Friday, December 05, 2008
Game Design: Can't I Be Just a Little Bit Evil?
A friend (Space Bumby) was complaining over the weekend about how her character in Fable 2 had been growing ever more pure because she wasn't eating meat. It annoyed her because not only does she not consider vegetarianism to be any kind of virtue, but her rationale was strictly aesthetic. She thought all that muscle was making her character look fat. Eating vegetarian foods - especially celery - lowered the bulk. Yet the game contributed arbitrary moral value to her actions.
What kind of moral or ethical decision is this? Scoring you because you were eating your vegetables?
Having recently finished Bioshock (with its notorious - yet overrated - option to harvest little girls for their power), I have been thinking about the efforts to tie ethics or "alignment" and choice into games and their endings over the years. Particularly RPGs, of course. Usually these endings are broken down into either you being some kind of a self-sacrificing Saint, or some really despicable monster, with perhaps one in-between ending for those who can't commit. From what I have been able to gather, most of the time the endings are achieved by comparing how many points you've gained for being "nice" versus being "mean" to people.
BORING!
We haven't done it right, yet. Or if we have, I've missed it. Naturally, I don't have the time to play even a reasonable subset of the "important" games which have come out over the years, so I expect folks here will have some examples to toss into the discussion shortly. :) But I want to go beyond choosing between being a jerk or a saint. I want real ethical dilemmas, not getting scored on whether or not I eat a hamburger or how many times I gave a gold piece to a beggar!
As you can expect, this kind of discussion about ethical decisions in games will probably involve me invoking the sacred title of Ultima IV. So, uh, indulge me if you will, please. Ultima IV had what we might consider today to be an over-simplified faction system among the core virtues. To win the game, you eventually had to be the good guy and become the embodiment of all of those virtues. So for all its pioneering, from a gameplay perspective it didn't go too far beyond the pale compared to modern titles.
(As a side-note, dying gave you sacrifice points in that game, making Ultime IV possibly the first games - and definitely one of the very few games - to actually reward you for what is traditionally a game-ending failure.)
The thing is - ethical decisions are among the most interesting types of decisions. I remember studying in high-school psychology about avoid - avoid decisions and attract - attract decisions being the most stressful and interesting. These are basically choosing the lesser of two evils or the greater of two goods. And they are the kinds of decisions that make for really interesting, powerful, and personal stories.
And yet videogames usually neglect them. Instead you just get to choose between being a nasty jerk and being a goody-two-shoes. Granted, videogames aren't the ideal medium for subtlety, but we can do a lot better than that!
Actually, the character generation system from the middle Ultima games provided some of the best ethical decision-making found in games. A gypsy presented you with a moral quandary on tarot-like cards. Your answers determined which of the virtues you most favored, which then determined your character class. For example, one situation had you sworn to protect your lord at any cost, yet you've seen him commit a crime. You must choose between upholding your oath (honor), or reporting the crime to the authorities (justice). Another choice states that you see a soldier desert his post and attempt to flee, only to become attacked by multiple enemies. Do you risk your life to save him?
These are interesting, thought-provoking decisions. These are opportunities to explore game possibilities beyond how many inventive ways you can kill a zombie.
Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines offered a smattering of similar situations presented as actual in-game decisions, with some options limited by your skill levels. Even better, by casting you as a monster in a world with a moral palette made only of shades of (dark) gray, it also managed to take some actions that would be reprehensible in other games (let alone real life) and present them as reasonable options.
Galactic Civilizations II actually makes it a little tough sometimes. There are sometimes tough consequences for taking the moral high ground, and the benefits from being "good" aren't clearly the fast-track to winning the game. But the consequences of the decisions do get abstracted out into little more than a few modifiers. There's no "memory" of specific deeds to follow you around.
But these are fun concepts. I would like to see more done in this area, especially in RPGs.
- I would like to see more ethical decisions that go beyond just being "good" or "evil." Really tough decisions that don't need to be earth-shattering. Game designers who are stumped as to how to do this should really get out to a city council meeting or something for research.
- I want consequences for said decisions that are believable, provoke thought, and actually have an effect on the game, and are not delayed until the ending sequence.
- I would love variation and shading on endings that include direct and indirect consequences of the players' actions. Fallout players know what I'm talking about. So do you folks who have played through Cute Knight a few times and seen some of the variations on the gajillion or so endings.
We need this stuff, and not just for videogames to be considered a more "serious" medium. Am I the only one who thinks exploring these kinds of situations is fun and compelling?
Labels: Game Design
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 7:30 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Another thing that's bothersome about the one-dimensional good/evil slide, is that if you commit one utterly evil act, you can easily offset that cost by performing middling good acts repeatedly.
So you can kill kings and bishops and steal their unique artifact weapons, then eat apples and drive the old ladies to the bingo games, and WHAMMO! No more evil, and you're free to take the benefits of the good path (no matter how shallow and rare it may be).
You're not banned from the Church or stripped of Paladinhood or otherwise permanently outted from anything.
So you can kill kings and bishops and steal their unique artifact weapons, then eat apples and drive the old ladies to the bingo games, and WHAMMO! No more evil, and you're free to take the benefits of the good path (no matter how shallow and rare it may be).
You're not banned from the Church or stripped of Paladinhood or otherwise permanently outted from anything.
I was annoyed by Knights of the Old Republic in that respect. On my first playthrough, I tried to be the good little Jedi Knight. But when I started checking out the dark side of things on my second playthrough, it always seemed to come down to me being a complete dick, and Carth telling me to stop being a dick. Not exactly subtle.
I do enjoy it, though, when a game simply tells me at the end the consequences of my actions throughout the game, such as in SpiderWeb's Avernum.
I do enjoy it, though, when a game simply tells me at the end the consequences of my actions throughout the game, such as in SpiderWeb's Avernum.
# posted by 
: December 05, 2008 11:20 AM
: December 05, 2008 11:20 AM
Yeah, I think that was why gamers were annoyed at Bioshock. "Hey, I saved MOST of the Little Sisters - that should totally have made up for me harvesting a few at the beginning." Players have that expectation nowadays that a few good deeds will make up for the bad ones.
Or something.
At least Fable 2 has the whole "needs of the many / needs of the few" thing at the end. But I'd much rather see a lot more open-ended, non-cut-and-dried dilemmas. Good story-type decisions, even if from a gameplay perspective they aren't quite as interesting.
Or something.
At least Fable 2 has the whole "needs of the many / needs of the few" thing at the end. But I'd much rather see a lot more open-ended, non-cut-and-dried dilemmas. Good story-type decisions, even if from a gameplay perspective they aren't quite as interesting.
My wife was turned off from playing Mass Effect when she realized how strongly it rewarded picking a side.
Following either the Paragon or Renegade path exclusively unlocks rewards, in the form of a higher max skill in Charm/Intimidate, which can then be used to resolve some situations more easily.
She wanted to respond to the game's choices as she herself would have, without knowing that it would hurt her.
Following either the Paragon or Renegade path exclusively unlocks rewards, in the form of a higher max skill in Charm/Intimidate, which can then be used to resolve some situations more easily.
She wanted to respond to the game's choices as she herself would have, without knowing that it would hurt her.
I'd be happy with consequences that simply matched your actions. For example: eating celery makes you skinny. But eating celery makes you good? That's ridiculous! Maybe the local organic granola vendor might see vegetarians as better people, but what about Rancher Bob?
The PS2 game "Shin Megami Tensei Nocturne", by the same developers as Persona 3 (and with an even stranger setting IMHO), has six possible endings depending on your choices through the game. Where it's interesting is that none of the choices are absolute good/evil choices.
Basically it takes place right after the end of the world, with diverse supernatural factions competing for the right to decide how the next world should be. So depending on what you do you'll adopt one of three "philosophies" that dictates what the world should be (there's the "might makes right" guys, and those who think everybody should be entitled to their own little world and so on) or pursue one of three other paths that allow you to try and break the very rules of this strange afterlife.
So the intriguing thing is that choices can seem good or evil depending on your point of view (though the SMT series does have a bias towards neutrality or balance). It's pretty interesting stuff.
Basically it takes place right after the end of the world, with diverse supernatural factions competing for the right to decide how the next world should be. So depending on what you do you'll adopt one of three "philosophies" that dictates what the world should be (there's the "might makes right" guys, and those who think everybody should be entitled to their own little world and so on) or pursue one of three other paths that allow you to try and break the very rules of this strange afterlife.
