Things that are more difficult redside, and hence more fun.

Obviously, to a point. But none of that has anything to do with the post you're replying to, given the post that it, itself, was replying to. Because we don't have to weigh the morality or ethics of the situation. The devs did that for us. Which was the entire point. Any possible moral dilemma has been negated by the simple irrefutable statement of fact that a particular fictional character is, by the declaration of his creators, absolutely in the wrong. There is no ethical debate here: the situation has been decided for us.

No, I am saying that presenting a choice of "institute a police state or everyone, everywhere dies" is not a moral dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_dilemma) just by definition. It's not really a choice at all, much less a dilemma. It's a "live in tyranny or don't live at all" choice, which is a "take it or leave it" Hobson's Choice.

It would be like arguing that the solution to poverty is to kill the impovershed. That's not an ethical dilemma. It's an unethical solution to a moral problem. It presents no dilemma.

There COULD be a moral dilemma where allowing the human race to die out is a possible ethical option, or perhaps the only ethical option, but this isn't that dilemma.

Originally Posted by eltonio This is over the top mental slavery.

You are totally off base on this comment (You are off base on a lot of your comments but really off the meter on this one.)

Anarchy means, literally, self-rule. It has nothing and I mean nothing to do with chaos or harming others. As matter of fact a true anarchist (not a pseudo-wannabe punk rocker) usually has a higher personal ethic then the standard conformist. The true anarchist is the ultimate in personal accountability. True anarchy doesn't work that well in the real world because to many people don't want to accept responsibility for themselves or are just to stupid.

What kind of education do you have anyways? Seems like to me your entire life's philosophy comes from listening to a Sunday School volunteer worker who did nothing but listen to their Sunday School teacher and just regurgitated it all to you.

Your, "there is only one right" philosophy is exactly the reason so many countries are unfriendly to downright hostile to the USA. While there are certain actions that are more universally accepted as evil then others. There are many, many more that fall within certain shades of gray. It's nice and easy to think that there is only one right way and that way happens to be yours. But all it is in the long run is being mentally lazy.

Indeed. It's one thing V for Vendetta explains pretty well, V describes a point after all the turmoil where people naturally settle into an Anarchist arrangement, each responsible for their own tasks and actions. But he admits that such an arrangement won't last forever. Possibly the best real-life examples are something like a small commune or village where everyone had their own contented role but even those tend to have some social and political structure to them.

You wacky Americans.

Have you been reading all this thread I must ask? I made this in stark contrast to what GG was saying. So she called for detainment of all supers, and spun it like what happened pratoria, since as facts said 90% of sups in Praetoria "dissapeared".

How so, do you know what crime is to them, I used it in a generic term not specifying x=crime.

Even though it was told to us that me Cole partakes in this with the facts shown in this thread? Also I do know about that is moral imperative. I have enough knowledge in history, and common knowledge of present time to know that genocide is a terrible act. Although it can be a common thing in a video game to make a person look ruthless and evil.
As I said in this post that is a stark contrast or extension of what GG was saying about rounding people up cause that is what would happen.

Actually, we've been trying, but you keep bringing up the fact that he's evil, because the devs say so. So, you win. He's evil.

The thing is, in order for a Hero's fall from grace to work, there has to be a morality play. A play like that must have ambiguity. Unfortunately, you can't be ambiguous if one side is clearly defined as evil. Without this play, the content of Pratoria and the side switching make no sense. In other words:

If Tyrant is evil, then Going Rogue fails.

It's a bit more than 50% that go evil, if you consider how many more NPCs are meta-human criminals.

Just because I'm playing catch up: I'd pull the lever and do everything I can to get the last child off the tracks, even if it means I'm on them.

I like this version

Most stories of fallen heroes aren't really about complicated moral dilemmas. Most seem to happen because the hero gave in to one or more of the seven deadly sins. King Minos succumbed to greed, Superboy Prime to envy and wrath, and so on. A fall from grace is often just a manifestation of our own baser instincts getting the better of us.

Smurch: We don't have enough information to classify life in Praetoria as a Hobson's choice. We simply don't know how things would play out if Cole were removed from power. There will be a shift in power as a bunch of new superhumans, not directly under his control, from our dimension show up there. Additionally, we have no idea of the true threat that the "tamed" Hamidon would present now. He may not even be capable of rampaging again.

