Poll: Why Don't Games Use D&D Alignment for Moral Choice?

[Naeras]

If it's easily labeled as "good/bad", it's not a good moral choice in the first place,, just an arbitrary stat that people will power level if possible. If you're in a moral grey zone and actually have to decide for yourself what's right and wrong in the situation, then it's a moral choice.

This is why Deus Ex: Human Revolution handles moral choices better than, say, Mass Effect. There's no clear right and wrong in most of the situations, and the game doesn't judge you if you decide to act in one way or another.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Because the D&D alignment system is far too arbitrary and unexplained.
If we go by 3.x then there is FAR too much left to interpretation, to the point that Chaotic/Neutral almost literally says that killing anyone for any lack of a reason is justified by your alignment. And there are no rules against it.

Actually it is not at all arbitrary. It is BADLY explained in most of the books, however.

D&D Alignment is actually based on a particular school of philosophy. I'll spare you the details, but it is supposed to work like this.

Law/Chaos: When seeking "the Good," do the Ends justify the Means? If Yes, you are Chaotic. If No, you are Lawful. If sometimes/depends/bacon, you are Neutral.

Good/Evil: To whom does "the Good" apply? If 'Everyone' you are Good. If 'Me only' you are Evil. If your answer is more nuanced (people I personally know, my hometown, my clan, etc) you are probably neutral, although the larger the group the "gooder" you are.

"The Good" in this case being Plato's good. Yes, D&D alignment is based on Greek philosophy.

 

[violinist1129]

http://darksoulswiki.wikispaces.com/Covenants

It is, sometimes.
I personally think that this system could be improved by eliminating evil/good and replacing it with something less arbitrary.

Umm......Lawful/Decent, and.......Chaotic/Jerk face? Let's call it what it is, good and evil are not arbitrary terms, nor are they subjective. Good is good, you do something nice for the old lady down the street, it's good, you stab a puppy for laugh, it's evil.
I think they just need to add a fourth end of the good v.evil spectrum. Neutral is the arbitrary point. How do you determine a neutral character? Did he stab a puppy? Well obviously he's evil, did he help an old lady? Obviously he's good. They need something to encompass, impulsiveness.

If a person stabs a puppy to put it out of the misery of a disease, is it evil? Some say yes, some say no. Subjective.
If a person lies to protect people's lives, is it good? Good and evil are subjective.

Not all moral choices are black and white.

Those are both pretty standard chaotic actions. This was the point of the D&D system in that it has a little bit more than black and white even though it's far from perfect.

 

[darksakul]

I want to put out that some of the greatest villains of all time believe that have the law/ morality on there side.

Examples

Darth Vader does operate under his own code of ethics, as in reimbursing Boba Fett if Han Solo didn't survive carbonite freezing. His goals are to bring order to the Galaxy, ever offering his son Luke a chance to be at his side despite his involvement with the rebel alliance.

A Drow Priestess will kill humans on sight not just because to her kind "humans" are evil who dwell in poisonous sun light. Killing the human protects her house, family, city and gains the favor of her beloved goddess. As we would kill goblins who "invade our territory".

Capt Hook, responsible for his ship the Joly Roger, must maintain strict order and discipline at all times. An undisciplined ship is a sunken ship, here comes an uninvited, unwanted attacker Peter Pan, who constantly harass and assault him and his crew and took a disability from injuries from this unwanted wild child.

GlaDOS follows her programing and protocols as she was programed to follow.
And GlaDOS has a test subject that refuses to follow protocol, endanger the integrity of the lab and assaults the main computer (GlaDOS) who only following the test protocol she has no choice but to obey. This unruly test subject damaged and almost destroyed poor GlaDOS, then later made her into a Potato. The AI core that took over almost caused a nuclear explosion from his mismanagement of the testing facilities. A Near catastrophic event that would not occur if GlaDOS was still in charge of the lab's administrations.

 

[Smiley Face]

D&D's morality system is hardly perfect - frankly, my own ideas on morals and ethics put me by default somewhere near the neutral area, even though that's because it's an average of me being all over the place. With that said, it would certainly be a step up from binary morality.

I think maybe a good intermediate step would be by making some form of neutrality a viable option, or by making all four corners viable and distinct options - going for all nine as distinct options is too fast a move, and too likely to fail in execution.

