@@OliverLugg 38:42 has to be my favorite moment of the whole video. While in my personal life it is very far from my political ideology, I am a full blown capitalist when it comes to FTL playthroughs.
@@helohel5915 Not a personal critisism, but it's interesting to me that you say "The game is just too difficult to be moral". You seem to be saying that overcoming the difficulty of (winning) the game is the 'right' or most worthwhile choice; yet you see that as being at odds with the utilitarian argument that destroying the Rebel flagship (winning the game, saving the galaxy, etc) is the the most moral choice. Is it that your enjoyment and satisfaction of the game, as the player, trumps the in-game consequences of your actions? Because that type of Ethical Egoism (as briefly described in the video) is itself a form of morality.
@@JB-fp3fb Well, I was playing hard mode with stealth A. It's not like I agree with what I was doing, not that I ever thought about what I was doing, simply because of something he brought up in the video - it's still a game, you aren't punished by being evil
My favorite Trolley Problem meme is: You are far away. The only way to pull the lever is to use the teleportation machine. If you do it, will it be _you_ pulling the lever?
Even if you run and reach the lever in time, will the you pulling the lever be the same one that saw the lever from far away? It is a strange and at first absurd question, but ponder it legimately.
TAS stands for Tool Assisted Speedrun. In general they aren't just "a computer doing a speedrun", but rather a person painstakingly crafting a playthrough that is as perfectly optimized as they are willing to make it through the use of save states, frame by frame inputs, analysis tools and their overall knowlege of the game.
Yeah, I was aware of that, although I definitely summarised it poorly. Still using a specific software tool to finesse the game, so I think my (admittedly tenuous) point still stands.
@@dannadx3840 not at all, at that point you could say that playing the game normally is "a computer playing the game" since it is handling your inputs.
@@ergwertgesrthehwehwejwe yep, you can feel my anger through the computer, the notion that some stranger across the world doesn't understand what a TAS is causes boiling, black vile to overflow my veins, my theeth shatter as I clench my jaws in righteous fury while delivering just retribution in the form of youtube comments, I am mad, and, I am, in fact, a "TAS speedrunner", I do so many TASes everyday that my computer begs for rest.
FTL really puts the "You only have the ethics you can afford" thing in the spotlight; moreso on higher difficulties. Most people will jump through all kinds of hoops to avoid engaging with that idea directly.
Ethics is for sheltered people with no skin in the game. When its your crew on the line, the only ethics is doing whatever gets you more scraps. The more scraps you get, the more morally correct you are.
@@jimster1111I suppose, though Rimworld's punishments for awful things (maybe until ideology) were harsh enough to make those kinds of things un-optimal. Then again if it's between starving or cannibalism...
True, but there also isn't any consequence for holding people for ransom or taking a pirate bribe if they offer you a Halberd Beam. It's also a bit harder than it needs to be for a philosophy lesson considering that you are supposed to be a federation but are always on the back foot. If they toned it down a bit so you can make those "good choices" without also resigning to a lost; I think it would've been more obvious. Instead it's just a series of small puzzles with no consequences
@@jimster1111 one time i was doing a multiplayer game and we just repelled a raid, nothing too challenging. we had decent guns by that point: SMG's, ARs and Chekov's semi-auto shotgun. if i remember right they might've been pure melee, maybe one gunman in the mix, overall it wasn't a fair fight i selected the retreating bandits as usual to check their skills, weigh up their worth before they got out of kidnapping reach and i saw that one of them was 15, still a kid. brought out to this doomed raid because his faction demanded it, because he had to do his part to survive. i instantly told my friend, "he's just a kid!" and advised him not to shoot and he just went "nah" and gave him the 12-gauge ending. two shots and he was worm food thinking on it, it's funny that i was bothered by that death even though i was ready to essentially kidnap him for our own gain if his stats were promising enough. he belonged to a faction, one we'd have to weaken his dedication to until he accepted us as his new carers and peers. i'd rather still be bothered by that obviously, to maintain some idea that i'm a good person and a video game can somehow reinforce that, but i think it also speaks a little to our humour and my dislike for killing video game civvies extends to sparing them and any potential jokes that could come from their deaths all that being said, i am a "pull the lever" guy. maybe throw a 15 year old on the other track and then i'd struggle (also i can't bring myself to download the war crimes mod, which i know is obviously a joke. it feels weirdly cruel even if it isn't real. like i'd have to derive some joy from imagining it (as is rimworld's design) and i can't get in on the joke)
The definition of morality is getting more scrap. The more scrap you have, the more moral it is. Jokes aside, I would like to point out something about the Rebel-friendly colony event where you can steal their supplies. While it does not detract from your overall argument (the Great Eye knows there are plenty more situations like it in the game), one detail throws a wrench in this specific thought experiment: they are a _Rebel_ friendly colony. As in, the same Rebels who are bearing down upon you and will soon pop up into that very system with a giant fleet. If the Rebels care in any way, shape or form about the isolated colony that threw in their lot with them, logic dictates that they soon shouldn't have any supply issues. _One way or the other._
Actually, I believe that joke is more accurate than you think. The more scrap I have, the more I try to take the morally good options, because I can afford it. If not... well, a rebel-aligned civie transport is a small sacrifice to make to stop the rebels, no?
@@jojo-wx8kw Psychologically, the amount of wealth a person has isn't inversely correlated to how likely they are to be charitable. If it were inversely-related, then trickle-down economics would've worked for the last 40 years in the US, but they haven't. It's similar to the "two people get some money but each can get more if they backstab the other, but if they both backstab then neither of them gets money." Logically, no one would ever backstab because there's a massive amount of risk to doing so, but the draw of wealth and desire to have that at all costs leads people to trying to backstab.
According to this philosophy, gaining ownership of a junkyard is the most moral action. The more junkyards, the more gooder. The problem @RaelsGae is talking about is the Prisoner's Dilemma, for what it's worth.
eeeeh, problem is that I doubt the IRL military would care too much about making absolute certain civvies are being taken care of, even if it was a small war for oil. ....too close to home?
Hey, I appreciate the shoutout! Loved the video, "digging extremely deeply into silly games" is one of my favorite genres of UA-cam vid. Definitely subscribing.
I never considered the actual philosophical aspect of my choices in FTL. When I started playing FTL I was too young to understand the moral implications of my actions, I just knew 'slavery bad', 'spiders bad', 'pirates bad' and so went about my merry way, making certain all of the bad people were converted properly into refined gaming fuel. After a thousand hours I can safely say no event has slipped by unread and no dice roll uninternalized, every run becomes an exact science of ensuring every possible thing goes juuust right. But even still after all I've been through, buying slaves always gives me pause, and I never steal supplies from civilians (unless I press the button too fast but we don't talk about that)
"Hey, cap, there's this rebel ship doing a supply run an-" "Take the supplies." "Uh alright... Done. Can't help but feel a bit bad for the civilians, though..." "Oh."
I never bought a slave. I attack them, shoot out their O2 and prevent their escape by knocking out navigation and engines. They will surrender when getting low, giving you a free slave if you let them go. Then I take the slave and watch the slavers die of O2 deprivation or fires spreading throughout the ship, if they are unlucky enough :P
I don’t just get emotionally attached to my crew members, I create personalities and subplots for them Like the Mantis tomboy Felicity, tough exterior, but actually has low self esteem and doesn’t like that she is the one usually going into fights because of her biology, she also has a massive crush on her childhood friend and ship engineer, Eric the human, who is of course completely oblivious Meanwhile we have J’ace the Zoltan, stoic and rarely speaks, but is basically the crew’s big brother, dispensing sage advice and wisdoms whenever they are needed But uh oh! I’ve picked up another Mantis crew member on the journey, and he is trying to seduce Felicity, and Eric doesn’t know why that bothers him so much
I think you'd love the game RimWorld. That's actually the core mechanic the entire game was built around, creating a dynamic story out of the randomly made characters
35:31 Quick solution: travel inside the sensors to trip them, retreat. Say to the approaching Klingons that you're on a rescue mission for a ship that drifted into the neutral zone, and ask for permission to carry out the mission. If the response is "no", offer them money/resources to tug the stranded ship out themselves. While they're at it, ask why they have not already blown up the stranded vessel if it's so deep into Klingon space, and why it's a "neutral" zone if only Klingon ships are allowed in.
the klingons were initially on board with helping you but ultimately decided to blow up the Kobyashi-maru exclusively out of spite for your smart-assery. cut the video feed _BEFORE_ mocking your enemy's compassion next time, cadet.
