Community Soapbox: The fine line between Sociopath and Hero in gaming

Skyrim

By on March 21, 2013 at 4:49 pm

Welcome back to another Community Soapbox article! If you’ve got something you’d like to say to our community, check here for more information about how to get your thoughts up in lights.

***

Among the many and often odd things I think about, there is one thing that creeps into my mind particularly when playing video games. There I am, living out the adventures of a heroic character who is designed to be looked at with awe and appreciation, and I find myself wondering — why? What is the motivation?

Not my own. That’s an easy one to answer — I want some explosions, bullets, swords, and general mayhem. For me, that’s fun. Because I can easily identify that what I am doing isn’t real, not in the slightest. It means nothing in the scheme of reality, and is merely escapist entertainment of the most benign kind — some might argue this, but it’s merely my personal interpretation of the matter.

No, I’m wondering about the character I’m playing. For this character, nothing could possibly be further from the truth. Success or failure, life or death, depends on their actions, with me living vicariously through them.

But why do they do it? Why does Master Chief never stop fighting? Why does Nathan Drake hilariously grab folks by the belt to hurl them to their death from cliff edges? Why does the Dovahkiin fight against Alduin, when he arguably could just get on a horse and leave while giving the collective jerks of Skyrim the finger over one shoulder? Why does Jackie Estacado flat out murder everything that has the bad fortune to get even slightly near him, or simply be on the same planet?

The inevitable and most simplistic response is that it is because they are ‘The Hero.’ But what does that even mean?

It’s a word that gets thrown around a lot, and often inaccurately. But to be a hero of the ‘good guy’ variety is to be a selfless individual who puts their own life on the line to save another, directly or indirectly, broadly speaking. But can you still be a hero and kill people?

There are many variant responses to that. Does the killing of another person directly save the lives of others who are otherwise innocent? Is it done without cruelty? Then, broadly speaking again, it would still apply. But that isn’t ‘really’ the case in many, if not most, of the videogames that we play.

A perfect example is Uncharted, a game I love to bits. Nathan Drake is a neck snapping, grenade lobbing, wisecracking murder machine that for some reason we view as a roguish good guy with a funny sense of humour. He also leaves a trail of bodies behind him a mile wide, and while he often ends up saving the day, and choosing to save others as he encounters them and their problems, his primary motivation is inescapable. He’s a thief, first and foremost, and he will, and does, kill people to steal things. And it doesn’t affect him in the slightest. He makes jokes about it. In a game, this is fine. It adds much needed brevity and enjoyment. But in real life, this is vile.

One thing that never seems to affect the hero is the awful weight of their actions. Killing another person isn’t something most people can deal with easily, and a lot of people die because of the actions of game characters. It is often to save their own life, yes, but in the real world, people are heavily affected by taking the lives of others. It’s a big, big reason so many people suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the armed services. It is very, very difficult to put that level of conscious or subconscious guilt and shame aside.

Some people don’t have that problem, however. Those people are called sociopaths.

The relationship between a classic sociopath and a video game character is startling. They are not affected by taking the lives of others, and indeed, may find it amusing or titillating. Sometimes it is because they are clearly an ‘anti-hero’ like Jackie Estacado, the eviscerating demonic mob boss in The Darkness series. Or Death and War, from Darksiders. These are not nice people. They are far aligned from what most people would call ‘good’ – death and bloodshed either don’t affect them or it actually excites them, they feel no guilt for their actions, and are primarily motivated by the desires of the self.

And it is at that point that everything gets all jumbled up. A sociopath and a hero both might kill their enemies or even people just in the way. But the hero does it to save someone else and the sociopath does it because they are out only for themselves. But in videogames, we get a lot of heroes who are unaffected by death, like a sociopath, and yet fight for others, like a hero. If they really were a true sociopath, they wouldn’t be even motivated for something like that. Their actions are, in truth, altruistic, but we don’t exactly know why yet. Why they behave, feel, or act in these ways. If they can be altruistic, they can feel compassion and empathy, but if they feel those, why do they feel nothing for the dead they’ve left behind them? Why do we never hear those inner thoughts?

There is a school of thought that says all actions are intrinsically selfish – that because we feel good about something, no matter how selfless it might appear, it ultimately becomes self serving. This, however, does not work with a sociopath. The sociopath doesn’t form attachments to people, and doesn’t hold others above themselves. The material matters more than the emotional.

