[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

   Before anything else, I'd like to thank everyone for their thoughts and comments. They have all been very helpful. I'd also like to say that I'm sorry I thought this thread might be inflammatory; you've all been very civil. From what I've seen of the net, anonymity breeds contempt, and brutishness; but I am very glad to see that this does not appear to apply here. I mean this, and hope it does not sound merely platitudinous.
   I would have liked to wait a day or two to make this post, but (and this would be very unfortunate), there may not be a day or two left. So, I thought I'd make some very tentative conclusions. Please, please, do not think that in any way I mean to draw this discussion to a close. That said, here are my thoughts so far:
   Firstly, no one has seemed repulsed or shocked; response has been, for the most part, positive. This is very good news.
   Secondly, and, I think, much more importantly, I have been thinking of the issue of the artist and society. Many of you have said that you think the artist is, or should be, free, completely. I do not agree with that. There is no such thing, I believe, as ars gratia artis; creating a work of art is no less an action than any other, and it has all the moral consequences attendant to any other type of action. I think the artist, in fact because rather than in spite of his freedom to create and to affect others, is, or should be, the most enchained by his responsibilities to society. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and every action has consequences.
   Let me, though, make sure I am understood about something: by "society", above, I do not mean society as represented by the moral majority, community standards, "the man", or whatever other name you would like to give it. I mean "society" only as a collection of individuals. I think the artist is responsible to these people, simply because he is affecting them (the fact that "one should not try to significantly harm people" is the crux of my argument, but I cannot prove it logically; if you disagree with this, I have no argument to persuade you, and I imagine you will disagree also with everything I have said and will say on the topic). So, the artist's work should attempt, in some way, to improve society.
   Now, the definition of "improvement", of course, is an entirely subjective thing. It also does not require society's consent. If your method of improving people is to disconcert, shock, appal, outrage, overturn the table, and give society a resounding collective slap in the face, well, if you believe that what you are doing is, ultimately, the best way to assist society, you are fulfilling your obligations as an artist. I may, of course, disagree with you, but my disagreement would hinge on questioning your definition of improvement, or questioning whether your art helps implement such improvement; but I could never, I think, make the standard argument that it is "not art", or that you are ignoring your obligations to society. It is good that I am done with this point, because it has been much too long.
   Thirdly, Nephilim raises the excellent point of legality. Personally, I am much more concerned with morality, but anyone who doubts the power of the law, or its ability to adversely affect the video-game industry, is, I think, hiding his head in the sand (though I hope very much that he is right). Now, because I am releasing my game for free, and live in Canada (which is just a little more liberal, or at least, a little more legally inefficacious), my situation is a little different; but because the content of my game could in some way be responsible for tightening of laws in the U.S., I have a responsiblity to do what is in my power to prevent that.
   The primary ammunition of the anti-video-game moralists is the phrase "Video games are corrupting our children!", or something like it. Well, I toyed with the idea of setting an age limit ("WARNING: you must be over 18 to enter this site"), but ultimately decided against it. (As an incidental, I imagine "WARNING: you must be under 30 to enter this site" would be much more effective in keeping my site's content from people who might be offended by it; no offence to any senior-citizens in our midst.)
   I know that when I was 18 (or 13, even), I certainly didn't pay any attention to such warnings, and I don't feel I should have; what I have seen has not in any way stymied my intellectual or moral growth. American law (and other country's, to a lesser extent), seems to expect children to lead an insular, Disney-land childhood until the age of 19, at which age they are unleashed upon the world to sadly have their illusions of happiness and joy shattered by a harsh and unforgiving world. I say this because, if we did insulate children to such a degree until that age, they may indeed, I think, find it as difficult to cope as I stated above. Thankfully, they are not insulated, as there is a wonderful little thing which provides them with a link to the outside world: the schoolyard rumour. Children will learn about such things as sex, drugs, violence, what have you, despite any parent's or legislator's efforts. So, then, I personally think that if any information I display is more responsible and more edifying that its corresponding schoolyard rumour would be, that I have done, really, a good thing, rather than corrupting poor little Jimmy, or whoever.
   (This idea is still in its nascent stages; I have not fully played it out. Any comment on it is welcome.)
   Well, that's all well and good, but I've doubt I've swung Strom Thurman (I hope that reference is still current; I can't keep track of such things) over to the side of righteousness. So, the more I push the envelope, the more it will push back, affecting not only me, but everyone who makes video games (particularly commercially). I will include a "WARNING: mature content" type of message, though, for the reasons I've stated above, I will not try to restrict viewing based on age in any way. That seems like a weak solution, though.
   I have done something, however, which, though it will not by any means solve the problem, if repeated on a grand enough scale, may be a very, very good start. It is simple: I have worked hard in pitching my game to the older generation (30- 40- 50-somethings). So far, the response has been surprisingly favourable. I am trying, in effect, to "mainstream" the genre (by which I don't mean, of course, making it pabulum, but simply attracting a less specific audience). The key, I think, is to establish that the video game, particularly, particularly, the RPG, is not merely a "kid's game".
   In response to Nephilim's quite valid concerns, that is why I think that "mature-themed" (by which, again, I do not in any way mean pornographic; perhaps I should say rather "maturely-oriented") games will more likely profit the industry more than damage it. While the immediate reaction to such a game may be very disadvantageous, in the long run, such games are necessary; without them, the industry can never be taken seriously. Believe me, I hope to work commercially designing video-games some day, and I want to avoid having to create "Cuddles the Fuzzy Bunny Goes to Happyland" as much as I'm sure all of you want to avoid playing it.
   So, my conclusion is this: I will include potentially "shocking" aspects in my game, but I will tread carefully, and consider the consequences. With this in mind, I'm seriously considering pushing back the release date of my game another year, just so that I can make sure it is as finely polished as it should be, and so that, while it may invite the criticism/disgust of some, anyone who looks at it critically and without bias should see the value of what I'm doing. Now, that's quite an order; I just hope very much I have the skill to pull it off.
   Quite off-topic, but since it was mentioned, I have to give credit where it's due, yes, grenideer, the game is very, very loosely based on that Clive Barker game. Very loosely. In fact, I've only seen the intro, and upon seeing it I became enamoured of the idea of doing a "actually disconcerting Addam's Family"-type game.
   Very, very sorry this has all been so very long. Again, I'd like to thank everyone for their comments.

