Moral implications within Ryzom

[glipe]

In the thread that has been closed recently (over foul language and CoC issues, something which I won't really be dealing with myself.) I was asked a question by gaspode concerning the moral right and wrong. It got me to thinking and I came up with this:

There appears to be three levels of morals within Ryzom. At the lowest level there is your character's morals. These are the morals that you portray through your roleplaying of your character. Like Rashan's love of money, or Sanz's pursuit of peace. Then we have game morals. These differ greatly and depend on how you want to play the game. Maybe you want to just harvest and ignore any people crying for a rez or maybe you will run for half a continent just to deliver someone's jewelry for a wedding. At the top level we have our own morality, encompassing our faith and beliefs, our hope and dreams. What people should realise is that, though these morals are connected through the people who play the characters, the level below does not necessarily pass up to the level above. Just because Sanz is ok with killing gingos it does not mean I am ok with killing dogs. Just because I run around in PvP zones doesn't mean that I think people should kill others in real life. But if I was playing a character who thought this, both my low and middle morals would say 'That's ok!'. I happen to play a character who is very into peace so I don't rub people the wrong way that much but I don't mind if people do! http://www.ryzom.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

Here is the reply to the post I was going to post before others got the thread I was going to post it in shut down. If the moderators feel that it is inflamatory, please feel free to close this and delete the text.

The use of force may well have it's place here as in real life. Possibly more so as this is, in the end, a game and not real life despite the parallels that exist. However, I think that would be best discussed in a separate thread to prevent this one becoming too unwieldy.

I would prefer this thread to concentrate solely on the morality issue.

And in answer to Sanz I can only say; Suppose you work in a shop and you arrive for work one day, and there are 6 people stood at the door who say "Sorry mate but we need the money so we are going to work here now and if you try & come in we will beat you up". You try and go in and get beaten up. Does the fact that they have told you in advance what will happen make what they do morally right?

Ok, to start off with I really respect the way you are structuring everything carefully. You’ve obviously got a good head on your shoulders and are trying to go about things in the best way you see fit. It’s nice to see that you’re not letting things boil down into an ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ topic.

You compare a real life example to something that is happening in game. While I have no problem with the metaphor or the meaning, I do have an issue with the situation involved. That’s not real life. In real life maybe I’d call the police and spend a long afternoon down-town at the station seeing if I had a case for GBH (with them having threatened my person). Or maybe they’d see me phoning and kick me about a bit. Or maybe I’d just go home and phone my manager to ask what’s going on. But simply enough, the example falls down when you look at it in any detail. Ryzom is not real life and that example is not an accurate representation of what is happening.

You say you want to concentrate on the morality of the situation. Once more, I refer to the above; Ryzom is not real life. Homins do not have the same concerns as us humans. If someone threatens me, as a person, I could die! No respawn, no magic to aid me, no heavy armour to take some of the damage. Imagine the real world was like Atys? Would I really care if some guys were camping out the shop I worked in if I could exist indefinitely without food, water, clothes, money, etc? Or call upon friends to blast them to pieces only to raise them from the dead with a wave of my hand and ask them not to do it again? In Ryzom, we are immortal! I can slay my brother only to have him demolecularise, recorporealise and come back smiling a few seconds later, none the worse for wear. Morals are different on Atys. Killing is the equivalent of chasing someone off. We do not *need* anything to survive, everything we do is a *want*. But this is all besides the point. This is a game.

