Three-Axes of Morality in Games
By: Yvens Serpa
Tags: Gaming, Game Design, Game Development, Morality, Game Writing

Moral, Immoral and Amoral

To avoid all philosophical discussions on what moral stands for, let us use a summarized and simplified version of Gert and Gert's (2002) definition of morality: a certain code of conduct put forward by an individual, group, or society to determining behavior. Thus, to be moral is to follow the code. The code of conduct can also be referred to as the moral code.

Notice that this definition is rather vague and encompasses non-moral related codes, such as rules, laws, and religion. Nevertheless, it is complete enough as a base definition for our discussion. For this piece, non-moral related code can also be understood as under the umbrella of morality.

Agents that follow a certain morality are moral agents. When a moral agent acts in disaccord to its own moral, it commits an immoral act. On the other hand, when an action lies completely outside the realm of morality, it is considered to be amoral. Surely, the definition of amorality is very subjective to the moral code and bound to debate, given the circumstances.

To better understand these concepts, let us use the Batman character from Batman: Arkham City as an example. Batman's goal is to stop crime and protect the city and the people of Gotham. Fighting criminals is part of his moral code. However, killing criminals is unacceptable, even though it could be argued as a "solution" to criminality (which surely it is not the case). Taking off bandits is moral to Batman, while killing is immoral.

While patrolling Gotham's dark and wet streets, the player can control Batman to perform stunts and unlock in-game achievements, such as the Gotham Base Jumper, which requires Batman to jump from the city's tallest building and glide for 1 minute without touching the ground. This action has no connection to his moral code and can be argued as amoral.

Photo by Marcin Lukasik on Unsplash

Notice that even though Batman is (very) violent towards criminals, even to the point of inflicting brain injuries to his targets, he still accepts this behavior as part of his moral code. This is even a common trope for this sort of character, the Reckless Pacifists, which strongly claim never to commit murder, no matter the circumstances, but tend to endanger others' lives anyway.

This also shows that moral code and morality are not strictly connected to notions of good and evil or notions of law and chaos. They are related to acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Thus, morality can be openly approached by different perspectives and further used as dramatic drivers and gameplay mechanics.

Nevertheless, some moral concepts are fairly recurrent in media, especially in games, such as the battle between the light and darkness, the war between opposing factions or idealists, and the struggles against an alien-moral entity.

In this regard, the following sections propose and explore a 3-Axes model of Morality, built upon known notions of morality in media, as well as a new notion defined as dual morality, in which morality is seen not as a continuum but as opposing sides that stand among similar actions, but conflicting goals.

The 3-Axes of Morality

The 3-Axes of Morality: Light & Dark; Red & Green; Blue & Orange. [Source: Yvens Serpa]

The 3-Axes are the following:

Light & Dark: The moral agents (Light) struggle against an opposing, usually stronger force (Dark) that must be contained, defeated, or eliminated. This axis can be seen as a continuum in which moral agents can be located in any position between and in the extremes. Red & Green: The moral agents belong to completely opposite sides (the dual morality) that fight each other for a common goal or resource. This axis cannot be seen as a continuum, and the moral agents belong exactly to one of the extremes. Any moral agent that does not fully comply with one side is taken out of the morality axis and understood as amoral. Blue & Orange: Morality is either beyond comprehension or cannot be easily related to human logic. This axis does not represent a literal axis or a continuum. It likewise does not acknowledge extremes because they cannot be explained or compared to any other axes.

Games can have many manifestations of the 3-Axes at the same time, as they are not exclusive. In fact, it should be fairly prevalent to find all of the three in many popular games. However, most games could be understood as being mainly influenced by one of them.

The following sections describe and discuss each of the axes in the condition of morality, game mechanics, storytelling, balancing, and player’s motivation.

Light & Dark

Light & Dark might be the most common moral axis used in games. It covers all games in which the main antagonist needs to be overthrown. It is usually the case for such games to have a protagonist who starts the journey in a weaker position and needs to evolve before defeating the villain.

Franchises such as Super Mario, Final Fantasy, and Castlevania belong to this type of morality. They have a Big Bad character on the extreme (Dark) side of the spectrum. For instance, Dracula is usually the main adversary in the Castlevania series and represents an ultimate danger to the world.

It is not essential to have the main story revolving around the extremes or that the extremes are heavily used at all. In Castlevania: Symphony of The Night, the protagonist is Alucard, son of Dracula, and naturally not a pure-light character (although he is understood as good). Moreover, the game's main quest shows that Dracula was once romantically involved with a human (Alucard's mother). That pushes Dracula a bit away from the pure-dark side as one that can love is not entirely at the hands of darkness.

Playing as the villain is also common in games of Light & Dark morality. Dungeons, by Realmforge Studios, for example, is a strategy game in which the player controls a Dungeon Lord protecting its underground base and treasures from the heroes. It can also be the case of games in which Evil faces Evil, such as in Disgaea, in which the protagonist Laharl is fighting to become the next Overlord of the Netherworld, a sort of Hell-inspired realm.

