Rewrite Lt Harris's arc redside so it's not so offensive

[SwitchFade]

I appreciate you perceive that the native language I use from the geographic location I am from, and therefore most of my life speaking, is word salad.

 

However, I do not insult you for not understanding me. Please return the favor.

 

Let's break down your explanation.

 

English borrowed "null" from the Anglo-French nul, meaning "not any." That word, in turn, traces to the Latin word nullus, from ne-, meaning "not," and ullus, meaning "any."

 

I do not even consider them, rendering a vote of no change from null state. YET.

 

So, by your explanation, you are "rendering a vote of no change from not any change." At best it's an incredibly confusing double negative.

 

If I wanted to insult you, which I don't, I'd say something to the effect of how trying to use overly complicated wording to be as vague as possible when trying to argue over semantics only makes you look pompous and idiotic. But I'm saying that, I only pointed out how confusing your word choice is. If you choose to be insulted by that, I can't stop you from doing so. But you could also choose different wording to convey the same intended message. Which no one is stopping you from doing either.

 

----------------------------------------------

I see how you may be unable to understand, and perceive it to be from not clearly grasping my text, so I will repost here --------> "Null state, not any change. Colloquially, current state. Used in statistics, argumentation and analytical fields."

 

you will notice the word "colloquial." This means:

 

ADJECTIVE

(of language) used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary.

 

I posted the meaning of null, and the COLLOQUIAL USE in three fields. this explains null state, "current state."

 

Your quote of my meaning is understandably misstated, I hope this helps you understand better.

----------------------------------------------

 

You then said this: "If I wanted to insult you, which I don't,"

 

And I must be clear here, I did not say you insulted me. I said, please do not assign things to me. We can agree, these are not the same thing, I hope.

----------------------------------------------

 

 

However, your previous post in regards to something I did not post, was insulting. Perhaps your inability to understand the normal daily language I use is not an issue that makes me "idiotic," but one that would encourage you to delve into the meaning of regular daily vernacular I use?

 

For example: ohayougozaimasu! Ogenkidesuka?

 

Did you understand that natively, or did you use google translate? This is another language I converse in daily. Just because you do not fully grasp it, does not mean I am "idiotic or pompous."

 

_________________________________

 

I hope this helps to clear up any problems you have had interpreting anything. Should it be insufficient, after careful consideration and due diligence around discovery of new and exciting words on your part, I am more than happy to further discuss the intricacies of language and lexicon.

 

But please let me re-iterate, I do respect your opinion, and value your feedback. In no way am I saying your opinions on this post's main point are wrong, or that your views on this posts content are invalid, far from it: they are valid.

 

[Widower]

I feel inclined at this point that this thread has a topic and arguing about philosophy and logic is not part of it. If you must continue, I will be forced to lock the thread. (Also, lay off on the ad hominems.)

[justicebeliever]

I appreciate you perceive that the native language I use from the geographic location I am from, and therefore most of my life speaking, is word salad.

 

However, I do not insult you for not understanding me. Please return the favor.

 

Let's break down your explanation.

 

English borrowed "null" from the Anglo-French nul, meaning "not any." That word, in turn, traces to the Latin word nullus, from ne-, meaning "not," and ullus, meaning "any."

 

I do not even consider them, rendering a vote of no change from null state. YET.

 

So, by your explanation, you are "rendering a vote of no change from not any change." At best it's an incredibly confusing double negative.

 

If I wanted to insult you, which I don't, I'd say something to the effect of how trying to use overly complicated wording to be as vague as possible when trying to argue over semantics only makes you look pompous and idiotic. But I'm saying that, I only pointed out how confusing your word choice is. If you choose to be insulted by that, I can't stop you from doing so. But you could also choose different wording to convey the same intended message. Which no one is stopping you from doing either.

 

Switchfade, I think Rylas is repeating what I said as well...you are not making yourself understood here.  If you wish to be understood, then rephrase what you are saying.  If you are unable or do not wish to, please refrain from posting, as it damages your own credibility elsewhere in the forums, and causing unnecessary angst in this thread.

 

And I think for discussion purposes, we are trying to propose a course of action...Think of it like Robert's Rules of Order...

 

For a decision to be made there are 3 options

1.) Vote Yes - Make the change

2.) Vote No - Do not make the change

3.) Abstain - this can be explicit or implicit.  You don't have to say "I abstain" to abstain, but by failing to choose 1 or 2, you are abstaining nonetheless.  I really don't care at this point how you want to say it, phrase it, feel it, opine on it...But regardless of whether you care but don't want to decide, can't decide for lack of information, or truly don't care...You still will fall into one of these 3 buckets...

 

A filibuster, is still a No Vote...

 

 

[SwitchFade]

Yes I said "no change," which is against altering null state. This is different than against the change. I'm not against it, I'm not for changing null state without proper consideration, based on logic.

 

You're either for changing it, against changing it, or don't care.

 

You are against changing it, based on your statement.

 

Your reason for being against changing it is that you don't like the reasons presented to support changing it. This is an entirely valid position to take.

 

It's very simple. This isn't computer science. There's no need to add in a Null State for this one.

