| |
|
Many games present the player with the option to make moral choices, which may then affect the player's position within the game. Pretty much by default, any game which requires a moral judgement or choice involves an element of roleplay.
As an exercise in natural philosophy, I'll try to model this, and invite your comments.
A player making one of these moral choices, then, will be (broadly speaking) either agreeing with their own values, neutral to their own values, or disagreeing with their own values, and either agreeing with their assumed (character) values, neutral to their assumed values, or disagreeing with their assumed values. That gives us six rough states.
We can also consider the effect of making that decision as being either beneficial to the player's position, neutral to the player's position, or harmful to the player's position. Another three states.
{Agree with own values}
{Neutral to own values}
{Disagree with own values}
x
{Agree with assumed values}
{Neutral to assumed values}
{Disagree with assumed values}
x
{Beneficial to position}
{Neutral to position}
{Harmful to position}
The resulting matrix has 27 possible values, and loosely covers the effect of any moral decision made in a roleplaying game. I won't try to reproduce it onscreen, but it makes a nice noughts-and-crosses board if you draw it out.
If we look at this in the light of a third party observer (or an absolute morality, or perhaps an absolute legality) then we have an 81 cell matrix, adding
x
{Agree with third party values}
{Neutral to third party values}
{Disagree with third party values}
to the ones above. Which provides us with an awfully large selection of choices, many of which are trivial. Of particular interest to me, though (they're all 'bad' points!), are:
1) {Agree with own values}{Agree with assumed values}{Beneficial}{Disagree with third party values}
In other words, when someone does something which helps them which is in character and matches their own values, but which you disagree with (or, perhaps, which is ultimately Wrong).
How do you respond when someone does something they believe in in a game, and benefits from it, but which you disagree with? When someone essentially playing "as themself" does what you consider to be nasty things for the win?
and
2) {Agree with own values}{Disagree with assumed values}{Beneficial}{Disagree with third party values}
Where someone does something which helps them which is not in character, but does match their own values, which you disagree with.
This is similar to 1) above, but is more flagrant; when someone does something you consider nasty, purely because they would, and because it helps them, while their character wouldn't.
and
3) {Disagree with own values}{Disagree with assumed values}{Beneficial}{Disagree with third party values}
Where someone does something which helps them which is neither in character, nor matches their own values, and which you disagree with.
Which is a bit nicer; when someone does something bad which is out of character - and which the player wouldn't do themselves - purely for the benefit.
The main point being, at any rate, that when you see someone doing something you disagree with, which you think is bad or wrong, you can't necessarily be sure where on the matrix they're falling. You can't tell if they're being bad because they're bad, or being bad because it's in character or being bad to win.
(I'm using bad above, in the assumption that we're more likely to care about the reasons behind someone doing something we think is wrong; 'bad' would more strictly be written 'contrary to my values'.)
Thoughts? |
|
|
