Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Leatra what attracts you to a side are their virtues.

do you think a religious group who hunts down every mage and sends them to a prison where they can't hurt anybody is justifiable? Do you think mages should be free, even if they can turn into crazy murderers any minute?

They are both terrible people. The only hope for this situation is a third option and not stupid siding. When you try so hard to be grey what you create a situation where you care about neither.

You know what worked in the first game? They KNEW mages could go crazy and thus they enacted a very strict policy of forced training. THAT is perfect moral ambiguity because you wish there was another way but you understand that the risks involved are very real.

Or rather

Do you know what the BEST Grey you can root for is? When it is an understood grey. When you understand that these are good people who are doing what they do because it is nessisary. You can wish for them to become greater then they are or for them to break the cycle of history and make things greater for all sides.

You know what the WORST grey is? When they are people who do good things but are evil an equal amount of the time or when they are so grey they lack any virtue or vice, they are just distasteful or bland.

[Leatra]

Someone can't be equally good and evil. Morality is very subjective. From an individual's point of view, one of the gray sides will always be more attracting because it links with the said individual's moral code. You said you didn't care about both sides on Skyrim. Well, you still have to choose a side and there isn't a better third. This is why it's a gray vs gray situation. I played the Stormcloak storyline in Skyrim, even though I hated their racist ideas. But the Imperials were practically lapdogs of a fascist government so I didn't want to side with Imperials. Besides, my character was a Nord, acting in character, it seemed pragmatically a good idea to side with Stormcloaks. While reading this, you may have thought "hey wait, but Imperials are bla bla bla" which means that you thought about this problem! Do you see what I'm trying to tell here?

Let me give another example from Dragon Age. You said Templars are doing what they have to do and it's the best way to solve this problem but I dispute that. I disliked Templars in the first game when I learned they could remove every emotion from a mage. I wasn't totally okay with a prison built for mages either. And the fact that Templars hunt down every mage and kill them if they don't surrender even if they can control their powers didn't really strike Templars as the nice guys. So I tend to be more sympathetic towards the mages because they live a painful life just because they are unlucky to have magical powers from birth. For me, Templars don't have anything that makes me feel sympathetic towards them. They have limitless power over mages. I also tend to be wary of religious organizations in real life.

See what I did there? You wouldn't see someone defending any other side different than the hero's side in a clear white vs black story. Nobody is going to defend the Darkspawn. This was what I was trying to say when I said grey vs grey stories makes us think about our ideals.

You know what worked in the first game? They KNEW mages could go crazy and thus they enacted a very strict policy of forced training. THAT is perfect moral ambiguity because you wish there was another way but you understand that the risks involved are very real.

That is actually gray vs gray. Mages aren't evil and Templars aren't good in both Dragon Age games. The idea of having gray vs gray morality is about creating moral ambiguity. Some of the grays might seem a lighter shade of gray to some people while other people see that as a darker shade of grey.

[alexandertnt]

Leatra what attracts you to a side are their virtues.

Is this not a personal thing? It sounds like you are asserting what attracts someone to a side.

Also when people say "Grey versus Grey" it generally means "not white versus black", that is there are different shades of grey (perhaps near white and near black).

"Grey versus Grey" is more like asking which piece of candy (rather than a specific candy) tasts the best, there are many shades/flavours.

I like Happy endings. I've grow very, very, very, very etc weary of the constant "A huge douche won, but it wasn't really a victory for good. Go figure out what exactly happened for yourself, I'm too lazy to write a proper ending" and "grey vs grey vs gray" and "everything is brown and gritty". I want a proper story. Not maximum edgy.

A "proper story" is a matter of opinion. Plus "figuring out what exactly happened for yourself" is not inherent to a sad ending.

[Neonivek]

You said you didn't care about both sides on Skyrim. Well, you still have to choose a side and there isn't a better third. This is why it's a gray vs gray situation.

yes but as I said it is the WORST kind of Grey Versus Grey. It is the "I hate both sides equally" situation and you are essentially chosing who you despise the least.

Heck it is almost Black Versus Black.

See what I did there? You wouldn't see someone defending any other side different than the hero's side in a clear white vs black story.

No that is quite common. You can have sympathetic villains and morally ambiguous heros who are clearly the good guys.

Heck Grey Matter you play essentially an Anti-Hero who lies and cheats to everyone. Yet She isn't in the "Grey"

Here is the secret. There is moral ambiguity and personal ambuity in Black and White. In fact there is more ambuity because it isn't handed to you. Understanding that villains are people too and that heros arn't always right is usually the place to start.

When someone is painted in black or white their grey and black lines become more pronounced. In a World of Grey, black and white is unnoticable. There is nothing to care about because nothing delves into good or evil just the continuation of the status quo.

