Hello, hello, hello, HELLO!

Okay, yes a new story, one that was originally going to be a Fnaf yandere harem story (Which it is still possible that it might come but i just couldn't get this idea out of my head) but after much, much thinking and reviewing things, this story will replace "Avengers: A New World" as my dark comedy one or at the very least, a new story in general.

Just to be perfectly clear this story will be based off a new possible timeline for the new "Stark Of Legend V2" and with some elements from "Rise Of The Grimm Reaper" added to the mix. It'll mostly be back ground and flash backs, but for the most part, it will help shape the Xero we will see in this story.

I was originally going to have this original take place during the "Infinite War Arc" or better yet "The Multiverse Of Madness Arc" but then i watched the new Spider Man movie and it fit, PERFECTLY with what i want to do with this story.

Everything about it is perfect.

But, on a different topic, not only will this story be my more comedy story, as Helluva Boss and Hazbin Hotel are pretty funny just from the dialogue alone, as both exist within the same universe, yes, it's cannon and i dare anyone to tell me otherwise so it won't be that much of a crossover between the two web shows, but it will deal with some heavy shit like PTSD and shit like that, just as an example. As this is one of the possible darker timelines, Xero will not only not have his Servants, but a few other people he is close to will have been long since passed away or killed.

So, if you haven't figured it out yet, this story's timeline takes sometime during the "Spider-Man Across the Spider-Verse" only it's cannon from a sort of combined versions of my two stories "Rise Of The Grimm Reaper" and the new "The Stark Of Legend". Anyway, just recently watched the movie itself and, deep breath, whoo boy, do i regret NOT going to the threaters to watch it on the big screen.

The movie, graphics and story telling are not only great, wonderful even, but the root of the movie's concept is perfect in my opinion.

It's basically "The Trolley Problem" made real in a Spider Man movie, portraying it perfectly on how difficult and terrible the choice can be. Save one person or dozens more. Fuck me, the movie was so big, they couldn't even tell the whole story and instead, had to break it down into two movies and let me tell ya, that cliff hanger had me on the edge of my seat, wanting to go see part 2 as soon as it hits theaters. I am very much regretting not going to see part 1 and i'll be damned if i don't go see part 2.

Get it, damned, because of where my OC is going?

Okay, terrible pun aside, the movie itself deserve four, no, FIVE stars and that Cliff Hanger, was also perfect.

Goddamn, the whole movie is perfect, and it certainly lives up to "The best Spider Man Movie" quote. Compared to the last ones, yeah, they kind of fall short and don't live up to the hype, aside from No Way Home that one was great, but this movie is the perfect set up for a good and realistic reason why Xero will be sent away. In all the marvel/Fate stories i have posted so far, Xero and co. always mess with different worlds and dimensions, not to mention Xero himself is an OC.

Aka NOT cannon and Migual is all about "Keeping the Canon, canon." So, Xero's and his clan's existence alone is a massive breach of cannon, being Tony's son, more so as he would be involved in major cannon parts of their timeline. Hell, i don't even need to come up with a reasonable and likeable reason why Xero would go against Migual and his "Spider-Society" seeing as he is an OC and everything in fanfiction is most certainly NOT cannon.

Prologue: The Trolley Problem

The trolley problem is a series of thought experiments in ethics and psychology, involving stylized ethical dilemmas of whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number. The series usually begins with a scenario in which a runaway tram or trolley is on course to collide with and kill a number of people (traditionally five) down the track, but a driver or bystander can intervene and divert the vehicle to kill just one person on a different track. Then other variations of the runaway vehicle, and analogous life-and-death dilemmas (medical, judicial etc.) are posed, each containing the option to either do nothing, in which case several people will be killed, or intervene and sacrifice one initially "safe" person to save the others.

Opinions on the ethics of each scenario turn out to be sensitive to details of the story that may seem immaterial to the abstract dilemma. The question of formulating a general principle that can account for the differing judgments arising in different variants of the story was raised in a 1967 philosophy paper by Philippa Foot, and dubbed "the trolley problem" by Judith Jarvis Thomson in a 1976 article that catalyzed a large literature. Thus, in this subject the trolley problem refers to the meta-problem of why different judgements are arrived at in particular instances, which are called trolley cases, examples, dilemmas, or scenarios.

The most basic version of the dilemma, known as "Bystander at the Switch" or "Switch", goes: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:

1.) Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.

2.) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the sidetrack where it will kill one person.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do? How do you make the right choice

Foot's version of the thought experiment, now known as "Trolley Driver", ran as follows:

Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose airplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible, it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram, which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots, the mob have five hostages, so that in both examples, the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five.

