Morality as a game mechanic

I always thought of it as a rather cheap implementation of morality. Especially in SWTOR you have these cliche and shallow moral choices. Kill innocents/dont kill innocents. They increase/decrease your morality score, and you get certain things for good or bad morality.
I really don't see the "how far has morality come as a game mechanic in video games".
If the moral choices are better (than those in SWTOR) it can be good, but the little score (with item restrictions) is not what makes it good. It is the individual decisions that makes it good. If the score thingy was quite a bit better, then that might be a positive feature aswell.

I found morality to be of greater importance, for instance, in Ultima Online. Karma and Fame may not have had much of an impact with NPCs, but it surely influenced your relations with other players.

I like "the Witcher" solution.
There is no good or evil solution. Just the choice between the lesser evil!

Or in other words, someone lose either way.

Kotor Choices were funny because they were overdone! Like telling a bad guy its a good idea to protect orphans or playing factions against each other, thanks to your evil plane.

Deus Ex 2 was one system I really enjoyed. There was no good or evil, just your choice. You could swap your alliance at nearly any time. And there was always the third option! Example you have to retrieve a body. Done. Now the WTO call you and tell you to give them the body. You say no, of course. Now they threat you to kill your WTO mate if you don't come back and join them again. Ok, im coming! Betraying old faction, fight, taking body with me. But instead of giving the WTO the body, I free my mate.
The only reason I told them "im with you" was to get inside. I was not bound to finish the game as this faction.

So here is my solution.
Give the player the choice between the lesser evil, and offer them an unthinkable third way(like do it my way or the hard way)

So here is my solution.
Give the player the choice between the lesser evil, and offer them an unthinkable third way(like do it my way or the hard way)

Yes, I think this might be the best solution of all. After all, it is the same way in real life, one action might be good for some and evil for others, so it would be best for the game not to label your actions in some way, but let you play as you think its best, given your interests.

Bioware has traditionally had a very childlike view of morality, i.e. you're either good or you're bad. KOTOR 1 was awful for this to the point of hilarity although the Obsidian take on Bioware games (like KOTOR 2) tends to do the system at better. SWTOR suffers from this somewhat but I have found it is very dependent on the class you play (which I applaud by the way). A Sith Warrior and Bounty Hunter may both be "evil" but they are bother different kinds of evil, they may even cause similar situations to happen but will do it for very different reasons (the BH being money and the SW being bloodshed/power). It is true that some of the choices are very black and white but there are plenty I have found that are more complex.

The weakness of such systems tends to be how focused on morality the game becomes, everything is seen in black or white, good or bad, right or wrong because the player can be one or the other (not both) and, like you pointed out the blog, there is no benefit for staying "neutral". Simply allowing a neutral approach goes a long way to fix this I feel along with providing benefits for following that path (which tends to be shown as harder than leaning towards either good or bad in fiction).

The DnD universe has a very good alignment system from what I understand of it, if you allow it to be governed by the players actions. It allows player's to be more than one kind of evil, neutral or good allowing for a more "adult" approach to the whole thing.

Morality shouldn't be a game mechanic.
Game's should let the players be free to do what they want.. Having morality as a game mechanic is like having "carebear" players roleplay as evil "badasses".

True evil in it's rawest form is a so called griefer.. Most players hate and are disgusted by griefers because they are evil..
The more you grief the more your name becomes known as a griefer... aka a very evil player.

That's way better than any silly game mechanic where a kind and good hearted "carebear" can be known as an evil player when he really is not.

Morality shouldn't be a game mechanic.
Game's should let the players be free to do what they want.. Having morality as a game mechanic is like having "carebear" players roleplay as evil "badasses".

True evil in it's rawest form is a so called griefer.. Most players hate and are disgusted by griefers because they are evil..
The more you grief the more your name becomes known as a griefer... aka a very evil player.

That's way better than any silly game mechanic where a kind and good hearted "carebear" can be known as an evil player when he really is not.

I think it all depends how it is implemented. Providing a notoriety system that is merely a title, which could also indicate criminality to degree, isn't a bad thing. The characters actually have to earn negative notoriety by doing bad things, not just making "bad" choices that truly have no negative impact on the game.

