next »

[Muz]

So there's a lot of talk that games aren't very good judges of morality and we should abandon the whole good and evil theme. It's often a binary slider. You can kill random people and eat baby chickens to become evil or you can donate money to orphans and turn down rewards from homeless people to become good.

It often just leads to players making illogical decisions to get to a certain alignment. Morality is more complex than that.

What's the alignment of a man who kills civilians to end a war against his country faster? What about an elf who massacres an orcish community to free his brethen from slavery and save the trees? Where do you put a devout paladin who regularly helps do good but also kills evil people (and a few innocents) because he believes that evil is a cancer? What about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor?


So, what's a good way to judge good and evil in a game, but still rate them as morally gray? My idea would be to give their actions certain points but based on different moral scales. For example, someone who kills a good person because he was told to gains 20 evil points in life preservation and +5 good points in loyalty. Someone who rescues a villain who plans to destroy the world gains +40 good points in life preservation but 20 evil points in utilitarianism.

It needs a lot of tweaking, but that's basically the idea. Anyone else have better ideas?

[Captain_404]

Remove all arbitrary point systems. Actions must only exist, and do nothing more than exist. Any judgement of an act should only be affected by our own preconception of the act.

If a game has to tell you "this is bad" for you to understand it is bad, something is wrong with the game.

[drChengele]

So, what's a good way to judge good and evil in a game?

If you are going to tweak morality mechanics, you might want to get rid of the whole "good and evil" thing first.  There are no real consequences for players' actions in modern games. At most, a few points shift on an imaginary scale which can be offset by some other deed. Sometimes it is as absurd as killing seven innocent people and ten "bad guy" people resulting in being judged "good" overall. Do you really think there is a universal scale which can assign numerical values to a person's actions?

We might be approaching a very difficult terrain, requiring us to define what is good, what is evil, and if there is a universal "good and evil" applicable to everyone at all times, ever. So I'll steer clear of that.

Instead, let us consider what modern games consider to be good or evil actions.

"Good" almost always equates to "generous", "forgiving", "compassionate", "helpful", "modest", and sometimes downright "stupid". Most of these are desirable traits in today's humanitarian society, to be sure.

To be "evil" is to do indiscriminate killings of innocents, or otherwise hurting people.

There are no moral absolutes. There is no true black or true white morality. Nobody does evil things because he is evil. RPGs are particularly amusing in this respect - when you take a closer look at it, the main character is the biggest mass murderer in-game.

I would dearly like to see an RPG which takes a more cynical view of the player's actions. Letting a bad guy pleading for mercy live? Too bad he escapes from prison and kills off your entire family. Giving charity left and right? Enjoy being pestered and beset on all sides by people wanting more and more charity, including swindlers and conmen, until you are either bankrupt or turn a cheapskate. Realize mid-game that the "monsters" you killed all along had wives, children, and you were working for a genocidal well intentioned extremist all along. Are you to be held culpable? If yes, enjoy getting "evil" status out of the blue. If no, I must ask why it is acceptable to kill guards or Wehrmacht soldiers who are also simply following orders.

Games abuse, misuse, and misunderstand the good/evil division. Your idea is basically the DnD system, maybe expanded and oddly specific. I have a particular axe to grind with Neverwinter Nights, which being a DnD game should really take care of alignment things better. The game seemed to constantly misinterpret LAWFUL actions for GOOD actions. Now I am not a fan of DnD's alignment system, but damn it all, if you are making a DnD game and I do a lawful neutral action I expect it to increase my lawful meter, not my good meter. If you equate lawful with good and chaotic with evil, you no longer have two axes, you only have one, so why bother?

Fallout (1 and 2) had some good ideas (with custom traits such as Child Killer), but it still had a universal karma system, which is the same thing by another name. Deus Ex was big on moral choices.

To summarize, have the games simulate consequences of all the player's actions, not consequences of an arbitrary gauge.

[Ego_Shiner]

pinobee: wings of adventure has my favourite morality system. mostly because its entirely integrated into gameplay and you dont see the effects of it until you read your own character's journal at the end of the level.

[gimymblert]

The problem with morality is that it's more standard than something absolute. Moral is about relation between living things and behavior code. Moral is about that empathic link between them and how we reflect that. Without empathy (the ability to share someone shoes) there is no moral.

