Greetings! I realise that I am well behind the times in posting this. I played The Prophet series in September and immediately upon finishing wrote this massive spiel. I then didn't post it because I took a look at what and how much I'd written... Frankly, it's extremely long and often very dry. However, people are free to read it or not, so now I've decided to post it after all.
For the record, I played this series because I realised that it had been years since I actually played a module (vs. making custom content and building), and what better series to play than the Vault number one? In the end, the experience of beautiful Rithsilvane inspired me to start working on a new Elven Treetop City tileset, which I've been posting about in the CC forum, so it all came full circle.
Now, for my very lengthy comments on the module itself and my even longer analysis of the endgame decision.
At times, the linearity of this game bothered me. But, on the whole, I cannot think of a better story to make extremely linear than one concerning fate. Thankfully, 95% of the time, the emotions that the dialogue allowed my character to express were entirely in line with what she actually felt. And the whole process culminated in a magnificent choice, laden with layers and layers of competing moral values that had been put together carefully during this linear process.
This was the toughest moral choice I've ever faced in a game. Previously, that honour went to the Dark Ritual in DA:O, where I still don't know if my Warden did the right thing (with second honours going to ME2's Destroy/Rewrite, which is kinda similar to Prophet), but part of the reason for the ambiguity, with DA:O at least, is that we, as players, don't know the full story. With Prophet, we do know (well, mostly!), yet I *still* can't be sure that I made the right choice. That is insanely good writing.
I think about morality a lot. In this game, I decided to play a character for whom reflecting carefully in order to do the right thing would also be important. My prophet was a paladin-cleric of Pallas called Kylera. Similar to some others up-thread, she wasn't "lawful stupid" but truly struggled with the dilemmas she faced in order to be as just as possible and to best protect others.
Kylera believed that everyone was free to do the right thing, insofar as their history and circumstances allowed them to see it - but, even if their situation was dire, they could still try to improve their circumstances and make a better future. She also believed that, in the end, good outcomes could not be justified through evil. The evil act is certain, while the good effect is in doubt. However, even if the good effect seems completely certain - even if, say, a vision from the future tells you it will happen - it's still not right to buy good for some at the cost of suffering for others. Those people who would suffer are just as entitled to their basic human rights as others. No human being is more important than another. No one should be forced to suffer for any other person. Of course, it's different if a person chooses to make a sacrifice for the sake of others. It's good to give of oneself, but wrong to steal what someone else is entitled to keep.
She was really disturbed when she found out that Uther Palandras had committed evil to stop the Century of Sorrow and was sure that he was mistaken. In fact, at the moment in the first chapter when it was revealed that he intended her to be buried forever under the earth, so that she could not fulfil her destiny, if I'd had my way to roleplay her as I really wanted then I would have had her accept her fate and stay there, giving the Selanthier to Llarien so that he and Merudoc could leave. From her point of view, self-sacrifice could ensure that what the Prophet-King foretold she would do would never happen. While she couldn't endorse what he had done to Norenshire, she could give up her own life in the hope of saving others. However, when I had no choice but for her to rail against fate and demand to leave, I justified it in-character by reasoning that, for all she knew, staying buried under there might actually enable the Century of Sorrow. (Though, I expect that if she had stayed, it only would have resulted in Llarien returning with a party of elves to rescue her, or somesuch.)
Jumping to chapter two: once Kylera found out that her future self had lied, she was determined that she would not do the same when her moment came. She was haunted by the memory of that dream where she killed a child while the mother begged for mercy. She did not know whether to be repulsed by the cold comfort her dream-self gave: "You will have another." She only knew, only promised herself, that if she ever faced that choice, she would never kill that child. She came to associate this choice with starting the Century of Sorrow, and thus was doubly sure that she would never lie to herself, even though it seemed fated. It wasn't because of some perverse desire to defy Fate "just because." It was because lying seemed intended to cause the Century of Sorrow and thus was an inherently evil act. No matter what "good" her future self aimed to achieve, Kylera knew in her heart that it couldn't justify such evil.
