Morality check

[happyinmyhead]

This game has moral choices. Throw a few in there with no clear right or wrong answer.

For example. (fell free to tweak it for the appropriate atmosphere)

There is a far off speeding train that is out of control. Tied to the tracks is are about five or six people. You do not have enough time to go down and untie them. You are standing on a bridge that goes over the train tracks. Standing on the bridge with you is a fat man.. a very very fat man. If you push him off the bridge and onto the tracks, the fat man will die and you will have murdered him, but his massive girth will stop the train thus saving the people tied to the tracks. If you dont push the fat man, you are leaving all of those poor helpless people to their fate, letting them all die which is close to murder.

Doing something like this creates an atmosphere of helplessness and an immediate need for the player to rationalize and make excuses for their choice on a hard decision, as would anyone in a survival situation eventually have to do when they need to make tough choices.

[GodComplex]

I find that Kohlbergian moral systems tend to really piss people off, myself included. A lot of the challenge in these types of games is that when you're confronted with two choices, the answer is C) F the rules, I got explosives.

[Nephilim]

Push the fat man over the bridge but not onto the tracks, so he dies and then so does all the people stuck on the rails.

On a more serious note, these kind of moral situations feel so painfully shoe horned in I'd rather not see them.

[DrunkVision]

I would rather not have such simplistic situation in any game, cause I remember very good the shitty ending of Fallout 3.

In Baldur's Gate 2 it was very hard to save your step-sister and it was not obvios line of events to do that, while it was important part of the story. I would rather have multiple-choice morality check when every choice must be searcher to be found, but that is knda hard for developers to do.

[happyinmyhead]

the answer is C) F the rules, I got explosives.

well hey hey! That could be another option, if and only if you have said explosives. Blowing up the train/ derailing it could be another option... but trains tend to be occupied by some sort of conductor dont they? hmmm..... well maybe there is one, maybe there isnt. With explosives, the option to only maybe possibly kill someone becomes available.

On a more serious note, these kind of moral situations feel so painfully shoe horned in I'd rather not see them.

Hmm.. point taken. Assuming there's something like an intelligence stat, perhaps more options become available to the character that can think quickly and outside the box? like the one above being available based on what you currently have in your inventory, more options could be added based on intelligence, catering to the character's morality preference in the game (kill them all, save them all)

[GodComplex]

the answer is C) F the rules, I got explosives.

well hey hey! That could be another option, if and only if you have said explosives. Blowing up the train/ derailing it could be another option... but trains tend to be occupied by some sort of conductor dont they? hmmm..... well maybe there is one, maybe there isnt. With explosives, the option to only maybe possibly kill someone becomes available.

On a more serious note, these kind of moral situations feel so painfully shoe horned in I'd rather not see them.

Hmm.. point taken. Assuming there's something like an intelligence stat, perhaps more options become available to the character that can think quickly and outside the box? like the one above being available based on what you currently have in your inventory, more options could be added based on intelligence, catering to the character's morality preference in the game (kill them all, save them all)

I think the main argument comes down to, it's not appropriate for something as open as WL. We love these games, among other reasons, because there is no correct answer: only a point A, a point B, and something in between that's up to you to navigate. There has to be a chance to always win, that's part of the puzzle. Morality puzzles are best left to something more linear.

[Odd Lott]

There is a far off speeding train that is out of control. Tied to the tracks is are about five or six people. You do not have enough time to go down and untie them. You are standing on a bridge that goes over the train tracks. Standing on the bridge with you is a fat man.. a very very fat man. If you push him off the bridge and onto the tracks, the fat man will die and you will have murdered him, but his massive girth will stop the train thus saving the people tied to the tracks. If you dont push the fat man, you are leaving all of those poor helpless people to their fate, letting them all die which is close to murder.

Hmm... No consideration for the possibility that those five or six people are serial child murderers, and the very, very fat man is responsible for bringing them to this barbaric form of justice? The number of people on said train that could die as a result of the wreck?

[happyinmyhead]

Hmm... No consideration for the possibility that those five or six people are serial child murderers, and the very, very fat man is responsible for bringing them to this barbaric form of justice? The number of people on said train that could die as a result of the wreck?

lol, all things left unconsidered and unmentioned until after the player has made a choice and must live with it.