Morality options for Player Characters

I want there to be a tool used in the game where players can make different choices based on their morality score. I think I have it set up alright-it works so far, but I’m curious if the wording I used in the stats page makes sense, if it sounds too technical, etc.
This is what I wrote to explain the morality score:

Note: Your morality will change consistently in the game. The score used for morality
goes as follows:

51 or above= morally good

50= neutral

49 or below= morally bad

This tool is used to determine what actions your character will be able to take in the
future, and different options for different scenarios will pop up based on your morality
status.

Does this wording seem alright? Would this wording potentially prevent players from actively trying to play an evil character?

1 Like

I believe saying “morally bad” or “morally good” would make the player feel too black and white - so people would prefer playing a “good” character most of the time. Maybe in a second or third playthrough the evil character would get a chance, though.

Besides, “moral” is a social construct and what feels “moral” to the writer may feel wrong to the player.

5 Likes

the easiest way would maybe be this:

*choice
   *if (morality <=40) #Do the nasty thing
      *goto whathaveya
   *if ((morality >41) and (morality <=79))  #Do the other thing
      *goto whathaveya
   *if (morality >80) #Do the nice thing
      *goto whathaveya

However:
Previous games have shown that this is also an easy way to frustrate people, if you bar them from certain choices because of ‘morality’.
Thus, the better alternative might be:

*choice
   #Do the nasty thing
      *if (morality <=40)
         *goto whathaveya
      *elseif ((morality >41) and (morality <=79))
         Not your style, but we all have days like this...
         *set morality %-5
         *goto whathaveya
      *else
         Whoa, that was nasty of you. You ok?
         *set morality %-10
         *goto whathaveya
   #Do the other thing
      *if ((morality >41) and (morality <=79))  
         *goto whathaveya
      *elseif (morality <=40)
         Having a 'nice' day today I see.
         *set morality %+5
         *goto whathaveya
      *else
         Not really your day today.
         *set morality %-5
         *goto whathaveya        
   #Do the nice thing
      *if (morality >=80)
      *goto whathaveya
      *elseif (morality <=40)        
      Aww, I always knew there's some good in you!
      *set morality %+10
      *goto whathaveya
      *if ((morality >41) and (morality <=79))
      You're doing well, kid
      *set morality %+5
      *goto whathaveya 

You could, of course, also give out boni for staying with the ‘alignment’ here.

8 Likes

While I personally like to play as a goody-two-shoes, not every person will behave the same way. In particular, the stringent requirements for choices being based on morality(especially with the simple way you’ve defined it) can end up being very limiting, especially in the late game. Not every game needs to have excruciating detail put into their morality systems, but they don’t usually restrict the choices made to the player–the player tends to do that to themselves.

I’d be more interested in a system where most paths are open, but have the morality change based on how the player reacts/feels about it afterwards.

“You just killed someone who attacked you! How do you feel?”

  • Unfortunate. I didn’t want to kill them, but I was forced to defend myself.

  • Mournful. I didn’t wish to hurt anyone, but the blade just slipped out of my hand…

  • Strangely excited. There’s just something about the adrenaline rush…

4 Likes

If I may add to MeltingPenguins’ and RagEgnite’s comments on it, it’s definitely important to recognise that morality is circumstantial and one person’s ‘usual’ behaviour might change under previously not-come-across situations.

I’d agree with the example above of leaving all choices available and having comments based on how the choice aligns with the reader’s previous choices.

It’d probably also be good to clearly define what 100% and 0% look like. If I remember correctly, Hobbes’ argument went that altruism can be selfish because it makes the actor feel nice and empowered, and selfishness is often viewed more along the immoral end of the spectrum, so that blurs the distinction a bit and again reinforces discomfort as a potential reader in having options closed off.

So yes, this wording - and the underlying concept - probably would prevent readers from playing as an ‘evil’ character, because some ‘villains’ do feel justified in their actions and would not label them outrightly as “morally bad” as you have done. Now obviously I don’t know the context, but relativism should be taken into account.