 

I am not for or against this specific change. I am not for or against change in general.

 

I am against changes to null state that are presented with flawed logic. I will only consider a change that is presented syllogistically.

 

These statements are incongruous. This is not a subroutine. This is not a program. There is no Null State, here. You're not coming back with no data and not changing the program. You are making a Value Judgement to the strength of the argument that the OP initially provided. This is not a Null State result. This is a rejection of input data in order to determine a decision.

 

Your penchant for obfuscating noncomplex logical conclusions through superflous circumlocution is positively exasperating. Syllogistic Logic? Really?

 

For those who don't know what Syllogism is, it's a situation where you have two statements and based on those two statements create a third, whether it's true or not is irrelevant.

 

"All dogs are animals. All animals have four legs. Thus all dogs have four legs." The first statement is true, the last statement is true barring deformity or injury, but the middle statement? Not true.

 

Syllogistic reasoning is why Diogenes ran into Socrates' classroom holding up a plucked chicken screaming "Behold a Man!" when Socrates described men as Featherless Bipeds.

 

You misunderstand syllogistic reasoning, and have engaged in traps in syllogism.

 

Here is a clear definition

 

A syllogism (Greek; syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

 

I perceive a misconception of null state. Here is the basis of null, and it's use in argumentation

 

Adjective

 

English borrowed "null" from the Anglo-French nul, meaning "not any." That word, in turn, traces to the Latin word nullus, from ne-, meaning "not," and ullus, meaning "any."

 

Null state, not any change. Colloquially, current state. Used in statistics, argumentation and analytical fields.

 

Again, you do not tell me how I think, and I do not make value judgements on things that have irrational suppositions. I do not even consider them, rendering a vote of no change from null state. YET.

 

SO. I thank you for your perspective, I respect your feelings about the subject, I ask you to stop assigning things to me.

 

Fade, I'm sitting here citing incidents in which Di freaking Ogenes the dog-life philosopher countered a syllogistic argument with simple (hilarious) proof that it was wrong. I don't need a lesson in the etymology for you to provide semantic clarity.

 

I will reiterate that your position is ridiculous. It's like you're trying to surround the arguments being provided by being on no side while simultaneously declaring that there should be no change 'cause 'Null State".  In the context of people discussing whether there should be a change or not, stating things should remain as they are? S'not nothing.

 

If you're not going to contribute to the actual discussion, say by countering the provided arguments with some of your own or choosing a side in the debate to offer your support or even to simply abstain from said debate declaring that it has no effect on you whether it changes or not..?

 

It might be best to exclude yourself from continuing discussion. As it is you've only added confusion and digression.

 

This was hard to digest due to lack of punctuation, so please forgive me if I misrepresent the content of your text, as there is great ambiguity in what may or may not be an indirect object, a preposition or a modifying verb in this.

 

Diogenes the Cynic was mentally ill, argued from a point of syllogistic entrapment, misunderstand logical inference and concluded much of his thought process on the premise that human conduct and behavior was reprehensible. I would as much accept the council of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Tammerlane, or many other notable historical scoundrels, as I would his.

 

He did not understand logical and data based reasoning, preferring to debate his own point of view. This is a trap. Facts are facts, data is data.

 

Effectively spin-doctoring things does not change facts. Null state is common colloquial English in many professional fields.

 

Now. I have entertained the explanation, I have attempted factual reasoning. I have provided proof. You are materially wrong in your assertations, and I do not need to dig further than I have, as that can be done by any audience who is reading, by simply using a search tool.

 

Thank you for your input, I digress.

[SwitchFade]

I appreciate you perceive that the native language I use from the geographic location I am from, and therefore most of my life speaking, is word salad.

 

However, I do not insult you for not understanding me. Please return the favor.

 

Let's break down your explanation.

 

English borrowed "null" from the Anglo-French nul, meaning "not any." That word, in turn, traces to the Latin word nullus, from ne-, meaning "not," and ullus, meaning "any."

 

I do not even consider them, rendering a vote of no change from null state. YET.

 

So, by your explanation, you are "rendering a vote of no change from not any change." At best it's an incredibly confusing double negative.

 

If I wanted to insult you, which I don't, I'd say something to the effect of how trying to use overly complicated wording to be as vague as possible when trying to argue over semantics only makes you look pompous and idiotic. But I'm saying that, I only pointed out how confusing your word choice is. If you choose to be insulted by that, I can't stop you from doing so. But you could also choose different wording to convey the same intended message. Which no one is stopping you from doing either.

 

Switchfade, I think Rylas is repeating what I said as well...you are not making yourself understood here.  If you wish to be understood, then rephrase what you are saying.  If you are unable or do not wish to, please refrain from posting, as it damages your own credibility elsewhere in the forums, and causing unnecessary angst in this thread.

 

And I think for discussion purposes, we are trying to propose a course of action...Think of it like Robert's Rules of Order...

