Larian Studios Forums Divinity 2 - Ego Draconis (English) Divinity 2 - Ego Draconis Moral dilemma's in RPGs

So what we need is a separate karma score for each faction we're ever involved with. For example, pushing the fat-man in front of the run-away cart is seen as:
Murder by the fat-man's rich family.
Thankful but scarey by those in the path of the run-away cart.
Funny by the imps watching on the hill-top.

Let every land judge you by their own laws.

[color:"orange"]Let every land judge you by their own laws.[/color]

That would be a reputation system, though, not 'karma'.

Unlike karma or the system of virtues from Ultima that started this discussion (ie fairly absolute value scales), reputation is more relative, so would be much easier to reconcile with moral dilemmas (assuming separate base reputation values for different groups).

There has been a Karma system in Shadowrun - you get so called Karma points for completed tasks and character like acting. So, you would actually get Karma for killing a little creature IF you were a sadistic guy. (And you would also get Karma points of course for completing your current assignment and parts of it).

These Karma points were your experience... you used them to increase your stats. And it was also used for determining the so called Karma Pool - which was the amount of dice with which you could boost your normal dice pool if needed, among some other things.


But the Karma system we are talking about here is the rather general approach I guess. That means it can't be a relative kind of thing... you can't say a good guy gets Karma for good actions and a bad guy gets Karma for bad actions. It has to relate - as Lar said - to a specific morale system and based on that, the Karma has to be assigned to certain actions. You would then get Karma - and thus, a bonus - for actions which are good in that system. And no Karma or even lose Karma - thus, a malus - for bad actions in that system.

While most players won't have a problem with that, I again think this is the used approach and shouldn't be used. I mean, yeah, we have seen it in so many games... the game gives you the good-bad-relation and you act along that line... you get some feedback regarding your actions, may they be good or bad, but I doubt that most players think a lot about the game world's morale system (Ultima might be - a very extreme - exception there).

Now, how to do it in "Our next RPG"? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

I think there should be some sort of judging... at least by the game world's inhabitants. If there was only advantage/disadvantages, that would be the utilitarian world you were talking about. I'd say use a impartial bonus/malus system based on the character and the former actions.
For example: If you play a red cross worker who has been married for 50 years, it would be very surprising to kill your wife in a rainy night. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> So, that should be "punished" (in game terms). But if you play a moody mafia boss, it would be something else. Other than that, the people in the game world could still judge you based on their belief systems... that would have consequences on the player's actions because the relationship to the other people whould change based on the player's actions. But the game wouldn't judge the player...

Well the karma I read about in books. (I don't know if its a good reference, but its something like: what goes around comes around)

But I'm not sure if it could be used that way.
Because this way you can not play an evil character without getting punished, and instead of getting a game we would just get lessons in moral/ethics.

And actually the more I think about it, a karma system would be too biased towards a certain playstyle and thus rob us of our freedom.

So maybe, as I read before, a good reputation system would be better.

Every NPC's thought about you should be different, so its not that you have a reputation of 80 in a town and therefor all the inhabitants like you.

For example when you help a certain person, his neighbours might be jealous and like you less, unless you do them a favor too.

And when you first meet people, their thought about you should depend on their race, your race, their general thought or experiences with strangers, and how good or bad of a day they are having.

When you get more famous, for example for being the arena champion, some people might like you for it,
others might fear you for it, and others might think that famous people aren't very nice and thus "hate" you for being famous.

i like! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

Thats reputation, not karma.

Karma is just one single score u can get, and reputation is a score that is different with certain NPC etc (multiple scores for different NPC's or something like that)? Something like that?

btw, mafia treated their wives fairly right. At least, I know (from a book) of a case where a member was punished for repeatingly hitting his wife <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />. A mentally very disturbed man would more likely kill his wife <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Well yeah, what I read about karma is that its something that decides your faith and luck. It's based on your actions in this life and in your previous life.
It has nothing to do with how people think about you or how much they like you.
Even killing a man wouldn't necessarily be bad for your karma as long as you do it with honor or out of self defence.

