about morality systems in games.

 EDIT: Due to the volume of comments saying the same thing, I will post about the general consensus of those that replied: 
Morality systems today use too many bars or systems that gauge how good or evil you are. It takes away from morality because then gamers just fill it up like an XP bar. It would be far better to have an organic system where moral choices happen automatically and aren't monitored apart from story changes (killing a party member, for example, would affect the outcome of the story). Otherwise, moral choices shouldn't even be mentioned in the game because players will do what they're naturally inclined to do in abscence of a system. this would be easy to do but no company has done it yet. 
Also, players feel inclined to either be very good or very evil because you are penalized for not doing so (can't upgrade powers in inFamous, lose loyalty of party members in ME2, etc.). Neutrality is generally penalized in games, which leads gamers who would otherwise be neutral to pick a side. this goes back to the previous paragraph- don't track or reward morality (beyond the choices themselves; I have used the example of killing an ally for a unique gun many times.) 
 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Original blog as follows:
 
 
This started out as a response to someone else's blog post about the same topic; I originally intended it to be a short response but it ended up being semi-long and I want to continue discussion about the topics raised in my post specifically, so I reposted it here.  The response is to why gamers, when faced with a morality system in game, will always be either completely good or evil, and never neutral. I've actually thought about morality systems for awhile, and i've yet to come across a game that does it well. the point of a morality system is to gauge the actions of your character, but when implemented it usually ends up as another game mechanic that gamers want to complete. I think that this is due to several reasons. First, the way its presented- as a gauge or title is very much the way stuff like Health and XP is presented. This leads morality to be viewed as another XP gauge- something to max all the way out. Second is the presentational limitations of games- there are very few games that connect to gamers emotionally, and of those very few that are powerful enough to influence their decisions. A prime example of this is games with multiple endings. The intention of those is to reward gamers with viewing a special ending that's reflective of their actions, but more often that not gamers adapt their gameplay to get the ending of their choosing. Instead of the morality being an impact of gameplay, gameplay becomes impacted by morality.  
 
Which leads me to the question- do you think that morality systems in games are flawed? if so, what would you do better/differently?
 
The original post is as follows:
  
I think it's more because a good morality system hasn't been implemented yet. Either you're completely good or you're completely bad. You addressed the lack of mixed decisions, and I think there's a couple reasons for this. First is that you never care enough about anyone to make an opinion based on them- you won't hate anyone enough to just kill them, or like anyone enough to spare them. For games that reward being good/bad (bioshock, inFamous), there's no incentive to be neutral. In Bioshock there are achievements for either rescuing or saving little sisters- why save a few if you don't get rewarded for it. Other games like inFamous REQUIRE you to pick a side- if you don't you can't unlock abilities. It's like that for a lot of other games too-you're rewarded for being good/bad so there's no point in being neutral. 
 
Also, a big problem is the emotional disconnect that a lot of people have. A lot of people play assholes because blowing shit up and shooting helpless people in the face with a shotgun in GTA is fun. If we cared about the characters we were killing, it would impact our decisions but since games haven't reached the point yet where we're truly emotionally connected to the characters/story players will behave in the way they want to- either they want to be the hero, in which case they'll save the character because it's what heroes do, or they want to be a villain, in which case they'll kill the poor bastard because that's what villains do. 
 
I think a part of that is also because of the media we watch growing up- rarely as a child do you watch cartoons where the characters are morally neutral in their actions. Either there's the archetypical hero who does the good stuff no matter what (And always wins-perhaps why we always play good people), or the villain, who will always commit evil acts (and loses). When we are able to play these roles ourselves, we naturally want to act the way our idols in cartoons do- to be like Superman and be the ideal hero, or to be like Team rocket (pokemonlulz) and always be the villain, because when we were growing up that's what all of the characters we saw did and we naturally want to imitate them.    

