140 réponses à ce sujet

[SheffSteel]

I suspect that PsychoBlonde is correct but unlikely to convince many. Moral relativism is very trendy, after all, not least because it often gives those in power an extra excuse when they're caught abusing that power - yes, doing something wrong.

There may not be absolute standards for what is right and wrong, but there certainly are some very widely agreed upon beliefs which have a very sound basis in moral philosophy - for example, that imposing suffering on others is wrong.

Now, some cultures have may engaged in practices (human sacrifice, torture, death penalty) that other cultures condemn as wrong, but it is (to say the least) a stretch to say that those cultures ever said their practices were good. It is far more common for there to be a tacit acceptance that bad things happen, and for there to be a commonly offered rationalisation such as "the ends justify the means". Societies can be characterised in terms of which ends they believe justify which means.

That's where morality comes into this game: you'll be put in situations where pragmatic considerations may push you to consider actions which normally an objective observer would say were immoral. I suspect that your choices may also have to take into account the value systems of the other characters - in other words, you might be pressured into doing something that you personally are not happy with in order to keep one of your companions happy.

Interesting stuff.

[Lord Clocks]

Cuuniyevo wrote...

However, let me qualify that with the idea that intentions are what matter, not the actions themselves.

Personally I 100% agree and like the direction you were taking with that.  How would you implement that in a game or an addon area/mission/etc?

Even if we say that morality is at some point not relative AND then say that the morality impact of your choices is not specific to what it is that you do but rather what you are attempting to do or the motivation-behind-the-action, any such metric to morality would then be specific to an arc of actions which would imply your intent over a period of time, would it not?

E.g. Morality then becomes the sum of the player experiences rather than a defined consequence of any given action.  How do you define the absolute impacts for a specific choice, then?

Modifié par Lord Clocks, 26 octobre 2009 - 03:04 .

[Maria Caliban]

Critical Miss wrote...



I thought the good/evil thing wasn't in DA:O, rather your actions effect your standing with party members and certain groups within the game. Someone correct me if I'm wrong though.

There's no alignment system, if that's what you're asking.



Party members have their own set of values and what you do might make them like you more or less. I'm interested in seeing if this makes the followers a set of ethical sub-systems. It's a fascinating idea.

[Cuuniyevo]

gethsemani87 wrote…
I have to say however, that in any work of fiction it is the authors' responsibility to provide us with a definite scale of morality, even if it isn't pushed into our faces. Imagine 1984 without the premise that Authoritarian states are bad. It wouldn't be much of the book it is today if you removed that single overriding logic. Without a (moral) basis from where to begin to explore ethics in the game world, cyou are going nowhere without a map. For the choices to have any impact and the discussion to be worthwhile, you need for the developers to define what is "right" and what is "wrong" and go from there. …

That's one reason why I love computer games: There can be multiple writers with multiple points of view who can give you, the player, multiple options. A linear game will usually have some sort of 'message' while a more open game world will let you do as you believe your character would or should do. It is a balancing act though, as letting the player go too far off the rails can destroy the storyline…

… The trick lies in not judging the player for making a choice, but letting them make up their mind about the consequences of their actions.

That's one of my favorite parts of Dragon Age: Origins. They have stated multiple times that they never tell you what is right or wrong, but the characters have their own opinions and beliefs and will tell you if you upset them. It's still not as open as the real world (because no matter how many writers they hire, they can never think up every possible action and outcome), but it's closer than any other game I can think of so far.

Arttis wrote…
How about the universal right and wrong is that you are wrong no matter what you believe?The only right is you may exsist.

How about not? Existence is not guaranteed. It can end any time of any day, no matter where you are. Setting aside morality for a moment, ethics are what societies come up with to try to control people's tendency to interfere with other people's lives. Societies want to be happy and secure. The status quo is enshrined. Mass murderers and serial rapists are occasionally put to death because they upset the status quo and interfere in the worst possible ways with other people's lives. White collar crimes are also reviled by societies interested in keeping the status quo, even though the criminal didn't physically attack anyone.

