Moral Inflexibility in Games

[tkioz]

So games with moral choice systems have been getting better, no longer is the choice to either save the orphan or burn him alive, but it's still got a long way to go.

Take for example the Tenpenny Tower's quest in Fallout 3, where the "good" action is basically acting like a retard, or in the same game the Vampire quest line where you are basically acting like an enforcer running a protection racket. Then there are a number of quests in Mass Effect 2, a game that generally gets the moral choice system pretty right, for example one of the first "found" missions you do via scanning has you finding data that could harm your partners if released to the public.

Of course the good action is to send it to the authorities, the neutral to send it back to them, and the "evil" to keep it for yourself, seems pretty straight forward right? send it to the public to be a good guy, wrong, moral choices very rarely exist in a vacuum, you never forget in the game that you're working with them because it's the only choice, so antagonising them is plain stupid, the good choice should be to keep the data, and the evil choice should be to send it back to them. After all there is nothing stopping you releasing it once you're done with them? Now some people might say that fits the definition of Mass Effect 2's morality system, which defines the actions as moral and ruthless, and keeping the data back is pretty ruthless (I'd personally say intelligent).

But the problem is, in most games with a moral choice system, it's one or the other, you can't be an angel and a demon, and there is no reward for being a well rounded character, and you're punished for taking different actions, for every "evil" action you take, even in games that don't take away from your "good" score like Mass Effect 2, you're punished because you've lost access to those "good" points which can drastically effect the plot, forcing you to make decisions you'd never make in the same situation if it was reality.

You often hear players say "this playthrough I'll be evil" or similar, but is that something we want as gamers? or would it be better to let us play the game as we want? making decisions based on the situation as if we were there, rather then forcing us to conform to a pre-established moral system.

 

[Regiment]

Agreed. In most games (and in real life), nobody's an idealistic paragon of justice, nor are they pure unmitigated evil. I hate when games punish you for being normal. inFamous comes to mind- you have to be all good or all bad to get decent powers.

The problem is that it's hard to let players "play the game as [they] want" and give appropriate gameplay for that. If there are four moral choices, all of which are bonary good- or- evil choices, you can have any of four to sixteen possible alignments when you're done.

It's not something people ecessarily want as gamers, but a perfect moral choice system would require an infinite development time with nigh- onmiscient designers.

In summary: Yes, you're right, but the alternative is very hard to design.

 

[Alarien]

The real problems for me are that:

1. In most games, the game does not play any differently regardless of whether you play a good guy or a complete hellspawn.

Where was the option to take control of and reopen the Sith Academy on Korriban in KOTOR 1...?

I understand that in Mass Effect, Shepherd is never "evil" or the "bad guy" and that's fine, but what about Dragon Age or KOTOR? So far, only BG2: Throne of Bhaal and Hordes of the Underdark have really given you different options for approaching "evil" beyond just a different cut scene.

2. There is no real reward for playing the "evil" side in most games. There really needs to be a temptation to take the "dark" path. Something you really want and there need to be seperate rewards for going either way that make you really considered the risk/benefit. That said, there is no reward for ever taking a more neutral or "grey" path either. If you are going to create options, then each option should have its own benefits.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

The problem is that morality is not an objective thing. In the more ambiguous scenarios you are basically choosing what the writer would consider good/bad/neutral.

 

[Ace of Spades]

I liked it most in Dragon Age: Origins, where the choices had very little effect on gameplay except approval rating, so I could make my own choices.

 

[Discord]

I agree

In Fallout 3 I never killed a innoncent NPC, hurt them or nothing. I only killed eneimes. But I did steal.... ALOT. So I should be a neutral or a Chaotic good right? WRONG! The game thought I should be a dark, evil, worse than hitler player.

Stealing is bad (even though no one saw me with Stealth Armor) but come on!

 

[e2density]

Yeah, I agree. Fallout 3's karma system was a little messed up.

Spoiler

Especially in Tranquility Lane, if you don't know how to get the override, your karma gets wrecked. And the override is REALLY confusing to activate.

It is a real spoiler, BTW, so don't click it if you don't want to see it.

