Story Problem: 'Kill' or 'Kill'? (Spoilers)
By
Afterimage,
Posted on: 2010-09-05 15:00 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
No. They're going to be human beings, who have to make real choices in a real war. They're going to have to examine their moral choices and decide what is the better way to act.
|
Originally Posted by Mirai
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.
|
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
I actually came across this 'problem' on my character who was basically a non-violent monk. With the world being as harsh as it was, he uses his skill and strength to protect life at all costs. He'd never end the enemy's life as he had far greater control than a normal man and could leave someone within an inch of their life if need be to stop them. That said, his alignment was never set in stone. He could be said to have been a Resistance sympathizer as well as a Loyalist out to protect the common citizen.
Then came this arc. Well, his work with Cleo, he was ready to forgive her for trying to kill him in exchange that she quit such immoral work with the Resistance. She was about to accept the offer and passively support the resistance like he was until his old colleague Washington calls him up. He was quite surprised that Washington would resort to being judge and jury on his own. He couldn't let that happen and successfully subdued Washington who was left weakly pounding on the invulnerable chest of my hero.
Everything was finally calming down...until Cleo jumped out of line and took the killing shot from behind his back. He was horrified by the way things turned out...no one was suppose to die here! He would have solved this, even if he had to teach White where his loyalties were suppose to be, protecting the people. But it all ended so quickly...he was an accomplice. His was burned by his sympathy for the Resistance and forever tainted with the blood of a courageous man on his hands.
He was changed by this event, and now became a strong Loyalist focused on keeping Emperor Cole in power in the interest of keeping the innocent civilians out of harms way. Although deep down, he still held sympathy for the rebels, he would never let himself be forced to do such a deed and actively put himself on the frontlines so he could absorb their ire and return it as compassion in hopes that they'll understand and take a more non-violent approach to bring about peace.
OOC: I wouldn't mind more choices, but not so varying as to cause story issues. So an option to 'not kill either but try to stop one yet results in the other taking advantage' could easily be another option with some slight alteration to text? I don't think that'd be that difficult.
Quote:
I would. The seers have no responsibility to live as slaves so that others can live in safety. There aren't many unambiguously "good" choices in Praetoria, but Katie Douglas' morality mission is certainly one of them IMO.
|
Originally Posted by BlueBattler
Tell that to the people who die because your actions in her morality mission.
 |
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Personally, what galls me is that we were told this would be a grey and grey morality, but it isn't. Going Resistance Warden is pretty much the only "good" path in the entire game. I had hoped that going Loyalist Responsibility would be equally good but in a different way, only it isn't. It's a pretty dark shade of grey.
You can't have a world where no-one is innocent and there are no good guys when there ARE good guys, quite clearly. I would be more willing to accept "hard choices" if they were omnipresent. As it stands, they aren't. The Resistance are the only choice for an idealistic hero, which is pretty much the end and burial of moral ambiguity right there. Yes, Wardens are evil, but they can be skipped while still playing resistance. You can't skip the "evil" option when playing Responsibility without swapping over to the Resistance.
Part of the problem is the binary nature of moral choices in Praetoria. If I help Cleo, I HAVE to swap over to the Resistance. I can't just say "I want to protect Praetoria, but so do you. Run away and never come back." Sure, that might come back to bite me in the end, but as long as no-one but Cleo knows, why not? Why can't I kill Washington, save her and STILL stay a Loyalist? Just because I respect ONE person in the resistance, it doesn't mean I believe in their cause, but the way choices are made, I HAVE to.
Personally, I prefer having more moral choices, say one per arc, with several needed to switch over. That would give me more freedom to choose without incurring the consequences of faction swaps. In fact, I much prefer the no-consequence choices that happen mid-mission over the "Morality Mission" ones.
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.
|
Quote:
The problem is your character, not the setting.|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
I actually came across this 'problem' on my character who was basically a non-violent monk.
|
Why the hell don't people take into account the political atmosphere and state of the city when creating backgrounds. This irks the living hell out of me, creating a character first and bending everything to accomodate it, rather than vice versa.
Quote:
You did catch the part where I said he *was* a non-violent monk.|
Originally Posted by poptart_fairy
The problem is your character, not the setting.
Why the hell don't people take into account the political atmosphere and state of the city when creating backgrounds. This irks the living hell out of me, creating a character first and bending everything to accomodate it, rather than vice versa. |
Yeah, he's not so non-violent anymore.
