Gaming Moral Choices

Talk about what you are playing now or join in with one of our forum games.
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Gaming Moral Choices

Postby JackSlack » 12 May 2014, 16:22

So, here's a thread for discussing great (or maybe not so great?) moral choices in gaming. Feel free to also posit slightly altered versions of those choices and poll people here about how they responded.

Please keep your original questions in spoiler or in collapsed tags, and say what game it's for before that.

So, without further ado!

Fallout: New Vegas
Click to Expand
Every time I play this, I find myself flummoxed by the essential choice of who to give the chip to. I get that it's meant to be a morally grey decision with no right answer, but geeze, I hate all the options.

Here's where I am. My Courier is, I've decided, a cowgirl of the post-nuclear age. She believes in keeping your word (when you've expressly given it, mind, she's quite happy to lie and cheat in general), handling your own problems while believing you should never be afraid to help others, and above all, in freedom and independence.

So who's she got?

1. Caesar's Legion. No thanks. A bunch of slaving violent psychopaths who have exactly two uses for women ain't her idea of a good bunch of people. Much like Corporal Betsy, she's got less trouble killin' Legion than Fiends. Fiends are brutal murdering psychopaths, but at least they're not slavers.

2. The NCR? Bah. They're another empire, the Legion in smiley masks. Yes, she likes them a lot more and she's fine to take jobs from them, but she doesn't like them encroaching any more on the Arizona wasteland.

3. House? I admit, personally I'm leaning this way. Yes, he's a ruthless plutocrat who's walled off the Strip to only those who can funnel money into him. But at least for now, he's keeping himself to a clear, well defined domain. And if she can become a trusted advisor to House, she can potentially try to keep him thinking in terms of letting the Arizona wasteland stay cosmopolitan and varied.

4. Wild Card, aka take over? Why? She has no firm belief that she'd be any better than the rest, given that power.

Overall, my preference for roleplaying would be this: She turns over the chip to House, and then says, "I'm done. That was my job. I did it. Goodbye." Since that's not an option, and it's roughly in line with how I imagine the character, I'm guessing she'll throw in with House.

But everyone else I've ever talked to seems convinced he's the most evil option. Why? I'm confused by that. To me he seems on a par with the NCR and well above the Legion.

How did other people approach this?
User avatar
Darkobra
Posts: 5343
Joined: 27 Jul 2007, 14:49
First Video: ISC: Goat Penis
Location: Scotland

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Darkobra » 12 May 2014, 16:32

Well:

House is definitely above The Legion. The NCR on the other hand have always been my go-to. They might seem military heavy but I think they're doing it for the right reasons. They're trying to bring order to a chaotic land. They're bringing back government, safety and sanctuary.

House is looking after House and he doesn't care who he walks over. But at least he's not keeping any internment camps. Just being exclusive. He's a man I dislike but he does not strike me as evil.

I'd choose NCR and myself over House but DEFINITELY House over Legion. I will NEVER side with Caesar.


I've not played it in years myself so my memory's a bit hazy. I've always found myself liking Fallout 3 as a better world, but somehow FONV inexplicably drew me in.
Lyinginbedmon wrote:You are clearly some form of incorporeal undead.
Like a vampire.
But with knives.
User avatar
cuddlyblade
Posts: 431
Joined: 06 Jan 2013, 19:32
First Video: reduce your footprint
Location: Ireland

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby cuddlyblade » 12 May 2014, 16:37

My answer to the fallout new vegas.
I gave it to house he seemed the best choice of all.

The NCR seemed like they were the most "good" of all the options but it also seemed like they were crippled by bureaucracy and really didn't have the power to protect/hold on to the region.

The Legion seemed like they had the power to protect the region. There's a part where the game talks about traders dealing with them because they keep them safe as long as they don't deal in drugs and the other stuff the legion doesn't like but I didn't choose them because there pretty awful people

The wild card was out as my character was a wanderer who didn't want to settle down and ruling would require that.

So that left Mr House who seemed like that with his robot army he could actually keep Vegas safe and orderly Maybe not in the nicest most "freedom" allowing way but at least it would be safe.