 

[shadow skill]

So games with moral choice systems have been getting better, no longer is the choice to either save the orphan or burn him alive, but it's still got a long way to go.

Take for example the Tenpenny Tower's quest in Fallout 3, where the "good" action is basically acting like a retard, or in the same game the Vampire quest line where you are basically acting like an enforcer running a protection racket. Then there are a number of quests in Mass Effect 2, a game that generally gets the moral choice system pretty right, for example one of the first "found" missions you do via scanning has you finding data that could harm your partners if released to the public.

Of course the good action is to send it to the authorities, the neutral to send it back to them, and the "evil" to keep it for yourself, seems pretty straight forward right? send it to the public to be a good guy, wrong, moral choices very rarely exist in a vacuum, you never forget in the game that you're working with them because it's the only choice, so antagonising them is plain stupid, the good choice should be to keep the data, and the evil choice should be to send it back to them. After all there is nothing stopping you releasing it once you're done with them? Now some people might say that fits the definition of Mass Effect 2's morality system, which defines the actions as moral and ruthless, and keeping the data back is pretty ruthless (I'd personally say intelligent).

But the problem is, in most games with a moral choice system, it's one or the other, you can't be an angel and a demon, and there is no reward for being a well rounded character, and you're punished for taking different actions, for every "evil" action you take, even in games that don't take away from your "good" score like Mass Effect 2, you're punished because you've lost access to those "good" points which can drastically effect the plot, forcing you to make decisions you'd never make in the same situation if it was reality.

You often hear players say "this playthrough I'll be evil" or similar, but is that something we want as gamers? or would it be better to let us play the game as we want? making decisions based on the situation as if we were there, rather then forcing us to conform to a pre-established moral system.

In Mass Effect 2 I kept the data because I figure that it would be useful to me against Illusive Man. Frankly I want to kill him and take over his network.

 

[Looking For Alaska]

I feel like adding that, IMO the most important thing to make Morality interesting in games is the fact that decisions should be Difficult.

An example using Fallout 3(mods, obviously) would be downloading one of the mods that makes the game much more difficult with less ammo and a need for food and water and no radiation. If you're RPing as a very good character, it shouldn't be an easy and thoughtless decision to give that beggar water. You deserve those good karma points because you NEED that water.

I feel Dragon Age: Origins got this right in a few places

Spoiler: DA:O Orzammar spoilers

The decision with Branka and the Golems is a good example of this, to me. If you're RPing as a noble character, you probably feel you should destroy the Anvi. But it's going to make the final battle that much harder when you have no Golems to assist you.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Of course the good action is to send it to the authorities, the neutral to send it back to them, and the "evil" to keep it for yourself, seems pretty straight forward right? send it to the public to be a good guy, wrong, moral choices very rarely exist in a vacuum, you never forget in the game that you're working with them because it's the only choice, so antagonising them is plain stupid, the good choice should be to keep the data, and the evil choice should be to send it back to them. After all there is nothing stopping you releasing it once you're done with them? Now some people might say that fits the definition of Mass Effect 2's morality system, which defines the actions as moral and ruthless, and keeping the data back is pretty ruthless (I'd personally say intelligent).

That's why it's "Paragon" and "Renegade", not "Good" and "Evil". Shepard is inherently the good guy; he's trying to save the day. It's just his methods that can get morally questionable. Turning the data in is the Paragon thing to do because it's the boyscout thing to do.

The whole all-important-morality-meter thing started, to the best of my knowledge, with KOTOR. There it made a lot of sense because of the lightside/darkside thing the force has going on.

In some other games, it doesn't make as much sense, particularly if you being evil or not doesn't have much impact on the story. In Dragon Age, Bioware has ditched it altogether, and I never really found myself missing it.

The real problems for me are that:

1. In most games, the game does not play any differently regardless of whether you play a good guy or a complete hellspawn.

Where was the option to take control of and reopen the Sith Academy on Korriban in KOTOR 1...?

Being evil in KOTOR let me kill Mission by forcing her own best friend to do it. It also affected the powers that you could use (which made a huge difference in the final fight).

 

[Kollega]

The game thought I should be a dark, evil, worse than hitler player.

