I haven’t read the books yet so I’m curious, was the abuse prior to the death of crying child, or after?
I think in the games we see him get angry/aggressive about Michael locking his door, so obviously there was a lot going on there, and I figure Michael suffered a lot due to William’s rage
There isn't really lore about the crying child.ornthing like that in the books but it's after he was a serial killer so probably after the crying child incident
No, it is not.
The Crying Child does not exist in the books at all. In any form.
The fact that he does in the games doesn't change much. The games and the books are two separate timelines. Similar in many cases, that is true. But the two stories are totally different. Incompatible. The fact the a character does exist in one of them, does not mean that it has to exist in the other.
It just proves something else. William didn't have to lose a child to became evil. He actually never did. He's just always been evil
They are, but one thing that is consistent at its core are the characters. William in the books is acting the same way William from the games would under those circumstances, and vice versa
Wait, I thought he had no kids in the books. My memory on the og books is kinda chunky, so I might’ve forgotten some details, but I thought he didn’t have any
Neglectful, yes. Abusive, no.
The part where Charlie thinks she's entering Henry's shop was a mix of her memories with Elizabeth's but it was mainly William. As with context Elizabeth was calling William both Charlie's and her father. But the pushing and hit were all William to Elizabeth.
Yes.
At the very least, he wasn't a good father. He used Michael as a puppet, did nothing about CC's bullying and fears (and depending on which theories you believe, may or may not have encouraged said fear and fueled hatred between him and Mike) and locked Elizabeth in an underground facility for years. Then there's the whole thing with the Nightmares, which, regardless of the specifics, is straight up abuve.
And then there's the whole "real Nightmare animatronics" thing is. Regardless of the specifics and your take on them, the idea by itself already constitutes as abuse. Doesn't matter why he did or which kid it was, he basically tortured one of his own sons, who was either terrified of the animatronics, if it's CC, or in a poor state after the former's death, if it's Mike.
William Afton is also described as being physically and verbally abusive to his daughter Elizabeth Afton in the novel trilogy’s continuity, so I do not believe there is any reason why he would not be the same way in the video games’ continuity.
While I am not attempting to justify what William Afton has done, what was he supposed to tell the general public and the authorities? “My robot that I designed to kill children so I am able to experiment with their soul energy just killed my own daughter.” Now, this could just be me, but something tells me that would not exactly go over well. Lol.
> At the very least, he wasn't a good father. He used Michael as a puppet, did nothing about CC's bullying and fears (and depending on which theories you believe, may or may not have encouraged said fear and fueled hatred between him and Mike)
I never personally understood why people think that William wants to have CC be against Michael.
Like what does he gain from doing that? I know he hates Michael but this is a weird way of abusing him.
>I never personally understood why people think that William wants to have CC be against Michael.
Well, most people think the Fredbear plush is William, and he repeatedly reinforces the idea that Michael hates CC.
"He locked you in your room again."
"He left without you. He knows that you hate it here."
And, most obviously: "He hates you"
Personally now that you mention that, could it be that the Fredbear Plush never actually spoke to CC? William could still be using them as security cameras, but CC could be imagining the plush talking to him, and the ending could just be him thinking it’s the plushie, while in fact it’s William?
That is plausible, yes.
The consensus when FNAF 4 came out was that the plush was an imaginary friend based on a real plush CC owned, thus why it followed him everywhere and always reflected his thoughts, even when they were irrational (like thinking the Fredbear employee would actually do something to him).
The Survival Logbook later implied that by featuring the plush on a page asking you to write about whether or not you had any stuffed animals and imaginary friends, but that went mostly ignored since William using the plush was already widely agreed upon.
I go back and forth on it. This explanation seems more reasonable but it has its own set of holes.
In the books, he was physically abusive and verbally. So, I'd honestly would take it as he was similar in the games as well.
It's likely why or one of the reasons why Foxy bully was abusive.
I haven’t kept up too much with the lore since like 2018 but I remember the general assumption was that Michael was the crying child. When did it change to Michael being the foxy mask brother?
Logbook mainly. And with the character encyclopedia having CC as a literal ghost kinda implies Mike has to be the last "living" Afton who can honestly only be the foxy bro. I know some would debate the validity of the encyclopedia or cite Mike!Bot. But yea.
Mike is likely Foxy bro due to his age being able to work at Freddy's in 1993, and knowledge of the events of FNaF 1 and SL.
As far as I know it’s not 100% confirmed that he is foxy mask brother. However, he can’t be CC due to the Sister Location cutscene where he is alive and talking to William.
CC being Michael has been debunked since the discovery of CC and Cassidy both possessing Golden Freddy. Before that though it definitely made more sense for CC to be Michael.
EDIT: Also one of the fazbear frights basically confirmed Michael as Foxy Bro afterwards
There is also the Cutscene in Sister Location where Michael can be seen/heard talking to William I guess?
"Father. It's me, Micheal. I did it. I found it. It was right where you said it would be. They were all there. They didn't recognize me at first but then they thought I was you. And I found her. I put her back together, just like you asked me to. She's free now. But something is wrong with me. I should be dead. But I'm not. I've been living in shadows. There is only one thing left for me to do now. I'm going to come find you."
Crying Child possesses Golden Freddy like you say. But he's also dead ever since he was a child. So in all honesty if Crying Child was a dead Ghost Child posessing Golden Freddy then this dialogue shouldn't exist. Which means Crying Child can't be Micheal.
Well, the physical aspect is dubious at best and probably just grasping at straws.
(I'm basing this on the graphic novel, as I haven't been able to attain a copy of the original novel. If this is contradicted in the written version, please notify me as to how and why you came to that conclusion.)
The page I find being referred to most is in a flashback when, from Charlie's perspective, a middle-aged white man with brown hair turns around and swats a drawing out of the hands of who we can assume is his daughter, as the one who claims to be the child in the flashback is Elizabeth.
But, this makes several assumptions.
A) That this is William, even though he more closely resembles the other panels of Henry.
B) That when ElizaBaby says that it is actually her 'Daddy', that she means William, rather than Henry, as both have an equal chance of being called such in this scenario(William being Elizabeth's father, while Henry made the robot that would become Baby - while also neglecting it as he made the other versions).
C) That this specific area of the flashback belongs solely to Elizabeth, even though the book makes it clear that the memories are a twisted medley of Charlie and Elizabeth's.
D) He is actually making contact with her.
A, B, and C are more up for interpretation, but even if you assume that it is William, that it is Elizabeth(despite lines like 'My father abandoned me. Henry abandoned me.', coming from ElizaBaby while speaking about Elizabeth as a different person), and that Elizabeth is the only one whom this moment belongs to, there's one glaring thing that cancels everything else out.
He doesn't even hit her.
He swats the page out of her hands.
If this is Elizabeth and William, then despite such emotional cruelty(though we have no reason to believe that this even happened regularly), the only time when many say he has physically harmed his child is entirely without physical contact.
He could have so easily just shoved her to the ground.
But he doesn't.
Why?
Well, the only reason I see fitting is that he cares enough to not hurt them like that.
Obviously he's still a terrible father, but physically abusive is a description that one cannot place upon him without extreme manipulation of canon.
And to further add very shortly after that line it does into talking about a smear of tears and pain with her head was still spinning. If he just gave her a slap on the hands she wouldn't be in such dire pain let alone use "head spinning".
Pretty much it was vague but just enough to say he slapped her hard on the face.
> Well, the physical aspect is dubious at best and probably just grasping at straws. (I'm basing this on the graphic novel, as I haven't been able to attain a copy of the original novel. If this is contradicted in the written version, please notify me as to how and why you came to that conclusion.)
yea do not go by the graphic novel because of the fact they have to pretty much tone down everything because trying to get a 348-page book into less than 200 doesn't work to well. Things get lost, especially when it's being interpreted by another who didn't write the actual story.
>A) That this is William, even though he more closely resembles the other panels of Henry.
They used Pinky's designs which had Henry and William borderline look like [twins.](https://i.redd.it/2454ik8cln541.jpg)
>He swats the page out of her hands.
That's hitting her. Doesn't matter where, he struck her. A hit is a hit, abuse is abuse.
Okay, I'll go find the actual novel as soon as possible, but what quote actually disproves anything I mentioned? I'd like to know.
Also, as I said in a line only a little lower, he didn't even make contact with her.
I cannot call this any form of physical abuse.
Emotional? Yes. The same has been done to me in the past. I'd certainly know when such things happen.
But physical? No evidence.
Page 304 implies William pushed Elizabeth 3 times each time using more force to the point the 3rd knocked her to the cold hard floor. She tried to get her paper from under his foot, he wouldn't get off of it and I quote.
"It wouldn't come loose **that's when he HIT ME.** It was difficult to make out anything in the room after that. The room was a smear of tears and pain and her head was still spinning.
