Secret to a Good Moral Choice System

[TheDoctor455]

Moral choices should be about what's more important to you, not deciding which is the "good" and "evil" choices. Basically, weighing which principles you consider to be more important.

Mass Effect came up with a really good idea with its paragon/renegade system. Instead of the typical good/evil meter, you get 2 meters that are tracked separately. In theory, it was about idealism vs pragmatism, but that rarely ever happened... They really screwed up a great idea.

Hmm...

I didn't really like that system from the get-go.

For two-thirds of the series, you're forced into going strictly one way or the other as mixing it up too much can easily lead to scenarios where you are completely unable to select a certain dialogue choice... preventing any real role-playing from happening.

The other problem I had with it is the same one I have with every moral choice system that makes it clear how it evaluates you and what it considers 'good' or 'evil', 'lawful' or 'chaotic', 'idealistic' or 'pragmatic', 'whatever' or 'whatever'. That problem is simple: whatever points they attach to it... all that really does is tell me what the devs think about any of these actions; and even, in most cases, seems to be forcing a certain interpretation of these 'choices' on me before I've even made them.

I think that the invisible system in Spec Ops was brilliant.

However, Bioware did accidentally come up with a decent visible system (probably by accident at this point) for the Dragon Age series... rather than arbitrary points where the devs directly evaluate your choices...

they only showed how other characters reacted to your actions... they still screwed the pooch somewhat by still making a lot of the choices black and white, but at least it was a decent idea on paper.

 

[Warachia]

I think the best way to do it is to not tell the player you are doing it, you have it taking place in gameplay, somebody is locked in a cell while something bad happens to the area, you let him out, he helps you out at first but gets you into a bad situation because he deserved to be in that cell, do you turn on him and lock him up again? Or not rescue him at all? The game can keep what you do in mind and just move on to see if he is there at later events.

 

[Kopikatsu]

That may have been the case for most, if not all, multiple ending games in the past, but in theory, if a game can give you an ending that would have more thematic weight and significance given the context of your personal experience, then why shouldn't it? Shouldn't thematic resonance be more impactful than narrative gratification? I'm not saying every game should have multiple endings, but it's definitely an avenue worth exploring as a means of creative expression, in spite of the flubbed attempts we've had so far.

It's good that you edited this post, 'cause as a JRPG fan and someone who was around for when gaming was just starting to become a thing, I'd have raged all over you for what was originally there.

Anyway, Communism is good in theory but it doesn't work out in practice either. Just because something is theoretically possible if all of the stars align just so, I don't think it's worth pursuing because of what you sacrifice in the attempt (Pacing, narrative strength, cohesion, etc).

I'm not going to come out and say that it should never be done, but I don't think it should ever be the focus of an entire genre (WRPGs) because of how inherently flawed the multiple-ending plotline is. On the other hand, I'm also the person who says that first person melee, stealth, and platforming games should all go burn in the deepest pit in hell (Yes, even Thief, Mirror's Edge, and Chivalry), so take this with a grain of salt.

There's also the logistics of the matter to consider. Imagine if Mass Effect had thrown away all semblance of choice for the main storyline (Could leave in the Renegade and Paragon options for sidequests, but don't track points or anything- just give you the options and it's up to you to choose one or neither) and instead used all of the resources spent on those options (The voice acting, the writers, the time, etc etc) to improve the gameplay and vastly streamline the one storyline. It probably would have been one of the best games ever made. A true space opera. As it was, they spread themselves too thin and ended up with...well...Mass Effect. And I think that's a shame.

Edit: Basically what I'm trying to say is; brancing storylines simply aren't cost effective enough for what they give because of how expensive developing games are nowadays. The resources trying to pull it off would be better spent elsewhere to actually improve the game.

 

[Joccaren]

Yeah. TBH I liked the way DA:O handled things. It didn't have a morality meter, it just had your relationship with each party member, which could have done with extending to entire factions but W/E.

You are offered choices in what to say, or what decisions to make throughout the game. Things react. You're mean to your party, they don't like you and they'll either leave or just not say that much to you. You pick one side in a main mission, enemies from the other might try to attack you. Its still possible to game the system, but its not quite as easy to do so, and its easier to just play along.

There is no good or bad ending, merely the results of your actions are told to you. People went off and did things, you died or did stuff, factions did stuff, end.

