Both the Emissary and the Hunter attempted to seize the artifacts by force or the threat of force. I wasn't considering any morality when I told them to bugger off. I was relishing the thought of what my breach (shotgun) would do to their faces.
I mean I could feel the philosophy but yeah, I'm pretty pacifist and don't really like others who use violence to get what they want and wasn't going to be on either of their side. I'm glad this video could really dig into these concepts!
A Great summary of a complex question. I really like that Bethesda at least attempted to include a thought provoking moral question in their game, even if most people totally ignored it.
Are you actually able to confront the Hunter and Emmisary on these issues? Are there dialogue options that correspond to this moral dilemma? Do you get to talk it out with these characters. From what I recall, the answer is no. Did I miss it or are people ignoring this dilemma because the game never actually brings it up?
I saw an argument online where people were debating against them, as if one was the "good" choice and the other was the "bad" choice. I saw them both as evil choices, and so i chose neither.
I think this was nothing short of pure genius on the part of the writers and what seems to be a pretty deep commentary on a lot of everyday people. The first two options are a moral dilemma or trap where both justify taking agency from others so neither are really different from one another. What I love most is that they wrote in the third option which is beautiful reminder that this world will often try to push you into one of two horrible options and most people never see past those, but we always have the ability to create option number three ourselves. I just find this entire thing to be so relevant to society right now.
Great video. I genuinely enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this, especially after seeing tons of people online supporting these ideologies lock stock and barrel.
Choosing the third option (to side with neither) does not contradict the Hunter's philosophy. The reason being is that it is a choice of individuality. The hunter wants free will and the autonomy of choice to be allowed and whether that means siding with him or yourself allows for that. The reason he doesn't want you to side with the emissary is because though it might be a choice of free will on your part. If the emissary were allowed to succeed, it would ultimately do away with the freedom of choice for others. So siding with yourself or the hunter is a choice of individuality, but to side with the emissary is a choice made on free will, but which will ultimately lead to a dissolution of said free will.
I will never not side with The Hunter. He's honest with you from the start, stating that it's not personal, he's literally a speedrunning god. It can't be helped, I just like the guy.
I rejected both the Emissary and the Hunter on my recent play through. I really liked how the peoples lives I left behind turned out. My next play through, I'll try siding with the Hunter and if I manage it, end with siding with the Emissary on my last play through. Its a great way of ending a story.
It is fun to see what each option entails. From a purely gameplay perspective i would recommend trying all three. But, i would say to do it in the following order: 1. Emissary. 2. Hunter. 3. Neither.
@@Dare_To_Game This is what I would want to do as well. But I didn't know you would get more than one chance to choose, so I chose to side with neither in my first playthrough. Apparently there are more than 3 playthroughs, I read some places that you get to play the main questline ten times in order to make the Starborn powers and the story complete.
I think you're wrong about the thrid choice. Really, it's just you agreeing with the Hunter. You have the power to take the Unity over both of them so you do. And really it's no different from either of their stances. The Hunter wants to do what he wants to do with the Unity at all costs, the Emissary wants to do what he wants to do with the Unity at all costs, and you're willing to kill them both for it. The fact that you can convince them is a bit of an afterthought because you went there expecting to kill them.
It seems more like choosing neither would be the most morally relative. There would be no moral boundaries in one direction or the another for who would be able to access the Unity. So, an absolutely crazy oppressive monster of a person or a completely selfish toddler like Karen would be able to gain access unchecked.
My instincts were with option 3 from the start. The reaction of Constellation companions is a moral compass. All of them condemn the Hunter's might is right approach. When it comes to the Emissary I've noticed a difference in one video between Sam's libertarian opposition to the Emissary and Sarah's more authoritarian position that someone has to be in control of Unity. Perhaps this reflects the ideological position of the UC and the Freestar Collective's policy of limited government enshrined in their charter.
For me the trick is, I want to "think" like the Emissary, but by playing the game, I become more and more like the Hunter - which, in the end, needs to be adressed. Big Dilemma!