This axis encompasses all the variations within the spectrum, such as gray/grey-moralities, in which characters are placed within the range of good and bad. Dungeons & Dragon's famous character alignment can also be understood as within Light & Dark, even though it adds more nuance.

On the lens of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999), this type of games usually tend to use the approaches of reconstruction of the conduct (the actions are justified due to the social service or greater good they will achieve) or dehumanization (their victims are not humans or their actions are bad/wrong enough to disregard their lives).

Cecil and Kain in Final Fantasy IV. [Source: Square-Enix]

Notice that through these techniques, a game designer can also establish storytelling tropes, such as the Face-Heel Turn and the Heel-Face Turn, in which a character shifts its moral alignment. For example, at the start of Final Fantasy IV, Cecil Harvey acknowledges that he was acting immorally (dehumanizing his targets) and confronts the king, later turning into a rebel. This moment symbolizes a moral event horizon, in which Cecil changes his moral alignment from the Dark to the Light side.

Moreover, since these games are based on a journey of growth, the game economy balance is focused on a global resource equilibrium. Only a limited number of powerful resources will exist in the game to ensure that the game's difficulty is not compromised. Simultaneously, positive feedback loops will only slightly be controlled by negative feedback loops since it is expected that the player surpasses the antagonists during the journey (and by grinding).

Due to the innate objective of overcoming the other side, games in the Light & Dark morality will often motivate players intrinsically, i.e., players feel like moving towards the journey until the end without the need for specific rewards. For example, players do not need to be motivated with a possible reward to finish a JRPG game. They will do so because they "feel like it" and enjoy the medium. (Schell, 2008)

Red & Green

Red & Green is a common moral axis for competitive games. It covers games in which two (or more) opposing sides fight for the same objective. This axis does not need to have completely opposite moral codes (they can even be almost identical), but their objectives or ideals are exclusive to each other.

Player versus Players (PVP) games from different genres belong to this type of morality. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is a good example since it clearly divides players into two extremes: terrorists and counter-terrorists. Even though both sides can act and behave almost identically (with small different game mechanics and resources), they belong to opposite moral sides.

As stated before, not all moral agents in a Red & Green game will belong to one of the extremes. In World of Warcraft, the Horde and the Alliance are opposing factions in an eternal ideological war. But there are many other factions, such as The Cenarion Circle, that are neutral to the Horde/Alliance dispute and have their own moral code.

However, any character is dismissed from the Red & Green morality when it deviates from their side. Thrall, for example, gets away from the game's dual conflict to fight for the world, leaving the Horde to become some sort of Azeroth's Guardian (as you would expect from a legendary Horde hero).

On the lens of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999), this type of games usually tend to use the approaches of advantageous comparison (the actions are fair when compared to the atrocities committed by the other side) or displacement of responsibility (moral agents are only following orders and are not responsible for them — their commanders are).

The Shopkeeper in Dota 2. [Source: Official Website]

Competitive PVP games are not usually known for their stories and lore, at least not within the games, although it is fairly common to have plenty of work on these fields. Since the play sessions tend to be episodic (they do not directly affect each other), there is usually no space for a continuous narrative. Still, each play session can be its own story, especially in the context of real-life championships. Every match is a novel of its own.

These games can also use non-intrusive or non-gameplay related techniques to convey their stories and lore. In Dota 2, for example, many heroes have specific dialogues depending on how they match in combat (on the same or opposing teams). Thus, the game does not force players to engage in a storyline but add its elements within its systems. The players can later explore these aspects outside the game, even with other products such as comics (Overwatch and Dota 2, e.g.) or spin-off games (League of Legend, e.g.).

Due to their competitive nature, these games are based on a literal collection of resources (there is a specific win resource). The game economy balance is then focused on a player's resource equilibrium — all players have roughly the same chances and resources to win. The feedback loops will constantly try to even the odds and keep the game exciting. Differently from Light & Dark, these games are not focused on balancing the game's difficulty but rather on maintaining a fair experience for all players involved.

Finally, as these games, especially the more PVP centered, have episodic game sessions with short-term objectives, games in the Red & Green morality will often motivate players extrinsically, i.e., players are told what to do. Surely the competitive aspect motivates players intrinsically, but these games have short-term goals that are often emphasized using some reward cycle (such as the infamous loot boxes).

Blue & Orange

In Blue & Orange, the moral code is very foreign or alien compared to our moral standards, and it is beyond regular comprehension. It might make sense in terms of the moral agents that follow it, but certainly not to humans. It is such that it does not work as an axis in the sense of a range (Light & Dark) or extremes (Red & Green). It represents an absence of understanding.

