This guy is quite clearly not aiming for simple, but no one needs to say that if you read the entire first post.JimmyBassatti said:You could always, you know, just make it simple...
(snip)
OT: Why do we need this uberperfect system? Why can't we just keep using the Fallout 3 system?
Developing an RPG Morality System
- Thread starter steelyglint
- Start date
You're thinking too hard here.
"If I build one house, I am not a famous architect. If I treat one sick person, I am not a famous doctor. If I write one essay, I am not a famous journalist. But if I screw just one goat..."
The much simpler patch is that no amount of good overwrites evil without a lot of time passing. This fixes the whole issue of minor good acts overwriting terrible crimes. A serial killer who helps a little old lady cross the street and puts his dollar in the plate every week is not a less villainous soul in most people's eyes. If anything, he's creepier because he violated social trust while pretending to be an upstanding member of society.
"If I build one house, I am not a famous architect. If I treat one sick person, I am not a famous doctor. If I write one essay, I am not a famous journalist. But if I screw just one goat..."
The much simpler patch is that no amount of good overwrites evil without a lot of time passing. This fixes the whole issue of minor good acts overwriting terrible crimes. A serial killer who helps a little old lady cross the street and puts his dollar in the plate every week is not a less villainous soul in most people's eyes. If anything, he's creepier because he violated social trust while pretending to be an upstanding member of society.
My apoligies, I wasn't very clear with what I meant.
I was just trying to call attention to a Robin Hood sort of case where, if one steals only from the rich and gives to the poor, the spiral-modifier will have beggars hate him for being a vile thief despite his charity towards them. Perhaps the effect on your morality should be based on the morality of your opponent? If you kill a mass-murderer, shouldn't your evil penalty be reduced?
I like the sound of your morality system. It's layered and deep and explores a wide variety of different character traits that don't necessarily overlap. I like the fact that my character could be generous, hedonistic, deceitful, friendly, mercurial and vengeful all at once, because, in most games, I find that morality systems to an extent impede my style of play and inhibit me from actually making a unique character (ie taking the roleplay element out of roleplay). Combining all the different factors you've listed makes for some truly unique and revealing types of characters, and it removes the oppressive elements of other morality systems.
The problem I normally find with RPG morality systems is that they're either way too easy to exploit, or they force you to play in a certain way the whole game. Take Fable II versus Bioshock for an example. For Fable II, there were basically only two sliders. For the first half of the game, I ran around murdering innocent people, until it stopped being fun. Then I picked up a lute and all of a sudden I was the noble hero of the land with a halo over my head. In games like Bioshock or inFamous you either have to be all the way good or all the way evil or you're essentially screwing up your game.
I like how all these different factors add to a sense of openness. I can experiment with different qualities without simply being told, "Look! Suddenly you're evil!!" and freely customise my favourite brand of character - chaotic neutral. =D
The problem I normally find with RPG morality systems is that they're either way too easy to exploit, or they force you to play in a certain way the whole game. Take Fable II versus Bioshock for an example. For Fable II, there were basically only two sliders. For the first half of the game, I ran around murdering innocent people, until it stopped being fun. Then I picked up a lute and all of a sudden I was the noble hero of the land with a halo over my head. In games like Bioshock or inFamous you either have to be all the way good or all the way evil or you're essentially screwing up your game.
I like how all these different factors add to a sense of openness. I can experiment with different qualities without simply being told, "Look! Suddenly you're evil!!" and freely customise my favourite brand of character - chaotic neutral. =D
They can't make a perfect one unless they asked the player what their motivation was for doing certain actions. It all depends on the person's point of view and reasoning.
I have an idea: Make every NPC have one or more labels on them, like begger, peasant, pompous aristocrat, etc. Actions committed would affect other people's reactions towards you depending on how that action affects people of their same label(s). So stealing from the rich and giving to the poor would give positive relations to the people with the label poor and negative to the people labeled rich. Of course, whether you were caught or not doing the crime is a factor, but that's already been discussed in this thread, so I won't repeat it.Greyfall said:
Let me reiterate: He doesn't WANT simple. If YOU want simple then good for you, go play simple.JimmyBassatti said:I did, but still, why can't we just make it like mine. You either kill shit, or you don't, simple as that. You don't half-kill it, you don't 1/4 kill it, you either kill it, or you don't.Psyco Josho said:This guy is quite clearly not aiming for simple, but no one needs to say that if you read the entire first post.JimmyBassatti said:You could always, you know, just make it simple...
