There are times when I truly hate when a post does not save correctly. It means I get cranky and my carefully chosen words then need to be recreated and end up as a bastardised version of my original post.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, and I hate when I'm waiting for a notification Email and it just never comes. I thought unsubscribing and resubscribing would help, but it didn't, and I had no idea there were responses. Again.

With respect to your question mark. We tend to keep forums relevant to their focus. By this I mean aspects of your post that lead into the game design side of things you should recreate into a thread on the game design forum. That way people with the relevant skills who may not inhabit the writing forum are more likely to post with appropriate information, as well it also ensures visitors to the forums find information relevant to their needs in the right forums.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Given that this is asking for writing advice, I doubt that it applies to game design.

I find it almost incomprehensible that you don't maintain some sort of record of previous works (even from a game design perspective)...by not doing this you deny yourself the ability to rediscover ideas you had forgotten, perceive how your writing/design has evolved over time and for a variety of other reasons.

I don't delete them, I just file them in a seperate folder and don't show them to anybody.

Which brings me to the question about your use of the word "canon", does this mean your works are done only in a set universe or universes?

For the most part, I stick to one universe with a number of settings within it. This universe is the one my short stories and any future games are in. I do have another universe, but that's only for my tabletop and I've never written short stories for it. I also don't intend to make any video games about it, at least not any time in the foreseeable future, because the setting isn't fleshed out enough for that and won't be for a long time.

My concern is in the absence of any actual work you are at best simply going to get generic advice based on your outline describing your work. So if you can post any work even if it is in rough shape you will be making our jobs easier trying to provide helpful and pointed advice.

Then I'll have to settle for that, then. With all that's been going on (college, building a tabletop, so on) I haven't had time to write anything and there's nothing I have that's still canon. I don't show non-canon works.

And mostly, I was hoping for ways I can use the unique strengths of our medium for these purposes. If I were to pick a subject, such as the inherent moral implications of law, to explore within a game, what elements of the medium could I use besides dialogue to make points or ask questions in this matter? (Actually, you might be right. Game design might be a better place for this.)

If you want to talk about moral, cultural, social, etc. stuff in a way that's interesting and non-preachy, I suggest building it into the worldbuilding, not directly into the characters. Have it be something the main character is clueless about or uninvolved with at first, and they discover it during the course of the story. (Though, I do not write short stories, only long ones, so you may have to reinterpret the concept a bit for short stories.) Then take a second character and give them good reasons to feel the opposite of the message you ultimately want to get across. You definitely don't ever want to have every character in agreement about an issue. Only at the climax of the story should the thematic argument between/among these characters get narrowed down to a clear 'winning' point of view.

I'm here looking for writing advice on games, and how to use their strengths for these ends. I don't want to force the player along. I don't want to ever have a clear cut "right" answer in the game, and I want to make the games lean towards a less popular viewpoint so that they can overcome the player's bias and get them to think about it a bit more openly. I don't expect to change their mind completely, just get rid of their inertia.

If my topic is "the moral implications of law" we all know the viewpoint drilled into everybody's head is "always moral, no matter what the law is." Although most of us have enough common sense to understand at some level that some laws are immoral in their intent and application, even with all the attempted brainwashing. My opinion on the matter is "immoral by nature, although it does have some moral applications." If this is my topic, I want to create a game that explores the moral implications of law as it is played. It would have to show how law is detrimental by default but also shows that it can be used positively.

Now, this isn't actually the topic of any planned game. It is, however, an important topic for me and has come up a lot in this universe, so some time down the line it is bound to come up.

As far as humor goes, do you like other people's humor? If so, it's something that can be studied, like a stand up comedian studies how to be good at that.

Eh. I still prefer mine, and I'll stick to mine. If they don't like it, tough. I only brought it up because I thought it was funny.

The point your trying to get across is that law is inherently immoral? No wonder people don't get it unless it's spelled out and grumble about it if it is spelled out. Only a small fraction of an average audience would be receptive to that idea before the beginning of the story, and it would be really difficult to present a convincing argument to get the rest to become more receptive to the idea because it goes against people's deep beliefs about human nature and what society is for.

The point your trying to get across is that law is inherently immoral?

As I said, it's not in any of the planned games, it's just an example.

No wonder people don't get it unless it's spelled out and grumble about it if it is spelled out. Only a small fraction of an average audience would be receptive to that idea before the beginning of the story, and it would be really difficult to present a convincing argument to get the rest to become more receptive to the idea because it goes against people's deep beliefs about human nature and what society is for.

You appear to be hostile to my viewpoint, sir. Thus, I feel I must explain it.

