So who's correct: Socrates or Glaucon?
I'm referring to the ring of Gyges allegorgy that Glaucon presented to Socrates in order to challenge his philosophy of justice.
As quick as possible: The shepard Gyges finds a ring that turns himself invisible. Rather than using the ring for good, he immediatly forges and excecutes a plan to seize the throne and become king.
We've seen this argument, in its core formula, unfold at the mainstream level by the Lord of the Rings books and movies. Tolkien's answer is in favor of Socrates. Frodo is capable of delivering and destroying the ring of power because his ambitions are small. Even though Frodo gets close to corruption, a greater and/or wiser individual would not endure as long as him for their ambitions and desires are greater.
But what if you have the ring of power? That's the question that can be explored perfectly in this medium, yet I don't know where this question was really presented. Only Baldur's Gate 3 [story-structure spoilers] comes to my mind, giving you a special ability that lets you manipulate enemies without obstacles. You can increase the power of this ability, but the cost is that you'll become proned to corruption, leaning more into selfish and destructive choices. But in hindsight, does the game really test you with this ability? We know now that increasing this ability has no direct negative effect on the narrative. There are also plenty of alternative abilities that are also quite powerful without the moral drawback. I happen to find that being a good person in Baldur's Gate 3 does not make the game more difficult or makes the ability more seductive to use. It mostly feels more like a lore-flair than a test.
I suppose this is where my question turns to you. Who's correct? What games have you seen and/or played that you can base your answer on?