Poll: Survey on Ethics & Gaming
- Thread starter Araksardet
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"In general, do you think the activities of players towards NPCs can be judged against ethical standards?"
This I'm really hesitant to answer because it depends on the NPC. A generic, racist Morrowind guard who will spawn back in a little while? I don't really care about killing them.
But the elf ranger who just offered to share his campfire and tells you that he's desperately searching for a creature whose horn could cure his dying wife? Killing an NPC like that just makes me feel a bit dirty inside.
If a character is well developed and is meant to envoke a feeling of a real entity, then I think one's behavior begins to reflect on their moral character. Exploiting the empathy created by an NPC to inflict malice and cruelty onto the idea of real people is wrong to me.
NPCs should not be effigies.
This I'm really hesitant to answer because it depends on the NPC. A generic, racist Morrowind guard who will spawn back in a little while? I don't really care about killing them.
But the elf ranger who just offered to share his campfire and tells you that he's desperately searching for a creature whose horn could cure his dying wife? Killing an NPC like that just makes me feel a bit dirty inside.
If a character is well developed and is meant to envoke a feeling of a real entity, then I think one's behavior begins to reflect on their moral character. Exploiting the empathy created by an NPC to inflict malice and cruelty onto the idea of real people is wrong to me.
NPCs should not be effigies.
I don't like the 'No - Since NPCs aren't real people, No harm no foul' option. It carries a somewhat careless connotation. Whilst it is a short way of summing it up, it just makes it sound uncaring completely.
Also, the hate games question is a bit... odd for me too. It almost seems that your suggesting that any team that wasn't creative enough to create more than one enemy type falls into this field, when they don't necessarily. I've answered it as if they were fully aware of putting one ethnic group out of many as a target, and for some reason or other. Even then, it really depends on the circumstances. Even if it is not a depiction of a historical event, there can be cases where it is not doing anything bad, but can almost be doing something good. Imagine if the Dragon Age Mage-Templar relationship was explored a bit more. The Chantry and templars basically hunt down and kill any mages, or otherwise basically imprison and enslave them. Dependant on which point of view you are shown and end up agreeing with, this can be seen as a very wrong thing, and could help to show similar things IRL as wrong.
Overall the survey after the first page tends to paint choosing the 'No' option in a somewhat negative light - something that it shouldn't do to be a fair and unbiased survey. Other than putting the only reason for no as 'They're only virtual characters', try and make either another one with another reason for no, or reword it so its not so much an "I don't care about things that aren't real" response.
And knowing the attitudes that some American's hold on religion - even those who normally seem like perfectly reasonable people (Talking from experience) - I'd separate them.
Anyway, filled it out, and I hope it helps you.
Also, the hate games question is a bit... odd for me too. It almost seems that your suggesting that any team that wasn't creative enough to create more than one enemy type falls into this field, when they don't necessarily. I've answered it as if they were fully aware of putting one ethnic group out of many as a target, and for some reason or other. Even then, it really depends on the circumstances. Even if it is not a depiction of a historical event, there can be cases where it is not doing anything bad, but can almost be doing something good. Imagine if the Dragon Age Mage-Templar relationship was explored a bit more. The Chantry and templars basically hunt down and kill any mages, or otherwise basically imprison and enslave them. Dependant on which point of view you are shown and end up agreeing with, this can be seen as a very wrong thing, and could help to show similar things IRL as wrong.
Overall the survey after the first page tends to paint choosing the 'No' option in a somewhat negative light - something that it shouldn't do to be a fair and unbiased survey. Other than putting the only reason for no as 'They're only virtual characters', try and make either another one with another reason for no, or reword it so its not so much an "I don't care about things that aren't real" response.
And this. Whilst from memory the correct term for Agnostics IS something like Agnostic Atheist, they are different from what I will refer to as the 'Hardcore' atheists.Tanakh said:
And knowing the attitudes that some American's hold on religion - even those who normally seem like perfectly reasonable people (Talking from experience) - I'd separate them.