As chapter three progressed to the point where Kylera and Llarien were journeying through the snow, however, she began to guess what the final choice would actually be. After all, if she did lie to herself, then the past, which she had experienced, would never actually have happened. Surely that would sunder past and future even more than the elements were already out of sync. Surely it would speed the world ever-closer to destruction, intensifying the awfulness of the Century of Sorrow (making it endless?) or even destroying the world in a clash of paradox. In fact, then, lying would be sparing Fate's "child" at the cost of all the real children who died in the Century of Sorrow! Or would it...? Already, before Evenorn's notes and memories confirmed the choice she would have to make, she began to consider it deeply.
The Century of Sorrow had already occurred. Nothing could undo it. Even if there was some way to go back into the past and actually make it so that the Century of Sorrow had not happened, this would either annihilate the people who had fought and suffered through that awful time, who deserved to see a light at the end of the tunnel rather than having their guttering candles snuffed out, or create some alternative universe in which a new "offshot" of creation would not suffer the Century... But these new poeple never would have been in danger of suffering if she didn't do this, because they never would have existed if she hadn't created the alternative universe by her choice. And, of course, this still wouldn't help or reward the people who had suffered in her own universe. To Kylera, every moment of courage that these poor people had summoned in the face of despair, every life surrendered so that others could live, had a profound dignity that deserved to be honoured. When people chose the good in the face of horrendous evil, it was the noblest kind of freedom in existence. She did not want to wipe that out. On the contrary, she wanted to give them a reason to have hoped, to end the Century of Sorrow and open the door to a better life for them. She knew that it would be a poor reward for what they had suffered, since it would take a long time for the world to heal. Even healed, it would still have many of the imperfections that it had before this disaster, so mortals would be getting no more than they already had. Still, it was better than nothing, than no reward at all. Ending the Century of Sorrow would, undeniably, be a good thing.
On the other hand, one question still puzzled her logically: how did the future self who had lied to her obtain the Scepter of Lor? Surely it could not only be that she had received it in the past from her future self. Did there not have to be a "first" universe where the future self obtained it in some other way and then sent it back in time? She wondered: could the giving and receiving of the Scepter, rather than being a single loop in a single universe, actually be a spiral, starting in one universe and, in the future Prophet's moment of choice, creating a new universe and passing the Scepter on to it? How many such universes might there be? How many times had her future self chosen to save her own world, which would continue to exist and heal in the aftermath of the Century, at the cost of creating a new one specifically to suffer a new Century?
What if this cycle of torment would continue forever, unless interrupted? Of course, if she chose to follow fate and lie then she, personally could only be directly responsible for the suffering in the single new world she created by her choice, not in any future ones that her new future selves might create. But precisely that logic could enable the choice to be continued forever, with the Century of Sorrow being the horrid birth pangs of every new universe to enter creation! It would be as if she condemned every child to be the product of rape, every mother to be raped to give birth. Indeed, if her dreams of Fate as a mother had any truth to them, that would be exactly what she was doing to Fate. And while she knew that *some* women who gave birth after came to love and care for their children, she also knew that this could not justify the original choice of rape, could not make it right. Furthermore, if this was really happening, then every universe created by this process was etched in the same lines of fate. In these endless cloned universes, everything would simply be duplicated, nothing ever changed. In the analogy of birth, it would be as if every woman gave birth to a clone who would always (freely?) behave the same way. This cycle creating endless "new" universes did not even have the benefit of real newness, real alternative lives and possibilitites, to recommend it. Of course, in every identical universe, the choices that people would make (not knowing of predestination) would still certainly have dignity. But why bring those people into existence only to make them suffer, fight and die again? Why force them into an eternal cycle of identical pain just to eventually produce some identical good? It could not be justified. If this cycle was really happening, Kylera had to stop it.
The truth was, however, that she didn't know for certain that this was the case. Maybe it really was possible to have a stable time loop involving the Scepter of Lor in a single universe. She didn't understand how, but many things had always eluded her mental grasp when it came to prophecy, and those principles had gone on to operate in the absence of her understanding, grinding lives between their gears. If lying to her past self would only solve a time paradox in the single universe that would ever exist and allow people who had suffered to heal and move on, then she had to lie.
