After reading some analysis and opinions about The Last Of Us, especially the controversial part... I'm starting to wonder if this scenario is actually plausible at all. Or whether the character even makes sense. So hear me out:

So the character is faced against a Sadistic Choice: He either let someone close to him die, or billions of innocents die. The character happily chose that close friend to die, and saving the innocents that he doesn't even know. And he is hailed as a hero in the story. And he would continue to do so over and over again, sacrificing all his close friends for the sake of many people when tragedy happens.

However, he lives in a not-very-happy world where his heroism was not that greatly rewarded, he did not end up like George Bailey where everyone he helped came and help him in time of need. He's able to 'take care of himself', but the populace he saved remained apathetic. He sacrificed his families and close friends one by one when the time calls (through many many Sadistic Choice), in order to save the world and protect this humanity, claiming that their deaths are for the greater good and he will not be selfish. Even if he receives no thanks, he will continue to do so, at cost of being without close friends.

... Does this character even make sense in terms of character design? Is this character good? Or is this character in fact just a mere slave to 'goodness ideals', to the point he loses himself just for The Needs of the Many? Or is he in fact EVIL just because on how easily he sacrificed those close to him, even for the perceived 'greater good' that is world safety and humanity survival?

Because last time it happened in reverse at The Last Of Us, it seems that people are too easy to condemn one who will not sacrifice a beloved one, even at the cost of the world, like they have a decree that "In the face of world crisis, you should be able to easily overcome grieve and selfishness and sacrifice your beloved close companion for the world". I'd like to know if it's plausible if such decree is played straight...

What do you think?

edited 4th Nov '15 10:46:03 PM by ChrisX

The "Children of Earth" arc in Torchwood had a similar choice.

I think the thing isn't that it's good versus evil, but good versus good. Compassion for another person is good, but recognizing that you share a world with more people than you know or can care about (but they also have people they care about) can also be good. The main characters didn't choose the "evil" of thinking of the world population as cogs in a machine, or the evil of selfishness and caring only about how one feels about the people in their life and never mind everybody else. I really believe that everybody intends to choose goodness. It's just that from a different perspective, the effects are always going to be evil and harmful to some degree. There are just situations where we can't hold everybody's perspective and come out with any ideological purity.

The Girl With All The Gifts by M.R. Carey had the main character facilitate yet another one of those sadistic choices, but if you think about it, she was only working within her limitations. There was no way to warn everybody and put it to a vote or something, so she basically left everyone to their inevitable doom (because she knew that it would settle down to something better after) and protected the only person she cared about...because that little thing was in her power. That's just given what she knew about the world.

If there's a sequel where a parallel adventuring party was two seconds from a breakthrough before everything went to the handbasket because of the Protagonist-Centered Morality, well, would that really make the choice wrong? It becomes so conditional. If people know better, then they do better. If everybody waited until they knew best, then nobody would do anything in life at all.

In my opinion, yes that is still believable as a character design, and yes that character still would be good. To present saving his friends as the noble decision would be hardcore Protagonist-Centered Morality. You don't save the world because you expect a reward for it, you do it because it's the right thing.

edited 5th Nov '15 5:32:40 AM by Wheezy

The thing is, the term 'the right thing' as of late has been skewed, like there is an 'ultimate right' that towers above all else, that is mostly reserved to 'world saving'.

I personally find it ridiculous that a man can easily throw all his close relationship for the sake of world-saving. That... isn't 100% right to me. Like, 'for the sake of the world and the faceless masses, friendship and love can get grinded to dust'

That's right, the thing I'm looking for is how to deconstruct it and painting The Needs of the Many as not the most ideal thing, and blind obedience to it will create suffering.

Y'know, from this, I think I have weaved this story in mind. Let me know how it goes, starting with:

Backstory

Years before the story started, a great invasion by the Invaders came to threaten humanity to the point of facing extinction. Alice was a good woman living there, but she was also trying to save a friend of hers that she held dear, her only closest friend, Bob. However, humanity's survival depended on Alice and has always told her that Bob is beyond saving, and she should save the other innocents.

Then Alice was blackmailed by the Invaders, all to save Bob, she ended up serving the Invaders against her will, it was a selfish move, but she couldn't bear to see Bob get used like that, wanting to give him a good life when he shouldn't have given up. Humanity saw this as a betrayal, and deaths occurred, around 60% of humanity died. Fortunately, Alice's co-worker, Catherine, managed to pick up where Alice left behind (or rather, refusing to give in to selfish desires), and then managed to salvage humanity from further damage, driving the Invaders in the name of justice. This is in spite that Catherine used to be the Anti-Hero, whereas Alice used to be the All-Loving Hero.

