morals
Latest
Storyboard: Moral framework
Every so often, I start a column and it just doesn't come together. So my original plans for this week's article are being changed. I could technically go back and edit last week's piece to erase any evidence that plans had changed, but that would just be wrong. That segues nicely into this week's actual topic: morality. We generally paint morality in broader strokes than is necessarily beneficial, as evidenced by the fact that I just said that something as harmless as editing an old article could be considered wrong. Obviously it's not harming anyone, but because of standards that I impose on myself, I feel as if it's the wrong course of action to take. Pretty much all of your characters have moral codes, and if you're not thinking about them consciously, those codes can easily default to the same ones that you have. I've touched on that idea before, but there's more to it than that. When you get right down to it, your characters need their own codes, some of which you might even find personally repugnant.
PBS draws link between digital music ethics and magic spells, somehow makes it look simple (video)
AAC files and the arcane don't have much in common on the surface. After some digging, however, PBS' Idea Channel has found that magic is an uncannily good analogy for digital music rights and explaining the thorny ethical issues that come with them. Both music and spells stem from grassroots cultures that give away their content for free, but (at least until an anti-magic clampdown at eBay) have since become businesses. That nature poses a key ethical question: when we're used to a free experience and can copy songs or spells as much as we like, what does it take to keep us as honest customers? As show host Mike Rugnetta suggests, it's a matter of personal responsibility -- if we want more of either, we have to think of the commerce as showing support for future work. You can catch Mike's clever train of thought after the break, and ponder what constitutes DRM for a potion while you're at it.
The Azeroth Ethicist: Cheating (or not cheating) the roll system
I was healing a Well of Eternity PUG a few days ago when I got a whisper from the group's warrior tank. Warrior: Could you help me out with something? Me: Sure, what do you need? Warrior: If Varo'then's Brooch drops at the end, would you roll on it for me? Me: Um ... I'd been off in my own little world watching health bars and thinking about next week's Shifting Perspectives column and hadn't paid any attention to the group's composition. It turns out the DPSers were a mage, a hunter, and -- oh, there we go -- a frost death knight. So in the event that the strength trinket dropped, the warrior tank wanted me to roll on it and, if I won, give it to him over the DK. He probably asked the mage and the priest to do the same thing, but the group was quiet in party chat, so I have no way of knowing. We had a small and, to his credit, civil conversation over it, and there are a few issues here on which I'd like to get readers' opinions.
Storyboard: Archetype discussion -- the Paladin
Archetypes, by their very definition, are idealizations. They aren't people; they're abstract concepts that people approach in varying degrees. Most of them aren't conscious aspirations, just a direction and a set of overall goals. Nobody really wants to be amoral in pursuit of a single goal, or an engine of war, or an endless question mark. You just kind of wind up in a place where you can be abstracted in that fashion. Paladins are not like that. Staggering numbers of different games have a class named "paladin," including nearly every class-based fantasy game in existence. But that's just a name, a collection of statistics and abilities and genre conventions. There's more to the archetype than that, something that taps into a very fundamental part of the human psyche. So as always, queue up some appropriate listening material, and let's take a look at an archetype that's almost always named as a class but has much more substance than a few holy-themed spells.
Kuwait wants RIM to filter BlackBerry traffic, Saudi Arabia testing three servers
The floodgates are open, and another country has washed in -- though unlike Saudi Arabia, India and the UAE, this one's not threatening a BlackBerry messaging ban... yet. Kuwait has publicly announced that it has requested RIM to deal with "moral and security concerns" -- namely, blocking pornographic websites -- and that RIM has requested four months to comply. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia's deadline-driven local server tests are reportedly continuing apace; three servers, one for each national cellular carrier, must "meet the regulatory demands" of the country by Monday.