The purpose of law isn't to protect the well-being of those under it, it is to protect the interests of those writing it, even if that is to the detriment of those living under it. While most laws are benign, once examined benign laws serve no purpose. Practically nobody would do any of the outlawed actions in benign laws if they were legal, and those who would aren't going to follow the law anyway. Heroin, for instance, is a horrible drug. It's understandable to decide that nobody should use it, and most people would never use it legal or not because of how absurdly harmful it is. To the few that would, illegality is not a significant additional downside to make it a dealbreaker, especially since most of them have enough common sense to know the chances of them ever being punished for it are extremely low. All making it illegal does is create a black market for it, which actually increases the amount sold, the price it is sold for, and the profits of those selling it. Since the presence of a black market is also a safety hazard, this law does a great deal of harm and no good. And that's how law always functions. If it's actually a bad idea, most people won't do it legal or not. The few that will are not going to be deterred by law. The important laws to my standpoint, however, are malign laws. They're something that will always exist, because they're what law is for. Their purpose is to protect the interests of the writers or the masters of the writers, regardless of its impact on the people beneath it. Laws like the provision in the NDAA 2012 that allow the US military to detain any individual, even US citizens, for an unlimited amount of time without trial or charge as prisoners of war. Or the law that allowed them to do that to prisoners of war in the first place. Better known (but actually a lot less evil) are SOPA and PIPA, which were thankfully shot down because it was rather clear that there would be war in this country before those laws passed. (Then the government went and exercised the power these bills would have given them anyway.) These laws are clearly harmful to those living under their charge, but their purpose is clear. SOPA and PIPA are attempts to allow the US to censor and regulate US citizens access to the internet, which is beneficial to those in power as it allows them to choose what information reaches their people. That provision in NDAA 2012 serves to provide a pathway to bypass the legal system overtly without having to cover it up. Since this basically means they can arrest people and imprison them without having to prove they did anything illegal, they can use it for any purpose should they deem it worth their time and the inherent bad press. This includes silencing dissenters, of course. Other examples, including the Patriot Act, come to mind as well, but I don't have all day and neither do you.

Frankly, the only way law can ever be applied that is to the benefit of the people living under it is if it is set up to protect their rights, rather than remove them. That's not its intended purpose, but if we restricted everything to its intended purpose we wouldn't get anywhere. The best possible approach is summed up in the quote "The right to swing my fist ends where another man's nose begins." Laws that act only to draw a clear line between exercising your rights and infringing on another person's are laws with a good purpose. And of course, there aren't very many of them. Part of this is that the purpose of law is different, part is that you don't need too many laws. It's a lot more complex than "just don't hurt anybody" but it's still fairly simple and doesn't need the intentional obfuscation present in modern law because even if it's completely transparent, there's no points within it to attack. Adding on a few necessary evils, such as taxation, would allow a nation to sustain itself and maintain society without any further law, but that's never going to happen. The reason it'll never happen is because there will always be people in power who want more power, more money and more privileges, and will create more laws to get them, even if this is entirely detrimental for their followers. And people won't have any say in the matter, either. Especially since most won't know a law contains any such elements until it passes, because the people are kept intentionally misinformed.

And if you could decide a society wasn't worth its laws and leave, then I wouldn't have as big of a problem with law. Then it's just be a consensual agreement, and even if it was overall detrimental to those agreeing to it, that would be their choice and I wouldn't take issue with it. It would still taste of extortion, but such is the nature of power. But that's not how it works, is it? You don't get a choice, you abide local law or those in charge will destroy your life and everything you ever hoped for. You can't leave civilization or find another country to live in, and you can't choose to give up benefits in exchange for not having to follow laws. The difference between a contract and law is the difference between sex and rape. It's not consensual, and that's a problem for me.

In summary:

1. Law is non-consensual. That alone makes it wrong as far as I am concerned.

2. Law is intended to further the interests of those in power, rather than those under its jurisdiction. (And if you think those in power are under its jurisdiction, you haven't been paying attention.)

3. Laws that appear to be in the interests of the public usually do more harm than good. Stupidity or malevolence, it's still harmful.

4. Laws are written in a manner that intentionally obfuscates their contents. This doesn't sit well with me.

5. Laws that are abnormally evil, even by the standards of law, are passed without the public's knowledge or consent. It's a rarity the public becomes aware, and when they do they can seldom do anything about it.

If that is not enough for you to understand my viewpoint on law, you are not considering it.

So I'd like to ask writers that are strong in these areas for advice, especially when it comes to writing in games. In particular, on delivering moral messages as well as social, political and legal commentary with the right level of subtlety and making complex philosophical points comprehensible to those who are not as erudite as I am.

