Justifiable? yes
Noble? no

I've already said I support both sides, but using the ends to justify the means is not noble. Likewise, killing people and then calling it peacekeeping isn't noble. Both sides are stained with blood, both sides are trying their best. The leaders on the other hand are totally questionable, that's true of both sides.

I understand that, and I'm sure they realize it's in both side's best interest to sustain things as long as possible until a solution can be found. However, it's natural for that to take backseat to individual survival, especially when resources are so scarce and you don't feel like you're being provided a fair share. There's no reason to care about any long term collective future when you're starving and dying in the immediate tense.



That's such a nebulous goal though, and a "better" life is so subjective and different for everyone. I never meant to give the impression that there would be no discord in policy were the quality of life more egalitarian on the Ark, only that it would likely not come to war were there not such a disparity in wealth, because there wouldn't be any need for it and it wouldn't improve anything for anyone. Democrats and republicans may have the same general goal of improving the quality of life in this country (well, in theory, anyway), but their ideas on what that actually means and the methods of getting there are incredibly different, and class struggle still plays heavily into that. If you'll notice though, it has not come to a civil war in this country, because those at the lower end of income levels are not in such a bad place that violence has become necessary to sustain themselves, at least not in the numbers it would take for a evolution to take hold.

Fair enough. And welcome to the forums.

You're focusing on the wrong points. It is noble in the sense that 1) they are actually fighting towards a goal they believe in, not simply following orders and 2) If allowed to leave, their actions could save every person on the Ark, or they could just die. They are taking a risk for greater good, instead of just sitting around not allowing any progress to made.

See, this is what's so excellent about this game's plot and theme. The thoughts it evokes on property rights, immigration, ethical gray areas (black and white as well), and how people would react if placed in a survival situation such as this.

I love the fact that they've employed so much moral relativity for each side of the conflict. One of the devs said in one of the videos on the official site that they felt it would be boring if they laid the conflict out as this one-sided, good v. evil struggle, and I think they are absolutely right. There's rarely ever one objectively "bad" side in war, and I think it's great that that idea is being explored in Brink. As it was also said in that same segment "..that's just not how the world works," and I think the approach they've taken adds a huge element of realism to the theme of the game.

I just came up with something.. Completing the campaign for one side grants that extra mission, yeah? (Resistance: Reactor)

What if the ending cutscene for those would be the ''what ifs'' endings?

Resistance: Some peeps can be seen in the front of a boat, the main character looking out at the horizon (back view), suddently they see something, a shade (land)

Security: They manage to maintain everything, even when the sea levels rises higher, they're still alive, the Ark is the only ''land'' left on the planet, they survived, for the Ark is still standing tall, the cutscene can be of the main character carrying boxes/repairing something, stopping with whatever he's doing to look up at the destroyed Founder's Tower

Also, if one looks closely, both endings actually doom the faction the ending tells about - The Resistance finds land, but the sea levels rise, so they drown with the land going under water, the Security maintains everything, but it is bound to break down eventually, so they just put their death on postpone

And slaughtering anyone who gets in their way until then.

Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement: Justified and Noble

French Revolution: Justified, but not noble.

The difference? One used non-violent acts to make a change - even when threatened with violence, the other massacred anyone who was in power at the time. Even though the french peasants were starving at the time due to over taxing, its still the bloodiest revolution I can think of.

Are they? Seems to me, they are just fighting/killing those who threaten them - isn't that what happens in war? Besides, the very existence of the Resistance is the result of refugees being treated unfairly and unjustly - Ultimately, the Founders/Security created the Resistance, now they can deal with their own mess.

Again, missing the point. In this situation, there is no non-violent resolution - The Resistance have exhausted all other avenues, and this is the only one that remains. Again, The Founders/Security can reap what they sow.

The Founders/Security's reactions and treatment to the refugees was the cause - The formation of Resistance and the emerging civil war is the effect.

However, is there nobility in taking control over the property of others? The resistance are immigrants, not the original investors or founders. Think, for instance, if in the event of nuclear war, you were unprepared and took refuge in your neighbor's fallout shelter. He let you in, but reluctantly, and since he had only constructed the place to sustain himself and whoever his intended guest were, he stipulated that the conditions of your stay were that you would be given what he decided he could spare. He tells you that you are free to leave anytime. After some time of settling in and pitching in around the shelter, you are concerned that the owner is not doing everything he can to verify that it is safe to leave. Although you are free to go, you are concerned about your survival outside of the shelter, so you decide to use force in order to get the owner of the property and equipment to find out the truth.