Also have my own question.

Fallout 3
So did anybody actually put the FEV virus in the water purifier? I've never done it. Mainly because it seems like the stupidest thing in the world to do. It kills everybody not from a vault which would include you seeing as you wern't actually born in a vault. So putting it in the water would amount to suicide. Of course it doesn't actually kill you in game for drinking the water but according to the plot and what were told about the FEV virus it should.

Actually there's a lot about the plot that bothers me but i'm gonna leave it at that or i'll start ranting.
Trust me, I'm a scientist.
Kapol
Posts: 6120
Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Kapol » 12 May 2014, 16:43

Spoiler time!

I'm with Dark on this. I don't really feel like NCR is just 'The Legion with smiley masks.' They're actually trying to bring order to the wastes. It is under their terms, with their rules. But they aren't trying to harm anyone or be unfair in the process. Legion basically says 'if you're not one of us, you're dead.' NCR says 'if you don't be a horrible person, you're fine.' They're not the best mind you, but they're not bad people unlike the other options.

House isn't 'evil' per say. But he'd be fine with letting everyone that isn't making him money die. Inaction against people like the Legion as long as they don't mess with you is not the best way to go about things in my opinion.

As for the wild card option... I never cared much for that either honestly. So *shrug*.


Also like Dark, I haven't played it in years though.
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby JackSlack » 12 May 2014, 19:17

More Vegas neepage:

It's true that the NCR is better than Caesar's Legion. No questioning that. Note that my courier will work for the NCR. (Indeed, I think she's currently liked by them while is neutral with the Legion as she's mostly given them a wide berth.)

But remember: Freedom above all. And regardless of their motives, the NCR is incredibly expansionary, just as much so as the Legion is. If the NCR wins, the Mojave becomes an NCR state. If House wins, the Mojave remains a mix of independent towns and outposts. That's why I'm leaning House here.

If it were me rather than my Courier, yeah it'd be the NCR. :)
User avatar
ch3m1kal
Posts: 313
Joined: 23 Mar 2014, 04:09
First Video: Unskippable
Location: Yurp

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby ch3m1kal » 12 May 2014, 20:32

The Legionisn't actually all bad, even though you might not agree with their methods, the goal of creating a new society adapted to the post-apocalyptic world rather than cling to the old ways which got them here in the first place is an inherently noble one. Caesar makes quite a bit of sense when you go talk to him; he's probably my favorite character in New Vegas.

The reason some people regardHouse as evil is because his ultimate goal is to secure power for himself. The entire reason he had the Securitrons built is so that he can enforce his power via machines without anyone there to question him.

As for NCR, they do have a distinct tendency of annexing large parts of the wastes and "bringing civilization back". Which sounds good, but in practice doesn't always work out, partly because not everyone actually wants them and partially because the NCR is kind of bloated bureaucratic mess. It's essentially trying to force the new world to be like the old one, which is not really the way things work anymore.

Also you do know that you do know that the wildcard option doesn't involve the player character ruling anything, right? You just free New Vegas from House, NCR and The Legion and give it the Securitrons to protect itself.

Personally, I generally go with either NCR or House. I dislike The Legion because of their somewhat primitive nature and I don't think New Vegas can govern itself without breaking down into anarchy.

Ending spoilers aside, I think this is why New Vegas is so brilliant. None of the choices are cut and dry; nobody's "good" or "bad", there are just different points of view, some of which you may not agree to, but definitely all valid.
Last edited by ch3m1kal on 12 May 2014, 21:01, edited 2 times in total.
Kapol
Posts: 6120
Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Kapol » 12 May 2014, 20:57

First off, I feel like we don't need spoilers to discuss general ideologies of the factions. It's an old game and the factions are pretty well known by now.