I agree with the hunter in my bounty hunter character he agrees with the Hunter so he proves this by fighting both the Hunter and The Emissary since he Actually thinks of the hunter as a Mentor and Takes both the Guns of the Emissary and the Hunter to show how the Hunter was right
Yeah, the great irony is that someone who truly, utterly agreed with the Hunter's mindset that those who can SHOULD seize power.... would side against him and reject both!
am abit late to this chat but i think the emissary is right for one reason people abuse things that can give you power thats why i think the emissary is the better one to side with its literally just good vs evil hopefully the dlc in the future will maybe have a play in a moral choices would make the game have so much depth
I like that it feels Dune like in that both the Emmisary, The Hunter have both good and bad points. (Basically it asks hard questions that have no obvious easy answers) The hunter is very might is right but honest in that is all he expects out of you. The Emmisary is more peaceful but also more authoritative and the whole “only select people can be Starborn” feels kinda sinister in a way. The Third Option is also good too because not only do you reject both, but it’s more ambiguous. Like sure maybe it’s better for Humanity, but it’s also more anarchical in that there are no rules to becoming Starborn.
I’m on my first play through. Sam was my followers who died in the attack on the lodge. Sam was revealed to be the emissary just a few minutes ago, which is not what I’ve read or seen in any guides where the emissary is always described as a she. Has this happened to anyone else?
The emissary is whichever companion you have the most affinity with and depends on the choice you make if you stay and defend the lodge or go to the eye. My emissary was Andreja first and then Sam and so on
@@nicholasmatthew9687 I think it's very likely that most people lose Sarah on their first run, because she's your first companion and most folks get to flirt/romance her WAY before really getting to know Andreja (and most gamers are guys that romance gals, so Sam and Barrett probably have lower romance rates). As a result she is the highest affinity for a LOT of players, and will remain on the Eye during a particular mission. As a result, she won't there be there at the Lodge during that mission, so.... Emissary she becomes.
@@JB-xl2jc yeah you’re probably right and the reasoning you listed seems pretty solid. Up until the last few weeks though, there was a huge lack of clarity in how the game navigated this decision. I read and watched so many accounts that seemed to have the same exact take and explanation but then the game completely surprised me lol. Is the hunter always Aquilus? Also am I the only one who wanted to do a murder on Sarah after marrying her?
Everyone flags the hunter as more of a darwinistic guy but he’s actually completely right. If you want to do something that doesn’t directly harm someone else, do it, all he wants is to pass through the unity, the only reason he even attacks constellation is because they always attack him. The emissary is constellation and they always attack the hunter, and as for the normal members themselves, you see how they attack other collectors of the artifacts. If someone else has it they’ll use any means to get it including violence. The hunter has the means to defend himself but usually takes the initiative to attack because he is always attacked otherwise
I feel like The Emissary is the best option. They technically are the Constellation at its full potential. It also makes sure The Hunter and anyone else like The Hunter cannot be Starborn and cause chaos and destruction across the Universes.
Perhaps ironically, choosing the neither option (but not the peaceful dialogue one) ends up validating either sides option from their perspective. You killed the Hunter so you were mightier and thusly deserving of it. You also made you're own choice which follows his logic. You killed The Emissary which for them would prove you weren't worthy of it and they were right to try to stop you.
I appreciate this overview as I’m currently at this point in the game. Laughably, I look at it as a “What would James T. Kirk do?” moment, but I’m inclined to follow neither The Emissary, nor The Hunter. Venturing forward on my own at least offers the autonomy to choose my own course as opposed to the latter. I guess my question is (spoiler, or not) do things remain as they are in terms of all I’ve collected, who I’ve lost, etc.? Otherwise, there’s really no point to ANY of it.
Yeah the emissary will try to trick you on to his/her side by saying OLD FRIEND on the first playthrough. Yet scolds you for not telling others about being starborn if you go through the main game again. And telling you that they are not the same people as the original universe.
Good vs Evil, Federation vs Klingons, Vorlon vs the Shadows, this is a really old argument. B5 came to the same conclusion as you. This abstraction misses pride and humility, as they both are prideful. For a game we all want to be the single most powerful character, but it is ultimately self-defeating. With no peers and no challenges it becomes boring. Again, for a game that's fine, we won't play it forever. But if we want to play as a simulation of life then we need to do what is right, not necessarily what we want. Delay gratification, do the hard thing, fight against your own urges, because the world really is what WE make it.
