Discussion: Divided We Fall

You know I have always been a bit uncomfotable with accepting Longbow as the good guys since they hose their enemies with fire. That happens to be against the Geneva convention; flamethrowers, gassing and such. The praetorian police weapons are all set up as nonlethal. I sort of wish a revision in powers would happen for longbow along those lines.

In fact when I think of Longbow what comes to mind is being hit with a sonic grenade and then 2-3 of them pouring out fire, even the wardens don't leave as much of an impression.

cut and dry: All Hail Emperor Cole!

I find somewhat amusing in how many try to justify Cole’s actions, those who do not, and those who are not sure or cannot make up their minds. It is said that there are no moral absolutes, only situations. Really? When did the definition of moral change? Additionally, some have expressed the opinion that Cole had no choice, circumstances forced him to make the decisions concerning his actions; however, what he did to ‘save’ his people was heroic. Come again?

Cole is nothing more than an amoral narcissistic paranoid schizophrenic megalomaniac who suffers visions of grandeur of a god-like complex. He is the accumulation of all the past tyrants who lived since Nero. He made and acted on his decisions for his benefit since the Hamidon War.

Here is a case that proves the adage ‘Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Whatever actions he took during the Hamidon War, I am sure, he believed he did so with good intentions. However, his actions were those that would benefit him.

This is a choice between doing the right thing or not. It is a moral question with a choice. Do you support a man who willingly acts in the most heinous manner for personal gain or stand against such a person?

Clearly this is a black and white situation, not grey or any other shade. To attempt to justify his evil is to support and condone evil. That is the moral choice given us while playing a character in Praetoria. The old crusader in the third Indiana Jones movie statement about choice is prevalent here: ‘Choose wisely.’

You now there are plenty of philosophies that reject good and evil as polar opposites.

But let us look at an absolutist Morality.

Resistance are murderers or accessories to murder.

The populace are either synidcate criminals or support regime that does evil,

The hamidon is an empowered being for the purpose of oposing threats to the earth's survival. It does this by murder and theft of identity.

The primals come in and they are trying to impose their will and culture on the praetorians or steal form them or kill them.

Everyone is absoluty dirty here, everyone is then evil.

When people talk about wanting absolute morality they really need to be certain they are getting what they want. The sword of truth cuts both ways. Murder in the name of justice is still murder. Using an absolute definition of good and evil means that any gray act is an evil one.

Now to skip on over to reality, when faced with a decision between life and extermination, I think it is good to choose life.

Oh yeah, if your country dropped a nuke on you while you were serving it. how well would you take it? How would you respond? Who would you feel like saving?

Morality is subjective and shifts to fulfill the need(s) of and/or justify actions during a given time.

One can't really define absolute morality... but they can define their version of it; which may be right, wrong (in part or in whole) or entirely irrelevant (given the perspective).

To say that Cole is absolute evil is correct if you subscribe to a moral code that defines Cole's action as such.

To say that Cole is in the moral gray is also correct as long as your moral code defines Cole as such.

If you think Cole is a hero, then you aren't wrong as long as it fits your code of morality.

The argument isn't so much bout Cole as it is about everyone's personal moral code. And I think that's what the Devs wanted to tap into when they created this storyline and the (somewhat limited) mechanics to go along with it.

Subjective morality, this is where you apply morality based on a set of preferences.

The problem with this is people like to go off into the world behaving pretty much as they wish. Without a clear absolute belief, people can justify just about any action and thus everyone's actions are justified, including murderers, etc etc.

People really like this system, but only when other people choose some sort of absolute for their morality. This sort of disproves subjectivism, it only survives so long as there are rules, which it claims do not really exist.

There are certain core principles that unite people clearly. People do not like being harmed for instance or killed.

My point about moral absolutism is whatever you state as a morality is applyable back on you.

for instance
"Crusaders – Questionable moral strength and courage (Willing to do whatever is necessary to overthrow Cole, including the use of nuclear weapons.)"

That is no better then the regime the crusaders are trying to overthrow.
That Warden Resistance work with this faction and help keep them hidden means that the wardens share responsibility for the crimes.

This is not a 'straw man' argument, this is simply applying morality equally, overthrowing the regime for its cruelty and murder with cruelty and murder is not a case of good and evil. This is a power struggle. Wardens are not exactly clean either since they are involved in setting up their oposition to die be branded traitors and the like too.

I am endeeavoring to insert as little perosnal bias as possible since most of what I see is fairly biased.

example 2
If you claim a murderer is evil, then you kill a murderer You have commited an evil act. You can make the excuse that this was to prevent future murders but death is still death.

In this case I have in no way argued that one should not kill a murderer, I only argue that if you apply the term evil to an act it is evil for anyone who does it.