Morality Systems

[dessertmonkeyjk]

Big fat snip of getting it down to a tee

O_O That's pretty much what I was talking about. I might make a little reference to that sometime.

I'd prefer an "invisible morality system" where just NPC's react to your actions and there's no ingame karma meter or notification of "+10 bad points/good points."

Oh, I REALLY hate the whole rep notifications you get. Morality is supposed to be natural, not artifical. Now developers just need to find a way to show it with simple tell-tale signs of said moral standings.

 

[DoPo]

Big fat snip of getting it down to a tee

O_O That's pretty much what I was talking about. I might make a little reference to that sometime.

Sure, have it all - clean it up, restructure it, change it, scrap it - whatever. I grant you full rights over it. The ideas are a bit rough and vague, as I said, as this was just a hypothetical example that pretty much had to establish everything on it's own to show how it works, and it established pretty generic stuff just for the sake of ease. If you want to discuss something more concrete, I'd be happy to.

 

[DoPo]

long long long post

Actually, now that I think about it - a slightly easier to implement respect system: it combines the Elder Scrolls reputation with World of Warcraft reputation (and lots of other games that use it).

So, in WoW, the player has reputation with each faction. In ES, the player has reputation with each person. We can combine the two in the following way - a society as a whole has certain respect for the player based on how righteous they perceive them. But then, individual NPCs take that respect value and adjust it depending on their own views on morality.

An example: the player has respect worth of 80[footnote]Those would be "respect units" of some description. For the sake of the example, I will not bother with what the maximum value is. Let's assume 80 is "good".[/footnote] in city A. This would be the respect the average citizens has for the player. But one NPC with a stricter moral code may have a respect of 70 because it doesn't view the player as moral enough. Another that sympathises with the moral choices of the player may well have a respect of 95.

Or something along those lines.

I can't think of a game that uses that "combined" system, but I can't imagine I'm the first to propose it - there is bound to be a game that has it.

 

[arnoldthebird]

A morality system should not have specific 'Good' and 'Bad'

It should have a blurred line in which you are not marked 'Good' or 'Evil', instead you just see what your choices do

 

[Nieroshai]

No, the nine D&D alignments aren't good (lowercase 'g' there). Nor is any other morality system that basically emulates them (a lot of them). I'd rather morality be non-existent (as in "not visible and measured") than being stuck with a stupid system like that.

Why it's stupid? Well, D&D's system only works for D&D and people have to understand that. In D&D morality is objective - there are literal forces and planes of Good, Evil, Neutral, Lawful, etc. It is external. If you say somebody is Evil, then they are Evil, not somebody who has the greater good of mankind as their ultimate goal. The reason is simple - because it can justify killing things easier. If you say "this necromancer is Evil" it is really easy to then just murder them. No, the necromancer doesn't need patience and understanding to turn from his ways of black magic - he wants living things to suffer that's his goal. That was the entire goal behind the alignments system - to simplify the morality.

With that in mind, you can see why it's bad to emulate that - it means that morality is objective, i.e., it's governed by external things rather than personal motivations. So the games that use that oversimplify the things and render all moral choices shallow.

DA:O is a good example where the morality is removed and it works. You can tell who of your companions is basically a good guy or not. They have their own beliefs for what is right or wrong but still some are genuinely better than the others. Your own choices aren't ranked and scored but you can still see what is generally good or bad - you can be a total dick to the guy who killed your family, because Fuck. That. Guy! He killed your family, he doesn't deserve pity (perhaps)! So you can be totally evil on his ass but still overall a good person to everybody else. And you aren't penalised for that. The morality choices carry their own reward or penalty, so you can still have the character you want.

Another good example is the Witcher - in that case a D&D style morality just doesn't work, because the whole universe is in just shades of grey. Moral choices carry with them their own rewards and often you can't really say what is "the good" or "the evil" option simply because of all the grey in there.

