Some players would like the inclusion of class to help drive their character''s personality, from a player-likes-game standpoint.

If the removal of that concept will help your own specific ideas for the game design be expressed in a way that goes along with your vision more fully, then by all means, go without it.

my question "is the action 'good' because the script dictates it? or is the action scripted 'good' because it is deemed good?" is just a rewording of euthyphro's dilemma.

simply, if morality is entirely of your formulation, then it is arbitrary and has no meaning for you can formulate something vicious and it'd be virtuous under your formulation, which makes nonsense out of the whole concept. it is only meaningful if you appeal to an external source. however, if you have to appeal to an external source then this external souce would have the same dilemma, and would have to resort to appealing yet to another external source, ad infinitum. basically, any scripted morality would face the dilemma and there's no way to avoid it.

this is why i say there is no way to implement a karma system, or simply morality in general, at least not without solving the very question of morality of the real world, which is still in dispute.

[edited by - tanikaze on December 18, 2002 11:05:30 PM]

quote: Original post by tanikaze
simply, if morality is entirely of your formulation, then it is arbitrary and has no meaning for you can formulate something vicious and it''d be virtuous under your formulation, which makes nonsense out of the whole concept. it is only meaningful if you appeal to an external source. however, if you have to appeal to an external source then this external souce would have the same dilemma, and would have to resort to appealing yet to another external source, ad infinitum. basically, any scripted morality would face the dilemma and there''s no way to avoid it.

While I respect your opinion, I find this complete nonsense in terms of designing a game.

If I code a game that defines killing lawful mobs as bad, and clearing out dungeons of critters intent on eating those lawful mobs as good, that works perfectly well for me. If you as a player come to my game and decide that my value judgements are not in tune with your own, you have the right to vote with your feet and go elsewhere. It does -NOT- in any way invalidate my system for the players who are perfectly fine with my system.

Likewise, someone may define their value system in a completely different fashion. One in which I may well not agree with. It does -NOT- invalidate their system any more than mine. Players who are ok with it will stay and play. Players who are not will leave. Some quicker than others.

To try to say "...there is no way to implement a karma system, or simply morality in general, at least not without solving the very question of morality of the real world..." is, in my humble opinion, either downright close-minded, or trolling for debate.

Respectfully,

SenseiDragon

Um, I think you are missing his point...

quote:
If I code a game that defines killing lawful mobs as bad, and clearing out dungeons of critters intent on eating those lawful mobs as good, that works perfectly well for me.

That may work fine for you...even fine for many players...but it doesn''t constitute a "moral vaccume" in which players are free to exercise thier moral impulses...or even establish thier own moral codes...as game designer you have already made the moral distinction of what is good/bad...which, in turn makes this whole thread pointless.

quote: Original post by SenseiDragon
While I respect your opinion, I find this complete nonsense in terms of designing a game.

well, i found it quite perplexing that you'd start by saying morality is nonsense, and hence a non-issue, in terms of designing a game just in the end saying i'm close-minded and trolling for debate as if there is an issue that i'm forcing my opinion upon. where there is no issue to reference to, how can i be accused of forcing my opinion... well, on nothing?

quote: If I code a game that defines killing lawful mobs as bad, and clearing out dungeons of critters intent on eating those lawful mobs as good, that works perfectly well for me. If you as a player come to my game and decide that my value judgements are not in tune with your own, you have the right to vote with your feet and go elsewhere. It does -NOT- in any way invalidate my system for the players who are perfectly fine with my system.

Likewise, someone may define their value system in a completely different fashion. One in which I may well not agree with. It does -NOT- invalidate their system any more than mine. Players who are ok with it will stay and play. Players who are not will leave. Some quicker than others.

ok, so everyone can have an arbitrary system and that what's "good" for one person need not mean, or in anyway invalidate, what is "good" for someone else... do you realize you confirmed what i was saying? you're refering yourself as the external source and therefore whatever you commend as good under your particular fiat is therefore unquestionably good. well, are your commands good because you commanded them so or because you deemed them good? if you don't feel this question is of any importance, then isn't it merely a harmless and fanciful way of wasting one's time by comtemplating morality in real world in hopes of solving it in the game world? i can't figure out how you can accuse me of close-mindedness in regards to that.

[edited by - tanikaze on December 19, 2002 5:43:58 AM]

As I''ve said above, I believe that, in the real world, for whatever reason, the "rules of the game" produce an emergent phenomenon which acts like karmic retribution. Of course, the "morality" this system enforces is not necessarily, and indeed I believe is not identical with the watered down versions of "morality" generally proposed as handed down from on high.

Personally, I feel that the Wiccan code, strictly interpreted, probably comes very close to the "natural" morality: "And you harm none, do what you will". If you think about it, that''s just as restrictive as "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and most, if not all, of the absolute precepts of the more commonly accepted "morality" can be derived from either of these as useful general principles - but with an understanding that these "moral absolutes" are actually approximations, and fail in some cases.
[Disclaimer]
I cite Christian and Wiccan Prime Directives as examples because I know them. It may well be that other religions I am less familiar with have equivalent core concepts. No disrespect is intended to anyone who follows any belief system. All opinion is my own and may not represent that of any given deity, demon or other supernatural entity. It is in no way my intention to flame or to encourage others to do so.
[/Disclaimer]

In the absence of emergent morality in games, the only other source available is "divine pronouncement" either by programmers or by the player community. In such cases, the imposed morality will, I believe, be of necessity a mere approximation to the "morality" of the real world, and, as such, will be more acceptable to some than others.