This game that we play has avatars we contol. The rules of the game tell us what we can and cannot do (no flying, no books, no falling, etc). A set of rules are also set down by the people that run the game, much as you would have with a sport (no kicking or biting (boxing), thou shalt not drag aggro, nor shall thee partake in ‘cliffing’). And there is a set of game morals that has followed with this. People expect a rez if a person near them is in no danger when doing so. It’s bad to kill characters for no reason. Infinity are following the game rules in what they are doing. Whether I agree with them or not, they are not doing anything wrong. And they have provided a warning for homins, which is more than they have to. I am not going to flame them or take a position against them because I dislike what they do. They have taken a stance, my *character* will take a different one based on what I think he would do. If Sanz happens to run into this issue, well, I’m sure it’ll be dealt with at that time. Maybe he’ll contact some big guild and we’ll spend a long afternoon in Yrkanis discussing whether I have a case for a duel with their leader. Or maybe they’ll realise I’m /telling and kick me about a bit. Maybe I’ll contact my mentor and ask what’s going on. But at the moment Sanz finds the whole thing distasteful and a typical reminder of how far hominity has sunk in recent years. If action needs to be taken, he’ll be there to observe. But no-one dies permanently. No one has anything damaged further than their equipment or their pride.

I believe that, though my character perceives it as morally reprehensible, I believe that in terms of the game it is perfectly morally acceptable. They wish to play this way and are willing to take the consequences.

And to answer your original question I’ll have to ask questions of my own. If you are talking to Sanz, he has no capacity to work in a shop; why is he working there? Is the shop in a PvP zone? What type of shop is it? Maybe Sanz doesn’t like his job there? Are the 6 people n00bs or 1337s? To conclude, if you were talking to Sanz and told him the hypothetical situation, asking him if it was morally right or not, he’d say no. If you were talking to the person behind Sanz about a situation in this game, he’d say yes.

[rrwfreak]

I've read through the threads Clarification on Infinity, Declaration of Intent and Official Reply. I think that glipe(aka Sanz) makes some interesting, well thought out and good points.

One can choose to play their character however they see fit in Ryzom as long as it does not go against the CoC. This is a mmoRPg after all.........emphasis on the RP for Role Play. Glipe brings up the points of morality on three different levels, and I think he hit it on the nose.

He makes another good point here as well:

I haven't checked back so I might be wrong but I think I remember reading in the Infinity thread that they will give fair warning to the diggers before they strike. I feel this is quite in keeping with homin honour and though obviously as a character, Sanz is disappointed at their standpoint, his belief being that the strong should help others rather than oppressing them, as a player I think that Infinity have done the right thing by telling us. If we wish to organise resistance against them, they have given us fair warning. If I was in the least bit interested I'm sure that I could round up enough players with enough interest to deal with the issue, should it arise.

Infinity didn't even have to tell anyone, but I think they did an honorable thing by doing so. Glipe has a very, very good point here which is:
If we homins are fed up with such groups acting in such manners, then take up arms and form a PR policing group either made up from one guild or several guilds. For example: The other night, I think it was over the weekend.........can't remember as I had a few pints of Guinness.........I had just joined Vx3 and Gywidion got a request to come help against two PK'ers who were ganking peeps over and over in PR in Elusive Forest. Several of us mobilized and tp'd to EF, confronted the PK'ers, battle ensued, and we won. It was 9 of us to 2 of them I believe. It was simple as that. No whining, no grieving or anything.

I have never been the biggest PvP player, nor have I been one of those who is an anti-PvPer either. I have to admit it felt good to go to the rescue and aid of those in trouble. Dekkert is a firewine drinking, bag pipe playing, trekking, rezzing bend over backwards to help out anyone kind-a-guy, but that is how I choose to play the game.........and I try to keep it along the lines of the guilds I've been in which are Joe's and now Vx3.....which is to promote homin unity and help your fellow homin. Does that mean other guilds have to play that way???? Heck no. I might not even agree with the way other people play. Does that mean a rule should be made to stifle how people should play the game because how one person plays may not fit how you think they should or one's own morals whether RL or RP? No. The CoC is there and then we as players dictate how the game world evolves. If the majority band together with team work, cooperation and strategy, it would not be that difficult to make a PK'ers life very hard.

