When I say the term "moral choice", most gamers probably picture the same thing - you're given a token, arbitrary ability to pick whether to act "good" or whether to act "evil" based on a certain set of circumstances pre-determined by a game designer.
However, a decision of whether to act good or act bad isn't a moral choice. Not by any definition outside of the gaming community. In that situation, you're given a choice of whether to act morally or immorally - a choice to disregard morality (for the purposes of creating a character you prefer) isn't in any way a moral dilemma, or a choice about morality.
So, the thought occurred to me, wouldn't the entire concept of moral choices be improved by forcing the player to make an actual choice about their moral values? Wouldn't an actual moral choice require pitting two or more widely held and strongly believed principles of morality in opposition and not assigning good or evil points to one or the other, so that the player is required to actually think about their decision, even if only pragmatically? Doesn't that sound more interesting?
For example, it's easy to picture a situation that pits the principle of individual autonomy versus the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, or, to put it in slightly different terms, where the goal of freedom conflicts with the goal of equality, or where the personal benefit of one of your most closely treasured party members will conflict with the lives of many other innocents and lead to their deaths. Rather than arbitrarily assigning one side to be good and the other to be evil, create a situation where the player has to weigh up for themselves which one of those principles they personally value more. That is a true moral choice.
Too many games term moral choices in terms of "Save everybody - good" and "Arbitrarily kill everyone - bad". That's not a dilemma. That's just giving the player the option to choose not to save people when it's a perfectly viable option that they can with no consequences either way. I don't see very many moral dilemmas that truly embrace the lose-lose situation.
Moral choices would carry far more weight if they actually involved a dilemma and embraced the highly subjective nature of answers. Asking someone whether they're playing a good character or an evil character today doesn't involve any thought or any questioning of morality whatsoever. Putting someone in a situation of "no right answers" is much more memorable than a situation of "there is a right answer, but I'll ignore it because I want all the evil points".
However, a decision of whether to act good or act bad isn't a moral choice. Not by any definition outside of the gaming community. In that situation, you're given a choice of whether to act morally or immorally - a choice to disregard morality (for the purposes of creating a character you prefer) isn't in any way a moral dilemma, or a choice about morality.
So, the thought occurred to me, wouldn't the entire concept of moral choices be improved by forcing the player to make an actual choice about their moral values? Wouldn't an actual moral choice require pitting two or more widely held and strongly believed principles of morality in opposition and not assigning good or evil points to one or the other, so that the player is required to actually think about their decision, even if only pragmatically? Doesn't that sound more interesting?
For example, it's easy to picture a situation that pits the principle of individual autonomy versus the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number, or, to put it in slightly different terms, where the goal of freedom conflicts with the goal of equality, or where the personal benefit of one of your most closely treasured party members will conflict with the lives of many other innocents and lead to their deaths. Rather than arbitrarily assigning one side to be good and the other to be evil, create a situation where the player has to weigh up for themselves which one of those principles they personally value more. That is a true moral choice.
Too many games term moral choices in terms of "Save everybody - good" and "Arbitrarily kill everyone - bad". That's not a dilemma. That's just giving the player the option to choose not to save people when it's a perfectly viable option that they can with no consequences either way. I don't see very many moral dilemmas that truly embrace the lose-lose situation.
Moral choices would carry far more weight if they actually involved a dilemma and embraced the highly subjective nature of answers. Asking someone whether they're playing a good character or an evil character today doesn't involve any thought or any questioning of morality whatsoever. Putting someone in a situation of "no right answers" is much more memorable than a situation of "there is a right answer, but I'll ignore it because I want all the evil points".
