Gamasutra - Learning from 'Lawful Good' in roleplaying games

[Hexprone]

Over at Gamasutra, Catherine Kross's overview of morality systems in RPGs starts with tabletop games, but her argument makes it way toward some locally beloved CRPGs.

The key is to create openness and room to explore through the interaction. Are you compelling the player to simply make a red vs. blue choice [*cough* - ed.] or can you show them something more? Knights of the Old Republic 2 had a very different moral character from its more popular predecessor and placed a good deal more emphasis on demonstrating the limits of the player’s power. Kreia, your character’s mentor throughout the game and a steely-voiced advocate for moral ambiguity, bathed you in shades of grey that forced you to question deeply held assumptions.

A rather (in)famous moment occurs when you land on the planet of Nar Shaddaa, a world-city characterised by extremes in vice and poverty. You are immediately confronted with what has long been a mainstay micro-moral choice in KotOR: a homeless man asks for spare change. What is interesting, however, is the way that Kreia intervenes: she lends you her Force sight to show you the consequences of your actions. No matter what you do, it ends badly for the poor man you’re asked to help. If you refuse him money, he stalks off in anger and beats up some of his fellow vagrants. If you give it to him, he becomes the object of their jealousy and they attack him.

... this is profoundly cynical, but it works on a number of levels: illustrating Kreia’s morality, for one, and also demonstrating that sometimes you as the player cannot make everything right. Sometimes you face a situation with no good options, where tokenistic acts of morality may have unforeseen consequences. It’s an interesting case where the restriction of player choice paradoxically opens up an exploratory space for the player.

...and some less locally-beloved games:

Sometimes the best morality mechanic is not to have one; other times it means using the game environment itself to express moral ideas. Dragon Age 2’s affection meter (divided between Friendship and Rivalry) was intriguing because it measured levels of emotional attachment rather than a simplistic love/hate dyad; it permitted different shades of cathexis, a committed Rival could still fall in love with Hawke or still stand with her at the climax, it just flavoured the relationship very differently. A similar mechanic could be applied to moral distinctions as well, going beyond good and evil, and lending complexity to any recreation of the law/chaos dyad.

More information.

 

[Sacred_Path]

She starts out riffing on D&D and then it's all KotOR, wut?

Also:

one, any worthwhile exploration of morality is lost in the mercilessness of scoring

Which is perfectly ok because you're playing a character in a fantasy world, not yourself in a medieval environment. It doesn't really matter what you think is a lawful good thing to do - if the lore suggests a course, then you better stick with it. Or you need to get the hell out of that basement.

Personally I find what constitutes Chaotic Good behavior harder to define, but anyway.

 

[Hexprone]

Which is perfectly ok because you're playing a character in a fantasy world, not yourself in a medieval environment.

Necessarily so?

Especially in single player videogames, I think that an element of Mary Sue-ism is a natural part of how RPGs work.

That's clearest in videogames, but it's also been true in every tabletop game I've ever played -- some players like to invent a character different to them from the ground up, but many or most are basically playing an idealized, heroic self.

Most are in between, playing characters that emphasise one exaggerated part of their own character -- the edgy cynic indulges his dark side as an assassin, the would-be white-knight type plays an actual White Knight, etc. The same guy might switch dramatically from light to dark week to week, but he's usually playing an aspect of himself either way.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Kind of interesting the article conflates morality and alignment. Even going up to signing DA alignment system in.

Necessarily so?

In roleplaying games? Necessarily so.

That's clearest in videogames, but it's also been true in every tabletop game I've ever played — some players like to invent a character different to them from the ground up, but many or most are basically playing an idealized, heroic self.

Most are in between, playing characters that emphasise one exaggerated part of their own character — the edgy cynic indulges his dark side as an assassin, the would-be white-knight type plays an actual White Knight, etc. The same guy might switch dramatically from light to dark week to week, but he's usually playing an aspect of himself either way.

That starts from the assumption that, no matter what people do while around a table, they are roleplaying.
This connects with the topic in article: if so, there is no point in speaking of morality.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

She starts out riffing on D&D and then it's all KotOR, wut?

In my article at RPGDot destroyed by the RPGImps, I held the opinion that because of the used rule set, the Star Wars universe had become merely just another (A)D&D universe, or dimension. I don't remember the exact wording anymore, but I believed that the rule set used in the then new Star Wars pen & paper rules set by Wizards Of The Coast was founded on the (A)D&D rules set - and if I understrand it correctly, KOTOR was founded on it, too.

Apart from that, SWTOR shows that the vast majority of players prefer to play the evil imperial side. My personal guess is that 75 % of the ship is now on one side, especially with SWTOr PvP, which is 95 % imperial side now. Whole servers are dominated by the one faction.
Only in PvE things are differentg, though, but even there people are more and more leaning towards the evil imperial side.

To me, this says, that people are not actually interested in the "good" side of choices - at least not the vast majority - and that most people far prefer to play "evil" - thus making any Alignment in RPGs obsolete, cynically put.

 

[Sacred_Path]

I don't quite agree with this assesment - or else, pretty much everyone putting out RPG's would be getting it wrong, as often, you don't even a choice but to play good. I think the fact that people can choose in but a few games makes that option more tempting, thereby seemingly blowing it out of proportion.

