Once upon a time, painting was just a decoration for cave walls, literature was oral stories around the fire, and music was ritual sounds. Over time, these forms evolved, acquiring deeper meanings. Today, video games are undergoing a similar evolution.
They are still entertainment, but not only that. They teach, encourage thinking and provide experience in knowing oneself and the environment. Some of them can already be used today as a powerful tool for exploring complex moral issues that force us to reflect on our own values and decisions. And they can do this in different ways. Like books - through a script. Or in a way that is not available to other media - through direct participation and interactivity.
Let's think about what moral choices we can make or observe in games, and try to classify game moral dilemmas - from the simplest to the philosophically complex, and also mention some interesting examples.
Warning: This article (especially the second half) contains a lot of spoilers - so read at your own risk.
Choosing the "wrong" team
Let's start with the simplest and probably oldest of the moral dilemmas in games: choosing a faction. Some games offer you to choose a side right away, and sometimes there are obvious villains among the possible options. Usually, such games are not very focused on plot, but more on strategy or multiplayer.
Let's remember the classics - the strategy games of the Dune series (primarily Dune 2 and its remakes). There you can play not only for the Atreides, but also for the Harkonnens (and for the dubious Ordos). The Harkonnens have powerful military forces, in particular, they have the Devastator - a super-heavy tank that causes colossal destruction. They also have access to tactical nuclear missiles Death Hand, which can destroy clusters of enemy troops or buildings. The Atreides rely on accuracy and support. Instead of brute force, they use air strikes and the help of the Fremen - detachments that can act unnoticed. This forces the player to plan their actions more carefully, which adds complexity compared to the Harkonnens, who can simply "pour" fire on the enemy.
But is it always easier to play as "evil"? Indeed, in many strategies, the "bad guys" have advantages that make them more accessible to beginners. Their economy is often simpler, their troops are cheaper or faster to produce, and the game itself encourages an aggressive style. For example, in Command & Conquer, the Brotherhood of Nod has cheaper and more mobile troops, which allows them to quickly capture territories.
But there are also counterexamples. In StarCraft, the zerg, while appearing to be ruthless biomass, actually require precise macro control and timing.
In Frostpunk, authoritarian solutions allow for quick stabilization of the city, but lead to rebellions and the collapse of the system. In Total War: Warhammer, vampires have no traditional economy and are forced to constantly expand to survive, which makes playing as them difficult in the long run.
So, the "dark" faction doesn't always mean an easy victory. In some games it's a bonus for aggressive play, in others it's a serious challenge that requires skill.
This choice is not particularly sensitive for most players. It is often perceived as a gaming experiment and nothing more.
Black and white
In the first case, the player consciously takes on the role of a villain, but in the end you just play for a certain "color" and focus on developing the team. What if during the game itself you start making decisions that a real villain would make?
This is more interesting, although it is difficult to call such systems complex - it is almost always clear where is good and where is evil. Such mechanics are most often found in strategies and role-playing games, where moral choices shape the character of the hero.
For example, in the Fable series, every action affects not only the plot, but also the character's appearance. Do good deeds - the hero glows, has a halo and healthy skin. Choose evil - you turn pale, get horns, red eyes and a dark aura. NPCs react accordingly: good heroes are applauded, evil ones are feared. In Fable II, you can help collect taxes or rob citizens; in Fable III , you can finance orphanages or turn them into child labor factories. All these decisions are clearly demarcated.
Another example is the Mass Effect series with its Paragon and Renegade scales. Paragon-Shepard resolves conflicts through diplomacy, Renegade – through force. However, regardless of the choice, Shepard remains a hero who saves the universe – even the most drastic decisions lead to victory over a common enemy, and not to the complete downfall of the character. In addition to the obvious black and white choices, Mass Effect also has more complex moral dilemmas, but more on that later.
Screenwriter's Choice
There is a large category of games that resemble books and movies in their power of influence. In them, the choices are not made by the player, but by the story itself. But it is structured in such a way that the player is emotionally involved, even if he does not make decisions on his own. Such moments are often dramaturgically inevitable - without them the work would lose its meaning.
For me, the first game where the character naturally came to a difficult choice and involved me in the process was Syberia.
Interestingly, I was once spoiled with the ending of a game. I had an acquaintance with a huge collection of games. This respectable, as it seemed to me at the time, uncle – he must have been well over 25 – was constantly either playing or working as a system administrator, and if you remember or imagine what a typical system administrator from the early 2000s looked like, then you already have an accurate portrait of him.
