Moral choice? Not much of one...

[freaper]

Another is the choice you are forced to make between the soldier and the civilian in Spec Ops: The Line. The two that are hung up. I know it becomes a mute point after how the game ends, but still.

Wasn't it choosing between a thief and a murderer? I made up my mind pretty quickly, though apparently you could save them both, or get them both killed.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I'm not sure if this is for everyone, but I usually feel the more immersed I am in a game the more difficult it is to blitz through the moral sections. If you have a detached view of it, the choices are laughably simple but the closer you are to it the harder I found it. Like, inFamous 2, the choice is pretty easy

Spoiler

(Cole and all the other conduits die or every normal human dies) morally speaking its killing 10 or killing 10,000. But I had difficulty with it because I liked the game. I was hoping for an inFamous 3 somehow but whatever choice I made that was going to be it, either Cole, Kuo, Nyx and any other potential conduits die or everyone else does. I kept thinking that I needed more time, that they could find a way that'd only affect those with the disease then take the Beast on with what power Cole had but it wasn't an option.

Like I say, the choice is actually easy when you look at it (and you've played the whole game as either good or bad Cole, are you really going to switch now even though it's an option) but I still struggled with it.

The Samara Morinth one is pretty hard to reconcile, I guess you might feel sympathy that it isn't really Morinth's fault she got dealt a crap hand in life. If you're particularly judgemental, you might point out Samara was aware of the risks and there was precedent for this happening (like Morinth's sister) so her 'taking responsibility' for it should probably extend further than flat out executing her. If your moral code has you doing immoral things, it's not much of a moral code. Morinth needed putting down but I kinda lost a lot of respect for Samara on that run. Still sided with her, but I was pretty keen for our partnership to end.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Black and White "g vs e" choices are generally (almost but not quite always, there's always an exception) pretty bad in video games. It's always more about doubling play time than ACTUALLY challenging the morality of the player. But I found a good and bad example of moral choice... in the SAME GAME.

Fallout: NV.

Dumb Moral Choice - Siding with or against the Legion. They make a few weak attempts to make it seem like a good person might want to side with the Legion. "At least the roads are safe" is about as good as it gets. But clearly the Legion is BAD and you side with the legion on your "evil" playthrough and only try to do the opposite for the novelty of it.

Choice That Made Me Think and Evaluate My Actions - Siding With the NCR, Mr. House, or turning on both and taking New Vegas for yourself. The first time I played, I was compelled to side with House. I was familiar with the NCR and did equate them with "the Good guys," but they seemed to be getting a little expansionist. Nothing wrong with them, but I was digging the "freedom and the future" riff House was putting down.

**warning, large NV spoilers ahead**

Spoiler

Until he asked me to eliminate the Brotherhood.

As far as factions go, I was a Follower more than anything. It was a squeaky good playthrough (my normal 1st play) and there's nobody "gooder" than the Followers. But I was primarily using Veronica as a companion. I had settled the Brotherhood down and convinced them to be Knights and Paladins "protecting the wastes." I had reconciled Veronica with the group and was pretty happy about how that turned out. I couldn't then turn around and kill them just because that's what House wanted. I couldn't do that and still BE a good guy... I could have picked that moment to side with the NCR, but instead I took House down and claimed New Vegas for myself.

I told myself it was for the best. I was a Follower, a good person. Surely what I do will be the best for everyone... right? But that's when it hit me.

I was following Benny's path. I was using Benny's plan. The one guy in the game I flat out executed for his crimes. To protect everyone from his ambition. And I was doing EXACTLY what he was going to do.

That realization hit me pretty hard. I followed my path anyway, destroyed the Legion and kept the NCR to their holdings at McCarran and the Dam. Liberated the Strip. Cleaned up Freeside and let the Brotherhood keep the wastelends safe. But I almost didn't. The choice was a hard one. And what right did I have to make that choice? Sure, my intentions were more noble than Benny's. The outcome was far better than if he had succeeded. But did I really have any more right to do what I did than he would have?

Like I said, that one actually made me think. I'm only on my 2nd run through FO:NV now. This time I'm all in for the Bear. I'll let someone else shoulder that decision.

I KNOW RIGHT?! Fuck the Legion. The only thing going for them is that Caesar is a pretty cool guy. The moment he dies shit's going to go down immediately. I've spent several playthroughs trying to find a good reason to pick Legion, looking from several perspectives and maybe if you're playing a homicidal manic who specialises in making terrible life choices the Legion is the choice for you.

I went for Mr House first time. Seriously, that guy is awesome. I know he's kind of a dictator but hey, whatcha gonna do? He's the man with the plan. The only man with a plan in fact.

I don't know. There's something to be said for the Legion. If you believe that your particular way of life is the only one that will bring about a lasting and worthwhile society, then forcefully integrating tribes into that lifestyle and killing anybody who disagrees with it might be the *only* good moral choice. Of course that's one hell of an "if". Kinda like saying that there's something to be said for the Nazis IF you believe that all Jews and ethnic minorities are a plague on the earth that should be exterminated. It's kind of a dealbreaker.