Now, the owner did nothing violent to you. He took you in, provided you with sustenance that he spent years preparing for himself, and told you you were free to leave at anytime. Although it is obviously in your best interest to act with force, that does not necessarily make it noble. You are starting an insurrection against someone that pretty much saved your life. Violence and coercion are often the last resort of a scoundrel.

This is sorta how I see it, yeah

Ark = Bombshelter
Security = Owner
Resistance = Unexpected Guest

My money is on the Security being the truly just

They don't want control over property, they want to leave - Those who wish to stay can have Ark.


The term "immigrant" doesn't really apply to the Ark, since the Ark was a global effort and it is not a country. It was built for all of mankind and people from all cultures inhabit it.


Then I would call him an [censored]. I would expect rations to be split equally. And save me the "survival of the fittest" and "every man for himself" BS. In a situation where the species as a whole is threatened, do you really think the best course of action is to be looking out for no one but yourself?


This is pretty much a trick scenario, as it is on the Ark as well - If I choose to leave, even if I was able to survive in the wild, the nuclear fallout could kill me. On the Ark, they can't really choose to leave because 12) the Founders won't let them, and 2) they are in the middle of the ocean - it's not like they can just swim until they tired and then camp for the night.

To have your scenario be more accurate with the story of Brink, It would be like if he took me in his shelter, forced me to do all the manual labor, provided me with inadequate rations and if I wanted to leave the shelter, he wouldn't let me leave. - Kinda changes the rules a bit when those factors are involved.


Something you are not factoring in is that The Ark was a prototype design, built to sustain life - that was its purpose.

1. The Ark was built for humanity as whole - it wasn't contracted by some rich oil tycoon, to be his private playground or his private shelter.
2. Even if it the Ark is privately owned, its purpose is still the same (to sustain life) and once a worldwide catastrophe hit, putting the Ark to good use (by helping survivors) is only common sense.

The Founders/Security/wealthy, whatever you want to call them, have the refugee's by the balls, and they know it. They allow them on to the Ark (which they don't actually own) and then give them less rations and force them to work, because they can. Because they know the refugee's have nowhere else to go, so they will abide.

Think about it, what else would they refer to? They aren't going to say resistance, or that defeats us making our own story/idea.

I'm pretty sure no one is forcing them to stay.




"Immigrant" can be used irrespective of ethnicity or countries of origins. They migrated to a community and a different geographic area than where they came from with the intention of making a home there.



Why would you feel entitled to anything at all? This person built the shelter in preparation for such an event and stocked with enough resources to sustain only the people who he intended it to. It was out of the kindness of his heart already that he even let you in. He doesn't owe you anything at all. It isn't his fault you didn't prepare in the manner he did, and frankly, your argument that using violence against those who have not done so to you is justifiable in this scenario is equally in line with "survival of the fittest" and "every man for himself." I mean that's basically the premise of the game.



It's not a trick scenario, it's a survival scenario. The questions and choices are meant to be difficult. First, I was unaware that the founders are forcing these people to stay. Could you source that for me? Secondly, I don't see how it's my obligation to see that you survive if you wish to leave.



Again, the only way this holds water is if the security is not letting the immigrants leave. I'd still like to see a source on that.




My understanding is that the Ark was built to sustain only so many people, and there was an exclusive list of people that were welcome there, and it was not intended to support anyone and everyone that happened to wander into it. You seem to have this idea that people have an obligation to provide for others that did not prepare themselves for a catastrophic event, and such a stance is based on personal mores and ethical norms. There is no objective right or wrong in the situation with the Ark, and that was the way it was intended. The bottom line is that the only way your argument holds any water is if the security is indeed literally forcing the immigrants to stay, which I have not heard until you mentioned it. Force is always justified in response to initial aggression, and resorting to taking the first strike may be understandable if it's the only option left, but that does not give it some inherent nobility. Being caught between a rock and a hard place doesn't justify violence unless anyone is keeping you in that situation. That's all I have to say until you show me evidence that the security is refusing to let the immigrants leave, after which I will gladly concede that they are the ones applying initial aggression.

It has already been stated by the devs that The Founders will not let them leave



here you go - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4v0vz3ztPY&t=3m25s

The Security forces are trying to keep them from leaving.


Of course it's a different geographic area than where they came - it's in the middle of the ocean. Even for the "natives" it's a different area from where they came from.


Then he should have never let me in in the first place - Same things with the Founders on the Ark. If they know they weren't going to be able to provide for all those people, they shouldn't have let them in.


