Talk:Weepers/@comment-149.159.125.109-20121012163318/@comment-27202257-20130219051728

"Firstly, let's get this out of the way firs tand foremost: the developers did indeed say that Chaos is less a system of morality and more an objective system of how Dunwall goes to hell. That being said? They. Lied. Seriously, there is no other way I can put it, as you can clearly see by the myriad ways that the game reacts, and how High Chaos is binarily conflated with morally "bad" choices, even when it is against all common sense."

I'm going to stop you right there, because in my mind, you've already lost the argument. The developers themselves have said that it is not a system of morality, but because you think it is, they're wrong? That's literally just brushing aside evidence that goes against your point.

"So, riddle me this: why does the game count [guards] as generating more "chaos" when killed than [weepers] if Chaos is supposedly not a morality system but an objective measure of the city's descent into a plague infested hellhole?"

Because the guards are part of the problem for civilians, and being attacked is part of their line of work. Most of them are criminals who are said--and seen--to regularly harass the citizenry. Killing them does increase chaos because, yes, they do keep the order, but they also cause chaos in a way that citizens don't. W hich is going to scare John Q. Public more: someone who goes around attacking criminalistic guards, or someone who goes around killing sick people? Guards being attacked is a sign of trouble--innocent people being murdered in the streets is a sign of the end times.

"And that's just the most relevant issue where the "Chaos is not a measure of morality" lie can get reveale. I could write a doctoral thesis on why Yes, it clearly is some ham-handed measure of morality rather than the status of the city, but I won't for now. So thus, saying morality does not come into play here is bullocks."

No. I am not convinced of your argument here. Therefore, the rest falls apart because you have failed to prove this critical component.

ETA, because why not:

 "Firstly, please familiarize yourself with the definition of Murder. It does not mean what you think it is. Murder is by definition the illegal taking of a life."

Miriam-Webster defines murder as such:

 1. to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice. 2.  to slaughter wantonly.

Both of those definitions are equally "correct."

"The killing of those infected by the plague was never regarded as such in just about any major civilization or nation-state, and so would not apply to the killing of Weepers."

Why? This is a fictional world. The Empress sure seemed to think it constituted murder, and that is actual evidence from this fictional world.

"We know this is abundantly the case in Dunwall at the time of the story because that is precisely what the Regency Government has been doing en-masse, what with using the Walls of Light, giving men orders to shoot to kill Weepers more or less on contact or sight, and what have you."

And that...is bad. Virtually everything the Regency Government does increases chaos. They make a huge point about how things were bad before the Empress died, but they absolutely went to shit afterwards. Lydia and Cecelia both make comments to that affect, as well as many NPCs Corvo encounters.

"By all accounts? The people of Dunwall are by and large *Fine* with this. Hell, it's pretty much one of the major things keeping the uninfected (mainly upper class) areas of Dunwall from being consumed by the plague."

Where did you see characters saying they were okay with this? They basically have no say in how the Regency government behaves, so there isn't really any implied consent going on there. They are just more interested in staying alive themselves, by and large.

"Yes, we all agree that overall, Weepers are a nonfactor compared to the rats in terms of plague spread and how it happens[...] Therefore, killing them and burning the bodies would hardly be a great tragedy to most of them (especially not the nobility and what have you) and would help SERIOUSLY diminish the plague's spread."

Contradiction.

"The supposed justification that you gave- that killing Weepers is bad because it generates chaos in the city and the people and thus outweighs whatever good Corvo's done- seems to ignore the entire point of the Lord Regent's entire containment plan."

Yes. Yes it does. Because the Lord Regent's policies adamantly increased chaos in Dunwall. That is a huge point in the story.

"And from what we can tell, most NPCs in the game are perfectly fine with this."

Again, there's no implied consent here. You're assuming they're okay with it, because most people are more interested in saving their own skin.

"This in no way means it is morally good. Just less Chaotic."

Again, no. I am pretty sure if I saw people being murdered in the streets--even the sick and dangerous--I would not feel safer by any stretch.

Return of the ETA: A friend of my just made an excellent point in regard to this discussion, which I feel is worth sharing. This plague is tearing through the city at an incredible rate. Everyone still alive? Knows that if things go wrong, they could be a weeper tomorrow. So how are they going to feel, knowing that not only could they come down with the plague, but there is someone lying in wait to murder them if they do?