 EDIT: Due to the volume of comments saying the same thing, I will post about the general consensus of those that replied: 
Morality systems today use too many bars or systems that gauge how good or evil you are. It takes away from morality because then gamers just fill it up like an XP bar. It would be far better to have an organic system where moral choices happen automatically and aren't monitored apart from story changes (killing a party member, for example, would affect the outcome of the story). Otherwise, moral choices shouldn't even be mentioned in the game because players will do what they're naturally inclined to do in abscence of a system. this would be easy to do but no company has done it yet. 
Also, players feel inclined to either be very good or very evil because you are penalized for not doing so (can't upgrade powers in inFamous, lose loyalty of party members in ME2, etc.). Neutrality is generally penalized in games, which leads gamers who would otherwise be neutral to pick a side. this goes back to the previous paragraph- don't track or reward morality (beyond the choices themselves; I have used the example of killing an ally for a unique gun many times.) 
 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Original blog as follows:
 
 
This started out as a response to someone else's blog post about the same topic; I originally intended it to be a short response but it ended up being semi-long and I want to continue discussion about the topics raised in my post specifically, so I reposted it here.  The response is to why gamers, when faced with a morality system in game, will always be either completely good or evil, and never neutral. I've actually thought about morality systems for awhile, and i've yet to come across a game that does it well. the point of a morality system is to gauge the actions of your character, but when implemented it usually ends up as another game mechanic that gamers want to complete. I think that this is due to several reasons. First, the way its presented- as a gauge or title is very much the way stuff like Health and XP is presented. This leads morality to be viewed as another XP gauge- something to max all the way out. Second is the presentational limitations of games- there are very few games that connect to gamers emotionally, and of those very few that are powerful enough to influence their decisions. A prime example of this is games with multiple endings. The intention of those is to reward gamers with viewing a special ending that's reflective of their actions, but more often that not gamers adapt their gameplay to get the ending of their choosing. Instead of the morality being an impact of gameplay, gameplay becomes impacted by morality.  
 
Which leads me to the question- do you think that morality systems in games are flawed? if so, what would you do better/differently?
 
The original post is as follows:
  
I think it's more because a good morality system hasn't been implemented yet. Either you're completely good or you're completely bad. You addressed the lack of mixed decisions, and I think there's a couple reasons for this. First is that you never care enough about anyone to make an opinion based on them- you won't hate anyone enough to just kill them, or like anyone enough to spare them. For games that reward being good/bad (bioshock, inFamous), there's no incentive to be neutral. In Bioshock there are achievements for either rescuing or saving little sisters- why save a few if you don't get rewarded for it. Other games like inFamous REQUIRE you to pick a side- if you don't you can't unlock abilities. It's like that for a lot of other games too-you're rewarded for being good/bad so there's no point in being neutral. 
 
Also, a big problem is the emotional disconnect that a lot of people have. A lot of people play assholes because blowing shit up and shooting helpless people in the face with a shotgun in GTA is fun. If we cared about the characters we were killing, it would impact our decisions but since games haven't reached the point yet where we're truly emotionally connected to the characters/story players will behave in the way they want to- either they want to be the hero, in which case they'll save the character because it's what heroes do, or they want to be a villain, in which case they'll kill the poor bastard because that's what villains do. 
 
I think a part of that is also because of the media we watch growing up- rarely as a child do you watch cartoons where the characters are morally neutral in their actions. Either there's the archetypical hero who does the good stuff no matter what (And always wins-perhaps why we always play good people), or the villain, who will always commit evil acts (and loses). When we are able to play these roles ourselves, we naturally want to act the way our idols in cartoons do- to be like Superman and be the ideal hero, or to be like Team rocket (pokemonlulz) and always be the villain, because when we were growing up that's what all of the characters we saw did and we naturally want to imitate them.    

Check out The Witcher. It has the option of neutrality till the end, and has implemented the whole system of morality very nicely. It is also one of the best games I have ever played.

You obviously haven't played Heavy Rain.

