Moral Ambiguity in Game Design: A Follow Up

I'd like to thank everyone who's responded to my initial Moral Ambiguity in Game Design post, because it's given me the opportunity to refine my argument, and point out the problems in my original theory.

There's two fundamental issues with the argument I initially made.

The first is that even my canonical example doesn't support my thesis. I tried to establish that not having in game systems to represent morality was superior to having these systems, and used the example of lacking consequences for administering a coup de grace to wounded enemies in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. as better than the equivalent in Far Cry 2. But even in the S.T.A.L.K.E.R., there are in game systems to represent the two different choices you can make: either the graphical representation and sound of someone injured and in distress or the ability to loot the inert rag doll. I clearly persuaded enough of you of the basic theory, because no one pointed out that I was point blank wrong. Which I was. You can't depict any choice in a game without an in game system representing that choice, because otherwise the choice would not be in the game (I include here supposed metagame decisions like difficulty level).

The second is that I conflated two quite distinct things when I used the term 'moral system':

1. A game system which uses terms or representation we associate with moral decisions, like good, evil, children and death.
2. A set of values held by a person (or group of people) in the real world.

The majority of you reacted as if I was talking about 1, when I was in fact talking mostly about 2.

With regards to the game system 'moral system', all the rules governing game system design in general apply. You have to make interesting choices in the system available to the player, ensure that there are no degenerate cases that result in a single decision path being the most viable, ensure that the player understands the outcome of each decision and so on. Most of you, correctly, argued that more complex game systems generally make more interesting systems, than simple systems. My argument was a little more devious, that 'no' system was good, simple systems were bad, and I had nothing to say about more complex systems (other than perhaps lumping them with simple systems). Which, as I pointed out above, is incorrect. With regards to whether the labels attached to this game system make it moral (or if it is possible to have morality exist in a game system inherently), I'd like to put that aside for the moment and revisit it a little later.

What is far more interesting is whether a game can affect a set of values held by a real person. I made an argument that used the analogy of improv theatre, to say you could role play complex moral decisions, and this would somehow affect you. Alex quite correctly calls me out on this, pointing out that role-playing in a single player game is impossible because there is no audience - when you're by yourself, it's just pretending. I'm familiar with this argument, and would have agreed with it completely up until now, given that one of my first blog posts ever states the same thing.

But, excluding multi-player and coop games, is it possible to have an audience for a single player game? I'm not interested in after adventure reports (AARs), blogging while playing, or anything involving another person. Can someone be their own audience?

Well, it turns out, there's evidence to suggest they can.

We normally assume that our identity is an inviolate whole. But psychologists repeatedly fracture and subdivide the mind when talking about it, conscious vs unconscious, gut vs head etc. I'd like to use the analogy of id, ego and superego, were those terms not more than a century out of date, as well as betraying my love of the Psionics appendix of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd ed. So instead I'll refer to what I call the moral censor. This part of your mind observes what you do, and occasionally steps in to stop you acting, in effect censoring you actions should you be about to do something which is in violation of the value system you have (especially if it conflicts with those around you). And best of all, for the sake of this article, is that the moral censor in effect acts as an audience while you're alone.

So while I'd agree with Alex 99% of the time in that it is impossible to role-play while you're by yourself, I think the actions of the moral censor constitute a special case. I'd argue under conditions which trigger or nearly trigger censorship, it is possible to get the experience of performing in front of an audience, even when you're alone. How many of you have looked over your shoulder to see if you're being watched while choosing a morally reprehensible dialog branch?

And this is where I'll bring back the game system definition of a moral system, and suggest that what is really effective is designing a game with sufficient verisimilitude (or resonance) to excite your values. This system does not have to be especially complex, but it does have to avoid getting overruled by other parts of your mind (survival instinct, reward systems, conditioning) that making the system too game-like can trigger.

I've veered dangerously into pop psychology and areas I know little to nothing about, making an argument I have little hope of conclusively proving. But I've not read anyone writing about morality systems in games, beyond from examination from a games criticism perspective (which holds off from criticising or exploring moral systems too deeply). And this is despite the attempts of RPGs to recreate morality game systems again and again.

I think this is a fruitful area for further investigation, but one I won't explore in Unangband.

So I was right. And I was wrong. The challenge is to design a moral system that can handle that.