That being said, I know several members of Infinity and several ex-members of Infinity. I think some are over the top, and I myself wouldn't necessarily play the game that way. They pay to play the game so that is how they choose to play it, and some I have met are kewl peeps. There are some people I wouldn't group with if I didn't think my character would get along or myself would get along with them, but there are several players like that that can be found outside of Infinity. Yes, Infinity are like pit bulls on mob bosses and supreme mats, and yes, they are confrontational. That is just how they play. That doesn't make them immoral players so to speak. I will say that Infinity members have always rezzed me when I've been killed and when they've have been in the area. I have yet to be ignored. I am probably not on there bad side either. I would also like to say this about Basic because I think people take him too seriously sometimes becaise he has a funny but very weird since of humor. I have never had a problem with him even though we may have disagreed on some things before. I think he has even nuked me a few times, but he has always rezzed me. Basic does enjoy that PvP though don't you Basic.

If Infinity, any other group of people, or person wants to try and control the super nodes or mob bosses for mats, then instead of complaining about it over and over, why not do as glipe suggested........get together a group of people to act as "PR Police". If you play your character as a peace loving digger or crafter and don't want to spill blood. No worries. Just call the 1-800-PRPOLICE (maybe two many digits in that number......but hey doesn't matter cuz its Ryzom )

Think of it from a D&D or AD&D perspective in the sense of Lawful Good vs Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good vs Chaotic Evil. Then you got your Neural players, which I think to play true neutral is the hardest thing to do. There is more that one way to play a "good" character just as there is more than one way to play a "evil" character, and even though D&D and AD&D p-n-p rules tried to define character moralities and actions through their alignment system, it still could be very confusing and go all bonkers. Should a lawfully good person really kill another even to protect innocents, or should a chaotic evil player really care about healing a wounded player in his or her team and so on? Do you see what I am getting at? Your character's morality, beliefs and alignment can be even more complex than that in RL, and just look at how many different view points there are out there on religions, politics, goverment, law, ect, ect in RL. There have been debates on character alignments and morality as long as there have been rpgs, and these issues are just magnified in mmorpgs in my opinion. I think it would be good for all of us to take a step back, take a deep breathe, have a beer even if you are of legal drinking age(or wine or a liquer if you prefer or a tall refreshing glass of water or OJ), and just enjoy the fact that there are so many different varied ways to play the game.........that all those different characters, guilds and factions....even the ones that get on your nerves.........make the game that much more interesting and fun.

I think I rambled a little bit, but I've been thinking about what I wanted to say on this issue for a while so there it is. I am also not a spokesman for Vx3 as I'm not an officer so this isn't a clarification or declaration for Vx3 or anything. Just my honest, very wordy opinion. I hope I did a good job of also supporting your post there glipe, not that you needed it in anyway mind you. OH, and ignore any bad grammer or spelling mistakes. I've had a few pints tonight.

[asyne]

Well, I'll kick this off by saying that in my own opinion, this is to a certain degree a topic that needs to be touched on. With upcoming expansions to PvP, either with outposts or the newly offered "fame PvP," the issues that could be considered inflammatory should be attempted to be settled now, while they are starting to become a problem, rather than later when they are a problem.

There appears to be three levels of morals within Ryzom.

I admire the accuracy that I see with your observation. Three levels, where the lower levels will be ignored for an issue if there is a conflict with the higher levels. Kinda' like Asimov's Three Laws, in structure rather than effect. I think that there should be a level between "character" and "player" for "guild," for as others have mentioned, being a part of a guild requires that you to a certain degree adopt their ethics, but guild ethics are certainly not going to take priority to things that a character as a player (follow me?) feels are important. But I think that there is a major division between "game ethics" and "life ethics," with only the most minor of osmosing between the two. As for the whole...

Just because I run around in PvP zones doesn't mean that I think people should kill others in real life.

...well, given the outbursts that this has had recently in politics, I'll just say that if people think this is not true, let satire do the talking.

But on to the meat of the topic.
<echo>

This is a game.

</echo>
And I'll take this in both the 'relax' and 'take it as it as' stances.

