Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Morality In Games
AlBQuirky
Member EpicPosts: 7,432
Many times when I play a game with some kind of "morality code" or "morale consequences" for actions, I often wonder if I agree with thwe3 developers' interpretations. Some morale codes are easy to see, like outright murder and butchery, but others are more personally defined, like all killing is evil vs self defense is OK.
The old D&D games were where I first questioned this aspect of games. D&D has a "possibly rigid" (open to interpretation) alignment system. Picking any lock anywhere results in a chaotic behavior. I disagree. There is a difference between picking the lock on an owned chest and a lock on an unowned chest or chest where the owner is dead, like deep in a dungeon or crypt. Others will certainly disagree with my interpretations
I'm not a pacifist, so killing in defense is not "an evil act" in my book. Unless I'm playing a stealth archer, I always wait until attacked to attack an opponent.
Skyrim plays this dirty trick on players. If you get the "Voice of the Wild" buff while going to or from High Hrothgar (the stone tablets you read), do NOT enter a dungeon, or you will lose that buff. Animals in dungeons WILL attack you and if you defend yourself, the buff is gone. Out in the wilderness, all is OK, though. This may just be a bug and not intentional, though.
I enjoy "morally gray" dilemmas from time to time, but also enjoy clean, cut and dried good vs evil. I often get frustrated because an action I take that I think is "morally just", the developers decides is not.
Anyone else feel similarly? Anyone have no troubles with morality defined by some games?
The old D&D games were where I first questioned this aspect of games. D&D has a "possibly rigid" (open to interpretation) alignment system. Picking any lock anywhere results in a chaotic behavior. I disagree. There is a difference between picking the lock on an owned chest and a lock on an unowned chest or chest where the owner is dead, like deep in a dungeon or crypt. Others will certainly disagree with my interpretations
I'm not a pacifist, so killing in defense is not "an evil act" in my book. Unless I'm playing a stealth archer, I always wait until attacked to attack an opponent.
Skyrim plays this dirty trick on players. If you get the "Voice of the Wild" buff while going to or from High Hrothgar (the stone tablets you read), do NOT enter a dungeon, or you will lose that buff. Animals in dungeons WILL attack you and if you defend yourself, the buff is gone. Out in the wilderness, all is OK, though. This may just be a bug and not intentional, though.
I enjoy "morally gray" dilemmas from time to time, but also enjoy clean, cut and dried good vs evil. I often get frustrated because an action I take that I think is "morally just", the developers decides is not.
Anyone else feel similarly? Anyone have no troubles with morality defined by some games?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Comments
But I like games that have ambiguous moral choices, like Witcher. It's much better when devs don't try to attach judgements to moral choices, but rather just give moral choices and their consequences.
So I played through the two Jedi Storylines before the 12x XP boost that essentially lets you skip 90% of the games content. Which means I did all the stupid menial tasks in every area such as "Kill x many of x for y amount of XP".
Let me give an example of what I mean. I land on a planet. I believe it was Balmorra and the planet is covered in parts with Imperial Troops. There are so many Imperial Troops that you can't walk 10 feet without hitting another group of 3-5 of them.
Therefore, in order to find the Evil Sith Lord that I need to confront for my story progression, I end up hacking and slashing my way through no less than 2,000 Imperial Troops. I'm basically a One Jedi Imperial Genocide. I might as well be a light saber blender and you're just pouring Imperials into the top until they're mush.
Then I get to the big bad guy and we have a battle. Eventually I wound him so bad he can't fight anymore, and in typical Hollywood fashion, I'm standing over him with my light saber ready to finish the act.
But then the choice button pops up. Killing him is a Dark Side Choice. Letting him live is a Light Side choice.
Like, whattafuck game? Do you not know what I just spent the last three hours on this planet doing? If killing the big evil bad guy is a dark side choice, what was putting two thousand Imperial Henchmen through my light saber slap-chop?
If you're going to have that kind of code of morality, then fine, I can get on board with it, but at least stay consistent.
Much better to drill it down to the personal level like in Witcher. So many of Geralt's actions have a largely localized effect; a village cursed here is saved, a mother's boy there returned. CDPR doesn't try to make it seem like Geralt's actions always have wider consequences than the actors directly involved. I think that's what helps enable them to present merely moral choices and consequences without commenting on what the "game" considers the action to be in the overarching scheme of things. You find out the boy was seeking out demons to murder his mother, who has other children, so you murder the boy instead. Was that right? You can't be sure, and the game doesn't dictate it to you by an overall "good vs. evil" slider or point system. It's only effect is on the family itself and the player, and you lied to the mother and told her demons had killed the boy to spare her feelings, so she has no idea.