Too bad the choice doesn't really affect the next universe after you enter the unity....on my current playthrough I've gone through the unity 6 times and every time I go to the lodge Sara and company are there to greet me just like the 1st time :(
"seeking power" is not a goal of good. it's not libertarian. it's evil. freedom is libertarian. but knowing that evil can get their hands on this power and knowing that someone good has found it first... would be a choice of.. should i let evil find this?
i sided with the hunter because i liked him and respected him for his wisdom and he also made me laugh. I just didn't like the emissary who in my game was sam cone and his daughter blamed me for his death and that made me hate both sam and cora
Comparing the hunter with a libertarian anarchic methodology shows a huge lack of knowledge on either of those moral philosophies. Might is right has nothing to do with either of them.
("I'm tired of both of you. I'll get to the Unity on my own.")
The Hunter: "Well, look at that! The Emissary just became my new best friend…”
I reject both, every time. I do not believe in the might is right mentality, and i also wholeheartedly reject authoritarianism.
I tried all three paths at least once, but the vast majority of my playthroughs end in the neither decision.
It's more like gatekeeping, but I guess we end up in the same place. Who will watch the watchmen, right?
Both the Emissary and the Hunter attempted to seize the artifacts by force or the threat of force. I wasn't considering any morality when I told them to bugger off. I was relishing the thought of what my breach (shotgun) would do to their faces.
That is certainly one motivating factor in this decision. One that i believe likely inspired many.
I mean I could feel the philosophy but yeah, I'm pretty pacifist and don't really like others who use violence to get what they want and wasn't going to be on either of their side. I'm glad this video could really dig into these concepts!
@@cretinousmartyr3522 But did you end up using violence to get what you wanted? Or did you talk them both down?
Brilliant Video and well explained. Deserves more 👍🏿
True freedom is not being tresspasssed upon by your fellow man.
Thank you kindly
A Great summary of a complex question. I really like that Bethesda at least attempted to include a thought provoking moral question in their game, even if most people totally ignored it.
Yeah, it is refreshing to see an attempt at meaning from a Bethesda game.
Are you actually able to confront the Hunter and Emmisary on these issues? Are there dialogue options that correspond to this moral dilemma? Do you get to talk it out with these characters.
From what I recall, the answer is no. Did I miss it or are people ignoring this dilemma because the game never actually brings it up?
I saw an argument online where people were debating against them, as if one was the "good" choice and the other was the "bad" choice. I saw them both as evil choices, and so i chose neither.
Yeah, they are both bad or "evil" choices when you objectively examine them.
I think this was nothing short of pure genius on the part of the writers and what seems to be a pretty deep commentary on a lot of everyday people. The first two options are a moral dilemma or trap where both justify taking agency from others so neither are really different from one another. What I love most is that they wrote in the third option which is beautiful reminder that this world will often try to push you into one of two horrible options and most people never see past those, but we always have the ability to create option number three ourselves. I just find this entire thing to be so relevant to society right now.
Great video. I genuinely enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this, especially after seeing tons of people online supporting these ideologies lock stock and barrel.
Thank you. I am glad you enjoyed it.
Choosing the third option (to side with neither) does not contradict the Hunter's philosophy. The reason being is that it is a choice of individuality. The hunter wants free will and the autonomy of choice to be allowed and whether that means siding with him or yourself allows for that. The reason he doesn't want you to side with the emissary is because though it might be a choice of free will on your part. If the emissary were allowed to succeed, it would ultimately do away with the freedom of choice for others. So siding with yourself or the hunter is a choice of individuality, but to side with the emissary is a choice made on free will, but which will ultimately lead to a dissolution of said free will.
I will never not side with The Hunter. He's honest with you from the start, stating that it's not personal, he's literally a speedrunning god. It can't be helped, I just like the guy.
Great video ! Exactly what I was looking for
I rejected both the Emissary and the Hunter on my recent play through. I really liked how the peoples lives I left behind turned out. My next play through, I'll try siding with the Hunter and if I manage it, end with siding with the Emissary on my last play through. Its a great way of ending a story.
It is fun to see what each option entails. From a purely gameplay perspective i would recommend trying all three. But, i would say to do it in the following order: 1. Emissary. 2. Hunter. 3. Neither.