You are right, it is a game, and things such as killing someone is on a completely different level than in real life. A death here is like getting a bucket of cold water thrown in your face; startling, embarrassing, infuriating, but not lethal - excepting witches. Something to get mad over, yes. It will cost you DP and some of your time which you could have spent doing something more productive. Whereas in real life, death is _it_; it won't get any more final than that; "Game Over" in big letters. So I do think that comparing the two is a little abstract, but just over absolutes like this. There are dynamics where the two do resonate in certain areas, such as Skinner Box type motivations, or general topics like limited resources, alliances, and generosity. So in brief, they are different, but only insofar that Ryzom is a more "fault friendly" version of real life.

On the other stance of "it's a game," Ryzom has rules, and anything within that is legal. In the example of the thugs and the shop worker, what the thugs are doing is quite certainly illegal, and there are rules set in place that they are either knowingly or ignorantly breaking. In the Ryzom examples that have come up, all actions were done firmly within the rules of the game, although set against the will of some other players. If a better example of this is needed, it's like someone pushing you out of the way to be the last person on an elevator you want to take: elevators only come once in a while (however frequent that while is), the other fellow got on instead of you because of his strength, and eventually, the elevator will come back. In real life, one would find another elevator, or if that elevator was needed, come earlier, or do some daily exercises so you don't get pushed around as much. Nobody broke any laws, it was just a social disagreement.

Touching another topic you have there, roleplaying, you could say that to a certain extent, everyone roleplays on certain things. Getting killed, although as earlier mentioned not as extreme as real life, is still something that a player would now want to happen to them, true to the role of any homin not looking to get a Darwin Award. Dapper, items, and levels all mean something because they translate to a real life currency: time. There is only so much time in a day/week/month/shake/Swatch-beat/Unix-epoch/whatever, so the time spent on a character translates to a certain degree of attachment. So people do have a right to feel rather POed, as it's not just pride or equipment damaged, it's also time lost. No need to consciously roleplay that; losing stuff in game is still a loss to the real person playing the character.

However, if in the case of PvP, the player either through ignorance or stubbornness steps into a situation where they are able by the rules of the game to be freely killed by any other player that feels it is their duty to chlorinate the homin gene pool, it is entirely their fault whether they are killed in a dual of mutual consent, or ganked by half a guild. When you see the You are now in an Open PvP zone...BE CAREFUL!, you should consider yourself a dead man walking, as the BE CAREFUL! indicates.

Wooah that was a lot of writing. Anyway, to close off the way you did, if Syne was asked that question, the response would most likely be something like "Since when did I work, much less in a shop? Anyway, they told me they were gonna' rough me up if tried to go in, so why would I? Nobody would be angry at me if I just walked away, and people would feel sorry for me. Plus, I'd get a day off from work, right?" So, no, Syne wouldn't really care about the right or wrong, just that he's happy and nobody gets hurt (happiness taking priority to harm). As for he who holds the strings of Syne's marionette-alive, the puppeteer takes is as what it is - a show - knowing that the only things that can get hurt are his feelings.

[asyne]

*Total shock and amazement*

It took me so long to write that Dekkert got a post in 12 minutes before me?!?! Boy am I a slow writer, or a long winded one.

[d29565]

Just wanna say, I spent a lot of time reading those three posts..Wow, you guys sure can write...*astonished*

[gaspode1]

Some excellent points there. Not sure I agree with everything & I must confess I got a bit lost on a couple of points. But even where I don't fully agree or understand, they are opinions and I fully respect them.

The only other thing I want to say here is that, as soon as I read asaseth's reply regarding the shop analogy I realised that the analogy was, indeed, invalid. I think I would have been on much safer ground just saying that if an action is morally wrong then prior notification won't change anything.

I'll be making a few points that I think need to be made on the '"Official" Reply' thread and then I will let the matter lie.

[micrix]

...well, given the outbursts that this has had recently in politics, I'll just say that if people think this is not true, let satire do the talking.