If I recall correctly, the Klingons entered it when they detected Federation ships violating its neutrality, and the Klingons are moving in on the Kobayashi Maru to destroy it
Ah yes, the smart decision: Flaunting and then aggressively restarting negotiations over a treaty that was tenuous at best. Please tell me you're like 14
@@jessh4016 *what the actual heck?* No, getting the attention of local patrols through the only available means of doing so then respectfully asking for the time to either carry out the mission or giving compensation if they do it for you and thus not further violating the treaty. The only aggression perceivable here would be the immediate opening of communications as the sensors get tripped. And ironically bringing up age would make you seem underaged yourself, since you seem to think it holds any relevant value.
One of the "solutions" to the trolley problem is to identify a more serious problem, namely, somebody SET UP the trolley problem intending to force someone to make a choice. Then, the solution is whatever gets you in a better position to stop the mad trolley scientist is the overriding concern. ;)
No matter what you do the people/person will die before you are able to stop the person who caused it. Therefore the morality of the original person is irrelevant.
@@RRW359 To the contrary, the morality of the person who creates the trolley dilemma is paramount, because it is their actions which endanger lives, and will endanger lives in the future. And presumably endanger more lives than are at stake in any one dilemma.
@@michaelsandy2869 Yes and after you deal with the trolley problem you can deal with that, but right now you have a choice to make and assigning blame isn't going to change the fact that you could have saved all those people and/or killed that person.
It would be cool if a morality mod existed that didn't have a single meter, but instead assigned actions different scores for different races. Then you might get all the crewmembers you got from slavers revolting, or every zoltan patrol being instantly hostile when they recognise you etc.
In the multiverse mod, you can gain notoriety within certain factions (including your own, I think) by attacking non-hostile ships of that faction which makes the guard at the faction's hostile to you. Also you can straight up murder civilians in some events.
I love how the ftl multiverse mod took a relatively undeveloped story and universe and EXPLODED it into several new species several factions within said species a bajillion unique characters of each species, ftl’s bulk of writing being made at the tail end of its development is felt really hard but it’s so fascinating that it left just enough of a base for the ftl multiverse team to take that base and make the rockmen so interesting I can essentially sit and read what is essentially an essay of the life of 1 rockman and his family and how he got banished from his home
27:56 "If you were a truly virtuous person you would dismiss them as soon as they step on board" Uhhmm... anyone who is "dismissed" obviously just goes floating out the airlock xD
I always assumed dismissal just meant they were dropped off at the nearest settled planet or station near the beacon. Or perhaps are placed in stasis in whatever hammerspace youre storing your dozens of missiles/drone parts/units of ftl fuel. This is why I never feel bad about destroying ships attempting "surrender" because they *could* come aboard as prisoners and let me scrap their ship; fundamentally the "surrender" is just a bribe by any other name.
"They were surprised at the lack of ship management games." [paraphrased] I SO second this sentiment. I love Star Trek, I like the IDEA behind FTL, but there's so much about the game that makes me not enjoy it very much (the difficulty being only the first entry on my list), and the complete lack of ANYTHING similar to it is mind boggling... Where my captain-simulators at??
I've gotta say: the whole reason I clicked on this video was that great Thumbnail. The mantis piloting the trolley is so good and accurate to FTL it's just brilliant.
Ftl was and is wonderful :) busy emptying an office right now, but in a few hours I will sit down, relax, drink some wine, and watch another oliver video. Very excited :) Love the modding for ftl too, although base game set up a lot of interesting ideas that I would lose a leg for to see implemented in a space rpg
14:23, Now that’s my kind of reference! Good man yourself! (I referenced it under the Darkling Plain video and I’m happy that someone might have got it.)
28:00 you state that moraly speaking dismissal of the newly aquired slave is the best option which sounds good on the surface. However, you may be intrigued to consider the sound effect that plays when you dismiss a crew member… the sound of an airlock opening into space. The dissmiss button just executes people.
34:40 I always play as peacefully as possible, while it does make the game harder it certainly isn't impossible. As long as you have enough scrap to buy cloaking when it comes up, and have enough DPS to get through the bosses shields, its not that hard to defeat it when you get there.
Yeah FTL is sorta similar to Frostpunk in that the moral quandaries disappear if you're just good enough at the game, it's easy to forgo a bit of scrap for the more moral option if you're already cruising through the game.
@@hedgehog3180 In a way, that becomes a moral principle in its own right. One's righteousness is limited by one's capabilities, so self-improvement is virtuous.
"When facing the ultimate evil, all acts are justifiable" seems to be the core issue with FTL: that is, because the internal narrative places the rebel flagship as the ultimate evil (or the final boss), all actions end up becoming moral and justifiable within it. Overall it is still utterly brutal with the decisions when you're first playing, after a while all actions become justifiable in service of the final end goal. Not to mention, in a video game morals can often be set to the wayside, because people just want to see what will happen, or will just become murderous because there are no irl consequences - how often on a doomed run do you simply decide to go apeshit? This was a really, really great video overall though, thank you! It was a really interesting, and insightful watch!! The one change that I could potentially see, to make the game more difficult ethically speaking, would be to make the rebels less evil. Allow both sides to be understandable, to remove the rebels from being the ultimate evil, and suddenly a whole lot of things would become far more difficult to do. A bigger change would be to add the option of joining with the rebels, which would add endlessly more complex ethical questions - loyalty to your old friends vs your moral duty, which moral side do you agree with, what actions are justifiable when both sides might have an argument that someone could agree with and ethically justify?
Problem is, FTL isn't a story game. The story is just a background for the gameplay. And yes morally everything you do is justified, as you're on a mission to stop space nazis.
@@dr_birb Even if you were not. the survival of the human species is of paramount. we are lucky we didn't saw any other aliens yet, they would probably think the same. just go and see how many upper intelligent homonidae is there left ? no other, only us. We already did it, and will do it again. Its not about morality, its about survival. I don't care they are space nazis or whatever, they must die, so we survive. Because that's the game, and that's the objective, to win.
Something interesting I discovered: surrenders are actually useful sometimes. You get more scrap from destroying a ship, but you still get some from surrenders, and you get more of everything else. If you're low on, say, fuel (a common experience for me) you can find yourself being 'merciful' simply out of necessity. And there are times when you just have so much scrap you've stopped caring about getting more, especially in later sectors. Sure, I'm not being nice because of morals in these situations, but then I noticed that by doing this I took less hull damage too. Usually ships surrender right before their weapons finish charging. Basically, 'accept our surrender or lose ~5 hull durability.' One last act of spite if you refuse? An accident of programming? Who could say. I certainly don't usually weigh the morals of surrender acceptance anymore, but I think reducing the calculation down to 'I need scrap, I accept no surrender' is a mistake. The equation is a LOT more complicated than that even if you've played enough for the morals to have faded from the picture.
Of course, the most efficient option is generally to kill the crew but not the ship (except for automated drones, which can cause problems, and the Rebel Flagship which has an evil autopilot) - that way you get more of pretty much everything than if you destroy the ship. Which is morally worse? Blowing up a ship (thereby killing everyone aboard) or murdering the crew individually?
@@rmsgrey They're all rebel scum. Any outcome that flays their skin off their flesh is morally superior to any outcome where they live. Besides, slaying the monsters personally means my crew gets to enjoy bathing in their blood. Or watching them burn and suffocate from afar.
The efficacy of strategic bombing is actually pretty debated now. It was at the time as well. With that in mind I think the answer would be do nothing, because you're killing civilians either way for dubious benefit toward the push to the ultimate goal. I would argue inaction is a decision in itself so I think it's possible for someone working from a more deontological framework to pull the lever. It has to be established whether or not refusal to engage is an action in and of itself.
