Good vs Evil

[PsychoBlonde]

Although people miraculously rewarding you for altruism shouldn't happen, either. Just once I'd like to see that farmer you altruistically go help with his cows or whatever not reward you and then turn into a lazy twerp constantly demanding assistance with mind-numbing chores every time you pass by.

 

Yeah to a large degree all you should get for good actions is warm fuzzies. Just like in real life.

 

I said "altruistic" not "good". The two are not synonyms. Nor would I get "warm fuzzies" for helping ingrates. However, if you like to fuzzy yourself, have at it.

[jezz555]

Some people just want to see the world burn. There is nothing flawed or shallow about this archetype, just how it's written.

 

...in batman...a movie. Real life is a different story.

 

Oh, well in that case you're absolutely right since project eternity is real li... oh wait.

 

yeah wtf is realism?

[Dream]

Some people just want to see the world burn. There is nothing flawed or shallow about this archetype, just how it's written.

 

...in batman...a movie. Real life is a different story.

 

Oh, well in that case you're absolutely right since project eternity is real li... oh wait.

 

yeah wtf is realism?

 

Batman sure as **** was about 100 times more realistic than the IE games.

[Bos_hybrid]

Extreemly rare. I would be hard pressed to think any real world examples.Most people of this archetype are mentaly unstable or even outright crazy. They tent to end in asylums and not in leadership positions to threaten the world

 

 

 

There are plenty, see Al-Qaeda.

 

Also I would like to point out that the introduction of magic, changes things drastically. An extremely powerful insane mage, would by mighty threatening to the world at large.

 

New Vegas forces you to be a hero???

 

New Vegas isn't grey, it has a wide spectrum of colour. Yes it gives you grey choices, but also lots of 'good/evil' choices. That's the way it should be, however it did lack a companion character of conflicting viewpoints of the crop that were made.

 

The whole point of "gray" is to make actions have consequences which are not necessarily "good" or "evil" - at least not for everyone involved. You make a choice which will affect the storyline in some fashion - perhaps the way you intended, but perhaps there will be unexpected (and unwelcome) secondary results.

 

Which is bland and uninteresting. If every choice is of the same tone with a shuffle of words,actions and every choice has unforeseen consequences the impact of those expected/unexpected consequences are lessened.

 

Having those in compliment to evil/good choices, keeps things interesting and unique. You also avoid the 'this as to be this way because the world is grey', rather than it's this way because it's unique or interesting.

 

The game can present the player with a moral dilemma - do you burn down a village to stop the spread of a plague that would otherwise kill a huge number of people? Do you release the prisoner you found in the dungeon, even if you know he intends to go on an elf-killing massacre?

 

There is no moral dilemma in those choices. They aren't interesting or unique or quality. They are the standard uninteresting 'grey' example that produces even less thought than extort/do it for free choices.

 

Unless of course the writers go unnecessarily out of the way, to try a put a good reason in front of the player on why to do the opposite. Beating the player over the head with 'grey'.

 

Choices are absolutely not irrelevant - in fact, they become much more interesting when you know they will have both "good" and "evil" results - instead of just gibing you a +1 or -1 on an imaginary "alignment" scale.

 

Please point out where an alignment metre has been suggested. You can't because in hasn't been suggested. Try again.

 

What people want is a grey, evil and good choices. Not everything grey and not everything black and white.

 

...in batman...a movie. Real life is a different story.

 

P:E is a real life medieval simulator? Awesome, so no female adventures/leaders. There are no mages, paladins or ciphers. Druids are deviants that practice ritual sacrifice with no magical ability because magic doesn't exist. People don't bathe, disease is everywhere, few NPCs over 40, witch burnings are a regular family event.

[clippedwolf]

So, I've been playing SWTOR a bit lately. There are two quests that really bothered me in how the writers decided what was good and evil. Spoilers ahead.

One of them is a quest where a group of Republic soldiers go AWOL. The lightside choice is to let them sneak away from the fighting and not report it; the darkside choice is to tell them it is not fair to let someone else die for your place.

The second is in the sith warrior's story, on of the lighside choices is to not murder someone because "I follow the light". Instead you force a Jedi to break his own moral code and murder them for you. The darkside choice is to murder them with your own blade, sparing the Jedi the moral dilemma.

 

Perhaps this is an inherent flaw with a two value "good" and "evil", however morally judging something as good or evil is human and shouldn't be discarded. There could be conflict in personal morals and ethics.

