Morality in Games: Part 5

If you've been following this (possibly overlong) series, you've seen some approaches that games have had to the concept of morality: what happens when you give players a choice (and what happens when you don't), what kinds of choices can be presented, and how they can be framed and interpreted within the context of a game system. With all of the problems I've highlighted, is there a future for the morality system?

Arguably the best way to break out of the kinds of limitations and contradictions present in player-driven character building in games is simply to provide more options. The more options are provided, the more complex the morality system. But this is clearly not feasible. Keeping track of vast numbers of variables and creating content for each possibility is extremely difficult and time consuming. Another possibility is to break away from binary morality and use another system.

The CRPGs based on the Dungeons and Dragons system have tried to implement the pen-and-paper game's non-binary two-axis alignment system (based on ethics -- chaos/law, and morality -- good/evil), but it has been restricted in some cases to prevent players choosing any of the evil alignments. It has also been historically difficult to maintain a neutral alignment in these games. Nevertheless, it is a well-established system that allows for a bit more nuance in moral (and ethical) alignment. More complex models like this one could be useful, but ultimately still include the reductive good/evil dichotomy that has so little relevance to the way that moral questions are often considered in other storytelling media not aimed at children or indoctrination.

Many of the moral 'problems' I've discussed in previous parts concern conflicts between game and story (the fashionable term being bandied about lately is ludonarrative dissonance). The truth is that most games with morality systems consider the morality and the core gameplay mechanics to be separate entities, or flavoursome sprinkles on the top of an established game mechanic. In the interest of more novel experiences, 'traditional', explicit morality systems seem to be falling out of favour. For example, this sort of system, used in BioShock, was later subverted in BioShock Infinite: your choices, while appearing to be significant, have no bearing on the plot or protagonist's nature whatsoever. The wish to tell a story with clear themes and messages and the wish to have a player control that story or its characters' natures appear to be in opposition. The way that storytelling has become an important part of gaming means that we either continue to suspend disbelief when confronted with system-narrative conflicts, or hope for new developments that will fit the two together more neatly, without the need for obvious imitation of other mediums.

Nevertheless, the way that morality is dealt with in games has either been similar to the approach of other media, which already allows for impactful characters and stories if done well, or based on player choice that blends this approach with  involvement, which can be enlightening and revelatory for players if done well.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Morality in Games: Part 4 — Character-driven Morality

Previously, I wrote about how the cast of Mass Effect represented different moralities, and how the player was given a different framework from the supporting characters to work within. Introducing characters that make them care enough to have have an effect on the player's decisions is difficult, but the displeasure of our most liked characters has probably caused a savegame reload or two. Several games have used supporting characters to influence the moral decisions of the player, and some have done this more or less effectively as a way to complicate binary morality.

This is you in video games. True story.

The numerical approval systems of Obsidian's Knights of the Old Republic 2 and BioWare's Dragon Age can open up dialogue options (and resulting backstory) with various characters, and trigger possible romances. A varied cast of characters can avoid a situation where 'good' is praised and other actions not, and characters conflicting with the player character based on his/her actions certainly makes them more interesting. However, the ability to choose dialogue options that you consider to be what the character wants to hear, as well as the ability to bribe characters into liking you with gifts, both result in another instance where the game is put before the narrative. Wanting to please everyone (and being able to) also results in an almost schizophrenic character whose values depend on who he/she is talking to and what the player happens to want from them, especially since choosing a dialogue option usually results in a very sincere sounding, but often meaningless exchange. Of course, getting everyone to like you (or sleep with you) is a goal that many gamers will want to 'achieve', and this will almost inevitably be at the expense of a truly coherent and impactful player character.

Don't tell me you're not touched, you liar. 

Using characters' reactions to affect decisions can be done effectively. In Telltale's The Walking Dead, the player relies on their own moral compass to make choices, as well as the effects and potential reactions their actions will create. While many choices involve a decision between an action that is practical and an action that is honourable, this is complicated by a cast of characters who very often do not agree with your reasoning, and who may have their own motivations. The fact that Lee Everett is not in a leadership position, as many characters are also makes appeasing the other characters more difficult. People will do as they please and follow their own objectives regardless of your own views of their plans, and disagreement can damage relationships and often create more conflict than in other games, where the characters, while important, are incidental to the main story. In The Walking Dead, the characters are the narrative. There is no grand quest apart from survival, and everyone has their own ideas about how this will be achieved.

The moral decisions that Lee has to make go in two directions: towards or against the values of normal society. He has to decide whether the values before the walkers came are worth preserving, or if they are a hindrance to the goal of survival. It would be easier to choose self-preservation and survival at all costs if it weren't for one thing: Clementine. Clementine (age 8, adorable) represents everything positive about society, and you can choose to teach her either that society (and its values) is gone, or that there is hope for things to remain as they were. Of course, keeping her innocent and protected means that she will not gain the skills she needs to navigate and cope with the new world and protect herself. And in the end, you can't protect her from all of the horrible things happening around her. So you can choose the new world, where what was considered a crime is permitted for the sake of survival, or the old, where sacrifices are made in order to remain moral. And in many situations, the only factor keeping you from choosing a certain option is that Clementine protests or will be hurt or tainted somehow. Knowing that whatever you do is something that will shape the life of a child makes the kinds of self-serving decisions that are so common in the win-at-all-costs mentality of gaming much more difficult.

On top of this, you are made accountable for Lee's actions. Making a choice (or not) is difficult, but the game also often makes you defend your decisions, and explain them in a way that makes them acceptable to others. This is uncomfortable, and that is good.

There is a lot of potential in this character-driven kind of morality system, and it would be interesting to see what can be done when underlying binary morality shown in even these games is abandoned entirely.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 5