Developing an RPG Morality System

[steelyglint]

One thing that has always annoyed me in RPGs is that even when a morality system exists, it's usually only one dimensional (the dimension being position on a line between good and evil). I want to design a system that describes a character's outlook (both moral and otherwise) in much more detail. This is partly because I'm working on a small text-based RPG, and partly because I enjoy thinking about this kind of thing in my free time.

Anyway, I'd like to do some brainstorming regarding this and and get some help refining the current system, sketched out in the spoiler section below. I am especially interested in getting to the perfect number of traits, though I'm not sure what that number is. I want to ensure that each trait is interesting and important enough that it would have a significant impact on gameplay, and that no two traits overlap with each other (I don't need both Honorable and Honest). Also, the opposed traits need to feel "right."

If you can think of a specific character archetype that could not be adequately described using the listed traits, describe what traits you think would describe him/her and how those traits would fit in with, supplant, or merge with the ones I've listed.

Spoiler

Traits: Reputation & Alignment
The reputation and alignment of the PC is not a simple scale of good versus evil. Instead, a character's moral outlook is described by various character traits (each trait is a spiral stat, see below). When an action is taken, its listed improvement factor is applied to the appropriate trait. Goodness and Evilness are each calculated as a composite stat, which is the square root of the sum of the squares of all respective traits (rounded down).

When a trait-altering action is taken, the improvement factor is also applied in reverse to any opposed traits (for example, the PC becomes less Honest if he takes a Deceitful action as well as becoming more Deceitful). It's harder to wash away sins with good deeds than to become corrupted by evil deeds, so good opposed traits get reduced by a larger factor when an evil action is taken and evil opposed traits get reduced by a smaller factor when a good action is taken. Due to the way the spiral stat system works a character with a very prominent trait such as an evil character with a Cruel trait of 25 will be unable to reduce that trait by performing minor good deeds; it doesn't matter how many vanquished soldiers he spares or beggars he feeds. Only a great and heroic deed like throwing himself between an onrushing evil dragon and its innocent victims-to-be even has the potential to reduce his Cruel trait. Beyond a certain point, even the noblest deeds will fail to reduce the PC's legendary cruelty.

Opposed traits are listed in parentheses, and a brief description of each trait is listed in brackets.

Good Traits (all opposed by Psychotic)
Friendly (Cruel, Ruthless) [sociable, tactful, polite to strangers, helpful to allies]
Generous (Greedy) [charitable to strangers, generous to friends]
Heroic (all evil traits) [altruistic to the point of self-sacrifice]
Honest (Deceitful) [loyal to allies, unwilling to lie]
Just (Cruel, Deceitful) [lawful, guided by reason and a sense of fairness]
Merciful (Cruel, Ruthless, Vengeful) [willing to spare vanquished enemies]
Peaceful (Vengeful, Violent) [no taste for violence, avoids combat]

Neutral Traits
Austere (Greedy, Hedonistic) [lives a simple life, no need of luxuries]
Curious (none) [loves to learn and discover new things]
Disciplined (Mercurial) [consistent, able to follow rules, true to self]
Hedonistic (Austere) [enjoys the pleasures of life]
Mercurial (Disciplined) [unpredictable, self-reinventing, takes actions against established character]
Pious (none) [fervently worships a higher power]
Stylish (Ruthless) [does things in style like a Bond villain, as in death traps instead of just killing foes]

Evil Traits (all opposed by Heroic)
Cruel (Friendly, Just, Merciful) [sadistic, enjoys the suffering of others]
Deceitful (Just, Honest) [willing to betray anyone for the right price]
Greedy (Austere, Generous) [miserly, loves the accumulation of material goods]
Psychotic (all good traits) [utterly insane, wants to watch the world burn]
Ruthless (Friendly, Merciful, Stylish) [cold, no nonsense, just business]
Vengeful (Merciful, Peaceful) [always needs to get revenge, revenge may be disproportionate]
Violent (Peaceful) [anger issues, or just a love of killing and conquering]