A Mild-Mannered Reporter: For the greater good
It didn't take much convincing for people to start assuming that the Praetorians in Going Rogue were fundamentally the bad guys. For all the talk that's been given about how players can choose either path, about how there isn't always good and evil... the players are smarter than that. Being on the side of the jackbooted oppressors is just plain wrong, there are no two ways about it. No matter how heavy-handed the City of Heroes team might be about it, players knew better than to take the bait. The problem with this line of thinking is that it's wrong on one fundamental level. It's not that there's a lack of evil running through Praetoria, it's that people are seeing it on the wrong side. Loyalists aren't the shoo-ins for villains that the community seems to think they are -- they're heroes, making the world a better place. There might be the occasional misstep, but when you get right down to it, no faction on Praetoria is as well-suited to the ethos of heroism than those loyal to Emperor Cole.
Anti-Aliased: Even virtual relationships are hot button issues
Before I even begin this column, I need to give a shout out to Interitus. This week's topic was inspired by an e-mail he recently sent me, regarding the ongoing debate on the Star Wars: The Old Republic forums with their "romance" story arcs. So, thanks Interitus for the idea! So, to recap for everyone before we dive into the discussion for the week, here's the deal -- Star Wars: The Old Republic will let you romance your companion NPCs much like Mass Effect. Using dialogue options, you can form a romantic relationship with your chosen follower. However, BioWare has neglected to state how far this system will extend. All we know is that only you'll be able to see your romance storylines and there won't be any explicit sex. Star Wars is all about understated sexual tension, AKA Han Solo and Princess Leia. So what about romances between two characters of the same-sex, like Mass Effect? Well, we're not too sure about that at the moment. BioWare has said nothing confirming or denying their existence. And, because gay romance is a huge hot button issue, the SWTOR forums are aflame regarding the addition of same-sex romances. Should we include same-sex romances? Are they appropriate for the Star Wars universe? Are they appropriate for the target audience? Well come along everyone, and let's discuss.
Breakfast Topic: Did Arthas do the right thing in Stratholme?
As we've discussed before, the Culling of Stratholme did slow the spread of the plague. But it's heartbreaking to watch Arthas slaughter innocent townspeople when they are looking to him for help. Wouldn't it have been better if he had waited for them to turn into scourge before killing them? Or was there a better way? Should they have tried quarantining them until a cure could be found, perhaps? (Even though there isn't one.) It's a bit like a recent Fringe episode. Was it evil to consider killing all of the people infected with an extremely intelligent, contagious and fast-spreading disease? How do you deal with deciding between compassion for a few versus the survival of a race? Could the ruthlessness that Arthas showed there be a symptom of weak morals that perhaps led to his demise as a human? Or was his swift, decisive action an example of his excellent leadership qualities and why he makes such a successful Lich King? Perhaps doing the right thing in Stratholme weakened his soul, making him more susceptible to corruption. How should Arthas have behaved in Stratholme? Did his actions help corrupt him or show him to be already corrupted? What would you have done in the same situation?
Author of World of Warcraft and Philosophy interviewed
World of Warcraft and Philosophy got released a little while back -- it's a book by Luke Cuddy and John Nordlinger that examines WoW-related topics like roleplaying and the Corrupted Blood plague, and ties them into philsophical ideas and thinking. TechFlash has now posted an interview with Nordlinger, and it's a good read as well. Nordlinger says that one reason they chose to talk about World of Warcraft in this way is that it's so incredibly big -- when you have 12 million (give or take a few at this point) people playing a game with a GDP larger than some smaller nations, you're going to touch on all sorts of interesting ethical, moral, and other philosophical ideas. He says the book has been pretty popular, and a few universities are currently considering teaching courses based on the material, not only because it's interesting, but thinking about the game in this way helps improve abstract thinking in general. And perhaps most interesting, he says that reading the book could help players better make ethical and moral decisions in the game. Just ninja-ing the mount from an Onyxia raid might not mean much to you, but when you look at the bigger picture, and what those actions mean for ethics in general, Nordlinger says the book might help players "make more aware decisions, if not different decisions." Of course, in practice, trying to explain higher philosophy to ninjas might not have the desired effect, but it does seem true that exploring the higher meanings of this game and the intents of the people playing it might put a little more meaning into the pixels as well.