Now, Mass Effect's Paragon/Renegade is a good system because it doesn't go after the traditional Good/Evil but rather it makes the things more personal. Paragon is generally close to "good" but Renegade isn't necessarily being "evil". The two are just personal choices Shepard can take, sometimes it's better to not play by the rules, sometimes the rules just get in your way. But the system still has it's downside - ranking it. Well, ranking isn't too bad by itself but when you have to get one of the ratings to the maximum (or whatever rating it was) to max out the social skill, then it breaks down because it no longer gives you the freedom it intended. The player may fin themselves thinking "Well, on the one hand I really want to flip this guy off because he's annoying me, but on the other hand, I need those Paragon points to max out Persuasion." And here lies the problem - the personal choices devolve into something else and no longer serve their intention. No longer even being "moral" choices - they turn into just another pool of pure mechanical representation. Nothing more than hitpoints or DPS - the player will just strive for the optimum, rather than whatever feels most comfortable.

And also some of the Renegade choices fucking suck. "Oh you're randomly being a jerk here, let me fill your red meter." But the same can be said about other morality systems - the "evil" options are sometimes nothing more than being extremely dickish. I tried playing a Lawful Evil character in NWN 2 but the representation of that was just fucked up. I wanted my character to maintain a facade of normality, while secretly being as evil as possible but it just didn't work. If he was to be evil, he would have skipped a lot of optional sidequests, because picking the evil option in dialogues 1. would guarantee the NPC wouldn't want to talk to them 2. were mind bogglingly stupid. I wouldn't play Lawful Evil if I picked even half of those, I would be playing Stupid Evil. Being a douche just for the lulz.

To me, the Mass Effect system works for a couple reasons, you having listed the first one. The second is that there are dialogue options Shepard only even thinks to say if he's righteous enough or badass enough. What a lot of people don't get, especially with the endings of 3, is that Shepard is not the player in the same aspect as the Warden from DA:O is the player (and that game only technically had 2 endings despite greater interactivity). No matter what the player chooses, Shepard is thinking all the options on the wheel. What the player decides is whether Shepard will choose to act on the righteous thought or act on his impulses and be a badass, whether to be inquisitive or impatient. That is why a dialogue option you don't have enough points for isn't selectable; it's the option that would be there, but you've influenced Shepard enough that he doesn't think it. In ME2's quick time events, it's Shepard who's itching to act on those prompts. As the player, it's not your choice to be in that situation, it's your choice whether Shepard will act on that thought or not.

 

[Don Savik]

What I liked the most about Deus Ex (played it for the first time last summer) is that your decisions are not divided into "good" or "evil" and, and the developers didn't label them as such.

I say, can the morality system and morality bars and just have actions and consequences.

Which Deus Ex? I've only played HR, and I have to say its dialogue is MILES ahead of Mass Effect. Its all about convincing the person into saying what you want to hear, instead of:

A. Punch face in, demand answer
B. Kiss ass, handed answer

People aren't black and white, and I don't think the renegade/paragon system works in anything but Star Wars, because light and dark side ARE that extreme.

[sub]Just my opinion, but I like Dues Ex HR better than Mass Effect, but thats completely unrelated.[/sub]

 

[ElectroJosh]

These are hard to implement well which is why there are usually stark good vs evil options. Sometimes a "neutral" version is thrown in as well. Often these feel very artificial which is why I don't often like them.

However I always enjoyed the Witcher games. Rather than focusing on morality options they went with choices that were more dilemas. Often the choices represented things you, as a player, would like to take and knew that choosing one would shut off the other options.

 

[DoPo]

No matter what the player chooses, Shepard is thinking all the options on the wheel. What the player decides is whether Shepard will choose to act on the righteous thought or act on his impulses and be a badass, whether to be inquisitive or impatient. That is why a dialogue option you don't have enough points for isn't selectable; it's the option that would be there, but you've influenced Shepard enough that he doesn't think it.

Yes, that might be the intention but it falls short because instead of presenting the player with more (more personality for Shepard), the game puts a straightjacket in him. Only loosening the straps when the player behaves as intended (i.e., gains particular reputation). The player is forced to work towards being a jerk (because of the annoying tendency of some renegade responses to be the douchebag answer) or a saint in order to unlock the potential for more of Shepard's personality.

Morality should be a guideline, not a restriction. Even good people can take wrong steps, and even the bad can have heartwarming moments. This is what makes us human - we try.