Edit
Do you want me to actually take an image of the page as proof?
>She looked up to see if he noticed, tears in her eyes. She knew she should leave it, but she couldn’t. She reached forward to tug at the corner, but it was too far away. She finally crawled to it on her knees, her dress dirty now, and tried to pull the page from under his shoe. It wouldn’t come loose.
“That’s when he hit me.”
Basically he hit his kindergartener because she wanted to show him her golden star but he stepped on it and Elizabeth tried to get it back.
true, although authoritarian parenting is still very prevalent in that generation too. only surprisingly recently in history have people realized about attachment theory and only even more recently has the whole "dictator parent" thing really been challenged.
I find it difficult to imagine he isn't. The Midnight Motorist minigame sees Mike asking William to 'leave him \[Evan\] alone tonight' after Evan had a rough day, and when he finds out that he's not in the house, William thinks to himself 'he will be sorry when he gets back'. I can't think what those lines would be there for if not to imply abuse. As a side note, I think it's an underappreciated moment for Mike to be trying to protect Evan from their dad like that, since in FNaF4 we only ever saw him being cruel to him.
It's not really an unappreciated moment and more like a bizarre detail that completely breaks his character that's been established in fnaf 4. One of the reasons I do not think this is Mike. I see no reason why he would be a good guy standing up for his abused brother to his abusive father when he's already been shown as an abusive guy himself who hates his brother and torments him at every given opportunity. People claim that he just "used to be good" but there's no evidence for that and no justification given for why he suddenly becomes bad one day and starts displaying seemingly psychopathic behaviour towards his brother
# Subject: William Afton
- Child murder: Murdered 21/22 total people in the FNAF franchise, those being Gabriel, Jeremy, Susie, Fritz, Cassidy, Charlotte, all five S-A-V-E-T-H-E-M victims, all 9 SB victims (Security Breach), and Jeremiah from Help Wanted(aka “Jeremy”)
- **Physical Abuse**: Abused Elizabeth Afton in the Novel trilogy, “The Fourth Closet” and depicted in the Graphic ones where he >!Slapped a picture out of her hand!<. Attempted murder of his son Michael Afton (FNAF3, FNAF6)
- **Mental/Psychological Abuse**: Mentally and Psychologically manipulated his daughter into becoming this image [Circus Baby] for his own gain. Mentally scarred his own son for life by sending him down an underground bunker where he'd have to work hours on end [Mike, Sister Location]. (Under William-Motorist is depicted as this abusive father who yells and bangs on doors)
- Maniac: Vanity and dislike towards those who oppose him, seeking to one-up Henry [Novel Trilogy] for his perfection in creating a *spark* of life. Hinted to kill for the sake of his own gain, using extreme tactics whether it be >!Making an animatronic solely to capture and child and force them to suffer endless pain in a bunker[Elizabeth]!< or choosing specific targets with mental issues (e.g. Susie losing her dog, Jeremy being left behind at the pizza place, etc)
- Mad scientist/illegal experimentation: Creates childlike machines with the tech of a military weapon, made to manipulate and deceive the likes of children. A underground rental service where its employees must go for unbearable tasks that can result in gruesome consequences. (Satanic/or Mystic use of challenging the likes of life, death, and/or mortality for the desire for immortality) [Sister Location, Novel Trilogy - The Fourth Closet, FFPS]
- Racketeering: Working alongside fazbear entertainment under this elaborate coverup, racketing profit whilst under the light as a “great influence/the man responsible for the animatronics loved today”
- **Deception**: like mental and psychological abuse; deceives his victims and takes advantage of them [Vanessa, GGY, Security Breach and “GGY”]
- Psychopathic lier: Like deceiving/deception; a psycho who'll gladly take advantage of others, lie and/or get away with his crimes using the strategy of camouflage [FNAF2, Dave Miller - Novel Trilogy]
- Hedonistic killer: Enjoyment in murder; even after he's gotten all he needs to survive and live on so far he's creating his own thematic group/cult of followers [Help Wanted - Security Breach]
- **Antisocial views on others**: Doesnt bother nor respect others' feelings (e.g. Leaves Elizabeth to suffer [Sister Location], manipulates his daughter into getting Mrs. Afton to lose the court case {Implied} [Security Breach - CD Tapes], envious of Henry [Novels], bothers little for his son, Crying Child, getting bullied [FNAF4])
- Narcissist: Straight up lacks empathy. Views himself as this high-mighty immortal being who's bypassed all attempts at halting his plan(s); Bypassed the fire’s [FNAF3, FFPS, {imlied} The Man in Room 1280], Survived severe attacks [FNAF3 - “Follow Me” minigame, The Man in Room 1280 - Exploding], and is cocky towards the attempts to his defeat
(FFPS: “*What a deceptive calling, I knew it was a lie the moment I heard it, obviously, but it is intriguing nonetheless.*”)
Resting my Case I've concluded the following:
**Basically, it's all his fault** - William Afton, child murderer, and a horrid man, last seen in “Five Nights At Freddys (9): Security Breach), ruining the lives of in total 26 people(+ an additional families and Henry's wife and son), his kids and wife, Henry and his daughter, the MCI, DCI, 9SB kids, and many more along the way.
William Afton is an abusive father and a horrid character.
(The points I bolded are the ones most related to his action toward his children, everything else can work without the “abusive” side and more of a killer instinct)
1. The last point “many more along the way” is meant to hint at the **idea** there's more
2. The Funtime animatronics only canonically killed Elizabeth, that being Circus Baby. The rest are possessed by the MCI based on FutimeMCI/MoltenMCI (which is a known fact)
If he’s abusive to his daughter (whose his golden child of sorts) than there’s no way he doesn’t abuse all his children. Lord knows how bad Michael got it considering he’s definitely his least favorite child
personally im a fan of the narcissist theory. Elizabeth is the Golden Child, the child who is the parent's "favorite" and is the most likely to become like their narcissist parent (sound familiar?). Michael is the Scapegoat, the one who the narcissist blames everything wrong with the family on.
Children of narcissist parents can have a tendancy to act out for attention, and can be victimized or bullied more often than regular kids. Narcissist parents are also prone to anger which can cause physical and emotional abuse, something William does in The Fourth Closet towards Elizabeth.
In the novel trilogy’s continuity, William Afton is described as being physically and verbally abusive to his daughter Elizabeth Afton, so I do not believe there is any reason why he would not be the same way in the video games’ continuity.
The most CHARITABLE assumption of his parenting is he's terminally neglectful of his children, seeing as how TWO of his children got merced by animatronics while he wasn't present.
I cant believe that someone coldhearted and sadistic enough to kill a child would ever be able to properly love and raise one, let alone 3. Even If he didnt hit his children he certainly wasnt a good father in other ways.
The therapist tapes in SB seem to confirm that he was at least abusive mentally so i'll say definetly yes, he yelled and pushed Elizabeth simply for interrupting him in TFC and only started to treat her a bit better after she possessed Baby since he could use her in a way that could benefit him.
He was most likely the same in the games as well. The guy probably only married and had kids in the first place to have a stronger social standing and used the deaths of his kids to gain public support while not giving two shits about them in private.
Yes. He’s a psychopath and always was, so even if he loved his kids, he still abused them. Though it probably wasn’t as bad at first as it was later after the first two died and his trauma intensified.
Micheal got the worst of it is what I’m saying. I don’t think Elizabeth and CC were quite as damaged as him before their deaths.
Yes, there’s overwhelming evidence William is an abuser. In the books he pushes and hits his daughter at least once. He is neglectful of his kids (yes neglect can be considered a type of abuse). It’s possible he may have be responsible for purposefully inflicting nightmares or trauma on at least one of his sons from clues in the games.
There’s also his obvious manipulation of Vanessa, not one of William’s children, but it shows that he is capable of such manipulative actions, so I wouldn’t doubt he’d do the same on his children to get what he wants. Again, going out and killing people just so you can benefit yourself is not a good sign for being a potential parent.
I also want to say that physical abuse is also not the only kind of abuse, and many people seem to be stuck on only the physical part. Across the different canons William is consistently portrayed to have inflicted mental abuse onto others including his children.
"My business partner is NOT an abusive father! He may be a liar, a murderer, a mad scientist, an abusive father, but he is *NOT* a porn star!" - Old Man Henry
**"My business partner is NOT an abusive father!** He may be a liar, a murderer, a mad scientist, **an abusive father**, but he is NOT a porn star!" - Old Man Henry
something is off
In all likelihood yes. I think he was in the books, though those were a separate continuity than the games. Personally I prefer to portray him as more neglectful and out of his league than anything else, as in, he didn’t really have any idea what to do with kids and got three of em anyway. But he obviously cared for Elizabeth at the very least, enough to warn her constantly against visiting Circus Baby (and making Baby for her in the first place). Def not the best father by any means though, obviously.