This axis is not often present as the main morality. Still, it is usually found in games focused on alien or "evolved" entities that are far beyond humans, such as Eldritch Abominations, Gods, and Super Computers. These entities operate in their own sets of rules that are either perceived as random or simply chaotic, even though players and characters will still insist on making sense of it before plunging into madness.

Some example games based on this axis are the Eldritch Horror board game, in which the players cooperate to stop an elder god from being summoned and sinking humanity into chaos; and Terraria, in which players try to contain the corruption and crimson biomes. In both, the "enemy" presents some form of sentience and agency that cannot be understood under human reasoning.

It is fairly typical, though, to have manifestations of Blue & Orange morality in secondary elements of games. For example, in the Elder Scrolls franchise, the Daedric Princes (also referred to as the Daedra Lords or Old Gods) are powerful entities that operate in their own moral code (if one exists). Even if some of them can be “understood” as generally good (Azura) or bad (Mehrunes Dagon), their actions still reflect a wide range of “moral values.”

On the lens of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999), this type of game usually tends to use the approach of moral justification (their actions are justified due to the "dire" situation being faced). However, differently from the other axes, Blue & Orange can deviate from the moral disengagement, challenging the player's decisions to emphasize the feeling of hopelessness.

As sacrifices are required to appease the Daedra Princes, for instance, the game offers barely any moral management to justify the player's call to action. This defiance shifts the morality away from the Blue & Orange entity towards the player's own moral code, which can harm the experience for the sake of storytelling.

Cthulhu art from Eldritch Horror. [Source: Game Wiki]

As most games in the Blue & Orange morality have players facing forces that cannot be truly defeated (they are usually temporarily delayed or dismissed), the games' economies are not particularly focused on balance or equilibrium. On the contrary, it is often possible to achieve powerful resources with ease to ensure that the players can hold to some sort of confidence. For instance, in Eldritch Horror, the players can acquire potent artifacts using the same process as any other encounters with only occasionally a few extra rolls.

Notice that this is only viable because ultimately, a game of Blue & Orange morality is unwinnable, either in the sense that the game's storyline finishes in a bittersweet ending or in the sense that the antagonists were not truly defeated.

Unbeatable villains are also present in Light & Dark games, such as the previously mentioned Dracula, that reappears from time to time. However, as stated before, these antagonists act according to a moral code that can be understood. Dracula can be perceived as an evil entity that endangers humanity. Cthulhu, differently, is certainly perilous to humankind, but its reasoning (and even its existence) is outside the reaches of our thoughts.

Finally, in the sense of motivation, these games are often balanced between intrinsic motivations and extrinsic motivations. As Blue & Orange is an unbeatable trial, players are intrinsically drawn to the challenge of proving it wrong. However, as this is not the case, the game presents extrinsic goals to satisfy the players' need for achievement.

Just as morality is a diffuse and debatable subject, so are the 3-Axes of Morality. They are not perfect to encompass all types of games, nor can they be followed strictly. Pure simulation games, such as Sim City, are not under any specific moral compass. Nevertheless, the 3-Axes can still help to structure and plan most of the main game design decisions.

For example, designing a game as a Light & Dark morality already sets the focus for balancing (global resource equilibrium), storytelling devices (defining the main antagonist to be defeated), and motivation (intrinsic).

As stated previously, all 3-Axes can exist simultaneously in one game. World of Warcraft, as discussed, has a Red & Green morality at the center of its game design (Horde versus Alliance). It has evil entities of Light & Dark morality to be defeated by players alike (such as the Lich King). And its world is inhabited by the Old Gods, eldritch creatures of Blue & Orange morality, like C'Thun.

The discussion of in-game morality can certainly help in narrative and gameplay design. There are many story drivers to be explored given the morality, which can help establish an initial draft of the storyline. Aspects of morality itself can also be transformed into game mechanics, such as Fable's moral alignment status, that changes according to the player's actions.

Simultaneously, understanding moral disengagement can help establish conflicts and, therefore, the game's main goals. Moreover, discussing morality should engage game designers into questioning the consequences of their stories and characters' actions. It is certainly conceivable to achieve entertainment by not constantly recurring to moral management. By doing so, it is surely possible to achieve new and interesting game experiences.

Thanks for reading :)

References:

Grossman, D., & DeGaetano, G. (2014). Stop Teaching our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie, and Video Game Violence. Harmony.

Klimmt, C., Schmid, H., Nosper, A., Hartmann, T., & Vorderer, P. (2006). How Players Manage Moral Concerns to Make Video Game Violence Enjoyable. Communications, 31(3), 309–328.

Hartmann, T., & Vorderer, P. (2010). It’s Okay to Shoot a Character: Moral Disengagement in Violent Video Games. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 94–119.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.

Gert, Bernard, and Joshua Gert, “The Definition of Morality,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).

Schell, J. (2008). The Art of Game Design: A book of lenses. CRC press.