"You obviously haven't played Heavy Rain. "

I was always neutral in Oblivion, having about the same fame and infamy. It's not really a "morality system" but you get points in either one depending on the degree of your actions. So massacring a town will get you more infamy than robbing a shop, and killing someone who is massacring a town will get you more fame than helping a beggar. One thing I liked about the system is that they were independent from each other, it wasn't a scale like most games have. You could have 100 infamy and 100 fame, and be neutral. It's not like you get 50 infamy, and 100 fame gives you +50 fame. I think it works better like that because your actions are permanent rather than massacring a town, and then helping one hundred beggars so people love you again. 
 
A bit off topic, but still relevant I think.

I'm thinking the best way to handle morality is not treat it as a gauged thing at all.  That if there's a moral code in the game it should be spelled out or at least implied, like I think at least one of the old Ultimas did, or to allow the morality of individual actions be due to what the player chooses, rather than stapled to an over-arching system.  I hear a lot how people think they're choosing one alignment in Mass Effect when they get points in the opposite alignment for their choice.  We have different views on cruelty and barbarism, and I think it's fine that a game will have a certain moral code it espouses (although it's not necessary), but I think it should at least be hinted at, so you don't get blindsided by a judgmental system that can't read your particular morality ideas through the limited actions of your character.

I think morality systems in games should be implemented more subtley. Rather than a meter, which means you can tell what alignment you are, and gain certain abilities for that, I think your decisions should change the plot. Frequently bad actions should mean you work more the bad guys, while good actions mean you work more for the good guys. And differences in gameplay are derived from there, for example bad missions means more explosions and violence, good missions, less so. In regards to neutrality, there should also be a neutral level, and so there are neutral style missions. Fallout 3 has a neutral level.

" I was always neutral in Oblivion, having about the same fame and infamy. It's not really a "morality system" but you get points in either one depending on the degree of your actions. So massacring a town will get you more infamy than robbing a shop, and killing someone who is massacring a town will get you more fame than helping a beggar. One thing I liked about the system is that they were independent from each other, it wasn't a scale like most games have. You could have 100 infamy and 100 fame, and be neutral. It's not like you get 50 infamy, and 100 fame gives you +50 fame. I think it works better like that because your actions are permanent rather than massacring a town, and then helping one hundred beggars so people love you again.  A bit off topic, but still relevant I think. "

" I'm thinking the best way to handle morality is not treat it as a gauged thing at all.  That if there's a moral code in the game it should be spelled out or at least implied, like I think at least one of the old Ultimas did, or to allow the morality of individual actions be due to what the player chooses, rather than stapled to an over-arching system.  I hear a lot how people think they're choosing one alignment in Mass Effect when they get points in the opposite alignment for their choice.  We have different views on cruelty and barbarism, and I think it's fine that a game will have a certain moral code it espouses (although it's not necessary), but I think it should at least be hinted at, so you don't get blindsided by a judgmental system that can't read your particular morality ideas through the limited actions of your character. "

Think everyone should follow the Deus Ex way of creating endings, you don't know which ending was really the best or worst choice because it was your decision and not because it was the good or evil choice, but the choice that best reflects your personality.

 i think morality is relative to the person so it then becomes a design decision.
 
if you are designing your game for the player to become the character, then you can expect them to stay within the moral confines of the character.
 
if you design your game so that the character is an in game representation or avatar of themselves, then you cannot have a fair or balanced morality system (in which case, you shouldnt have one at all)

"  i think morality is relative to the person so it then becomes a design decision.  if you are designing your game for the player to become the character, then you can expect them to stay within the moral confines of the character.  if you design your game so that the character is an in game representation or avatar of themselves, then you cannot have a fair or balanced morality system (in which case, you shouldnt have one at all) "

" Think everyone should follow the Deus Ex way of creating endings, you don't know which ending was really the best or worst choice because it was your decision and not because it was the good or evil choice, but the choice that best reflects your personality. "

I'm pretty indifferent to them, I never see them as anything more than "just another game mechanic" personally.
 
My opinion could change if I ever see one implemented in a way that really impressed me, but for now morality systems are on the same level to me as a double-jump. Do I like double-jumps? Sure, why not.

