Where are the moral/ethical lines in interactive fiction?

Others on the thread have also responded as if non-fiction is the powerful form of writing which, Spiderman-style, demands great responsibility. But my own behavior – and I’d venture most other people’s – has been much more shaped by stories than by didactic writing.

I learned how to communicate and relate to other people through stories (and a lot about how not to). I learned more of ethics through literature that illustrated tragic choices and the consequences of choice than from reading moral theory. As a Christian, I encountered what I believe to be the most important truths through stories (and the Big Story in which the others find themselves); and if I weren’t a Believer, I’d be one of the Matthew Arnold/Alain de Botton types who insist that fiction is all the more important as a source of social and ethical guidance in a civilization that no longer has a Scripture. And my faith gets far more shaky reading Of Human Bondage than The God Delusion or similar polemics.

Animal Farm is a work of fiction that tells us more important things about dictatorship than a dozen histories. James Bond is a more influential icon of conventional masculinity than any non-fiction list of how to be a Man’s Man. Choice of Robots won’t help me build an AI, but I learned a lot from it on the more important topic of what it would mean if I did.

And that’s just focusing on what I’m (mostly) conscious of learning. As others have said, the influence of what we read – fiction or non-fiction – is something of which we’re often only partly conscious, perhaps especially if we’re confident in our own immunity to the subliminal and implicit. I’m under no illusion that Tolkien was writing non-fiction. But when I was working in Afghanistan in the relative calm of 2004, I realized that a large part of the sense of threat I felt in the hills around Uruzgan, Qandahar, and Ghor was the sheer orcishness of the names.

Not in a whole lot of cultures modern and historical, sadly. “No means no” is a hard-won triumph of contemporary gender-egalitarian culture. And any culture is conveyed primarily by the stories we tell.

Thanks to everyone who (on thread and PM) has expressed sympathy for my friend. While I can’t speak to how the experience may still affect her, I can say that she’s a person who exudes joy and love of life like few others I know.

Of course you can’t do that. That’s impossible. What you can do as an author is take responsibility for what’s problematic in your work, rather than getting your boxers in a twist because someone’s pointed out that it’s problematic. Nor is anyone saying that “everyone will be impacted in the exact same way.” Just that authors share responsibility for the (variety of) impacts of their work.

11 Likes

I think you are missing an important part of war when compared to random street violence. A war is between two (or more) sides and the obvious part of war is that the other side will kill you if they get the opportunity. A street brawl doesn’t have that same feeling. Political violence, too. War is treated as tasteful because it is maybe the one thing in the human condition that allows violence to the point of murder to be justified and accepted.

Any good war story keeps the stakes personal and refuses to sanitise the violence. War might be cerebral for the people in charge but it’s anything but for the people doing the fighting.

The reason stakes don’t seem to work on a large scale is because many authors don’t make the effect to connect the ‘high concept’ stakes (huge global wars, end of the world, whatever) with the smaller stakes (characters we care about, situations we can emphasise with).

Sure, the players might not care about their huge rampaging army, but if we put a character they know and love in charge of that rampaging army…

@CaesarCzech – perhaps people wouldn’t accuse you of putting words in their mouths if you didn’t put words in their mouths. Point to where I said that “violent games shouldn’t be allowed” and that “people shouldn’t create them”.

People are machines that respond to inputs and outputs. Very fancy complex machines but machines all the same. And if you don’t believe me, you might want to read up on transcranial magnet stimulation.

If people didn’t respond to inputs, then advertising wouldn’t exist.

3 Likes

@Havenstone

You realize by that logic if somebody commits suicide because of your book you essentially murdered them via the impact of the book ? Furthermore i find you are the last person who should argue such considering your Work includes Such plesantries such as Blood Sacrifaces, Depictions of slavery, Depiction of Religious Theocracy which seem to be style to be closer to one particular mainstream unprivileged religion than to others.

@Rhodeworks

Okay lets entertain the fantasy that people have no free will and are just Fancy machines, What to do you propose to do about the violent games considering they impact society negatively according to your viewpoint ?

@Sovereign2Lilith

Well its difficult because you arent trying to provide fun but you are trying to do it “Inteleactually” and propagate certain viewpoints you hold, with current world politicized situation people are often seeking refuge from somebody essentially trying to preach their viewpoinst to them. So that is another factor which makes things extra hard

I can’t Help but feel like You are less here for rational discourse than Blatant Trolling. Can you Drop the talk of ‘Blood Sacrifaces’ and Murder by App Purchase (FYI, Murder by App Purchase would be a good name for a Band) and just Respond like a Person?

Please?

