Quote from: Koltar;245385

• Are there game systems that favor amorality or moral relativism , but are still considered traditional RPGs?
• Do traditional RPGS tend to assume that player characters should be a "Good!' and favor Good trending societies and cultures?

- Ed C.

My answers:

1) I don't think alignment is one of the defining factors of whether or not a game is a traditional game. It's more about system design. I think a game with substantial mechanics for morality could well be less-traditional (no matter which way they go)

2) My opinion is that D&D assumes you'll play heroes but provides significant infrastructure for playing vile bad-guys (and a lot of people do). GURPS, I don't think, makes any assumptions at all.

The fact that GURPS gives points for restrictive moral positions (e.g. Code of Honor, Honorable) and uses points to balance characters out is evidence of that neutrality: GURPS (as I see it) is giving a character with a code of any kinds points to make up for the reduced freedom-to-act that character has. In theory, over a lifetime of adventuring, the 20 points you get for being a good guy should pay for all the times you have to walk into an obvious trap or double-cross or whatever.

I think Vampire is a traditional RPG (traditional GM, Rule 0, etc.) and it assumed you'd play a bad guy (I think -- bear in mind I have limited first-hand experience), so I think the scope of trad games on this spectrum balances out.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.;245501I think Vampire is a traditional RPG (traditional GM, Rule 0, etc.) and it assumed you'd play a bad guy (I think -- bear in mind I have limited first-hand experience), so I think the scope of trad games on this spectrum balances out.

Cheers,
-E.

Any game where you can play a 'bad' guy posits that there's a bad, though, so that's either incorrect or the wording is inaccurate. I don't intend to pick on you, I'm just using your text as an example.

It's true that Vampire: the Masquerade is pretty relativistic, which you can see in that there's a moral path, but you can pick from several moral paths which are treated equally as well.

Vampire: the Requiem, on the other hand, like I said, has an objective moral system that is difficult to uphold but there are significant bonuses for doing so. There are also magics that require you to lose morality to use, basically making it evil magic.

Also, playing a bad guy doesn't really mean that the setting is morally relativistic. If it's explicit you're bad, then there's a sort of moral objectivity. If there's no standard for morals one way or another, or it's made clear that someone can pick a moral standard but there's no clear correct one setting-wide, then you can make a case for a relative game world.

Oh, and Traveller is another good example of a morally relative game ... unless, of course, we allow for "profitable = moral", in which case it's quite absolutist

Quote from: Thanatos02;245505Any game where you can play a 'bad' guy posits that there's a bad, though, so that's either incorrect or the wording is inaccurate. I don't intend to pick on you, I'm just using your text as an example.

It's true that Vampire: the Masquerade is pretty relativistic, which you can see in that there's a moral path, but you can pick from several moral paths which are treated equally as well.

Vampire: the Requiem, on the other hand, like I said, has an objective moral system that is difficult to uphold but there are significant bonuses for doing so. There are also magics that require you to lose morality to use, basically making it evil magic.

Also, playing a bad guy doesn't really mean that the setting is morally relativistic. If it's explicit you're bad, then there's a sort of moral objectivity. If there's no standard for morals one way or another, or it's made clear that someone can pick a moral standard but there's no clear correct one setting-wide, then you can make a case for a relative game world.

I'll step away from Vampire (any version), since I don't know enough about it.

A pure morally-relativistic game would, as you point out, have no concept of objective morality (I think GURPS fits this mold -- I believe that GURPS gives points based on how restrictive a certain mind-set is and, to a lesser extent, how society is likely to react to a person who behaves 'that way.' Neither of these posit an objective morality).

D&D actually codifies Good and Evil as observable universal traits so it can't be purely relativistic -- but I would argue that even if a game *defines* concepts like good and evil it can still be 'relativistic' in some way if it doesn't make characters of a certain alignment more likely to succeed; that's how I (ignorantly, probably) view the original Vampire as well.

For what it's worth, the last D&D game I ran dealt with a secret society of Astronomers (philosophers) who were asking questions about the nature of good and evil in a D&D world. They sent the PC's to go get a Helm of Opposition (the thing that reverses your alignment) and speculated about what it might mean to have one's alignment reversed without altering any other aspect of your personality... could you continue to serve a "good" cause / country / church -- and just do it in an "evil" way? If you continued to fight for a good cause (out of a selfish motive) and do good deeds (for the same reason) would that make you good (answer: no... not according to D&D... but if your behavior is indistinguishable from that of a 'good' character, it raises some questions about the meaning of alignment)

Etc. Etc. It's certainly possible to play with concepts related to relativism within a traditional objective framework.

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: Ikrast;245398You mentioned honesty as a disadvantage. In our world it probably is, because being unflinchingly honest means you skip over some of the advantages of lying (one of which is courtesy and social politeness).

In GURPS, anything which restricts your character's freedom of action is a "disadvantage". So if you character is truthful it's a disadvantage, if they're a compulsive liar it's a disadvantage; that is, the player cannot choose to either have them lie or have them tell the truth, but must swing towards one they've written down as a disadvantage. If they're written neither down as a disadvantage, they're free to do either.