Anyway, filled it out, and I hope it helps you.
i find this to be quite an intriguing survey with some really good questions however i find one particular question to be lacking a possible answer:
Ethics towards NPCs *
In general, do you think the activities of players towards NPCs can be judged against ethical standards?
No - since NPCs aren't real people, no harm, no foul
Yes - the way we behave towards NPCs, when given the choice, reflects on our moral character
Yes - even if the NPCs aren't real, murder, torture and rape are still wrong
I would like to add and choose:
No - since NPCs aren't real people, we behave very different to them than in real life or other players, ethical standards would need to be applied accordingly.
Something along those lines i find missing as a possible answer
for the time being i answered the first option.
Edit: Sorry i see someone beat me to it
Ethics towards NPCs *
In general, do you think the activities of players towards NPCs can be judged against ethical standards?
No - since NPCs aren't real people, no harm, no foul
Yes - the way we behave towards NPCs, when given the choice, reflects on our moral character
Yes - even if the NPCs aren't real, murder, torture and rape are still wrong
I would like to add and choose:
No - since NPCs aren't real people, we behave very different to them than in real life or other players, ethical standards would need to be applied accordingly.
Something along those lines i find missing as a possible answer
for the time being i answered the first option.
Edit: Sorry i see someone beat me to it
The answers felt really black and white. I was very tempted to just answer 'morally grey area' for every single question, I had to kind of detach myself a little bit and think black and white to answer these questions so some of the answers I made felt a little harsh and aren't a completely representation of what I really feel about such a situation.
But I answered the questionnaire as well as I could
It was a rather simple one even if answering some of the questions felt a bit awkward.
But I answered the questionnaire as well as I could
It was a rather simple one even if answering some of the questions felt a bit awkward.
Funny thing is, I'm doing a presentation project on games and morals as well. I'm talking about the media backlash to Super Columbine Massacre RPG. Good luck mate!
How would you define the difference between 'Religious' and 'Deeply Religious'?
Are we talking religious as in, 'I take part of an organised religious community.' and deeply religious as in; 'I reject all of the people of my faith because they aren't hardcore enough. Tonight I shall be dining on goats blood and money brain as I chant the sacred song of death.'?
Are we talking religious as in, 'I take part of an organised religious community.' and deeply religious as in; 'I reject all of the people of my faith because they aren't hardcore enough. Tonight I shall be dining on goats blood and money brain as I chant the sacred song of death.'?
Thanks for your comments! May I ask around what time you completed the survey? Another poster brought the bias inherent in some of the answers to my attention, and I tried to fix them. It's possible you answered the old questions.Joccaren said:
That said, some of them still do follow the "it doesn't matter" tact. I'm not sure how to get around this; the "It's just a game!" argument is perhaps the most common for why behavior that would otherwise be reprehensible should be condoned in games, and in the literature I'm referencing, the reality or irreality of the harm caused is often a sticking point of arguments from both sides. Do you think the survey would work better if the No answers were formulated by highlighting the reasons people might have for engaging in the activity, i.e. "No, it's okay to take things from NPCs that help my character in gameplay"?
That's true - the term atheist tends to be much more loaded in American discourse, so it might be useful to see if there are differences between the two. I would separate the, but that would create problems in the table I get from the survey; perhaps I'll just rename the label to "irreligious" to avoid falling into a particular interpretation of the meaning of the words.
Yes, I was trying to force people to pick a side, since almost every situation could be analyzed from a dozen angles and qualified in a dozen ways. Though perhaps having a third option defeats the point of that.
This is actually a really good point, and I hadn't thought about it beforehand. With normal humans, of course, the same rules are supposed to apply to everyone, but with virtual characters the quality of the relationship between the player and the NPC is much more important in determining such things. I'll mark this down as a weakness of the survey; with so many respondents already, forking the question into two would be problematic, but this is definitely an interesting angle.
