Pixelated Morality

[REDJOHNNYMIKE]

While not the final result of resent research, or even the sole result of one discussion or interview specifically, I have been thinking quite a bit about morality, ethics, religion, etc. lately.

 

Just before typing this I was watching a video interview with one of the project directors of the game Mass Effect (yes I found the link here;)), and one of the things mentioned was the inclusion of morality affecting choices.

 

This is nothing new, there have been a few games which track your choices and journey through good/evil light/dark. Some of the most notable ones to readers here would probably be KotOR, Jade Empire, and Fable.

 

My question is this...

 

Many individuals have their own ideas of how the world works, how we intearct with one another, and how we live up to the standards we set for ourselves. These belief systems vary widely and most aren't the same.

Some people might live their lives depending on what is "socially" acceptable, other's may live their lives by what the perceive to be the most "moral" decisions they could make.

Why would a game allow a player to make decisions along only one of those facets of perception?

Take KotOR for example, most important decisions you make will lead yo down one of two inevitable paths, the "light" and the "dark".

In Jade Empire, the "open palm" and the "closed fist".

What if one makes an illegal choice for reasons that follow their morals?

What if one makes a choice that violates their personal moral code to conform to what is generally considered ethical?

How are these actions taken into account?

If Darth Joe steals an apple, and then gives it to a kid who can't afford one, is that simply a matter of mathematics directing the slide along the balance of alignment of the "light or dark side"?

How would the romanticized version of the legend Robin Hood (a criminal with noble motives) be defined as a "playable character"?

Why don't we have more facets of our simulated experiences?

Why can't we simulate multiple moral codes (of course this would be somewhat limited as it is different for almost every person). Instead of only analyzing the players actions and fitting them into a game developers pre-conceived opinion of what is right or wrong, why can't a character develop his/her own moral code over time?

What if, as in real life, multiple generally accepted codes of ethics were in fact influenced by the majority? Today we have more interconnectivity than ever before. Soon we should be able to have a PC player facing of against an XBOX360 player in Halo. We can already share information electronically as fast as we do socially, sometimes even faster, and often times with a pure combination of the two. What if the choices of all participants of a certain simulated environment could be taken into account to produce ethical codes that many might choose, or would be expected to follow? What if your actions could be fluidly contrasted with those expected of you by the characters next to you?

The players perception of his own Good and Evil nature and tendencies versus society's perception of the player?

Also...

What if the player could choose not only their own moral code of right and wrong, good and evil, but also societies or cultures to follow?

Imagine what a game such as The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion might have been like if as an Imperial you are expected to perform acts generally pleasing to the aristocracy, or conform to certain requirements dictated by the dominant religion. What if being a follower of Redguard culture placed high emphasis on your skill as a warrior over having common manners considered important to imperials?

A Jedi and Sith are often quite obvious (even though they may be vague) but what really is the difference between an imperial and a member of the republic?

 

Should Nex-Gen be simply screen resolution and user interface, or could we enter the realm of conscience and motive?

 

What are your thoughts on this?

Are there any other method's of "character self-description" or "character external perception" you would like to see?

Any other ways you might like to accomplish these goals, or goals you feel should be added?

 

edit:Oh, almost forgot...

Before a mod feels like moving stuff around, serious discussion is preferred, but it isn't posted in Kavar's so fun solutions are welcome too;)

[HerbieZ]

Well im still hanging onto the thin almost etherial wisp of information that the difference between the Dark and the Light side in kotor 3 won't be so Black and White as the other games. Yes i do think it is the way forward but not to blatently. As blatent choices and desicions in morality in computer games can be uber-cheesy.

[stingerhs]

that's why i like NWN2's morality system. its more than just "Good" and "Evil". its also includes a "Lawful" and "Chaotic" system as well. a Robin Hood-like character would be more of a "Chaotic Good" character, while a knight in shining armor would be more of a "Lawful Good" character.

 

on the evil side, a psychopathic killer who kills merely out of spite or pleasure would be a "Chaotic Evil" character. a cold and calculating evil mastermind would be more of a "Lawful Evil" character. in the game, the two characters of Torio and Lorne are two good examples of both character types.

 

just thought you mind find that info useful.

[Negative Sun]

I think TSL captured that aspect quite well, the fact that all isn't black and white, and even though you might be pure LS or DS, it's sometimes (I think all the time) better to compromise and be a bit of both, because the truth is not everything is black and white like you said...

I was quite surprised when playing through TSL that Kreia didn't condone all of my LS actions, and it really made me think, and any game that can make me think when I don't intend to is doing a good job IMO.

 

Very good topic...

[Rogue15]

kinda like what was originally planned for fable, maybe we'll see it in fable 2.

 

Morrowind sure gives me some good and evil choices though, and in-between.

