I was thinking about the seppuku angle too, but wondered too if players would deem it worthwhile to kill off a character to preserve honor.

There''s actually a couple elements at play here. Firstly, the most enlightened individuals saw seppuku as a coward''s way out. Many of the greatest warrior/sages either were ronin (Miyamoto Musashi for example) who did not follow their masters into death as they should have, or did not advocate it such as Yagyu Munenori (perhaps an even greater swordsman than Musashi) who advocated that budo''s true purpose was to save lives (he coined the term Satsujinken, the sword that saves a life).

So here we have a problem of culture vs. religion/philosophy. It is much the same as the problem in Islamic countries with their attitudes about women. On one hand, the Koran says that a woman can not be forced into marriage and gets to keep her last name....and yet very few middle-eastern countries allow this. This angle could actually introduce some interesting play elements or at least create enough antagonism to allow for interesting scenarios.

For example, Japan''s shinobis (ninjas) were a counter culture to the samurai in that they did not follow the same honor code system that bushido followed or for that matter, most other Japanese. Although we have unsavory images today of ninjas as assassins, spies, and thieves, in reality, they mainly followed Tendai Buddhist philosophies and believed more strongly in ninpo (empathy/sympathy/compassion) than honor. In other words, they did what they did to curb the excesses of the samurai sort of like Robin Hood. If they had to kill, it was only to recenter and balance what the samurai had put out of alignment. Indeed, the ninja were so anti-samurai because they were loyal to the emperor, whom they saw as losing power due to the court intrigues of the Kuge (court nobles) and the power grabs of the bugei (the warrior caste).

And yet, the ninja were willing to live as eta (outcasts), keeping their true profession a secret since they didn''t have the same honor measurements as the samurai, nor did they believe in seppuku (although supposedly the Yakuza got their famous tradition of chopping a finger off for failure of a mission from the ninja).

And all of this circles back to a problem: how do you "punish" a character for failing to live up to his own chosen set of standards? It''s easy to reward them. If you follow a bushido path, if you go above and beyond its precepts, you can gain honor and kao (face). But what if you fail? How do you punish a player for this? Many ronin did not commit seppuku for things that Japanese custom demanded that they should have....so how were they punished? Ironically, the ronin were in some ways one of the most influential groups of people in feudal Japan (more pre-Tokugawa). But although they shrugged off some Japanese custom, some still abided by buddhist, shinto or even what they felt was "true" budo . For example, kirisute-gomen was the right for a samurai to kill a peasant for no reason at all if they felt like it...some samurai would kill a wandering peasant just to test a sword....but many samurai felt this was against one of the seven principles of bushido, Jin (compassion).

So you can''t force a player to abide by seppuku although it may decrease his honor or face to society at large. But what if a player plays a character who is a strict (non-esoteric) Buddhist, and can not kill anything (including animals) no matter what? What if a ninja sells out his clan by providing services to a samurai clan who supports the Shogun instead of the Emperor?

quote: What game are you talking about? I can''t think of a game where you killed a God that is from a widely practiced religion...just curious

In retrospect, I shouldn''t have even posted that, as I''ve never played the game myself; a friend told me about it. However, as I understand it, it wasn''t the omnipotent, incorporeal God of Christianity (how could you kill such a being?), but rather a sagely-looking old white man with a beard who has impossible power, which is how Americans tend to picture God.

quote: Firstly, the most enlightened individuals saw seppuku as a coward''s way out. Many of the greatest warrior/sages either were ronin (Miyamoto Musashi for example) who did not follow their masters into death as they should have, or did not advocate it such as Yagyu Munenori (perhaps an even greater swordsman than Musashi)

Not if their books are any indication...

quote: who advocated that budo''s true purpose was to save lives (he coined the term Satsujinken, the sword that saves a life).

Humanity''s endless capacity for rationalization never ceases to amaze me.