As for Legion, I disagree. Trying to create a society adapted to the post-nuclear world is not inherently noble. Especially since his methods include things so gruesome and his end goals self-serving and primitive. I don't care for this idea that there can be no trace of society as it was before the fallout-style scenario. Aside from people who take full advantage of the situation to let loose dark desires and frustrations, I don't feel like society would overall degrade to such a major degree to allow for things like the Legion to become a viable alternative. I feel like it'd be more of a step back to a 'wild west' scenario, where people generally band together and don't trust outsiders, but aren't entirely uncivil, rather than the almost barbarian methods of the Legion.
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby JackSlack » 12 May 2014, 23:33

It is true that the overall theme of Fallout is "holding onto the past brings disaster" though. The NCR really are the poster child for holding on.

I still think the legion are evil, because slavery, rape and blatant misogyny.

Truth be told, are ANY of the factions truly focused on the now? House gets the closest, but you can argue all three pine for a particular period of history.
Kapol
Posts: 6120
Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Kapol » 13 May 2014, 00:18

I don't think any of them are really focused on the moment. But I suppose you could say that about any and every faction in the wasteland to some degree. At least from what I remember. Maybe the Brotherhood of Steel is the only ones not like that.
User avatar
Valkyrie-Lemons
Posts: 1204
Joined: 23 Nov 2012, 09:09
First Video: Spoken Word
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Valkyrie-Lemons » 13 May 2014, 03:00

The problem with moral choices in gaming generally is to do with coding. Mathematics and morals don't really combine all that well. We don't (generally) make moral choices based on whether an arbitrary threshold has been reached, whereas most game mechanics do.

Also, the fact that all choices have to be hard coded into a game somewhere means that if the developer hasn't considered the grey areas, or those "I'll do the bad thing for the right reasons" sort of scenarios can't work.

Personally, I think games like Ultima IV did it best. You are either the embodiment of the virtues, or you're not. Rather than have you're the embodiment of the virtues, or you're the antithesis. In other words, if you were playing a Star Wars game, you'd have a system where you'd either be a really good Jedi that follows all the rules, or you'd be a bad Jedi (not evil) that doesn't follow the Jedi way. Rather than have it that you're either a Jedi, or a Sith.

The moral systems I really hate are the ones were being 'evil' is basically being an arsehole.

If I had to pick my favourite moral system, it would definitely be Jade Empire (Please make a squeal to this Bioware!). Since this system had being 'good' as embodying selflessness, kindness, and basically being helpful, whereas being 'evil' was just being selfish and greedy. Not necessarily being an arsehole, but rather that you relied on personal strength and that if the weak can't survive on their own, you shouldn't help them. My only objection was how being 'evil' gave you devil horns and a red glow, since it was essentially implying you're taking the 'wrong' choices.

If I had one tip to any game designer (or writer generally) is remember that no-one ever sees themselves as evil. Give people a choice, but don't imply that they've made the 'wrong' choice. Equally show how doing a 'good' thing can be as damaging as a 'bad' thing.
Prospero101 wrote:...is it weird that I REALLY hope that someday I say something memorable enough to be quoted in someone else's signature?


I'm trying this 'Twitter' thing, if you just want to send a message/question/joke, please send it to: @Valkyrie_Lemons , thanks!
User avatar
Geoff_B
Posts: 11637
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 13:13
First Video: Installation Anxiety
Location: Harrow, London
Contact:

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Geoff_B » 13 May 2014, 03:18

There was an interesting one in Dragon Age Origins at the end of the Dwarf storyline.

You had to choose between the prince who betrayed his own brothers (possibly killing them) and is basically Joffrey in dwarf form or the more sympathetic Lord who believes in truth and justice.

Sounds clear enough right? However at the end of the game in the epilogues you are told that the Lord would maintain the current oppressive isolationist stance that shuns contact with the surface and relegates women and low-born to a lower social standing, whereas the Joffrey wannabe would introduce more progressive policies that would encourage surface contact and bring more equality to women and the lower classes.

How many times does the choice that feels "right" have worse longer term consequences than the choice that feels "wrong"?
Twitter|Google+|Tumblr|Facebook|Steam|Skype: gmbridges

I survived spaMEGAdon and all I got was this lousy signature joke.

#TeamMonica, #TeamMaki, #TeamTavis
User avatar
Merrymaker_Mortalis
Posts: 7226
Joined: 24 Feb 2010, 19:19
First Video: ENN's First Episode on Escapist
Location: Wales

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Merrymaker_Mortalis » 13 May 2014, 03:43

Dragon Age 2:
You are investigating a murderer of women. You enter the house were the sources are and:
you encounter a man who appears to be threatening a terrified woman. He says he's looking for the killer himself and he was using the woman as bait (I think. A lot of DA2 is a blur). The woman is terrified. You have to choice of:
Killing Him.
or
Sparing him.

Killing him is the safer option because he might be the killer and is lying.
But you also cannot justify killing someone who might be a murderer because you might kill an innocent.

Why this is a good example of a moral choice in a game is due to the follow up quest a few years down the line.

Your mother gets stalked by the same killer (given a bouquet of white lilies). When you're hunting for her, if you spared the guy, you're constantly think "shit I should have killed him. Now my fictional mum is endangered). If you killed the guy originally, you'll be thinking "fuck I killed an innocent".

I think it would have been better if the murderer's face wasn't revealed because if you chose the "good" option you wouldn't feel like the original choice was BS. And also, if you were able to never see what the alternative outcome was.

I think that's one problem with moral choices, is if you have the knowledge that your choice has absolutely no affect at all, it dampens the choice.
Sure you killed an innocent man, but you don't know the man. He's a stranger. It's like mourning over the bandits you slay in Kirkwall who probably only got into the gangs due to poverty and not because they wanted to hurt people. I mean, why else are some of the pions easily slain?


A good moral choice outside of grey areas should have an aspect of regret time-to-time. Like Geoff's example. You may make a choice you think is appropriate for your character/world and the unforeseen happens. Sort of punishment for getting too involved. Not too often otherwise it gets predictable and you second guess the game.

Fable 3's first morality choice is an interesting one. You interfere with your Tyrant Brother's decisions and he punishes you by forcing you to choose between sending your Boyfriend/Girlfriend to execution or the group of protesters. I mean, there isn't a right or wrong choice. In fact, refusing to choose is the right choice and choosing anyone to die is bad. In that case, it's a shit choice.

SWTOR can be good if you choose to disable being told what's Lightside and Darkside. As a Jedi character, what you may think is Lightside, is actually Darkside. It shows you how you yourself may not be 100% pure righteousness. And if you're trying to be a jerk to everyone, you may end up doing some beneficial things.

In the starting area for the Smuggler/Trooper, you have to find a kid who wants to be a soldier. You locate him and he says he doesn't want to go home.
You'd think telling him to go home would be the Light choice? No. It's Dark because you're forcing your will on someone.
Giving him money so he can run away and live his own life is the Light choice because you're giving him freedom to choose what he wants.
(His parents were loving. The Kid was just a jerk. But it's not your job to judge).

There are some nice ambiguous choices like that amongst the "Save Person or LET THEM DIE IN FIRE."
The Smuggler's personal story has decisions of engaging with amoral smuggling or refusing to but lose financial opportunity.

Image


I sort of want to play SWTOR again and play a Lightside Sith and see what happens. Perhaps disable the notifications and see how Good i can truly be in Sith society.
User avatar
Geoff_B
Posts: 11637
Joined: 06 Apr 2011, 13:13
First Video: Installation Anxiety
Location: Harrow, London
Contact:

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Geoff_B » 13 May 2014, 04:28

An interesting example came up when one of the PC Gamer writers was playing Mass Effect 3. He got about 2/3 of the way through up to the Rannoch campaign. He completed that only, due to his decisions in ME2, he did not like the outcomes he was presented with to resolve the plotline. So much so in fact that he went back to ME2, made different decisions, losing 35+ hours of play time, just so he could get what was to him a satisfactory ending.

Which is what I would probably have done in his shoes come to think of it. If I'm presented with an outcome I wasn't comfortable with due to decisions I'd made I would, wherever possible, go back and change those decisions.
Twitter|Google+|Tumblr|Facebook|Steam|Skype: gmbridges

I survived spaMEGAdon and all I got was this lousy signature joke.

