Game News Brian Fargo on moral dilemmas in Wasteland 2

[ghostdog]

That's a good start but let's not forget that the tandi-raiders scenario included multiple ways of saving her according to your skill set. You could:

- Sneak from the back door, lockpick her cell door and leave unnoticed.
- Bluff the leader into believing you're the meanest bad-ass in the wasteland and make him release her (with enough speech skill)
- Not enough speech skill ? Pay a sum and free her.
- Good at unarmed combat ? Lure the leader into an one-on-one fistfight.

 

[kris]

• Discrepancy in rewards. Appeasing that powerful group, at least on paper, sounds way more important than the life of a single random NPC you will probably never see it again. Any player acting with gameplay at the forefront of his or her mind would always either ignore the request for help, or pick the middle path (since it implies the most XP, loot etc.). The other decision, in gameplay terms, is a "bad" one.

But, uh, A for effort, I guess?

Gameplay choice is saving her. the majority of players will make the choice that involves killing stuff and completing a quest, ignoring is avoiding gameplay and few will ever choose that.

 

[majestik12]

With all due respect, Brian sucks at moral dilemmas. He should have gone to some of his writers and borrowed a proper one.

 

[Baron]

I just hope they don't balance the outcomes out like Bioshock did (having Adam thrown at you for not taking Adam). I like the option of buying back the wife, sacrificing $1,000 that could have spent on armour and ammo in order to save a stranger. As long as the rescued wife doesn't say "Thanks! Here's $2,000 I had hidden down the front of my dress. Those stupid raiders forgot to search/rape me. Take it as reward and leave me and my grateful husband destitute."

Selfish outcomes should profit. Being impossibly noble just makes you better looking. Just ask Sheppard.

 

[Buncas Fairfellow]

That may be C&C but I don't think Fargo really understands what a moral dilemma is. It's not about choosing whether to be "loathsome" or good, it's about not knowing for sure which option is which.

Not every quest has to be edgy and morally ambiguous but if you're going to try to make something grimdark at least do it right. This is just coming off as clueless.

Everybody is already mentioning the Witcher and with good reason. The Order/Scoiatael conflict is pretty well done, but I think something that gets overlooked about it is not just the ambiguous character of the organizations involved, but the fact that one path has you screwing over Siegfried, a bro who did you a solid. I would like to see more moral dilemmas based on weighing the players personal motivations against idealistic motivations. Introduce a character early on that helps you significantly and does a lot of good for many people, then reveal he's involved in some bad shit AND you get a benefit for putting him in jail.

 

[Captain Shrek]

That may be C&C but I don't think Fargo really understands what a moral dilemma is. It's not about choosing whether to be "loathsome" or good, it's about not knowing for sure which option is which.

Not every quest has to be edgy and morally ambiguous but if you're going to try to make something grimdark at least do it right. This is just coming off as clueless.

Everybody is already mentioning the Witcher and with good reason. The Order/Scoiatael conflict is pretty well done, but I think something that gets overlooked about it is not just the ambiguous character of the organizations involved, but the fact that one path has you screwing over Siegfried, a bro who did you a solid. I would like to see more moral dilemmas based on weighing the players personal motivations against idealistic motivations. Introduce a character early on that helps you significantly and does a lot of good for many people, then reveal he's involved in some bad shit AND you get a benefit for putting him in jail.

Yes, This is quite correct. It is a choice that is NOT between Good and evil; but rather between Good OR Good that are (apparently) mutually exclusive.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

I like this example more than the "drowning kid" stuff, but we're not quite there yet- The problem is that the "middle way" Fargo describes is the optimal choice both from a gameplay aswell as from a moral perspective. Finding a way to steal the woman without the raiders noticing is rewarding/ fun AND you save the woman without any moral downside or any other negative consequences for you (like a whole map going hostile on you). So basicly the choice is a no-brainer, who wouldn't try to do it this way?

What you need to do in order to present the player with a moral dilemma is add a moral or gameplay downside to the middle way. For example, make the choice of stealing the woman away so hard to figure out, that many players will require a walthrough to find it. Also, stealing away the woman could require a special set of skills, and if your party doesn't have them, then the only way is to fight the slavers openly or leave the woman to her fate.
Or add a moral downside to the coice. For example the "stealth" option would somehow require the help of the husband, who would need to sacrifice himself to save the woman.

 

[Vault Dweller]

And this is why it's very important for developers to present specific ideas (not generic vision to make the game bestest and deepest) to the audience and engage the audience in a constructive debate.

The example is better than the generic fucking kid, but not by much. First, it's the Tandi quest, which already makes it less interesting by default and very questionable: where the creativity at, Brian?

Second, it's not a moral dilemma at all, which makes Brian's "you didn't like my moral dilemma? well, lemme show you a real moral dilemma! how do you like them apples now?" very:



Third, what are the options here?