I've recently been thinking about an RPG game in which there is no set storyline; it's just about your life. And you will die. If you're not killed by bandits or royal guards, you will get old. And then you will die. And so the game would be a sandbox one in which the player can go wherever, do whatever, become whomever, and try to make the most of their life.

In the player's life, they would be performing actions and making choices. And so I was thinking of adding a relationships mechanic; similar to a morality one. Certain actions would modify a player's relationship with an NPC or group of NPCs. For example: I help an old lady cross the street. That NPC then likes me. I kill a royal guard. The royal guards no longer like me and wish to attack me; the peasants like me because they dislike the royal guard; the royal guard's family doesn't like me for obvious reasons. And so on. The relationship you have with someone alters your interactions. Going back to the examples previous; the old lady owns a fruit store, and she now gives me discounts. The royal guards have swords, and they now try to kill me. Make sense?

So this is KIND OF a morality system; the choices made by the player affect those around them.

I've recently been thinking about an RPG game in which there is no set storyline; it's just about your life. And you will die. If you're not killed by bandits or royal guards, you will get old. And then you will die. And so the game would be a sandbox one in which the player can go wherever, do whatever, become whomever, and try to make the most of their life.

In the player's life, they would be performing actions and making choices. And so I was thinking of adding a relationships mechanic; similar to a morality one. Certain actions would modify a player's relationship with an NPC or group of NPCs. For example: I help an old lady cross the street. That NPC then likes me. I kill a royal guard. The royal guards no longer like me and wish to attack me; the peasants like me because they dislike the royal guard; the royal guard's family doesn't like me for obvious reasons. And so on. The relationship you have with someone alters your interactions. Going back to the examples previous; the old lady owns a fruit store, and she now gives me discounts. The royal guards have swords, and they now try to kill me. Make sense?

So this is KIND OF a morality system; the choices made by the player affect those around them.

Sounds good, Especially the no main storyline part.
I always found it so annoying playing a singleplayer rpg trying to be evil while the main storyline kind of forces me to be good.

I suppose the system I'm thinking of is simpler because it doesn't need to complement a storyline.

When there is a storyline, I don't think a morality system works. Often, the player is in the role of a world (or universe) saving hero, and to be 'evil' doesn't make sense at all.

With the storyline-less, sandbox, open-world game, the player has and should have freedom to do whatever, and so a morality system has a place.

I suppose the system I'm thinking of is simpler because it doesn't need to complement a storyline.

When there is a storyline, I don't think a morality system works. Often, the player is in the role of a world (or universe) saving hero, and to be 'evil' doesn't make sense at all.

With the storyline-less, sandbox, open-world game, the player has and should have freedom to do whatever, and so a morality system has a place.

If a game is going to include a morality system it has to be designed from the ground up to support it.

You can have a morality system in a game with a storyline, but you have to have multiple storylines to accommodate it. There's no essential conflict between them. Just because a player takes on the role of a person with the power to save the universe doesn't mean he can't choose to use that power to destroy it instead. That's the central theme of Star Wars, after all. If you're going to make a game like this, though, you have to write, at a minimum, two equally compelling story arcs.

Sandbox games can have stories and morality systems, too. They just have to be designed to support them. Morality systems shouldn't be 'tacked on' as extra dialogue options. They're not going to be convincing. Whether or not your game has a morality mechanic is just as important to decide beforehand as whether or not it will be in first or third person, or whether it's a 2d or 3d game. It's fundamental to the design.

I also agree that building a morality system around a story and not the other way around is the big mistake many modern games make.

Multiple story arcs will solve the problem to some degree, by limiting the decision power of the player. The player will have to make some decisions at key points during the story, and that is basically it. The decisions/actions done between them are just fillers with no important role in the story. A game in which this is pretty obvious is The Witcher 2: Assasins of Kings, in which there are four clear key points where the player has to make some decisions, which lead to 16 (4x4) possible endings, but they are not truly different endings as they are basically 4 endings mixed together in various ways to give 16 combinations. I guess because of the budget most of the key decision points were towards the end of the game (I think 3 of 4) so there is not a lot of "parallel" content that must be developed for the multiple story arcs.

