Why did I just kill an important person (spoilers)
By
Aquila_NA,
Posted on: 2010-08-23 24:59 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
Huh, you know, I think you're right. I've been running the Responsibility arc and the moral choices so far have been biased towards the Resistance. ("Kill Cleo" vs. "Save Cleo" and "End the Syndicate" vs. "Help a father rescue his child".) I mean the first one is 50/50. But the second one? You even get a photo of said daughter as a souvenir. That choice is made to make you feel rotten. Do you let all the work you've done against the Syndicate go to waste, or do you save his daughter? I believe this is called the "Sunk cost fallacy". I've already done this much, no turning back now. Fiendishly written, I like it even more now.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
You know, what... I just figured it out, at least in part. How is it that choices are always so hard and ambiguous on BOTH sides of the fence? Well, as I see it, because they are intentionally crossed. Resistance moral choices are designed such that they favour the Loyalists more while Loyalist moral choices are slated such that they favour the Resistance. Let me explain:
The final moral choice in the Resistance comes courtesy of Calvin Scott - do we blow up people's only source of fresh water to "free their minds" and let them "choke on dead air and foul water," as Muro would put it, or do we wait and find an alternate solution? If I want to stay with the resistance, then I have to kill people by taking away their drinking water. In this case, the Loyalist option sounds a lot more appealing. The final moral choice with the Loyalists comes courtesy of Interrogator Kang - do I reveal the Emperor's plan to slaughter Primal Earth to the people, thus instigating open revolt, or do I keep it quiet and deal with it myself? If I want to stay with the Loyalists, I need to hide this horror from the people, and for what? To avoid upsetting the peace? To spite the Resistance? In this case, the Resistance option sounds a lot more appealing. EDIT: Also reading that post, I think my character's Neutropilis arc is set now. She'll continue the Responsibility line until the end. She'll do a lot to protect the people, but she'll NOT help commit Genocide. Then she'll do the Warden line, and when the option comes to bomb the water facility she'll turn back again. Ending in "My god! You're all madmen! I'm outta here! Maybe I can help save that other world... from us." Clever, writers, very clever! To paint the moral ambiguity of Praetoria and make us less likely to entrench ourselves on just one side, you made each side's moral choices biassed towards the OTHER side, such that every time we feel like we are where we belong, the moral choice suggests the opposite. It's not how I would have handled it, as I'd probably have played it straight all the way, but that kind of underhandedness really does work. What do you know! |
EDIT: I think my character's Neutropolis arc is set now. She'll go Responsibility until the end. But when she learns of Tyrant's planned genocide, she'll switch sides. Then do the Warden part up until the water facility plot. Then she'll switch back. Or rather, she'll go "My GOD! You're all mad! That's it, I'm out of here. I'm going to that other world and see if I can protect THEM from US." I think that would be a proper way to end it. Rejecting both the "good" paths endings and going rogue, so to speak. And I'll get to tell Tyrant so to his face this way.
Aegis Rose, Forcefield/Energy Defender - Freedom
"Bubble up for safety!"
Quote:
Sorry to tell you, but she put the mojo on your mellon and you made the choice she wanted you to! |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
However - and this is what blew my mind - right at the very end of the arc, Vanessa, defeated and surrendering, makes a compassionate plea with me to let her leave. And unlike Beholder and the other psychics who were utterly pathetic, and not a little hateful, Vanessa manages to do hers with dignity, honour and, most of all, respect. And as I read through it, it killed me that I would have to bring her into "Mother's" care. Only... It turns out I didn't have to. "So, what, I should let you go?" says my line in the dialogue, and I'm thinking it's just creative writing, but no! Vanessa says "Yeah, you should." And I say "Yeah, I should. Go." And I go O.o
You know what the best part of it all was? This was NOT a morality mission, and it didn't change my alignment. I didn't have to abandon the Loyalists, I didn't have to join the resistance, I didn't have to flip the game on its head. For the first time in... Well, the ENTIRE Praetorian storyline, I was finally given a choice that I felt like I made on my own. I wasn't facing the pressure from my alignment, I wasn't facing the consequences of doing the "wrong" thing. It was just a choice, for me to make. |
Quote:
That would be rather interesting, considering my character has a computer for a brain (and Willpower with its psychic protection, to boot) and would therefore be immune from such suggestions, Moreover, it's pretty clear that Mother Tillman is doing her very best to influence player characters the entire time she's communicating from the way she speaks. "You wouldn't want to make mother angry, would you?" Um... Yeah, I actually would.|
Originally Posted by Knight_Marshal
Sorry to tell you, but she put the mojo on your mellon and you made the choice she wanted you to!
|
Know what it actually reminds me? Mother Love You. Anyone who's seen that episode of Teen Titans know what I'm talking about.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
I think I'm largely echoing you, Sam, but I genuinely think some of my favorite GR choices have been the ones outside morality missions. The morality ones I feel are largely metagame choices -- which line of missions to do I want to run when I switch zones? But the ones INSIDE the arcs make me think.
Do I let those people go or not, given that no one's around to verify that I killed them? Do I pursue this criminal or swoop to the rescue of some NPCs? That was one where I just sat and stared at the screen for a few minutes (glad I was solo!).
Yeah, I'd love to arrest Ricochet and the crowd would love me for it. At the same time, MY TEAM is in danger; I'm a mastermind and attacking my team equates to attacking ME. I wound up saving my team -- the game suggested it was an act of humility. I wanted to explain, no, it was an act of hubris. I don't like people TOUCHING MY STUFF, and if anyone is going to kill my henchmen, it's ME.
That was a moment that surprised me. I was invested in the choice my character made and I wanted the game to reflect what took me a few minutes of internal struggle to decide. But just like in life, you don't always get to explain your motives, or people impute a motive to you.
I knew that in the long run, the choice wouldn't matter as far as which storylines I played or content I saw. But somehow, the LACK of impact made the choice more potent, freeing me from the mechanics of the game and making it a more traditional role-playing choice ("Well, but my CHARACTER wouldn't do that..."). I think there are a lot of well-written moments like that in GR.
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Lord Vetinari, Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett.
You make a very good argument there, Cipher. Morality missions of all kinds feel more meta-game than they feel like an integral part of the storyline. They're a vessel for switching sides, so they deliberately put you in a position where switching sides is possible. They have practical consequences, which forces morality to take a back seat to pragmatism.
You know which moral choice was the hardest for me? Whether to knock out Paolo Marino and force him to be with his family or whether to respect his wish to be an idiot and stay with the PPD despite hating them. This had no practical consequences, so I never had to consider what I stood to gain or what I stood to lose. I only had to consider what was right and what was wrong to do. To top it all off, it had moral consequences, because afterward, the Syndicate Suit I was fighting taunted me about my decision, and about how the Resistance are hypocrites because we would force people to be free against their will. That bothered me, because it only then sunk in how questionable my morality was.
I honestly prefer these kinds of non-meaningful morality choices where I don't have to worry about politics and metagame.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
<<SNIP>>
EDIT: as in I want to hit the + button right now.