Morality & Gaming RP

[Gilga]

In a bad to maximize XBL gamerpoints, I've recently found myself playing towards the "Renegade" end of the spectrum in Mass Effect (the original, I'm lame). So basically in-game, I'm making choices to be ruthless, unhelpeful, egotistical, uncaring, merciless, etc. Great XP when you kill everything moving in the game, I gotta say. But anyhow, last night I started playing Fable 2 (suckered by the free episode 1) and again was presented with moral choices. And this time, I played the "good guy" ... and to my surprise, felt hugely relieved in doing so. Despite Mass Effect not only being a game, but being a single-player you-vs-some-algorithm setup ... I felt guilt at making what I felt were "bad person" choices.

So it started me thinking ... if I basically "play to my personality" in a game ... am I missing an opportunity for learning? Or, is playing a 'bad guy in a game" really not morally neutral? Or am I just making excuses to compensate for my PvP inadequacy? A variation on this discussion occurred in the CGA forums when the latest WoW expansion came out and there were various "Death Knight" quests that had you doing morally repulsive things. And same deal with CoD:MW2 with the "shoot up the airport as a terrorist" scenario. And many others.

So, when given the choice, my friends in the Christian gaming community ... do you play a "good guy/girl" (because we're Christian!) or do you play a "bad guy/girl" (because you'd never do it in real life but it provides learning/perspective!). If the latter ... do you find that playing the bad guy/girl is fun? I'm guessing that there are many opinions on all this, and certainly no right answers. Despite my angsty guilt as described above, I must admit that there is a comfortable short-term simplicity to ignoring the consequences of actions that comes in the bad guy roles.

 

[Abba San]

"I'm making choices to be ruthless, unhelpeful, egotistical, uncaring, merciless, etc."

Sounds like me playing Monopoly.

More to your topic...When I first started in Guild Wars I played a monk healer. That lead to a monk smiter - dealing holy damage was more satisfying. That lead to a hammer warrior - major damage administered and increased joy in game.

After a while I decided to become that supporter again - a paragon. But that didn't last too long before I shifted to a nuker elementalist. I've been playing mostly that ever since.

In Guild Wars the moral issue doesn't come up too often - you are killing beasts and demonic beings. I could see it coming up if you were playing a necro - maybe. I'd be up the creek without my necro and ritualist heroes.

For me, gaming is gaming - an escape - beating up on bad guys. I don't have any of the games I've heard of where you play the bad guy killing good guys. I have enough moral dilemmas in the real world - I avoid them in game.

 

[Elader Arkon]

I think it's a testament to the skill of the developers that they would be able to create a game in which choices can range from 'good' to 'neutral' to 'evil' and not feel shoveled in somehow, and actually have someone worried about the consequences of their actions. ME1 had what seemed fairly standard moral choices, but the consequences of those actions on ME2 is nothing short of staggering. Playing through ME2, I constantly worry 'did I make the right choice?'.

When playing these games now, I play 'in character' (good, neutral, or evil) rather than what the best loot/equipment could be, and I think that's how the developers ultimately want games with moral decisions to be.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

I understand the concept of campy evil (like enjoying overacting rather than the act of evil itself) and I also understand some multiplayer games require an antagonist. However other types of games are striving to be more immersive and realistic to the player if not graphically at least in their plot lines drawing you in. In that case I don't like the thought patterns, desensitizing effect and often immoral moral they teach people.

Furthermore I'm thinking of the Matthew 5:28 from which I get the idea that if you even desire doing a sin without intent of acting on it's still wrong. Keeping that in mind I think there are two similar subjects here that could be confused. One is "should I play a game with something morally wrong in it" while the other is "is it ok to enjoy something morally wrong in a game". I would ask myself why am I playing. If you are doing so for the enjoyment of "virtual sinning" I would say it's totally wrong and no one should play it. However if a game has something you don't like morally (and most do) that you are putting up with because you like a different innocuous aspect of it than it's up for debate, depending on it's content of course.

I'm also not really sure what more you expect to "learn" from role playing as a "Bad guy" in a game as opposed to fighting one. If you are referring to a story that will be purely up to the writers with either perspective. If you are talking about on a more serious level, like if you want to learn about what motivates a sinner, we all have real life knowledge of that to draw upon and introspection is both probably more profitable (spiritually) and cheaper (monetarily) than a game XD .