I also think that sandbox like games are the ones that truly have the room for a robust morality system. Mount & Blade series comes into mind here. While not an AAA game and not truly a sandbox in which you can do whatever you want, the game offers a lot of "moral" choices in the actions the player takes against various lords of the land, making the player feel in control of their destiny. The players make their own stories in the game. I think if there would have been some kind of story generator like the one in Bastion (even only in written form), it would have added a lot to the already amazing game it is.

One problem is, there are just four arch types of character player strife for.

Innocent Hero:
This guy starts with nothing, is weak and tries to get stronger to save his princess or whatever.
In the end the weakling saves the day and we feel good about it. Truth is, we just love if the weak beats the strong one.

Grieving Anti-Hero:
This guy lost something dear (girlfriend or familiy most times) and now he gets back and punishs all evildoers.
It's noteable that this guy is "cool", unlike the innocent hero, has always a badass punchline, works mostly alone, lets his allies feel how useless they are and that he doesn't need them. Of course that allows him to do evil things, without being evil (see batman interrogating someone).
His character is one-sided, either he is funny or serious, and keeps this profile whatever happens. For a funny Antihero I give Bulletstorm as example.

Sadistic Evil:
This guy is mostly the main atagonist, a brilliant mind, who act as a madman. The thing that makes him special are two things, his plans, which seems crazy and turn out to have a punchline and his way to psychologic corner us, confronting us with our own "human" weaknesses, while he accepts his own weaknesses and does not bound himself to morality or goods like power and money. We try to understand him and he surprises us, he plays a game with us and we are trapped. Surprisingly very honest (does a lot of wordplays though) and shows openly his emotions. Heath Ledger Joker was one great masterpiece, the bank burglary plan, batman's choice to save one of both with swapped locations and the two ships with the bombs. Saw would be another example, but it's not my taste. The dark boss from Night Watch is good example too. The big main problem with this sadistic evil character is, that he's brilliant, means someone brilliant has to write a brilliant story book for him. Therefore Joker is the only good example the mainstream knows, while mostly this character only exist in books.

The silent One:
This protagonist does nearly say anything. He just watches, neither condeming actions as good or evil just strifing to stay alive and finishing his task. Metro 2033 and Bioshock ;). This offers the player to decide for himself and makes him think about event he saw, while he explores dark rooms lonly. Fights occur only from time to time, main point is the world around the player, he's just a small gear in a big machine.

Of course there are other types, like the undefeatable and honest superhero character, which is not that much liked, since he is kinda "boring". Cheers

I also think that sandbox like games are the ones that truly have the room for a robust morality system. Mount & Blade series comes into mind here. While not an AAA game and not truly a sandbox in which you can do whatever you want, the game offers a lot of "moral" choices in the actions the player takes against various lords of the land, making the player feel in control of their destiny. The players make their own stories in the game. I think if there would have been some kind of story generator like the one in Bastion (even only in written form), it would have added a lot to the already amazing game it is.

I think the crux of the morality issue is that there really isn't 'good' and 'evil'. One man's good is another's evil so games that only offer a 'good/neutral/evil' dialogue mechanic with alternate endings always feel cheap.

Morality is better implemented in open worlds because it allows you to engage in real morality: deciding which faction to support, how far you're willing to go to support them, etc. Then you don't even need a 'morality meter'. Your morality is evident in how far you are willing to go to advance your own aggenda, and the aggendas of any factions you support. NPCs then just need to react reasonably about your behavior. If you steal from someone, assault them, murder a family member, etc., they should consider you 'evil'. Your own faction may feel that your actions were justified and therefore good and support you. A robust faction mechanic and sensible AI will go a long way toward establishing organic morality in an open world.

If a game is going to include a morality system it has to be designed from the ground up to support it.

You can have a morality system in a game with a storyline, but you have to have multiple storylines to accommodate it. There's no essential conflict between them. Just because a player takes on the role of a person with the power to save the universe doesn't mean he can't choose to use that power to destroy it instead. That's the central theme of Star Wars, after all. If you're going to make a game like this, though, you have to write, at a minimum, two equally compelling story arcs.

Sandbox games can have stories and morality systems, too. They just have to be designed to support them. Morality systems shouldn't be 'tacked on' as extra dialogue options. They're not going to be convincing. Whether or not your game has a morality mechanic is just as important to decide beforehand as whether or not it will be in first or third person, or whether it's a 2d or 3d game. It's fundamental to the design.

