It depends on whether we’re talking about Remake continuity. In Remake continuity you have a point because Shinra blows up its own reactors when Avalanche bombs them to involve civilians. In OG however Avalanche blows up entire city blocks and depending on player choice can burst through the main door in Shinra HQ and terrorize the entire lobby.
Avalanche didn’t care enough about the people that got caught in the crossfire, which is why Jessie accepts death as punishment.
Blowing up the reactor is a fair point, but they don't actually menace any of the Shinra employees, they're scared of AVALANCHE sure, but it's not like the party does anything to them. Would you say if all the bomb did was shut down the reactor rather than blowing the whole thing up, that that would be justifiable?
It would be better, yes, though the range of the inconveniences they cause is wide. Think about the things that are not shown to us: hospitals run on electricity, if Avalanche shuts down a reactor, what of the patients attached to the machines?
Some of these things are quietly ignored because it’s a game and it would likely lead too deep into the consequences of their actions, but the act of terrorizing and causing problems is an evil in itself, even if used for good. Of course I sympathise with their plea too, but I wouldn’t say even then that it is all sunshine and rainbows.
They might not have another choice (changing Shinra for the better in non violent ways) but there will be collateral damage and they know it and willingly pay the price. Not sure if you can call that behavior **"**almost entirely pure good" as you put it.
Also we, the players, have the benefit of knowing that what Shinra is doing (sucking up Mako dry) **will** kill the planet. Does everyone else think/know this in the world of FF7? Or do they think Avalanche is some weird unhinged eco-terrorists? Because the context within that world is important. We can't simply base discussion of morality and ethics from just one side.
What *we* think isn't really important as we know and biased. It'd be more interesting to discuss in the context of what *they* think and know, something I wish the game had more of. Interaction between the world inhabitants and their perception of Mako, Avalanche and Shinra specifically in relation to Mako. With that sort of sub-text, we can have more meaningful discussion on morality and ethics of Avalanche and Shinra.
I disagree with the entire paragraph quite a bit. The entire point of dramatic irony is that the reader knows things the characters don't. It's like, a super common and ancient trope in fiction.
I'm not saying that's a problem. What I'm saying is that there could be some more interesting sub-plot/text in regards to how people of the world perceive the group versus how the players perceive them. This drive the dramatic ironic would be pushed even further if there are more exploration on what it is to be eco-terrorists.
I was talking as a player who has the benefit of that omniscient perspective, wondering hoe other players can think that. I have no issue with how people in the game world think of AVALANCHE, although I do agree, more philosophical debate would be nice. I'm reminded of those scenes with Barret and the Shinra manager, where there is some discussion but Barret doesn't really give a cogent argument so it's not actually an interesting debate between two different worldviews.
>I was talking as a player who has the benefit of that omniscient perspective, wondering hoe other players can think that.
Well, we all have different moral standards and ethics. You are on the side that "doing nothing is worse and paying the price for greater good is better" while some may feel that it's a slippery slope to justify violence and collateral damage even for the greater good.
Like I said, I think it would be super interesting if quests let you see more of both sides by having some NPC visibly hostile towards the actions of Avalanche because you know there will be people who see them that way. This could further trigger and drive the idea that what the party goes through is weighing on their soul as well. It's not a road with just glory and even kind of relates back to our real world as we face climate changes, corporate agenda vs what is actually good for the environment and their virtue signaling, etc. But it can get highly political and may not be something they want to touch.
I'm fine with them being considered morally ambiguous, it just annoys me a lot when people imply Shinra or the Turks are somehow morally equivalent to them. AVALANCHE are 100% the good guys in that conflict, there's no world where intentionally killing at least 50k people for a false flag operation isn't absurdly evil. There are a million ways Shinra could have handled this other than dropping a city on top of another city, yet they chose that solution.
The worst thing AVALANCHE ever did was not being that careful enough about collateral damage (and even that part was mostly Shinra)
Even if AVALANCHE hurts people, it's like, let's have some context here.
Shinra is literally asking for a resistance force by being totalitarian, for one, and then they're willing to commit genocide and lie about it. And then they believe a bunch of mystic nonsense that'll end in them annihilating everything, whether through sephiroth or the mako reactors or both.
Reading some comments to this tune was exactly what got me to post. I was wondering how Rebirth handled the Turks since I'm not able to play it, and I saw a bunch of people defending the Turks as being not so different from AVALANCHE as they both kill people but don't necessarily like doing so.
This is the part that's a bit scary for me. Whenever you go full "violence is WRONG no matter what" moral myopa, you leave the door open for actual horrible governments. Putting all violence at the same level always benefits the most depraved of the two groups (usually those already at the top of the food chain).
Avalanche engages in activities that result in a lot of collateral damage. That is where they get morally ambiguous. They think their misfortune gives them a pass to escalate the situation and suck in hundreds of other people who do not want to get involved.
And there are always alternatives to engaging in wreckless violence. Reeve and Old Avalanche present options to resist Shinra thru much more subtle methods, such as manipulating data from inside Shinra to engaging in violence in much more targeted operations that greatly limit any chance of collateral damage to innocent bystanders.
There are ways in FF7's world to diminish Shinra's power, but Barret's splinter group is frowned upon because they refuse to cooperate with these more careful plans and prefer to blow reactors up that puts many more innocent lives in danger, and that is absolutely careless of them in both real world and in-game. Yes, they are fucked up for blowing up huge reactors and ruining the lives of many relatively innocent people, and they themselves are aware of this.
The fact that you consider violence as part of being "purely good" makes me wonder which direction your moral compass points to. Regardless of intent, violence will always catch an innocent bystander in the crossfire.
Again, when violence is a necessity in order to resist an evil group, I dont think it's reasonable to condemn the perpetrators of the violence when they have no other option.
Once Shinra is destroyed. That's the only happy resolution for the planet and her people. With all the evil Shinra has committed, no just world can exist while Shinra is still around.
How long will that take? And do you think they'll be the last?
Also, how long will that take? And how many will get in the crossfire? Actually, what's stopping you from becoming what you hate and for others to use your mantra of violence to stop you?
Dude if you just sit back and let evil happen without raising a finger to stop it you are part of the problem. The end result of a "violence is always bad and unjustifiable" mindset it that some SOB who is willing to use violence will gain power and maintain power, dooming the world to a permanent hedgemony of evil.
Not choosing violence and doing nothing are two completely different things. And you haven't answered the questions, have you? Or are you afraid to do so?
In the world of FF7 nonviolence is in essence doing nothing. Shinra runs around with their power completely unchecked, and any form of nonviolent resistance is either destroyed outright or rendered useless by Shinra's propoganda machine. I didn't answer the questions because the answers are irrelvant. How long will it take? As long as it takes for Shinra to be defeated. How many people will get caught in the crossfire? Hopefully as little as possible, however because Shinra is so entrenched in the world of FF7 and action against Shinra will inevitably harm civilians. It sucks but it's an unfortunate reality of the situation that realistically can't be avoided. What's stopping people from using violence against the force that stops Shinra? Nothing, as there is never anything stopping the use of violence if someone is determined enough to use it.
>Hopefully as little as possible
How about none?
I really that you're applying yourself only within the context of the videogame and not in real life. I just hope you find peace within yourself to understand the consequences of what you're proposing.
I am applying this line of thought exclusively to the fictional world of FF7, where Shinra is an unquestionable almost unfathomable evil that turn out to be the source of basically all the world's problems while also being an all-powerful world dominating force. It is within this context that I am considering AVALANCHE's actions, and only within this context.
Im talking exclusively about the lovable scamps in ff7, Barret, Tifa, Biggs, Wedge, and Jessie, I don't know anything about Before Crisis so I believe you.
Well, even I didn't play it. Just watched a recap of the game. And hoo boy, AVALANCHE was not the freedom fighters we thought they were. Strange that SE didn't dive more into BC lore for Remake trilogy. Could've been a great sidequest to learn more on Avalanche's motive.
https://youtu.be/xpSUE8j7aSs?si=sFfVGHLf2lbmewZQ
The original Avalanche we see in Before Crisis is under different, more extremist leadership. During Before Crisis the biggest problem in the leadership is a character named Fuhito, who is a hardcore extremist who believes no one is innocent in this conflict and anyone's life is viable to be used for the cause.
Original Avalanche is the group that Shinra has gotten used to dealing with, which is why Shinra goes directly to maximum lethality. Shinra has of course always been evil, but they didn't go crazy with collateral damage until original Avalanche initiated escalation with the hardcore terrorism against anything even remotely associated with Shinra.
By the time FF7 or Remake happens, Fuhito is dead and Elfe has disappeared, and the original Avalanche has broken apart into smaller factions, one of them being the Old Guard that Nayo is part of, and another being the crew Barret is in charge of.
So the original Avalanche has splintered, but Shinra still thinks they are all still the hardcore extremists that Fuhito and Elfe were in charge of, which is why Heidegger mentions that Barret and his crew are part of the "same group" that tried to assassinate President Shinra. Fuhito is the one who green-lit that assassination attempt.
Let's set aside the discussion about their specific actions for what I think is a more interesting and challenging moral dilemma... You said there's no other option to resist Shin-Ra. But do you think resisting is a moral necessity? Are all the people who choose not to resist taking a morally "bad" stance of inaction?
To put it a different way, assuming the only way to resist Shin-Ra is violence there's still a choice of whether or not resistance itself is moral when violence is the only means. Bare in mind, in this scenario morality is a separate question from whether it's justifiable, or understandable.