 

For a decision to be made there are 3 options

1.) Vote Yes - Make the change

2.) Vote No - Do not make the change

3.) Abstain - this can be explicit or implicit.  You don't have to say "I abstain" to abstain, but by failing to choose 1 or 2, you are abstaining nonetheless.  I really don't care at this point how you want to say it, phrase it, feel it, opine on it...But regardless of whether you care but don't want to decide, can't decide for lack of information, or truly don't care...You still will fall into one of these 3 buckets...

 

A filibuster, is still a No Vote...

 

4th bucket: I can't consider a change to anything that makes no sense. IF a change is to be considered, a logical argument for that change may be made, whereupon the person recieveing may consider then the change.

 

So, there you go. 4th bucket.

[HelenCarnate]

I'm not reading 11 (edit: and now 12, got'em) pages of this, but I think that at least changing the character's name from "[whoever's GF]" to "Lt. Page" is both widely acknowledged to be a good idea and probably takes the least effort on the part of the developers.

 

What takes the least amount of effort on the part of the developers is to do nothing, which is what should be done.

[SwitchFade]

Lt Harris's arc redside, the Price of Friendship (lvl range 5-7) is terrible. Lt Harris wants to take down Longbow because he asked a woman out and she said No.
 
This in itself isn't so much of an issue, Lt Harris is clearly an asshole, or at best mentally ill, either way his rationale doesn't need to be sound.
 
1. However, when we get to one of the finales of the arc, the final combat of the mission is against her, and the player is instructed to 'Defeat Harris's GF' - Well, she's not his GF. She told him to gtfo, and you can't be someone's GF or BF if you don't agree to it. She is Lt Page, and the instructions should refer to her as such and not erase her name and reduce her to an attachment for the contact.
 
2. Unless the player fails the mission, Lt Page dies, and she really dies because previously to the fight you sabotage the medi-porters so she can't be ported to the hospital. The narrative delivery reminds you of this. Now this is villainside, and heroes die, so this in itself isn't such a problem. However:
 
3. After she dies, Harris falls to his knees and starts crying and regretting it and oh no what have I done, maybe I am really a monster after all?! So what we have here is a man who let's charitably say had mental health issues (paranoia, it would seem by the writing), who refused to get professional help when it would have been appropriate (and it's also implied by the writing that Lt Page suggested that too at an earlier stage), but who comes to a breakthrough and grows emotionally when a woman dies.
 
This is a comic book setting. Here is a story where a woman dies in order to enable a man to undergo character development and grow emotionally.  And to add to the Ugh, because of course it's the player's mission, the writing makes the Player do this. The player fridges a woman.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Refrigerators
 
4. After this, the player does get the choice to kill Lt Harris. But the player also gets the choice to agree with him and tell him he was right.
 
So the player has the option to agree that murdering women for saying No to entitled men is ok.
 
"So what? My character's a villain, and a misogynist!" some might protest. Well, we don't have story arcs where our characters can be pedofiles or murder people specifically because they are people of colour, or where we orchestrate atrocities like the Boston Bombing, do we? And we can't wander around Mercy Island one-shotting civilians either.
 
5. Lt Page is supposed to be the reason why Lt Harris went mad or whatever. She should be awesome, if we are to believe a rejection from her would be so horrible. As the arc stands, she's nothing special. IMy suggestion to improve this arc's unfortunate ideology is to have everything the same except that the fight ends like this:
 
Upon defeat (or at 25% health if the tech requires it) she says "Attention Arachnos Control. This is Lt Page. Fort Mercy is down! I'm activating emergency teleport! Evacuate!" and activates her own personal teleport device (the standard 'teleport' animation will do).
Lt Harris says "What? But we sabotaged the mediport, you can't-"
Lt Page says "You don't get to tell me what I can or cannot do, Bill. I don't use the mediport. I rely on myself. Now get some help,"
Lt Page vanishes.
 
And then the interaction between the player and Harris can be tweaked so that instead of wailing about her death, it goes like this:
 
Harris: "What?... I failed...... she got away, Character? But I was so certain my plan would work.
 
I thought I was better... I thought I deserved her! But she...she beat me... and this, seeing them run and die...doesn't give me anything.
 
Was I... was I right in all of this? Was I truly right in trying to stop them? Maybe... there really is something wrong with me"
 
All the rest can stay the same.
 
To conclude, altering the arc like this would:
 
a. Stop it being such a misogynist trope
b. Give our villain a stronger hero (narratively) to fight against
c. Not remove the agency from the player, as narratively, the reaosn for the player's involvement was to kick Longbow out of Mercy, not to murder one woman.
 
MCM

 
ok, OP, so here's why I can't consider a change at this point based on what you've posted:
 
Please remember this is not what you said, and not meant to sound rude, I was just cutting out the short facts so they strong together.
 
 
 
-Man asks woman out, woman says no. man must take down longbow. because man is crazy. or an asshole. (maybe the woman abused him and was co-dependent?). This is arbitrary and assumptive. but only slightly down the slope. she is not his GF. He says so. she is not, but he says so. how can this be? ----> because he thinks so, regardless of reality. further down the slope.
 
-Man kills woman. man regrets it. woman must die to enable man to undergo change. man is entitled. man is misogynist. ----> assumptive, but not much further down the slope. maybe she's crazy too?
 