 

[Auberon]

I found the ME3 mentioned above easy, but it depends on whether Wrex or Wreav leads the clans.

Spoiler

At least Morinth mentions Eve keeping Wrex, and by proxy rest of the krogans in check so that they don't pull Rebellions v2. Wreav is a jackass who doesn't care about their long-term future, and I believe starts a galaxy-wide crusade.

It gives a fairly clear divide on the choice, but if Wrex lives Shepard just betrays a long-time friend.

 

[In Search of Username]

Why on Earth would a person choose to help Morinth over Samara in her loyalty mission? Logically I mean, the only reason i can think of is in order to get the 30(?) Renegade points instead of Paragon. One one side we have a morality driven knight errant who is already sworn to your service, and on the other side we have an unrepentant mass murderer who specialises in tricking people into mating with her to satiate an addictive thirst for greater power. It just makes no sense to me how anyone could sincerely support Morinth.

I think there could be some logic to helping Morinth if you were able to spare Samara, rather than it just being a binary choice to kill one of them. But as it stands I kind of agree that it's a no-brainer. Samara's a pretty horrible character though, imo - completely driven by a restrictive ideology to the point where she feels little regret over murdering her own daughter? I wouldn't define her as a paragon character, exactly, let's put it that way. But yeah, Morinth is obviously worse, her whole 'I just want to be free (to murder people)!' schtick isn't hugely convincing. Neither option is very satisfying to me really. An option to capture Morinth instead of killing her would've been the true paragon option I think.

 

[Alleged_Alec]

Because Morinth is without a doubt the lesser of the evils. Sure, she's a horribly cheesy 90's psychopathic villain (seriously, those responses in the bar where you flirt with her are all flavours of awful). However, she's just acting according to her nature and never makes any qualms about it. She knows that what she does is evil and is unrepentant. I can at least accept that she doesn't want to be locked up in some monastery for the rest of her very long life.
Samara, on the other hand, flat-out tells a police officer that she will have to kill her if she doesn't let her go, despite her being obviously involved in the murder case in which she's a suspect. She casually crushed the trachea of a defenceless mook because she didn't want to tell Samara on which ship Morinth fled. Samara does these acts, all of them just as evil, but gets away with it because she's a lawful stupid paladin. She hides behind her 'code', instead of taking responsibility for her actions.

 

[Raikas]

I'm not a huge fan of morality meters, but I thought that The Witcher 2 and Dragon Age 2 both did a good job (I know people hate DA2, but the diplomatic vs. snarky vs. aggressive options had a lot more nuance than good/evil - the game got that part right as far as I'm concerned).

But the game doesn't present any particularly compelling arguments for the choice: it's sabotage, be a monster, and get a worse outcome, or be a damned hero, ignore the stark reality of what you're potentially doing to placate a couple of your friends, and make everybody happy for plentiful EMS points.

I disagree with this - you're a monster only if

Spoiler

you sabotage the cure when you saved Wrex in ME1 and saved the cure data in ME2. The Krogon under Wreav (and especially without Bakara) are clearly not a trustworthy ally. And Mordin/Padok will even agree with you, walk away and eventually send you an message thanking you for not letting them throw their lives away.

I don't disagree that shooting Modrdin/Padok in the back and then Wrex in the guts is horrible, but given how many people didn't play ME1 (and pre-Genesis DLC, any new game had Wrex dead), and that saving the data in ME2 wasn't presented as a clear-cut choice, I don't see why there's such an assumption that sabotage automatically makes Shepard a monster. It might, but it might not.

 

[Battleaxx90]

"Okay Shepard, here are the two candidates for Human Councilor. The choice is between Captain Anderson, a guy who'd jump naked through a Mass Relay to help you out, or Ambassador Udina, a guy who stood in the way of your mission on multiple occasions for reasons of fuck you. Which one of these fine gentlemen do you choose to represent Humanity?"

 

[Alleged_Alec]

"Okay Shepard, here are the two candidates for Human Councilor. The choice is between Captain Anderson, a guy who'd jump naked through a Mass Relay to help you out, or Ambassador Udina, a guy who stood in the way of your mission on multiple occasions for reasons of fuck you. Which one of these fine gentlemen do you choose to represent Humanity?"

Except that Udina is an asshole, but he has years of experience working in the political machinery, while Anderson, while a nice guy, has no experience with it whatsoever.

 

[DoPo]

"Okay Shepard, here are the two candidates for Human Councilor. The choice is between Captain Anderson, a guy who'd jump naked through a Mass Relay to help you out, or Ambassador Udina, a guy who stood in the way of your mission on multiple occasions for reasons of fuck you. Which one of these fine gentlemen do you choose to represent Humanity?"

Okay, citizen, you are sick. You need to be operated ASAP and here are the choices - person A is kind and gentle and loves you with all their heart, while person 2 is a certified doctor who walks slowly in front of you, drinks milk straight from the bottle, doesn't brush his teeth then stands like really close to you while talking. Which one would you choose to attempt to save your life?

 

[Mike000]

"Okay Shepard, here are the two candidates for Human Councilor. The choice is between Captain Anderson, a guy who'd jump naked through a Mass Relay to help you out, or Ambassador Udina, a guy who stood in the way of your mission on multiple occasions for reasons of fuck you. Which one of these fine gentlemen do you choose to represent Humanity?"