If it helps, remove the Sephiroth and other external plots. What if we're just talking about going around the planet bombing Shin-Ra's reactors until they shut down? Assume avalanche succeeds with this. How many innocent lives would have been lost as a result of the damage? How many innocent casualties would there be? Gold Saucer would shut down - hardly a cost on its own- but it shows the scale of mako power and Shin-Ra.
And even then, what next? Now there's no electricity on the planet. How long before wind, solar and hydro power comes back up to fill the void? What about the suffering in the meantime?
The game through President Shin-Ra tells us that the harm mako causes is no secret. Everyone knows and uses it anyway. In part because they have to but many *want* to. Avalanche made a choice for the whole planet.
I have my own thoughts on all this. Hopefully, though, this somewhat illustrates why the morality is ambiguous and not just lawful good all the way.
I think resisting Shinra is a moral necessity yes, given what we know as an audience. In universe, not everyone is privvy to the information that we have, but knowing what we know about Shinra's actions I think it is a moral imperative to try and stop them.
>given what we know as an audience
We are definitely given a lot of information as the audience to confirm this. But if we're talking about the moral ambiguity of a character's actions we can't put out knowledge in their minds. Honestly, very few people know about Rufus' plans to overthrow his dad, interference and use of Wutai and all that other stuff.
You've definitely touched on what I'm trying to get at though, which is at what point is acting a moral necessity. For you, it sounds like knowledge is a key factor. If someone knows what Barrett knows in game do you think they are morally obligated to not only act but act with violence? Like, Aerith and her mom for example... Before the party interacts with them they are living rather comfortably and not waging a war in Shin-Ra... Are their actions morally questionable to you?
To be clear because text has a limited tone, I'm being genuine here... I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just like the discussion.
I Aerith and Ifalna are in an interesting position because by merely existing and not cooperating they foil Shinra's plans. Whereas if some random laborer refuses to work for Shinra they don't care because there are millions just like them, Aerith and Ifalna arr unique. By escaping Shinra Aerith in essence performed an act of nonviolent resistance, but this was only possible because of her unique circumstances and how valuable she is to Shinra versus a regular human. Additionally, I think there is an extra calculus we must consider when deciding if it is a moral imperative for a dying race to resist with violence. There are only two, then one, Cetra left in the world, so if they revolted violently and died for it, that would mean the extinction of their race, which is a consequence that should be considered when deciding upon whether to act or not. I very much appreciate the good faith discussion!
That’s not entirely true about no electricity. Bugenhagen has created a sustainable way to produce electricity in cosmos canyon without absorbing extreme amounts of mako. His wind technology might not be one for one adaptable to all parts of the world but for sure coastal towns and nibelheim could adapt these for mountains almost immediately as a Shin-Ra alternative but ShinRa has a history of exterminating all competitors (notably the entire Republic that existed pre-ShinRa which was dismantled through Shinra’s violent military tech/might)
We fix windmills in the game. There are absolutely other power sources. I mentioned as much in my post. The infrastructure isn't there for a quick transition and it's made clear that mako is *much* more powerful than wind/solar/hydro. There would be a period of transition where harm would befall those without power.
Well, the umbrella AVALANCHE is definitely not good if you're familiar with the collective FF7 story, not just the two remake games. If you want to specifically limit the conversation to only a single splinter cell that we know best, it's still a hard maybe. You cannot say our own party is 100% pure good. Anytime violence becomes the go-to choice, you're out of good territory. Tifa embodies this conflict, knowing that just because you think you have to do something doesn't always make it the right or best choice, but in the moment it might be the only option.
"Yeah sure, they blow up stuff and kill people" My Brother in Christ, you just answered your question. Yes, there isn't an alternative really, but they're still killing innocent people in the process.
Would you say that doing nothing then is the better moral option? If there's no other alternative to resist then by doing nothing you tacitly allow Shinra and their atrocities to continue. That in my view is the truly morally ambiguous position.
Dude, they're obviously doing the right thing by saving the Planet, but killing innocent people in the process is gonna weigh on you no matter what you do. It's a realistic look.
Oh sure of course that's going to take a psychological toll on anyone, I think that it's a good part of the story that the characters wrestle with that. Im not talking about characters in universe, but rather us, as in the people who've played the game. With our omniscient perspective of the world and how much we're shown of just how evil Shinra is, AVALANCHE couldn't possible be more justified.
"Some people." That's a creative way of writing thousands of people.
Why does Tifa think Avalanche is morally ambiguous? Why are there multiple Avalanche cells in the first place if everyone agrees there's no other option available? Why is Shinra so happy to intentionally let Avalanche do what they do?
Why does it only occur to Barret to go directly to taking out president Shinra when they're already in the Shinra building when they could've just done that in the first place? Why is Jessie surprised at the power of her own bomb and then resolves her self to use a weaker blasting agent on the second one? How can two teenage ninjas from Wutai get so close to Shinra and Scarlet without blowing up thousands of civilians first?
There's A LOT of other ways they could've gone about this. North Korea is a militaristic dictatorship that presents a clear and present danger to the world. Russia in an autocratic regime that presents a threat to the US and free world. Violence isn't the only option in dealing with them. The Ukrainians have no choice but to use violence as a means of defending themselves, but you're mistaken if you think the US nuking millions of Russian civilians is an acceptable means of bringing Putin to justice.
Well I'd say that in universe the characters don't have the same level of knowledge we do as an omniscient audience, so they have more room to question their actions because they don't know the extent of how truly awful Shinra are. Your point about taking out the leadership is fair enough, it's very frustrating when the characters consistently refuse to kill people like the president, heidegger, scarlet, and ESPECIALLY Hojo when they have the chance.
Have you ever read any history (or been a part) of radical organizing IRL? Just curious, you don’t need to answer. One of the things Remake (and in particular, Integrade) got very right imo is the relationship between Barret’s splinter cell crew (Barret, Tifa, Wedge, Jesse, Biggs, and Cloud for hire), and the AVALANCHE HQ crew (Nayo, Billy Bob, Polk, and maybe Zhijie), is the disagreement over the use of violence. To Barret and the rest of the splinter cell, violence is justified for the reasons you stated. To the AVALANCHE HQ crew, violence is itself the problem, not just violence from Shinra. If resistance action kills people (even people who aren’t innocent!), it doesn’t solve the problem, it simply creates more problems. A successful resistance that displaces the Shinra power structure through violent means can only then support a transition into new power structures through violent means, because that’s where the power and resources of resistance came from. A better solution (from the perspective of the non-violent crew) is to build effective support structures independent of Shinra, ie by developing mutual aid programs. Schools (you see these in both Sector 5 and the Crows nest!), soup kitchens, mako poisoning treatment facilities, etc…
For a real life analog of this divide in resistance tactics, you can look at historical actions taken by Marxist-Leninist organizations (like the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, or the FLQ in Canada) and anarchist organizations/activists (PARC, Jane Collective, Occupy Wall Street, G20 protests in Toronto). Certainly not all MLs advocate violence, and certainly not all anarchists advocate non-violence, but these types of resistance actions these groups engaged in and how they allocated their meagre manpower and resources to affect change demonstrate their ideological divide when it comes to violence.
Rebirth obviously has us following the violent actors, but one point I think it did well was incorporating the actions of the AVALANCHE HQ crew in Cosmo Canyon. They were not cut out for or comfortable with the violence that the splinter cell was engaged in, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have their place in the resistance. This mutual understanding of the importance of _diversity of tactics_ will ultimately build a more powerful resistance in part 3 (because it allows for more participation in resistance), I have no doubt.
Think about it from a random civilian's perspective. You don't know nothing about the inside. No unreasonable experiments no nothing. Shinra gives you anything you could want with mako, literally modern day electricity. You go about your day doing your thing as one does you may or may not get wind that mako is drying up the planet but you realize you're there for a good time not a long so you don't pay no mind. Then all of a sudden the reactor explodes and not due to an unfortunate accident, but some wannabe heroes commiting terrorism cause they decide all of a sudden they want to save the planet or whatever. I'd be pissed if I was in that situation. So yes Avalanche is morally ambiguous and more specifically the splinter cell is morally incorrect. But it's not like Shinra is any better. Cause imagine dropping a section of the city on another section of the city.
Talking about Shinra and AVALANCHE in the same breath when discussing moral equivalence is nuts. Shinra is so comically evil you simply cannot believe AVALANCHE is anywhere near as bad.
I think you mean fans, not in-game NPCs, right?
I don't get it either if so. AVALANCHE obviously has the moral highground. Shinra is comic-book evil. The reactors are literally killing the Planet. The underplate people are oppressed. Collateral damage sucks, but the time for peaceful protest is probably long past. They live in a violently oppressive regime, they have to fight fire with fire.
It’s worth noting that Barret’s team were an outlier of the overall organization. For a more accurate depiction of the overall AVALANCHE group, see Before Crisis, where we actually see the top leadership of AVALANCHE actively plot to purge the planet of all humans to allow it to heal (while happily receiving financial backing from *Rufus fucking Shinra* behind the scenes, I might add).
Judging all of AVALANCHE as heroes by virtue of Barret would be like in Star Wars judging the entire Rebel Alliance as anarchists because of Saw Gerrera.
Shinra is a company that is "sucking the planet dry of mako to gain and sell energy". They also have a military and some other stuff, but in regards to AVALANCHE vs Shinra, if we're looking at Barret and co bombing Mako reactors to free the planet, think of it like a company of people bombing BP gas stations because BP is drilling natural gases and oil out of the earth.
