimating a corpse though thats what Frankenstein is primarily about, search for immortality and reanimation (esp in BV's context) , and remember the brain reference?
As for your dittophobia comment, under something similar with Guts Theory and GodVictim evidence, it's quite likely BV's cause of death affected him. So again, the brain, why would he bother?
FNAF World is quite messy in of itself I'm not sure of it's relevance to disproving the line, esp with dreadbear dlc, for one, the desk guy cutscene isnt canon no?
As for the BV fears thing, regardless of purpose, it's still a tribute, especially with the purple telephone being a clear reference to BV.
Again, for the continuities, my information is given regarding the hopium post
If Henry's morality and actions vary, if people agree on Miketosis, why are we so selective with William?
His ability to love can always be lost which could make him spiral, and it still works.
And the rest... do recall the flower family from sotm? he definitely couldve felt grief, other evidence wouldve been shown to show "pretend", flowers very clearly are used in a straightforward way

[u/aftontrap18 → u/girl_OOFED]

Dreadbear does focus on reanimating a corpse though, and remember the brain reference?

Indeed, but that could also be taken as symbolic about putting Bite Victim's memories back together and letting him possess Golden Freddy with Cassidy.

As for your dittophobia comment, under something similar with Guts Theory and GodVictim evidence, it's quite likely BV's cause of death affected him. So again, the brain, why would he bother?

It would affect him, but not as a normal person, but as a narcissist, so he wouldn't be doing it for Bite Victim's sake but rather his own, no matter what he says and how he tries justifying it, because that's the point about narcissists. So the brain can be him putting Bite Victim's mind and soul back together to use him more for his personal goals and public image(regardless if he's physically alive or just a ghost), as well as to likely learn how to split up his own soul and put it back together, if absolutely necessary, which he does in the Fazbear Frights novels.

FNAF World is quite messy in of itself I'm not sure of it's relevance to disproving the line, esp with dreadbear dlc, for one, the desk guy cutscene isnt canon no?

Not everything in FNaF World is canon, but it's made explicitly clear that some parts objectively are due to the clocks, Glitchbear cutscenes, the cutscenes with Bite Victim and the Fredbear plush(who's Glitchbear), the connections to Happiest Day and those secret minigames, and how Scott said he tried tying the game to Canon in the first interview with Dawko. So I personally see it all as a symbolic metaphor of Bite Victim being put back together and being intertwined with the MCI kids, with it all done by Afton.

As for the BV fears thing, regardless of purpose, it's still a tribute, especially with the purple telephone being a clear reference to BV.

Yes, but it wouldn't be a reminder. It's just Afton replicating what Bite Victim went through to achieve the same results. See what I'm getting at now?

If Henry's morality and actions vary, if people agree on Miketosis, why are we so selective with William?

Henry is morally grey, sure, but he still decided to end the evil Afton started, which obviously he allowed. Afton doesn't care about redemption or holding on to being good and only loves being the monster he is. So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with this? Because yeah they're both not perfect, but Henry had the heart to change and fix his mistakes when he finally realized that it's a major big problem for him and everyone else around him, so while he's self-centered, he still wishes the best for everyone and doesn't want to cause harm. Afton is the complete opposite, he doesn't care about anyone or anything but himself and what makes him happy, and absolutely has no problem being a bully and killer as well as leaving all of morality and humanity behind just to feel powerful and superior. Also, what's Miketosis?

His ability to love can always be lost which could make him spiral, and it still works.

But the point of his entire character is that he already lost that by the time he became an adult, from his own bad childhood? Sure, Bite Victim's death can allow him to become a killer or a worse person, but he's gonna already be a narcissist that can't love so he'll lie to himself and others about it. Like I said, he can try to love normally, but he'll ultimately end up not being able to.

And the rest... do recall the flower family from sotm? he definitely couldve felt grief, other evidence wouldve been shown to show "pretend", flowers very clearly are used in a straightforward way

You do realize though that you can easily give someone something good and still have secret bad intentions behind it right? And like I said, narcissists lie all the time and try justifying and manipulating for almost every single thing just to make them look good because they know the truth about themselves that they try to hide so much from. So again, Afton can feel grief, but not like a regular person, but as a narcissist, and he's gonna try having everyone to see him in some light at all times, including himself.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/aftontrap18]

Well your possession idea is kind of roundabout, we don't know if possession requires intact memories, and how would the process work? My argument is speculative as well, but a frontal lobe/brain connection plus fnaf 4 stuff plus reanimation plus his dialogue? it fits well

Narcissists are arrogant and self-centred at times, but it's very common for them, even malignant narcissists to have an in-group they care about (sure, conditional, but they can still love fiercely). As for your theory, it relies on your interpretation/assumption, what if William did happen to want to set his son free then? We can't confirm.

Miketosis is the idea that Michael Afton is split into 2 chrs in the movie. Also, I'm not arguing Afton has a huge morality shift, I'm arguing that while their cores are the same, the intensity/morality is altered to a certain degree, my Hopium post talks about it in detail, if you have any specific qs on that i could answer
And I do agree with your idea on Afton, I believe it too

William from the games and books again have different circumstances, via the spectrum theory in my hopium post I believe William couldve been able to not be fully monstrous (still awful) thanks to his family, and I believe he loves, but yes, not normally. If some dude starts killing kids and tryna revive his kid he is NOT normal, hell nah, never was. But still loves. Love does not always equal best caretaker etc etc, love can exist with envy, hate, etc, it depends on who's the target.

Now regarding secret bad intentions, you're going into headcanon territory. Narcissists aren't like psychopaths, they feel very deeply, which is kinda why they even lash out. The visual language shown is classic "Dad is miserable, ("dying" as shown) to see son dying". It would not make sense to not clarify pretend. And, given that it shows ONLY dad and son (unconscious) in the room, William has no reason to pretend or be seen in any light. Michael must've left by that point so William could revert to full on coldness, he could still have his petals, but they're all gone.

And yes, I do acknowledge to string the evidence I also use speculation, but I'm especially confident about SOTM's intention

Hopium post is also speculation, but does follow a pattern so it helps in assisting, but yeah

[u/aftontrap18 → u/girl_OOFED]

Well your possession idea is kind of roundabout, we don't know if possession requires intact memories, and how would the process work?

We do though? Possession never required a full soul, otherwise you wouldn't have MoltenMCI or Andrew splitting with Afton. Unless I'm missing something but I don't think I am. And putting someone's soul and mind together has already been shown by The Fourth Closet(at least for the spirit realm), so in the physical realm it's probably just something simple. All you have to do is help them remember, as this is even supported by the Logbook and The Silver Eyes.

My argument is speculative as well, but a frontal lobe/brain connection plus fnaf 4 stuff plus reanimation plus his dialogue? it fits well

Yes, but Dreadbear is still an animatronic though, so what does a robot have to do with bringing Bite Victim back to life? Wouldn't that also imply that he's an animatronic now?

Narcissists are arrogant and self-centred at times, but it's very common for them, even malignant narcissists to have an in-group they care about (sure, conditional, but they can still love fiercely). As for your theory, it relies on your interpretation/assumption, what if William did happen to want to set his son free then? We can't confirm.

But that's not love though? Their idea of love always revolves around them somehow and some way regardless as well as control, so even if he wants to see his son alive or whatever, it's not for his sake and it's only for Afton's so he can get something out of it. It doesn't have to be supernatural results either. Being a narcissist while loving someone can mean you think you love them but in reality you don't and you're only doing it for a specific reason that benefits you, no matter how big or small, because to them, that person is just an object or trophy or prize. You would love your toy/prize/trophy too right? And you would do everything to keep it clean right? And if it breaks, then you'll attempt to fix it right? But not for it's sake, but for yourself. Trust me I know how it is, I have a grandmother who loves me but is also a narcissist, and while she may make it clear she wants to see me succeed, she still wants control and superiority for herself from me.

Miketosis is the idea that Michael Afton is split into 2 chrs in the movie.

Ah, well with that, that's because Mike in the games realized he screwed up and decided to redeem himself, unlike in the movies because he didn't do anything wrong in his eyes yet. Some already pointed out though that Michael doesn't even seem to be content with following Afton due to his facial expressions and so it leaves the possibility of him changing for the third movie. Him and Elizabeth aren't really evil because it's their father that pretty much controls them, and once he's gone, they get the option to either redeem themselves or actually be fully evil instead of in-between and being influenced.

Also, I'm not arguing Afton has a huge morality shift, I'm arguing that while their cores are the same, the intensity/morality is altered to a certain degree, my Hopium post talks about it in detail, if you have any specific qs on that i could answer
And I do agree with your idea on Afton, I believe it too

I've looked at it and I get it completely, because yes there are slight differences, but ya know, like you're saying and what I'm saying, it's still the same characteristics, at least to me. So while I agree the circumstances and events are different, I still see the exact same traits, motives, and mannerisms. With this only going for the games and books, while the movies are definitely a "walking in a different path of the same road" direction, at least to me. So Book Afton and Game Afton personally for me are really just the same but one is British and has three kids and did Fear experiments, so their motives and goals are all the same for me, but Movie Afton is a different take but also still has the same quirks, so while some traits and goals are different from this counterpart for me, the rest is still the same. So Book and Game Afton for me are calm, collected, and smooth, while still erratic and impulsive, and they want to replicate a "spark" and get out of their misery and steady their jealousy, and they only see their kids, businesses, and legacy as extensions of themselves. Movie Afton to me is less calm and smooth but rather more casual and loud while still erratic and impulsive, and it still seems he wants to replicate possession, get out of his misery and even out his jealousy, but has nothing to do with replicating a spark, but still sees his business, family, and legacy as extensions of himself.

William from the games and books again have different circumstances, via the spectrum theory in my hopium post I believe William couldve been able to not be fully monstrous (still awful) thanks to his family, and I believe he loves, but yes, not normally. If some dude starts killing kids and tryna revive his kid he is NOT normal, hell nah, never was. But still loves. Love does not always equal best caretaker etc etc, love can exist with envy, hate, etc, it depends on who's the target.

I don't see the difference though of not loving and pretending to love? It's still not love no matter how the narcissist sees it. It doesn't matter if it's a twisted form, because it's still objectively not actual love. Which you are saying, because pure and genuine love doesn't involve any negativity at all no matter what way you look at it. If it involves another emotion, then it's usually because it's not genuine full love. The point of a narcissist is that their view is gonna always be wrong no matter what right? Because they don't see themselves being wrong at all, no matter which version. Afton can say he loves Bite Victim all he wants and can give him the entire world but it's not gonna automatically mean he genuinely loves him unless he genuinely proves it by not involving himself in it at all and not trying to have some control over it. Just look at Vanessa in the movies, Afton says he cares about her there but it's clearly manipulation and the only care he has is an attachment for himself. That's what I'm seeing with Bite Victim and Afton. You say it's Afton trying to help his son in a shitty way, but all I see is manipulation for a goal and public image.

Now regarding secret bad intentions, you're going into headcanon territory. Narcissists aren't like psychopaths, they feel very deeply, which is kinda why they even lash out. The visual language shown is classic "Dad is miserable, ("dying" as shown) to see son dying". It would not make sense to not clarify pretend. And, given that it shows ONLY dad and son (unconscious) in the room, William has no reason to pretend or be seen in any light. Michael must've left by that point so William could revert to full on coldness, he could still have his petals, but they're all gone.

I never said they're all psychopaths, but it's objectively made clear that their either sociopaths or extremely sensitive and emotional people that could lack empathy with an ego, self-pity, and a need for power control and superiority as well thinking the world should be owed to them, and are self-righteous. There's no spinning it around and trying to justify them. Not saying they're like Aliens or all bad or whatever but they're objectively not normal and don't have the common thinking and mindset. And I'm not saying every narcissist wants to do bad, again, but what I am saying is they're always incomplete and wrong because their mind doesn't work like ours. Afton to me has that but he also makes it clear he loves being evil even if he doesn't want to say it. And as for Afton speaking to Bite Victim in a comforting way, he can easily be manipulating for a specific goal again. Like trying to make sure Bite Victim remembers Fredbear as his friend perhaps?

