Jump to content

[Spoiler] A Tale of Two Sympathies


Recommended Posts

What you are describing is accurate to the quest, and it is deeply messed up. Colonialism is not some far-distant problem of the past, fair game for making light of; it's a centuries-long, worldwide system of oppression and mass scale violence that has caused the robbery, torture, genocide, enslavement, disenfranchisement, and destruction of culture of millions upon millions of people. It not only has repercussions lasting to today, it is *currently ongoing*. Insisting that the Huana, who explicitly and unavoidably parallel these real-world victims, are morally equivalent to their colonizers *necessarily* implies the same is true in the real world. This is, indisputably, unacceptable. Therefore, any example of it that crops up deserves to be called out and condemned.

 

This in literally no way means simplifying the narrative! It in fact means the exact opposite: moral equivalence on this subject is by far the easier, and more common, way of handling it. The choice is not between noble savages and evil cannibals; both are ****ty, hyper-simplified, cliched tropes. The goal is to have *nuance*, to depict a culture that is intrinsically valuable even with its warts, that can be worthy of critique without its oppression ever being condoned. To demand instead that they be depicted as the same as their colonizers, rather than unique from them, is to advocate for the narrative to be simplified, not complicated.

 

Edited to add: I want to be clear that I don't expect this game to be full of gross equivalencies like I'm describing.  I think this quest is a pretty glaring misstep, and the game could only be improved by its removal, but it's ultimately just one smallish piece of side content in a massive, many-authored game.  Certainly the devs are playing with fire by setting the game where they did, as this quest proves, but that doesn't mean it can't turn out excellent, or even that if it screws up in places that that'll necessarily ruin the whole; I'm a huge fan of messy art, and I think it's worth seeing some stumbles along the way to tackling a difficult subject when the potential outcome is so promising.  Obsidian is full of talented people, and they are aware of what they've taken on. But the pitfalls are there, and very real, and no amount of good faith on a creator's part will make falling into them not worth loudly calling out and criticizing. This stuff is just too important.

They aren't being depicted as "the same as" they're colonizers. They are depicted as a unique culture that is undergoing severe challenges, in part at the hands of colonialists, and full of individuals who are dealing with those changes and challenges in different ways. They are *ALSO* depicted as exactly the same type of sentient individuals as their colonizers--ie, they are Kith. The Huana are fully capable of the same range of good and evil as the Vailians, including slavery and including oppression. Just because the Huana are undergoing these issues from colonization doesn't mean they can't also themselves oppress other species and races. Just because the Huana are the victims of racism doesn't mean the Huana themselves are incapable of being racist towards others.

 

Things are nuanced. Everybody is just people, and all people and all cultures are capable of the same degree of both good and bad because *they're just people*. That is true moral complexity; when they are not shown as being "the same as" but are shown as being "capable of all the same range of both good and evil".

 

This is also reflected in the real world. Native Americans had developed systems of slavery *before the white man got here*. The Indian subcontinent had the Dalit *before the British ever showed up*. Each culture has it's unique attributes, but *all* cultures are capable of the same degree of good and evil. The Huana are not shown as lesser or as better; they are shown as capable of both good and bad to the exact same degree.

Edited by Katarack21
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
 Insisting that the Huana, who explicitly and unavoidably parallel these real-world victims, are morally equivalent to their colonizers *necessarily* implies the same is true in the real world.

 

You keep insisting on that, yet there is nothing to prove in your posts how does that *necessarily* imply the same is true in all cases of real world colonialism. The burden of proof is on party claiming something to be true, so:

How does in-game situation links directly (as in: game hints on it) to any specific case of RL colonialism and cheapens it? Unless you mean that there are RL Huana and they are hurt by that depiction.

If they were using a real life theme as a backdrop of the game - you would be totally right, it would be a nightmare mindfield not to offend the struggle of people it would be based on.

 

But what I see fantasy race under colonialism from another fantasy race.  The only thing this has in common with RL - is colonialism itself. Also that one side lives on island and other arrives by ships from a faraway land. But it is hard to have colonialism without somebody arriving from far far away to, you know, colonize.

 

TL;DR: You are reaching very far to find a reason for outrage.

 

 

EDIT:

They are a *culture*. They are a primitive stone-age tribal culture, and yes they are being oppressed by the Huana. Once again, I feel it needs to be pointed out that the Huana *are not the good guys*. There are no hard-and-fast "good guys". The Huana are realistically depicted as being capable of the same evil as any other Kith.

 

I much prefer that over some ridiculous "noble savage" stereotype where the good and innocent tribe of peaceful loving indigenous people is being destroyed by the evil outsider colonialists.

 

This exactly. I feel like the whole thread is about "they are a victim of colonialism, how dare you choose to make them anything other than the good guys". Because somehow if they were anything other than black and white it will suddenly make colonialism OK.. It is a non sequitur argument. One does not imply the other.

 

Which is funny in its own way, because the only way to cave to that demand is to make Huana into the "noble savage" stereotype.

 

 

Edited by Veevoir
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm out. "The natives had slavery too" is a centuries old, deeply racist argument that has never held up under even cursory examination. If your argument for why moral equivalence in the game being justified is that you think it's true in real life, then we have nothing more to talk about.

Likewise, to Veevoir, refusing to acknowledge the most obvious, surface-level observation that a fantasy version of colonialism is necessarily a direct parallel to real world colonialism means we can't have a meaningful conversation.

I've made my position clear, I've heard y'all out, we all know where each other stands. The devs have my feedback, and I hope realize how strongly people feel about this stuff. I'm out. Say whatever else you want, I'll definitely read it. But unless my arguments are genuinely and in good faith engaged with, I'm staying done.

Edited by snphillips0@gmail.com
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we even compare "fantasy" setting to history? It's not like Deadfire is an allegory for colonization of America. Josh likes his history, but he is savy enough not to recreate historical setting with fantasy paint over it. Certain similarities can be certainly drawn, but it is its own setting. Whenever Huana deserve sympathy and siding with is something player will have to decide about while exploring the world of Deadfire.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right in every particular. That said, I started this so I will add a few words to the end.

 

It's not about reaching for outrage, its about what you can grasp or choose not to. In these kinds of stories we rarely see the rape, torture and of course enslavement that defined colonialism but the same people who sneer at "noble savages" a description that satirizes and exposes itself, don't mind the noble colonizer trash trope that is far more common.

 

Here we have hints of past terror but all we actually see is a hapless chief who thinks colonization is the salvation of his people and a tribe threatening to eat what players are meant to view as children; not animals as we have been reminded again and again. People. Children. That is as obvious and over-the-top an apologia as you could create.