 

[Annath]

I have been facing odd feelings in games with moral choices.

When I played infamous, I played evil. The powers were more interesting, and there was a lot more stuff to do(blowing up cars, shocking people, etc) as opposed to being good. Mostly though, the evil was all based on action, (no dialog choices).

When I played through mass effect and fallout 3, I couldn't do the evil stuff. Or more accurately, I couldn't do the evil dialog. I don't mind blowing up a town or cleaning everyone out for loot, but for some reason I feel really bad about using the evil dialog choices. Odd, I know.

I think the problem a lot of times though, especially with infamous, is that there's a lot more gratifying evil things to do than good. In infamous, I could let off steam by running around and blowing cars up, shocking people, and beating people up. These things could be done outside of missions and were really fun. I probably would've been way more inclined to play good if there were random gratifying good things I could do.

For the most part, when I played Fallout 3, I found myself tending to the good actions and dialog choices, and found myself with a rating of "Very Good." I only started to do evil stuff basically when I had finished the game and had nothing left to do. But again, F3 had a lot more gratifying good stuff to do. I could go and help the brotherhood or fight raiders to blow off steam instead of killing innocent people.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I'd rather play good when there's plenty of off mission fun to be had while doing so.

 

[tjguitarz]

I tend to stay on the side of good, but if I'm mad at someone in the real world, I'll play through as an evil character and pretend every deed is direct at them. Fantastic stress reliever, especially in games with guns or swords.

The choice to play as a good or evil is a choice of conscience. I would urge people to follow their convictions, but to not be overly religious in their decisions (that leads to legalism).

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

I tend to play based on my actual morality. It can be fun to play based on a different moral code, but that can lead to some confusion between the two.

I have played both Baldur's Gate and NWN as evil, but in the first I stopped after I found it got too hard, and in the latter I found it got too complex and boring.

A proper D&D game, according to Wizard's itself, should not be playable as evil for very long at all. An evil character, just like in real life, should destroy itself in short order. That was certainly true in Baldur's Gate. I'm not sure how it happens in later BioWare games.

When I began DMing in D&D, I first forbid players from playing evil alignments. Evil characters tend to disrupt things and lead to bad play. But then I realized something:

Most people who want to play evil have an underdeveloped view of how evil functions. They believe in two factions: Good and Awesome. Not Good and Evil. Good players do heroic things but have limits on their power. Evil players have no limits and get to do whatever they want, but lack the heroic feel.

Now when I play, I allow players to side with evil or even be evil. I also play the evil enemies in an evil way. The evil-playing characters soon learn that evil is not Awesome. It's Evil. Evil NPCs will side with the players while it is useful, and then toss them aside into a fire. They are EVIL.

A player ought not to play evil in my games because it will become an educational experience indeed. Evil players are CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED, not a cool alternative to good.

 

[Elader Arkon]

Now when I play, I allow players to side with evil or even be evil. I also play the evil enemies in an evil way. The evil-playing characters soon learn that evil is not Awesome. It's Evil. Evil NPCs will side with the players while it is useful, and then toss them aside into a fire. They are EVIL.

A player ought not to play evil in my games because it will become an educational experience indeed. Evil players are CENSORED CENSORED CENSORED, not a cool alternative to good.

One of my all time favorite campaigns was with me playing an evil cleric -my last character had gotten killed off in a rather permanent manner, and the party was at a point where they needed every ounce of help they could get. His entrance was way cool, he was awesome, and he was a power hungry megalomaniac with a silver tongue. It was because of him that we had one of the harshest party wipes I've seen (and it is harsh to cause a full party wipe at epic levels 23-25) -and to this day over a year later, it is still our group's fondest experience playing D&D. You don't have to punish people for playing evil, just don't let them break character.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

One of my all time favorite campaigns was with me playing an evil cleric -my last character had gotten killed off in a rather permanent manner, and the party was at a point where they needed every ounce of help they could get. His entrance was way cool, he was awesome, and he was a power hungry megalomaniac with a silver tongue. It was because of him that we had one of the harshest party wipes I've seen (and it is harsh to cause a full party wipe at epic levels 23-25) -and to this day over a year later, it is still our group's fondest experience playing D&D. You don't have to punish people for playing evil, just don't let them break character.

I should mention that I don't artificially punish players. That diminishes both the fun and the lesson. I've played with DMs who deus ex machina a punishment from the heavens when evil players play evil. That doesn't help.