So the intriguing thing is that choices can seem good or evil depending on your point of view (though the SMT series does have a bias towards neutrality or balance). It's pretty interesting stuff.
# posted by : December 05, 2008 4:38 PM
: December 05, 2008 4:38 PM
You should try out The Witcher. It doesn't really have a good, neutral and evil ending. It just shows you how everything has turned out because of your decisions. Most of these aren't even easily recognizable of being good or evil, it's more up to yourself what you think would be the best choice in each and every situation. It's shades of gray as well where you rather choose between to evils than just plain good and evil. Your actions have a big influence in the world and often the results are not as you would expected them to be. It's really an interesting game when it comes to moral choices.
Hmm,... I don't see how not stealing or murdering makes you a "self-sacrificing saint." In RL, just committing ONE murder pretty well determines your 'alignment,' don't you think? Just a little bit evil? I don't think so.
Of course, you may not agree with the ethical values in a game, but so what? I'm not a vegetarian, but I can see how some people would consider that an ethical decision. And I do enjoy games where no decision may be morally pure. "The Witcher" is a great example of that.
But I also like clear depictions of right and wrong. Most of our RL decisions aren't that morally gray. We may disagree about some things, but murder and theft are universally considered to be wrong (at least within your own society). That's not just personal preference.
Finally, I almost never finish a game, so I don't really care about multiple endings. What I REALLY want are definite consequences for my actions. If I help a city clear up its bandit problem, I want to SEE the changes in the city when I return (and vice versa, of course). I want to SEE how my actions have made a difference.
And I want the consequences to be reasonable, too. In general, being "evil" may bring short-term benefits, but there are usually long-term disadvantages. I like to see that in a game. If evil is just an option with no consequences (or worse, with an actual bonus), that's too artificial for me, in most cases. We are social animals, and to live together effectively requires certain standard behaviors. In general, criminals DON'T prosper.
Of course, you may not agree with the ethical values in a game, but so what? I'm not a vegetarian, but I can see how some people would consider that an ethical decision. And I do enjoy games where no decision may be morally pure. "The Witcher" is a great example of that.
But I also like clear depictions of right and wrong. Most of our RL decisions aren't that morally gray. We may disagree about some things, but murder and theft are universally considered to be wrong (at least within your own society). That's not just personal preference.
Finally, I almost never finish a game, so I don't really care about multiple endings. What I REALLY want are definite consequences for my actions. If I help a city clear up its bandit problem, I want to SEE the changes in the city when I return (and vice versa, of course). I want to SEE how my actions have made a difference.
And I want the consequences to be reasonable, too. In general, being "evil" may bring short-term benefits, but there are usually long-term disadvantages. I like to see that in a game. If evil is just an option with no consequences (or worse, with an actual bonus), that's too artificial for me, in most cases. We are social animals, and to live together effectively requires certain standard behaviors. In general, criminals DON'T prosper.
Well, many RPGs choose medieval fantasy settings, technically based on time periods during which people lived and died by the sword. That kind of setting justifies why a murderer could still be considered a hero and a knight who hasn't slain a man a noteworthy exception. Different context, different values.
# posted by : December 06, 2008 1:05 PM
: December 06, 2008 1:05 PM
Great post! I'm actually sitting down to prep for a D&D game tomorrow night (and the first procrastinating step is always of course to hit the blogs :D ), and the whole 'gray decisions' thing really helps! In fact I'm outright stealing the whole "will you defend the deserter" scenario. Thanks.
Um, as far as contributing to the discussion... the only thing that comes to mind is Quest for Glory 2, where they literally have the "gave coins to the beggar" thing, and it is actually celebrated at the end if you do it. So yeah I agree.
Um, as far as contributing to the discussion... the only thing that comes to mind is Quest for Glory 2, where they literally have the "gave coins to the beggar" thing, and it is actually celebrated at the end if you do it. So yeah I agree.