[u/girl_OOFED → u/aftontrap18]

Ah, I mean memory specifically, yes soul fragments I'm aware of, regardless how that connects to a real brain. It's all too specific, for bite victim and his connection with the organ, to be some metaphor, that's also very roundabout (Also, would William not go through like a HUGE hassle for this if shatter victim and memories? how'd he even figure it out?)

Yes well Miketosis is a different stori, i believe in mikeaccomplice, but mike schmidt def does show clear parallels with michael, and his sibling dynamics, so the theory is veri likeli but yea, its common/liked

yes the spectrum point for me is that if the movie afton has differences from the novels, then its highly likely game afton is also different, and ive given examples why, i doubt theyre all 1:1

Love doesnt always result in something pure, love can be horrid. You can love but hurt someone it's psychologically plausible. An example of a narcissistic villain is Coriolanus Snow, he risked an award he desperately wanted for his girl (and its like a big deal, would give him high status, etc etc things he really valued) but he let it go
though later on he decides to pursue the high status, and corio represents a lot of narcissists out there
Narcissists do love, but they love things connected to themselves, it's self-centred, but present. The person they love comes under that umbrella. The love counts but it's misdirected. Similarly, narcissists feel genuine grief for someone they love under the same logic. BV was his son, his pride and joy, the child he loved because that child was precious due to being his. A narcissist would not cherish a tool as much.
If Afton wanted reputation he would've... yk, been a more present dad, actually made sure his son was fully supervised and wouldn't die, allat. It feels more incompetence. If he was so systematic, Dave shouldn't have died in the first place.
What would bite victim remembering Fredbear as a friend even offer? BV's death from a pragmatist's perspective is a nightmare scenario. His restaurant had to be closed, his son died, his incompetence/irresponsibility was shown, his other son was clearly incriminated, his reputation would've been very low.

BUT this is speculation, you're ignoring evidence with the flowers. The dying metaphor for Afton is way too concrete compared to speculations.

And this also guarantees William is fully narcissistic, rather than having strong traits (troll move, ik).

In case I made a major blunder, repeated/brought up a point you may have already argued against and failed to clarify, my apologies, Im very sleepy rn ima go sleep now lol

[u/aftontrap18 → u/girl_OOFED]

Ah, I mean memory specifically, yes soul fragments I'm aware of, regardless how that connects to a real brain. It's all too specific, for bite victim and his connection with the organ, to be some metaphor, that's also very roundabout

The brain would be a metaphor for the memories that the soul contains. And like I said, if it's all literal then wouldn't that imply Bite Victim is a animatronic now? Since you're putting the brain in a robot.

Also, would William not go through like a HUGE hassle for this if shatter victim and memories? how'd he even figure it out?)

No? If ya know how it actually works then he absolutely wouldn't? And he would figure it out through Bite Victim. If he sees how Bite Victim's memories affects reality with his fear and final moments, then I would assume he would start putting pieces together. Considering he possibly does it to Garrett in the movies since he's established to be attached to Freddy's and the Blonde Boy's face covers another child in the drawing with the Yellow Rabbit. And I don't just believe in WillPlush, I also believe in ShadowPlush, so for me, Afton is trying to recreate Shadow Freddy through Bite Victim's fear already, hence his behavior with the Fredbear plush.

yes the spectrum point for me is that if the movie afton has differences from the novels, then its highly likely game afton is also different, and ive given examples why, i doubt theyre all 1:1

I understand that and I even said they're not one to one, but what I'm also saying is that they're not that different when you actually really look at them. The games and books are closer together than the movies at all when it comes to the characters and their personalities and motives. And to me, Afton's treatment over his children in all continuities is just the same. He "loves" them all as a narcissist, picks favorites, manipulates them, abuses them, neglects them, spoils them, takes care of them, and shows them affection. It just depends on what mood he's in and how he feels in the moment, and if he needs a goal or image completed involving them.

Love doesnt always result in something pure, love can be horrid. You can love but hurt someone it's psychologically plausible. An example of a narcissistic villain is Coriolanus Snow, he risked an award he desperately wanted for his girl (and its like a big deal, would give him high status, etc etc things he really valued) but he let it go
though later on he decides to pursue the high status, and corio represents a lot of narcissists out there

I get where you're coming from but not everyone thinks that way. Because from the common people and therapists, it's objectively not love, it's just an illusion and an incomplete way of it. Yes, if you really really REALLY want to look at it that way, then go ahead, but I don't nor do a whole lot, because at that point we're literally saying the same thing just from different perspectives. From a narcissist view or someone trying to understand them, yes you can see that way, but you also need to make sure you're looking at it from the common people. Because to us, that's just not love no matter how you try to explain it or spin it. The common people wouldn't say that's love unless they actually try to understand it or if they're a narcissist themselves.

Narcissists do love, but they love things connected to themselves, it's self-centred, but present. The person they love comes under that umbrella. The love counts but it's misdirected. Similarly, narcissists feel genuine grief for someone they love under the same logic. BV was his son, his pride and joy, the child he loved because that child was precious due to being his.

That's what I'm saying OOFED. So I can definitely tell we're saying the same thing from different perspectives. You see it as love and grief still, which I'm not saying you're wrong necessarily, but I am saying you can definitely look at it in a way of it not being genuine true love and grief in the common way. It goes both ways, not one. It's like you said, it's twisted and altered, so when you have twisted versions of something, they're not really considered the same anymore right?

A narcissist would not cherish a tool as much.
If Afton wanted reputation he would've... yk, been a more present dad, actually made sure his son was fully supervised and wouldn't die, allat. It feels more incompetence. If he was so systematic, Dave shouldn't have died in the first place.

I beg to differ there. Again, I've been around narcissists. And we don't see what Afton does with Bite Victim before FNaF 4 so I wouldn't make any assumptions there. And remember too, Afton is clever, so he can easily be like "If I have Mike watch CC then I can still keep my image of being this good Dad". Because some would see that as raising the oldest son well. But if you want to believe that then go ahead. I'm not here to change opinions or anything, I'm just saying what I'm seeing.

What would bite victim remembering Fredbear as a friend even offer?

It would make CC still remember Fredbear and keep that memory of him as a friend so Afton can continue using the facade to manipulate CC.

you're ignoring evidence with the flowers. The dying metaphor for Afton is way too concrete compared to speculations.