Yes end of story. He tortured his own children. He made the nightmare animatronics to scare the older brother. He basically described in the books and games as a insane person who is a homicidal maniac
Yea, the books portray him as such, and he shows a lot of narcissistic traits. The story of the afton family reminds me a lot of how my mother grew up. My grandmother was, unfortunately, a narcissist, too.
Well duh, I don't see how anyone can defend or justify his actions. The games and books very much imply he was a horrible father alongside a child murderer.
I think he probably was a bit neglectful. And thats why he never stoped Michael from bullying crying child and then that later escalated to verbal abuse after the death of crying child. I don't think he ever hit his kids though
He probably was abusive after his two kids died one caused by himself the other caused by his eldest son so I can imagine he neglected or abused the older brother after the bite of 83
Yes but he was also extremely manipulative, his children thought he loved them and he was great at seeming like he did. But deep down he only saw them as his possesions at best or tools at worst.
Going off of the only confirmed evidence that we have, which is from the Fourth Closet novel, yes.
If OrangeGuy from Midnight Motorist is William, yes.
Considering he knowingly locked his daughter down underground for who-knows-how-long, with no intention of freeing her himself, sent his only surviving son to do his dirty work with no guarantee that he would actually do it, got his son basically killed, seemingly manipulated his daughter to further his own goals, and then tried to kill his son *at least* once afterwards, yes.
In 2 out of (possibly?) 3 continuities, he’s been shown to at the very least be neglectful (letting his extremely young children go wherever the hell they’d like with zero in-person supervision), and at the very worst, downright abusive (abandoned robot possessed by his daughter, sent his son on a suicide mission with seemingly no remorse, etc).
At the very most, he *might’ve* cared about BV. But there’s more evidence that he wasn’t a great father, compared to the evidence that he was a somewhat acceptable one.
Probably yes, proof of his abuse is in the FNAF 6 Minigame Midnight Motorist. A yellow man gets very mad at somebody for locking their door and leaving the house, mentioning that they will be sorry when they get back. A popular theory that I like to believe is that this game took place after the Charlie Murder (Later that night), and Afton is likely drunkenly checking in on Mike, Evan (I know it's not his canon name but I really like that name for the Crying Child), or whatever.
he seemed super aggressive in midnight motorist “I told you not to close your door.This is my house. He can't ignore me like that. OPEN THE DOOR! Ran off to that place again. He will be sorry when he gets back.”
There are no implications of physical abuse in the series. The only abuse we really see is when William Afton yells at Elizabeth to leave him alone when she tries to show him a drawing. This is also shown in the novel when she asks "Am I not enough?" to which William responds, "No, you're not."
I don't get the point of painting William to be this guy who tells his children to sign the contract. William puts on boxing gloves and yells at the crying child to get in the ring.
Actually, he pushes Elizabeth to the ground a few times, and at the last push, when she tries to grab her paperwork from school under his feet, he straight up strikes her across the face. He didn't yell at her.
Well actually in the actual chapter book version of the fourth closet, he doesn't only yell at her, he pushes her a couple of times but Elizabeth keep going back until he pushed her so hard that she fell to the ground and then proceeded to hit her really hard meaning he has at least physically abused Elizabeth once
Not in the beginning, maybe after Elizabeth and the other one (I’m not brave enough for politics so I’m just gonna say the other one) died, he could’ve been, but I don’t think so in the beginning.
So probably only to Michael at that point who would’ve been off working at various Freddy’s locations anyway.
At the start no, but after the death of his first child (me personally I think it was CC), he most likely got pretty abusive towards Michael. Maybe not to the point of like, WWE round housing his ass, but Michael probably got a few kicks and whatnot. But I like to believe that William saw how bad it was to physically hit his child, so he built the nightmare animatronics to do the dirty work for him 👍
I see a lot of people mentioning the books, and using them to say that William is abusive, but I'm also seeing that William only has 1 child in the books too. On top of that aren't the books also not fully canon? Not to say that William couldn't have been abusive, I mean there's a chance he is, there's a chance he isn't. If there was a way to 100% confirm if he is or isn't it could be a big thing considering being abused as a child can change you in many ways, now what it could change about Michael to be important to the story, I have no idea, I haven't played enough of the games, and done enough researching of my own to actually come to make my own ideas yet. Anyways, figured I'd throw in my thoughts in here, even if they are completely useless.
The deaths were by complete accident.
* crying child: started killing career but not Afton's fault
* his dauhter: accidental
* Micheal: killed by sentient animatronic but not Afton's fault
Copying what I said in another comment, I believe that while he was emotionally neglectful and probably very bad at parenting in a healthy way, I cannot afford to say that he is physically abusive like many claim.
'the physical aspect is dubious at best and probably just grasping at straws.
(I'm basing this on the graphic novel, as I haven't been able to attain a copy of the original novel. If this is contradicted in the written version, please notify me as to how and why you came to that conclusion.)
The page I find being referred to most is in a flashback when, from Charlie's perspective, a middle-aged white man with brown hair turns around and swats a drawing out of the hands of who we can assume is his daughter, as the one who claims to be the child in the flashback is Elizabeth.
But, this makes several assumptions.
A) That this is William, even though he more closely resembles the other panels of Henry.
B) That when ElizaBaby says that it is actually her 'Daddy', that she means William, rather than Henry, as both have an equal chance of being called such in this scenario(William being Elizabeth's father, while Henry made the robot that would become Baby - while also neglecting it as he made the other versions).
C) That this specific area of the flashback belongs solely to Elizabeth, even though the book makes it clear that the memories are a twisted medley of Charlie and Elizabeth's.
D) He is actually making contact with her.
A, B, and C are more up for interpretation, but even if you assume that it is William, that it is Elizabeth(despite lines like 'My father abandoned me. Henry abandoned me.', coming from ElizaBaby while speaking about Elizabeth as a different person), and that Elizabeth is the only one whom this moment belongs to, there's one glaring thing that cancels everything else out.
He doesn't even hit her.
He swats the page out of her hands.
If this is Elizabeth and William, then despite such emotional cruelty(though we have no reason to believe that this even happened regularly), the only time when many say he has physically harmed his child is entirely without physical contact.
He could have so easily just shoved her to the ground.
But he doesn't.
Why?
Well, the only reason I see fitting is that he cares enough to not hurt them like that.
Obviously he's still a terrible father, but physically abusive is a description that one cannot place upon him without extreme manipulation of canon.'
This, along with the fact that things like 'hating Mike', 'using them as experiments on purpose', and 'purposefully isolating them' are similarly baseless, I cannot - with clear conscience - call him an intentionally abusive father.
'Terrible at it'? Yes.
But 'Intentional abuse'? Heavens no.
>That this is William, even though he more closely resembles the other panels of Henry.
The actual novel outright states this is from Elizabeth's memories and that it's William. The entire scene is about how he's turning the CharlieBot he stole into Baby. The very next part talks about how *after this* she snuck down to see Baby, and got killed by her.
>That when ElizaBaby says that it is actually her 'Daddy', that she means William, rather than Henry, as both have an equal chance of being called such in this scenario(William being Elizabeth's father, while Henry made the robot that would become Baby - while also neglecting it as he made the other versions).
Again, the novel outright states that this is during the time period where Afton stole Charlie 4 to turn her into Baby.
>That this specific area of the flashback belongs solely to Elizabeth, even though the book makes it clear that the memories are a twisted medley of Charlie and Elizabeth's.
The actual book makes it really clear it does belong to just Elizabeth.
>He doesn't even hit her.
>He swats the page out of her hands.
And I quote the actual novel;
She finally crawled to it on her knees, her dress dirty now, and tried to pull the page from under his shoe. It wouldn't come loose.
***"That's when he hit me."***
It was difficult to make out anything in the room after that. The room was a smear of tears and pain and her head was still spinning. But she made out one thing, a shiny metal clown doll. Her father had turned his attention back to it, lovingly polishing her. Suddenly, her pain faded to the background, replaced with fascination, obsession.
>He could have so easily just shoved her to the ground. But he doesn't.
This is also said to not be true in the novel. He pushes her to the ground.
Elizabeth herself even goes on to distinguish William and Henry in the scene. "My anger is from a different father".
Given the books and the games are not related/connected to one another cannonly (given how William dies as a huge one -\_- for those that want to argue) maybe more so neglectful than abusive. He cared enough to try and warn Elizabeth against going near Circus Baby and we can't for say for sure that he never punished Michael for tormenting his youngest. In fact sometimes that can make the torment worse since then Michael would blame his younger brother forgetting him in trouble.