Moral came onto two form, personal (internal) and social (external). Moral create conflict with interest and preference and limit the behavior relating to them. Moral is a way to manage disruptive behavior in a society, it help maintain good relation with each other because we care about the interest of each other (empathy). Good and evil are judgement of action and attitude base on the examination of interest, preference and relation. THUS the reason moral exist is to manage the consequence of action and how it relate to each other interest and relation. If there is no consequence, there is no real moral, nothing to reason from. (note: interest is about belief here).

That way any moral system judge the player action regarding his own belief not from the real consequence of the fiction, if the game does have some consequence, it may come at odd with the judgement impose onto the player (bioshock) which render the moral useless. Also when a player operate within a scale of a game moral system, it does so with his own reference system. Because of that it may not understand the judgement the system impose to him when divergence is met, which turn the game into "read the designer mind" type of puzzle. To avoid that, the game must first teach the player is own reference frame AND consider when the player have divergeant opinion.

However, i think the best way to represent morale in game is not from a puzzle like behavior system with a moral meter. It should be al about relation and how action affect those relation with consequence. Faction is one of the better way to do this. Because moral act as a social mechanism, the best way to implement it is through social system. What are the belief, what social rule and behavior are reward and which one are punished? Each faction (or person) would have is own morals.

If bioshock have a system where your Adams adapt to your alignment rather than the opposite, it would have been more meaningful (for exemple: adams are treat like ammo, you can consume a lot more when harvesting little girl (it's about power and personnal gain), but no so when saving them, but the little girl must have a functional purpose to offset it (social benefit) maybe something akin to bioshock infinity's girl capacity).

At last, mechanics themselves are moral system in every games! Stealth reward indirect approach over direct one, shooter generally reward killing at a distance while brawler encourage close contact. They are not moral of the highest emotional point, but still his. The best way to hide your moral scale is through gameplay mechanics, but hey gameplay is all about the consequence! In mGS3 there is a short nightmare sequence where all player you had killed in the game returned into ghost and harmed you, the more you killed, the harder the sequence, it would have been a wonderful moral mechanics if there was some forewarning (setting the reference frame).

Gameplay also let you layer a general moral set onto the minor moral with faction and individual by setting overall consequence for everybody's actions (not only the player). The  best way to envision a game with a moral system is to design it like a hidden management game (with autonomous agent that have they own moral system to control their behavior). Most time gameplay is what's at odd with the moral system, RED DEAD REDEMPTION miss the redemption part because the basic mechanics reward you for being a killer and throw away the fiction entirely!

TO conclude, an moral meter is more about the relation between the player and the designer rather than the world. To make morale more meaningful we should make the relation about the world instead (faction is the simplest system). But at the end, mechanics matter much more.

[gamete]

This video provides some interesting thoughts on morality. One of the suggestions is to use a 'morality wheel' to judge your actions on several different axes.

[drChengele]

This video provides some interesting thoughts on morality. One of the suggestions is to use a 'morality wheel' to judge your actions on several different axes.

Only two axes, actually. Still a whole lot better than one, but I'd be in favour of unlimited axes (see below).

Like I said, DnD has been doing it for years and yet even with such a clear-cut set of written rule precendents video games haven't been able to get it right.

The video is great, though. All that talk of factions, and the necessity to hide the variables from the player really hit the spot.

[Muz]

This video provides some interesting thoughts on morality. One of the suggestions is to use a 'morality wheel' to judge your actions on several different axes.

That video poses a very good argument. The morality wheel was what I was going for, illustrated more clearly. Also, one thing I haven't thought about is that doing something good matters much more depending on what it's worth to the player. Giving $1 to an orphan is worth a whole lot more good to a starving lvl 1 character, compared to a multimillionaire lvl 30 character.

Yeah, it shows why you can't always simulate the consequences of the player's actions. It takes too much effort for a lot of games.

But it is a good point in that every RPG character could be evil. I think Iji made a good point of this.. you have the choice to not kill anyone at all, it's more satisfying, but it's a lot harder than winning the game with violence.

[gimymblert]

This video provides some interesting thoughts on morality. One of the suggestions is to use a 'morality wheel' to judge your actions on several different axes.

