"If I am to choose between one evil and another..." Graded absolutism and the Witcher III

“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I am to choose between one evil and another, I'd rather not choose at all.” 

First appearing in Andrzej Sapkowski’s The Last Wish, these words appear to introduce the central rhetoric of the Witcher franchise in the third game’s first cinematic trailer – rejecting the idea of graded absolutism in favor of a libertarian approach to classical ethical dilemmas. 

Every moment of gameplay and in-game narrative after that, however, serves to critique, deconstruct, and counter this rhetoric.

The idea of choices and consequences has always been a staple of games and the Witcher 3 is not remarkable for having them. It is, however, noteworthy for the ways in which the choices are presented. Instead of the choices having discrete right or wrong outcomes, the Witcher III thrives on moral ambiguity – with all potential outcomes being morally defensible to a point. However, what really elevates the design of these decisions is the fact that the consequences are partially hidden from the players until they’ve progressed further. This has the effect of not only making the choices feel more real, but also of deemphasizing the power fantasy of having absolute control over a narrative.

This deemphasis takes away some player agency, but also proves that doing so can be sometimes beneficial to the overall experience. The moral ambiguity of choices and the limited agency over the outcome of these choices often see well-meaning players accidentally committing atrocities that they would have avoided had they seen them coming.  A sense of uncertainty grips the players and puts them in an interesting position.

With every choice having potentially unforeseen negative consequences, the player has no purely “good” options to pick. If a player were to completely disregard graded absolutism in the Witcher III, as implied by the opening narration, they would have to walk away from every single decision presented in-game without exception However, from both a gameplay and narrative standpoint, not making a choice at all is established as the least interesting possible outcome.

On the gameplay side of things, not making choices in a choice-driven RPG leaves the world stagnant. No progress is made. No development happens. The game remains in a state of purgatory unable to move at its intended pace because of an artificial player induced chronological blockage. Very few things break immersion this fast or this completely. Without making choices the player ceases to play the Witcher 3 - opting instead to wander a world stuck in a never-ending war where dying soldiers will remain in a state of constantly dying while their savior callously walks by uncaring.

From a narrative standpoint, indecisiveness is criticized even more harshly. The war between Redania and the Nilfgaardian Empire is of paramount importance to the setting of the Witcher III. Yet, it is one that does not need the player’s input to resolve itself – much like most real wars. With one side of the war being a foreign, imperialistic aggressor, and the other side being led by a xenophobic, witch-burning, bigot, it seems that this is one of those ethical dilemmas that Geralt would be encouraged to walk away from. While getting involved in the conflict may lead to several different outcomes, some of them decidedly worse than others, not doing anything ultimately leads to the worst possible scenario. And the game goes out of its way to call players out on it. A completely apathetic Geralt has to witness his friends being led off and impaled to death gruesomely, all because he decided to value his version of moral absolutism more so than the “greater evil” he could have prevented. This is not framed as an outcome “equally as bad” as some of the other ones. No, it is stated quite bluntly that, by choosing not to act, Geralt fucked up.

To get the better outcomes, the player must engage with the “lesser evil”. Sure, the Nilfgaardian Empire is a brutal conqueror responsible for hundreds of deaths. But when compared to an enemy that is decidedly genocidal and unyielding (with a significantly higher chance of winning), siding with the Empire becomes the best possible choice. The game reminds you that, even as you side with the Nilfgaardians, the Empire is still a generally evil entity. However, the toleration of this entity leads to a much better outcome than the player would have gotten had they chosen to obstinately stick to their moral high ground.

To summarize, the actual rhetoric of The Witcher III is a complete rejection of the “Taking a Third Option” trope that a lot of other choice based mediums glorify. Not making a choice isn’t a magical “gotcha” card that lets someone avoid the responsibility of making a tough decision. It is a choice in and of itself. And I only hope that more people in real life would be able to see it as such.

Dawn of Discovery: The mechanics of diversity

“Why do we need diversity in our games?”

In an ideal world, I wouldn’t have to answer that question. It should be self-evident why making our games more inclusive raises their quality. It should be apparent how the involvement of marginalized peoples broadens our horizons and creates newer, more interesting narratives. However, we do not live in an ideal world.

Dawn of Discovery, or Anno 1404 as it’s known outside America – that is one of the best answers I can provide to that question.  It’s a game that doesn’t just use diversity as an overarching theme. It translates diversity into gameplay mechanics.

The core idea of any city building game is simple – construct a settlement and grow it into a metropolis. The Anno franchise is no different in that respect. Dawn of Discovery’s own take on the classic formula involves the addition of a cross-cultural balancing act. To succeed in game, players must create, expand, and balance the needs of both a Christian and a Muslim city simultaneously.

 Initially, the player is put in charge of a Christian, European island settlement and tasked with meeting their people’s needs. Meeting these needs early game is a fairly simple process – merely requiring the player to build the correct structures. As the game progresses and the townspeople become more affluent however, their wants and needs become more extravagant. Further progression requires players to ally with their Muslim, Middle-Eastern neighbors and create a second major city. This second settlement isn’t merely a colonialist resource pit to be exploited for the benefit of the player’s initial European settlement – it is a completely distinct, independent entity which requires just as much player investment to function. More important than the depth of the Middle-Eastern city, however, is its distinctness.

Creating resource supply chains is a staple of many city building games and Dawn of Discovery is no different. The distinctness of the Middle Eastern city, based on real life cultural and religious differences from European civilizations, adds an interesting layer of complexity to DoD’s take on supply chains. A great example of this complexity in action is the primary thirst meter of your cities’ inhabitants. In your initial European settlement this meter is lowered by distributing alcohol amongs your citizens. It would have been a simple to have your Middle Eastern citizens behave similarly. However, as many might know, alcohol is a taboo in the Islamic world – having your obviously Muslim townspeople openly engaging in drunken revelry like their Christian counterparts would have been rather historically inaccurate. An easy solution to this problem might have been simply renaming the various alcohols to something more universally acceptable like water. Related Designs Software (currently known as Blue Bytes Mainz), however, took a different approach. Alcohol remained as the primary thirst quencher in the European settlements. However, the thirst meter of the player’s Middle Eastern citizens could only be lowered using milk.

Because of how interconnected supply chains are in an Anno title, mutually exclusive primary resources like alcohol and milk make for interesting logistics puzzles. The level of interdependency between the two different cities required for both to progress also compound the puzzle and enable players to make some truly interesting choices for the sake of progression.

This is just one of the many interesting mechanics that make Dawn of Discovery stand out amidst other city builders. Most of these mechanics wouldn’t exist in game if it weren’t for diversity. At a time when most major titles were content with simply portraying Muslims as terrorists to be shot or bigots to be scorned, Dawn of Discovery approached its subject matter with respectful understanding and in doing so facilitated the creation of unique mechanics.

It is very likely that I am overselling the degree of interdependency between the two cultures in game. It is equally as likely that some of the mechanics I am fawning over have unfortunate colonialist implications. Regardless, the game at least appears to handle Islam thoughtfully and that too in 2009. It’s been almost a decade since and I have yet to play a game that does something similar.