This was the point on which her moral choice seemed to turn, yet logic seemed to break down here. She could see no way of knowing the truth, of whether lying would save a single world or just be another chain in an eternal link of repeated suffering, of whether telling the truth would prevent the Century of Sorrow in another universe or only destroy this one.
Kylera took a step back from her confusion about time and prophecy. She could see no way to be sure of the consequences of her actions. Perhaps, though, she could gain certainty about the moral quality of her choice. As previously noted, she did not believe that evil actions could be justified by a good effect or result. However, in the current situation, it seemed like there would be some evil on either side, no matter what she did. In such cases, her duty was to do the lesser evil, not to achieve the greater good. For the sake of "greater goods," atrocities had been committed all through history. Indeed, she maintained, if Uther Palandras (and, for that matter, many others she encountered along the way) had not chosen what was seen as the greater good, then either the Century of Sorrow would not have unfolded, or, if it still did, then at least the halflings of Norenshire (and others) would not have been killed along the way (even if they probably would have died later in the Century). She had to choose differently. But what would actually be the lesser evil?
What, Kylera asked, would be the actual moral quality of lying to her past self? For a start, the simple fact that it would be a lie would make it wrong at a certain level. Lies deny the truth to people - and, without truth, we cannot make informed choices. Indeed, Kylera had been stumbling along, making wrong choices, precisely because she did not know enough to choose otherwise! However, it can be argued that, when it is clear that someone intends to do evil, one is not obliged to give them the truth that would help them to achieve their evil ends. The classic example is hiding someone in your house who is chased by a would-be murderer. When the villain comes along asking if their intended victim is in your house, you would lie and say they are elsewhere, to protect a life. The response to this is that it is actually irresponsible to send the murderous person away, because they could kill some stranger who looks like their intended victim. In fact, you have a moral obligation to try to stop them from carrying out a murder, no matter who they might kill: you should disarm them and arrest them, or maybe try to dissuade them. The counter-response, however, is that they may be stronger or smarter than you. Just because you want to do the right thing does not mean that you are the best at combat or persuasion! If they subdue or kill you, it may well seem to them that you fought them because you were probably hiding their intended victim in your house, in which case they'll enter, kill the person, and all will have been in vain. The person you meant to protect would be dead, and maybe so would you. So the overall answer is that a lie is generally not permitted, except in cases where it is to protect people from those who would do them harm (who, from a certain perspective, are not entitled to this particular truth), whom you do not believe you can stop in some better way.
How would this apply to the choice about lying to Kylera's past self? For a start, she wouldn't be lying to someone who had intentions of hurting anyone. In a situation where someone has no bad intentions but may still cause harm, the onus is to explain the situation better to them, not to lie. To lie to them in such a way as to prevent them doing the good that they want, and instead force them into causing evil, is reprehensible. Morally speaking, then, telling the truth to her past self is good, and lying is evil. However, any attempt to actually tell the truth, to explain the situation better, would seem to destroy creation. At best, it would also cause the creation of a new universe that did not suffer the Century of Sorrow. Without considering foreseeable consequences and just focusing for a moment on the inherent moral quality of the choice, it is not evil vs. evil... It is good vs. evil. It is good to tell the truth to a sincere person who intends no harm and will not commit harm unless you lie to them. It is evil to lie to such a person.