This is closely related to something I learned from my own progress as a writer and from film school, where you just write the story, and themes, morals, and questions will automatically begin to emerge from it as you review it and think it over. I never write anything with a specific message in mind. I only write a story that happens to have an underlying point or theme to it.

I didn't go into writing the script for the surreal fantasy adventure game I'm working on thinking: "OK, it's going to be about the balance and interplay of power, freedom and responsibility; about growing up, coming of age, and finding your place and purpose in the world." Of course not. I just wrote what I thought would be a good story, and I only realized afterward that those where the things it was about, under the surface. Same with the script for a 45-minute animated film I wrote an number of years ago, now. I didn't realize until after I'd written it that it was really about coping with grief and loss; moving on with your life, and continuing to live life fully, despite whatever reality throws at you. Again with the post-cyberpunk novel I'm writing, as well- but you get the idea.

This may be off topic, but since you felt the need to write an essay on the topic of the moralities of law, I hope you don't mind me offering my 2 cents. I am by no means a professional writer nor philosopher, and you may well regard me as an ignorant internet bloke, but this is my viewpoint as both a reader/gamer:

Don't you feel that you're looking at it in a very black and white perspective? I agree with sunandshadow in the fact that its an idea that is hard to comprehend on a common sense level of a general wide audience. It is because of this that he (or she) mentioned that it's a philosophy that you would have to slap the reader over the head with for them to understand. This is simply because your idea isn't very well relatable.

The purpose of law isn't to protect the well-being of those under it, it is to protect the interests of those writing it, even if that is to the detriment of those living under it.

This your thesis. The below is how you supported it. You also might want to note that you are specifically talking about the US Laws.

And this is your support. You use the ban on heroin as your example and claim that no one in their right mind would use it in the first place. Note however in the old days when heroin was not outlawed, many people at first did not know of its very harmful effects. They only hear about the ecstasy it brought, and then once taken they get horribly addicted to it. Think about teenagers who live in the now rather then the future who don't think twice about taking a risk. I know it seems obvious in this time and age, but back then, it wasn't. Same with moon shine and other toxic drinks and drugs. It served a purpose to inform and protect the public from those trying to trick folks who didn't know better. And look where we are now. Now its common knowledge thanks to it.

Again, you use strong words that paint a very black and white picture of laws. "Does a great deal of harm and no good" along with "that's how laws always functions." Do laws simply fall under good and bad?

You fail to neglect things such as "murder" or "child abuse." Does outlawing either of these things really harm people? Does it not do good? Think back in the medieval era where people murdered family members to acquire their wealth. To them, this was common sense. Why wouldn't you benefit yourself by murdering that brother of yours that you've always hated so you can get your father's land all to yourself?

The laws of the US aren't perfect. And you are correct in assuming that some laws are very much for the benefit of big corporation and government officials. But take note you shouldn't generalize laws.

I mean, look at the 10 Commandments of the bible. Those are moral laws dictated by the bible for people to follow. Is that also bad?

A kindergarden teacher puts down rules for kids in class. These are moral laws meant to keep order. Is the teacher taking away the rights of students immoral?

Laws are inherently in place as such to keep order. (Hence, the "common sense" laws sometimes isn't shared among individuals.)

Your argument revolves around the politics of the creation of specific laws by the US government. As such, it feels hard to relate to simply because you are generalizing "all laws are bad" rather then "laws made through politicians and government officials are often detrimental."

My suggestion, if you really wish to weave this idea into a story, is to narrow down your generalization. Make people take a look at the specifics rather then a broad (and lofty) agenda of declaring laws as plain bad. And (as said before) weave a tale to entertain first before subtly hiding your message away in the folds. You want to entice your player base first with something they might enjoy before tricking them into engaging in philosophical thought. You have the write to share your opinion with others, but you shouldn't expect people to always be able to understand or sympathize with your cause.

No matter how well you present it, there will never be a guarantee that readers (or players) will even bother to read into the details of your moral message. And unless you want to write a pamphlet on your philosophical view point, you shouldn't be bothered by it when most (if not all) your viewers pass your opinion over without a glance and get lost in the entertaining interactive aspect of your game.

I am female, just for clarification.

As far as law goes, I don't think it's possible to get an unbiased concept of how law works by looking only at the way it works in the current time. If you look further back in the history of our species, law existed in a lot more variety. There are many more theoretical possibilities. The fact that currently it is difficult to move to a different country with different laws is coincidental, not fundamental. The degree to which lawmakers and law enforcers are separate from those living under the law is also variable.