Draconus Kahn, there are many different things that could have run through the character's head during such a 'crisis of faith' but we, the viewers, are not told precisely what his motives are. Any person in such a situation would have to think about it for themselves, and try to do the right thing as they saw it. Emphasis on try, as, like you said, some situations have no clear answer. Don't 'blame' morality though. It's our lack of perspective and wisdom that is to blame for making a bad decision, not some phantom ideal 'letting you down'.

Critical Miss, yes, that is correct. Your companions have their own opinions and beliefs and will react to your decisions based on such. Some of your companions will be nice people, some not. To put it into DnD terms, some of them will be lawful and some will be chaotic. Some are good, and some are neutral. So far I don't think any of the main companions count as being in the evil corner of the DnD alignment though. We'll have to play the game and find out.It's not like tic-tac-toe or something though. you're not 'in this alignment box or else you're in that one'. It's more like a 3D graph where the third axis is their approval of you and the characters can travel on a line or arc during the course of the game.

Bara Rockfall, I would say that you're describing ethics, not morality. Those of us who believe in moral absolutes believe that it is independent of humanity. We think of morality like, say, the force of gravity. Always present, even though you can't see it. Some people would call it karma, but that's slightly different and we could go on for hours about those differences. Some other people might say that an alien race wouldn't necessarily have the same 'morality' as we have, and that would discredit the natural force idea. Oh well. Show me some aliens with a different concept of morality and I'll take it under advisement. I completely agree with your last sentence. More games should let you fill in the blanks, whether you're doing it from your own perspective or you're role-playing.

Lord Clocks wrote…
… But in placing those effects into the game itself, isnt the developer by the choice of how deep the effect is, putting such a "scale" on the morality of that choice?  How would you be able to implement such choices without neccessarily defining the depth of the consequences for that action?  Isnt doing so basically prejudicial in specification of a morality system?

No, not quite. They're populating the world with realistic characters, some of whom judge you. The characters judge you, not the developers. They're just being sneaky and covering their bases by including many points of view and letting you choose what's right and what's wrong.

Personally I 100% agree and like the direction you were taking with that.  How would you implement that in a game or an addon area/mission/etc?

Thanks, but your question is very open-ended. There are an infinite number of ways to implement it with varying degrees of success. Look at my example of the beggar to see a miniaturized version of a module that I would create. If I were to make an interaction with a single NPC like that, I'd have a couple hundred lines of possible dialogue at least, instead of the average game's two or three. As such, I should probably never try to make a full game. I'd never finish, and most people would never see more than a few percent of it even if I did.

Even if we say that morality is at some point not relative AND then say that the morality impact of your choices is not specific to what it is that you do but rather what you are attempting to do or the motivation-behind-the-action, any such metric to morality would then be specific to an arc of actions which would imply your intent over a period of time, would it not?

E.g. Morality then becomes the sum of the player experiences rather than a defined consequence of any given action.

Well, there have been a few games that have one of the characters ask you why you did something, but that's problematic as you can easily imagine a reason that the  developers did not. In the end, most games leave it up to the player, and you have to just imagine it. Even though the game might not reward you specifically for your reasoning, you the player will know why you did it, and that will color your memory of the game, making it more enjoyable and engrossing.

How do you define the absolute impacts for a specific choice, then?

When I'm role-playing a character, I try to think from that character's perspective. What would they do in this situation? Then I do that. There may be consequences though, and then I have to ask myself again, "what would they do in this situation?" Will they accept it? Will they ignore it? Will they try to 'fix' or 'undo' the consequence? So long as you refrain from saving before each conversation and reloading if you don't like the result, all kinds of role-playing opportunities open up.

Maria Caliban, I agree. It's fascinating and I'm having trouble waiting for next month.

Modifié par Cuuniyevo, 26 octobre 2009 - 05:38 .

[Stebenator]

 There is no Good, No Evil- Only Decisions and Consequences. 

[Lord Clocks]

Stebenator wrote...

 There is no Good, No Evil- Only Decisions and Consequences. 

Is that really true?  Even in a gaming context there is an expected/accepted path.

[Stebenator]

Then Lord Clocks... you must accept your fate! We must join darkspawn... we must join them... it would be really wise my friend!

[briskojr]

There are moral absolutes. There have to be for a society to exists. Murder and theft for example have to be stamped out so that people can feel secure.  When a group of men and women form a community (such as a tribe) it would almost immediately become obvious that in order for that community to continue and grow that any who murder, rape or steal would have to be removed. This is basically where morals come from.. Beyond that you enter more of a grey area where debate over what is good or bad can take place and basically this is unique for each society (obviously). These morals are not absolute and are largely a matter of individual perception. These are the morals that I tend to think of when someone brings up how a developer may work them into a game.

[Arttis]

Being alive and existing are not the same.If you ever existed nothing can take away that you did exist once.The only thing we can do is change your form or forget you.No matter what though you did exist.

[hexaligned]

Operative84 wrote...

Have to agree with Darth. In American society which stems from puritan concepts nudity and such is an awful thing and is not socially acceptable, yet in Europe it's acceptable, I dont mean people go at it in the streets or anything, I just mean the human body isnt so much taboo over there as is here.

Not all of America is the American south.  I live in NY and it's perfectly legal and accepted for me to walk outside topless if I want to.   I've lived in Europe for a number of years, they are not any more open about it there, than they are where I live now. 

[Lord Clocks]

Stebenator wrote...

Then Lord Clocks... you must accept your fate! We must join darkspawn... we must join them... it would be really wise my friend!

Tell me, "Friend".  When did Stebenator the Wise abandon reason for madness?!

[xODD7BALLx]

relhart wrote...

Operative84 wrote...

Have to agree with Darth. In American society which stems from puritan concepts nudity and such is an awful thing and is not socially acceptable, yet in Europe it's acceptable, I dont mean people go at it in the streets or anything, I just mean the human body isnt so much taboo over there as is here.

Not all of America is the American south.  I live in NY and it's perfectly legal and accepted for me to walk outside topless if I want to.   I've lived in Europe for a number of years, they are not any more open about it there, than they are where I live now. 

Just an example dude, and I was born and raised in the "South" and most people dont care about it so much, old timers certainly in any part of America surely dont share our opinions on such things though.

Sadly the south is always regarded in such poor taste, as if we're all hick, racist, redneck, inbreds with low IQs, yet in my experience living in the south, I've had more racial slander thrown my way being caucasian than most would even think happens from a northerners perspective. Mostly in MS, GA, SC, and NC though. I "try" to not assume alot about folks because of their origins(so to speak), like I said I try I'm not perfect, I just adapt to my environment. As a creature would in any habitat, ie: if you eat this plant you get sick or those other creatures have a probability to be violent and are potential predators, therefore you are from then out wary of those facts because of events(personal events not something you heard about from so and so).

Some schools here in the south if you happen to be the "white boy" you get your ass beat just for being white, sorry going off on a tangent, just seemed like you being from NY and as though the American "South" is something bad to you. But it's easy for people from different regions to stereotype southerners as such, though they havent seen how it really is or lived amongst us enough. Doesnt matter where youre from there are ****s everywhere.

I've always gotten ill favored looks whenever I've filled out paperwork that asks race, lol I always put American.

Modifié par Operative84, 26 octobre 2009 - 08:35 .

[BomimoDK]

i'd be extatic if brotherly love or better thoughts could change their morals a bit.

not talking from saint to child raper, smaller things. step by step influencing them the way they influence you, now that would be too kickass to be possible.

[Lord Clocks]

But draw that back to the conversation. Regionalized assumptions and histories will drive perspectives on the morality of particular actions (as well as create prejudices against other regions/race/religions/whatever). Thats the real world.



In the game, how would you build that system? A few posts ago I really liked the concept of decision arcs. E.g. Morality definition not being set by any particular single action but provided by an entire arc that speaks to the intent of the player through the various decision points of a quest/region/people's interactions.



Looking at the toolset, is there scripting support for deepset variables and tracking resources beyond a given single decision point or single dynamic event?

[Arttis]

BomimoDK wrote...

i'd be extatic if brotherly love or better thoughts could change their morals a bit.
not talking from saint to child raper, smaller things. step by step influencing them the way they influence you, now that would be too kickass to be possible.

There are people who do that.They get paid to do that.Therapists.Phycolgists.Am i getting the name right?
Or am i misunderstanding?

Modifié par Arttis, 26 octobre 2009 - 08:37 .

[Lord Clocks]

BomimoDK wrote...

i'd be extatic if brotherly love or better thoughts could change their morals a bit.
not talking from saint to child raper, smaller things. step by step influencing them the way they influence you, now that would be too kickass to be possible.

The word is actually spelled 'ecstatic'.

I have no idea what the bit about saint to child 'rapist' is about.  

Might I suggest expressing yourself in english with the usual sentence convention expected of that language?

[BomimoDK]

Lord Clocks whined...

BomimoDK wrote...

i'd be extatic if brotherly love or better thoughts could change their morals a bit.
not talking from saint to child raper, smaller things. step by step influencing them the way they influence you, now that would be too kickass to be possible.

The word is actually spelled 'ecstatic'.

I have no idea what the bit about saint to child 'rapist' is about.  

Might I suggest expressing yourself in english with the usual sentence convention expected of that language?

scuse me, hello!!! could you try to be less of an ****? *gets all grumpy* "grammar****s and their corrections, how about i put my fist up his..." /butthurt

i meant if you could influence the morality of your partymembers just as they can influence yours.
not in too character changing ways, but maybe open morrigans eyes to compassion or show allistair (or whoever is a charity dude) how to "not give a turd about *former convict or 2nd class sitizen*
if not, that's a big feature for the sequel... it would take truckloads of work.

and it was not like that was not understandable the first time around

Modifié par BomimoDK, 26 octobre 2009 - 09:04 .

[Lord Clocks]

Much more understandable that time around, actually.



If i understand you, you are looking for your choices to influence the base views of your characters rather than simply changing the influence that you have over them and the way that they influence your conversation/decision choices.



I suspect that if you impelemnted a feature like that, it would be kind of a weighted balance system. E.g. you arent moving them much, they are influencing you more than you are moving them, but theoretically by the end of the game, you can have made enough of a difference with consistent choice making as to influence a near-game-end conversation/choiec set.



You would have to plan from this from very early in the game. You would also have to think about how you implement willpower. Willpower could potentially be used to indicate a character's resistance to changing thier mind, as it were.



Its an interesting concept. You could essentially "corrupt" or draw a character to your point of view. This actually draws a really interesting parallel to the Warhammer 40k expansion recently but would have to be far more subtle than in warhammer 40k. They practically beat you over the head with it using overt corruption points.



Instead these would have to be fairly invisible systems and would probably require the developers to build complexity in late-game decision trees, which is not neccessarily a bad thing, I think. More player impact, more player ownership of the end-state.

[SheffSteel]

If there was a high-profile decision where another character disagreed with you and later you turned out to be right, that should influence their viewpoint quite a bit.

[Maria Caliban]

BomimoDK wrote...
...and it was not like that was not understandable the first time around

It wasn't understandable the first time around.

[JEBesh]

Maria Caliban wrote...

BomimoDK wrote...
...and it was not like that was not understandable the first time around

It wasn't understandable the first time around.

I definitely had no clue what the **** he was getting at.

[jackkel dragon]

Lord Clocks wrote...

Much more understandable that time around, actually.

If i understand you, you are looking for your choices to influence the base views of your characters rather than simply changing the influence that you have over them and the way that they influence your conversation/decision choices.

I suspect that if you impelemnted a feature like that, it would be kind of a weighted balance system. E.g. you arent moving them much, they are influencing you more than you are moving them, but theoretically by the end of the game, you can have made enough of a difference with consistent choice making as to influence a near-game-end conversation/choiec set.

You would have to plan from this from very early in the game. You would also have to think about how you implement willpower. Willpower could potentially be used to indicate a character's resistance to changing thier mind, as it were.

Its an interesting concept. You could essentially "corrupt" or draw a character to your point of view. This actually draws a really interesting parallel to the Warhammer 40k expansion recently but would have to be far more subtle than in warhammer 40k. They practically beat you over the head with it using overt corruption points.

Instead these would have to be fairly invisible systems and would probably require the developers to build complexity in late-game decision trees, which is not neccessarily a bad thing, I think. More player impact, more player ownership of the end-state.

This was attempted by Obsidian in KOTOR2 and (barely) in NWN2. (And maybe in AP?) Companions could have alignment altered by the choices of the player character. Sadly, many alternate companion scenes were cut. (Some had the party members sacrificing themselves for the PC, other scenes had the companions turn on the others.) One of the "influence" scenes included a person trained to block the force become a jedi. (KOTOR2)

With the morality, I feel there is an absolute measure, but the consequences don't always add up. (Example from a NWN mod I played:) The player is attacked by a thug, obviously ready to kill, but spares the man. The man then kills an (innocent) girl. Kindness killed the girl, in a sense. Does that make mercy bad? (no) If the man was killed, it was an evil act, even though the girl is still alive.

I also have to agree with the whole "intent decides" thing stated earlier. Letting the man in the example go so that he could kill the girl would be bad, even though he was "spared."

Just wanted to chime in with my own examples.

[soteria]

JEBesh wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

BomimoDK wrote...
...and it was not like that was not understandable the first time around

It wasn't understandable the first time around.

I definitely had no clue what the **** he was getting at.

I tried to read it... said 'Eh?' and moved on.

[Darthnemesis2]

soteria wrote...

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

But, worse, people forget that when they declare morality is subjective, they are making a sweeping epistemological statement that leaves the door open for ANYONE to do ANYTHING and claim it's "perfectly okay".  No.  I don't care what society you're from, that which destroys human life and dignity is evil.

Still not disagreeing...
What I'm pointing out though is that just because one person (or even a group of people) say something is 'wrong' doesn't make it so. In your previous example, is killing in self defense wrong? You said you "can sure as heck shoot them in the head when they decide that their "morals" indicate that they should break into my house, kill my best friend, and rape me." this is self denfense, but some would still argue that, since you killed you were evil.

I'm shaking my head in disbelief.  You ARE disagreeing with her.  You're saying "right and wrong is relative to the culture you live in," she is saying "no, there are certain moral absolutes."  If you are irreligious, it's probably hard to justify any sort of moral absolute, since man is the highest authority.  I think ultimately "might makes right" if you believe in moral relativism, whether you yourself choose to impose your views on others or no.  If you do believe in some sort of higher being, it's a different ball game.

I would agree with Cuuneyo that intent is the most important thing, and that is reflected in at least NWN2.  Whenever you do something, you're usually asked to explain your motives, and your answer determines which direction your alignment goes.  Where people get in trouble with that system is trying to have their character lie about thier motives when lying isn't an option.

I don't really think we are really that far off from each other though. Right and wrong ARE relative to the culture you live in BUT there are still certain things that are wrong. Killing someone for no reason is wrong, but killing someone who is trying to kill you/your family/friend/whatever is less wrong, or even right. This is an almost universally accepted fact. However, as I stated, some will still say that because you killed you were in the wrong - no matter what the reason. I too agree with Cuuneyo, intent is key. If you did something with the knowledge that what you were doing was for the greater 'good' then it was a good thing.

However, I COMPLETELY disagree with you saying irreligious (read: Athiest) people are more likely to believe in "might makes right". Believing in a god does not automatically make someone a good person, or make them any less likely to try and exploit others. In fact, I would argue its the opposite in some cases. How many wars, killings, and purges have happened simply because someone else was of a different religion? Are they morally right because their god tells them so?

[tls5669]

If you know anything about the DnD system just think as everyone being neutral. Myself? I'm the kind of person that believes that some people deserve to die, and thats how I'll play the game.

Modifié par tls5669, 27 octobre 2009 - 01:00 .