Moral Inconsistency Question: the Echo (Spoilers within)

[Fensfield]

So, during the quest 'Fade to White', Minfilia explains to us why she can't use the Echo herself on members of the Path of the Twelve who have followed the path to its end, to find out what lies there - since of the few who manage it, all refuse to say. According to her:

Were I to condone such an act of violation, we would be no better than the monsters people think us already.

However.. now we come to the launch of the Grand Companies, and the quest 'Disorganized Crime'. Here, we have the player character with no choice but to use the Echo to force themselves on Raya-O-Senna's memories (and supposedly soul) - an act that she notices and responds negatively to - in order to complete the quest.

So.. I've two questions:

1. Are the writers aware of this moral dissonance and the way it interacts with the quest system? I won't ask if there will be consequences (much as I'd like there to be really hefty ones), that would be demanding to know the story after all.. but while Raya-O-Senna did get annoyed, it would be nice to know that the incident wasn't just laziness with regard to continuity, and that violating someone so has not been trivialised, as the childish way Raya-O's behaviour is portrayed seems to suggest.
   
   
2. If yes to the former, does.. that really mean it was the intent of the writers that in order to see the whole plot, we have to accept that our characters are the sort of people who would commit an act that not only reasonably would be, but has been said, by a fairly significant and knowledgeable character to be, somewhat comparable to rape? For a trivial reason, no less?

If nothing else, that scene seems a wasted chance to confront the player with a moral dilemma by giving them the option to not use the Echo and still complete the quest, with something more than passing curiosity at stake for not doing so. Although admittedly, there is at least a means to abort the quest.. but that does feel a bit of a cop-out, and the only option being such a meta-game-y one does rather suggest it's an issue that nobody in charge bothered to consider.

Sorry, I realise this is a somewhat nit-picky one but.. it's been bothering me. 'Had to ask at least.

[Avraym]

Insightful, but you're looking too much into it.

I'm pretty sure main scenario quests are getting an overhaul aswell along the way to 2.0, so perhaps it won't be an issue in the future.

Good pick up though.

But I doubt you'll get an official response.

[HiirNoivl]

I'm writing a fanfiction on my blog about this. Usually it's quite easy to use on strangers that she may not see again and doesn't care about and may be suspicious of. However, once the strangeness and suspicion fades using the echo become impossible. This is not official of course, but it explains why she doesn't use the Echo on every NPC (such as Louisoux) who claims to have all the answers to everything.

Having an official answer on this would be nice. But... plot holes are easy to spot when someone else is reading your work. So I don't expect to get an answer.

[Fensfield]

I'm pretty sure main scenario quests are getting an overhaul aswell along the way to 2.0, so perhaps it won't be an issue in the future.

Thanks for the reply ^^

But.. I do hope you're wrong on this quoted bit. That is, given the entire nature of the Echo, it was laudable that the writers picked up on and highlighted this in the first place. The moral questions won't go away just because they remove mention of them after all, and I.. well, for my part at least I can't think of another way the original main scenario could be modified to deal with this.

Far better for Raya-O' to really, really come down on the PC hard for doing that.

Still, that said, another way to look at it is that 'Disorganised Crime' is a quest that will be removed with v2.0 (probably), so at least the issue likely won't be sticking around.

I'm writing a fanfiction on my blog about this. Usually it's quite easy to use on strangers that she may not see again and doesn't care about and may be suspicious of. However, once the strangeness and suspicion fades using the echo become impossible. This is not official of course, but it explains why she doesn't use the Echo on every NPC (such as Louisoux) who claims to have all the answers to everything.

Having an official answer on this would be nice. But... plot holes are easy to spot when someone else is reading your work. So I don't expect to get an answer.

And.. well, thanks and all ^^ Good thoughts, too..

You are both right, I kind of don't expect an official response - as much as I'd absolutely love one - but I still had to ask if only to make it stop nagging at me >.>

[Jynx]

I use the Echo because I'm a downright miracle worker.

Spoiler tags are your friend

The Echo doesn't only let you see the past but actually interact with it. If someone notices you in the echo they remember you.

You can note this prevelantly in Thaumaturg guild quest where you peek into another members memories to find they have murdered a group of people.