# posted by : December 06, 2008 4:49 PM
: December 06, 2008 4:49 PM
Part of this lack of grey decisions or only-evil decisions is that, if typical people are like me, such games wouldn't sell well. I mean, who wants to have to pick between two bad things? I don't mind a game where it lets me be anything from saintly to satanic, but I don't want one that forces me to pick between shifty and satanic.
Making lesser-of-two-evils decisions is not fun.
(It would, however, be nice to have more than just the "saint", "satan", and "stupid" choices that pass for "good", "evil", and "neutral". I'm just saying, I want the chance to be good if I want.)
Making lesser-of-two-evils decisions is not fun.
(It would, however, be nice to have more than just the "saint", "satan", and "stupid" choices that pass for "good", "evil", and "neutral". I'm just saying, I want the chance to be good if I want.)
(Sorry for the double post, but I just thought of something that in my delusion I consider important.)
The problem isn't that we can pick between good, evil, and neutral. It's that there's nothing in between. The people praising The Witcher are, as far as I can tell, missing this. From what I understand, The Witcher removes good and neutral decisions and replaces them with more bad ones. (I may be exaggerating, but that's what it sounds like people are saying.) This does not solve the problem. It makes it worse. Now we're stuck in one alignment instead of two or three.
The best thing would be a wider selection of choices: several that are obviously evil, some that avoid the conflict altogether, others that are straight-up goodness, and a few that have no apparent moral value whatsoever. I don't think these are missing due to lack of imagination or failure to acknowledge the silliness of one-dimensional choices. I think they're missing because they're just plain harder to do. You have to program more, write more, and spend a bunch of time thinking up choices and integrating their consequences with all the other possibilities that it's just not worth the time.
Most of the players are just gonna pick nazi or noble anyway.
The problem isn't that we can pick between good, evil, and neutral. It's that there's nothing in between. The people praising The Witcher are, as far as I can tell, missing this. From what I understand, The Witcher removes good and neutral decisions and replaces them with more bad ones. (I may be exaggerating, but that's what it sounds like people are saying.) This does not solve the problem. It makes it worse. Now we're stuck in one alignment instead of two or three.
The best thing would be a wider selection of choices: several that are obviously evil, some that avoid the conflict altogether, others that are straight-up goodness, and a few that have no apparent moral value whatsoever. I don't think these are missing due to lack of imagination or failure to acknowledge the silliness of one-dimensional choices. I think they're missing because they're just plain harder to do. You have to program more, write more, and spend a bunch of time thinking up choices and integrating their consequences with all the other possibilities that it's just not worth the time.
Most of the players are just gonna pick nazi or noble anyway.
Yo'el, I think you've got the wrong idea about "The Witcher." It's not that your character must be evil, but that the whole world is morally ambiguous - at best. Despite your best efforts to help (and I always try to play the hero in these games), your decisions end up helping people who are morally flawed and hurting people who aren't much, if any, worse, simply because neither side is pure.
It's a bit frustrating for anyone who wants to do good, but it's kind of neat, too. This is a dark world, and no one is a saint. You can try to do your best, but the consequences are never completely good. I wouldn't want all games to be like this, but it's actually quite innovative. I definitely recommend the game.
And Chevluh, I think that murder was considered wrong even in the Dark Ages, so it's doubtful that heroes would be murdering people even then. Of course, the definition of "murder" was probably different back then (not including such things as burning suspected witches at the stake or executing prisoners of war, for example). But killing people is not necessarily murder, even today.
It's a bit frustrating for anyone who wants to do good, but it's kind of neat, too. This is a dark world, and no one is a saint. You can try to do your best, but the consequences are never completely good. I wouldn't want all games to be like this, but it's actually quite innovative. I definitely recommend the game.
And Chevluh, I think that murder was considered wrong even in the Dark Ages, so it's doubtful that heroes would be murdering people even then. Of course, the definition of "murder" was probably different back then (not including such things as burning suspected witches at the stake or executing prisoners of war, for example). But killing people is not necessarily murder, even today.
And that's why I like those Mercenary/Rogue kind of characters in Games! They are notoriously evil and seem to be only interested in their own good but in the end they saved the planet (or did something else great that is beyond most peoples ability). They had to do nasty things in between but deep inside they are indeed good guys. Just like the characters from Hired Guns.