So, whether the trait is viewed favourably by the character's society has nothing to do with whether GURPS calls it a "disadvantage" or an "advantage", that's determined by whether it restricts the character's freedom of action or not.

The discussion on SJGames was, "if a character has no disadvantages, what will they be like? How will they behave?" Now, the true answer is, "however the player wants them to".

Where it gets confusing is when we add a GM who says, "but you would never do that." So a GM who thinks it's hard to lie might say, "no, your character wouldn't lie - if he had the trait compulsive liar then he could, but he doesn't, so -" And a GM who thinks it's easy to lie might say, "sure, your character can lie."

So what this is really about is GMs imposing their idea of human nature on players.

In the discussion on SJGames, some people decided that a character without disadvantages is a sociopath; that is, unless you have specific traits saying you have empathy, are law-abiding and so on, you'll be a callous shit. Others decided that without disadvantages you're guided by self-interest, though not necessarily sociopathic. And so on. They have certain ideas of human nature, and would impose them on players.

Thanks Kyle Aaron, that cleared it up a smidgeon.


- Ed

Its good he did, because I was starting to doubt that the GURPS I was reading was the one you were reading. GURPS, in all my expirence with it, never once made a call to the rightness or wrongness of action within the framework of the game or rules.  There is even the long standing tradition within the Delusions Disadvantage that points out that even if the Delusion is somehow 'right'..(aliens really are stealing the left hand socks!)  it points out that its still a delusion and a disadvantage.

From thense we can also point out that the entire origin of this discussion (can GURPS characters be made, by the rules/conventions of the game?... without any disadvantages at all..)... which is a stupid discussion.

Here: No rule says you have to take disadvantages at all, and in the hands of even a remotely competent GM, any disadvantage is worth at least the points it gave. Thus, by the rules, any player can chose, legitimately, to have no disadvantages at all.  In fact, 0 point characters are feasable, if somewhat unpalatable.

Not taking any disadvantages is a disadvantage in and of itself, as the player will have fewer advantagous options than other players.  Essentially, a 100 pt character is a 150 pt character. With no disadvantages that 100 points is, literally, 100 points. No more.  

Stupid question, stupid assumption of the game 'world' postulated.  Are you getting your vibes on or something?

Quote from: Spike;245522Not taking any disadvantages is a disadvantage in and of itself, as the player will have fewer advantagous options than other players.  Essentially, a 100 pt character is a 150 pt character. With no disadvantages that 100 points is, literally, 100 points. No more.

I once had a player who chose no disadvantages for his character - it turned out rather bland. He also complained that his character had less skills than the rest of the party.

"Yes," I said, "but because you have no disadvantages, you also have greater freedom of action. One of the others has to be truthful and law-abiding, the other has to be selfish, the other has to be truthful and loyal - but you, you can do whatever you want. They have better skills, you have more choice about when and where to apply the skills you do have."
"But there's some stuff my guy won't do anyway, because that's just not me."
"Then either roleplay your character and ignore your own nature, or else you should have chosen disadvantages which match what you're going to do anyway. Like the other guy, he always chooses "curious" as a trait, because he knows he can't help but play it that way, he may as well get points for it."
"GURPS sucks."

OK, I'm going to stick my neck out a bit: to my mind, there are two ways in which a game system can be compatible with moral relativism:

1: It makes no statements about morality at all, like Traveller.

2: It defines morality not in terms of some external absolute, but in terms of a character's personal thought processes.

To be honest, I think a hell of a lot of games fall into #2 through sheer accident, either on the designer's part or that of the GM/players. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the D&D alignment system interpreted as referring to characters' thought processes as opposed to moral absolutes (so, for example, being "Lawful" isn't about promoting a particular vision of the Natural Law so much as it is about adhering to any system of laws or rules that takes your fancy, so long as you are consistent about it.)

This is only a problem, I feel, if people go into a relativist game expecting an absolutist setting and vice versa. A friend of mine ran a D20 Star Wars campaign where one player swore blind that there's no way his Jedi was about to turn to the Dark Side, because from his point of view everything he'd been doing was good and noble and necessary.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;245517In the discussion on SJGames, some people decided that a character without disadvantages is a sociopath; that is, unless you have specific traits saying you have empathy, are law-abiding and so on, you'll be a callous shit. Others decided that without disadvantages you're guided by self-interest, though not necessarily sociopathic. And so on. They have certain ideas of human nature, and would impose them on players.

It seems like there's a certain kind of player that's so nitpicky that there needs to be an Advantage, Disadvantage, Merit, Flaw, Feat, or what have you for every aspect of a personality or power set, which is faintly silly. In GURPS terms, it's a little like requiring one of those little +1 point things for trivial acts of personality. Like, it's be impossible to actually really enjoy sandwiches without demonstrating that in point form.

