Morality Systems

[Tadanori Oyama]

So I've been writting a Scion game for GenCon and in so doing noticed that the game, like most of the others I've been playing lately, has no mechanical alignment system to speak of. There is also no system of morality which paints a character as either good or evil. Since a fair chuck of the gods in the game are pro-human sacrific I think a conventional system would, indeed, be a challenge for Scion.

Then I noticed that most things I've grabbed recently (Scion, Exalted, Mouse Guard, Candewick) don't feature alignment or morality either, leaving the players with no mechanical counter push to any actions they take (beyond the results of their actions that is).

This is in fairly sharp contrast with the World of Darkness game I'm planning, which has a very definite morality system which has major mechanically effects (social penalities and insanities as well as weakened resistance to "evil") and the definite mechanical effects of alignment in D&D (circles of ward, etc).

And then I have games without a moral judgement system that still offer a mechanic able to punish "immoral" behavior in characters if the GM so chooses (CoC SAN, Dark Heresy Corruption/Insanity).

I like the World of Darkness system and I'm beginning to see that, out of the games I play and own, it's the only one with a black and white system of morals that acts as an active part of the game.

Do you guys prefer games with a morality and/or alignment system or one without? Oh, and also feel free to tell me I'm wrong about WoD being the only one with a black and white system.

[Setherick]

The discussions about social contract and RPGs made me start thinking of this topic to. And, subsequently, were the impetus behind my quick write up of Wasponia. I have a lot more to say about it, but I'm on my way to the gym. I'll try to make a more detailed post later.

[Tadanori Oyama]

I brought it up largely because of the Candle Cove game and RJ's responses to various moral events which he was confronted with. World of Darkness uses what I consider a black and white moral system, as I mentioned above, and many of the people I've played with or just discussed the system with tend to think of either shades of gray or in character state of mind.

My reading of the White Wolf system, particularly as it pertains to mortal characters, maintains that there are things which are simply wrong and that doing bad things for a good reason violates morality, leading to "heroic" characters with low morality scores. Since this is the World of Darkness we're talking about that makes a great deal of sense to me.

About half of my players, my aunt in particular, push against this line of thought. She believes that doing bad things for good reasons can excused. Well, she doesn't use the world "excused", that's my vocabularly selection reflecting negativally on her arguement. What's a better, neutral word? I can't think of one right now. Anyway, she contends that good actions should not trigger moral degeneration. I contend that the purpose of the system is to show that however good one's intentions, many actions and choices have negative effects on people.

By my understanding of the system, a character who proclaims they are doing something "for the greater good" they are in fact losing morality, not maintaining it. They are rationalizing their actions and excusing what they have done, which leads to degeneration. In the World of Darkness moral system, only true guilt (or purity of action that never violates morality, something my players have found nearly impossible) allows one to maintain a high morality score for an extended game.

Lookin' forward to your additions, Patrick. This is one of my long time favorite gaming topics.

[Kroack]

I think that morality is something far too complex for dice to handle. I add moral choices in games because I, as a GM, am interested in how a PC will react. Even if the players are basically playing themselves, it's still intriguing to see what they would do.

With big inspiration from that esoterrorists game ross ran, I added a small scene in my d&d campaign where players had to choose between saving a mother or her young baby from death. I've yet to run the scenario, but there is not evil or good decision there, but it's still a moral choice. 

[Tadanori Oyama]

I don't normally do moral splits as often because it's a fairly now concept for me and because of how my players instantly leap into meta whenever one occurs. They resist them alot and then taunt me while demeaning me in real life. Well, mostly my brother does that but he does it enough for the whole group.

Anyway, I like to have the numbers as an assist for any moral or immoral actions my players take. Social penalities and derangements help to balance against the "D&D" style of direction problem solving: kick in the door, kill everything, loot the bodies. I mean, in a modern game the consequences of mass murder and theft are eventually apparent on their own (police, trial, electric chair) but the instant and mechanical downside of losing morality and gaining mental problems is good as well.

[Setherick]

I realized that I left my game design notebook at home when I came to the office today, so I'll just sketch out something here without my notes.

I'm going to start by saying I don't think we can separate the concept of morality from the concept the social contract, particularly when it comes to role playing games. However, this does lead to a distinct problem. In an earlier discussion regarding the social contract and gaming, the idea was brought up that two separate social contracts exist within a game simultaneously:

1) The social contract of the game world where the characters interact with one another and with NPCs.

2) The social contract that exists among players as they sit at the table.

and I would offer that we should also consider,

3) The social contract that exists between the players as a group and the GM.

Now that we have established these three separate social contracts, we should consider how a morality system. And, here, I will ask if we should simply consider game mechanics as the basis of a morality system? CoC's morality system, for instance, imposes mechanical penalties that affect how a character acts within social contract (1) based on the existing set of social codes that exist in social contract (3) inside and outside of the game. When I'm playing a game with Ross, for example, and I say that my character does something that is morally unacceptable or questionable outside of the game world - say shoot a cultist in the face - Ross will immediately make me roll a sanity check to see if my character can perform the action at all and/or the ramifications for performing the action. The morality of the action was not determined, however, by social contract (1), but by social contract (3).

More to follow.