As mentioned in the above section, I am using something called spiral stats to describe the intensity of a character's traits. In case anyone's interested, here's some basic information about the spiral stat system:

Spoiler

The Spiral Stat System: Abilities, Skills, and Traits
Abilities, skills, traits, and other numerical abstractions are tracked using something called a spiral stat, which is always an integer. When some effect improves a spiral stat the improvement factor is a number between 1 and 10, with 1 being a very small increase and 10 being the maximum possible increase. To determine the new spiral stat level, take the square root of the sum of the old spiral stat level squared and the improvement factor squared (with the root rounded down). This means that a small improvement factor will not help a very skilled character, who can only improve by using the most advanced techniques. With a maximum improvement factor of 10 the highest level a spiral stat can reach is 50, though this could potentially be boosted with equipment or other modifiers.

Determining the outcome of a skill attempts, combat rolls, or other similar events is done with a logarithmic roll between the two sides. Opponents who are evenly matched each have a 50% chance of winning the roll. If one side has spiral stat X (X = 5 or 10) points higher than the other, the advantaged side has a 75% chance of victory. Every X points higher gives the disadvantaged side 50% less chance of a favorable outcome, with a smooth curve of victory chances for each integer difference between multiples of X.

tl; dr: If you don't take the time to read the post, I don't care what you think.

 

[Gxas]

Here's the problem: what I think is moral is different than what someone else thinks is moral.

Case in point:

In the classic, burning building, save the young thug or the old gentleman, I would save the young thug, as I believe that the near death experience would change his outlook on life. Now, someone else would think that saving the old man is better because the kid can never be changed.

It all comes down to what the designer thinks is moral. My view on morality will not always coincide with theirs, therefore, the game will never truly satisfy me.

Morality will never be able to be done properly in video games. It just needs to be accepted.

 

[steelyglint]

Here's the problem: what I think is moral is different than what someone else thinks is moral.

Case in point:

In the classic, burning building, save the young thug or the old gentleman, I would save the young thug, as I believe that the near death experience would change his outlook on life. Now, someone else would think that saving the old man is better because the kid can never be changed.

It all comes down to what the designer thinks is moral. My view on morality will not always coincide with theirs, therefore, the game will never truly satisfy me.

Morality will never be able to be done properly in video games. It just needs to be accepted.

I'm not interested in contrived moral dilemmas, which will certainly not be implemented in any game I write. Morality can be objectively defined within the context of a game because I, as a game developer, have the power to define any aspect of my game world. I'd like people to help to decide on how I should define these things, not discuss whether they can be defined when they clearly can.

A specific problem I often encounter is this: I murder 10 people, I donate 5000 gold to the church to feed the poor, and I help 15 old ladies cross the street. Am I a neutral person or, even more strangely, a good person? In many games, yes. I want a system where the answer is clearly no; I am a psychotic cold-blooded killer, despite my generosity to the down-trodden.

 

[dstryfe]

Here's the problem: what I think is moral is different than what someone else thinks is moral.

I agree, but I feel that it can be summed up in the dichotomy of 'the ends justify the means' versus the hero. See, I can rationalize being both Just and Deceitful (two opposed traits in your example); I tell people something that is only tangental to reality, and then I can fill in the details once I've changed the status quo (toward the best possible outcome for the greater good, of course). Not outwardly lying, but definetly misleading, both of which are deceit. This is the difference between being a hero and being an anti-hero, but I'll be buggered if video games catch on to that.

Guess I did kinda run away with my thoughts, huh? It's late. The point I never tried to get to (but now will) is that morality is abstract. It does not actually exist. It's a figment of your imagination, and thus cannot be accurately represented.

Your system is interesting enough to hold my attention, for what it's worth. I can see it working in a game, probably better than most of what we're used to, too.

EDIT: Taking a closer look, I found that the neutral traits work against evil traits or other neutral traits, but never good ones. Is that intentional?

