Video Games with Real* Moral® Choices? !

[Rule Britannia]

I go with the arsehole option every time every game, for obvious reason it being that I don't get to decide in real life "I'm gonna destroy the shit out of this town with that conveniently placed atom bomb in the centre of town"

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Almost none of them do it well. The point of having a choice is that it is your own. However, playing the game YOUR way falls apart when they are so blatantly spotlighted. You're just walking along, get into a conversation and then BOOM! MAKE A CHOICE NAOW!

If it was played more subtly, without them being projected like they're on a fucking smart board, I'd enjoy them more.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Witcher games and Planescape: Torment are to my knowledge the best implementation of moral choices in a WRPG. Planescape: Torment in particular lets you be evil, but evil in an intelligent, consistent, instrumental, and scary way. That game's pretty well known for being very hard to play through as an evil character simply because of what that playthrough requires you to do.

You've also got Atlus games - Devil Survivor had in my opinion one of the best implementations of choices in any game period, and Catherine's inscription of the order vs. chaos dichotomy into the context a normal relationship is sheer insane genius.

such as what does the game require you to do?

Planescape: Torment?

Spoiler

Among other things, you can enslave a character for which slavery is worse than death, take advantage of the control you have over him to force him to torture someone to death, feed several characters you've spent most of the game with to demonic entities in exchange for information, and many other minor/major acts of cruelty.

The thing that makes it effective is that an evil Nameless One isn't a psycho, like an "evil" playthrough in most games would be - he's incredibly cruel, but ultimately utilitarian. The quality of the writing makes it very hard for many people to do, myself included. Personally, I played Lawful Good, with lots of "holy shit, I can do that?" moments when seeing the evil dialogue options.

 

[Ironsouled]

In general I'm most in favour of what's happening in ME: there is no good and evil, only a choice as to how far you're willing to go to get the job done.

There is only one major flaw with this: the game still needed to be playable, so you know that you can complete the game even if you don't use the super-unethical superweapon.

For example the Anvil of the Void in DA:O. It was advertised as "it'll make you more awesome in your final battle", but I was pretty sure that the game would never allow me to fail the final battle just because I picked the good option somewhere along the line.

Consequences are pretty awesome to have, but all too often you know that regardless what you do, you still can finish the game.

Oh, and I'd really appreciate it if next time they wouldn't make the only decent healer a goddamn care bear. I pretty much felt I was forced to go the hippie way when I wasn't playing a mage myself.

Why I saved the templars, killed Wynn (Despise the sanctimonious *****), gave whichever mage was in the party 1 heal spell, and used lots of potions... and strategey and a ridiculous number of traps and whatnot.


OT: Mentioned already, but Planescape: Torment is the best I can think of. If that one is off the list, I'll go indy and say Divinity II Ego Draconis. A so-so game at best, but it was quite nice in the moral choice department... well, minus the fact that they didn't have as much impact as I felt they should.

 

[A Shadows Age]

Knights Of The Old Republic II

Although Light and Dark side were present, they were handled very differently to the straight up press for rainbow kittens or nuke orphanage style options for KOTOR I. The choices made in that game were primarily to focus on your survival, you're constantly being hunted by psychotic Sith Lords, you yourself are a wound in the force, drawing in life around you and influencing all those who travel with you, not everything is centered on your karma. Your actions affect the way your companions look upon the world, for you, most of the options involve going out of your way to try to improve the lives of those around you, of course, these means you'll spend a lot of time focusing on others rather than yourself. Or you can focus on getting stronger quickly and allow others to struggle for themselves.

Examples such as the fight within the palace at Onderon, depending on who you picked to help, do you aid the soldiers fighting by risking loss of energy and vitality, or do you conserve your strength to face your own greater challenges.

Then there are a lot more complex moments, such as a beggar on Nar Shadda, who won't leave you alone until you either threaten the man with violence or hand over some credits, yet either of the actions results in suffering, such as the man running in fear but attacking someone else for money, or he is attacked for his newly gained credits.

Plus there is a great sense of motives within the story, of course there are some straight up good/evil choices, but those usually tie in well with the main story, and usually branch out, rather than asking you to simply save a child or set it on fire, you might be given the choice, such as, to aid the Jedi Masters who cast you out, as well as recieving some rather crucial knowledge. Or perhaps you would rather have revenge for what you believe they did to you, you'll tear what you want from them, but the further down the road, more and more will turn their backs on you.

In a game like KOTOR II, you can't simply save everyone, you can't please everyone, even the smallest decisions affect the outcomes of so many lives, the Exile's complex background ensures that it's never as simple as being the next Jesus/Hitler. All of your choices have benefits, consequences, branches and complex morals and influences rolled up into one.

Oh, man ninja'd. Yes KOTOR 2 definitely qualifies for this, not the in game outcomes but the effect on your perception of morality. The choices in this game may not amount to much in terms of game play consequence. But it does something much harder, it affects your perception of morality and questions the very idea of it as a concept to it's very core,(with the begger being a good example) and through you the world around you. It is one of the few games that as a medium of fiction can affect your medium of realty as no movie or book ever could. I would recommend it as is, to any sociology or philosophy class in highschool.

 

[Isaac Minarik]

Shin Megami Tensei: Nocturne Maniax
Despite the fact that it is essentially about the struggle between Lucifer and God, it's painted as more of a freedom versus utility axis. In addition to that, there are elements of conflict between charity and progress, self-reliance vs interconnectedness, etc. This has always stood out as my favorite since there were never any right answers, no characters or factions that were inherently admirable or despicable, and all the true conflict took place in the player, rather than the game.

When a random npc asks you whether the empathy of a human or the strength of a demon are more valuable to you, it isn't talking about physical strength. It is asking whether you are willing to invest emotional energy in developing attachments to weak, treacherous humans who you will eventually have to side against, or treat them as what they are, eventual stumbling blocks in the way of your path to the creation of a perfect world.

 

[JamesStone]

Fallout New Vegas. Caesar´s Legion is the best example of evil dickheads, but they have some potencial for good, and if you side with them, the NCR, Mr. House or Yes Man is just a question of your moral beliefs, and not of black or white general conceptions of good and evi,

Gonna have to disagree with you there. Its painted very early on that Caesar's legion is suppose to bed the bad guys and the NCR are suppose to be the good guys. Sure the NCR show a bit of a bad side with all the drunk soldiers at New Vegas, but its still clear their the "good" choice.

True, in your early encounters, it is clear that Caesar´s Legion are a bunch of murdering, raping assholes, but when it´s time to make up your mind (cookie for people who realize the FNV reference), you see that the guy who is in charge is a charismatic leader who believes that in do all those evil acts now, you can after do something good. So it´s the "I can be good but my troops keep doing dickhead acts", and the proof is that you can finish up the game for Caesar with a good karma. And according to Cass, their roads are really safe.

I´m still and NCR hero, but I recognize that Legion has their good spots. It´s a "do all it takes" kind of good.

P.S. This doesn´t apply to real life. Every murderer wanna-be that reads this can´t say this in an hypothetical court. I really don´t want to end up in every anti-terrorism force watch-list.

Spoiler: Seems related

That out of the way, I disagree about Caesar's Legion having any moral ambiguity.

Look at the way they treat others, especially women. Remember that Legion POW you can talk to? How he talks about how he makes sure that the slave collars are really tight so the slaves never forget their "place". And they kill people by nailing them to crosses. Killing Caesar was one of the most fun things ever.

Even though he may have thought he could do more good this way, his actions show something else

Spoiler: Also Related

EDIT: Also let me add that according to the G.E.C.K. (The creation tool for the game), Ceasar and his second in command have Very Evil Karma

I think Dragon Age Origins did a good job at it.

Quoting Marcus :"Most of his men follow Caesar himself, not Caesar´s ideologies"
The Legion is in it´s heart a "Da all it takes" and "Purity is all, and death is needed to ensure it" kind of guys. It is your actions inside their structure that determines what will they be in the future, but yeah, have to agree that the "Crucify Everyone" policy is a bit too much, but hey, no-one complained when the Romans did it!