World of Warcraft listed as one of the 30 most offensive games
The conservative Christian investment firm, the Timothy Plan, has released a list of the 30 most offensive games on the market (Warning: link is to a PDF file). This list details the areas of sex, nudity, gay / lesbian, violence, cartoon violence, language, comic mischief, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, demonic, and game addiction as things that are against any "morally responsible" mutual fund to invest in.In other words they don't want you to invest, like they don't, in companies that make games which deal with any of the above areas.World of Warcraft is on the list. It has an overall score of a 9, which means it is half as offensive as Grand Theft Auto IV. According to the Timothy Plan, WoW is morally deficient in sex, violence, language, alcohol, and game addiction.Some investors will take this advice, and that's their right to do so. After the break we'll examine areas in which WoW is morally deficient, according to the Timothy Plan.
The Azeroth Ethicist: Why (or why not) to take a player
I had a lot of fun reading the comments on two articles we ran concerning a knotty moral issue, and readers wrote a lot of interesting things about how the problem could be considered from both an ingame and nongame perspective.This article's about a problem that's existed since the game's launch, but seems to have become more common since Wrath's release due to a substantial demographic shift with plate classes (more on this in a bit). Simply put; is it appropriate to turn down a potential member of a group over loot competition? Players generally don't want to face the prospect of losing a roll, especially if they've been endlessly running a dungeon trying to get a particular piece. But while you'll get a lot of sympathy if you've run, say, heroic Nexus 17 times trying to get the War Mace of Unrequited Love, people will generally elect to take a competitor if it's a choice between that and not doing the dungeon at all.
The ethics of a botched deal, redux
"The ethics of a botched deal" turned out to be a much more popular article than I'd been expecting. I didn't really think the subject matter was going to result in that much commentary, but, having read all of the comments, I think I see why. Everyone's been on at least one end of a bad deal, and stuff like that is a lot more common in the early days of an expansion with new recipes, dungeons, and raids everywhere you look, with the attendant opportunities for costly mistakes.A few people quite fairly said it would be tough to make a call on the incident given the limited account I'd written in the original article. Others pointed out that you could probably draw an ethical distinction between the Blacksmith's decision to: a). accept a tip, and b). keep the gold gained from vendoring the 2H mace (and I think this is accurate, although it does raise another question. More on this in a bit). Commenters also observed that, the ethics of the Blacksmith's actions aside, you wouldn't necessarily want to be a repeat customer of his for reasons that hadn't been articulated in the original piece.So behind the cut is a more inclusive look at the issue, a little more background on what happened, and how other players responded to it ingame.
The ethics of a botched deal
My chat box isn't usually a wretched hive of scum and villainy, but on occasion it turns up a few statements that'll make your eyebrows execute a shuttle launch. One such morsel popped up recently in the form of an amused snicker from an acquaintance who'd applied to raid with my guild in Wrath. He'd just made himself a quick 38 gold off a blacksmithing deal gone awry and was having a laugh over his good fortune. A leveling player had asked him to meet in Orgrimmar to make a Saronite Mindcrusher and could provide both materials and a tip. The applicant obliged, ported to Org from Dalaran, made the mace, and then they discovered that it was BoP and thus unusable by the customer. The disappointed player thanked him for his time, tipped him anyway for making the trip, and went on his way (according to the person who shall henceforth be known as The Blacksmith)."So not only did I get a 25g tip," he concluded smugly, "but I also made 13g vendoring the mace."That dog won't hunt, Monsignor. "You did give the guy the 13g at least?" I asked. "I mean, those were his mats, the mace wasn't yours.""No. Why would I? It was his mistake."To quote everyone who has ever set foot on the internet ever, ORLY?UPDATE: The post got a lot more attention than I expected, so I've written an addendum here that gives a little more insight into what happened.