IF also allows readers to take more ambiguous, less socially acceptable or politically correct options than they would in real life, and this gives this medium much appeal as it allows for exploration of potential aspects of one’s character. The morally good/bad labelling therefore would probably deter some of that, too.

I use a morality system in my own projects where there are five categories 1-5, with 1 being complete self-interest, 3 being neutral, 5 being altruism for altruism’s sake - points are therefore assigned based on action and intention. A category 2 action would go *set mor2 +1 etc. The values are converted into decimals and then used to determine flavour text and moral compatibility with other characters (but rarely if ever closes off options).

While not perfect, it’s more multidimensional. Your game might call for a more straightforward percentage scale like you’ve done, but hopefully this helps with your designing :slight_smile:

2 Likes

I honestly think everyone should scrap the morality mechanic. People can do some messed up stuff for the greater good(torturing criminals for info on a human trafficking ring, killing thousands to make himself a common enemy to save billions, etc) and good stuff for evil purposes(saving and raising children to use them as willing human shields, giving helpful advice to the rebels that will eventually in the end create more despair, etc) I think at most there should be a meter that show how people see you( do evil and they see you as evil etc)

2 Likes

I think the morality score can be useful when it comes to how people see you by the end of the story/game. I’m thinking of something like the end of Dishonored. Character’s even allies can start to see you as a something to be feared and resisted if you make more violent “evil” choices through the game. Or see you as a beacon of hope if you’re gentler through the game.

When the morality score starts to limit my choices though it really becomes a hindrance to the immersion. If I’ve played a goody- two shoes type throughout the entire story, but in the final moment I’ve just been pushed too far, and want to make a darker choice that option should be there.

5 Likes

A better thing than to limit your choices would be to dictate the mc’s reaction to what they just did.

3 Likes

I tend to define morality on a four point scale, which I find gives a more nuanced way to define character.

There is an axis of Severity/Acquiescence that defines how harsh or lenient the player is, and and axis of Justifiability/Indefensibility that defines whether the player does what they do for the pure fun of it or to protect others.

So, a Severe and Indefensible player would be ‘Evil for the sake of Evil’, a Severe Justified player would be ‘Evil for the Greater Good’, an Acquiescent Justified player ‘Good for the sake of Peace’ and an Acquiescent Indefensible player ‘Good for the Lack of Care’. I use ‘good’ and ‘evil’ loosely here.

Obviously, the player could fall anywhere between these extremes, and it becomes quite akin to the D&D nine Alignments, which I think are great.

2 Likes

I believe, in a story, that morals should be defined by what the general opinion of most characters within a story feel. In most cases the stories on this site are rpg-like and so the player is inserting themselves into the fictional world which is defined by the author. Authors still might run into problems if the story is based in the modern or historical eras but if the author is choosing an alternate universe/history or is in the future then most definitions of good and bad things would be up to him/her imo.

This brings up an interesting idea (for me at least) and that is what if what the story defines as good is most often what is thought of as bad in today’s society. I recently purchased King of Dragon Pass and one of the most interesting parts of the game was the disclaimer right in the beginning where it says to listen to the ring (your advisors) because what you think and what others (the AI) in the game will think about the same action may not be the same (because they are attempting to go by the story’s morals not our modern morals). Just expanding a little on your question “would this encourage people to play or morally good player?”

That said, I believe you should listen to MeltingPenguins and Retrovirus and allow players to make good moves even if they’re a bad person. This is often seen in good television shows, as you move from season to season, characters with “good” intentions and “bad” intentions seem to flip back-and-forth across an ever-fading line of morality. Or at least all the tv shows that I like do that :sweat_smile: (game of thrones - the hound, the 100 - Murphy + just about every other character, the walking dead if I remember correctly).

Camille622:

I’ve been there before and it is not enjoyable.

1 Like

Agreed! As I said you risk turning your game into something too black and white.

Granted, it COULD be interesting to see a game in which through some means humans GENUINELY can only make decisions based on previous ‘morality’ and the ‘goal’ is to weasel your way to the middle of the spectrum

4 Likes