Love the game, hate the choices. Spoilers and Rant ahead.

[sersafir]

This game is a masterpiece, drama, suspense, thrills, twists, quality nostalgia and fun. But the "right" choices are made all wrong.

 

 

The first "right" choice you face is to free Kreiss

 

The issue I have here is that there appears to be borderline no downside to freeing him, making it the de facto choice we'd logically expect everyone to make. When I talked to him he showed no signs of being abnormal or insane, which was to a minimum extent the only thing I found suspicious about him. A man imprisoned there should naturally look hungry, tired, exhausted, have no pokemon left, etc. Instead he seems to have a lot of pep, upbeat attitude, and just asks to be free. Upon freeing him he helps you out, so there's seemingly no downside to freeing him and only an upside. I obviously had my suspicions, but freed him because I don't like the idea of caving into paranoia.

 

The second "right" choice you face is to surrender the magma stone

 

I couldn't make this choice. I first chose not to surrender it, and when I heard about these "Karma points" I went back... and just couldn't bring myself to surrender it.

 

I really couldn't. Even knowing full well just how "right" the choice was supposed to be, there's a limit to how much I can handle and this is where I draw the line.

 

 

 

1. I don't negotiate with terrorists.
2. You owe Nim better than that. She's waiting for your rescue, and here you are putting her in jeapordy by helping an elder who doesn't even want to be saved.
3. You owe your new family as the adopted sibling of Amber better than that. They're also waiting for you too.
4. Realistically it should have been an obvious bluff. She lost the battle with her Pokémon, and had only one hostage. When she lost that hostage, she'd have nothing.
5. Was anyone else deliberating the consequences of a freed Angie? No? How many people do you think she would psychotically torment when she's freed?
6. I assumed when I first played as soon as I surrendered the magma stone, she'd kill the elder anyway.
7. As another user mentioned, there are people who are stuck in that TM house, they will starve to death there. On top of that, the daughter saved your ass by pushing you out of the place. You owe them!

 

 

 

 

You have every rational decision to not give up the stone, and borderline no reasons to do so.

 

The third "right" choice you face is to prioritize rescuing the officer over Maria

 

I don't think this one even merits a choice. Even assuming I genuinely believed no one deserved that fate, why on Earth would I put the rescue of a friend on hold for a random guy, let alone a corrupt cop? I get that it's obviously the "right" thing to do as suggested by the game, he promises to repay you after all and you can attempt to rescue both, but it's clearly the wrong thing to do realistically. I get it... the officer didn't mean to kill her. But it was his responsibility to ask those questions, to make sure something like that didn't happen. He is entirely responsible for that mistake. It would be like setting fire to the house to get back at someone, not knowing his children were home. You make bad decisions, they lead to bad consequences, which naturally leads to bad endings. I have no sympathy, fuck, if I got married and a guy killed my wife, I'd imagine my reaction wouldn't be much better than Indriad's mistake or not.

 

 

tldr; the game is outstanding, but the moral dilemmas you face don't seem as dramatic as I believe they were intended to be.

Edited August 16, 2018 by sersafir

[mudkippi]

I have always thought of the protagonist as one from a shounen manga or a hero comic book, like they can never abandon someone needing their help, even though the decision might be really stupid and might leads to some horrible outcome. But that's what being a hero is about and they will always somehow find a way to fix it, like how the MC in the game still find a way into the mountain anyway. The magma stone is not the only way, and the elder's life at that moment is more important.

 

I actually gave up the stone on my first playthrough and realize that those poor people who were gonna sell me the TM will be stuck in that frozen house forever. Kinda weird

[sersafir]

2 hours ago, mudkippi said:

I have always thought of the protagonist as one from a shounen manga or a hero comic book, like they can never abandon someone needing their help, even though the decision might be really stupid and might leads to some horrible outcome. But that's what being a hero is about and they will always somehow find a way to fix it, like how the MC in the game still find a way into the mountain anyway. The magma stone is not the only way, and the elder's life at that moment is more important.