 

[Arker]

Actions in themselves mean nothing, really. The reasons are whats important. For example: The ten people you kill are the innocent families of some not so innocent political leaders about to start a very bloody war, unless you scare them out of the current action. If you killed them purely for profit, yes you are an evil, greedy assassin, but if it was only to prevent the war, you could be considered neutral or even good, saving a thousand lives at the cost of ten.

 

[Clyde]

If you are looking for a system in which NPCs jugde the playable character, I recommeng using a sliding rule system. Serious actions like murder and rescuing cause large changes, while theft and benevolence cause an insignificant change.

 

[steelyglint]

I agree, but I feel that it can be summed up in the dichotomy of 'the ends justify the means' versus the hero. See, I can rationalize being both Just and Deceitful (two opposed traits in your example); I tell people something that is only tangental to reality, and then I can fill in the details once I've changed the status quo (toward the best possible outcome for the greater good, of course). Not outwardly lying, but definetly misleading, both of which are deceit. This is the difference between being a hero and being an anti-hero, but I'll be buggered if video games catch on to that.

Guess I did kinda run away with my thoughts, huh? It's late. The point I never tried to get to (but now will) is that morality is abstract. It does not actually exist. It's a figment of your imagination, and thus cannot be accurately represented.

Your system is interesting enough to hold my attention, for what it's worth. I can see it working in a game, probably better than most of what we're used to, too.

A good character who believes that the ends justify the means would probably have a moderate Ruthless trait counterbalanced by a number of moderate to high good traits.

You're right about Just and Deceitful not being perfect opposites. If I had to cut one good trait, Just would probably be first since I think it overlaps a little with both Honest and Merciful. Perhaps it needs a name change or a rethinking of its area of coverage. Any ideas of what I could replace it with?

Anyway, one point of this system is that minor acts that apply to a trait can never bring that trait to a high level. Being misleading without ill effect and cheating at cards are traits that a good person might have, since they're minor enough to not increase his Deceptive trait very much. Getting a high Deceptive trait would require actions like betraying erstwhile allies to their mortal enemies and promulgating "big lies".

EDIT: Taking a closer look, I found that the neutral traits work against evil traits or other neutral traits, but never good ones. Is that intentional?

EDIT: It's just how the traits shook out. I'm not opposed to neutral traits opposing good ones, but no obvious cases of it stood out to me.

 

[steelyglint]

Actions in themselves mean nothing, really. The reasons are whats important. For example: The ten people you kill are the innocent families of some not so innocent political leaders about to start a very bloody war, unless you scare them out of the current action. If you killed them purely for profit, yes you are an evil, greedy assassin, but if it was only to prevent the war, you could be considered neutral or even good, saving a thousand lives at the cost of ten.

For the purposes of my example, assume I just walked into a town (Megaton in Fallout 3, for example) and killed the first 10 people I saw. This is the kind of action a player character often gets away with.

EDIT: Plus, I don't buy the "24"-esque idea that sometimes "the only way" is to commit a horrible atrocity.

If you are looking for a system in which NPCs judge the playable character, I recommend using a sliding rule system. Serious actions like murder and rescuing cause large changes, while theft and benevolence cause an insignificant change.

Yes, that is one goal of this system. What you describe is a built-in side effect of the way the spiral stat system works, and is one of the reasons I designed it that way.

 

[Clyde]

Why use spiral stat over addition and subtraction? I believe in keeping things simple, please list the benefits of the complex system.

 

[steelyglint]

Why use spiral stat over addition and subtraction? I believe in keeping things simple, please list the benefits of the complex system.

1) With addition and subtraction, you can wash away a cold-blooded murder by performing a finite number of trivial good acts. With the spiral stat system, you can't. Really, this is the only reason I need since it solves one of the two problems with RPG morality that I identified.

2) Most of the complexity will be hidden from the player, who will only see the potential effect on each relevant trait when selecting his actions. No math is required on the player's part.

3) The spiral stat system is also used in other areas of the game to provide a smooth curve of victory probabilities against opponents of varying skill levels. Using the same system in multiple areas of the game improves consistency.

