Modern-Day Gamers' Ethics [discussion/brainstorm thread]

[memimemi]

So let me begin with an assumption: we all like games.  More specifically, this being a CCG site, I will go further and presume that there is a decent population of strategy/simulation gamers who read and post on this forum.

I know that I am one, for sure.  I adore Victoria 2, Simcity (esp. 4), Civilization (2-5 GnK), etc.  Basically, the games wherein the player takes a top-down, grand scale perspective, making decisions that affect millions of simulated lives, with consequences that can ripple down through simulated histories, destroying simulated civilizations in their wake.

As a bit of a weirdo, I find myself pausing before clicking buttons when decisions come up.  The gamer in me says 'great, my population's unhappy people will be killed off, making this grow faster....' BUT the human in me wonders 'what of all the sprites who will cease to have their limited existences?'  Do I owe my Sims any mercy, when loosing a meteor strike out of boredom?  Do the simulated spouses of my simulated infantry cry when they receive the letter informing them off their losses?

Does anyone else feel a slight twinge of guilt, when making decisions that help to win the game, even though they'd be deplorable IRL?

As a side note/continuation: simulation depth is increasing as quickly as Moore's Law will allow processors to chug through them.  Are we approaching a time where we ought to be considering the ethics of what we do inside the gaming environment, vis sims/sprites?  Is there any reason to feel guilt/remorse for killing pedestrians out of sheer ennui, while playing GTA? 

Ought there to be a reason?

This, I hope, will make for a wide variety of views/opinions/thoughts.  I'd also like to thank a (for the moment anonymous) fellow poster for reminding me that this is, first and foremost, a gaming site.  So here's one for all of us, regardless of background, to ponder and discuss.

[Absol]

1. What's Moore's Law?
2. I myself often feels guilty whenever I make such decisions. Dunno why, it just feels not me. (also the reason why I don't play gta)

[memimemi]

Moore's Law is basically the observation that electronics are gaining power (as a ratio / cost) at an exponential rate.  Ray Kurzweil has posited that Moore's Law applies to all technologies, not just solid-state electronics - he's an interesting sort of cat, but that's another discussion altogether.

Anyways, extrapolating from Moore's Law, it seems inevitible that as long as humanity retains an interest in such games, a point will come where the lines between human as player controlling sims/code and human as demi-god, controlling what are, in essence, lives - with goals, drives, wants, needs, etc. the hallmarks of autonomy and intent.

If you feel a slight tug at your conscience, do you think it's due to some semblance of 'personhood' in the simulacra, or due more to your own ability to empathize and project your own motivations onto them?

Personally, I think it the latter - for now.  Yet, as computers get more powerful, and programmers more clever... I just don't know.

[Pineapple]

1. What's Moore's Law?

The number of transistors in integrated circuits doubles about every two years. (In other words, computer processing power increases really fast.)

Is it right to end the life of robots and other agents whose choices are formed entirely from decision-making algorithms?
What constitutes to being human? Do "sprites" feel, or are their emotions just an illusion created by game designers?
Who can hold the responsibility of ending a life? If one (the player) engages in the process of a life's creation (starting up the game), does he share the moral privilege in being able to endit?

[memimemi]

Is it right to end the life of robots and other agents whose choices are formed entirely from decision-making algorithms?
What constitutes to being human? Do "sprites" feel, or are their emotions just an illusion created by game designers?
Who can hold the responsibility of ending a life? If one (the player) engages in the process of a life's creation (starting up the game), does he share the moral privilege in being able to endit?

1.  Interesting question.  Arguably, all choices are based on 'decision-making algorithms.'  Is there a point of complexity in those algorithms that would tip the scale from 'yes' to 'no'?  Is it relevant that we not only know the creator by name (it's in the credits, after all!), but can be reasonably sure that said creator is human?

2.  Another point that strikes to the heart of the matter.  Once again, it's quite possible that all emotions are just illusions, or at least that they hold no actual, causal, relevance to the world.  Here is a starting point.  This is a deeper look.

3.  Or the moral duty to continue it?  If I raise the taxes on my 'pops' in a game of Victoria, provoke them to riot, and then kill them off, am I a bad person for having set up the conditions for the revolution, and the (presumably bloody) response to it?  When I don't save before exiting a Simcity, am I commiting a slightly morally questionable act, in regards to the 'citizens' who moved in, who will suddenly cease to exist when I exit to desktop?   What of the families of the workers I steal from city-states in Civ 5?  Do I owe them a thought, if nothing else?

Seems to me that these are questions that may come to matter a great deal, in the next couple decades, even if they seem a little silly right now.

[Elbirn]

I love games that try to make me feel, or otherwise draw you into the story. Fable was one such game. The ending of Fable II was amazing because of it's ability to manipulate my emotions. I had never really noticed myself being pulled into it, and yet at the game's end, I felt guilty and sorry for leaving my sister in purgatory to go back to the real world and fight evil and so on. Bioshock 1 is another emotional game; though not guilt exactly, it's powerful story telling pulls you in.

Sorry to go a bit off track here, as this thread is more specifically about morals; but looking at the broader picture, I feel like a related question is "Can games elicit strong emotions?", and yes, yes they can.

More on track. The type of game often determines whether or not simply playing it causes me to feel immoral for certain actions. If I'm killing Nazis/aliens/zombies/robots/"bad guys", I don't care, for example. Other games create different response though.

I played Assassin's Creed 3 with some friends once, and felt bad because I accidentally assassinated a civilian. However, I don't think I felt a negative response in this case because of guilt; I believe I had a negative response because I did not correctly fulfill my goal. Imagine a mouse in a maze with a block of cheese at the center. Now imagine the mouse made a wrong turn and hit it's head on a wall. I'm the mouse. Game's follow a simple formula of perform task --> Reward --> brain releases happy chemicals. When you don't succeed, you don't get the reward, you don't get the happy chemicals, you feel bad.

In many cases, negative emotions or feelings of guilt can probably be traced back to this. Say I play a case in LA Noire. At the end, I don't convict the right suspect. Do I feel bad because, as a beacon of justice to the people of LA, I was supposed to catch "the bad guy" and make the world a safer place? Or do I feel bad because I didn't get the cheese?

[OldTrees]

This is divided into two stages of questions. I will using destroying part of a game (killing a sim) as an example to highlight the types of questions.
1) Why is murder immoral? (when it is immoral if you seek to be contrary)
2) Can games involve such factors?

What if we constructed a game where we could generate sentient AI and drastically manipulate their environment (including the possibility to destroy an AI). Would destroying a sentient AI in this game be immoral?


However currently you are not morally obligated to feel guilty or abstain from destroying sims in the current game for their sake. Nor is it morally praiseworthy to abstain from feeling guilty or abstaining from destroying sims in the current game for their sake. However it might be morally praiseworthy to be the kind of person that would not destroy sims in the current game. (Note the switch from deontology to virtue ethics from the 2nd to 3rd sentence)

[memimemi]

In many cases, negative emotions or feelings of guilt can probably be traced back to this. Say I play a case in LA Noire. At the end, I don't convict the right suspect. Do I feel bad because, as a beacon of justice to the people of LA, I was supposed to catch "the bad guy" and make the world a safer place? Or do I feel bad because I didn't get the cheese?

Good point, Elb.  To narrow it down a little, I was thinking more of those points where the win condition requires doing things to simulated 'people' which would be morally indefensible IRL.  Destroying a large neighbourhood in Simcity, to rezone it for denser population; 'whipping' or 'pop-rushing' in Civ 4 (literally, working your citizens to death); callousness and cruelty towards your population in a game of Vicky2, to hopefully raise awareness enough for a gov't change; mowing down pedestrians in GTA, in order to shave seconds off a chase....  See where I'm going with this?

Heck, even as childish a game as Super Mario Bros comes with its own set of moral ambiguities: we're never really told why Mario feels the need to meet kidnapping with utter Goomba genocide. 

Would we be as quick to play an ImmoGolem deck, if Gemfinders cried out when cremated?

This is divided into two stages of questions. I will using destroying part of a game (killing a sim) as an example to highlight the types of questions.
1) Why is murder immoral? (when it is immoral if you seek to be contrary)
2) Can games involve such factors?

And this is the crux.  Was it murder for a feudal lord to gain power and prestige, at the expense of the lives of serfs?  If it is less so for a role-player to utterly destroy a simulated life(lives), why?  Where is the limit, the point where gaming turns to questionable morality?  Is there such a limit, or does the constraint of the simulation as game negate any need for ethical considerations?

What if we constructed a game where we could generate sentient AI and drastically manipulate their environment (including the possibility to destroy an AI). Would destroying a sentient AI in this game be immoral?


However currently you are not morally obligated to feel guilty or abstain from destroying sims in the current game for their sake. Nor is it morally praiseworthy to abstain from feeling guilty or abstaining from destroying sims in the current game for their sake. However it might be morally praiseworthy to be the kind of person that would not destroy sims in the current game. (Note the switch from deontology to virtue ethics from the 2nd to 3rd sentence)

This seems, at first glance, to be an imminently reasonable take on the situation.  Would you care to expand on the bases for this conclusion?

edit: formatting error.