You know, pop, as just another poster on the forums you're really starting to get on my nerves.
Quote:
You did catch the part where I was talking in a general sense, right.|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
You did catch the part where I said he *was* a non-violent monk.
|
Knickers, untwist. thx.
Quote:
What's your stance on OOC doing the missions, but keeping the alignment and general jist of the characters in place while weaving a more personal, fitting IC story for them?|
Originally Posted by poptart_fairy
The problem is your character, not the setting.
Why the hell don't people take into account the political atmosphere and state of the city when creating backgrounds. This irks the living hell out of me, creating a character first and bending everything to accomodate it, rather than vice versa. |
Just curious, is all. :> I found that doing so means less of the 'I was sent to get flowers for Cleopatra' 'So was I!' 'Me too!' 'She's dead though!' cropping up.
So you're talking about the problem, in the general sense, is *my* character.
Yeah....if it was so general, there would be no need to quote me >_>
Quote:
And there is precedent for this in Praetoria... for example one mission will send a lvl 41 Anti-Matter atcha if you are slow... and that is when you are as low as, what?, 15ish?|
Originally Posted by Venture
While we're way past character level being any real indicator of power, I don't think the devs want to portray level 5-9 characters as being able to take on the Praetors.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
So you're talking about the problem, in the general sense, is *my* character.
Yeah....if it was so general, there would be no need to quote me >_> |
Of course, if he sees you included in that general group... well then you still would be annoying him and have a right to get all defensive (oh... too late).
Quote:
That's the general premise, but more importantly being misplaced in such a general group due to misinterpretation.|
Originally Posted by Thirty-Seven
Right, he couldn't possibly have been using your post as an example of a larger and more general problem that annoys him. Nope, too logical.
Of course, if he sees you included in that general group... well then you still would be annoying him and have a right to get all defensive (oh... too late). |
It's hard to actually see through the snark of his post though. Not sure if his issue with my character's bio has to do with something else or the fact that he used to advocate non-violence before he was inducted into Powers Division. I can only presume it's misinterpretation as having a such a character does take into account at least the general state of affairs of the city.
Quote:
Why the hell don't people get off their high horse and realise that Going Rogue was supposed to offer a third option to hero and villain but didn't even attempt to do that? You're still given a binary choice between two factions. There's never a third option, be it good or bad. It's always either this or that. That's really not much more choice than what we had before, you just make those choices repeatedly instead of once at character creation.|
Originally Posted by poptart_fairy
The problem is your character, not the setting.
Why the hell don't people take into account the political atmosphere and state of the city when creating backgrounds. This irks the living hell out of me, creating a character first and bending everything to accomodate it, rather than vice versa. |
Personally, I'd have picked the option to walk away and let Washington get his *** kicked. Or kill Cleo. Who cares? Or maybe I would have been a big enough dick and chosen to kill both of them - Cleo for setting me up and Washington for trying to order me around. In fact, that's the one distinct praise Yahtzee gave in his review of Alpha Protocol, which must be the only game which did a good job adding options in-between complete dick and complete saint. In fact, it went out of its way to break most things in three approaches - empathic, neutral and aggressive.
You can't have grey morality if you're still strung up in a binary choice anyway.
*edit*
You know what? I'm actually starting to miss ye olde Fantasy RPG, where you're basically some guy in a lawless wilderness setting were you're not constantly badgered to side with this faction or that faction or this other faction over there, where you can actually make your own choices independent of how it affects your standing.
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.
|
Quote:
Wait, when does that happen? I don't recall seeing that in a Warden or Responsibility arc, so I guess it's either in a Crusader or Power arc?
|
Originally Posted by Thirty-Seven
And there is precedent for this in Praetoria... for example one mission will send a lvl 41 Anti-Matter atcha if you are slow... and that is when you are as low as, what?, 15ish?
|
Quote:
Neutropolis Power Arc IIRC.
|
Originally Posted by Noxilicious
Wait, when does that happen? I don't recall seeing that in a Warden or Responsibility arc, so I guess it's either in a Crusader or Power arc?
|
Quote:
Getting a little spoilery here, but one of the people who suffer-- and possibly die-- because of choosing Katie's side in that mission is a child. And also the Seers are in the process of thwarting a bombing that's going to kill a number of innocent people.|
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
I would. The seers have no responsibility to live as slaves so that others can live in safety. There aren't many unambiguously "good" choices in Praetoria, but Katie Douglas' morality mission is certainly one of them IMO.
|
That's made explicit in the text.
