Ethically Notable Videogames: Moral Dilemmas and
Gameplay
José P. Zagal
College of Computing and Digital Media
DePaul University
jzagal@cdm.depaul.edu
ABSTRACT
In what ways can we use games to make moral demands of
players and encouraging them to reflect on ethical issues?
In this article we propose an ethically notable game as one
that provides opportunities for encouraging ethical
reasoning and reflection. Our analysis of the videogames
Ultima IV, Manhunt, and Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn
highlights the central role that moral dilemmas can play
towards creating ethically notable games. We discuss the
different ways that these are implemented, such as placing
players in situations in which their understanding of an
ethical system is challenged, or by creating moral tension
between the player’s goals and those posed by the narrative
and the gameplay of a game. We conclude by noting some
of the challenges of creating ethically notable games
including ensuring that the ethical framework in a game is
both discernable and consistent as well as ensuring that the
dilemma is actually a moral one and that the player, rather
than the game characters, is the one facing it.
Author Keywords
Ethics, videogames, moral dilemma, ethical reasoning
INTRODUCTION
It has been argued that certain qualities present in the
medium of videogames can provide valuable opportunities
for learning [10, 36]. Furthermore, games are a unique
medium because they present a new form of persuasive
rhetoric [3]. In what ways can we use games to make moral
demands of players encouraging them to reflect on ethical
issues? Ultimately, what role can games play in help us
become better people?
In this article we will analyze and discuss some of the
videogames we have found to be ethically notable. By
ethically notable, we are not referring to the controversies
or media attention they may have received. We are also not
referring to whether or not they encode ethical frameworks
that are consistent or complete. Rather, ethically notable
games are those that provide opportunities for encouraging
ethical reasoning and reflection. This may be because their
ethical frameworks are well developed, more easily
accessible to the players, or simply because they provide an
experience of play that is particularly moving or
compelling. As we will show, however, there is a
commonality that helps make each game ethically notable:
the use of ethical or moral dilemmas.
A moral dilemma is a situation in which an agent morally
ought to do A and morally ought to do B but cannot do
both, either because B is just not-doing-A or because some
contingent feature of the world prevents doing both [11].
Moral dilemmas occupy an important part of our history
both as a central topic of philosophical discussion as well as
the substance of much of our creative and expressive work.
The power of drama, as witnessed in theatre, literature, and
film, often relies on placing characters in seemingly
irresolvable moral situations. Using a variety of rhetorical
devices and strategies, the spectator, reader, and viewer not
only witness the emotional turmoil of the characters but are
also captivated by it. These media have the potential for
encouraging ethical reflection and reasoning because they
involve their readers not only at an intellectual level, but
also at an emotional one. How will the characters resolve
the situation? What would you do if you faced the situation
depicted in that film or novel? The first question is
answered by spectating: keep on watching or reading to
know what happens. The second question, since it requires
some form of participation, is never truly answered. At
most, an opinion is formed about what was seen or read
[26]. Computers, however, allow their users to play
equivalent roles to both the drama performer as well as the
audience member [16]. In this way, they can potentially
help answer both of the questions posed. What this means is
that since games provide play spaces where people not only
transform the gameworld, but also themselves [24], they
can be used to explore ethical reasoning. When used as a
transformative tool, videogames can empower people to
learn what it means to live ethically and how to go about
doing so.
Perspectives on Ethics in Games
However, what does it mean to talk about ethics and
games? Is it the same to ask about the ethics of a game or
about those in a game? How about the ethics of playing a
game? These are some of the many perspectives involved in
understanding the ethics of games.
Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice and Theory. Proceedings of DiGRA 2009
© 2009 Authors & Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA). Personal and educational classroom use of this paper is allowed,
commercial use requires specific permission from the author.
For instance, we may want to consider the ethical value that
a particular game has as a cultural artifact. Reynolds asks,
for example, whether Grand Theft Auto III (GTA3) [31] is
good or bad in a moral sense [29]. He argues that perhaps
GTA3 is a bad game because of its depictions of violence
and crime or because it may have negative effects on
society as a whole. On the other hand, perhaps it is a good
game because of its technological and game design
achievements and because it brings pleasure to those that
play it [29]. Deciding which of these factors to consider,
and how we should weigh them, is one of the questions we
need to ask when wondering whether a “mere game” can be
good or bad in a moral sense. Should we condemn Danny
Ledonne’s game Super Columbine Massacre RPG! 1 simply
because it is a game about a serious and emotional topic?
[17] Does the act of playing a game inherently trivialize the
issues it tackles and thus render any game about a serious
topic inherently unethical? We think not. These examples
demonstrate, however, how complicated the discussion
surrounding the ethical value of a cultural artifact such as a
game can be.
A third perspective concerns the ethical issues surrounding
the activity of play. What does it mean to play a game
ethically? Games create spaces that mediate our
understanding of the ethics of players’ actions. Actions
considered unethical in an out-of-game context may be
expected or even demanded while playing a game. A good
player may be one that best exploits his opponent’s
weaknesses or deceives his fellow players most effectively.