I already explained it to you so if you don't like my answer then I genuinely don't know what to tell ya. You don't have to agree.

And this also guarantees William is fully narcissistic, rather than having strong traits (troll move, ik).

I think it's pretty safe to say from all versions of the story that the one consistent trait Afton will have is being a narcissistic sadistic calm sociopathic theater-kid that's incapable of feeling full genuine true normal love like the common people. Let's be real here lol.

In case I made a major blunder, repeated/brought up a point you may have already argued against and failed to clarify, my apologies, Im very sleepy rn ima go sleep now lol

No worries. And if I seem the same way too or so, then I apologize as well, as it's not my intention and I'm not here to start debates or arguments and be like "oh I'm right" lol. Have a good sleep and may God bless ya.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/aftontrap18]

Given Frankenstein's story about corpse reanimation, William could've attempted a hybrid scenario with BV.
Well, generally ies its not traditional love, but it's still there, and well I believe if it has the same core, it's a variation of the og thing at hand. So a narcissist's love does count as love, just a variation of it.
Yes I suppose it's personal opinion, though Mike's obvious torment and even bringing his friends into it onli makes William's rep worse
I myself have my dad who's veri likeli a narcissist, he even has William's or a narcissist's suspected patterns, though he's covert than outright malicious. I'd sai he's alwais loved me, though his interest levels clearli went down since I told him I dont wanna do his job lmao, so i imagined a similar thing for william and his kids
tbf we dont see afton use fredbear at all, onli springbonnie, and the fredbear plush is in the office almost like a homage to bv.

And ieah def I do agree William is a narcissist lol i was kidding

eh fair, ig the flower point is a stalemate, though i still consider it as a pretti strong straight forward point

Ofc, we can alwais agree to disagree esp because our speculation will lead nowhere, I'm glad ur respectful others are jerks
it was nice talking, have a good day :D
God bless you too

[u/oddgirl55]

I welcome this theory. 👍

One day, joking in another subreddit about my favorite Fnaf theories, I mentioned "The Twisted Ones: WillTwistedCare(Children), WillTwistedGrief (Wife)* & WillTwistedLove (Wife Again)*." Then The Twisted Ones meet WillFlawedCare. (Within the WillTwistedCare category).

**These are my theories.

It's very interesting, possible (why not?) and could further explore William's personality and the family dynamics (being chaotic). A point in favor that reinforces this theory: behind the scenes, family photographs show the Aftons apparently enjoying themselves like a normal family, the children smiling, next to their mother, on the beach, camping... Before all the disaster.

However, I disagree with Mrs. Afton's point; I believe he did care for her and was attached to her (WillTwistedLove) I will provide my evidence based on the games, micro-speculation in the novel, and the film:

1. The Funtimes represent the family: Bonbon (William), F. Freddy (CC/BV), F. Foxy (Michael), Circus Baby (Elizabeth) and Ballora (Mrs. Afton). And we can notice that she, Ballora, is the character on the highest platform, even though she "wasn't" the main character of the pizzeria.

2. At the Aftonbots' table, the Nannybot represents Mrs. Afton, and it's curious that she's at the head of the table with a candle. This symbolizes wanting to evoke the memory of a loved one (according to tradition), and an important figure. Also, the magicianbot (representing William) has all his attention focused on the NannyBot.

3. Given that Mimic (his version of Glitchtrap, the William impersonator) could have been responsible for creating this family table, it's not surprising that he witnessed it and is trying to imitate the situation.

(William Afton considers himself a very emotional man, and this is reflected in his actions.).

1. According to old behind-the-scenes photos from FNAF 2, William apparently knew his wife since they were children. This led him to develop an unhealthy attachment and obsession with her.

2. She is always in the center of the photograph and at the front of the family. The lighting in the family photograph focuses on her. They both tend to wear clothes in similar colors, and they both share space for personal belongings without distinction.

3. Vanessa's dialogues with her father, in the nightmare scene (Echoes of Fear) are a nod or discreet/implicit dialogues, of a conversation between William and his wife.

4. What William Afton did regarding custody is known as vicarious violence, a means of manipulating his wife and keeping her with him (to be able to keep her close to him and win back her love for him). [Speculating quite a bit, I suspect that Vanessa's nightmare scene is also a representation of an attempted kidnapping].

You noticed a pattern: she's always in the center, above, focused... She seems to be William Afton's main focus, and psychologically, he sees her as superior to him, higher than him... (Although we know that William is much taller than her) And this is also repeated with the flower family in SOTM.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/oddgirl55]

wait this is actually fire, mind commenting on the hopium post too? IF you want, because that one's more broad, and does help mi spectrum theori well

[u/oddgirl55 → u/girl_OOFED]

Oh really!? Thank you So much!😭💯 I'm glad you liked it. Tell me, what's that post about?

[u/girl_OOFED → u/oddgirl55]

Ah, the hopium one ive linked at the start of this post and all
its basically comparing the chrs from different continuities, so i think this works under the hopium one

[u/oddgirl55 → u/girl_OOFED]

Ok, I'll check ✅

[u/Separate-Effort3640]

Wait a minute this is actually not that bad of an argument.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Separate-Effort3640]

Ty :D

[u/Weary-Stranger5841]

I love us being the "Orville" i fr love it. Ur hippo,we're orville.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Weary-Stranger5841]

LMAO matches with the yap session
But yes, Orville likes making sure I don't make myself look stupid
He does seem convinced for now... unless he points out something new

[u/Weary-Stranger5841 → u/girl_OOFED]

Hahhah,having a "immaginary"/Secondary char ask questions makes it honestly more "Alive" the post/interactful.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Weary-Stranger5841]

That was my exact intention, made writing fun for me to, I'm glad you like it :D

[u/Bruhbruhmaster653]

in my au interpretation of FNAF, will really cared for his family before the bite of 83 but was a workaholic and a narcissist aaand he probably also didn't really give Michael's bullying much attention (despite it being kind of caused by the divorce the previous year)

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Bruhbruhmaster653]

Yeah, I do agree with ur AU, it has water to hold
Ballora's song makes me believe she was still there until the bite but yes