[EnIgmA_XX]

Yeah, Morrowind actually gives you some pretty interesting moral choices sometimes, just take the entire morang tong guild, as well as the kind of cold, "it's just business" feeling of house halalu, but the problem is that there isn't an actual "good-evil" measurement thingy. you slaughter a person in a remote place, and you can just walk away. ds points gained: 0. it doesn't affect you as a person or the people around you.

[Totenkopf]

Life in general provides two basic paths....good and evil. A third way would be an attempt to balance out your actions such that you maintain an overall equidistant position between the two sides, ie balancing out the amount of "good" and "bad" you do. Hence a sort of "gray" philosophy. Even using the example of redguard and imperials, you still have essentially two paths within each group....actions which appease that group and those that don't. As to the Republic and sith, my guess is that the basic difference is supposedly that the first group is more "selfless" and this somehow (more?) moral.

 

Not knowing much about game developing, my question is how would an attempt to cover a multiplicity of moral stands complicate their job?

[Negative Sun]

I think I would rather have the game devs do what they do best, and leave the discussion of morals to philosophers and loons on message boards

 

It's nice to see the grey areas addressed from time to time, but a game also has to make sense, and implementing a bunch of different moral systems will only confuse those who are not philosophers or loons on message boards

[EnderWiggin]

The idea of choices and outcomes is the whole reason I'm still here.

 

The concepts of KotOR and K2 and how the system worked is what made me like it so much.

 

And Kreia's character magnified that tenfold.

 

_EW_

[SilentScope001]

I dislike this Good and Evil alignment scale since good and evil is relative.

 

I rather prefer having an alignment of Chaos and Law by itself. Law would be supporting the government and doing lawful actions, and Chaos would be supporting rebellion and doing barbaric and criminal actions.

 

I would also like an alignment based on what side you support. So, if there are 2 factions, you would "align" yourself to be either on one faction or another faction. So, suppose in a modern day political simulator, where you are a Senator working in the US, your alignment would be basically Left (democratic)/Right (republican) scale. You could be very radical Left, or very radical Right, or prehaps true Moderate, a rare breed. (Law and Chaos could also exist to see how clean or how dirty the Senator would be in accomplishing his goals)

[Negative Sun]

I dislike this Good and Evil alignment scale since good and evil is relative.

 

I rather prefer having an alignment of Chaos and Law by itself. Law would be supporting the government and doing lawful actions, and Chaos would be supporting rebellion and doing barbaric and criminal actions.

 

I would also like an alignment based on what side you support. So, if there are 2 factions, you would "align" yourself to be either on one faction or another faction. So, suppose in a modern day political simulator, where you are a Senator working in the US, your alignment would be basically Left (democratic)/Right (republican) scale. You could be very radical Left, or very radical Right, or prehaps true Moderate, a rare breed. (Law and Chaos could also exist to see how clean or how dirty the Senator would be in accomplishing his goals)

Isn't Law and Chaos relative as well? What is lawful in one civilization or society may not necessarily be so in another, and vice versa...

 

You basically do side up with that kind of alignment in KotOR, where the "Law" is LS and "Chaos" is DS, I don't see much difference, it's still black and white

[SilentScope001]

Negative Sun: In that case, we have one civilization be the guiding post by which we establish what is Law and Chaos. If we assume the Republic is Law, then all that goes against the Republic, like Sith or Mandalorians, would be Chaos, even if, according to their society, they are Law.

 

Only for the sake of simplicity

 

It is not black and white, because sometimes, Chaos is better than Law. Look at, for instance, Jolee Bindo. His actions were criminal when he smuggled goods to help out the poor who were suffering...but he did a Good deed. (Robin Hood could be seen as a Chaotic Good person then, under D&D...) And G0T0, a firm supporter of Law, is, well, very evil.

[Negative Sun]

Negative Sun: In that case, we have one civilization be the guiding post by which we establish what is Law and Chaos. If we assume the Republic is Law, then all that goes against the Republic, like Sith or Mandalorians, would be Chaos, even if, according to their society, they are Law.

 

Only for the sake of simplicity

 

It is not black and white, because sometimes, Chaos is better than Law. Look at, for instance, Jolee Bindo. His actions were criminal when he smuggled goods to help out the poor who were suffering...but he did a Good deed. (Robin Hood could be seen as a Chaotic Good person then, under D&D...) And G0T0, a firm supporter of Law, is, well, very evil.

G0t0 isn't necessarily a supporter of Law as such, because he doesn't care whether the Sith or Jedi triumph, he just wants stability...And by your standards the Republic is Law, but G0t0 doesn't care who runs it, would it still be Law if the Sith were ruling the Galaxy?

IE the movies, Palpy runs the Galaxy, and is therefore Law, but he is quite far from good lol, but some people (like G0t0 and even Boba Fett) like this kind of "Order" very well.

 

I'm not trying to argue here SS, just putting some stuff into perspective, Law and Chaos are very relative and subjective issues in any situation...