-People will protest that arc is fine. But No slavery. But no pedophiles. But no boston bomb. Arc is bad. --------> whoa. so, if I think this arc is fine I think slavery, pedophilia and bombs are fine? way down the slope
 
-Woman should be awesome. man went mad. woman should be awesome. she is not awesome. she is footnote. not believable. he is mad, she must be awesome. -----> ok just moderately further down again, maybe she's really not special, he's just superbly jacked up?
 
-Woman must live. Woman must escape. Why? because that's the right thing. ---------------> off the slope. Why? because, hero? People die. Things happen. Nemesis kills all. Mender Silo regrets it.
 
The slope: I think arc is fine --------------------------> I'm a miscreant and I don't think she should live, because I am bad and an entitled male.
 
So one step leads to the next without real concrete reasoning and much of it is a bit multidirectional. Because of this there's not much coherent reasoning with data or facts but there's much emotion and desire due to feeling.
 
I feel you, and I get that.
 
But I can't consider them basis for change in this instance. so, I'm not AGAINST it, but... try again? I'm listening.
 
 
EDIT: I EDITED THIS!

[Rylas]

And I must be clear here, I did not say you insulted me. I said, please do not assign things to me. We can agree, these are not the same thing, I hope.

 

You said you hadn't insulted me and asked I return the favor - heavily implying that I had been insulting. I never assigned anything to you, and you never directly asked me not to.

 

For the rest of you talking points:

 

[SwitchFade]

OP, if you move something like this it may help

 

1. is it befitting in the game that does not have us "Kill" foes, but "arrest them," that there exists player content that would have us participate in killing? <------------ Good argument

 

2. NPC villains in this game kill, yes. we, even villains, do not arbitrarily do so form the outset. Should this arc be considered within the realm of normal in that spirit? no, it is too far out in the woods, and the death portion should be amended. <----- solid argument

 

3. If we are truly to participate in killing as villain players in this game, is there any other content like this? if so, is it at least a large minority, or the majority? if not, this is an aberration, and should probably be rectified. MUSH like if we found an instance where a slave was being used, we would be rightfully outraged, UNLESS this was the norm of the game. So, if this mission is not the norm, and not holding to the theme and spirit, change it. <----- sound argument

 

These are just examples. Perhaps this helps on the road to convincing others?

[SwitchFade]

And I must be clear here, I did not say you insulted me. I said, please do not assign things to me. We can agree, these are not the same thing, I hope.

 

You said you hadn't insulted me and asked I return the favor - heavily implying that I had been insulting. I never assigned anything to you, and you never directly asked me not to.

 

For the rest of you talking points:

 

 

Your direct statement that my normal dialect is "Word Salad" could be viewed as ever-so-slightly disrespectful.

 

So, you actually did, even though I didn't say you did. Also, this pointless image is also disrespectful. Do you speak Japanese? I do. do you understand it? if you don't, am I word salad'ing you?

[Rylas]

So, you actually did, even though I didn't say you did.

 

At least you're keeping your story straight... *eye roll*

[PaxArcana]

Seriously? You’d be happy to have your character perform really morally repulsive deeds?

 

Where does your personal line lie in terms of what you’d be fine with in a CoV arc? What would an arc have to contain before you would +1 a call to change it from someone like myself?

 

Yes, I seriously would.  Those characters are VILLAINS, by their very definition, evil.

 

As for my personal line?  There is one - some things would serve as triggers - but I'm not going to explain, because the causes behind them are quite intensely personal.

 

Nonetheless, as long as that sort of content wasn't required to advance, I wouldn't insist it be changed or removed.  Because I can easily separate the fantasy of the game, from the reality of the world around me.  That's a little trick I picked up from forty-plus years of playing games like Dungeons & Dragons.

 

Speaking of which, I have played actual, "needs to eat the living flesh of sentient beings" undead in D&D.  And in Shadowrun, for that matter.  And oh hell, anything in the World of Darkness array of games.

 

(I should also point out, flipside, that I have played literal Angelic beings, along with more mortal champions of Justice and Good.)

[WumpusRat]

I'm going to give this a thumbs down, myself.

 

I was planning on writing a long-winded response, but I'm going to keep is short and sweet.

 

It's not misogynistic. It's about a guy's obsession and his overreaction to rejection. Stop using the term "misogynistic" any time something negative happens to women.

 

Keep the mission as-is. No need to change it simply because you're offended.

[jack_nomind]

Yes, I seriously would.  Those characters are VILLAINS, by their very definition, evil.

 

Without committing one way or another on the "evil" bit, what bothers me is that I have to do it even though I'd rather just turn on Harris beforehand.  I know I can't have full blank page autonomy, but I feel like I'm being dragged along on a stupid journey for a stupid reason -- and what seduces me to villainy is the idea of being the mover vs the heroes who just preserve the status quo.

 

My solution, which has been working for me just fine, is to mostly not play redside.  Heck I've spent more time goldside than red.  But if we're talking about things that would get me over there -- well here's one right now.  Open this up to some different flavors of bad guy other than 'hired hitjagoff.'