1 Like

A show on Netflix did recently basically everything psychologists say not to show to someone who’s suicidal and, not very surprisingly, there was a bunch of news involving that Netflix show and people committing suicide after watching it

(cw: suicide) This is just one of the many results that come up after googling it

Sometimes people deliberately read/watch/look at things that cause them emotional/mental distress, sometimes it’s things that remind them if traumatic events, sometimes it’s depictions of self harm/suicide. I’ve done it before. I have a lot of friends who have done it before. It’s not a new or uncommon thing. Things that could potentially harm people (which even often have studies done on them that prove that they affect people) should be handled responsibly

Also. Not all views are good views

(EDIT: UPLOADED THE WRONG PICTURE AT FIRST)

Anyways this is all I’m gonna say again on this matter bc I’ve had this conversation like a million times and frankly I’m tired of it and have better things to do

4 Likes

Again, I am not communicating well if you think this is what I am saying. What I am trying to say in my prior post is that the choice mechanic only works if the majority of your readers/gamers find options that satisfy them. If your options in a choice body promote “railroading” or any other perceived bad development practice and they only satisfy a minority of people, then the choice mechanic as executed failed.

The choice mechanic is only a part of the whole structure - it is not the entire mechanical structure of a CS game in of itself. You can have other parts of the structure (stat-charts, variables, checks, etc) that are non-utilitarianism because they are reader/gamer specific. A choice body is not usually custom to each individual. There are advanced commands such as *selectable_if and *hide_reuse but even with these deployed, if you don’t achieve the happiness in the majority of your readers/gamers, the choice mechanic will fail in its function.

So, yes, you may write a powerful, non-trivial choice-body including options that adhere to deontological morality but if those options fail to satisfy your readers/gamers within the context of the game, then the choice mechanic fails.

Our obligation as developers/writers is to structure our mechanics in a manner that promotes the happiness of the majority of our audience.

I also agree with your conclusion and see no conflict with my stance on the choice mechanic structuring.

2 Likes

Maybe but not necessarily at the level of choices. I think there’s a lot to be said for not giving the reader what they feel they want in the moment, to make the overall work more satisfying.

3 Likes

Fiction writing is nice, but even if it contains people from different backgrounds and races and genders, it’s usually written by one person or a small group of people. The characters are not real and don’t depict real people and may not accurately reflect different views even if the story is very well written. I feel like it may be like looking at one of those impossible to build objects, avant garde clothing or 3d chalk drawings on paper, which are impossible to do/wear/interact with in real life. I really don’t think playing a doctor on TV or watching medical shows gives a lot of acurate and practical useable information.

Even non-fiction writing has it’s limits. For example, being able to read all of the Choice Script tutorials and being able to successfully code a game are two different things. But, I’d rather read the tutorial than look at a game with mechanics that I like and try to figure everything out.

I like documentaries, social experiments, and scientific (or laymen’s) articles and feel like I have more practical knowledge about things like cloning through reading articles, doing experiments, and developing speeches than I have through reading science fiction. I like seeing the actual (well, actual-ish) downfall of people who let “experts” or robots pick there dating partners and the analyzed data from dating sites that proves why certain things happen instead of a fiction writer making guesses (which is fun to read, but not very informative).

I think it’s better to not put games on a moral pedestal. I feel like games are more driven by the market and if people demand more ethics, there will be. But, hack and slash and first person shooters are popular.

Do you think it is possible for games to have standards that a majority of developers adhere to, rather than moral standards that should be listened to- but aren’t?

1 Like

Unless you structure your choice body to be acceptable to the majority of your audience, you risk the eventual abandonment of your audience or rather you risk the audience abandoning your game and not completing it. Taking that risk may pay off but most likely will not.

1 Like

Before answering your question, let me check if I’m understanding you. By your logic, if somebody committed suicide because of my book, I would have zero responsibility?

I don’t think responsibility is an all-or-nothing thing; I think there are degrees of responsibility when something awful (or good) happens. It can be shared with other people. It can also be shared with our random universe; that is, I can be slightly responsible for something even if no other human being has any responsibility for it at all.

I think “murder” is almost always the wrong word for the share of responsibility an author can have in someone’s death (unless what they’re writing is explicit incitement to kill). As it happens, in real life I’m partially responsible for the deaths of twelve people in Afghanistan, three of whom were good friends, all dead of causes that it was my duty to prevent. But I wouldn’t call myself a murderer, or even say “I killed them” – that would be more dramatic than accurate, and unhelpful for me and everyone else concerned.

But it would also have been inaccurate, unhelpful, and morally obtuse for me to deny my share of responsibility for their deaths. Accepting it was a necessary step on the road to forgiving it and being forgiven. Similarly, if I were an author whose work contributed to someone’s death, I’d have some serious soul-searching to do; it would probably change how I wrote things in future. I’d certainly want forgiveness from the person’s family; I’d hope that they would be able to recognize that my share of responsibility was small, and be able to offer that forgiveness much more readily than they would to a murderer.

Like I said myself a few posts ago, amigo, “I know my own work still sits comfortably in the dehumanizing murder fantasy genre,” but I think there’s enough merit in it and “little enough chance of someone acting it out that I’m willing to publish it and accept responsibility anyway.”