So maybe in contradiction to what I said myself, it could be possible.
But the karma system should know why we are killing a certain person,
so killing someone just because you don't like him or because you want the loot, should be bad for your karma.
(Unless you killed a very rich and greedy guy and will not use the loot for your personal benefit)

Karma in "Larians next RPG" (very, very, very bored of that title btw <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />) should be possible.
But I think it should be karma as it originally was, and not some games interpretation of it. It would bother me if our reputation (or experience) would be called karma.
And I'm pro hidden karma systems, we know its there, but don't know what effect it has.
As a result no 2 games should ever be the same, and we will not get mad over disagreeing with larians opinion on what is right or wrong on some things.
So even for Larian this should be easier to make,
since they will not have to break their heads over how to deal with some situations and keeping all the players happy.
I like replaying RPG's with a different type of character, and I would like it if it the game wasn't exactly the same as before.
(So maybe this time someone reveals a secret that you didn't know the first time you played the game)

I still think in any morally ambiguous system a 'trustworthiness' system works best. If you're really evil but always keep your word, that should count for more in a 'morally neutral' world than doing the 'right' thing.

We're really talking about an entirely different way of measuring ethics, after all.

If we're talking about a Thieves World type game (Very famous series of short story collections. I'm sure most of you have heard of them) then we're not talking 'good' and 'evil' anyway - just 'evil' and 'more evil'.

But even the bad guys keep track of who they can trust.

In a morally neutral world, it's also a far easier thing to quantify. You either keep your word or you don't, after all.

Foetsy;
[color:"orange"]Something like that?[/color]

Yes. In this discussion 'karma' is being used to refer to a fairly absolute moral system. Since right and wrong are being judged against a particular religious or societal set of values (though all major religions and most cultures would have a lot of similarities in this regard) or some idealized variation, there is not a lot of room for personal opinion or interpretation.

With reputation, it is possible (or even likely) than people would form opinions based mainly on how they (or their group) is treated, and ignore actions contrary to that (depending on the action).


[color:"orange"]btw, mafia treated their wives fairly right.[/color]

However well someone in the mob treats his family and supports his community, the negative karma from various illegal activities would more than likely outweigh the good. However, outsiders who only see the good side can still form a fairly positive opinion of him (ie 'nice guy, but I wouldn't want to cross him').

Reputation is more dependent on results. If you give money to local charities and maintain several businesses (providing employment) that would be seen as a good thing. Karma would also depend on intent (something that couldn't easily be done in a game). If a donation was meant to buy popularity or increase social standing, rather than simply to give back to a supportive community, that wouldn't help much with karma.



Lepel;
[color:"orange"]Unless you killed a very rich and greedy guy and will not use the loot for your personal benefit[/color]

I think that would still be considered murder in any religion, society or legal system.



Elliot_Kane;
[color:"orange"]You either keep your word or you don't, after all.[/color]

Let's say you are staying at an inn for free in exchange for running errands for the owner. You always keep your word and you always complete every task in an efficient manner. One morning the owner's toddler son gets up far too early and starts playing far too loud, so you cut out his tongue. You have not broken your word. Does the owner's opinion of you change?


Wouldn't a morally neutral world be a poor setting for a game? You couldn't really be a hero or a villain if there were no right and wrong. 'Ya, ya, ya, thanks for saving the world. Now did you deliver that letter like you said you would, or not?'

Aha, but thats where you are wrong! (Maybe it will be considered as murder, but not necessarily as a crime) At least imo.

I'm not really talking about religions or legal systems, more about some sort of honor system.
I'm just thinking about samurai and ronin. In their beliefs all traders were scum because they made fortunes out of other peoples work and thus they had no honor.
So for ronin (masterless samurai or outlaws) it wouldn't damage their karma to kill such a rich trader and use his money for their beliefs.
For them it would be far worse to finish off a defeaten opponent instead of allowing him to do seppuku (hara-kiri) even when they just tried to murder you.
While in our standards finishing off someone that tries to kill us would be more acceptable.
I know we are using western standards, but when talking about karma I feel that samurai and their beliefs should be thought about.
After all wouldn't the game be great if we could really choose by wich standards our game character will live ?
Offcourse this doesn't mean that everywhere we go we could do as we please, as towns we come across will have laws or rules.
And offcourse people that will hate or like us according to our actions.