Now, though, she had to consider the foreseeable consequences of telling the truth (not of lying, at least not yet, for that takes second place due to being evil). Part of Kylera's moral code draws a distinction between whether a good (or morally-neutral) action causes a bad effect directly or indirectly. In a situation where one action causes two effects, a good one and a bad one, the bad one can only be justified if it was caused *independently* of the good effect. One must ask if, somehow, the bad effect was prevented through some unseen factor, whether the good effect would also have happened. (The classic example is the choice of whether or not to divert your carriage, which seems about to hit five people, to a different path, where there is one person. It does not seem remotely likely that the five people would get clear in time, nor that the one person would. If, however, through some feat of athleticism far beyond what one would expect of a normal person, the one individual managed to jump out of the way of your diverted carriage, then the other five people would still be saved. Of course, the same would be true if you didn't divert and, though a seemingly-even-less-likely feat, the five people jumped away. But you have to decide based on minimising what seems to be the likely bad result and, in this case, it is allowed because the bad result doesn't depend directly on the good one.) The good effect in Kylera's situation would be giving the truth to a sincere, well-meaning person, and thus not tricking her into causing the Century of Sorrow. (In all honestly, the responsibility for causing the Century does not lie with the Prophet of the past, who has every reason to believe she's doing the right thing, but with the Prophet of the future, who knows what the consequences of destroying the Pentaract will be and still tells her.) The bad effect would be failing to resolve the paradox between the past and future and thus not remaking the Penteract, failing to end the Century of Sorrow. At a basic level, it seems that two negatives would cancel each other out: there would not (1) be a failure (2) to end the Century of Sorrow. In the absence of the bad effect, the Century of Sorrow ends. Can the good effect, preventing the Century of Sorrow, still happen? From one point of view, it would seem so: "no Century of Sorrow" is compatible with "no Century of Sorrow"! But, from another, it does not seem so. The absence of the bad effect does not mean no Century of Sorrow. It means that the Century of Sorrow ends. But this can't happen until it was started in the first place, so they are incompatible; one depends on the other. However, crucially, the good effect does not depend on the bad effect. The bad effect depends on the good effect. If something happens to prevent the good effect, then the bad effect will also not happen. In moral system Kylera is using, this is actually fine.
There are other tests in this moral system, however. Importantly, the good effect has to be at least as great as the bad effect. Ideally, it is much greater. If the bad effect is greater, then the action that causes the effects is not allowed. While this might seem like a fancy way of justifying evil for the sake of the greater good, which Kylera won't do, the actual action here, telling the truth, is not evil. It is a good action whose foreseeable consequences we still have a duty to evaluate.
The good effect is not tricking someone into causing the Century of Sorrow, which is morally equivalent to not causing it oneself (since tricking an ignorant person is just using a tool). The bad effect is not ending the Century of Sorrow. It's already clear that Kylera can't exactly be sure how these two are compatible - how can something which has never started fail to be ended? - but she's not looking at the causal link between these two events now. She's only asking if the bad effect is greater than the good effect. If the Century of Sorrow is not started (good effect), then all the suffering she has witnessed in her dreams, and much more besides, is prevented. (Again, she won't object for now that she knows it did happen and that past can't be changed.) She has seen people fight desperately against the living dead only to add to their numbers when, eventually, they fall. She has seen an undead mother gnaw at the bones of her own child. For a hundred years, it only happened rarely that the hope people nurtured actually bore fruit. Usually, it was cruelly crushed. For all that to be prevented would be a great good.
On the other hand, if the Century of Sorrow is not stopped (the bad effect), then, for all that remains of history, nothing will get better. Kylera doesn't know how long that history will last. It could be that destruction is immediate, the world annihilating itself in a single moment of cataclysm as time and causality fall apart. On the other hand, given how much of the world has survived in spite of the sundering that occurred when Kylera originally broke the Penteract - given how long it has taken to reach its current state, in which people are alive in spite of everything - can such swift destruction be certain? Maybe the end of the world will take a whole millennium, during which, as long as some people still live, those who have already survived the Century of Sorrow will continue to suffer. Maybe it will even take countless ages. Maybe, after everyone has become an undead monster, their shambling remains will only cease moving when they are frozen in ice that engulfs the world forever? What about conscious undead, like the paladin by the tower? Was his soul really there, or just the shadow of memories? To what extent is there a significant moral difference? On the other hand, maybe that is not a real worry. Theledessan and the soulless elves said that the undead were drawn to souls. If any souls (or phenomena like souls enough to draw the undead) are left in the world, they will not last long against the tide. When even they have departed and no true living remain in the world, perhaps will simply lose all purpose and stop. While Kylera cannot be sure, the success of what remains of Rithsilvane seems to point towards the truth of that.
