If I Do'd it I Get a Whoopin'

I’ve always been a fan of game systems that break down things that are intuitive in real life in an attempt to understand or simplify them for players and game masters in a RPG. For this reason, the morality systems that most role playing games have attached to them fascinate me to no end. I think they’re ultimately the result of a group of villainous players who took the rules and living vicariously through their fantasy proxies, proceeded to rape, loot, pillage, and otherwise commit horrendous acts of depravity. Because of them (at least in my own imagination), alignment and morality systems became the norm in role playing games. These systems are the reason players don’t just do whatever they want with their powerful brute/dude who can cast real magic/supernatural beast etc. characters.

The flip side of that imaginative coin is that alignment systems are actually a tool for game masters, so that they have a basic belief system in place for each non-player character which the players interact with. But then, why all the fuss about alignment and such for players, too?

AD&D

Ah, alignments. I sometimes feel that this system was put in place simply to “balance” some of the more powerful classes in the game. Paladins had tons of special abilites, but they had to be law-abiding goodfellers. This often was played for comic effect as Lawful Stupid, but I digress.

Alignment in AD&D was divided along two axes, the good-neutral-evil axis, and the lawful-neutral-chaotic axis. A player would choose one from each axis (evil was often discouraged by both the rulebooks and the dungeon master) and then they’d have a basic outline for their character’s feelings about order, society, and freedom, and looking out for number one. Chaotic good tended to be the default morality for most of my characters, because blindly following the orders of a society seemed silly, but “doing the right thing” seemed like a good way to play the game.

Of course, there are only a few other reasonable alignments (besides chaotic good) to play. The rest are all clinically insane. Lawful evil was interesting (be selfish but honor your agreements and keep to the laws), and neutral good (“do the right thing” most of the time) and neutral evil (do what’s best for you and screw everyone else if it isn’t good for them) are pretty clear cut. But lawful good, lawful neutral, later editions of true neutral, chaotic neutral, and chaotic evil are all pathological nightmares. They, respectively, in the first two cases slavishly adhere to law and order like some kind of OCD crusader, in the next always seek “balance” so that everything is always meh, or in the last instances do things for entirely random reasons, sometimes in the name of wanton destruction.

So, overall, the system was whack. The penalty for acting out of alignment was a stern talking-to from the DM. If you were naughty while playing a character who needed to maintain a good alignment (say, a Paladin), then you’d lose your awesome bonuses from being a haughty fucker until you were a proper haughty fucker again. 1.5

AD&D 2nd edition

As you were. 1.5

Rifts

To me, it seems like Rifts took the AD&D morality system and simplified it somewhat. Instead of the grid o’ alignments there were discrete choices to make: Principled, scrupulous, unprincipled, chipotle, aberrant, cake ‘n’ bacon, warm vanilla sugar, diabolic, and lame-o. It was sort of like someone looked at the D&D conventions, and then removed most of the clinically insane ones and changed the names. So, no chaotic neutral. No lawful neutral. I was so sad to see these go. Rifts had such a slapdash system at times I wondered what the hell was going on, but this particular aspect of the whole thing was pretty good in my opinion.

The penalty for acting out of alignment was similar to D&D, but alignment meant little outside of “know alignment” type spells that could broadcast to local do-gooders that you were a selfish prick. Scary. 2.0

Vampire: the Masquerade

Oh, the Humanity. In vampire, each character has a Humanity rating that describes how close to their human origins their vampire self is. Most characters started right around seven Humanity on a scale of one to ten. If the character did villainous things (or even antisocial things at high ranks of Humanity) then they had a chance to lose Humanity. Losing Humanity was, at first, a good thing. After accidentally killing a human during a feeding frenzy, having to sulk and be all angsty got old after a while. Going down to like five Humanity was alright because around there “murder in the heat of passion” wasn’t so bad. Call me jaded.

The penalty for being a depraved monster was that the character actually looked more and more like a depraved monster as Humanity diminished. At zero Humanity the character is handed to the Storyteller, because they have become a savage predator without thought, only instincts. That’s some serious shit right there. Of course, when the character is down to one Humanity they have to do some seriously evil shit to lose the last point, but I guess if you’re really role playing “the beast” you might go there. 4.0

Vampire: Other Moralities

For those players who liked to be villainous bloodsuckers, the later supplements added Paths of Enlightenment that could be taken instead of Humanity. Each one functioned similarly to Humanity, but the “Hierarchy of Sins” table was different for each. For instance, not lying to someone when it would benefit you was a level 5 or 6 Sin for adherents to the Settite Path of Typhon. So if you were that guy you were pretty untrustworthy.

I didn’t play much of these systems. I think they’re interesting and dumb all at once. I like the Humanity system so much I like the tweaks on it that this system does. It’s also interesting as a Storyteller, because knowing that an antagonist or perhaps a mentor of the characters is thinking differently than the players can make for some interesting interactions. Still, at some level I feel like it’s a cop-out for those who want to commit vicarious horrendous acts of depravity. 3.0

Werewolf: the Forsaken

I don’t recall a morality system for this so much. I do remember that as the character gained in werewolfy power they became predators and creatures of the spirit realm more and more, and that humans were more and more uncomfortable around them. But. . .I don’t remember a morality system per se. I do remember that the “laws” of werewolf society were pretty much enforced by werewolfy powers-that-be. Is it freedom, then? Not really. But there wasn’t a morality system in play that governed a character’s actions, simply a societal one, with taboos to avoid. 2.0

Dungeons and Dragons 4E

This is a lot like the Rifts system melded with previous D&D systems, actually. There's only Good, Evil, Unaligned, and then the insane Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil alignments. I actually like it better than other D&D alignment systems, at least. Still sorta wonky. 2.5

Dark Heresy

The morality system of Dark Heresy is actually a sort of negative system. The characters all start out as relative tabula rasa, with no inherent flaws (well, you can give yourself quirks, but none are governed by gameplay. There’s no real reason to not commit acts of horrendous depravity, aside from the fact that if the character is caught doing so by other members of the Inquisition they will be slain in spectacularly painful fashion.

However, there are two trackers on the character sheet for Insanity and Corruption points, and as the character gains these, they become more and more unhinged and evil. Insanity points are what happens when the Warp (space? Evil space? Chaos?) breaks through to reality and some crazy shit goes down. Everyone floats for a while, or a banshee howl blasts the area, or a demon is released, or whatever. And then the character goes a little crazy. Or a lot crazy, in the case of the demon. Corruption points are similar, but they track how much the Warp has actually gotten a hold of the character physically. Characters will eventually become Mutants if they gain corruption points.

If the Inquisition finds out an adept is corrupt (or Emperor forbid, a Mutant), in any way, they will kill him in spectacularly painful fashion. Insanity points aren’t so bad, and actually, having some helps with willpower tests against the things that drive characters bonkers. However, having a lot gives the character some pathologies to roleplay, which I’m certain aren’t so good for long-term survival when the organization for which they work is willing to kill them in spectacularly painful fashion at the drop of a hat.

I don’t know if there is a way to get rid of either corruption or insanity points. I assume so, perhaps Psyker powers? Tech-priest machine-voodoo? Psychoanalysis? There’s not a lot of therapy in the 40K world. If something is broken, the powers-that-be tend to fix it by killing it in spectacularly painful fashion.3.0

-Merlin out