- Jan 5, 2022
- 110
- 142
We have already discussed this. I agree with everything listed specifically regarding the theft of money and do not condone it (precisely this). The principle of proportionality is used in judicial systems and it would be strange not to apply it when making any personal decisions. The trivial question is “is it worth it or not.”The principle of proportionality doesn't apply to the theft, the theft is quantifiable. All the Holgersons need is for those cameras that Bella claims are inactive to be recording, and Nika is screwed. There is no such thing as proportionality in morality, that is why the saying two wrongs don't make a right is a great guide. Most importantly, criminal acts in society are not mitigated by any criminal activity on the other side. I can't murder a drug dealer, I can't take the law into my own hands and decide what is fitting.
An eye for an eye is not justice; the point of law is not to preserve moral behaviour, it is to preserve social function - the rules exist essentially to keep peace within the container we call society while we're all stuck in it. If I wish to make comparitive morality, I can only do so when my threat/power is greater than society's collective power - I have to have either enough leverage or force to ensure no one can bring consequences, or hope I am small and petty enough to not be worth the effort of punishment.
However, SG's universe has a theme of every action having a consequence (which is something Nika repeats to himself), so comparitive morality is a lie in the games narrative. Nika believes he can be a vigilante (or as you say, simply doesn't care for a variety of plausible reasons). But consider it this way: if there are such intense consequences for winning a basketball game through simple mind games, how would a sliding scale work for theft? I'd imagine execution at least
Getting back to the money thing, in a legal sense, if Nika is caught, no one will care about motives. He took the money, we even know that his motives were purely selfish, and he just wanted it - he took the opportunity. THere is no ay to mitigate his motivations by comparisons to the Holgersons (who we have no evidence of any wrong doing prior to this moment). Nika breaks and enters, destroys property and steals money purely because he hates the guy for dissing his appearance and being associated with people who verbally bullied Mila (despite her calming the situation down and letting it go). So Nika's reasons are not at that moment about the 'plan'. That comes the following day. They are just doing this purely on spite.
Oh and I forgot this quote about Bella's beliefs about Stefan, because my memory of the changes in S1 Full hasn't yet sunk in:
We have no objective reasons not to trust Bella's words about cameras. If we just go back to the assumption I mentioned in another dialogue, that Holgerson knows who really got into the house and wants to use it somehow. Oooh, evil genius.
Morality is an even wider swamp. There are generally accepted dogmas, and there are personal distortions. For some reason, one example came to mind (I have no idea why) from Battlestar Galactic. In one of the episodes the hero needs to make a decision and shoot at the “bus”. The threat may or may not be real, but the cost is all passengers. From a moral point of view, these are equally interesting scales. You are either a highly moral hero who saved everyone and made a difficult decision. Or a mass murderer. I emphasize that this is just an example to highlight the flexibility and individuality of morality.
[Note in the margin. It’s kind of sad that they don’t make stories like this in TV series anymore. Wrong egg size.]
Further. Criminal acts are not always perceived poorly by society and are very often mitigated through presentation and purpose. If a police officer shoots a robber running into a crowded store with a toy shotgun without first shouting a code phrase, he will break the law and be condemned by the system. But you are unlikely to hear condemnation of his actions from representatives of society.
I didn’t say to throw around the phrase “an eye for an eye.” All I'm saying is that if you don't like a person, you can put a nail under his ass.
It’s important here that I apply all these moral things to actions. Nika himself can say anything. Maybe in the SG universe you are immediately shot for theft (often he just talks pretentious bullshit that sounds like self-justification).
I don't agree. This is not entirely true, in my opinion. The plan begins to work with Nika at night when this decision is given to the player. Further, in the case of both options, the essence of the conversation in Bella’s room can be tailored to your choice. Until this moment, Nika also has time to think whether his “fun” is worth the consequences.
(But there is one nuance here, I don’t remember how the plot goes if you don’t go anywhere at night. I went through this line once, quickly, for the sake of interest.)
Here. I like this version too. She just fits my assumption about the Holgersons' awareness. They needed a reason to ruin Mila’s life (but I don’t think that this is just another “plan”, rather they are just assholes) and the eldest needed some kind of leverage in relation to Bella, be it because of a boner or just so that she would stop wedging in his relationship with Amber. And here and there the phrase “we know that it was you, but...” comes up.
Last edited:
