This study introduces the ludic ethics approach for understanding the moral deliberations of players of online multiplayer games. Informed by a constructivist paradigm that places players’ everyday ethical negotiations at the forefront of the analysis, this study utilises a novel set of game-related moral vignettes in a series of 20 in-depth interviews with players. Reflexive thematic analysis of these interviews produced four key themes by which participants considered the ethics of in-game actions: (1) game boundaries, (2) consequences for play, (3) player sensibilities, and (4) virtuality. These results support the conceptualisation of games as complex ethical sites in which players negotiate in-game ethics by referring extensively – although not exclusively – to a framework of ‘ludomorality’ that draws from the interpreted meanings associated with the ludic digital context.
AbidinC. (2013). ‘Cya IRL’: Researching digital communities online and offline. Limina: A Journal of Historical and Cultural Studies, 18(2), 1-17.
2.
AchterboschL.MillerC.VamplewP. (2013). Ganking, corpse camping and ninja looting from the perception of the MMORPG community: Acceptable behavior or unacceptable griefing? In Proceedings of the 9th Australasian conference on interactive entertainment: Matters of life and Death (pp. 1-8). New York, NY: ACM.
3.
AdinolfS.TurkayS. (2018). Toxic behaviors in Esports games: Player perceptions and coping strategies. In Proceedings of the 2018 annual symposium on computer-human interaction in play (pp. 365-372). New York, NY: ACM.
4.
BakioğluB. (2019). ‘Lore of mayhem: Griefers and the radical deployment of spatial storytelling’. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 11(3), 231-250.
BealeM.McKittrickM.RichardsD. (2016). “Good” grief: Subversion, praxis, and the unmasked ethics of griefing guides. Technical Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 191-201.
BosmanF. G. (2019). There is no solution!: “wicked problems” in digital games. Games and Culture, 14(5), 543-559.
10.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
11.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2019) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589-597.
12.
BraunV.ClarkeV.HayfieldN.TerryG. (2019). Thematic analysis. In LiamputtongP. (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences, (pp. 843-860). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
13.
CarterM. (2015). Massively multiplayer dark play: Treacherous play in EVE online. In MortensenT.LinderothJ.BrownA. M. L. (Eds.), The dark side of game play: Controversial issues in playful environments (pp. 191-209). New York: Routledge.
14.
CarterM. (2020). Valuing play in survivor: A constructionist approach to multiplayer games. Games and Culture, 15(4), 434–452.
15.
CarterM.AllisonF. (2018). Guilt in the zombie apocalypse. In JorgensenK.KarlsenF. (Eds.), Transgressive games aesthetics (pp. 134-152). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
CarterM.EglistonB. (2020). QuiVR and the reality of VR sexual harassment. In Ethical implications of emerging mixed reality technologies (p. 16). Socio-Tech Futures Lab and Department of Media and Communication, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney, Australia.
17.
CarterM.GibbsM.ArnoldM. (2015). The demarcation problem in multiplayer games: Boundary-work in EVE online’s eSport. Games Studies, 15(1). Retrieved fromhttp://gamestudies.org/1501/articles/carter
18.
ChesneyT.CoyneI.LoganB.MaddenN. (2009). Griefing in virtual worlds: Causes, casualties and coping strategies. Information Systems Journal, 19, 525-548.
19.
CliffordS.IyengarV.CabezaR.Sinnott-ArmstrongW. (2015). Moral foundations vignettes: A standardized stimulus database of scenarios based on moral foundations theory. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1178-1198.
20.
ConsalvoM. (2005). Rule sets, cheating, and magic circles: Studying games and ethics. International Review of Information Ethics, 4, 7-12.
21.
ConsalvoM. (2007). Cheating: Gaining advantage in videogames.MIT Press.
22.
ConsalvoM. (2012). Confronting toxic gamer culture: A challenge for feminist game studies scholars. Journal of Gender New Media and Technology, 1. doi:10.7264/N33X84KH
23.
ConsalvoM.BuschT.JongC. (2019). Playing a better me: How players rehearse their ethos via moral choices. Games and Culture, 14(3), 216-235.
24.
CoyneI.ChesneyT.LoganB.MaddenN. (2009). Griefing in a virtual community. Zeitschrift für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 217(4), 214-221.
DanaherJ. (2018). The law and ethics of virtual sexual assault. In BarfieldW.BlitzM. (Eds.), The law of virtual and augmented reality. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers.
DunnJ. (2012). Virtual worlds and moral evaluation. Ethics and Information Technology, 14, 255-265.
29.
EvansM. (2010). Murder, ransom, theft and grief: Understanding digital ethics in games. In RihaD. (Ed.), Videogame cultures and the future of interactive entertainment (pp. 81-89). Oxford, UK: Inter-Disciplinary Press.
30.
FloresA.JamesC. (2012). Morality and ethics behind the screen: Young people’s perspectives on digital life. New Media and Society, 15(6), 834-852.
31.
FrissenV.LammesS.de LangeM.de MulJ.RaessensJ. (Eds.). (2015). Playful identities: The ludification of digital media cultures. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
32.
GibbsM.CarterM.ArnoldM.NansenB. (2013). Serenity now bombs a World of Warcraft funeral: Negotiating the morality, reality and taste of online gaming practices. In Selected papers of internet research, Denver, USA, Association of Internet Researchers (AoIR).
33.
HaidtJ.BjorklundF.MurphyS. (2000). Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reason(Unpublished manuscript). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
HeronM.BelfordP. (2014). ‘It's only a game’ - ethics, empathy and identification in game morality systems. The Computer Games Journal, 3(1), 34-53.
36.
HodgesD.BuckleyO. (2018). Deconstructing who you play: Character choice in online gaming. Entertainment Computing, 27, 170-178.
37.
HuffC.JohnsonD. G.MillerK. (2003). Virtual harms and real responsibility. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 22(2), 12-19.
38.
HughesR.HubyM. (2004). The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 11(1), 36-51.
39.
KandemirA.BuddR. (2018). Using vignettes to explore reality and values with young people. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 19(2), 1-16.
40.
KhazaalY., van SingerM., ChattonA.AchabS.ZullinoD.RothenS., … ThorensG. (2014). Does self-selection affect samples’ representativeness in online surveys? An investigation in online video game research. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 16(7), e164.
41.
KlimmtC.SchmidH.NosperA.HartmannT.VordererP. (2006). How players manage moral concerns to make video game violence enjoyable. Communications, 31, 309-328.
42.
KwakH.BlackburnJ.HanS. (2015). Exploring cyberbullying and other toxic behavior in team competition online games. In Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 3739-3748). New York, NY: ACM.
43.
LuckM. (2009). Crashing a virtual funeral: Morality in MMORPGs. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 7(4), 280-285.
44.
MahC. L.TaylorE.HoangS.CookB. (2014). Using vignettes to tap into moral reasoning in public health policy: Practical advice and design principles from a study on food advertising to children. American Journal of Public Health, 104(10), 1826-1832.
45.
MalazitaJ. W.JenkinsA. (2017). Digital games and moral packaging: The impacts of in-game decisions on public pedagogical deliberation. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 9(1), 3-20.
46.
MeadesA. F. (2013). Infectious pleasures: Ethnographic perspectives on the production and use of illicit videogame modifications on the call of duty franchise. Journal of Gaming & Virtual Worlds, 5(1), 59-76.
MyersB (2017). “Friends with benefits: Plausible optimism and the practice of teabagging in video games”. Games and Culture, 14(7-8), 763-780. doi:10.1177/1555412017732855
50.
NetoJ. A. M.YokoyamaK. M.BeckerK. (2017). Studying toxic behavior influence and player chat in an online video game. In Proceedings of the international conference on web intelligence 2017 (pp. 26-33), New York, NY: ACM.
51.
NguyenC. T. (2017). Philosophy of games. Philosophy Compass, 12, 1-18.
52.
NguyenC. T.ZagalJ. P. (2016). Good violence, bad violence: The ethics of competition in multiplayer games. In Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference of DiGRA and FDG (pp. 1-16). Dundee, Scotland: Digital Games Research Association and Society for the Advancement of the Science of Digital Games.
53.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
54.
PowersT. M. (2003). Real wrongs in virtual communities. Ethics and Information Technology, 5, 191-198.
55.
RubinV. L.CammS. C. (2013). Deception in video games: Examining varieties of griefing. Online Information Review, 37(3), 369-387.
56.
RyanM.FormosaP.TullochR. (2019). Playing around with morality: Introducing the special issue on “morality play”. Games and Culture, 14(4), 299-305.
57.
RylandH. (2019). Getting away with murder: Why virtual murder in MMORPGs can be wrong on Kantian grounds. Ethics and Information Technology, 21, 105-115. doi:10.1007/s10676-019-09498-y
58.
ShawA. (2011). Do you identify as a gamer? Gender, race, sexuality, and gamer identity. New Media & Society, 14(1), 28-44.
59.
ShoresK.HeY.SwanenburgK. L.KrautR.RiedlJ. (2014). The identification of deviance and its impact on retention in a multiplayer game. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing (pp. 1356-1365). New York, NY, ACM.
60.
SicartM. (2009a). The banality of simulated evil: Designing ethical gameplay. Ethics and Information Technology, 11, 191-202.
61.
SicartM. (2009b). The ethics of computer games.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62.
SicartM. (2013). Moral dilemmas in computer games. Design Issues, 29(3), 28-37.
63.
SparrowL. A.AntonellosM.GibbsM.ArnoldM. (2020). ‘From “Silly” to “Scumbag”: Reddit discussion of a case of groping in a virtual reality game’. In Proceedings of the 2020 DiGRA international conference: Play everywhere. The Digital Games Research Association. Retrieved from http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/DiGRA_2020_paper_272.pdf
64.
SparrowL. A.GibbsM.ArnoldM. (2019). Apathetic villagers and the trolls who love them: Player amorality in online multiplayer games. In Proceedings of the 31st Australian conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 447-451). New York, NY: ACM.
65.
StrikwerdaL. (2012). Theft of virtual items in online multiplayer computer games: An ontological and moral analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 14, 89-97.
66.
StrikwerdaL. (2015). Present and future instances of virtual rape in light of three categories of legal philosophical theories on rape. Philosophy & Technology, 28, 491-510.
67.
StrimlingP.FreyS. (2018). Emergent cultural differences in online communities’ norms of fairness. Games and Culture, 15, 394-410.
68.
TalwarV.Gomez-GaribelloC.ShariffS. (2014). Adolescents' moral evaluations and ratings of cyberbullying: The effect of veracity and intentionality behind the event. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 122-128.
69.
TurkleS. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the internet. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
70.
WallerV.FarquharsonK.DempseyD. (2016). Qualitative social research: Contemporary methods for the digital age. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.
71.
WolfendaleJ. (2007). My avatar, my self: Virtual harm and attachment. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 111-119.
WoodsS. (2007). Playing with an other: Ethics in the magic circle. Cybertext Yearbook 2007: Ludology, 1-26.
74.
YeeN. (2014). The Proteus Paradox: How online game and virtual worlds change us – and how they don’t. New Haven, CT & London, UK: Yale University Press.
