Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 80 of 80

Thread: Why is it evil to eliminate Gil Alexander?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    One hundred Eight miles from Chicago
    Posts
    139
    The first time I played through I followed the reasoning that becuase Gil Alexander wanted to die I should put him out of his misery. After I flipped the switch, and the big monster started screaming, I felt kind of sick. I get killing splicers, and even Big Daddies and Sisters, (in those cases it's a matter of kill or be killed) but with Alexander the Great, you essentially disarm him, remove all his weapons, and then drug him, before killing him.
    Every time I've played it since then (with the exception of when I wanted to see the evil ending) I always spared him.
    Also Alexander the Great was the funniest character in the Bioshock universe. Every time he cracked wise about me winning a game of wits with a home appliance I laughed my ass off.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Winterkid View Post
    Everyone on death row or serving life in prison is very sorry for what they did. Doesn't change what they did.

    And he MADE you judge, jury and executioner when he sent everything he had to try to kill you.
    Plus, he told you to kill him!

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    45
    I've played through the game twice and both times I made all the "good" choices but I also ended Gil's life and still got the "positive" ending. I also view it as a mercy. The poor man was basically asking from beyond the mental grave to put him out of his misery. I felt sorry for him both times!

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Chamois Pawn HQ
    Posts
    239
    I've thought about this one a lot. My initial decision, and still to this day current decision, on the subject is that it is morally right to end his life. It's true that his insane (or, at least, current) incarnation wants to live, and indeed is self aware and pleads for his life. But his former incarnation asked to die. I have to posit that the decision of a sane person is superior to an insane person, particularly if the insane one causes so much death and suffering to splicers who are merely trying to scavenge for supplies. As for his promise to do no more harm... you'll have to excuse me if I don't place a whole lot of emphasis behind the word of a being that should be in a straight jacket. A really huge, waterproof straight jacket.

    But in any case, I believe to have interpreted why letting him live is considered the good choice. It's not mercy versus vengence, it's not death versus life, and it's not just a coin flip between two hopelessly gray decisions. Gilbert is someone who underwent a highly experimental procedure. He was spliced up, and doing so ultimately resulted in his becoming a killing machine with no past and no future. Remind you of anyone? The question you are answering when deciding whether or not to kill him is, "Does he have any humanity left?"

    The answer applies equally to Delta. You need to see yourself through the glass of the fish tank. And that is why this decision has become my favorite in the game.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The wonderful world of anime
    Posts
    4,540
    Quote Originally Posted by BiggerDaddier View Post
    I've thought about this one a lot. My initial decision, and still to this day current decision, on the subject is that it is morally right to end his life. It's true that his insane (or, at least, current) incarnation wants to live, and indeed is self aware and pleads for his life. But his former incarnation asked to die. I have to posit that the decision of a sane person is superior to an insane person, particularly if the insane one causes so much death and suffering to splicers who are merely trying to scavenge for supplies. As for his promise to do no more harm... you'll have to excuse me if I don't place a whole lot of emphasis behind the word of a being that should be in a straight jacket. A really huge, waterproof straight jacket.

    But in any case, I believe to have interpreted why letting him live is considered the good choice. It's not mercy versus vengence, it's not death versus life, and it's not just a coin flip between two hopelessly gray decisions. Gilbert is someone who underwent a highly experimental procedure. He was spliced up, and doing so ultimately resulted in his becoming a killing machine with no past and no future. Remind you of anyone? The question you are answering when deciding whether or not to kill him is, "Does he have any humanity left?"

    The answer applies equally to Delta. You need to see yourself through the glass of the fish tank. And that is why this decision has become my favorite in the game.
    The way I look at the situation is this, Gil Alexander is dead and gone, the only thing remaining is Alex the Great, Gil wanted to die he got his wish, Alex the Great does not want to die so what should stop you granting his wish to remain alive? What, because 'he' is insane he doesn't deserve to decide for himself whether or not he lives or dies?

