That's Mark's characterization, not mine. Rugged frontiersman often means killer as you have to fight to keep what you have and if you're doing well, it means you're pretty good at killing. See Jeremiah Johnson aka Liver-Eating Johnson:I think hes more talking about the fake/forced grey of factions. Like "Jonas is a rugged frontiersman and staunch freedom loving individualist... But he also an aging pimp who beats his whores and slits childrens throats! Such complexity, very hard moral choices, wow!"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liver-Eating_Johnson
Freedom-loving (in a lawless setting) often means 'will bow to no man and kill anyone who says otherwise'. Thus, I'm not saying he's a rugged frontiersman who loves freedom but he also hates kittens. I'm saying that the negatives are built-in into that freedom-loving frontiersman bit. See Dodge City or Deadwood or any other lawless town full of freedom-loving frontiersmen.
Because each side has different reasons and arguments. For example, if you're leaning toward liberalism, you'd think that the Democrats are clearly in the right and the Republicans are clearly in the wrong. You'd find the Democrats' arguments sound and convincing and would think of the conservative as the obstacle if not the enemy. However, if you have conservative views, you'd feel the other way around. The Republicans are trying to save America and the Democrats are the enemy who is in the way. Thus, who's right and who's wrong is determined by your own views. You'll never think that both camps are right.People tend to think they're right and have good reasons, no matter what they do.
I just don't know how it's possible for every side to look good and not turning it all into bullshit and demagogy.
I think thats good. The raison d'être of the factions, good and bad, flow naturally from who they are in this environment, with their philosophies evidenced by how they act and conduct themselves. That level of transparency is cool and would allow the player to make as informed a choice about who to join as they can given the circumstances.
The only thing im struggling a bit with here is your good is determined by your point of view thing. Like, I understand what you're getting at with the liberal, conservative thing. It makes sense. What I think is missing is the advocates for things most people would agree is bad, like slavery and rape.
Now your metaphor could be extended to even that. You believe that some people are better than others and deserve to be enslaved for their own good and the good of society. If that is your belief then anyone fighting against that would necessarily be "evil" to you. However, even though a slavery faction could be justified in this way its existence might be avoided because on a meta level most people agree that slavery is something bad done by evil people. And because of this meta view a developer might avoid creating it because they want to avoid clear good and evil factions.
Now I dont know all the faction in the new world. There may very well be a slavery or cannibal faction or something else that's on its face repugnant yet still has internally consistent, logical justifications for why it exists and why it believes what it believes. But I think this fear of factional sophistry is being borne out of a perceived avoidance of evil. The freedom lover who kicks kittens for player gotchas is dumb but so is no faction being overtly and proudly bigoted or destructive in their in their philosophy or actions. Players can and do sympathize with that, especially if there are things in the game's setting or the player's upbringing that would justify a misanthropic or hateful outlook. That and some people just wanna see the world burn.