#TeamMonica, #TeamMaki, #TeamTavis
User avatar
Merrymaker_Mortalis
Posts: 7226
Joined: 24 Feb 2010, 19:19
First Video: ENN's First Episode on Escapist
Location: Wales

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Merrymaker_Mortalis » 13 May 2014, 04:33

I think good decision is where you're being care in trying to achieve what you want, and knowing any bad choice my ruin it.

Like it is possible to get both Geth and Quarians if you're careful.

I dislike how in Dragon Age 1 as a Mage, you have to betray your best friend. There was no way to escape that. There was no option to tell your mate that you've been asked to stitch them up and then you three try and think of a way to get out of it. First time playing I kept choosing option that might let me say what's happening. But no, I betrayed my friend even though I DIDN'T. The game betrayed him.
User avatar
ch3m1kal
Posts: 313
Joined: 23 Mar 2014, 04:09
First Video: Unskippable
Location: Yurp

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby ch3m1kal » 13 May 2014, 06:35

I think Bioware games, at least the ones from Mass Effect onward, are actually pretty bad at the the whole moral choice thing.
They fall into the trap of confusing choices that are interesting with ones that are meaningful from a moral standpoint. They are not the same thing and most of the time the options you're presented with are interesting story-wise but it's fairly obvious which one is "good" and which one is "bad".
That's why Bioware always has the little good/evil meter to tell you if you're being a good boy and then you can have your alignment exclusive gear. While this is all fine from a gameplay perspective, it's a pretty terrible moral choice system.

Probably the best examples of moral choice systems would be The Walking Dead and The Witcher series. Both of those simply offer you choices, none of which are good or bad but simply situations you must deal with that will then affect how the story progresses.

The Walking Dead is particularly great because virtually everything you do, you do out of necessity and is generally shitty but there isn't really any other option. "Oh look there's not enough food for everyone, so who gets what? Do you feed the children or the big strong guy who doesn't like you but is handy to have on your side? Or maybe that girl you like? Or your friend? Yourself maybe?"
It also has probably the best final choice I've ever seen in a game.
Kapol
Posts: 6120
Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Kapol » 13 May 2014, 13:15

Valkyrie-Lemons wrote:The moral systems I really hate are the ones were being 'evil' is basically being an arsehole.

If I had to pick my favourite moral system, it would definitely be Jade Empire (Please make a squeal to this Bioware!). Since this system had being 'good' as embodying selflessness, kindness, and basically being helpful, whereas being 'evil' was just being selfish and greedy. Not necessarily being an arsehole, but rather that you relied on personal strength and that if the weak can't survive on their own, you shouldn't help them. My only objection was how being 'evil' gave you devil horns and a red glow, since it was essentially implying you're taking the 'wrong' choices.

If I had one tip to any game designer (or writer generally) is remember that no-one ever sees themselves as evil. Give people a choice, but don't imply that they've made the 'wrong' choice. Equally show how doing a 'good' thing can be as damaging as a 'bad' thing.


The issue I see with the 'evil shouldn't be asshole' argument is that some people DO like playing the asshole. Plus, if you are playing an 'evil' character, you're likely playing an asshole. There's no real way to balance evil and no assholishness without just making the character a 'good but misunderstood' farce. For the example of Jade Empire, I'd call that the greedy, selfish person an asshole honestly. It means the character is self-involved and doesn't care about what happens to others.

I also really dislike the 'the strong will survive and the weak will die' mentality that characters in games and other media have. The reason why I dislike it is due to the fact that they're using themselves as a baseline. They're basically saying 'if I can survive, then everyone should be able to, and therefore the ones who can't should die.' Like your point on nobody considers themselves evil, nobody who acts that way thinks they're weak enough to die. And coming from a game where you have to work with others to beat it, it's also a fairly hypocritical. Though I admit I don't remember Jade Empire well enough to be confident on that.

As for the horns... I don't mind them. I feel like they're a good shorthand for the 'bad' option. The red and the horns don't really inherently imply that the character is evil, just that they've taken the "dickish" route the game offers. Plus it just looks cools.

ch3m1kal wrote:I think Bioware games, at least the ones from Mass Effect onward, are actually pretty bad at the the whole moral choice thing.