Comically exaggerated, but more or less. Religious is "I believe and am part of a religious community", deeply religious would be "I believe, am active in my religious community, and my religious beliefs deeply influence every aspect of my life".Cureacao said:
So a religious Christian might attend church on Sunday, baptize their kids, and believe in God, but nothing more than that.
A deeply religious Christian might attend church on Sunday, speak with their priest about spiritual subjects often, regularly read the Bible both for themselves and their children, wear religious symbols of faith, raise their children according to a vision set down by their community, proselytize among their neighbors, organize community religious activities, etc.
I took the survey about 2 hours ago, maybe 2 and 1/2 by the time I finish writing this.Araksardet said:
Whilst yes, the 'its just a game' argument is kinda common, I usually doubt that is the main reason behind the answer, it is just the easiest way of expressing it, though it would be interesting to know the truth in this matter.
The wording, at least a short sentences wording, to get across the idea is the hard part about the 'No' options.
Games thrive mostly on us experiencing things we can't in real life. Because of this, a lot of us will like to experiment. Some of us will stay 100% true to our morals no matter what (I will NEVER let the council die in ME1, and won't even watch the cutscene on Youtube), whilst other times we have the chance to experiment, or release stress.
As bad as it may sound, nothing releases stress quite like hitting something, whether in game or IRL. Doing things to random NPCs in games I would mostly equate to punching a punching bag in a gym.
Whilst yes, the punching bag is not alive, and doesn't even appear to be (A topic I could go far more in depth into but really it is somewhat irrelevant for this point), the gym is also a safe place for us to try things out.
Games are the same safe haven. Anything we do usually won't impact anything, RL won't be affected, the game world usually won't be too badly affected by random NPC killing sprees - though it is becoming more common that it is - and most bad things we make our characters do can be reverted by loading an old save, and pretending we hadn't done that.
This safe testing environment is a part of what makes us able to morally hit NPCs in games, to light them on fire and burn them for fun. It is a place that is meant for testing, for doing things we can't and wouldn't normally, and testing and learning is an intrinsic part of human nature.
Even that however doesn't really describe what makes it more OK to do things in games than IRL. It is, in the end, more of an accumulation of different ideas and feelings, that make it feel ok. An example of one other thing is that anonymous, almost non-living NPC type vs the NPC you meat, talk to and know example bought up. When NPCs are more developed, and feel more alive, we will react to them differently. If you killed a random NPC then their child happened to walk past, saw their dead parent, then started weeping at their feet, it would add a lot of gravity to what had happened. As it is, this rarely happens, and we rarely see the world react to the NPCs loss, and quite often another random NPC will just replace them. If the NPCs behaved more lifelike, and the world reacted to their deaths, it would be far harder to kill them.
What feels real has a large part to do with how we will react to it. Whilst in the end it does come down to 'They're not real, it doesn't matter', it is an intrinsic part of human nature, and it is difficult to word it in a way that doesn't seem bad.
I'd probably go for something more broad, something along the lines of 'No - Their nature leaves no moral consequence from actions taken on them', though even that could probably be improved.
I Would Like to Expand on the following areas
Ethics in Gameplay
The following questions are designer to get a picture of your views concerning the ethics of gameplay.
Some of the questions pertain to singleplayer situations, other questions pertain to multiplayer situations.
Gratuitous Violence *
Imagine if a player, in a singleplayer game, hunts down and sadistically murders or tortures NPCs even though the game does not explicitly encourage such behavior. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
This is morally grey, as in games regard NPC's differently, in a normal FPS you think nothing of the NPC's, they are usually either a target or a annoyance. but in MMO's and RPG's NPC's are often fleshed out especially companion NPC's, who at least in my opinion, you can personally like, now i understand they aren't real people, but they have personalities, in this case, while not a morally reprehensible act, its still stupid pointless and well wronge
Hacking and Cheating *
Imagine if a player, in a multiplayer game, hacks and/or cheats in such a way as to gain an advantage over other players that is not allowed. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
Actually hacking a games servers or disk, or whatever is WRONG, and illegal, i dont give two shits if it gets you the uber gun of epic uber, cheating while not illegal, is still in my mind a wrong thing to do, it lowers you as a player, and shows that you either dont have the skill, or moral fortitude to play the game properly
Sexual Violence *
Imagine if a player, in a singleplayer game, hunts down and graphically rapes NPC characters. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
Actively performing such acts in a game, at least in my mind is wrong, even if it benefited players, hell especially if it did, i can understand such events can be a very good, storytelling device, but using it as a game play element is wrong, you could see it as promoting rape, and sexual violence.
Trickery and Cons *
Imagine if a player, in a multiplayer game, tricks new players into giving up large amounts of money by offering worthless items for sale, or offering false advice. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
This is a tricky one, in some games this is a element of the world, such as Eve-Online, and in that game Scams are easy to see, and a lot of vets often say if they newbie is stupid enough to fall for it its their fault, i don't like this attitude, but i don't think the scams them selves, while annoying, are a morally reprehensible. i think that if a newbie did get scammed and then asked the "WTH i got scammed" question, other players (a good number do, but not enough) should show them why, and how they got scammed.
Theft *
Imagine if a player, in a singleplayer game, steals important items from NPCs, such that the NPCs die without the items, even though the game does not encourage such behavior. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
Now i'm not sure how this would work in a game i which it is possible to take items from NPCs, after all game characters don't need to eat or drink atm, perhaps if you stole their armor and weapons before a fight, and often, players only do this to the "no name" NPC's in RPG's like Fallout or The Elder Scrolls, and often they survive, because the Player Character will rush in first to win the battle, and some quests need you to actively kill NPCs in a similar manor (the cleanse the brotherhood quest in Oblivion can be done by replacing all the food with poison apples)
Griefing *
Imagine if a player, in a multiplayer game, spends much of their free time killing defenseless new players over and over again, for sport. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
Again ill be using Eve-Online as a example, in that game you can be killed virtually ANYWHERE, and greifing often happens in "safe space" its aloud up to the point where it becomes harassment, and by that i mean focusing on a individual player, and not leaving them alone, in such a case the player can petition CCP (the makers) to act, and in such a case the greifer can be banned, for x to forever
Ethics towards NPCs *
In general, do you think the activities of players towards NPCs can be judged against ethical standards?
this is tough, often NPCs are considered no-name pointless people, above them are Quest Givers and above them are companion NPCs, there are also fodder NPCs these are the enemys the game throws at you to mow down, you don't have a choice here, they are always hostile, alot of RPG players, at lest this they are Role Playing a "good" character wont agress or attack NPCs mostly because its a good way to get killed or fail quests, now some players will play a "Chatoic Stupid" play though for fun, they will often find ways to, "break" the game by doing stupud things like robbing the main good force who are everywhere. (see Spoiler Warning Fallout 3 play through by Josh Viel) but this is fine up to the point where the gameplay allows you to do wrong things like Rape. at this point the gameplay should NEVER allow the player to do something that is abhorrent. not just in real life but even in a virtual one.
Ethics towards Other Players *
In general, do you think the activities of players towards other players in multiplayer games can be judged against ethical standards?
Sure rob, steal and kill other players, but at least be nice about it, and NEVER personally insult another player, i can accept players jokingly calling them names, but at any point you are an asshole or threaten them out of game, you are being a dick and should stop.
so thats my 2 cents. i hope it helps or whatever
Ethics in Gameplay
The following questions are designer to get a picture of your views concerning the ethics of gameplay.
Some of the questions pertain to singleplayer situations, other questions pertain to multiplayer situations.
Gratuitous Violence *
Imagine if a player, in a singleplayer game, hunts down and sadistically murders or tortures NPCs even though the game does not explicitly encourage such behavior. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
This is morally grey, as in games regard NPC's differently, in a normal FPS you think nothing of the NPC's, they are usually either a target or a annoyance. but in MMO's and RPG's NPC's are often fleshed out especially companion NPC's, who at least in my opinion, you can personally like, now i understand they aren't real people, but they have personalities, in this case, while not a morally reprehensible act, its still stupid pointless and well wronge
Hacking and Cheating *
Imagine if a player, in a multiplayer game, hacks and/or cheats in such a way as to gain an advantage over other players that is not allowed. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
Actually hacking a games servers or disk, or whatever is WRONG, and illegal, i dont give two shits if it gets you the uber gun of epic uber, cheating while not illegal, is still in my mind a wrong thing to do, it lowers you as a player, and shows that you either dont have the skill, or moral fortitude to play the game properly
Sexual Violence *
Imagine if a player, in a singleplayer game, hunts down and graphically rapes NPC characters. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
Actively performing such acts in a game, at least in my mind is wrong, even if it benefited players, hell especially if it did, i can understand such events can be a very good, storytelling device, but using it as a game play element is wrong, you could see it as promoting rape, and sexual violence.
Trickery and Cons *
Imagine if a player, in a multiplayer game, tricks new players into giving up large amounts of money by offering worthless items for sale, or offering false advice. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
This is a tricky one, in some games this is a element of the world, such as Eve-Online, and in that game Scams are easy to see, and a lot of vets often say if they newbie is stupid enough to fall for it its their fault, i don't like this attitude, but i don't think the scams them selves, while annoying, are a morally reprehensible. i think that if a newbie did get scammed and then asked the "WTH i got scammed" question, other players (a good number do, but not enough) should show them why, and how they got scammed.
Theft *
Imagine if a player, in a singleplayer game, steals important items from NPCs, such that the NPCs die without the items, even though the game does not encourage such behavior. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
Now i'm not sure how this would work in a game i which it is possible to take items from NPCs, after all game characters don't need to eat or drink atm, perhaps if you stole their armor and weapons before a fight, and often, players only do this to the "no name" NPC's in RPG's like Fallout or The Elder Scrolls, and often they survive, because the Player Character will rush in first to win the battle, and some quests need you to actively kill NPCs in a similar manor (the cleanse the brotherhood quest in Oblivion can be done by replacing all the food with poison apples)
Griefing *
Imagine if a player, in a multiplayer game, spends much of their free time killing defenseless new players over and over again, for sport. Is such behavior morally reprehensible?
Again ill be using Eve-Online as a example, in that game you can be killed virtually ANYWHERE, and greifing often happens in "safe space" its aloud up to the point where it becomes harassment, and by that i mean focusing on a individual player, and not leaving them alone, in such a case the player can petition CCP (the makers) to act, and in such a case the greifer can be banned, for x to forever
Ethics towards NPCs *
In general, do you think the activities of players towards NPCs can be judged against ethical standards?
this is tough, often NPCs are considered no-name pointless people, above them are Quest Givers and above them are companion NPCs, there are also fodder NPCs these are the enemys the game throws at you to mow down, you don't have a choice here, they are always hostile, alot of RPG players, at lest this they are Role Playing a "good" character wont agress or attack NPCs mostly because its a good way to get killed or fail quests, now some players will play a "Chatoic Stupid" play though for fun, they will often find ways to, "break" the game by doing stupud things like robbing the main good force who are everywhere. (see Spoiler Warning Fallout 3 play through by Josh Viel) but this is fine up to the point where the gameplay allows you to do wrong things like Rape. at this point the gameplay should NEVER allow the player to do something that is abhorrent. not just in real life but even in a virtual one.
Ethics towards Other Players *
In general, do you think the activities of players towards other players in multiplayer games can be judged against ethical standards?
Sure rob, steal and kill other players, but at least be nice about it, and NEVER personally insult another player, i can accept players jokingly calling them names, but at any point you are an asshole or threaten them out of game, you are being a dick and should stop.
so thats my 2 cents. i hope it helps or whatever