[Nephilim]

I am willing to take as axiomatic that the player identifies in some way with her alter-ego in the game. I mean, otherwise, what would be the point, right?

But it's just as important to acknowledge that the player also has an emotional detachment as well. You are always aware that you are playing a game. The reason for your attachment to the onscreen character is not because of some dysfunctional emotional codependency on the alter ego, but because controlling and advancing that character goes hand in hand with propelling the story forward. Simply put, it's how you play the game.

As a player, you are forced to take an active interest in your alter-ego, because you have no other way of moving through the game otherwise. Your alter-ego is your camera through which you witness the story. No matter how immersive the game gets, part of your brain is aware that it is a game, and that the purpose is to "win", which in the case of an RPG is to make this avatar-camera as capable as possible to see as much of the story as possible with the most satisfying outcome as possible.

Pity the poor RPG hero! You do not generally act in the interests of his well-being. You act in the best interests of your enjoyment of the story, and if that means he has to enter that crypt of the Lich-King, even though the entrance is littered with the bones of far more experienced heroes, so be it - in he goes, right? You put the hapless RPG hero through far worse tribulations than you'd be willing to do yourself, because you are aware that he is not you, and that he must do these things if you are going to enjoy the full story. (Admit it - you've sent the poor guy to his death more than once, just to see what would happen.) How can we treat him so inhumanely? Because we are always aware: He is not real. None of it is real.

So this may sound like a downer for people trying to make as immersive an experience as possible, but consider that this is specifically the mechanism that allows you to communicate whatever message you want to convey with your game, too. It's this detachment that allows the player to reflect on the events in the game and place them in the context of their own lives. It's how you communicate more than just the raw plot of the game. While the poor RPG hero/martyr is getting his ass handed to him by the Lich King, the player is free to wonder about the implications of fighting an enemy that can never be truly conquered, or the social forces that sap us of life, or whatever goofy metaphor you've set up the Lich King to represent.

Regarding morality in RPG's then, I think this detachment that the player experiences - in fact, MUST experience in order to play the game - gives the game designer the leeway he needs to explore questionable topics without endangering his audience. Having the RPG hero kill someone is not the same as having the player kill someone. Context is clear.

(But there still is the question of age-appropriateness of the topic. The player might not confuse blasting people with a rocket launcher in Quake and doing the same in real life, but that doesn't mean that he is emotionally and intellectually ready to confront the topic of violent death from gunfire, regardless of the medium it is presented in.)

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

   Yes, the player's detachment from the PC is extremely important; I'm even willing to admit that it's more important than his attachment to him. But, it is this attachment that breathes life into RPGs, and it is this attachment whch sets RPGs apart from other media.
   RPGs' content borrow a lot from other traditional media, chiefly the novel. However, computer RPGs also borrow a great deal from "real" RPGs (including the name "RPG", which could make this a difficult conversation; from now on I'll say P&P-RPGs (for "pen and paper") when referring to non-computer RPGs).
   The P&P-RPG offers a level of freedom which can never be duplicated by RPGs. Your control of your PC is bounded only by your imagination and the whim of the Storyteller. But, in the case of P&P-RPGs, it is much more than just "control". You must act as the character, you must play his role.
   I think any actor who has not at some point "lost himself in his role" is missing some of the joy of his profession. Of course, he will never be entirely enclosed within his role, but neither will he be entirely without it.
   Now, I'd say we should encourage this state of being "lost in the game" in our players as much as possible. Not only is it more enjoyable, but I earnestly believe that it's the only way the RPG can truly ascend to being an art form; or at least, it's the only way that the RPG can be an art form of the same caliber as, say, the novel. Moreover, it is a potentially greater form than the novel, even, for encouraging the emotional and moral growth of its players.
   Consider the hero, or better yet, the anti-hero. Perspective is magical: it dictates our sympathy. Hero becomes villain with the simple shift of from whose eyes you're watching. What can we call this if not emotional attachment, at its deepest level? It is the working of proximity and commonality. How much more is this so when you are invited to actually become the character?
   It is the RPG which offers just such an invitation which I think of when I consider the possible use of RPGs for moral growth.
   The player, of course, does not become the character, in any way; the character is much too small for that, I imagine it would be too tight a fit. The player does, however, extend himself into the character. Most of him is still outside; this is the part which is constantly aware that "this is just a game". But there is a smaller part which can and does interact with the game on a direct level; it is a more instinctive, less abstractual part which does not need any such nice distinction between reality and fiction. Forgive me that this is a clumsy metaphor; I'm in unfamiliar territory, and doing my best.
   I'm going to leave it at that, without concluding, and see what sort of replies I get; anyway, I'd like to think about it some more, too, before offering anything more firm than what I have above.
   Continuing Nephilim's side-note, however, about children: what would you all suggest for dealing with the fact that there are some who are not mature enough to deal with certain issues? An age limit is bound to include some who are too immature and exclude some who are more than mature enough to deal with a game's content. Over that, there is the fact that they'll often be summarily ignored, anyway. Thoughts?
   As always, thanks for listening.

