A question came up in my last post that I thought I''d like to make more general: Do you prefer, in games, clear moral distinctions, such as "good vs. evil" and "right vs. wrong," or do you like more vague and unclear distinctions? I''m generally speaking for all games. For instance, would you more prefer to know that the side you may represent in a game is absolutely right, or would you prefer "it''s not completely right, but has more benefits than the other guys." Scenario example: You''re taking a mission in an FPS or RPG or RTS (or whichever) and told that you must destroy an enemy to save the lives of your people back home. It''s a difficult, challenging experience, but after much risk and loss, you are victorious. Which resolution would you prefer: A) The side you were fighting enjoyed killing and could not be reasoned with or bargained with, leaving you no choice. B) Unbeknownest to you, the enemy you were fighting started fighting only because your superiors secretly started kidnapping and experimenting on them, and they came to believe over time that the only way to stop this was to wage war on you. -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

I think I would have preferred the first outcome , but I like movies and such where the main character thinks he fights for the good guys, but it turns out that they're bad. He usually then changes sides and starts fighting for the "underground".. Kind of cliche, but I think it's cool if they pull it off (so that the player actually believes he's with the good guys). Sharp plot twists are cool IMO.

A good example is Wing Commander 4. It's one of my favourite games ever.

A less good example is Tachyon the fringe. It didn't quite pull off trying to fool me into believing that GTO was the good guys (I think that's what they were called).

EDIT: another xmple
EDIT2: I think I'm going to like your game, considering I get to make so many suggestions

[edited by - frostburn on April 16, 2004 7:53:46 PM]

Moral ambiguity can get complex very quickly, and each of us brings a lifetimes worth of experinces and beliefs along with us.

Take your example.

quote:
A) The side you were fighting enjoyed killing and could not be reasoned with or bargained with, leaving you no choice.

people might see what they are doing as right since they are defending themselves from an unrelenting foe.

quote:
B) Unbeknownest to you, the enemy you were fighting started fighting only because your superiors secretly started kidnapping and experimenting on them, and they came to believe over time that the only way to stop this was to wage war on you.

people might see this what they are doing as wrong, since their leaders are harming others.

lets add another
C) take B but add this, You country has been devistated by a terrible disease and the only one immune are the immigrants from the other country. The diesease has already killed off half your population and so your leaders started experimenting on members of the other country in a desprate attempt to find a cure and save your civilization.

So was your mission right or wrong?

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project: Ambitions Slave

I agree with TechnoGoth that it can quickly become very complex. I think it depends on the game type. If I''m playing an RTS where the game is really about the game, I''d rather not wade through a muddle of complex moral dilemmas, I want to control some troops. On the other hand, if it''s an RPG or a story-driven FPS, Then questions like that are more interesting because I''m really taking on a character and making choices. Maybe to taking it to a further extreme is more clear. Imagine a puzzle game or an arcade game with some sort of back-story like that. So I think both are good, but consider whether your game actually wants those kinds of issues, or whether you''re just playing lip-service to the story.

tj963

I always prefer moral complexity to good/evil dichotomies because I see the idea of pure good and evil as childish, bad philosophy encouraging bigotry and zealotry, a recipie for having badly one-sided characters, and just plain unrealistic.

The thing that I do not like about "good versus evil" in a quasi-realistic (or realistic) setting is that it really isn''t appropriate to the situation.

If you look at history''s largest tyrants, many of them were not "crazy/possessed". Most people don''t look at themselves as candidates of evil. Hitler really wasn''t any more of a racist than many people during his time. The only difference was that he had the brains, charisma, and determination to follow through with his supposed "correct beliefs". He felt that there were inferior races and that there was a superior Aryan race that was in danger of extinction by "inferior blood". Chances are, he considered himself to be a savior. In fact, his propaganda movie ("Will to Power") actually used symbolism found in the bible to make himself appear as the Savior. The beginning is a scene of dark clouds where a beam of light splits the clouds and a plane emerges as though from heaven - that plane was bringing Hitler to the "endangered people".