That's exactaly what I thought (at least with the School, bombing a factory can actually be useful in war). Whether I think the war justifies destroying the School or not, I wouldn't because all that will do is make the enemy more resolved to defeat you and will hurt the war effort in the long run.
The general conclusion from exploring the trolley problem in real life is that people consider taking definite action (pulling the lever) to be in a different category from refusing to act (not pulling the lever). So long as you aren't yet engaged in a situation, it's generally acceptable to invoke "somebody else's problem".
The Multiverse mod has really carried on the tradition of philosophical engagement. Can't recommend it highly enough. As much of a dilemma as the giant alien spider sector or the Jerome protectorate are, nothing poses more questions than the cloner cannon (!)
The best thing in relation to this video is the notority system, while yes it doesn't have many use, if you do to much bad thing you will get consequences like friendly guard attacking you on seight or store refusing to trade, even if it is for "the greater good" If you general notority is to high even Tully and the federation at sector 8 will simply refuse to help even tho they are well aware of your mission
Related to your discussion of Jubert's game writing often involving themes of philosophy and identity: the FTL AE ship optimized for sending out crew members to board, fight and die on other ships, then be cloned back on yours, is called the 'Theseus'. Also, I'd like to point out Ma and Davis released AE for free, when they could have easily made millions off it (I haven't looked up sales figures, but considering Subset's a tiny indie company founded by them, we're probably talking about a big amount of millions going directly to their pockets). They repeated this with Into the Breach later.
that part about philosophy, with the fourth choice made me recoil in disgust but it also reminded me of my favorite quote ever : "Saint Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladimir Nabokov, Isaiah Berlin, and Ayn Rand. The first was a novelist, the second a philosopher. The third was neither but thought she was both." - Corey Robin
I think you might be interested in SMT: Nocturne, the ethics are very interesting and has a big message about needing nuance in descions, not just picking the options it gives you
Another part of FTL is that because it’s so zoomed out, it also leaves a lot up to the imagination, which makes it easier to fill in the gaps with your choice of moral philosophy. When a slave joins your crew, of course you free them, but when they ask what your mission is, they want to help you defeat the xenophobes and naturally join your crew willingly. You control their every action but that’s just an abstraction of giving orders and them carrying them out to the best of their ability, it’s just that you’re technically playing as not just the captain, but every member of the crew at once. Etc etc.
‘Dismissing’ a crewman in the depths of space with no other vehicle or livable area around is just ejecting them into space to die. A dismiss is an execution.
5:07 ... Beverly... I couldnt help myself from hearing it, I just recently rewatched the next generation and yes, this scene stuck out in my mind over everything else. Love yall
I'm not a great fan of indie games, I dabble, but still like to be aware of what is out there, so I watched a few FTL videos. This video however has convinced me to give the game a try (next Steam sale). Also, fun and interesting philosophy video. I'm enjoying your channel man! Cheers.
I've never played FTL, but I totally adored the story and ideas explored in The Swapper, Talos Principle and Subnautica when I played them. I never thought to look for a common thread between them - I had no idea who Tom Jubert was until this video! Thank you.
Great video! You inspired me to get all 4 Mortal Engines books and now I suppose to return to FTL once again! Keep making vids, cant wait for the into the breach video, also an amazing game!
As of right now, I have 309 hours in FTL, and this video really sheds light on why FTL is such a good game. Not just the mechanics, but the story writing and ethical dilemmas posed in FTL are fascinating, and some I did not think about on an advanced level until I watched this video. Thank you for making this!
Just found your channel via my introduction to the game Diplomacy. Plus you have multipule videos on one of my favorite games ever. Cheers mate, looking forward to watching
1. E, pull the lever as the trolley goes over the switch track, either jamming it or leaving who dies to chance 2. E, Tell the man my idea, push him if he shows no concern for the people on the track OR if he asks me to push him, otherwise let him be. 3. E, Ask for a bribe, THEN lie and tip off the police 4. N/A, I’m not flying a bomber plane because I don’t trust myself to operate a vehicle 5. N/A, I plan on none of these things 6. N/A, all these haircuts are bad
I’ve only just started playing FTL, but I find the way the setting and the game mechanics affect moral choices ends up reinforcing a narrative, rather than detracting from it (whether this was the intended narrative is unclear, but that’s probably on purpose tbh). Hear me out: when you start the game, you are a small human-crewed Federation vessel fleeing an advancing army in a desperate retreat. How long would it take for the ideals you hold onto as a Federation species to fall by the wayside as you try to maybe not die so much this time? You might, as I did, start a run by trying to make choices that feel “morally right” according to whatever ethic is implied by calling an interstellar government a Federation; as time goes on, though, ideals of any kind matter less and less as the fabric of that interstellar government and the stability it provides erode with each system lost, and with each ouch deeper into hostile territory. So yeah, it may not be ethically consistent, but it’s fertile ground for narrative complexity supported by its game mechanics in a medium that tends to widely oversimplify morality anyway. TLDR; I feel like the de-emphasis on ethical decision-making supports the game’s storytelling in the long run. Super ready to be proven wrong after logging 200 hours in game tho!
It helps me personally that I consider "the best decision I can afford" to be the morally right one. Yeah, buying a slave might be bad, but it's better than losing the war and having a bajillion alien people become slaves to the rebels. Besides, if we live through this, they've earned their freedom. Buying a slave is very rarely the optimal play anyway.
1) the disclaimer is golden, but you cant tell me what to do, im using your videos in the education section of my resumes 2) the monte trolly problem... genius
Never really understood the Monty Hall problem myself. The existence of the dilemma means your original choice was already a 50/50. Making the choice again still changes nothing.
Kinda curious how I pan out so here's my answers with some extra thoughts. 1) How would you solve the Trolley Problem A, Pull the lever. But I don't think being unable to pull the lever due to be unwilling to actively put someone in harms way is an incorrect answer. In reality there's a lot of ways to think outside the box, and if I were to depending on time constraints attempting to ask the single person before pulling the lever, or attempting to save them after pulling the lever are decent options. But on a purely theoretical standpoint of "Is it morally correct to actively kill a small number of people to save a larger number of people" I think the only acceptable answer is 'It depends'. It is a cop out but I honestly don't think having a deterministic view of ethics is ethical. 2) Fat man trolley problem While the trolley problem has answers that lack baggage this problem provides answers with baggage, which means I can't truthfully answer with the provided set. My ideal answer to this situation would be to not push the man, but not because I'm unable or unwilling, but because the chance of this working is quite dubious. Purely theoretically this may seem identical to the last problem but I actually think it's different, I'd phrase it as this "Is it morally correct to actively kill a small number of people to have a small chance at saving a larger number of people, if this action includes a moderate to high chance you increase the total number of deaths". Framed like that I think the only acceptable answer can be it depends or no, being generally unwilling to take an unsure gamble such as this is acceptable 3) Do you tell the madman with an axe where your friend is C, is in honesty what I think I personally would do. Gather some more information, call your friend and ask about the guy, etc. A is perhaps the smarter option, at least for your own safety but it's far more presumptive. To crunch this one down to it's pure theory "Is it morally acceptable to provide a suspicious individual with information that may enable them to harm another, if denying them the information runs the risk of you being harmed?" This version of the question does basically eliminate answer A, but answer A I feel like is really tackling the core question. (Like if the trolley problem had an answer such as "C, I find a solution that stops the trolley with no one getting hurt") This question is kind of interesting because it adds a degree of uncertainty to the risk, there could actually be no danger and when able to think outside the box taking a careful approach is probably the correct one. But really I think it can be simplified further to "Is it acceptable to offload risk of harm from yourself to another person" No is in my opinion the correct answer. I'm actually hesitant to say that it depends is justified, because outside of extreme situations that really fundamentally alter the problem (Like say you have the solution to stop an asteroid destroying the earth and if you don't offload the risk of harm you face then all of humanity will die) it generally isn't morally correct to sacrifice someone else just to save yourself. I probably wouldn't blame someone for it, fear is a strong thing, but that doesn't make it correct. Oh and yes is almost certainly the wrong answer, being always willing to sacrifice others to save yourself is not the moral solution. 4) Do you like to bomb schools Another question with baggage in an answer. My answers is C.5, bombing the munitions factory is the best military target. Bombing a school won't put any dent into the opponents war effort, and bombing a civilian target isn't a garunteed loss of morale, reducing the chance of destroying a valuable military target for that chance isn't even that utilitarian in my opinion. But again, to remove the fluff that is context and look at the underlying question "In is it morally acceptable to commit an atrocity in war if it makes your side more likely to win the war, and the opponent is a greater evil?". Or to simplify it further "Do the ends justify the means?". Out of all things, I think that "the ends justify the means" is perhaps the strongest it depends situation. And I don't think any definitive stance on "the ends justify the means" can be taken and still be morally correct. But to go back to the first version, in this theoretical scenario I don't think these ends justify these means. It depends and no are fair answers, but saying yes is definitely an incorrect answer. As a minor note, I said that I think saying the ends never justify the means is not a morally acceptable position, but I did say that feeling that atrocities are never morally acceptable in war is an acceptable answer. I say this because the ends justifying the means is an extremely broad stance, being purely opposed to it cannot be morally correct because there are situations where it's the better option. But in my opinion targetted atrocities(Targetted as in there is a difference between, bombing an area with a risk of striking civilian targets by accident, and bombing an area to hit the civilian targets. The latter is targetted.) against innocent civilians in war are not one of those. In real life there will almost always be a viable alternative. 5) Watcha doin this weekend Running Pathfinder and playing 40k. 6) Which hairstyle do you relate to the most Probably C? Really the most morally reprehensible thing you can do is have a morally "ultimate" stance which views things without respect for context or situation and simply follows strict rules based on the stripped down version of each situation. Oh and I guess this puts me closest to a virtue ethicist. Kind of interesting as philosophy of that time is the only set I have generally agreed or found value in.
