Story Problem: 'Kill' or 'Kill'? (Spoilers)
By
Afterimage,
Posted on: 2010-09-05 15:00 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
I don't think it's bad writing at all - it's showing a realistic situation that would happen in a setting like Praetoria.
It's a relentlessly brutal fascist dictatorship - if you decide to resist it, then lives are going to be lost on both sides.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
The only way to come out that mission without blood on your hands is to stand back and let Washington kill Cleo on his own. I haven't tried that myself, but I think he would win without your assistance anyway.
I really like that arc, because it shows you that in Praetoria even heroes are going to have to do 'bad' things, and the hospital bombing plotline really kills off any preconceived notions that this is going to be a clear case of Loyalist = Villain, Resistance = Hero.
it feels like a statement of intent by the writers, telling us that things aren't going to be that black and white in Praetoria, and I feel it works very well.
Quote:
You can't get out of THE TUTORIAL without killing someone. There's no way to preserve your cover, whichever way you go, without someone getting silenced.| Like I said, for some, that may be acceptable. For me, it stinks of bad writing-- artificially creating a sense of seriousness by forcing the player's character to kill. "Praetoria is SrsBzns. You ain't gettin' outta here without pullin' the trigger." |
We've had forced killing in the game since CoV, cf. the Stone Cold badge mission, Seer Marino's arc, many others. It's not new and there's nothing wrong with it per se.
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
Quote:
<.< >.>|
Originally Posted by Venture
You can't get out of THE TUTORIAL without killing someone. There's no way to preserve your cover, whichever way you go, without someone getting silenced.
We've had forced killing in the game since CoV, cf. the Stone Cold badge mission, Seer Marino's arc, many others. It's not new and there's nothing wrong with it per se. |
you could skip the tutorial, grind to level 20, and then bolt having not 'killed' anyone and making only one moral choice.
I don't think that's really an option when you want to actually experience the story content 
Also, for loyalists, killing Cleo is the "right" thing to do if you're truly loyal to Tyrant and his dictatorship - you'll actually be showing more loyalty than Marauder, who'd let personal feelings get in the way of protecting the dictatorship and the god-emperor you both serve.
As a dutiful and obedient servant of the state, your normal course of action when faced with a Resistance spy would be to arrest them, torture them for information about the Resistance, and then have the, executed.
But when the spy happens to be the girlfriend of a Praetor, who despises the PPD, then trying to arrest and torture her is a non-starter, and your newly begun career in the Powers Division could quite easily come to a rather violent end at Marauder's hands.
So killing her on the spot is still following the normal procedure, as she'd be killed anyway - you're not disobeying any orders or going against the state in any way - you're upholding the law by making the best of the situation and skipping straight to the execution part, even though it means missing out on the chance to possily get some valuable info on the Resistance - but missing out on that is Marauder' fault, not yours.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Welcome to Paetoria Moo, it is not a pleasant place and there are no true heroes, not as we call them in Paragon.
Is it bad writing? Not at all, in fact it's very good writing, it makes you make a choice where there is no perfect option.
They could have easily made the mission "arresting" her, but that would be a cop out on the story they are telling.
it is s striking thing, isnt it?, praetoria takes coh out of the golden/silver age, things get gritty, i like it. sometimes in a schadenfreude way, sometimes it gives you harsh decisions which would be, as golden says, ones that dont have a feel-good answer, its harsh but it feels lived-in.
I've accepted the idea that my Praetorians will be murderous villains no matter which path I take. Some will continue being villains in the Rogue Isles, and some will reform to become heroes in Paragon City.
If you don't step in they'd kill each other. If you knock Cleo out and drag her to jail, the PPD'd kill her, or Marauder would unleash everything he has and go on a killing spree. If you don't kill Cleo and knock Washington out, the PPD will be all over you in a serious attempt to kill you, while Cleo'd have to go into hiding or else she'd get killed. In the end, death will happen, it's inevitable.
Is it bad story telling? No. Not at all. Preatoria's all about making hard choices because it's a different dimension with so many different shades of morality. Different set of rules to define what's good and evil. So many people complain about wanting to be a hero but don't realize that in this dimension, heroes aren't the same as they are in Primal Earth. Sometimes they do have to use lethal force to ensure the safety of everyone around them.
"Nobody is innocent in this world. Every person is a killer. Even you. Imagine for a moment that you are in a room with two people and you have to kill one of them. No, you can't choose to die yourself. No, you can't try to get out of the room in any other way. Your only choices are to kill one person or the other. See? In this hypothetical situation, you've just become a cold-blooded killer. No, you can't choose to regret being forced to kill, because nobody in this world is innocent. Nobody. Even you."