Alice and Bob survived. However, Catherine would have none of those shit about 'I Did What I Had to Do', humanity was depending on her and she betrayed them for selfish reasons. Thus, Catherine, not wanting another selfish shit like that to happen, and supported by humanity who hailed her as a hero of justice and savior, executed a manhunt on Alice and Bob, eventually executing them publicly as an example that in the face of great crisis like these, selfishness is an extreme evil and one must dedicate themselves to save the world and humanity as their number one priority.

The crowd cheered upon her, and from Catherine's words, a law was made based on that, a law that decreed that people must be as selfless as possible, sacrificing their happiness and even their close relatives in order to protect humanity and prevent evil from reigning. Because after all, 'evil triumphs when good men does nothing.' So every men is expected to have an inherent goodness in them and must actively cultivate them, and must always participate to combat evilness, idleness is not accepted, idleness will be called 'letting evil triumph by doing nothing', thus considered evil. The Needs of the Many is the absolute rule here, and people are ordered to avoid thinking in Protagonist-Centered Morality. There will be severe punishment for not abiding to this law.

Present Day

Now decades has passed since the Alice-Bob-Catherine incident. Humanity has actually picked up themselves and returned to its former glory, it's like the invasion would be forgotten.

In here, we view to our hero, David. He's an extremely selfless man, idolizing the acts of Catherine and following that law to the tee. However, for all his works, he never received praises by the apathetic masses. He didn't mind anyway, as in his thought, it was all done because it's 'right' and in his opinion, the law is right.

While there was no alien Invader, the world is still threatened with the presence of a quirky group of terrorists led by Edward, who causes chaos and trying to break down the decade old law. Edward, however, isn't alone. He is a Noble Demon who always brought in his circle of close friends to whatever he does, he's loyal to them, they're loyal to them... and he would rather see the world burn than letting great harm come to his friends.

This makes him an extreme Foil to David. David is basically friendless. Everytime he perceives there's a threat to the world, he's all but ready to throw his circle of friends (or even family) to the grinder, sometimes even killing them. He did it with heavy heart, but knows that it's all for the greater good. Indeed, the deaths of David's close circle caused him to grief, but they don't last very long, as long as David thinks that it's never about him alone. He will preserve and protect the world, no matter the cost.

During the climatic battle, David thought all the sacrifices he made would be enough to put an end to Edward. However... David lost. Edward triumphs because his circle of friends are always there to support him through times good and bad, whereas David depended on the faceless mass who didn't give two shits about him saving them while sacrificing those that could be his great friend and support. When David rebuked that he did it all because 'it's the right thing'... Edward's response is that David was just the same as Catherine in the past: Mindless slaves to a dogma, whereas claiming that Alice was the actual unsung hero, someone who keep their friends close and safe are the ultimate heroes, and that's why David and humanity is doomed: As far as Edward was concerned, they're not humans, but mindless slaves to the 'Earth' that never responded to their care because of some 'law' and slaves to the concept of 'saving the world is right', and the Earth is something of a Yandere, if it doesn't get loved, it will screw the beloved ones until Earth is loved back and the beloved one is destroyed. And Edward will NOT let such law trample upon The Power of Friendship and The Power of Love.

(Of course that hasn't counted on how the fact that The Invaders will return one day)

Now the thing I'm asking is that...

• Does Edward look like a Designated Villain here? Mind you, he's a terrorist group leader.
• Should David have an epiphany that Edward may have a point, or would he just go with Shut Up, Hannibal!?
• Is the law Catherine passed ultimately good... or just as ruinous, even if it's peppered with justice and virtues about the right thing? Is complete obedience to The Needs of the Many really is a good thing as presented here?
• The ideal ending here is that David learns that the true way is to have balance between The Needs of the Many and some of Edward's words about The Power of Friendship. He develops into someone who treasures friendship and relations and will not throw them to the grinder anymore, but will still fight for the world, together. Would this ending make sense?
• Lastly, is there something I lacked to portray the situation of that world to show how Catherine's law take effect? Should her law make the world look more like a dictatorship hellhole, or should it instead make the world a MUCH better place?