My COX Fanfiction:
Blue's Assembled Story Links
Quote:
A lot of people in this thread are mistaking 'Horrors of War' for that. The story is tense and even exciting, so it seems worth defending.| Why the hell don't people get off their high horse and realise that Going Rogue was supposed to offer a third option to hero and villain but didn't even attempt to do that? You're still given a binary choice between two factions. |
However, you're right on the button here, Sam. The new features in the game are designed to allow the player to make several choices in how the mission progresses that are completely separate from the big 'Resistance or Loyalist' choice at the end.
In the tutorial, we're given a great example of this: You can send the messenger clockwork out to get blown up, or let him stay in the tunnel.
The mission writers seem completely incapable of using this or are unwilling. They have a set idea of they way they want player characters to behave in the story and are unwilling to put those options in, despite the fact that they can.
Remember your praetorian characters will have a different sense of morality. I don't think labelling them as evil or villains because they killed someone is right, given the circumstances. Think of them as soldiers in a war, you wouldn't label members of the armed forces in that way so why do it with praetorians?
Now I will admit, it would be nice if there were some more options. At the moment its A or B. Bad and Less Bad. However that is probably the idea. If you give people the opportunity to always choose the "pure angelic good" option, then they always will and without much thought.
Quote:
So? It's right to enslave and destroy one child to save another's life? The Seers lose much of their humanity. Why is their life worth less than that other child and what gives your character the right to decide? |
Originally Posted by BlueBattler
Getting a little spoilery here, but one of the people who suffer-- and possibly die-- because of choosing Katie's side in that mission is a child. And also the Seers are in the process of thwarting a bombing that's going to kill a number of innocent people.
That's made explicit in the text. |
If a Seer chooses that life, as Penelope Yin sorta did, that's fine. But that's not the case.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Quote:
Both sides are extremists. They both have the attitude of "You're either with us or against us." Known sympathizers on both sides are mistrusted, and certainly wouldn't be given any important missions, or really associated with at all. It's Facism. I agree that this hard-line approach doesn't work well in all situations, even the ones presented by the game, nor is it accomodating to a lot of character concepts, but that is the path they've chosen. |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Just because I respect ONE person in the resistance, it doesn't mean I believe in their cause, but the way choices are made, I HAVE to.
|
It doesn't bother me, I either make characters with moralities that fit or that have no strong morality at all. You can also take the "I did what I had to do, but I'm troubled by it" path. Or ignore it all of course and just do whatever because it's xp, heh. Personally I made several characters specifically with Praetoria in mind, and for the ones with a morality that doesn't fit in Praetoria, I roll them on the other sides.
More to the point regarding this particular mission, I'm glad it's done like it is. A compromising solution would weaken the impact. Ye gods I hate how many missions posit knocking someone out or scaring them as a permanent solution to whatever problem they've caused. It's too easy a handwave.
Quote:
I have absoluely nothing against this. My issue is, however, with people that insist everything they do is IC, and refuse to acknowledge that their chosen character concepts simply do not work in certain situations - it's similar to the frustratingly common "oh yeah i'm not really a hero i'm a villain shhhhh" sorts that were roleplaying their way around the likes of Atlas.|
Originally Posted by Zortel
What's your stance on OOC doing the missions, but keeping the alignment and general jist of the characters in place while weaving a more personal, fitting IC story for them?
|
It's one thing to come up with an Awesome Super Background, but I don't think people have any grounds to stand on if the setting makes it unworkable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Why the hell don't people get off their high horse and realise that Going Rogue was supposed to offer a third option to hero and villain but didn't even attempt to do that?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AmazingMOO
In the tutorial, we're given a great example of this: You can send the messenger clockwork out to get blown up, or let him stay in the tunnel.
The mission writers seem completely incapable of using this or are unwilling. They have a set idea of they way they want player characters to behave in the story and are unwilling to put those options in, despite the fact that they can. |
Quote:
You have the option of walking away. Don't accept the mission. If you did accept the mission, don't complete it. Move on to the next contact. If you don't know who is the next contact, check one of the guides on these forums.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Personally, what galls me is that we were told this would be a grey and grey morality, but it isn't. Going Resistance Warden is pretty much the only "good" path in the entire game. I had hoped that going Loyalist Responsibility would be equally good but in a different way, only it isn't. It's a pretty dark shade of grey.
You can't have a world where no-one is innocent and there are no good guys when there ARE good guys, quite clearly. I would be more willing to accept "hard choices" if they were omnipresent. As it stands, they aren't. The Resistance are the only choice for an idealistic hero, which is pretty much the end and burial of moral ambiguity right there. Yes, Wardens are evil, but they can be skipped while still playing resistance. You can't skip the "evil" option when playing Responsibility without swapping over to the Resistance. Part of the problem is the binary nature of moral choices in Praetoria. If I help Cleo, I HAVE to swap over to the Resistance. I can't just say "I want to protect Praetoria, but so do you. Run away and never come back." Sure, that might come back to bite me in the end, but as long as no-one but Cleo knows, why not? Why can't I kill Washington, save her and STILL stay a Loyalist? Just because I respect ONE person in the resistance, it doesn't mean I believe in their cause, but the way choices are made, I HAVE to. Personally, I prefer having more moral choices, say one per arc, with several needed to switch over. That would give me more freedom to choose without incurring the consequences of faction swaps. In fact, I much prefer the no-consequence choices that happen mid-mission over the "Morality Mission" ones. |
My Resistance characters won't do Praetor White's arc. He just stays in my contact list until I leave Praetoria.
Quote:
Also known as "railroading".
|
Originally Posted by AmazingMOO
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.
|
Character index
Quote:
I'd have a hard time keeping my characters IC through every single story arc in this game, as well as quests and such in other games. I can play the missions and enjoy them, but when it comes to IC business, I prefer the more personal narrative. Seeing as MMO's as a whole like to shove you into the CHOSEN ONE status, this makes more sense than having a legion of people saying they arrested Dr. Vaz or beat up and beheaded ye olde stonemason bandit.|
Originally Posted by poptart_fairy
I have absoluely nothing against this. My issue is, however, with people that insist everything they do is IC, and refuse to acknowledge that their chosen character concepts simply do not work in certain situations - it's similar to the frustratingly common "oh yeah i'm not really a hero i'm a villain shhhhh" sorts that were roleplaying their way around the likes of Atlas.
|
I was playing another MMO a while ago and posting on the forums, on a topic where the general jist was IC and OOC seperation in game. Someone told me that if I was at a certain area with my character, who in character is most unsuited to galloping about on a horse with a big stick to poke people with, then I have to be IC there, and if I'm not I'm a terrible roleplayer and shouldn't do anything in the game that the character wouldn't do.
I personally thought that exact view point was nuttier than trail mix and continued to get rewards to get my cool pet and gear stuff, happier that when I did go IC, I could look cool doing so. (And leave a trail of clean floor behind me thanks to magic broomsticks.)
Quote:
Either way you choose, someone dies. |
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
So? It's right to enslave and destroy one child to save another's life? The Seers lose much of their humanity. Why is their life worth less than that other child and what gives your character the right to decide?
If a Seer chooses that life, as Penelope Yin sorta did, that's fine. But that's not the case. |
And no matter when you do it, there are going to be people who are going to die because you chose to free the Seers.
Innocent people.
Do the rights of the few outweigh the needs of the many?
I'm not saying they don't. I'm just saying that it is a question to be confronted in this mission.
My COX Fanfiction:
Blue's Assembled Story Links
Seems to me that if you want to be a morally perfect good guy, then you should start your characters in Paragon City, where such a choice is possible.
If you want to experience the story arcs in Rogue Isles, you have to accept playing a villain. Even though most of the villainy in RI is pretty petty stuff.
If you want to experience the story arcs in Praetoria, you are going to have to get your hands dirty, no matter how pure your intentions. I don't think that the designers intended you to be able to leave Praetoria with a clean conscience. As Venture pointed out, you can't even do the tutorial without betraying and murdering someone.
Even if you try to street sweep to 20, it's hard to separate the Resistance from the PPD, as both will attack you.
I have always had some problems with using the euphemisms of 'arrest' or 'subdue' in place of 'kill' in Paragon City. I don't think you can subdue someone with an assault rifle. I think an assault rifle can only injure, maim or kill people. But that rifle has been available to heroes since release. How do you control fire to subdue someone without inflicting horrible burns? Make it uncomfortably hot and dry until they surrender?
Roleplay it the way people do in real life. Deny to yourself it ever happened. Try not to think about it. Rationalize that it wasn't your fault. Tell yourself you made the best of a bad situation.
Level to 20 and select Paragon City as your exit, treat that as a metaphorical baptism, washing away all your old sins. There isn't a more dedicated saint, than a reformed sinner.