Character index
I loved that mission. My character was flat-out Resistance (Warden) before that, and then with this one, she went Loyalist (Responsibility) for a brief time - because she just could *not* stomach the idea of letting someone bomb a hospital.
She didn't do it out of a brief sense of loyalty to Cole or what Washington stood for - she did it because it was, regrettably, the right thing to do.
Currently playing:
The Domestic: Broom/WP
Shadowhex: Dark Control/Dark Affinity
Defenestration Lass: Grav/Kin
"See, this is what happens when you have to shove all this stuff into your pockets: it's easy to misplace a suborbital warhead." -Arcanaville, on how crowded our power trays are getting lately
Quote:
Well, Katie Douglas and Kang's daughter are innocent - along with others |
Originally Posted by Silver Gale
"Nobody is innocent in this world. Every person is a killer. Even you. Imagine for a moment that you are in a room with two people and you have to kill one of them. No, you can't choose to die yourself. No, you can't try to get out of the room in any other way. Your only choices are to kill one person or the other. See? In this hypothetical situation, you've just become a cold-blooded killer. No, you can't choose to regret being forced to kill, because nobody in this world is innocent. Nobody. Even you."
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
There we go. That's the problem with the writing.| No, you can't choose to regret being forced to kill, because nobody in this world is innocent. Nobody. Even you. |
This tactic would be okay if you writing for a predefined set of characters. Their lack of ability to see or pursue anything but a 'grey' answer would be part of what defines those characters. That'd be a great way to define a character in non-interactive fiction.
However, in this case, they're not writing for a predefined set of characters. They're writing scenarios for other people's characters to interact with. Then a choice is presented, but it's not a choice that allows the character to define themself. It's a choice that furthers the story in the way the writers want it to go.
The really important part is that the expansion explicitly offers the player the chance to make moral choices... but then the writers take that choice away in situations like this.
In a pen-and-paper analogue, it'd be the same thing as a GM putting a player in a room with two enemies, telling him he has to choose one or the other to die, and then refusing to let the player roleplay his way through steering the scenario in a way he didn't expect.
Some players could reasonably kill BOTH parties. They'd certainly have reason.
Some players would indeed walk away and let what happens happen.
Some players would take the Obi-wan Kenobi 'I choose to die instead' route.
Some players would take the 'Batman' route and outthink both enemies, maybe even leaving them both thinking they'd won.
Either way, the player hoping to make the choices their character would end up locked out of those choices. Even if it's good writing for non-interactive fiction, it's bad writing here.
It's not bad writing because there's a REASON one of them needs to die.
You can't knock out or arrest either, because both want the other dead. Cleo is a spy for the Resistance, Washington has proof of that- Namely you. If you arrest Cleo, as explained by Washington and even Marauder himself, he'd break her free and screw up the legal system deeply. Someone would die.
It's no better for someone to die because of you than it is for you to kill someone personally. Most likely, Marauder would kill a bunch of PPD officers, Washington included, and maybe even come after you after Cleo outs you.
As for Washington, you knock him out and 'arrest' him, he'll show the evidence he has and have you taken in. Even if Cleo walks free, you'd suffer the consequences of their actions for your passive attempt.
Letting them have at each other, Washington is far superior than Cleo in combat. She wouldn't last a minute, and he intends to kill her. He won't let her live.
Taking them both down would result in a mix of both. Either way, your story is over. Marauder won't listen to you, the PPD won't listen to you, and you'll be an enemy of the state and the Resistance (as the only reason Scott is really suggesting you kill her is to put you deeper undercover, and screwing that up kills your credibility.)
Now, from either side of the fence, as a Resistance Crusader or Warden taking that choice, Scott wants you deeper under cover. You can take down Washington, being forced to kill him or he'll out you and preserving Cleo's cover as it's only the three in the room who know. Knocking him out will just let him reveal you later.
Following Scott's advice and killing Cleo to put yourself under cover is the only option, as not killing her will again lead Marauder to killing the two of you for arresting her since he can still do something about it.
For Loyalists, Responsibility namely, this woman is a spy for a terrorist faction. She's on the side that tried to blow up hospitals, set bombs all over town, been feeding private information... She's, in a full Loyalist's eyes at this point, nothing but a villain. Leaving her alive means leaving her in her place, and once again, Marauder's going to take you down. Killing her is the only way.
Two of your options are viable.
