October Exceptional Story: Our Lady of Pyres

And about actually having choices. I mean, lets say that you are investigating a certain crime and you discovered the criminal. But, for reasons known only to you, you decide you don’t want the criminal to get caught. Maybe you agree with his reasons, maybe you think the victim deserved it. It doesn’t matter. In real life, a very simple and anctually the most common way to solve this problem is resigning from the case, even if it will cost a lot in terms of reputation. Doing what you believe in is not always easy, but it’s your choice.

Then the game offer you the option of either turning him in to the cops or framing a completely innocent person to get him out of the hook. Where did your choice of giving up go?

I completely get that it’s impossible to give players all possible choices in all possible situations, but the problem is not helped by the fact that, it doesn’t matter what you choose, the character’s attitude, according to the game text, is always the worst possible one. If you pick a “make your way through the crowd”, your character will never simply walk briskly and deliver a few elbow hits to make it through, they will punch people and stomp them. If you pick a “ignore this guy” option, you don’t simply ignore the person, you humilliate them with how cool your treatment is, and so on.

So yes, if you follow the just the game text without creating any head-canons, your character is always an entitled jerk, and most times you just get to choose how big of an entitled jerk they are. If you don’t want to play an entitled jerk, tough luck (or just ‘cheat’ and discard certain bits of writing as non-canon, which is a nice compromise I’ve seen most players doing).

[quote=Dubinee Finnat]Guys, when someone throws a grenade, don’t line up in front of it :)

Edit: It’s not about making ‘immoral’ choices, it’s about questioning the value system that decides what is ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ and who is a ‘good guy’ and who isn’t.
edited by Dubinee Finnat on 10/3/2016[/quote]
Let’s not be intellectually dishonest here, hm?

If people are discussing their issues with something, and someone else bursts in with a parody of people having issues with that very same specific thing, that person really cannot claim it was a ‘grenade’ that others have chosen to be hit by. That person really cannot claim that it was just a general joke. Not without a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty.

Person 1: You know, I think that sandwich shop down the road should probably stop putting prawns in its peanut-butter sandwiches without telling us. I just bought one, and it was a very nasty surprise when I ate it.
Person 2: Yeah, all I wanted was a plain old peanut-butter sandwich.
Person 3: We probably should have seen the bits of prawn sticking out, maybe, but not all of us did see those.
Person 4: I say, I say, imagine a Campaign against Prawns, full of humourless haters of seafood, marching into sandwich shops and shouting at the staff. How dare that staff have seafood on the menu, right? Let’s burn down all the fishing trawlers! …What are you looking at me like that, for? It’s your fault for choosing to be offended!

I wasn’t. I’m sorry that you thought so.[/quote]

Yes you were. I was the one complaining about not being able to make moral choices. You were clearly criticizing and parodying the points I brought up. Have the courage to stand behind what you say instead of backpedaling when you are challenged on it.

I mean this in the gentlest, most discussion-encouraging way possible, lest the mods think I’m getting feisty :)

[quote=Professor Strix] <snipping heavily>


I like the fact that FL don’t make you be either good or evil - you can be grey, as most humans are. But I do find it irritating that, many instances in which the game gives you what seems to be a morally good choice (for instance, helping an elderly lady) and you think &quothey, I guess I’ll be good on this one, this person deserves it&quot, the game often ‘rewards’ with you with a text that basically makes you a petty creature, want you or not. It’s like they are saying &quotyou can be everything in London, but don’t dare to try to be a nice, honest and socially functioning human being, we don’t like it here&quot.

It’s not that I want to always be a girl scout, or to always have happy hippie-ish ends, but when you can’t be good, choosing an evil option for profit looses all emotional weight it could have. You either quit the game or stop caring, choosing just whatever is most profitable. While making profit to buy things is a draw for many people who plays FL, it’s not what hooked me in in the first place. I like my choices to be hard, and they cease to be hard when you don’t care anymore and just want profit.