That's also why I like Canderous in SWKotOR. He's evil but he helps a team that does a good deed (in case of the light side). But I agree that SWKotOR is very limited in this matter.
FallOut 3 has 300000 decisions about being good or bad but in the end it gives you are moral lesson if you done bad things. That's why I prefer Oblivion and it's excellent Dark Brotherhood and Thief Guild quests! They are shady, twisted and there is often only a thin line between good and evil.
That's also why I like Canderous in SWKotOR. He's evil but he helps a team that does a good deed (in case of the light side). But I agree that SWKotOR is very limited in this matter.
FallOut 3 has 300000 decisions about being good or bad but in the end it gives you are moral lesson if you done bad things. That's why I prefer Oblivion and it's excellent Dark Brotherhood and Thief Guild quests! They are shady, twisted and there is often only a thin line between good and evil.
Bill Garthright said:
In general, criminals DON'T prosper.
I don't really believe that. Most criminals just aren't very good at being criminals. They are failures at living an honest life because of lacking discipline, competence or ability to adapt to society.
There are also successful criminals. Heck, we've had a couple of court cases where high-profile "respectable members of society" were found guilty of a large number of crimes. The punishement was often negligible, short prison sentences (paroled) and monetary fees they can easily pay, being successful businessmen. In some cases, these fees were smaller than the monetary gain of the crime they committed.
And they are STILL considered respectable people. There is an infamous picture of a judge shaking the hand of the guy he just convicted and bowing.
I know a staggering number of statesmen who are convicted criminals. Unrepentant, too.
Let's not even talk about the still current US government.
In general, criminals DON'T prosper.
I don't really believe that. Most criminals just aren't very good at being criminals. They are failures at living an honest life because of lacking discipline, competence or ability to adapt to society.
There are also successful criminals. Heck, we've had a couple of court cases where high-profile "respectable members of society" were found guilty of a large number of crimes. The punishement was often negligible, short prison sentences (paroled) and monetary fees they can easily pay, being successful businessmen. In some cases, these fees were smaller than the monetary gain of the crime they committed.
And they are STILL considered respectable people. There is an infamous picture of a judge shaking the hand of the guy he just convicted and bowing.
I know a staggering number of statesmen who are convicted criminals. Unrepentant, too.
Let's not even talk about the still current US government.
# posted by : December 07, 2008 6:19 AM
: December 07, 2008 6:19 AM
Sure, some criminals prosper. That's why I said "in general." Leaving aside politics (Do you really know a 'staggering' number of CONVICTED criminals who are still in office?), do you actually think that criminal behavior makes sense? (For one thing, that would seem to imply that our prisons, already packed with people, are still missing most criminals.)
In most cases, it's incredibly stupid - risking so much for so little. You're right that most criminals aren't very good at it, but there's more to it than that. By almost any standard, you'd be much better off to avoid criminal behavior. Let's face it, criminal geniuses are common fictional characters, but in real life? Those who get to the top in the criminal world are likely just lucky, at least for awhile. If you're really that smart, you wouldn't need crime to get ahead, and you'd be smart enough to avoid it (even if you weren't ethical enough).
But I guess this is getting a bit off-topic, huh? Sorry.
In most cases, it's incredibly stupid - risking so much for so little. You're right that most criminals aren't very good at it, but there's more to it than that. By almost any standard, you'd be much better off to avoid criminal behavior. Let's face it, criminal geniuses are common fictional characters, but in real life? Those who get to the top in the criminal world are likely just lucky, at least for awhile. If you're really that smart, you wouldn't need crime to get ahead, and you'd be smart enough to avoid it (even if you weren't ethical enough).
But I guess this is getting a bit off-topic, huh? Sorry.
I am afraid I have my own, potentially Ayn Rand-inspired, view of criminal law in the United States - we are basically so hedged about by laws that everybody's guilty of SOME infraction. But that's a commentary on government, not morality. The two very rarely mix... :)
But yeah, off-topic.
"Lesser of two evils" decisions can be rough, but definitely more involving - and they could also be turned around to be the "greater of two goods" dilemmas. Again, the Ultima examples come to mind - you could view them as which ones are the greater good, and that is more a reflection of your own value system than a black-and-white morality.