[ARTHANASIOS]

 For me, the problem is NOT what you do in-game, but what are you going to do in the real world AFTER playing the game. There were people who, inspired by GTA and other violent games, they went out in the streets shooting pedestrians. Of course, these people are the exception and not the rule (thank God!). But the psychological impact digital violence can have into even a single person is something that must not taken lightly at all.

 About management simulations like Civilization or SimCity, I think the point is to achieve an ethical victory and not just a simple victory. "Why?" you may ask. Because, for me, video games should NOT be just plain fun or entertainment but a form of education instead. Indeed, those sprites are just sprites and people are not real, however have you ever considered the politicians, bussinessmen and economists of the world may view us like nothing more than "sprites" and the whole capitalism like a "simulation game"? If you consider their decisions, obviously they treat us like nothing more than statistics... Same goes with RTSes; how many times real historical figures have achieved victory by sacrificing thousands of people no matter the side they belonged. Once again, they treated people like RTS units; feed them, train them, equip them, then send them to their own death for the sake of their megalomania.

 Ok, I know what you think. "RTSes or Civilization didn't exists in the middle ages to inspire the Kings or during the rise of the Capitalism to inspire bussinessmen."; true, but there were always real-life simulators, from Chess-like board games to strategical & economical books and discussions; either way, people in power used their "simulations" egotistically, leading them to treat real-life people like mere statistics.

 Furthermore, what about God? We are literally nothing more than mere "sprites" in front of his majesty and power (considering God exists). If we treat things we consider lowly with the worst way possible, then why shouldn't God theoretically release all His sadism and evilness upon the world? After all, He is playing His own "Civilization", let Him enjoy His game, make humanity suffer!!!

 Another reason an ethical way is better than an unethical one is entertainment. In 99% of games, an ethical victory is much harder than an unethical one, if even possible. I had that "possible" issue with Oblivion; I played like a Bard, who is supposed to follow an ask-questions-first-and-draw-swords-later and he is skilled in diplomachy and negotiation, but in the end I had to kill the bad guy in every mission of the game, no matter how hard I tried to negotiate stuff, with the exception of a mission on a ship. In other words, the game forced me to kill, despite the fact it was a free-character-development RPG. And when I think about games like Iji or GeneForge RPG series where everything can be solved peacefully and ethically, though everything is much-much harder that way too, and I am pissed of by the way unknown games are much better and more ethical than the mainstream ones.

 Of course, we absolutely should NOT treat videogame characters like real people (this is not good for our mental health either), but feeding your sadism and ego via videogaming is not heathly either. Videogames are a "tool" which if used egotistically are going to harm both you and your environment but if used wisely they can highly educate you.

[Absol]

Basically what Arthana said, i agree with him. He explains it better than i did.

[Dm]

Personally, I think the reason why I feel "guilt" in some games is because I can't refrain from comparing it to real life. When you put time and effort into something, you get attached to it, even if you never intended to. Further on, as games get more realistic (and the interaction larger), I often compare some people of games into people I remember in real. "This guy has characteristics that remind me of X. And this one kinda looks like Y.."; and through those thoughts I find it harder to sacrifice the simulations that have a meaning (both due to time and effort and due to the the resemblance they bear to people I know.) Sometimes it doesn't even have to bear resemblance, as the time and effort you pour into the game grow, the story progresses, and you grow more attached to the "sprites." Then again, it becomes harder to sacrifice someone / kill because of that reason. (Or maybe, easier.)

Further on, the emotions you're feeling when you're playing the game also play a role in what happens. Personally, in most RPG/Whatever games, if I'm feeling sad/angry, it is more possible that I end up killing everything in the room instead of trying to solve things peacefully and moving right through without any casualty.

I think that as games grow more realistic, there will probably be times where I just won't be able to stop behaving as if that sprite in the screen actually exists due to all the effort, emotion and time I placed into the game. Some games just have that effect. The story is so well made that you can't help but feel emotionally attached to that character, and the feeling of guilt pops up.

However, on less in-depth games, where I barely see / "know" (i.e played with) a character or a person, I find him or her more... disposable.

Maybe that's just me.

[VanWinkle]

I know that moments when you stop and start reflect what you're doing while playing. I've always considered it as a moment of selfreflection. They teach me how I would act, if my only motivation were to fullfill a certain purpose, no matter what means are nessecarry. And it enables me to understand a liitle bit better whats going on within people, whose actions are based on sole cold reason.
For the background, I'm german and I have people like Eichmann in mind. The frightening about Eichmann was, that he felt no hate, he simply saw numbers (sprites) instead of people. How small the step to inhumanity actually is for the common fellow has been shown with the Milgram-Experiment and the Stanford-Experment.

A more entertaining access to the issue is provided by stargate atlantis episode 55: The game

So far ... VanWinkle