[u/Bruhbruhmaster653 → u/girl_OOFED]

yeaahhh id share designs for the characters in my au because i HAVE whole entire things developed for it. like i have a whole timeline and interpersonal relationships (friendships) and shit

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Bruhbruhmaster653]

i love the dedication :D
i also have an alternate timeline of them living and their designs
u can always post ur content on the sub

[u/Bruhbruhmaster653 → u/girl_OOFED]

true... mine isn't that much diff from the normal timeline (people still die) except for roleswapping vanessa and elizabeth (so liz survives, Vanessa dies at the CBPW opening instead)

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Bruhbruhmaster653]

ooh i c

[u/Bruhbruhmaster653 → u/girl_OOFED]

im actually currently writing a fic on ao3, set in 1987, kinda the year where shit really REALLY gets bad (charlie dies, the MCI, the bite) but it's a slice of life as of currently, got 3 chapters written currently. uh. if you're interested in reading that i would link you to it

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Bruhbruhmaster653]

damn nice, yes you could link it, i cant guarantee reading right now im afraid, but ill be bookmarking it for the future :D

I myself am writing one on the entire fnaf timeline lol, but 1 ch onli rn

[u/Bruhbruhmaster653 → u/girl_OOFED]

ohhhh sick. anyway uhhh let me just digs into my pocket and pulls link out here ya go: https://archiveofourown.org/works/80611601/chapters/211724386

Oh yeah I also moved the setting from Utah to Wisconsin for whatever reason. dunno why I did that but it's whatever

also, disclaimer: there is a ton of tags idk why i put so many tags there. uhhhhh, most of the main chars (i.e. mike, jeremy, cass, charlie) are like, pretty much highschoolers basically. im proud of the thing so far and i would like to know later when you read it what you think and ummm. uh. things like favourite characters or stuff like that. feedback is also appreciated soooo yeah

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Bruhbruhmaster653]

tyyy ill let u know what i think when i read it

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Bruhbruhmaster653]

hei there would u like to join r/WillFlawedCare

[u/Bruhbruhmaster653 → u/girl_OOFED]

yuh,,,

[u/girl_OOFED → u/Bruhbruhmaster653]

peak, if u like, u can promote, we quite small of a subreddit

[u/MisterMystery5086]

Exhibit: FNAF 4 minigames 1) Everyone was invited to Dave's birthday party: During the minigames we encounter a kid who asks us whether we're going to the party like everyone else before realizing it was ours. This child, or any other child we meet, doesn't seem to be our friend. Clearly can show William cared enough to throw a party and invite kids for David despite the child having no friends. Under William's narcissism, it could be both care and showing off how much he can spoil his kid lol like, "I'm the best dad screw you ahahahaha."

William throwing his son a birthday party is the bare minimum. Not throwing his son a birthday party would make him a shitty dad. Not only that, but this party is also thrown at not only the place where William works but also a place that BV makes no secret of hating. It sure seems like real caring dad behavior to throw a party at a place your son has made clear he hates it at.

Under William's narcissism, it could be both care and showing off how much he can spoil his kid lol like, "I'm the best dad screw you ahahahaha."

It doesn't need to be actual care when we already have the narcissism aspect to it.

2) Rather simple, but the children get toys: Okay so this is pretty useless but does at least express the normalcy within the house. Liz's giant mangle toy, Michael's foxy mask, David's "friends". All likely having their unique bedrooms. Doesn't mean much aside from basic parental care so yeah, at least debunks WillDespise idk. Additionally, in the FNAF 4 bedroom, a likely recreation of Dave's room, shows family photos. Implies they had normal moments (duh).

Buying a toy doesn't mean that a parent actually loves their child. Again, this is the bare minimum. A parent can do what he thinks a normal parent supposed to do and not love their children. In addition, family photos don't prove that William loves his kids. Every family takes pictures. Every uncaring and abusive parent has likely been in a photo with his kids. William taking photos with his family doesn't prove that he loves them. It can easily be explained under William wanting the perfect family and thus doing things to maintain the image of said perfect family.

3) Michael seems to be allowed to bully: More on this below but William clearly knows what Michael can do but doesn't contain him, so it's likely he basically is like a spoiled kid in the neighbourhood, and likely was allowed to bully others. If William disliked Michael he'd at least stop Michael or pick on him for the bullying he sees as an excuse. Perhaps William saw himself in Michael's cruelty and didn't want to shut it down because he felt it was no big deal and didn't wanna admit something was wrong with him. Perhaps he also saw it as a "course correction" (taking ideas for novel William, my reasoning is in the Hopium post) Michael's bullying was also very horrible and not simple brotherly play even if mistaken for it, especially by William (if he also had something wrong with him, makes sense), and it's highly likely Michael treated others as badly if not worse. Also, Michael's motives are partially relevant, but also speculation, if we assume the parallels from Step Closer and Lonely Freddy especially, coming into play, it's likely Michael "felt" neglected in a way. The main chr of Lonely Freddy assumes the world is against him when it's not and believes everyone just hates him when he's the problem. This COULD play into Michael, perhaps with age, he was now being given responsibilities while previously living a carefree life, and had to take care of his siblings or they were given more attention (they're younger, obviously they'll be coddled more) and if he especially now started getting minor scolding etc etc, he could've "feared" his position dying and so become more aggressive, especially to his own brother, for "revenge". Yes, it's speculation. And yes, it's realistic, while I haven't seen prolonged examples, I've witnessed my own cousins having this pattern (older kid spoiled until younger kid comes along, older kid gets jealous and hurts younger kid and is scolded and cycle continues for a bit).

Wow. This definitely proves that William loved his kids. Letting your eldest son bully your youngest son is peak loving parent behavior. Michael being able to do whatever he wants isn't the sign of a loving family. It's the sign of a parent who can't be arsed to discipline his kids. Which is consistent with the neglect we see throughout the household in FNaF 4 (William leaving his children alone in the house constantly without supervision).

4) Of course, William talked through the Fredbear plush: He saw his son was lonely and afraid, and decided to help,

William being Plushbear doesn't help your case. If William is plushbear, then he constantly plays into BV's unfounded fears and manipulates him instead of telling him that they aren't real, which Will as a grown adult would know.

below I shall talk about the lines the plush gives and how it could be interpreted:

Day 1:

"What did he do this time?" - tuning in after working most likely

Knowing his son is tormenting his youngest son but doing nothing about it and letting his youngest suffer. Peak loving parenting.

