Utilitarian thoughts on The Forgotten City
Aug. 1st, 2021 10:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feotakahariA different analysis of three reasons the city was doomed from the start. Based entirely on the standalone game. Spoilers galore:
1): Prediction. Duli is mentally disabled. Sentius argues that he must be kept locked up, because he doesn’t understand the rules of the city and may break them by accident. Galerius argues that this is a misjudgment, and he won’t break the rules if he’s set free. Which of them is right? Only you, outside of time, can judge. Within the time loop, there’s no way to be sure until the law is actually broken, meaning there’s no way to know the right thing to do.
2): Selflessness. Ulpius is forced to work for Malleolus to pay off his debt, and Malleolus treats him so terribly that he’s on the verge of suicide. You can save him by paying his debt directly. But what of a person within the loop, who didn’t have access to the ridiculous money-stealing tricks you do? A plausible way to save him would be to go into debt yourself, and use that money to pay Malleolus. Borrow the money from Aurelia instead, and your suffering may not be quite as bad. But are you really willing to be that self-sacrificing? Perfect goodness is a painful and punishing standard, and it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to meet it.
3): Options. The assassin will not leave the city until he either kills his target or is killed in turn. You trick him into a collapsing building to avoid him bringing the Golden Rule down on everyone’s heads. But is this really a good thing to do? I submit that killing one man is the least bad thing. The good thing would be to avoid any deaths, but this simply isn’t possible based on the circumstances.
1): Prediction. Duli is mentally disabled. Sentius argues that he must be kept locked up, because he doesn’t understand the rules of the city and may break them by accident. Galerius argues that this is a misjudgment, and he won’t break the rules if he’s set free. Which of them is right? Only you, outside of time, can judge. Within the time loop, there’s no way to be sure until the law is actually broken, meaning there’s no way to know the right thing to do.
2): Selflessness. Ulpius is forced to work for Malleolus to pay off his debt, and Malleolus treats him so terribly that he’s on the verge of suicide. You can save him by paying his debt directly. But what of a person within the loop, who didn’t have access to the ridiculous money-stealing tricks you do? A plausible way to save him would be to go into debt yourself, and use that money to pay Malleolus. Borrow the money from Aurelia instead, and your suffering may not be quite as bad. But are you really willing to be that self-sacrificing? Perfect goodness is a painful and punishing standard, and it’s unreasonable to expect everyone to meet it.
3): Options. The assassin will not leave the city until he either kills his target or is killed in turn. You trick him into a collapsing building to avoid him bringing the Golden Rule down on everyone’s heads. But is this really a good thing to do? I submit that killing one man is the least bad thing. The good thing would be to avoid any deaths, but this simply isn’t possible based on the circumstances.