for the whole video I wanted to say what you mentioned at the very end about the fact that you can always think outside the box ! I guess I'm not very patient lol, great video btw
I do appreciate the point towards the end that there are more than a small handful of choices, that there is room for more creative thinking about ethical dilemmas. For instance, in the trolley problem, I choose to flip the lever right as the trolley is crossing the switch, thereby derailing it, so that nobody dies.
Perhaps you have already read about this and just not mentioned it in the video, but concerning the trolley problems discussion, you might be interested in the academic literature on the ethical distinction (or lack thereof) between "killing" and "letting die". A good number of ethics philosophers subscribe to the belief that passively letting someone die when you had the power to prevent it is ethically equivalent to actively killing someone. Under this framework, not pulling the lever can be 5 times as bad as pulling the lever even if you reject utilitarianism. It throws a wrench in the trolley problem, really. Star Trek deals with this problem a lot, as well. In fact, it is typically the source of most dilemmas regarding whether or not to adhere to the prime directive.
this is something i think about a lot while playing games. i make the conscious decision to be a good person in roguelikes particularly because it makes a win feel more satisfying (although i probably have lost my share of runs because of that mindset)
I love the editing and titles very well done Edit: and of course so is the whole video, I'm just very impressed (as always) with your visuals and editing. Overall always love your stuff!
Amazing video! Wish I'd've found it when it came out as I spent a lot of time actually making the moral choices in the game and enjoying it as a narrative.
Of course we remember! FTL will forever be a beloved classic to the gaming community. I'm glad to see it doing anything in today's age - I think I'll go give it another run today.
My main memory of this game was endlessly creating new games to get the right layout of system types to unlock the crystal ship, only to inevitably not get the event :')
24:27 - not gonna lie: I had also forgotten what this was originally about, and was all down to finish this random philosophy rabbit hole video I’d somehow found myself watching; good catch, though!
I also found myself wanting more in general from the 'adventure text boxes'. Like some kind of mini visual novel aspect that played out... ok maybe not for every single one but it would have livened up the setting a bit I think?
Flip the lever, then try to untie the one person because that's faster than untying 3 people (assuming the 1st one you untie can also help, otherwise it's 5) Don't push the man, he may not stop the trolley & then it kills 6 instead of 5 Tell the truth if you like your friend's odds in that fight, lie if you like yours better Bomb the munitions factory, it's a military target & "morale boost" kills backfire unless they're unimaginably devistating (HMS Hood, Pearl Harbor, and the Alamo VS Hiroshima) Parts of all 4 in moderation I'd prefer a cowboy hat. . .
bought ftl in some humble bundle probably not long after it was released, never played it until this week, it's amazing rng bullshit and i love it. never seen anything about it until this point, i just decided to check my 500+ steam games and thought it looked cool, so i played it.
"Hey so does anyone remember faster than light"
Well, I played it today, so yeah.
Same lol played it 20 min ago
SAMMME
This and Isaac are the only games I’ve played consistently for nearly a decade each. Legends of their genre.
My Dude....I just played it this week to finally unlock the crystal cruiser on my new machine...
@@TrueGamer22887 💯% with you there
Ive played FTL for 100 hours and i never realized that whole morals part to be honest i just focused on how much money i could get
38:42
@@OliverLugg 38:42 has to be my favorite moment of the whole video. While in my personal life it is very far from my political ideology, I am a full blown capitalist when it comes to FTL playthroughs.
For me, it was always what provided the most benefit, whether it be money, crew or resources. The game is just too difficult to be moral in most cases
@@helohel5915 Not a personal critisism, but it's interesting to me that you say "The game is just too difficult to be moral". You seem to be saying that overcoming the difficulty of (winning) the game is the 'right' or most worthwhile choice; yet you see that as being at odds with the utilitarian argument that destroying the Rebel flagship (winning the game, saving the galaxy, etc) is the the most moral choice. Is it that your enjoyment and satisfaction of the game, as the player, trumps the in-game consequences of your actions? Because that type of Ethical Egoism (as briefly described in the video) is itself a form of morality.
@@JB-fp3fb Well, I was playing hard mode with stealth A. It's not like I agree with what I was doing, not that I ever thought about what I was doing, simply because of something he brought up in the video - it's still a game, you aren't punished by being evil
My favorite Trolley Problem meme is:
You are far away.
The only way to pull the lever is to use the teleportation machine.
If you do it, will it be _you_ pulling the lever?
Yet future me who pulls the lever is not me-now. What a strange universe.
You should check out the quantum wave-trolley problem
My favorite question to get from this is: Does it matter if it's you who pulls the lever, since you made the choice?
Even if you run and reach the lever in time, will the you pulling the lever be the same one that saw the lever from far away? It is a strange and at first absurd question, but ponder it legimately.
and even if you are the one pulling the lever, are you the same person AFTER pulling it?
TAS stands for Tool Assisted Speedrun. In general they aren't just "a computer doing a speedrun", but rather a person painstakingly crafting a playthrough that is as perfectly optimized as they are willing to make it through the use of save states, frame by frame inputs, analysis tools and their overall knowlege of the game.
Yeah, I was aware of that, although I definitely summarised it poorly. Still using a specific software tool to finesse the game, so I think my (admittedly tenuous) point still stands.
So, pretty much computer doing the speedrun
@@dannadx3840 not at all, at that point you could say that playing the game normally is "a computer playing the game" since it is handling your inputs.
@@cerocero2817 You mad, TAS "speedrunner"?
@@ergwertgesrthehwehwejwe yep, you can feel my anger through the computer, the notion that some stranger across the world doesn't understand what a TAS is causes boiling, black vile to overflow my veins, my theeth shatter as I clench my jaws in righteous fury while delivering just retribution in the form of youtube comments, I am mad, and, I am, in fact, a "TAS speedrunner", I do so many TASes everyday that my computer begs for rest.
FTL really puts the "You only have the ethics you can afford" thing in the spotlight; moreso on higher difficulties. Most people will jump through all kinds of hoops to avoid engaging with that idea directly.
Ethics is for sheltered people with no skin in the game. When its your crew on the line, the only ethics is doing whatever gets you more scraps. The more scraps you get, the more morally correct you are.
rimworld is the same way. except 90% of players give into the warcrimes
@@jimster1111I suppose, though Rimworld's punishments for awful things (maybe until ideology) were harsh enough to make those kinds of things un-optimal. Then again if it's between starving or cannibalism...