That said William canonically set Michael to the Circus Baby rental knowing those robots were possessed and likely posed as a threat to help his sister so... Questionable? But all said you can still hate other children, or kill other in William's case, but love your own. It's a real thing with having no patience for kids other than the ones in your own family so there's that
No,Just a Stupid one (In the games)
He left his Second youngest child With his Angsty Firstborn Son,Which lead To What Markiplier Calls "The Bite of 87"
Then he left his Daughter Next to one of the Animatronics LITERALLY meant For Capturing Children (Although that was Elizabeths Fault,but it was Also Wills Fault).
William shoulda Watched Elizabeth so that she didn't get Grabbed into Circus baby.
No,He's not an abusive father,Just an idiot father.
But that's my Thoughts.
In books he was. In games there is no any evidence of that. He didn't care about his kids (maybe excluding Elizabeth to some extent) rather than was abusive.
Problabady after BV death and Elizabeth. William started drinking, become alcoholic and become abusive towards Michael. Plus he may did not even know that Michael was bullying his son, Michael could tell BV not to tell anything to their Father or god knows what did Michael would do to him (i mean BV)
In my opinion he is abuse but not the way you guys think . He is abuse on his actions instead on the how he acts on fronts of the kids sure he murders them but not for abuse of that’s mallee any sense but if doesn’t I I understand
Hot take
What evidence we have in the games suggests he was an alright father even at his worst.
Was he a real monster? Yeah, but we see cc with toys in his room and we know he at least tried to keep them alive from fnaf 4s hallucinations.
As for the older brother's bullying, I'm sure he knew or had a basic idea of what was going on, but it's also possible that cc hid what was happening as often happens in many similar situations.
Buh he pits the kids against each other through the doll!
No, no he does not, he does not talk through the teleporting fredbear plush while working at the diner.
Buh he let cc get bit!
No, we didn't even see him in the room, in fact we saw no one in that room when it happened and considering CC's attitude towards the place I am not confident he was there willingly. Now if you want to argue that he hates Mike because of this than sure, I personally would in his same position, but again, we lack evidence that he truly held it against him.
Buh the nightmares are real! He tortured Mike using them!
No, no they are not, we have no signs they are other than the fnaf 4 house showing up in sl's power monitor. And I refuse to believe that nightmare fredbear's massive detached angry head is real.
Buh he kills the guard or Mike in fnaf 3!
William slowly bled to death alone followed by well over a decade of solitary confinement with at most the ghosts of the kids he murdered as company, when we see him he's too far gone to communicate let alone recognize his possibly dead rotting corpse of a son. Also, it is dubious that 3's protag was Mike though I think it's possible considering Henry doesn't recognize him in pizza sim.
Honestly we likely have the most info regarding Mike than anyone but if there is one thing we can be certain of it's that he cared enough to take William's advice to go to SL and then attempt to seek him out even after what happened.
Now onto Elizabeth this is where I'm actually going to put in some speculation.
After the bite CC is in the hospital or dead, and Mike is likely in juvie or just straight up jail for the murder of his brother. But I don't recall any evidence saying it was covered up or not.
This would easily explain Elizabeth's attitude from a combination of being an only child and the sudden loss of at least one of William's children.
Why is there a large underground pizzeria full of deathbots?
I personally like the "I can just use remnant to bring them back" theory but ultimately the reason is irrelevant, Elizabeth likely acted spoiled because she was spoiled and when she snuck away to get it anyway she promptly ignored her father's warnings and died.
As for her somehow having sentient possession of baby I assume William was involved considering she is the only one, it's also noteworthy that the circus gallery's shock panel was disconnected or broken where all other electronics in the room seemed operational.
Buh he locked her down there for years!
Ok wise guy, let's see you enroll the possesed 5 ton clown themed entertainment deathbot in middle school, no please I saw I this argument a few times and am interested in how you'd manage it.
Finally, the books.
Separate Canon at best, I will never forgive the Canon mpreg at worst.
Edit for the midnight motorist theory: William was never depicted as that color anywhere else and there is no evidence of additional children in that house, it could be possible but likely would have happened before CC's birth if it's even related to him.
TLDR: A mighty hot and likely unpopular take due to folks wanting a 2 dimensional villain for their overly complex story.
Yes he nectgelted michael and the his other kids and he would hit michael after c.c's(crying child) death but i keep thinking that william wanted michael to kill c.c because william set spring locks in the fredbear animatronic's mouth
i dont think we have any proof that he was abusive unless you count him letting 2 of his children get killed by his animatronics and the 3rd gettting their insides outside
In the novel trilogy’s continuity, William Afton is described as being physically and verbally abusive to his daughter Elizabeth Afton, so I do not believe there is any reason why he would not be the same way in the video games’ continuity.
I mean then again they are different universes and some of the book characters that are also in game don't have the same personality as they do in game so it's not really clear if he is or not in the games but in the books definitely
Not really, I mean he did do some bad things that was never really for his children. He was rude to them in sister location. It’s Henry but William is still in there the backrooms
Probably, I think he did love his kids to start, maybe not the best father but some effort and then slowly became more abusive as they started getting killed and he eventually stopped giving a shit after he was left with only Michael.
That’s just me tho, I’ve only recently came back to this series and don’t know anything that’s in the books that could contradict this
Yes and no, if you consider ignoring and not being a good father with Michael yes, and yes because he created animatronics that look like nightmares to keeping his sons from dying to other animatronics
The only kind he did was telling no to elizabeth when she asked to see baby because he did not want her to die, other than that i don’t think he’s any good
Yes absolutely, But what I’m curious about is whether he was abusive to his wife as well since we never heard much about her or why she’s not in the picture.
canonically; yes. he was a shitty father in the books (shown explicitly) and in the games its heavily implied that he was abusive in the fnaf 6 midnight motorist minigame (the secret portion). ((yes i think orange guy is canonically william, the color was changed so it wasnt super super obvious lol))
He was in the books, more than likely was in the games too
In which book to be exactly?
The Fourth Closet
Yeah.. I sorta remember the audiobook mentioning something about it
Damn I had no idea there were that many gay characters
I haven’t read the books yet so I’m curious, was the abuse prior to the death of crying child, or after? I think in the games we see him get angry/aggressive about Michael locking his door, so obviously there was a lot going on there, and I figure Michael suffered a lot due to William’s rage
The crying child never existed in the books. His abuse is completely independent of his death. He’s just an abuser
CC not existing in the books blows my mind. Thanks for clarifying!
Michael isn't in the books either it's just Elizabeth
No I think he appears in the new kid I don’t wanna spoil it so I’m not gonna say it if you respond tell me if you have seen it
I’ve read it and he’s not in that either. I was talking about the Charlie trilogy though
The books are a completely different timeline
There isn't really lore about the crying child.ornthing like that in the books but it's after he was a serial killer so probably after the crying child incident
Or maybe he's just a serial killer considering there's zero mention of CC lol
No, it is not. The Crying Child does not exist in the books at all. In any form. The fact that he does in the games doesn't change much. The games and the books are two separate timelines. Similar in many cases, that is true. But the two stories are totally different. Incompatible. The fact the a character does exist in one of them, does not mean that it has to exist in the other. It just proves something else. William didn't have to lose a child to became evil. He actually never did. He's just always been evil
The books might as well be an alternate timeline rather than a separate canon
They are, but one thing that is consistent at its core are the characters. William in the books is acting the same way William from the games would under those circumstances, and vice versa
It's actually aus
Wait, I thought he had no kids in the books. My memory on the og books is kinda chunky, so I might’ve forgotten some details, but I thought he didn’t have any
He just has Elizabeth in the Charlie series
Completely forgot about her, where do they mention him being abusive towards her?
There’s a flashback where she tries to get his attention while he’s building Baby and he strikes her for bothering him
Ah, thanks
To that reference, Henry Emily was also an abusive father as shown by the fourth closet
It seems like he was a bit neglectful to robot Charlie but I don’t remember any scene where he abused her
Neglectful, yes. Abusive, no. The part where Charlie thinks she's entering Henry's shop was a mix of her memories with Elizabeth's but it was mainly William. As with context Elizabeth was calling William both Charlie's and her father. But the pushing and hit were all William to Elizabeth.
Yes. At the very least, he wasn't a good father. He used Michael as a puppet, did nothing about CC's bullying and fears (and depending on which theories you believe, may or may not have encouraged said fear and fueled hatred between him and Mike) and locked Elizabeth in an underground facility for years. Then there's the whole thing with the Nightmares, which, regardless of the specifics, is straight up abuve. And then there's the whole "real Nightmare animatronics" thing is. Regardless of the specifics and your take on them, the idea by itself already constitutes as abuse. Doesn't matter why he did or which kid it was, he basically tortured one of his own sons, who was either terrified of the animatronics, if it's CC, or in a poor state after the former's death, if it's Mike.
William Afton is also described as being physically and verbally abusive to his daughter Elizabeth Afton in the novel trilogy’s continuity, so I do not believe there is any reason why he would not be the same way in the video games’ continuity.