So it all gets kind of murky. Heroes in games exhibit heavily sociopathic traits that tend to be ones that should exclude their heroic traits, but don’t. In this case, game heroes are like comic book super heroes – caricatures, an impossibility rather than any sort of accurate depiction. A real hero feels the weight of their actions, the pain of the cost they have to pay, but knows they have to do it anyway, and regrets that they had no other choice. And in most games, you don’t ever see that. Sometimes, you get a horrible glimpse in the other direction, like Far Cry 3. Sometimes, you get an equally awful glimpse of what happens when characters do feel the weight of their actions, like in Spec Ops: The Line, which drove its characters insane with their guilt and horror.

And then, sometimes, you get surprising levels of nuance, like Halo 4.

I bet that threw you a little bit, and it did to me too. Master Chief is one of the more stoic soldier types. A true hero? At first, I thought it was difficult to say. He does things because of his training, and because he is ordered to, and because it was how he was raised – and so he could survive the brutality of the Spartan soldier creation he was forced to endure. He doesn’t think of alternatives except in terms of combat and survival. He fights a never ending war because it is all he knows, like a robot, and not because he ‘wants’ to, but because it is what he does. Less of a hero, more of an instrument, or device.

At least, that’s what I thought until Halo 4 came along, and threw that demeaning theory completely on its head. At least, for me.

I never thought Master Chief was affected by the things he has dealt with. He was a badass! The carnage didn’t touch him, this machine that was almost a man. And then, in a couple of cutscenes, that was all pulled apart.

The first showed Master Chief sitting alone, staring at his hands, looking completely… lost. Far from a powerful soldier, he looked tired. Despairing the fact that he knew what was about to come and that he could do nothing but wade into it headlong. He is just about to meet Cortana for the first time, however, and with that, everything will change. The second scene, however, was years later, when Cortana reveals her imminent death due to rampancy.

Most people didn’t read the scene like I did, but for me, it was harrowing. Have you seen it? In particular, have you seen Chief’s reaction? It’s hard to read because of the helmet, but the body language speaks in terrible volumes.

In a flat, sharp voice, he rejects the inevitable. ‘No,’ he says, then outlines an insane plane to find help for his friend. It’s impossible, but he doesn’t care about that. He keeps going on even as Cortana sorrowfully tells him he won’t win this one. But it’s not a logical response. It’s the denial of a child, hidden behind military mannerisms that have been ingrained into him by decades of discipline, conditioning and training.

It was then that I realised something that, for all that it was about a fictional character, both horrified me and instilled a touch of awe. That despite all the training, all the hardening, and the sheer professionalism of John 117, there is, still inside, a six year old little boy who was taken from his home and never allowed to grow up. Let that sink in for a moment. Remember what you were like when you were six.

To think of that child, of all that it had seen, done, and been forced to endure, and then struggled to hide from itself, and then see it about to lose the only friend he’d known, and the terrible awful weight of something as horrible as that imminent loss hanging over Chief’s head very nearly broke me.

Let’s get something straight here. Chief owes the UNSC nor humanity in general absolutely nothing. They took him from his home, unlawfully, and made him into a weapon without his permission. He was never given a choice in the matter, and he never asked to be a soldier, he was simply told to be one. And he knows this. And yet, despite that, he still tries. He still fights, for a humanity that will both not fight for him, and who turned a blind eye when he was stolen away, and even now think it might be easier if he just vanished away so their guilty secret will be erased. And Halo 4 is not even about that, not at its core.

This is the first game in the series where the big picture is honestly secondary. It is, in fact, about two friends, closer than lovers despite never having touched and with no hope of doing so, who are trying to keep the one they care most about alive through impossible odds. And in the end, knowing that they have no choice, one gives their all for the other. You can argue it is to save the world, but I believe different. In this game, the personal story, not the world picture, is what matters, and with it, the greater heroism lies. It’s not heroism based on numbers, on saving the greater or lesser amount of people. It’s about doing what’s right, about giving up your own life not to save the greater or lesser amount, but to give everything you can, including your own life, to make sure that not even one dies aside from yourself. And most of all, it is done for love.

Sure, it would be no fun if all our game heroes became wishy washy emo types weeping over the things we’ve made them do as we controlled them. By the same token, though, I am so very, very tired of seeing ‘the good guy’ drown the world in blood and make a wisecrack afterwards that makes them seem so very, very charming.

To think of how incredibly difficult it is for Chief to feel anything is far outweighed by the horror of the realisation that he does feel something. And if he does, then the weight of his loneliness, of his incalculable grief at the price he has paid and is fully aware of is too horrible to contemplate.