[Primantis]

Yes, I seriously would.  Those characters are VILLAINS, by their very definition, evil.

 

Without committing one way or another on the "evil" bit, what bothers me is that I have to do it even though I'd rather just turn on Harris beforehand.  I know I can't have full blank page autonomy, but I feel like I'm being dragged along on a stupid journey for a stupid reason -- and what seduces me to villainy is the idea of being the mover vs the heroes who just preserve the status quo.

 

 

 

That can be chalked up as an issue with the game's story telling as a whole. You are required to go through it page by page.

 

It would be neat if you can turn on any contact at any time and just beat em up. That sounds pretty villainous to me :P

 

Villains are not exactly known for keeping their bargain, nor seeing everything through till the end. Change of heart also happen frequently. "Wow, I may be low.. but not *that* low.. get lost!"

 

Sadly, due to game restrictions, we're stuck on the rails.

[PaxArcana]

Without committing one way or another on the "evil" bit, what bothers me is that I have to do it even though I'd rather just turn on Harris beforehand.  I know I can't have full blank page autonomy, but I feel like I'm being dragged along on a stupid journey for a stupid reason -- and what seduces me to villainy is the idea of being the mover vs the heroes who just preserve the status quo.

That is the flaw with MMOs.  All of them, not just CoV: the players never have true agency.  Player villains cannot formulate their own plots, cannot start their own organizations and make a play for power in the Rogue Isles (nor in Paragon City).  We only get to rob a bank, when someone else TELLS us to.  We only get to steal a magical artifact, when someone else TELLS us to.

 

Because the game centers on Quests, and Quest-givers.

 

Heroes are similar.  Aside from "street sweeping", Heroes can't be proactive - they're not going to be rolling up a hundred Hellions, in order to get a lead on X or Y criminal activity going down somewhere in the city.

 

Unless someone specifically tells them to.  (Which is what the Radio and Newspaper _really_ are: just another Contact, offering a choice of missions ... but not stuff YOU, yourself, actually thought up.)

 

...

 

The technology in CoX is .... dated.  It already was, really, the day the game launched.  There isn't the ability, AFAIK, to (other than very messily) put in decision points, where a story-arc can branch in multiple different directions.

 

...

 

My first MM back in the NCSoft/Paragon days, was Core Protocol.  My concept was that he was a Paragon Police Department experiment, a law-enforcement AI in a robotic shell, that went off the rails.  His idea of "enforcing the law" was more Rorschach than super-duper-cop: the whole of humanity was detestably mired in sin and lawlessness, and had to be PUNISHED.  When humans were eradicated, all of them, the machines would take their place - and their programming would not PERMIT deviant behavior.  On that day, CP's primary directive would be fulfilled.

 

But, of course, there was and is no way for me, the player, to pursue that ultimate goal.  I can't try to steal WMDs.  I can't try to amass enough financial resources to build a base in which to manufacture WMDs of my own.  I can't do anything, except ...

 

...

 

... what a quest-giver explicitly tells me I can do.

 

Because this is an MMO, not a single-player sandbox.

 

...

 

As for being forced to do this?  You can auto-complete those missions.  In the meantime, you can find a different contact, and do what THEY tell you to, instead.  :)

[OEM61]

Thank you for making this post @MrCaptainMan! I had the same thoughts when I played this mission. It made me severely uncomfortable. There's a bunch of this kind of weird gender content in the game, but I think you've usefully identified the strongest details that make this particular mission something that stands out as reinforcing misogyny instead of merely depicting it.

 

- The objective reference to Lt Page as 'girlfriend'

- The player taking part in the murder of a woman for rejecting a man

- The player being given the option to agree that this was right

 

So you are fine with just "killing people" for fun, but "killing a female" because a psycho can't handle rejection is too much?

 

Every time a villain character goes about a mission that results in the death of innocents that are accepting that as "right".  Period.

Rather than looking at the characters as having an option to agree that this was right, what should stand out here is that they have an option to decide that the mission was wrong.

 

"Hey villain, I need you to go here and kill these guys for not paying their protection".  A few minutes later they are all dead, you are getting rewarded, and the contact is pointing you towards your next victim.

 

Here, in this case, you get to say "No.  That was wrong, and while I did the larger mission in service to Arachnos/Lord Recluse, what you asked of me was wrong, and now you will pay for that".

 

That is not a common occurrence.

 

The issue is that by and large society accepts that killing people for money is bad and there's not really any discussion around it. It's just... what is.

 

But with men killing women over rejection, there's people who cheer for it. Who -laud- it. Same thing for racists killings. There are people who basically cheer on Reddit whenever one of these bigoted murder sprees happens.

 

Makes it a particularly touchy subject for some people.

 

Like I said, before, put a note on it so people who would be made uncomfortable can avoid it and that should be enough, largely, to fix the perceived problem.

 

The people "cheering" violence against women are also psychos cut from the same cloth as Harris.

Let's not pretend that mainstream society in the US is all about beating up some women because it's fun.

I can find people that think that killing for money is okay.  After all, the killers must have really needed the money and the person that had the money was no doubt some corrupt rich guy that got it by ripping other people off, right?  You don't think that those people are out there?

