Whereever you go currently there seems to be heavy alignment discussion, so I thought I might as well spin off a thread. Original discussion here in Pika d20

So, alignment. Basically a way of determining what your character would or wouldn't do.

Part I: the problem

Problems I can see with alignment in general- or comparable systems - are:

Definitional: what are 'good' and 'evil'. Do the ends justify the means? (utilitarianism). How do you represent some genres where bad stuff is encouraged? Should 20th century morality be used, or is that whitewashing the situation? How to represent characters with complex moralities or exceptions?

Behavioural: is handing out 'evil points' just going to encourage your players?

Philosophical: is it OK for some characters to be fundamentally evil? If yes, are they not responsible for their actions and so shouldn't be harmed? Or is this a license to just off them as subhumans? How much do we want to think about this anyway? If you're a 20th level LG adventurer, is it OK to kill CE goblins attacking you 'in self defense' when they actually pose no threat to you at all?

Psychological: is writing 'evil' on someone's character sheet an excuse by the player (or GM) to make them completely one-dimensional?  

Mechanical: in terms of implementation, any mechanics based off alignment have to be wholly arbitrary.


Part II: Mechanics
My current stance is, I think, that the best alignment system possible is no alignment system. But I'm interested in people's opinions as to what set of Alignment rules they think works and works well. Current options I've seen are:

D&D Alignment

Palladium Alignment (like D&D, but less arbitrary; defined lists of approved actions).

Storyteller 'Humanity' rating. (+nature/demeanour?). Approved actions by rating, lose rating if break the code.

Pendragon (or SenZar...) Personality Traits. Increase up/down if used or paid for.

GURPS mental disadvantages: get points for being honest, nonviolent, etc.

To steal discussion from elsewhere:

Alignment seems to fall on a spectrum between 'Team Jersey' and 'Descriptive'.

Team Jersey is, of course, all about what side you are on. The actual moral and ethical decisions are completely irrelevant.  As I said, its a spectrum thing, and many people prefer this end.

Descriptive is my term. John Morrow talks alot about proscriptive and prescriptive, which is probably more accurate for how they get used. MOST alignment systems, in actual play, seem to fall closer to this end. Here its all about 'what you do'... or don't do.  This end of the spectrum is my personal haunt, and I tend to find it is easier to integrate mechancially the alignment with the system in some way...  Subsystems that don't actually do anything are cruft.

Now as for the hows: I'm generally not in favor of proscriptive (er... ones that ban actions and punish you for violating action).  Vampire's Humanity system is the worst, as the mechanics really only work one way (down!), and going up is, to borrow a phrase 'magical tea party, mother may I' shit, coupled with an XP tax.

To reference my own Pika D20 thread, I'm interested in making alignments more pro-active pursuits, things you work at to gain, not lose. There aren't 'banned' actions as much as actions that support your 'goal' of being a better (or worse) person.  Of course, I've also decoupled them from a purely ethical consideration into a more universal set of paths. If you don't care about good or evil actions, and don't want to worry about your good or evil decisions, you can totally dedicate yourself to the principles of Elemental Fire, and just be all about the burnination.  Good, Evil, You're the one with the Fire!

I'd say its pretty unique in gaming, but I've totally stolen the idea so... it is unique until I finish my take on it.

I think I must be the anti-Spike...

I think I like 'proscriptive' alignment systems more, since this is in theory useful for telling me what a PC is willing to do. For example, if you have some social combat rules, convincing a paladin to kill urchins for the glory of Pelor should be more difficult than convincing them to give an urchin a gold piece (there's an RPGnet thread on something like that currently which was part of what got me questioning my original nihilistic approach).
EDIT: proscriptive alignment is also good when determining attitudes of NPCs.

Though I'll grant proscriptive alignment may breaks down when PCs decide to break their alignment limits on their own. I don't really approve of penalties for alignment violations since a change in alignment may well be due to a PC's personality developing organically, something that should be encouraged.

I don't really like Vampire, but Humanity is probably my favourite alignment system; it seems more psychologically based (degree of empathy) rather than D&D's more primitive black hat/white hat approach. Some of the actual mechanics around it can be pretty twisted (roll Conscience to justify your action to yourself and so avoid humanity loss?), as are the xp penalties, but it may be fixable. And making it less 'mother may I' is just a matter of inventing some rules.  