That is actually gray vs gray

I was establishing it as a GOOD grey and not a poor grey of "Blah". They work because the mages guild is essentially good but are very flawed. They cannot claim to be the higher good.

Mind you, you could argue that they are a "White" faction.

Is this not a personal thing? It sounds like you are asserting what attracts someone to a side

What makes a great villain is the same thing as what makes a great hero. Someone completely devoid of any traits that are good is an inherantly boring character.

Even characters who are delightfully devilish are at least percistant or at least hillarious.

Also when people say "Grey versus Grey" it generally means "not white versus black", that is there are different shades of grey (perhaps near white and near black).

White with Black Stripes is still white.

If you accept that anything that deviates from true white is grey... Then there is no black and white.

We arn't talking about True black and True White. We are talking about stories where the "Right" is clear and established and where the faults or virtues of either side does nothing to disuade it.

A Grey faction is one where you cannot claim they are in the right nor that they are in the wrong.

If a faction is right but with a flaw they are still "white" or a designated villain.

I will also state that I am excluding "Unalligned" as grey (such as... for example... "Who is the good guy of this tennis game?"). A story where morality is completely unimportant is not a grey story.

[frostshotgg]

A "proper story" is a matter of opinion. Plus "figuring out what exactly happened for yourself" is not inherent to a sad ending.

And frostshotgg, leaving the people with a cliffhanger has nothing to do with grey vs grey morality.

I was specifically referring to the fact that in grey vs grey situations, the vast majority of the time the author leaves it to the reader to figure out just what the hell happened, and who did what and why, especially the latter.

[Neonivek]

It is probably why my favorite "Grey" stories are about becoming something better.

I think what probably hurts the most about "Grey" endings is there is a general idea that nothing really happened, nothing changed, and it is just going to happen again. (such as reading history)

[Leatra]

yes but as I said it is the WORST kind of Grey Versus Grey. It is the "I hate both sides equally" situation and you are essentially chosing who you despise the least.

Heck it is almost Black Versus Black.

Yes, and you still have to make a decision. They really sucked at creating a gray vs gray setting. That kind of stuff only works when the protagonist is actually forced to get involved. I have read The Hunger Games trilogy and there is a very good example in there. I can't do this without giving spoilers though. Don't read if you are going to read it eventually.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The protagonist is in a giant arena fighting for the amusement of upper-class citizens. She works with other combatants to destroy the arena's energy shields and escape. She is almost caught but the resistance saves her at the last second and takes her to their base. She has to live in a communistic base built underground, which she has difficulty with getting adapted to. Everything is planned, when she is going to work, when she is going to eat, when she is going to sleep, etc. She despises this at first but joins the resistance get rid of a the dictatorship and oppression. The fact that the dictator ordered the execution of her sister also encourages her to be loyal to the resistance.

The resistance makes it to the dictator's mansion. They can't blow up the mansion because there are kids under the protection of the dictator living on the garden. The leader of the resistance says this is just the dictator's way of protecting himself because he knows the resistance isn't going to murder children as collateral damage. The children eventually get killed by the bombs of the dictator himself.

They capture the dictator. Resistance decide to punish their enemies by doing what they did to them, sending them to the arena and having them murder each other, but using the children as combatants from the ruling class. When the protagonist confronts the dictator. He tells her that he wasn't the one who ordered the assault on her sister and also he wasn't the one who killed these children on his mansion. It was done by the leader of resistance to gain the protagonist's loyalty because the protagonist was seen as the symbol of the resistance. Protagonist is skeptical but the dictator says he isn't lying because they both swore that they wouldn't lie to each other earlier.

When the protagonist is about the execute the dictator with an arrow, she instead shoots the leader of the resistance, thinking that none of the sides are worth working with. She gets arrested and in the ongoing riot, the dictator dies too.

Heck Grey Matter you play essentially an Anti-Hero who lies and cheats to everyone. Yet She isn't in the "Grey"

All anti-heroes are a darker shade of white. Our definitions for Black vs White and Gray vs Gray moralities are different I guess. When I'm talking about Black vs White, I'm talking about clear blacks and clear whites. It's explained pretty much to the detail in this page.

The good guys are good, and the bad guys are bad. If there are any morally ambiguous or grey characters around (such as an Anti-Hero or Worthy Opponent), they will eventually shift firmly to one side or the other. They'll either switch to the side that matches their actual perceived alignment, or turn fully good or fully evil. Minor characters may maintain some degree of neutrality, but the major characters will all be on one side or the other.

Like Dragon Age: Origins where the protagonist saves the world from truly black monsters, although it's more like gray vs black usually and the side plots has some gray decisions.