I liked Deus Ex the original, those choices were well thought. It was about what would you think the world should be.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
SWTOR I liked for the most part as you could be bad or good or a mix as you wanted, so it gave you a choice. The only thing I didn't like was how they paraphrased your answers which at times gave different meanings to what you intended.
Some games morality choices are well done and add to the enjoyment of the game.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Shoot 'em up bang, bang games I'd have no problems, but RPGs where I often play "character concepts" runs into walls quite often
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I did find it amusing that your morality is dependant on what weapon you are using. But if we look in the wider world is that not also the case there?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
InFamous series
Torment
Dishonored 1+2
Dungeon Keeper
Fable series
Vampires: The Masquerade and The Bloodline
Tyranny
Alpha Protocol
The biggest aspect and reason why often stuff doesn't make sense is because devs have no clue about IMMERSION,they simply do NOT get it.
Using your examples of a chest,this is imo a VERY easy one to design but yeah as mentioned they mess it up a LOT.A game is NOT suppose to act like computer code or notable systems,it is SUPPOSE to act like a real immersive world where anything you do you would expect a certain response.
So back to the CHEST idea.If i were to attempt to break into a chest and nobody saw me,why would i get any penalty or system/number change?Like who is handing out this penalty,some fake magical person in the sky?NO it is a system,a lazy cheap designed system that simply tosses numbers around.
Now if somebody saw me then to THAT particular person,i would lose favor.Then unless the game has some reasoning that person spreads the news,NOBODY else in the game should know about it.So my favor would only be changed to that one npc/person.Then if i killed that npc,unless other npc's witnessed it,i wouldn't have any kill penalty either.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Then again, there are a few games that people already pointed out that makes being "a bad guy" an interesting choice. I allowed Revan to turn because given how the story was told it made more sense than staying little goodie two shoes.
Worst way to handle morality are games that makes a meter that keeps track on how you behave. I don't like character mechanics that force you to make choices within the game.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
A "good aligned" spy will pick a lock to gain access to the information "their side" needs to win a battle, or even the war. Or maybe an "adventurer" needs to pick a lock to set a prisoner free. It's quite different from the "thief" seeking easy money or loot. The act of picking the lock is neither "good" nor "evil", in my opinion. It is the motivation for picking the lock that makes so.
Does that make sense?
PS: Who sees you is yourself. Morality is about what you believe, not about who sees you. Does dismembering a baby differ in morality depending on who sees you?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I'm not saying it is wrong or right. I'm just curious as to why? I fully believe in playing games however one chooses to have fun
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
It's not really the mechanic itself that sucks for me, but rather how that mechanic is so poorly handled. I have found that most "moral dilemmas" that games present are not much of a dilemma for me, but the developers make it one by instituting their own morality.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
KotOR I never pursued a "Sith" playthough, but was the only games I went "evil" in one act (Zalbar killed Mission) just to see what the "evil robes" were like. I had to quit the game immediately after I found out and deleted all of the save files. I was not aware that those choices were more than mere bullying. I've been curious about the "sith side" story. Is Malek still the big bad boss? Instead of destroying the Star Forge, do you get it up and running? I'm just curious because the "NPC Sith" I saw were just douchebags, not really "evil", per se. ("Let's endlessly zap the helpless NPC!" "Let's act all tough with this obviously overpowered Good Guy!" "Let's shake down this alien for a couple of credits!")
Dungeon Keeper 2 was pretty good, though. Slapping monsters because they liked it made sense. Also, you're an "evil dungeon master" trying to slay the "heroes" attempting to get your treasure
@Lokero, I totally agree about the stories. I'd like to see to see a totally different game play or story between "good" characters and "evil" characters. Usually it is the same story with assholery woven in here and there. Instead of saving the world, how about taking it over? Instead of being helpful to all of those NPCs, how about manipulating them into doing bad things for you?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
The Jedi Knight I basically did some stuff that was evil but some of it made sense in my book. The fact is there are so many grey options in games that making the artificial choice not to become bad or get bad karma is exhausting.
As an example, I don't expect SWTOR to define "light side" and "dark side" in a way that perfectly overlaps with what I might view as good or evil, because SWTOR's moral code is defined by canon related to the Force and my moral code is not.
That said, I don't think game developers make very good philosophers and I find most of their efforts along these lines to be pretty ham-fisted. This is particularly the case in MMOs, where the bulk of player time and developer focus is spent on systems to provide fun and varied ways to kill everything in sight, with little or no negative consequence beyond an equipment repair bill.