Moral Choice Systems

One question that I am sure has come to mind is, “why Shades of Grey?” The title does come from a line of an old Billy Joel song, but additionally it brings to mind the idea of ambiguity in life. Life is seldomly black and white; instead, life is full of choices with both benefits and deteriments to all parties involved and it is up to us to decided which choice produces more good for us than bad. The title is supposed to put the player in the frame of mind ready to see a story where the question of who is actually the hero and villain are not easily resolved.

If the story is told right and the player engages the story, as opposed to just deciding that the PC must be good and the other guy evil, then he should have a enjoyable experience as the motivations of each side are revealed and each character makes choices that we both find outrageous, but also justified. That is the goal.

This IS a lofty goal, I will admit that, and it is a goal that is difficult to reach, but I will do my best to accomplish it.

Now, there is one thing this story will not have, and that is a moral choice system. It is tempting to create moral quandaries for the player and have the player resolve the conflict by making the decision. This increases immersion, since the player is actually making the choice, and also gives the player a stake in the story, since it was he who set part of the story in motion. Finally, it also gives added replayability, since players will want to see what happens if other choices are made. Despite these good and tempting reasons to create a moral choice system, I believe that creating a truly compelling moral choice system creates too many pitfalls for the developer, and rarely will achieve its goal of being compelling to the player.

The best example of this is Mass Effect. For those who do not know, in ME the player is often allowed to make decisions that are either paragon or renegade. These decisions to lead different outcomes in conversation and many of the long term ramification of these actions are set up to occur in the third installment of the series. Whether the player chooses to be a paragon or renegade is based on their attitude, whether the just and right result requires just and right means, or whether the means do not matter as long as the results are achieved. Whether to push someone off a cliff to avoid having him rat you out or try to talk him into cooperating.

These two ends of the spectrum can sometimes lead to interesting choices, but most often they are either being a saint to everyone or being a complete jerk. Now the problem with only choose the paragon or renegade option that you want is that each time you choose paragon you gain paragon points, and to give a paragon answer to later conversations in the game, you must have enough paragon points. The same is true for renegade. This means that you are required to choose which moral choice you want to make very early in the game, and continue to make it all game. This becomes even more important when the player realizes that the paragon and renegade options are almost always strictly superior to choosing a neutral result. In the first game, one of your squad mates refuses to come along on a late game mission. Unless you have the paragon or renegade points to talk him down or smack him and convince him that he's wrong, the neutral options lead to his death. The game rewards you for choosing a moral choice early and sticking to it whether or not it makes sense. This is problematic.

There are plenty of other games with this same sort of situation and it is the bane of the moral choice system. If game play results are in any way shape or form tied to the moral choice system, then the players will not choose their moral options based on the story, but instead on whether they will receive the weapon of angels or the armor of devils. While the developer can solve this problem by simply not providing any game benefit to the choices, that necessarily limits the developer's ability to make the choices meaningful. If the characters on your team cannot be altered based on decisions, or certain items cannot be limited based on the choices, or certain areas or shortcuts can be provided or taken away based on the player's choices, then the moral choice system loses some teeth .

For these reasons, I think it best to have the developer make the moral choices for the player and instead find ways to make the player want to make the choices that the characters do. A well written character can immerse a player in the story enough to make them want to make the best choices for the character. While the choice to save the character from dying may also end up destroying someone else's livelihood, the player will understand why the choice had to be made, but he will feel just as bad about the decision as the character. If done properly, only one moral choice will appear to be the right one, and conveniently, it will be the same choice the story makes.