 

I actually gave up the stone on my first playthrough and realize that those poor people who were gonna sell me the TM will be stuck in that frozen house forever. Kinda weird

I can kinda understand that logic. The desire to "rescue everyone" has always seemed to be the "naïve hero" plotline to me. It's the reason I eventually stopped reading manga. There's far too much success for the irrational heroes. And I'll grant, we all want a hero who never gives up. Who tries his best to rescue everyone. Who won't quit. But I've slowly become more cynical with time, looking at the moral grey areas and big picture. No longer do these heroes impress me, instead I feel disappointment and dread.

 

I try to put myself in this world and treat it as best and as realistic as I could, that's really just the way I roleplay these games. But if you like things this way, I say more power to you. We might have different tastes, but I hope you and those who agree with you continue to get enjoyment where you do.

[Celestial Fire]

The worst choice in the game is the one made in blacksteep castle. The right answer is doing nothing.

[sersafir]

22 minutes ago, Celestial Fire said:

The worst choice in the game is the one made in blacksteep castle. The right answer is doing nothing.

Uhhh correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't blacksteep the place where the main character was imprisoned? What moral choice was there?

[Celestial Fire]

The blacksteep castle in the future. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Celestial Fire

[Anerunae]

There are no "wrong" or "right" choices. Particularly so out of those three you listed. You're just perceiving one scenario as more morally "correct" than the other when really the game isn't forcing you to choose one or act just like how a plucky, messianic shoujo/shonen hero would.

 

1. Freeing Kreiss had potential consequences that Venam even warns you about. It wasn't supposed to be an obviously "safe" decision. Your character and Venam just happened to get lucky that he wasn't a bad guy, but it's pretty clear that he could have been.

 

2. Again, whether surrendering the Magma Stone or not was right depends entirely on you. Both options have understandable rationale; on one hand, keeping the stone may cost you a life that didn't have to be lost, and it would happen right in front of you with you helpless to stop it. On the other, you need the Magma Stone to save other lives. These were both pretty clearly spelled out, and the game gives both options weight.

 

3. If anything, saving Maria seemed like the slightly more "right" thing to do to me at the time. Even so, neither are taken lightly and you aren't blamed for choosing the cop over Maria–or vice-versa–if that's what you did. If you save the cop, Venam agrees that he doesn't need to die such a painful death even given his misdeeds. If you saved Maria, she tells you instead that the cop is only getting the karma he sought. Neither choice is wrong, and you aren't punished for one or the other at all.

[Hycrox]

24 minutes ago, Anerunae said:

There are no "wrong" or "right" choices. Particularly so out of those three you listed. You're just perceiving one scenario as more morally "correct" than the other when really the game isn't forcing you to choose one or act just like how a plucky, messianic shoujo/shonen hero would.

 

1. Freeing Kreiss had potential consequences that Venam even warns you about. It wasn't supposed to be an obviously "safe" decision. Your character and Venam just happened to get lucky that he wasn't a bad guy, but it's pretty clear that he could have been.

 

2. Again, whether surrendering the Magma Stone or not was right depends entirely on you. Both options have understandable rationale; on one hand, keeping the stone may cost you a life that didn't have to be lost, and it would happen right in front of you with you helpless to stop it. On the other, you need the Magma Stone to save other lives. These were both pretty clearly spelled out, and the game gives both options weight.

 

3. If anything, saving Maria seemed like the slightly more "right" thing to do to me at the time. Even so, neither are taken lightly and you aren't blamed for choosing the cop over Maria–or vice-versa–if that's what you did. If you save the cop, Venam agrees that he doesn't need to die such a painful death even given his misdeeds. If you saved Maria, she tells you instead that the cop is only getting the karma he sought. Neither choice is wrong, and you aren't punished for one or the other at all.

i think he meant 'right' as in, the choices that lead to the better ending

[sersafir]

1 hour ago, Anerunae said:

There are no "wrong" or "right" choices. Particularly so out of those three you listed. You're just perceiving one scenario as more morally "correct" than the other when really the game isn't forcing you to choose one or act just like how a plucky, messianic shoujo/shonen hero would.