- gun-blazing. Fuck yeah! The fact that you're gonna piss another faction is icing on the cake. If you play WL2 to kill things bring justice to the wasteland, the more bad guys you get to kill (and loot), the better, which makes it the best, most entertaining path. Now, if the bad guys were an overwhelming force you had no chance against and had to watch over your shoulder for the rest of the game, that would be something, but what would be the odds of that? Zero.

- stealth approach that somehow makes it all ok but raises a lot of questions. So, you return the wife to her husband, then what? The raiders are still there. I assume they can easily come back for her and take her again and maybe kill her husband this time. If that's the case, that's pretty cool, but again, I don't see it being the case.

- do nothing and make imaginary characters you don't really give a shit about, unless you're on a "gotta catch save them all" spree, will be very sad.

 

[Infinitron]

Vault Dweller
Perhaps "moral dilemma" isn't the right word. Calling it "a situation with possible morally troublesome conseqences" would be more accurate.

Quote:

http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/blog/2012/10/16/moral-dilemmas/

There are actually some pretty spot-on comments regarding how poor this approach to morality really is.

What those comments miss is that the situation doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is subject to the constraints of your party's abilities. There's almost always an ideal choice for solving problems in life, but your party might not be strong or talented enough to make it. That compounds the "moral dilemma".

 

[Mrowak]

http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/blog/2012/10/16/moral-dilemmas/

There are actually some pretty spot-on comments regarding how poor this approach to morality really is.

What those comments miss is that the situation doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is subject to the constraints of your party's abilities. There's almost always an ideal choice for solving problems in life, but your party might not be strong or talented enough to make it. That compounds the "moral dilemma".

Actually I have the impression this situation exists in vacuum. There's no moral dilemma here at all. Also there are no morally troublesome consequences. There ar e just consequences and only to one choice - you antagonising the raiders.

 

[Infinitron]

Actually I have the impression this situation exists in vacuum. There's no moral dilemma here at all. Also there are no morally troublesome consequences. There ar e just consequences and only to one choice - you antagonising the raiders.

I'm not saying ALL choices have morally troublesome consequences. That's why it's not a MORAL dilemma (again, unless your party is incapable of making all choices, in which case it might become a moral dilemma)

 

[Jaesun]

FUCKING QUOTE PYRAMIDS!

 

[Captain Shrek]

Actually I have the impression this situation exists in vacuum. There's no moral dilemma here at all. Also there are no morally troublesome consequences. There ar e just consequences and only to one choice - you antagonising the raiders.

I'm not saying ALL choices have morally troublesome consequences. That's why it's not a MORAL dilemma (again, unless your party is incapable of making all choices, in which case it might become a moral dilemma)

In which case it would NOT be a moral dilemma because such choices have an optimum solution; ergo no dilemma.

 

[Mrowak]

Actually I have the impression this situation exists in vacuum. There's no moral dilemma here at all. Also there are no morally troublesome consequences. There ar e just consequences and only to one choice - you antagonising the raiders.

I'm not saying ALL choices have morally troublesome consequences. That's why it's not a MORAL dilemma (again, unless your party is incapable of making all choices, in which case it might become a moral dilemma)

Ok, but the situation was given as an example of moral dilemma the party is faced with. So you basically agree that there's no moral dilemma in that?

 

[Infinitron]

Ok, but the situation was given as an example of moral dilemma the party is faced with. So you basically agree that there's no moral dilemma in that?

Yes, like I said, moral dilemma is the wrong word to use. Brian Fargo isn't a literary intellectual, what he means by "moral dilemma" is basically "EDGY situation with some EDGY choices and EDGY consequences". Which is fine by me.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller
Perhaps "moral dilemma" isn't the right word. Calling it "a situation with possible morally troublesome conseqences" would be more accurate.

Tell it to Brian.

Brian Fargo isn't a literary intellectual...

Now, that's insulting..

What those comments miss is that the situation doesn't exist in a vacuum - it is subject to the constraints of your party's abilities. There's almost always an ideal choice for solving problems in life, but your party might not be strong or talented enough to make it. That compounds the "moral dilemma".

No. If I can't do something but really want to, it's not a moral dilemma. At all.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes, like I said, moral dilemma is the wrong word to use. Brian Fargo isn't a literary intellectual, what he means by "moral dilemma" is basically "EDGY situation with some EDGY choices and EDGY consequences". Which is fine by me.

What's edgy about it though?

It's a 'kill some raiders' quest, with an optional "sneak and take what you need" path. It makes it a good quest, just like "rescue Tandi" was a good and entertaining quest, but it wasn't edgy and it wasn't a moral dilemma, so can we stop using fancy words already?

 

[Infinitron]

No. If I can't do something but really want to, it's not a moral dilemma. At all.

I disagree. It is a moral dilemma in practice - you need to choose between one of your non-optimal choices.

 

[Jaesun]

mor·al   [mawr-uhl, mor-]
adjective
1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.