[Rainer Deyke]

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

     I don't have too much more to add to my last post. It's just that this thread was rapidly climbing down the ranks, and I think there's still a lot more to be said about the subject. Before the moderators spank me (or whatever it is they do) for beating a dead horse, I'd like to say that I only intend to do it this once, and if it seems the horse is well and truly dead, I guess, then, well, I'll begrudgingly get over it.
     What I have done, however, is heavily edit my last post. On re-reading, it struck me as practically unintelligeble. My apologies to anyone who tried to make sense of it, and my commendations to Rainer Deyke, who seems to have been able to extract something, at least, from its befuddling mass of words.
     The other thing I wanted to do was show off my new pumpkin-headed avatar. Isn't he cool?
     Hope someone has something left to say; but if not, thanks, all, for making it very interesting while it lasted.

[Bjorn]

[Rainer Deyke]

Anyway, my own set of values (I don't like to apply the term "morality" to myself) is the result of much thinking, consideration, and challenging. I try to understand why people have the values they have, even if those values are in contradiction to mine. I deliberately follow lines of reasoning that are alien to me, trying to find justifications for behavior that I find repugnant. Personally I feel that is the only "right" way. If you don't challenge your values, how can you be sure of their validity and strength?

So how does this relate to RPGs? I have problem with games that tell a linear story. I see nothing wrong with playing somebody else with his own set of values and his own moral dilemas. It doesn't really matter that the result of those dilemas is pre-scripted. The closer his values resemble mine, the more comfortable I am. But there's nothing wrong with playing somebody whose values contradict mine, so long as I can understand where he's coming from. Take for example a game that's about a kid who's constantly tortured in his childhood, so he turns into a archetypical villain. I might feel uncomfortable playing that game, but it would still be a worthwhile experience. A game like that could be powerful art.

I like games that let me make moral choices. These let me examine my own values more carefully. I can later reexamine my choice by looking at its consequences, and wonder about whether or not I made the right choice. One thing I hate is false moral choices. By this I mean that the game designer has already decided that one choice is "good" and one is "bad", so I get rewarded for making the right choice and punished for making the wrong choice. This is especially bad when I disagree with the game designer on which choice is the right one.

Finally there are games with no moral dimension whatsoever. I tend to dislike games like that, although I might still play them if the gameplay mechanics are compelling enough. Worse are games which preach morality without presenting any dilemas. Diablo comes to mind. Don't get me wrong, I played Diablo (1, 2, and LOD) and enjoyed it. However, even as I played it, I strongly disliked the moral aspect of it. I really wanted to kill Tyrael, but the game wouldn't let me.

In conclusion, let me post one of my favorite quotes about art (source: http://www.anus.com/metal/about/metal/blackmetal.html ):

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

[Guest]

