Role Playing With Ethics
The question about ethics in role playing is at first a bit silly. What do ethics have to do with role playing? The first impulse is probably to say that role-playing games (RPGs), just like movies or theatrical plays, represent a whole medium. As such, one can't treat all role playing games as an entirety. This argument seems to be true. Still, the question remains.
Are there role-playing games that are more or less moral? This question, too, is badly defined. In a system with a huge collection of rules on remorse and good deeds, a group of players can still murder and burn for their own amusement, and the reverse is just as possible.
Is there, then, any system containing good mechanisms for dealing with the inner life of a character? I personally think so. But in the final analysis it is still the gamemaster who determines how these rules are applied to the world. After all, as with all things in role playing games, it is the gamemaster who decides which rules are to be applied, and when.
The now-extinct gaming magazine Sinkadus published an article abouth ethics in Role-Playing. Among other things there was the following passage:
"It is always easy to make a choice in the epics. The villains are steeped in utter evil, the heroes are pure-hearted and noble. Often the same thing is true in RPGs, and there is of course nothing wrong with that. The adventures should be like fairy tales, and not attempts at emulating reality. There should therefore be both black-as-night villains and shining heroes in a role-playing world! But remember that "hero" is not something you become by cutting the heads off of a thousand enemies. One becomes a Hero by doing something difficult and dangerous to help other people." (My italicising)
I can't help but to agree. People can look up to, even worship, a warrior of supernatural skill. But should that warrior pursue his goals for himself only, then he would be no hero.
Gaming Systems
Every gaming system has its own opinions on how the inner life of a character should be handled. Many RPG creators believe only non-player characters should be controlled by values and dice rolls. The reason for this is simple: few gamers like to be forced in another direction just because of a failed dice roll. Other gamers, however, welcome the consistent behaviour and the challenge that these rules bring.
Below we will examine a few ways to describe the inner workings of a character in different systems.
West End Games' Star Wars - The Roleplaying Game
The core of the Star Wars saga revolves around mythical archetypes. The majority of these stem from the idealised conflict of the good against the evil. This was obviously a prime concern when the game was written. Since the system is quick and action-filled, the rules are very loosely fitting.
That which makes Star Wars special is that the morals of a person are intimately joined with the Force, a mystical energy field created by all living things. In the game, a character unable to manipulate the Force consciously (a non-Force User) receives so-called Dark Side Points when committing evil or selfish acts (what is considered evil and good is determined by the reason for the action in question). However this happens only when the actions are severe in nature, or if one unconsciously uses the Force to the wrong ends. Upon receiving this point, a die is rolled. If one rolls below the number of Dark Side Points... well, then the character has succumbed to the Dark Side, the evil part of the Force, and will henceforth be played by the gamemaster.
A Jedi Knight, in contrast, no matter her awareness of her heritage, is closer to the Force than a regular person. Thus, all the actions she performs will be judged by the same scale. If the character grows too used to cutting down unarmed opponents, telekinetically strangling people, or even if she ignores cries for help, then there is a great risk that she will fall to the Darkness.
Neogames' Eon
In Eon, eight so-called Karaktärsdrag, or Character Traits, determine the basic workings of the character. These are Loyalty, Honour, Amour, Aggression, Faith, Generosity, Fame and Luck. Non-player characters receive another "trait": Resources. This last is a simplification to show how in a condensed fashion how much influence the person in question has.
For those of technical inclination, it all works in the following way: Traits are
rolled with 3D6. Luck is rolled separately, while it is allowed to randomly allocate the
rolls between the other traits. Observe that in Eon, one rolls values with 3D6,
while in-game another system is used; one has to roll below the value with x amount of
In-dice (In meaning Infinite). This is not to say that the values are set
in stone; they are changed by the actions and experiences of the character.
