Most Complicated Moral System In A Video Game Series

[killamch89]

Having played a whole host of video games with various moral compasses, I'm always intrigued by the games with far more complicated systems than the stereotypical "good" or 'evil". The Elder Scrolls universe is a great example of this, while the Aedra are considered somewhat "benevolent" and the Daedric Prince "malevolent", it's not quite as simple as that. You have Daedric Princes such as Meridia who loathe undead creatures and unrighteous acts. Azura is another example, she has aided several mortals against other Daedric Princes. In reality, the deities have their reasons for what they do which is incomprehensible to the average mortal so they can't strictly adhere to the typical "good" and "evil" moral spectrum. What are your thoughts on this? 

[Reality vs Adventure]

Morality is a very interesting subject when it comes to deities and things we can't possibly understand. But there is a universal rule. That is when pitched against unfathomable decisions, do what causes the least amount of suffering. But maybe that doesn't hold true at all. Mortals that can't see the future will do what they think is right at the time, but a deity will have a different standard if they can see the future, or even if they have a better understanding of humans over a span of thousands of years since a deity probably has witnessed man's existence from the beginning. All humans know is a short written history manipulated by man and time. I can't think of a game where morality is held to a different system. But definitely gonna think on it. 

[The Blackangel]

I think RDR2 is a prime example. Typically people would loathe Arthur and the entire Van der Linde gang for what they do. They rob, kill, and steal as a "profession;" for lack of a better term. Yet they also defend the ones they love, and are willing to give their own lives to do it. That's a rather quick and shallow example, but there are more. Arthur can stop and help random people all over the map, he can give to charity, he can defend animals, and can do a lot of good. But he's still a killer and a thief. As are the rest of his gang, with the exception of Jack. But Jack is only about 4 years old, so that's a given.

[Withywarlock]

I think the most complicated morality system is the one that isn't expressly intended to be about morality. Take a city management game like Tropico 4 - you've no moral obligation or mechanical reason beyond your citizens' joy to provide each of your people with mansions, which is possible but incredibly energy consuming and requires a lot of money. It's far cheaper to provide them with lower quality tenements, charge little rent and transfer the costs to funding your more expensive greener energy. I realised by the 7th mission I could better spend the money on pollution reducing techniques on industry, make more money and ultimately beat the game faster rather than try to build paradise on Earth each mission.

While Dragon Age: Origins has very basic moral choices, they're still not labelled as good and bad ones all the same. Even intimidation, often seen as the "bad" option is something that can spare a life that would be unfair to take. So when a game hides the morality, I'm fine with it as long as the consequences are clear (full sentences, not dialogue wheels; voice acting and text are not mutually exclusive).

If it has to be a system rather than a feeling the game gives me, then I like Fallout: New Vegas' system of reputation. Where karma still exists from Fallout 3, it has nowhere near the prominence it did before and instead your reputation with each faction lies on a broad spectrum of good and bad. It's one of the few games that is forgiving of you doing both good and bad things to the same people. Each faction has the ability to do good but is brought down by a single flaw: the NCR's inherent problem is corruption and ineptitude; Caesar's Legion (the least "grey" of all the players)'s inherent problem is the cult of personality; the Brotherhood of Steel's inherent problem is rigidity and internal strife; House's inherent problem is the inability to live beyond his fraction of the Mojave. You will do saintly and obscene things for each of these factions, and they will do saintly and obscene things in return. Even the Legion allows certain peoples a sporting chance to flee its havoc.

[Heatman]

On 12/29/2020 at 4:06 PM, The Blackangel said:

I think RDR2 is a prime example. Typically people would loathe Arthur and the entire Van der Linde gang for what they do. They rob, kill, and steal as a "profession;" for lack of a better term. Yet they also defend the ones they love, and are willing to give their own lives to do it. That's a rather quick and shallow example, but there are more. Arthur can stop and help random people all over the map, he can give to charity, he can defend animals, and can do a lot of good. But he's still a killer and a thief. As are the rest of his gang, with the exception of Jack. But Jack is only about 4 years old, so that's a given.

Seriously, I think in a way that they are trying to vindicate their evil acts of robbery and killings with the little good they do sometimes. 

I do get to ask sometimes why do good when they are well aware on the path of doing evil? 

[The Blackangel]

1 hour ago, Heatman said:

I do get to ask sometimes why do good when they are well aware on the path of doing evil?

I wouldn't go so far as to call any of them evil. That's a bit too far. I would call them wicked. Those that are evil have no moral system. Micah is evil. Arthur is wicked. Most of the gang are wicked as opposed to evil. They do what they have to in order to survive. Dutch is the only other one that I would call evil. I think he's using the gang in order to make himself rich. They're doing his dirty work, and as soon as he feels comfortable with the amount of money that's saved up he plans to abandon the gang and take all the money with him. To me he just has that aura.

[Heatman]

3 minutes ago, The Blackangel said:

I wouldn't go so far as to call any of them evil. That's a bit too far. I would call them wicked. Those that are evil have no moral system. Micah is evil. Arthur is wicked. Most of the gang are wicked as opposed to evil. They do what they have to in order to survive. Dutch is the only other one that I would call evil. I think he's using the gang in order to make himself rich. They're doing his dirty work, and as soon as he feels comfortable with the amount of money that's saved up he plans to abandon the gang and take all the money with him. To me he just has that aura.

Probably yeah, not all of them can be categorically labeled evil but most of their acts isn't honorable. 

[The Blackangel]

1 minute ago, Heatman said:

Probably yeah, not all of them can be categorically labeled evil but most of their acts isn't honorable. 

True enough. But I can tell you from experience, that when you've got nothing, you take what you can get.

[Heatman]

Just now, The Blackangel said:

True enough. But I can tell you from experience, that when you've got nothing, you take what you can get.

That's definitely true but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't justify a wrong from being a wrong to becoming the right thing to do. 

[The Blackangel]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Heatman]

7 minutes ago, The Blackangel said:

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I agree with you completely on this one. There is no arguments there. 

[Shagger]

What I have seen of Bioware (Mass Effect, Dragonage), they seem to handle this idea pretty well. It's never a clear definitive of good and bad or right and wrong, it's always a more complex moral controversy. It's up to the player to weigh everything up and make a decision or compromise based upon what all parties have said there's not really a perfect answer or outcome to please everyone, much like in real life.

[Heatman]

How about what happened with Revan in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. It pretty much looked like a moral controversy although with Revan, he didn't actually turn from evil to good at will but because he lost his memory. 

[killamch89]

1 hour ago, Shagger said:

What I have seen of Bioware (Mass Effect, Dragonage), they seem to handle this idea pretty well. It's never a clear definitive of good and bad or right and wrong, it's always a more complex moral controversy. It's up to the player to weigh everything up and make a decision or compromise based upon what all parties have said there's not really a perfect answer or outcome to please everyone, much like in real life.

The Deus Ex series also does a great job of this as your decisions ultimately shape how your entire experience in-game will be.

[Heatman]

5 hours ago, killamch89 said:

The Deus Ex series also does a great job of this as your decisions ultimately shape how your entire experience in-game will be.

I never really got the opportunity to play this game Deus Ex yet. I have seen it been mentioned on several occasion. It seems like I would look into it.