I think the essence of law is this: people are social animals. People are not inherently good or kind, nor are they inherently evil or cruel. What they are is impulsive and self-centered (not meant in a negative way). One can only see out of one's own eyes, experience one's own sensations and emotions; we theorize that other people are more or less the same as us, but it's natural to consider others' pain and problems as less real than our own because we can't feel them. Whether toddlers or adults, humans have both sympathetic and sadistic impulses, as well as a desire to have all the good things we see others have, a desire to be recognized as special or better than others, a desire to make others do what we think they ought to do, and a desire not to be forced to do anything by others. Additionally there are always a small percentage of humans who have some kind of mental disorder or other issue resulting in abnormal impulses and/or behavior. So, if you take a random group of humans and dump them somewhere with no laws, some will be nice to each other, some will even be nice to everyone, but even someone who is kind 95% of the time can do long-term damage in that other 5% of the time that they follow an impulse to do something not-so-nice. And at least 10% of people won't care about being kind or nice or not hurting others, and will make life unpleasant for everyone; that can be analogized to rape just like law can. So I think that a lawless human society will be one where the average quality of life is low and 90% of people are unhappy.

If you folks are going to debate law and its function in our society, then shouldn't this discussion be moved to the Lounge?

This your thesis. The below is how you supported it. You also might want to note that you are specifically talking about the US Laws.

All my examples are US laws because I am a US citizen, but all nations behave in such a manner. It's just the nature of power to be abused. And just because I see law as evil doesn't mean I don't think it has uses. Everything has a positive use, the only issue is getting it to be used right and finding out if its use is worth the cost.

And this is your support. You use the ban on heroin as your example and claim that no one in their right mind would use it in the first place. Note however in the old days when heroin was not outlawed, many people at first did not know of its very harmful effects. They only hear about the ecstasy it brought, and then once taken they get horribly addicted to it. Think about teenagers who live in the now rather then the future who don't think twice about taking a risk. I know it seems obvious in this time and age, but back then, it wasn't. Same with moon shine and other toxic drinks and drugs. It served a purpose to inform and protect the public from those trying to trick folks who didn't know better. And look where we are now. Now its common knowledge thanks to it.

Don't forget that heroin was originally a pharmaceutical. The makers of pharmaceuticals intentionally misinform the users. "Oh, yeah, it's totally safer than morphine!" Suuuuuure. And this is a perfect example of my above point: Heroin, correctly used, is a fantastic painkiller. It's cheaper and more available than morphine, easier to manufacture, procure and use in safe doses, and although it's not as powerful it's still overkill for most purposes. And the proper use of heroin is ORAL ingestion, not transdermal injection. Heroin is a morphine pro-drug, in the digestive tract it is converted into morphine, and at a lower dose than a normal injection. Heroin pills could work quite effectively as a painkiller... if you don't have an even safer, less addictive option available or need the extra power than opiates provide. Under most circumstances, it's still like nuking a mosquito, and you should probably stick to codeine and other lower-power painkillers.

Again, you use strong words that paint a very black and white picture of laws. "Does a great deal of harm and no good" along with "that's how laws always functions." Do laws simply fall under good and bad?

You fail to neglect things such as "murder" or "child abuse." Does outlawing either of these things really harm people? Does it not do good? Think back in the medieval era where people murdered family members to acquire their wealth. To them, this was common sense. Why wouldn't you benefit yourself by murdering that brother of yours that you've always hated so you can get your father's land all to yourself?

And do you really think the law acts as a deterrent for the violent idiots that beat their kids? Do you really think the fear of the law is any more of a deterrent than the fear or reprisal for murderers, which is how things would be handled without law? Further, BOTH of these are covered below under my examples of good ways to use law. They fall under harming others and restricting their rights, both of which should be prevented if at all possible.

The laws of the US aren't perfect. And you are correct in assuming that some laws are very much for the benefit of big corporation and government officials. But take note you shouldn't generalize laws.

I mean, look at the 10 Commandments of the bible. Those are moral laws dictated by the bible for people to follow. Is that also bad?

The bible, as a source of morals? The same bible that says not to mix fabrics or fuck people with the same parts or you deserve to die, that says that taking slaves is a hebrew's god-given rights, that the price of raping a woman is having to marry her, that a woman exists to serve her husband, that children should be beaten for every dirty look, that people who work on sundays should be murdered, that committing genocide is justified as long as the other party isn't of the same religion and that it's A-okay for children to be SLAUGHTERED EN FUCKING MASSE? THAT bible? You're using THAT as an example?