And yet, he continues on, and he will continue on, until he dies. Not because he has to, but because he knows he must, and that if he does not, others will perish because of his failure. But he does it knowing there is no reward waiting for him, no respite. All he will get for his trouble is pain upon pain. And he does it anyway, not for revenge, or for gain, but because he should. For a man made machine, the depth of his humanity is staggering.

In Mass Effect, this trend continues. By the end of Mass Effect’s third iteration, Shepard is a man (or woman) dying by inches. The burden of billions of lives in the balance and the guilt of billions of lives already lost weigh on them horribly. Not even their dreams are safe from the knowledge of their failures. And they face distrust, rejection and outright mockery at almost every turn throughout the journey. But does they stop? Do they, hell. They fight on, and finally, they too must choose just how great a sacrifice they wish to make.

In the end, I think that this depth, this pain, is what makes a good game potentially a great game. Sure, it would be no fun if all our game heroes became wishy washy emo types weeping over the things we’ve made them do as we controlled them. By the same token, though, I am so very, very tired of seeing ‘the good guy’ drown the world in blood and make a wisecrack afterwards that makes them seem so very, very charming. Likewise, I’m tired of trying to figure out why an amoral psychopathic bas—tard would give up or risk their life for the sake of others without really showing ‘why’ they’d do such a thing.

Being a hero is NOT an easy thing. It has a price that must be paid, and all too often, one that simply cannot be shared to alleviate it. Having a strong moral compass and the courage to act on it is an awful burden, and many games choose to overlook it. And they shouldn’t. It is, sometimes, so much harder to do the right thing, than do the easy thing, and a character that can show that emotional struggle is something that is hard to find in games. It’s what elevates what is merely a protagonist to being a hero, and brings with it the greater emotional catharsis. It can also be what makes a good game a great one, and an enduring one – not always, but it helps. I just wish the balance could be a ‘little’ more realistic at times – so that we don’t get stereotypes, or characters in our games – but people. That would be something to see.

23 comments (Leave your own)

Your interpretation of Halo 4 was better than the way the game itself presented it, I think.

 
Deserteagle1266

i dont agree with the ” if you kill someone and dont get PTSD your a psychopath…. really? i mean… really?

 

deserteagle1266,

I didn’t say that, but I can see how it can be interpreted that way. I’m saying that it causes a lot of PTSD, which can be more or less severe in the individual. Sometimes it doesn’t affect a person much at all, but consciously or subconsciously, it has an effect. Someone who doesn’t feel -anything- when they kill someone is a sociopath.

 
MuscularTeeth

Books and stories always have had the crazy hero.
I’m thinking particularly of Homers Iliad and Achilles.
He is a “hero” but also just totally insane and reckless towards all life – not only his enemies. The only one he cares for is his buddy/boyfriend Patroclus – and he uses his death to justify his actions; despite already showing he was more than capable of being a mindless death machine.

So yes, i just think its timeless and not restricted to games.

 

deserteagle1266:
i dont agree with the ” if you kill someone and dont get PTSD your a psychopath…. really? i mean… really?

Go kill someone and let us know how you feel. :P

 
Deserteagle1266

aetius: Go kill someone and let us know how you feel. :P

Haha wellll. But honestly. If someone had my family etc hostage, and I could pull the trigger and kill the person threatening them. I would. No questions asked. No hesitation. Does that make me a sociopath? ;) or say if I was in the army or some scenario. Say a bunch or people are shooting at me as I’m walking along say patrolling. I’ll pump back no questions asked

Ok I re-read that bit and I see what you wrote. It does kinda push that it says everyone but yeah I get you. Don’t know if I full agree. But ok.

 

deserteagle1266,

The army scenario is quite a telling one. The family threatening one too. But if you felt nothing for shooting the hostage taker, it’d be troubling. Relief that your family is safe? Not so much. And quite clearly, with the army scenario, a lot of people DO get traumatised by it. Otherwise PTSD wouldn’t be recognised as it originally was, as it primarily came from cases of soldiers returning from combat.

 

I’m currently playing through Mass Effect, with Shepard always, ALWAYS being an arsehole in every single dialogue option. It’s hilarious.

 
Deserteagle1266

Nemesis_22:
deserteagle1266,

The army scenario is quite a telling one.The family threatening one too.But if you felt nothing for shooting the hostage taker, it’d be troubling.Relief that your family is safe?Not so much.And quite clearly, with the army scenario, a lot of people DO get traumatised by it.Otherwise PTSD wouldn’t be recognised as it originally was, as it primarily came from cases of soldiers returning from combat.

Yeah I know it’s a big problem spesh in te army. I just don’t think I’d be troubled by it personally. (Well I guess everyone says that haha). With te hostage. I’d think, it’s him or me(/family) and its not like he didn’t hAve a choice to some extent (let’s say someone strapped a bomb to someone by force. I feel different about that. But the choice I make will always be me/family first, rather than some stranger who come in threatening.

 

Nemesis_22:
I didn’t say that, but I can see how it can be interpreted that way. I’m saying that it causes a lot of PTSD, which can be more or less severe in the individual. Sometimes it doesn’t affect a person much at all, but consciously or subconsciously, it has an effect. Someone who doesn’t feel -anything- when they kill someone is a sociopath.

Or just really really in touch with reality, our society is hardly based in reality. Killing is not the problem, our societies take on how the world really is is the problem.

 

nekosan,

Yeah, I’m just going to say, someone saying stuff like that scares the hell out of me.

 

If you sincerely outright hate the person or people you kill then you will feel that killing them was justified. You won’t have any huge moral qualms later on in life when you look back on the situation. WWII is a pretty good example of this.

BUT just because you did not feel remorse does not necessarily mean that you will not suffer from PTSD on a subconscious level. For example, a soldier who survived a firefight may, upon hearing or seeing things that remind him of that conflict, temporarily suffer physically and/or mentally (anxiety, shakes, sweat, higher blood pressure etc.).

I’m sure that many returned soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan who were involved in conflict suffer from some PTSD upon seeing certain people in society who resemble the people they were fighting.

 

Nemesis_22:
Yeah, I’m just going to say, someone saying stuff like that scares the hell out of me.

Why? A well adjusted person has zero inclination to kill someone for no reason and it’s almost guaranteed that killing when required without a second thought is partially responsible for your existence.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with killing if there’s sufficient reason for it, the backwards tendency of our society to bombard us with the notion that violence is wrong is part of the reason we have such bad PTSD these days. The reality of the world doesn’t sit particularly well with the subconscious we develop.

 

nekosan,

When the alternative is saying violence is good and should be encouraged so that the people prepared to use it think its okay…

Yeah. No, not going to agree with even in the slightest there. Violent behaviour being encouraged creates a violent society, where the law of the strong becomes paramount. Its what thugs and brutes use to prove they are right instead of words and logic. Its what people used to do in ages past, using trial by combat instead logic. If you think a society based on violence being approved of is okay, I cannot tell you how insane that is, or how bloody the consequence of it would be. Its complete madness.

 

PTSD is a bit of a side issue here and is heavily reliant on the mental fortitude of the person in question. Some can shrug off the killing of others when justified, others cannot no matter how justified. Those who can shrug it off may have sociopathic tendancies, or just have the mental strength to cope with the consequences of their actions.

As for the Protagonist of the games, this is something I am loving to play around with in my own mods and game designs ;)

 

” I just wish the balance could be a ‘little’ more realistic at times – so that we don’t get stereotypes, or characters in our games – but people. That would be something to see.” It’s been done, just not as a FPS.

Try Episode 3 of Walking Dead again, how do you feel when you have to make the call about one of the kids? Personally I saw it as the best option and for all and did it myself but I still ‘felt’ it and to this day think about it still. Throw that into your discussion.

It is all about the story to me and that was one of the only times I have truly felt myself to be divided in a game. All other instances were just a way to get to the next mission, I don’t feel that makes me a sociopath…

 
NoobyMcNoobnoob

Been awhile since i played this (still have completed it) but considering that Spartans were made as super solider gestapo to suppress the people, they are only look on at awe cause humanity found itself losing a war with the convenant, if you look at chief i believe he still has a withdrawn headdown do whatever hes told child mentality. i dont believe he truly knows whats at stake and he is just parroting what others have said about the war and the state of things. I think the only reason he keeps fighting is that its all he knows, all he is good at, for him i think war is a security blanket, he doesnt have to feel or think as long as cortina is there to point him on the way. Being that she gives him direction in what is his life you see his shell start to crack when he finds out she is degrading as without her to point him to the next battleground he will lose his self-worth and reason for being.

Been awhile since i played it but I like the reactions of the father in heavy rain when he is told to kill the other person on heavy rain, you see him trying to pyche him self up for it, trying to put things into perspective in his mind in order to save his son from the killer. and then when it comes to do the deed the shit hits the fan drama style. and you can choose whats gonna happen and see the weight of it hit the father for either killing another person or possible condemning his remaining child to death.

one day ill learn proper sentence structure and readability,
but not today.

 

Man, this is heavy…

Just going on about the hero that kills everything to save the world not being a hero. I think Arcanum: Of Steamworks & Magick Obscura had a nice way of dodging that bullet. One of the few RPGs that allowed you to be ultra-ultra bad ass, so that the devil himself was pissing his pants, or be holier than the big G-man himself by letting finish the game and reach level cap without killing a soul, using fatigue damaging weapons to knock them out…. just dont be there when that Half-orge wakes up and notices you’ve taken his rag pants.

Im sure there are others… BUT THEY AIN’T AS GOOD!!! :P

 

Lara Croft in the new Tomb Raider had to kill in order to survive. Even to the first animal she killed she muttered apology from regretful expression. So I think as a hero(ine) she definitely started(at least) as a non-sociopath.

However only these days we can see more and more games depicting these similar cutscenes/experiences. Games like heavy rain, Fahrenheit (to name one of the earlier), Far Cry 3 (only the 1st 10 minute hahah) etc.

In the beginning of games players were killing monsters, blocks of objects, blocky planes/ships etc. Then it started showing animal(duck) shooting, people punching (which bodies blink until they disappear).

The heroes on these games were either non visible or blocky faces or another object. The games were made to be fun, and the most serious of games were descendant from movies or books. If you remember action movies tend to be about revenge (father killed, dojo burned, dogs stolen!?) etc. The heroes lacking empathy for their enemies due to these background story. Therefore the earlier games were too.

Furthermore.. from the technology standpoint it was just not viable or practical to project these emotions into the games and to try to translate it for the players. Sometimes it is just not the objective of the game which is supposed to focus on the fun factor. So these heroes’ feelings get left out…. save for the emotional narratives or dialogue tidbits in some games. But at that time that’s about as far as you can do…with texts. Trying for grab the player’s emotion was just not very effective.

Nowadays with the more advanced stuffs they can. I’d call these changes as a step up, an evolution in the delivery of games which now includes the consideration of the player’s emotion… Through the hero/heroine’s actions/experiences.

More times though, the games developers still get so caught up with the old ways…. like old school they just make games as they know how to. It still works anyway as games are meant to be played and playing are meant to be fun, so even simple games like angry birds with angry looking but adorable birds doing suicide smackdowns can still be successful. As do high end shooter games like call of duty which multiplayer is all about you as the hero killing your human opponent.

It’s all about gameplay and atmosphere in these cases. If for example nathan drake would prefer not to kill all his enemies and would just disable them all then there would be no funny cliff pushing or ledge pulling moments in the game and a giggle afterwards and thus the atmosphere of the game would be different. Similarly with indiana jones movie, if no one dies in a funny way in that movie then he might as well just play macgyver.

I think it’s about the end result’s focus whether its heroes are focused on fun or for the story/experience/emotion. The game creators in this case has the power as they are the one who would portray the hero in one way or the other.

So I’m glad that developers technologically and mentally challenge themselves by making emotionally affected heroes these days (though they themselves are only human and can only deliver and simulate real life experiences/emotions to an extent and on their own viewpoints – so might not agree with everyone) and I hope to see more to come as I can also enjoy and have fun with these kind of games which play and pull players’ emotion into the game/heroes.

And from those heroes lacking empathy after killing their victims… just enjoy, learn and take their positive sides… they’re not perfect too like us :). For example, I know I learned how to not take things too seriously when something bad happens now… thanks to the hero of uncharted series :)

 
MagicFoozlePixxie

**claps slowly**

Brilliant article, easily the best soapbox I’ve read so far.

 
Leave a comment

You can use the following bbCode
[i], [b], [img], [quote], [url href="http://www.google.com/"]Google[/url]

Leave a Reply

PC Gaming Calendar 2014

Follow Games.on.net

YouTube

Steam Group

Upcoming Games

Community Soapbox

Recent Features
Wasteland 2

Wasteland 2 made me fall in love with turn-based RPGs

This Kickstarter-powered old-school RPG delivers in unexpected ways.

Destiny

Destiny is a Very Good Shooting Game, but in 2014, I want more

James comes away from Destiny impressed, but feeling like Bungie could have done a lot more.

Civilization: Beyond Earth

Sudden price rises for games just make everybody mad – so why do publishers keep doing it?

Pictured: Australians fighting against The Gigantic Price-Gouge Claw.

The Sims 4

The Sims 4 SteelSeries giveaway! Four prize packs up for grabs

Get your hands on some sim-ply excellent gear.

Streaming Radio
Radio Streams are restricted to iiNet group customers.

GreenManGaming MREC

Facebook Like Box