But assuming the we want to keep a system that shows how Shepard's thoughts change through the games, how about we reverse it - like Bloodlines does. Well, WoD but we're talking mainly video games. Anyway, in Bloodlines, the vampires have Humanity - how, well, human they act and feel. It's a score from 1 to 10 and going further down means that the vampire gives into its more impulsive, more bestial nature and gradually stops feeling for others. It's a gradual downward spiral unless a lot of effort is put into maintaining it. Ugh, yeah, at any rate, in Bloodlines as the Humanity decreases, the possible responses get more and more...savage. More brutal. At some point it gets hard to be nice to people. At some point the traditional nice/neutral/snark/(let's talk more) responses lose the "nice" option unless you really try. At one point you talk with a girl who is really sick and about to die but still inquires after the man she likes. If you have high Humanity, you can lie to her and tell her he is fine. A vampire with low enough Humanity, however, can only insult her, tell her the truth thus making her final moments bitter and painful. There is no nice choice - the vampire simply does not care enough to be nice. And conversely, if the player has high enough Humanity at one point, they have the option of not giving in to their savage nature and attacking an innocent. Low or even average Humanity simply don't have a choice.

So, why couldn't this work in ME? Shepard can be impulsive or patient, but let their impulsiveness out too often slowly they would lose patience as a virtue. And vice versa - learn to be patient and slowly they will weed out their impulsive nature. Perhaps, the opposite choices will become harder to access, having to go through one or more submenus to get to them, representing how those aren't immediate choices. Maybe they would plainly not be an option in some conversations and in others Shepard may need to go through a round or two of talking to get to them: if Renegade - to cool down and have the chance to think rationally, if Paragon - to do the opposite and get his blood boiling. Or something along those lines.

But I don't really support restricting the players the way ME does it. In Bloodlines it makes sense because that's what vampires are - they are walking cadavers who suck the blood of the living. Predators, monsters and damned. Only if they keep believing they aren't, can they keep their instincts at bay. But Shepard is human - they can make mistakes, act reckless or they can force to restrain themselves. As a player I hate being (effectively) told "Sorry, not enough red bar hight to choose the impulsive, primal option. Try again later after insulting several individuals." Or "Sorry, you haven't donated enough money to charity to choose the well thought out and sensible response."

 

[KingofMadCows]

I like Fallout's system, except for FO3, where it's your reputation with the various factions that matters and your karma is only used in a few things.

Also, the Geneforge series uses only reputation system with no morality and I think that's probably the best system.

 

[lionsprey]

the best system i have encountered so far was probebly DA:O with having your companions reaction to actions you do be the feedback you get from choices

 

[Tripticon]

Problem is, what good and evil is, generally relies on what society thinks of the actions one takes. So the only way to create a realistic morality system, is to have the world react to decisions that are made by the player on a case by case basis. Such as who we attract to follow us, and who we lose as companions and who we make enemies with, and most importantly, how MANY times we make questionable decisions.

Morality in games is often one dimensional because they force you to either be a saint, or a evil bastard or you don't get the goodies. Which in a sense, restricts you from actual moral choice. Moral choices tend to fluctuate from decision to decision, because morality isn't exactly a black and white affair.

Take Mass Effect for instance, most decisions Shepard makes have nothing to do with morality. It has to do with influence. Sure, they may give you a moral decision to make from time to time. But if someone is being over-sensitive and I choose to slap them around to get their head on straight, WHY is it regarded as a bad "moral" decision? Or even if it was a bad moral decision why does it have to have negative consequences? And why do I have to be a Paragon or Renegade in order to get certain special wheel options? And those wheel options sometimes can effect whether or not you can have the extra special awesome decision that everyone is happy.

The only way I could see to implement a true morality system, is to define morality for each NPC. What is important to them, and how much they are willing to see what is important to them be compromised and how much influence you can hold over someone by manipulating them. But to tie morality systems with certain items, powers, or goodies, cheapens the experience.

 

[Aircross]

What I liked the most about Deus Ex (played it for the first time last summer) is that your decisions are not divided into "good" or "evil" and, and the developers didn't label them as such.

I say, can the morality system and morality bars and just have actions and consequences.

Which Deus Ex? I've only played HR, and I have to say its dialogue is MILES ahead of Mass Effect. Its all about convincing the person into saying what you want to hear, instead of:

A. Punch face in, demand answer
B. Kiss ass, handed answer

People aren't black and white, and I don't think the renegade/paragon system works in anything but Star Wars, because light and dark side ARE that extreme.

