Mycroft

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. 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.

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. 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 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". 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.