[Neonivek]

I am planning to watch the rest of the Hunger Games movies

Oddly enough the two major plotholes of the movie were not in the book.

[alexandertnt]

A Grey faction is one where you cannot claim they are in the right nor that they are in the wrong.

If a faction is right but with a flaw they are still "white" or a designated villain.

In an all-grey conflict, neither side is totally good or completely evil. Both sides have a strong, justifiable reason for fighting, and contain a mixture of people of all kinds, from admirable, upstanding individuals to vicious, slimy scumbags.

Often what is "right" is subjective, and that is one of the points of grey vs grey especially in video games that give the player a choice.

Ultimetely I can't find any definition of grey that fits your description, particularly because it seems to depend on absolute right/wrongs (and forming greys by simply throwing some absolute wrong into the rights and vice versa), which goes completely against the purpose of grey vs grey.

I was specifically referring to the fact that in grey vs grey situations, the vast majority of the time the author leaves it to the reader to figure out just what the hell happened, and who did what and why, especially the latter.

I don't see this happening the "vast majority" of times. plenty of other types of endings use this trope fairly frequently.

[Neonivek]

The secret to understanding our points Alex is that each person in this conversation brought a different definition of grey to the table.

Ultimetely I can't find any definition of grey that fits your description, particularly because it seems to depend on absolute right/wrongs (and forming greys by simply throwing some absolute wrong into the rights and vice versa), which goes completely against the purpose of grey vs grey.

It is because morality itself is ambiguous. Thus what is grey is also ambiguous.

I allow "White versus White" and do not consider it Grey Versus Grey for example.

There is no one unifying purpose of Grey Versus Grey. For example Grey Versus Grey could be about, for example, the evils of war where the villain isn't the actors but the environment. You arn't meant to side with anyone.

It could be that the writers wanted to create two valid groups and wanted you to chose the one that is right out of preference.

[Gunner-Chan]

I think what Neonivek means is he'd rather both sides have real palpable differences rather than one virtue and a bunch of horrible shit they do and are doing like everyone seems to always do.

[Neonivek]

I think what Neonivek means is he'd rather both sides have real palpable differences rather than one virtue and a bunch of horrible shit they do and are doing like everyone seems to always do.

Actually... Yeah.

O_o

I mean the exception is when we really arn't meant to care about the sides... but we arn't talking about that.

[fqllve]

Personally I prefer works where I'm not defining characters and their morality as black, grey, white, purple, teal, or aventurine. People should feel like people and the moment you sit back and try to categorize their motivation the illusion is lost. I mean, you don't sit around categorizing your friends like that right? Because they're too complex to even fit under grey, in truth. Most of their decisions are firmly amoral (which is to say they aren't decisions that have any bearing on morality at all, like what to get on your burger) and the decisions that do relate to morality are often so complex it's hard to be sure if a person really is doing something for the right or wrong reasons, are they lying to themselves, are they misguided, are they just wrong about the consequences? Works that try to emulate that, I find to also have the most deep and varied characterization and plotting, although I realize they aren't for everyone.

As for actual Black vs White, Grey vs Black, Grey vs Grey, etc. Well, I don't think that has much effect on the story's quality at all. Black vs White tends to be more popular, and because of the popularity also tends to have the most bad examples, but a good story is a good story regardless of any of those factors, and if you prefer one or the other that's a matter of personal preference. None of those are really indicative of how morality plays out in the real world because morality doesn't play out as a series of discrete plot events, so those are all just abstractions of what we think we see laid out in a method conducive to telling a story. Works succeed or fail depending on the qualities of their characters and plots and stuff like that doesn't dictate quality, it only dictates kind.

[Neonivek]

Black, White, and Grey really are just archtypes FQLLVE and usually don't go into our thinking when we are reading or writing unless we chose to make them a theme.

The point os the discussion that we barely touch upon is mostly that storytelling trends shape people's oppinions and people's oppinions shape what games are made and that ultimately

Most of us would like a variety of stories of different archtypes and depths without an overwhelming godly default.

I hate Children shows that cop out of a sad ending because "its fer kids and kids have absolutely no emotional maturity" just as much as I hate mature words that give us a sad ending for the sake of a sad ending.

And that because most works are rather limited BECAUSE they believe in the above that most of the time we arn't getting the proper balance within a lot of these narratives or a balance of narratives as a whole.

As consumers we need to recognise that both simplicity and ambiguity are neither shallow nor deep and that Sad or Happy are also neither shallow nor deep and that they can both exist, and are often required, in the same narrative.

[alexandertnt]

Kids don't have emotional maturity. Teen-targeted shows sometimes try for it though, since they have mostly developed emotional maturity (sort of, maby?). Variety is always a good thing, though.