So yep, if somebody killed (or enslaved or, er, theocratized) someone else because of my book, I’d accept responsibility. It’s worth repeating that if it were someone severely mentally disordered, e.g. a psychotic person who said they heard God speaking with the voice of Kalt Swineherd, I’d not actually consider it to be “because of my book.” But sure, Choice of Rebels deals with serious stuff… and if I did have reason one day to think that it had influenced someone to launch a brutal attack on the ruling classes, I’d feel a measure of moral responsibility.

Finally, though it’s a side issue, as an American evangelical Christian I still get plenty of privilege. My people just helped elect a US president who had to bring one of us on as Veep; we’ve got money coming out our ears, global influence, and an exuberant culture that’s firmly part of (though not dominant in) the US and international mainstream. I’m very comfortable writing about a theocracy that’s a nightmare version of my own faith, and am happy to stand by that artistic choice.

7 Likes

I personally prefer a lease for my daily life the categorical imperative feel Kant ethical framework even though it could have some flaws and its purpose as there is no necessarily I’m goal if you see with utilitarianism. It’s still solves a lot of problems because its very nature of making your ethical decisions duty-bound based on pure reason, and not to objectify then or what Kant wpuld say disrespect their human dignity I personally find stronger.

Imagine this we’re not thinking about the end result of the action but does the action make lesser then they are. Going one step further is the action something you’d want to Maxim by legislation into universal law. Other words when you think about it do you want to apply to everybody and everything this action and if it does would it be something you want to exist.

I want to see those moral dilemmas in my games I want to see the classic Mills principle of happiness I want to see Kant categorical imperatives Aristotle’s virtue ethics even The stoicism of the stoics. Hell and actual deep philosophical understanding of even Christian ethics which is not what Americans grow up with. Which FYI is to emulate Christ to act in the image of Christ which in turn is to be forgiving and compassionate to all individuals.

Or ethical thought around Buddhism Eightfold Path right view right resolution, right speech right conduct, right livelihood ,right effort, right mindfulness, right Samadhi.

The only time I ever seen real ethical thought done right in a game so far is Paul Wang work. Any courts both Kant ethics and utilitarianism. Very well written way. He’ll give us choices that will go the moral and ethical standards set to by how a gentleman should act and behave. Other words you are Duty bound at honorable, honorable conduct. Is very action dishonorable. Which he hits the first categorical imperative very well.

But then he gets his choices bounce between the lives of our men and our enemies. Where the action itself will go against our characters honour but the principle of utility would say the net gain of happiness it could help your men live longer, war could sooner. To the negative the pain and suffering maybe you got to kill a serf or a family. Or maybe you sacrifice your men for the greater mission. Kant would say all those choices are wrong because you’re making this people as a means to an end.

1 Like

@anon86661845

I’m not going to deny the impact media can have on traumatized or sensitive people but what exactly are we supposed to do when some of those individuals ignore the warnings and proceed to watch/read/play it of their own volition anyway? Are we to censor everything and anything just because some people cannot exert self-control? Because I’m starting to think there’s a theme in this thread that is dangerously close to just censoring everything that may be even slightly distressing in favor of those who cannot protect themselves, even from themselves. I apologize if that’s not it but its the impression I got.

After reading a little more I would be willing to concede that authors may be partially responsible for the effects their works may have on people, because it can happen, the real question here is if they took the precautions necessary (like labeling) and if they should be legally punished should something happen to someone AFTER browsing through their work. Its also true that different people have different perceptions and while you may see something distressing or traumatizing being conveyed as a hidden message. While the author may have been deliberate on it, part of the problem is also deeply personal and relative to the experiences, state of mind, mood of the person in question.

Ivory, please quote the person that says we should censor things above.

The whole theme of this thread has been about making authors responsible for the effects they work have on people. If someone dies or suffers trauma from what they read/played/saw then we may as be setting authors up for legal issues. Thus leading to censoring in a way because you cannot say or do anything without potentially landing you on court or sued. When my country was under a dictatorship a few decades ago it was pretty similar in that anything you did or said could have been used against you and could very well land you in some jail time.

1 Like

Who has said here that you should be able to sue authors over their writing here?

1 Like

Idk, I’m an art student and not a law student for a reason. I don’t understand anything about laws and legal action other than stealing stuff is illegal and getting sued is bad

Readers are smart enough to have their own agency and if they choose to harm themselves, that sucks and they should probably talk to someone like a therapist or something. Making a thing illegal conpletely because of its potential (the alcohol prohibition in the US in the 1920s) already didn’t work

Authors should be smart with what they make and not make a list of “I was told that this was going to be a bad idea and very likely hurt a whole lot of people but I did it anyway because I don’t really care”

I’ve slept for two hours today so I’m not even entirely sure how much sense I’m making and I have neither to brain power nor the patience for more of this

1 Like

When we talk abstract like this I can both agree and disagree with you. Each dilemma in the game should feel compelling. But I’d disagree if you mean that each choice has to be acceptable in the sense of there being only good options or wish fulfillment consequences. The player should feel conflicted and the protagonist shouldn’t always have attractive options before them.

2 Likes

There are no legal issues here. That whole line of thought is ridiculous.

Who do I bill?

3 Likes