Not all morality systems are a good/evil
binary. There are a few types of morality system that avoid good and evil as
their direct reference points. For this post, I’ll look at the Mass Effect games
as an example of a different kind of morality, and the way that different moralities
are showcased through the different characters. Since the games have been popular, I'm assuming they'll be a good example that most people have played.
WARNING: MASS EFFECT SERIES SPOILERS
THROUGHOUT THIS POST. FAMILIARITY WITH CHARACTERS AND PLOT POINTS IS ASSUMED.
Anyone wonder why I didn't mention Mass
Effect's Paragon/Renegade system as an example of a good/evil morality system?
Well, that's because I don't entirely believe that it is one. While it suffers
from similar problems, it deals with something that is not good and evil
(though some choices are that blatant). Instead, it involves a choice between Practicality and Honour. Of course, it's not the only example of this kind of morality, but it raises some interesting issues.
 |
| He has a point, really. |
No matter how you play Commander Shepard, she* is going to be a Big Damn Hero, and her goal is going to be the same. There is no playthrough where Shepard doesn't want to stop the Reapers and save everyone. But how she goes about can be different. The dichotomy involved is more one of kindness/expedience than good/evil. Shepard can punch a reporter or shout at the Citadel Council, but it's because people aren't giving the necessary attention to the dire situation she is trying to save everyone from. Renegade Shepard does not appreciate time-wasting or diplomacy, and will save the universe the way she wants, whether anyone likes it or not. Paragon Shepard chooses to prioritise the needs of the few, showing kindness to individuals that may not lead to the most elegant solutions. This dichotomy both retains some old problems (‘grey’ characters are penalised) and introduces a new set of moral problems, especially when players consider Paragon choices to be ‘right’ and Renegade choices to be ‘wrong’. Often, the way these choices are framed makes it clear that they are not an issue of right and wrong or good and evil. Unfortunately, the game may later decide that the choices were about that after all. For example, at the end of Mass Effect 1, you are given a choice: expend resources and divert ships to save the Citadel Council, or concentrate them on saving the Citadel itself and attacking Sovereign. This is the information you are given, and it is not a simple decision. I chose to save the Citadel and prioritise the main threat: Sovereign. Unfortunately, for the next two games, this was interpreted by absolutely every other character as having "left the Council to die" because you hated them. In the second game, considering Paragon choices to be good would mean condoning tampering with what were clearly the identities of sentient beings (the Geth) as the 'good' option. The games often frame these decisions as difficult as you decide, but greatly simplify them later on. Viewing them as real moral choices is the narratively interesting view, but they can be seen as simple opportunities to score ‘red’ or ‘blue’ points. Granted, this is very much like real life, where the way your choices are interpreted is not necessarily the same as the way you intended for them to be interpreted, and the factors that you considered when making them are not always visible to those judging them.
Interestingly, what BioWare does do in
Mass Effect is give Shepard her own binary morality system and dump her in a
distinctly grey setting. Mass Effect 2 does this particularly well. Take a 100%
Paragon Shepard, lightly kill her,
and resurrect her in the employ of the Bad Guys, and clear morality gets pushed
out of the way for the sake of story. Granted, the evil of Cerberus is only
really well established if you play ME1 pretty thoroughly, but I would argue
that before ME2, their space racism, elaborate Bond-villainesque murder of their
opponents and biological experiments go well beyond just Renegade choices. And
just as you felt any sympathy for their devotion to beating the Reapers at any
cost, the Illusive Man goes full cackling villain and gets himself stupidly Reaper-indoctrinated
in ME3. So, as much as Shepard would like to stay an unblemished Jedi Knight,
it’s just not possible. And when you’re forced to make deals with the likes of the
Illusive Man, Urdnot Wrex and Aria T’Loak and may have chosen to welcome
hardened self-confessed criminals and unrepentant murderers onto your ship, even
being 100% Paragon can never mean being 100% morally okay.
 |
| A bunch of lovable murderers |
On top of that, the cast of characters show
a broad spectrum of moralities. It is indisputable that all of the potential
party members have killed and will kill at Shepard’s word. Despite this, some
characters consider themselves guilty, others noble, and some just don’t care.
Some have beliefs that absolve them of guilt or responsibility for their
actions: Thane separates the actions of his body and his spirit, and Samara accepts
a ready-made morality system so that
she will always know how to do the right thing – except that she doesn’t.
Mordin committed a terrible crime, but believes that it was for the best.
Morinth, through her rejection by society, embraces and enjoys her power and ability
to kill. Jack had little choice but to become a killing machine, and suppresses
her morals. Garrus (probably the only Renegade in the way Shepard can be)
believes that rules and laws prevent true justice. Shepard, Paragon or Renegade,
believes it is her task to save the universe. Going through all of them would
take forever, and some of their views change over time, but each party member
has his/her own morality independent of the Paragon/Renegade system.
The complex moralities that the Mass Effect series expects you to consider seem to prove the limitations of containing complex characterisation in a binary moral system. Shepard is not free to act as she wishes -- dialogue choices and actions are often a choice between Paragon, Renegade and neutral, the situations and characters you are placed in as a player cannot be contained in this system very easily, especially if it is equated with a choice between good and bad. Of course, game systems will always constrain the player from going crazy and doing whatever he/she wants, or they wouldn't really be game systems. In the end, everyone is greyer than Shepard is on paper (screen?), with choices divided between two extremes. But, I suppose that's okay, since Paragon and Renegade are both two types of hero -- you just get to decide, within the choices you're given, which of those kinds of hero your Shepard is.