Team Jersey...well the other thread already seems to be covering this. Personally I don't like Monolithic Evil, where all the bad guys are friends just because they're Evil, and have adventures where they go and find Good monsters to kill and take their stuff. It works to an extent in a Moorcockian universe with Law and Chaos, but falls over in a majority of settings. I suspect this problem is only one of infinitely many possible problems that might have surfaced for discussion, though.

"Prescriptive". "Proscriptive" would be an alignment system that only forbade things.

I think closed, essentialist alignment systems are always going to distort things and lead to false moral dilemmas.

A good alignment system should:

1) Be infinitely extensible. That is, it should not strive to exhaust the universe of moral positions. The listed options should be a set of examples, not the only possible positions.

2) Have a list of its concerns. These should not, I repeat not, be listed in the form of a series of simplistic absolute statements about correct behaviour. Instead, there should be a list of the main areas of concern for practitioners of the belief system. These need not be consistent.

For example, modern moral systems like utilitarianism are mostly unconcerned with "purity", while most religious systems consider it a core concern. "Preservation of human life" is another good one. This could be as simple as a list of the virtues and vices of the ethical system.

3) Some sort of weighing or priority mechanism to help resolve moral dilemmas. This can be linked to an incentive system usefully. For example, you might have to make a roll to go against your morality, or you might get a roll if someone tries to compel you magically to go against it. You may need to follow it in order to get certain material benefits or rewards from others, or following it may force you to avoid doing things you would like to do, or at least feel that you must.

4) Be flexible, but not too flexible. It should neither be too easy, nor impossible to change one's moral considerations once they have been decided. Moral considerations are as much about disgust, attraction, shame, guilty, elation, contentment, joy, commitment and other motivations and emotions as they are about following a set of abstract principles. They also include forms of living. Changing one's morality is really more about changing these things than the abstract principles floating epiphenomenally above all of that.

5) Positions should neither be so specific that they only appeal to one person, nor so universal that anyone would agree that they are unquestionably good. Positions should be sharply defined from one another while allowing some overlap in behaviour.

The only alignment system I'm aware of that follows all of these are Runequest cults (and, by extension, Clockwork and Chivalry's factions), and they are IMHO, the best and most accurate depiction of what it is like to be a moral agent in RPGs.

Well...On Prescriptive vs. Proscriptive...I did mean I liked proscriptive alignment (limiting actions) rather than prescriptive (directing actions).  I was thinking its good to have a list of things the PC won't do, or would do very reluctantly, when entranced or ensorcelled...though I hadn't really thought it through all that much. I guess I was thinking that a system like Palladium's list of rules by alignment e.g. "won't kill an unarmed foe, but will definitely beat one up and take advantage of them" just cuts down on the arguments on what's acceptable behaviour or not...Of course, if you want moral dilemmas in play, I suppose its perfectly reasonable to want a more complex system.

I'm not familiar with RQ cults (by all means explain more)...though in regard to moral Priorities, there was a slightly intriguing system in Dragon #173 ("Get Your Priorities Straight") which had a list of factors which characters were meant to prioritize - Comrades, Race, Deity, Homeland, Sovereign, Family and Self. Lawful characters respected all of these (but in a variable order) while neutrals or chaotics cared about less of them. As character's levelled up they also added specific obligations regarding some of their priority components. It mostly failed for Chaotics who just gained weird superstitions or obligations ("requires a seasonal boar hunt for rest and relaxation"), and took up a lot of character sheet real estate, but might generate some interesting intraparty conflicts even between Lawful characters.

Adding rolls to resist various temptations does seem to lead toward Pendragony traits, though I guess basic rolls against the PC's Willpower or equivalent stat could work in a pinch.

Psuedo:  You might check out the post in the pika d20 where I lay out the framework of my alignment system.  At a quick glance it certainly meets the criterion 1, 2 and 4, and I can see that 3 and 5 are floating around the edges to different degrees.

