Best Alignment or Morality Systems?

[AMFV]

Howdy folks! I know that many people aren't fond of in game alignment (honor, morality, whatever) systems, and that's totally cool. My question is: Out of the folks who have enjoyed these kind of systems, which ones have you liked the most, which do you feel gave the most depth and had the best results in game. I've seen how a few systems handle these sort of things, and I'm interested in other people's experiences.

[Geddy2112]

I like the virtue/vice system from Vampire: The Masquerade and all other White Wolf games. I think Changeling: The Lost got it best-they are not incredibly important to the game, but are clearly defined, and have mechanical impacts for roleplaying.

I think the D&D style alignment is lacking, but I don't find it all that horrible.

[LibraryOgre]

Palladium's alignment system has the advantage of clarity... it's pretty clear as to the usual behavior of someone under the various alignments, and roughly maps to AD&D alignments.

[RedMage125]

I've never had an issue with D&D alignment in 3.x, 4e or 5e. 2e and prior had some oddball definitions of certain alignments that made some (True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral) unplayable, but 3e fixed that.

4e's linear LG-G-U-E-CE scale was simple, almost too simple, but it didn't create any problems.

5e seems to be back to the 9-alignment grid, with the addition of Unaligned to distinguish between creatures that are genuinely TN and those without moral agency.

[Red Fel]

Ironclaw has a Motto system. Your character has a personal creed or motto, a simple statement of highest principles, such as "Justice in all things," "Protect the weak," or - one of my personal favorites for how much you could mess with it - "Me first." At the end of a session, you can earn bonus experience based upon your compliance with your personal motto. Your motto can also change over the course of a campaign, as your character evolves or changes.

... And that's it. No other fancy mechanics, no smiting or honor or elaborate what-not. You give an explicit (if brief) statement of your moral code, and get a little bonus if you comport with it.

Ordinarily, I dislike giving mechanical rewards for RP. In this case, however, the system is explicitly designed for that. What's more, I like the idea of a personal code being personal, instead of objective.

[Grim Portent]

While not really a morality/honour system as such, I'm quite fond of Black Crusade's alignment system.

It determines how closely aligned to the methods of each of the four gods of chaos you are based on the number of advances you have tied to their alignment, with it being cheaper to buy further advances related to the god you're already aligned to and more to buy advances from their enemies, as a way to emulate the spiral of corruption and loss of sanity as it becomes easier to become powerful by becoming one with your god's methods and concepts than to try and maintain your individuality or cleave to a new deity.

[8BitNinja]

I find Fallout's Karma system a pretty good one to use, my morality system for my game is based off of it

[Knaight]

I'm generally not fond of alignment systems. With that said, Pendragon aims to do something very specific and it's Virtues/Vices sytem works beautifully for that. Burning Wheels Belief-Instinct-Trait system also has some similarities, and is pretty good.

[Susano-wo]

Palladium's alignment system has the advantage of clarity... it's pretty clear as to the usual behavior of someone under the various alignments, and roughly maps to AD&D alignments.

Yeah, except you get into some real arbitrary "this character will/won't do X or Y" issues, as well as being pretty explicitly a scale from good to bad. I've always thought the Palladium alignment system rather odd

[Ashtagon]

I prefer not to try to define alignment on the traditional morality-ethics axes of D&D (i.e., LG, CG, etc.). Instead, I prefer to define alignment as one or more loyalties to external powers or organisations.

That changes the question from "What is Good?" Philosophers have been asking that for millennia and are still debating it with no conclusion in sight. As such, players will come to the table with their own interpretations of each of the four cornerstone alignments.

Instead, by defining alignment as loyalty to one or more external powers, it becomes a question of "Wanna join my gang?" This has the added bonus of allowing for shades of grey morality, and for gods of evil faking out being good on a grand scale.

[8BitNinja]

First, in order to make an alignment system, you must decide that morality is objective, not subjective

because your world can have no alignments if morality is not absolute

[Florian]

I'm generally not fond of alignment systems. With that said, Pendragon aims to do something very specific and it's Virtues/Vices sytem works beautifully for that. Burning Wheels Belief-Instinct-Trait system also has some similarities, and is pretty good.

I second both, Pendragon and Burning Wheel. Yes, they are very setting specific, but they do showcase how it can be done right then.

[AceOfFools]

First, in order to make an alignment system, you must decide that morality is objective, not subjective

because your world can have no alignments if morality is not absolute
Not true.

You can define impacts of a character's morals, and then allow players to define their characters moral framework.

My favorite morality systems is probably found in FATE.

FATE requires you to define 7 "Aspects" for your character, which can be anything that is true about them (e.g. "Big Fricking Hipster", "Thou Shalt Not Kill"). Whenever your aspects disadvantages you, you're given a fate point. For example, if meeting a fashion-conscious potential NPC ally, you might get a fate point on "Big Fricking Hipster" to have that NPC immediately hate you.

Characters (PCs or NPCs) can also give you one of their fate points to compel a certain action. E.g. a villain might use "Thous Shall Not Kill" to compel a PC to spare their wicked life (spending one of their fate points). A character an resist these compels for something important, but it costs you one of their already accumalted fate points.

Since fate points have a number of very important uses, you are heavily rewarded for sticking to your morals when inconvient, but those morals are entirely under your control.

Further, nothing requires players to define morally relevant aspects if they don't want the advantages of doing so.

[1of3]

In D&D, the triplets of commandments for the gods in the 4e PHB. They are neither good nor bad, but open to interpretation. They are simple to remember and clear. Interesting and playable.

Songs in Nobilis have the same format.

[unglitteringold]

Real Talk? I like the Law v Chaos, Evil v Good from D&D.
What I do is use alignments for my NPCs and places to give them an idea of what the "norm" is, but by no means do I think alignments should be hard and fast rules.
The D&D alignment system is good for when a player needs a tie breaker on a decision, or it can be a good tool for showing character growth/development (#Belkar).

I think how one uses the alignment/morality system is more important than what they system is.

[Milo v3]

The Subjective Morality rules from Pathfinder are rather cool, and make things like outsiders and paladins much more interesting in my opinion.

[neonchameleon]

The best morality systems are always temptation systems - set up what you stand against, then give you benefits for doing bad things. It's another example of GURPS alcholism vs Fate Alcoholism.

