Bioshock Infinite's Daisy Fitzroy is perhaps one of the most interesting characters in the entire series. This is why I find her compelling as a character.
"Fitzroy in the ‘”all-out war” reality is a revolutionary terrorist rather than a freedom fighter." What's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? In real life the line between combating tyranny and committing outright villainy can get pretty blurry. The word "terrorist" doesn't have a single, universally-accepted definition. The most commonly accepted definition is "a person who uses violence to achieve a political end," but that label is enormously problematic; by that definition, even people who engage in a war against an oppressive government could be accurately described as terrorists. Some people try to qualify it by stating that terrorism is unsanctioned violence to achieve a political end, but then you start getting into questions of "Sanctioned by whom?" and then you're back at square one. Many terrorist groups are "sanctioned" by governments in any case, yet their violence remains unacceptable to their victims. It's also not unknown for governments to condemn some kinds of terrorism but still fund or even train other kinds of terrorists whose political views more closely match their own, thus adding an air of hypocrisy to some state accusations of "terrorism" and deepening this controversy even further. Not to mention taking actions that they would call "terrorism" if done by non-state actors. While "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" are both relatively modern terms, the basic argument of whether unofficial or unlicensed combatants have the same legal protections as officially sanctioned soldiers has actually been around for a long time.
Though she did try to kill Booker because his being alive didn't fit her narrative, Daisy Fitzroy wasn't a total monster when she died. We discover in Burial at Sea that she sacrificed her life for a greater cause, to motivate Elizabeth to kill Comstock. Burial at Sea: Episode Two reveals that not only was it an act, she initially refused to go through with killing Bartson Fink, refusing to hold Fink's son accountable for his father's actions. She only agreed after the Luteces tell her that she'd be killed before she could go through with it and that her sacrifice would strengthen Elizabeth's resolve to take down Comstock once and for all. Burial at Sea also reveals through audio diaries that she had reservations about a starting a violent revolution (even though she felt her hand had been somewhat forced) because she knew innocents may be harmed and that her "soldiers" would go too far. In the end she was more like Emma Goldman than Pol Pot, but the loose coordination of her organization and later her death would keep her from keeping a handle on the Vox armies' more disgusting actions. On a side note, when Daisy is putting on the act by attempting to execute a child implied to be Fink's young son, she states that simply cutting down the Founders isn't enough, you need to "pull them up by the roots" before they can sprout again. This is meant to show how far she's crossed the line of no return, but in the ending Elizabeth and Booker end up using the exact same logic to put an end to the entire cycle by killing Booker before he can become Comstock.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.