Is it unethical to do so? Similarly, what does it mean to play
fair? What are the values of good or bad sportsmanship?
Some work has been done to explore the ethical issues
surrounding play. For example, Taylor explores the
importance that informal (or unwritten) rules have in
supporting positive play experiences [42]. Consalvo, on the
other hand, explores how players negotiate how, when, and
for what reasons to subvert a game’s rules [5]. Woods notes
how some boardgame players negotiate the integrity of the
social fabric during competitive game playing: oftentimes,
not playing to win is the correct choice [45]. As Consalvo
notes, cheating is a complex phenomenon whose meaning is
continually negotiated by players, the games industry, and
various gaming sub-cultures that revolve around specific
games [5].
Another way to talk about ethics and games is to consider
the ethics of their production and creation. What does it
mean to create games ethically and, what issues are most
salient given the current state of the videogame industry?
The International Game Developers Association (IGDA),
for example, is concerned with crediting standards and how
to ensure that people who work on game projects receive
appropriate credit for their work [14]. Unreasonable
demands of working hours are another issue that has also
received attention [e.g. 30]. Although many ethical issues
surrounding the production of games are common to other
businesses and industries, they still need to be examined
and discussed.
A fourth perspective concerns the ethics of actions in games
as defined by the games themselves. Modern videogames
are no longer about “mindlessly” pushing buttons. Instead,
players engage rich narrative storylines and employ
complex discoursive practices and problem solving
strategies in order to understand and master underlying
game mechanics [10, 36]. In practice, the narratives,
symbols, and rules that make up a game constitute an
ideological framework. The player participates in a
simulated environment with its own rules and narratives.
What happens when some of these rules are normative?
When does an ideological framework become an ethical
one?
Table 1: Selection of Ethical Perspectives on Games
Perspective
Common Questions and Concerns
Value of Artifact
Is it ethical for this game to exist?
Should a particular game have been
created in the first place?
Business Ethics
How do we create, produce, market, and
sell games ethically?
Ethics of Play
What does it mean to play ethically?
What is sportsmanship? How do we
understand the meaning of cheating?
Framework
Table 1 summarizes a few of the perspectives we can
assume when discussing something as broad as the ethics of
games. Other perspectives might include, for example, the
ethics of doing research on games [e.g. 22, 39]. We should
expect new perspectives to become more salient as both the
medium of games, and our understanding of it, mature. For
the purposes of this article, we focus on the fourth
perspective, games as ethical frameworks.
Games as Ethical Frameworks
In videogames, certain behaviors and actions are rewarded
while others are not. Those behaviors that are encouraged
can be considered desirable or good while the opposite
holds for those that are discouraged. By coupling the
evaluation of in-game actions with the narrative framework
that contextualizes them, a videogame can both represent as
well as enact an ethical framework. For example, consider
the fantasy role-playing videogame Fable released for the
Xbox in 2004 [23]. In Fable, the player begins as a child in
a fantasy village.
What in-game actions are defined as
“good” by the game?
1
This game recreates the Columbine High School Massacre
of 1990. In it, players assume the roles of the gunmen and
recreate the massacre, experience flashbacks of the
shooters’ past experiences, before ending with their
fictional adventures in hell.
2
“On the day in which the game begins, it is the
protagonist's sister's birthday, and he needs
money to buy her a gift. His father, eager to
cultivate noble habits in the boy, offers the
protagonist a coin for every good deed he
does. The player is then presented with several
conflicts demanding his or her intervention:
each allows the player to make right or wrong
choices, and the player is explicitly told the
morality of his or her choices by a change in
the protagonist's ‘alignment.’”[27]
by definition, one step removed and thus potentially less
powerful or effective for eliciting ethical reflection. In the
following sections we present three case studies that
illustrate some of the ways that games can create moral
dilemmas for their players.
THE VIRTUES OF ULTIMA IV
Ultima IV: The Quest of the Avatar (UIV) is perhaps the
earliest videogame to explicitly encode an ethical system
and require its players to discover, learn, and adhere to it in
order to win. UIV was designed by Richard Garriott and
was released in 1985 for the Apple II computer [9]. After
creating the first three Ultima games, Garriott noted how
the narratives of computer RPG games were simplistic and
player actions were mostly devoid of consequences. The
storyline of these games was essentially “here’s some
money, here’s some weapons, here’s some monsters, go kill
them and you win.” [40] UIV was different. It attempted to
use gameplay as a means to build a story and a message
with philosophical and ethical implications [21]. In doing
so, it helped develop the computer role-playing game genre
to another level of maturity by emphasizing social and
cultural conflict over “hack ‘n slash” [2, 4, 13]. Garriott
explained how “the idea I’m trying to put forth is more
philosophical than religious- that in a society where people
have to interact with each other, there are certain kinds of
rules whose rationale you should be able to understand.” [1]
Scorpia’s review of UIV explains the goal of the game:
One of the conflicts the player is presented with involves
finding out what a philandering husband is doing. The
player finds out that the man is, in fact, amorously involved
with another woman and must, upon discovery, decide
whether or not to accept a bribe from the husband to remain
quiet. Accepting the bribe results in two “evil” points and a
monetary reward. However, it is also possible, to “balance
those points out by breaking [the] promise to the adulterous
husband and telling his wife the truth.” [27] In Fable, some
of the actions performed by the player are categorized as
good while others are considered evil. The player, by
learning and understanding which (and when) actions are
considered good or evil, can begin to understand the ethical
framework that is procedurally encoded in the game.