 

This becomes intellectual porn for people who put the fact that modern civilization is built on horrific exploitation on one side and the fact that some colonized people also did bad things on the other and think the sides are pretty equal. People who use phrases like "identity politics" because surely their politics has nothing to do with identity or heritage.

 

I don't think the PoE folks fall into either of those categories. This is calling out but as warning to a friend who hasn't noticed the cliff edge. As I and others have said this isn't the final product. I hope this is removed.

 

 

Yeah, I'm out. "The natives had slavery too" is a centuries old, deeply racist argument that has never held up under even cursory examination. If your argument for why moral equivalence in the game being justified is that you think it's true in real life, then we have nothing more to talk about.

Likewise, to Veevoir, refusing to acknowledge the most obvious, surface-level observation that a fantasy version of colonialism is necessarily a direct parallel to real world colonialism means we can't have a meaningful conversation.

I've made my position clear, I've heard y'all out, we all know where each other stands. The devs have my feedback, and I hope realize how strongly people feel about this stuff. I'm out. Say whatever else you want, I'll definitely read it. But unless my arguments are genuinely and in good faith engaged with, I'm staying done.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm out. "The natives had slavery too" is a centuries old, deeply racist argument that has never held up under even cursory examination. If your argument for why moral equivalence in the game being justified is that you think it's true in real life, then we have nothing more to talk about.

Look. I'm an anthropologist in real life.  I know a great deal about the cultures of pre-Columbian Native Americans.

 

A *number* of Native American tribes practiced various forms of slavery prior to the presence of European colonization. There's nothing "racist" about this, it's a literal fact. The Iroquois, the Creek, and the Comanche are probably the most well known, but there's also the Pawnee, the Klamanth, the Haida, the Yurok, and various others. The Haida were one of the few Native American tribes that didn't just take slaves from defeated tribes, but actively engaged in slave *trading* prior to Columbian contact.

 

You have a *really* ****ed up concept of who and what the Native American tribes were. Not a one of them was some pure innocent cultural group who were suddenly victimized by the evil white guy. They were people, who had developed various cultural institutions over the course of thousands of years. They had farming, they had murder, they had metal working, they had slavery, they had marriage, they had rape. Some tribes had fluid gender roles, some tribes had *really* strict and immovable gender roles. All of these things and more can be found in various different tribes in various different places at various different times.

 

Deadfire isn't doing "moral equivalence" except insofar as they are showing the Hauna as being capable of the same degree of good and evil as anybody else, and that *is* actually realistic. Real cultures all have the same *potential* for good and evil.

 

There are no "good guys" in life. You accept that reality is nuanced and cultures do not have "moral superiority" over each other, or you remain in a childlike state with a narrow view of morality, perpetrating stereotypes and inaccurate historical information.

 

Once again, for the people in the back: cultures are *equal*, not inferior or superior, and the many thousands of Native American tribes--just like the Huana in the game--were fully capable of the same degree of good and evil as anybody else.

 

Colonialism is a great evil, yes. But the cultural group being colonized are always themselves *capable of the same things*. A victim can be a victimizer in another circumstance and another time. Just because the Huana are being victimized by the Vailians does not mean they cannot themselves victimize others. That's reality.

 

As an anthropologist I think they've done a great job of showing the Huana in a sympathetic but realistic light where they are not shown as "noble savages" but as a real culture with all the complex mixture of good and bad that involves. I enjoy the fact that they *do not* shy away from depicting the Huana as capable of oppression within their own cultural system, or capable of racism against other groups, or any of that. It's *real*. It's *complex*. It forces you to make *hard* moral choices.

 

That's a *good thing*.

Edited by Katarack21
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm out. "The natives had slavery too" is a centuries old, deeply racist argument that has never held up under even cursory examination. If your argument for why moral equivalence in the game being justified is that you think it's true in real life, then we have nothing more to talk about.

 

Likewise, to Veevoir, refusing to acknowledge the most obvious, surface-level observation that a fantasy version of colonialism is necessarily a direct parallel to real world colonialism means we can't have a meaningful conversation.

 

I've made my position clear, I've heard y'all out, we all know where each other stands. The devs have my feedback, and I hope realize how strongly people feel about this stuff. I'm out. Say whatever else you want, I'll definitely read it. But unless my arguments are genuinely and in good faith engaged with, I'm staying done.

I am not sure how you can have a meaningful conversation with someone when you put words in their mouth. That or meaningful discussion now means always agreeing.   

 

I am not sure Pillars of Eternity is the franchise for you.  Even Pillars of Eternity 1 had a questline where you saw/heard colonists and natives commit atrocities against one another (see the Maerwald quest).  I am sure you would find that nuance equally problematic.  May I suggest Bioware games?  I hear they have a nice "blue = good" and "red = bad" option for players.  

 

 

Yeah, I'm out. "The natives had slavery too" is a centuries old, deeply racist argument that has never held up under even cursory examination. If your argument for why moral equivalence in the game being justified is that you think it's true in real life, then we have nothing more to talk about.

Look. I'm an anthropologist in real life.  I know a great deal about the cultures of pre-Columbian Native Americans.

 

A *number* of Native American tribes practiced various forms of slavery prior to the presence of European colonization. There's nothing "racist" about this, it's a literal fact. The Iroquois, the Creek, and the Comanche are probably the most well known, but there's also the Pawnee, the Klamanth, the Haida, the Yurok, and various others. The Haida were one of the few Native American tribes that didn't just take slaves from defeated tribes, but actively engaged in slave *trading* prior to Columbian contact.

 

You have a *really* ****ed up concept of who and what the Native American tribes were. Not a one of them was some pure innocent cultural group who were suddenly victimized by the evil white guy. They were people, who had developed various cultural institutions over the course of thousands of years. They had farming, they had murder, they had metal working, they had slavery, they had marriage, they had rape. Some tribes had fluid gender roles, some tribes had *really* strict and immovable gender roles. All of these things and more can be found in various different tribes in various different places at various different times.

 

Deadfire isn't doing "moral equivalence" except insofar as they are showing the Hauna as being capable of the same degree of good and evil as anybody else, and that *is* actually realistic. Real cultures all have the same *potential* for good and evil.

 

There are no "good guys" in life. You accept that reality is nuanced and cultures do not have "moral superiority" over each other, or you remain in a childlike state with a narrow view of morality, perpetrating stereotypes and inaccurate historical information.

 

Once again, for the people in the back: cultures are *equal*, not inferior or superior, and the many thousands of Native American tribes--just like the Huana in the game--were fully capable of the same degree of good and evil as anybody else.

 

Colonialism is a great evil, yes. But the cultural group being colonized are always themselves *capable of the same things*. A victim can be a victimizer in another circumstance and another time. Just because the Huana are being victimized by the Vailians does not mean they cannot themselves victimize others. That's reality.

 

As an anthropologist I think they've done a great job of showing the Huana in a sympathetic but realistic light where they are not shown as "noble savages" but as a real culture with all the complex mixture of good and bad that involves. I enjoy the fact that they *do not* shy away from depicting the Huana as capable of oppression within their own cultural system, or capable of racism against other groups, or any of that. It's *real*. It's *complex*. It forces you to make *hard* moral choices.

 

That's a *good thing*.

I wouldn't waste too much time on that post.  Never let facts or nuance get in the way of a good narrative.     

Edited by Nixl
Link to post
Share on other sites

The lagufeth/huana relationship reminded me of a historical account of Columbus' party. They encountered relatively peaceful islanders (like the lagufeth) who described some cannibals (like the huana) that lived nearby and had captured and eaten some of their kin. The colonists enslaved or killed everyone, and ate an islander boy when their rations ran out. There might not have been a great deal of slavery going on before the Europeans arrived, but the islanders were killing and eating each other. It always struck me that the non-cannibals of the story were the real victims in the tragedy that was colonization, the cannibals were both bad guys and victims, and the Europeans were the bad guys.

 

If deadfire was attempting a clumsy analogy, which I have no doubt was unintentional, the lagufeth would be the victims and the huana would be both victims and bad guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Columbus brought horrific slavery to the continent, and was notorious for his barbarity but because of the whitewashing we are discussing he is still considered a hero by many for getting lost.

 

I don't know the story you're referring to. I don't say cannibalism among native peoples was unknown but it was not universal, and as you point out eating flesh was not unknown among colonials when pushed to extremity at that time, and it was certainly not unknown in their early development.

 

But native cannibalism is present in every apologia for colonialism. As common as examples of the varied and infinitely more common atrocities of colonizers is absent; because it makes it easy for some to see the dramatically lopsided devastation of peoples as somehow equal.

 

 

The lagufeth/huana relationship reminded me of a historical account of Columbus' party. They encountered relatively peaceful islanders (like the lagufeth) who described some cannibals (like the huana) that lived nearby and had captured and eaten some of their kin. The colonists enslaved or killed everyone, and ate an islander boy when their rations ran out. There might not have been a great deal of slavery going on before the Europeans arrived, but the islanders were killing and eating each other. It always struck me that the non-cannibals of the story were the real victims in the tragedy that was colonization, the cannibals were both bad guys and victims, and the Europeans were the bad guys.

 

If deadfire was attempting a clumsy analogy, which I have no doubt was unintentional, the lagufeth would be the victims and the huana would be both victims and bad guys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 As common as examples of the varied and infinitely more common atrocities of colonizers is absent; because it makes it easy for some to see the dramatically lopsided devastation of peoples as somehow equal.

 

 

The lagufeth/huana relationship reminded me of a historical account of Columbus' party. They encountered relatively peaceful islanders (like the lagufeth) who described some cannibals (like the huana) that lived nearby and had captured and eaten some of their kin. The colonists enslaved or killed everyone, and ate an islander boy when their rations ran out. There might not have been a great deal of slavery going on before the Europeans arrived, but the islanders were killing and eating each other. It always struck me that the non-cannibals of the story were the real victims in the tragedy that was colonization, the cannibals were both bad guys and victims, and the Europeans were the bad guys.

 

If deadfire was attempting a clumsy analogy, which I have no doubt was unintentional, the lagufeth would be the victims and the huana would be both victims and bad guys.

 

Things I Learned Studying Cultural Anthropology: A List of Basic Information

 

1) There were literally thousands of unique Native American cultures. "Native Americans" is not a culture, it's an ethnic grouping. You can't compare the cultural experience of the Haida with the Navajo or the Iroquois, etc. You have to approach each culture independently and examine them for the unique expressions found within that culture.

 

2) No reputable anthropologist denies the horrible atrocities committed by the European colonizers. None deny the lopsided devastation that occurred. What is denied is that the European culture was somehow unique in their institutions or in their achievements. Slavery is just one example. The Haida were basically West Coast Native American vikings; they raided other tribes, took slaves, had *generational inherited slavery*, traded slaves with other tribes, had sex slaves, all before the European contact ever occurred. That's one example of a greatly evil cultural institution--chattel slavery--developed independently between these two cultures. Everything found within European culture can be found within a Native American tribal culture--that includes things qualified as good, like metal working and agriculture and religion, and things qualified as evil like slavery and rape and racism.

 

3) Cultures are not morally superior or inferior to each other. Cultures just are. Each culture generally contains the same components and traits, in various degrees and in different mixtures relative to each other. How those traits are expressed varies wildly.

 

Addendum:

 

Columbus was a greedy murderer and child rapist who made his fortune selling nine year olds into sexual slavery. His existence has nothing to do with this discussion, however.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have learned to attempt to change the parameters of discussions to whatever suits you and argue positions no one has advanced.

 

For example, Columbus is germane because someone bought him up. And he is a colonizer. And the slaver. And, perhaps, tolerated cannibalism. There is no way he is not germane except you would prefer he not be included.

 

No one has made sweeping claims about morality except you. What has been said is that colonists built civilizations on slavery and savage exploitation and those atrocities are glossed over, as they are here, while the worst things particular peoples did are always included as if they were common, as they are here.

 

To state the obvious: the colonial evil cannot be compared to any other because their dead victims never had the ability to perpetrate it, and, as had been suggested, it endures in continued explotation abroad and in invisible but nontheless rigid and violentlly enforced class structures at home.

 

So yes colonists are and always will be the bad guys. There is no contest. Shoe-horning slaver/cannibal natives into every aplogia does not change that. The mark of moral inferiority becomes vivid in attempts to disavow, downplay or spread around the blame and responsiblity that comes with it.

 

 

Things I Learned Studying Cultural Anthropology: A List of Basic Information

1) There were literally thousands of unique Native American cultures. "Native Americans" is not a culture, it's an ethnic grouping. You can't compare the cultural experience of the Haida with the Navajo or the Iroquois, etc. You have to approach each culture independently and examine them for the unique expressions found within that culture.

2) No reputable anthropologist denies the horrible atrocities committed by the European colonizers. None deny the lopsided devastation that occurred. What is denied is that the European culture was somehow unique in their institutions or in their achievements. Slavery is just one example. The Haida were basically West Coast Native American vikings; they raided other tribes, took slaves, had *generational inherited slavery*, traded slaves with other tribes, had sex slaves, all before the European contact ever occurred. That's one example of a greatly evil cultural institution--chattel slavery--developed independently between these two cultures. Everything found within European culture can be found within a Native American tribal culture--that includes things qualified as good, like metal working and agriculture and religion, and things qualified as evil like slavery and rape and racism.

3) Cultures are not morally superior or inferior to each other. Cultures just are. Each culture generally contains the same components and traits, in various degrees and in different mixtures relative to each other. How those traits are expressed varies wildly.

Addendum:

Columbus was a greedy murderer and child rapist who made his fortune selling nine year olds into sexual slavery. His existence has nothing to do with this discussion, however.

 

 

 

Edited by playerone
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You have learned to attempt to change the parameters of discussions to whatever suits you and argue positions no one has advanced.

 

For example, Columbus is germane because someone bought him up. And he is a colonizer. And the slaver. And, perhaps, tolerated cannibalism. There is no way he is not germane except you would prefer he not be included.

 

No one has made sweeping claims about morality except you. What has been said is that colonists built civilizations on slavery and savage exploitation and those atrocities are glossed over, as they are here, while the worst things particular peoples did are always included as if they were common, as they are here.

 

To state the obvious: the colonial evil cannot be compared to any other because their dead victims never had the ability to perpetrate it, and, as had been suggested, it endures in continued explotation abroad and in invisible but nontheless rigid and violentlly enforced class structures at home.

 

So yes colonists are and always will be the bad guys. There is no contest. Shoe-horning slaver/cannibal natives into every aplogia does not change that. The mark of moral inferiority becomes vivid in attempts to disavow, downplay or spread around the blame and responsiblity that comes with it.

 

 

Things I Learned Studying Cultural Anthropology: A List of Basic Information

 

1) There were literally thousands of unique Native American cultures. "Native Americans" is not a culture, it's an ethnic grouping. You can't compare the cultural experience of the Haida with the Navajo or the Iroquois, etc. You have to approach each culture independently and examine them for the unique expressions found within that culture.

 

2) No reputable anthropologist denies the horrible atrocities committed by the European colonizers. None deny the lopsided devastation that occurred. What is denied is that the European culture was somehow unique in their institutions or in their achievements. Slavery is just one example. The Haida were basically West Coast Native American vikings; they raided other tribes, took slaves, had *generational inherited slavery*, traded slaves with other tribes, had sex slaves, all before the European contact ever occurred. That's one example of a greatly evil cultural institution--chattel slavery--developed independently between these two cultures. Everything found within European culture can be found within a Native American tribal culture--that includes things qualified as good, like metal working and agriculture and religion, and things qualified as evil like slavery and rape and racism.

 

3) Cultures are not morally superior or inferior to each other. Cultures just are. Each culture generally contains the same components and traits, in various degrees and in different mixtures relative to each other. How those traits are expressed varies wildly.

 

Addendum:

 

Columbus was a greedy murderer and child rapist who made his fortune selling nine year olds into sexual slavery. His existence has nothing to do with this discussion, however.

 

 

 

 

Nobody is "glossing over" the atrocities that were committed. I have made it clear that the European colonization was a great evil.

 

This thread began because you see an example of atrocities committed by the Huana and instead of understanding the realistic depiction of an indigenous culture capable of doing bad things (ie, racism towards a less advanced culture) you see only a "but they do it too" simple morality play.

 

You don't understand the point and the nuance. Yes, the colonization of America by European whites and colonization in general brings great evil--but that doesn't mean that the native cultures are somehow incapable of displaying the same basic cultural trappings. The Huana are capable of being racist towards less advanced cultures; this doesn't make the statement or depiction of this some form of moral equivalency, it's just a basic fact that the Huana *are capable of being racist*. Showing this makes the Huana a more nuanced, more realistic depiction of a cultural group. To deny that the Huana are capable of being racist--or that they can oppress other cultural groups or do any other evil act--would be to remove complexity and nuance from the depiction of an indigenous culture.

 

Cultures are complex and many-faceted. The actions of the European colonists brought great evil, but they were not actions taken in a vacuum against a homogeneous group of innocent victims. It's more complex then that. So to is it with the Huana; while shown in a sympathetic light, they are *not* shown as being a homogeneous group of innocent victims, but rather are a fractious alliance of various tribes with their own internal conflicts in addition to the greater conflict with the colonizers. They have their own flaws, their own blind spots, and their own failings--much like every culture in the world does. One of these blind spots is that they treat and regard the Lagufeth as animals, rather than as sentient beings with their own rights. They don't consider it "cannibalism" to eat a Lagufeth, as it's just an animal to them, not a person.

 

How you choose to deal with that fact, both in game and out of game, is up to you. Somewhere on Deadfire you'll probably encounter Orlan slaves, too, I have no doubt--since "slave" is a background you can take if you choose Deadfire Archipelago as your origin. And there will *definitely* be racism against Orlans. Some of that will no doubt come from the direction of the Huana, and you'll have to deal with that, too.

 

I don't know that this is going to be the game for you if you can't accept the fact that the Huana are occasionally going to be shown in a bad light. They will do bad things, like slavery and oppression and murder. They definitely will not be shown as purely innocent until the Vailians showed up and started exploiting them all because Obsidian is aiming for realism, not a fairy tale of evil empire vs exploited victims.

 

For what it's worth, I'm planning on playing on the side of the Huana, not least of all because my main char is an escaped slave from the Deadfire Archipelago and he's just not down with exploiting weaker people for ones own benefit. That doesn't mean I'm going to side with the Huana in every case; my char will fight oppression and most especially slavery wherever he sees it, whoever practices it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure Pillars of Eternity is the franchise for you.  Even Pillars of Eternity 1 had a questline where you saw/heard colonists and natives commit atrocities against one another (see the Maerwald quest).  I am sure you would find that nuance equally problematic.  May I suggest Bioware games?  I hear they have a nice "blue = good" and "red = bad" option for players.

Actually, given what Dragon Age: Inquisition has revealed about the ancient elves, I suspect that franchise wouldn't work for them either. Plenty of shades of grey to be had there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I see an opportunity to make complex characters, something this group has done many times before, and something I fully expect, wasted and turned into the usual both-sides trash every depiction of a colonized peoples is.

 

They could have been smugglers. Piracy is practically the theme of the game. They could have overpowered and avenged themselves on colonists recently and left the player in the position of siding with them or not. Lots of moral gum to chew on there. They could have been or done absolutely anything. Instead they (may) do a version what was done to them. Oh. And eat “people.”

 

Because really, who hasn't eaten somebody? It's just one of those moral failings you throw in to spice things up. Nothing stereotypical and smearing about native cannibals. Right? The only reason you can't hear how hollow that characterization is or the echo of Every. Single. Colonialism apologia is because you have “everybody is good and evil” playing at full volume in your head and you like how it sounds. It sounds profound. It isn't.

 

And you, and your supporters, know you're wrong because I've been very specific about my issue and you keep pretending I'm advocating that they be saints. As I said, arguing positions no one has advanced. You were ill served by your instructors.

 

And :nuke: all of you  :nuke:  with the this might not be the game for you :nuke:. It's literally my game as much or more than anyone here and it doesn't exist yet. That is the :nuke: point. Take your unearned condescension somewhere they don't know any better. This definitely isn't the thread for you.

 

Nobody is "glossing over" the atrocities that were committed. I have made it clear that the European colonization was a great evil.

This thread began because you see an example of atrocities committed by the Huana and instead of understanding the realistic depiction of an indigenous culture capable of doing bad things (ie, racism towards a less advanced culture) you see only a "but they do it too" simple morality play.

You don't understand the point and the nuance. Yes, the colonization of America by European whites and colonization in general brings great evil--but that doesn't mean that the native cultures are somehow incapable of displaying the same basic cultural trappings. The Huana are capable of being racist towards less advanced cultures; this doesn't make the statement or depiction of this some form of moral equivalency, it's just a basic fact that the Huana *are capable of being racist*. Showing this makes the Huana a more nuanced, more realistic depiction of a cultural group. To deny that the Huana are capable of being racist--or that they can oppress other cultural groups or do any other evil act--would be to remove complexity and nuance from the depiction of an indigenous culture.

Cultures are complex and many-faceted. The actions of the European colonists brought great evil, but they were not actions taken in a vacuum against a homogeneous group of innocent victims. It's more complex then that. So to is it with the Huana; while shown in a sympathetic light, they are *not* shown as being a homogeneous group of innocent victims, but rather are a fractious alliance of various tribes with their own internal conflicts in addition to the greater conflict with the colonizers. They have their own flaws, their own blind spots, and their own failings--much like every culture in the world does. One of these blind spots is that they treat and regard the Lagufeth as animals, rather than as sentient beings with their own rights. They don't consider it "cannibalism" to eat a Lagufeth, as it's just an animal to them, not a person.

How you choose to deal with that fact, both in game and out of game, is up to you. Somewhere on Deadfire you'll probably encounter Orlan slaves, too, I have no doubt--since "slave" is a background you can take if you choose Deadfire Archipelago as your origin. And there will *definitely* be racism against Orlans. Some of that will no doubt come from the direction of the Huana, and you'll have to deal with that, too.

I don't know that this is going to be the game for you if you can't accept the fact that the Huana are occasionally going to be shown in a bad light. They will do bad things, like slavery and oppression and murder. They definitely will not be shown as purely innocent until the Vailians showed up and started exploiting them all because Obsidian is aiming for realism, not a fairy tale of evil empire vs exploited victims.

For what it's worth, I'm planning on playing on the side of the Huana, not least of all because my main char is an escaped slave from the Deadfire Archipelago and he's just not down with exploiting weaker people for ones own benefit. That doesn't mean I'm going to side with the Huana in every case; my char will fight oppression and most especially slavery wherever he sees it, whoever practices it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Oscar for Performative Allyship goes to....

 

 

Seriously, they aren't even cannibals. Cannibalism requires eating the same species, which they're clearly not. Also, the villagers are starving, so I don't think it's the "zomg cannibal savages!" thing you seem to think it is. And finally, I don't think portraying both sides as flawed is colonialist apologism. I mean, both sides WERE flawed. The Huana seem to be based on Hawaian or Polynesian societies, slavery and caste system and all. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I see an opportunity to make complex characters, something this group has done many times before, and something I fully expect, wasted and turned into the usual both-sides trash every depiction of a colonized peoples is.

 

They could have been smugglers. Piracy is practically the theme of the game. They could have overpowered and avenged themselves on colonists recently and left the player in the position of siding with them or not. Lots of moral gum to chew on there. They could have been or done absolutely anything. Instead they (may) do a version what was done to them. Oh. And eat “people.”

 

Because really, who hasn't eaten somebody? It's just one of those moral failings you throw in to spice things up. Nothing stereotypical and smearing about native cannibals. Right? The only reason you can't hear how hollow that characterization is or the echo of Every. Single. Colonialism apologia is because you have “everybody is good and evil” playing at full volume in your head and you like how it sounds. It sounds profound. It isn't.

 

And you, and your supporters, know you're wrong because I've been very specific about my issue and you keep pretending I'm advocating that they be saints. As I said, arguing positions no one has advanced. You were ill served by your instructors.

 

And :nuke: all of you  :nuke:  with the this might not be the game for you :nuke:. It's literally my game as much or more than anyone here and it doesn't exist yet. That is the :nuke: point. Take your unearned condescension somewhere they don't know any better. This definitely isn't the thread for you.

 

Nobody is "glossing over" the atrocities that were committed. I have made it clear that the European colonization was a great evil.

 

This thread began because you see an example of atrocities committed by the Huana and instead of understanding the realistic depiction of an indigenous culture capable of doing bad things (ie, racism towards a less advanced culture) you see only a "but they do it too" simple morality play.

 

You don't understand the point and the nuance. Yes, the colonization of America by European whites and colonization in general brings great evil--but that doesn't mean that the native cultures are somehow incapable of displaying the same basic cultural trappings. The Huana are capable of being racist towards less advanced cultures; this doesn't make the statement or depiction of this some form of moral equivalency, it's just a basic fact that the Huana *are capable of being racist*. Showing this makes the Huana a more nuanced, more realistic depiction of a cultural group. To deny that the Huana are capable of being racist--or that they can oppress other cultural groups or do any other evil act--would be to remove complexity and nuance from the depiction of an indigenous culture.

 

Cultures are complex and many-faceted. The actions of the European colonists brought great evil, but they were not actions taken in a vacuum against a homogeneous group of innocent victims. It's more complex then that. So to is it with the Huana; while shown in a sympathetic light, they are *not* shown as being a homogeneous group of innocent victims, but rather are a fractious alliance of various tribes with their own internal conflicts in addition to the greater conflict with the colonizers. They have their own flaws, their own blind spots, and their own failings--much like every culture in the world does. One of these blind spots is that they treat and regard the Lagufeth as animals, rather than as sentient beings with their own rights. They don't consider it "cannibalism" to eat a Lagufeth, as it's just an animal to them, not a person.

 

How you choose to deal with that fact, both in game and out of game, is up to you. Somewhere on Deadfire you'll probably encounter Orlan slaves, too, I have no doubt--since "slave" is a background you can take if you choose Deadfire Archipelago as your origin. And there will *definitely* be racism against Orlans. Some of that will no doubt come from the direction of the Huana, and you'll have to deal with that, too.

 

I don't know that this is going to be the game for you if you can't accept the fact that the Huana are occasionally going to be shown in a bad light. They will do bad things, like slavery and oppression and murder. They definitely will not be shown as purely innocent until the Vailians showed up and started exploiting them all because Obsidian is aiming for realism, not a fairy tale of evil empire vs exploited victims.

 

For what it's worth, I'm planning on playing on the side of the Huana, not least of all because my main char is an escaped slave from the Deadfire Archipelago and he's just not down with exploiting weaker people for ones own benefit. That doesn't mean I'm going to side with the Huana in every case; my char will fight oppression and most especially slavery wherever he sees it, whoever practices it.

 

The only person here trying to argue points nobody has made is you trying to paint everybody as "glossing over colonialist evil" when what we're actually trying to do is point out the complexity of cultures and the nuances of Obsidians depiction of the Huana.

 

You're freaking out over the Huana being depicted as capable of racism. You'll accept that they could be smugglers, because that's a *safe* form of semi-bad behavior, especially when it's applied in the context of fighting back against the Evil Empire. You'll even accept violence against colonialists, because again, Fighting the Evil Empire. What you *don't* want is the Huana to be depicted as capable of real, actually evil, behavior inherent to their own culture because to you, they *must* be innocent victims who are fighting back against the evil attackers.

 

What you can't accept is that the Huana, in their own right, as their own unique culture, can be *bad people* who do *bad things*. You can't accept that the Huana are capable of institutional racism, because that would dilute your fantasy narrative. You only want them to be Freedom Fighters who maybe do some morally grey things in their Fight Against Oppression.

 

What Obsidian wants to do is real complexity within the story, showing the Huana as *more* than Fighting The Evil Empire. There are *real* reasons that you might decide the Huana aren't people you want to ally with. Their culture isn't perfect, it has real flaws, and one of those is racism against other less advanced cultures. That's a problem, and it's one that you as a player have to decide how much it affects your moral judgement.

 

It's a tough choice. It's intention is to make you think hard about the morality of the situation...although for you it just makes you freak out over having your assumptions about the narrative requirements of this particular setting challenged.

 

And for the record, "“everybody is good and evil” is another position I never took. People, individuals, can be good or they can be evil. That's why I had no problem pointing out Christopher Columbus as an evil **** when you brought him up. It's cultures that are morally neutral. People are moral beings; cultures are simply the collective customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of an ethnic group. Trying to judge the morality of a culture is like judging the morality of a frying pan; it simply doesn't apply.

Edited by Katarack21
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noticed that everyone who doesn't care about something thinks others must be performing and accusing them of that is witty. A friend would have clued you in on the truth long ago.

 

Yes everybody has good and evil. Thanks. I really had no idea and no one else has mentioned it. What I must not have said s making them guilty of more or less the same thing provides an excuse for it being done to them.

 

No they aren't the same species.  Since the entire point of the interaction with the Brood Queen is to make the player realize they are all-but human and your character actually tells the native woman they are just like her the position of the game seems clear but maybe you're right. Maybe they are just animals...

 

And the Oscar for Performative Allyship goes to....

 

 

Seriously, they aren't even cannibals. Cannibalism requires eating the same species, which they're clearly not. Also, the villagers are starving, so I don't think it's the "zomg cannibal savages!" thing you seem to think it is. And finally, I don't think portraying both sides as flawed is colonialist apologism. I mean, both sides WERE flawed. The Huana seem to be based on Hawaian or Polynesian societies, slavery and caste system and all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Smuggling is safe? Taking up arms against the colonists is safe? How about if a group of colonists had secretly become assassins to feed the tribe? That would be to safe too right?

 

No you must have colonized people that are racists, or species-est as they case may be and :nuke: canniabals. Why do you suppose that is? Scenario solution: you set the animals free if you can and get food to the natives. Which person not playing an evil character says “Yeah it's cool. Eat them?” Where is the moral conundrum?

 

All that is accomplished is any sympathy you may have had for them due to their colonization is gone. And putting colonized people in a story for the sole purpose of making their colonization less sympathetic and potraying them as savages is moral poison. No matter how many people like it best.

 

 

The only person here trying to argue points nobody has made is you trying to paint everybody as "glossing over colonialist evil" when what we're actually trying to do is point out the complexity of cultures and the nuances of Obsidians depiction of the Huana.

You're freaking out over the Huana being depicted as capable of racism. You'll accept that they could be smugglers, because that's a *safe* form of semi-bad behavior, especially when it's applied in the context of fighting back against the Evil Empire. You'll even accept violence against colonialists, because again, Fighting the Evil Empire. What you *don't* want is the Huana to be depicted as capable of real, actually evil, behavior inherent to their own culture because to you, they *must* be innocent victims who are fighting back against the evil attackers.

What you can't accept is that the Huana, in their own right, as their own unique culture, can be *bad people* who do *bad things*. You can't accept that the Huana are capable of institutional racism, because that would dilute your fantasy narrative. You only want them to be Freedom Fighters who maybe do some morally grey things in their Fight Against Oppression.

What Obsidian wants to do is real complexity within the story, showing the Huana as *more* than Fighting The Evil Empire. There are *real* reasons that you might decide the Huana aren't people you want to ally with. Their culture isn't perfect, it has real flaws, and one of those is racism against other less advanced cultures. That's a problem, and it's one that you as a player have to decide how much it affects your moral judgement.

It's a tough choice. It's intention is to make you think hard about the morality of the situation...although for you it just makes you freak out over having your assumptions about the narrative requirements of this particular setting challenged.

And for the record, "“everybody is good and evil” is another position I never took. People, individuals, can be good or they can be evil. That's why I had no problem pointing out Christopher Columbus as an evil **** when you brought him up. It's cultures that are morally neutral. People are moral beings; cultures are simply the collective customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of an ethnic group. Trying to judge the morality of a culture is like judging the morality of a frying pan; it simply doesn't apply.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Smuggling is safe? Taking up arms against the colonists is safe? How about if a group of colonists had secretly become assassins to feed the tribe? That would be to safe too right?

 

No you must have colonized people that are racists, or species-est as they case may be and :nuke: canniabals. Why do you suppose that is? Scenario solution: you set the animals free if you can and get food to the natives. Which person not playing an evil character says “Yeah it's cool. Eat them?” Where is the moral conundrum?

 

All that is accomplished is any sympathy you may have had for them due to their colonization is gone. And putting colonized people in a story for the sole purpose of making their colonization less sympathetic and potraying them as savages is moral poison. No matter how many people like it best.

 

 

The only person here trying to argue points nobody has made is you trying to paint everybody as "glossing over colonialist evil" when what we're actually trying to do is point out the complexity of cultures and the nuances of Obsidians depiction of the Huana.

 

You're freaking out over the Huana being depicted as capable of racism. You'll accept that they could be smugglers, because that's a *safe* form of semi-bad behavior, especially when it's applied in the context of fighting back against the Evil Empire. You'll even accept violence against colonialists, because again, Fighting the Evil Empire. What you *don't* want is the Huana to be depicted as capable of real, actually evil, behavior inherent to their own culture because to you, they *must* be innocent victims who are fighting back against the evil attackers.

 

What you can't accept is that the Huana, in their own right, as their own unique culture, can be *bad people* who do *bad things*. You can't accept that the Huana are capable of institutional racism, because that would dilute your fantasy narrative. You only want them to be Freedom Fighters who maybe do some morally grey things in their Fight Against Oppression.

 

What Obsidian wants to do is real complexity within the story, showing the Huana as *more* than Fighting The Evil Empire. There are *real* reasons that you might decide the Huana aren't people you want to ally with. Their culture isn't perfect, it has real flaws, and one of those is racism against other less advanced cultures. That's a problem, and it's one that you as a player have to decide how much it affects your moral judgement.

 

It's a tough choice. It's intention is to make you think hard about the morality of the situation...although for you it just makes you freak out over having your assumptions about the narrative requirements of this particular setting challenged.

 

And for the record, "“everybody is good and evil” is another position I never took. People, individuals, can be good or they can be evil. That's why I had no problem pointing out Christopher Columbus as an evil **** when you brought him up. It's cultures that are morally neutral. People are moral beings; cultures are simply the collective customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of an ethnic group. Trying to judge the morality of a culture is like judging the morality of a frying pan; it simply doesn't apply.

 

 

 

 

 

Nobody portrayed them as savages. That's you're moral judgement on what is being shown. All that is shown is that the Huana have institutional racism against a less advanced culture. To them, the Lagufeth are animals, not people. You've chosen to view them as being savages for that portrayal. That's your choice. A person with a less narrow view of cultures would understand that this is simply racism, which is a flaw inherent to many different cultures and simply shows that the Huana are neither less nor more "savage" than any other culture. In White March we saw Lagufeth treated as pest animals; in Deadfire they are also treated as possibly food animals in a famine situation. In neither case are they treated as anything other than animals despite clearly being sentient beings.

 

By "safe" I meant "morally safe". The Huana as smugglers fighting the evil empire doesn't challenge your moral assumptions about the innocent tribe fighting the evil colonists. Neither does the Huana committing violence against colonists; these both reinforce your pre-set belief of the Huana being innocent victims who are fighting back.

 

It all comes back to your assumption that the Huana must never be portrayed as capable of cultural institutions which you view as evil and offensive, such as institutional racism. To you that violates what you feel is the narrative imperative of any story which involves colonialism, where the indigenous culture must always be portrayed as innocent of all cultural evils until corrupted by the invading culture.

 

That's simply not realistic and not the kind of narrow and simple story that Obsidian is aiming for. In Deadfire, as in real life, racism exists everywhere and you have to deal with it wherever it shows up. The fact that this thread has gone on for as long as it has shows what an excellent job Obsidian has done in sowing the seeds of true nuance and moral debate.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

They. Are. Going. To. Eat. People. Your character tells them the truth. You personally took offense to the others being called animals. And now you say eating them is not a depiction of savagery? I sorely misjudged you; I did not realize you are a psychopath.

 

Nothing to you is evil except possibly racism (the evil of which can never be attributed to a culture) and therefore there is no other way the story could have possibly introduced moral ambiguity except by suggesting the tribe treats a people with less advantages badly.

 

The fact that that that creates no ambiguity just makes the tribe the villain doesn't bother you. The fact that we are never shown the tribe being mistreated, just as having visions of how  :nuke:  helpful colonization might be if they can just convince the die hards doesn't strike you as a fairly ridiculous misrepresentation of the norm. That you find perfectly realistic.

 

And eating “people?” Not stereotypical enough to make a black and white movie blush you insist. Not savage at all you say. Just me being judgmental. Ooookay. It is indeed time to get the check.

 

This thread has gone on so long because unlike my friend who I commended for getting out early, I am stubborn and preferred to argue it out. Getting out was the right call but I am very glad I continued. At the very least I now know to beware anthropologists and their associates. :unsure:

 

Here then is the end. There are evil cultures. Everybody accepts Nazi Germany as one, especially Germans, but not just that. Every culture that practiced slavery, that raped, torutred and killed for centuries was an evil culture. Not bad individuals. The only individuality that comes into it is the people who spoke out and defied it. The reason that was so rare and dangerous is because they opposed the entire culture. Not bad individuals.

 

Stories like these these are a moral narcotic that allows people to look back and say yes, colonization was bad and slavery was evil but look, there was that one tribe that did it, and what about the cannibalism? Didn't one do that? And all of that dulls the sting. And the less the past hurts the easier it is to repeat. In one way or another.

 

Dinner is on me.

 

Nobody portrayed them as savages. That's you're moral judgement on what is being shown. All that is shown is that the Huana have institutional racism against a less advanced culture. To them, the Lagufeth are animals, not people. You've chosen to view them as being savages for that portrayal. That's your choice. A person with a less narrow view of cultures would understand that this is simply racism, which is a flaw inherent to many different cultures and simply shows that the Huana are neither less nor more "savage" than any other culture. In White March we saw Lagufeth treated as pest animals; in Deadfire they are also treated as possibly food animals in a famine situation. In neither case are they treated as anything other than animals despite clearly being sentient beings.

By "safe" I meant "morally safe". The Huana as smugglers fighting the evil empire doesn't challenge your moral assumptions about the innocent tribe fighting the evil colonists. Neither does the Huana committing violence against colonists; these both reinforce your pre-set belief of the Huana being innocent victims who are fighting back.

It all comes back to your assumption that the Huana must never be portrayed as capable of cultural institutions which you view as evil and offensive, such as institutional racism. To you that violates what you feel is the narrative imperative of any story which involves colonialism, where the indigenous culture must always be portrayed as innocent of all cultural evils until corrupted by the invading culture.

That's simply not realistic and not the kind of narrow and simple story that Obsidian is aiming for. In Deadfire, as in real life, racism exists everywhere and you have to deal with it wherever it shows up. The fact that this thread has gone on for as long as it has shows what an excellent job Obsidian has done in sowing the seeds of true nuance and moral debate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be worth noting that there's already another quest in the game about actual, indisputable cannibalism - as in kith eating kith - in the game that has nothing to do with the Huana. It's about a group of Vailian (IIRC) sailors who were stranded on a remote island and survived by eating each other. So if Obsidian is depicting the Huana as cannibals, they aren't the only group being shown that way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

They. Are. Going. To. Eat. People. Your character tells them the truth. You personally took offense to the others being called animals. And now you say eating them is not a depiction of savagery? I sorely misjudged you; I did not realize you are a psychopath.

 

Oh, so *now* they're people? You spent a whole page arguing about how they're just talking animals but now that you want to squeeze this into your "how offensive it is to demonize the Huana as savages" narrative suddenly they're *PEOPLE*.

 

 

 

Nothing to you is evil except possibly racism (the evil of which can never be attributed to a culture) and therefore there is no other way the story could have possibly introduced moral ambiguity except by suggesting the tribe treats a people with less advantages badly.

Again, I've spent paragraphs discussing the evil that can be contained in a culture. I've mentioned murder and rape and sexual slavery and other things. You've seriously missed all of that in your quest to try and demonize me as the arbiter of all that is wrong with colonial apologists.

 

 

The fact that that that creates no ambiguity just makes the tribe the villain doesn't bother you. The fact that we are never shown the tribe being mistreated, just as having visions of how  :nuke:  helpful colonization might be if they can just convince the die hards doesn't strike you as a fairly ridiculous misrepresentation of the norm. That you find perfectly realistic.

The tribe is not the villain. There *is no villain*. Nothing here is what you think. They aren't some innocent victim, there is no plucky hero, the Vailian's aren't some evil empire. You can *choose* to have your character believe "how  :nuke:  helpful colonization might be if they can just convince the die hards". If you want to play that you have the choice of doing so, but that's not how it's shown as being.

 

 

 

And eating “people?” Not stereotypical enough to make a black and white movie blush you insist. Not savage at all you say. Just me being judgmental. Ooookay. It is indeed time to get the check.

 

I didn't say it wasn't an evil thing for that person to eat the Lagufeth. I did in fact point this out as a flaw in their culture. What I *did* say was that you stating that the eating of Lagufeth is somehow making them "savages" is a moral judgement that you made. You're the one calling them "savages" for doing that, not anybody else.

 

So, question: Are cannibals "savages"? Is a tribe that eats the dead warriors they've killed in battle a "tribe of savages"? Is a tribe that eats their own dead a "tribe of savages"? Because that's what you're implying here. If portraying the Huana as capable of eating the Lagufeth in a famine situation means portraying them as savages, then what does that say about the *actual* tribes that *actually* ate people?

 

 

Here then is the end. There are evil cultures. Everybody accepts Nazi Germany as one, especially Germans, but not just that. Every culture that practiced slavery, that raped, torutred and killed for centuries was an evil culture. Not bad individuals. The only individuality that comes into it is the people who spoke out and defied it. The reason that was so rare and dangerous is because they opposed the entire culture. Not bad individuals.

Nazis are and were evil. Nazi Germany was a culture, which is an inanimate concept. Morality is something that only living, sentient beings have. In order to be good or evil you have to be self-aware and capable of making choices. A culture is just a convenient label we apply to a collection of ideas and things. The very concept of judging the morality of cultures is inherently discriminatory and offensive--it's the judging of other cultures as morally inferior and ones own as morally superior that leads to things like the genocide of Native Americans. Not to mention that you're concept that another culture can be "savages" is ****ed.

 

 

Stories like these these are a moral narcotic that allows people to look back and say yes, colonization was bad and slavery was evil but look, there was that one tribe that did it, and what about the cannibalism? Didn't one do that? And all of that dulls the sting. And the less the past hurts the easier it is to repeat. In one way or another.

You are like a child, with a childs view of morality and a childs view of narrative complexity. You want only the simplest of moral narratives telling a basic story of good vs evil. I want more than that.

Edited by Katarack21
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see a convincing argument to why Huana being good, bad or literal nazis is making Valian colonialism less or more bad. OR, as it was suggested in this thread - it makes actual, RL earth colonialism look less bad, which is a ridiculous claim.

There will be none, as those are unrelated things. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/136/Non-Sequitur

 

Or in short: two wrongs do not make a right.

Let me use a more clear example:

  • Guy 1 (Let's call him Vallian) robs&shoots dead Guy 2 (let's call him Huana) on the street.
    • It later turns out Guy 2 was beating up his wife. Does it make what Guy 1 did less evil? Did Guy 2 deserved it? Surely 1 will argue that. But if someone falls for that logic - it is their fault, not the fault of the facts.

Other example:

  • Group 1 (let's call them Vallian) colonizes group 2 (let's call them Huana). And colonization is an umbrella term for all kinds of nasty stuff one would do to get the land and resources. Then every year Group 1 eats turkey.
    • It turns out Group 2 was a culture that did slavery, kith sacrifice, canibalism, all sorts of nasty sh*t long before Group 1 arrived. Does it make what Group 1 did less evil? Surely Group 1 will use that as an argument to defend themselves. But if someone believes that argumentation - it is their own fault, not fault of the facts.

The same goes on with RL colonizations. Some natives were up to all kinds of bad and evil stuff by our moral standards. Colonists did use that as an argument why what they do is not wrong. Of course this is a pitiful attempt of rationalization of own sins. Everybody wants to be the good guy and human need for rationalization is strong.

But if you believe that some natives being bad people makes colonisation right or less evil - this is your fault, not the fault of the facts. You fell for their spin of the facts and believed it.

But the fact remains - they did what they did

Facts are not racist. Facts are not oppressive.

EDIT: Just to be clear: Interpretations of facts may be racist,oppressive and what not - but nowhere in this quest does Obsidian interpret anything for you - they allow player to find out all the facts and the act on player's own opinion.

 

Edited by Veevoir
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...