(snip)
OT: Why do we need this uberperfect system? Why can't we just keep using the Fallout 3 system?
Sorry if I sound abrasive but I want complex.
I want a morality system that will let me do all the good missions, while still being evil, and tell me I am evil like a politician or Lex Luthor. I want to be good in the eyes of people, but secretly be a horrible person killing hundreds of people, just covertly.
Fallout 3 had a horrible system. One dimensional systems always fail.
I want a game that has a two-dimensional system. One being how everyone sees you, and the other that is how much of a true psychopath I like to play as.
Moral choice systems in games are hard to makegood decent not horrible. When one gets close I will applaud it for doing the insanely difficult.
Fallout 3 had a horrible system. One dimensional systems always fail.
I want a game that has a two-dimensional system. One being how everyone sees you, and the other that is how much of a true psychopath I like to play as.
Moral choice systems in games are hard to make
After reading through the original post and going through the several responses, I'm still missing the answer to one crucial question: what is the purpose of this morality system in respects to the game?
This isn't an objection to the existence of the system, but before any system can be designed and refined, the purpose of that system needs to be defined; "Necessity is the mother of invention" and all that. Otherwise, everyone is just shooting their opinion in the dark with no idea of how your system is supposed to serve the game. This hasn't been clearly and unambiguously defined (and if I missed it, feel free to slap me over the head).
This isn't an objection to the existence of the system, but before any system can be designed and refined, the purpose of that system needs to be defined; "Necessity is the mother of invention" and all that. Otherwise, everyone is just shooting their opinion in the dark with no idea of how your system is supposed to serve the game. This hasn't been clearly and unambiguously defined (and if I missed it, feel free to slap me over the head).
I'd rather attack the basic principle of a morality system in general because there is no point. There is no good or evil, logical responses to your actions is all that matters. Trying to nail it down into an easily quantifiable system makes it easier for us but limits the concept. If I shoot a girl in chapter one, that should follow me to it's logical conclusion. Not earn me abstract evil or pyschotic points. These quantifiers are useful crutches from the programming perspective but can be replaced with a simple reputation/tag recognition system. EX: Fallout's Karma system, where 'evil' actions earn you bad Karma, which leads to different interactions with NPC's (for the positive or negative), or a specific tag (ex. Child Killer).
The problem with this of course is quantifying highly subjective morality, so in the best case scenario there would be direct correlation to specific events- which would be a nightmare from a programming perspective but inteirly possible in a linear game (unrelated topic, Sandbox Games aren't 'better').
Now, for a roleplaying system, sounds like the bee's knee's and handles the ambiguity and clunkyness of D&D's 3x3 system (LG LN LE NG TN NE CG CN CE)
PS: I'm not sure how you can be peaceful and cruel at the same time but it sounds awesome. Looking at it from an RP perspective i'd like to see them broadened so every good character could have flaws. Perhaps add a 'Shades of Grey' list of traits, such as Lustful, Greedy, Proud, Stubborn, Thoughtless (un-empathetic, tactless), jealous.
The problem with this of course is quantifying highly subjective morality, so in the best case scenario there would be direct correlation to specific events- which would be a nightmare from a programming perspective but inteirly possible in a linear game (unrelated topic, Sandbox Games aren't 'better').
Now, for a roleplaying system, sounds like the bee's knee's and handles the ambiguity and clunkyness of D&D's 3x3 system (LG LN LE NG TN NE CG CN CE)
PS: I'm not sure how you can be peaceful and cruel at the same time but it sounds awesome. Looking at it from an RP perspective i'd like to see them broadened so every good character could have flaws. Perhaps add a 'Shades of Grey' list of traits, such as Lustful, Greedy, Proud, Stubborn, Thoughtless (un-empathetic, tactless), jealous.
Thanks you all for the thoughtful replies.
Killing would rarely be considered a good act under this system. If you initiate combat, you will usually increase your Violent trait unless you have a good reason: if the targets are bandits attacking a caravan, or the target is a demon/dragon/other inherently evil creature, if it's self defense, etc. Going to a goblin camp and slaughtering everyone would still be a Violent act, even if goblins are generally known to be evil.
I've decided that a fame system is important as well, for determining whether people are aware of your virtue/evilness. Fame and infamy would track how aware people in an area are of your deeds. This means that if you're an evil bastard but can successfully hide your crimes, you can appear to have a virtuous face to all but the most perceptive of individuals (who can see the corrupt heart beneath the facade).
