[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Squinky

I haven't played those games in particular (though I have a copy of Blade Runner given to me that I still have yet to motivate myself to start), but from what I've seen of existing games that deal with morality, there usually tends to be one set of choices that is framed as resulting in a better outcome than all the others. In other words, there's a clear "good path" and "evil path" outlined by the game's designer, and "winning" the game doesn't entail thinking critically for oneself, but acting in accordance with the designer's wishes.

However, if you've been keeping up with the remainder of my articles, you'll notice that one of the main themes in this game is moral relativism. Obviously, if I, as the designer, were to specifically outline actions as "good" and "evil" in a didactic fashion, "rewarding" the player if they did "good" and "punishing" them if they did "evil", that would cheapen the entire point I was trying to make in the first place. What I'm attempting to do instead is take a more-or-less morally neutral stance toward all actions, with my role being simply to provide meaningful dramatic consequences for such actions while allowing the players themselves to consider their ethical ramifications.

With the guard example, you automatically assumed that stabbing would be "evil" and convincing him to leave would be "good". I implied no such thing in my article, nor do I do so in the game; I only described a pair of actions and their consequences. You made the moral judgement (or at the very least, predicted my moral stance on the matter) on your own, and in that regard, I may have already succeeded in my goal. But what if you took into account that the guard starts out being rather rude to you, and happens to be very irritating besides, what with his practically unintelligible Scottish accent and all? Furthermore, you know that killing the guard will piss off the Queen, but why would you even care, particularly considering that your job is to assassinate her?

I have been following the articles, but my attention span is lamentably short, and I don't really remember things from week to week.

I think my assumption that stabbing is "evil" demonstrates a fact that is going to make your effort difficult. Even if you present options neutrally, our culture usually decrees what the "right" and "wrong" choices are. In fact, in fiction the situation is even more schematic than the sometimes messy moral terrain of real life, because we insist on fitting the events into some kind of story (redemption, revenge, coming of age, innocence corrupted, etc.), which in turn determines how the crucial dilemmas are going to shake out.

In a story about a servant of "the evil side", and unless it's one of those "create maximum mayhem" games, the default assumption is that it will be about how he decides to become good (cf. Kian in Dreamfall, for example). Therefore, the choice between stabbing and sweet-talking is a loaded one.

Dave Gilbert tried to present moral dilemmas without a right or wrong solution in The Shivah. As he recognizes on the commentary track, this is one part of the game that doesn't really come off. This is partly because players instinctively know what the "right" answer is (should the disillusioned rabbi throw the mobster in front of a subway train or let him live?) and partly because in presenting two different outcomes, one will almost inevitably seem preferable to the other, and thereby be perceived as the correct answer.

So yeah, I think it's really hard to make players actually feel the moral dilemmas a game presents. In reality, one of the things that can make moral choice hard is the cost of doing "the right thing", whether it's losing your job, alienating a friend, risking your life, or whatever. But in a game the player doesn't have to worry about those things, since they'll be paid by an imaginary character, hardly inconveniencing the player at all. (And even if the player is looking out for the character's best interest, they will often assume that the game rewards self-sacrifice now later on.)

The only path left that I can see is to set up conflicts between different moral imperatives. Like "do I torture this suspected terrorist, or let a nuclear device go off in downtown Philadelphia?" Or "do I help the stranger in distress, or keep the promise to my wife?" "Do I get my client off the hook even though I know he's a serial killer, or do I betray my oath as a defense attorney?" This gets pretty heavy, though, and you can't have too many such decisions in one story. If you think you can make it fun to play, good luck to you.

As for the whole being able to go back and do it over again thing, well, I think that's a major strength of our medium. Instead of forcing a person down one predetermined path, I think it's a lot more interesting to allow for the option to look at a few different sides of the same story.

Well, my point is that in a multi-branched story, the meaning and impact of each branch is affected by the existence of other alternatives. Let's take Macbeth as an example. As it exists, the story of Macbeth tells about an ambitious general who, following a prophecy by three witches, assassinates his king, takes the throne, in paranoia slaughters those he considers his rivals, and rules as a tyrant until overthrown. This storyline sends a number of messages, for instance that a usurper cannot be a good king. Now, imagine that Macbeth: The Adventure Game allowed players to change the course of this story, so that Macbeth seizes the throne and wipes out his rivals, but then in repentance devotes his reign to peaceful reconciliation and public improvements. Or choose to tolerate his rivals, only to find that they're as ambitious and ruthless as himself and have him killed within the month. Or a version where he ignores the witches' prophecy, remains loyal to his king, and finds himself made royal heir as a reward.

Crucially, these alternative Macbeth stories actually change the meaning of the original Macbeth. Awareness of them influence how we interpret the first story. Even more importantly, if all the versions are equally ranked, they start to cancel each other out. Is it a tragedy or a comedy, a heroic epic or a cautionary tale? If Macbeth can be a tyrant or a benevolent sovereign, then he isn't really either. If he can do anything, then he has done nothing. At the point of complete freedom, you have no story, just a sandbox.

Of course, no adventure game goes that far, but what I'm saying is to consider the meta-story: the story told by all the possible different stories. One of the most tested techniques is to make most of the paths subservient to the main, canonical one. For instance, in an action game all the paths ending in death give substance to the sense of danger overcome in the path that leads to victory. Another is to tell the key message through invariants that stay consistent in all possible universes, like the hero's constantly frustrated desire and ambitions no matter what the alternative reality in films like Bedazzled or The Butterfly Effect.

Can it be done? Can a narratively successful multiple-path game be written where all the paths have similar weight? Yes, probably. But evidence from previous attempts indicate that it's far from easy. Mostly, multiple paths have just had the effect of turning each story from "this is what happened" to "this is something that could happen", thereby blunting their impact without really adding anything in compensation. This isn't to discourage you from trying, but just so we can all see clearly the challenge you have set for yourself