Lastly, I don’t think it’s the writer’s fault. I wouldn’t have played as much content as I could until I reached the end of regular content if I didn’t like the writing. I’m just saying that no one can deny that the game don’t let you play with a lawful good character, unless you want to quit midgame and start a morally grey character. It might be a stylistic choice, it might be accidental, but it is something that happens.[/quote]

I think there’s some truth to the charge that the kinds of moral choices that most of us make, by preference, in our daily lives (e.g., not to kill, steal, defraudpeople) makes for a rather constrained set of choices in Fallen London. No one can deny that one of the four basic stats – Shadowy – is based on how effective you are at fraud, casual violence and other forms of criminal conduct.

On the other hand, options certainly exist in FL to do what most of us consider to be the &quotright thing.&quot For example, you can choose to tell the Bluejacket the truth about his son in &quotWhere You and I Must Go.&quot You can pass on a little girl’s letter to her beloved former governess in &quotThe Frequently Deceased.&quot And the choice a player makes in one of the earliest FL stories–that of the Contessa–is wrenching precisely because it’s based upon what the player, functioning as we all do on limited information, thinks is right.

There is violence, pettiness, nastiness in FL as there is in human existence. If there were not, many of us would not like the game so well because it would not feel real. In fact, we are having this conversation precisely because FL does feel real, and it is disturbing to realize that in some ways we tend, after a while, to take Fallen London’s skewed moral choices for granted. If those choices alarm you, the player, you always have the option to quit playing the game, or to only play storylines where the actions permitted by the game are moral ones, according to your own morality or that of your game character. Or you can play the game with all of the immorality that is implicit and explicit in its stories, aware how those choices are not choices you would want to make if FL were real and you were living among all the mushrooms, tomb-colonists, and rats. Played on that level, FL throws what most of us would consider to be self-evident moral choices into sharp relief, which can be very enlightening.

But there are always choices, even if the choices put on offer in a particular ES are not ones we like.

Has anyone else noticed that the first chapter of the Bluejacket’s story involved Ice and the second part involved Fire?

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

What will the third chapter bring?

Old School RPG magic mechanics say Lightning :P

Or possibly wind.

Actually, I won’t be disatisfied. It’s not about having a happy ending, it’s about not killing/stealing/saying lies that will destroy people if you choose not to.

If all stories in FL were like this conundrum you posted, I would be happy. A story that I like a lot because it does let you choose your moral look to it is the Comtessa story, and it doesn’t have a happy ending.

What I feel is that many stories in FL feel like the chief of the village only had the choices of killing the resistance or killing the nazis, never the choice of giving up fighting entirely and letting him be sacrificed for what he thinks is right (which actually happened in real life).

See, that’s not the issue I was having. The choice the mayor was forced into was clearly a horrible choice, but, depending on your values, one choice is more moral than the others. I’m fine with the game putting you into a bad situation and forcing you to make the best of it. But that wasn’t what was happening here.

In this story’s situation, all three choices were bad things you were actively doing. You were actively choosing to hurt one group, hurt another group, or hurt both. Instead of being the poor mayor, forced to try to make the best of a horrible situation someone else put him in, you’re put into the role of the Nazis, and your choices are “kill the resistance members,” “kill the villagers AND the resistance members,” or “make the mayor decide.” All three options are evil things you are actively deciding to do.

Meanwhile, some of us are saying “wait a minute, how did I become a Nazi? I never played as a Nazi before. My character wouldn’t be okay with doing any of these things.”

But there’s nothing you can so because the game just assumes you’re a Nazi and you can only make Nazi choices.

This is the issue I had. Not the fact that there wasn’t an option to save everyone with the power of Love or some such silliness :P

I think a lot of the criticisms centering on moral choice are misplaced here. Like, if the character were in total control of the situation and all the profitable options (or all the options period) were morally objectionable, then there would be a good basis for complaint. But the player is not in total control of the situation - the player actually has very little control of the situation. They instead have only a small degree of influence, given to them by the Bluejacket’s commission, the wife’s presence, and the ambitions of the two cult leaders. It’s a story about being caught up in events beyond your control. In fact trying to do the good samaritan thing in this story, bringing the Iconoclast back to London where she’ll receive treatment, probably gets you a better reward as it pleases the Bluejacket and a pleased Bluejacket will presumably be more generous.
edited by Anne Auclair on 10/3/2016

Moral choices/being a good guy in this case means not killing people or actively doing things I know will bring about deaths. It’s about seeing a bad situation and not having my only choices be “kill” “kill” or “double kill!”