GODWIN'S LAW!

OT: I agree that moral choice systems are still inflexible. Mass Effect is getting it about right - you're a savior of the galaxy either way, but you are either a bringer of hope and justice or a selfish douche who's in it for the glory and chicks.

Send it to the public to be a good guy, wrong, moral choices very rarely exist in a vacuum. You never forget in the game that you're working with them because it's the only choice, so antagonising them is plain stupid.

Fridge Brilliance kicked in, and i realized that it'll probably take some time for the Alliance to dechipher it. By the time they finish, Shepard will no longer be working with Cerberus.

***

Anyways, here's a fairly original idea i thought up. A system not unlike one in Mass Effect. You are a squad commander in a big war, but you don't like that war all that much. There are two meters to fill up - Dependability (points granted for succesfully carrying out orders) and Benevolence (points granted for helping people in need - including civilians and wounded enemies). You can gain points independently, but sometimes commander orders you to do something reprehensible - and then you can either do it or disobey his order (which nets you one type of points while making you lose other type). You can't really fill both meters at once, no matter how hard you try - you have to pick one. If you are extremely loyal, the command will send you powerful experimental weapons, while if you are extremely nice, you won't get attacked by local Resistance movement. And of course you get different endings.

 

[tkioz]

In Fallout 3 I never killed a innoncent NPC, hurt them or nothing. I only killed eneimes. But I did steal.... ALOT. So I should be a neutral or a Chaotic good right? WRONG! The game thought I should be a dark, evil, worse than hitler player.

Stealing is bad (even though no one saw me with Stealth Armor) but come on!

Actually there is a reason horse theft was a capital crime where car theft is minor crime, basically the same thing when you think about it right? both modes of transportation? Well when you consider the age of horse transportation in areas of the western united states or early Australian outback the loss of your horse could very well spell the death of your entire family, but lose a car? big deal, might hurt you for a few days until you get a loaner.

In a post-apocalyptic subsistence society theft is arguably more destructive then individual murder in that it can have massive consequences to the larger group the owner of said belongings, you're not just steeling a gun from one guy, you might be depriving an entire community of a vital part of their means of defence.

So in that context yes it is a morally bankrupt act, but they could explain it better, it took me a while to think that through myself while playing Fallout 3, in the beginning I had very much the same opinion as you.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

There was no 'good' option in the Tenpenny Tower quest.

Both paths required some heartless acts.

It's the only quest I always leave unfinished in Fallout 3, Roy can go fuck himself but his budies were nice and I don't like killing them.

Also... Bethesda, why the hell do I get BAD Karma when I kill Moriarty?

Still, it's totally worth it to see Gob take over the saloon.

 

[Woodsey]

The problem with moral choice systems is perspective; evil people generally don't think they're being evil.

I put a gun in Conrad Verner's face in ME1 so the idiot wouldn't join the Alliance and get killed. For which I received renegade points.

Like you said, ME mostly gets things pretty spot-on but you own notice the points the most when you think they're wrong.

Of course, what's good about the Mass Effect system it that its less about being good/evil and more about your methods.

 

[Crosshead]

I don't play evil much, and there are lots of reasons. The biggest issue I have is that evil is so damn petty and nasty. KOTOR 2 comes to mind here (Being the only game I managed to complete as evil). I wanted to be "Emperor evil". Cunning, manipulative, playing everything out to it's maximum advantage, where the evil comes from selfishness and simply not caring what happens to others. Instead, to rack up the dark side meter, I had to be a petty spiteful little thug, ordering old men to jump to their death when there was no benefit to me at all.

In short, I'd like to see evil as more realistic. In my opinion, genuine evil comes from a lack of empathy, and a willingness to put yourself above all others. People who just roam around hurting people for no reason at all are at least slightly crazy, or at best, violent idiots desperate for an ego boost. But I don't see this "selfish evil" as much in games as I'd like to.

Dragon Age went some way towards fixing this, and it's the best I've seen so far, but it's very much the exception. Hopefully, the sign of better things to come.

 

[ThePreshFrince]

Yeah, I agree. Fallout 3's karma system was a little messed up.