In a way it resembles the cults without being explicitly tied to an organizational structure, which I think is a weakness of the cults as 'alignment' argument.

Quote from: Spike;436886In a way it resembles the cults without being explicitly tied to an organizational structure, which I think is a weakness of the cults as 'alignment' argument.

I think it's a strength. Most people acquire their morality from their participations in social institutions (including the family). IRL, think of the character-forming effects of going to university, joining the army, getting married and starting a family, converting to a new religion, participating in organised sports or consistently volunteering for a charity. These sorts of experiences tend to be far more important than mere reflection or contemplation and are at their core social and institutional.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;436850Of course, if you want moral dilemmas in play, I suppose its perfectly reasonable to want a more complex system.

Just the opposite. The simpler and more absolute the system, the more likely it is to give rise to false dilemmas.

Systems like D&D's alignment system give rise to dilemmas because they lack the sophistication of our everyday morality, let alone a more complex system.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;436892I think it's a strength. Most people acquire their morality from their participations in social institutions (including the family). IRL, think of the character-forming effects of going to university, joining the army, getting married and starting a family, converting to a new religion, participating in organised sports or consistently volunteering for a charity. These sorts of experiences tend to be far more important than mere reflection or contemplation and are at their core social and institutional.

Runequest's Cult system barely touches on any of that (the Army or converting to a religion, certainly), and by your lights only provides a moral framework for joining organizations that explicitly lay out a framework, and none at all for the cultural milieu that surrounds those cults.

That is a failure of the cults as alignment system right off the top, it only 'illuminates' the subcultures of the Cults, and even then only in the simplest of ways. 'Go to temple on holy days, tithe, praise Orlanth every third tuesday' isn't a moral structure, its a check list of absolute minimum actions to be a member of the group.  Maybe you have a much more detailed description of Cults than I've ever seen.

Everything else you named falls entirely into the predominant culture, and most of those have little effect on your overall moral framework. Seriously: Joining a sport team doesn't make you less of a Canadian, or more of a Canadian, it just makes you a Canadian with a fucking hobby.  While objectively we can suggest that having a parent might make you a better person (less likely to drive recklessly, according to the car insurance people, anyway), I doubt it has a truly measurable effect on your moral framework outside of a tiny little corner labeled' reactions to children'.  Non-parents are fully capable of having culturally appropriate parental responses to random children, and parents are fully capable of having culturally inappropriate behavior towards even their own children.

But too: Culture, sub or not, is a piss poor way of modeling 'alignments' or basic morality, and complexity in moral frameworks suffers from diminishing returns for added complexity far faster in a game than in real life (where, yes, they also suffer diminishing returns...).

In the vein of RQ cults, I liked the factions in Planescape.  Your faction has a definite world view, but individual members have their choice of how attached they want to be to the doctrines.  

While the faction's dogma doesn't answer all roleplay questions, they do color the decision making process very strongly.  

I played a Planescape/Fate game that was quite good and even though I do not enjoy Aspects at all, I have to admit that that system really enhanced the emulation of the faction system and the power of beliefs over the physical world.

Quote from: Spike;436961Runequest's Cult system barely touches on any of that (the Army or converting to a religion, certainly), and by your lights only provides a moral framework for joining organizations that explicitly lay out a framework, and none at all for the cultural milieu that surrounds those cults.

That is a failure of the cults as alignment system right off the top, it only 'illuminates' the subcultures of the Cults, and even then only in the simplest of ways. 'Go to temple on holy days, tithe, praise Orlanth every third tuesday' isn't a moral structure, its a check list of absolute minimum actions to be a member of the group.  Maybe you have a much more detailed description of Cults than I've ever seen.

Evidently I have, since both Cults of Prax and Cults of Terror are more detailed than that. Not only that, I've used it to build structures considerably more complex than what you're talking about. I've used it for cults, religious societies within churches, clans, knightly orders, and fellowships of university graduates.

So yes, your appreciation of the possibilities of the cult system is deficient.

QuoteEverything else you named falls entirely into the predominant culture, and most of those have little effect on your overall moral framework. Seriously: Joining a sport team doesn't make you less of a Canadian, or more of a Canadian, it just makes you a Canadian with a fucking hobby.