Honestly, I don't think Bioware games have moral choices. They have choices that affect your reputation in general, which allows for rep-specific choices.

For example, if you're some guy, and the famous dude who's known for only being a saint with a gun comes up and tells you "I'm going to beat you to death with my sock if you don't listen to me" are you likely to take him as seriously as you would the renegade version? Or would you take a renegade who tried to calm things down with "Can't we all be friends?" seriously/listen to them?
User avatar
Valkyrie-Lemons
Posts: 1204
Joined: 23 Nov 2012, 09:09
First Video: Spoken Word
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Valkyrie-Lemons » 13 May 2014, 15:11

Kapol wrote:Plus, if you are playing an 'evil' character, you're likely playing an asshole. There's no real way to balance evil and no assholishness without just making the character a 'good but misunderstood' farce.


Ultima 8 kind of did it. Sure, it was a really bad game, but the principle of doing pretty evil acts in order to find a way to get back to fighting a greater evil is being evil without being an asshole.

But yes, I'll concede that most being evil RPing results in also being a bit of an ass.

Kapol wrote:I also really dislike the 'the strong will survive and the weak will die' mentality that characters in games and other media have. The reason why I dislike it is due to the fact that they're using themselves as a baseline. They're basically saying 'if I can survive, then everyone should be able to, and therefore the ones who can't should die.' Like your point on nobody considers themselves evil, nobody who acts that way thinks they're weak enough to die. And coming from a game where you have to work with others to beat it, it's also a fairly hypocritical. Though I admit I don't remember Jade Empire well enough to be confident on that.


Thinking back on it more, it's probably not the best system. Since I think the whole Closed Fist/Open Palm argument being somewhat an actual debate is in very few conversations. Actually I think it might even just be one, where they introduce the concept properly into the game. After that it seems to go back to the old troupe of Closed Fist=Really Bad Guy.

And the whole thing about working with others I believe isn't against the principles of Closed Fist. They can work together if everyone pulls their weight. I could be wrong though.

Kapol wrote:As for the horns... I don't mind them. I feel like they're a good shorthand for the 'bad' option. The red and the horns don't really inherently imply that the character is evil, just that they've taken the "dickish" route the game offers. Plus it just looks cools.


Why should the game tell you what is right and wrong? I believe a good game should show you the consequences of your actions at let you decide if you think it was ultimately the good or bad thing to do. Otherwise people will select the choices that gets them evil/good points because that the way they want to play rather than think through their actions.
Prospero101 wrote:...is it weird that I REALLY hope that someday I say something memorable enough to be quoted in someone else's signature?


I'm trying this 'Twitter' thing, if you just want to send a message/question/joke, please send it to: @Valkyrie_Lemons , thanks!
Kapol
Posts: 6120
Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Kapol » 13 May 2014, 15:21

Valkyrie-Lemons wrote:Ultima 8 kind of did it. Sure, it was a really bad game, but the principle of doing pretty evil acts in order to find a way to get back to fighting a greater evil is being evil without being an asshole.

But yes, I'll concede that most being evil RPing results in also being a bit of an ass.


I've never played Ultima 8 (or any Ultima) so I can't really comment.

Why should the game tell you what is right and wrong? I believe a good game should show you the consequences of your actions at let you decide if you think it was ultimately the good or bad thing to do. Otherwise people will select the choices that gets them evil/good points because that the way they want to play rather than think through their actions.


I'm saying that I don't think that the game is saying is saying you're right or wrong by giving those traits. I feel like you're associating them with that meaning due to the fact that we general consider horns and a red glow with the devil, and therefore evil. But in the game it's just saying you went one way over the other. That does not implicitly mean that one way is right and the other is wrong. It's saying you took the 'bad guy' option, which is normally made clear making the option.

Superficial things like that don't affect story either. They're just things that happen to your character to make them unique. It's not like the game can't show an action's consequences AND do that.

As for telling you what's right and wrong... that's the POINT of a moral choice system in the game. To say 'this is the evil option, and this is the good option.' Otherwise it's just a series of choices and what it causes to happen. Which might be better, but doesn't make it a moral choice.