No matter what, Robin Hood under this system would have a high Deceptive trait, the trait I would consider most closely associated with thieves. People who knew his true nature would still consider him a thief.
You could be a good character overall, and still have a few evil traits. The point of this system is that you can have a complex hero with a mean streak (moderate Cruel trait) or an otherwise virtuous paladin who is enraged by evil and feels compelled to destroy it (moderate Violent trait).
Lustful would probably fall under Hedonistic (I originally had an evil trait called Depraved that covered deviant sexual behavior, but I don't want to write quests or events related to rape). Greedy is already covered, and I think jealousy is covered by Greedy as well. Stubbornness could potentially make it as a neutral trait. Pride could be combined with the opposite of Egalitarian to produce an evil trait concerning the desire for everyone else to be subservient (names I thought of include: Authoritarian, Controlling, Imperious, Tyrannical).
I agree that intent matters, and it's possible that when undertaking some actions the player could decide between two (or more) identical actions that have different intents, which would have different effects on his traits. Accepting a reward for a completed quest would not necessarily increase the character's Greedy trait, since desiring fair pay for hard work isn't greedy. If the quest giver was the elder of a poor town and demanding the reward would mean the town can't buy medicine and food for the coming winter... that would be greedy to the extent that the character's Greedy trait would rise.Psyco Josho said:
To some extent that's actually what I'm proposing. The difference is that it's not virtuous simply to refrain from lying... it's choosing to tell the truth when you stand to gain from lying, or choosing to tell the truth when it will hurt you personally that increases your Honest trait.JimmyBassatti said:You could always, you know, just make it simple...
Evil ------------------- Good
"You Steal Shit" - "You Don't"
"You Kill Shit" - "You Don't"
"You Rape Shit" - "You Don't"
Kidding, of course.
OT: Why do we need this uberperfect system? Why can't we just keep using the Fallout 3 system?
The Robin Hood scenario could still exist. A character who steals would find his Deceitful and Greedy traits rising. Stealing from people who can "afford" the theft would cause a smaller increase in the character's Greedy trait, since it causes less suffering to the victim. If the character then turns around and gives the majority of the pilfered goods to the poor, his Generous trait will rise (and reduce his Greedy trait, since they're opposed). Therefore, the character's two most prominent traits would be Deceptive and Generous, both of which I think describe Robin Hood well.Greyfall said:
I agree on several points, though if you're truly amoral I hope you don't live near me.Gormourn said:
Killing would rarely be considered a good act under this system. If you initiate combat, you will usually increase your Violent trait unless you have a good reason: if the targets are bandits attacking a caravan, or the target is a demon/dragon/other inherently evil creature, if it's self defense, etc. Going to a goblin camp and slaughtering everyone would still be a Violent act, even if goblins are generally known to be evil.
I've decided that a fame system is important as well, for determining whether people are aware of your virtue/evilness. Fame and infamy would track how aware people in an area are of your deeds. This means that if you're an evil bastard but can successfully hide your crimes, you can appear to have a virtuous face to all but the most perceptive of individuals (who can see the corrupt heart beneath the facade).
No matter what, Robin Hood under this system would have a high Deceptive trait, the trait I would consider most closely associated with thieves. People who knew his true nature would still consider him a thief.
Yes, Fallout 3 had a 1-dimensional system and it really annoyed me. Especially when Three Dog would spend his time praising my virtue, then immediately turn around and talk about a horrible crime I committed. With my system you could perform virtuous, public quests to build your fame while at the same time running a criminal organization embezzling from all the guilds in the city and the poor-box at the church.4RT1LL3RY said:
There are a few purposes. One that has already been mentioned is to eliminate the way a player can whitewash major crimes with minor virtuous deeds (or vice versa, to a lesser extent). Another is the cool factor of being able to define an intricate and interesting in-game persona, that's more than just a single integer along a line. When someone's evil, I want to know what kind of evil they are. I think it could add a lot to the way the PC interacts with NPCs and the world at large.WickedArtist said:
Actually, Fallout 2 is an inspiration for this system. I just wanted more than it gave. I want to be able to look at my character info page and see the listed traits the same way I could in Fallout.TsunamiWombat said:
"I'm afraid your words concerning our order were poorly chosen," the monk said, turning his back on the man as a serene smile crept onto his face. "Our order owns the land you work to feed your family and I'm sorry to say you're no longer welcome on it. Perhaps you'll be able to beg for food when the winter comes, but I care not. Oh, your daughter is sick? You can use that to draw a few pity coppers from the purses of passers-by with her shivering in the snow next to you."TsunamiWombat said:
You could be a good character overall, and still have a few evil traits. The point of this system is that you can have a complex hero with a mean streak (moderate Cruel trait) or an otherwise virtuous paladin who is enraged by evil and feels compelled to destroy it (moderate Violent trait).
