"It's Only a Game!"

or
On the Philosophy of Morally Ambiguous Quest Design in Massively Multi-Player Online Role-Playing Games
(re-edited version of a Vanguard: Saga of Heroes forum post from August, 2007)

Background: Once upon a time there was an online fantasy role-playing game in which the designers saw fit to include a controversial quest line. This series of quests from an in-game organization with a purportedly noble goal, had players undertake a series of tasks which became progressively darker in nature, until the players were required to eliminate witnesses, and eventually hide the evidence of their “mistakes” in particularly grisly fashion. The players were incentivized to continue by the excellent gear upgrades with which they were rewarded as well as by the absolute lack of consequences for their (eventually obviously immoral) actions.

Issue: I, too, have a problem with this quest line. It’s not because it’s dark – there’s plenty of room for darkness, even outright Eeevil™ in a fantasy role-playing game. The problem here is that it puts you, as the player, in a dark place and gives you no way out (no matter what your “class” is) other than to abandon the quest; or in effect, pretending that the situation never existed. What I mean is that you don’t have any way within the actual game to express a choice in the matter other than by stopping progress in this area of content altogether – not a very valid game mechanic. Opting to quit the quest is clearly not a “designed” option and it’s particularly unsatisfying in that it doesn’t provide an interactive decision point.

So what? It’s just a game. Well….yes. And no.

Look. When confronted with extremes, we’re all able to easily compartmentalize them. Clear “Good vs. Evil” dichotomies aren’t particularly instructive. You’re not learning there, you’re taking other elements (entertainment) out of the experience. It’s in the morally ambiguous situations where the more difficult decision making has a chance to make an impact. These *are* potentially teaching situations…but that’s not necessarily a bad thing! Here, though, trouble comes when morally questionable orders are stealthed behind a cloak of authority; in this case the quest givers themselves and their apparently “good” cause; with no visible alternatives. Recall, if you will, the results of the Milgram Experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

It’s not “just a game”. Of course it is, but it’s also potentially more. It’s a simulation; it’s an exercise; it’s a role-playing medium and role-playing has long been a powerful tool used by both teachers and psychologists alike. Quests like this do a good job in setting up a relatively strong learning situation and then…deliver a really bad lesson.

Recap: Most people have the tools to see this quest line for what it is and take it according to their tastes: either as a delightfully subversive bit of wickedness; or with the sense that they’ve been duped (uh huh) into doing the wrong thing. Neither group is likely to be affected by the experience. Those at “risk” (to use too strong a word) are the small minority who find themselves somewhat troubled but, having no discernable options, carry on with the uncomfortable tasks, subconsciously storing the memory of suppressing morality under the “virtue” of authority…and being rewarded for it.

Straw Man Alert! This is not a call for the censorship or removal of the quest! The quest is creative, interesting, and provocative. It’s just not, in my opinion, “complete”.

Solution: Actually it’s quite easy. Give the player the opportunity to make an informed choice rather than just following along in silent compliance. Offer one or more decision points along the way to register an alternative response. These are purportedly role-playing games, after all. Allow players the opportunity to show a bit more “character” in their characters.