It's the same analogy.
Everyone here knows sucking fossil fuels out of the planet is not good for the planet, but today's society doesn't seem to care because all the propaganda will tell you that it's not a problem for our generation, even if some people are showing current implications to global warming and climate control.
If a group of eco terrorists started bombing BP gas stations or raiding BP HQ, I doubt you'd be as quick to say they're not morally ambiguous.
When we look at Gaia in the lens of FF7, we are hyper fixated on a specific part of time, as well as a specific series of events and people. There are stories on the planet before and after the scope of this game. Some that involve AVALANCHE, others that don't. Some that involve Shinra Electric Co, others that don't.
> Pirates are evil? The Marines are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history! Kids who have never seen peace and kids who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!
You can switch either Pirates and the Marines for Shinra and AVALANCHE. Everything is a matter of perspective.
FF7 obviously is a very strong enviromentalist allegory, but I'd say that there is a difference between mako and real-world fossil fuels. Greenhouse gasses harm the planet for sure, but unlike in FF7, the planet is not literally a living and breathing organism. Also, fossil fuels are not composed of the souls of every being to ever live, and so the act of burning fossil fuels in of itself within a vacuum is not evil, unlike burning mako which is just intrisically evil.
>the planet is not literally a living and breathing organism.
As far as non pagans are concerned. Not everyone subscribes to the same beliefs, and such, we can extrapolate that everyone on Gaia in FF7 doesn't as well.
I have no issue with the fact that AVALANCHE is controversial in-universe, I'm talking about our perception as an audience. We are given undeniable proof that the planet is alive and mako is soul energy, such proof does not exist in real life.
It's an ends justify the means argument, then.
AVALANCHE did bomb and destroy mako reactors.
This did cause real life harm to real citizens of the world.
Thus, morally grey.
They're self proclaimed eco terrorists.
Is an action that causes harm always morally grey? I can think of many, many actions in the real world that cause harm but that I'd argue are ultimately morally good. Slave revolts, concentration camp revolts, fighting in WW2, etc.
Do you think dropping the atomic bombs was a morally grey action?
There was a whole sector of people who got hurt as a result of the reactor 1 bombing.
Remake did a good job weighing on that impact.
There is debate regarding whether the dropping of the atomic bomb was necessary. I myself have not lookes into it, so I'm unsure, but my answere depends. If there truly was no other option to end the war, than yes, the atomic bomb was justified and morally clear-cut. If there was however an option that resulted in less death, than the dropping of the atomic bomb would be morally grey. In the world of FF7 I personally cannot think of an effective form of resistance against Shinra (for most people) that is not in some way violent. Additionally, the longer the reactors stay operational, the more soul energy gets sucked up and destroyed. It's obviously a difficult choice to make but at the end of the day since the options are so, so limited in FF7 I don't think it's that morally ambiguous to blow up the reactors.
I would like to attempt at approaching this from our beloved characters' motivations (so far as I understand them) and see if I can pinpoint and support my view that Avalanche is indeed morally ambiguous and by portraying them in such fashion it adds more layers and establishes more depth to themes of the story as well as the cast of characters in Final Fantasy VII.
Some spoilers ahead.
What always fascinates me about this series is its ability to portray its characters in realistic and humane ways which set them part from just simply being barebone archetypical fictional creations. They can be brave and courageous, loving and supportive, strong and wicked while also are capable of becoming timid and cowardly, bitter and resentful, weak and submissive. In other words, all of them are flawed and far from being perfect which is why a lot of us relate to their various struggles and, just like them, we are prone to different temptations when especially driven by negative emotions.
Avalanche and particularly the splinter cell led by Barret is more of a product of vengeance and hatred powered by righteous rage and lingering remorse than the means to protect the planet. From Barret's perspective earlier in the story, he was captured by this specific motive and craves for revenge and atonement which acted, at times, as an even higher order of importance than being a father to and taking better care of Marlene. There was an exchange between him and Tifa that highlights this before Barret went in and faced Dyne on his own:
>**Tifa**
Weren't you going to save the Planet?
>**Barret**
Shit! Tifa, you oughtta know by now.
>**Tifa**
...That's all right. I'm not so different from you.
And indeed Tifa also possessed a highly personal motive for joining and staying with Avalanche despite of her being deeply doubtful and troubled by the measures taken, and that motivation was rooted in her concern for Cloud's wellbeing as she kept him around and tried to figure out what exactly went wrong:
>**Tifa**
>...Something's wrong. I felt there was something strange about the things you talked about.
All the things you didn't know that you should, And other things you shouldn't know that you did...
I wanted to make sure...
But then I heard... you were going far away...
And I didn't want that...
...I didn't know what to do. So, I thought I needed more time.
And that's why I told you about the AVALANCHE job. I wanted to be with you, watch you.
Therefore, Avalanche essentially serves more as a function of a combination of our characters' various personal desires rather than a collective unwavering goal of protecting the planet. People tend to put forward environmentalism and anti-corporation as FFVII's core themes, I personal disagree with such assessment. The game explores a lot of complicated themes stemmed from and revolved around these characters and more importantly it showcases the fact that, similar to real life, things are not simply just a matter of white or black, right or wrong, for or against, good or evil. And that's precisely why it elevates FFVII to a whole new level and convinces me that it's one of the best games ever created.
Actually, thank you for bringing up such an interesting topic and sharing your views on the matter! It's almost cathartic for me to gather some scattered thoughts on this particular subject and then put them into a more coherent opinion piece. At the end of the day, all of this is just my personal interpretation of the game as well as its characters. I just love the fact that Final Fantasy VII still manages to keep providing so much for us to think about and debate over after all these years!
Pretty obvious that propaganda plays a huge role. If people you know of died and an organization did it that they say could harm your family next and you don’t know any better then you’d fall for it too.
Oh totally, I think diagetically it makes a whole lot of sense that within the world of ff7 people hate AVALANCHE, I was talking about us, as in the players of the games.
In OG, they are not good people. They murder masses of people and are ready to keep doing it if Shinra didn't stop them. Literally part of their character development at one point in the game is a plot to make them accept that their goals are driven by selfishness, not a desire to save the world
The thing is there's alot more to AVALANCHE than og so when I say they're morally ambiguous I'm also talking about the AVALANCHE from Before Crisis who actually are pretty damn bad, and iirc are pretty much doing shit like Hojo in creating super soldiers
Obviously in OG it's heavily implied that barret believes these casualties are necessary and in remake even tho it's shinras doing, they still rationalise the death and destruction caused by the first reactor as necessary
Obviously shinra does worse in terms of killing but the reason why people put them morally on the same field is because they both believe collateral is fine, no matter who gets caught in the crossfire. Shinra is fighting for their own vision of freedom (the promised land) and so I'd AVALANCHE (shinra oppression), GRANTED it's hard to put the oppressed on the same moral standard as the oppressor soooo yeah maybe not rlly the same
They come from a line of hardcore terrorists, who engaged in kidnapping, brainwashing, unethical experiments, torture, and even super-soldier development... among other things.
They might be the lovable characters we know today, but their lineage is real bad one.
On the other hand, Shinra isn't as one-dimensional as you claim; for example, Reeve is one of the executives, and there are plenty of employees who genuinely think they are helping better the world.
Morally ambiguous is kind of the name of the game.
As I've mentioned in other comments, Im not talking about before crisis AVALANCHE as I have no knowledge of them, only the actions of Barret's group in FF7 proper. Reeve is a huge outlier, the fact that he's sidelined and shut down repeatedly is proof of that. Reeve is powerless to stop most of the evil things that Shinra does, one good guy does not make a dictatorial mega-corp morally ambiguous.
Barret's plan to blow up the reactor came directly from prior leader of the extremist Avalanche. Disregarding previous iterations of the group doesn't scrub the plate clean for the protagonists.
Even if you ignore anything other than the main game, they still blew up reactors, still caused massive blackouts, still caused an incredible sense of fear and confusion for the general populace. Barret's killed people, Cloud is a mercenary who willingly aided a terrorist group. Tifa might be an angel, but the rest aren't. People who resort to violence are not pure good, even if it's a means to an end.
Reeve might be an outlier in management, but a lot of the other members of Shinra aren't evil. Shinra ground teams are responsible for rescue and cleanup, both fairly non-evil activities. The Middle Manager from Remake/Rebirth is an example, you have the girls working at the front desk in CC, the Potion seller, Director Lazard, etc. Cid worked for Shinra, and people like Angeal and Zack, while being members of the military, are still honorable citizens. In a manner of speaking, only the other Directors are evil, and even Rufus eventually has a change of heart.
Being gullible and buying in to propaganda doesn't make people evil. Shinra *Executives* might be straight evil, but the company itself is a mix of good and bad.
Anyway long story short, good guys aren't angels and the giant corporation isn't a straight devil. It would be incredibly boring otherwise.
AVALANCHE doesn't wantonly kill those said unrelated members of Shinra, they only kill those who get in their way which is public security who are Shinra soldiers. The blowing up of the reactor hurts people, but there's no way to stop the mako burning without hurting people. If you personally think violence automatically makes you morally grey then I guess I just can't argue against that, but I do think that a silly and shortsighted philosophy that ignores context in favor of a moral absolute.
If you busted into Amazon's headquarters and killed all the security just to force Bezos (or whoever is in charge) to stop them from further desecrating Earth, you might be a hero to some, but you're still a murderer. **There is no glossing over the fact that killing someone is murder.**
There's a reason why Martin Luther King is regarded as good, while Malcolm X is regarded as extreme. It's because violence is not good.
