Hey Ralph-

Excellent post. You were far more rigorous (and obviously have some solid background in sociology and the like) than I would be. Your explanation of why torture in games is wrong for your unconscious mental processes is superb.

In addressing the WoW torture issue from inside the game (and thus extrapolating to real life), I think the issue is much simpler than people are making it out to be–why is it wrong to torture but not wrong to kill? The answer is war–to take the Borean Tundra quest, for example, the Blue Dragonflight is literally trying to exterminate all mortal magic-users. Lethal force is necessary in self-defense.

But from a the most basic, oversimplified, pragmatic point of view, torture is unacceptable because it doesn’t give good intelligence. This apart from the other obvious facts that it is cruel, damages the psyche of the torturer, and results in the other side doing it as well. Not only is it horrifying for everyone involved, it doesn’t even work at its stated goal. Thus I found the DK quest nearly as disturbing as the BT quest.

Not to mention that the “intelligence” you gather in the BT quest could have been easily gotten by looking out the freakin’ window, as the target is literally 200 yards away on a giant floating platform.

It would be interesting if the option to torture was just that; one of several options.

Say the choice were to interrogate without torture or with:

(a) no torture

Complicated conversation tree, excessively complicated, with recursive bits, etc. You need to catch the prisoner in a lie, or otherwise unravel the truth from clues. THis is difficult and/or takes lots of time.

(b) with torture

Much quicker to results… but you don’t know if the intel is right. And it’s being wrong may actually cost you (send you into a trap, etc).

And on the subject of torture. Torture is good when you know that they are within an evil conspiracy.

How do you ‘know’ they are elements of a conspiracy? Because under said torture they or an alleged accomplice said so? How can you verify the authenticity of remarks made under duress? Torture MAY be used to discover some hidden knowledge which MAY be used to benefit the lives of threatened individuals, etc. However, it has been shown that humor, empathy, and cooperative exchanges have produced more accurate and useful intelligence towards the same purposes. Considering the existence of an alternative which provides superior results without moral ambiguity, why engage in torture, again?

Ah, yes…the morally dubious “we aren’t violating our principles because we outsourced the objectionable activity to someone who has no objections” loop hole.

In the overall, I have to agree that purposed reasoning and aesthetic considerations are the heart of the issue here, not the pure existence or non-existence of specific subject matter.

There’s a difference between teaching that “torture is fun”, “torture gets results”, and “torture rarely provides reliable intelligence and often leads to some kind of blow-back”.

Just as there is a difference between “Prostitutes give you more health” and “frivolous, casual sex often only provides a fleeting and ultimately disappointing experience to those seeking companionship”.

If the only reason it is there is for ‘shock value’ while you gain a buff or positive reinforcement of some kind, it has in no way added to my understanding of anything outside of the game world.

I think a big chunk of this revolves around our real-world experience with simulated activities, as well. We can see past killing things because we know in real life that +3 sword of sharpness will not be found on anyone’s real body. Torture, however, is something most people are not familiar with beyond “its bad”. Introducing new, completely inaccurate representations of torture to those with no grounding or understanding of it is a bit more dangerous.

DFG:

First, you’re dictating how a game should play. That’s a loser thing to do.

Raph: I am a game designer. That’s what I do for a living.

After quite a bit of collaboration I should hope… Doesn’t sound like it from your post; but considering that’s the way the industry works, I don’t need your word for it.

Second, you’re making a really dumb assertion in the face of years of experience… You don’t learn anything from games. You learn from real life!

Raph: I suspect I have both more years of experience on this, and more knowledge.

OK, enlighten me; gosh you almost sound like my older brother “I’m you’re elder so do as I say.” Bah! You suspect that you have more experience and knowledge, because you’re biased; but one thing is true, you have more years, and thus experiences I should hope. What could I have not experienced in my five years of playing video games, on the subject of learning from games, that you have learned in your whatever years? Show proof that people do learn behaviors from video games, instead of rabbiting on about your old age and wisdom. Note that I don’t throw cakes with rocks in them at people.

Torture is rewarding. That’s why it happens everyday in human relationships!

Raph: Eep.

Again, a lack of experience, or thought I suspect. Have you ever been tortured, not physically duh, (or at least I hope not), by a social, physical, whatever, partner that wanted something out of you? And when I said everyday it was like saying “Everyday, there is a car crash.” I hope you can figure that one out.

This post in an epic fail.

Raph: May I say the same about your comment? Yikes.

You sure can. But I’d like to see some elaboration. You’re merely saying wrong, wrong, and wrong. That doesn’t cut it, unless it’s your blog(oh can’t wait to see the reply to that particular statement. See it all the time, “It’s my blog, so there!” So there indeed…)

Nobody learns torture from video games. Virtual worlds are exactly like a cartoon; press a button, and some horrible thing probably occurs. Does it occur in the real world? Of course not. And the player knows this. Thanks for insulting the human race, yourself, and I.

And on the subject of torture. Torture is good when you know that they are within an evil conspiracy. In the case of Iraq, these men have not been tried in an oh I dunno super court or something; you know, one with a lot of jury members from all different backgrounds and classes. That gives a great amount of accuracy after evidence is presented publicly. Torture is wrong today because it hasn’t been done lawfully, nor with a fair, public trial that is known to have great accuracy. Torture gives good rewards, like useful information. But it must be lawful, and the law must be sane and within the interest of the public. Torture is not how you described it, and it doesn’t have to be implemented in the game the way you say it has to.

I didn’t say “accept torture” — I said “teach whether torture is evil.” Now, not everyone agrees torture is evil. But I happen to think that it is. My assertion is specifically that a game has a tough time teaching torture is evil via game mechanics. Game fiction may speak against it vehemently, but game mechanics will have trouble displaying why it is evil.