It is not that easy. If you kill a player in game you do excatly that. You kill a person. No way to talk around this. You do lower the inhibition threshold for killing someone.

Just the consequences are different. There are players who dont kill herbivores. This is not only RP, this is cause they feel bad. They feel this not ingame, the person behind the screen is feeling bad. And it is not a toon that kills another toon. Its a person in front of a screen killing another person in front of a screen.

This is something a mature person is able to differentiate, even in moments of rage. But the younger a person is the harder it can be for that person to differentiate. Both is happening in your brain, the phantasy and the reality. Very bad if those two minds get mixed up.

This is not against this thread. As long as people can have a thread about moral implications the game and the world is not lost. Me personally doesnt care to much about PvP. I have allready decided where to stand and i think everybody else has too.

[grimjim]

Here's the crux of the matter as I see it.

This is a game, everyone playing it pays to play it and has equal right to play as they see fit. However, "Do what thou wilt so long as it harms none." To coin a phrase.

PKers and PvPers are the only player 'type' who have the capacity to FORCE their style of play on anyone else whether they're interested in it or not. Just because an area allows for PvP does not give one the right or moral authority to gank at will. If PvP fans and PKers just stuck to killing each other I doubt there would be any complaints.

I'm an RPer, I'd love to RP more and to have areas of pure RP but I don't have the capacity, game tweaked or not, to make people roleplay. I can only learn who likes to put a bit of characterisation in and spend my time playing with them. A PKer however can attack whoever they like and force that upon them.

That's the root of the annoyance and backlash, having something forced upon you that you don't want to do.

Sure, you CAN say that entering a PvP area automatically means you accept PvP but entering that area is more like clicking 'I accept' on a license agreement. The agreement itself is contextual however and the context, what we are agreeing to, is PvP within the stated lore, political situation and background. That is factional - not random ganking of anyone with a pick or just wandering past.

Forming a 'PR polce' is not a way to deal with this. It just gives the PvPers what they want, someone to fight with, plus player-enforcement rarely works in these types of level oriented games because the people interested in policing generally aren't those who give a tuppeny toss about PvP or powerlevelling normal and therefore tend to lose. Fighting just reinforces the bad boys negative behaviour and rewards them for being obnoxious. The 'sanctions' while also unlikely to work may be more effective.

The only way anything can really help is if there is some manner of coded consequence to PvP, most likely fame increases/decreases in support of the faction system.

The tiniest bit of effort towards justifying actions within the context of the game set up would go a long way here. If you want to be bandits, be bandits and accept the consequences. Otherwise modify so your targets are faction based and everything will fit together nicely.

[brithlem]

Dekkert...

As usual you bring nothing but composure, temperance, and patience to the board and I'd like to thank you for such.

Dekkert and Syne.... hats off gentlemen... well said.

[sofiaoak]

One "more" point to this discussion.

Problem is that MMOG's have never been able to enforce players behaviors consequence in open PvP. In real life there is allways some consequence what is holding us back (police and laws), so we don't do "bad" stuff. Some say, that if there is problem then fight back. Problem is that this isn't "punishment", many times it's what was wanted from first place. Ability enforce someting, requires tools do someting to someone what cause people to think twize before doing it again. This negative consequence can't be done against our characters, it has to be done agaist the player it self. Of cause, because we play games for fun, we don't wanna anyting negative to be used agaist our self. So there is issue, what can't be easyly solved.

Long ago when I played UO, we had RP guilds with wars. Different is that this was closed community with rules how to behave (consent PvP). It worked well and if You break the rules, there where always consequences. Guild leaders in hole alliances of guilds enforced the rules and consequences.

Basicly what I say is that open PvP isn't really needed in games, what aren't fully open for PvP. Open PvP in consent PvP game, just cause too many moral issues. Usually good PvP can be arrived by consent "guild" wars and duels. This PvP threat woundn't exist, if everyting would be fine, they are symptoms from some issue.