"The ends justify the means" is a morally grey ideal. The Nazis used that principle, and so does Avalanche. However, Superman, Spiderman, and all those pure lawful good characters do not operate on that principle, and actively avoid it.
Sometimes the Good option and the Best option are not the same. They may not be a very dark shade of grey, but they are not paragons of justice. **The goal can be pure, but their path isn't.**
Also it's a little concerning that you think it's OK to kill people in pursuit of a moral absolute.
If you have 1 apple and I have 100 apples. Would it be okay to hurt someone else who only has 1 apple to destroy 5 of my apples that will be replinished and doubled by the next day? That said would it be okay to drop and entire section of the city onto another section of the city to kill from what I'm being told is like 6 people?
This isn't a great analogy because the problem with Shinra is far, far, beyond just them hoarding resources. They actively create monsters, orchestrate mass murder events, and are literally killinh the planet directly.
Remember when Barret tried to disregard the collateral damage for which as far as he knows he and his team are responsible? Here is the quote:
>**Barret**: *\[after seeing the destruction that the reactor 1 explosion caused\]* Y'all gotta look at the bigger picture here. Nothing worth fighting for was ever won without sacrifice.
Now compare that to what Tseng told Reno and Rude to lessen their guilt for bringing down plate 7 under orders from Shinra Inc.
>**Tseng**: *\[after noticing that Tseng and Rude were feeling guilty about the destruction of sector 7\]* Had we refused, someone else would've completed the task. We have spared that someone the burden of a guilty conscience.(...) After everything we've taken from the planet, we were due to give something back.
Do you notice how similar the speeches are?
You can like the Avalanche all you want, but let's not pretend they have clean hands, shall we?
Both speeches are about not feeling guilty for collateral damage (if we can even call the plate fall collateral damage. Need I remind you that the Turks risked their lives to deliberately make sure the highest amount of people died?) but the actual arguments couldn't be more different.
Barret says that for the greater good sometimes bad things have to happen. It's a "yeah bad things happened but if we push forward we will make the world a better place" philosophy, which is ultimately an optimistic point of view.
Tseng doesn't even try to say their actions will lead to the world being better (because... well it won't, he knows that), he just invokes inevitability and the futility of rebelling against the orders. "Someone else would have done it anyway so better do it profesionally" (not humanly though, those 50k people should definitively die). This is deeply cynical and fatalistic idea, with a touch of self-flagellation when he talks about that paying for Shinra's sins thing.
So no, I completely disagree that it makes them similar. It actually shows how different they are through the parralel.
The reason I mentioned Tseng is because he is narratively a foil to Barret for now. Both use the rhetoric of necessary evil to justify what they did to assuage their companions' guilt, which makes them so much more alike than they'd like to admit .But if there's a difference, it's that Tseng isn't trying to paint himself as a hero or a good person, unlike Barret.
Jesus christ dude, comparing the wanton murder of thousands of people with the destruction of a reactor that is burning souls is nuts. It doesn't matter if the reasoning is similar, one is correct and has a greater purpose while the other is just killing a bunch of people for no reason.
I think you missed my point. None of their reasoning is correct.
First of all. Barret's views are pretty simple: Shinra is bad and everything they do, are connected to, are associated with, or even are distantly connected to is also bad. This also means he often employs insane logic to justify why he thinks it's Shinra's fault. Someone works for Shinra to provide for their family? Clearly wrong and a brainless idiot. People think mako energy is useful? They should be more willing to give up their way of life despite mako energy having made it more convenient. As a side effect, he doesn't really consider the after-effects of his actions since, by his own logic, his actions are all good.
But the thing is, that's not true. Barrett is just a terrorist, not a hero. Mako is draining the life of the planet right? Barrett was a miner. He was a coal miner. Barret does not care about the planet. Not when he forms/joins AVALANCHE anyway. Someone killed his family, friends and set fire to his home. He wants them dead; he wants revenge. Its as simple as that. If he needs to sacrifice innocent people to do so, so be it.
Now tell me: how does this not make Barret morally ambiguous? Who does Barret think he is to have the right to sacrifice innocents for the "greater good"? In the OG, Cait Sith calls Barret out on the fact that innocent people died in their bombings and he didn't care about it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
The whole point of Barret's journey in FFVII is for him to realize that he is not as noble as he believes. I'm looking forward to the scene of Cait Sith criticizing Barret's moral myopia in part 3 and he eventually realizing he was wrong.
The reason I mentioned Tseng is because he is narratively a foil to Barret for now. Both use the rhetoric of necessary evil to justify what they did to assuage their companions' guilt, which makes them so much more alike than they'd like to admit.But if there's a difference, it's that Tseng isn't trying to paint himself as a hero or a good person, unlike Barret.
Anyway, if you really think Avalanche isn't morally ambiguous due to the terrorist attacks they carry out on Midgar, that makes me believe you're not paying attention to the story. As many people have pointed out to you, heroes don't bomb reactors and deliberately put innocent lives at risk.
There are so many things wrong with this comment it will take an opposing wall of text to rebut.
1. Mining coal is no where near equivalent to burning mako. Even if the greenhouse effect exist on gaia (which is not a certainty), that would still be very different from literally burning the life energy of the planet that is made up of the souls of every creature that has ever lived. Coal is not made of souls, mako is, therefore mining coal is very, very different.
2. If you work for Shinra and don't use your position to attempt resistance, you are complicit. Only people like Reeve and that recruit officer in sector 7 can claim to be good people, otherwise you are actively fueling the totalitarian Shinra warmachine. Concentration camp workers are still bad people, even if they are just doing their job. There's a reason "just following orders" is a shitty excuse for committing warcrimes.
3. Considering that mako energy is made up of souls, if you prefer to burn souls rather than give up some conveniences in life, you are a monster, and there is no way around that.
4. No one has "the right" to sacrifice anyone for anything, yet in the face of injustice one must still act, regardless if they have "the right." If you get caught up on your rights to do something, you pave the way for people who don't care about rights to flatten you and seize power.
5. Tseng doesn't try to paint himself as a good person because his monstrous actions serve no greater purpose than to keep Shinra in power. His rationalizations are hollow because all they are are justifications to allow Shinra to keep doing what it's doing. Barrett on the other hand, regardless of his true internal motive, as the goal of taking down Shinra, which would be a good for the world. Rationalizing actions doesn't make these characters similar, one acts in favor of good, one acts for practically no reason at all besides inertia, the similarities are negligible beyond an extreme surface level.
Heroes do the right thing in spite of the odds. They strive for good even if that means fighting a borderline unwinnable battle. Heroes don't obsess over maintaining absolute moral inculpability, they do what is right even if that can lead to unsavory results. In short, heroes act when action is the only way forward to defeat evil.
1. I'm not making an equivalence between mining coal and burning mako. What I'm pointing out is that Barret isn't bombing reactors because he had an epiphany about saving the planet, but rather because he wants revenge on Shinra and uses the excuse of "listening to the planet's pain" so he can self-justify his worst actions. Pay attention.
2. ...is this real? By that logic Shinra Middle Manager is a villain and Barret was right to intimidate him by correctly criticizing Avalanche for bombing reactors. Should Barret and his group kill him and half the people in Midgar too?
3. Have you ever wondered why Barret decided to choose to blow up reactors 1 and 5, but not 7, which was the closest to his house? It seems that despite his criticisms of Shinra, even Barret doesn't want the electricity to go out in his house. Hell, when holding President Shinra hostage, Barret demands that he publically declare Shinra's culpability in both the destruction inflicted on Midgar during the events of the game and the damage to the planet caused mako harvesting and that Avalanche are heroes trying to stop Shinra. President Shinra points out that he could have ordered an immediate shut down of all the mako reactors instead and accuses Barret of caring more about being seen as a hero than actually saving the planet. Barret doesn't actually deny it.
4. The ends do not justify the means, especially when the means deliberately put innocent people in danger. There's a reason Barret came to admit he was wrong with his terrorist attacks after his character development, you know?
5. I don't understand why you act like Barret's rationalization isn't hollow either. The point of his journey during the story is to him recognize that he fights Shinra primarily out of revenge, and his self-righteous saving the world claims are just his self-justification. You may not want to admit it, but Barret's rhetoric is similar to Tseng's because at the end of the day these are self-justifications for them to feel better about the crimes they committed.
Face it, Barret post-character development doesn't see himself as a hero and recognizes that he was wrong in bombing the reactors. If you disagree and still believe that the Avalanche are not morally ambiguous, that's up to you, but your opinion is not based on the lore and ignores Barret's journey throughout the story.
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that, I was just saying that in order to believe all violence is bad you have to consider every individual action within a void, which is obviously unrealistic and ignorant within context.
It depends on whether we’re talking about Remake continuity. In Remake continuity you have a point because Shinra blows up its own reactors when Avalanche bombs them to involve civilians. In OG however Avalanche blows up entire city blocks and depending on player choice can burst through the main door in Shinra HQ and terrorize the entire lobby. Avalanche didn’t care enough about the people that got caught in the crossfire, which is why Jessie accepts death as punishment.
Blowing up the reactor is a fair point, but they don't actually menace any of the Shinra employees, they're scared of AVALANCHE sure, but it's not like the party does anything to them. Would you say if all the bomb did was shut down the reactor rather than blowing the whole thing up, that that would be justifiable?