Quote:
Drop mission and you've washed your hands of it.
|
Originally Posted by AmazingMOO
Some players would indeed walk away and let what happens happen.
|
Quote:
|
Some players would take the Obi-wan Kenobi 'I choose to die instead' route. |
Quote:
I agree with Moo that it's bad writing in the sense of "open gameplay." However, I wonder if the writers were hamstrung by the game engine -- even when three choices are presented in other parts of the game, it's really just two choices.|
Originally Posted by AmazingMOO
There we go. That's the problem with the writing.
This tactic would be okay if you writing for a predefined set of characters. Their lack of ability to see or pursue anything but a 'grey' answer would be part of what defines those characters. That'd be a great way to define a character in non-interactive fiction. However, in this case, they're not writing for a predefined set of characters. They're writing scenarios for other people's characters to interact with. Then a choice is presented, but it's not a choice that allows the character to define themself. It's a choice that furthers the story in the way the writers want it to go. The really important part is that the expansion explicitly offers the player the chance to make moral choices... but then the writers take that choice away in situations like this. In a pen-and-paper analogue, it'd be the same thing as a GM putting a player in a room with two enemies, telling him he has to choose one or the other to die, and then refusing to let the player roleplay his way through steering the scenario in a way he didn't expect. Some players could reasonably kill BOTH parties. They'd certainly have reason. Some players would indeed walk away and let what happens happen. Some players would take the Obi-wan Kenobi 'I choose to die instead' route. Some players would take the 'Batman' route and outthink both enemies, maybe even leaving them both thinking they'd won. Either way, the player hoping to make the choices their character would end up locked out of those choices. Even if it's good writing for non-interactive fiction, it's bad writing here. |
The other problem, which is apparent even if you haven't played other RPGs before, is that every decision you offer the player will result in things potentially spinning out of control later in the game. Eventually the story comes back to the predetermined aftermath, or the writers have to spend months taking into account every conceivable outcome.
Personally, I'd love to have many choices leading to different outcomes, but practically speaking that's something which isn't going to happen. So we have to go the rationalization route by saying, "Well, it's Praetoria, it's harsh, you gotta kill."
The Alt Alphabet ~ OPC: Other People's Characters ~ Terrific Screenshots of Cool ~ Superhero Fiction
But there isn't really a plausible solution to that mission, apart from the one that's already there.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Sorry, but James T. notwithstanding the no-win scenario does exist. Sometimes you only get a limited menu of suck to choose from.
| Either way, the player hoping to make the choices their character would end up locked out of those choices. |
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
Quote:
Well, you could arrange for Washington to fall into the hands of the Crusaders branch of the Resistance. They'd probably break his legs to keep him from escaping and torture him for information, but he'd still be alive. Ish. For a while.
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
But there isn't really a plausible solution to that mission, apart from the one that's already there.
|
Goodbye, I guess.
@Lord_Nightblade in Champions/Star Trek Online
nightblade7295@gmail.com if you want to stay in touch
Quote:
Tell that to the people who die because your actions in her morality mission. |
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Well, Katie Douglas and Kang's daughter are innocent - along with others
|
My COX Fanfiction:
Blue's Assembled Story Links
Quote:
That's certainly an extreme case, but there are ways the mission could end with no change in the 'aftermath', or even really very many of the mission mechanics:| Well, you could arrange for Washington to fall into the hands of the Crusaders branch of the Resistance. They'd probably break his legs to keep him from escaping and torture him for information, but he'd still be alive. Ish. For a while. |
- You could knock out Washington from behind and tell him that you killed Cleopatra while he was out. You force Cleopatra to go underground. You stay on the Resistance alignment.
- You defeat Cleo, but outright refuse to let Washington kill her, defeating him too if necessary. This might need another line of text or two for the ending, but that's well within scope for the new branching mission mechanics. You stay on the Loyalist alignment.
(Optionally, if the writers were being ambitious, it could open up a fight with an EB Marauder. Afterwards, during her 'trial', you could break her out yourself and send her underground, defying Calvin Scott as well. (This is good because players, not NPCs, are the main characters of the story.)
- You could knock out Washington, but refuse to let Cleo kill him. Both of you go underground, again defying Mr. Scott. Washington then has his hands too full keeping Marauder from going berserk because his girlfriend betrayed him to focus on trying to bring you in. You stay on the Resistance alignment.
These are just options that don't require any real changes to the way the mission or aftermath already works. There are many others that could have been undertaken from the beginning that would allow players a better, wider array of ethical choices.