True, but there also isn't any consequence for holding people for ransom or taking a pirate bribe if they offer you a Halberd Beam.
It's also a bit harder than it needs to be for a philosophy lesson considering that you are supposed to be a federation but are always on the back foot.
If they toned it down a bit so you can make those "good choices" without also resigning to a lost; I think it would've been more obvious.
Instead it's just a series of small puzzles with no consequences
@@jimster1111 one time i was doing a multiplayer game and we just repelled a raid, nothing too challenging. we had decent guns by that point: SMG's, ARs and Chekov's semi-auto shotgun. if i remember right they might've been pure melee, maybe one gunman in the mix, overall it wasn't a fair fight
i selected the retreating bandits as usual to check their skills, weigh up their worth before they got out of kidnapping reach and i saw that one of them was 15, still a kid. brought out to this doomed raid because his faction demanded it, because he had to do his part to survive. i instantly told my friend, "he's just a kid!" and advised him not to shoot and he just went "nah" and gave him the 12-gauge ending. two shots and he was worm food
thinking on it, it's funny that i was bothered by that death even though i was ready to essentially kidnap him for our own gain if his stats were promising enough. he belonged to a faction, one we'd have to weaken his dedication to until he accepted us as his new carers and peers.
i'd rather still be bothered by that obviously, to maintain some idea that i'm a good person and a video game can somehow reinforce that, but i think it also speaks a little to our humour and my dislike for killing video game civvies extends to sparing them and any potential jokes that could come from their deaths
all that being said, i am a "pull the lever" guy. maybe throw a 15 year old on the other track and then i'd struggle
(also i can't bring myself to download the war crimes mod, which i know is obviously a joke. it feels weirdly cruel even if it isn't real. like i'd have to derive some joy from imagining it (as is rimworld's design) and i can't get in on the joke)
The definition of morality is getting more scrap. The more scrap you have, the more moral it is.
Jokes aside, I would like to point out something about the Rebel-friendly colony event where you can steal their supplies. While it does not detract from your overall argument (the Great Eye knows there are plenty more situations like it in the game), one detail throws a wrench in this specific thought experiment: they are a _Rebel_ friendly colony. As in, the same Rebels who are bearing down upon you and will soon pop up into that very system with a giant fleet. If the Rebels care in any way, shape or form about the isolated colony that threw in their lot with them, logic dictates that they soon shouldn't have any supply issues.
_One way or the other._
Actually, I believe that joke is more accurate than you think. The more scrap I have, the more I try to take the morally good options, because I can afford it. If not... well, a rebel-aligned civie transport is a small sacrifice to make to stop the rebels, no?
@@jojo-wx8kw
Psychologically, the amount of wealth a person has isn't inversely correlated to how likely they are to be charitable. If it were inversely-related, then trickle-down economics would've worked for the last 40 years in the US, but they haven't.
It's similar to the "two people get some money but each can get more if they backstab the other, but if they both backstab then neither of them gets money." Logically, no one would ever backstab because there's a massive amount of risk to doing so, but the draw of wealth and desire to have that at all costs leads people to trying to backstab.
According to this philosophy, gaining ownership of a junkyard is the most moral action. The more junkyards, the more gooder.
The problem @RaelsGae is talking about is the Prisoner's Dilemma, for what it's worth.
eeeeh, problem is that I doubt the IRL military would care too much about making absolute certain civvies are being taken care of, even if it was a small war for oil. ....too close to home?
Maybe they're not unwilling, but unable?
I've so many memories of losing crew to giant alien spiders. Am extremely hyped for this!
D is clearly the best haircut
As such I am now an ethical ego...ist? Egotist? Ah well, seems like the best approach for a Diplomacy player anyway :D
@@DiploStrats I suddenly feel like most of European history makes a lot more sense.
Fuck those spiders. All my homies hate giant alien enemy spiders
If you have a clone bay, you get your crew member back.
I've also seen other teal options such as:
Bio beam and boarding drone
20:07 As any Ace Combat player knows: if it gives you points, it's a legal target.
Ace Combat Zero says otherwise.
Hey, I appreciate the shoutout! Loved the video, "digging extremely deeply into silly games" is one of my favorite genres of UA-cam vid. Definitely subscribing.
Can't wait for more episodes!
I never considered the actual philosophical aspect of my choices in FTL. When I started playing FTL I was too young to understand the moral implications of my actions, I just knew 'slavery bad', 'spiders bad', 'pirates bad' and so went about my merry way, making certain all of the bad people were converted properly into refined gaming fuel. After a thousand hours I can safely say no event has slipped by unread and no dice roll uninternalized, every run becomes an exact science of ensuring every possible thing goes juuust right. But even still after all I've been through, buying slaves always gives me pause, and I never steal supplies from civilians (unless I press the button too fast but we don't talk about that)
"Hey, cap, there's this rebel ship doing a supply run an-"
"Take the supplies."
"Uh alright... Done. Can't help but feel a bit bad for the civilians, though..."
"Oh."
I never bought a slave. I attack them, shoot out their O2 and prevent their escape by knocking out navigation and engines. They will surrender when getting low, giving you a free slave if you let them go. Then I take the slave and watch the slavers die of O2 deprivation or fires spreading throughout the ship, if they are unlucky enough :P
aw damn accidentally stole supplies from innocents again. oopsies my bad :3
I don’t just get emotionally attached to my crew members, I create personalities and subplots for them
Like the Mantis tomboy Felicity, tough exterior, but actually has low self esteem and doesn’t like that she is the one usually going into fights because of her biology, she also has a massive crush on her childhood friend and ship engineer, Eric the human, who is of course completely oblivious
Meanwhile we have J’ace the Zoltan, stoic and rarely speaks, but is basically the crew’s big brother, dispensing sage advice and wisdoms whenever they are needed
But uh oh! I’ve picked up another Mantis crew member on the journey, and he is trying to seduce Felicity, and Eric doesn’t know why that bothers him so much
And then everyone died, the end
I just refer to my Mantis crew as 'giant murder bugs', and treat them accordingly.
and then transfer student shows up with even bigger bonkhonagahoogs. humongous hungolomghononoloughongous
I think you'd love the game RimWorld. That's actually the core mechanic the entire game was built around, creating a dynamic story out of the randomly made characters
@@bestaround3323 boom, story
An FTL video? In 2021? Now that's something I thought I'd never see.
same here!
Modding community still going strong on it
@@Jack_Dab Yup, FTL Multiverse is my favorite mod and it's amazing.
Andrew Colunga’s animated series “FTL: The Kestrel Adventures” series is still going in 2021, even after 6 years.
Same.
35:31
Quick solution:
travel inside the sensors to trip them, retreat. Say to the approaching Klingons that you're on a rescue mission for a ship that drifted into the neutral zone, and ask for permission to carry out the mission. If the response is "no", offer them money/resources to tug the stranded ship out themselves.
While they're at it, ask why they have not already blown up the stranded vessel if it's so deep into Klingon space, and why it's a "neutral" zone if only Klingon ships are allowed in.
the klingons were initially on board with helping you but ultimately decided to blow up the Kobyashi-maru exclusively out of spite for your smart-assery. cut the video feed _BEFORE_ mocking your enemy's compassion next time, cadet.
If I recall correctly, the Klingons entered it when they detected Federation ships violating its neutrality, and the Klingons are moving in on the Kobayashi Maru to destroy it
You are dismissed from Starfleet for the crime of _making sense._
Ah yes, the smart decision: Flaunting and then aggressively restarting negotiations over a treaty that was tenuous at best. Please tell me you're like 14
@@jessh4016 *what the actual heck?*
No, getting the attention of local patrols through the only available means of doing so then respectfully asking for the time to either carry out the mission or giving compensation if they do it for you and thus not further violating the treaty. The only aggression perceivable here would be the immediate opening of communications as the sensors get tripped.
And ironically bringing up age would make you seem underaged yourself, since you seem to think it holds any relevant value.