One of the coolest villains in a game had to destroy a large bit of land, killing all of its inhabitants, in order to safeguard the future of the rest of the world in a far off but inevitable armageddon The heroes protect their friends and families when they defeat him, but in the end did they doom other people's futures?

 

It is fun, however, to have the moral issue boiled down to simplicity. "Should I kick the puppy, or not kick the puppy?" Sometimes that way of playing is just pure, simple fun.

 

It's late and I'm probably rambling, but there it is...

[SGray]

In games, when grey mortality is decided upon, everyone/thing becomes grey. The players is beat over the head with this fact and most choices are rendered irrelevant or just not given.

Eh, no....absolutely not.

...

The game can present the player with a moral dilemma - do you burn down a village to stop the spread of a plague that would otherwise kill a huge number of people?

Very bad example. Kill that 100 or kill that 1000, no half-options or any options at all. That's why pursuit for greyness is bad without really big work spent on it, and even then it often feels bad if limiting somehow. Why not to harshly quarantine the village and burn half of it? Risking lives of guards enforcing the quarantine, and taking chance of someone to escape and spread the plague to another village if quarantine is not rigid enough? Laying deathtraps (fireballs or bear traps) on paths near the village?

 

I thnk we can all agree that the perception of concepts like good and evil are subjective and relative. That being said I would side with the people here who don't want the game to judge your decisions at all.

The people in game should judge you from their point of view. Not the game itself, neither the protagonist.

 

Are there some mysterious evil particles floating around my character? Will the cloak try to strangle me if I try to wear it?

Ehm, why not? (Casts "detect evil".) Especially the second one? Pretty much the usual behavior of evil artifacts. Not to mention souls involved.

Edited November 28, 2012 by SGray

[jezz555]

 

...in batman...a movie. Real life is a different story.

 

P:E is a real life medieval simulator? Awesome, so no female adventures/leaders. There are no mages, paladins or ciphers. Druids are deviants that practice ritual sacrifice with no magical ability because magic doesn't exist. People don't bathe, disease is everywhere, few NPCs over 40, witch burnings are a regular family event.

 

This is patently absurd. A Realistic fantasy setting is not the same thing as a "real life medieval simulator" you've simply taken my point to a bizarre extreme for a reason I cannot fathom. This is a fantasy setting in that magic and such exists, however as has been discussed time and again on this forum, a fantasy setting is far more relatable if grounded in things we experience in the real world. As should have been obvious by now, I'm not referring to realism as it applies to magic, psionics, druidic abilities or gender roles of the middle ages, I am referring exclusively to the concept of morality when I refer to real life. Which is not to say that realism in other areas of the game would be such a bad thing either.

 

For that matter however, my original statement was perhaps unfair to batman. At the core of the jokers character he wishes to set bare the hypocrisy of society in claiming the moral high ground and looking down on him for being a "freak". In a sense all of his actions have a good streak much like that of muckracking journalists who expose hidden evils in the corporate world.Like he says he's just "a dog chasing cars", not a villain just a source of anarchy. The way you view his actions depends on your perspective. Hell look at Bane in the third movie, he was a terrorist, which is certainly a pretty evil thing to be. But he also protects a little girl from crazed prisoners...OMG how could an evil guy do that? Wont he lose renegade points?

[FlintlockJazz]

The problem with straight up good and evil choices is that often that just means the devs could just put a 'good' and 'evil' option right at the beginning and then automatically pick the same one again and again for your character. Rather have the ability to choose what I consider to be the good choice and not try and force kids' after school special whacking you over the head of what we are 'supposed' to consider good or evil.

[FlintlockJazz]

I thnk we can all agree that the perception of concepts like good and evil are subjective and relative. That being said I would side with the people here who don't want the game to judge your decisions at all.

The people in game should judge you from their point of view. Not the game itself, neither the protagonist.

And should all these people in the game share the same point of view? No, in fact that's why we're getting faction reputation instead of alignment in this game, because one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Edited November 28, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[SGray]

And should all these people in the game share the same point of view? No, in fact that's why we're getting faction reputation instead of alignment in this game, because one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

I said - from their point of view not some universal ) In point of view I meant first of all - amount of information they could have about your deeds (not you're bad cause you've slaughtered hundred people on the other continent leaving no witnesses so I wont talk to you, and not you're good cause you saved kitten ten years ago in distant country so I'll give you a candy), and second - their personal motivations and morality.

Not sure if faction reputation only is the best solution also. One man's common known sadist, rapist, murderer of innocents, etc would be treated differently than "good" one most of the time, no matter if he is "ours" or "theirs".