If you want to go to the original blog post where this topic started go here: 
http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion/30/the-need-to-be-the-hero/403720/#9
 
Also I think, like what is said above, a good morality system is one that presents you with choices and impacts the game and story and game world, but is not tracked to the player to be titled as good or evil. I think a great game that does this is Dragon Age: Origins where they take it a step further and doesn't even give you specifically evil or good choices. From the most of it they are more in the gray area and are more chosen based on what you, the player, think is right.

I like how Fallout 3 did morality.  One of the choices was  
 

"
I don't like good/bad morality systems, because the result are always so obvious, you do a good action you get a good result.  
 
I want something more like "I think i made the right choice for that situation or i'm convinced it is the good action to do" and then you realise that in the end, you're being the jerk.  For exemple, you have a situation where you are trying to save someone, but end up failing at saving anyone, putting everyone else in danger for your choice. It was the "good" obvious choice, but not the obviously good ending.  Like Marz described, i want it to be my personaldecision, not a decision (good or bad). So every choices should have a neutral root and you decide if it is the good or the bad one. This fools with moral a lot more than any other straight good-bad system, that ressemble a lot to cartoons' heroes and villains.   "

" I like how Fallout 3 did morality.  One of the choices was  
 

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

Kidnap a baby to cure a disease for thousands of people, or go back on you're promise to those people and not kidnap the baby

to kidnap a baby for the sake of hundreds of other people, or going back on your promise to all those people  

 
When was this?

neutrality sucks balls. thats why people play good or evil

" @DystopiaX:  The problem with morality systems is how difficult it is for players to think morally in the virtual, when most games are predicated solely on winning. If an in-game system is in place that offers benefits it will more likely be taken advantage of than a spur to moral decision-making. It also doesn't help that most games reward the extremes and give nothing to the neutral. Game-designers cunningly do this in order to split the game's content in half, add to their features list, and make their game seem deeper and longer than it really is.  The reason I think Heavy Rain is so great is that the decisions you make do not result in a game over, so it becomes more about how you identify with the characters and what you think they should or would do in a given situation. Also, it's a kind of game that really is driving at an emotional and ethical response as a whole from the player, rather than tacking on a simplistic choice mechanism or morality meter. If you engage with the game superficially then the only person that loses out is yourself.  I think that a morality system added onto a game that provides no other reward structure than win-lose will inevitably fail. As evidenced by sports, business, etc. anything that involves competition tends to result in immoral or amoral decision-making rather than the opposite. But I do not see a gaming market that is going out of its way to reward designers whose games are narratively or mechanically deep enough to account for the complexity that a morality system entails. Or at least continuing to release games that are morally vacuous isn't sufficiently punished.  That said, that game makers are acknowledging morality at all is a step in the right direction, it just needs considerable refinement. "

Achievements and trophies can lead to someone wanting to max out an alignment. I think Heavy Rain's a good example of morality done well because I just couldn't bring myself to complete one of the trials, even though it would've gotten me further in my mission. There should always be that choice where morality's present in some form.

" @Kyreo said:

" I like how Fallout 3 did morality.  One of the choices was  
 

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

Kidnap a baby to cure a disease for thousands of people, or go back on you're promise to those people and not kidnap the baby

to kidnap a baby for the sake of hundreds of other people, or going back on your promise to all those people  

 
When was this?

"

People don't want choices that matter so much as they want to make their own choices and always make the choice that pays off the most. You need a time travel system akin to Majora's Mask to actually make a morality system where you get real consequences but there's no actual permanent penalty for anything and you get every reward. Which is what people want. When you don't do that you get fools who go "all good" one playthrough then "all evil" with a FAQ next to them, and that's kind of a pathetic way to play a game.