 

[Silva]

Your system, though it boasts great benefits in the spiral sense, is still too simple for me. Why should we be limited to Good, Evil or Neutral at all, even as major headings for more specific traits? After all, it is those very words that make every game morality system these days so bland and similar. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of chivalry, nihilism and capitalism being our only philosophical choices (and if we think about it, that's pretty much what the Big Three Terms mean in how they've been applied in RPGs so far). Bioshock explored objectivism in battle with altruism, leaving many hungering for more philosophical taste, but even it was quite a lot more simple than it needed to be.

I'd rather take a "factional morality" approach. That is, you have various in-game factions (groups of people, races, forces, whatever, depending on the genre) split on the basis of philosophy. In complex moral situations, one faction would agree with a move, while another will disagree. This would mean you'd get a philosophical profile depending on which faction you impress. Whichever faction your profile most consistently and overall aligns with at any given moment, if any, could act as a kind of default ally or home base.

Obviously, even in this system, some actions, like killing children, would get almost all factions to hate you and label you as evil (which, in this case, would be right in my view, but factional morality isn't about judging the player, instead opting to leave judgment to the game world itself). However, such unambiguous situations shouldn't be a focus of gaming except when we want to kill some Nazis cathartically, which is supposedly the main appeal of the WWII genre. Yes, extremes do give a rush to the player as well, but developers shouldn't turn down the possibility of being intriguing to smarter consumers. The gaming market is, after all, aging. So, in factional morality, actions like attending a church or a mosque could make some factions more willing to help you. It would be impossible to please everyone, except through clever dealings or covert action. And depending on your desire, you could use these methods to rally factions together, make deals or cause them to fight with each other.

This system would work especially well for sandbox games and MMOs. It would lend considerable consequence and depth to the more momentous choices of play, improving the replayability of any game using it. Similarly, the results would be varied enough to make that replay as utterly different as possible, freshening things for the player. The difficulty with this, of course, is getting someone with the knowhow to implement it; you'd need a game designer with philosophical skill and sociologically minded thinking. If it got taken up and developed properly, I'm sure it would make World of Warcraft look a bit old-hat.

 

[dstryfe]

You're right about Just and Deceitful not being perfect opposites. If I had to cut one good trait, Just would probably be first since I think it overlaps a little with both Honest and Merciful. Perhaps it needs a name change or a rethinking of its area of coverage. Any ideas of what I could replace it with?

Personally, I think that Just and Honest are different enough to both be used, but that Merciful is far too specific, and can be completely emcompassed by Just; perhaps a shift in coverage that way can ease it up a bit? Although, you might want yet another good trait to have as many as the bad traits. Tried the 7 virtues?

 

[steelyglint]

Your system is still too simple for me. Why should we be limited to Good, Evil or Neutral at all? After all, it is those very words that make every game morality system these days so bland and similar. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of chivalry, nihilism and capitalism being our only philosophical choices (and if we think about it, that's pretty much what the Big Three Terms mean in how they've been applied in RPGs so far). Bioshock explored objectivism in battle with altruism, leaving many hungering for more philosophical taste, but even it was quite a lot more simple than it needed to be.

I'd rather take a "factional morality" approach. That is, you have various in-game factions (groups of people, races, forces, whatever, depending on the genre) split on the basis of philosophy. In complex moral situations, one faction would agree with a move, while another will disagree. This would mean you'd get a philosophical profile depending on which faction you impress.

Obviously, even in this system, some actions, like killing children, would get almost all factions to hate you and label you as evil. However, such unambiguous situations shouldn't be a focus of gaming except when we want to kill some Nazis cathartically, which is supposedly the main appeal of the WWII genre. Yes, extremes do give a rush to the player as well, but developers shouldn't turn down the possibility of being intriguing to smarter consumers. The gaming market is, after all, aging. So, in factional morality, actions like attending a church or a mosque could make some factions more willing to help you. It would be impossible to please everyone, except through clever dealings or covert thinking. And depending on your desire, you could use these methods to rally factions together, make deals or cause them to fight with each other.

This system would work especially well for sandbox games and MMOs. It would lend considerable consequence and depth to the more momentous choices of play, improving the replayability of any game using it. Similarly, the results would be varied enough to make that replay as utterly different as possible, freshening things for the player. The difficulty with this, of course, is getting someone with the knowhow to implement it; you'd need a game designer with philosophical skill and sociologically minded thinking. If it got taken up and developed properly, I'm sure it would make World of Warcraft look a bit old-hat.

I don't think the categorization of traits as Good/Evil/Neutral is limiting, it's just a convenient way of grouping how they are treated by society. In this system you could be a saint or a monster, but you could also have a grab-bag of traits from all three categories if you acted appropriately.

Bioshock is the antithesis of what I'm trying to do. It was a fun game, but the moral choice was meaningless and there was pretty much only one choice to make.

I'm trying to describe the inner workings of a character's conscience, not the way in which the world around him reacts to his moral choices. What you discuss is the different (but related) subject of the PC's reputation and how NPCs and in-game organizations should react to him. I actually am working on how to do this, but it's a subject for a different thread (or perhaps later in this one).

Also, I've never been a fan of factions that are the incarnation of certain traits/moral outlooks (Planescape beware!). Sure, merchants may tend to be Greedy, the members of a monastery may be Disciplined and Pious, and an order of paladins may favor characters with any/all good traits... but characters in those organizations need not be homogeneous.

 

[ThatOneJewYouNo]

Without harking on your thoughts on the subject, I thought that was a pretty well-rounded set on a morality system...
BUT...
It all does unfortunately come down to perspective, so it's almost better than we leave it at the one dimensional plane, just so people can interpret what actions are considered good and bad.

 

[steelyglint]

Personally, I think that Just and Honest are different enough to both be used, but that Merciful is far too specific, and can be completely emcompassed by Just; perhaps a shift in coverage that way can ease it up a bit? Although, you might want yet another good trait to have as many as the bad traits. Tried the 7 virtues?

I looked at the 7 virtues when I initially chose traits, but I decided some of them are unimportant or neutral. I've been thinking about rolling Merciful into Just (switching the traits opposed by Just to be those opposed by Merciful, which would solve your quibble by removing Deceptive as an opposed trait) and renaming Friendly to Kind.

I've considered adding Humble as a good trait, but that would require Prideful or Arrogant as an evil trait and I just don't think that humility and hubris are good/evil enough to really matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Clyde]

Are battles fought like an RPG, or does this game work more like a life sim. It seems odd that generousity, i.e., would play a part in determining the victor. Animal crossing has the closest thing to a working morality system I've seen. You aren't forced to do anything except in the tutorial portion, and the animals react to the character differntly. The new Silent Hill actively integrates a personality test, and taking other tests could help.

 

[Silva]

I don't think the categorization of traits as Good/Evil/Neutral is limiting, it's just a convenient way of grouping how they are treated by society. In this system you could be a saint or a monster, but you could also have a grab-bag of traits from all three categories if you acted appropriately.

Then we disagree strongly on this, because I see those concepts as very limiting. As far as I'm concerned, they restrict morality to a cardboard matter, three layers of paper with nothing to hold it together. They are useful for personal systems, but not for ethics. And ethics is a more interesting route to take with gaming morality in my view, since it hasn't really been explored yet.

Bioshock is the antithesis of what I'm trying to do. It was a fun game, but the moral choice was meaningless and there was pretty much only one choice to make.

Well, it is the antithesis of my suggestion as well. I merely mentioned it because it is a good example of an attempt to critique one philosophical movement within gaming. To "do more", in my case, would be to take a far more ambitious and diverse route than Bioshock did.

I'm trying to describe the inner workings of a character's conscience, not the way in which the world around him reacts to his moral choices. What you discuss is the different (but related) subject of the PC's reputation and how NPCs and in-game organizations should react to him. I actually am working on how to do this, but it's a subject for a different thread (or perhaps later in this one).