Does it matter whether people think torture is evil? I’m much more concerned about what people will tolerate, support, or do themselves. Thinking torture is evil is only useful as a motivator for refusing to tolerate, support or participate in torture.

Nevertheless, addressing evil specifically: it seems to me that “evil” is a moral judgment. Whether torture is evil lies not in the mechanics of torture, but in the emotions of it. Torture is evil not because it’s unreliable, but because it inflicts suffering upon a helpless victim.

The mechanics of torture suggest it’s unreliable, but not necessarily evil. For evil, you need emotions… or a narrative.

No, games with torture are not evil. Stop whining or we’re going to have laws saying that games with torture must always have a choice mechanism.

What if it’s an on-the-track game? Although you state that it must be dressed a certain way which on-the-track games do, so maybe that argument doesn’t work, except… “Can this be done better? Certainly. You surround it with well-executed fictional dressing about how what you are about to do is horrible, and then you continue on by decisively showing that the rewards you got were mostly useless. And then, the final boss would be getting tortured yourself, in an unwinnable scenario.” Now you’re acting like a loser and a dimwit…

First, you’re dictating how a game should play. That’s a loser thing to do.

Second, you’re making a really dumb assertion in the face of years of experience. Do I think life is all about shooting people up, the Hollywood kiss, and a dramatic sex scene to boot? Absolutely not. Do I rampage out in the streets dressed in a wife beater and boxer shorts after playing GTA? Nope. If I am given no choice in a game where my character performs torture, will I go out and perform it for rewards? Of course not! You don’t learn anything from games. You learn from real life! I hope you don’t learn from games, or I’ll have a 9mm at the ready when you’re around.

Torture is rewarding. That’s why it happens everyday in human relationships!

Anywho Physical torture is bad because you could do it to an innocent person; just as capital punishment is bad because you could do it to an innocent person. If we knew for sure that the person was in an evil conspiracy then we could torture our politicians lol. The point is, we don’t always know; that’s why we don’t torture our politicians.

This post in an epic fail.

That’s correct. One cannot say that they always do. However, one CAN say that they often do.

I agree, but that’s why it’s essential to figure out which models translate well from which games to which real life situations, and which don’t. I’m just not convinced that a game is more likely to teach players to accept torture than a movie, a novel, or a partisan editorial.

At worst, I think games that involve torture might help players explore their own brutal tendencies, just as young psychopaths will harm defenseless animals before doing the same to human beings.

We usually aren’t conscious of the mental models we are building.

That doesn’t mean mental models learned in games will carry over literally into other situations. Just because the models are unconscious doesn’t mean they are insensitive to context. Experimental findings obtained through research on virtual worlds don’t always agree with experimental findings obtained through direct exposure to their real-life analogues. So much for the idea that they are strictly equivalent.

Morgan, Raph already went over why in-game murder isn’t a part of this discussion.

If the mechanics of killing in games are at all associated with the formation of mental models, then why would in-game murder be irrelevant? Saying something is irrelevant is not enough to make it so.

Have you considered that perhaps the mental models players derive from games can be kept separate from mental models that concern the real world? Because… you know… players are smart?

There is also plenty of recent academic research on mental models causing real and permanent changes in cognitive skills.

The “real and permanent” part of your statement bugs me. It seems almost… political. Do you have any particular references in mind?

Ryan, there’s a huge reason why actually. It has to do with the fact that humans (as an aggregate anyway) are hard wired to form emotional connections with things based on certain criteria, and those emotional connections usually lead to a sense of wanting to protect those things. In the case of living things, undeserved misfortune, and an inability to protect oneself (needing to be protected) are strong movers in this regard. Children are almost universally seen as that sort of innocent person that needs protection. This makes it much harder for people to withstand seeing violence committed toward them than it does for them to see violence committed toward adults. We can rationalize away the adult circumstance much more easily. The adult character is seen more as an equal in terms of capability even if the gameplay has them much weaker than the player. No matter how incapable the adult is in being able to deal with a situation, there isn’t an inherent sense that they can’t take care of themselves. And it’s easier to create a scenario, even if that scenario has no basis in fact, by which they deserve what happens to them.

It’s very easy to see this play out in film and other areas. Mass deaths of generic adults is easily brushed off, but abuse against children draws a MUCH stronger negative response. Animals also tend to display special consideration for much the same reason. It’s easier to get upset when the loyal dog gets killed protecting it’s master than it is to see the aftermath of a bomb scene where there are a bunch of adult corpses.

Child rape is often seen as about the worst thing you can do to a child, regardless of what the law says about it. Children characters are easier to form bonds to simply on account of the fact that they’re children. And the violent activities in games rely on the ability for the player to emotionally disassociate from the characters they’re acting violent toward. Because children, and by extension children characters, cause stronger bonds more easily, violence portrayed against them is vastly less likely to be tolerated.

But when you get down to it, it has nothing to do with the moral questionability of the act. It has entirely to do with the emotional connection that there is toward the representation of a person that the act is being perpetrated on. The path you’re trying to go down there is pretty much a dead end.

It seems to me that the real question being asked here is “can you make a game about torture responsibly?” I mean, killing in games isn’t always handled responsibly, and this is worth remembering, but the point is that we understand what kinds of features can help reduce the problematic nature of making games about killing, whereas we don’t seem to have a very good understanding about how to unproblematize torture.

It may in fact be that we don’t want to unproblematize torture, but you can’t just declare “torture is problematic” and be done with it. The game mechanics speak as loudly as the fiction, and if they don’t agree, the player is liable to simply ignore any preaching from the game. For example, in Fallout 3, it sometimes gives me bad karma for looking at a dead person’s computer terminal, but as a player I see that this benefits me without causing harm to anyone, so the lesson I learn is that karma is trivial.