Spoiler

Especially in Tranquility Lane, if you don't know how to get the override, your karma gets wrecked. And the override is REALLY confusing to activate.

It is a real spoiler, BTW, so don't click it if you don't want to see it.

it was pretty easy to get actually, and it's a reference to a movie. double the awesome.

 

[Jenova65]

I feel like adding that, IMO the most important thing to make Morality interesting in games is the fact that decisions should be Difficult.

An example using Fallout 3(mods, obviously) would be downloading one of the mods that makes the game much more difficult with less ammo and a need for food and water and no radiation. If you're RPing as a very good character, it shouldn't be an easy and thoughtless decision to give that beggar water. You deserve those good karma points because you NEED that water.

I feel Dragon Age: Origins got this right in a few places

Spoiler: DA:O Orzammar spoilers

The decision with Branka and the Golems is a good example of this, to me. If you're RPing as a noble character, you probably feel you should destroy the Anvi. But it's going to make the final battle that much harder when you have no Golems to assist you.

Spoiler

Not really, the dwarves are good fighters, especially if you convince the Legion of the dead to assist + you get more of them, watching my son play he had golems and they weren't that effective imo!

OT They are just games and therefore cannot mimic choices we would actually make but on the whole it is better than no choice at all, surely?!

 

[Grigori361]

Just to address that last bit, umm if you ever played kotor 2 and you play as evil,, your reward is "force crush" which is basically instant death, to anything, it leaves you vulnerable, but still death... however for the most part I agree with you.

The real problems for me are that:

1. In most games, the game does not play any differently regardless of whether you play a good guy or a complete hellspawn.

Where was the option to take control of and reopen the Sith Academy on Korriban in KOTOR 1...?

I understand that in Mass Effect, Shepherd is never "evil" or the "bad guy" and that's fine, but what about Dragon Age or KOTOR? So far, only BG2: Throne of Bhaal and Hordes of the Underdark have really given you different options for approaching "evil" beyond just a different cut scene.

2. There is no real reward for playing the "evil" side in most games. There really needs to be a temptation to take the "dark" path. Something you really want and there need to be seperate rewards for going either way that make you really considered the risk/benefit. That said, there is no reward for ever taking a more neutral or "grey" path either. If you are going to create options, then each option should have its own benefits.

 

[tkioz]

In short, I'd like to see evil as more realistic. In my opinion, genuine evil comes from a lack of empathy, and a willingness to put yourself above all others. People who just roam around hurting people for no reason at all are at least slightly crazy, or at best, violent idiots desperate for an ego boost. But I don't see this "selfish evil" as much in games as I'd like to.

I call it pycho evil rather then selfish evil, they do horrible things for the fun of it, personally I'd rather a more self-serving evil, where you can put an affable front of your character and be an utter prat behind closed doors, I play my Shepard that way, like when you meet the council during ME2, the "Renegade" choice is pathetic, no-one with an ounce of common sense would, let alone a military officer would speak to such people of power that way, so I chose the paragon option believing that at the same moment my Shepard is thinking to himself "god I wish I'd let you bastards burn, I'll see about fixing that in the future, maybe the next lot will be more useful"

 

[inpachi]

The perfect morality system would be where you can choose YOURSELF what the outcome will be. Not choose from a list of predetermined outcomes and choices that some writer considers evil/nuetral/good... You should be able to input your own choices and outcomes within a certain level of reasonability EX. If you came across a orphan. You could obviously do a few things.. You could kill it.. You could take it to another orphanage.. You could take it in yourself.. You could feed it to wolves.. Anyways i digress the point im trying to make is that when you meet a certain situation a bunch of possible ideas on how to deal with it pop into your brain. You should be able to do any of those! In a perfect morality system as long as it is completely plausable by the in game world.. Like for instance if you were in some medievel rpg or something you obviously couldnt take it took a giant space shuttle and send it off to space.. Anyways.. The problem with morality systems today is that the technology just isn't far enough to truley provide a "GOOD" morality system.. It kinda reminds me of the VR64.. Remember that pile of junk? It could of actually been good if the technology was more advanced.. I think that kind of system might even have a chance today.. With the improved technology..