[Nephilim]

[Rainer Deyke]

[Barok]

Jihgfed Pumpkinhead is taking this more seriously than anyone here. this discussion wasn't started to complain about obscenity in Canada and the U.S.A. If anyone in the game industry gets hit with charges with obscenity, nudity, violence, it'll be the big game industrys. (EA, 3DO, BAM! Entertainment, etc. etc.) And i'm sure that anyone here will hear about this. And besides, if you don't put your e-mail address in your games (or site url) then you're at no risk. (unless they can track you somehow...)

sure, people wouldn't be able to get to your site to get games (or e-mail you with comments/complaints), but if your SO concerned with getting sued or warned (or something) then this'd be the best thing to do... maybe.
_________________
Adosorken: I always liked slutty 10th graders...
Rhiannon: *Slap!*

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

[Rainer Deyke]

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

   Thanks for the support, Barok; but I don't think that the posts on this thread haven't been taking the subject seriously. They've all been interesting, and all insightful. The thread was begun to talk about morality in RPGs; the fact that it has touched on legality isn't, I think, disadvantageous.
   And Deyke, sorry if I took your position as being more extreme than you meant it. Sorry, also, for mis-spelling your name in my post; won't happen again.

[Nephilim]

Regarding what does and does not qualify as art, well, that's a whole other discussion, but I might as well throw in my two cents. I tend to look at art through the lens of communication. If I were to take a shot at defining it, granting that it is probably insufficient, I would say that art is "any product whose primary purpose is to communicate emotion from the artist at an emotional level." This definition is useful to me in a couple of ways.

First, it highlights the fact that there are two participants in art - the artist and the viewer - and that the artist must be responsible for what he creates because it influences others.

Second, it speaks to the intent of art somewhat. It's for communicating emotions personal to the artist, as opposed to, say, communicating "You should buy this product." This gives you a (granted, rather hamhanded) litmus test for separating design from art.

Finally, it speaks to who determines whether something is art - the viewer, or the artist? With this definition, it's the artist, because the effectiveness of the art at communicating the message is irrelevant to the motivation for producing the artwork in the first place. For instance, something does not stop being art simply because particular cultural references in a work are no longer relevant, or because the viewer doesn't "get it." It also doesn't hinge the definition of art on the skill of the artist - that's the distinction between art and "fine art". A lousy artist is still attempting to communicate, whether or not he succeeds.

What has this got to do with RPG's? In terms of this definition, an RPG would be "art" if its intent is to communicate a personal, emotional message, rather than simply to entertain. Cairn Hill, for example, would likely fall into the category of art, regardless of how it looks or plays, because if it succeeds, it will have moved the player emotionally.

Something like Diablo, on the other hand, would not, even though it has fantastic graphics and gameplay - and has a few cinematic vignettes here and there to communicate the frame story. Its primary goal is to entertain. The producers didn't put a lot of work into tying you emotionally to the characters in the story, nor do you develop a particular character of your own. You move it - it doesn't move you.

There's probably a lot of holes in this definition, but maybe it's useful as a touchstone for thinking about the responsibilities and rights artists should have. *shrug*

[grenideer]

[Rainer Deyke]

[Nephilim]

Okay. Thanks for the clarifications.

[Barok]

actually pumpkinhead, i said you were taking this MORE seriously than anyone else, not that nobody was taking this seriously. ;)
_________________
Adosorken: I always liked slutty 10th graders...
Rhiannon: *Slap!*

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

   Okay, sorry, Barok; I understand you now. I suppose it makes sense that I'd be taking this thread most seriously (though only in a very limited sense, as I'll explain). After all, I started it, and, much more importantly, whereas everyone seems to have fairly well defined their opinions, I'm still very much struggling with the issue. So, I guess, in that sense, I'm taking it the most seriously. (I don't, of course, mean to imply that anyone else is being intractable, nor, in the opposite direction, that they're simply fooling around, anything like that; all I mean is... well, I'm sure, or at least, I very much hope, that you take my meaning. I'm the most confused; perhaps thats all I really mean.)
   Isn't it annoying the way Internet conversations tend to get bogged down in clarifications? Ah, well, I suppose there isn't any way around it. But it fascinates me to no end the way that intonation and gesture can carry so much meaning, and how much is lost when a conversation is only text.

[Barok]

yeah. it'd be pretty cool if they made message boards in which you can use a microphone to tell people your message. maybe there is ;)

however, there'd be problems, like memory space and loading times. (if you played it before it's finished downloading, you hear a person talking, then he stops talking in the middle of his sen-)

;)
_________________
Adosorken: I always liked slutty 10th graders...
Rhiannon: *Slap!*

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

   Alright, much has been said on this topic (and I'm sorry that I've been by far saying most of it), but with each post, the question seems to get a little more abstract. I'd like to reground the discussion, by bringing it back to its main focus: RPGs.
   Well, so far, I've avoided mentioning any RPGs in particular, but I think here it would be more efficient not to bother with that. If you don't know a particular game, don't worry, I'm sure you'll still get the gist. I'll still refrain from mentioning my own (and actually I'd prefer it if others would, too, unless it is very pertinent, or the very best way you can think to phrase something), merely because I don't want to be in any way responsible for grossly "plugging" it. Yes, I really should have asked this ealier.
   Now, it seems to me that what really sets RPGs apart from any other medium is interactivity. I'd really love to go into the effects this has on our intake of its content in minute, McLuhan-esque detail, but I won't bore you (if you don't think it would be boring, tell me; but you'll probably think it would be boring).
   I'll define here two levels of interactivity. The first is simply the ability to maximize your enjoyment of a game by deciding what you'll do with your time: if you like to explore, you explore, if you like combat, you wander around levelling up, if you want to socialize, you hang around in town. Etcetera and so forth. A nice feature, of course, but not too valuable to our conversation.
   The second is the ability to change the course of the game by your actions. This can be minor (dialogue options, for example, which are common in most games), or major (the end-of-game, will you side with evil or will you side with good moral dilemma, as an example). It's this with which I'm really concerned, and it's this to which I'll be referring when I say "interactivity".
   Before I proceed, one point: "false" dialogue options really, really, really annoy me. By "false", I mean dialogue options which appear might make a difference in the game, but actually don't. These are worst, and most obvious, when it simply goes into a loop repeating the question until you make the choice the programmer wants you to make. I seem to remember this most from "Legend of Zelda" games, but it's been a while, and it's possible I'm wrong.
   Personally, I think non-linear RPGs have a thousand and one merits over linear on the basis of entertainment value alone; but I won't go into that; if you really want to discuss it, start a thread, and I'll gladly say something. But where non-linear RPGs really, clearly, excel, is in involving the player in the game's moral element. (Note by non-linear I mean games with branching storylines; not, obviously, game like NetHack, which, while they fit that description, don't really apply here.)
   This is largely an untapped vein; but, from what I've seen even in mainstream games, this is slowly beginning to change. The most obvious example I can think of is Fallout. In Fallout, your goal is ultimately to save your little-underground-city-thing. However, as you proceed towards this goal, wandering from town to town, you are given the opportunity to do any number of things, both good and bad. The things you do have an affect on the game; for example, when you do bad things, people find out, and often hate you. Furthermore, at game's end, you get a little story about the future of each town you've visited, so that you see how your actions can affect people.
   Fallout 2 takes the "bad-guy" possibilities even further; it introduces, for example, prostitution, the use of heavy drugs, and gang warfare, in all of which activities your character can take part. (these are not my definitions of bad things, necessarily, simply common ones) Now, a lot of posts have said that they'd like to be the bad guy for once, and I must admit, having played that game, being the bad guy can be a lot of fun. But, is it "healthy"? (I know, I know, I know, I must sound like a soap-box petty-moralist; but hear me out just a little longer).
   I'll give two sides, and you tell me which you prefer, or, of course, offer your own argument (I'm sorry if it seems like I'm always asking questions, and never giving anwers; that's just the stage I'm at right now).
   Both of these arguments are founded on the idea that you are vicariously acting through your character. This is what makes the games interesting, the fact that their triumphs are your triumphs, and their defeats yours also. There is something shared between you and your character, which, while difficult to define, is also, I think, difficult to ignore. This is most likely the weakest point of my argument, simply because, as I try now to explain it, I explanations I come up with are all either unmanageably complex, or devolve into "But... it's obvious!". I'm simply going to let it stand, however, and see how well it takes the punches that will be directed towards it. I know Nephilim, at least, will call me on this (Nephilim would probably rather I phrased my arguments in the form of a syllogism, but he ain't getting it; a joke, by the way, I mean no offence), but it's getting late, and I am getting much too tired, and there doesn't appear to be any save feature in my window.
   I'm assuming also, of course, that the game designer wants the people who play this game to be benefitted, in a moral sense; or, at least, wants to be aware of how his game is affecting people, in a moral sense. I imagine that any game which was truly "morally neutral" would be unimaginably boring. If you are having great difficulty with this topic because you are a champion of moral ambivalence, consider taking the words "good", "evil", and whatnot to their extremes: make "evil" harming others for no purpose whatsoever except the thrill it brings to do so, i.e. perversity in the strongest sense, make it torture and rape and everything you find reprehensible about humanity; make "good"... well, good's harder to find an extreme, but I'm sure you'll come up with something. Ultimately, I don't think it really matters to this argument how you or I define those terms, so long as you make them proper and meaningful to you.

1.   RPGs should only encourage good, upright behaviour in their games, for the following reasons, possibly among others:
   The facts of operant conditioning are difficult to deny, even if it isn't very much in vogue right now. Rewarding of behaviour equals repetition of behaviour; rewarding of unwanted behaviour in an RPG means a greater likelihood of performing that behaviour, or others similar, in the real world.
   Similar to the above, and complementary to it, repetition forms habit. Moreover, it desensitizes and inures, making the atrocious seem banal, and therefore, removing the moral barriers which surround certain actions.
   It's just bad to do otherwise. (Not a very strong argument, but one which, I'm sure, has been made).

2.   RPGs should not encourage any behaviours at all, but rather allow the player to select his character's behaviour from the full gamut of possible human behaviours without prejudice, because:
   As John Stuart Mill said: "an unquestioned truth is a dead truth" (well, I'm not sure he actually said that, but I'm sure that's what he meant), and as Plato said: "an unexamined life is not worth living" (and that might have been Socrates; incidentally, you notice that the ambivalent people get all the great quotes... coincidence? I think not). In other words, when morals become merely convention, they lose all their power, and become frail, and brittle, so that even though we may uphold them, we do not truly believe them with any force. The way to make sure that they are held as living truths is to constantly question them and to thereby redetermine their validity (or falsehood, if such it should prove to be).
   It is much more similar to real life; what good is there in making a person "good", if he thereafter cannot function in society as well as if he were not? In other words, why set him up for a fall? There is also, of course, the argument that verisimilitude is to be sought in itself for itself.
   Everyone has his own morality; I do not feel comfortable designing my game in such a way that it imposes my morality on another (though I imagine this is a purely theoretical argument, as I doubt that an RPG could be designed in such a way as to avoid this). Similarly, there is the argument that morality, good, evil, and whatnot are all hollow terms which denote nothing of significant value and shouldn't even be considered (although I did sort of stipulate that the fact that this was not true was a required assumption for this discussion, I'm offering this argument here just to make sure everyone is happy).

   I've floated a number of ideas, here; grab whichever you like and run with it, or come up with your own, or whatever, just tell me your opinion. Keep in mind that while I can be said to have distanced myself from all of these arguments by phrasing this as a question, I think most are fairly good arguments (except, of course, for those for which I showed my parenthetical disdain).
   Also, as I've said, I think it might be interesting to really open up the door to mentioning how specific RPGs have demonstrated some of the above, positively or negatively. Personally, I'm not quite yet fully convinced of the absolute evil which is supposed to exist within anecdotal evidence.
   Thanks, again, and as always, for your kind attention througout this over-long post.[/list]