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

     I assume the person who made that last post was Nephilim; for now, I'll just call him "the Myster Poster" (or, The MP, for short).
     I remember the first RPG I tried to make. It was called Darkness (based on Byron's poem of the same name), and I intended it to be completely non-linear. It was set in a post-apocalyptic world, and the goal was, as much as anything, day-to-day survival. In this world the sun was blocked out; the earth was incredibly cold. The degree of adversity was extreme. The PC had to concern himself with things which, in our society, may seem relatively banal (finding a job, etc.), but which, in the circumstances, were a matter of life and death. There, would of course, be climactic breaks in the tedium; but mostly it would rely on the PC to initiate the story, rather than merely react to it. It was to be the most multi-faceted game ever; my brain swirled with ideas and insight.
     It failed, of course; it was, as I'm sure you can imagine, just too, too far beyond my capacity. So, that's my experience of running smack-dab into the limits of my craft. And the MP has a point, here: creating an RPG which is non-linear to any great degree adds substantially to the labour of the game developer. At the very least, I imagine you'd be writing twice as much text; and if you do so, you'll have to live with the fact that the player will only be realizing half of your game; not to mention the fact that creativity is a limited resource, and the more text you have to write, the thinner you have to spread it.
     But think of Tolkien's work. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I read it, I was struck by the immense amount that I felt was behind it. This is accomplished by purposefully preventing the reader, or PC, from understanding everything. It is by this that one creates, for the reader or PC, the sense of entering a world, rather than just of following a story; and I think this is a wonderful thing for which to aim.
     I should also point out that Tolkien achieves this in exactly the same way as the RPG designer does: through long and taxing work. Anyone who has read anything supplementary to the books will know what I'm talking about.
     The MP raises another good point: when an RPG is extremely non-linear, to such a degree that the PC is the initiator of plot-lines, rather than simply reacting to them, the PC often remains unmotivated. I don't know if anyone reading this plays P&P RPGs, but if someone does, he will certainly understand this dilemma. Here's an example:

Storyteller: "You're awoken late at night by a phone call. When you answer the phone, a raspy voice says 'Your friend Ralph is in grave danger. You must hurry to the marina... dock 19. You must save him.' The caller hangs up, and all you hear is the dial tone. What do you do?"

Player: "Screw it, I'm tired. Ralph's a big boy, he can take care of himself. I'm going back to bed."

     Now, that's a lame plot, and I don't really blame the player for rebelling against it, but I think it illustrates the problem rather well. If you do not force the PC to act heroically, he tends to act, well, just plain normally. And frankly, normal's boring.
     The thing is, though, that I don't think this is much of a problem in computer RPGs; at least, not yet. Simply put, I've never played one which gives the player enough freedom that there is a danger that the PC will spend all his time slacking-off. I think it would be lovely if there were one, but I haven't really seen it. If anyone has, please point me in its direction.
     So, my point is, that it's a moot point.
     As for the possibility of the player missing all the action, I'm reminded of the game "Fallout". In it, there are three (possibly more) ways of dealing with the final evil mutant boss. The first is to rush in guns blazing and kick his ass (the standard ending). The second (and my favourite) is to simply convince him of the absurdity of his plans. You talk him out of it(man, I thought was cool when I succeeded in doing that). For the third, the one wherein you "miss all of the action", you sneak under Big Evil's base, and set off the nuclear weapon he had stolen. You never meet Big Evil himself, and you never truly understand his plans or motivations (because you miss out on the big, final speech). But, to be entirely honest, when I was playing the sneaky I-don't-give-a-damn thief, that ending worked perfectly well for me. The PC didn't know exactly what had happened, and he didn't care. My point is, that you'll often find that, if the RPG is well-executed, the ending will fit the PC, and you won't be disappointed by what you haven't seen. I, of course, played it again, so I got to find out, ultimately, exactly what did happen.
     This is the other great advantage of non-linear RPGs: they have much, much better replay value than traditional RPGs.

[Nephilim]

[Barok]

argh... too much text... head... gonna... explode...
_________________
Adosorken: I always liked slutty 10th graders...
Rhiannon: *Slap!*

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

     Heh heh. I know what you mean, Barok. I can still sympathize even though I'm by far the worst offender, right? Anyway, here's my position in a nutshell, for those who don't really feel like climbing a mountain of text:
     RPGs should provide more opportunity for the player to explore and question moral subjects. This is best done through a multi-linear game, in which a player can choose, and determine the consequences of, the PC's actions.
     Ta-daa! Now no one need ever read any of my posts ever again.

[Barok]

heh heh.. i don't know. nephilim is pretty good at that.
_________________
Adosorken: I always liked slutty 10th graders...
Rhiannon: *Slap!*

[Jihgfed Pumpkinhead]

     Thought I might as well summarize the main question of the thread, too. Here we go: what do you think is the best way to implement morality in RPGs? That's perhaps a more general question than my initial one, but I think it's a better question, too.
     And, hey! I'm way more long-winded than Nephilim. Consider that Nephilim quotes other people a lot more than I do, so that really only counts as filler. In fact, I think every time Nephilim quotes me, even if all he's doing is refuting my point completely, it should count towards my post count. Only fair.
     Gee, hope he doesn't get offended by any of this. Believe me, Nephilim, wherever you are, I always look forward to your posts!