Hit It With Your Second-Best Shot.

In the past few years, scales of morality have become a common feature of games. If you do things the developers have arbitrarily decided are 'bad' you get Renegade / Dark Side / Way of the Closed Fist / Whatever points. If you do something 'good' you get points for the opposite side of the spectrum. Of course, a system like this doesn't allow for a lot of subtlety. And it all falls apart at one single point - almost any game requires you, no matter your skill or outlook, to kill.

Now this doesn't sit right with me. Now, I'm all for tearing the arms off something and beating it to death with the wet end, but what about the player who, for a challenge or own personal perspective, want to actually play a straight-up good guy? What does being forced to kill mean for them? You could argue about post-modernism and ideological perspective all you want, but on the whole, killing is considered a 'bad thing'. And yet players are inevitably forced to kill for their character's cause. The kill may be for moral purposes (such as the defence of one or another's life) but it's a kill nonetheless.

Some games allow you the diplomatic option. But in most games this is poorly implemented, and equates to endless trial-and-error dialogue trees. And even then, it often means avoiding the enemy, thus negating the experience, shinies and training that killing it would provide. The more advanced diplomacy options often boil down to the character talking someone else into killing for them. And then that's still blood on the player's hands, if not only by association. And let's not forget the final point - diplomacy is boring. There, I said it. I'm sure some players get their kicks reading endless pages of dialogue and memorising obscure (or either painfully stereotypical) personality traits, history and quirks about the character they're trying to talk to. I do, in certain situations. But given the choice, the average player would much prefer physical over intellectual action. Hitting something with your +2 Maiming Sword of Face-Melting is much more direct, simple, and easier than rolling endless Charisma and Intellect checks.

Now, how do we solve this problem? Well, allowing the diplomatic option is always a good idea, even if it is rarely used (and rarely used well) Knights of the Old Republic 2 had an interesting battle towards the end that included an interesting mix of combat and diplomacy (turn away now if you're still trying to complete it) Basically, during the battle against Darth Sion, it would pause for a conversation once and a while, giving you the chance to talk down your opponent and attack him verbally / psychologically, weakening him physically. In fact, it was the only way to kill him in the end - convince him that he was already dead.

What if we were to apply a 'Dialogue' option alongside the traditional Attack, Magic, Item, etcetera options that accompany many RPGs? This would allow players to attack their opponents psychologically rather than just killing them. The options would range from outright threats and and taunts, to more subtle appeals to the target's character and belief system. And, of course, outright pleading and bribery. This option has been seen in quite a few games, usually falling under a type of Magic or a particular skill-set available to the Bard-like classes. The problem with this system, of course, is that most verbal attacks in games are geared towards de-buffing the target or causing them to flee the battlefield (and thus taking all their experience and items with them)

Moving on, the Metal Gear Solid games had an interesting system - essentially, it boiled down to the simple addition of an additional HP bar, only called Stamina. Normal, lethal attacks would drain the regular HP whilst (and correct me if I'm wrong) melee attacks and tranquilliser guns would drain the Stamina bar. If HP reached zero, the target would die. If Stamina fell to zero, then the target would be unconscious and remain that way for the rest of the game (effectively dying in terms of game effects, but easing the player's assuredly tortured psyche) This seems like an elegant, simple solution to me. It allows the player to physically attack the target, and receive the items and experience from defeating them, but it doesn't involve killing to remove the target from play. Depending on how this system is implemented, it could involve simply selecting Attack -> Non-Lethal or simple inventory management on the part of the player.

Expanding on the idea of dealing 'Non-Lethal Damage (NLD)', what benefits would it have for the player who doesn't care that they're killing? If we take the NLD as a means to render the target unconscious, then perhaps the closer it is to this state, the less effective it fights back, going through various stages of being dazed, confused, and disorientated. Perhaps the target needs a certain level of Stamina to use a particularly heavy or dangerous weapon or attack. This then means we see the NLD as a form of de-buff, which provides an incentive for the player to use even if they're planning to kill the target. Punch it in the head until it doesn't know what it's doing, and then slice off its arms.

Dealing NLD would always be an option for the player, but what about for your party members? We've all played RPGs where a party member was aghast at the thought of killing, yet would always capitulate to your commands to kill, kill, KILL! By making an NPC deal only NLD, we have a character that actually doesn't want to or like killing, but can still deal offensive (and useful) damage in combat. Simple, useful, and still in-character for the NPC. Conversely, bloodthirsty characters may suffer penalties for dealing NLD (such as reduced effectiveness, reduced accuracy, or even dealing standard - although reduced - lethal damage in addition) if given the option at all.

But what about the Pacifist player? One who refuses to raise a single finger against an opponent, even in the defence of their own life, even if given the non-lethal damage option? Now, I would never suggest making a game where the player serves as nothing more than a good-natured punching bag between load screens, but it's an interesting question to ask when designing. How would a player who doesn't want to attack get past this monster / obstacle / boss? Can they talk their way out of it? Stealth around it? Manipulate events earlier in the game so that the situation never arises?

So what are your ideas on implementing non-lethal gameplay?