 

1. Freeing Kreiss had potential consequences that Venam even warns you about. It wasn't supposed to be an obviously "safe" decision. Your character and Venam just happened to get lucky that he wasn't a bad guy, but it's pretty clear that he could have been.

 

2. Again, whether surrendering the Magma Stone or not was right depends entirely on you. Both options have understandable rationale; on one hand, keeping the stone may cost you a life that didn't have to be lost, and it would happen right in front of you with you helpless to stop it. On the other, you need the Magma Stone to save other lives. These were both pretty clearly spelled out, and the game gives both options weight.

 

3. If anything, saving Maria seemed like the slightly more "right" thing to do to me at the time. Even so, neither are taken lightly and you aren't blamed for choosing the cop over Maria–or vice-versa–if that's what you did. If you save the cop, Venam agrees that he doesn't need to die such a painful death even given his misdeeds. If you saved Maria, she tells you instead that the cop is only getting the karma he sought. Neither choice is wrong, and you aren't punished for one or the other at all.

The problem is, in order to see these choices as morally equal in right or wrong, you have to view them as a shonen protagonist would. If you look at them from a realistic, sensible, perspective it's usually extremely one sided.

 

1. You're half-right. The problem here as I've described is how it's unknown maybe the first time around, but after replaying the game you'd have no logical reason nor desire to leave him behind. Maybe in a future update he'll turn out to be evil? Otherwise why make a choice when one side is clearly without consequence? A big issue from this kind of choice is the player may simply reload. The only way Jan could've made this choice "equal" in moral measure is if he made some rule where unlocking his cage would also unlock a cage where an evil character would be set loose as well. There's no real consequences to one choice, and logical consequences to the other.

 

2. That's an issue a Shonen protagonist would consider a big deal. If someone dying is so important, maybe sell your house and all your possessions to feed starving kids in Africa or something. No, the issue you've brought up isn't the fact that this is a preventable death, but that this death is occurring right in front of you. You're effectively arguing the proximity between you and the death spells moral obligation to let people with more proximity but larger in number die/suffer. As I've already outlined, if we're hypothetically pretending we don't know the consequence; that she spares the elder regardless, we would have all the more obligation to not give her the stone, knowing full well she'd have no reason not to kill the elder, save for assumed obligation she'd feel from her terrorist negotiation. The issue here is not that there is no weight to one or the other, but that only irrational weight is applied to one, and rational is applied to the other, but we are to treat them as equal and are even given karma points for playing irrationally.

 

3. Then I'd hate to be in your group if you were acting as a leader. I can't imagine anyone would possibly prioritize the life of a corrupt irresponsible cop over someone who has your back. I guess a better point I'd make is if one of your best friends was willing to risk your life and safety on a corrupt cop's life, wouldn't you feel he owes you an apology? It's a childish naïve Shonen attempt to "save everyone!" For all you know the cop would continue to sell his badge without an interest in making amends; why have so much faith in a corrupt man? EDIT: I'm going to even go ahead and say I'm not fond of Melia as a character, but even so, you've saved each other time after time. You don't just leave someone like that behind for personal irrational moral need to rescue everybody.

1 hour ago, Hycrox said:

i think he meant 'right' as in, the choices that lead to the better ending

This is also a point, but not everything I meant to say. The choices aren't established with equal weight, their consequences seem to be trying to convince us they are (so far at least.)

Edited August 22, 2018 by sersafir

[Mycroft]

2 hours ago, sersafir said:

The problem is, in order to see these choices as morally equal in right or wrong, you have to view them as a shonen protagonist would. If you look at them from a realistic, sensible, perspective it's usually extremely one sided.