A utilitarian view asserts that it is obligatory to steer to the track with one man on it. According to classical utilitarianism, such a decision would be not only permissible, but, morally speaking, the better option (the other option being no action at all). This fact makes diverting the trolley obligatory. An alternative viewpoint is that since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, moving to another track constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise no one would be responsible. An opponent of action may also point to the incommensurability of human lives. Under some interpretations of moral obligation, simply being present in this situation and being able to influence its outcome constitutes an obligation to participate. If this is the case, then doing nothing would be considered an immoral act.

What is considered a immoral act anyway? By all rights, an immoral act is the following: Immorality is evil, sinful, or otherwise wrong behavior. Immorality is often called wickedness and is a state avoided by good people. Since morality refers to things that are right, immorality has to do with things that are wrong — like stealing, lying, and murdering.

But what if that meant stealing, to get food or the money to feed your starving family? What if, lying meant you could either protect yourself, other people or your family? What if, the act of murder is the only way to save another's life and your own?

But moving back to the Trolley Problem, the most moral thing to do in that moment, would be to save the many over the few. Right? What if that one person you would have to sacrifice was someone you love? Like say, a father, mother, husband, wife, sibling or child?

Would it be considered immoral to sacrifice the lives of the many to save the lives of the few, even when that few was one of your own?

Truth be told, it all came down to the induvial and their own moral compass to decide on whether what is right and what is easy. But like usually, life is never that simple or easy, as each action has a consequence.

Sometimes very server consequences.

What if you had the choice, between saving everyone you love, only for that choice to cause the destruction of not just your world but the very fabric of your reality itself? What if the ones you want to save, the ones you love, were meant to die, what would you do? What is the right choice?

Moral or otherwise, would say that allowing your loved ones to die is the right choice, as that would mean all of your reality would stay intact.

But would it, really, stay intact?

How can we decide what is the 'right choice' is when you aren't entirely sure of what would happen? What if you sacrificing that one person, the one meant to die, would result in the death of your world as they were meant to save it? Hell, how can we be sure that IS the right choice? How can be sure we know what is 'Canon' and what isn't?

Then considered how much more complicated this problem becomes, when a being from another world, another demission was to arrive in another universe, completely different from their own? In this vast multiverse of ours, when one person from a different reality disrupts the reality, they find themselves in what would happen? What could happen, if someone were to mess with the canon timeline?

After all, just because something happens a tab bit differently in one timeline then the quote, unquote "Original timeline" right?

"...Why?"

"For what it's worth, am i truly sorry it had to come to this. But your very existence is a threat, not only to your reality or ours, but our entire multiverse itself. You were never supposed to existence, your clan was never supposed to exist and it breaks not only your realities canon timeline, but the number of realities you've gone too have put them ALL in danger as a result of your meddling. You are a mistake and one, we cannot allow to run freely anymore. You've interfered with too many realities for us to ignore any longer."

"Do you really think these chains will hold me?"

No, your much to powerful for that, too powerful for any cell we can create to hold you forever and far too useful to be killed, but for all the good you've done, this is the most merciful option open to us, goodbye."

Wrong.

Betrayed by his allies, in the belief that it would save their multiverse from certain destruction, Miguel O'Hara, leader of the so called "Spider-Society" an elite group created for the soul purpose of protecting their multiverse, sends Xero Mazoku/Stark OUTSIDE their multiverse to 'save' their own from his recklessness. His very existence itself was deemed an anomaly, one that threated to destabilize their entire multiverse, regardless of the fact he was in fact born into that very same multiverse.

One that had to be 'purged' least their entire multiverse collapse or so they believed.

Despite saving his own reality, his world countless times, even preventing the multiverse from collapsing he was deemed too dangerous to keep around by the Spider Society, thus when they finally met face to face, Xero was betrayed by his greatest allies: Peter Parker and Miles Morals, the two Spider-Men of his reality.

In the ensuring fight that broke out, with the Magus against all the Spider's, Xero gets blown out of his multiverse, to a brand new one. In a new world, one that seems familiar in many ways, yet oh so different in every way possible.

"Ya know, i figured I'd go to Hell for what I've done, but this...this isn't what i imaged it be."

Done.

And yeah, while my original plans for this story have evolved far beyond a simple comedy story, i can't help but image how many possibilities this story has. So, due to the nature of this story, not only will it be a spin off, but it will contain multiple crossovers that won't be revealed just yet. But to be clear, again, this is a spin off from my two stories "The Stark Of Legend" and "Rise Of The Grimm Reaper" so it will be labeled a Marvel/Hazbin Hotel crossover, despite the fact that Xero will be joining IMP.

It just is what it is.

So, that's all for now folks.

Devil out!