In some games, the ethical framework may not be
particularly interesting, consistent, or transparent to the
player. The narrative context, for example, may not provide
the player with enough information to contextualize his
actions in the game. This is not the case in all games.
Fable’s moral system, for example, is ethically notable
despite its issues and shortcomings [27]. In particular, it is
interesting because of how and when it uses moral
dilemmas. In the following section we will discuss how
moral dilemmas are presented in games and how players are
affected, emotionally and rationally, as they go about
resolving them.
“You, an ordinary person, are called upon to
make the long and arduous journey that will
culminate in your becoming an Avatar, a
perfect mortal. There is no central evil to
defeat here; no Mondain, no Minax, no
Exodus awaits you 2 . Rather, this is a quest
where you seek to perfect your inner being, to
become enlightened in the eight virtues of
Compassion, Valor, Honor, Justice, Humility,
Sacrifice, Spirituality, and Honesty.” - [35]
Success in UIV required players to learn about, and adhere
to, the eight virtues listed above. Failure to follow the
requirements for each virtue resulted in a setback. In
gameplay terms, acting in a virtuous manner would result in
positive progress towards achieving enlightenment in a
particular virtue3 . For example the virtues of compassion
and sacrifice could be “increased” by donating gold to
beggars and blood to healers respectively [1]. Conversely,
fleeing from combat would result in a loss of progress
towards valor. Also, what mattered was the net effect over a
multitude of independent actions. It wasn’t enough to do
one good deed; you had to do enough of them.
Ethical Dilemmas in Games
Pohl argues that it is the emotional involvement that
characterizes computer games [26]. She also distinguishes
two forms of emotional involvement: the instantaneous (we
play because we want to win) and the spontaneous (we
continue to play because we identify with and care about
the story). The narrative frame draws us in and makes us
care about the game character’s fate, we feel for him, we
identify with his concerns and want to know how the story
turns out for him and for us [26]. Theatre, film, literature
and games can all present troubled characters facing moral
dilemmas and, hopefully, emotionally involve the spectator,
reader, or player. However, as discussed earlier, games are
particularly well suited to directly present the player with a
moral dilemma. This is not the same as presenting the
player with a dilemma faced by a character. We call this the
distinction between the character’s dilemma and the
player’s dilemma. The dilemma faced by the character is,
2
Mondain, Minax and Exodus refer to the main villains in
the earlier games Ultima, Ultima II, and Ultima III.
3
There are other requirements as well, but the main one is
to act in accordance to the virtue long enough.
3
Garriott felt it was important that the players feel a degree
of personal and social responsibility towards their actions in
the game. His reasoning was that “in most of these games
you are the puppeteer running this puppet around the world.
If this puppet is doing bad things, it’s not you, it’s the
puppet.” [40] So, rather than create a character by choosing
from available options or using random dice-rolls, the
character in UIV was supposed to be “the essence of you as
an individual”. [40] In the introductory sequence of the
game the player meets a gypsy woman who asks the player
to answer seven questions:
were full of children. The children were in fact
really monsters, because that is all they could
be at that level of technology, and the children
would attack you in the center of the screen
next to the lever. You'd be surrounded by these
children who were attacking you and since you
were the Avatar at this point and you were at
the very end of the game, I knew - or I hoped that players would be very worried about what
to do about the situation. They wouldn't want
to kill the children because they'd be in fear of
losing their compassion or their honor or a
wide variety of other metrics that the game
really was watching. I assumed players would
struggle over what to do in this room” [20]
“On the table before you lie two cards, one
representing the virtue of Valor, the other
representing the virtue of Justice. As though
from a distance, the gypsy's voice floats across
to you, saying: ‘Consider this: Thou halt been
sent to secure a needed treaty with a distant
lord. Thy host is agreeable to the proposal, but
insults thy country at dinner. Dost thou: a)
Valiantly bear the slurs or b) Justly rise and
demand an apology?’.” [35]
The goal of the “children’s room” was to make the player
uncomfortable and question the game. Is the game really
asking me to slaughter children? What should I do? The
dilemma is twofold. First, the game apparently requires an
action that is morally repugnant in the real world. Second,
the game appears to require the player to do something that
contradicts the stated goals of the game. Virtuous people
don’t kill children. Fortunately, there were multiple ways
around the dilemma. Player’s could cast a sleeping spell,
force them to run away, and so on. While there is no formal
evidence of the effectiveness of the “children’s room” in
provoking ethical reasoning, issues with its design did come
up during playtesting.
Each question posed a moral dilemma with two possible
answers. Since each response represented a particular virtue
in the game, answering the dilemma was interpreted as
favoring one virtue over the other. In the example above,
answering “a) Valiantly bear the slurs” meant favoring the
virtue of valor over that of justice (“b) Justly rise and
demand an apology”). The purpose of this sequence of
dilemmas was to determine which of the 8 virtues was
favored by the player and thus have their character in the
game be of the class (or profession) represented by that
virtue. 4 Garriott describes how, anecdotally, when people
were asked to rank the eight virtues in order of importance,
their responses were almost exactly the same as what was
determined by the game [40]. In this way, the character
used in the game was determined by the players’ personal
ethics, rather than simply by choosing, or randomly
generating, a character at will. [35]
“A few weeks prior to us publishing Ultima IV,
my brother [Robert Garriott] came into my
office with a letter that he'd received from one
of our QA testers and the letter basically read:
‘I refuse to work for a company that so clearly
supports child abuse.’ And they referred to this
room as a game design that encouraged child
abuse because I had forced the players into
harming these children in this room. My
brother came to me up in arms and going like,
‘Oh my god Richard, how could you have
included such a horrible thing in your game?’
To which I responded and said, ‘First of all,
the fact that someone would take it that
seriously and be so emotionally moved by this
incredibly simple thing that I put in this game,
I find is a statement of success.’” [20]
UIV’s use of moral dilemmas was a novel approach to
character creation. It wasn’t, however, the only time players
faced them. One of Garriot’s design goals was to make sure
the game was full of ethical tests [20]. He describes one of
the tests as follows:
“One of the things that I was very proud of in
Ultima IV is a room I had created in the final
dungeon and the room included a lever in
middle of the floor and when you threw the
lever it opened the gates on some cages that
were in the corners of the room and the cages
While the QA tester’s reaction was perhaps unwarranted
(after all, there was a way to solve the dilemma), it serves to
illustrate how games can make players feel personally
invested or responsible for the decisions they make in a
game. Thus, we argue that Ultima IV is an ethically notable
game because:
•
4
The virtues / classes are: Honesty / Mage, Compassion /
Bard, Valor / Fighter, Honor / Paladin, Justice / Druid,
Humility / Shepherd, Sacrifice / Tinker, and Spirituality /
Ranger.
4
It attempts to make the player feel personally
invested or responsible for the decisions they make
in the game.
•
It encodes an ethical system and requires the
player to learn it and follow it in order to succeed.
•
It provides players with dilemmas or situations in
which their understanding of the ethical system is
challenged.
out executions in the most brutal way. Extrinsically, players
are rated at the end of each area and, by obtaining high
ratings (three or five stars, depending on the difficulty
level), they can unlock bonus features and codes. However,
this only applies to five of the twenty areas and there is no
discernible benefit for getting five stars in all the areas [33].
So, why should I, the player, choose to execute Cash’s
opponents in the most brutal way possible? How far are you
willing to go, as a player, in carrying out the executions?
MANHUNT: THE DILEMMA OF VIOLENCE
Manhunt is a videogame developed by Rockstar North and
originally released for the Playstation2 in 2003 [32]. In the
game, the player controls James Earl Cash, a death row
criminal who is rescued from his execution and coerced into
starring in his kidnapper’s snuff film productions. The
kidnapper, also known as ‘The Director’, witnesses and
records Cash’s carnage though a network of security
cameras. The director also goads, threatens and provides
instructions via an earpiece worn by Cash. The player
controls Cash in a 3rd-person perspective and the gameplay
is best described as requiring both elements of action and
stealth. Cash is outnumbered and must carefully, and
quietly, make his way through his dilapidated surroundings
in order to surprise and execute his victims using a variety
of items including plastic bags, shards of glass, bats, bladed
items, and firearms.
Manhunt’s player-based (rather than character-based) moral
dilemma is made all the more intense through the use of a
USB headset. Playing the game using the headset allows the
player to use his voice to distract enemies in the game. It
also allows the player to hear the Director’s instructions
directly via the earpiece. Both elements narrow the distance
between the player and the grotesque world of Manhunt.
The microphone does this by allowing a more direct form
of agency while the headset heightens the tension by
channeling the Director’s wishes and desires directly to
your ear. In this way, The Director assumes the role of the
“evil conscience”. As a player, you hear him inside your
head. His voice goads, taunts, and cheers you on when you
cave in to his desires. There is nothing more sickening and
disturbing than hearing the Director cackle maniacally as
Cash murders a gang member. As expected, the Director
derives more pleasure from the more gruesome executions.
Manhunt is in many ways the opposite of UIV. The player
isn’t encouraged to be good or carry out good actions. In
fact, it actively encourages the opposite. However, through
a series of design decisions, the game is capable of creating
an emotional experience in the player that has a similar
effect to UIV: encourage reflection on morality.
Manhunt created a controversy when it was released due to
the graphic nature of the violence it depicted. The most
notorious element of violence in the game is the execution
system. Executions are perhaps the most effective way to
eliminate opponents and are required in order to progress in
the game. However, the player decides how brutal an
execution will be. Let’s say Cash sneaks up behind a gang
member with a plastic bag. Pressing the attack button will
result in Cash yanking the bag over the victims head and
suffocating him. If the player holds down the button for a
few seconds, the execution is more violent and Cash might
punch the victim in the face in addition to suffocating him.
The third, and most brutal, type of execution is carried out
by holding down the attack button even longer. Thus, by
deciding how long to press the attack button for, the player
determines the degree of brutality of the execution.
However, what context is the player afforded when
deciding if he should execute gruesome executions instead
of “regular” ones? The choice is obvious from the position
of the narrative. Cash is a convicted death row criminal.
Thus, it is reasonable to assume that, when placed in a kill
or be killed situation, Cash wouldn’t hesitate to kill. The
Director wants Cash to be as brutal as possible. His illegal
snuff-film operation demands it. Cash, however, has no
motivation to perform the most brutal types of executions.
The Director is the antagonist, what reason would Cash
have to want help him? Also, executions are risky to
execute. While the player keeps the attack button pressed,
he is exposed and vulnerable to attack. We might expect
Cash to reason that a solution to his predicament might be
to kill as few enemies as possible and to do so in the least
gruesome way (thus not allowing himself to further the
Directors ends). From the context of the narrative, the
player has no reason or motivation to opt for greater
brutality in executions. Role-playing Cash does not
exculpate the player from Cash’s actions.
The premise and violence in Manhunt are undeniably gory
and brutal. However, from an ethical perspective, this game
isn’t notable due to the violence of the executions. It is
notable because of the position the game places the player
in. As mentioned, the brutality of an execution is a choice
made by the player. Manhunt effectively forces the player
to question and evaluate his actions and motivations for
how to play the game. Essentially, the player is forced to
examine the role of successful play as a moral dilemma
itself. There are no intrinsic (in-game) benefits for carrying
From a game design perspective, the context for deciding
the dilemma is the opposite. In a macabre twist, the player
is awarded “extra points” for completing more gruesome
executions. As mentioned, higher ratings serve no function
or purpose within the context of the game. In the game,
nobody knows or cares that you, the player, got a 3 star
rating in the previous area. Their only purpose seems to be
to tempt the player. To force the player to question how
much he really values a meaningless measure of
achievement. How far would you go for the 5 star rating?
5
As a game player, how do you value your competitiveness
and achievements as a player (get the most points and
unlock the most extras) versus doing the right thing in the
context of the narrative? The juxtaposition of the games’
reward structure and its narrative highlights the true moral
dilemma of Manhunt. We argue that Manhunt is an
ethically notable game because:
•
“And as soon as I did it, I felt a bit sick. Video
games always require you to value some
characters’ lives over others. Goombas’ lives
don’t matter. Mario’s does. But here I was
deciding that some of my enemies should die
and that others shouldn’t. It got more twisted.
After a few turns of action I noticed that the
kill-counter in the upper right hand corner of
the screen was counting deaths of enemy
soldiers and unnamed partner soldiers who
were fighting alongside Ike as part of the same
total. That meant I could reach my goal of 80
battlefield deaths not just through the
slaughter of certain enemies but through the
death of my own allies.
It creates moral tension between gameplay rewards
structure and the motivations of the characters as
defined by the narrative.
FIRE EMBLEM: RADIANT DAWN
While UIV encodes a virtue ethics framework that is
arguably positive, it would seem that everything about
Manhunt is negative. Is it possible to create a player’s
dilemma without a salient ethical framework or morally
repugnant gameworld ?
Is it creepy that I took this as good news? This
meant the mission would end sooner, that my
chosen people on both sides would be out of
harm’s way faster. I began to root for my
“enemy” Zihark when he strode out into the
battlefield again and started chopping down
my allies.” [44]
Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn (FE:RD) is a tactical roleplaying game for the Wii console developed by Intelligent
Systems and released in 2007 [15]. It features a multifaceted storyline in which the player follows (and controls)
characters from different factions that occasionally
intersect. It is at these intersections that the game becomes
ethically notable.
Totilo realizes that he is subverting not only the game’s
narrative but also the established game goals. Micaiah views
Ike as the enemy and the gameplay goal is consistent with
that. Why should he not do as instructed? Totilo was clearly
uncomfortable with the dilemma and how he responded.
