Senior Producer: "The Legion is our ... evil group"

Discussion in 'Fallout: New Vegas Discussion' started by Brycen, Oct 11, 2017.

  1. Apollyon

    Apollyon It Wandered In From the Wastes

    117
    Apr 29, 2017
    Let me just add, that just because the writers of a story state a character or faction is 'evil', it doesn't make it so.
    Good and evil are subjective concepts. It's akin to a writer stating a character is attractive.
     
  2. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    I think that the Legion, in terms of D&D alignment, were supposed to be more Lawful Evil, but the cut content prevented that characterisation. Same with the NCR, who were supposed to be more Chaotic Good, but ended up more on the Lawful Neutral side in some ways.
    Still not getting the point of this thread, btw.
     
  3. Apollyon

    Apollyon It Wandered In From the Wastes

    117
    Apr 29, 2017
    I'd rank Caesar's Legoin as Lawful Neutral, considering it follows strict traditions. It's neither benevolent nor malevolent for the sake of it.
    The NCR I'd rank as Chaotic Neutral, considering it follows mostly capitalist ideas; Everyone does what suits them best, without much regard for "doing the right thing".
     
  4. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010
    Dunno, the whole slavery thing and forcing people into an identity seems more Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil. They're not malevolent for the sake of it, but they're brutal and oppressive, no matter how much sense it makes from their perspective.
     
  5. Apollyon

    Apollyon It Wandered In From the Wastes

    117
    Apr 29, 2017
    Still, 'self interest' is something that, in my opinion, is required for something to be called evil.
     
  6. Cobra Commander

    Cobra Commander Water Chip? Been There, Done That

    972
    Dec 6, 2016
    They rape children.
     
  7. Apollyon

    Apollyon It Wandered In From the Wastes

    117
    Apr 29, 2017
    So do African tribals. Are they evil?
     
  8. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    587
    Jan 19, 2016
    Not really. If I go out and literally poison the well for no reason whatsoever, it doesn't make me Chaotic Neutral or something.
    Well the ones that do are evil.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  9. Apollyon

    Apollyon It Wandered In From the Wastes

    117
    Apr 29, 2017
    It would depend on the reason you poison the well. If you do it, just because you can, that's evil. Gratification is also self interest, in this hypothetical.

    Not that I am condoning it, but they obviously have a different view on when a girl is mature (for them, fertility = maturity). It's a little short-sighted to call that evil. It comes down to circumstances too. Survival isn't a given for those tribes.
     
  10. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    587
    Jan 19, 2016
    If you are talking about the ambiguity what should be the age of consent, yes. However on principle, raping is an evil action especially towards children.
    Very few people say or think that do things because they are evil. Anyone can make up a bullshit reason. Also by your metric, a homeless person stealing a loaf of bread is evil but someone robbing a house to feed the poor isn't evil.
     
  11. Apollyon

    Apollyon It Wandered In From the Wastes

    117
    Apr 29, 2017
    So there you go.

    I said 'self interest' is a requirement. Not the only requirement.
     
  12. Jogre

    Jogre So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 25, 2015
    I don't think the NCR were every supposed to be Chaotic Good. That just would contradict everything New Vegas tries to present about them.

    I always figured that the NCR as they are presented in-game are exactly as they were intended, as they are shown a being a very well done morally grey faction.
    Neither is evil in my view.

    If more good is done than harm, I view both as good acts.
     
  13. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Aug 16, 2010

    According to the Batman chart, Chaotic Neutral does sound right for the NCR.
    The Legion actually sounds Chaotic Good from this chart :D
     
  14. mkba

    mkba First time out of the vault

    49
    Jun 10, 2017
    to define the algnement of a faction we need to look at the contex in that case both are just neutral fation , what we see of the legion is just the military aspet of the faction in that case even the acts of vulpes are somewhat justified since they instill fear among ncr conscripts . c
     
  15. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    587
    Jan 19, 2016
    I don't know about the Law-Chaos dichotomy in the alignment system. The problem with Law and Chaos is the question of who is charge. I remember correctly Law and Chaos in the world of DnD is a metaphysically concept that transcends human concepts of good and evil. However in general, Law is more affiliated with good and Chaos is more affiliated with Evil (if we are basing on how they tried to simplify the alignment in the 4th Edition rules.). Honestly, it is a bit of a stretch to classify the Legion as Chaotic Good.
    That isn't something that can be measured if you consider the long term effects. The ends doesn't justify the means unless you are some kind of super accurate seer. Also, good people generally don't hold innocent people at gun point.

    The thing about Caesar having neutral karma is that the all of the definitive leaders of the factions seem to have Neutral karma.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  16. Prone Squanderer

    Prone Squanderer A bit of a Sillius Soddus.

    Jan 3, 2016
    That loaf might be the one thing determining whether or not the shopkeeper makes enough for the month to feed his family. Or the homeless guy ends up stealing more and more after that because he got away with it the first time, affecting the shop's overall business.

    Robbing someone's house deprives them of things they've earned money to buy. They too may be poor, but are able to just about feed themselves until said robber came along and stole something they desperately need.


    I can't label either of these as good acts. Understandable under certain circumstances, but not good. Consequences can go far as @CaptJ said.

    Just by these two examples alone it shows that grey is way more interesting than absolute good and evil.

    *sits back down and waits for Brycen to post*
     
  17. Jogre

    Jogre So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 25, 2015
    It isn't something that can be measured, but it is something that can be predicted.

    I would argue you can reasonably predict how a situation is going to go down. If someone is running at you with a knife, you don't think to yourself "Maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, and shouldn't assume they want to kill me", you could predict beyond reasonable doubt that they are planning to kill you.

    Similarly, there are certain situations in which you can reasonably predict that theft will do more good than bad. Sure sometimes there are grey areas, but there are some situations where, if you look at the situation you can reasonably predict that theft would do more good than bad. For example: If someone is quite wealthy, it is reasonable to predict they wont miss one loaf of bread, and it is also reasonable to predict that a loaf of bread could help people in desperate need.

    As for your point about long-term effects: Well technically speaking due to the butterfly effect, any action can have huge unnecessary consequences. Even a butterfly flapping it's wings. If we took the view that any consequences, no matter how distant and unimmediate they are, can be traced back to your actions, that would mean that we shouldn't be able to act at all since every single action would be completely world-changing.

    Sure, it could be the case that if I steal a loaf of bread from a house, due to the butterfly effect the course of history could be changed forever, but it could also be the case that if I put a sock on the wrong foot it could have world-shattering consequences. We should try and look at the long-term consequences if able, but when they reach a point where any action could have devastating consequences, IMO it becomes reasonable to begin working with what you can know, and examining consequences which can be reasonably predict, rather than completely abandoning the ethical stance entirely.

    Besides, IMO consequences are the best way to figure out morality. Sure there are flaws in this line of reasoning, but if we don't look at the consequences, we'd have to assume certain acts are evil in principle, which could very easily lead to easily avoidable situations in which everyone is worse off.
    That's why I specified "If more good is done than harm"

    If one person stealing a loaf of bread to avoid starvation, and it leads a whole family in to starvation, then that wouldn't be a good thing.

    My argument was, that if by stealing the bread more lives are saved, or more people have there basic needs met, than people who are deprived, that is in my mind a good act. If by stealing the loaf of bread more people are deprived than people who have basic needs met, in my mind that's an evil act.
    That's assuming that there is something intrinsically good about having the things you earned.

    An assumption I'd disagree with.
    I personally would argue that is more an issue with making a mistake in reasoning than it is a problem with consequentialist ethics.

    No ethical theory will completely annihilate making mistakes. In that situation, the person making the decision to steal the loaf of bread, if they were considering consequences, clearly didn't look at all the variables, and as a result made a mistake in which the consequences were bad. That's not an issue with there ethics IMO so much as it is an issue of the person who stole the loaf of bread having some fault in there line of reasoning.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2017
  18. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    587
    Jan 19, 2016
    I'm sure most people would be better off if you enslave a few people. Does that make it morally good?
    Self-defense isn't good or evil and you are comparing stealing to defending yourself from a knife wielding maniac. Let's take for example the robbing situation. We'll assume that the robber only stole from a family that he thinks is well-off. What if the child in the family has a medical condition and the robber stole the money that they saved up for surgery?
    Soon there wouldn't even be anything left to steal if people had your attitude.
    I'm just giving two extremes. One is a technically selfish desire with a minor crime and another is a technically altruistic desire with a serious crime.
    Gambling using someone else's saving is immoral; even if, you think is a sure bet.
     
  19. Jogre

    Jogre So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Oct 25, 2015
    That depends on a lot of factors.

    How better off would most people be?, If lots of people were marginally worse off, but the slaves were incredibly worse off, then obviously the suffering of the slaves would outweigh the marginal improvement for everyone else.

    Are there any ways to make everyone equally as better off without resorting to slavery?, If so that'd be a preferable alternative.

    There are far more factors that come in to play than just "Would slavery be morally good here.".

    If you could save huge amounts of people lots of suffering, and there were no alternatives, I wouldn't rule it out as an option, however I think there are many other alternatives which could be resorted to beforehand, in which we could improve situations without unnecessary suffering.
    Then the robber made a mistake in reasoning, and didn't examine all of the possible variables.

    If the robber had researched the victims properly, found out about the child's medical condition, then the robber would have had to think twice about whether there action was the right one.

    That's an issue with the robber not fully understanding what's at stake before making the decision, not an issue of the robber's ethics.

    If everyone had my attitude, everyone would want a society where consequences matter, and would likely work together to achieve those goals.
    You are assuming private property is ethically relevant.

    I would disagree that who owns what is at all relevant ethically, except for trying to understand the situation
     
  20. CaptJ

    CaptJ The Rival of Roquefort Hall

    587
    Jan 19, 2016
    @Jogre
    Not to be a dick but what you said is a combination of empty platitudes and postmodern garbage. Moral relativity is such a cancer.

    In the case of DnD, alignments are just a tool to force players to roleplay. It isn't how your character identity itself. It serves to lock off some options to keep in character.

    I really don't think the Legion was ever meant to be viable option or to be "grey." It is just meant to be a kind of evil that makes sense and serves as some kind of dark reflection rather than cartoon villains in FO3 and FO4. I really don't think Caesar's plan was going to work and people tend to oversell the little good that Legion provided.