 

What makes this a "particularly touchy subject" is that some people have decided to be particularly touchy about it.

IF you were a victim of domestic violence then I can understand that this could be a touchy subject, but anyone that has been mugged, robbed, or assaulted could find a whole lot of villain content uncomfortable for that same reason;  It hits too close to home for them.

 

If playing the bad guy is a major issue for someone then I suggest they not play the bad guy, not try to demand that the bad guys should be portrayed in a less-bad light.

 

 

[GamerKate]

Seriously? You’d be happy to have your character perform really morally repulsive deeds?

 

Where does your personal line lie in terms of what you’d be fine with in a CoV arc? What would an arc have to contain before you would +1 a call to change it from someone like myself?

 

Yes, I seriously would.  Those characters are VILLAINS, by their very definition, evil.

 

As for my personal line?  There is one - some things would serve as triggers - but I'm not going to explain, because the causes behind them are quite intensely personal.

 

Nonetheless, as long as that sort of content wasn't required to advance, I wouldn't insist it be changed or removed.  Because I can easily separate the fantasy of the game, from the reality of the world around me.  That's a little trick I picked up from forty-plus years of playing games like Dungeons & Dragons.

 

Speaking of which, I have played actual, "needs to eat the living flesh of sentient beings" undead in D&D.  And in Shadowrun, for that matter.  And oh hell, anything in the World of Darkness array of games.

 

(I should also point out, flipside, that I have played literal Angelic beings, along with more mortal champions of Justice and Good.)

 

Thank you for your RPG CV lol but you didn’t exactly answer my question. However, at least you say that you DO have a line. That’s nice to see at least. What’s not so nice is that if a dev went mad and added an arc where a contact says ‘hey villain, there’s an orphanage full of dead children to molest, go fill your boots!’ and the map was full of body bag glowies and each click gave you ‘sexually assaulting corpse’, and the text in the clues was extremely graphic, and someone came here with a ‘wtf? Remove this arc!’ suggestion thread, you’d apparently be ‘nope, that’s fine! Leave it in! I’ve done worse in World of Darkness!’ (Unless your line is drawn before that but after neck-biting and sunscreen).

 

MCM

 

MCM

[GamerKate]

Thank you for making this post @MrCaptainMan! I had the same thoughts when I played this mission. It made me severely uncomfortable. There's a bunch of this kind of weird gender content in the game, but I think you've usefully identified the strongest details that make this particular mission something that stands out as reinforcing misogyny instead of merely depicting it.

 

- The objective reference to Lt Page as 'girlfriend'

- The player taking part in the murder of a woman for rejecting a man

- The player being given the option to agree that this was right

 

So you are fine with just "killing people" for fun, but "killing a female" because a psycho can't handle rejection is too much?

 

Every time a villain character goes about a mission that results in the death of innocents that are accepting that as "right".  Period.

Rather than looking at the characters as having an option to agree that this was right, what should stand out here is that they have an option to decide that the mission was wrong.

 

"Hey villain, I need you to go here and kill these guys for not paying their protection".  A few minutes later they are all dead, you are getting rewarded, and the contact is pointing you towards your next victim.

 

Here, in this case, you get to say "No.  That was wrong, and while I did the larger mission in service to Arachnos/Lord Recluse, what you asked of me was wrong, and now you will pay for that".

 

That is not a common occurrence.

 

The issue is that by and large society accepts that killing people for money is bad and there's not really any discussion around it. It's just... what is.

 

But with men killing women over rejection, there's people who cheer for it. Who -laud- it. Same thing for racists killings. There are people who basically cheer on Reddit whenever one of these bigoted murder sprees happens.

 

Makes it a particularly touchy subject for some people.

 

Like I said, before, put a note on it so people who would be made uncomfortable can avoid it and that should be enough, largely, to fix the perceived problem.

 

The people "cheering" violence against women are also psychos cut from the same cloth as Harris.

Let's not pretend that mainstream society in the US is all about beating up some women because it's fun.

I can find people that think that killing for money is okay.  After all, the killers must have really needed the money and the person that had the money was no doubt some corrupt rich guy that got it by ripping other people off, right?  You don't think that those people are out there?

 

What makes this a "particularly touchy subject" is that some people have decided to be particularly touchy about it.

IF you were a victim of domestic violence then I can understand that this could be a touchy subject, but anyone that has been mugged, robbed, or assaulted could find a whole lot of villain content uncomfortable for that same reason;  It hits too close to home for them.

 

If playing the bad guy is a major issue for someone then I suggest they not play the bad guy, not try to demand that the bad guys should be portrayed in a less-bad light.

 

One thing lots of men assume is that violence against women just means domestic abuse and the more obvious things like murders and whatnot. But I gather from listening to women that they have to live in a quite radically different and dangerous world to me. The old adage about walking a mile on someone’s shoes comes to mind. Because it’s very difficult for some men to understand or believe that women’s experience every day, all the time, is not the same as theirs. Especially when there’s such pushback against women who do say ‘hey, we get paid less and are afraid more’.