FE:RD is divided into four sections. In the first section, the
player controls a group of characters led by a character
called Micaiah. In section two, the player controls two
different groups of characters from earlier versions of the
game. In the game’s third section, the player controls each
of the three groups separately. In the final chapter of the
third section, the player controls a group of characters led
by Ike who faces an enemy force led by Micaiah. Micaiah’s
force includes many characters the player has, until
recently, been controlling and improving. Totilo describes
how in this chapter:
“I had made quite a judgment of gameplaybased morality. I had decided that some
characters, some who were with me and some
who were against me, deserved to live. I’d
judged that others, some with me and some
against me, were better off dead. I’d chosen
favorites. Essentially, the characters with
names, the ones I had trained — they deserved
life. The unnamed grunts both helping and
harming me? Expendable. I’d cheered for the
deaths of supposed friends and allies and was
relieved when they failed to kill enemies I had
once trained. I refused to assist some allies in
need. I’d transgressed traditional battle lines.
“[The goal] was to annihilate every character
on the other side. Was I reading this right? I
had to slaughter all of the enemies? All of
Micaiah’s forces? […] I could not believe
what the game was asking me to do.
I sat dumbfounded. Really? I have to destroy
all of those characters I spent all that time
improving? Zihark, and all the rest, had to bite
the bullet?” [44]
Like I said above, I felt a twist in my gut. What
kind of battlefield general had this game made
me? What kind of commander of men and
women?” [44]
Faced with the dilemma and his unwillingness to blindly
accept the missions’ goals, Totilo ventured online to see if
there was a way out. He discovered that instead of
annihilating enemies he cared about, he “only” needed to
ensure that 80 enemy combatants perished. So, Totilo’s
solution to the dilemma was to ensure that the characters he
cared about remained as far from each other as possible,
regardless of whether or not they were labeled by the game
as “the enemy”.
We could argue that Totilo’s solution to his dilemma was
an unethical one. However, that would miss the point:
Totilo was emotionally invested to such a degree that he
was willing to forgo the context of both narrative and
gameplay. Unlike UIV and Manhunt, he faced an ethical
dilemma that, while intended by the game’s designers,
wasn’t about a particular in-game ethical framework. Thus,
we argue that FE:RD is an ethically notable game because:
6
•
moral situation and lacks the agency to guide the decision
made by the player’s character. We have referred to these
cases as character-based moral dilemmas and juxtapose
them with player-based moral dilemmas. For example one
of the most-often remember and discussed moments in
Final Fantasy VII [41] is the death of the character Aeris
[8, 18]. Aeris, who is at certain times a player-controllable
character, chooses to sacrifice herself in order to save the
planet. However, her decision is one that is made by the
game’s designers. It’s a dilemma the character faced and is
troubled by, although the player has no real say in the
matter. Similarly, in the 3rd person-shooter game Max
Payne [28], although the character Max is depicted as
troubled by his situation and many of the decisions he
makes, the player doesn’t participate of those decisions.
Should Max ally with a known criminal in order to gain
equipment and resources that will let him take out another
mob boss? Max decides, not the player.
It creates a moral tension between the player’s
goals and those posed by both the narrative and the
gameplay.
DISCUSSION
We have argued that an ethically notable game is one that
provides opportunities for encouraging ethical reasoning
and reflection. We have also argued that a specific device
for achieving this is the use of ethical dilemmas. By
examining three games, we have shown different ways that
ethical dilemmas can be incorporated in games. However, it
can also be valuable to consider the following questions in
order analyze and better understand the ethics of a
particular game.
Is the ethical framework discernible and consistent?
The effort that goes in to creating an ethical framework in a
game will ultimately be for naught if the player isn’t able to
discern right from wrong (according to the game). More
importantly, the player should understand why given
actions are right or wrong and from this be able to deduce
the moral consequences of his actions. Ethical systems that
are opaque to their players risk becoming perceived as
morally irrelevant. Ethical systems that are inconsistent face
a greater risk: confusing the player. Confusion subverts the
efforts of establishing an ethical framework by making the
evaluation seem arbitrary. We note that it isn’t necessary
for the framework to be both comprehensive (consider all
actions in the game as ethical in some sense) and complete
(ethically consider all possible intentions/goals behind
player actions). Rather, the ethical rules must apply when
the player expects them to, and when they don’t it must be
possible for the player to understand why. For example, in
many adventure games players are free to steal or loot
objects with no apparent consequences: it doesn’t matter if
the object came from a treasure chest found in the woods or
if it came from a chest located inside the house of a friendly
neighbor. Other games discriminate if the item was from an
urban location (ie. a villager’s home) or from the wilderness
(say, a dungeon). Rauch notes how “Fable is at times very
vague with the distinction, and since ‘examine’ and ‘take’
use the same key, I have often found myself ‘stealing’ items
by accident. At moments like these, the rules of both Albion
and Fable itself can seem alarmingly random, and this
randomness interferes with player experience by frustrating
both the ability to grasp the intricacies of the rule system
and the ability to maintain suspension of disbelief and
become emotionally involved in the narrative.” [27]
Is the dilemma actually moral?