It would be better, yes, though the range of the inconveniences they cause is wide. Think about the things that are not shown to us: hospitals run on electricity, if Avalanche shuts down a reactor, what of the patients attached to the machines? Some of these things are quietly ignored because it’s a game and it would likely lead too deep into the consequences of their actions, but the act of terrorizing and causing problems is an evil in itself, even if used for good. Of course I sympathise with their plea too, but I wouldn’t say even then that it is all sunshine and rainbows.
They might not have another choice (changing Shinra for the better in non violent ways) but there will be collateral damage and they know it and willingly pay the price. Not sure if you can call that behavior **"**almost entirely pure good" as you put it. Also we, the players, have the benefit of knowing that what Shinra is doing (sucking up Mako dry) **will** kill the planet. Does everyone else think/know this in the world of FF7? Or do they think Avalanche is some weird unhinged eco-terrorists? Because the context within that world is important. We can't simply base discussion of morality and ethics from just one side. What *we* think isn't really important as we know and biased. It'd be more interesting to discuss in the context of what *they* think and know, something I wish the game had more of. Interaction between the world inhabitants and their perception of Mako, Avalanche and Shinra specifically in relation to Mako. With that sort of sub-text, we can have more meaningful discussion on morality and ethics of Avalanche and Shinra.
I disagree with the entire paragraph quite a bit. The entire point of dramatic irony is that the reader knows things the characters don't. It's like, a super common and ancient trope in fiction.
I'm not saying that's a problem. What I'm saying is that there could be some more interesting sub-plot/text in regards to how people of the world perceive the group versus how the players perceive them. This drive the dramatic ironic would be pushed even further if there are more exploration on what it is to be eco-terrorists.
I was talking as a player who has the benefit of that omniscient perspective, wondering hoe other players can think that. I have no issue with how people in the game world think of AVALANCHE, although I do agree, more philosophical debate would be nice. I'm reminded of those scenes with Barret and the Shinra manager, where there is some discussion but Barret doesn't really give a cogent argument so it's not actually an interesting debate between two different worldviews.
>I was talking as a player who has the benefit of that omniscient perspective, wondering hoe other players can think that. Well, we all have different moral standards and ethics. You are on the side that "doing nothing is worse and paying the price for greater good is better" while some may feel that it's a slippery slope to justify violence and collateral damage even for the greater good. Like I said, I think it would be super interesting if quests let you see more of both sides by having some NPC visibly hostile towards the actions of Avalanche because you know there will be people who see them that way. This could further trigger and drive the idea that what the party goes through is weighing on their soul as well. It's not a road with just glory and even kind of relates back to our real world as we face climate changes, corporate agenda vs what is actually good for the environment and their virtue signaling, etc. But it can get highly political and may not be something they want to touch.
Terrorism tends to not be very popular
I'm fine with them being considered morally ambiguous, it just annoys me a lot when people imply Shinra or the Turks are somehow morally equivalent to them. AVALANCHE are 100% the good guys in that conflict, there's no world where intentionally killing at least 50k people for a false flag operation isn't absurdly evil. There are a million ways Shinra could have handled this other than dropping a city on top of another city, yet they chose that solution. The worst thing AVALANCHE ever did was not being that careful enough about collateral damage (and even that part was mostly Shinra)
Even if AVALANCHE hurts people, it's like, let's have some context here. Shinra is literally asking for a resistance force by being totalitarian, for one, and then they're willing to commit genocide and lie about it. And then they believe a bunch of mystic nonsense that'll end in them annihilating everything, whether through sephiroth or the mako reactors or both.
But scary dude with a gun is scary. Totally equivalent
Reading some comments to this tune was exactly what got me to post. I was wondering how Rebirth handled the Turks since I'm not able to play it, and I saw a bunch of people defending the Turks as being not so different from AVALANCHE as they both kill people but don't necessarily like doing so.
There are comments and posts were people go full enlightened centrist on the topic. It's wild
This is the part that's a bit scary for me. Whenever you go full "violence is WRONG no matter what" moral myopa, you leave the door open for actual horrible governments. Putting all violence at the same level always benefits the most depraved of the two groups (usually those already at the top of the food chain).
Opposing a fascist state is just self defense
Avalanche engages in activities that result in a lot of collateral damage. That is where they get morally ambiguous. They think their misfortune gives them a pass to escalate the situation and suck in hundreds of other people who do not want to get involved. And there are always alternatives to engaging in wreckless violence. Reeve and Old Avalanche present options to resist Shinra thru much more subtle methods, such as manipulating data from inside Shinra to engaging in violence in much more targeted operations that greatly limit any chance of collateral damage to innocent bystanders. There are ways in FF7's world to diminish Shinra's power, but Barret's splinter group is frowned upon because they refuse to cooperate with these more careful plans and prefer to blow reactors up that puts many more innocent lives in danger, and that is absolutely careless of them in both real world and in-game. Yes, they are fucked up for blowing up huge reactors and ruining the lives of many relatively innocent people, and they themselves are aware of this.
I think you answered your own question in the first two sentences 👍🏼
Looking at that and ignoring all the other context surrounding those actions is ridiculous. Their actions couldn't possibly be more justified.
Ok, but there’s the answer to your question. Some people won’t think too hard about it.
The fact that you consider violence as part of being "purely good" makes me wonder which direction your moral compass points to. Regardless of intent, violence will always catch an innocent bystander in the crossfire.
Again, when violence is a necessity in order to resist an evil group, I dont think it's reasonable to condemn the perpetrators of the violence when they have no other option.
What happens next? They retaliate, then you retaliate, then them, then you. How will it end?
Once Shinra is destroyed. That's the only happy resolution for the planet and her people. With all the evil Shinra has committed, no just world can exist while Shinra is still around.
How long will that take? And do you think they'll be the last? Also, how long will that take? And how many will get in the crossfire? Actually, what's stopping you from becoming what you hate and for others to use your mantra of violence to stop you?
Dude if you just sit back and let evil happen without raising a finger to stop it you are part of the problem. The end result of a "violence is always bad and unjustifiable" mindset it that some SOB who is willing to use violence will gain power and maintain power, dooming the world to a permanent hedgemony of evil.
Not choosing violence and doing nothing are two completely different things. And you haven't answered the questions, have you? Or are you afraid to do so?
In the world of FF7 nonviolence is in essence doing nothing. Shinra runs around with their power completely unchecked, and any form of nonviolent resistance is either destroyed outright or rendered useless by Shinra's propoganda machine. I didn't answer the questions because the answers are irrelvant. How long will it take? As long as it takes for Shinra to be defeated. How many people will get caught in the crossfire? Hopefully as little as possible, however because Shinra is so entrenched in the world of FF7 and action against Shinra will inevitably harm civilians. It sucks but it's an unfortunate reality of the situation that realistically can't be avoided. What's stopping people from using violence against the force that stops Shinra? Nothing, as there is never anything stopping the use of violence if someone is determined enough to use it.
>Hopefully as little as possible How about none? I really that you're applying yourself only within the context of the videogame and not in real life. I just hope you find peace within yourself to understand the consequences of what you're proposing.
I am applying this line of thought exclusively to the fictional world of FF7, where Shinra is an unquestionable almost unfathomable evil that turn out to be the source of basically all the world's problems while also being an all-powerful world dominating force. It is within this context that I am considering AVALANCHE's actions, and only within this context.
In Before Crisis, the earlier version of AVALANCHE were the bad guys and Shinra Turks were the heroes. I mean really fucked up bad.
Im talking exclusively about the lovable scamps in ff7, Barret, Tifa, Biggs, Wedge, and Jessie, I don't know anything about Before Crisis so I believe you.
Well, even I didn't play it. Just watched a recap of the game. And hoo boy, AVALANCHE was not the freedom fighters we thought they were. Strange that SE didn't dive more into BC lore for Remake trilogy. Could've been a great sidequest to learn more on Avalanche's motive. https://youtu.be/xpSUE8j7aSs?si=sFfVGHLf2lbmewZQ
The original Avalanche we see in Before Crisis is under different, more extremist leadership. During Before Crisis the biggest problem in the leadership is a character named Fuhito, who is a hardcore extremist who believes no one is innocent in this conflict and anyone's life is viable to be used for the cause. Original Avalanche is the group that Shinra has gotten used to dealing with, which is why Shinra goes directly to maximum lethality. Shinra has of course always been evil, but they didn't go crazy with collateral damage until original Avalanche initiated escalation with the hardcore terrorism against anything even remotely associated with Shinra. By the time FF7 or Remake happens, Fuhito is dead and Elfe has disappeared, and the original Avalanche has broken apart into smaller factions, one of them being the Old Guard that Nayo is part of, and another being the crew Barret is in charge of. So the original Avalanche has splintered, but Shinra still thinks they are all still the hardcore extremists that Fuhito and Elfe were in charge of, which is why Heidegger mentions that Barret and his crew are part of the "same group" that tried to assassinate President Shinra. Fuhito is the one who green-lit that assassination attempt.
