Other than fame and infamy, no. Karma systems that assign points to actions don't work, because it actually removes the element of choice and conflict. You're just going to pick whichever answer gives you good points or bad points instead of actually thinking about it or playing your own character.
Karma systems are the opposite of complex, meaningful choices. Skyrim should be full of complicated decisions that test the way you think and leave you feeling the emotional impact of the decision, and leaving you with a real sense of your character. Attaching arbitrary numerical rewards to those decisions is counter-productive to that, since it largely removes any element of thought or consideration you put into that decision. You'll just pick the option that the game tells you is the good one without thinking about whether you or your character agree or not.
LordFisheh said:
Hell no, not in the traditional sense anyway.
In my opinion, a good/evil system is extremely irritating and generally a poor design. I shouldn't need a game to tell me if I'm being good or evil; the storytelling should be good enough to convey that without a meter. This is especially important considering that games with good/evil often leave no space of subtlety. Everything is either positive or negative, as opposed to heroic acts for the wrong reasons or horrific ones with the best of intentions, both of which are far more interesting from an RP and story point of view.
Instead, 'morality' should be conveyed through reputation with both people and factions, like in Dragon Age where your party members judged your actions from their own points of view rather than the game dictating to you that a sacrifice for the greater good was in fact evil. Preferably morality would be more than just a bar, so some actions might be unforgivable, or other might make you a hero to a faction through sheer importance. I remember an immersion shattering moment in DA2 for example, where Anders would have willingly helped me capture escaped mages with nothing more than a grumble and gain in rivalry points. It would have made more sense to me for him to storm off and refuse to speak to me again, even over something as 'petty' as a sidequest.
I agree with this comment.
Moreover, I've had it happen where the game disagrees with me over what's "good" or "bad". Having a binary system of morality removes a huge element of personal choice as well as your ability to characterise your protagonist. If you value, for example, freedom more than equality, or equality more than freedom, then it sucks to be you if the game designers think differently from you. Moreover, if there's one thing I hate about karma systems it's the chickenshit way game devs make both choices completely consequence free. Being good or evil has no impact because you can still solve every quest and still have every party member and still get every reward. So what difference does it actually make? There's always some way you can play that makes everyone like you, because god forbid players actually have to think or figure a problem out on their own.
Instead of having the game tell you "WHOOPS YOU MADE THE EVIL DECISION", it's far more effective to have a morally gray world where people disagree. As you said, it makes far more sense if certain characters view you as the bad guy for making certain choices while others would agree with you for making certain ones (without having points flash up every time this happens, mind you). In a game like Skyrim, having complete strangers react this way to you because of an intricate behind the scenes web of factions, affinity values to other NPCs and so on would create a really vibrant world.