@Dare_To_Game why in that order I'm just curious? I'm playing my first play through right literally saved right before I talk to them lol
@@Dare_To_Game This is what I would want to do as well. But I didn't know you would get more than one chance to choose, so I chose to side with neither in my first playthrough.
Apparently there are more than 3 playthroughs, I read some places that you get to play the main questline ten times in order to make the Starborn powers and the story complete.
@@aguythatthinks7931 same rn
I think you're wrong about the thrid choice. Really, it's just you agreeing with the Hunter. You have the power to take the Unity over both of them so you do. And really it's no different from either of their stances. The Hunter wants to do what he wants to do with the Unity at all costs, the Emissary wants to do what he wants to do with the Unity at all costs, and you're willing to kill them both for it. The fact that you can convince them is a bit of an afterthought because you went there expecting to kill them.
Reincarnation baby.😂
Isnt not siding with the Hunter the most Hunter thing you can do?
It seems more like choosing neither would be the most morally relative. There would be no moral boundaries in one direction or the another for who would be able to access the Unity. So, an absolutely crazy oppressive monster of a person or a completely selfish toddler like Karen would be able to gain access unchecked.
My instincts were with option 3 from the start. The reaction of Constellation companions is a moral compass. All of them condemn the Hunter's might is right approach. When it comes to the Emissary I've noticed a difference in one video between Sam's libertarian opposition to the Emissary and Sarah's more authoritarian position that someone has to be in control of Unity. Perhaps this reflects the ideological position of the UC and the Freestar Collective's policy of limited government enshrined in their charter.
I appreciate your video and its analysis. It makes the choices clear and leaves it up to the player. No side was pushed.
I did not give it this much thought. Lol, I just wanted both of their guns. But I do appreciate your analysis.
Thank you. I am glad you appreciate my process here.
You made me laugh hahahahhahahha I am almost the same, but I am looking for better option just to enjoy more the game hahahahha
For me the trick is, I want to "think" like the Emissary, but by playing the game, I become more and more like the Hunter - which, in the end, needs to be adressed. Big Dilemma!
Wait - is the emissary different for everybody ??? Mine was Barrett???
Its whoever dies, if you save everybody in ng+ the emissary is random, but you can hear there voice.
I agree with the hunter in my bounty hunter character he agrees with the Hunter so he proves this by fighting both the Hunter and The Emissary since he Actually thinks of the hunter as a Mentor and Takes both the Guns of the Emissary and the Hunter to show how the Hunter was right
Yeah, the great irony is that someone who truly, utterly agreed with the Hunter's mindset that those who can SHOULD seize power.... would side against him and reject both!
am abit late to this chat but i think the emissary is right for one reason people abuse things that can give you power thats why i think the emissary is the better one to side with its literally just good vs evil hopefully the dlc in the future will maybe have a play in a moral choices would make the game have so much depth
I like that it feels Dune like in that both the Emmisary, The Hunter have both good and bad points. (Basically it asks hard questions that have no obvious easy answers)
The hunter is very might is right but honest in that is all he expects out of you.
The Emmisary is more peaceful but also more authoritative and the whole “only select people can be Starborn” feels kinda sinister in a way.
The Third Option is also good too because not only do you reject both, but it’s more ambiguous. Like sure maybe it’s better for Humanity, but it’s also more anarchical in that there are no rules to becoming Starborn.
I’m on my first play through. Sam was my followers who died in the attack on the lodge. Sam was revealed to be the emissary just a few minutes ago, which is not what I’ve read or seen in any guides where the emissary is always described as a she. Has this happened to anyone else?
The emissary is whichever companion you have the most affinity with and depends on the choice you make if you stay and defend the lodge or go to the eye. My emissary was Andreja first and then Sam and so on
@@Anotherrandomdude96 thanks comrade
@@nicholasmatthew9687 I think it's very likely that most people lose Sarah on their first run, because she's your first companion and most folks get to flirt/romance her WAY before really getting to know Andreja (and most gamers are guys that romance gals, so Sam and Barrett probably have lower romance rates).
As a result she is the highest affinity for a LOT of players, and will remain on the Eye during a particular mission. As a result, she won't there be there at the Lodge during that mission, so.... Emissary she becomes.