Difficult decisions aren’t always moral decisions. A player
wracked by the decision of how to spend a limited number
of points on character upgrades is arguably more concerned
with gameplay than ethics. It isn’t hard to realize that these
situations aren’t moral dilemmas. The danger lies when
dilemmas are presented as moral but, for some reason or
another, aren’t regarded as such by players. This often
happens when a moral choice is subverted into a choice of
gameplay or play style. In the first-person shooter game
Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II (JK) [19], the player
controls Kyle Katarn. The game follows Katarn as he
journeys to confront his father’s murderers while
simultaneously discovering (and developing) his latent
abilities in The Force. 5 Over the course of the game, the
player earns points that can be used to increase a variety of
(Force) abilities categorized into three groups: dark, light,
and neutral. During the game the player can, for the most
part, spend the points on any of the abilities he fancies.
Once the player is approximately 2/3 through the game,
“Kyle finally decides on the light or dark side of the Force,
and acts accordingly. (This decision is determined both by
the powers you've taken, and how you've treated civilians
throughout the first parts of the game.)” [43] The decision
to embrace evil (or not) is arguably one that shouldn’t be
taken lightly. However, two things conspire against players
considering this as a moral dilemma. First, the player isn’t
allowed to make the decision at that specific moment in the
game. This is because the result (join the Dark/Light side of
the force) happens as the result of an accumulation of
multiple decisions that have been made over hours of
gameplay. Second, and perhaps more importantly, there are
no real consequences to the decision. As Dulin noted in a
review, “many [players] will also be disappointed to learn
Who faces the moral dilemma?
The power of moral dilemmas in games is that they can
require the player to participate (rather than simply
spectate). However, it is easy to fall into the trap of
assuming that simply because there is a moral dilemma in
the game, the player will become personally invested. Many
games, especially those with well-developed storylines,
involve the characters in moral situations. It is often the
case, however, that the player is merely a witness to the
5
A metaphysical power in the Star Wars universe that has
two “sides”: light side (good) and dark (evil).
7
that the distinction between the Light and Dark sides, once
the choice has been made, is not as striking as one would
hope. […] The Light Side is obviously the path you are
supposed to take - you get more cutscenes and more
narration throughout the last few levels. But apart from this
and the different Force powers at your disposal, choosing
the Dark Side only leads to one really shocking plot
element, a slightly altered level, and a completely different
ending (which is, in many ways, far more satisfying).” [7]
When faced with what is perhaps the game’s key moral
dilemma, the player must choose between light and dark
side based on what content they want to experience and
what force powers they’d like to use for the rest of the
game. Evil and good are understood by the player at a
procedural level, a state in the machine, rather than at a
semantic one [37, 38].
3. Bogost, I. Persuasive Games. The MIT Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007.
4. CGW 150 Best Games of All Time. City, 1996.
5. Consalvo, M. Cheating: Gaining Advantage in
Videogames. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2007.
6. Delwiche, A. From The Green Berets to America's Army:
Video Games as a Vehicle for Political Propaganda.
McFarland and Company, City, 2007.
7. Dulin, R. (1997). "Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II: Review."
Gamespot
Retrieved
March
17,
2009,
from
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/jediknightdarkforces2/rev
iew.html.
8. Edge "Final Frontiers". Edge Magazine, 177 (July 2007),
72-79.
CONCLUSIONS
9. Garriott, R. Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar. Origin
Systems, Austin, TX, 1985.
Delwiche argues that videogames have affordances that can
shape attitude and behavior [6], Bogost argues they can
persuade [3], and Gee holds that games can provide
valuable opportunities for learning [10]. However, can we
use games to make moral demands of players encouraging
them to reflect on ethical issues? We have shown how
games can achieve this through the use of moral dilemmas.
Specifically, our analysis of Ultima IV, Manhunt, and Fire
Emblem: Radiant Dawn highlight how games can make the
player feel personally invested or responsible for the
decisions they make in the game. They can also encode an
ethical system and require the player to learn it and follow it
in order to succeed. Sometimes, games may present players
with dilemmas or situations in which their understanding of
the ethical system is challenged. For example, by creating
moral tension between the player’s goals and those posed
by both the narrative and the gameplay. We believe,
however, that there is still much work to be done and that
we have yet to fully explore the potential for ethical
reasoning and reflection that games can help promote. As
recent work in moral psychology has shown, both emotions
[e.g. 12] as well as moral rules play a critical role in moral
judgment [e.g. 25]. These findings echo, in some sense, the
fundamental qualities of games: activities proscribed by
rules to elicit and create emotionally meaningful
experiences in their participants [34]. If ever there was a
perfect test-bed for helping people learning about ethics and
ethical reasoning, games would be it. We believe that the
medium has only just begun to scratch the surface and we
wonder what other mechanisms we can develop to foster
ethical thinking. In what additional ways can we use games
to help explore ethical questions? We look forward to
continue exploring these questions and issues.
10. Gee, J. P. What Video Games have to Teach us about
Learning and Literacy. PalGrave-McMillan, New York,
2003.
11. Gowans, C. W. The Debate on Moral Dilemmas.
Oxford University Press, City, 1987.
12. Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E.,
Darley, J. M. and Cohen, J. "An fMRI investigation of
emotional engagement in moral judgment". Science, 293,
5537 2001), 2105-2108.
13. Halford, N. and Halford, J. Swords and Circuitry: A
Designer's Guide to Computer Role-Playing Games. Prima
Publishing, Roseville, CA, 2001.
14. IGDA. (2007). "Game Crediting Guide Draft 8-5 Beta."
IGDA
Retrieved
Feb
17,
2009,
from
http://www.igda.org/credit/IGDA_Game_Crediting_Guide_
Draft_8-5.pdf.
15. Intelligent Systems Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn.
Nintendo Redmond, WA, 2007.
16. Laurel, B. Computers as Theatre. Addison-Wesley
Publishing, Reading, Massachusetts, 1991.
17. Ledone, D. Super Columbine Massacre RPG!
www.columbinegame.com, 2005.
18. Lopez, M. and Theobald, P. (2004). "Case File 28: Is
Square Enix Milking the Final Fantasy VII Franchise?"
Retrieved
March
12,
2009,
from
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/551/551742p2.html.
19. LucasArts Star Wars Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II.
LucasArts, San Francisco, CA, 1997.
REFERENCES
20. Massey, D. (2007). "Richard Garriott Interview, Part
#2." WarCry Network Retrieved March 2, 2009, from
http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/interviews/1436Richard-Garriott-Interview-Part-2.
1. Addams, S. The Official Book of Ultima. COMPUTE!
Books, Radnor, Penn, 1990.
2. Barton, M. Dungeons and Desktops. A K Peters,
Wellesley, Mass, 2008.
8
34. Salen, K. and Zimmerman, E. Rules of Play: Game
Design Fundamentals. The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 2004.
21. Mäyrä, F. An Introduction to Game Studies: Games in
Culture. SAGE, London, 2008.
22. McKee, H. A. and Porter, J. A. "Playing a Good Game:
Ethical Issues in Researching MMOGs and Virtual
Worlds". International Journal of Internet Research Ethics,
2, 1 2009).
35. Scorpia Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar. City, 1986.
36. Shaffer, D. W. How Computer Games Help Children
Learn. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2006.
23. Molyneux, P. Fable. Lionhead Studios, Guildford,
United Kingdom, 2004.
37. Sicart, M. The Banality of Simulated Evil. In
Proceedings of the iEnter (Barcelona, Spain, 2008)
24. Murray, J. H. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of
Narrative in Cyberspace. The Free Press, New York, 1997.
38. Sicart, M. The Ethics of Computer Games. MIT Press,
Boston, 2009.
25. Nichols, S. and Mallon, R. "Moral dilemmas and moral
rules". Cognition, 100, 3 2005), 530-542.
39. Sicart, M. "Take the Money and Run? An Ethical
Approach to the Relation Between Game Research and
Game Industry". Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
3166/20042004), 163-167.
26. Pohl, K. Ethical Reflection and Involvement in
Computer Games. Potsdam University Press, City, 2008.
40. Spector, C. and Tyler, M. Interview with Richard
Garriott. Prima Publishing, City, 1999.
27. Rauch, P. E. Playing with Good and Evil: Videogames
and Moral Philosophy. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Boston, 2007.
41. Square Final Fantasy VII. Sony, Foster City, CA, 1997.
28. Remedy Entertainment Max Payne. Gathering of
Developers, Espoo, Finland, 2001.
42. Taylor, L. N. Gaming Ethics, Rules, Etiquette and
Learning. Information Science Reference, City, 2008.
29. Reynolds, R. (2002). "Playing a "Good" Game: A
Philosophical Approach to Understanding the Morality of
Games."
International Game Developers Association
Retrieved
Feb
17,
2009,
from
http://www.igda.org/articles/rreynolds_ethics.php.
43. Thomas, D. (2004). "Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II FAQ."
Gamefaqs
Retrieved
March
17,
2009,
from
http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/doswin/file/24354/188
37.
44. Totilo, S. (2008). "An Ethical Dilemma Like I’ve Never
Played Before — “Fire Emblem” Beats “BioShock” At Its
Own Game?" MTV.com Retrieved Mar 19, 2009, from
http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/02/05/an-ethicaldilemma-like-ive-never-played-before-fire-emblem-beatsbioshock-at-its-own-game/.
30. Robinson, E. (2005). "Why Crunch Mode Doesn't
Work: 6 Lessons." IGDA Retrieved Feb 17, 2009, from
http://www.igda.org/articles/erobinson_crunch.php.
31. Rockstar Grand Theft Auto III. Rockstar Games, 2001.
32. Rockstar North Manhunt. Rockstar Games, New York,
NY, 2003.
45. Woods, S. J. "(Play) Ground Rules: The Social Contract
and the Magic Circle". Observatorio (OBS*) Journal, 3, 1
2009), 204-222.
33. Rodoy, D. (2003). "Manhunt: Hardcore 5-Star Level
FAQ."
Retrieved
April
2,
2009,
from
http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/file/915100/27381.
9