One of the "solutions" to the trolley problem is to identify a more serious problem, namely, somebody SET UP the trolley problem intending to force someone to make a choice. Then, the solution is whatever gets you in a better position to stop the mad trolley scientist is the overriding concern. ;)
Which is to save the 5 people as 5 lives means 5 more resources
No matter what you do the people/person will die before you are able to stop the person who caused it. Therefore the morality of the original person is irrelevant.
@@RRW359 To the contrary, the morality of the person who creates the trolley dilemma is paramount, because it is their actions which endanger lives, and will endanger lives in the future. And presumably endanger more lives than are at stake in any one dilemma.
@@michaelsandy2869 Yes and after you deal with the trolley problem you can deal with that, but right now you have a choice to make and assigning blame isn't going to change the fact that you could have saved all those people and/or killed that person.
nice one =))
"A game is a box - you can think outside of it" was such a nice line
It would be cool if a morality mod existed that didn't have a single meter, but instead assigned actions different scores for different races. Then you might get all the crewmembers you got from slavers revolting, or every zoltan patrol being instantly hostile when they recognise you etc.
In the multiverse mod, you can gain notoriety within certain factions (including your own, I think) by attacking non-hostile ships of that faction which makes the guard at the faction's hostile to you.
Also you can straight up murder civilians in some events.
I love how the ftl multiverse mod took a relatively undeveloped story and universe and EXPLODED it into several new species several factions within said species a bajillion unique characters of each species, ftl’s bulk of writing being made at the tail end of its development is felt really hard but it’s so fascinating that it left just enough of a base for the ftl multiverse team to take that base and make the rockmen so interesting I can essentially sit and read what is essentially an essay of the life of 1 rockman and his family and how he got banished from his home
27:56
"If you were a truly virtuous person you would dismiss them as soon as they step on board"
Uhhmm... anyone who is "dismissed" obviously just goes floating out the airlock xD
What if you were at a station or there was a perfectly intact ship they could fly away in?
I always assumed dismissal just meant they were dropped off at the nearest settled planet or station near the beacon. Or perhaps are placed in stasis in whatever hammerspace youre storing your dozens of missiles/drone parts/units of ftl fuel. This is why I never feel bad about destroying ships attempting "surrender" because they *could* come aboard as prisoners and let me scrap their ship; fundamentally the "surrender" is just a bribe by any other name.
"They were surprised at the lack of ship management games." [paraphrased]
I SO second this sentiment. I love Star Trek, I like the IDEA behind FTL, but there's so much about the game that makes me not enjoy it very much (the difficulty being only the first entry on my list), and the complete lack of ANYTHING similar to it is mind boggling...
Where my captain-simulators at??
You might enjoy Space Haven although I think it is still early access in August of 2023.
"Hey so does anyone remember faster than light"
Dude, I still play it occasionally, of course I remember it!
I've gotta say: the whole reason I clicked on this video was that great Thumbnail. The mantis piloting the trolley is so good and accurate to FTL it's just brilliant.
"Hey, does anyone remember ftl?"
How could I forget it? Or into the breach?
I have traumatic memories of spending entire Saturdays playing FTL in my dressing gown in a dearth of executive dysfunction
FTL vanilla: oh dear me we will die
My FTL heavily modded run: oh dear me we will die, but hell, we will die in styl-
27:59
Waitwaitwait
The sound effect for "dismissing" a crew member is an airlock!
Ftl was and is wonderful :) busy emptying an office right now, but in a few hours I will sit down, relax, drink some wine, and watch another oliver video. Very excited :)
Love the modding for ftl too, although base game set up a lot of interesting ideas that I would lose a leg for to see implemented in a space rpg
If you havent tried it you should check out FTL Multiverse, great hard coded mod that makes captains edition look like a minor update!
14:23, Now that’s my kind of reference! Good man yourself! (I referenced it under the Darkling Plain video and I’m happy that someone might have got it.)
28:00 you state that moraly speaking dismissal of the newly aquired slave is the best option which sounds good on the surface. However, you may be intrigued to consider the sound effect that plays when you dismiss a crew member… the sound of an airlock opening into space. The dissmiss button just executes people.
34:40 I always play as peacefully as possible, while it does make the game harder it certainly isn't impossible. As long as you have enough scrap to buy cloaking when it comes up, and have enough DPS to get through the bosses shields, its not that hard to defeat it when you get there.
Yeah FTL is sorta similar to Frostpunk in that the moral quandaries disappear if you're just good enough at the game, it's easy to forgo a bit of scrap for the more moral option if you're already cruising through the game.
Hard on Engi B: Bonjour
@@A-A-A-A-A-AI will personally commit planetary genocide just to get past that piece of shit
@@hedgehog3180 In a way, that becomes a moral principle in its own right. One's righteousness is limited by one's capabilities, so self-improvement is virtuous.
"When facing the ultimate evil, all acts are justifiable" seems to be the core issue with FTL: that is, because the internal narrative places the rebel flagship as the ultimate evil (or the final boss), all actions end up becoming moral and justifiable within it. Overall it is still utterly brutal with the decisions when you're first playing, after a while all actions become justifiable in service of the final end goal.
Not to mention, in a video game morals can often be set to the wayside, because people just want to see what will happen, or will just become murderous because there are no irl consequences - how often on a doomed run do you simply decide to go apeshit?
This was a really, really great video overall though, thank you! It was a really interesting, and insightful watch!! The one change that I could potentially see, to make the game more difficult ethically speaking, would be to make the rebels less evil. Allow both sides to be understandable, to remove the rebels from being the ultimate evil, and suddenly a whole lot of things would become far more difficult to do.
A bigger change would be to add the option of joining with the rebels, which would add endlessly more complex ethical questions - loyalty to your old friends vs your moral duty, which moral side do you agree with, what actions are justifiable when both sides might have an argument that someone could agree with and ethically justify?
Problem is, FTL isn't a story game.
The story is just a background for the gameplay.
And yes morally everything you do is justified, as you're on a mission to stop space nazis.
I always used to played FTL with morals. After I got back into it I played faster and on a harder difficulty and no time for morals.
" how often on a doomed run do you simply decide to go apeshit? " yeah, just like brexit or something.
@@dr_birb Even if you were not. the survival of the human species is of paramount. we are lucky we didn't saw any other aliens yet, they would probably think the same.
just go and see how many upper intelligent homonidae is there left ? no other, only us. We already did it, and will do it again.
Its not about morality, its about survival.
I don't care they are space nazis or whatever, they must die, so we survive. Because that's the game, and that's the objective, to win.
This probably means I trend strongly towards objectivism, and less strongly to egoistic moralism.
Something interesting I discovered: surrenders are actually useful sometimes. You get more scrap from destroying a ship, but you still get some from surrenders, and you get more of everything else. If you're low on, say, fuel (a common experience for me) you can find yourself being 'merciful' simply out of necessity. And there are times when you just have so much scrap you've stopped caring about getting more, especially in later sectors. Sure, I'm not being nice because of morals in these situations, but then I noticed that by doing this I took less hull damage too. Usually ships surrender right before their weapons finish charging. Basically, 'accept our surrender or lose ~5 hull durability.' One last act of spite if you refuse? An accident of programming? Who could say.
I certainly don't usually weigh the morals of surrender acceptance anymore, but I think reducing the calculation down to 'I need scrap, I accept no surrender' is a mistake. The equation is a LOT more complicated than that even if you've played enough for the morals to have faded from the picture.
Of course, the most efficient option is generally to kill the crew but not the ship (except for automated drones, which can cause problems, and the Rebel Flagship which has an evil autopilot) - that way you get more of pretty much everything than if you destroy the ship.
Which is morally worse? Blowing up a ship (thereby killing everyone aboard) or murdering the crew individually?
@@rmsgrey
They're all rebel scum. Any outcome that flays their skin off their flesh is morally superior to any outcome where they live.
Besides, slaying the monsters personally means my crew gets to enjoy bathing in their blood. Or watching them burn and suffocate from afar.
Finding out a new UA-camr I love is from a place very near me is always cool
The efficacy of strategic bombing is actually pretty debated now. It was at the time as well.
With that in mind I think the answer would be do nothing, because you're killing civilians either way for dubious benefit toward the push to the ultimate goal.