Or, you could do away with it - the reputation system has its strengths - perhaps something that could incorporate the strengths of both. Morality's problem is that good and evil can be artificial constructs at times, and that even so, your good/evilness isn't painted on your face for everyone to judge you by. On the other hand, the reputation system has the problem that it devolves into an exercise of manipulating the opinions of others, and it makes it too easy to do so.

In short? Just move away from contrived, binary decisions of good vs. evil. Move ANYWHERE.

 

[JesterRaiin]

That's what i'm talking here about. "I dub thee Evil" and that's it ? Who's the judge ?

That's what i'm talking here about. "I dub thee Evil" and that's it ? Who's the judge ?

Because your kingdom is lawful evil, you will get positive modifiers from them.

Guys, this answer was supposed to be very long, but near the end i realized that we're running away from the meritum, which is "the games and alignment table featured in DnD".

We can talk about this system and argue what is what and how. For example i fail to see moral dilemma in crushing the eggs of Red "Mr notorious bad guy" Dragon, i can prove that DnD gods are nothing more than mere people with bag of tricks so they can't work as moral lighthouses, or i can talk for hours about my replacement of alignment table based on modified version of Johari Window. But that's pointless.

I want to remind all of you, that DnD alignment system is crude and underdeveloped. I'm not saying that because i hate DnD (i despise 4th ed but that's another story). I'm saying it, because i fail to acknowledge that human with all his traits of character can be described by system consisting from two words, especially if part of this system is the eternal "good vs evil" problem that wasn't resolved to this day since the beginning of the Mankind.

IT WORKS but only in tabletop gaming, when there's alive, creative and (hopefully) mature enough judge (DM/GM/Keeper) ready to talk about actions of an adventurer and their impact on the world, ready to support this system when it enters the territory of moral ambiguity. Video games can't recreate this role in massive games we all are talking about here.

I think that any kind of moral systems is useless at this point, because there's only finite number of possible aftermaths of every action developers can and want to put into the game. No matter which one will be chosen, gaming forums will be always full people that will call it buls*t because in their opinion that's not the way hero/villain/humble peasant should act.

It's simple as that...

 

[Jandau]

You're missing the point - making a alignment/morality system more complicated than good/evil while still making the choices impactful is much more difficult than you imagine.

We want choice in games, we want plenty of it, and we want that choice to affect how the game plays out and ends. We want the consequences of our actions to echo down the line, for the game world and characters to react to them as well as building our own character through those choices.

Now imagine you need to develop a game. Let's say we start with a linear game with no choice. You need to write and record dialogue, build assets, do the design work, etc. Now let's say you want a Good/Evil morality system that changes how the game plays out. Well, now you need to record dialogue for both the Good and Evil options (and maybe Neutral), you need the various responses mapped out, cover every permutation. Then let's say you want some major events in the game (major quest chains, for instance) to have specific effects on the game, so you need to cover the various possible outcomes of such events, cover the Good/Evil options, etc. You are already doind 2-3 times as much work (maybe even more) in the writing/dialogue/voiceover department than you would for a linear game.

But now someone wants to add a Chaotic/Lawful scale to your Good/Evil scale. Suddenly, the number of permutations possible increases exponentially. And if you don't provide enough variety, people will whine about your game having no choice. You can make a quest chain have six different resolutions, but the Lawful Neutral player might end up whining that his alignment wasn't catered to, that he couldn't ropleplay his character the way he wanted to.

And that's why you don't get more complex choice systems in games today, at least not in AAA titles - the more choice you put in and the more impact it has on how the game plays out, the work and cost of making such a game skyrockets compared to a no-choice game. And as Shamus Young points out [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9331-The-Big-Cost-of-Small-Places], making games is already a massive undertaking, to the point where they can't even match the complexity of older games, much less surpass it.

Dreaming about the stuff you'd like to see in games is all well and good, but you really should try to be realistic about the implementation of such mechanics.

 

[Zenhurak]

Part of why we will never have a true alignment system in video games (at least not in the forseeable future) is because apart from the limited choices. The game doesn't take into account your motivations for said action. for example I could be burning that tree to the ground because the kitten is an evil overlord. or I could save it because I want to drown it personally/use it as leverage for financial gain from the owner.

 

[Fishyash]

does it sound like a good idea, rather than the traditional bipolar system?

Please remind me, because i forgot the details...

Let's say there's this Orc going by the name of "Bulg".
Bulg believes in strength, fire, blood and battle. He perceives civilization of Mankind as weak abomination that should be burned to the ground.
On the other hand he is a strict follower of the laws his little tribe.

Is Bulg Lawful of Chaotic ?

Hmm...

I would say lawful neutral. Your interests are within your tribe, with hatred for anyone except your tribe. Some would say evil because you only care about your own interests rather than the world's interest. However since you are lawful to your tribe, not just yourself, I would go for neutral.

Okay besides that, I see your point, but I truly think that is what GODS are for, they can pretty much define good & evil however they want. If not the gods that are in the game, just put it up to the game developer.

For the OP, even though a D&D style alignment system would be nice (assume you don't pick it from the start, but it develops and can be changed depending on your decisions) I personally think there shouldn't be an alignment system at all. You want moral choices? Give your character some morals. The game doesn't need to come up with them for you. Moral conflicts only happen when you have morals.

 

[Deadyawn]

I've always liked the law/chaos good/evil system. I think that while it's not entirely comprehensive, it is a good guideline and it defines most possible alignments quite well. So I suppose I would like to see it implemented more often than a strict black and white system that is so often used.

 

[JesterRaiin]

does it sound like a good idea, rather than the traditional bipolar system?

Please remind me, because i forgot the details...

Let's say there's this Orc going by the name of "Bulg".
Bulg believes in strength, fire, blood and battle. He perceives civilization of Mankind as weak abomination that should be burned to the ground.
On the other hand he is a strict follower of the laws his little tribe.

Is Bulg Lawful of Chaotic ?

Hmm...

I would say lawful neutral. Your interests are within your tribe, with hatred for anyone except your tribe. Some would say evil because you only care about your own interests rather than the world's interest. However since you are lawful to your tribe, not just yourself, I would go for neutral.

Okay besides that, I see your point, but I truly think that is what GODS are for, they can pretty much define good & evil however they want. If not the gods that are in the game, just put it up to the game developer.

1. DnD gods aren't omnipotent, all knowing deities. Some of them were mere human that tricked their way into the godly pantheon. Some died, some were punished, stripped of their power.
2. Developers make mistakes too. Remember KOTOR or Mass Effect discussion regarding moral choices ?

Also : <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.339579.13740041>this

 

[Fishyash]

1. DnD gods aren't omnipotent, all knowing deities. Some of them were mere human that tricked their way into the godly pantheon. Some died, some were punished, stripped of their power.
2. Developers make mistakes too. Remember KOTOR or Mass Effect discussion regarding moral choices ?

I was thinking simply of the concept of DnD alignment. I was thinking of omnipotent gods in the game's specific universe. I guess I missed the discussion on KOTOR and ME's moral choices.

Also : <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.339579.13740041>this

Maybe you missed my edit, i'll quote what I really think of the idea of a DnD alignment system in a game.

For the OP, even though a D&D style alignment system would be nice (assume you don't pick it from the start, but it develops and can be changed depending on your decisions) I personally think there shouldn't be an alignment system at all. You want moral choices? Give your character some morals. The game doesn't need to come up with them for you unless it wants to tell a specific story with a specific protagonist. The game doesn't need to come up with them for you. Moral conflicts only happen when you have morals.

I might as well expand a little bit on that while I am responding in fact.

Honestly, games that boast moral conflict without making a specific protagonist are using guesswork or common moral dilemmas. Moral choices are pretty one sided for the majority of people unless you RP your character in a way that makes the choices more meaningful.

 

[Varil]

-Didn't read the thread, just responding to OP.

Ugh. The D&D alignment axis is horrible. It falls apart if you put it under too much scrutiny, and any reasonably well-defined character can match half the axis with little trouble. Try googling for Batman's alignment. There's a chart somewhere where he matches every alignment, with reasonable excuses for each. Only follows own authority?

Chaotic. Personal code of morality? Lawful. Rescuing innocents? Good. Fighting crime as part of a personal vendetta? Neutral or Evil, depending on severity.

 

[Sarge034]

One of the most common complaints about the modern games industry is the moral choice system: "Why do I have to either take the cat out of the tree for free or burn the motherf**ker to the ground?" However, tabletop games have produced a much more nuanced moral system (in the form of D&D alignment from Advanced to 3rd edition), and the games industry should gleefully pillage it.