At the same time I refuse to break character with NPCs, either. An untrustworthy NPC is not suddenly going to become trustworthy to evil players. They're going to continue to be backstabbing rat finks.

Example: Once I had a party fighting an evil dragon. The evil dragon had a hatred of humanoids in general, but had a mind for strategy and the ability to convey powerful buffs onto his followers. As the party approached the dragon, the evil character began to wonder aloud about how cool it would be to make a treaty with the dragon to get the dragon's power bestowed on him. The dragon began to encourage the evil character to join him in slaying the followers of Bahamut, in which case he would become the dragon's lieutenant.

The evil character reasoned out in his head and decided that he could not trust the evil dragon, so he joined his party in killing the dragon. It's a good thing, too, because I had already decided in my head that the dragon had no intention of allowing the evil character to live. He simply wanted to use him tactically as a weapon against his comrades. He was lying.

I don't RP all evil dragons this way. Some might keep the player around as a lieutenant for years before betraying them. Some might never betray them as long as they stay in the subservient role. Some might never offer the deal.

At the same time, I demand that my bloodthirsty evil NPCs stay bloodthirsty, my connivers conniving, et cetera.

I am used to seeing D&D players play evil because of a Jedi/Sith kind of split. They see the Sith as "the team with goals that are a little more distasteful, but they get lightning bolts" and the Jedi as "the team with more tasteful, heroic goals, but lamer powers." I see good and evil in a more concrete light. I don't tend to see evil as a "team." Good NPCs tend to hold good virtues in high esteem, even to the point of extending those virtues to their enemies. Evil NPCs tend to hold vice in high esteem, even to the point of extending those vices to their allies.

 

[Elihu]

I'm with you on this Gilga. It's tough for me to try and make the "evil" decisions in a game as well as it doesn't feel natural to my personality. Playing an evil side in any of the past games I've played has never had an appeal for me, so I tend to stick to the good or neutral side. Do I think it could be a learning experience? Sure, but to what extent? To learn that evil is evil? I was taught that as a child, why do I need to investigate it further? Human curiousity is one thing, but if you have that gut feeling of uneasiness or that it is wrong then don't do it. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Neirai the Forgiven]

Do I think it could be a learning experience? Sure, but to what extent? To learn that evil is evil? I was taught that as a child, why do I need to investigate it further? Human curiousity is one thing, but if you have that gut feeling of uneasiness or that it is wrong then don't do it. Just my 2 cents.

QFT

 

[Gilga]

Lotsa good thoughts here, thanks everyone for weighing in.

To clarify where my head is at on the "learning" part ... I certainly wouldn't argue that "learning what it's like to be bad" is particularly, um, insightful. The learning comes in terms of learning one's personal fault lines. If you play a "bad" character and, as given in an example by Annath above, find that the "dialogue" is emotionally hard by the "blowing mobs up" isn't ... examining why that is is interesting. I love the Monopoly reference by Abba San ... I certainly have never felt guilt when someone was bankrupted when owing me $2k for landing on Boardwalk (quite the opposite!). But IRL ... demanding usurious rent of someone that pushes them into bankruptcy is hardly "good" behavior. The point is, games provide a sandbox for a deeper understanding of the boundaries between good and evil.

Mass Effect in particular tries to spin the good vs. evil thing along a different axis with their "paragon" vs. "renegade" thing. While in many cases (running over monkeys, for instance, or shoot-first-ask-questions-later), renegade pretty clearly equates to "bad." But in other cases, the choices the game asks you to make are "process" vs. "results" ... variants of ends justifying means dilemmas. To me, there has got to be some learning available from forcing myself to make those choices in the game and dealing with the consequences ... rather than just follow a min/max of making all of the "good" or "evil" choices. The game allows you to make those choices in a zero-stakes environment. Learning to make the hard choices, the right choices, in a game ... surely has some benefit in terms of RL. ("SOME" benefit ... games are clearly a limited sandbox both in terms of the choices give, but also because of the designer's perspective biases the moral judgment of the outcome ... it's artificial where the game choose to make "good" choices into naive, sucker choices and "evil" choices into particularly rewarding ones). I think anyone would be sorely tested IRL if the first really hard life choice they had to make was high stakes.

Anyhow, I'm pretty clearly overanalyzing this. Maybe I need to make a Gilgadoc with a flowchart on this....