 

I'd prefer "local" reputation with some modification by "global" rumors and differently informed people around (more or less aware of global information). And not single gauge of reputation also, at least, say like DnD: good/bad (not sure if altruistic/egoistic could fit) and lawful/troublemaker. With both sides of each not compensating themselves after certain extent, or some sort of deeds assigning permanent points.

Say you gain 10 points of "good" for saving dozens of kittens and gain another 10 points of "bad" for mercies and bloody spectacular murder of some girl in the middle of the street. Such deeds shouldn't be equal. At least if not some omniscient creature judging you. That thing could be done differently but it's possible to save all the numbers and take in account only those that current person could be aware of (local ones and high enough global ones). So local townsfolk could see you as really good and helping person that killed the girl ("Wtf?! prob he had reasons, mb she was witch, but I should be careful with him now"), but in nearest city you'll be known as the man that is killing some random girls.

Prob too complex to be ever implemented full scale, but it could be great.

Edited November 29, 2012 by SGray

[Barothmuk]

Just throwing this question to the air, why does everyone seem to prefer "gray" morality choices and keeps bringing up The Witcher as the shining example of it? Is it because they think that it's more mature and realistic?

When most people are a child they see the world in black and white terms.

 

They do 'good' actions because they have been told these are the socially acceptable 'good' actions and will presumably reap 'good rewards'. Bad actions are avoided because they have been told that these actions are bad and will presumably lead to negative results and/or punishments.

 

When you're a little older however you realize that things aren't as clear-cut as you were originally lead to believe.

 

You discover that in some instances some previously socially condemned action is (in your now thought out opinion) more moral then what is upheld as the 'right' course of action by others. You also discover things like what you consider morally wrong are actually embraced and seen as morally upright by others. Then there's other situations where an action that you may deem morally wrong actually wields a better net result/pay-off to the thing that you would deem 'morally right'. Which then makes you consider ideas such as: is it the action itself that determines the moral judgement of the action (deontology) or is it the consequences it brings (consequentialism).

 

Ultimately, what one should learn from these contemplations is that morality is subjective and what is morally good and morally evil differs from person to person, culture to culture, worldview to world view etc.

 

To bring it back to your original question "gray morality" in games (such as the Witcher) is valued because it doesn't take a child like approach to morality and instead forces the player to consider more complex adult moral themes (such as the aforementioned deontological ethics vs. consequentialist ethics) which as a result increases the intellectual enjoyment of the game, allows a variety of perspectives/roleplaying opportunities and finally it emulates the real "moral grayness" of real life.

 

Fortunately for us (or at least me) Obsidian excels at crafting morally grey stories.

 

New Vegas isn't grey, it has a wide spectrum of colour. Yes it gives you grey choices, but also lots of 'good/evil' choices. That's the way it should be, however it did lack a companion character of conflicting viewpoints of the crop that were made.

Could you provide an example of a New Vegas purely good/evil moral dilemma? Edited November 29, 2012 by Barothmuk

[melkathi]

Could you provide an example of a New Vegas purely good/evil moral dilemma?

 

I can't because I never see a "dilemma".

Obviously I will save the slaves from the Legion Outpost. Obviously I'll stop the cannibals. No dilemma for me anywhere

 

Besides, there can not be clear cut good/evil moral dilemmas. The dichotomy of good/evil is a thing of opposits and a moral dilemma requires the existence of morals. If one has morals, there is no dilemma. If one has no morals, it ceases being a moral choice.

A moral dilemma can only exist if there is a grey area that has to be morally navigated:

Though shall not kill - yet if I do not kill this person, they will kill someone else. A deadly sin, the damnation of my eternal soul weighed against the protection of another man's right to life.

On the other hand: one person paying you to save someone from canibals, while they pay you to let them keep eating people in secret. There is a question whether you believe it moraly wrong to eat people. Yes, then there is no choice to be made. No, then there is no moral part to your dilema.

 

Though you mostly already explained that far more eloquently

 

Now in the Witcher, there are dilemmas. Do you support the elves? Their cause is just. Their methods are questionable... but then again how else are they going to fight? Their leader is a complete bastard. Do you support the order? They are a bunch of racists. Their leader though is actually a good person.

What good are good rank and file if the head is rotten vs how bad can an organisation remain if the leadership seems well-meaning.

 

Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together:

Do you help commit a crime to frame your enemy and thus create the mass anger that will strengthen your rebellion and allow you to free your people? Or do you refuse to participate, knowing full well that you can't stop the events from happening?

 

Those are dilemmas, not just choices.

[Orogun01]

Since we have been talking about moral choices for while, anyone has any thoughts on implementation?

 

I always feels that choice in games feels artificial when its a choices rather than an action, I can't help when my brain presented with a multiple choice answer to an ethical situation goes into test taking mode and starts metagaming.

So that instead of actually pondering the situation I go for either the utilitarian approach or for immersive roleplaying. Either way I'm making a very logical choice instead of an emotional response.

[Barothmuk]

I can't because I never see a "dilemma".

Obviously I will save the slaves from the Legion Outpost. Obviously I'll stop the cannibals. No dilemma for me anywhere .

Are you saying that Caesar's Legion is a 'bad' faction and not a faction that is equally as legitimate as the alternative à la what the Witcher games present?

[melkathi]

Are you saying that Caesar's Legion is a 'bad' faction and not a faction that is equally as legitimate as the alternative à la what the Witcher games present?

 

Based on my moral compass? Indeed I do.

What New Vegas did right in my opinion is to not create a clear cut good faction. The NCR is rather grey. But if the choice is to aid the NCR, Mr. House, go it on my own or assist Caesar's Legion, then I am faced with three grey choices and no fourth.

[Barothmuk]

Are you saying that Caesar's Legion is a 'bad' faction and not a faction that is equally as legitimate as the alternative à la what the Witcher games present?

 

Based on my moral compass? Indeed I do.

What New Vegas did right in my opinion is to not create a clear cut good faction. The NCR is rather grey. But if the choice is to aid the NCR, Mr. House, go it on my own or assist Caesar's Legion, then I am faced with three grey choices and no fourth.

Well of course there's going to be choices that you yourself deem "morally wrong" (I myself found most of the 'paragon' options in the Mass Effect series to be morally abhorrent) however that does not stop them from falling into the category of "morally grey". To be morally grey all the choice/faction needs to have is legitimate, understandable goals and motivations. Now although you may not agree with the goals or motivations of Caesar's Legion that does not stop them from being a "grey" faction.

 

I myself actually sided with the Legion.

Edited November 29, 2012 by Barothmuk

[melkathi]

Well of course there's going to be choices that you yourself deem "morally wrong" (I myself found most of the 'paragon' options in the Mass Effect series to be morally abhorrent) however that does not stop them from falling into the category of "morally grey". To be morally grey all the choice/faction needs to have is legitimate, understandable goals and motivations. Now although you may not agree with the goals or motivations of Caesar's Legion that does not stop them from being a "grey" faction.

 

I myself actually sided with the Legion.

 

My point is though that for a choice to matter as a moral dilemma, then the person making the choice must not be choosing between adhering to their morals or not, but between the weight different aspects of their morals have.

Moral greyness is just as subjective as morality itself. And a choice does not need simply legitimacy and understandability: it needs moral legitimacy.

Over the top example: I want to be famous. Understandable and legitimate. So i) I spend my life fighting poverty ii) I go to some casting show or iii) I grab a gun and go on a killing spree: everybody knows me. That is not morally grey. Goal and motivation were legitimate and understandable, but they had no moral relevance. There were a good, neutral and evil choice, but no moral dilemma.

 

There are differences that you don't seem to look at. First is you use choice and dilemma interchangably. A choice can be moral without being a dilemma or morally grey. You choose to do an action based on morals or not.

The other thing is that you talk about goals, motivations, gains and pay-offs. But for these to affect the morality of the choice and make it grey, then the those goals and gains must be moral in nature.

 

Caesar's Legion butchers, enslaves and rapes anyone who is not part of the Legion (or happens to be of the wrong gender). If you put this on the moral scale, for there to be greyness, then there must be something on the other side to give a semblence of balance. To balance the means we need an end. What is the end? The murderers and slavers have murdered and enslaved everyone there was and are continuing the rape?

In Dragon Age, Loghain's act of allowing the enslavement of the elves is morally grey: a morally wrong action to reach the higher goal of defeating the blight.

Dragon Age 2, the choice to let a bloodmage live because he can assist you in finding the bloodmage you are hunting for, morally grey as you weigh the potential evil of the first mage against the known evil of the second.

The desecration of Andraste's ashes was not a moral dilemma. It was a faux-moral choice just to add another choice to the game. You could interpret a moral dilemma into findign the Ashes: a boost to moral during the dark days of the blight, but also strengthenign of the religious power of the Chantry which you may not see as a positive result. Then the dilemma though is: do I go discover the ashes or should I better leave them lost - if you did not want them found, why waste time finding them?

 

Arcanum, as great as the ending was, had no moral greyness in the choice to side with Kerghan.

 

Mass Effect choices (and I haven't played 3) where often simply silly: if I use the sniper rifle to shoot one of the attacking droids then I am a renegade but if I hand the rifle back to Garrus and then shoot the droids with my shotgun I am not?

 

Starcontrol 2 had the dilemma of allying with the Druuge or not. The Druuge require human sacrifice to power their furnaces. Can we fight the Khor-Ah without them or do we need their help to safe the species as a whole?

[forgottenlor]

Mass Effect choices (and I haven't played 3) where often simply silly: if I use the sniper rifle to shoot one of the attacking droids then I am a renegade but if I hand the rifle back to Garrus and then shoot the droids with my shotgun I am not?

 

I find this the problem with many alignment based games. It seems like the developers want some sort of result "it makes the character more chaotic." and tries to write a response to fit this. Choices you make should have logical consequences and you should be given multiple choices that are legitimate and understandable. The results should also be a realistic result of that choice. Whether choices make a character more "good" or "eviil" should be secondary.

[mcmanusaur]

Uh, which games are you playing, bro? Because the ones I've been playing always offer more material profit for evil alignment, and more intangible benefit (including that warm and fuzzy feeling inside) for good alignment...

[JFSOCC]

Just throwing this question to the air, why does everyone seem to prefer "gray" morality choices and keeps bringing up The Witcher as the shining example of it? Is it because they think that it's more mature and realistic?

I haven't played the witcher, but grey to me means unclear, mostly. opaque. Different people have different views on what it wrong or right, and I wont have a game dictate it's views to me. Besides the fact that the characterization decreases when you force someone to act within the confines of "neutral good" or "chaotic evil" is that people simply don't usually get confronted with choices that are so clear. If I give money to a beggar, I might to that because I think it's the right thing to do. Someone is in need and I'm helping him. Someone else might argue that giving money to a beggar will ultimately keep him dependent on donations and prevent the beggar from overcoming the predicament he finds himself in. Both arguments have some truth to it. So can you tell me, without a shadow of a doubt, which is the moral choice?

[Agelastos]

If I give money to a beggar, I might to that because I think it's the right thing to do. Someone is in need and I'm helping him. Someone else might argue that giving money to a beggar will ultimately keep him dependent on donations and prevent the beggar from overcoming the predicament he finds himself in. Both arguments have some truth to it. So can you tell me, without a shadow of a doubt, which is the moral choice?

 

*Nar Shaddaa flashbacks*

[Felithvian]

In most games( IE games and original Fallouts included) the "good" options awarded better than the evil ones.That doesn't make sense.Unless they are mentaly unstable psychopaths, in real life most people don't do ''evil'' deeds just for the kicks of it but for selfish reasons. They do it because being evil rewards better then do the good thing. This isn't an absolute case of course. But when it makes sense the evil option to gain you more than the good one(most of the time,after all what exactly is the "evil option" if not to put your personal gain above the good of others) it must reflected in the game.

I think it will lead to more interesting choices in the gameplay if the player has to sacrifise something (gold,information,...)to uphold his principles, as well as cases that there is no clear good or bad solution.

 

Galactic Civilizations II.

 

 

At random times throughout the game, though commonly in colonizing new planets, the player is presented with ethical choices in the form of events where a wide-ranging decision needs to be made. Typically the good choice will cost the player something (either directly or indirectly). Conversely, the evil choice can bring benefits, albeit at the expense of other civilizations or the player's own population. A neutral choice is also presented as a compromise.

[JFSOCC]

If I give money to a beggar, I might to that because I think it's the right thing to do. Someone is in need and I'm helping him. Someone else might argue that giving money to a beggar will ultimately keep him dependent on donations and prevent the beggar from overcoming the predicament he finds himself in. Both arguments have some truth to it. So can you tell me, without a shadow of a doubt, which is the moral choice?

 

*Nar Shaddaa flashbacks*

Kreia framed it slightly differently, but I knew that this would resonate with some of us

[Dream]

I can't because I never see a "dilemma".

Obviously I will save the slaves from the Legion Outpost. Obviously I'll stop the cannibals. No dilemma for me anywhere .

Are you saying that Caesar's Legion is a 'bad' faction and not a faction that is equally as legitimate as the alternative à la what the Witcher games present?

 

How the **** is not bad?