This isn't true. People's moral values aren't so black and white that we can all apply a sensible perspective to things that will always give the right answer. Even though, I agree with your points for the most part, people can be irrational. Someone might value being selfless over selfish, so if they're in a situation where they can save people, they'll sacrifice 1 for 100, is this morally right or wrong? Most would agree it was probably the right thing to do, but what if that one person was someone close to you? A mother, sister, brother, lover, or what have you. It is unlikely you'd agree in that hypothetical situation. Anyway, that's enough of moral philosophy and what have you. Suffice to say, I disagree that you need to view the situation in one specific way for the choices to be equal, people don't all have the same morals after all.

2 hours ago, sersafir said:

1. You're half-right. The problem here as I've described is how it's unknown maybe the first time around, but after replaying the game you'd have no logical reason nor desire to leave him behind. Maybe in a future update he'll turn out to be evil? Otherwise why make a choice when one side is clearly without consequence? A big issue from this kind of choice is the player may simply reload. The only way Jan could've made this choice "equal" in moral measure is if he made some rule where unlocking his cage would also unlock a cage where an evil character would be set loose as well. There's no real consequences to one choice, and logical consequences to the other.

Except, this is essentially meta-gaming. In story, or in-game, there's no way to know that one choice has a lack of consequences. You are indeed right that the player could reload to find that out, but using that to justify that the choice is unequal because you could do so isn't the most solid of arguments. When developing a game this is something that can't really be developed around, and when it is, developers usually have to take a nuclear option. It is more the fault that this platform doesn't disallow for such a thing to happen. Regardless, I do agree it's unequal, and yes, if you find out that one choice has no consequences you'll pick the one that doesn't. There's nothing wrong with a choice not having consequences however. Real life can be much the same, not every action you take has to be some moral dilemma of bad and good. Some are simply just actions. Though, perhaps this choice shouldn't be a karma point because of that fact as it doesn't really present a real dilemma for the player.

3 hours ago, sersafir said:

2. That's an issue a Shonen protagonist would consider a big deal. If someone dying is so important, maybe sell your house and all your possessions to feed starving kids in Africa or something. No, the issue you've brought up isn't the fact that this is a preventable death, but that this death is occurring right in front of you. You're effectively arguing the proximity between you and the death spells moral obligation to let people with more proximity but larger in number die/suffer. As I've already outlined, if we're hypothetically pretending we don't know the consequence; that she spares the elder regardless, we would have all the more obligation to not give her the stone, knowing full well she'd have no reason not to kill the elder, save for assumed obligation she'd feel from her terrorist negotiation. The issue here is not that there is no weight to one or the other, but that only irrational weight is applied to one, and rational is applied to the other, but we are to treat them as equal and are even given karma points for playing irrationally.

I disagree slightly, and I think that you're, and correct me if I'm wrong, focusing too much on the logical aspect here. Not every choice made by a person is logical, I think you might want to take a step back and think about it from another perspective, because at your admittance you are a bit of a cynic. I do agree on the point that giving the stone away in this situation is irrational, but I'll play devil's advocate. Your character, whilst not particularly close to the Elder, does have a connection to her and it's entirely possible that you care more for her life than the larger mass. People are like that all the time. If someone close to you dies/is in danger of dying your immediate response is probably more emotional than it is when you hear about deaths through the news and such thing. It is typical for most people to care more about those they know than those they don't. I'd argue that you're given the karma point here not for being irrational, but because sacrificing one for the many is a more "cold" option, whilst the opposite has you being empathetic, albeit to the point of irrationality. So neither choice is wrong, and they are equal, because whilst you might not have a connection to the Elder, your character is meant to because she's important to Aelita who your character definitely cares about, and you have to make the decision on if you care enough about her to kill off/make life more difficult for many more people or if she counts as an acceptable sacrifice for the "greater good".