Lustful would probably fall under Hedonistic (I originally had an evil trait called Depraved that covered deviant sexual behavior, but I don't want to write quests or events related to rape). Greedy is already covered, and I think jealousy is covered by Greedy as well. Stubbornness could potentially make it as a neutral trait. Pride could be combined with the opposite of Egalitarian to produce an evil trait concerning the desire for everyone else to be subservient (names I thought of include: Authoritarian, Controlling, Imperious, Tyrannical).
Well, it really shouldn't be based on "good-evil" axis. There are too many ways to be good and especially evil.
Rather, there should be several opposing attributes, like selfless-selfish, kind-cruel, gentle-tough, diplomatic-ruthless, etc.
Usually it's just kinda a mess of bit everything in both "good" and "evil". It gets especially annoying when the "evil" side isn't supposed to be actually evil but just an opposing philosophy, but still gets points towards it for actions that make you a complete, orphanage burning monster.
Rather, there should be several opposing attributes, like selfless-selfish, kind-cruel, gentle-tough, diplomatic-ruthless, etc.
Usually it's just kinda a mess of bit everything in both "good" and "evil". It gets especially annoying when the "evil" side isn't supposed to be actually evil but just an opposing philosophy, but still gets points towards it for actions that make you a complete, orphanage burning monster.
Proud and Modest might be nice additions, though I can't really see how they'd be used. Actually, I haven't the foggiest idea of how any of this will be used, though some of it leans more toward 'heroic rpg' than some other stuff (ie. 'ruthless' and 'pious'). What about some other traits in the vein of 'cowardly' or 'selfless?'
Some of these traits (especially some neutral ones - I'm talking to you, 'style!') seem more geared toward law or chaos than actual good or evil, so why not make those additional factors? By which I mean add a law/chaos axis much like D&D (as has been posted numerous times now), but I feel that law/chaos is less representative of what you are than how you're seen, and that it's particularily well-suited to the faction-relation bit. Gabbing on about it, I realise this could take ages to do, but it's out here as a suggestion, nontheless.
[small]...and maybe you could remove neutral altogether, or have it slow the progress of good/evil and/or law/chaos stat progression...[/small]
I need to head to poker, but I think I might just try dissecting your spiral stat system over the weekend. See how it plays out and perhaps how neutral traits can affect it.
EDIT:
I was supposed to give my input days ago. Whoops.
Some of these traits (especially some neutral ones - I'm talking to you, 'style!') seem more geared toward law or chaos than actual good or evil, so why not make those additional factors? By which I mean add a law/chaos axis much like D&D (as has been posted numerous times now), but I feel that law/chaos is less representative of what you are than how you're seen, and that it's particularily well-suited to the faction-relation bit. Gabbing on about it, I realise this could take ages to do, but it's out here as a suggestion, nontheless.
[small]...and maybe you could remove neutral altogether, or have it slow the progress of good/evil and/or law/chaos stat progression...[/small]
However you feel about the law/chaos bit, I think the perfect number of traits would be seven, as five seems petty and ten seems nigh-unmanageable. Seven per section, I mean, and none of this "'Heroic' and 'psychotic' do everything" stuff (you could just have certain actions affect everything good or evil, as the situation warrants, and call the character heroic or psychotic based on the other traits).steelyglint said:
I need to head to poker, but I think I might just try dissecting your spiral stat system over the weekend. See how it plays out and perhaps how neutral traits can affect it.
EDIT:
Ruthless and Just aren't strictly opposed, either. A just man can be ruthless in his pursuit of justice, without necessarily corrupting his intent.steelyglint said:
I was supposed to give my input days ago. Whoops.
The discussion here (and other places) seems to favor an arrogant/powermongering evil trait, which I've decided will be called Imperious since the word perfectly captures the proud contempt for the desires of others I'm looking for. I'm not sure a Humble trait of some kind will make it though, since I think it's too narrow and should be a part of another good trait.dstryfe said:
A Fearless <-> Paranoid pair of neutral traits is one I've already considered, but I'm not sure if it will make the cut.