You're right, he doesn't owe me anything, but allowing me to enter and then treating me like dog [censored] (like the situation on the Ark) moves away from an act of kindness, and into an act of selfishness - using the desperation of those people to work in favor for themselves (the founders)


You are missing the points I am making. I am not saying that it's cool to just lash out and take what you believe is yours. The refugees have already tried more passive means to obtain what they want - their pleas were denied, and they weren't even allowed to leave, leaving only one option left. The way I see it is that the resistance is not doing it to save themselves, they are doing it to save everyone. They know the Ark will eventually collapse, and they are trying to do what they can to save what they can of the species. The Founders/Security on the other hand, would rather just "ride it out," and fight for what they have (comfortable living, way of life) rather than work with the refugees to find a more viable solution.

For the Resistance, it is not about "survival of the fittest," and more about "survival of the species."



The Ark was a prototype - if the floods never hit, their would have been many more like it - they would operate like floating arcologies.


First off, how does one prepare for massive, worldwide flooding? and Second, the people on the Ark didn't "prepare" for anything - they just happen to be in the right place at the right time.

2 Words: Containment CITY

I see. Well, I can't think of a justifiable reason for not letting them leave, but that alone completely justifies the use of retaliatory force. That's dissapointing for me, as it sort of removes some of the moral relativity from the equation. I suppose we'll have to wait and see their reasoning for it, but as of now I can't see any.

However, to refute a couple points, and also concerning the fallout shelter scenario-

-Regardless, the term "immigrant" is still applicable. No need to argue that one.

- You have an uphill battle trying to explain how I'm obligated to provide for what is essentially a reluctant house guest simply because I agreed not to let him die. A rational person would assume that in a fallout shelter scenario, they would be an extra burden on resources and therefore subject to the generosity (or lack thereof) of the owner if they chose to enter. You also can't expect someone to denigrate the quality of life of his loved ones at the expense of a stranger. You may consider him to be greedy or cold-hearted for not given you an equal share of the provisions he stocked, but if you were given enough to survive - still at a burden to him, mind you- expecting more would also make you appear selfish or ungrateful.

Also, I was never missing your points, I just disagreed. The only reason at all that your argument is valid is because the founders are not letting them leave. Were they not forced to stay, the original inhabitants would not be obligated to have any concern for their quality of life because they could always choose to leave if they weren't happy. Without the restriction of movement aspect, the argument would be akin to saying that you're justified in taking up arms against your boss because you don't like what you're getting paid, but you can't find anything better anywhere else.

You mean Container City?

It's simple: The founders need the refugees to keep the ark seaworthy, to keep the place afloat. The refugees need the founders, because they have all the resources. The one cannot live without the other.
The founders want to keep everyone there, trying to live as long as possible possibly in bad circumstances. The refugees want to try and look for land, but need a lot of resources to take a risk.
These 4 things are the reason of the whole conflict and are the reason that no one is complety innocent.

I doubt the resistance is a cult. I've dealt with my fair share of cults. And the resistance seems more like a group of people who feel like they are just as entitled to quality of life and the pursuit of happiness as the founders. And the security feel like they are just trying to keep the peace. You can see how that can lead to a huge conflict.

Adding to the above statement : for the Police -Why would the founders want to stay as long as possible afloat on the Ark? They know that resources will eventually diminish so wouldn't looking for Land be good thing? For the resistance - Why would you care about the conditions when your lucky to be alive? You have enough to live and a place to stay, so why care about finding new land?

I dunno. It's a complex situation, but if someone tried to forcibly keep me from leaving their house or mine, and I disposed of them, I don't see what I'd be guilty of other than self-defense.

That's probably why war is being inflamed between the two factions. It probably turns out that the founders are behind the fighting the whole time. Spurning the resistance to fight the security but making the security feel like they will lose status if they do not fight the resistance. Maybe a good DLC will be Security and resistance take out the founders.

I'm sorry but that would be a sad excuse to start a fight because again the Founders know that they won't last forever on the Ark so I don't think the Police would care about status. I think they care more about staying alive like the Resistance. A better reason for them to start a fight would be to completely remove all the resistance to lower the population and regain full control of the Ark and then maybe go looking for land.

It's not that the Security is forcing the Resistance to stay, it's just that they won't let the Resistance use their resources to leave.

Basically the Resistance can leave anytime they want, as long as they supply the boats, food, and clean water for the journey.

We really don't know much about the story other than the basic outline.

Any detailed debate we have at this time is going to be based off of a handful of facts and a truckload of assumptions. Some people seem to think that the resistance are just doing what they have to, some people think that the security are just trying to stop the resistance from murdering, others (like myself) are just assuming that both sides are morally ambiguous by design.

If the resistance really were pushed to the edge and had no other options, it would basically be "evil oppressors vs heroic resistance" which SD said is boring and they don't want that. same with "Heroic Cops vs Terrorists".

If you find yourself expecting one extreme or the other, you will probably be surprised once the game comes out.