Again, I’m not saying I have to completely succeed. Maybe I just can’t stop these people from tearing eachother apart and all I can do is try to save as many people as I can. Maybe not even that many. Maybe I still end up staring at the carnage and crying while the couple of people I managed to save huddle behind me…but at least I didn’t look at a brewing conflict and shout “me too! Me too!” and then go stain up my hands with their blood. Because my character wouldn’t do such a thing.

I don’t know where this bourgeois stuff is coming from. I just don’t like the game deciding my character is going to choose to stick around and hurt people.

[quote=Kukapetal]Moral choices/being a good guy in this case means not killing people or actively doing things I know will bring about deaths. It’s about seeing a bad situation and not having my only choices be &quotkill&quot &quotkill&quot or &quotdouble kill!&quot

Again, I’m not saying I have to completely succeed. Maybe I just can’t stop these people from tearing eachother apart and all I can do is try to save as many people as I can. Maybe not even that many. Maybe I still end up staring at the carnage and crying while the couple of people I managed to save huddle behind me…[/quote]
Well, it sounds like you did that. You tried to demoralize the cults and it backfired, but some survived. I’m just saying you don’t have to interpret it so negatively.
edited by Anne Auclair on 10/3/2016

I started to continue reading this thread, then I just happened to glance ahead and saw “Nazi” a lot of times… you know what, nevermind.

Very foolish of you, because we were talking about John Fowles and you might have found something intriguing.[/quote]

Oh, I read it, I just didn’t find anything of value in the comparison of a story in a game online to a story about a massive historical human tragedy. Especially when the comparison continues and we’re like one step from calling people in the FL story Nazis.

And besides, this is going back to the mayoral election where everyone seems way too angry about the fun online game.

As a (relatively) new player, I feel like I’m missing out on a lot of the lore that’s been going in to these past few ES. I’ve yet to encounter the Dawn Machine, or understand how these characters connect to the greater story of Fallen London. I’ve been reading through, trying to get a sense of what all this is about and how my character would respond, particularly with the little I was able to glean about the Dawn Machine…I’m a little worried I’m going to make a choice and later realize I should have made a different one, once I have all the facts.

I hate it whenever the Mayoral election is used as a byword for &quotcontentious&quot :P The Mayoral election wasn’t particularly contentious and the vast majority of arguments were in good fun. And I say this as someone who backed the candidate who came in third and had fun losing ^^
edited by Anne Auclair on 10/3/2016

The Conflagrati are introduced in this story, so everything you need to know is already in this story (they’re not very complicated, really). If you want to learn more about the Dawn Machine, perhaps you should play The Gift and then The Last Dog Society. You’ll have to pay fate though.
edited by Anne Auclair on 10/3/2016

Well, this one wasn’t for me. Which is fine, as I’ve loved 90% of Exceptional Stories so far, it was bound to happen sooner or later ;)

It was the third ES I played within a week, after Calendar Code and Where You & I Must Go, and after these two excellent ones, Our Lady of Pyres was a major disappointment. Sorry, but I just could not care for anyone in this silly story. All I wanted to do at any point of it was wring my hands in despair and shout at these madpeople to leave me the f___ alone! Religious wars, meh.

From my (purely personal) pov, I would’ve loved an option to just walk away from it all in the middle of the story. Or at least an option at the end to harangue the Bluejacket for wasting my time like that. Silly old bugger… ;)
edited by phryne on 10/3/2016

Dubinee, I do believe you’re being deliberately rude and provocative, in clear violation of forum rules. I’m awarding you a one-week suspension, on expectation of better behaviour in the future.

The Bluejacket describes it as &quot[j]ust beyond Mutton Island.&quot There are shipwrecks on the island itself and a continuous stream of wreckage washed ashore, likely from the wrecks that regularly occur off Mutton Island (good lord, how many zailors does that island kill?!). However, you don’t see the lights of Mutton Island, so its not right offshore. The Pyres is also on a smell speck of land surrounded by the waters of the hungry Unterzee. So I think death is probably permanent on Pyres.

Though it might be close enough to land that the people on the island are more resilient then they otherwise would be. The two cults on the Pyres are living pretty rough after all, have rather demanding lifestyles, and are beating each other up, yet seem in pretty good shape all things considered.
edited by Anne Auclair on 10/3/2016