[sub]Just my opinion, but I like Dues Ex HR better than Mass Effect, but thats completely unrelated.[/sub]

I was talking about the first Deus Ex, but you're right, both games (to me) had better writing than Mass Effect, and both games allowed you to solve objectives in more different ways other than shooting or talking.

 

[Nieroshai]

No matter what the player chooses, Shepard is thinking all the options on the wheel. What the player decides is whether Shepard will choose to act on the righteous thought or act on his impulses and be a badass, whether to be inquisitive or impatient. That is why a dialogue option you don't have enough points for isn't selectable; it's the option that would be there, but you've influenced Shepard enough that he doesn't think it.

Yes, that might be the intention but it falls short because instead of presenting the player with more (more personality for Shepard), the game puts a straightjacket in him. Only loosening the straps when the player behaves as intended (i.e., gains particular reputation). The player is forced to work towards being a jerk (because of the annoying tendency of some renegade responses to be the douchebag answer) or a saint in order to unlock the potential for more of Shepard's personality.

Morality should be a guideline, not a restriction. Even good people can take wrong steps, and even the bad can have heartwarming moments. This is what makes us human - we try.

But assuming the we want to keep a system that shows how Shepard's thoughts change through the games, how about we reverse it - like Bloodlines does. Well, WoD but we're talking mainly video games. Anyway, in Bloodlines, the vampires have Humanity - how, well, human they act and feel. It's a score from 1 to 10 and going further down means that the vampire gives into its more impulsive, more bestial nature and gradually stops feeling for others. It's a gradual downward spiral unless a lot of effort is put into maintaining it. Ugh, yeah, at any rate, in Bloodlines as the Humanity decreases, the possible responses get more and more...savage. More brutal. At some point it gets hard to be nice to people. At some point the traditional nice/neutral/snark/(let's talk more) responses lose the "nice" option unless you really try. At one point you talk with a girl who is really sick and about to die but still inquires after the man she likes. If you have high Humanity, you can lie to her and tell her he is fine. A vampire with low enough Humanity, however, can only insult her, tell her the truth thus making her final moments bitter and painful. There is no nice choice - the vampire simply does not care enough to be nice. And conversely, if the player has high enough Humanity at one point, they have the option of not giving in to their savage nature and attacking an innocent. Low or even average Humanity simply don't have a choice.

So, why couldn't this work in ME? Shepard can be impulsive or patient, but let their impulsiveness out too often slowly they would lose patience as a virtue. And vice versa - learn to be patient and slowly they will weed out their impulsive nature. Perhaps, the opposite choices will become harder to access, having to go through one or more submenus to get to them, representing how those aren't immediate choices. Maybe they would plainly not be an option in some conversations and in others Shepard may need to go through a round or two of talking to get to them: if Renegade - to cool down and have the chance to think rationally, if Paragon - to do the opposite and get his blood boiling. Or something along those lines.

But I don't really support restricting the players the way ME does it. In Bloodlines it makes sense because that's what vampires are - they are walking cadavers who suck the blood of the living. Predators, monsters and damned. Only if they keep believing they aren't, can they keep their instincts at bay. But Shepard is human - they can make mistakes, act reckless or they can force to restrain themselves. As a player I hate being (effectively) told "Sorry, not enough red bar hight to choose the impulsive, primal option. Try again later after insulting several individuals." Or "Sorry, you haven't donated enough money to charity to choose the well thought out and sensible response."

You make an excellent point overall, but I feel in ME in specific as opposed to VtM, DA:O, et al, you are not RPing your own custom character; you are playing as Shepard, basically more of an interactive Master Chief. It's less restricting their ability to RP in an RPG and more allowing a few RPG elements to slip into an interactive shooter. I will give a shoutout to Deus Ex HR, which is what Mass Effect 3 should have emulated I suppose, for locking certain endings unless you did a certain something. But that came down to a console with 2-5 buttons on it depending on how much of a completionist you were and regardless of your moral choices. In fact, the DE:HR endings actually do worse what people are crying out about with Mass Effect. You just complete all missions in the game, and regardless of alignment, you can push any of the buttons and watch a film reel of starving African children with different voiceovers. Not that I'm justifying this in any way.