Which is what I mentioned about Bioware games (specifically Mass Effect). The game gives you a variety of choices. You are not limited in your actions beyond a few lines of dialogue by your moral choices, and that feels fair due to being based more in reputation rather than good/bad (again, the example of not taking the asshole seriously when he says 'can't we all just be friends'). It's less a moral choice system, and more a reputation system. You're either known as the paragon, the renegade, or somewhere in between. Either way, you're still the hero trying to save the universe.
User avatar
Valkyrie-Lemons
Posts: 1204
Joined: 23 Nov 2012, 09:09
First Video: Spoken Word
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Valkyrie-Lemons » 13 May 2014, 15:45

Kapol wrote:I'm saying that I don't think that the game is saying is saying you're right or wrong by giving those traits. I feel like you're associating them with that meaning due to the fact that we general consider horns and a red glow with the devil, and therefore evil. But in the game it's just saying you went one way over the other. That does not implicitly mean that one way is right and the other is wrong. It's saying you took the 'bad guy' option, which is normally made clear making the option.


You wouldn't create a visual aesthetic if you didn't want it to associate with something. The use of horns and red glow is explicitly there to associate with evil, otherwise you'd choose something more ambiguous or original.

Evil always equals wrong. Since evil is a matter of perspective, which tends to be the opposite of what you consider good.

Kapol wrote:As for telling you what's right and wrong... that's the POINT of a moral choice system in the game. To say 'this is the evil option, and this is the good option.' Otherwise it's just a series of choices and what it causes to happen. Which might be better, but doesn't make it a moral choice.


Morals aren't all about good vs evil. That's way to simplistic. Most moral issues in reality are very grey and have no real good or bad/evil option.

Just having good or evil is too simplistic, in my opinion.

Should we abandon the whole good v evil moral system completely? No, but there are many occasions where the story suffers from such a simple interpretation.


Kapol wrote:Which is what I mentioned about Bioware games (specifically Mass Effect). The game gives you a variety of choices. You are not limited in your actions beyond a few lines of dialogue by your moral choices, and that feels fair due to being based more in reputation rather than good/bad (again, the example of not taking the asshole seriously when he says 'can't we all just be friends'). It's less a moral choice system, and more a reputation system. You're either known as the paragon, the renegade, or somewhere in between. Either way, you're still the hero trying to save the universe.


Yet again, it's the visuals. Why does the renegade end up having very red eyes their ME2 scars don't heal? I know people who have a pretty bad reputation, but they don't have blood red eyes. I agree with you on the concept it's more about reputation then being about good or bad, but...the red eyes. Why the red eyes? It just screams "I'M EVIL!".
Prospero101 wrote:...is it weird that I REALLY hope that someday I say something memorable enough to be quoted in someone else's signature?


I'm trying this 'Twitter' thing, if you just want to send a message/question/joke, please send it to: @Valkyrie_Lemons , thanks!
Kapol
Posts: 6120
Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Kapol » 13 May 2014, 16:01

Valkyrie-Lemons wrote:You wouldn't create a visual aesthetic if you didn't want it to associate with something. The use of horns and red glow is explicitly there to associate with evil, otherwise you'd choose something more ambiguous or original.

Evil always equals wrong. Since evil is a matter of perspective, which tends to be the opposite of what you consider good.


I feel that's too simplistic. Evil doesn't 'always equal wrong.' Evil is against what the majority thinks is good. It does not make it inherently wrong, as people can (and have been) wrong as a majority.

And again, I mentioned it's associating it with that option, which is the negative option. That does not mean those things are evil.


Morals aren't all about good vs evil. That's way to simplistic. Most moral issues in reality are very grey and have no real good or bad/evil option.

Just having good or evil is too simplistic, in my opinion.

Should we abandon the whole good v evil moral system completely? No, but there are many occasions where the story suffers from such a simple interpretation.


You're right that morals aren't about good and evil. But once you start trying to measure those actions, it does become about good and evil. If you have a scale, then you need something to measure. And when it comes to morals, the only real option is perceived good vs perceived evil. What those mean is dependent on the game and it's world.