3 hours ago, sersafir said:

3. Then I'd hate to be in your group if you were acting as a leader. I can't imagine anyone would possibly prioritize the life of a corrupt irresponsible cop over someone who has your back. I guess a better point I'd make is if one of your best friends was willing to risk your life and safety on a corrupt cop's life, wouldn't you feel he owes you an apology? It's a childish naïve Shonen attempt to "save everyone!" For all you know the cop would continue to sell his badge without an interest in making amends; why have so much faith in a corrupt man? EDIT: I'm going to even go ahead and say I'm not fond of Melia as a character, but even so, you've saved each other time after time. You don't just leave someone like that behind for personal irrational moral need to rescue everybody.

Having not made it to this point, I'll say I agree. I can understand the want to save everyone, even it's a bit too optimistic for my tastes, but in the situation I'd agree to save Melia despite my own dislike for her as a character simply because she's still a friend of the PC and it doesn't make sense to not prioritize her safety in that case. However, if I had to make an argument on why saving the cop would be the "right" action, I'd say it's exactly because you're placing trust in someone blindly and preventing them from an agonizing death. Despite the cop being corrupt and dubious in nature, that is still a good action in of itself.

 

Karma doesn't deal with the moral part of decision-making, it deals with intent and the action itself. Actually, that's probably why the decisions are how they are. The intent behind the actions are good, and ultimately that's more than likely want is being judged.

[Anerunae]

10 hours ago, sersafir said:

The problem is, in order to see these choices as morally equal in right or wrong, you have to view them as a shonen protagonist would.

See, this is really the crux of the problem with your argument. You do not have to think like a "shonen" protagonist (or really, what you consider to be the behavior of one) to be in the right or objective, and the game does not push you into thinking a certain way. You made this topic blaming the game for having these supposedly one-sided choices but it seems like you're projecting an imagined prejudice against a more "logical" philosophy in general. They're only one-sided if you have a particularly stalwart mindset that greatly affects how you perceive the world.

 

I agree that we should have been given more nuanced results depending on the choices we did make (like at least make Kreiss seem more morally ambiguous if saving us from Angie was to be his only purpose so far). But taking both sides the value of all life into account isn't acting like a fucking anime character, it's just common humanistic reasoning.

 

The other person took most of the words right out my mouth (and explained it much better than I could) so there's only one other thing:

 

10 hours ago, sersafir said:

3. Then I'd hate to be in your group if you were acting as a leader. I can't imagine anyone would possibly prioritize the life of a corrupt irresponsible cop over someone who has your back. I guess a better point I'd make is if one of your best friends was willing to risk your life and safety on a corrupt cop's life, wouldn't you feel he owes you an apology? It's a childish naïve Shonen attempt to "save everyone!" For all you know the cop would continue to sell his badge without an interest in making amends; why have so much faith in a corrupt man? EDIT: I'm going to even go ahead and say I'm not fond of Melia as a character, but even so, you've saved each other time after time. You don't just leave someone like that behind for personal irrational moral need to rescue everybody.

 

... bro, you completely misunderstood me lol. I was agreeing that saving Maria was, personally, the more appealing (and thus "right") choice. That's why I took it myself. It wasn't hard at all–Maria's an innocent child, and I can easily sympathize with her. It felt like she was the player's little sister. The cop, while facing a cruel death, is inconsequential in the long run. But, who knows? Maybe someone else out there found it an agonizing dilemma, and it'd be awfully tactless to call them childish or naive for being merciful. Everyone's different.

 

If we must insist on compartmentalizing morality into fictional character tropes, imo saving the cop is really only an act one of those more pacifistic protagonists would do (or one with a clear-cut moral code that tells them "all life is sacred"). Aang is a good example, as are most shoujo leads. Typical shonen protagonists tend to be much more into dishing out justice and staying loyal to their friends (depending on the anime, they'll be compelled to befriend the enemy, but they don't always start out that way). It's also something the "old wise mentor" character would advise the young, hot-plooded protagonist to do bc, again, "all life is sacred." Most people in real life and more pragmatic protags would pick Maria, which is completely valid too. Whether one or the other is wrong can only be a subjective opinion.

[sersafir]

3 hours ago, Mycroft said:

This isn't true. People's moral values aren't so black and white that we can all apply a sensible perspective to things that will always give the right answer. Even though, I agree with your points for the most part, people can be irrational. Someone might value being selfless over selfish, so if they're in a situation where they can save people, they'll sacrifice 1 for 100, is this morally right or wrong? Most would agree it was probably the right thing to do, but what if that one person was someone close to you? A mother, sister, brother, lover, or what have you. It is unlikely you'd agree in that hypothetical situation. Anyway, that's enough of moral philosophy and what have you. Suffice to say, I disagree that you need to view the situation in one specific way for the choices to be equal, people don't all have the same morals after all.

I tell you this; even outside of numbers I can agree we have irrational feelings of attachment. Let's say I have a kid and hold up a hospital to save her/him. It might mean I'm a fantastic father, but honestly I'd be a pretty bad person in general. Let's say in this example other people lose their own children. Am I not responsible? But at the very least in context here, you have little to no attachment to the major characters in imminent danger; you're not attached to Kreiss, the cop, or even the elder really.

3 hours ago, Mycroft said:

Except, this is essentially meta-gaming. In story, or in-game, there's no way to know that one choice has a lack of consequences. You are indeed right that the player could reload to find that out, but using that to justify that the choice is unequal because you could do so isn't the most solid of arguments. When developing a game this is something that can't really be developed around, and when it is, developers usually have to take a nuclear option. It is more the fault that this platform doesn't disallow for such a thing to happen. Regardless, I do agree it's unequal, and yes, if you find out that one choice has no consequences you'll pick the one that doesn't. There's nothing wrong with a choice not having consequences however. Real life can be much the same, not every action you take has to be some moral dilemma of bad and good. Some are simply just actions. Though, perhaps this choice shouldn't be a karma point because of that fact as it doesn't really present a real dilemma for the player.

I agree mostly; but it effectively establishes a "right" choice and a non-choice. It's similar to real life, but in real life 99.9999% of all the "right" choices I make are automated. I'd dare to say the choice adds little to nothing from what we can tell so far, so it may be better to just automatically do it rather than being given a relatively pointless choice.

 

4 hours ago, Mycroft said:

 

I disagree slightly, and I think that you're, and correct me if I'm wrong, focusing too much on the logical aspect here. Not every choice made by a person is logical, I think you might want to take a step back and think about it from another perspective, because at your admittance you are a bit of a cynic. I do agree on the point that giving the stone away in this situation is irrational, but I'll play devil's advocate. Your character, whilst not particularly close to the Elder, does have a connection to her and it's entirely possible that you care more for her life than the larger mass. People are like that all the time. If someone close to you dies/is in danger of dying your immediate response is probably more emotional than it is when you hear about deaths through the news and such thing. It is typical for most people to care more about those they know than those they don't. I'd argue that you're given the karma point here not for being irrational, but because sacrificing one for the many is a more "cold" option, whilst the opposite has you being empathetic, albeit to the point of irrationality. So neither choice is wrong, and they are equal, because whilst you might not have a connection to the Elder, your character is meant to because she's important to Aelita who your character definitely cares about, and you have to make the decision on if you care enough about her to kill off/make life more difficult for many more people or if she counts as an acceptable sacrifice for the "greater good".

Maybe I've watched too much action films, too much hostage crisis negotiations... maybe I'm just too cynical or distrustful... I concede the point that one is viewed as cold, the other being super-empathetic; either way I think you would need to effectively avoid thinking too much about it for both options to carry a fair enough weight to justify this as a dilemma. After all, the maid gives you very little reason to assume she'd generously let her hostage live, and seems to strongly view you as a pest interfering with angie's ressurection. I don't know how to describe it. I'll grant your indirect connection to Aelita might play some role here, but I really don't think sacrificing your adoptive family and assisting Angie just for the sake of your relationship with Aelita is particularly that strong an argument... if Aelita herself was the hostage I suppose it'd be a far more splendid dilemma, as the main character is strongly implied to care for her.