[ArtfulShrapnel]

I realized that I left my game design notebook at home when I came to the office today, so I'll just sketch out something here without my notes.

I'm going to start by saying I don't think we can separate the concept of morality from the concept the social contract, particularly when it comes to role playing games. However, this does lead to a distinct problem. In an earlier discussion regarding the social contract and gaming, the idea was brought up that two separate social contracts exist within a game simultaneously:

1) The social contract of the game world where the characters interact with one another and with NPCs.

2) The social contract that exists among players as they sit at the table.

and I would offer that we should also consider,

3) The social contract that exists between the players as a group and the GM.

I have some input for this, but I'll do that while I'm not on the clock. In the meantime, I want to suggest some new terms to make explaining this whole thing simpler and less confusing.

World Contract = Social Contract (1) - Between the PCs, NPCs, and the fictional world they exist in. ( a typical violation would be insisting on doing something that is impossible in the world, or for the GM to have something happen which has been stated as impossible.)

Player Contract = Social Contract (2) - Between the players themselves. (A typical violation would be metagaming, or ignoring the statements of another player)

GM Contract = Social Contract (3) - Between the players and the GM. (A typical violation would be cheating on a character sheet or dice roll, or killing a player character because of fiat.)

[Setherick]

Good suggestions. I think we will need to more fully develop our definitions as we go though.

[Tadanori Oyama]

I like the three types of contract, makes for less moving back up the page to reference.

I think that for a game to maintain a morality system within its mechanics you need it clearly defined in all three contracts.

With the World Contract a set of social mores need to be clear. In contemporary settings, these can most easily be the mores of the society the game is set within. If the game is any sort of altered setting (including a real world culture unusual or unknown to the players) than social acceptablity needs to be explored a little (or alot) in the contract.

For the PC and GM contracts things should be clear as well, especially when dealing with altered systems of morality, such as those experienced in a Dark Heresy game.

Most importantly, I believe the PCs need to agree to allow the GM to impose the moral system on their characters. This requires the GM be "fair" in judgements using the established "baseline" of morality and mores in the setting. At the table, mid game, is not really the place for ethics arguements, especially in fictional settings and for the game to progress a player must be willing to differ to the GM (with the condition the GM has agreed to act in the best interests of the group as a whole and within the rules established by the World Contract) on morality rulings.

The reason I support a mechanical reflection for morality is that it's easier to follow in the even a game lasts more than one session. Also in most games the morality system is a form of mental/social/spiritual Hit Points.

CoC investigators leave the control of the player when they reach 0 SAN which is the same as dying. Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader character leave player control at 100 Corruption or 100 Insanity. World of Darkness characters typically cease to function around Morality 2 but official leave player control at Morality 0.

The difference between the two, as I see it, is accumulation. A CoC character could reach 0 SAN through repeated exposure to the same (or similar) conditions because Sanity lose is addative (or collective, whatever the proper term for continued loss from a static number is). The same with 40K games.

However in World of Darkness each level of Morality demands greater and greater "sin" to progress downwards. A thief who takes only enough to live a passable life style and who never kills can maintain their entire life at Morality 5 (the "sin" example for Morality 6 being 'grand theft') and never move lower on the scale.

[malyss]

Follow

[Seejo Crux]

However in World of Darkness each level of Morality demands greater and greater "sin" to progress downwards. A thief who takes only enough to live a passable life style and who never kills can maintain their entire life at Morality 5 (the "sin" example for Morality 6 being 'grand theft') and never move lower on the scale.

I seem to remember that there were additional paths in World of Darkness besides that of Humanity (the base Morality system). Each path had a different credo as to what was "good" and what was "bad". So a wizard with the Path of the Raven Queen could sleep around and let former girlfriends die without losing much morality, but someone with Humanity doing the same thing would lose more, because to them it is a bigger crime.

The paths could be ironed out ahead of time to suit your aunt's and other players' needs, and once that is set in stone, you can refer to that instead of having your players trying to talk you into accepting their interpretation of the situation.

Basically, having one morality system that every character subscribes to makes about as much sense as every character being forced to be Lawful Good. Make multiple paths for your game to suit more needs.

[Setherick]

Now that I have internet again, I'll get back to this thread. I have it bookmarked now.

[Tadanori Oyama]

I seem to remember that there were additional paths in World of Darkness besides that of Humanity (the base Morality system). Each path had a different credo as to what was "good" and what was "bad".

I didn't do much research into the Old World of Darkness' Paths because they didn't really interest me. I was mainly aware of them in Vampire: The Masquerade, I don't know if they existed in other settings as well.

It was difficult for me to imagine playing with one because there where so many, at least a dozen I believe with more added through supplimental books. The Paths where almost always focused only on the individual, while Humanity related to ones positions when compared to the majority of human standards. As soon as you chose to follow a Path your Humanity effectively vanished from gameplay and your Vampire was unable to concell the fact that they where a monster who had foregone any human standard of behavior.

New World of Darkness uses different Morality standards for different templates and I enjoy those because they are part of a sub-society within humanity. All werewolves follow one moral code which takes into account some "normal" morality while adding the mindset of a werewolf and their cultural mores. For supernatural templates the new conditions of a changed Morality System where part of one's mystical makeup in addition to altered codes of behavior.