 

I don’t personally believe that people generally choose to be upset or hurt or afraid or depressed, I mean if given the choice, I’d choose to be happy and feel secure and other nice feelings, so I don’t assume that other people’s unhappiness is always their own choice.

 

MCM

[Clave Dark 5]

What makes this a "particularly touchy subject" is that some people have decided to be particularly touchy about it.

 

That's kind of bad form there.

[jack_nomind]

That is the flaw with MMOs.  All of them, not just CoV: the players never have true agency.  Player villains cannot formulate their own plots, cannot start their own organizations and make a play for power in the Rogue Isles (nor in Paragon City).  We only get to rob a bank, when someone else TELLS us to.

 

Well -- not all mmos are limited in the same ways.  Your point is well-taken, but I've got a little rhetorical flip here.  In the context of this interactive story, I don't feel like I have agency, I don't feel like "Harris' GF" has agency, and it seems pretty insane for me to say that Harris has agency.  So who's the protagonist of this story?  To me that seems like bad storytelling at any level, interactive or otherwise.  (But especially interactive.)  No?

 

As for being forced to do this?  You can auto-complete those missions.  In the meantime, you can find a different contact, and do what THEY tell you to, instead.  :)

 

No one's forcing me to play the mission and I'm not.  It sounds like I'm not the only one who'd rather see this kind of hideous little revenge story shifted a few degrees into "betrayals and villainy" territory from... whatever it is now, though.  So here I am, saying -- this story bothers me, for reasons similar to what others have said; the object character of the story is not compelling and we have no way to engage with her other than act as someone else's legbreaker, a binary choice that drags us along in a normalization of sexual violence in narrative if we choose to interact with the story at all.

 

So sure, the game'll go on tomorrow if this doesn't happen.  I won't even think about Harris, or the other shitty redsider arcs with similar problems; even so I kind of have to join with the chorus who calls for its change.  We can do better, in so many senses.

[GamerKate]

 

Please remember this is not what you said, and not meant to sound rude, I was just cutting out the short facts so they strong together.

 

 

OK, I will try to address your points. First, this is you explaining how I have used slippery slope, I gather?

 

-Man asks woman out, woman says no. man must take down longbow. because man is crazy. or an asshole. (maybe the woman abused him and was co-dependent?). This is arbitrary and assumptive. but only slightly down the slope.

 

I don't know why this is slippery slope. She said No to him, he decides that VIOLENT REVENGE is needed.We can assume either that this is normal healthy behaviour or that it isn't healthy or reasonable. I can't imagine that you seriously think that violent revenge is a reasonable reaction to someone declining romantic interest. It says clearly in the arc that the actions 'against' him were her refusal to go out with him and his colleagues mocking him. Vderbal bullying in the workplace is absolutely a horrible thing, but a healthy reaction to it is not murdering your co-workers. So either he is an asshole or mentally ill. What else is he, in your opinion?

 

And one more thing - you added a conjecture about Page for some reason. The arc makes it clear that they did not have any relationship. Nowhere in the arc does it imply that she has abused him except for in his dialogue ranting about her not reciprocating his romantic feelings.

 

she is not his GF. He says so. she is not, but he says so. how can this be? ----> because he thinks so, regardless of reality. further down the slope.

 

Again, I am only pointing out the nav instructions, which everywhere else in the arc portray that they are simple instructions to the player, no any sort of 'contact's view' or whatever. And nowhere in the arc does Harris have any dialogue which names her as his girflriend.

 

-Man kills woman. man regrets it. woman must die to enable man to undergo change. man is entitled. man is misogynist. ----> assumptive, but not much further down the slope. maybe she's crazy too?

 

I never said HARRIS was misogynist. I think the writing is accidentally misogynist because of the whole 'woman must die to enable man to undergo change' cliche. And Page is portrayed as having no mental health issues at all. She behaves entirely as we would expect a professional soldier in her position would. You're question about her being crazy is strange and irrelevant.

 

 

 

-People will protest that arc is fine. But No slavery. But no pedophiles. But no boston bomb. Arc is bad. --------> whoa. so, if I think this arc is fine I think slavery, pedophilia and bombs are fine? way down the slope

 

No, this is not at all what i said. I am not saying that if you think violence against women is ok, then you think pedophilia etc is ok.

 

I am not saying that if you think this arc featuring violence against women is ok you will think an arc featuring pedopfilia etc is ok.

 

I am saying this: You think that pedofilia is wrong and doesnt belong in CoV. But you think that violence against women is ok.

 

And let me be clear, when I say 'violence against women', I am not referring to street sweeping mobs who are women or even defeating ghost widow or Clamor. I'm talking about THIS SPECIFIC ARC

 

 

-Woman should be awesome. man went mad. woman should be awesome. she is not awesome. she is footnote. not believable. he is mad, she must be awesome. -----> ok just moderately further down again, maybe she's really not special, he's just superbly jacked up?