That is far more interesting to me than, "Be nice / be a jerk / be apathetic" responses.But that's what we seem to be stuck with most of the time.
But yeah, off-topic.
"Lesser of two evils" decisions can be rough, but definitely more involving - and they could also be turned around to be the "greater of two goods" dilemmas. Again, the Ultima examples come to mind - you could view them as which ones are the greater good, and that is more a reflection of your own value system than a black-and-white morality.
That is far more interesting to me than, "Be nice / be a jerk / be apathetic" responses.But that's what we seem to be stuck with most of the time.
Since there's been some Witcher discussion without a concrete example, I'm going to try and provide two quick ones without too many spoilers:
In the prologue, you're given a choice between fighting a big monster that's being used in an attack on your faction's home, and leaving it to your companions while you chase after the bad guys using the attack as cover to steal something. If you choose to go after the monster, you'll get components from its corpse that can be used to make a unique potion that will give you a permanent buff, but some later fights in the game will be harder because without you (the main hero) going after the bad guys they had time to grab more of the stuff they needed, advancing the timeline of their plan.
Near the end of Chapter 1, you find yourself in the position of defending someone from a mob. They blame her for various ills to have befallen their community and their religious leader is at the head of the mob shouting for blood. The potential scapegoat, it turns out, acted as an enabler for at least some of the evil acts, but they contend that they've simply offered the services the community has demanded, and any and all evil that's stemmed from how her products or services are used derives from the evil intent of the community. You have the options of siding with the mob and attacking the person, defending the person against the mob, or saying "you're all a bunch of scumbags" and leaving them to deal with each other.
It's actually a bit richer and more complex than I've made it sound, but I want to avoid spoilers. Suffice to say that there are no easy answers here.
In the prologue, you're given a choice between fighting a big monster that's being used in an attack on your faction's home, and leaving it to your companions while you chase after the bad guys using the attack as cover to steal something. If you choose to go after the monster, you'll get components from its corpse that can be used to make a unique potion that will give you a permanent buff, but some later fights in the game will be harder because without you (the main hero) going after the bad guys they had time to grab more of the stuff they needed, advancing the timeline of their plan.
Near the end of Chapter 1, you find yourself in the position of defending someone from a mob. They blame her for various ills to have befallen their community and their religious leader is at the head of the mob shouting for blood. The potential scapegoat, it turns out, acted as an enabler for at least some of the evil acts, but they contend that they've simply offered the services the community has demanded, and any and all evil that's stemmed from how her products or services are used derives from the evil intent of the community. You have the options of siding with the mob and attacking the person, defending the person against the mob, or saying "you're all a bunch of scumbags" and leaving them to deal with each other.
It's actually a bit richer and more complex than I've made it sound, but I want to avoid spoilers. Suffice to say that there are no easy answers here.
# posted by : December 07, 2008 2:56 PM
: December 07, 2008 2:56 PM
The Witcher was okay, in some ways. It sometimes led you really into a coin-toss decision though.
Also, I was annoyed that you simply couldn't convince some people (despite being their friends or whatever) to ever do things a bit less extreme.
In any case, I found there were some one-off quests in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 which were more morally complex then "evil" and "good", although yes, many could be considered as such. One odd example was a quest which could end one of two ways: you had to find a murderer of a party members sister - if you tell the party member to kill the prime suspect, it will be someone else, and if you tell him to let the suspect go, it was him after all.
I'm all for more decisions that are like "best of two bad decisions" or "choosing one of two good decisions", and everything in between. Being able to uphold a good moral character can be much harder then being "just good" as games usually portray it.
Also, I was annoyed that you simply couldn't convince some people (despite being their friends or whatever) to ever do things a bit less extreme.
In any case, I found there were some one-off quests in Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 which were more morally complex then "evil" and "good", although yes, many could be considered as such. One odd example was a quest which could end one of two ways: you had to find a murderer of a party members sister - if you tell the party member to kill the prime suspect, it will be someone else, and if you tell him to let the suspect go, it was him after all.
I'm all for more decisions that are like "best of two bad decisions" or "choosing one of two good decisions", and everything in between. Being able to uphold a good moral character can be much harder then being "just good" as games usually portray it.