I wholeheartedly agree that a D&D style system would be awesome (I am Lawful Good with Chaotic Good streaks), but it would mean that the games would have to make so many more outcomes for your choices or feel like they are bluntly ignoring your moral choices. Just look at the math.

The Three Choice System.

We know what it is. Good, neutral, and bad. The Mass Effect and Dragon Age series are good examples, while they did change it to charm/ bold options in the second Mass Effect. Same idea though.

Choice 1= 3 outcomes
Choice 2= 9 outcomes
Choice 3= 27 outcomes

Granted some of these would have the same, or very similar, outcomes. This is why sometimes it seems that your character is doing something that they would do given your moral choices. The story must come first, but a game can do it one of two ways. Well, or poorly. Mass Effect does it well. It steers you toward saving the galaxy no matter if you are more holy than Raptor, Cyborg, Ninja, Pirate Jesus or "more eviler than Skeletor". Dragon Age 2 is just like, "Cool moral choices bro, but now you do this. Deal with it."

Just for fun let's look at the D&D system math.

Choice 1= 9 outcomes
Choice 2= 81 outcomes
Choice 2= 729 outcomes

The reason this system works in D&D is because the Dungeon Master can change the story on the fly to make your moral choices make sense for your character throughout the game. A developer cannot. They have to sale a general story that will appeal to the widest audience.

Just because it is pertinent...

Spoiler: ...and spoiler tabbed because it is so big

 

[Macgyvercas]

The reason they don't use that? Truthfully? Time and money. Don't forget, making games is time consuming and expensive, so it's probably a lot faster to just throw in a binary morality system instead of having to program nine possible outcomes.

 

[Arluza]

while using a 1 axis system isn't perfect by any means, it is about 200% easier than a 2 axis morality system. The amount of time it would take to make that ONE feature is insane compared to a 1 axis way like we do now. We would need another Ultima 4 before we see a complex moral choice system. That simply won't happen. Investors will not put down $100 million US to a game that hasn't already shown a good return.

 

[Bostur]

I don't think a generalized moral system as the one in AD&D is very good. But I can see it work as a template for more specific systems.

I sometimes wonder why games don't use more numbers and more scales, in order to smooth out the one-dimensionality a bit. The rivalry-friendship system in DA2 didn't make any sense, but it might have made some sense by adding an extra scale. One scale to measure trust from an NPC, another scale to measure the level of agreement.

In pen and paper games rulesets needs to be simple enough to be handled manually. In software it's much easier to add extra numbers, formulas and scales. It may even be useful for writers to have more hooks to plug the narrative into.

while using a 1 axis system isn't perfect by any means, it is about 200% easier than a 2 axis morality system. The amount of time it would take to make that ONE feature is insane compared to a 1 axis way like we do now. We would need another Ultima 4 before we see a complex moral choice system. That simply won't happen. Investors will not put down $100 million US to a game that hasn't already shown a good return.

Ultima IV was hardly a $100 million project. Thats the funny thing. Some of these old low-budget games had much more complex systems, because it is easy to add in some extra formulas. It's an inexpensive way to try to add some more depth to a setting, for instance compared to the work that goes into graphics.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

For

Spoiler: TF2

Against

Spoiler: Batman

I hope that makes it clear

 

[ryanxm]

While I do think that this would be a good thing to try, it'd take a lot of time, effort, and money to put in to the game. So I don't think we'd be seeing it unless a company firs took the large risk and showed that it can work in the first place.

 

[chadachada123]

http://darksoulswiki.wikispaces.com/Covenants

It is, sometimes.
I personally think that this system could be improved by eliminating evil/good and replacing it with something less arbitrary.

Umm......Lawful/Decent, and.......Chaotic/Jerk face? Let's call it what it is, good and evil are not arbitrary terms, nor are they subjective. Good is good, you do something nice for the old lady down the street, it's good, you stab a puppy for laugh, it's evil.
I think they just need to add a fourth end of the good v.evil spectrum. Neutral is the arbitrary point. How do you determine a neutral character? Did he stab a puppy? Well obviously he's evil, did he help an old lady? Obviously he's good. They need something to encompass, impulsiveness.

A neutral person won't end the world, but could be in a gang of thieves of whatever. They're characterized by being selfish but not greedy to the point of being evil.