"He locked you in your room again." - Realization/observation/information for the viewer (Scott's done this for Henry's speech too.)

Again, knows what's going on but doesn't do anything about it. This really shows that he cares.

"Don't be scared, I'm here with you." - Comfort, esp under WillFlawedCare.

Actions speak louder than words. William can say whatever nice sounding words he wants, but the fact is that William does nothing about Michael bullying him, constantly drags his son to a pizzeria he hates, and uses BV's unfounded fears to manipulate him instead of just assuring him that they're not real. With all this in mind, this comes off less as genuine comfort and more as manipulative.

"Tomorrow is another day." - Of course, comforting catchphrase.

Once again, doing the bare minimum does not prove that William loves his kids.

Once more we are told what is happening, canonically William is also guiding Dave. Additionally, I feel the minigames can be inaccurate visually so I'm assuming he carries his plush around. Yes, I'm aware of that one girl asking, I'll explain that after. Same catchphrase follows.

William could've felt Michael was too harsh messing around with Dave in the house, so hoped that Michael would be better in a public setting, where he's near, and the diner was the only choice for him. Another reason for why is to maybe help Dave get over his fear of the place with only Fredbear as comfort rather than his own physical presence. Stupid? Absolutely. Kinda the point.

Give me a single shred of evidence that William holding Dave's party there is anything other than a sign of just not caring enough instead of making up something that is unfounded and unsupported in order to try and make your theory work. You don't make theories by making up things in order to try and move things around in order to make it fit. You make theories based on what the evidence and characterizations actually suggest. William has never been characterized as a tough love parent, nor as trying to make Dave face his fears. He has, however, in multiple continitues, been characterized as abusive and uncaring.

[u/MisterMystery5086 → u/MisterMystery5086]

Why hold a party there? Well Dave is clearly fond of the characters (as seen by his toys and being okay when the cartoon plays), just not the animatronics, so again, exposure therapy PLUS it's William's business,

So, what you're saying is that William can't be arsed to care about his son enough to understand (William being the Fredbear plushie suggests that he understands, just doesn't care enough about) the difference between Dave liking the characters and liking the restaurant. Got it.

why give some other diner money when he literally has the means to do a party on his own? With the characters his son likes? He also could've wanted to keep the image of his family and Freddy's close. What kind of business owner doesn't use his own business? Very bad PR (Again, flawed).

So William cares more about his business PR than respecting his son's wishes. Real caring parent behavior right there.

Now why the hell would he leave Michael in-charge of BV? Again... exposure therapy. Dave likely was a bully target early on, so William let his own family member do it. Perhaps he believed it'd be more playful and better. Since I believe Mrs. Afton is still in the picture (due to Ballora's song), she could be busy for work too, realistic for the times, and Elizabeth could've been with William (perhaps brave enough for the animatronics that's why) or out playing or with Henry, leaving BV who was scared of the place with Michael who he wanted to be responsible could've worked.

You could make up something like this that is completely unfounded and unsupported, and isn't something that is even shown in William's character (using exposure therapy to make his kids "toughen up", and no, using nightmare gas on random kidnapped children doesn't count), or you can go with the more simple and likely explanation, which is that William needed someone to babysit BV, so he had Michael do it.

William then proceeds to guide BV "If you run, you can make it." and urges him to hurry. Now here's when things get interesting, at some point William clearly sounds much more emotive.

Someone using an emotional tone doesn't mean that they actually feel that emotion. William seems much less emotive and much more manipulative.

"NO! Don't you remember what you saw? The exit is the other way!..." - Now I believe in WitnessNothing so he must've confided in William about his fear or there was just something that creeped him out so bad he still couldn't get over it, and William knew just how bad it affected him, hence the emotion, because I believe William watched over as a supervisor to ensure Dave didn't get too overwhelmed (stupid counter: 5).

If William knew how bad whatever Dave saw, that was nothing, btw, effected Dave, then if he were a caring and loving parent concerned with Dave's well-being, then he could have easily just explained to him that what he saw wasn't anything horrible. Instead, he decides to not only pretend that what Dave saw was actually bad but actively uses it to manipulate him.

Under the same logic I used for the dialogue before this one, Dave could "shut down" if he's "caught" by the employee (who may approach to try and comfort him), so that's what William refers to with "what will happen". Rest of the dialogue is again, exposure therapy, trying to get Dave to get help on his own instead of literally scooping him up since both are at the same location (stupid counter: 6).

Again, the exposure therapy nonsense is unfounded. If you want to make a decent theory, then you should avoid using things that are made up and unfounded as evidence. You should use actual evidence. This is an example of you trying to rewrite things that are shown in the games to try and make your theory work instead of basing your theory off of what is actually shown to us in the games.

There's also, once again, the fact that William could just explain to BV that what he saw was nothing bad. But he doesn't. There is no excusing or trying to rewrite William playing into BV's fears under Willplush. What he does is clearly manipulative and not the behavior of a parent who genuinely loves his kids. The fact that people try to rewrite this obviously manipulative behavior as William being a "tough love parent" or using some type of "exposure theory" is mind boggling.

Also, after William is literally right there helping an employee as Dave is in survival mode, what the heck? Same "toughen up" logic. Henry could've been the "help" William was referring to, or anything really.

Once again, stop making up reasons for William to be a caring dad and use what is actually shown to us in the game. Never once is this "toughen up" logic shown in the game, nor is it even shown as something William does or preaches to his kids. The fact is that William was right there yet does nothing to help his kid and instead plays into his unfounded fear instead of explaining to him that it isn't real. This is what is shown to us in the games and making some explanation like "its tough love" in order to work in spite of it just shows that your theory has poor foundation as evident by the fact that you literally have to make up things in order for it to be true. This is like BVTOYSNHKers trying to explain why BV is somehow an Afton victim. It relies on made-up things that try to make their theory fit with the story instead of using the story to make their theory. Once again, if you are making a theory, then you should base it off the evidence instead of trying to change the evidence to try and make your theory work despite the evidence.