Oh great, he basically say what i was trying to say except clearly

Giving $1 to an orphan is worth a whole lot more good to a starving lvl 1 character, compared to a multimillionaire lvl 30 character.

Yeah, it shows why you can't always simulate the consequences of the player's actions. It takes too much effort for a lot of games.

You could but only if you design action meaningful to the game space and is functional to the player experience.


Princess maker also had a good way to represent moral choice: It has too meter one for good (morale) and one for Sin (evil). Each action convey the two (either by raising or lowering them) and consequence (events) depend on how much filled each was AND the difference between the two. If the two meter are fills your daughter is basically like an inquisitor. At the end she try to destroy all evil on earth only to turn the queen of darkness once she rip off the god of evil.

[Sir Raptor]

If anyone remembers Ultima 4, that game had an interesting morality system, where you could get good points just for not killing monsters. Also

Realize mid-game that the "monsters" you killed all along had wives, children, and you were working for a genocidal well intentioned extremist all along.

The main enemies of the game fell in this category.

[JoGribbs]

Chunk o' Text

I think Good/ Evil morality systems are terrible. At best misguided and at worst patronising. In the real world even religious beliefs that attempt to supply a moral code are still to some extent ambiguous, precisely because big blue numbers don't pop up over our heads every time we do something.

I wouldn't be as reductive as to say 'don't use telegraphed one dimensional morality scales', since I'm sure there's a good enough game designer out there willing to take them and deconstruct them. However, I'd support systems based on action and consequence more than arbitrary points.

[s0]

I wouldn't be as reductive as to say 'don't use telegraphed one dimensional morality scales', since I'm sure there's a good enough game designer out there willing to take them and deconstruct them. However, I'd support systems based on action and consequence more than arbitrary points.

I think the "morality slider" system worked well in inFamous though, mainly because it's a game inspired by superhero comics and therefore deals in classic comic book-style black/white morals, where the good guys are selfless, almost angelic protectors of humankind and the bad guys like committing random acts of violence for the hell of it. I also liked Fable's system for similar reasons. Both of these games are pretty tongue-in-cheek and never pretend to be overly serious about anything.

Other than that though, I generally prefer "action and consequence" systems, especially when the moral decisions emerge out of the game's rules rather than being scripted.

I think Europa Universalis is a really powerful game in that regard. You can go around trying to play the "bad boy" and declaring war on random nations, but, depending on who you're dealing with, not only will you soon be facing off against their allies, you'll also sever ties to nations you were formerly on good standing with and on top of that, your own nation's stability will quickly decrease and it'll be a pain to produce anything (like soldiers) due to lowered income. All of these are logical and completely unscripted consequences for an action that's completely unacceptable in the context of the game. Lots of other complex strategy games have these sort things as well, but it'd be great if it seeped into other genres a bit more.

[magnum_opus]

I'm with neoshaman a series of loyalty bars for various factions or ideas might work well.
The 2d gta's had gang alignment as 3 non zero sum meters that affected how the gangs reacted. Obviously the same could be applied to good and evil factions (sith jedi) but also allows for the more grey area of the aforementioned orc slaughtering to save the elves. It's social consequence without literal moral judgment.

It could also be more abstract "greed" "honor" "self interest" sliders, things that aren't necessarily in conflict with each other.


The biggest problem really, and why there's no good morality system in an existing game is one of resources. Nobody has the time to program a million subtle gradations of each npc's reaction to you. Nobody will either, it's not a problem that "better libraries" are going to fix. So we have to embrace the limitation.

[ezuk]

While talking about mechanics in the abstract can be a good way to generate ideas, ultimately the mechanics have to be tied to a meaningful story or premise, don’t they?

The biggest obstacle to creating a meaningful system lies in the kind of stories games have been trying to tell.  Is the player trying to prevent an evil wizard from harnassing the power of Bhaal or holding back a demonic blight?  Then of course the game’s morality will be good vs. evil and on the stupid side.  And these are the premises of the better rpg’s, the genre most noted for its story-telling and choice.