Breakfast Topic: Most evil quest in the game
Here's an interesting question: what's the most morally evil quest in the game? There was a quick discussion about the Stanley the Dog quest in Hillsbrad (where you poison and then kill a neutral dog), and it got me thinking: are there any quests in game where you really had a problem with what your character was doing? What's the most evil thing your character has done?Of course, the definition of evil in this case isn't quite written in stone -- what your character thinks is OK to do may not be what you think is OK to do. My undead Rogue took a lot of pleasure in killing Stanley, even if I would be horrified to hear about someone doing the same thing in real life. But in the same vein, while I was fully convinced in character that setting off that Mana Bomb in Outland was the right thing for my character to do, personally, I thought the kill count was a little shocking. At what point does my hero become a mass murderer?A few other WoW Insider writers mentioned the Cenarius' Legacy and the other Undead Plague quests to be a little too evil for their tastes. Are there any other quests in the game where your character is asked to do something morally questionable?
Gay kissing is slightly worse than severed heads, welcome to America
Parent-oriented video game site WhatTheyPlay.com had a poll earlier this week which caused the site's own editor to post W.T.F. on his personal blog. The results of the unscientific poll showed that respondents were almost equally disturbed by the idea of a "graphically severed human head" as they were by "two men kissing" in a video game. Respondents were actually far more offended by a man and a woman having sex, which received 37% of the vote, while dropping the F-bomb only received 10%.As GamePolitics points out, the results are in line with traditional American values and legal precedent, which holds sex to a different First Amendment standard than violence. We're not judging one way or the other, but we know what actions might cause us to pause (possibly take a photo) if we saw them on the street and which would have us calling the cops.[Via GamePolitics]
Officers' Quarters: A moral dilemma
Every Monday Scott Andrews contributes Officers' Quarters, a column about the ins and outs of guild leadership.Every once in a while I get an e-mail where I think, "This person has to be pulling my leg." At first, I thought the e-mail below was one of them. As I read on, however, the author's heartfelt anguish over the decision she has had to make convinced me that there really is a guild leader out there doing this. Judge for yourself:Hello there,I'd love your opinion along with your readers opinions on an issue going on in my current guild. I'm an officer of a Horde guild that is still relatively young (3 months) but very dedicated. We transferred from other servers in order to form an off-hours raiding guild. Things were going very well until several weeks ago when I looked at our guild forum and was shocked to find the GM posting character accounts for sale and urging other guild members to buy them! And if that wasn't bad enough a week or so later he decided to buy a current guild member's account for himself and his girlfriend (another officer and the purchased account's owner supposedly wanted to stop playing those characters).
Cybersex is child's play: virtual world morals
We've already heard recently about the sexy side of Second Life, a virtual world in which the players' imaginations are more or less the limits. This article, however, shows just what can -- and does -- happen in an 18 environment where players are given free rein. Although Second Life is no stranger to kinks and perversions, some fetishes provoke far stronger opposition than others.The case in point here is age play, a pastime in which adults put on kiddy avatars and act out scenes which would, in the real world, be considered paedophilic. Thanks to Second Life's strict separation of minors and adults, everyone taking part is of age, which makes for an interesting moral debate. Is this activity virtual paedophilia, an offensive type of sexual play that should be banned lest it lead to real crime? Or is it simply an extension of the fantasy world, a harmless activity carried out in private?Sex-based virtual world Rapture Online, mentioned in the article, is playing it safe from the outset by not letting adults look like children. In SL, however, some official decisions may eventually have to be made on this front -- the simple existence of this sort of activity is enough to get some people riled up, but by infringing on users' freedoms to fantasise about whatever they want in private, the world loses some of its strength.[Thanks, Ken. Image shows items available from some of SL's kid-themed shops.]