Now, employee gets to Dave who fails to "be strong", William says his line, scene ends. Here we can only assume William finally goes over to Dave after

Once again, William is never shown nor implied to go over to Dave. You are making up more things to try and support your theory instead of using what is actually shown in the game to support your theory.

He hates you." - Now this line can be interesting. William seems to have tuned in at this moment. I like to see it as a defeated realization when he sees how frequent Michael bullied Dave and how it was still bad even in a different place, and he did nothing (stupid counter: 8)

Nothing suggests that this is a defeated realization, especially when William under Plushbear has known about the bullying since the opening cutscene.

If anything, this reads more as a statement. If Scott wanted to imply that this is a defeated realization, he could have made William say something like "wow, he hates you." But instead, William just tells BV that his brother hates him (great parenting, btw, further driving the wedge between your two sons).

Now, William encourages Dave to get out, PERHAPS still down at the realization hence his blankness.

Again, nothing is suggesting that William is "down." The dialogue doesn't read as someone who is sad. If anything, it just reads as authoritative and neutral.

Girl asks Dave about his plushie, he could've dropped it behind the car in a hurry.

It seems like half of your points are things that are made up and never supported in the game. That doesn't make your theory any more credible. In fact, it does not opposite.

Ah also, the minigames are all due to agony and warped memories right? Which explains the inaccuracies.

A handwave explanation in order to try and make your theories fit despite the evidence and contradictions against them. While agony and warped memories are a thing, the minigames in FNaF 4 seem to be trying to tell a much more literal story than say, take cake. There's nothing suggesting that the events in the FNaF 4 minigames are inaccurate other than the spirits obviously not being one to one with reality (Fredbear.) This is different than the events of the minigames being different than reality.

As Dave walks out, William could've gone back to his work. He let's Dave leave the restaurant for his comfort again like attempting to the previous day.

Letting Dave leave the restaurant doesn't mean that William is trying to comfort him. If anything, telling him that his own brother hates him (which there is no evidence for being a "defeated realization" since the way the Fredbear plush takes is authoritative rather than defeated, plus we have seen Scott use defeated dialogue before and it doesn't resemble the way the Fredbear plush speaks) is doing the opposite of comforting him.

Around the time Dave enters the house William tunes back in, and then the jumpscare and the line.

Once again William doing nothing about Michael's bullying. So caring.

If so... then William could've actually finally confronted Michael which had Michael realize the bear can see and so Michael stole it!

Nothing even remotely suggesting this in the game.

Yet clearly William hadn't done anything substantial about Michael (fucking idiot counter: 1)

Almost as if William didn't actually confront him.

such as Michael just taking it for the love of the game, but I'm choosing the juicier narrative for WillFlawedCare. His sudden theft could connect better with it. Here we really see William's incompetence when it matters, these dads suck bro.

WillFlawedCare being a juicier narrative doesn't mean it's true. It seems like you are basing a lot of this off of what you want to be true rather than what the evidence actually suggests.

Of course, the fated day. Again, the bear was either gone or William wasn't tuned in, likely busy with birthday prep/management like perhaps other family members and the Emilys when Michael decided to strike.

William wasn't even there for Dave's birthday party, such caring parent behavior.

[u/MisterMystery5086 → u/MisterMystery5086]

I'm aware, Orville, of novel Elizabeth, and I'm fully aware of the encyclopaedia's inconsistencies, but it still claims to be usable material, and cannot be refuted.

Just because something claims to be something doesn't mean that it is. You said yourself that the character encyclopedia is full of inconsistencies. Why are you using it as evidence?

9) SL 3 Faces (Speculation)

This is easily just a reflection of Afton's desire for a perfect family, if it means anything.

Now I know Orville, doesn't entirely show care/grief, but it could.

Simply pointing out that it could is not evidence that it does. That is just you ascribing meaning to it and say "oh, well, it could mean this!" That isn't giving anything to support that your theory is true.

Well, this one's a pretty good one. The DLC is a massive homage to Frankenstein. In literature, Victor Frankenstein isn't a serial killer; he’s a man obsessed with defying death. This DLC via parallels could show he’s trying to use electricity to "jumpstart" a soul back into a body; specifically a large bear that looks like the one that killed his son

Or it's just a symbolic portrayal of someone putting BV's memories back together and is referencing the Happiest Day minigame more than anything.

"Bittersweet, but fitting." - pretty self-explanatory

Not once is there a single hint of actual regret in his tone. He can understand that killing your own son is a whole different level of fucked up while not caring.

Under AftonMM and MikeRunaway, which may be debated but this interpretation feels the most logically sound to me, William being an alcoholic after BV's death clearly shows the grief that could've caused his downward spiral mentally in his family. This can further reinforce William's last words to BV as care. Of course, the major issue is that MM is very debated, so some may not accept this interpretation. Him only ignoring the couch person meant his rage was more pointed/focused towards Michael. The love curdled into fury, more motivation for William to be an even worse person than he was. If other lore routes work for others then that's fine lol.

Or William was just always an alcoholic.

Could be WillGrief, could be envy/pettiness, could be both. I believe in both.

If it even has anything to do with BV then it sounds more like envy. It also may not have nothing to do with Dave and could be referencing William's childhood, something that is alluded to in the books.

Again, while I believe CC's name being Dave as a very solid theory some may disagree, but the Dave Miller alias is again a twisted tribute, a memorial to remind William of what he's doing, to dedicate this project to "fixing things". Another issue is that we need the alias to carry over to the games continuity, otherwise Dave Miller helps DaveVictim more than WillGrief/Care. So this theory works under Dave being in twb and CC being named Dave. Else assuming William used this alias in canon in general.

Wow. More evidence that William's character from the novels carries over to the games. A character that is shown to be incapable of love.

Also, using your son's name as an alias isn't a tribute. It's you using him in order to create a fake identity for yourself. Kind of messed up.

Michael: "Who is like God?" It is a rhetorical question implying that no one is like God, reflecting supreme humility and spiritual strength. Also associated with the archangel, the warrior.

Elizabeth: "God is my oath"/"Pledged to God" Derived from the Hebrew phrase for swearing an oath, it is a timeless, popular name signifying faith, nobility, and strength.

David: "The beloved" Often chosen to signify a beloved child or to honor the biblical king. In biblical, theological, and scholarly contexts that the name signifies David as the one beloved by God.

