Chaos
Rings II (CRII) is a JRPG with an engaging story. The gameplay is
nothing revolutionary, but still a solid system. It's a basic turn by
turn game mechanic. There are side quests you can eventually perform
such as replaying bosses on harder difficulties and collect-a-thons.
However, the story is the really big draw for this game. Darwin, the
main protagonist, has been chosen by the "Creator" to be the Nominator.
The Nominator must kill several individuals chosen by the "Creator" as
offerings to save the world. The gamer has the option of choosing the
order in which people are sacrificed which results in different
storylines. The only person whom you may not kill to till the last is
Marie, Darwin's romantic interest. While the sacrifices are all willing
in the end, Darwin is continually questioning the morality of his
actions. Further, he does not want to be the Nominator. Chaos Rings II
is a viable smartphone RPG with an engaging story that raises important
questions.
This raises the question, "Is it right to sacrifice a few to save the
many?" On one hand, each person's value is incalculable. Each person
has important contributions that only they would be able to give. John
Locke stated, "All mankind… being all equal and independent, no one
ought to harm in his life, health, liberty or possessions." If the
idea that all people are equal is accepted, then could it not be
presumed that anything that would violate such a principle to be
immoral? For example, if a person, X, has a home on his or her property,
but the government or community takes away the property from X, that
would violate X's rights.
On
the other side, saving or helping more people rather than letting a
majority of society remain in some kind of harm can be considered a net
positive course of action. The more people that are enjoying higher
qualities of life will make the world a better life overall. Thomas
Hobbes stated, "That a man be willing, when others are so too, as far
forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary,
to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much
liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself."
This basically means that when people come together collectively and
state that certain actions will be banned so that others rights are
preserved. For instance, in Germany, it is against the law to make loud
noises in public in the streets after 10 PM. While some things such as
festivals are exceptions, a specific example where this would be a
violation is that if you are walking down a street, you may not sing at
the top of your lungs. The group has decided that they will give up
their right to make loud noises that enter their private homes after 10
PM, in exchange for each individual being unable to do the same action.
This
all relates to the ideas within CRII, in that Darwin is taking the
life, or individual rights of the individual, of a few to save the
world, or the collective rights of the world. Again, Darwin has no
desire to sacrifice the others to save the world. He does not want the
"responsibility" of saving the world. While it is true that the
sacrifices are willing, Darwin remains uncomfortable throughout the
process of killing and offering up each sacrifice. Further, despises
himself when he has finished all the sacrifices. He stated, "I never
wanted to save the whole world!"
The
question that begs itself is, did Darwin act morally or immorally? I
believe that Darwin would be doing the right thing no matter what he
decided to do. Darwin's concern was valid in that he would be killing
people. However, sacrificing those few would save the world. Since
each individual was willing in the end, it was permissible. However,
this is not to say that the process was not difficult. On the other
hand, Darwin would have done no wrong by choosing to save the others, as
their lives are equally as valuable. It is important to point out
however, that Bachs, or Amon, is creating a grave wrong in creating a
situation where he gives no options for Darwin and the others (while it
is true that Amon's decisions was never benevolent to begin with). If
he would be genuinely compassionate, he would enable Darwin and the
others to save the world.
What do you guys think? Was there an immoral choice for Darwin? Did Darwin do the right thing?
Follow me on Twitter
@Btheperson
No comments:
Post a Comment