"Canadian" is not the locus of moral decisions. I know terms like "predominant culture" sound authoritative, but they are totally vacuous here. Cultures are composed of individuals and institutions in relation with one another.

With regard to sport in particular, the reason that the Anglo-influenced West has such a hard-on for sports is because back in the early 19th century they were seen as character-building, and this turned into a frenzy of club-building, regulations, etc. Nor has that abated in the modern day, since we still have the idea of "good sportsmanship", and we do punish athletes more harshly for moral transgressions than we do other people.

It may not be a particularly important influence in your life, or the life of a particular person, but it's definitely a set of institutions that do have moral heft for many individuals. Same with the Boy Scouts, universities, etc.

Being a "Canadian" is not particularly determinative of what one's morality is. Same with "American", "British", "Arab" or "Chinese". We can at best use these as abstract glosses to indicate a typical life course and summarily refer to the institutions that someone has participated in, but it's only an abstract gloss of middling use.

QuoteWhile objectively we can suggest that having a parent might make you a better person (less likely to drive recklessly, according to the car insurance people, anyway), I doubt it has a truly measurable effect on your moral framework outside of a tiny little corner labeled' reactions to children'.  Non-parents are fully capable of having culturally appropriate parental responses to random children, and parents are fully capable of having culturally inappropriate behavior towards even their own children.

You're still thinking of goofy abstract statements as what "morality" is, when they are at most a thin layer spackled on top of actual morality. It's not about joining the club so you can read the Secret Rulebook and learn which abstract principles are the correct ones, it's about the cultivation and exclusion of some set of moral concerns in the form of sentiments, behaviours, motivations, etc.

QuoteBut too: Culture, sub or not, is a piss poor way of modeling 'alignments' or basic morality, and complexity in moral frameworks suffers from diminishing returns for added complexity far faster in a game than in real life (where, yes, they also suffer diminishing returns...).

Culture is the best way of modeling morality, since morality is so strongly linked with cultural norms and practices, and is always practiced in some culture. You may want simplification, but real morality isn't particularly simple, and if our goal is to model real persons and the decisions they make (or at the least, illusions with verisimilitude of such), simplifying it worthless.

I would suggest scraping "Alignment" in favor of something more exacting.

Have "Religions" (or whatever) that have "codes of conduct" (commandments) that the devout attempt to follow.
Adhere and reap benefits. Act otherwise and fall from "Grace" (lose social standing,powers,Sanity,Knowledge,Luck etc.) as per the chosen setting.

Have the adherence to code tied to character capabilities (Spells,Feats...) and rewards.

Once again I recommend "The Highest Level of all Fantasy Wargaming" by Bruce Galloway as a place to start. In that system it is refered to as "Piety Bands" that certain actions effect...a Christian commits adultry, down some points or a Viking breaks an oath, ditto. This may mod. abilities, as with a Priest not being able to perform blessings etc.

The system in the book is not presented in the clearest fashion but may serve as a place to start!

RQ has some nifty ideas as well.
cheers!

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;436894Just the opposite. The simpler and more absolute the system, the more likely it is to give rise to false dilemmas.

Systems like D&D's alignment system give rise to dilemmas because they lack the sophistication of our everyday morality, let alone a more complex system.

I'm not really up on RQ cults enough to comment on the other discussion unfortunately, but you can elucidate further on what you mean by a 'false dilemma'? I'm asking more for furthering my understanding that specifically to argue and/or be a jackass - I'm just not sure what you mean.

Quote from: Spinachcat;436993In the vein of RQ cults, I liked the factions in Planescape.  Your faction has a definite world view, but individual members have their choice of how attached they want to be to the doctrines.  

While the faction's dogma doesn't answer all roleplay questions, they do color the decision making process very strongly.  

I played a Planescape/Fate game that was quite good and even though I do not enjoy Aspects at all, I have to admit that that system really enhanced the emulation of the faction system and the power of beliefs over the physical world.