The problem with the way many games approach "good versus evil" is that there is clearly one side that is evil - and are aware that they are evil. They are not given justification and they do not think of themselves as "good". They are simply "possessed". That is weak character design. Until deevelopers/writers understand that good versus evil is generally a matter of perspective (the devil may believe that he is the true goodness) - the actual drama inherent in "what is the truth" is absent and we are forced to decide whether we are "good or evil" rather than "this is what I believe the situation to be - and this group is evil".

Part of the drama between good and evil is finding out who is truly evil, assuming that one side is 100% good and the other 100% evil.

I don''t want someone to give me the choice between good and evil, I want the choice between "this side" and "that side" and allow me to decide who is good/bad. That also has the added bonus of forcing the player to re-evaluate whether they were correct in their assertions as new information and events unfold

Brilliant comments here!

I concur: moral ambiguity is preferrable for adult gamers simply because that''s the way life really is. "Evil" is a characterization given by an opponent, not an inherent quality or sense of self (except in cartoons - of all sorts). Every side in a conflict acts out of self-interest, and as such can be characterized as evil by every other side. Taking your example, you could have the character come in contact with civilians or propaganda from the "evil" side and reveal that his side (ostensibly "good") is demonized just as vociferously - and with some justification - as the other.

I think either is good when done well. Most people here seem against a clean good/evil distinction. I think FF6 had fairly clear good vs. evil distinctions, but did it in a very adult manner. I remember them saying something like "The empire is evil, but not all of its people are". It perhaps got a little muddy with Celes, Terra, General Leo, and Shadow, but it also made it pretty clear which things they did were good and which were evil. I think the Lord of the Rings, while not a game, also had pretty clear goods and evils. It''s been a while, but I don''t recall the characters having much (if any) trouble with whether or not what they were doing was good or evil, but rather the trouble they had was that evil was so tempting (and overpowering).

I think the real key is to stay away from the perfectly clean hero and the perfectly dirty enemy. But that was just discussed in another thread.

I have a hard time answering this (I've written 3 answers now) other than to say that having an understanding of how complex morality is IRL is extremely good to have. It doesn't always make for a good game though. Neither does the "clear idea of good and evil" thing. Sometimes I want one, sometimes the other. The actual question of which I'm in the mood for gets answered when I pick up the box and again when I load the game. If I'm not in the mood for one type of game, I don't play it.

(this would probably be better in that other thread you mentioned)

However, I really like your moral compass idea for motivations of NPCs, empires, and orginizations. If a captain goes on a mission contrary to an NPCs morality he can always counter the effects by going to that character and explaining the morality of it, reminding them of their duty, or just plain threats. In short, the captain interacts with the crew. But I don't like the idea of having the player basicly need to align himself somewhere on that compass in order to get anywhere in your game. It might not be intended, but it could turn out that way.

(deleted a half completed thought)


[edited by - kseh on April 19, 2004 5:57:25 PM]

quote: Original post by Wavinator
A question came up in my last post that I thought I'd like to make more general:

Do you prefer, in games, clear moral distinctions, such as "good vs. evil" and "right vs. wrong," or do you like more vague and unclear distinctions? I'm generally speaking for all games.

For instance, would you more prefer to know that the side you may represent in a game is absolutely right, or would you prefer "it's not completely right, but has more benefits than the other guys."

Scenario example: You're taking a mission in an FPS or RPG or RTS (or whichever) and told that you must destroy an enemy to save the lives of your people back home. It's a difficult, challenging experience, but after much risk and loss, you are victorious.

Which resolution would you prefer:

A) The side you were fighting enjoyed killing and could not be reasoned with or bargained with, leaving you no choice.


B) Unbeknownest to you, the enemy you were fighting started fighting only because your superiors secretly started kidnapping and experimenting on them, and they came to believe over time that the only way to stop this was to wage war on you.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

I like something like Deus Ex. You are doing the wrong thing, but you must because you are socially conditioned to do so.
But after some personal experience, you realise you are in the wrong side, so you recapitulate*.

I think that's cool.

EDIT: * re-chapter. Is there a word for that in english?

[edited by - owl on April 17, 2004 3:30:48 AM]