With Gorin No Sho (The Book of Five Rings), you have to delve a little deeper into Musashi''s life to understand what he''s talking about. It seems that the book is solely about strategy, fighting, and winning against your opponent. And yet when Musashi wrote the book, he was living as an ascetic hermit in a hill in a caveside. Moreover, his last recorded duel was against Sasaki Kojiro when he was 29....even though he lived to be about 60. Also, he devotes the book to the heavens and specifically to Kwannon, the goddess of mercy and life. There''s even a quote in the book that says, "To think of killing is an error. Killing is not the Way of mankind". Sounds rather paradoxical for a book taht seems devoted to winning doesn''t it?

Ditto with Yagyu Munenori''s concept of Satsujinken. And to try to understand the asian mindset (in particular Japanese, and to a lesser degree Chinese of Taoist or Chan backgrounds), you have to understand that they are against rationalization. The Chinese believe in several minds, one of them them, Yi, is the emotional mind. It tends to motivate us and also think on the material level. There is also Hsin, which is the "Wisdom" mind, and "thinks" on a different level. In Buddhist mentality, one can only understand things through intuition and in having mushin (literally, "void mind") or no mind. So I don''t think Yagyu Munenori was trying to rationalize the need for killing (or saving for that matter). If I understand the teachings correctly (and I''m no expert on Shinto, Buddhism, or Taoism, though I am Buddhist) it''s about trying to minimize disruption with the natural flow of nature. In the Shinto/Japanese mindset, there is no good or evil, so killing is not inherently evil, but it may disrupt nature''s balance, and therefore it should be avoided unless it is necessary.

The trick to all this is finding a way to enforce these esoteric notions in gameplay. The character should define his "Tao" and from that, it should help define his actions. In some ways this will be limiting to his possible actions, but on the other hand, it can provide bonuses depending on the context of the situation. However, I''m having trouble finding ways to quantify this "Tao", and indeed, I''m wondering if this is even possible.

It''s easy to come up with cultural limitations, such as reflections of honor or face. But how does one derive game benefits or penalties from one''s philosophical beliefs, and his adherence (or violation) to those tenets? I was thinking that perhaps one''s combat ability can become better, the more one follows certain esoteric or mystic beliefs. Take for example a Jedi Knight. While Lucas sort of screwed the pooch with this midiclorian caca, I found it interesting that Qui Gonn Jin played the epitome of the Jedi Knight....calm yet strong, flexible yet resilient. And yet who defeated Darth Maul? A pissed off Obi-Wan (so much for Lucas''s storytelling abilities). But is a Jedi''s abilities based solely off of these midiclorians, or is it an inner calm that allows one to feel the Force better?

I always thought it was somewhat stupid in the Dark Forces series that you can play a Jedi and yet kill unsuspecting enemies with nary a second thought nor hint of remorse. Isn''t a Jedi supposed to attack only in self-defense? Why doesn''t a Jedi turn to the dark side, and gain dark side powers automatically for doing so? It''s these questions that I''m pondering for this fantasy game.


The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount." - General Omar Bradley

quote: Original post by Dauntless
However, I''m having trouble finding ways to quantify this "Tao", and indeed, I''m wondering if this is even possible.

But how does one derive game benefits or penalties from one''s philosophical beliefs, and his adherence (or violation) to those tenets?

Mybe if you act right, you unlock game bonuses. art work, easter eggs, extra levels, new difficulty modes, cheat codes, different endings etc.
But how do to tell if the player is acting ''right''?

I'm not sure gamers will be interested in learning the other cultures. . .

Giving players a good or evil path has been a success for KOTOR and other RPGs. I'm anticipating Fable will be very successful as well.

If you punish players for making decisions they want to make (like playing their avatar in an evil way) then that is an interesting design choice. I'm pretty sure I would get frustrated with it if the "good" choice was always a pain compared to the evil choice. I'd feel like the developer was constantly hanging a cookie in front of my face and then slapping my hand for grabbing at it.


[edited by - dink on January 25, 2004 10:03:42 AM]

ultima 4 did this. you had to have high ratings in eight virtues, some of which were a pain to raise (i.e. giving hard-earned gold to beggars, not running from battle) and fairly easy to lose. in addition, there was no bonus to having the high ratings other than you needed them to enter the final dungeon.

it was still a fun game.