What will evil be in Tranny anyway?

[an Administrator]

Maybe "Evil" here is just a matter of perspective.
Let's not be judgmental and hear the other side of story from Kyros, ok?

 

[AwesomeButton]

I'm just too tired to write up an expanded argument right now. My point is that the limitation of the right of expression of individual will to a small collective of a chosen few, or to a single person (the tyrant), done at the expense of repressed and subjugated individualities and wills of the many, is something that classifies as evil. By extension, in the political sphere, a government based not on a contract between those governed and those governing, but purely on the threat of violence (we are in government because you are powerless to change that) is also evil.

Also, I believe good and evil exist outside of our perception, which you apparently would disagree with. Recommended read - K. Popper, the open society and its enemies. It would do good for me to go through it again myself.

 

[Lacrymas]

It doesn't matter to evil itself what you believe to be evil, that's the point. The judgement of evil is tied to worldviews and ideologies, while the intention of evil transcends those limitations because it's up to the individual to do wrong while he believes or knows that it is wrong, no matter the context. We need the judgement part because it explains "desk murderers", whose negligence and thoughtlessness have caused great harm. Without judgement there is no evil due to lack of intention. We must also be weary of the distinction between wrongdoing and evil, evil is intent on causing harm, either physical or mental, while wrongdoing isn't. Stealing may be wrong, but it is not with intent to harm (most of the time).

While there is no strength in evil, there is a certain amount of honesty. There are no obstructions and beautification in the "exchange" of evil, there is only the intention, the perpetrator and the victim, and that is a thing I find fascinating. It's a brutal display of will and instinct which acts like the mirror I love so much. That is also why I think, if Obsidian weren't amateur writers, that Tranny could've been interesting, but alas.

The "torch" of evil can only be carried by moral agents, without them there can be no evil because there is no moral perspective. That is why good or evil can not exist outside of the perceptions of moral agents, i.e. there is no evil that simply exists and is evil because it's evil on its own.

 

[vortex]

The question is: if evil has won, what was good taken for and why?

As for the world build I imagine that Sith lords have won and there are no Jedi left (or are they; maybe a plot twist?). Only it'll be set in dark fantasy.

 

[jungl]

CIS white males

 

[Infantry]

There's no way they'll depict rape, brutal violence against children, tr00 racism (e.g. "fucking nigger!!", not "dwarfs are short!! i dont like them!!").
So what can they possibly put in a game to make a 21st century man feel like a bad-ass..?
How can this game deliver on the promise of evil won?

Some reference of Hillary having been elected as POTUS in 2016...Bill would probably agree.

Spoiler

 

[Azarkon]

The "torch" of evil can only be carried by moral agents, without them there can be no evil because there is no moral perspective. That is why good or evil can not exist outside of the perceptions of moral agents, i.e. there is no evil that simply exists and is evil because it's evil on its own.

Well said, and a key observation too frequently ignored by those who seek to objectify evil. The practice of evil can only be explored in the context of an existing moral framework implicitly accepted by the characters, and by the audience through either analogy or suspension of disbelief. Evil can only be experienced by an agent with an established moral compass, and thus can only exist as a judgment rendered by a moral agent on itself or another. In case the agent considers itself evil, the conflict is internal, and psychological. In case the agent considers another evil, the conflict is external, and philosophical. In practice, because of the need to create empathy with the audience, works of fiction usually stick pretty close to the contemporary concept of morality, which then becomes the main guide for what would be considered evil within the work.

These days, it is cliche to advertise a piece of work as exploring moral issues and not painting the world in black and white. What this always amounts to is an interrogation of the modern moral framework. We might expect to be challenged on a moral value we take for granted, to see it situationally subverted, and to ask ourselves whether our internal moral framework conflict with that of society's. This might be done through metaphor, analogy, or just plain reference to actual events in history. We come out of such a experience, when successful, with a more detailed understanding of both where we stand, and where society stands. This is what I expect to see out of Obsidian.

Yet what is rarely explored, and just about never in games, is how moral frameworks came to be - how and why evil got to be such an important idea. Perhaps artists consider the issue of right and wrong too basic, or perhaps they just don't know how to answer it, and leave it to the evolutionary biologists and historians. But this is the more important and more valuable direction of moral exploration - to understand and present, through art, the processes that made us into moral agents; that created the idea of evil.