What he valued most in games was the gameplay and humor. So when I asked him for a quest, he offered many options, but not Syberia. However, I was struck by the art style, so I insisted on it. The admin grimaced as if he had bitten a sour apple and said that there were good puzzles, but… the main character was just an idiot. She gave up a promising job in New York and her beloved boyfriend – and went to some Siberia with an unfamiliar mentally retarded grandfather to look for some mammoths.
And… it seems like everything is true. But when I was playing, I was so carried away by the story that I didn’t even remember this comment. And when the plot reached its conclusion, I suddenly remembered. And I was surprised at how differently one can perceive the same events.
I think my friend was in the minority: the players mostly felt the inevitability of Kate Walker's choice. Although in real life, people more often make the opposite choice and live successful, but alienated lives.
Another good example is Joel's famous choice in The Last of Us. He decides, without player input, not to give Ellie a vaccine that could potentially save humanity, but would cost her her life.
Or Death Stranding by the legendary Hideo Kojima. Although the game has only one ending and does not offer the player complex moral choices with different consequences, it raises important philosophical questions. For example, in the final part of the game, Sam is faced with a dilemma: is he right to risk the future of humanity for the sake of saving one child, to whom he became attached throughout the game? Although the game leads to a specific conclusion to this story, the emotional involvement of the player makes this moment a powerful example of a moral dilemma, where personal attachment is opposed to the common good.
Death Stranding conveys an important message: humanity can find a way through its darkest times if people remember the value of connection and cooperation. And while this message is conveyed through scenario choices rather than active player decisions, it is no less effective in making us think about the moral aspects of our existence.
Implicit choice
A prime example is Silent Hill 2. The game tracks the player's behavior throughout the game. When James Sunderland searches for his deceased wife Mary, his every move is evaluated. If the player is frequently treated, this is interpreted as James's desire to survive. The attitude towards Mary, the doppelganger of his deceased wife, is also important - do you protect her or distance yourself. Even the frequency with which you read Mary's last letter affects the game.
These subtle decisions determine the outcome of the game. James can accept his guilt and commit suicide, forgive himself and move on, start a new life with Maria, or even discover that he never loved his wife.
The STALKER and Metro series games work on the same principle.
True moral dilemmas
The most interesting from the point of view of emotional involvement are "true" moral dilemmas, where there is no obviously right choice. In such situations, the player is forced to weigh different moral values and make decisions that will always have a certain negative side. This is reminiscent of the famous philosophical dilemma of the trolley car, where you need to decide: press a button and sacrifice one life or let five die without pressing anything. Both options are tragic and are not a choice between good and evil. There are enough such dilemmas in modern games. Most often - in good role-playing games and interactive films. But not only. Let's mention a few significant examples.
Fallout series
In "Fallout" there are a lot of uncomfortable choices. A vivid example is the quest "Oasis" in Fallout 3. The player meets Harold, a tree-man, who asks to be relieved of his suffering. However, Harold's death will lead to the decline of the only green oasis and the expulsion of the community that worships him. You can fulfill Harold's request and end his torment, accelerate the growth of the tree for the benefit of the oasis, but increase his suffering, or find a compromise option. Here the player is faced with the question: what is more important: the right of the individual to choose or the good of many?
An equally difficult choice awaits in Vault 34 in Fallout: New Vegas. NCR farmers are suffering from radioactive contamination of the water. The investigation leads to Vault 34, where he discovers a group of surviving inhabitants locked in a flooded part of the bunker. The player is faced with a dilemma: disable the reactor to save the NCR farms, but condemn the surviving inhabitants of the Vault to death, or transfer control of the Vault to the people inside, allowing them to escape but leaving the farmers without clean water. Regardless of the decision, one of the groups will suffer - and it is the player who must make this difficult choice.
Mass Effect
The Mass Effect series presents moral dilemmas on a scale ranging from the personal to the civilizational. The story revolves around Commander Shepard, who, together with his team, tries to save the galaxy from the looming threat of the Reapers, while facing difficult political and ethical choices.
One of the most striking examples is the decision about the fate of the krogan and the genophage, an artificial virus that limits their reproduction. This decision does not have a simple answer: on the one hand, every intelligent race has the right to reproduce and develop. On the other hand, the krogan once almost destroyed a galactic civilization due to their aggressive nature and rapid reproduction. So decide what is more important - the rights of a separate race or the safety of the entire galaxy...
Disco Elysium
Disco Elysium is built entirely around choice. The player takes on the role of a detective who has lost his memory after a binge, and is immersed in a world of political beliefs, personal trauma, and philosophical questions.