 

5 hours ago, Mycroft said:

Having not made it to this point, I'll say I agree. I can understand the want to save everyone, even it's a bit too optimistic for my tastes, but in the situation I'd agree to save Melia despite my own dislike for her as a character simply because she's still a friend of the PC and it doesn't make sense to not prioritize her safety in that case. However, if I had to make an argument on why saving the cop would be the "right" action, I'd say it's exactly because you're placing trust in someone blindly and preventing them from an agonizing death. Despite the cop being corrupt and dubious in nature, that is still a good action in of itself.

The dilemma would be better if hypothetically speaking it wasn't implied that Melia was in danger and the cop showed signs of remaining corrupt. That's a serious decision. It would be hard to turn your back on someone, even a corrupt cop, knowing he'd be tortured to death, which would certainly not fit the punishment justice would have for committing manslaughter. The blind trust is pointlessly irrational in my opinion. Take this as an example:

 

You're a doctor, your close friend and a criminal both need a heart transplant. Criminal is convicted of manslaughter, corruption, bribery, etc. Your friend has saved your life many times. The criminal's need for that heart is imminent, you could simply hope to save both by being patient and hoping another heart would make its way to you, which do you prioritize? It just feels too one sided.

 

5 hours ago, Mycroft said:

Karma doesn't deal with the moral part of decision-making, it deals with intent and the action itself. Actually, that's probably why the decisions are how they are. The intent behind the actions are good, and ultimately that's more than likely want is being judged.

I've taken two philosophy classes so I'm going to go ahead and try to explain this simply as possible before I rant even further.

-Deontological (Kantian) views is about not being a hypocrite, consequences be damned (never steal, kill, etc)

-Consequential (utilitarian) views is about thinking about the consequences, the choices be damned (kill 1 to save 1,000)

-Egoist (sometimes hedonist) views is about putting yourself above all others, doing whatever you really want

-Virtue ethics is about your intent mostly.

 

All of these are controversial, but no true winner exists in the human mind for what is "good" and "bad."

 

Kantian views are very constricting, they would sooner let the world burn in fire than kill an innocent.

Utilitarian ethics are extreme, as they would do anything, no matter how damning to optimize happiness and prosperity.

Egoist aren't flatly wrong. Thinking about yourself and your wellbeing and your own happiness isn't morally wrong at all. 

Virtue ethics are fair, sincere intentions are alright. But I would not argue karma should be flatly assumed governed by intent alone.

[sersafir]

1 hour ago, Anerunae said:

See, this is really the crux of the problem with your argument. You do not have to think like a "shonen" protagonist (or really, what you consider to be the behavior of one) to be in the right or objective, and the game does not push you into thinking a certain way. You made this topic blaming the game for having these supposedly one-sided choices but it seems like you're projecting an imagined prejudice against a more "logical" philosophy in general. They're only one-sided if you have a particularly stalwart mindset that greatly affects how you perceive the world.

 

I agree that we should have been given more nuanced results depending on the choices we did make (like at least make Kreiss seem more morally ambiguous if saving us from Angie was to be his only purpose so far). But taking both sides the value of all life into account isn't acting like a fucking anime character, it's just common humanistic reasoning.

You do if you wanna feel any real tension in these moral dilemmas.  The game weights decisions between rational and irrational; an anime protagonist is usually completely irrational but sometimes rational, a normal person is... usually rational but yeah.

 

It's not that I'm "imagining prejudice against logical philosophy." I'll admit I can't view the world from any lens other than my own, but neither can you am I right? If you felt the choices were well balanced I hope you enjoyed them. Everything above, should be noted as my opinion. I can only speak with my own personal experience behind the wheel.

 

1 hour ago, Anerunae said:

... bro, you completely misunderstood me lol. I was agreeing that saving Maria was, personally, the more appealing (and thus "right") choice. That's why I took it myself. It wasn't hard at all–Maria's an innocent child, and I can easily sympathize with her. It felt like she was the player's little sister. The cop, while facing a cruel death, is inconsequential in the long run. But, who knows? Maybe someone else out there found it an agonizing dilemma, and it'd be awfully tactless to call them childish or naive for being merciful. Everyone's different.

I assume I replied with the seeming context of arguing against your choice because I read you felt saving her was only slightly more correct than not. Either that or I misread it. Can't remember.

 

Tactless? Sure, but I'd say also fairly accurate. It takes extreme faith to assume a corrupt cop will make amends when he's rescued from the consequences of his actions..

1 hour ago, Anerunae said:

If we must insist on compartmentalizing morality into fictional character tropes, imo saving the cop is really only an act one of those more pacifistic protagonists would do (or one with a clear-cut moral code that tells them "all life is sacred"). Aang is a good example, as are most shoujo leads. Typical shonen protagonists tend to be much more into dishing out justice and staying loyal to their friends (depending on the anime, they'll be compelled to befriend the enemy, but they don't always start out that way). It's also something the "old wise mentor" character would advise the young, hot-plooded protagonist to do bc, again, "all life is sacred." Most people in real life and more pragmatic protags would pick Maria, which is completely valid too. Whether one or the other is wrong can only be a subjective opinion.

I hate to be that guy, but I'll start by pointing out technically avatar isn't anime; it's American origin.

 

Next I'll say, you're right, it is entirely subjective opinion. I'm not arguing what I'm saying is objectively true. I'm arguing in my opinion it felt too one sided.

[Mycroft]

1 hour ago, sersafir said:

Maybe I've watched too much action films, too much hostage crisis negotiations... maybe I'm just too cynical or distrustful... I concede the point that one is viewed as cold, the other being super-empathetic; either way I think you would need to effectively avoid thinking too much about it for both options to carry a fair enough weight to justify this as a dilemma. After all, the maid gives you very little reason to assume she'd generously let her hostage live, and seems to strongly view you as a pest interfering with angie's ressurection. I don't know how to describe it. I'll grant your indirect connection to Aelita might play some role here, but I really don't think sacrificing your adoptive family and assisting Angie just for the sake of your relationship with Aelita is particularly that strong an argument... if Aelita herself was the hostage I suppose it'd be a far more splendid dilemma, as the main character is strongly implied to care for her.

Yeah, I can agree. If Aelita was the hostage it'd definitely be a more equal dilemma, though you do bring up an interesting point I should explore. The hostage situation, and do correct me if I'm wrong since it's been awhile since I've played, was rather spontaneous and at least in-story it would indeed be a situation you'd have to make a relatively quick decision on. If this was a different style of game, perhaps made by Telltale, it would be something you'd have maybe 30 seconds max to think about if not less. I think the situation just suffers a bit from giving the player unlimited time to think, because with said unlimited time it is rather easy to look at your options, weigh them, and then come to a logical conclusion instead of just choosing what you felt was right in the moment. That's a problem that many games face really, and unless every decision has stark consequences/effects it's hard to achieve a good balance.

1 hour ago, sersafir said:

Virtue ethics are fair, sincere intentions are alright. But I would not argue karma should be flatly assumed governed by intent alone.

Oh no, you're right, that was just me making a simple generalization. That was my fault in not being clear enough. However, Karma is indeed largely focused on the intent and the action itself, though it'd be wrong of me to ignore the fact that it also focuses on the effects to some extent. Having not had a philosophy class in some time, a few years by this point, I'll cede the point that you probably have a bit of a better perspective on this, but karma's doctrine, for lack of a better word, is typically "if you show goodness, you shall reap goodness back". The complexity behind it is the fact that it's not that simple really, yes. It accepts that good and bad choices have consequences regardless of the intent, that your choices have long reaching effects on you and those around you, that it's the sum of your actions that truly matter, and you also have the fact that actions that are considered with less karmic weight or even as neutral in nature due to varying factors. To reiterate, you're right, karma isn't solely intent based. However, I'll say as so far as the game has shown so far, it's giving you decisions based around the basic concept of karma without understanding that it is indeed a bit more complex.