My Shepard: "You know, we've got these things called elections."

Amusingly, Bioware forgot there was a third option there.

edit:

Forgot about SWTOR...
So, you're an officer of the military...you've recovered some stolen painkillers. Do you:
a) return them to the medical officer who ordered you to recover them to be immediately used in surgery to save the lives of wounded soldiers, or
b) return them to the original thief?

If you thought those choices were light-side and dark-side, respectively, then you are apparently a horrible, horrible person.

 

[Bradach Donachad]

Well, let's think about it this way-yes, moral choices in gaming ARE usually polarized to the point of absurdity, eg. "Do you want to save this character dying of plague, or kill him, steal his money, and burn down his house(because evil)?", but, even with their flaws, moral systems do add something to the overall experience if executed correctly. I admit, Mass Effect's morality mechanic makes the majority of the ethical dilemmas presented to the player ineffectual, because the Paragon option is usually presented as having some storyline or gameplay benefits, whereas the Renegade option is almost always puppy-kickingly evil and seldom provides benefits to the player other than preemptive elimination of one or two enemies. This is not a well-executed moral system because the benefits(in both story and gameplay) afforded to the player on one side of the spectrum far outweigh those on the opposite side.

But consider, on the other hand, inFamous. It's a fantastic open-world sandbox where your moral choices don't come in the form of dialogue trees, but rather in how you, the player, choose to interact with the world around you. Once again, the choices presented are quite polarized(Do you want to revive the wounded civilian, or drain the lifeforce out of them for giggles?), but at least in this game there are advantages to both sides. If you choose to walk the "Hero" path, you receive special upgrades, exclusive powers, and the adoration of those around you. If, instead, you opt for the "Infamous" path, you receive an entirely different skill set, and the gameplay benefits of the evil path arguably trump those of the good path. Also, in inFamous, you have a reason to want the evil path-more power for you! Ultimately, this morality system is still flawed, but by giving the player more or less even benefits on both sides of the spectrum and an acceptable in-story reason to choose either, it is far better executed.

In short, developers have to give us compelling reasons to play the hero AND the villain, along with some ethically ambiguous, thought-provoking "grey area" choices, to create a truly compelling morality system.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I'm always reminded of something when I see Good vs Evil choices in games:
I'd love to see a game where the Evil choices are more about selfishness and power mongering via manipulation as opposed to RAWR! SMASH!

I did like the finale of Infamous 2 though. It was not really a difficult choice for me, but I liked the buildup to it during both games.

 

[shintakie10]

I'll always remember Jade Empire for this because they specifically state in game, multiple times even, that the difference between closed fist and open palm isn't the difference between good and evil. The difference between the two is supposed to be about helping others or letting others help themselves. It was such a great idea and I loved the concept, except it didn't play out that way at all.

The choices very very quickly became obvious good/evil choices completely negating the exact things that the game continually said in the starting area. I remember getting excited when you can directly ask if its the difference between good and evil and the npc straight up says no. Then the entire game proceeds to shit all over that idea.

The only time the way of the closed fist actually follows the idea of helping people to help themselves is about halfway through the game. You're going through a slavers camp tryin to rescue someones daughter or friend and get to the end. Big fight ensues, you beat up the guy, lady comes out to thank you. During the conversation she asks what you're goin to do with him and you can convince her to take up a knife and kill him herself, teaching her that she doesn't need to wait for some hero to come along to save her when she has the tools to save herself instead.

 

[TallanKhan]

Spoiler

Presumably because she has the potential to be stronger.

Or because you're playing your shep as sex-crazed egotistical moron and think siding with Morinth and then attempting to fuck her is a fitting end for them.

I know there are tons but being brain dead right now so I'll just go with the NWN "I'm keeping this baby for myself". It's DnD pure evil but even if I was completely lacking in morals the hell am I going to do with this? eat it to prove how evil I am? Sacrifice it? Gather some more babies, skin them and make the most eeeeevvviiiiil pair of boots ever made? ok I'll stop that train of thought now.

Interestingly enough during one of my NWN playthroughs I actually went with the baby stealing option, assuming i would be able to sell it or something later on (I was playing a chaotic evil half-orc who had just murdered the mayor, so why not right?). Despite encountering two characters in the story who talked about dealing in slaves (one of whom was willing to buy every other quest item i came across) I didn't find a use for the baby anywhere in Shadows of Undrentide - I would incidentally love to hear if anyone did find one. However, on my subsequent playthrough of Hordes of the Underdark I found a fun Easter egg if you kept the baby all the way through:

In Chapter 2, in the "central" area of the underdark that you traverse to access the region's various dungeons, there is a panel that grants you access to the Mind Flayer camp. If you have the baby in your inventory you have the option to insert the baby into the panel. You then have to choose from a couple of options and you receive a spinning top which can be used once a day to summon a follower (what you summon varies depending on what option you choose). The follower is quite weak but is in addition to all your other followers and doesn't banish anything else you might have summoned, and at the end of the day it's kind of fun.