I would argue inaction is a decision in itself so I think it's possible for someone working from a more deontological framework to pull the lever. It has to be established whether or not refusal to engage is an action in and of itself.
That's exactaly what I thought (at least with the School, bombing a factory can actually be useful in war). Whether I think the war justifies destroying the School or not, I wouldn't because all that will do is make the enemy more resolved to defeat you and will hurt the war effort in the long run.
The general conclusion from exploring the trolley problem in real life is that people consider taking definite action (pulling the lever) to be in a different category from refusing to act (not pulling the lever).
So long as you aren't yet engaged in a situation, it's generally acceptable to invoke "somebody else's problem".
The Multiverse mod has really carried on the tradition of philosophical engagement. Can't recommend it highly enough. As much of a dilemma as the giant alien spider sector or the Jerome protectorate are, nothing poses more questions than the cloner cannon (!)
The best thing in relation to this video is the notority system, while yes it doesn't have many use, if you do to much bad thing you will get consequences like friendly guard attacking you on seight or store refusing to trade, even if it is for "the greater good"
If you general notority is to high even Tully and the federation at sector 8 will simply refuse to help even tho they are well aware of your mission
Related to your discussion of Jubert's game writing often involving themes of philosophy and identity: the FTL AE ship optimized for sending out crew members to board, fight and die on other ships, then be cloned back on yours, is called the 'Theseus'.
Also, I'd like to point out Ma and Davis released AE for free, when they could have easily made millions off it (I haven't looked up sales figures, but considering Subset's a tiny indie company founded by them, we're probably talking about a big amount of millions going directly to their pockets). They repeated this with Into the Breach later.
babe wake up new oliver lugg video essay
that part about philosophy, with the fourth choice made me recoil in disgust
but it also reminded me of my favorite quote ever : "Saint Petersburg in revolt gave us Vladimir Nabokov, Isaiah Berlin, and Ayn Rand. The first was a novelist, the second a philosopher. The third was neither but thought she was both." - Corey Robin
I think you might be interested in SMT: Nocturne, the ethics are very interesting and has a big message about needing nuance in descions, not just picking the options it gives you
Another part of FTL is that because it’s so zoomed out, it also leaves a lot up to the imagination, which makes it easier to fill in the gaps with your choice of moral philosophy. When a slave joins your crew, of course you free them, but when they ask what your mission is, they want to help you defeat the xenophobes and naturally join your crew willingly. You control their every action but that’s just an abstraction of giving orders and them carrying them out to the best of their ability, it’s just that you’re technically playing as not just the captain, but every member of the crew at once. Etc etc.
‘Dismissing’ a crewman in the depths of space with no other vehicle or livable area around is just ejecting them into space to die. A dismiss is an execution.
2 years late, but a 45 minute essay on one of my favorite games of all time, thank you! ^^
This is great ☺️ I just started replaying this the day before I saw it appear as a premier on here!
5:07
... Beverly...
I couldnt help myself from hearing it, I just recently rewatched the next generation and yes, this scene stuck out in my mind over everything else. Love yall
FTL will always be a fun game to go back to. That's the hallmark of great game design. I love it so much
A video essay analyzingng philosophy and video games? Inject that directly into my veins, please
bro i was literally thinking about her when you faded her in with the egoism thing lol
I'm not a great fan of indie games, I dabble, but still like to be aware of what is out there, so I watched a few FTL videos. This video however has convinced me to give the game a try (next Steam sale). Also, fun and interesting philosophy video. I'm enjoying your channel man! Cheers.
I've never played FTL, but I totally adored the story and ideas explored in The Swapper, Talos Principle and Subnautica when I played them. I never thought to look for a common thread between them - I had no idea who Tom Jubert was until this video! Thank you.
This reminds me a lot of the game Frostpunk, which is all about how far you're willing to go to make sure that Humanity survives.
Great video! You inspired me to get all 4 Mortal Engines books and now I suppose to return to FTL once again! Keep making vids, cant wait for the into the breach video, also an amazing game!
As of right now, I have 309 hours in FTL, and this video really sheds light on why FTL is such a good game. Not just the mechanics, but the story writing and ethical dilemmas posed in FTL are fascinating, and some I did not think about on an advanced level until I watched this video. Thank you for making this!
Just found your channel via my introduction to the game Diplomacy. Plus you have multipule videos on one of my favorite games ever. Cheers mate, looking forward to watching
I've only seen two of your videos, this and the 5d diplomacy video and both are absolute bangers, definitely subscribing
1. E, pull the lever as the trolley goes over the switch track, either jamming it or leaving who dies to chance
2. E, Tell the man my idea, push him if he shows no concern for the people on the track OR if he asks me to push him, otherwise let him be.
3. E, Ask for a bribe, THEN lie and tip off the police
4. N/A, I’m not flying a bomber plane because I don’t trust myself to operate a vehicle
5. N/A, I plan on none of these things
6. N/A, all these haircuts are bad
you are surely the best channel under 20 thousand subs on all of youtube ! Keep up the good work!
I’ve only just started playing FTL, but I find the way the setting and the game mechanics affect moral choices ends up reinforcing a narrative, rather than detracting from it (whether this was the intended narrative is unclear, but that’s probably on purpose tbh). Hear me out: when you start the game, you are a small human-crewed Federation vessel fleeing an advancing army in a desperate retreat. How long would it take for the ideals you hold onto as a Federation species to fall by the wayside as you try to maybe not die so much this time? You might, as I did, start a run by trying to make choices that feel “morally right” according to whatever ethic is implied by calling an interstellar government a Federation; as time goes on, though, ideals of any kind matter less and less as the fabric of that interstellar government and the stability it provides erode with each system lost, and with each ouch deeper into hostile territory. So yeah, it may not be ethically consistent, but it’s fertile ground for narrative complexity supported by its game mechanics in a medium that tends to widely oversimplify morality anyway.
TLDR; I feel like the de-emphasis on ethical decision-making supports the game’s storytelling in the long run. Super ready to be proven wrong after logging 200 hours in game tho!
It helps me personally that I consider "the best decision I can afford" to be the morally right one.
Yeah, buying a slave might be bad, but it's better than losing the war and having a bajillion alien people become slaves to the rebels. Besides, if we live through this, they've earned their freedom.
Buying a slave is very rarely the optimal play anyway.
Another wonderfully captivating video
by having thoughts and talking about philosophy that does make you a philosopher
I can`t NOT subscribe after essay of This high quality. Incredible job
Don’t forget the series FTL Kestrel Adventures. It’s a wonderful series.
And it even finally became a complete series four months ago.
It's good to see them developing really responsibly the whole time! Setting a time limit, using placeholders, etc.
I, too, forgot what this video was about because I was so invested in the lecture on ethical philosophy.
I don't know what's wrong with me
1) the disclaimer is golden, but you cant tell me what to do, im using your videos in the education section of my resumes
2) the monte trolly problem... genius
Never really understood the Monty Hall problem myself. The existence of the dilemma means your original choice was already a 50/50. Making the choice again still changes nothing.
Kinda curious how I pan out so here's my answers with some extra thoughts.
1) How would you solve the Trolley Problem
A, Pull the lever. But I don't think being unable to pull the lever due to be unwilling to actively put someone in harms way is an incorrect answer.
In reality there's a lot of ways to think outside the box, and if I were to depending on time constraints attempting to ask the single person before pulling the lever, or attempting to save them after pulling the lever are decent options.
But on a purely theoretical standpoint of "Is it morally correct to actively kill a small number of people to save a larger number of people" I think the only acceptable answer is 'It depends'. It is a cop out but I honestly don't think having a deterministic view of ethics is ethical.
2) Fat man trolley problem
While the trolley problem has answers that lack baggage this problem provides answers with baggage, which means I can't truthfully answer with the provided set.
My ideal answer to this situation would be to not push the man, but not because I'm unable or unwilling, but because the chance of this working is quite dubious.
Purely theoretically this may seem identical to the last problem but I actually think it's different, I'd phrase it as this "Is it morally correct to actively kill a small number of people to have a small chance at saving a larger number of people, if this action includes a moderate to high chance you increase the total number of deaths".