What we're presented with in Praetoria is a villain who, due to some combination of his own nature and the circumstances under which he came to power, decided to essentially kill John Locke in order to deify John Stuart Mill. Cole threw self-determination for the masses out to provide the greatest good for the greatest number. Even if the threat of Praetorian Hamidon has been reduced by his near-complete defeat decades ago, deposing Cole would still have some consequences. Revolutions, even popular ones, often leave things in a precarious state for a time. The survival of the United States was questionable for quite some time after the Treaty of Paris. There were threats from Britain, and possibly other European powers, and threats from within that could have torn apart the young nation. This is the dilemma that we face when choosing whether or not to stand against Cole. Will this world be better off by getting rid of this utilitarian regime that's been built and maintained at the cost of personal freedom for a future of uncertainty (perhaps even a very deadly uncertainty) that at least guarantees basic human rights?

Evil doesn't just mean twirling your moustache and enjoying what you're doing
For example, Tyrant having potential threats wiped out is evil, but that doesn't mean he has to enjoy it - to him, the bigger picture is all that matters - he's saved the world, and any action is justified in keeping it safe - that doesn't mean he enjoys, it , or even thinks about it much at all.
Just because Mother Mayhem is a sadist, that doesn't mean Tyrant is too - Mother Mayhem's psychic power makes her the best person to run the Seers and asylum - she's the most effective choice, so she gets the job - because an effective psychic network is vital for the bigger picture of keeping humnaity safe - not giving her the job because of a personality "quirk" would be denying humanity the best option to help their long-term survival.

No, it means, literally, "no rule"

You Tyrant apologist!

Just trying to make the potential loyalists see that there's room for moral grayness in GR - they're not going to have to grow moustaches to fit in

Funny, I thought that's what the rest of us have been trying to set up the entire time. It was your point that there is no gray present, Tyrant is clearly evil and the Resistance are heroes. Why? The devs said so. And anything else is being a Tyrant apologist.

The framework of the story is that Tyrant's government is evil, and the Resistance are good - but inside that framework, there's lots of room for moral grayness.

For example, is everything you do in CoV evil just because the framework of CoV has the Rogue Isles ruled by an evil dictator?

Somehow in my blurry evil-o-vision I see M_I has the point here, after perusing through the thread again.

Now that a lot of people said well that's it you won cause the devs said so you change your points.

No - I'm just pointing out that just because Tyrant is evil,´that doesn't meant that GR is a "waste of time".

Just beacause Tyrant and his government are evil, doesn't mean they're not the only guaranteed security for humanity - the Resistance might be able to protect humanity too - but Tyrant can for sure - the existence of Praetoria and the peaceful, crime-free lives of most of its citizens is proof of that.
Tyrant has used evil methods to create a world more peaceful than Primal Earth - so through evil, has he actually done more good than the heores of Primal Earth who fight against evil?
Just because he's evil, does that mean he can't have done some good too?
When does the price of security and peace become too high, or is there no price too high for having it?
If the majority of people are safe and content, then does it really matter how the minority are dealt with to continue to keep the majority safe and content?

There's lots of room for moral grayness in GR.

Keep back peddling. It's adorable. XD

If they weren't wide enough for people to crawl through, then all the time and money spent putting in the sensors, diverters, the overpressure pulse generators, and the digesters would go to waste. You see, you let the resistance sneak into the building via the ventilation ducts, then, once inside, the diverters close off the regular duct connections and open the shafts to the digesters, then the overpressure generators send massive pressure waves through the ducts to blow the intruders into the digester shafts, where they're chewed up and turned into fertilizer.

The entire structure of the Praetorian government was designed by Tyrant when he took the job. Even if it wasn't exactly the way he wanted, he's had decades of being in charge to shape the world to his will. If Tyrant is evil, then everything about Praetoria is evil. Having our Heroes work for him in this scenario makes as much sense as Superman taking a job with LexCorp.

EDIT: Well, maybe the Heroes who's descriptions say "This character is really a Villain, he just got to 50 before CoV was released."

You're saying exactly what I and everyone else has been saying this whole time.

Done with this.

No, "everyone else" has been saying that you could work for Tyrant and not become evil - that you could play a loyalist 1-20 and at the end, still be a hero - that even when you've found out the truth about Tyrant, you could still serve him while continuing to be regarded as a hero back on Primal Earth.
Going Rogue is about moral choices - you can be a hero who choses to serve Tyrant, even though his govenrment is evil, becuase you can genuinely think that his methods are for the best.

That's not quite the same situation - it's missing the "humaity in danger" angle that can be used to try and justify Tyrant's actions.