A kindergarden teacher puts down rules for kids in class. These are moral laws meant to keep order. Is the teacher taking away the rights of students immoral?

Alright, much better. First off, if school was an optional thing I would agree with you. Agreeing to follow those rules in exchange for an education would be perfectly fine. But it's not. School is mandatory. Do I need to make the sex vs. rape metaphor again?

Laws are inherently in place as such to keep order. (Hence, the "common sense" laws sometimes isn't shared among individuals.)

Your argument revolves around the politics of the creation of specific laws by the US government. As such, it feels hard to relate to simply because you are generalizing "all laws are bad" rather then "laws made through politicians and government officials are often detrimental."

Again, this is just part of the nature of power. Power exists for its own sake, and people will always use power to gain more power, no matter how it hurts others. It takes a lot more willpower than most people have, even if you don't have other powerful people pulling at you to get them more.

My suggestion, if you really wish to weave this idea into a story, is to narrow down your generalization. Make people take a look at the specifics rather then a broad (and lofty) agenda of declaring laws as plain bad. And (as said before) weave a tale to entertain first before subtly hiding your message away in the folds. You want to entice your player base first with something they might enjoy before tricking them into engaging in philosophical thought. You have the write to share your opinion with others, but you shouldn't expect people to always be able to understand or sympathize with your cause.

My stories are interesting, if character driven. They always have been. Keeping people interested isn't a problem, getting more than that is.

No matter how well you present it, there will never be a guarantee that readers (or players) will even bother to read into the details of your moral message. And unless you want to write a pamphlet on your philosophical view point, you shouldn't be bothered by it when most (if not all) your viewers pass your opinion over without a glance and get lost in the entertaining interactive aspect of your game.

You know what? You're right, at least on this. I'm sure that most people will pass it by. The issue is that smart people, who pay attention, are going to be included. Now granted, we're few and far between, but we do exist and we do play these games. I want to give them something they can learn from it. Something to pull out of it. And at least in the game "Wounded Gaia" there are enough places to fit different stories with different lessons in the document system and the gameplay itself that I don't have to worry about it. And the main elements of the game, which are "human limitations," "self reliance" and "personal accomplishment while working with both of the former limitations" followed by a huge, morally ambiguous choice at the end of the game that the player will probably have to think about and will hopefully never be sure if they did the right thing or not, (not going into what) can be learned subconsciously through play even if the player doesn't realise it. If that's all they get, I've already done better than most game devs.

I am female, just for clarification.

As far as law goes, I don't think it's possible to get an unbiased concept of how law works by looking only at the way it works in the current time. If you look further back in the history of our species, law existed in a lot more variety. There are many more theoretical possibilities. The fact that currently it is difficult to move to a different country with different laws is coincidental, not fundamental. The degree to which lawmakers and law enforcers are separate from those living under the law is also variable.

I think the essence of law is this: people are social animals. People are not inherently good or kind, nor are they inherently evil or cruel. What they are is impulsive and self-centered (not meant in a negative way). One can only see out of one's own eyes, experience one's own sensations and emotions; we theorize that other people are more or less the same as us, but it's natural to consider others' pain and problems as less real than our own because we can't feel them. Whether toddlers or adults, humans have both sympathetic and sadistic impulses, as well as a desire to have all the good things we see others have, a desire to be recognized as special or better than others, a desire to make others do what we think they ought to do, and a desire not to be forced to do anything by others. Additionally there are always a small percentage of humans who have some kind of mental disorder or other issue resulting in abnormal impulses and/or behavior. So, if you take a random group of humans and dump them somewhere with no laws, some will be nice to each other, some will even be nice to everyone, but even someone who is kind 95% of the time can do long-term damage in that other 5% of the time that they follow an impulse to do something not-so-nice. And at least 10% of people won't care about being kind or nice or not hurting others, and will make life unpleasant for everyone; that can be analogized to rape just like law can. So I think that a lawless human society will be one where the average quality of life is low and 90% of people are unhappy.

It's like you didn't even read the part about the positive uses of law. Just because I think something is inherently wrong doesn't mean it doesn't have a good use.

Further, in smaller communities this isn't an issue. Nobody is going to be able to go around being a complete asshole in a lawless society because somebody else will make them regret it. Even if nobody else can, the community can do it. Even the vile, wicked murderers in the lawless old west would never ride into town and start killing people, at least not without a lot of help, because they'd have a lifespan of about ten minutes if they did and the risk clearly could never be worth whatever reward they could pull from it. (Unless they were trying to die, and law couldn't stop that. Actually, law might encourage it.)