 

This seems a bit reaching tbh. If you insist on jumping on exact words not parsing my sentence for the fairly obvious meaning, I will explain so you can understand: I think as written, Page is a bit meh. I think that the arc would have a better emotional hit if she was a more memorable and formidable opponent. This isn't because I think all women should be portrayed as awesome. It's because I think Page should be portrayed as better than she is in this arc. This point is really quite minor, howver, so we can agree to differ on it if you like

 

-Woman must live. Woman must escape. Why? because that's the right thing. ---------------> off the slope. Why? because, hero? People die. Things happen. Nemesis kills all. Mender Silo regrets it.

 

You absolutely failed to answer your own 'Why?', I'm sorry. 'because shit happens' is not enough of an answer, to me at least. You don't owe me anything, if you want to just shrug and say 'your argument is null because I say so', then that's cool, but I don't have any more comment on this part because it's weak and flippant.

 

 

The slope: I think arc is fine --------------------------> I'm a miscreant and I don't think she should live, because I am bad and an entitled male.

 

I'm not sure I actually stated that anyone who likes the arc is bad or entitled. I thought the slippery slope argument had to actually be cited ("OMG they're allowing 10' tall toons now? Next they'll be allowing Lusca in the costume creator!") in order to be used.

 

Ironically, I'd say that your description of my 'slope' is an example of you using the slippery slope argument lol, because you're extrapolating to an extreme from something smaller that I have said.

 

But I can clarify if you need it: I am not calling anyone posting in this thread (or anyone who wants this arc to stay as is) a misogynist.

I am saying that the writing in this arc is unintentionally, casually misogynist and I would like to see it tweaked slightly so that it is not offensive to ANYONE who plays it.

 

MCM

 

[Leogunner]

Yes, I seriously would.  Those characters are VILLAINS, by their very definition, evil.

 

Without committing one way or another on the "evil" bit, what bothers me is that I have to do it even though I'd rather just turn on Harris beforehand.  I know I can't have full blank page autonomy, but I feel like I'm being dragged along on a stupid journey for a stupid reason -- and what seduces me to villainy is the idea of being the mover vs the heroes who just preserve the status quo.

 

My solution, which has been working for me just fine, is to mostly not play redside.  Heck I've spent more time goldside than red.  But if we're talking about things that would get me over there -- well here's one right now.  Open this up to some different flavors of bad guy other than 'hired hitjagoff.'

 

This is a common statement among progressives pushing for change.  It's the same deal with regards to pushing for diversity or some other form of pandering.  Basically "Capitulate and you get my favor and those that you disappoint were not worth as much attention as I".  It's extremely self serving and I'm willing to bet cash money, if the devs actually did the changes the OP asks, it wouldn't change the popularity of redside and you wouldn't actually commit to your agreement without consistent capitulation.

 

I'll just save you and myself the time and say as much as I'd love more story branches in my villain content, it would be far easier and cheaper for the devs to keep everything as it is.  Despite the argument against the slippery slope fallacy, it would indeed be the case that players would request more and more changes both red and blue side.  My suggestion is to keep this stuff to AE.  The end.

[Leogunner]

Seriously? You’d be happy to have your character perform really morally repulsive deeds?

 

Where does your personal line lie in terms of what you’d be fine with in a CoV arc? What would an arc have to contain before you would +1 a call to change it from someone like myself?

 

Yes, I seriously would.  Those characters are VILLAINS, by their very definition, evil.

 

As for my personal line?  There is one - some things would serve as triggers - but I'm not going to explain, because the causes behind them are quite intensely personal.

 

Nonetheless, as long as that sort of content wasn't required to advance, I wouldn't insist it be changed or removed.  Because I can easily separate the fantasy of the game, from the reality of the world around me.  That's a little trick I picked up from forty-plus years of playing games like Dungeons & Dragons.

 

Speaking of which, I have played actual, "needs to eat the living flesh of sentient beings" undead in D&D.  And in Shadowrun, for that matter.  And oh hell, anything in the World of Darkness array of games.

 

(I should also point out, flipside, that I have played literal Angelic beings, along with more mortal champions of Justice and Good.)

 

Thank you for your RPG CV lol but you didn’t exactly answer my question. However, at least you say that you DO have a line. That’s nice to see at least. What’s not so nice is that if a dev went mad and added an arc where a contact says ‘hey villain, there’s an orphanage full of dead children to molest, go fill your boots!’ and the map was full of body bag glowies and each click gave you ‘sexually assaulting corpse’, and the text in the clues was extremely graphic, and someone came here with a ‘wtf? Remove this arc!’ suggestion thread, you’d apparently be ‘nope, that’s fine! Leave it in! I’ve done worse in World of Darkness!’ (Unless your line is drawn before that but after neck-biting and sunscreen).

 

MCM

 

MCM

 

I hope you have the self awareness to understand the differences between your example here and the Harris revenge arc.

 

Also, consider the restrictions of the ESRB.  I'm pretty sure someone aiming revenge for rejection isn't something that would be strictly looked upon when submitting a game's rating as possible implications of molesting corpses.

[jack_nomind]

This is a common statement among progressives pushing for change.  It's the same deal with regards to pushing for diversity or some other form of pandering.  Basically "Capitulate and you get my favor and those that you disappoint were not worth as much attention as I".

 

I mean that checks out, definitely "progressive pushing for change" here, so -- guilty as charged?