[color:"orange"]I know we are using western standards[/color]

Actually, I was thinking modern standards. If you want to go back through relatively recent history, there are lots of examples of western societies condoning (or ignoring) violence against particular groups, and lots of situations where murder might be condoned (such as a suspected horse thief in the old west) or mostly ignored (killing a known drug dealer a decade or two ago in a major city).


[color:"orange"]when talking about karma I feel that samurai and their beliefs should be thought about.[/color]

Didn't some samurai believe that the violence and killing associated with their way of life was bad karma, and their punishment was to be reincarnated as a samurai in their next life?


[color:"orange"]After all wouldn't the game be great if we could really choose by wich standards our game character will live ?[/color]

If you can choose what you consider right and wrong, and what actions are acceptable, then that would fit in with a reputation system much better than 'karma'. That would be nice to have in the game though.

The owner becomes hostile & tries to kill you.



Isn't that really what the Larians are talking about though? A world with most or all major decisions being 'least worst' or 'shades of grey' is going to have to be morally neutral, because you otherwise get punished whatever you do.

Look at the runaway cart example:

Your character is not heavy enough to divert it (Preventing noble sacrifice as an option). You can watch it rocket past and kill five people or push the fat guy in the way to stop it. Yelling a warning won't help, because it's a narrow alley on an incline with no hiding places.

Inaction is evil, because five people die.
The only possible action is evil, because you murder someone.

Not much room for 'good/evil' judgements there... The 'greater good' could be convincingly argued either way.

Allowing the 'self sacrifice' option (Reduce to 1 health) would allow good/evil, but also render the choice meaningless in the first place. The 'correct' option to gain reputation/karma would be obvious, thus rendering the entire test no more than an annoyance to most players.

Pretty much every RPG out there is 'right vrs wrong'; 'good vrs evil' and rewards characters who choose whichever behavioural set the game wishes to encourage within its milieu. If Larian want to try something different - good for them, I say <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I've no idea if I'd like it, but I'll certainly give it a shot <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Personally I don't like karma a lot. Since it pushes you to be "good". If I want to be a low level kill at first sight jerk, I want to have this chose and don't have to be punished for it. But remember since "low level kill at first sight jerk," It's hard to get into a city without being arrested (sewers) and your "normal" shops might be closed , but new shops (black market ans smugglers market ...) are open for you. And you are most welcome at the assassins/thief guild that has some very rare stuff or the locations where you can "get" it.

See how the decision you make creates a whole new perspective in the game that a "divine paladin" would never see. This is basically a reputation system 2.0

Also a suggestion. Please put moral dilemma's in the main quest and not only the side quests. And since they are in the main quest, make sure the consequences are huge (like a burned village or a castle/ villages where the population has been decimated by an attack or decease (cemetery is full)).

Doing nothing would mean nothing happens I think. It was not you who pushed (or lost control over) that trolley, and those 5 people are not your responsibility.
Pushing the fat guy onto the track and killing him would probably get you arrested for murder (although the punishment will probably quite light, mitigating circumstances) in the western society. Killing people is in the books of law and means jailtime. Saving people isn't and thus won't save you from that jail time, right?
That side of the story I wouldn't find very interesting. The public opinion would be more exciting. Some would think psoitive about it, some negative. But who and in what way and what effect do those different attitudes have on you and your adventure. Let go your imagination.

[color:"orange"]The owner becomes hostile & tries to kill you.[/color]

Obviously, then, a reputation system can not be based entirely on honesty. Different groups may value one virtue over others (even to a large extent), but I don't think you could reasonably exclude everything else.