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,152
    Quote Originally Posted by I-ChooseTheImpossible View Post
    The way I look at the situation is this, Gil Alexander is dead and gone, the only thing remaining is Alex the Great, Gil wanted to die he got his wish, Alex the Great does not want to die so what should stop you granting his wish to remain alive? What, because 'he' is insane he doesn't deserve to decide for himself whether or not he lives or dies?
    Did splicer #26437 decide if he lived or died? nope

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Within the confines of your mind
    Posts
    233
    His recording asks for his life to be extinguished. Those are the wishes of a sane man. I terminate him each play through and I still get the good ending. I only spare Grace. Taking Stanley's life is the easiest choice for me and the only kill that I enjoy.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    34
    I really disagree about killing him becouse he is helples and is happy in his building where he can't harm anyone.
    And Gill didn't know he wouldn't do any harm to anyone after he made the recordings

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    472
    Gil can still influence things in his little corner of Rapture, and I doubt he'll just stop killing the people he considers his "employees" through those means even if the direct method isn't available to him anymore. Not to mention Alex the Great feels no real remorse for his crimes, he's nothing but a sociopath by most standards. Better to send him into the afterlife so he'll know peace at last.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Winterkid View Post
    Gil can still influence things in his little corner of Rapture, and I doubt he'll just stop killing the people he considers his "employees" through those means even if the direct method isn't available to him anymore. Not to mention Alex the Great feels no real remorse for his crimes, he's nothing but a sociopath by most standards. Better to send him into the afterlife so he'll know peace at last.
    But after Delta went there he's helples and can't harm anyone even his former employe's.
    That's why I think it's evil to kill him.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    140
    I've played Bioshock2 I think at least 6 times or so, end I killed him every time. Never occured to me that killing him could be considered a bad thing... I thought I was doing the right thing. Anyways, does it matter for the outcome if you let him live ('cause then I would have to play it once more :-))

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    140
    Appearantly there is an achievement for it:

    Savior - Saved every Little Sister and spared Grace, Stanley and Gil.

    So I guess, it is BAD to kill him. Funny, 'cause I thought it was best for him to kill him.
    But then again, it's a bit silly to think about this, since it is just a game.
    O no, sorry, it's not a game, it's ART!!!!

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    140
    I thought about is further and I just realised that, unlike in many other countries, Euthenesia (helping somebody to die when they are in a helpless, and painfully situation, without any changes for improvement) is legal. Maybe that's why I've never considered not killing Alex The Great.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3
    why does everyone assume he's in pain, just because he doesn't look human any more? I think he enjoys himself in there, so I let him live.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Siren Alley
    Posts
    1,386
    Quote Originally Posted by Winterkid View Post
    Everyone on death row or serving life in prison is very sorry for what they did. Doesn't change what they did.

    And he MADE you judge, jury and executioner when he sent everything he had to try to kill you.
    The good vs. the bad of BioShock 2 is measured on the principle that "mercy is higher than justice." Every single one of the characters whose fate is in your hand deserves to die, for one reason or another, from the perspective of a just hand. But a child who sees justice being dispensed by one man with righteous fury will not necessarily think about the complications of killing an old, spiteful woman, or slaying a cowardly traitor, or euthanizing a once-brilliant scientist - the child will see that decision as her's and her's alone to make.

    When you give yourself every leeway to kill as you see fit, you build Eleanor to be exactly what Sofia always feared - a tyrant, who "[she] alone is fit to weigh, to measure, and to cut."

    Conversely, not killing Gil is the "higher" thing to do because it demonstrates your capacity for forgiveness, and thus you teach Eleanor that mankind is not beyond salvation and that they are, indeed, deserving of our love and respect even when they are at their very lowest. In so doing, you prove Sofia long. You build a person who is capable of loving humanity in all its imperfections, and you didn't even have to suppress her sense of self to do it.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    22
    I didnt think you could finish the game without killing him. I have played thru bioshock 2 a dozen times or more and have killed him every time lol

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Apollo Square
    Posts
    2,226
    There are several arguments put foward in this disscusion:

    First of all the euthinasia argument, "he's inasane and in pain his lifes not worth living." For a start he's not in pain he never says anthing about pain he is merley bloated and deformed. So that leaves madness. He basically has schizophrenia so yes he is mad, but the only nation i've known to kill those with mental disabilities is Nazi Germany. (And no i am NOT calling everyone nazis.) As we have no way of understanding how they view the world, and what there life is like as it is so differant to ours, so we are in no position to decide whether it is worth living especially when they are telling us it is.