Luckily, some games are more willing to explore grey areas, but we do need more stories that demand a complex view of morality.  Ultima IV, as Sir Raptor mentioned, works because the goal is to achieve enlightenment.  So a number of gauges, each measuring a different virtue, makes sense.  Or maybe the player has to choose between helping a bunch of revolutionaries overthrow a corrupt government or helping that government crush the violent extremists in the name of peace.  Which one is the lesser of two evils?  The player could then be judged along a simple revolutionary/lawful scale as he or she decides.

It’s not hard to come up with scenarios where one or another type of system would be appropriate.  The key, in my opinion, is to believe in a scenario that presents a moral dilemma and then adapt the mechanic that is best suited to it.

[gimymblert]

Absolutly great thought ezuk

[gunmaggot]

While talking about mechanics in the abstract can be a good way to generate ideas, ultimately the mechanics have to be tied to a meaningful story or premise, don’t they?

I kind of don't agree with this at all.  In the abstract - ding! - every game that requires some sort of situation where you have to decide which action is better or worse has a morality mechanic, at least going by the only way I've ever been able to make sense of morality.  Like, do I take each asteroid apart one by one, chasing all the pats down or just sit tight and get my shots in while I can, focusing on the smaller pieces?

[ezuk]

I tried to use the word “premise” to be as broad as possible.  I do remember hearing about a game that looked like a standard SHMUP, but killing enemies filled up a “genocide meter.”  There a simple counter got the moral point across without a story.  This is an interesting morality mechanic based on a premise (any enemy’s life is valuable and killing it contributes to genocide).

I don’t see how a purely technical decision like “how do I best destroy an asteroid” is in itself moral, though. 

So far, this discussion has been great.  We’ve had the following mechanics:

1.  Simple counters (genocide meter)

2.  Single axis scale (good/evil scale or less common ones like revolutionary/statist)

3.  Multiple counters which can act independently  (Ultima IV’s virtues or Muz’s suggestions for scales) or in conjunction with each other (Princess Maker’s Good & Sin meters where filling both meters creates a new state)

4.  Graphs or arrays where each axis or dimension represents a different scale (Morality wheel – see

-  or an arbitrarily large number axes.)

5.  Faction loyalty; the character’s actions push her towards one in-game faction or other (GTA 2’s gangs)

6.  In-game consequences:  the character’s actions lead to new game states / storylines that may reward or punish the player or cause other players and NPC’s to turn against the player (Europa Universalis’s other states turn on an irrational player)

7.  Alignments where the character’s actions put him in one moral category or another (D&D’s lawful neutral or chaotic evil)

Is there anything that I’ve missed?  Any further thoughts / suggestions?

[gunmaggot]

I don’t see how a purely technical decision like “how do I best destroy an asteroid” is in itself moral, though.

That's cos you're not thinking abstractly enough!

[adam_smasher]

I imagine most of the time where you want a "morality system", what you should actually have is just branching storylines/scripting, rather than a numerical approach. Because what you want (probably) is the player feeling consequences for their actions. Simple morality sliders are simply too inaccurate and quantitative in any reasonably complex game for that sort of relationship to register very deeply. Is stealing 100 loaves of bread as bad as killing one civilian? Is killing ten million people 10x better than killing 100 million people? Is stealing a billion loaves of bread as bad as killing ten million people? Even if it is, with a simple one-dimensional scale, all NPCs could say is "You're a bad person!", because of course you'd be scratching your head when an NPC calls you a genocidal maniac after successfully pulling off the world's greatest bread heist.

Of course, you can use numbers to figure out when to toggle certain branches - kill two guards during a stealth mission, whatever; kill fifty and you're clearly not going down the pacifist route. In general, the rule of thumb is: the more specific the response consequence to a corresponding action is, the more responsibility and involvement the player will feel.

To conclude, play Deus Ex.

[gimymblert]

I don’t see how a purely technical decision like “how do I best destroy an asteroid” is in itself moral, though.

That's cos you're not thinking abstractly enough!

Isn't morality tied to meaning and abstraction is the removal of meaning to expose structure?

I don't see much the asteroid exemple tied to morality, unless you add some meaning to it. Morality is about ATTITUDE, they are choice which are not base on efficienty, but on belief and self identification which weight on choice. Identifying the moral of a game is to identify the attitude it promote.