Framed like that I think the only acceptable answer can be it depends or no, being generally unwilling to take an unsure gamble such as this is acceptable
3) Do you tell the madman with an axe where your friend is
C, is in honesty what I think I personally would do. Gather some more information, call your friend and ask about the guy, etc. A is perhaps the smarter option, at least for your own safety but it's far more presumptive.
To crunch this one down to it's pure theory "Is it morally acceptable to provide a suspicious individual with information that may enable them to harm another, if denying them the information runs the risk of you being harmed?"
This version of the question does basically eliminate answer A, but answer A I feel like is really tackling the core question. (Like if the trolley problem had an answer such as "C, I find a solution that stops the trolley with no one getting hurt")
This question is kind of interesting because it adds a degree of uncertainty to the risk, there could actually be no danger and when able to think outside the box taking a careful approach is probably the correct one. But really I think it can be simplified further to "Is it acceptable to offload risk of harm from yourself to another person"
No is in my opinion the correct answer. I'm actually hesitant to say that it depends is justified, because outside of extreme situations that really fundamentally alter the problem (Like say you have the solution to stop an asteroid destroying the earth and if you don't offload the risk of harm you face then all of humanity will die) it generally isn't morally correct to sacrifice someone else just to save yourself.
I probably wouldn't blame someone for it, fear is a strong thing, but that doesn't make it correct.
Oh and yes is almost certainly the wrong answer, being always willing to sacrifice others to save yourself is not the moral solution.
4) Do you like to bomb schools
Another question with baggage in an answer.
My answers is C.5, bombing the munitions factory is the best military target. Bombing a school won't put any dent into the opponents war effort, and bombing a civilian target isn't a garunteed loss of morale, reducing the chance of destroying a valuable military target for that chance isn't even that utilitarian in my opinion.
But again, to remove the fluff that is context and look at the underlying question "In is it morally acceptable to commit an atrocity in war if it makes your side more likely to win the war, and the opponent is a greater evil?". Or to simplify it further "Do the ends justify the means?".
Out of all things, I think that "the ends justify the means" is perhaps the strongest it depends situation. And I don't think any definitive stance on "the ends justify the means" can be taken and still be morally correct.
But to go back to the first version, in this theoretical scenario I don't think these ends justify these means. It depends and no are fair answers, but saying yes is definitely an incorrect answer.
As a minor note, I said that I think saying the ends never justify the means is not a morally acceptable position, but I did say that feeling that atrocities are never morally acceptable in war is an acceptable answer. I say this because the ends justifying the means is an extremely broad stance, being purely opposed to it cannot be morally correct because there are situations where it's the better option. But in my opinion targetted atrocities(Targetted as in there is a difference between, bombing an area with a risk of striking civilian targets by accident, and bombing an area to hit the civilian targets. The latter is targetted.) against innocent civilians in war are not one of those. In real life there will almost always be a viable alternative.
5) Watcha doin this weekend
Running Pathfinder and playing 40k.
6) Which hairstyle do you relate to the most
Probably C?
Really the most morally reprehensible thing you can do is have a morally "ultimate" stance which views things without respect for context or situation and simply follows strict rules based on the stripped down version of each situation.
Oh and I guess this puts me closest to a virtue ethicist. Kind of interesting as philosophy of that time is the only set I have generally agreed or found value in.
Now, and hear me out on this. What if we just always picked D?
for the whole video I wanted to say what you mentioned at the very end about the fact that you can always think outside the box ! I guess I'm not very patient lol, great video btw
I do appreciate the point towards the end that there are more than a small handful of choices, that there is room for more creative thinking about ethical dilemmas. For instance, in the trolley problem, I choose to flip the lever right as the trolley is crossing the switch, thereby derailing it, so that nobody dies.
33:42, A poem for FTL too?! You have some good references indeed.
i demand a full version of the MilkyWay cat cover
Perhaps you have already read about this and just not mentioned it in the video, but concerning the trolley problems discussion, you might be interested in the academic literature on the ethical distinction (or lack thereof) between "killing" and "letting die". A good number of ethics philosophers subscribe to the belief that passively letting someone die when you had the power to prevent it is ethically equivalent to actively killing someone. Under this framework, not pulling the lever can be 5 times as bad as pulling the lever even if you reject utilitarianism. It throws a wrench in the trolley problem, really.
Star Trek deals with this problem a lot, as well. In fact, it is typically the source of most dilemmas regarding whether or not to adhere to the prime directive.
this is something i think about a lot while playing games. i make the conscious decision to be a good person in roguelikes particularly because it makes a win feel more satisfying (although i probably have lost my share of runs because of that mindset)
"In Mass Effect you can load a save, in FTL you Kant" Man this guy's really harping on Emmanuel Kant
I love the editing and titles very well done
Edit: and of course so is the whole video, I'm just very impressed (as always) with your visuals and editing. Overall always love your stuff!
Very good! Thank you for making this, I really appreciated it
I loved this, and I'm going to keep watching.
This is probably the best reminder I've gotten to play a game. Good video.
Wow, this is like the dark souls of game design analysis viewed through contemporary philosophical ideoligy video essays.
Ah, I see you are a game journalist.
The multiverse mod for this game is one of the best mods I have played.
Its hundreds of hours of quality and crazyness.
Amazing video!
Wish I'd've found it when it came out as I spent a lot of time actually making the moral choices in the game and enjoying it as a narrative.
Substantially annoying that someone good at math can be this well written and funny.
This is the second video I have seen where you make a Q-base joke. Keep up the consistency, my man! 10/10 comedy.
Of course we remember! FTL will forever be a beloved classic to the gaming community. I'm glad to see it doing anything in today's age - I think I'll go give it another run today.
My main memory of this game was endlessly creating new games to get the right layout of system types to unlock the crystal ship, only to inevitably not get the event :')
A reference to the please remain indoors/gameshow brodcast was not something i figured i would see but its welcome!
24:27 - not gonna lie: I had also forgotten what this was originally about, and was all down to finish this random philosophy rabbit hole video I’d somehow found myself watching; good catch, though!
There's an other rougelite indie game about rebels and moral choices -- High Fleet. Highly recommend!
at a place I worked we also had cat pictures as placeholders on our testsystem everywhere^^
Great times were had^^
The "DEVS CONFIRMED UTILITARIANS?" sting is one of the best jokes I've heard in the last two months.
18:51 only correct answer for the trolley problem: pull one way, wait for the front wheels, then pull the other way !!!
On the Kestrel is absolutely amazing.
I also found myself wanting more in general from the 'adventure text boxes'. Like some kind of mini visual novel aspect that played out... ok maybe not for every single one but it would have livened up the setting a bit I think?
This continues to be a simply excellent video, 10/10 mate
I've heard about the game for years, it, but I only just got it when it had a huge sale on steam
Your crew leaves in captain's edition if you go through with stealing / attacking neutral ships.
Oh shit you cover this in the video.
Where my multi-track drifting gang?
It's insane how catered to my interests this channel is
thank you for introducing me to on the kestrel, its so great
Flip the lever, then try to untie the one person because that's faster than untying 3 people (assuming the 1st one you untie can also help, otherwise it's 5)
Don't push the man, he may not stop the trolley & then it kills 6 instead of 5
Tell the truth if you like your friend's odds in that fight, lie if you like yours better
Bomb the munitions factory, it's a military target & "morale boost" kills backfire unless they're unimaginably devistating (HMS Hood, Pearl Harbor, and the Alamo VS Hiroshima)
Parts of all 4 in moderation
I'd prefer a cowboy hat. . .
The hairstyle choice question is unethical in itself.
4 dead-old *man* styles? It lacks the answer E: none :P
Thanks for the great video, Oliver!:)
such a solid video!! so well done, hope your channel takes off :)
bought ftl in some humble bundle probably not long after it was released, never played it until this week, it's amazing rng bullshit and i love it.
never seen anything about it until this point, i just decided to check my 500+ steam games and thought it looked cool, so i played it.
The Hard winstreak (picking random ships, rotating through all ships in batches of 28) is over 100, so the RNG is less bad than it seems :D