Tell me what you think.

edited 5th Nov '15 6:03:01 PM by ChrisX

Thankfully I've never been in a situation where I've had to sacrifice someone for the greater good, but you know what? I'd like to think that it's not as easy or clear-cut as fiction makes it out to be. Sure, people expect others to make sacrifices when the chips are down, but how many of those people would do the same without a second thought? How many people would do it, period? That's the clincher.

So on that note, I'd say you shouldn't worry too much about whether or not the character makes sense; instead, you should worry about whether or not the actions make sense for the character. Is it consistent with his personality, past events, and the audience's understanding of him? That's what matters most, no matter which way you swing it (and by the sound of things, you're looking to swing it in an interesting way). Not everyone will agree with the character's actions, but they should at least be able to trace the line of reasoning — something that The Last of Us pushed from the beginning.

There is one other thing worth noting, and you brought it up in the opening post. Obviously, the main character can and will sacrifice his friends to do the right thing if he has to — but the key distinction, and something you can tap, is this: those people are more than just his friends. What about their friends? What about their families? What about the sacrificial lambs' lives? Their place in the world matters to more people than the lead, so the distinction between good and evil — at least on a shallow level — could be what he's taking away besides simply the life of a friend.

Failing that? Remember, a key part of The Last of Us and its ending was that in the end, there was no choice that could be made. The proverbial lamb had no say in the matter. Unless every single person your guy sacrifices is out cold when it's time to throw them into a volcano to appease their god, you're going to have to decide the personal (if subjective) level of virtuosity by making those choices a part of the equation.

Sacrificing someone is one thing. Sacrificing someone against their will is another thing entirely.

That's a very nice reply there. I'll answer the best I can.

• David sure wouldn't like to sacrifice his friends, but the Catherine law kind of indoctrinated him and other people. So in his mind, if he sacrificed his friend, then the friend would understand that it's for the greater good, for the world's safety, and that friend should be honored to die like that. One thing running in David's mind is that "If I save him and ruin the world, he wouldn't even like being saved, I wouldn't make them proud." The thing about David and the law is that it expects people to worship the 'Goodness' as a revered idol status, and people would rather die than sullying their reputation. Especially when since he's little, he's been taught about the Tales of Alice-Bob-Catherine, and due to history being written by winners... Catherine is seen as a paragon of justice, and Alice being a smug betrayer who'd "Sell humanity to get a boner.", so David is trying his best to avoid becoming like Alice.
  • However, your line of thought is interesting that this might be on David's head only. Maybe after his crushing defeat by Edward, he came face to face with a family of a friend he sacrificed, and saw that while they can abide to the law, they still didn't take the friend's death and thinks that David is no hero, but murderer. This might be his important turning point.
• The whole theme is about how blind obedience, even for the most righteous cause, is still bad. The reason why The Last Of Us became controversial is because of the last controversial act of Joel, which comes from the fans. As much as Joel's actions might make sense for his character, as long as the audience disagrees, it becomes controversial. And as I observed, there seems to be a blind obedience that the greatest justice is saving the world and keeping them safe. And for that, people thinks that sacrificing close friends, while an evil act, is a lesser evil, and if one does not choose the lesser evil, then they're selfish dicks that only the insane can like or sympathize. That is also a reason why the 'Catherine Law' was made: In order to ensure everyone acts in a way that is agreeable to everyone.
  • And it's not just sacrificing someone against their will that is disagreeable, if that someone wanted to die, then you should NOT save that person, even if the chance presents itself. That was what Alice committed, and in turn villified her in history. In other words, selfishness is considered the greatest sin, and even if you're unhappy about it, you MUST do things for the greater good.
  • And another strong point is that reasoning is ignored. By Catherine's laws, it doesn't matter if the actions made sense for the character, or the character has good reasons to do so or take no joy in that. You cross that law, you are to be condemned or punished severely because you are no longer a good person. This is kind of touching with some mindset of certain fans I've seen somewhere, who looks at controversial works like The Last Of Us, then didn't care of what the characters went through. He doomed humanity, he is an evil bastard. End of argument. Things like that. Maybe it's just me, but I find such mindset very flawed and weak, yet a lot of people follow that anyway.

Well bottom line is that I'm thinking about scenarios that can make the situation here works: A situation where 'sacrificing the world for one man' is considered the worse option than 'sacrificing one man for the world'.

Use the Alice-Catherine + David-Edward scenario and... well, how do you make that situation work?

edited 5th Nov '15 10:26:01 PM by ChrisX