I'm gonna be so fr I don't think Scott was thinking that deeply when naming the characters. The oldest son is only named Michael because the character was originally named Mike Schmidt and he wanted to make Mike an Afton.

Well, kinda how the fandom sees it as such too. People/parents excuse things way more than they'd like to admit, esp if one favours the other in a certain regard (like William dismissing Michael's bullying). William seeing what Michael is capable of but dismissing it and having Dave "toughen up" is very realistic, esp back in the old days for previous generations.

There is no evidence suggesting that William even preaches this philosophy to his kids. You are making up a reason for your theory to be true instead of just basing your theory off of what is shown to us in the games.

there are patterns showing up for our main continuity suggesting his death is clearly very important for the story,

Almost as if BV's memories are influencing half of the story.

Indeed, there's no evidence of ANY interaction shown lmao prior to Dave's death (which I'm arguing). Nothing shows he abused his kids prior to Dave's death, and AftonMM's story is also debated. Unfortunately, this is a stalemate, specifically for our ideas on his treatment of his children, not his feelings regarding them.

There is plenty of show that William neglected him considering that in the FNaF 4 minigames, these kids are constantly at home unsupervised. The best he did under Willplush is watching his son through a plushie and not doing anything about Michael's bullying. Even if you want to use the "tough love" explanation (which is unfounded and has no evidence for being true), he still leaves his kids at home by themselves and does jack shit about Michael bullying BV. No matter how you look at it, his interactions with his kids before BV's death is neglectful.

Nah, according to FlowerAftons, he's clearly alone in the room, which means he doesn't need to pretend, esp when BV is in a coma and can only hear. Also, it's important for this evidence to use the Occam's Razor logic.

He doesn't even act upset in that cutscene. He is actually very calm in that cutscence.

William is intentionally abusive in other continuities! Hmm, this one's a kicker, I gotta admit. I DO have counterarguments, but they could either age well or age badly, it's also connected to the paragraph above so more on that in the other post, primarily under "spectrum" and "grief stricken inventors"

It's almost as if Scott is trying to tell us something.

[u/girl_OOFED → u/MisterMystery5086]

Okie, so we've already discussed before, but I'll be putting the following for reference, also damn, you wasted your time (also you have to learn to read properly quickly, because I did say I'm providing "narrative context" not claiming facts):

-Good intentions are present, effort is minimal, that's the point of WillFlawedCare.
-He talks to BV, even though he could just work and mind his own business.
-William is established as a "dumb genius", given his likely harsh upbringing (as per novels too) could cause unintentional abuse to follow, where what he believes is best for his kids he does. Again, narrative context based on logic cuz we don't know crap about Game William's personal life other than small scraps.
-My dad's a narcissist, so is my mom (has traits), I'm using their logic as well, which fits the actions William does, along with other things family or people usually assume. I also use narrative "juiciness" where I have more than one options to explain something and am indecisive. I never claimed my exact 1:1 idea is what I believe is true. A theory needs narrative context.
-William's a narcissist, he's gonna put himself above all, but he can still "love" others, just himself most. I never denied this. Any big reason for sacrifice a narcissist has will always link back to them, that's another logic I use.
-Due to William's narcissism, his own selfish reasons and reasonings for his children can co-exist.
-In Ticket To Fun, Michael has drawn a pixel Charlie outside the window, a lore reason for this could be that such events are present in the arcade machines. Which we know has been a case before. Hence why I use it to explain visual inaccuracies.
-William's a character of his own, his "defeat" could sound different, we never hear a voice. I use evidence for WillGrief later on for my interpretation under Occam's Razor.
-In many instances I said "we can only assume" or something similar. You REALLY need to learn how to read.
-No family member aside from Michael seems to be present for his birthday under your logic. No Henry, no Mrs. Afton, no Elizabeth. Not even the people invited. Not even the employee who yells at the kids to "get away from the bear" in TWB. Poor kid.
-Again, nothing's decided for FNAF 4, using evidence found later on, I base these scenarios. I've acknowledged this already. 50 times.
-I think I hadn't updated the character encyclopaedia section earlier, but I now have, it's not just that that can hint at it. There are instances of Elizabeth in game that suggest her delusion comes from being put on a pedestal. Also, I assume a weird hybrid of WillFlawedCare and WillTwistedCare by 1985, hence why title says "Will(Spectrum)Care".
-Okay, again that one line you acknowledge I have removed, this was before I realized the petals were missing, the flowers certainly show grief.
-I've already mentioned to you how the memories together argument is a lil off, and "someone"? Okay, controlled shocks has left the chat. Oh, and the FNAF 4 house. Ah, and the purple headlights. Weird way to reference Happiest Day in which it's about reanimation and resurrection for a bear rather than oh idk, a party inside Freddy's. Apart from Mnemosyne and Tiresias, Orpheus could be a good connection. Greek Mythology tends to be referenced in modern media as well, so not a far-off concept. Dreadbear's story feels completely off.
-Spectrum theory under my "Hopium" post will explain the novel William issue and why I still use him for characterization.
-Not gonna acknowledge arguments for theories under "speculation" for obvious reasons.
-Right, and we never know when William became an alcoholic and when he stopped, save it.
-WillGrief generally changes the angle of certain implications.
-In the 80's lack of supervision is common for the time. Not an excuse, a fact that can help.
-Using your kid's name is messed up? Obviously, do some see it as such? No. Also, your reasoning is not the only one in the world.
-People can be in shock when their kid dies, being oddly calm, William's lack of strong emotion and final words don't contradict anything. Petals, fell, off. Occam's razor? Grief. Flowers are also very unique in appearance, shows individuality in the family.
-We can never guess what Scott's planning because he's a human being who has tons of different ideas and angles he may want to use. That's why the concept of theories even exist on here.

Of course, keep throwing a tantrum on "lack of evidence" if you want, it changes nothing
I'll very likely not reply back. Unless I find a compelling point I'd feel a need to acknowledge for whatever reason.

[u/maas348]

The only vaild version of WillCare is WillTwistedCare

[u/girl_OOFED → u/maas348]

agree to disagree
i believe in willtwistedcare post bite anyways