    The second is Gil Alexander tells you to kill him. For a start those recordings where made long ago years ago in fact would you hold an adult to something he said as a child? No he wouldn't know what life would be like when he made that promise the same applies to Gil and Alexander the Great, he is a changed man and has changed his views he now has chosen life and it is not your right to take it away.

    Thirdly he's dangerous because he goes around "firing employees" for a start you have disabled his control over the security system so his electrocuting days are over and even if he did regain control the "people" he's killing are the same ones who slaughtered each other in the streets of rapture and as Andrew Ryan put it
    "But, we've all placed our hand on the Great Chain of endeavor. My hand is on it, Fontaine's is on it- We all pull it and are pulled by it. Yes, these children are an abomination. But it is not my hand alone on the chain that created them. No. Their little fingers were right there, next to mine."
    Everyone in rapture is responsible for what happened every single one.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    119
    Quote Originally Posted by Atlas- View Post
    Everyone in rapture is responsible for what happened every single one.
    If everyone in Rapture is responsible for what happened, "every single one", then Gilbert is no less deserving of death than anyone else.

    If it is fine for him to kill the splicers, it is fine for him to be killed. Your other arguments become irrelevant.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    11
    The point is absolute forgiveness, which Eleanor takes after. So if you leave him alive your essentially forgiving him, similarily with the other characters. As for killing him, personally I don't think that it is the right decision. Just because Gil Alexander wants Alex the Great to die doesn't necessarily justify that. And in all essence, Gil is seperate than Alex, as he even states "The man's voice you hear now is long gone...", which makes them two seperate beings and thus seems to make it as Gil wanting another to die when he himself is really already gone. That's just how I myself perceived the whole situation though so...yeah.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Apollo Square
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Lingarn View Post
    If everyone in Rapture is responsible for what happened, "every single one", then Gilbert is no less deserving of death than anyone else.

    If it is fine for him to kill the splicers, it is fine for him to be killed. Your other arguments become irrelevant.
    my point was that you cant sympathise with the splicers he's killed and unlike them he is no longer attacking you and has repented. It is now you deiciding whether he should live or die based on your fellings towards him not really a basis for murder.

  21. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    535
    You should go by the present form of a person. The present form he is wants to live. So killing him is bad.

    But he is till a pcycopah. He is about as sorry as splicers are able or likely to read a complex book. Ie not at all.

  22. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    140
    I think in the game it's not that simple, hence this discussion.

  23. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Apollo Square
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Zvriel Chkies View Post
    You should go by the present form of a person. The present form he is wants to live. So killing him is bad.

    But he is till a pcycopah. He is about as sorry as splicers are able or likely to read a complex book. Ie not at all.
    Actually most of the splicers are highly intelligent as they are the brightest minds on the surface collected in one city, most however are "as straight as a dogs hind leg".

  24. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    11
    That's odd because I've never gotten a bad ending by killing or releasing Gill Alexander, Regardless if I killed him or not I was still thought of as a good and moral person. the first time I played through I thought that the machine automatically killed him when you take the gene sample, I didn't know you had to press the kill switch, so in my first play-through he lived.
    I have killed him a few times but in this situation I'm not exactly sure what the "moral" choice would be. Seeing as it doesn't matter one bit if you kill him or not I never really thought about it much.

  25. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wherever you least expect me to be.
    Posts
    28
    This question used to drive me crazy. I feel like the game was dropping a hint when the audio recording of Gil played back, "The Man I once was is long dead, now."
    Then, who is the person in the tank, begging you for his life?
    Not Gil Alexander, that's for sure. And just because Lamb dropped you that message telling you that "Dispatching" Alex the Great would be an act of mercy; keep in mind that this is the same lady who was gonna flood an entire city because its residents didn't quite live up to 'her standards.'
    Letting Alex live seemed like it'd be just another act of mercy. I mean, haven't you ever held a very passionate position on something, promised yourself you'd never feel differently; and then you eventually change your mind and realize your the better for it? Think of Alex as a seperate person, and Gil as a dead man, and it seems to me that letting him live would go down as a +1 to Good ending.
    But, then again, he DID try to kill you, after all. And watching him blow up IS some kind of fun.