My favorite continues to be Planescape: Torment for its philosophical introspection and moral dilemmas. I do not recall any truly good or truly evil paths in that game in fact almost everything was some shade of gray. It did use the much overused amnesia concept to reveal that your character was a real evil guy in at least one or more past lives and if you hoped to be good in this life then good luck trying make amends. I can only hope that some enterprising developer will design a game with as quality experience as that was.
# posted by : December 07, 2008 5:55 PM
: December 07, 2008 5:55 PM
If I weren't so slow at working on CKK I'd have more to say about it, but I'll ramble anyway.
If you take it as a given that eating meat is wrong, then surely doing more of it makes you more sinful, but it's ridiculous (IMO) to think that any amount of eating meat makes you as sinful as someone who kills small children to harvest their essence.
You should never be able to reach the Sith Lord Facial Tattoo level of evil merely by performing petty crimes, even if you perform an awful lot of them. On the other hand, someone who is constantly stealing small amounts of stuff is clearly 'worse' than someone who only did it once in a pinch.
So I'm having to categories different types of 'sinful' actions and keep track of them individually.
Needless to say, redeeming yourself from sin is going to be quite tricky. Apples do not make up for murder no matter how many you eat.
If you take it as a given that eating meat is wrong, then surely doing more of it makes you more sinful, but it's ridiculous (IMO) to think that any amount of eating meat makes you as sinful as someone who kills small children to harvest their essence.
You should never be able to reach the Sith Lord Facial Tattoo level of evil merely by performing petty crimes, even if you perform an awful lot of them. On the other hand, someone who is constantly stealing small amounts of stuff is clearly 'worse' than someone who only did it once in a pinch.
So I'm having to categories different types of 'sinful' actions and keep track of them individually.
Needless to say, redeeming yourself from sin is going to be quite tricky. Apples do not make up for murder no matter how many you eat.
"if you tell the party member to kill the prime suspect, it will be someone else, and if you tell him to let the suspect go, it was him after all."
I remember that quest in Baldur's Gate. I remember thinking that wasn't any kind of moral dilemma but more like stupid gotcha-playing by the designers and annoying. I still think that. It was an awesome game though, but that particular little "technique" is something I would NEVER do to players were I a designer.
I remember that quest in Baldur's Gate. I remember thinking that wasn't any kind of moral dilemma but more like stupid gotcha-playing by the designers and annoying. I still think that. It was an awesome game though, but that particular little "technique" is something I would NEVER do to players were I a designer.
# posted by : December 08, 2008 10:04 AM
: December 08, 2008 10:04 AM
[This is weird, I posted this yesterday but it hasn't come up yet. Oh well.]
+1 for The Witcher and Planescape: Torment for me as well.
+1 for The Witcher and Planescape: Torment for me as well.
Hope no one minds a really belated comment on this link, but I can't believe no one's mentioned the JRPG Suikoden series (PS/PS2). Especially early in the series, you really do get genuine moral choices. It's been less so in recent installments, with the notable exception of the fifth game, but it's one of those series that should be played in order for best effect anyway (if you want to enjoy all the references, in-jokes, etc.) The first two games may be dated and badly-translated, but they sound like exactly what this post is calling for.
On a somewhat simpler level, there's also Ar tonelico 1 (PS2). I can't say much about this one because it would be a spoiler; the game starts lighthearted and frivolous, so by the time you get a serious moral choice it blindsides you, which IMO is what makes it effective (it's fairly simple, but it's a sudden leap in a game that has deliberately led you to think it has nothing much to say). Sadly, the second game didn't really have any comparably heavy choice, which was kind of a disappointment to me.
(Going back to my little indie-cult-phenomenon hole now.)
Post a Comment
On a somewhat simpler level, there's also Ar tonelico 1 (PS2). I can't say much about this one because it would be a spoiler; the game starts lighthearted and frivolous, so by the time you get a serious moral choice it blindsides you, which IMO is what makes it effective (it's fairly simple, but it's a sudden leap in a game that has deliberately led you to think it has nothing much to say). Sadly, the second game didn't really have any comparably heavy choice, which was kind of a disappointment to me.
(Going back to my little indie-cult-phenomenon hole now.)
Links to this post:
<< Home