Fair enough. I was well aware that I had digressed, of course, but I didn't want to let the system in my head go unsung. It is always interesting to see reactions from someone with a similar interest.

Also, I've never been a fan of factions that are the incarnation of certain traits/moral outlooks (Planescape beware!).

Well, neither have many people. However, that doesn't mean that such factions are not realistic. Political parties, activists, religions, cultural and philosophical movements are the kind that I was referring to; the very kind of factions that exist in the real world.

Sure, merchants may tend to be Greedy, the members of a monastery may be Disciplined and Pious, and an order of paladins may favor characters with any/all good traits... but characters in those organizations need not be homogeneous.

I think that, outwardly, a certain homogenous approach is absolutely realistic. The contrast between outer devotions and inner piousness and motives are a critical point of character development, but you need both in a good game. Perhaps we could say that my half simply completes the "outer" world around what a group wants, whereas yours is devoted to the "inner" world of the individual. These two systems can overlap quite nicely in the one game, so long as a designer knows when to express which side of any single character or group.

 

[steelyglint]

Are battles fought like an RPG, or does this game work more like a life sim. It seems odd that generousity, i.e., would play a part in determining the victor. Animal crossing has the closest thing to a working morality system I've seen. You aren't forced to do anything except in the tutorial portion, and the animals react to the character differntly. The new Silent Hill actively integrates a personality test, and taking other tests could help.

I haven't decided on the exact combat mechanics yet, but let's just say that combat will not be the only kind of conflict the player engages in. The moral traits will not affect combat, they'll be used to determine how NPCs react to the PC and simply as a cool way to look at your character info page and see that you're actually playing a fully fleshed-out character.

I'm planning on this being a game that incorporates both standard adventuring and empire building, within the context of a procedural sandbox environment. It's inspired by my disappointment with the lack of sandbox play present in games like Overlord and Evil Genius (also inspired by the great empire building of Europa Universalis 3 and the total lack of any type of empire building in Fallout 3)... when I play a mastermind, I want to be able to choose how I build my empire. I decided to leave the option of playing a good character even if the focus of the gameplay would suggest otherwise.

 

[steelyglint]

I think that, outwardly, a certain homogenous approach is absolutely realistic. The contrast between outer devotions and inner piousness and motives are a critical point of character development, but you need both in a good game. Perhaps we could say that my half simply completes the "outer" world around what a group wants, whereas yours is devoted to the "inner" world of the individual. These two systems can overlap quite nicely in the one game, so long as a designer knows when to express which side of any single character or group.

One problem with a factional morality system is that you still have to define the factions by what kind of action they favor and what kind they despise. In doing so, I think you'd end up with a system similar to what I'm describing. You'd also need to design the factions, quests, and such simultaneously since they're interrelated, and I think that would be a development nightmare.

Of course, factions can also hate a PC who constantly performs the kind of action they like. For example, the thieves guild may be full of Deceptive characters who love to steal, but they certainly won't like the PC if he steals from them. This is another reason that I think faction standing should be kept separate from a characters inherent nature*.

Factional reputation is still likely to exist, but it would be more along the lines of actual actions the PC has taken to support or disrupt the faction's goals.

*What can change the nature of a man? Regret.

EDIT: I need to get some sleep, I'll check this thread in the morning.

 

[Woem]

I think the Dungeons & Dragons morality system makes absolute sense, but many people see it too one-dimensional. The good-evil axis isn't the only one there is, there is also the lawful-chaotic axis. Especially when it comes to the BBEG (big bad evil guy) most DMs opt for them to be evil as a reason for the players to go after him. However the lawful-chaotic axis can make for really interesting motives.

Think for instance about a band of lawful good elves teaming up with a lawful evil Pit Fiend and his kobold minions against a band of chaotic good mercenaries (the players). This is certainly a valid position since the elves might value their ethical alignment (lawful) more than their moral alignment (good). But most people think of the good-evil axis as the more dominant one, and having your players think of the ethical axis might make for some great role-playing moments.

So don't make things too complicated with skills and traits when it can be as simple as this.