The multiple story arcs is a great point. This points to what I really want to see in a game: stories generated by the game, not just 2 preset stories.

I think the crux of the morality issue is that there really isn't 'good' and 'evil'. One man's good is another's evil so games that only offer a 'good/neutral/evil' dialogue mechanic with alternate endings always feel cheap.

Morality is better implemented in open worlds because it allows you to engage in real morality: deciding which faction to support, how far you're willing to go to support them, etc. Then you don't even need a 'morality meter'. Your morality is evident in how far you are willing to go to advance your own aggenda, and the aggendas of any factions you support. NPCs then just need to react reasonably about your behavior. If you steal from someone, assault them, murder a family member, etc., they should consider you 'evil'. Your own faction may feel that your actions were justified and therefore good and support you. A robust faction mechanic and sensible AI will go a long way toward establishing organic morality in an open world.

Totally agree! But then the system isn't really a morality system. I think it improves on a 'morality' mechanic, though.
And it's agenda*

I think the crux of the morality issue is that there really isn't 'good' and 'evil'. One man's good is another's evil so games that only offer a 'good/neutral/evil' dialogue mechanic with alternate endings always feel cheap.

Is that not why designers feel they need a morality system in the first place? If you are somehow going to change the character dependent on their response (looking more evil if they do evil deeds etc etc) you have to make clear what is and what is not considered evil, since everyone will view it differently to some extent then it's up to the designer to dictate which is which. That is probably also the reason for such simplistic options appearing in a game, people tend to think killing an unarmed civilian is bad whereas giving them money is good. [Not saying it's good thing but that there may be a reason for it]

[quote name='truant' timestamp='1325458792' post='4898790']
If a game is going to include a morality system it has to be designed from the ground up to support it.

You can have a morality system in a game with a storyline, but you have to have multiple storylines to accommodate it. There's no essential conflict between them. Just because a player takes on the role of a person with the power to save the universe doesn't mean he can't choose to use that power to destroy it instead. That's the central theme of Star Wars, after all. If you're going to make a game like this, though, you have to write, at a minimum, two equally compelling story arcs.

Sandbox games can have stories and morality systems, too. They just have to be designed to support them. Morality systems shouldn't be 'tacked on' as extra dialogue options. They're not going to be convincing. Whether or not your game has a morality mechanic is just as important to decide beforehand as whether or not it will be in first or third person, or whether it's a 2d or 3d game. It's fundamental to the design.

The multiple story arcs is a great point. This points to what I really want to see in a game: stories generated by the game, not just 2 preset stories.

I think the crux of the morality issue is that there really isn't 'good' and 'evil'. One man's good is another's evil so games that only offer a 'good/neutral/evil' dialogue mechanic with alternate endings always feel cheap.

Morality is better implemented in open worlds because it allows you to engage in real morality: deciding which faction to support, how far you're willing to go to support them, etc. Then you don't even need a 'morality meter'. Your morality is evident in how far you are willing to go to advance your own aggenda, and the aggendas of any factions you support. NPCs then just need to react reasonably about your behavior. If you steal from someone, assault them, murder a family member, etc., they should consider you 'evil'. Your own faction may feel that your actions were justified and therefore good and support you. A robust faction mechanic and sensible AI will go a long way toward establishing organic morality in an open world.

Totally agree! But then the system isn't really a morality system. I think it improves on a 'morality' mechanic, though.
And it's agenda*
[/quote]

The thing is that you are trading the complexity for variance. Having arcs means having more stories which takes more time and more money so each story gets less attention. Each change is a tradeoff.

"The thing is that you are trading the complexity for variance. Having arcs means having more stories which takes more time and more money so each story gets less attention. Each change is a tradeoff."

Por que no los dos?

Just because you add complexity doesn't inherintly mean you sacrifice quality.

"The thing is that you are trading the complexity for variance. Having arcs means having more stories which takes more time and more money so each story gets less attention. Each change is a tradeoff."

Por que no los dos?

Just because you add complexity doesn't inherintly mean you sacrifice quality.

It does if you have to write more stories to go with the different decisions.
I guess you could shell out more money for more writers or spend more time in development.
There is still a tradeoff.