  26. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Apollo Square
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by ASinclair View Post
    But, then again, he DID try to kill you, after all. And watching him blow up IS some kind of fun.
    Who dosn't these days.

  27. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    RaptureArchives.org
    Posts
    1,741
    http://www.rapturearchives.org/img/u...er_monster.jpg
    After seeing his true form, is he human anymore? if we kill him will we be doing him a favor... I wonder.

  28. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wherever you least expect me to be.
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by rootbeertapper View Post
    http://www.rapturearchives.org/img/u...er_monster.jpg
    After seeing his true form, is he human anymore? if we kill him will we be doing him a favor... I wonder.
    Then, couldn't you say the same thing about Big Daddies/Little Sisters?
    Regardless of whether or not he is human; he definitely wants to live.
    "Y-you don't have to kill me, Delta! I... I will go outside! I WILL LIVE OUTSIDE!"
    He had to be getting some kind of satisfaction out of life, at least. It would be a favor if he was in an unbearable amount of pain and was begging you to end it. It would be a justice if letting him live meant sacrificing others.
    I mean, what's the worst thing that happens if you let him go? He swims out into the ocean, lives in a cave somewhere... maybe he learns to live off of ADAM plants or algae, maybe he starves to death, but that's up to him. It isn't as if the whole city ain't gonna blow up anyway..

  29. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    RaptureArchives.org
    Posts
    1,741
    BD/LS can look out for themselves, Gil looks helpless and probably can't fend for himself or obtain food by himself, he was entirely dependent on machines and people operating those machines to take care of him. What kind of life is that?

  30. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wherever you least expect me to be.
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by rootbeertapper View Post
    BD/LS can look out for themselves, Gil looks helpless and probably can't fend for himself or obtain food by himself, he was entirely dependent on machines and people operating those machines to take care of him. What kind of life is that?
    But the question here is whether or not that's your call to make. If the world was going to end in eight hours, everybody knew it, and a man approached you with a gun; is it his place to decide how your going to spend your final hours, or yours? Sure, he could always say, "Oh, this person's gonna die anyway... I'll just make it quick, for them."
    But what if you had plans? Or if you had unresolved issues you wanted to work out before you go?

    Mercy would be giving him the choice of what to do with his life from here. It isn't merciful to kill him when he explicitly tells you that he doesn't want to die.
    But then, that only counts if you're looking to show him mercy. Like I said before, he certainly wasn't about to show you the same kindness.

  31. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Apollo Square
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by rootbeertapper View Post
    BD/LS can look out for themselves, Gil looks helpless and probably can't fend for himself or obtain food by himself, he was entirely dependent on machines and people operating those machines to take care of him. What kind of life is that?
    It is against the law in most places to end someones life with there consent, without there consent it's murder.

  32. #72
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    RaptureArchives.org
    Posts
    1,741
    Quote Originally Posted by ASinclair View Post
    But the question here is whether or not that's your call to make. If the world was going to end in eight hours, everybody knew it, and a man approached you with a gun; is it his place to decide how your going to spend your final hours, or yours? Sure, he could always say, "Oh, this person's gonna die anyway... I'll just make it quick, for them."
    But what if you had plans? Or if you had unresolved issues you wanted to work out before you go?

    Mercy would be giving him the choice of what to do with his life from here. It isn't merciful to kill him when he explicitly tells you that he doesn't want to die.
    But then, that only counts if you're looking to show him mercy. Like I said before, he certainly wasn't about to show you the same kindness.
    That is a different scenario, If we knew Gil was capable of living on his own that is one thing, but releasing him into the ocean in hopes that he survives and lives on is similar to someone hoping a person who has their hands tied behind their back and walks the plank will survive in the water.