In GURPS you get bonus points for being an alcoholic and then have to make control rolls not to drink. A GURPS alcoholic is normally in a 12 step program and for best mechanical effect never walks into a bar. A Fate alcoholic on the other hand gets a fate point whenever they take a compel. And so are normally found at the end of a bar ordering jusht one more drink. I can handle the sweet sweet fate pointsh. Which makes the more interesting character to play?

So WoD's morality system that penalises you for sliding is far worse than the Urban Shadows (http://www.magpiegames.com/our-games/urban-shadows/) one - in which you get a temporary hit of extra power for embracing your dark side (although there are consequences). The mechanical incentive is to fall.

Also the Alignment Grid is terrible because no one knows what it means. This is because it's two separate alignment systems stuck together with little thought. The oD&D alignment system was one of Law vs Chaos. You were on the fringes (hence Keep on the Borderlands). The impersonal force of law was that of civilisation, of order, and of both slavery and nine-to-five drudgery. The impersonal force of chaos was that of nature, red in tooth and claw. Of freedom, and of no running water or books. Of individual might makes right. And the Neutrals were trying to either get along or create a space between the two inhuman forces where people could live - but had a lot less metaphysical backing and were more likely to get ground between the wheels. Neither Law nor Chaos were good or evil - both had aspects of both. The 4e alignment system on the other hand is the other half of this - good (with everyone supporting each other and working together with teamwork) vs evil (trampling enemies under your bootheel) - with two extras that didn't fit; Lawful Good Don Quixote (I refuse to accept this world as it is and will give my life to help create a better one) and Chaotic Evil just wanting to watch the world burn (hence the defection of the Succubi who want to control people from demons who want to watch the world burn to devils who want to enslave people).

[Florian]

So WoD's morality system that penalises you for sliding is far worse than the Urban Shadows (http://www.magpiegames.com/our-games/urban-shadows/) one - in which you get a temporary hit of extra power for embracing your dark side (although there are consequences). The mechanical incentive is to fall.

What edition of the WoD are we talking about here? Personally, I find the shift from VtM 1st to later editions, especially V:DA and V20 interesting, as the Path mechanic (and therefore the Fall) seems to have changed drastically. In 1st, the Fall was inevitable and it was only a matter when it happens. For me, that was an important and fun aspect of the game, which was lost when WW commenced on fan service and rebuild it so that it was actually near impossible to fall when you chose the path that fits your play style (Me and Path of Kings? No chance to lose a single point. Ever.)

[Fri]

I like Legend of the Wulin's virtues, where they're not exactly alignments as in good, evil, law, or chaos, but more things like, Honor, Benevolence, Force, Obsession, Vengeance, Bravery and whatnot. None of those are really good or evil, though they're separated into "selfish" and "chivalrous." So chivalrous villain with high honor can absolutely exist alongside chivalrous hero with high honor. And how it work is, at the end of a session, other players/the gm give other players token for scenes in that session that they think showcase that virtue. For example, your character letting a defeated enemy go might feel really benevolent, so another player give you a token for that. And that token give you bonus advancement points for your character among other things. The higher your particular virtue, the more bonus it will give when you get a token. So for example, someone who gives his character high benevolence virtue will try to play out his benevolence and try to make a scene that show his benevolence more, to get more bonus for it, but he can also play out other virtues if he want, he'll just not get as much bonus for it.

[8BitNinja]

My all new morality system

The line

sure, you can commit evil actions and still be good, after all, no one is perfect, but after you cross the line, you are evil

don't cross the line

[AMFV]

The best morality systems are always temptation systems - set up what you stand against, then give you benefits for doing bad things. It's another example of GURPS alcholism vs Fate Alcoholism.

That's certainly one way. Although I would say that when that happens I prefer the Dark Side/Light Side dichotomy. Meaning that there are short term advantages for falling, but you experience rapidly diminishing returns. Since being morally upright is typically much more difficult, it pays out more, but is less advantageous in the short term. SW d20 used a system like this, and there are probably better examples as well.



In GURPS you get bonus points for being an alcoholic and then have to make control rolls not to drink. A GURPS alcoholic is normally in a 12 step program and for best mechanical effect never walks into a bar. A Fate alcoholic on the other hand gets a fate point whenever they take a compel. And so are normally found at the end of a bar ordering jusht one more drink. I can handle the sweet sweet fate pointsh. Which makes the more interesting character to play?

Both of them make fundamentally different characters to play, both could be more or less interesting. If I'm playing an alcoholic, having them always slide into alcoholism is somewhat frustrating, and could be depressing. Any system that rewards you for continuously falling into temptation is going to have a lot of people treading the line between as far as you can fall and maintain whatever you have. So for example in VtR you have a whole bunch of Humanity 3 vampires, because mechanically that's advantageous, and it causes less stress when you have to do bad things. There are also few mechanical advantages to being Good in that system. I would argue that there should be a balance.


So WoD's morality system that penalises you for sliding is far worse than the Urban Shadows (http://www.magpiegames.com/our-games/urban-shadows/) one - in which you get a temporary hit of extra power for embracing your dark side (although there are consequences). The mechanical incentive is to fall.

Which creates a pretty different system... If you're playing a game where you're trying to avoid sliding down the slippery slope, and you're trying to hold on to that last shred of humanity, then you should be penalized for falling. Since that's moving in the wrong direction, just like you'd get less experience for a failed encounter. If falling is just an option then it shouldn't be penalized. It's a different stylistic thing.



Also the Alignment Grid is terrible because no one knows what it means. This is because it's two separate alignment systems stuck together with little thought. The oD&D alignment system was one of Law vs Chaos. You were on the fringes (hence Keep on the Borderlands). The impersonal force of law was that of civilisation, of order, and of both slavery and nine-to-five drudgery. The impersonal force of chaos was that of nature, red in tooth and claw. Of freedom, and of no running water or books. Of individual might makes right. And the Neutrals were trying to either get along or create a space between the two inhuman forces where people could live - but had a lot less metaphysical backing and were more likely to get ground between the wheels. Neither Law nor Chaos were good or evil - both had aspects of both. The 4e alignment system on the other hand is the other half of this - good (with everyone supporting each other and working together with teamwork) vs evil (trampling enemies under your bootheel) - with two extras that didn't fit; Lawful Good Don Quixote (I refuse to accept this world as it is and will give my life to help create a better one) and Chaotic Evil just wanting to watch the world burn (hence the defection of the Succubi who want to control people from demons who want to watch the world burn to devils who want to enslave people).

Lots of people know what it means, very few of them agree on it though.


I like Legend of the Wulin's virtues, where they're not exactly alignments as in good, evil, law, or chaos, but more things like, Honor, Benevolence, Force, Obsession, Vengeance, Bravery and whatnot. None of those are really good or evil, though they're separated into "selfish" and "chivalrous." So chivalrous villain with high honor can absolutely exist alongside chivalrous hero with high honor. And how it work is, at the end of a session, other players/the gm give other players token for scenes in that session that they think showcase that virtue. For example, your character letting a defeated enemy go might feel really benevolent, so another player give you a token for that. And that token give you bonus advancement points for your character among other things. The higher your particular virtue, the more bonus it will give when you get a token. So for example, someone who gives his character high benevolence virtue will try to play out his benevolence and try to make a scene that show his benevolence more, to get more bonus for it, but he can also play out other virtues if he want, he'll just not get as much bonus for it.

Are they ever in conflict? The virtues? Does it include potential virtues that might be anathema to each other as potential virtues. Like Self-Sacrificing Altruism, or Self-Actualization (that's not the best semantics there), but it'll have to do.


My all new morality system

The line

sure, you can commit evil actions and still be good, after all, no one is perfect, but after you cross the line, you are evil

don't cross the line

What is the line?


First, in order to make an alignment system, you must decide that morality is objective, not subjective

because your world can have no alignments if morality is not absolute

I disagree, we've seen both sides. Subjective systems tend to be codes or systems or mottos. Which is interesting, objective tend to fall into larger swathes that often aren't exactly codified. It's pretty neat-o to look at.


The Subjective Morality rules from Pathfinder are rather cool, and make things like outsiders and paladins much more interesting in my opinion.

How does this change them? That does sound interesting. Does it add new morality stuff? (I'll probably go and read them myself, when I'm more timely and stuff), but I'm interested in your experiences more than what I could glean from reading it.

[8BitNinja]

Some people seem to have a thing against good and evil

why?

[AMFV]

Some people seem to have a thing against good and evil

why?

I think the problem is that in Real Life not everybody agrees on what is good and evil. So when you're playing with real people, you are liable to have similar disagreements and those can be some pretty unpleasant arguments.

[8BitNinja]

I think the problem is that in Real Life not everybody agrees on what is good and evil. So when you're playing with real people, you are liable to have similar disagreements and those can be some pretty unpleasant arguments.

I see now, thanks

[AMFV]

I see now, thanks

So again; where do you draw the line between Good and Evil in a game? What would make somebody Evil?

[goto124]

Call the 'Evil' and 'Good' sides something else, so that people don't get upset when they spot something in the 'Good' side that they consider evil, or vice versa.

[Florian]

Some people seem to have a thing against good and evil

why?

Honestly? Most of the time, people seem to don´t want to think about ethics and morality at all, preferring to think of themselves as the good guys and blend out all the rest.
If discussions come up in a game (or other environment), that position would be challenged and the result pretty nasty.

Think about it: How many people do you know that declare themselves to be "good guys" or "good (insert religion here)", a claim that´ll become a joke under close scrutiny.


So again; where do you draw the line between Good and Evil in a game? What would make somebody Evil?

There´s no blanket answer to that. That´ll be based on your cultural upbringing and religious socialization. I´ll say that the answer will really wary used on the country you are from.

[AMFV]

There´s no blanket answer to that. That´ll be based on your cultural upbringing and religious socialization. I´ll say that the answer will really wary used on the country you are from.

Well I was asking 8BitNinja specifically since he made a specific reference to the line, rather than a general question. I was interested to see where he draws that line. Although where other people do too might be interesting (provided that they use a hard line between good and evil). I suspect that Hard Line Moral Event Horizons, aren't particularly common.


Call the 'Evil' and 'Good' sides something else, so that people don't get upset when they spot something in the 'Good' side that they consider evil, or vice versa.

Many systems do that, and it can be pretty interesting. I've even been thinking about alternate alignment axis for D&D, although I've not got enough thought to bring that out. I may post something about that later though.

[Florian]

Well I was asking 8BitNinja specifically since he made a specific reference to the line, rather than a general question. I was interested to see where he draws that line. Although where other people do too might be interesting (provided that they use a hard line between good and evil). I suspect that Hard Line Moral Event Horizons, aren't particularly common.

Interestingly enough, there´s been a census on top crimes/sins by country at the beginning of this year (Not crimes committed, but how people rank those things). For some countries, "being a traitor to the country" has been crime/sin No.1, but not even making it into the ranking for other countries. The same holds true for stuff like "disregarding human rights" or "breaking the geneva conventions".

I this that this showcases two things:
- There is a line in the sand, but where it is drawn will depend on your cultural background
- Without understanding the diverse cultural backgrounds, topics such as this will lead to circle discussions

[AMFV]

Interestingly enough, there´s been a census on top crimes/sins by country at the beginning of this year (Not crimes committed, but how people rank those things). For some countries, "being a traitor to the country" has been crime/sin No.1, but not even making it into the ranking for other countries. The same holds true for stuff like "disregarding human rights" or "breaking the geneva conventions".

I this that this showcases two things:
- There is a line in the sand, but where it is drawn will depend on your cultural background
- Without understanding the diverse cultural backgrounds, topics such as this will lead to circle discussions

There isn't always a firm line in the sand. And asking somebody where they draw theirs is a way to learn about their cultural background. What things do they think makes a person evil is an entirely relevant discussion to have in terms of alignment. Particularly if they said that they have a specific line. I'm interested to see what 8Bit's line is, because that's an interesting topic, and it's relevant. I realize that it may not match anyone elses', but since he mentioned it as being a part of his alignment systems in-game, it is relevant to the conversation.

[Fri]

Are they ever in conflict? The virtues? Does it include potential virtues that might be anathema to each other as potential virtues. Like Self-Sacrificing Altruism, or Self-Actualization (that's not the best semantics there), but it'll have to do.



I believe so, I'm pretty sure some virtues antagonize each others (something like, respect to superiors vs personal freedom or whatever) but you won't be able to ask me for details, since it's been quite a while since I played it.

[Florian]

There isn't always a firm line in the sand. And asking somebody where they draw theirs is a way to learn about their cultural background. What things do they think makes a person evil is an entirely relevant discussion to have in terms of alignment. Particularly if they said that they have a specific line. I'm interested to see what 8Bit's line is, because that's an interesting topic, and it's relevant. I realize that it may not match anyone elses', but since he mentioned it as being a part of his alignment systems in-game, it is relevant to the conversation.

Until 8Bit answers, I´ll give you my line I use when gm´ing games with pronounced good and evil:

- The end justifies the means
- Eye for an eye
- My country, right or wrong
- A lesser evil for a greater good

[8BitNinja]

I'm sorry I took to long to answer guys, I replied in the morning right before finals

The line would be drawn here

> Murder
> Theft
> Summoning Demons or other evil rituals
> Torture
> Rape
> Destruction of another's property

The list could go on and on, but this kind of stuff

The Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness for D&D are some good ones to look at

It may just be like this to me on here, but I see morality in black and white

[LordFluffy]

I was a big fan of the Marvel Superhero (FASERIP) Karma system. You get points for doing good stuff. You lose points for doing bad stuff. You lose all your points if you kill someone.

It enforced the comic book style of play very well.

[Milo v3]

How does this change them?
It's that you list what three things your character is most loyal to, evil/chaotic/lawful spells are replaced by the good versions of the spell, good spells affect creatures that have a loyalty opposed to your own, paladins smite things opposed to their loyalities, and a few other small things here and there.


That does sound interesting. Does it add new morality stuff? (I'll probably go and read them myself, when I'm more timely and stuff), but I'm interested in your experiences more than what I could glean from reading it.
I find it rather cool mainly because it means that outsiders, clerics, gods, and paladins are no longer tied to any sort of innate morality. You have to think of why outsiders exist and what they do, rather than them just being "I'm made of lawful evil souls" you have to make a flavour for devils, this also leads to the planes being more flavourful in general. You can have different factions for a single god, each following forms of ethics and morality, but all having their god as a loyalty. You can have paladins working with antipaladins, since neither is innately right or wrong, and depending on their loyalties you might have something like Smite Terrorist. Someone could believe that undead are evil, and use holy spells to sense undead, but another could believe that worshippers of their gods enemy are evil, and use holy spells to sense the heretics in a community.

[Waddacku]

Both of them make fundamentally different characters to play, both could be more or less interesting. If I'm playing an alcoholic, having them always slide into alcoholism is somewhat frustrating, and could be depressing. Any system that rewards you for continuously falling into temptation is going to have a lot of people treading the line between as far as you can fall and maintain whatever you have. So for example in VtR you have a whole bunch of Humanity 3 vampires, because mechanically that's advantageous, and it causes less stress when you have to do bad things. There are also few mechanical advantages to being Good in that system. I would argue that there should be a balance.
There's a few points to address here, regarding the Fate approach. Fate doesn't have "falling" by default. It has a system that rewards you when, as a player, you let your character be inconvenienced by traits that you yourself provided in your description of them. If you don't want to play a character who keeps falling prey to their drinking habit, be a recovering (or attempting to) alcoholic instead and get compelled to avoid bars instead. If you get tired of the kinds of scenes that keep happening because of your aspect, start changing it to a different aspect. That's the core of Fate character development.

Just wanted to clear up perceived misconceptions. Fate doesn't have a morality system, it has an active characters-hindered-by-their-flaws-get-bonuses-elsewhere system.

[goto124]

Fate doesn't have a morality system, it has an active characters-hindered-by-their-flaws-get-bonuses-elsewhere system.

That's awesome for me, who has a fear of crippling myself and the entire group with my flaws. As far as I'm concerned, my RL flaws already carry into the game, I don't need to intentionally create flaws that end up feeling really artificial, stupid, and completely avoidable anyway.

I frequently break character just to keep the game running, whether it's "my character would normally do X, but X is very disruptive and no one would like it so my character doesn't do it" or "my character would normally avoid doing Y, but I can't think of any action to perform in this situation other than Y, so my character will do Y to keep the game going".

[Florian]

That's awesome for me, who has a fear of crippling myself and the entire group with my flaws. As far as I'm concerned, my RL flaws already carry into the game, I don't need to intentionally create flaws that end up feeling really artificial, stupid, and completely avoidable anyway.

I frequently break character just to keep the game running, whether it's "my character would normally do X, but X is very disruptive and no one would like it so my character doesn't do it" or "my character would normally avoid doing Y, but I can't think of any action to perform in this situation other than Y, so my character will do Y to keep the game going".

Flaw is a bit of the wrong word concerning Fate Core. You have a set of Aspects that describe something very important about the core of your character and defines the concepts it is build on.
Those aspects should be short and precise sentences that can be used for or against your character in equal measure as they are what your character is.

"Bruce Wayne by day, Batman by night" could be triggered by you "My conviction is strong and helps me overcome this moral challenge" or against you "Say, seeing this, doesn´t your sense of justice trigger?"

[GolemsVoice]

I like Fallout: New Vegas' way of seperating Karma (how does the ordinary citizen see you) and Reputation (how does a certain group view you). This way, killing somebody unprovoked might only net you a small Karma penalty, but a big reputation penalty (or a bonus, or both) depending on which faction the guy belonged to. The average citizen likely doesn't care about some random NCR soldier getting bumped of, the NCR cares a lot, though.

[RickAllison]

I actually like the grid system of D&D. The way I see it is the defining of extremes (Good: helps others especially at risk to oneself; Evil: helps self especially at risk to others) and allowing the character's actions to fit them in. How the character views themselves could be totally different, or they can perform contrary actions to further long-term goals. One character concept I want to do is a charismatic LE who masquerades as an LG hero of some sort while setting himself up to be a tyrannical lord within the law. He acts Good because this path leads him to his end-goal the fastest. Although I suppose he could also be an LN, depending on just how tyrannical he envisions himself, and what actions go on behind the scenes.

Alternatively, as was pointed out in another thread, you can use it to represent anti-heroes like the Punisher, who probably fits NE because of his actions, while believing his reason is sound and acting on behalf of the side of Good. The key to using the grid is the acceptance of the extremes and that how a character perceives their actions and how their actions are can be totally separate, and that sometimes those of an opposing alignment are still supporting happiness.

[Joe the Rat]

First off, Alignments. My favorite alignments are the ones that represent cosmological ideals you support, and possibly model in your behavior. Order vs Chaos (or Law vs Chaos) being the big one.

Of course, cosmic ideals intersect with behavior in interesting ways. It's like trying to live your life according to the principles of the weak nuclear force:

Keep it together
Don't mess with things outside your particle
2 up, 1 down: Keeping it positive.

But when you come down to it, it's picking teams. Don Blas or Arioch? Vorlons or Shadows? Less Filling or Tastes Great? In this regard, the Factions from Planescape are a fantastic alignment system. When Good and Evil are material properties of the setting, you really need to hang your hat on something else. What is Evil? The stuff of a Pit Fiend's farts, and what the Grey Wastes are made of. Sell you some for 10 stingers. What is the point of it all? Now you have a question, and a belief system, and a team.

Morality. To me, the best systems are the ones tied to the themes of the game. This is about upholding your values, not what team you're on.
L5R is big on Honor. It affects how others respond to you, and the quality of your soul, sort of.
Pendragon had a laundry list of virtue / "something opposite that virtue" pairs. Some could certainly be called vices, but some are simply a different value.
The Paths from Vampire: How hard do you work, how far will you go, to retain your sense of being Human, or accepting the Beast within you. Or something different. Chivalry was an option from Dark Ages. It was hard to fill up the bar, but as you slid down, you really had to eff it up to drop those last few points... but you're less worried about the little things...
Call of Cthulhu: What? Yep. You are in a struggle between the rational mind, and the madness of the awareness of the universe. Your body is fleeting, and may get left behind at some point. Your mind is you, and your best weapon. How much are you willing to risk to understand? It has all the hallmarks of a morality slider: unplayable at 0, difficult to maintain, lots of incentive to burn it for an edge defeating the mind-bending nasties that are waiting to destroy the world (or hadn't noticed they were doing it). Now trade sanity for humanity. How much of a monster are you willing to become, to fight the monsters?

Frankly, I prefer the ones that have Motivations: Why are you doing what you are doing? It could be to uphold a philosophy, or to live in a certain way, or to make up for a previous wrong, or simply doing it for the giggles. MEGS (DC Heroes, Blood of Heroes) Assumes you are on the side of good, evil, or Warner Brothers reboots, so let's talk about why you run around in your underwear punching bank-robbing dinosaurs. Or robbing banks in your underwear. We're not here to judge. FATE can cover this ground as well, and make it mechanically relevant, through Aspects.

[Shame]

http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html This one looks really cool.

[Malistrae]

I really liked Dark Ages: Vampire's Road system. Unlike Masquerade (which treats " modern Western" morality as objectively true for everyone, and alterante morality systems as something deviant, unnatural and difficult to enter), being on a Road that is not Humanitas is perfectly acceptable. And besides the fact that there are many Roads, each has several Paths within it. This allows you to really customize your character's morality.

I hated Masquerade's obsession with Humanity, since it forced you to follow a certain morality or fall to the Beast. And as I mentioned, the Paths of Enlightenment were really difficult to get into (especially for Camarilla PCs). By contrast, in Dark Ages: Vampire, I can pick a morality that perfectly fits my character concept and I don't have to act in OOC ways to preserve my character's mind.

Besides, Dark Ages is far more logical. In RL, morality is subjective and there are many different ways you can keep yourself principled. Being a goody-two-shoes is just one of the many options, not the only one.

If we have to go by specifics, my favorites are the Via Peccati (the Road of Sin) in general, Path of Cruelty, Path of the Tyrant, Path of the Merchant, Path of Divinity and the Road of Metamorphosis.

[Airk]

Not true.

You can define impacts of a character's morals, and then allow players to define their characters moral framework.


Doesn't really work. Basically no one THINKS they are evil. So everyone is "Good" by that metric. :P


Some people seem to have a thing against good and evil

why?

Well, there's the problem that very few people think of themselves as "evil" so if you categorize entire races/cultures whatever as Evil, you start to get into weird stereotyping/free will questions if you think about it too hard.

I prefer systems with Goals or Beliefs rather than "Alignments" or "Moralities". In no small part because I feel like the former has all the advantages of the latter (Mostly: As a guide to character behavior) without any of the nasty hitches.

[Milo v3]

Doesn't really work. Basically no one THINKS they are evil. So everyone is "Good" by that metric. :P

Weirdly I know three people who believe themselves evil.

[AMFV]

Doesn't really work. Basically no one THINKS they are evil. So everyone is "Good" by that metric. :P

Well to be fair we don't have objectively demonstrable good and evil in our world (or at least provable to a sufficient value that it's unquestioned). You certainly have people who voluntarily reject a previously or culturally accepted moral framework.



Well, there's the problem that very few people think of themselves as "evil" so if you categorize entire races/cultures whatever as Evil, you start to get into weird stereotyping/free will questions if you think about it too hard.

There aren't really many systems since the late 80s that characterize entire races as evil. Or at least that have no exceptions for free will.

[Airk]

There aren't really many systems since the late 80s that characterize entire races as evil. Or at least that have no exceptions for free will.

Unless we count every edition of D&D? ("Humanoid monsters")

And curiously, that just about covers every game I'm aware of that actually has an "alignment" system too.

[AMFV]

Unless we count every edition of D&D? ("Humanoid monsters")

And curiously, that just about covers every game I'm aware of that actually has an "alignment" system too.

Those all have very conspicuous exceptions. Which indicates that species wide alignment is not a strict rule. Hell 3.5 has at least one WoTC written succubus who becomes LG.

Anything after Drizzt doesn't have all races are a specific alignment.

[goto124]

Hell 3.5 has at least one WoTC written succubus who becomes LG.

I've seen people flip tables over this. After all, demons/devils (which one do succubi fall under argghhh) are supposed to be made of literal Evil! So how the heck did one become Good? It would make sense if the succubus got touched by a Good angel or something, but otherwise?

My take on Always Evil races: They’re essentially highly advanced AIs, coded to do nothing but Evil. They can do a lot of the complex thinking required to seduce people, plan & strategize attacks against the Good side, etc. However, since they’re literally made of Evil, their thinking cannot change in morality or otherwise go beyond their Evilness. They can hide their Evil for as long as their smart and complex plans require it, but they will never, ever gain the ability to feel sympathy or whatever else needed to do Good.

Could Always Good races work in a similar way?

[Milo v3]

I've seen people flip tables over this. After all, demons/devils (which one do succubi fall under argghhh) are supposed to be made of literal Evil! So how the heck did one become Good? It would make sense if the succubus got touched by a Good angel or something, but otherwise?
Succubi are sometimes demons and sometimes devils depending on the edition of D&D (Demons in 3.5e but Devils in 4e iirc). But for good demons and stuff, just remember, Angels can fall in tonnes of media. There's not really any reason why creatures made of literal Good would have a special vulnerability that creatures made of literal Evil doesn't mirror in a D&D style setting.


Could Always Good races work in a similar way?
It'd be dumb for Lawful Good gods to never make Always Good races.

[Amaril]

Not an RPG (usually), but my personal favorite alignment system is the five colors of magic in Magic: the Gathering.

In the Magic multiverse, no matter where in the infinity of parallel planes one travels, the one constant is that all thought and action is separated into the colors of Red, Blue, Green, White, and Black. Red is all about emotion, doing things because they feel right to you without concern for sense or outside opinions; Red beings obey their hearts above all else. Green is instinct, living in service of your basic biological urges; Green beings obey their bodies first. Blue is logic, looking at things with objective detachment; Blue beings obey their minds first. White is about selflessness, giving of yourself for the sake of others no matter how much it hurts; White beings obey their consciences first. And Black is selfishness, pursuing what you want without caring who else gets hurt; Black beings obey their egos first.

The colors are organized in a circle or pentagram, with each color aligned positively with the two next to it and negatively with the two opposite it; the order is Red, Black, Blue, White, Green, and back to Red (so Blue is aligned with White and Black and opposed to Green and Red, for example). Actions associated with one color are also more likely to be in support of its aligned colors, and antagonistic to its opposed ones, though this isn't always the case.
What I like about the system is that just about any action or belief can be definitively placed somewhere within it, with minimal disagreement or confusion (at least in my experience), but none of the colors are explicitly good or evil--they can all be either or both, depending on the situation and how they're expressed. And it's entirely possible for a character to identify with more than one without contradiction, if the different colors influence different aspects of their morals.

[D+1]

Personally, never had any significant issues with 9-alignment D&D and therefore have never had motivation to look beyond it. Of course, my players and I both generally understand what it's doing and why and are not trying to abuse it or break it. Having read for decades the issues that others have with it I do know all too well that if bent or pushed too far it WILL break. So just don't do that.

[neonchameleon]

After all, demons/devils (which one do succubi fall under argghhh) are supposed to be made of literal Evil!

Pre-4e Succubi were Demons- chaotic evil because sex must be chaotic.

In 4e Succubi were Devils - devils want to corrupt and rule the world, while demons just want to watch the world burn (meaning the Blood War is actually pointful).

[goto124]

First time I've seen anyone say 'pointful'!

[Milo v3]

devils want to corrupt and rule the world, while demons just want to watch the world burn (meaning the Blood War is actually pointful).
That's how it was in 3.5e as well. Iirc the reason they changed to devils is that basically all the human-looking ones were made devils and the non-human-looking ones were made as demons.

[hamishspence]

5e went with "Succubi are NE and utilized by both devils and demons as tempters".

[Airk]

Those all have very conspicuous exceptions. Which indicates that species wide alignment is not a strict rule. Hell 3.5 has at least one WoTC written succubus who becomes LG.

Anything after Drizzt doesn't have all races are a specific alignment.

I disagree; Orcs, goblins, etc all still suffer under this effect. So do drow, really. Just because there's a single special snowflake (and because D&D flirts with making them a playable race occasionally) doesn't mean that the race as a whole isn't still a hilarious evil parody for no good reason.

[Berenger]

My take on Always Evil races: They’re essentially highly advanced AIs, coded to do nothing but Evil.

How could such a creature possibly be evil? It's an automaton, true neutral at best but likely without any alignment at all.

[AceOfFools]

Doesn't really work. Basically no one THINKS they are evil. So everyone is "Good" by that metric. :P

I'm amused. I argue you can have a subjective morality system, and it gets called a failure because it allows for subjective morality : )

For clarity, let's create a simple system that can sit on top of DnD 3.x.

Define for your character an essential moral value, such as "Thou shall not kill," "Never betray an ally," or "suffer not injustice". This might be a predefined list if I was going to publish this rule.

Gain +4 on will saves and slippery mind vs effects that force you to act against your moral values, gain +2 on charisma checks and charisma based skill checks to argue in favor of you essential moral value.

If you knowingly and willingly take any action that violates your essential moral value, take -4 morale penalty on all d20 rolls and spell save dcs.

Bam, subjective morality mechanics.

[LibraryOgre]

Unless we count every edition of D&D? ("Humanoid monsters")

And curiously, that just about covers every game I'm aware of that actually has an "alignment" system too.

The "Complete Book of Humanoids" for 2nd edition specifically mentions a number of non-evil members of various races, many of whom were included in novels. The Complete Book of Humanoids, and Skills and Powers, both provide frameworks for playing humanoids, including the evil ones, as good and heroic characters. Heck, the 2e DMG (an unfairly maligned document, IMO) has "How to turn a race into a PC" rules right in it.

Oh, and of course, Palladium Fantasy ("1e AD&D with the numbers filed off") has playable orcs, trolls, goblins, ogres, etc. from the outset, with them being open in alignment. "Island at the Edge of the World" even has a sizable settlement of such creatures that tend towards selfish alignments.

[King of Casuals]

I always liked Mass Effect's Paragon/Renegade system because Paragon isnt necessarily "good", and Renegade isnt necessarily "evil", they're really more similar to "Hero" and "Anti-Hero" respectively. While a pure paragon Shepard would put himself and his men in a dangerous situation to save one of their own, risking everything to ensure that he loses nothing, a pure renegade Shepard would make the hard decision to sacrifice the life of one to ensure the safety of the many. Renegade may not be nice, and it may not even be moral by some standards, but its not evil.

I also liked it because it lets you be both paragon and renegade at the same time, representing the idea that having a reputation for both ruthlessness and mercy is not the same as having a reputation for neutrality, its more of a "I'm nice when I can be and mean when I have to be" situation.

[Talion]

Seeing this, I'm reminded of an old thread I saw on these very forums. By some miraculous fortune I was able to find it, and quickly at that! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?284613-New-Alignment-System-It-s-a-Triangle!)

It's been a while since I read it, but as I recall it was a very interesting and fairly functional system.

[Malistrae]

I think people are overblowing the Good vs. Evil issue. D&D has both Good and Evil as cosmic principles and forces. But they still do not carry any real moral designation, because they are just names for two opposing forces. They could be easily called Blue and Orange, but that doesn't sound quite as dramatic. Characterizing some races as "Always Chaotic Evil" only appears problematic on the surface. It merely means that they embody/reflect the cosmic principles of Chaos (or Spaghetti) and Evil (Orange), thus they are fundamentally hostile to people who reflect Law (Macaroni) and Good (Blue).

What I am meaning is that Evil doesn't mean bad. It is merely the term used to designate a certain cosmic force and its associated philosophies. A good example would be the PF Diabolists, who believe that Hell is an ideal society and seek to emulate it. People who ascribe to philosophies associated with "Chaos" or "Good" would find this notion outrageously bad. However, people who align with the cosmic force of "Law" and "Evil" would find this perfectly logical, sensible and good (with a small g).

Therefore, every racial culture is perfectly legitimate. Even the Always Chaotic Evil ones.

[Fri]

alignment system are only worthwhile of course, if you put funkiness there.

Our undead are chaotic evil funky (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55828)

[AMFV]

I think people are overblowing the Good vs. Evil issue. D&D has both Good and Evil as cosmic principles and forces. But they still do not carry any real moral designation, because they are just names for two opposing forces. They could be easily called Blue and Orange, but that doesn't sound quite as dramatic. Characterizing some races as "Always Chaotic Evil" only appears problematic on the surface. It merely means that they embody/reflect the cosmic principles of Chaos (or Spaghetti) and Evil (Orange), thus they are fundamentally hostile to people who reflect Law (Macaroni) and Good (Blue).

What I am meaning is that Evil doesn't mean bad. It is merely the term used to designate a certain cosmic force and its associated philosophies. A good example would be the PF Diabolists, who believe that Hell is an ideal society and seek to emulate it. People who ascribe to philosophies associated with "Chaos" or "Good" would find this notion outrageously bad. However, people who align with the cosmic force of "Law" and "Evil" would find this perfectly logical, sensible and good (with a small g).

Therefore, every racial culture is perfectly legitimate. Even the Always Chaotic Evil ones.

I disagree, your statement would be true, if D&D had a subjective morality. But it doesn't. Calling it Evil instead of "Shmerple" is a deliberate choice, that has an effect. If I say "This is Iron armor" and then it doesn't behave as such a thing would be then that's nonsensical. Now the alignment system may not always be the best one but it is demonstrably not a relativist system.

The difference being, that in D&D there are people who choose to be evil for many reasons, maybe they think it's morally better, maybe it's just an inclination, based on selfishness or hedonism, maybe being good is too difficult for them.

[Logosloki]

D&D's alignment system is probably one of the best for its simplicity. The problem with D&D's alignment system is that TSR/WotC have never sat down and actually put in clear guidelines (a running theme for when things get to exploration or social), preferring to go with tried and true two sentence stubs as if to avoid pouring gasoline on the eternal flame of the alignment debate. That and allocating an alignment to anything above int 3. I swear the most numerous of alignments is NE.

5th edition has backgrounds, which includes examples of personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws for players to choose, or roll for. A UA subclass brought in the idea of a class of subclass have its own quirks. Backgrounds are the great wild west of 5th, with the book openingly suggesting you just pick and choose what you like...as long as you work with the DM. I take it from what has been written on this thread that this system was probably inspired or "inspired" by Fate's system.

I'm thinking that if I were to be so inclined I could probably devise a personality/ideal/bond/flaw/quirk system for the races or to differentiate a race based on geographical or other isolations/differences.

[Malistrae]

I disagree, your statement would be true, if D&D had a subjective morality. But it doesn't. Calling it Evil instead of "Shmerple" is a deliberate choice, that has an effect. If I say "This is Iron armor" and then it doesn't behave as such a thing would be then that's nonsensical. Now the alignment system may not always be the best one but it is demonstrably not a relativist system.

The difference being, that in D&D there are people who choose to be evil for many reasons, maybe they think it's morally better, maybe it's just an inclination, based on selfishness or hedonism, maybe being good is too difficult for them.

I think you might have misunderstood me. I didn't argue for a relativistic moral system, since D&D obviously runs on an absolutist system (since Good and Evil are actual cosmic forces that are objectively proven to exist, as I have previously stated). What I argue for is that this is ultimately irrelevant, because even if morality objectively exists, it is still the individual who makes the moral judgment (in the sense of how he feels about himself obviously, not in an objective sense). To continue with my example, Diabolism is an objectively Lawful Evil philosophy, yet from its followers' perspective, it is not an evil (with a lower case e) belief. They probably recognise that Diabolism is Evil (in the objective sense), but they don't view that as a negative thing at all. Ergo, D&D Evil leads to Card-Carrying Villains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CardCarryingVillain), but from those villains' perspective the fact that their actions are not (objectively) Good is irrelevant.

I hope this clears up my argument. I realise that my original post was not as well-worded as it could have been.

[CNdruid]

I love the D&D system alignment system.

I try to consider lawful character's as possessing collectivist beliefs and values, or alternatively focused on conformity.

Chaos, as a representation on more individualistic cultural beliefs and values, and propensity toward free-thinking and freedom of expression.

Good, is more an invest in others and a sense of striving toward connectedness and harmony with one's allies and the wider world if possible.

Evil, is more an invest in self, being selfist desires, or hatred and attachment.

Neutral is about ideals being pushed to oust of boundaries without moderation, or just an apathy not really substantiated.

[Vitruviansquid]

I have not seen an alignment system that was bad.

I have, however, seen many GMs and players who fail to use their alignment systems in the right way.

[AMFV]

I have not seen an alignment system that was bad.

I have, however, seen many GMs and players who fail to use their alignment systems in the right way.

What's the right way?

[Vitruviansquid]

What's the right way?

Much of the criticism for alignment systems come in the fact that they have a hard time representing such and such a character, like when we get forum posts every once in awhile of someone asking "where on the the law-chaos and good-evil axes do I put my character that kisses some puppies and stomps on others?"

That is fundamentally misunderstanding the alignment system. The alignment system tells you how to make your character, you do not make a character and then try to do Procrustean torture to fit him/her into an alignment. It's kind of like if you make a dragon-riding Jedi master who craps thunder, and you look at the DnD classes and find out that there is no way to make a dragon-riding Jedi master who craps thunder. You don't complain that the DnD class system is broken because it fails to support your character concept.

[Milo v3]

Much of the criticism for alignment systems come in the fact that they have a hard time representing such and such a character, like when we get forum posts every once in awhile of someone asking "where on the the law-chaos and good-evil axes do I put my character that kisses some puppies and stomps on others?"

That is fundamentally misunderstanding the alignment system. The alignment system tells you how to make your character, you do not make a character and then try to do Procrustean torture to fit him/her into an alignment. It's kind of like if you make a dragon-riding Jedi master who craps thunder, and you look at the DnD classes and find out that there is no way to make a dragon-riding Jedi master who craps thunder. You don't complain that the DnD class system is broken because it fails to support your character concept.

Wait... If an alignment system has no way to deal with the fact evil characters are not evil 100% of the time and I make an evil character with depth rather than "I twirl my moustache as kick this dog" 24/7, I'm the one in the wrong? No, if an alignment system doesn't work with characters that have less depth than a saturday morning cartoon character, it's screwed up. Thank god that your example doesn't actually represent the issues of the system though. Without any other info, they'd be Evil. Simple. That example wasn't misunderstanding the alignment system at all, it fits in fine. The alignment system is bad, but it's not That bad.

[Vitruviansquid]

Wait... If an alignment system has no way to deal with the fact evil characters are not evil 100% of the time and I make an evil character with depth rather than "I twirl my moustache as kick this dog" 24/7, I'm the one in the wrong?

I had not realized that fun little example would be a red herring. For you, maybe focus on the preceding part of that sentence and then think about some posts you've seen on this forum about the described.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that DnD has a very specific genre, but it can be invisible to players because so many players think of DnD as a universal system just because it is the most widely played RPG to them. I'm unsure if this other example will be helpful to you, but here goes:

You don't start a campaign in Call of Cthulhu and get to play an unfazed, hard-boiled dude who takes everything in stride and never loses his composure. You don't do this because the rules force you to be fazed, to NOT take things in stride. In other words, it's written in the rules that you can't play this character. If you do want to play Call of Cthulhu in a way not prescribed by the rules, you will naturally have less fun and encounter weirdness. That's not the rules' fault, that's your fault for not homebrewing or choosing the right system.

DnD is in a genre of heroic adventures set in a backdrop of good versus evil. You don't start a campaign of DnD with a character that has not heeded the rules' guidelines for how to design your character, and then expect your game to not encounter weirdness. This isn't to say you can't play a DnD-like game with your alignment-defying character, you can. But you're not playing "DnD" at that point, you're playing "a DnD-like game."


No, if an alignment system doesn't work with characters that have less depth than a saturday morning cartoon character, it's screwed up.

If I was playing an RPG portraying Saturday morning cartoons, it wouldn't be screwed up at all.

[wumpus]

I had not realized that fun little example would be a red herring. For you, maybe focus on the preceding part of that sentence and then think about some posts you've seen on this forum about the described.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that DnD has a very specific genre, but it can be invisible to players because so many players think of DnD as a universal system just because it is the most widely played RPG to them. I'm unsure if this other example will be helpful to you, but here goes:

You don't start a campaign in Call of Cthulhu and get to play an unfazed, hard-boiled dude who takes everything in stride and never loses his composure. You don't do this because the rules force you to be fazed, to NOT take things in stride. In other words, it's written in the rules that you can't play this character. If you do want to play Call of Cthulhu in a way not prescribed by the rules, you will naturally have less fun and encounter weirdness. That's not the rules' fault, that's your fault for not homebrewing or choosing the right system.

DnD is in a genre of heroic adventures set in a backdrop of good versus evil. You don't start a campaign of DnD with a character that has not heeded the rules' guidelines for how to design your character, and then expect your game to not encounter weirdness. This isn't to say you can't play a DnD-like game with your alignment-defying character, you can. But you're not playing "DnD" at that point, you're playing "a DnD-like game."

If I was playing an RPG portraying Saturday morning cartoons, it wouldn't be screwed up at all.

Sorry. D&D always tried to be mostly a "heroic adventures of good vs. evil", but from all but the start tried to expand to general purpose RPG. The AD&D (1e) included rules for sixguns and sorcery and other cross-genre tales (presumably to sell more copies of Boot Hill and other TSR games). Third edition included various d20 games, which appears to have been a design goal. When you have as much of the market as D&D [at least before Pathfinder inherited 3.x], you try not to exclude any more gamers than necessary.

You would have to claim that Eberron and Dark Sun are not D&D to insist that all characters must follow alignment stereotypes.

[Milo v3]

If I was playing an RPG portraying Saturday morning cartoons, it wouldn't be screwed up at all.

Except that's not what D&D is. It's alignment system may be flawed, but it is better designed than that. Even playing a completely evil character in D&D isn't misplaying the game, both 3.5e and PF have splat-books and options to enhance people playing evil characters. Pathfinder is even having an adventure path where you play nuanced evil characters. Also, D&D does not have a specific genre, I mean god, it goes from high-fantasy, to post-apocalyptic, Arabian nights, manapunk, plane-hopping with belief-based physics, steampunk, wuxia, space opera, settings where everyone plays dead people....

Old war game D&D, maybe you'd be right, but it hasn't been like that for a long time.