Functionally, though, it's the equivalent of having a Neutral D&D alignment. You can be altruistic, honorable, or kind of a shithead, but it's not so prominent a trait that it requires an Advantage or Disadvantage. It causes no serious problems or advantages for your character.

Quote from: Koltar;245385Are there game systems that favor amorality or moral relativism , but are still considered traditional RPGs?

Iridium does. It has Codes but these can be anything. They are three things that matter to your character. Usually things like good and evil are not part of them. They could be though. Examples of Codes would include, Friends, Money, Self, Guild, My Pet Fluffy. So, there is not morality built in. Most everything (Classes, skills, magic) have no orientation.

Quote from: Koltar;245385Do traditional RPGS tend to assume that player characters should be a "Good!' and favor Good trending societies and cultures?
- Ed C.

I think Clash described my games as "More trad than Trad" so I do no think strong moral integration is required.

Bill

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;245528I once had a player who chose no disadvantages for his character - it turned out rather bland. He also complained that his character had less skills than the rest of the party.

"Yes," I said, "but because you have no disadvantages, you also have greater freedom of action. One of the others has to be truthful and law-abiding, the other has to be selfish, the other has to be truthful and loyal - but you, you can do whatever you want. They have better skills, you have more choice about when and where to apply the skills you do have."
"But there's some stuff my guy won't do anyway, because that's just not me."
"Then either roleplay your character and ignore your own nature, or else you should have chosen disadvantages which match what you're going to do anyway. Like the other guy, he always chooses "curious" as a trait, because he knows he can't help but play it that way, he may as well get points for it."
"GURPS sucks."

There is a poster on this site, whose name escapes me, who has a term for people like this that I shall endeavor to remember.

I believe it has something to do with condoms.

When I remember more, maybe I'll post it.

Quote from: Thanatos02;245533It seems like there's a certain kind of player that's so nitpicky that there needs to be an Advantage, Disadvantage, Merit, Flaw, Feat, or what have you for every aspect of a personality or power set, which is faintly silly.

That's a lazy or stupid player.

• you can come up with your own traits in discussion with the GM; in fact most systems recommend it
  
• you can read many traits in different ways. For example, "truthful" may mean your character is happy to lie but has an open face and is terrible at it, or that they feel uncomfortable about lying and is thus bad at it - those are very different people.
• you can look at the way one trait combines with another to produce different characters: consider a character who is cowardly and callous compared to a character who is cowardly and charitable - very different people.

But all three of those require some imagination and effort.

Quote from: SpikeThere is a poster on this site, whose name escapes me, who has a term for people like this that I shall endeavor to remember.

Actually he's a good guy, he's just never satisfied with any game system he's played with in the last year. A real "the grass is greener" sort of guy - some system he played ten years ago, or some system he just bought but never played, this one will be brilliant, honest, not like this crap one we have now!

Greg Stafford's Glorantha is absolutely subjective. All truths are correct. It all depends on where you stand.

Quote from: Ikrast;245444An absolute view is that actions are either absolutely right or wrong, regardless of context. (Some may be irrelevant, though in practice most things aren't). The answer to "why is it wrong" usually roots back into a Deity for the religious, or some appeal to biology for the non-religious; some universal standard is used to decide if something is ethical or not. "Murder is always wrong; God says so" is an example of absolute moralism.
 
Anything else, no matter how nicely worded, is some form of subjectivism. "Murder is wrong because I wouldn't care to be murdered" is relative; the speaker has no claim to be an absolute standard because he might change his mind tomorrow and think that being murdered is ok (eg, as an escape from a terminal disease.) "Murder is wrong because most people in most cultures has said so" is subjectivist, but inching towards a kind of vague absolutism, because it wraps up some sort of appeal to human nature, which might be viewed as an unchanging constant, over an average.

The opposite of moral subjectiveism is moral objectivism. Again from wiki:
 
Moral objectivism... is the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion.
 
So for example if someone asks How many people live on our planet? There's an objective answer (let's use reason to find the one and only exact and true answer) and countless subjective answers (opinions, be they personal, cultural, judicial or whatever.)
 
Likewise if someone asks "Is it good or bad to kill all the people who live on our planet?" There's an objective answer (let's use reason to find the one and only exact and true answer) and countless subjective answers (opinions, be they personal, cultural or whatever).
 
Kirk is a moral objectivist "Stop! What, you, are, doing, is wrong!" Whereas Picard is a subjectivist "Stop! Starfleet regulations forbid...." Additionally, both of them are moral absolutists since they unflinchingly hold to their convictions.
 
BTW, I agree with everything Kyle said about disadvantage = limits on freedom but I'd add that by the book, the advantages of being honest or a habitual liar are best modeled by buying reputations, skills or attributes. From memory, in 3rd edition a honest character would be something like...
Honest -10
Reputation: Honest +10
 
But if you wanted to be perverse, you could do something like this:
Honest -10
Reputation: Always lies -30
 
Or
 
Compulsive liar -15
Skill: lying +9999 to teh maxorz!