 

[Asdraguuhl]

To me, this says, that people are not actually interested in the "good" side of choices - at least not the vast majority - and that most people far prefer to play "evil" - thus making any Alignment in RPGs obsolete, cynically put.

I disagree. I once read that the majority of people, when the choice exists, choose to play the good path. For this reason, the evil path tends to be given less attention by the developers.

I guess that Star Wars might be an exception because the "Sith" and the "Dark Side" are beloved and well established concepts.

 

[rjshae]

Hasn't the industry moved past the D&D alignment system by using factions instead?

 

[Mosaic]

Now it's been a long time since I played it but there was a point in Dragon Age 2 where you can refuse payment for doing a good deed and you would gain a cash reward anyway. Not only that but you had a dialogue option to blackmail for extra cash instead but this actually nets you with *less* money.

To me that's the weakest form of 'morality' you can have in an RPG.

If doing the 'good' thing always results in the greatest benefits, then are you really a good person for selecting that route? Should 'evil' deeds be punished by the hand of God (i.e. the game designers) no matter the context?

That's a Saturday Morning Cartoon story we tell children. I'll take the Witcher over it any day, even if some of those decisions are agonizing.

 

[Hexprone]

If doing the 'good' thing always results in the greatest benefits, then are you really a good person for selecting that route?

I agree. One thing I like about the Elder Scrolls games is that the evil path is almost always the better choice from a strictly self-interested standpoint. I didn't like that at first -- other games had trained me to expect either a red magic sword for picking the evil choice, or a blue magic shield for picking the good one -- so I was pissed not to get a reward for being a good boy the first few times. But when you get a reward, the choice really just becomes between two different flavors of selfishness.

In Elder Scrolls, you're typically choosing between a red magic sword and a blue ... nothing. Which makes it a real sacrifice, so a lot more meaningful.

 

[lackblogger]

You're viewing it from the wrong perspective. You have to view it from the PoV of it being a computer game, not a simulator.

Whichever path the player takes, they have to be able to traverse the game in equal measure. They have to defeat the monster and get it's XP the same, they have to complete the quest to get the quest XP the same and they have to be rewarded the same level of equipment - not because they want to make crappy choices, but because the player needs all those perks in order to be able to defeat/complete the next stage of the game.

There's not really too much room for manoeuvre other than aesthetic differences such as dialogue options and methods of resolution (such as accept gifts or refuse them etc). It's possible to make an extremely complex game where playing good/evil/whatever has an awful lot of variance, but a game like that would be extremely complex and almost like having 2 games in one. Which would mean either a gigantic budget or a very short game.

And this is before you even start debating what the exact difference is between good/evil routes beyond honesty/gallantry and lying/murder etc. You really expect nerdy programmers to all also be majors in philosophy? And expert story weavers?

Don't get me wrong, games that try their best are great, but I can't see the point when you could make a much better game just sticking to basic goody-two-shoes and concentrating on all the other, more important, aspects of the game. As I always say to be people in such circumstances - which games you've played would you class as exemplars in this regard? Are your expectations based on experience or desire?

 

[Hexprone]

Whichever path the player takes, they have to be able to traverse the game in equal measure.

I dont agree at all, not just about in-game morality but about player rewards in general. Part of what's cool about being able to design a character from the ground up is choosing your own challenge level.

My enchantment-specialized rapier-wielding melee wizard in NWN2 didn't make any optimal choices at all, either in his build or in how he progressed through the game. But he played exactly as I wanted him to, and completing the game with the overly-elaborate approach necessitated by such a gimp of a hero felt great.

Here's the same scenario with two characters: A warrior with a big old hammer can just bash his way through some prison guards, it takes him thirty seconds and he sells all the equipment off their corpses and buys an even bigger hammer. A stealth specialist takes twenty minutes and reloads twice to get past the same guards, and he barely gets any loot because he only killed the one guard he couldn't avoid — so the next adventure is even more of a challenge for him.

That's fine — in fact, it's great. Two different characters designed for two different playstyles, with two very different experiences of the same game. To me that's what rpgs are all about.

And this is before you even start debating what the exact difference is between good/evil routes ... You really expect nerdy programmers to all also be majors in philosophy? And expert story weavers?

No to the first question -- of course yes to the second. What else am I paying them for?

As for morality debates -- what debate? A game just needs to set its own terms and stick to them. Any game will naturally reflect the limited worldview of its creator -- there's no reason why a game including a morality system should be expected to contain moral truth, just a compelling moral vision.

 

[ChienAboyeur]

Whichever path the player takes, they have to be able to traverse the game in equal measure.

Well, that is already happening in the quoted example: resolutions in Skyrim seldom (if never) close a path.
There is no sacrifice being done, never read a player complaining that traversing the game in equal measure was prevented because they did not benefit from an item associated to a quest.

Morality is way beyond what gameworld in computer games might create.
They can barely sustain economical functions for NPCs, so morality...

 

[azarhal]

Apart from that, SWTOR shows that the vast majority of players prefer to play the evil imperial side. My personal guess is that 75 % of the ship is now on one side, especially with SWTOr PvP, which is 95 % imperial side now. Whole servers are dominated by the one faction.

No, SWTOR shows that the majority of players believe that black, red and purple look cooler than grey and brown and that they favor who gets fixed first. The majority of the playerbase is lightsided regardless of faction.