He is constantly conducting an internal monologue, and it is very difficult. Logic pushes him to cold analysis, Empathy makes him sympathize, Electrochemistry tempts him to drugs, and Internal Apocalypse prepares him for the end of the world. The detective can bring himself to the pen, be honest or corrupt. The player can declare himself a communist, but face the reality where revolution is not always fair. He can become an ultra-liberal, but see that the freedom of the market does not save people from poverty. Or he can evade any position. All this affects the course of events and shapes the personality of the hero.
Spec Ops: The Line
The game begins as a typical military shooter, but gradually turns into a deep exploration of the nature of violence and moral responsibility. The action takes place in Dubai, which has become a disaster zone after a series of large-scale sandstorms. The main characters, Delta Force fighters, find themselves in the epicenter of the conflict with a rebel infantry battalion of the US Army.
The game has a very difficult scene with white phosphorus, which can be attributed to scenario dilemmas - the player actually has no choice and uses this weapon, which leads to the terrible death of civilians.
But apart from that, Spec Ops: The Line is full of choices that the player makes on their own, gradually discovering that they are part of a greater evil.
For example, in one scene, the hero comes across a thief who the locals want to execute for stealing water. You can either let the mob commit lynching, establishing "justice" in the minds of the thirsty people, or you can intervene and protect the thief, risking losing the trust of the locals. Both decisions have their own negative consequences.
Later, the player is faced with an even more difficult choice: to save a group of civilian hostages or his wounded comrade Lugo. There is only enough time for one rescue operation. Whatever choice you make, the consequences will be tragic. If you save the civilians, you later find Lugo's body hanged by the locals. If you prioritize saving your comrade, you arrive too late - the civilians die.
Even at the end of the game, you are faced with a choice: admit your guilt and surrender, continue the fight as a hero, or commit suicide. Each of these choices reflects different ways of dealing with the moral burden of responsibility for your actions.
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
One of the most difficult moral decisions awaits the player in a quest where Geralt encounters an ancient spirit imprisoned in a tree.
At first glance, the spirit is an evil that terrorizes the locals. Killing it will save the village of Steigeri, but at the same time the children who found themselves in the swamps under the power of witches will die. In addition, the Bloody Baron's wife, Anna, will lose her mind. If the spirit is released, the children will survive, but the villagers will die, and Anna's fate will be even more terrible.
This choice doesn't just affect the plot - it reflects the main idea of The Witcher universe: in life there are often no good options, only lesser evils. The player is forced to decide whether the lives of innocent children or the safety of an entire village are more important, and whether a magical creature can be better than those who call themselves humans.
Heavy Rain
Heavy Rain puts one of the main characters, Ethan Mars, through a series of difficult trials to save his son. Each trial is a moral dilemma where parental love collides with universal morality.
The game does not judge the player for his choices, but forces him to live with the consequences of each decision. For example, one of the most tense scenes is a murder trial. Ethan is given a task: if he wants to save his son, he must shoot a drug dealer. The man who needs to be killed begs for mercy, says that he has a family, and on the walls are drawings of his children.
If the player pulls the trigger, he becomes a murderer, but receives a clue that can save his son. If he refuses, he retains his moral purity, but risks the life of his child. The choice is made in a stressful situation, and the game does not give time for long reflections, which makes the choice even more difficult.
Life is Strange
The main character, Max Caulfield, gains the ability to go back in time, but each change has unintended consequences. This raises the question: do we have the right to change the fate of other people, even if we do it with the best of intentions?
The game's climactic choice is to save your best friend Chloe or the entire city of Arcadia Bay. It's the classic trolley dilemma, put into an emotional, personal context. What's more important - the life of one very important person or the lives of many less important people to you? The game doesn't give a "right" answer, leaving the decision up to the player and their moral compass.
Choice with choice and choice without choice
The best games have long offered us the same thing that other works of art do – the opportunity to gain experience. However, to do this, you need to not only read/watch/play, but also think carefully about what and why.
Even relatively simple choices, like choosing a faction in a strategy game, raise interesting questions. Research shows that choosing negative roles is often related to a desire to explore alternative scenarios, experience a different perspective, or simply diversify the gaming experience. But does the constant choice of a certain type of faction indicate something deeper in our nature?
As for the true moral dilemmas, where the player must decide whether to sacrifice one for the sake of many, or vice versa, whether to remain true to their own principles or radically change their life - these are the moments when games turn from entertainment into a means of self-discovery. So use them! Games allow you to experience the consequences of choices in a safe virtual environment.
And what choice in a video game has impressed you the most? Do you remember a moral dilemma that made you stop and really think? Do you have a tendency to always choose a certain type of faction or decision? And has the plot of a game ever changed your perspective on real-life situations? We invite you to share your experiences in the comments.