Definition of DILEMMA

1: an argument presenting two or more equally conclusive alternatives against an opponent
2a : a usually undesirable or unpleasant choice <faces this dilemma: raise interest rates and slow the economy or lower them and risk serious inflation>
b : a situation involving such a choice <here am I brought to a very pretty dilemma; I must commit murder or commit matrimony — George Farquhar>; broadly : predicament <lords and bailiffs were in a terrible dilemma — G. M. Trevelyan>
3a : a problem involving a difficult choice <the dilemma of “liberty versus order” — J. M. Burns>
b : a difficult or persistent problem <unemployment … the great central dilemma of our advancing technology — August Heckscher>
— dil·em·mat·ic adjective

 

[Brayko]

^By official definition that quest is certainly not a moral dilemma. I'd call it a "dilemma" but only if you are insecure about your abilities to rescue the wife. Or your confidence in your ability to deal with the Servants of the Mushroom Cloud.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No. If I can't do something but really want to, it's not a moral dilemma. At all.

I disagree. It is a moral dilemma in practice - you need to choose between one of your non-optimal choices.

Have you played RPGs before? Then surely you're familiar with the basic concept - your party grows very powerful very fast and can steam roll over anything. RPGs are filled with NPCs with problems that are usually solved by violence because violence is fun. So, when an NPC tells you that raiders took something from him, your eyes sparkle and your trigger finger start itching. Why? Because your party is either ready to take on that challenge or will be ready in a level or two. There is no element of danger there. No need to think things through like you would in real life.

The raiders exist in this quest for one simple reason - for you to kill the sons of bitches and have fun doing it. "It's all in the game, yo."

So, the best way to resolve the quest is to kill them all and then go and kill the other sons of bitches, but if you feel like trying something else you can steal the woman. It's hard to say how exactly the quest will work, but I assume that a single person from your party can handle it. Now we arrive to the main problem of skill-based party-based gameplay. You'll have to be an idiot (or completely new to RPGs) not to spread non-combat skills among party members and make everyone a simple killing machine. So, odds are, 9/10 parties will have a sneaking specialist. Need I continue?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Definition of DILEMMA

 

[Mrowak]

No. If I can't do something but really want to, it's not a moral dilemma. At all.

I disagree. It is a moral dilemma in practice - you need to choose between one of your non-optimal choices.

FFS, I thought we agreed. That's not a moral dilemma in any dimensions, and certainly not a practical one.

Want to know what would be a moral dilemma? If the raiders were the only force in the area that protected nearby villages from mutant raids, and they took slaves as a tribute from the villagers. Killing all those people just to save one woman and condemning the rest to die. And only in this one dimension it is a moral dilemma (so, e.g. bailing her out, is still not a dilemma, so it's the most optimal choice)

Another example: You go the peaceful route and pay the money for her. It turns out, however, that the woman does not want to return to her abusing husband and a bunch of wailing brats - she feels she is treated better by the raiders. She also doesn't want to take car of the kids, because she claims she was raped by her husband. So what you do now? Let the woman do as she pleases or drag her back to her husband? That's a moral dilemma.

 

[Infinitron]

Have you played RPGs before? Then surely you're familiar with the basic concept - your party grows very powerful very fast and can steam roll over anything. RPGs are filled with NPCs with problems that are usually solved by violence because violence is fun. So, when an NPC tells you that raiders took something from him, your eyes sparkle and your trigger finger start itching. Why? Because your party is either ready to take on that challenge or will be ready in a level or two. There is no element of danger there. No need to think things through like you would in real life.

The raiders exist in this quest for one simple reason - for you to kill the sons of bitches and have fun doing it. "It's all in the game, yo."

So, the best way to resolve the quest is to kill them all and then go and kill the other sons of bitches, but if you feel like trying something else you can steal the woman. It's hard to say how exactly the quest will work, but I assume that a single person from your party can handle it. Now we arrive to the main problem of skill-based party-based gameplay. You'll have to be an idiot (or completely new to RPGs) not to spread non-combat skills among party members and make everyone a simple killing machine. So, odds are, 9/10 parties will have a sneaking specialist. Need I continue?

Vault Dweller:

It's impossible to argue with you because you always assume the worst.

Now, if the bad guys were an overwhelming force you had no chance against and had to watch over your shoulder for the rest of the game, that would be something, but what would be the odds of that? Zero.

If that's the case, that's pretty cool, but again, I don't see it being the case.

Have you played RPGs before? Then surely you're familiar with the basic concept - your party grows very powerful very fast and can steam roll over anything.

If lame RPG tropes are inescapable, why are we even having this discussion? That's how RPGs work! Everything is shit! We're all idiots for even being fans of this horrible genre!

 

[Infinitron]

FFS, I thought we agreed. That's not a moral dilemma in any dimensions, and certainly not a practical one.

Yes it is. You have two viable choices, each with moral consequences you're not happy with. There might be a third optimal choice with no moral consequences, but you aren't able to select it for some reason. It is a non-option.

You have a dilemma.