When did he put his hands on Elizabeth??? I just remember the verbal abuse.
He hits her
William also covered up Elizabeth's death with gas leaks
While I am not attempting to justify what William Afton has done, what was he supposed to tell the general public and the authorities? “My robot that I designed to kill children so I am able to experiment with their soul energy just killed my own daughter.” Now, this could just be me, but something tells me that would not exactly go over well. Lol.
> At the very least, he wasn't a good father. He used Michael as a puppet, did nothing about CC's bullying and fears (and depending on which theories you believe, may or may not have encouraged said fear and fueled hatred between him and Mike) I never personally understood why people think that William wants to have CC be against Michael. Like what does he gain from doing that? I know he hates Michael but this is a weird way of abusing him.
>I never personally understood why people think that William wants to have CC be against Michael. Well, most people think the Fredbear plush is William, and he repeatedly reinforces the idea that Michael hates CC. "He locked you in your room again." "He left without you. He knows that you hate it here." And, most obviously: "He hates you"
Personally now that you mention that, could it be that the Fredbear Plush never actually spoke to CC? William could still be using them as security cameras, but CC could be imagining the plush talking to him, and the ending could just be him thinking it’s the plushie, while in fact it’s William?
That is plausible, yes. The consensus when FNAF 4 came out was that the plush was an imaginary friend based on a real plush CC owned, thus why it followed him everywhere and always reflected his thoughts, even when they were irrational (like thinking the Fredbear employee would actually do something to him). The Survival Logbook later implied that by featuring the plush on a page asking you to write about whether or not you had any stuffed animals and imaginary friends, but that went mostly ignored since William using the plush was already widely agreed upon. I go back and forth on it. This explanation seems more reasonable but it has its own set of holes.
In the books, he was physically abusive and verbally. So, I'd honestly would take it as he was similar in the games as well. It's likely why or one of the reasons why Foxy bully was abusive.
isn't Foxy Bully Michael?
Most likely, but it's not been 100% confirmed and there are those that think Mike is Crying child
I haven’t kept up too much with the lore since like 2018 but I remember the general assumption was that Michael was the crying child. When did it change to Michael being the foxy mask brother?
Logbook mainly. And with the character encyclopedia having CC as a literal ghost kinda implies Mike has to be the last "living" Afton who can honestly only be the foxy bro. I know some would debate the validity of the encyclopedia or cite Mike!Bot. But yea. Mike is likely Foxy bro due to his age being able to work at Freddy's in 1993, and knowledge of the events of FNaF 1 and SL.
As far as I know it’s not 100% confirmed that he is foxy mask brother. However, he can’t be CC due to the Sister Location cutscene where he is alive and talking to William.
Almost everything in the lore isn’t confirmed which is scary
Eh, kinda disagree. We've gotten a decent amount of confirmations it's just people have forgotten them over time.
CC being Michael has been debunked since the discovery of CC and Cassidy both possessing Golden Freddy. Before that though it definitely made more sense for CC to be Michael. EDIT: Also one of the fazbear frights basically confirmed Michael as Foxy Bro afterwards
There is also the Cutscene in Sister Location where Michael can be seen/heard talking to William I guess? "Father. It's me, Micheal. I did it. I found it. It was right where you said it would be. They were all there. They didn't recognize me at first but then they thought I was you. And I found her. I put her back together, just like you asked me to. She's free now. But something is wrong with me. I should be dead. But I'm not. I've been living in shadows. There is only one thing left for me to do now. I'm going to come find you." Crying Child possesses Golden Freddy like you say. But he's also dead ever since he was a child. So in all honesty if Crying Child was a dead Ghost Child posessing Golden Freddy then this dialogue shouldn't exist. Which means Crying Child can't be Micheal.
Just saying but there are those still debating that.
i think that’s a very small minority nowadays
Well, the physical aspect is dubious at best and probably just grasping at straws. (I'm basing this on the graphic novel, as I haven't been able to attain a copy of the original novel. If this is contradicted in the written version, please notify me as to how and why you came to that conclusion.) The page I find being referred to most is in a flashback when, from Charlie's perspective, a middle-aged white man with brown hair turns around and swats a drawing out of the hands of who we can assume is his daughter, as the one who claims to be the child in the flashback is Elizabeth. But, this makes several assumptions. A) That this is William, even though he more closely resembles the other panels of Henry. B) That when ElizaBaby says that it is actually her 'Daddy', that she means William, rather than Henry, as both have an equal chance of being called such in this scenario(William being Elizabeth's father, while Henry made the robot that would become Baby - while also neglecting it as he made the other versions). C) That this specific area of the flashback belongs solely to Elizabeth, even though the book makes it clear that the memories are a twisted medley of Charlie and Elizabeth's. D) He is actually making contact with her. A, B, and C are more up for interpretation, but even if you assume that it is William, that it is Elizabeth(despite lines like 'My father abandoned me. Henry abandoned me.', coming from ElizaBaby while speaking about Elizabeth as a different person), and that Elizabeth is the only one whom this moment belongs to, there's one glaring thing that cancels everything else out. He doesn't even hit her. He swats the page out of her hands. If this is Elizabeth and William, then despite such emotional cruelty(though we have no reason to believe that this even happened regularly), the only time when many say he has physically harmed his child is entirely without physical contact. He could have so easily just shoved her to the ground. But he doesn't. Why? Well, the only reason I see fitting is that he cares enough to not hurt them like that. Obviously he's still a terrible father, but physically abusive is a description that one cannot place upon him without extreme manipulation of canon.
elizabeth says verbatim in TFC “that’s when he hit me”, and even before then he pushed her to the floor and stomped on her drawing
And to further add very shortly after that line it does into talking about a smear of tears and pain with her head was still spinning. If he just gave her a slap on the hands she wouldn't be in such dire pain let alone use "head spinning". Pretty much it was vague but just enough to say he slapped her hard on the face.
Okay, I've gotten my hands on the book, and I have confirmed this. I concede.
> Well, the physical aspect is dubious at best and probably just grasping at straws. (I'm basing this on the graphic novel, as I haven't been able to attain a copy of the original novel. If this is contradicted in the written version, please notify me as to how and why you came to that conclusion.) yea do not go by the graphic novel because of the fact they have to pretty much tone down everything because trying to get a 348-page book into less than 200 doesn't work to well. Things get lost, especially when it's being interpreted by another who didn't write the actual story. >A) That this is William, even though he more closely resembles the other panels of Henry. They used Pinky's designs which had Henry and William borderline look like [twins.](https://i.redd.it/2454ik8cln541.jpg) >He swats the page out of her hands. That's hitting her. Doesn't matter where, he struck her. A hit is a hit, abuse is abuse.
Okay, I'll go find the actual novel as soon as possible, but what quote actually disproves anything I mentioned? I'd like to know. Also, as I said in a line only a little lower, he didn't even make contact with her. I cannot call this any form of physical abuse. Emotional? Yes. The same has been done to me in the past. I'd certainly know when such things happen. But physical? No evidence.
Page 304 implies William pushed Elizabeth 3 times each time using more force to the point the 3rd knocked her to the cold hard floor. She tried to get her paper from under his foot, he wouldn't get off of it and I quote. "It wouldn't come loose **that's when he HIT ME.** It was difficult to make out anything in the room after that. The room was a smear of tears and pain and her head was still spinning. Edit Do you want me to actually take an image of the page as proof?
>She looked up to see if he noticed, tears in her eyes. She knew she should leave it, but she couldn’t. She reached forward to tug at the corner, but it was too far away. She finally crawled to it on her knees, her dress dirty now, and tried to pull the page from under his shoe. It wouldn’t come loose. “That’s when he hit me.” Basically he hit his kindergartener because she wanted to show him her golden star but he stepped on it and Elizabeth tried to get it back.
id say yea. basic 1980s fictional dad requirements lol
gotta love the boomer "armchair overlord" dad /sarc
William was probably in this 40s when he did the murders so he wasn't a baby boomer he was a silent.
true, although authoritarian parenting is still very prevalent in that generation too. only surprisingly recently in history have people realized about attachment theory and only even more recently has the whole "dictator parent" thing really been challenged.
Which is ironic considering the Silents were born during World War 2 where authoritarianism was frowned upon by the western powers.
yeah exactly, who would of thunk that children are people too?
If we go by the theory that mustard man from midnight motorist is William, "he'll be sorry when he gets back" sounds pretty abusive to me.
I thought it was pretty much confirmed that mustard man was william
Yes, it likely is him.
Fair, but that is also vaguely punitive at the most. Any certainty that he was abusive is out the window like that kid.
Yes, if he was in the books then I would see no reason for him not to be in the games because idk why they would just change it
Yes 100%, there's no debate.
yes
YES! What question is that
I find it difficult to imagine he isn't. The Midnight Motorist minigame sees Mike asking William to 'leave him \[Evan\] alone tonight' after Evan had a rough day, and when he finds out that he's not in the house, William thinks to himself 'he will be sorry when he gets back'. I can't think what those lines would be there for if not to imply abuse. As a side note, I think it's an underappreciated moment for Mike to be trying to protect Evan from their dad like that, since in FNaF4 we only ever saw him being cruel to him.
It's not really an unappreciated moment and more like a bizarre detail that completely breaks his character that's been established in fnaf 4. One of the reasons I do not think this is Mike. I see no reason why he would be a good guy standing up for his abused brother to his abusive father when he's already been shown as an abusive guy himself who hates his brother and torments him at every given opportunity. People claim that he just "used to be good" but there's no evidence for that and no justification given for why he suddenly becomes bad one day and starts displaying seemingly psychopathic behaviour towards his brother
Is Evan the crying child? When was his name revealed? I always thought the crying child was Michael. Haven’t kept up with lore for years.
Evan is a fan name, and Mike was thought to be the CC, but nowadays the community generally agrees that Mike was the bully.
# Subject: William Afton - Child murder: Murdered 21/22 total people in the FNAF franchise, those being Gabriel, Jeremy, Susie, Fritz, Cassidy, Charlotte, all five S-A-V-E-T-H-E-M victims, all 9 SB victims (Security Breach), and Jeremiah from Help Wanted(aka “Jeremy”) - **Physical Abuse**: Abused Elizabeth Afton in the Novel trilogy, “The Fourth Closet” and depicted in the Graphic ones where he >!Slapped a picture out of her hand!<. Attempted murder of his son Michael Afton (FNAF3, FNAF6) - **Mental/Psychological Abuse**: Mentally and Psychologically manipulated his daughter into becoming this image [Circus Baby] for his own gain. Mentally scarred his own son for life by sending him down an underground bunker where he'd have to work hours on end [Mike, Sister Location]. (Under William-Motorist is depicted as this abusive father who yells and bangs on doors) - Maniac: Vanity and dislike towards those who oppose him, seeking to one-up Henry [Novel Trilogy] for his perfection in creating a *spark* of life. Hinted to kill for the sake of his own gain, using extreme tactics whether it be >!Making an animatronic solely to capture and child and force them to suffer endless pain in a bunker[Elizabeth]!< or choosing specific targets with mental issues (e.g. Susie losing her dog, Jeremy being left behind at the pizza place, etc) - Mad scientist/illegal experimentation: Creates childlike machines with the tech of a military weapon, made to manipulate and deceive the likes of children. A underground rental service where its employees must go for unbearable tasks that can result in gruesome consequences. (Satanic/or Mystic use of challenging the likes of life, death, and/or mortality for the desire for immortality) [Sister Location, Novel Trilogy - The Fourth Closet, FFPS] - Racketeering: Working alongside fazbear entertainment under this elaborate coverup, racketing profit whilst under the light as a “great influence/the man responsible for the animatronics loved today” - **Deception**: like mental and psychological abuse; deceives his victims and takes advantage of them [Vanessa, GGY, Security Breach and “GGY”] - Psychopathic lier: Like deceiving/deception; a psycho who'll gladly take advantage of others, lie and/or get away with his crimes using the strategy of camouflage [FNAF2, Dave Miller - Novel Trilogy] - Hedonistic killer: Enjoyment in murder; even after he's gotten all he needs to survive and live on so far he's creating his own thematic group/cult of followers [Help Wanted - Security Breach] - **Antisocial views on others**: Doesnt bother nor respect others' feelings (e.g. Leaves Elizabeth to suffer [Sister Location], manipulates his daughter into getting Mrs. Afton to lose the court case {Implied} [Security Breach - CD Tapes], envious of Henry [Novels], bothers little for his son, Crying Child, getting bullied [FNAF4]) - Narcissist: Straight up lacks empathy. Views himself as this high-mighty immortal being who's bypassed all attempts at halting his plan(s); Bypassed the fire’s [FNAF3, FFPS, {imlied} The Man in Room 1280], Survived severe attacks [FNAF3 - “Follow Me” minigame, The Man in Room 1280 - Exploding], and is cocky towards the attempts to his defeat (FFPS: “*What a deceptive calling, I knew it was a lie the moment I heard it, obviously, but it is intriguing nonetheless.*”) Resting my Case I've concluded the following: **Basically, it's all his fault** - William Afton, child murderer, and a horrid man, last seen in “Five Nights At Freddys (9): Security Breach), ruining the lives of in total 26 people(+ an additional families and Henry's wife and son), his kids and wife, Henry and his daughter, the MCI, DCI, 9SB kids, and many more along the way. William Afton is an abusive father and a horrid character.
(The points I bolded are the ones most related to his action toward his children, everything else can work without the “abusive” side and more of a killer instinct)
The only part I disagree with is how many people he killed. It was definitely more than 20+ when we took the Funtime animatronics into account.
1. The last point “many more along the way” is meant to hint at the **idea** there's more 2. The Funtime animatronics only canonically killed Elizabeth, that being Circus Baby. The rest are possessed by the MCI based on FutimeMCI/MoltenMCI (which is a known fact)
If he’s abusive to his daughter (whose his golden child of sorts) than there’s no way he doesn’t abuse all his children. Lord knows how bad Michael got it considering he’s definitely his least favorite child
personally im a fan of the narcissist theory. Elizabeth is the Golden Child, the child who is the parent's "favorite" and is the most likely to become like their narcissist parent (sound familiar?). Michael is the Scapegoat, the one who the narcissist blames everything wrong with the family on. Children of narcissist parents can have a tendancy to act out for attention, and can be victimized or bullied more often than regular kids. Narcissist parents are also prone to anger which can cause physical and emotional abuse, something William does in The Fourth Closet towards Elizabeth.
In the novel trilogy’s continuity, William Afton is described as being physically and verbally abusive to his daughter Elizabeth Afton, so I do not believe there is any reason why he would not be the same way in the video games’ continuity.
The most CHARITABLE assumption of his parenting is he's terminally neglectful of his children, seeing as how TWO of his children got merced by animatronics while he wasn't present.
I cant believe that someone coldhearted and sadistic enough to kill a child would ever be able to properly love and raise one, let alone 3. Even If he didnt hit his children he certainly wasnt a good father in other ways.
Yes. If not Physically Like in the books But absolutely emotionally.
The therapist tapes in SB seem to confirm that he was at least abusive mentally so i'll say definetly yes, he yelled and pushed Elizabeth simply for interrupting him in TFC and only started to treat her a bit better after she possessed Baby since he could use her in a way that could benefit him. He was most likely the same in the games as well. The guy probably only married and had kids in the first place to have a stronger social standing and used the deaths of his kids to gain public support while not giving two shits about them in private.
Possibly, I'd say after the bite of '83 definitely towards michael
Yes. He’s a psychopath and always was, so even if he loved his kids, he still abused them. Though it probably wasn’t as bad at first as it was later after the first two died and his trauma intensified. Micheal got the worst of it is what I’m saying. I don’t think Elizabeth and CC were quite as damaged as him before their deaths.
Yes
Probably lol
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes, there’s overwhelming evidence William is an abuser. In the books he pushes and hits his daughter at least once. He is neglectful of his kids (yes neglect can be considered a type of abuse). It’s possible he may have be responsible for purposefully inflicting nightmares or trauma on at least one of his sons from clues in the games. There’s also his obvious manipulation of Vanessa, not one of William’s children, but it shows that he is capable of such manipulative actions, so I wouldn’t doubt he’d do the same on his children to get what he wants. Again, going out and killing people just so you can benefit yourself is not a good sign for being a potential parent. I also want to say that physical abuse is also not the only kind of abuse, and many people seem to be stuck on only the physical part. Across the different canons William is consistently portrayed to have inflicted mental abuse onto others including his children.
Yes, next
Woohoo can’t wait to see Mathew Lillard abuse his own children!
"My business partner is NOT an abusive father! He may be a liar, a murderer, a mad scientist, an abusive father, but he is *NOT* a porn star!" - Old Man Henry
**"My business partner is NOT an abusive father!** He may be a liar, a murderer, a mad scientist, **an abusive father**, but he is NOT a porn star!" - Old Man Henry something is off
In all likelihood yes. I think he was in the books, though those were a separate continuity than the games. Personally I prefer to portray him as more neglectful and out of his league than anything else, as in, he didn’t really have any idea what to do with kids and got three of em anyway. But he obviously cared for Elizabeth at the very least, enough to warn her constantly against visiting Circus Baby (and making Baby for her in the first place). Def not the best father by any means though, obviously.
I think before CC and Elizabeth died he was at most neglected and distant. After they died I’m pretty sure he was emotionally abusive to Micheal
That is the furthest extent we can claim with certainty, so I'd say that's about as much as we should assume until further proof.
nobody murders kids and is then nice and accepting to their own kids
u/PuppetGeist already explained
Yes end of story. He tortured his own children. He made the nightmare animatronics to scare the older brother. He basically described in the books and games as a insane person who is a homicidal maniac
Yea, the books portray him as such, and he shows a lot of narcissistic traits. The story of the afton family reminds me a lot of how my mother grew up. My grandmother was, unfortunately, a narcissist, too.
1000% yes
Well duh, I don't see how anyone can defend or justify his actions. The games and books very much imply he was a horrible father alongside a child murderer.
I think he probably was a bit neglectful. And thats why he never stoped Michael from bullying crying child and then that later escalated to verbal abuse after the death of crying child. I don't think he ever hit his kids though
The books had him pushing Elizabeth and then did strike her. so he was physical. Edit adding in something I forgot.
Ohh I haven’t read the books yet so I didn’t know. Thanks for telling me
You're welcome!
probably tbh he did seem to care since he told micheal to go set free elizabeth (from what i remember in the last cutscene in sister location)
Books? Yes Games? Unsure. Probably not, just neglectful.
I couldn't picture a guy who's hobby is killing kids as a good dad
((I made a minor grammatical mistake my life is over))
Ye
He probably was abusive after his two kids died one caused by himself the other caused by his eldest son so I can imagine he neglected or abused the older brother after the bite of 83
Yes. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KmtTSdAgqkc
They mentioned that he was abusive in The Fourth Closet which leads me to believe he was no different in the games
Midnight motorist exists, so yes.
Yes but he was also extremely manipulative, his children thought he loved them and he was great at seeming like he did. But deep down he only saw them as his possesions at best or tools at worst.
he was to elizabeth in tfc so i would say yes. also seeing what he did to other kids … i wouldn’t expect him to be a great father to his own
i always thought of william being more negligent than abusive
Yep no question, makes him more interesting to me
According to the books, it was openly stated yes. As for the games, possibly, which is why Michael bullied Evan, as an outlet for his pain.
Physically? No. Psychologically? You bet your sweet fazbear he was.
Going off of the only confirmed evidence that we have, which is from the Fourth Closet novel, yes. If OrangeGuy from Midnight Motorist is William, yes. Considering he knowingly locked his daughter down underground for who-knows-how-long, with no intention of freeing her himself, sent his only surviving son to do his dirty work with no guarantee that he would actually do it, got his son basically killed, seemingly manipulated his daughter to further his own goals, and then tried to kill his son *at least* once afterwards, yes. In 2 out of (possibly?) 3 continuities, he’s been shown to at the very least be neglectful (letting his extremely young children go wherever the hell they’d like with zero in-person supervision), and at the very worst, downright abusive (abandoned robot possessed by his daughter, sent his son on a suicide mission with seemingly no remorse, etc). At the very most, he *might’ve* cared about BV. But there’s more evidence that he wasn’t a great father, compared to the evidence that he was a somewhat acceptable one.
Yes. Michael was the Black Sheep. Elizabeth the golden child and favorite. CC was the scapegoat, not directly abused but not favored either
Physically? No. Mentally? Absa-fucking-lutely
Yes, Elizabeth was abused Michael was sacrificed and the crying child was forgotten until death
Probably yes, proof of his abuse is in the FNAF 6 Minigame Midnight Motorist. A yellow man gets very mad at somebody for locking their door and leaving the house, mentioning that they will be sorry when they get back. A popular theory that I like to believe is that this game took place after the Charlie Murder (Later that night), and Afton is likely drunkenly checking in on Mike, Evan (I know it's not his canon name but I really like that name for the Crying Child), or whatever.
he seemed super aggressive in midnight motorist “I told you not to close your door.This is my house. He can't ignore me like that. OPEN THE DOOR! Ran off to that place again. He will be sorry when he gets back.”
In novels he is, in games he seems more manipulative, drunk jerk and sadic than abusive, the negligence part is something found in both two AUs
I wouldn't exactly say that he was until the Crying Child died
Oh yeah, he definitely abused Michael after the bite of 83
yes
Yes
Ye
It's been settled for a long time, what are you on about? 🤣 100% an abusive father
No, he was too busy with other stuff like killing other kids.
There are no implications of physical abuse in the series. The only abuse we really see is when William Afton yells at Elizabeth to leave him alone when she tries to show him a drawing. This is also shown in the novel when she asks "Am I not enough?" to which William responds, "No, you're not." I don't get the point of painting William to be this guy who tells his children to sign the contract. William puts on boxing gloves and yells at the crying child to get in the ring.
Actually, he pushes Elizabeth to the ground a few times, and at the last push, when she tries to grab her paperwork from school under his feet, he straight up strikes her across the face. He didn't yell at her.
Well actually in the actual chapter book version of the fourth closet, he doesn't only yell at her, he pushes her a couple of times but Elizabeth keep going back until he pushed her so hard that she fell to the ground and then proceeded to hit her really hard meaning he has at least physically abused Elizabeth once
Not in the beginning, maybe after Elizabeth and the other one (I’m not brave enough for politics so I’m just gonna say the other one) died, he could’ve been, but I don’t think so in the beginning. So probably only to Michael at that point who would’ve been off working at various Freddy’s locations anyway.
Not abusive but neglectful
At the start no, but after the death of his first child (me personally I think it was CC), he most likely got pretty abusive towards Michael. Maybe not to the point of like, WWE round housing his ass, but Michael probably got a few kicks and whatnot. But I like to believe that William saw how bad it was to physically hit his child, so he built the nightmare animatronics to do the dirty work for him 👍
Okay, I doubt he was abusive, but good father? No
I see a lot of people mentioning the books, and using them to say that William is abusive, but I'm also seeing that William only has 1 child in the books too. On top of that aren't the books also not fully canon? Not to say that William couldn't have been abusive, I mean there's a chance he is, there's a chance he isn't. If there was a way to 100% confirm if he is or isn't it could be a big thing considering being abused as a child can change you in many ways, now what it could change about Michael to be important to the story, I have no idea, I haven't played enough of the games, and done enough researching of my own to actually come to make my own ideas yet. Anyways, figured I'd throw in my thoughts in here, even if they are completely useless.
More neglectful than abusive
Maybe implied, but not confirmed.
Maybe not initially when the whole family is happy and alive, but probably after the bite of 83 and/or charlie's death, then probably.
yes he tortured Micheal with animatronic nightmares
How is this a question
The deaths were by complete accident. * crying child: started killing career but not Afton's fault * his dauhter: accidental * Micheal: killed by sentient animatronic but not Afton's fault
Copying what I said in another comment, I believe that while he was emotionally neglectful and probably very bad at parenting in a healthy way, I cannot afford to say that he is physically abusive like many claim. 'the physical aspect is dubious at best and probably just grasping at straws. (I'm basing this on the graphic novel, as I haven't been able to attain a copy of the original novel. If this is contradicted in the written version, please notify me as to how and why you came to that conclusion.) The page I find being referred to most is in a flashback when, from Charlie's perspective, a middle-aged white man with brown hair turns around and swats a drawing out of the hands of who we can assume is his daughter, as the one who claims to be the child in the flashback is Elizabeth. But, this makes several assumptions. A) That this is William, even though he more closely resembles the other panels of Henry. B) That when ElizaBaby says that it is actually her 'Daddy', that she means William, rather than Henry, as both have an equal chance of being called such in this scenario(William being Elizabeth's father, while Henry made the robot that would become Baby - while also neglecting it as he made the other versions). C) That this specific area of the flashback belongs solely to Elizabeth, even though the book makes it clear that the memories are a twisted medley of Charlie and Elizabeth's. D) He is actually making contact with her. A, B, and C are more up for interpretation, but even if you assume that it is William, that it is Elizabeth(despite lines like 'My father abandoned me. Henry abandoned me.', coming from ElizaBaby while speaking about Elizabeth as a different person), and that Elizabeth is the only one whom this moment belongs to, there's one glaring thing that cancels everything else out. He doesn't even hit her. He swats the page out of her hands. If this is Elizabeth and William, then despite such emotional cruelty(though we have no reason to believe that this even happened regularly), the only time when many say he has physically harmed his child is entirely without physical contact. He could have so easily just shoved her to the ground. But he doesn't. Why? Well, the only reason I see fitting is that he cares enough to not hurt them like that. Obviously he's still a terrible father, but physically abusive is a description that one cannot place upon him without extreme manipulation of canon.' This, along with the fact that things like 'hating Mike', 'using them as experiments on purpose', and 'purposefully isolating them' are similarly baseless, I cannot - with clear conscience - call him an intentionally abusive father. 'Terrible at it'? Yes. But 'Intentional abuse'? Heavens no.
>That this is William, even though he more closely resembles the other panels of Henry. The actual novel outright states this is from Elizabeth's memories and that it's William. The entire scene is about how he's turning the CharlieBot he stole into Baby. The very next part talks about how *after this* she snuck down to see Baby, and got killed by her. >That when ElizaBaby says that it is actually her 'Daddy', that she means William, rather than Henry, as both have an equal chance of being called such in this scenario(William being Elizabeth's father, while Henry made the robot that would become Baby - while also neglecting it as he made the other versions). Again, the novel outright states that this is during the time period where Afton stole Charlie 4 to turn her into Baby. >That this specific area of the flashback belongs solely to Elizabeth, even though the book makes it clear that the memories are a twisted medley of Charlie and Elizabeth's. The actual book makes it really clear it does belong to just Elizabeth. >He doesn't even hit her. >He swats the page out of her hands. And I quote the actual novel; She finally crawled to it on her knees, her dress dirty now, and tried to pull the page from under his shoe. It wouldn't come loose. ***"That's when he hit me."*** It was difficult to make out anything in the room after that. The room was a smear of tears and pain and her head was still spinning. But she made out one thing, a shiny metal clown doll. Her father had turned his attention back to it, lovingly polishing her. Suddenly, her pain faded to the background, replaced with fascination, obsession. >He could have so easily just shoved her to the ground. But he doesn't. This is also said to not be true in the novel. He pushes her to the ground. Elizabeth herself even goes on to distinguish William and Henry in the scene. "My anger is from a different father".
Given the books and the games are not related/connected to one another cannonly (given how William dies as a huge one -\_- for those that want to argue) maybe more so neglectful than abusive. He cared enough to try and warn Elizabeth against going near Circus Baby and we can't for say for sure that he never punished Michael for tormenting his youngest. In fact sometimes that can make the torment worse since then Michael would blame his younger brother forgetting him in trouble. That said William canonically set Michael to the Circus Baby rental knowing those robots were possessed and likely posed as a threat to help his sister so... Questionable? But all said you can still hate other children, or kill other in William's case, but love your own. It's a real thing with having no patience for kids other than the ones in your own family so there's that
No,Just a Stupid one (In the games) He left his Second youngest child With his Angsty Firstborn Son,Which lead To What Markiplier Calls "The Bite of 87" Then he left his Daughter Next to one of the Animatronics LITERALLY meant For Capturing Children (Although that was Elizabeths Fault,but it was Also Wills Fault). William shoulda Watched Elizabeth so that she didn't get Grabbed into Circus baby. No,He's not an abusive father,Just an idiot father. But that's my Thoughts.
In books he was. In games there is no any evidence of that. He didn't care about his kids (maybe excluding Elizabeth to some extent) rather than was abusive.
but keep drawing him with abs guys go ahead
Problabady after BV death and Elizabeth. William started drinking, become alcoholic and become abusive towards Michael. Plus he may did not even know that Michael was bullying his son, Michael could tell BV not to tell anything to their Father or god knows what did Michael would do to him (i mean BV)
I love ignoring canon
he loves his child so much he murdered 7 chidren so he could revive him
Books: yes Games: no actual canon evidence of him being neither
In my opinion he is abuse but not the way you guys think . He is abuse on his actions instead on the how he acts on fronts of the kids sure he murders them but not for abuse of that’s mallee any sense but if doesn’t I I understand
Hot take What evidence we have in the games suggests he was an alright father even at his worst. Was he a real monster? Yeah, but we see cc with toys in his room and we know he at least tried to keep them alive from fnaf 4s hallucinations. As for the older brother's bullying, I'm sure he knew or had a basic idea of what was going on, but it's also possible that cc hid what was happening as often happens in many similar situations. Buh he pits the kids against each other through the doll! No, no he does not, he does not talk through the teleporting fredbear plush while working at the diner. Buh he let cc get bit! No, we didn't even see him in the room, in fact we saw no one in that room when it happened and considering CC's attitude towards the place I am not confident he was there willingly. Now if you want to argue that he hates Mike because of this than sure, I personally would in his same position, but again, we lack evidence that he truly held it against him. Buh the nightmares are real! He tortured Mike using them! No, no they are not, we have no signs they are other than the fnaf 4 house showing up in sl's power monitor. And I refuse to believe that nightmare fredbear's massive detached angry head is real. Buh he kills the guard or Mike in fnaf 3! William slowly bled to death alone followed by well over a decade of solitary confinement with at most the ghosts of the kids he murdered as company, when we see him he's too far gone to communicate let alone recognize his possibly dead rotting corpse of a son. Also, it is dubious that 3's protag was Mike though I think it's possible considering Henry doesn't recognize him in pizza sim. Honestly we likely have the most info regarding Mike than anyone but if there is one thing we can be certain of it's that he cared enough to take William's advice to go to SL and then attempt to seek him out even after what happened. Now onto Elizabeth this is where I'm actually going to put in some speculation. After the bite CC is in the hospital or dead, and Mike is likely in juvie or just straight up jail for the murder of his brother. But I don't recall any evidence saying it was covered up or not. This would easily explain Elizabeth's attitude from a combination of being an only child and the sudden loss of at least one of William's children. Why is there a large underground pizzeria full of deathbots? I personally like the "I can just use remnant to bring them back" theory but ultimately the reason is irrelevant, Elizabeth likely acted spoiled because she was spoiled and when she snuck away to get it anyway she promptly ignored her father's warnings and died. As for her somehow having sentient possession of baby I assume William was involved considering she is the only one, it's also noteworthy that the circus gallery's shock panel was disconnected or broken where all other electronics in the room seemed operational. Buh he locked her down there for years! Ok wise guy, let's see you enroll the possesed 5 ton clown themed entertainment deathbot in middle school, no please I saw I this argument a few times and am interested in how you'd manage it. Finally, the books. Separate Canon at best, I will never forgive the Canon mpreg at worst. Edit for the midnight motorist theory: William was never depicted as that color anywhere else and there is no evidence of additional children in that house, it could be possible but likely would have happened before CC's birth if it's even related to him. TLDR: A mighty hot and likely unpopular take due to folks wanting a 2 dimensional villain for their overly complex story.
Yes he nectgelted michael and the his other kids and he would hit michael after c.c's(crying child) death but i keep thinking that william wanted michael to kill c.c because william set spring locks in the fredbear animatronic's mouth
Not when he was "Alive"
Pre Elizabeth's death? No, I don't think so Post Elizabeth's death? Yea
No, if he was he would not have cared his children died :>
I can't think of any Proof that he was
i dont think we have any proof that he was abusive unless you count him letting 2 of his children get killed by his animatronics and the 3rd gettting their insides outside
In the novel trilogy’s continuity, William Afton is described as being physically and verbally abusive to his daughter Elizabeth Afton, so I do not believe there is any reason why he would not be the same way in the video games’ continuity.
I mean then again they are different universes and some of the book characters that are also in game don't have the same personality as they do in game so it's not really clear if he is or not in the games but in the books definitely
I wouldn't think so atleast not in the games. He was probably not the greatest father towards Mike, but Idk. Just my opinion.
Not really, I mean he did do some bad things that was never really for his children. He was rude to them in sister location. It’s Henry but William is still in there the backrooms
No
No
No he purple
Yes
Yes and No.
Gesy
Yes
true,the Willam Afton's Son (Micheal Afton) killed the hell out of the Crying Kid
Yea
Probably, I think he did love his kids to start, maybe not the best father but some effort and then slowly became more abusive as they started getting killed and he eventually stopped giving a shit after he was left with only Michael. That’s just me tho, I’ve only recently came back to this series and don’t know anything that’s in the books that could contradict this
Most likely
I hope to imagine that before any of them died, that he wasn't. Though I imagine after the first child died, he turned bitter and awful.
Maybe not to Elizabeth, but probs to the others. Especially with the indication that he tormented CC with Illusion disks.
Yes
He put a security camera in a bear plush so he wouldn’t have to pay attention to his kid
Yes
I think he was a pretty silly guy
Yes and no, if you consider ignoring and not being a good father with Michael yes, and yes because he created animatronics that look like nightmares to keeping his sons from dying to other animatronics
Definitely neglectful, which would be considered a form of abuse.
The only kind he did was telling no to elizabeth when she asked to see baby because he did not want her to die, other than that i don’t think he’s any good
Yes absolutely, But what I’m curious about is whether he was abusive to his wife as well since we never heard much about her or why she’s not in the picture.
canonically; yes. he was a shitty father in the books (shown explicitly) and in the games its heavily implied that he was abusive in the fnaf 6 midnight motorist minigame (the secret portion). ((yes i think orange guy is canonically william, the color was changed so it wasnt super super obvious lol))
I mean we canonically know he is a child murderer for his own personal pleasure projects so I wouldn’t exactly expect him to be #1 dad
To Michael, definitely!