Planescape is interesting, but I don't know how useful it is an alignment system either. Planescape factions don't describe characters organically, its more that you pick a set of beliefs and have them imposed from outside in order to get the powers.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;437000Evidently I have, since both Cults of Prax and Cults of Terror are more detailed than that. Not only that, I've used it to build structures considerably more complex than what you're talking about. I've used it for cults, religious societies within churches, clans, knightly orders, and fellowships of university graduates.

So yes, your appreciation of the possibilities of the cult system is deficient.

Maybe. I only have three versions of Runequest's main book and the MRQ Cults of Glorantha, which is a bit more detailed than I said and a LOT less detailed than you seem to be describing.

Quote"Canadian" is not the locus of moral decisions. I know terms like "predominant culture" sound authoritative, but they are totally vacuous here. Cultures are composed of individuals and institutions in relation with one another.

Given the way you are talking about moral frameworks, culture, with or without a national lens, is much more accurate than 'College Student'.

QuoteWith regard to sport in particular, the reason that the Anglo-influenced West has such a hard-on for sports is because back in the early 19th century they were seen as character-building, and this turned into a frenzy of club-building, regulations, etc. Nor has that abated in the modern day, since we still have the idea of "good sportsmanship", and we do punish athletes more harshly for moral transgressions than we do other people.

It may not be a particularly important influence in your life, or the life of a particular person, but it's definitely a set of institutions that do have moral heft for many individuals. Same with the Boy Scouts, universities, etc.

The character building you describe, be it from a sports club or from the boyscouts is less about imparting a new moral code than reinforcing the moral code of the culture.  You may wish to blithely hand-wave away that authority as vacuous, but that just makes you sound like a tool.

There is no 'boy scout morality', the Boy Scouts explicitly impart a brand of western christian ideals, shaped by the culture the Scout Leaders come from and the culture the Boy Scouts themselves live in.

QuoteBeing a "Canadian" is not particularly determinative of what one's morality is. Same with "American", "British", "Arab" or "Chinese". We can at best use these as abstract glosses to indicate a typical life course and summarily refer to the institutions that someone has participated in, but it's only an abstract gloss of middling use.

That has to be one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this site.  A small child could grasp the difference in morality by culture, as expressed by nationality in this case (mostly. Arab is more an ethnicity... and Chinese is broad enough to be nearly useless.) as seen through their legal systems.  The moral code of a people is expressed clearly in the laws they pass.  When was the last time an American stoned a woman to death for going to the store with an unrelated male?

Oh, wait... that isn't part of America's moral codes... so it doesn't happen hear, and never with legal authority behind it!

Fuck, Psuedo! I thought you were 'Teh Smart Poster'?

QuoteYou're still thinking of goofy abstract statements as what "morality" is, when they are at most a thin layer spackled on top of actual morality. It's not about joining the club so you can read the Secret Rulebook and learn which abstract principles are the correct ones, it's about the cultivation and exclusion of some set of moral concerns in the form of sentiments, behaviours, motivations, etc.

No, that would be you, who claims that signing up for the local T-Ball team means you now have a moral code, when before you didn't.

QuoteCulture is the best way of modeling morality, since morality is so strongly linked with cultural norms and practices, and is always practiced in some culture. You may want simplification, but real morality isn't particularly simple, and if our goal is to model real persons and the decisions they make (or at the least, illusions with verisimilitude of such), simplifying it worthless.

And now you contradict yourself.  I just spent most of this post re-iterating my point that the fucking culture is the basis for your moral framework, not what hobby you pursue or church you join... IN REBUTTAL TO YOU... and you close by agreeing with me like you fucking schooled me?

If you think simplifying, for the purposes of a game (just, you know, for the record) is bad, go play FATAL.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;437028I'm not really up on RQ cults enough to comment on the other discussion unfortunately, but you can elucidate further on what you mean by a 'false dilemma'? I'm asking more for furthering my understanding that specifically to argue and/or be a jackass - I'm just not sure what you mean.

The old "The paladin has to choose between following the law and doing good" cliche is probably the most notorious. Followed by "chaotic evil people can't have friends or love their children".  Basically, any time that following your alignment consistently leads to some fake problem that a real person wouldn't have. This generally comes about because alignments are phrased as a series of absolute principles or statements about character that don't admit of exceptions.