If you must have a good/evil bar though, there are a few simple things that IMO should be done:
1. Don't tell people what is good or evil until after the choice, then hit them with a +20 a**kiss or +20 a**hole notice [Or whatever your game's equivalent is].
2. Don't have good/middle/bad endings. Just take note of what the player's choices effected, and note them down. No "You were just mean enough by being rude to everybody that we think you're going to try to take over the world", or "You decided not to kill innocents, that means you must be wanting to adopt all the orphans in the world and bring them up". Just tell the player what they're actions were, and what they effected. "You killed King X. His empire was cast into turmoil until his long lost son Y, who you found in Z, ascended to the throne", only more creative.
3. Have gameplay effects not tied to the morality system itself. I.E: Not like Mass Effect. In Mass Effect, you got Para/Rene points so that you could get Para/Rene options that would net you Para/Rene points. There Para/Rene options were also the only way out of things sometimes. Instead, do it more along the lines of KotOR or something. Your morality nets you bonuses to certain powers or skills, but it doesn't lock you out of options at points. There's no "You must be level 10 Evil to get past this point without a party member dying/leaving you". It effects the game, but it doesn't lock anything out - hell, from memory even the other morality's powers were available to you, they just cost more to use.
4. Have neutrality viable. Have it as a middle ground between good and evil bonuses, its not that hard. In KotOR, Neutrals didn't gain cost reductions for using one morality's powers, but they didn't incur cost increases for the other morality's either. This meant they were able to play as a more all round class. In Dishonoured, there are skills revolving around killing, and those revolving around stealth and passiveness. Were they locked to a morality, having neutrals able to gain the low-mid skills on both sides, and have themselves be versatile, whilst having strong abilities for each morality that neutrals couldn't get, but were heavily weighted towards one method of play [Stealth or Combat], then that would be the way to go IMO.

 

[VoidWanderer]

And in their title lies the problem...

Don't have consequences based on your choices, have them based on your actions.

In a normal 'moral choice', you have save villagers or kill the villagers. What if I want to help the villagers fight back? What if I want to help the ragtag militia fight back whatever is attacking them?

Sometimes you don't HAVE to be the big hero... Just give the little guys a leg-up once in a while.

In the Witcher games you had humans and non-humans in a state of 'near-war'. Not enough to instill a reason for war, butr dickish moves were being made. Why not help the people the player perceives as the 'wronged' party? Why not get them armour and weapons, or help with raids angainst the 'bad guys'.

 

[Ryan Minns]

I like the good/evil karma system in games. Being treated differently based on actions is better than always being the worlds saviour despite trying to sell it off to the highest bidder. Sure some of the 'choices' are fucking stupid and not just in a complete black and white way (Mass Effect 2 I'm looking at you) but I do enjoy it. Maybe mix it up a bit like D&D? Some actions aren't good or evil, they're Chaotic or Lawful and some a good and evil and combining the two together can create many more outcomes?

 

[Ninjat_126]

Maybe mix it up a bit like D&D? Some actions aren't good or evil, they're Chaotic or Lawful and some a good and evil and combining the two together can create many more outcomes?

D&D (not that I've played it) does seem to have something going there.

That said, a good system could be a Selfish/Selfless sort of thing based on your intentions, and a reputation sort of thing showing how different groups see you. I did like that with Fallout: New Vegas, especially how a faction would still be pissed at you for murdering their dudes even if you baked them a cake afterwards.

 

[snave]

Deus Ex: Human Revolution did this very well. Whilst the endings themselves sucked in content (Getty images!), the fact that there were 12 endings (as opposed to 4 as commonly believed) was often overlooked, and they were on to the right track.

Basically, without spoiling it, you get up to four choices at the end depending on which key characters are alive and kicking and contesting your alleigence. Then you pick your allegience and pick your ending. However, the catch is that each ending varies slightly in the narration based on your moral decisions along the way. The ending doesn't just arbitrarily change in direction because you performed lethal takedowns on 100 vs 99 adversaries, all direct consequences to your actions are contained in game, in context. Instead, all it does is make the ending in context eerily appropriate. If you choose to kill someone for vengence, ease of play or personal gain, you might be denied their help at a later stage as a consequence, but if you do this enough, the ending will casually pass reference to the fact that you've kinda been a bit of a bastard. The only way you can majorly effect the ending is if you happen to kill one of the faction leaders, thus locking you out of their option (I'm presuming you can do this, I had all four alive).

This is how moral choices should be done.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Nuh-Uh Fable 3 also had the 3rd moral choice, buy all the property and increase taxes and let the Xbox run for for a couple of hours.

I was actively trying to be evil in this but I ended up doing all the good choices simply because I had so much money... Like, I think it was still filled up to the room after I spent all of it fighting the monster. In real life I would of been tossing it into the streets like JD Rockefeller just to watch homeless people fight over it because I had so much.

I was like Ross freaking Perot. How would I solve the deficit? I'd pay it.

I don't get it, I bought all the property, raised taxes and left my Xbox on overnight. Still not even close to a tenth of the money I needed. :S

Maybe it was more than a night... two days?

I just know I had so much money... I was giving the shit away.

It's worth noting however, I loved in that game that Reaver always manages to turn a profit no matter what you choose. Guys a scrappy little guy.