@@JB-xl2jc yeah you’re probably right and the reasoning you listed seems pretty solid. Up until the last few weeks though, there was a huge lack of clarity in how the game navigated this decision. I read and watched so many accounts that seemed to have the same exact take and explanation but then the game completely surprised me lol. Is the hunter always Aquilus? Also am I the only one who wanted to do a murder on Sarah after marrying her?
Everyone flags the hunter as more of a darwinistic guy but he’s actually completely right. If you want to do something that doesn’t directly harm someone else, do it, all he wants is to pass through the unity, the only reason he even attacks constellation is because they always attack him. The emissary is constellation and they always attack the hunter, and as for the normal members themselves, you see how they attack other collectors of the artifacts. If someone else has it they’ll use any means to get it including violence. The hunter has the means to defend himself but usually takes the initiative to attack because he is always attacked otherwise
I feel like The Emissary is the best option. They technically are the Constellation at its full potential. It also makes sure The Hunter and anyone else like The Hunter cannot be Starborn and cause chaos and destruction across the Universes.
If you are able to do whatever you want, then you are also able to do what is right. If you are only able to do what is right, you don't have freedom.
Good video
What gun is being used in the beginning??
Thanks for the vid !!
No problem!
Perhaps ironically, choosing the neither option (but not the peaceful dialogue one) ends up validating either sides option from their perspective.
You killed the Hunter so you were mightier and thusly deserving of it. You also made you're own choice which follows his logic.
You killed The Emissary which for them would prove you weren't worthy of it and they were right to try to stop you.
I appreciate this overview as I’m currently at this point in the game. Laughably, I look at it as a “What would James T. Kirk do?” moment, but I’m inclined to follow neither The Emissary, nor The Hunter. Venturing forward on my own at least offers the autonomy to choose my own course as opposed to the latter. I guess my question is (spoiler, or not) do things remain as they are in terms of all I’ve collected, who I’ve lost, etc.? Otherwise, there’s really no point to ANY of it.
I sided with neither both were perversions of the good. Next run though I may go with the hunter.
Yeah the emissary will try to trick you on to his/her side by saying OLD FRIEND on the first playthrough. Yet scolds you for not telling others about being starborn if you go through the main game again. And telling you that they are not the same people as the original universe.
the game beckons the player to reflect.
they shot at me, they both die. reflection over.
Side with a guy who at worse, is misguided or a sadistic serial killer. Real tough dilemma there. That one’s a real stumper
Good vs Evil, Federation vs Klingons, Vorlon vs the Shadows, this is a really old argument. B5 came to the same conclusion as you. This abstraction misses pride and humility, as they both are prideful. For a game we all want to be the single most powerful character, but it is ultimately self-defeating. With no peers and no challenges it becomes boring. Again, for a game that's fine, we won't play it forever. But if we want to play as a simulation of life then we need to do what is right, not necessarily what we want. Delay gratification, do the hard thing, fight against your own urges, because the world really is what WE make it.
have you only had the emissary be females? mine have been every member of constellation...
Spoilers. Lol
I don’t like that he killed Sara
When is the emissary ever a "she"? And who is she? I've only ever had Sam or Barrett emissaries.... Am I missing something?
You had me sold at less diverse! 😂
The Hunter to me seemed like the sociopath you don’t want to admit is right, in philosophy at least.
My emissary is berett
Too bad the choice doesn't really affect the next universe after you enter the unity....on my current playthrough I've gone through the unity 6 times and every time I go to the lodge Sara and company are there to greet me just like the 1st time :(
"seeking power" is not a goal of good. it's not libertarian. it's evil.
freedom is libertarian. but knowing that evil can get their hands on this power and knowing that someone good has found it first... would be a choice of.. should i let evil find this?
YEET
YOTE
I would most likely pick the hunter because I always get the feeling to rule everything in game 😅😂
i sided with the hunter because i liked him and respected him for his wisdom and he also made me laugh. I just didn't like the emissary who in my game was sam cone and his daughter blamed me for his death and that made me hate both sam and cora
The emissary = she? Could you elaborate
Comparing the hunter with a libertarian anarchic methodology shows a huge lack of knowledge on either of those moral philosophies. Might is right has nothing to do with either of them.