[X][ALIEN] Accept his surrender.
-[X] Ask him why
[X][DRAMA] You...you don't know. This is a hard question. You need to think. You need time. But at least you're a little wiser now; you know that you still have to think about it. And that's...that's okay.
Wow...the vote I've been waiting for yet I can't make it to a computer until hours into the argument. Thanks a lot law school, interrupting my internet quests.
Anyway.
[ ][DRAMA] Your people are right. You were only ever kidding yourself. Violence is the only answer to violence. You've been...
such...an idiot...
[ ][DRAMA] You're right. Nobody has to die. You'll
make it so if that's not the case. That's always been your way; you hope for better. You won't stop now!
To me these choices are basically the same. They are both super extreme ideologies that ignore reality. Violence with no option for diplomacy is just as bad as diplomacy without violence to back it up. A balanced person can accept the necessity of both of these.
I am all for using diplomacy whenever we can, but being punished for not using it, even when it's the worst option? That is absurd. Having a villain like Freiza at our mercy and refusing to kill him because "no one should have to die?" That's even more absurd.
I mean look at the previous situation, with the alien attacking our soldier. Ignoring the likelihood of plan success, because that is largely a function of these traits to begin with, we were in the perfect position to ambush him and end the fight quickly. We were planning to go non-lethal and talk to him afterword. But because violence wasn't used as
literally the last option, we were punished. The pacifist option would have forced us to give up our advantageous position and attempt diplomacy on unfavorable terms, ie. in the open, having alerted him to our presence, on a time limit and having to convince him to talk with a child.
Maybe this would have worked under the current system, but its such a ridiculous choice, I would never even think of choosing it.
What I want, and what I'm holding out for is a more nuanced character. A person with well-thought out beliefs. Someone who wants peace, works toward peace, is willing to negotiate, yet realizes that sometimes violence best choice. Not as a last resort, but as a matter of practicality. If a pre-emptive strike can save more lives in the long run we should do it, rather than being forced, whether by ideology or gameplay mechanics, to take diplomacy if it is the sub-par choice.
I mean seriously, in the previous situation, Kakara was so anti-violence that she didn't even consider the possibility that catching up to the invading scouts might lead to a fight. There is something wrong with a character who has such a massive blind spot.
As for the voters...honestly, I'm not sure how/why there's such an issue. Kakara's character has been clearly layed out multiple times, sticking to it should not be hard, especially since we're not reacting instantly to what is happening.
And if they truly cannot stand and/or understand such a character... what are they doing here/voting in the first place? Kakara being anti-violence was there from day one, afterall.
I think this right here is one of the reasons this thread is getting so divided.
Just because people picked the gentle character over the blood-knight character does not mean everyone wanted to be absolutely anti-violence.
And just because she started as gentle, does not mean she can't become something else.
This is why we are having the current discussion. People clearly have different, and more complicated ideas of what this character should be besides "pure violence" and "pure non-violence."
Acting like the argument was somehow decided with the first vote of the quest and should never come into question is doing a disservice to the quest and the players. And acting like anyone who disagrees with your exact idea of what the character, or the quest, should be need to leave the quest is just rude and makes the discussion more hostile.
Basically I choose neither of the black and white morality choices presented here. I choose to hold out for better, more realistic, options. And if those never come, I would rather remain wishy-washy and irresolute, than doubling down on an extremist path, whether for violence or pacifism.
really?