Dragon, I hear you. I guess I, too, got caught up in a fun discussion that''s not quite related to the issue at hand.

The problem I see isn''t determining morality in killing. If you kill NPC''s that are deemed "good guys", like shepherds and merchants, than it''s a simple matter for the game to decide that it''s a bad thing to do. Likewise, slaughtering hundreds of orcs will do wonderful things for your reputation and spiritual alignment. However, it gets fuzzier when you aren''t talking about an act as easily quantifiable as killing.

Geneforge had a neat system by which items were often designated "Not Yours", and if you took them, people would get pissed. So I''d be hanging out at a little hut, and for some reason this old dude has a really nice piece of armor hanging on his wall, and he''s offering me tea and we''re chilling out, and I''m wondering whether it''s worth getting this little rinky-dink town angry at me to just grab the helmet and take off down the street. That''s a neat moral system. Sure, I''m branded a thief in that part of the world, but on the other hand, I have a really sweet piece of gear. Later on, of course, it always turns out that it wasn''t worth it, but in that moment the temptation is very real.

Maybe a system of sins versus good deeds, in the Christian sense, would be easier to implement than the Greek virtues and vices. Murder, theft, bribery, dishonest business dealings, failure to uphold promises, straight-up lying, etc. might all count to make your guy less reputable and more "evil", while giving to the poor, slaying beasts (evil beasts, not pets), resisting corruption, protecting the innocent, and keeping your word will all be beneficial to your character''s character and moral fiber.

A decision has to be made early on whether to have an omniscient game-watcher tell everyone that you stole something (At first, in Geneforge, I''d take things when people weren''t watching, and then wonder how they found out) or make it depend on whether there were witnesses or whether someone can recognize the stolen article. This might require something like the gossip system mentioned in the A.I. forum.

Of course, it''s always possible to abuse things like this, especially if you base it on karma. You steal from an old woman and are chased out of town by an angry mob, then you kill five hundred goblins and everyone loves you again. How could this sort of thing be avoided?

You can avoid the "chase out of town" followed by "parade in your honour" by having a moral (karma) score and an ethical score.


Here is a moral dilema: NPC A steals from you, and sells your goods.
You go to NPC A''s house and steal something in retribution.
Player gets negative karma because he stole. He also gets positive ethics, due to NPCville city bylaw, article 5.1.24b-- "Eye-For-An-Eye".. In this case your image in town would shine, but the ''gods'' would be frowning on you.

Conversely, stealing from an old lady and using the stolen good to later defeat the 500 angry goblins would result in positive karma, but negative ethical score. The towns people (being mainly accountants, tax lawyers, and parking meter readers) would not overlook the theft from the old lady, and consequently want to jail you ASAP.

Will

RPGeezus, that''s a neat idea. How, though, would the local retribution system work out? If you have a warrant out for you in Town A, but you''re a pillar of society in Town B, and Town A and Town B are close allies, could it balance out? Or maybe you could just pay a fine and get rid of that pesky fugitive status. The old lady might never trust you again, but you wouldn''t have to hide in bushes every time a cop (or equivalent) walked by.

Better than a fine or imprisonment, have "community service" in the form of obligatory sub-quests. "By the authority vested in me by the people of Town B I sentence you to slay 27 were-rats. Until this sentence is completed no citizen of Town B will do business, offer services, or otherwise render aid unto you. Any furthur infractions will be dealt with with increasing severity."

Of course, if the gods don''t like you, you just get rained on a lot.

quote: Original post by rmsgrey
...
karma system imo simply will never work. what''s good karma? i can''t think of an example of an action that is "good" in all possible worlds without it being trivial. may be you can give me an example to prove the otherwise?

One possibility which, to me, sounds obvious, but isn''t being considered here, is <i>multiple</i> karma''s.

Hedonism--or valuing pleasure--could be valued by a hedonistic deity entity. Conquering lands could be considered valuable. Saintly suffering/helping the poor/devotion could be another value. There''s no reason why things like this can''t be embedded in a game... to me it doesn''t seem all that hard, just a "karma" for different types of things. It''s only a slight variant in the concept of "good versus bad karma", in that there could be multiple types (just be creative).

The question comes with what good the karma is--how it can be used. You COULD do something like, if I have large X karma, I''d be less prone to Y with certain NPC''s, but there''s an easier way to treat karma more in tune with player devoted purpose. Just ditch the Western realm and become a tad bit more Hindu--your karma counts in your next life, which would be in other worlds, and maybe you''ll cycle worlds.

This also has more added benefits--there could be certain features which you could only gain through karma earned in multiple worlds, so suddenly you could have multiple teir pseudo-purposes (my purpose in this life is to be pious, to earn saintly karma, so that in paradise I can become a defender, and eventually get this certain psychic power, etc).

You can <i>also</i> add other people determining your fates in other worlds (eg, if my body is desecrated, that hurts me in paradise--so I need to find someone on earth to bury my body and perform certain rites, etc)... this could make the games non-deterministic.

Anyway, these are pieces of game ideas I''ve been tossing around, which seem to be pretty relevant to the topic. In addition, I honestly don''t think this type of thing is new--I at least know it''s not new in fiction.