And that's my point. We can have a choice system where the decisions have a variety of impacts. But I wouldn't call that a moral choice system. Once you imply that morals somehow effect the decision, good and evil always come into play. That's not how the real world works. There are some clearly moral decisions (should I kick this puppy or no?), but the majority of decisions have benefits and downsides that weigh against one another.

For example, you have a situation where your village either has to raid another village to get food to feed people, or you can not do so and have your people starve. This is not a moral choice. This is a choice. There are morals involved, but neither one is inherently good or evil. You could put a moral choice in that (fairly extreme) example, but then it'd become the very thing you seem to be arguing against.

Yet again, it's the visuals. Why does the renegade end up having very red eyes their ME2 scars don't heal? I know people who have a pretty bad reputation, but they don't have blood red eyes. I agree with you on the concept it's more about reputation then being about good or bad, but...the red eyes. Why the red eyes? It just screams "I'M EVIL!".


Again, that's to indicate what path you chose more than "I'm evil" to me. Renegade was always associated with red, so it makes sense. You can also look at it as that's how others are seeing you subconsciously. If you're playing the renegade character, then people are going to think of you like you have evil red eyes.

As for the scars... I do feel there should have been an option to get rid of them or keep them for either choice. But overall I feel they're again there for perception. Even if the scars aren't really that bad, those are the features people are more likely to focus on if you're a renegade.
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby JackSlack » 13 May 2014, 18:33

You can get rid of the scars. No option to keep them as a paragon, but they can be ditched as a renegade.

And Mass Effect 1 actually had a number of pretty damn good moral conundrums whose choices weren't obviously good or evil. Small examples include dealing with Samesh Bhatia, which was beautifully handled, or even the rachni plot, which to my mind doesn't have a clear-cut good or evil solution.

Even Mass Effect 3 made the Krogan decision pretty goddamned hard to my mind. The game ain't shy about hammering home how bad a new krogan population explosion could be.

It's true that the moral choice system there is mostly pants. But the actual choices are often excellent.

And, in the spirit of this thread...

Mass Effect 2
Click to Expand
Brainwash the geth, or destroy them? Justify your answer!
User avatar
Duckay
Posts: 3706
Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 00:57
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Duckay » 13 May 2014, 18:43

Incidentally, that's why for all the game's other faults I think the friendship/rivalry system in Dragon Age II was the most emotionally engaging version of a "morality meter", because it demonstrated that there are different interpretations and consequences of actions while still showing you a way to measure what you had done.

Also, to JackSlack's question, destroy. I will not, however, justify it as I don't remember my logic. I will say though that I tend to play these games as an asshole up to the point where I find it hard to stomach the idea even in theory (for example, I can't not side with the mages in DAII; I've tried). I may have just killed them to be an asshole. I don't know if there is a good answer to that dilemma.
Last edited by Duckay on 13 May 2014, 18:53, edited 1 time in total.
Kapol
Posts: 6120
Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Kapol » 13 May 2014, 18:50

ME2:

Brainwash. Mostly because I feel like having that extra number of Geth is very important against the Reapers.
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby JackSlack » 13 May 2014, 19:54

For me, Destroy. Because the idea of brainwashing a group in order to make them fight for you is seriously goddamned icky.
Kapol
Posts: 6120
Joined: 25 Nov 2010, 03:31
First Video: Whisky Tango Foxtrot
Location: The ever-shifting landscape of the mind

Re: Gaming Moral Choices

Postby Kapol » 13 May 2014, 20:01

To expand: I don't disagree with you on it being an awful thing to do. But in the end, the Geth are just as much at risk as every other living thing, and the change (from what I remember) was only a change towards feelings of war. Now, that's still a big idea and it changed a core belief, but it didn't actually change their entire essence. Plus, killing someone, even an AI, is a very final thing. They don't get to grow and evolve anymore. They're just done. Or, to quote a Lannister, "Death is so final, yet life is full of possibilities." It's true. When you're dead, you're done. A chance at further life leads to further growth.

Return to “Video Games”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests