[MUD-Dev] Re: Morality in Game Design (was: Logical MUD Areas)

[Scion Altera]

Sunday, May 06, 2001, 12:12:03 AM, John Buehler wrote:

> I believe that things that we kill must either be non-sentient or
> they must be inherently and immutably evil. That means that they are
> not misguided beings just doing their thing and that works out to be
> something that the player characters don't like.

That assumes a game in which the goal for the players is to be "good"
and to kill that which is "evil". In my game, as an example, this is
not the case. As in real life, if you kill something... it dies. You
can loot it, bury it, or beat your chest and howl loudly if you wish.
You do not earn experience points or levels from the killing.

> players should not be encouraged to kill things that they are also
> encouraged to empathize with.

Agreed. I'd feel like I was helping to form a new generation of serial
killers if my game did that, and therefore be forced by my conscience
to shut my game down.

However, by encouraging "positive" interaction with the critters and
people in the game and not encouraging "negative" interaction, I think
you've done your part. You'll get those folks who come from other MUDs
in which you slaughter every mob you can find for experience points.
They will create their first character and proceed to slaughter every
mob they can find... until they realize that they aren't really
getting anything out of it. It is my hypothesis that they will then
turn to more accepted ways of character advancement.

> Do we also go in and kill goblin children?

Well... we allow it.

> To go to an extreme, do we want to produce screams of children as
> they're killed?

Absolutely. Then, we leave the player to stand there and ponder what
he/she has just done.

Finally, we leave it up to the other players to let this misguided
person know that if he/she had attempted to trade with the goblins
rather than kill their children, he/she would have been able to earn
some money and make some friends. As it stands from the game's
perspective, this player simply has to watch out for vengeful goblins
now.

For the sake of argument, the player may be playing the part of an
evil bandit who likes to kill innocent children. The player may be
playing the part of a soldier in a human army that has been ordered to
wage war agains the goblins. The player may be playing the part of an
elf whose parents were killed by goblins, and now has an irrational
hatred of them. These are all roleplaying opportunities I would not
want to prevent, despite the fact that I might personally feel that
the act of killing children is immoral.

I do not feel that it is my responsibility as the creator of a game to
filter the game's content based on the possibility that someone might
be influenced to act immorally in real life as a result of playing my
game. I do expect a certain level of maturity from the people who play
my game, as well as at least some grasp of the difference between a
text based game and real life. I do not want to limit everyone's
experience so that I can be the moral judge for a very few who may
have skewed moral compasses. I believe this would be throwing the baby
out with the bathwater.

The argument that comes to mind that seems the most similar to this
one revolves around the Columbine school shooting. The argument made
was that since the killers played computer games such as Doom and
listened to music such as Rammstein, the Doom and the Rammstein were
to blame for their violent behavior.

The obvious counter-example is, of course, me. Among others, I listen
to Rammstein and Nine Inch Nails. I played Doom, and Quake II, and now
play Unreal Tournament. I wore a black trenchcoat to school throughout
all of my junior year. I have also been a Quaker (the religion, not
the computer game) and also a pacifist for my whole life. I am not
angry, do not own any weapons, and have absolutely no desire to hurt
anybody in real life. However, I simply don't see the value in
installing artificial restrictions that would (in my opinion) limit
the scope of the game I am working on.

I do see value your point of view, however, as it pertains to games
with strong senses of good and evil. If you intend for your players to
be good, and their enemies to be evil... then you should surely reward
good behavior and punish evil behavior. You should also not "humanize"
the enemies, or you run the risk of people thinking you condone
murder.

In a game where the good and evil aren't so well defined, then all
sides must either be humanized or dehumanized equally, as players may
come in on any of them. Each side will have good and evil aspects, and
while conflict between them is inevitable, it should be portrayed
accurately as something hurtful to all participants and destructive in
nature. War is costly, in all senses of the word and to all those
involved. The fun part of the game should be constructive, but the
destructive aspect should not be eliminated either.

If you assume that everybody sees themselves as being on the side of
good, then you should be able to see where I am coming from.

-- Scion

"Life is an aimless drive that you take alone. Might as well enjoy the
ride, take the long way home." -- Bloodhound Gang

-- keeler at teleport.com -- peter.keeler at brokat.com -- ICQ: 1824934 --


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev