Analog Gamers Gaming From a Slightly Different Perspective

Well, I’ve just finished playing through Infamous for the first time. Yes, I know I’m behind the curve, but I’ve got a pile of games to get through here that would challenge an unemployed insomniac.

Now, this isn’t review of Infamous. After all, you’ve all read plenty of those already. No, Infamous just got me thinking again about how poorly games do at implementing a true morality system.

C’mon, you know what I’m talking about. The vast majority of the moral choices presented to us in games either deep black or purest white. Either you rush in and save the baby, or jump in and eat it. True, there are usually some choices that allow you to stay somewhere near the middle ground, but they are few and far between.

About the only game I can think of off the top of my head that made a decent pass at a workable morality system was Fable II. You could be blackest evil, purest good, or some homogeneous thing in the middle. Still, it basically tied you partly to one path as soon as you destroyed one temple or the other.

So all of this begs the question: Is there a way to make moral choices more gray in games, or is the medium simply not the right one for such an endeavor? If a game has two different endings, and you end up on the middle of the good/evil line, which one do you get?

I’d love to see someone devise an alignment-based game, using a system much like the one in classic Dungeons & Dragons. I think it would be great fun to play as Lawful Evil in a game, and to be rewarded for maintaining that stance. (In case you’re wondering what Lawful Evil is, here’s a definition:

Lawful Evil is referred to as the “Dominator” or “Diabolic” alignment. Characters of this alignment see a well-ordered system as being easier to exploit, and show a combination of desirable and undesirable traits; while they usually obey their superiors and keep their word, they care nothing for the rights and freedoms of other individuals. Examples of this alignment include tyrants, devils, undiscriminating mercenary types who stay true to their contracts, and soldiers who are highly loyal but enjoy the act of killing.

Like Lawful Good Paladins, Lawful Evil characters may sometimes find themselves faced with the dilemma of whether to obey law or evil when the two conflict – however their issues with Law versus Evil are more concerned with “Will I get caught?” vs “How does this benefit me?” Boba Fett of Star Wars, and X-Men’s Magneto [7] are cited examples of Lawful Evil characters.

I’ve always thought of Lawful Evil as a villain with a code. He will kill, steal, and destroy anything that stands in his way, but he won’t hurt animals. He’ll even go out of his way to avoid doing so. For those of you who’ve read the classic R.A. Salvatore Forgotten Realms novels; Jarlaxle, the mercenary leader of Bregan D’aerthe, is a classic Lawful Evil character.

Sure, we can all think of characters we’ve played that fit this description. But having one fit it isn’t the point. It’s letting the player become whatever become based on their actions. This is easily possible in a tabletop RPG, but extraordinarily difficult in a video game setting.

As I said, video games may not be the proper venue for this type of focused morality. After all, development costs are already outrageous, and designing a ton of different endings for a game would be time consuming as hell; but the benefit of doing so would be to revolutionize the medium. Not only that, but think of the replay value on a game that adapted to your moral choices on the fly. I know I’d play it nearly to death.

So, what type of character would you play? Would you be Good, Evil, or Neutral? Lawful or Chaotic? Heck, do you even think this type of system is workable in a video game setting? Let us know what you think!