Morality: A Red and Blue Issue?

Would you like to read this blog, or look for another?
Please select a response:
Read.
Don't Read.

Okay, those aren't actual links to choices, but they are your options when choosing to read this. If you've played any games with a Morality Meter in the past decade, then I'll bet you can guess which one is the "good" option. Morality is a very complex issue, but most games reduce it to a black and white (or red and blue) decision. As Yahtzee said once in his Zero Punctuation Bioshock review, "You're either Mother Theresa, or a baby-eater. There's no middle ground." And he's quite right most of the time. You can't just be a nun with the nibbles. The games sometimes even only reward you for achieving maximum good and evil values, while leaving those with neutral views with nothing.

Some games do things a bit differently, which is to be applauded. Let's look at Jade Empire. Instead of having a Light Side and a Dark Side, Bioware used two opposing philosophies that have basically the same goal in mind, but with vastly different reasoning and execution. The "blue" path is the Way of the Open Palm. It believes that those with power have a responsibility to those without and should help them in any way they can. The "red" path is the Way of the Closed Fist. It states that by helping others you only inspire them to stay weak. After all, if their needs are met by others, then how could they improve themselves?
Here are two opposing views with the same goal, and both have merit to their ways of thinking. Neither one is strictly good or evil.

There's also the newer Mass Effect method in which your blue and orange meters are independent of one another. It's not a sliding scale like we've seen before where doing a bit of evil takes the meter closer to red and further from blue. In this system you can be a jerk sometimes, but still be an overall nice guy without having to sacrifice any of your blue meter. However there's also a quirk in the system. You can't pick certain options associated with your meters unless they're full enough. Meaning, basically, that you can't steal candy from a baby when the chance arises unless you'd also kicked a dog earlier. So, this system is a little more versatile than the sliding scale, but doesn't really allow you to play a middle ground character either.

The problem in these games is that we're still given a meter to see how much in one direction or the other we've gone. Our actions are judged by an outside third party. In the real world, no one can give you your morality. You make it yourself through the way you handle the choices presented to you. You can take inspiration from others, certainly, but that too is your decision. Now, those around you may well judge you for your decisions, but no matter which you pick it's as likely a given person will agree with you as disagree. But with the meter thrown in it's as if every time you make a choice, God pops down to say Yay or Nay. Last I checked, that didn't happen in real life.

Hmm... Perhaps I should check that one more time.
*steals puppies from a baby*

Okay, but that's not a typical occurrence.
*Returns puppies*

When the idea of making a moral decision is put into games, it becomes more about asking which stats you want your character to have as opposed to actually answering the question before you.
I can't help but think that this is another effect of streamlining for the sake of more casual gamers. It's certainly easier to make a decision when you can see all the consequences lined out before you. But doesn't that take away from the gravity of your decisions? You choose to be good or evil for what it gets you, not for how you feel about the consequences.

Let's look back at a game called Deus Ex now.
Here is a game full of moral choices, but with no meter to classify them. You're just as capable of giving a homeless person some change as you are of killing him and taking his stuff. You're also presented with the option of using lethal or non-lethal force in all your encounters. If you've been playing the game like a pure shooter, then you're in for a bit of a surprise when you find out that for a third of the game, you may have been mercilessly slaughtering your new allies.
Even so there is no drawback to using fully lethal force, and you're still allowed to join up with them because they need someone like you desperately. The only punishment is a few 'disappointed in you' comments from some characters. However, this personally bothered me enough that I restricted myself to non-lethal for a large portion of the game on future playthroughs. Fittingly enough, this got me a few 'disappointed in you' comments from other characters.

Later in that same game, I was exploring a new area that contained a closed office building. I promptly broke into it and started looking around for things I could use. As I passed by a phone sitting on a desk, it rang. Expecting to have a bit of a giggle, I answered it. It was an enemy of mine on the other end that was capable of tracking my actions and location. It pointed out that despite the fact that I claimed to be fighting injustice, here I was ignoring whatever laws I found inconvenient.
This made me stop and think a moment. I am an elite cyborg/ninja thing with all sorts of nanomodification. If I were caught doing this, then I could easily overpower or evade the local police and continue on my quest to defeat Evil. As I am on said quest, I have to be as prepared as possible. So, does that mean I get a free pass on doing all sorts of underhanded deeds ranging from theft to murder so long as the people who are supposedly worse than me are stopped?
Now, that is a moral question. We've moved out of a black and white scenario and are operating well within the shades of gray (or purple).
Contrast that with the cut and dry choices in the game inFamous, where your only real concern over who or who not to kill was what kind of powers it worked toward and trophies it unlocked.
The game that made no claim to morality did a better job of expressing it than did the game that touted it as a feature. That's not to say that inFamous isn't a fun and entertaining experience. It's just mindless fun that's trying to stick on a morality bar for extra replay value. I'm looking forward to the sequel anyway and will surely pick it up when I can. I do hope they've done a bit more with it though.

Well, those are my thoughts on the Morality issue. What are yours? Let us know in the comments.