I consider myself to be a very politically-charged person. It’s why I chose to study Political Science. But it would still be difficult to find a moment I had to point to in my childhood that started this interest. Still, one of the most important moments would have to be my first playthrough of the game Fallout: New Vegas.

I enjoyed this game for several reasons – one of the main ones was that you could choose among 4 different main factions for the end of the game – the ineffective liberal democracy of the NCR, the technocratic dictatorship of Mr. House, the fascist, misogynistic slave-trading Legion, and the wild card, anarchist option of Yes Man. There were several other minor factions to aid as allies for these main factions, depending on the actions of the player. Ultimately, the player was given a lot of agency in forming the society that would exist after the game ended.

While the amount of choices enticed me at first, I soon realized that not all choices were made equal. The NCR had more factions they could ally with, gave out more quests, and had the most companions who would support the NCR. In direct contrast, the Legion was very restricted in a lot of these aspects; you would be locked out of the most options if you chose to deal with the Legion. I always thought this was just an example of an unbalanced game.

It took me a long time to realize that this was not flawed gameplay, but extraordinary writing. So many characters in the game were turned off by the Legion because of their ideology. The NCR and Legion were not given equal options because they were not equally moral. Just because the game presented multiple options did not lead to all of those options being equally ethical, in the context of the game.

It makes for interesting writing, but what part of this is involved in forming a new belief?

The greatest lesson I learnt from this game is about morality. It is often said that morality is not black and white, as it is often depicted as in simpler writing. Yet, it is not completely morally gray, either. Morality is a gradient; there may be very few who are truly black or white, but there are many with lighter moralities than others. In other words, rather than good and bad, morality is about better and worse. One should not weigh two sides equally simply because there are two sides. For example, in regards to vaccination, evidence points directly towards the side of vaccinating people. Yet, many will often give importance to the anti-vax side as well. I believe that recognizing this fallacious thinking is key in formulating consistent and moral political beliefs that work to benefit society.