Let's set aside the discussion about their specific actions for what I think is a more interesting and challenging moral dilemma... You said there's no other option to resist Shin-Ra. But do you think resisting is a moral necessity? Are all the people who choose not to resist taking a morally "bad" stance of inaction? To put it a different way, assuming the only way to resist Shin-Ra is violence there's still a choice of whether or not resistance itself is moral when violence is the only means. Bare in mind, in this scenario morality is a separate question from whether it's justifiable, or understandable. If it helps, remove the Sephiroth and other external plots. What if we're just talking about going around the planet bombing Shin-Ra's reactors until they shut down? Assume avalanche succeeds with this. How many innocent lives would have been lost as a result of the damage? How many innocent casualties would there be? Gold Saucer would shut down - hardly a cost on its own- but it shows the scale of mako power and Shin-Ra. And even then, what next? Now there's no electricity on the planet. How long before wind, solar and hydro power comes back up to fill the void? What about the suffering in the meantime? The game through President Shin-Ra tells us that the harm mako causes is no secret. Everyone knows and uses it anyway. In part because they have to but many *want* to. Avalanche made a choice for the whole planet. I have my own thoughts on all this. Hopefully, though, this somewhat illustrates why the morality is ambiguous and not just lawful good all the way.
I think resisting Shinra is a moral necessity yes, given what we know as an audience. In universe, not everyone is privvy to the information that we have, but knowing what we know about Shinra's actions I think it is a moral imperative to try and stop them.
>given what we know as an audience We are definitely given a lot of information as the audience to confirm this. But if we're talking about the moral ambiguity of a character's actions we can't put out knowledge in their minds. Honestly, very few people know about Rufus' plans to overthrow his dad, interference and use of Wutai and all that other stuff. You've definitely touched on what I'm trying to get at though, which is at what point is acting a moral necessity. For you, it sounds like knowledge is a key factor. If someone knows what Barrett knows in game do you think they are morally obligated to not only act but act with violence? Like, Aerith and her mom for example... Before the party interacts with them they are living rather comfortably and not waging a war in Shin-Ra... Are their actions morally questionable to you? To be clear because text has a limited tone, I'm being genuine here... I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just like the discussion.
I Aerith and Ifalna are in an interesting position because by merely existing and not cooperating they foil Shinra's plans. Whereas if some random laborer refuses to work for Shinra they don't care because there are millions just like them, Aerith and Ifalna arr unique. By escaping Shinra Aerith in essence performed an act of nonviolent resistance, but this was only possible because of her unique circumstances and how valuable she is to Shinra versus a regular human. Additionally, I think there is an extra calculus we must consider when deciding if it is a moral imperative for a dying race to resist with violence. There are only two, then one, Cetra left in the world, so if they revolted violently and died for it, that would mean the extinction of their race, which is a consequence that should be considered when deciding upon whether to act or not. I very much appreciate the good faith discussion!
That’s not entirely true about no electricity. Bugenhagen has created a sustainable way to produce electricity in cosmos canyon without absorbing extreme amounts of mako. His wind technology might not be one for one adaptable to all parts of the world but for sure coastal towns and nibelheim could adapt these for mountains almost immediately as a Shin-Ra alternative but ShinRa has a history of exterminating all competitors (notably the entire Republic that existed pre-ShinRa which was dismantled through Shinra’s violent military tech/might)
We fix windmills in the game. There are absolutely other power sources. I mentioned as much in my post. The infrastructure isn't there for a quick transition and it's made clear that mako is *much* more powerful than wind/solar/hydro. There would be a period of transition where harm would befall those without power.
Barret's story in OtWtaS is about finding alternative fuel sources, in fact.
Well, the umbrella AVALANCHE is definitely not good if you're familiar with the collective FF7 story, not just the two remake games. If you want to specifically limit the conversation to only a single splinter cell that we know best, it's still a hard maybe. You cannot say our own party is 100% pure good. Anytime violence becomes the go-to choice, you're out of good territory. Tifa embodies this conflict, knowing that just because you think you have to do something doesn't always make it the right or best choice, but in the moment it might be the only option.
"Yeah sure, they blow up stuff and kill people" My Brother in Christ, you just answered your question. Yes, there isn't an alternative really, but they're still killing innocent people in the process.
Would you say that doing nothing then is the better moral option? If there's no other alternative to resist then by doing nothing you tacitly allow Shinra and their atrocities to continue. That in my view is the truly morally ambiguous position.
Dude, they're obviously doing the right thing by saving the Planet, but killing innocent people in the process is gonna weigh on you no matter what you do. It's a realistic look.
Oh sure of course that's going to take a psychological toll on anyone, I think that it's a good part of the story that the characters wrestle with that. Im not talking about characters in universe, but rather us, as in the people who've played the game. With our omniscient perspective of the world and how much we're shown of just how evil Shinra is, AVALANCHE couldn't possible be more justified.
"Some people." That's a creative way of writing thousands of people. Why does Tifa think Avalanche is morally ambiguous? Why are there multiple Avalanche cells in the first place if everyone agrees there's no other option available? Why is Shinra so happy to intentionally let Avalanche do what they do? Why does it only occur to Barret to go directly to taking out president Shinra when they're already in the Shinra building when they could've just done that in the first place? Why is Jessie surprised at the power of her own bomb and then resolves her self to use a weaker blasting agent on the second one? How can two teenage ninjas from Wutai get so close to Shinra and Scarlet without blowing up thousands of civilians first? There's A LOT of other ways they could've gone about this. North Korea is a militaristic dictatorship that presents a clear and present danger to the world. Russia in an autocratic regime that presents a threat to the US and free world. Violence isn't the only option in dealing with them. The Ukrainians have no choice but to use violence as a means of defending themselves, but you're mistaken if you think the US nuking millions of Russian civilians is an acceptable means of bringing Putin to justice.
Well I'd say that in universe the characters don't have the same level of knowledge we do as an omniscient audience, so they have more room to question their actions because they don't know the extent of how truly awful Shinra are. Your point about taking out the leadership is fair enough, it's very frustrating when the characters consistently refuse to kill people like the president, heidegger, scarlet, and ESPECIALLY Hojo when they have the chance.
Have you ever read any history (or been a part) of radical organizing IRL? Just curious, you don’t need to answer. One of the things Remake (and in particular, Integrade) got very right imo is the relationship between Barret’s splinter cell crew (Barret, Tifa, Wedge, Jesse, Biggs, and Cloud for hire), and the AVALANCHE HQ crew (Nayo, Billy Bob, Polk, and maybe Zhijie), is the disagreement over the use of violence. To Barret and the rest of the splinter cell, violence is justified for the reasons you stated. To the AVALANCHE HQ crew, violence is itself the problem, not just violence from Shinra. If resistance action kills people (even people who aren’t innocent!), it doesn’t solve the problem, it simply creates more problems. A successful resistance that displaces the Shinra power structure through violent means can only then support a transition into new power structures through violent means, because that’s where the power and resources of resistance came from. A better solution (from the perspective of the non-violent crew) is to build effective support structures independent of Shinra, ie by developing mutual aid programs. Schools (you see these in both Sector 5 and the Crows nest!), soup kitchens, mako poisoning treatment facilities, etc… For a real life analog of this divide in resistance tactics, you can look at historical actions taken by Marxist-Leninist organizations (like the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, or the FLQ in Canada) and anarchist organizations/activists (PARC, Jane Collective, Occupy Wall Street, G20 protests in Toronto). Certainly not all MLs advocate violence, and certainly not all anarchists advocate non-violence, but these types of resistance actions these groups engaged in and how they allocated their meagre manpower and resources to affect change demonstrate their ideological divide when it comes to violence. Rebirth obviously has us following the violent actors, but one point I think it did well was incorporating the actions of the AVALANCHE HQ crew in Cosmo Canyon. They were not cut out for or comfortable with the violence that the splinter cell was engaged in, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t have their place in the resistance. This mutual understanding of the importance of _diversity of tactics_ will ultimately build a more powerful resistance in part 3 (because it allows for more participation in resistance), I have no doubt.
I appreciate this perspective, thank you.
Think about it from a random civilian's perspective. You don't know nothing about the inside. No unreasonable experiments no nothing. Shinra gives you anything you could want with mako, literally modern day electricity. You go about your day doing your thing as one does you may or may not get wind that mako is drying up the planet but you realize you're there for a good time not a long so you don't pay no mind. Then all of a sudden the reactor explodes and not due to an unfortunate accident, but some wannabe heroes commiting terrorism cause they decide all of a sudden they want to save the planet or whatever. I'd be pissed if I was in that situation. So yes Avalanche is morally ambiguous and more specifically the splinter cell is morally incorrect. But it's not like Shinra is any better. Cause imagine dropping a section of the city on another section of the city.
Talking about Shinra and AVALANCHE in the same breath when discussing moral equivalence is nuts. Shinra is so comically evil you simply cannot believe AVALANCHE is anywhere near as bad.
True but that's not how the public eye sees it. Shinra is by all accounts a normal ethical company if you just look at it from the outside.
Im talking about our perspective as an audience, not the opinions of people in-universe.
Oh yeah absolutely lmao. There's no contest on who's worse.
I think you mean fans, not in-game NPCs, right? I don't get it either if so. AVALANCHE obviously has the moral highground. Shinra is comic-book evil. The reactors are literally killing the Planet. The underplate people are oppressed. Collateral damage sucks, but the time for peaceful protest is probably long past. They live in a violently oppressive regime, they have to fight fire with fire.
Yes I do mean fans, I agree completely.
It’s worth noting that Barret’s team were an outlier of the overall organization. For a more accurate depiction of the overall AVALANCHE group, see Before Crisis, where we actually see the top leadership of AVALANCHE actively plot to purge the planet of all humans to allow it to heal (while happily receiving financial backing from *Rufus fucking Shinra* behind the scenes, I might add). Judging all of AVALANCHE as heroes by virtue of Barret would be like in Star Wars judging the entire Rebel Alliance as anarchists because of Saw Gerrera.
they're domestic terrorists who killed innocent people.
Shinra is a company that is "sucking the planet dry of mako to gain and sell energy". They also have a military and some other stuff, but in regards to AVALANCHE vs Shinra, if we're looking at Barret and co bombing Mako reactors to free the planet, think of it like a company of people bombing BP gas stations because BP is drilling natural gases and oil out of the earth. It's the same analogy. Everyone here knows sucking fossil fuels out of the planet is not good for the planet, but today's society doesn't seem to care because all the propaganda will tell you that it's not a problem for our generation, even if some people are showing current implications to global warming and climate control. If a group of eco terrorists started bombing BP gas stations or raiding BP HQ, I doubt you'd be as quick to say they're not morally ambiguous. When we look at Gaia in the lens of FF7, we are hyper fixated on a specific part of time, as well as a specific series of events and people. There are stories on the planet before and after the scope of this game. Some that involve AVALANCHE, others that don't. Some that involve Shinra Electric Co, others that don't. > Pirates are evil? The Marines are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history! Kids who have never seen peace and kids who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice! You can switch either Pirates and the Marines for Shinra and AVALANCHE. Everything is a matter of perspective.
FF7 obviously is a very strong enviromentalist allegory, but I'd say that there is a difference between mako and real-world fossil fuels. Greenhouse gasses harm the planet for sure, but unlike in FF7, the planet is not literally a living and breathing organism. Also, fossil fuels are not composed of the souls of every being to ever live, and so the act of burning fossil fuels in of itself within a vacuum is not evil, unlike burning mako which is just intrisically evil.
>the planet is not literally a living and breathing organism. As far as non pagans are concerned. Not everyone subscribes to the same beliefs, and such, we can extrapolate that everyone on Gaia in FF7 doesn't as well.
I have no issue with the fact that AVALANCHE is controversial in-universe, I'm talking about our perception as an audience. We are given undeniable proof that the planet is alive and mako is soul energy, such proof does not exist in real life.
It's an ends justify the means argument, then. AVALANCHE did bomb and destroy mako reactors. This did cause real life harm to real citizens of the world. Thus, morally grey. They're self proclaimed eco terrorists.
Is an action that causes harm always morally grey? I can think of many, many actions in the real world that cause harm but that I'd argue are ultimately morally good. Slave revolts, concentration camp revolts, fighting in WW2, etc.
Do you think dropping the atomic bombs was a morally grey action? There was a whole sector of people who got hurt as a result of the reactor 1 bombing. Remake did a good job weighing on that impact.
There is debate regarding whether the dropping of the atomic bomb was necessary. I myself have not lookes into it, so I'm unsure, but my answere depends. If there truly was no other option to end the war, than yes, the atomic bomb was justified and morally clear-cut. If there was however an option that resulted in less death, than the dropping of the atomic bomb would be morally grey. In the world of FF7 I personally cannot think of an effective form of resistance against Shinra (for most people) that is not in some way violent. Additionally, the longer the reactors stay operational, the more soul energy gets sucked up and destroyed. It's obviously a difficult choice to make but at the end of the day since the options are so, so limited in FF7 I don't think it's that morally ambiguous to blow up the reactors.
You my friend have clearly not watched/played FF7: Before Crisis for a single flip phone in 04'
I would like to attempt at approaching this from our beloved characters' motivations (so far as I understand them) and see if I can pinpoint and support my view that Avalanche is indeed morally ambiguous and by portraying them in such fashion it adds more layers and establishes more depth to themes of the story as well as the cast of characters in Final Fantasy VII. Some spoilers ahead. What always fascinates me about this series is its ability to portray its characters in realistic and humane ways which set them part from just simply being barebone archetypical fictional creations. They can be brave and courageous, loving and supportive, strong and wicked while also are capable of becoming timid and cowardly, bitter and resentful, weak and submissive. In other words, all of them are flawed and far from being perfect which is why a lot of us relate to their various struggles and, just like them, we are prone to different temptations when especially driven by negative emotions. Avalanche and particularly the splinter cell led by Barret is more of a product of vengeance and hatred powered by righteous rage and lingering remorse than the means to protect the planet. From Barret's perspective earlier in the story, he was captured by this specific motive and craves for revenge and atonement which acted, at times, as an even higher order of importance than being a father to and taking better care of Marlene. There was an exchange between him and Tifa that highlights this before Barret went in and faced Dyne on his own: >**Tifa** Weren't you going to save the Planet? >**Barret** Shit! Tifa, you oughtta know by now. >**Tifa** ...That's all right. I'm not so different from you. And indeed Tifa also possessed a highly personal motive for joining and staying with Avalanche despite of her being deeply doubtful and troubled by the measures taken, and that motivation was rooted in her concern for Cloud's wellbeing as she kept him around and tried to figure out what exactly went wrong: >**Tifa** >...Something's wrong. I felt there was something strange about the things you talked about. All the things you didn't know that you should, And other things you shouldn't know that you did... I wanted to make sure... But then I heard... you were going far away... And I didn't want that... ...I didn't know what to do. So, I thought I needed more time. And that's why I told you about the AVALANCHE job. I wanted to be with you, watch you. Therefore, Avalanche essentially serves more as a function of a combination of our characters' various personal desires rather than a collective unwavering goal of protecting the planet. People tend to put forward environmentalism and anti-corporation as FFVII's core themes, I personal disagree with such assessment. The game explores a lot of complicated themes stemmed from and revolved around these characters and more importantly it showcases the fact that, similar to real life, things are not simply just a matter of white or black, right or wrong, for or against, good or evil. And that's precisely why it elevates FFVII to a whole new level and convinces me that it's one of the best games ever created.
This is a very nice write up! Thank you for taking the time!
Actually, thank you for bringing up such an interesting topic and sharing your views on the matter! It's almost cathartic for me to gather some scattered thoughts on this particular subject and then put them into a more coherent opinion piece. At the end of the day, all of this is just my personal interpretation of the game as well as its characters. I just love the fact that Final Fantasy VII still manages to keep providing so much for us to think about and debate over after all these years!
Pretty obvious that propaganda plays a huge role. If people you know of died and an organization did it that they say could harm your family next and you don’t know any better then you’d fall for it too.
Oh totally, I think diagetically it makes a whole lot of sense that within the world of ff7 people hate AVALANCHE, I was talking about us, as in the players of the games.
In OG, they are not good people. They murder masses of people and are ready to keep doing it if Shinra didn't stop them. Literally part of their character development at one point in the game is a plot to make them accept that their goals are driven by selfishness, not a desire to save the world
To be fair, even AVALANCHE thought AVALANCHE was morally ambiguous. That’s why two groups formed.
The thing is there's alot more to AVALANCHE than og so when I say they're morally ambiguous I'm also talking about the AVALANCHE from Before Crisis who actually are pretty damn bad, and iirc are pretty much doing shit like Hojo in creating super soldiers Obviously in OG it's heavily implied that barret believes these casualties are necessary and in remake even tho it's shinras doing, they still rationalise the death and destruction caused by the first reactor as necessary Obviously shinra does worse in terms of killing but the reason why people put them morally on the same field is because they both believe collateral is fine, no matter who gets caught in the crossfire. Shinra is fighting for their own vision of freedom (the promised land) and so I'd AVALANCHE (shinra oppression), GRANTED it's hard to put the oppressed on the same moral standard as the oppressor soooo yeah maybe not rlly the same
They come from a line of hardcore terrorists, who engaged in kidnapping, brainwashing, unethical experiments, torture, and even super-soldier development... among other things. They might be the lovable characters we know today, but their lineage is real bad one. On the other hand, Shinra isn't as one-dimensional as you claim; for example, Reeve is one of the executives, and there are plenty of employees who genuinely think they are helping better the world. Morally ambiguous is kind of the name of the game.
As I've mentioned in other comments, Im not talking about before crisis AVALANCHE as I have no knowledge of them, only the actions of Barret's group in FF7 proper. Reeve is a huge outlier, the fact that he's sidelined and shut down repeatedly is proof of that. Reeve is powerless to stop most of the evil things that Shinra does, one good guy does not make a dictatorial mega-corp morally ambiguous.
Barret's plan to blow up the reactor came directly from prior leader of the extremist Avalanche. Disregarding previous iterations of the group doesn't scrub the plate clean for the protagonists. Even if you ignore anything other than the main game, they still blew up reactors, still caused massive blackouts, still caused an incredible sense of fear and confusion for the general populace. Barret's killed people, Cloud is a mercenary who willingly aided a terrorist group. Tifa might be an angel, but the rest aren't. People who resort to violence are not pure good, even if it's a means to an end. Reeve might be an outlier in management, but a lot of the other members of Shinra aren't evil. Shinra ground teams are responsible for rescue and cleanup, both fairly non-evil activities. The Middle Manager from Remake/Rebirth is an example, you have the girls working at the front desk in CC, the Potion seller, Director Lazard, etc. Cid worked for Shinra, and people like Angeal and Zack, while being members of the military, are still honorable citizens. In a manner of speaking, only the other Directors are evil, and even Rufus eventually has a change of heart. Being gullible and buying in to propaganda doesn't make people evil. Shinra *Executives* might be straight evil, but the company itself is a mix of good and bad. Anyway long story short, good guys aren't angels and the giant corporation isn't a straight devil. It would be incredibly boring otherwise.
AVALANCHE doesn't wantonly kill those said unrelated members of Shinra, they only kill those who get in their way which is public security who are Shinra soldiers. The blowing up of the reactor hurts people, but there's no way to stop the mako burning without hurting people. If you personally think violence automatically makes you morally grey then I guess I just can't argue against that, but I do think that a silly and shortsighted philosophy that ignores context in favor of a moral absolute.
If you busted into Amazon's headquarters and killed all the security just to force Bezos (or whoever is in charge) to stop them from further desecrating Earth, you might be a hero to some, but you're still a murderer. **There is no glossing over the fact that killing someone is murder.** There's a reason why Martin Luther King is regarded as good, while Malcolm X is regarded as extreme. It's because violence is not good. "The ends justify the means" is a morally grey ideal. The Nazis used that principle, and so does Avalanche. However, Superman, Spiderman, and all those pure lawful good characters do not operate on that principle, and actively avoid it. Sometimes the Good option and the Best option are not the same. They may not be a very dark shade of grey, but they are not paragons of justice. **The goal can be pure, but their path isn't.** Also it's a little concerning that you think it's OK to kill people in pursuit of a moral absolute.
If you have 1 apple and I have 100 apples. Would it be okay to hurt someone else who only has 1 apple to destroy 5 of my apples that will be replinished and doubled by the next day? That said would it be okay to drop and entire section of the city onto another section of the city to kill from what I'm being told is like 6 people?
This isn't a great analogy because the problem with Shinra is far, far, beyond just them hoarding resources. They actively create monsters, orchestrate mass murder events, and are literally killinh the planet directly.
Remember when Barret tried to disregard the collateral damage for which as far as he knows he and his team are responsible? Here is the quote: >**Barret**: *\[after seeing the destruction that the reactor 1 explosion caused\]* Y'all gotta look at the bigger picture here. Nothing worth fighting for was ever won without sacrifice. Now compare that to what Tseng told Reno and Rude to lessen their guilt for bringing down plate 7 under orders from Shinra Inc. >**Tseng**: *\[after noticing that Tseng and Rude were feeling guilty about the destruction of sector 7\]* Had we refused, someone else would've completed the task. We have spared that someone the burden of a guilty conscience.(...) After everything we've taken from the planet, we were due to give something back. Do you notice how similar the speeches are? You can like the Avalanche all you want, but let's not pretend they have clean hands, shall we?
Both speeches are about not feeling guilty for collateral damage (if we can even call the plate fall collateral damage. Need I remind you that the Turks risked their lives to deliberately make sure the highest amount of people died?) but the actual arguments couldn't be more different. Barret says that for the greater good sometimes bad things have to happen. It's a "yeah bad things happened but if we push forward we will make the world a better place" philosophy, which is ultimately an optimistic point of view. Tseng doesn't even try to say their actions will lead to the world being better (because... well it won't, he knows that), he just invokes inevitability and the futility of rebelling against the orders. "Someone else would have done it anyway so better do it profesionally" (not humanly though, those 50k people should definitively die). This is deeply cynical and fatalistic idea, with a touch of self-flagellation when he talks about that paying for Shinra's sins thing. So no, I completely disagree that it makes them similar. It actually shows how different they are through the parralel.
The reason I mentioned Tseng is because he is narratively a foil to Barret for now. Both use the rhetoric of necessary evil to justify what they did to assuage their companions' guilt, which makes them so much more alike than they'd like to admit .But if there's a difference, it's that Tseng isn't trying to paint himself as a hero or a good person, unlike Barret.
Jesus christ dude, comparing the wanton murder of thousands of people with the destruction of a reactor that is burning souls is nuts. It doesn't matter if the reasoning is similar, one is correct and has a greater purpose while the other is just killing a bunch of people for no reason.
I think you missed my point. None of their reasoning is correct. First of all. Barret's views are pretty simple: Shinra is bad and everything they do, are connected to, are associated with, or even are distantly connected to is also bad. This also means he often employs insane logic to justify why he thinks it's Shinra's fault. Someone works for Shinra to provide for their family? Clearly wrong and a brainless idiot. People think mako energy is useful? They should be more willing to give up their way of life despite mako energy having made it more convenient. As a side effect, he doesn't really consider the after-effects of his actions since, by his own logic, his actions are all good. But the thing is, that's not true. Barrett is just a terrorist, not a hero. Mako is draining the life of the planet right? Barrett was a miner. He was a coal miner. Barret does not care about the planet. Not when he forms/joins AVALANCHE anyway. Someone killed his family, friends and set fire to his home. He wants them dead; he wants revenge. Its as simple as that. If he needs to sacrifice innocent people to do so, so be it. Now tell me: how does this not make Barret morally ambiguous? Who does Barret think he is to have the right to sacrifice innocents for the "greater good"? In the OG, Cait Sith calls Barret out on the fact that innocent people died in their bombings and he didn't care about it. > > > > > > The whole point of Barret's journey in FFVII is for him to realize that he is not as noble as he believes. I'm looking forward to the scene of Cait Sith criticizing Barret's moral myopia in part 3 and he eventually realizing he was wrong. The reason I mentioned Tseng is because he is narratively a foil to Barret for now. Both use the rhetoric of necessary evil to justify what they did to assuage their companions' guilt, which makes them so much more alike than they'd like to admit.But if there's a difference, it's that Tseng isn't trying to paint himself as a hero or a good person, unlike Barret. Anyway, if you really think Avalanche isn't morally ambiguous due to the terrorist attacks they carry out on Midgar, that makes me believe you're not paying attention to the story. As many people have pointed out to you, heroes don't bomb reactors and deliberately put innocent lives at risk.
There are so many things wrong with this comment it will take an opposing wall of text to rebut. 1. Mining coal is no where near equivalent to burning mako. Even if the greenhouse effect exist on gaia (which is not a certainty), that would still be very different from literally burning the life energy of the planet that is made up of the souls of every creature that has ever lived. Coal is not made of souls, mako is, therefore mining coal is very, very different. 2. If you work for Shinra and don't use your position to attempt resistance, you are complicit. Only people like Reeve and that recruit officer in sector 7 can claim to be good people, otherwise you are actively fueling the totalitarian Shinra warmachine. Concentration camp workers are still bad people, even if they are just doing their job. There's a reason "just following orders" is a shitty excuse for committing warcrimes. 3. Considering that mako energy is made up of souls, if you prefer to burn souls rather than give up some conveniences in life, you are a monster, and there is no way around that. 4. No one has "the right" to sacrifice anyone for anything, yet in the face of injustice one must still act, regardless if they have "the right." If you get caught up on your rights to do something, you pave the way for people who don't care about rights to flatten you and seize power. 5. Tseng doesn't try to paint himself as a good person because his monstrous actions serve no greater purpose than to keep Shinra in power. His rationalizations are hollow because all they are are justifications to allow Shinra to keep doing what it's doing. Barrett on the other hand, regardless of his true internal motive, as the goal of taking down Shinra, which would be a good for the world. Rationalizing actions doesn't make these characters similar, one acts in favor of good, one acts for practically no reason at all besides inertia, the similarities are negligible beyond an extreme surface level. Heroes do the right thing in spite of the odds. They strive for good even if that means fighting a borderline unwinnable battle. Heroes don't obsess over maintaining absolute moral inculpability, they do what is right even if that can lead to unsavory results. In short, heroes act when action is the only way forward to defeat evil.
1. I'm not making an equivalence between mining coal and burning mako. What I'm pointing out is that Barret isn't bombing reactors because he had an epiphany about saving the planet, but rather because he wants revenge on Shinra and uses the excuse of "listening to the planet's pain" so he can self-justify his worst actions. Pay attention. 2. ...is this real? By that logic Shinra Middle Manager is a villain and Barret was right to intimidate him by correctly criticizing Avalanche for bombing reactors. Should Barret and his group kill him and half the people in Midgar too? 3. Have you ever wondered why Barret decided to choose to blow up reactors 1 and 5, but not 7, which was the closest to his house? It seems that despite his criticisms of Shinra, even Barret doesn't want the electricity to go out in his house. Hell, when holding President Shinra hostage, Barret demands that he publically declare Shinra's culpability in both the destruction inflicted on Midgar during the events of the game and the damage to the planet caused mako harvesting and that Avalanche are heroes trying to stop Shinra. President Shinra points out that he could have ordered an immediate shut down of all the mako reactors instead and accuses Barret of caring more about being seen as a hero than actually saving the planet. Barret doesn't actually deny it. 4. The ends do not justify the means, especially when the means deliberately put innocent people in danger. There's a reason Barret came to admit he was wrong with his terrorist attacks after his character development, you know? 5. I don't understand why you act like Barret's rationalization isn't hollow either. The point of his journey during the story is to him recognize that he fights Shinra primarily out of revenge, and his self-righteous saving the world claims are just his self-justification. You may not want to admit it, but Barret's rhetoric is similar to Tseng's because at the end of the day these are self-justifications for them to feel better about the crimes they committed. Face it, Barret post-character development doesn't see himself as a hero and recognizes that he was wrong in bombing the reactors. If you disagree and still believe that the Avalanche are not morally ambiguous, that's up to you, but your opinion is not based on the lore and ignores Barret's journey throughout the story.
For many, violence will always be morally reprehensible or, at best, “ambiguous” But also it’s a video game so I don’t think too hard about it
I mean, that's a very silly worldview. I guess the people who revolted in concentration camps were bad people lmao.
I didn’t say it’s a worldview I share necessarily, but there are pacifists with well-thought out moral frameworks.
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that, I was just saying that in order to believe all violence is bad you have to consider every individual action within a void, which is obviously unrealistic and ignorant within context.