Quote:
And then Scott has her killed.| You could knock out Washington from behind and tell him that you killed Cleopatra while he was out. You force Cleopatra to go underground. You stay on the Resistance alignment. |
Quote:
| You defeat Cleo, but outright refuse to let Washington kill her, defeating him too if necessary. |
Quote:
| Optionally, if the writers were being ambitious, it could open up a fight with an EB Marauder. |
Quote:
| Afterwards, during her 'trial', you could break her out yourself and send her underground, defying Calvin Scott as well. |
Quote:
| You could knock out Washington, but refuse to let Cleo kill him. Both of you go underground, again defying Mr. Scott. |
Quote:
| There are many others that could have been undertaken from the beginning that would allow players a better, wider array of ethical choices. |
You don't like what they're trying to do in the Praetoria content. That's OK, it's your prerogative. I don't care for it much myself for different reasons. But that doesn't make it bad.
Current Blog Post: "Why I am an Atheist..."
"And I say now these kittens, they do not get trained/As we did in the days when Victoria reigned!" -- T. S. Eliot, "Gus, the Theatre Cat"
Going with Venture here. Deconstruct the plot as much as you want, there's no getting away from the fact that - ultimately - you cannot change the outcome without being a ridiculously overpowered god character (which is moronic by itself).
Frankly, I love situations like this in games. I hate hate hate hate hate hate the idea of there always being a 'perfect' solution. Grey morality means absolutely nothing if you can come out on top, unscathed. This is one such situation.
Sooo basically you're asking them to spend tons of time and programming from here on out to list every possible route that could be thought of to take on these missions. Right, okay, let's play that game.
I want the devs to code choices from here on out that my character slapped their contact in the face, and that'll lead to it's own branch of missions.
I want them to make a choice for me to stub my toe, trip, and fall flat on my face during the climactic final battle of each arc, causing the final boss to laugh hysterically and leave, creating a new ending as opposed to the one where we would have fought.
I'd also want a choice that I could just say "Eff you!" to the Freedom Phalanx and all of their TFs and just go off on my own and start my own TF, because my character doesn't like the Freedom Phalanx and would think of themselves as better. This means the devs need to find a spot, put my character there, and design an arc of missions.
This is all, of course, with your logic that we should have a million and one choices with each crossroads.
The first Praetorian story arc I went through was the 'Warden' arc. I decided for my second Praetorian character that I would follow the 'Responsibility' story arc, yet act as a double agent for the resistance, calling in tips to Calvin Scott as I progressed.
I progressed through Washington's arc and went on to Cleopatra's. I was....
-- SPOILERS AHEAD. TURN BACK NOW --
-- SPOILERS AHEAD. TURN BACK NOW --
-- SPOILERS AHEAD. TURN BACK NOW --
... Ahem. I was pleasantly surprised to find that she was a member of the resistance at the end of her arc. However, I was less than pleased with the moral choices presented at the end of the arc.
Calvin Scott tells you to go ahead and help Washington kill Cleopatra and then to assume her place as a deeply nested double agent. She's gotten sloppy and weak and deserves to die rather than hinder the resistance.
Washington tells you that he intends to kill Cleopatra since Marauder will simply let her out of the pokey if he arrests her.
The choices given to you at the turning point are 'Kill Washington' and 'Help Washington Carry out his Sentence', which he's already told you involves killing Miss Cleo.
Kill Cleo or Kill Washington.
For some, I'm certain, this is an acceptable choice.
The souvenir is nice enough to phrase it as a question rather than a restatement of the options provided at the end of the cutscene:
Unfortunately, in a game that has made terribly a lot of fuss about the ability to make ethical and moral choices, this writer of this arc has chosen to try to force the player to try to pick between the lesser of two evils, showing them that participation in the 'good fight', regardless of who they think is the 'good' side of the fight, means getting blood on their hands.
There is no ethical choice to, say, KO both enemies to prevent them from killing each other. There's no choice to out yourself and force one of the others to escape. There's not even an 'Obi-wan Kenobi' choice-- to bow before your enemy and allow them to kill you rather than taking their life yourself.
Like I said, for some, that may be acceptable. For me, it stinks of bad writing-- artificially creating a sense of seriousness by forcing the player's character to kill. "Praetoria is SrsBzns. You ain't gettin' outta here without pullin' the trigger."
There is no truly 'Heroic' option in this story arc. Some would say that there's not even really an option at all if your hand is forced onto the blade.
Right now, I'm seriously considering the 'Judas Iscariot' choice for my character. A Hard Reroll would be better than having that mess in my souvenir list.