" People don't want choices that matter so much as they want to make their own choices and always make the choice that pays off the most. You need a time travel system akin to Majora's Mask to actually make a morality system where you get real consequences but there's no actual permanent penalty for anything and you get every reward. Which is what people want. When you don't do that you get fools who go "all good" one playthrough then "all evil" with a FAQ next to them, and that's kind of a pathetic way to play a game. "

" @ryanwho said:

" People don't want choices that matter so much as they want to make their own choices and always make the choice that pays off the most. You need a time travel system akin to Majora's Mask to actually make a morality system where you get real consequences but there's no actual permanent penalty for anything and you get every reward. Which is what people want. When you don't do that you get fools who go "all good" one playthrough then "all evil" with a FAQ next to them, and that's kind of a pathetic way to play a game. "

If there's no consequences for your actions there's no reason for a morality system. Morality systems also don't need rewards attached to them, per se, other than unique endings or the way the plot unfolds. "

The problem I have with morality systems in games is that the morality is often forced.  You have the "saint" path and the "douchebag" path, and the rewards for either don't really get good unless you follow one path or the other all the way to the end.  Trying to play neutral doesn't really cut it.  Further, games too often make it all too obvious that HEY DUDE, YOU'RE ABOUT TO MAKE A HUGE MORAL DECISION.  ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO SET THAT ORPHANAGE ON FIRE?!  Most game designers have yet to really discover the shades of gray in morality, and when a choice comes along, they beat you over the head with it and ask you to be either a good guy or bad guy.  When done poorly, it feels lazy and mechanical.

But WHAT'S THE POINT if there's nothing bad that could happen? If the dude you killed to get their weapon can come back to life, why not kill him again? 
You wouldn't feel responsible for your actions, the whole POINT of morality. 
 
While your theory would work gameplay-wise, it would take all of the point out of morality. In fact, it wouldn't be morality anymore.

" But WHAT'S THE POINT if there's nothing bad that could happen? If the dude you killed to get their weapon can come back to life, why not kill him again? You wouldn't feel responsible for your actions, the whole POINT of morality.  While your theory would work gameplay-wise, it would take all of the point out of morality. In fact, it wouldn't be morality anymore. "

I like the moral choices in The Witcher, some of them you really need to think about and I don't mean "Should I be super evil? Or should I be a pussy?".

I think that in RPG's, bogus morality systems do affect a lot of big decisions made in the game, and for me it really takes away from the actual role-playing aspect.  That's why I tried my best to actually roleplay in Mass Effect 2, but I ended up with about 3/4 full of paragon and 1/4 of renegade.  Then the game pulled an arbitrary penalty on me; since I was neither a saint nor heartless, I lost loyalty on one of my teammates during an argument and was scared for the rest of the game that I was going to lose this character that I really liked.  I also couldn't pursue any more discussions with her.
 
So yeah, in RPGs I can't stand morality systems like that.  I don't want to be penalized unnecessarily for playing the role I want to play.  I think it's time to move past these arcane mechanics and turn them into something more consequential.  I feel that in the past these systems were in place to reward the player for their decisions, but I feel like after Mass Effect and Dragon Age, that the consequences those actions can have on the game world are rewards in themselves.
 
Speaking of Dragon Age, I really liked the system in that.  There was no morality, but you did have to monitor the individual relationships you had with everyone in your team.  It felt much more like real life than a single meter telling me whether I'm half-good or mostly-evil and shit like that.  It also helped make the decisions in that game pretty intense and thought-provoking, since there was no, "Oh, I'm going for the 'good' ending, so I'll choose this one!" type of play going on.

" @DystopiaX said:

" But WHAT'S THE POINT if there's nothing bad that could happen? If the dude you killed to get their weapon can come back to life, why not kill him again? You wouldn't feel responsible for your actions, the whole POINT of morality.  While your theory would work gameplay-wise, it would take all of the point out of morality. In fact, it wouldn't be morality anymore. "

And you wouldn't be deciding how every choice is going to be the one that gives you the pure good endgame at the beginning, and you wouldn't be cheating with FAQs to make sure you don't miss anything. I know how dudes play these games, and its not to just make decisions and live with them. If you think more than a 10th of the people who play games like this play it naturalistically without any kind of FAQ and really live with the consequences, you're lying to yourself. Let's account for how 90% of people play these games and make a game where you're not compelled to reload your save every 5 minutes. "