Not only that but you can change the past as well, such as the Alchemist quest line where you treat the child with sleeping sickness before he becomes bed-riddin.

The morality of the Echo is obviously up for interpretation...but I don't often see any Single player game let alone a MMO give you the choice to "Not complete the quest" but still complete it.

Your gonna have to swallow it or never finish quests involving the echo.

[Fensfield]

The morality of the Echo is obviously up for interpretation...but I don't often see any Single player game let alone a MMO give you the choice to "Not complete the quest" but still complete it.

Your gonna have to swallow it or never finish quests involving the echo.

I have to admit, I'm not quite sure how to respond to most of your post, Jynx.. but... I do have one point to return. At the point this issue comes up, the quest's completion requirements were already met - this is a storyline aside before it's marked off, and merely to allay the character in question's curiosity.

While it would definitely be nice if the player had the option not to use the Echo, even if it didn't have long-term repercussions beyond that scene, what makes this particularly uncomfortable is that the game effectively holds the rewards of an already completed quest ransom behind violating Raya-O' like that.

[Urthdigger]

I viewed it just as a massive invasion of privacy, something rather rude... but not really comparable to rape or something like that.

[Cyan]

I viewed it just as a massive invasion of privacy, something rather rude... but not really comparable to rape or something like that.

Just to kind of play the other side of this. . .

Couldn't you consider rape one of the biggest invasions of privacy? I mean, most people see it as an act of violence and power, but you could also look at it as a violation of..well yourself. I think I would certainly be violated in that scenario.

This is oretty interesting though. I would love to see the morality of using the Echo come up later on in the story in some aspect.

[Urthdigger]

Just to kind of play the other side of this. . .

Couldn't you consider rape one of the biggest invasions of privacy? I mean, most people see it as an act of violence and power, but you could also look at it as a violation of..well yourself. I think I would certainly be violated in that scenario.

This is oretty interesting though. I would love to see the morality of using the Echo come up later on in the story in some aspect.

Saying an invasion of privacy is akin to rape is like saying that hitting someone is akin to murder. Yes, rape is a grave invasion of privacy, but that doesn't mean that this invasion of privacy, using the echo, is as heinous as rape. I view it more along the lines of wiretapping someone's phone or going through their mail: Disrespectful and most certainly illegal, but not something that would utterly traumatize someone like rape does.

[Fensfield]

Saying an invasion of privacy is akin to rape is like saying that hitting someone is akin to murder. Yes, rape is a grave invasion of privacy, but that doesn't mean that this invasion of privacy, using the echo, is as heinous as rape. I view it more along the lines of wiretapping someone's phone or going through their mail: Disrespectful and most certainly illegal, but not something that would utterly traumatize someone like rape does.

You force your way into someone's brain (soul even, if the descriptions are to be believed) and impose yourself on their memories. You aren't just watching their memories; using the Echo puts you in that memory in order for you to experience it, and thus changes the memory invaded to fit the actions of the character using the Echo. Even just as an observer, the memory is still changed if the Echo'd person sees or hears you - that's how some are able to tell it's being used on them; they remember noticing the Echo'er at the time and, if they know about the Echo, make the logical jump needed to guess what's going on.

Obviously I'm not equating all instances of using the Echo to rape, even without a person's explicit consent. There would be degrees of severity dependent on whether the user was as discrete as possible, whether it was used with malevolent intent, or indeed whether their actions within the memory itself were malevolent.

The nature of the memory invaded would make a difference as well. Poor Raya-O' for instance - our characters turned what must have been a memory of a potent (and likely rare, if suggestions about Kan-E's wandering habits are true) moment with her elder sister into a memory of discovering someone invading their privacy. I can't imagine a way that could ever be undone, and worse, she'll always know as well - of course she'd want the revenge she threatened. Even someone using the Echo to try and undo it would just change the memory further. Hell, thinking about it like that, even consenting uses of the Echo become a flicker uncomfortable and definitely require the user to be discrete, and delicate.

But all the same, forcing your way into someone's mind and imposing yourself on their memories is very arguably a violation, and a fair bit worse than poking through someone's mail. .. Though I do agree that one cannot argue that every invasion of privacy is akin to such a violation, obviously.