A situation pinched from the rulebook could then illustrate how these traits influence
the game:
"Sir Dunbaton is challenged to a duel by another nobleman. The problem is that he is in a hurry right now, and actually doesn't have the time. He rolls for Honour which now is 17, gets 10 on the roll and thus accepts the duel despite his lack of time."
Thanks to the In - dice, the system has unique advantages and disadvantages; the most obvious advantage is that a regular resistance roll (In3D6) can yield a result exceeding 18, which prevents characters with a value of 18 from being completely predictable.
It must, however, be said that such extreme values can give rise to problems. A line from the gaming test was "I have thought about using Animal Training on that guy." The character in question had a rather high value on Amour...
Target Games' Drakar och Demoner
In principle, Drakar och Demoner lacks mechanisms for the abovementioned Traits. The exception is the ability known as Psyke (PSY), which has multiple functions. To begin with, it decides how much magical power a character possesses; if you have PSY 16 you also have 16 points of magical energy. Secondly, it decides your willpower. Thirdly, it can be lowered by experiences of intense horror - making it a measure of sanity as well. However, beyond that, the character's inner workings are not defined.
Target Games' Kult (in the US known as Cult)
Kult is a horror game. The world is based on the same Gnostic themes that recur in movies like Dark City and the Matrix. Here, the world is an illusion created by God to keep humanity prisoner. This illusion that contains us can be made to shatter, and the nightmarish reality that is thereby uncovered gives rise to fantastic powers.
Unsurprisingly, Kult has an extensive system to handle the effect of horror on the human mind. The value Mental Balans (Mental Balance) is here both an indicatior of sanity, and a measure of the character's ability to alter reality by will alone. The humans in Kult are gods trapped in their own ignorance, and as their sanity slips away, their power grows.
However, in Kult there is as far as I know no value that prevents the gamer from performing specific tasks.
TSR's Dungeons & Dragons
I have saved this to my mind controversial morality system for the last, as it is both unique for this game and distinctive in other ways.
In Dungeons & Dragons, every character possesses something known as an Alignment. This concept has nine positions, which as are the following: Lawful Good, Neutral Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Neutral, True Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil and Chaotic Evil.
This Alignment can be changed through the actions of the role player. Some professions, for example that of the Paladin, can only be pursued by characters of a certain Alignment. The Alignment of a being can also be read by a magician. Specific races tend to specific groups of Alignments. Drow, for example, tend to be evil, as do Orcs.
I personally dislike this system for a variety of different reasons. I'll open with a new quote from the article I mentioned above:
"It denotes that every creature is either good, neutral or evil. [..] That is an invitation to serious errors!
To begin with, one gets the impression that it is OK to be evil, which of course is wrong. Also, the system means that one so to say plasters moral stickers on any creature, person and people. Orcs are evil, gold dragons are good, druids are neutral. The consequence is easily that the players feel they have a right to cut down anyone with an opposing alignment. Orcs are per definition "evil" and can be killed at any time, aren't they? But that is of course not right."
My opinion is that the author of the article, in the purely intellectual sense, has a point here. What is it that suddenly allows you to decide a person to be "evil"; where is the dividing line? How many people must that person save in order to be seen as "neutral"? And most important of all - if a character both pursues unselfish acts of heroism and then burns down villages in his spare time, is he then "neutral" and thus neither good nor evil?
Yet the concept of "evil" is difficult to define. A westerner would, perhaps, decide that prostitution is morally indefensible, while a person from Thailand very well could hold the reverse position. Another example is the fictitious dark elven culture I am part of when I play live action role-playing, in which the value of a creature is determined by its race. An honourable dark elf could burn a family of human farmers alive. If he later slew a high elf in battle, this same dark elf would fight to the death to defend his enemy's body from "lesser" races.
Besides, working for the common good of the group is generally considered to be good. But what this inescapably implies is that any social creature should generally be inclined to be "good" or at the very least "neutral" toward members of its own society, so long as this society is of natural origin. Don't believe me? Then explain the reason for these creatures helping each other. Their instincts of any social creature are clearly geared toward mutual advantage. What evolutionary reason would such creatures have to pathologically hate each other? None whatsoever, or they would have died out long ago.
Ah, I hear you say, but what about the Orcs of Tolkien fame? They plainly hate and plot to murder their fellows at the slightest chance. To that I simply answer that the society of the Orcs isn't natural in origin; it is profoundly unnatural. Tolkien's Orcs live their lives in forced servitude and terror. They are forced into battle and kept on leash by their ruler Sauron, and this gives rise to fear, rage and frustration. So are they evil? Most of Sauron's Orcs undoubtedly are, yes. Are they naturally inclined to be evil? Probably not.
Back to the mechanics of gaming. It's rather telling how this Alignment system affects the game directly. Semi - quoted from the game Baldur's Gate II:
"I recognise them from descriptions. Duergar. Kinda evil, so it's not strange that they work for our captor." -- Imoen (paraphrased)
The statement is an interesting one. Duergar, then, are "evil"; Imoen has heard this from someone. Yet just because this person holds the opinion that Duergar are evil, does Imoen have to hold it too? It could only be so if Evil and Good was independent of a person's beliefs and cultural background, if there is a universal moral code. There is, of course, at least for humanity; that code is called humanism. And going by that code, human beings are allowed to think what they will, so long as it harms no one else. In D&D, to be "evil", you don't have to actually have done anything. Your crime could just as easily be... wait for it... being the member of an "evil" race!
Equally painful is the following quote, taken from WebRPG:
"Once, I created a sword called the "Bad-Guy Squasher." It killed any evil-aligned creatures in a 20 ft. radius. So, a paladin uses it against a lich. It killed the lich alright, but let's just say the thief in the party lied about his alignment..."
Ouch. Here, we see no less than three tendencies that stem directly from the Alignment system. Firstly, the fascist "right" of the characters to kill anything with an evil Alignment. Secondly, the ability of magic to make what is in practice a completely subjective judgement. Thirdly, the 'oh darn' approach to the death of another being. But hey, he was evil. No harm no foul, right?
Finally, my opinion is that this system stunts or kills opportunities for role-playing. Try the following situation, taken from the same article as before:
"The player's character is well-built, strong and a skilled warrior, dressed in armour and equipped with good weapons. He encounters a stranger who is small of size, not armoured, and from all accounts is an amateur at fighting. The stranger yells something like "murdering scum!", draws his sword and cuts at the player character. What does the player do?"
In Dungeons & Dragons the player could well have pulled out some magical gadget that checked the stranger's Alignment, or cast a spell of "Know Alignment". Had it then showed "evil", then the player would be fully justified in lopping off the stranger's head. Though somewhat forced, my point is surely clear: instead of forming an opinion of a character by studying his or her actions, it's possible to cast a simple spell. Which in my opinion is a cop-out, and the death of a potentially interesting situation.
Final words
It should be mentioned that the playing style I prefer is fairy-tale fantasy of the more down-to-earth variety. In such a setting, characters can be heroes, yet are still ordinary humans. A kick hurts, a stab wound to the neck kills, and magic is a thing both rare and dangerous. With this style it is possible to give the players the illusion of reality, something difficult to achieve with characters able to routinely defeat a hundred enemies in melee. Another advantage of this is that enemies never get so powerful that they cannot be defeated by simple cunning.
I am not claiming to have achieved the ultimate level of refined role-playing. But it works for me.
* = The article was called "Etik - Vad är det", written by Åke Eldberg for Sinkadus 18, 1989.
Author: Björn Paulsen has played RPGs for over eight years, mainly as gamemaster. He has game mastered cyberpunk, fantasy, horror, action and science fiction. His favourite systems are Västmark, Star Wars and FUDGE, making him a semi-freeformer, the significance of which makes him slightly uncomfortable. He is right now working on his own fantasy world and system, presently without name, and on a Star Wars conversion.