The author of Dogs in the Vineyard just posted this on his blog:

Designing Philosophical Arguments

Ry asks:

How do you take a philosophical argument that's very, very important to you and express it in a game - without being pedantic?

(like you did with compassionate and uncertain vs. judgmental and certain in Dogs)

Well, wow. Mostly I fail!

I want to say that I don't try to design games that way, but it's not true. All the time I'm writing things in my notebook like "so, Vincent, compassionate vs judgmental, right? How?" But it turns out that when I approach a design that way, nothing ever comes of it. Ever! It's not fruitful for me.

When it works, it works because I ignore the philosophical argument and design the realities of the situation instead. What circumstances can a character find herself in, what can she do, and what can come of it?

At least, that's how it seems to me this afternoon. What do you think? It's a good topic - do you want to ask or say more?