On balance, Kylera is looking at either everyone dying immediately or everyone dying as the final fight against the undead is shown to have always been hopeless. Is that worse or better than the Century or Sorrow? Fewer people are left to experience it. It could be argued, however, that while the people who came before them still had a little hope, these final people would gradually have their tiny bit of remaining hope taken away until there was absolutely nothing. On that basis, one could argue that, even though a smaller number of people would be suffering, what they are being made to suffer is worse. However, Kylera's experience was that, even in the Century of Sorrow, many people completely lost hope. They didn't want to lose hope, but they couldn't help it. Aleksar Tagarian comes to mind. Of course, some people didn't give up hope. However, given that the number of people who lived and died through the Century seems to be much larger than the number of people surviving, if half or even a quarter of the former experienced enough horror to lose hope then that's still more than all the people left in the world.
It could also be argued that the survivors of the Century of Sorrow are more deserving of mercy, because of what they've suffered, compared to people who live before the Century of Sorrow and, dependent on Kylera's choices, might never experience it. Are they not more entitled to be spared *further* suffering than others are to be spared the *same* suffering?
Another argument: wouldn't failing to let the survivors live prevent all the children they would go on to have from ever existing? The future generations of their healed world are the uncounted unborn of prophecy. However, until a person exists, they can have no rights. While the universe may be poorer if they never come into existence, the rights of people who already exist cannot be diminished or discarded for their sake.
Another criterion is that there has to be no other way to achieve the good effect. This seems to be the case, insofar as Kylera can know.
The issue has been raised that perhaps, in the moment of not lying, the Prophet's choice would allow freedom to enter the world, and thus all that had been achieved would, retroactively, have been free, at the cost of the world ending at that point and no future being possible. Kylera did not lend any credence to this conceit. She believed that everyone really was free all along. People's actions did not always have the intended result, whether they were prophets or not, but that did not make them unfree. It only meant that they had imperfect understanding.
Kylera tried not to hate anyone, but her feelings about the Herezars came close to loathing. She could understand why the Herezars wanted freedom as captives of the Illithids, but she also knew that they enslaved many while ruling their own empire, so they were hypocrites. As far as they were concerned, slavery was fine as long as it wasn't happening to them! The hypocrisy was even greater considering that they wanted lives of others in the future to pay the price to answer their question about fate, even though many future people seemed none-too-bothered about fate. And, finally, in spite of their supposed hatred of fate, the Herezars fated the Century of Sorrow, casting a blight over the future that its people would want desperately to escape.
In spite of everything that has happened, Kylera does not believe that everyone is constrained by the chains of fate. She thinks that, even if events are preordained, they are still freely chosen. If something else had been chosen, then something else would have been preordained. She thinks that any belief to the contrary is just an illusion created by the ability to see the future.
The true problem is the interaction of freedom and prophecy. If there was some third option at the end (which, of course, there couldn't be, because it would be better than the other two and thus not a hard, dramatically interesting choice), then she would want it to be that prophecy could be eliminated from the future of her world, that the gods would not allow any people in the future to be given this gift/burden. If that meant sacrificing her life as the last prophet, it is a price she would pay gladly. Of course, this could only happen if it had been fated - but, if Kylera had found a way to ask this of a god and it could be done, then it *would* have been fated.
Ultimately, she chose to explain everything to her past self. She couldn't know for sure what the outcome would be. She could only choose not to take an evil action in that moment.
If the option had been available, she would have given her past self the choice of what to do. She felt it likely that her past self would choose not to go along with Fate, but she couldn't be sure. The past self *might* take the option of still starting the Century of Sorrow for the sake of preserving the overall existence of the universe. It would be completely up to the past self. In this way - if this had been an option - Kylera would have contradicted the Herezars' claim that there was only one free choice in the universe. There would have been her free choice re. what to tell her past self and her past self's free choice re. what to do.
And that's that. Thanks for an amazing module that touched me emotionally and intellectually.
'>
Modifié par Estelindis, 16 janvier 2014 - 10:43 .