The neutral traits are simply interesting character attributes that I don't think contribute to the character's morality. The Austere Ruthless link might be mistakes, since they mean a character can become less evil by performing neutral actions (something I don't think is desirable). Perhaps the links could be one way, so that Ruthless actions make you less Stylish but not vice versa. The point of the neutral traits is just to add a little more depth to the character.dstryfe said:
Some of the traits do have to do with a character's lawfulness/chaoticness in the sense of the D&D rules (especially Just, Disciplined, and Mercurial) but I don't think the law/chaos axis is important enough the warrant categorizing traits differently. You don't need an axis to be defined for a person/organization that cares about justice to be more swayed by how prominent a PC's Just trait is.
Once again, an insightful comment. You made me go back and reexamine whether I actually wanted Heroic and Psychotic to be "catch alls," and I've decided that I don't (the decision to make them that way was made early on in the design process.)dstryfe said:
I agree that Psychotic is redundant in the current system. I think Psychotic can be removed to make room for Imperious since Cruel, Deceitful, Hateful, Ruthless, and Violent all cover aspects of the psychotic personality.
I feel the same way about Heroic, which I believe will be better described with the new term Selfless. Selfless will include aspects of self-sacrifice, altruism, and humility that make it opposed to Imperious
The essence of the Just trait is fairness: in the law, in personal behavior, and in the rewards and punishments that are distributed to people based on their actions. The Ruthless trait is about a total lack of regard for fairness when it stands in the way of personal gain. A Ruthless person would kill someone who stands in the way of his plans whether they deserve it or not. Mercy is a secondary aspect of the Just trait, and is equally antithetical to the Ruthless trait.dstryfe said:
Perhaps in the dictionary sense of the word ruthless one could be ruthless in the pursuit of justice, but not in the context I'm describing (which is perhaps not explained as thoroughly as it could have been).
How about we toss out the morality system all together and just create moral dilemmas let the player decide if they are good/bad? That way you don't impose your "this is how I see it" view onto what the situation is and the player has no clear cut way to decide if what he did is right/wrong.
I'm not quite sure why you're sketching this out. As a thought experiment (which seems to be a part of the matter)this has some value but I can't see how your game would benefit from this. It would take a very large number of actions to get this picture of the characters morality, but then what would you do with it? If you present the player with this information he's really only going to find fault with it, if there are gameplay connotations then it begins to feel more like a straightjacket than a tool. The part that has, perhaps the greatest significance in how the game might play is being reduced to fame/infamy.
The only way for NPCs to react appropriately to the PC's actions is for the game to have some sense of the implications of each action. The player will be informed of the change to his moral outlook each potential action would have if chosen, so it's not like he selects an option then suddenly finds out he's more evil/good (something which has happened to me in games before).Twilight_guy said:
Anyway, as I said earlier the game is not intended to be too focused on moral dilemmas, though there probably will be choices that weigh virtue against profit (a no-brainer for an evil bastard). A "no win situation" (i.e. you can only save your wife or a cage full of orphans from a fire) will have much less effect than an action taken without coercion.
It's true that this kind of a complex system is best used in a game without a strong narrative, since it's extremely hard to write a main storyline that appeals to all possible types of characters. It's intended more as one aspect of building an interesting character who inhabits a procedural sandbox world, and simply to explore how different types of characters interact with that world.Rack said:
Fame/infamy is an important element of how the character relates to the world, but even more important is being able to *know* the character, that is to define the essential nature of a character*.
*In the sense that Dak'kon or Ravel respectively would describe.
Anyway, I've produced a new list of the traits in a format that more explicitly defines what each trait means. I feel like the good and evil traits are in pretty good shape, with a broad coverage of moral areas without too much overlap. For now this is the final form while I work on other things, though I'd still appreciate comments... especially on the neutral traits, which I feel are the weakest.
Egalitarian (Cruel, Hateful, Imperious)
You believe that personal liberty is an essential right, and slavery is wrong. You believe that no one has the right to tell you how to live your life, and you extend that to say that you don't have the right to control the lives of others.
Generous (Greedy)
You choose not to hoard wealth when it could be spent on improving the lives of yourself or others. You are likely to spend money on lavish gifts for your friends and rewards for your allies. The wealthier you become, the more of your income you spend on charity projects to help the less fortunate.
Honest (Deceitful)
You believe that it is wrong to lie, steal, break a vow, or betray someone who trusts you. Even if you stand to gain from being dishonest, you take the moral high road and stick with your principles.
Just (Cruel, Ruthless, Vengeful)
You have a strong sense of fairness, and are merciful to those who are deserving of mercy. You believe just laws should be obeyed. When someone commits a crime or performs a good deed, you believe they should be punished or rewarded in a manner proportional to their actions.
Kind (Cruel, Hateful, Ruthless)
You find the suffering of others to be abhorrent, and work to alleviate the suffering of all living things even when inconvenient for you. You are polite, friendly, and hospitable to friend and stranger alike. You treat animals well.
Peaceful (Vengeful, Violent)
You find physical violence distasteful and are quick to forgive. You prefer to find a diplomatic solution to conflicts, and seek to avoid situations that might result in physical violence. You are calm and even-tempered.
Selfless (Greedy, Imperious, Ruthless)
You think about the well-being of others more than you think of your own. You are willing to put yourself at risk to help people in need. You are humble and are not motivated by a strong desire for wealth, fame, or power.
Tolerant (Hateful)
You avoid discriminating against people based on superficial traits such as race or gender. You tolerate people with a different outlook on life even when you disagree vehemently (such as someone with a different religion.)
Cruel (Egalitarian, Just, Kind)
You are sadistic and enjoy the suffering of others. You go out of your way to cause others to suffer, and are likely to enjoy torturing your enemies. You treat animals poorly.
Deceitful (Honest)
You have no compunction about lying, stealing, breaking an oath, committing fraud, or violating someone's trust. You may feign trustworthiness, but that only makes the inevitable betrayal that much deeper. Even your closest allies may be targets for betrayal if the situation is favorable to you.
Greedy (Generous, Selfless)
You have an excessive desire to accumulate material goods, and are never satisfied with the amount of wealth you have. You don't care who gets hurt, as long as you get paid. If you also have the Austere trait you are miserly. If you also have the Hedonistic trait you are gluttonous.
Hateful (Kind, Tolerant)
You find it easy to hate people. Your hatred may be general, or it may be specific to certain individuals or groups. You are insular and do not trust strangers. You are especially contemptuous of people who differ from you in a major way, such as race or religion.
Imperious (Egalitarian, Selfless)
You are prideful and arrogant. You believe that some people were born to serve, and you were born to rule over those people. You are motivated by a desire for power, prestige, or fame. You enjoy exercising your power over other people.
Ruthless (Just, Kind, Selfless)
You are cold and calculating. You have no empathy and no respect for fairness or just rewards. You don't consider anyone your friend, but simply a tool to be used. You will do anything to remove obstacles that stand in the way of your plans.
Vengeful (Just, Peaceful)
You are unable to forgive, and you feel the need to exact revenge against anyone who has wronged you. When you take revenge, it is often excessive and outside the justice system.
Violent (Peaceful)
Your first instinct when faced with a problem is to reach for a weapon. You love combat and have no patience for diplomacy. You are hot tempered, and possibly prone to berserk rages.
Austere (Hedonistic)
You have no need of a luxurious lifestyle. You eat simple food, have inexpensive living quarters, and abstain from alcohol, drugs, and sex. If you also have the Greedy trait you are miserly.
Curious (none)
You crave novelty. You enjoy exploring new places, meeting new people, and learning new things. You are willing to take risks in order to have an interesting experience.
Disciplined (Mercurial)
You consistently follow a set of principles. If society's laws are in alignment with your principles, you follow society's laws as well. You have a strong work ethic. You are likely to perform daily rituals such as training or studying. Your mind is not easily changed.
Hedonistic (Austere)
You enjoy the pleasures of life. You live in as nice a house as you can afford, eat gourmet food, drink fine wines, may enjoy the occasional trip to a hookah bar, and seek out sexual companionship. If you also have the Greedy trait you are gluttonous.
Mercurial (Disciplined)
You are fickle and unpredictable. You either have no principles or you fail to consistently follow them. You take actions that are not in line with your past behavior. You can change your mind at the drop of hat and are flexible when it comes to solving problems.
Pious (none)
You fervently worship a higher power. You believe that your thoughts and actions are divinely inspired, and see the hand of the divine behind events around you.
Stylish (Ruthless*)
You do things in with a unique sense of style, from the uniforms your minions wear to the grandiose plans you execute. You are unlikely to outright kill a worthy foe. You like to give your foes a sporting chance, and may handicap yourself if necessary. You may build yourself an impressive lair in an unusual location, like inside a volcano or behind a waterfall.
*Neutral traits can be reduced by evil actions, but neutral actions cannot reduce evil traits