[color:"orange"]Isn't that really what the Larians are talking about though? A world with most or all major decisions being 'least worst' or 'shades of grey' is going to have to be morally neutral, because you otherwise get punished whatever you do.[/color]

If there is no right or wrong, then there are also no moral dilemma. It is also not a dilemma if there is a choice with no down side, so there has to be punishment whatever you do. The trick is to try to determine which option gives the best results with the least damage, from a selection of fairly evenly matched choices.

The whole point of the dilemma of pushing a fat man over a bridge is whether or not you can justify the murder of an innocent person in order to save lives. If murder isn't wrong, then the dilemma is reduced to a simple math problem.

There can be morally difficult or debatable situations, but that does not require the entire moral system to be neutral.

I disagree, at least partly.

If the moral dilemma is only based on the game's moral system, it's still a simple math problem. You have to think about which consequences your actions have in the game world and can then pick the best decision for a "perfect" game.

If the Larians could manage to creat a REAL moral dilemma - it would be based on your own moral ideas. You wouldn't think about the game's ethics but rather contemplate on your own ideas what is wrong and what is right. And that wouldn't be a math problem then.

Only problem with that approach is that you mustn't forget you are playing a role. So, if you are playing the mafia boss and see that your wife is cheating on you, you should rather beat the guy to death and stab your wife even though you personally wouldn't do that in real life. And if you actually "feel" to do that in the game, it's not just a math problem but a character problem you successfully adapted while playing the game.


About "absolute" Karma:
If there is a belief in the game world and it is presented in a reasonable manner... I don't think that this Karma system might be too bad - as long as it doesn't punish the player by making the game impossible.

And btw, as I tried to give an example with Shadowrun, there can be other Karma interpretations as well. I'd prefer a Karma system which is based on the character you choose... the better you stick to your character, the better Karma you get. The Mafia Boss killing his wife and her lover would get good Karma then because it's the character's way of handling that situation. No mafia boss would sit down and discuss the matter with his wife and her lover - that should be "punished" in game terms. But again: These rewards and punishments shouldn't go so far to make it impossible to play the game.

And what if I'm a neutral guy ? Would I get bad karma if I kill someone or bad karma if I help someone ? Or what if I want to be kinda bad, but not kill everything and everyone that comes in my way.
I believe if you choose for this type of karma system, it would be something like experience. Since everything I do will define what kind of role I'm playing.

And what if early in the game people come to me, maybe some sort of rebels.
They ask me if I want to join them and tell me all sorts of lies (offcourse I wouldn't know, I have no reason not to trust them).
So I join them and they make me take out leaders of certain towns or some traders.
Later in the game however I discover that I have been taking the wrong path and maybe I will want to repent for my sins.
I would like it if there is no "good" or "bad". Wouldn't it be great if it wasn't obvious what to do ? And some things may be unforgivable to you and thus you kill the person that has done a certain thing to you. But to me this might be just unpleasant and be something I don't really care about, so I spare the person that did it to me.

In most (or all I think) of the games I played I think it was too obvious what to do, it was easy to see what was considered to be right or wrong.
And the moral dilemmas wouldn't allow your kind of karma system, unless they weren't real dilemmas and if it was obvious what to do.

So maybe it would be better to get some choices and just see the story evolve from there, I would hate being punished for a dilemma, and I would hate getting bad karma for something I wouldn't consider being all that bad.

Maybe at a certain period or by the christian samurai that was believed, however I never read anything regarding this.
Traders even bought themself (or their children) a certain samurai rank because they believed their family would become more honorable.



I think that an advanced reputation system would prove to be better as a karma system, this way we still get punished or rewarded, but in a logical way.
And there is noone to judge us except for the NPC's involved.
We still won't know what the outcome of certain actions will be as some NPC's could prove to be far more valuable as first believed.
Maybe early in the game we could kill someone that is valuable to a secret clan/guild and we will not be able to join that clan/guild.

Moral and legal are not the same thing. In fact they can sometimes be diametrically opposed <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

A system that measures how 'good' or 'evil' your character is would be totally different from one that measures how law abiding s/he is.