    He states in his notes that he does not want to live for the sake of existing. One can interpret this as the will of a dieing individual. If they gave the order to DNR then the staff and family has to respect their decision.

    This is not a black and white issue, even though every time I play I just let him live.

  33. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Wherever you least expect me to be.
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by rootbeertapper View Post
    That is a different scenario, If we knew Gil was capable of living on his own that is one thing, but releasing him into the ocean in hopes that he survives and lives on is similar to someone hoping a person who has their hands tied behind their back and walks the plank will survive in the water.

    He states in his notes that he does not want to live for the sake of existing. One can interpret this as the will of a dieing individual. If they gave the order to DNR then the staff and family has to respect their decision.

    This is not a black and white issue, even though every time I play I just let him live.
    That's a very good argument. More to that effect, when Sinclair was made into a Big Daddy and was asking you to put him down; he wouldn't have been asking the same thing if you'd waited a couple of hours for his mind to go. Do you still give him his wish?
    (Putting aside the fact that he had the only key to the lifeboat... I think a Pickpocket plasmid would have been useful, something along the lines of Fallout )

  34. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    RaptureArchives.org
    Posts
    1,741
    Sinclair gave a verbal command to kill him, Gil actually 'penned' it implying there was thought behind it and not some spur of the moment kind of thing.

  35. #75
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    3
    I killed Alex the Great upon Gil's dying request. Despite the begging, I felt that I should honor the sane man's dying wish. (Unfortunately I missed the "Savior" achievement because of this.)

    When I electrocuted the twisted, spliced-up monstrosity, it screamed loudly as it died. I began to regret killing it, because even though it shouldn't really be allowed to live, something that couldn't fully comprehend what's going on shouldn't be made to die in such pain.

    I won't kill him on the next playthrough. At the very least I get an achievement.

    On a side note, did anyone notice that the moral decision for killing NPCs becomes more and more difficult? Grace Holloway was deluded, but clearly wasn't a bad person. Stanley Poole had no sense of honor, but at least he seemed to see the error of his ways. Gil Alexander, however, was a man that wanted to die before he went insane.

  36. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Rapture Prevails!
    Posts
    986
    I tend to spare him... as punishment for being a servant of Lamb!

  37. #77
    He's a helpless oversized tadpole in a fish tank ...

  38. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by FireSpreads! View Post
    The guy spends the entire time telling me how much he'd want to die, and jezus, living like that isn't really living.
    I view Gil Alexander's request whilst sane as an advance directive, basically a set of instructions patients leave for others in the event that they become incapacitated, and this is usually when such a situation is anticipated. In real life, it could be dementia, a terminal disease such as advanced cancer, or other situations that may prompt attempts to resuscitate, etc.

    The benefits of such is that a patient's desires can be expressed, thus exercising his or her rights beyond incapacity. However, advance directives do not account for change in the patient's desire, and sometimes there are unforeseen circumstances that makes it difficult to ethically justify carrying it out, depending on what a patient requested initially.

    In Gil's case, I am just playing the second time round. The first time I put him out of his misery, seeing it as euthanasia at Gil's request. This time, though, I am more hesitant. The current Gil does not seem to be suffering, nor is he a threat anymore. The sane Gil is effectively already dead, so why should I kill this new version of Gil? Moreover, is madness really a justifiable reason to euthanise? This question is even more difficult to answer, but there is a case where a person with another mental illness (in this case, severe depression) sought euthanasia. This makes for a very interesting discussion as to if we allow euthanasia, where do we draw the line.

    This time round, I think I will spare him.

  39. #79
    I've never been able to decide which is the good (forgiving) action and which is the vengeful action, when it comes to killing him or letting him live. I always let him live as that's what he ('he' as in the state of his existence when I have the opportunity to kill him) obviously wants.

  40. #80
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Limbo
    Posts
    3,519
    The real problem of what to do with Gil kill him or spare him is killing him can easily be considered a mercy kill. The old him wanted to die because he knew he was turning in a (bigger and totally insane) monster and didn't want to live that way. He was already more than a little bit of a monster in my book. He was on the ground floor of inhuman human experimentation and slavery. sm

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •