Possible Karma Systems

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

In thinking about optional rules and revisions for "Dead... and Back", it has occurred to me, that I may need some sort of a Karma or alignment system. It is a world with a major breakdown in government and police activities, breaking into old buildings is a major source of income, and well - a certain degree of ruthlessness pays off.

Sending bounty hunters after wayward Characters, or increasing the protection of caravans would be the most realistic way of stopping marauding players. However, grudge monsters and snipers only serves to make the world more dangerous and may actually kick off a vicious cycle that makes the problem worse.

I also think that being bound to some moral code helps make games more interesting in general. In most war games holding a village hex provides some kind of cover bonus. But playing a general trying to avoid civilian casualties presents a bit of a quandary in doing that.

What I've thought of so far rather parallels the two axis Dungeons and Dragons system. While I rather like that concept, I prefer not to copy others. Furthermore, I'm not so sure about to what degree a play benefit should be derived, if at all.

At its basic, a player chooses one of three "tendencies" - Ruthless, Reliable, or Altruistic. Ruthless characters set a few goals and will generally act in any manner that furthers their own goals and don't care who gets hurt, so long as this doesn't impair the plan. The altruistic path is one that believes all people have value, and generally avoids killing unless necessary. Reliable is summed up by the adage "an honest politician is one who when bought, stays bought" always stick to your word, but every word has a price. The payoff for each of these paths when "leveled up" is to get a reputation that will result in people ending up intimidated, or more job offers since you get things done )if amoral), or discounts since you've become a folk hero.

Another axis to be explored would be the degree to which a character pines for the old order. In short, do you want to rebuild the country as it was, or do you want to create an entirely new order.

A version of this that applies to city states or social groups might also be a useful development. The Free City of Tesla doesn't care what everyone else does, but is dedicated to its prototype hive mind re-imagining of social structure. Rangers, though not actually backed by the government, are fighting to bring back the country as it was.

[NoobHealer]

Ahhh... I love that D and D two axis alignment. So deceptively simple, yet so amazingly versatile.

As for the (Tendencies x Desired Outcome ... I could go either way. The tendencies half I can see being amazing because it gives you a good look into the character's persona. That is a fantastic role playing tool.

I just get a little iffy at the Desired Outcome or order thing from an RP standpoint. It kind of reminds me of picking a political party... it doesn't define who you are (At least for most people I know). Alignment tends to be a ruling of who you are and what your beliefs are... not the idea's of group you find to be the lesser of the evils.

For a darker system I'd probably take something more along the lines of (What he wants x How far will he go to get it). Does this person simply want a place for his family to live in peace... or does he want the zombies eradicated? If getting peace would require him to kill an innocent person, would he? How about an entire village?

It's just my opinion, but I've found that my real world alignment is not my personality... it's not my politics... it's my deepest beliefs. MY actions are guided by internal beliefs that have nothing to do with a greater good or anything fancy. It's more of a personal aspect than anything else.

As for mechanical advantages... I usually bend to the side of alignment is a player tool for understanding his own characters actions. If the character has acted as an Altruistic Hero to a small gang of people, a game master would know that they would help.

Wargames offer bonuses because they assume that you know how the generals will act 100% of the time. In the real world things rarely work out that smoothly. Sometimes, a lawful good person needs to break a law to save someones life. Sometimes, doing the right thing ends up hurting someone else.

Mechanically, giving an alignment a bonus takes away such possibilities.

As usual though, it's just my opinion on things.

[koipond]

Personally I really can't stand the D&D double axis thing of chaos - lawful with good - evil. There have been many a time when people who are so inclined to argue over what a character might do at any given time based on their alignment. There are many people who would ignore the shades of grey that most people are.

However, I do enjoy the idea of having tendencies or much more of a matricies in regards to what you are, or keywords. Not just three 'tendencies,' but maybe more a series of keywords that they could pick that would help define their characters rather than having some sort of linear or graph like system.

[Groffa]

I agree on the D&D-axis thing (clarification: I agree with koipnod, that is, I don't like the D&D axis), it's more prone to debate on what "good" or "evil" really is (from which standpoint? etc.).

Mouse Guard (and therefore Burning Wheel, I presume?) have a stat called "Nature", that represents how well you act within your nature (in Mouse Guard: "Nature (Mouse)"). If your characters acts against his/her nature, the stat drops, but if you act too much, it increases (you'd want it to be somewhere in the middle). The guardmice for instance never runs away, but running away lies in the nature of a mouse, and if he/she acts too much in this way (of a mouse) he will eventually become "just a mouse" (just as you may act to "human-like", that is, against your nature).
(Hopefully that paragraph made any sense!)

If I understand you correctly, this would be a bit like your Ruthless / Reliable / Altruistic; if a character acts too much against his tendency, he will sooner or later have to face the consequences.

[cjoki]

I disagree with the D&D alignment system on the basis that what is good or evil can be very subjective and is often influenced by social norms of a given period. That is unless your game presents a consistant world view amongst all factions.

For example it was common practice in the USA in the 30s (and before) for a man to keep his wife and children in check (i.e. hit them). This was preferred to be handled in private so as to not cause a scene.

Even today you have family blood feuds and honor killings in some parts of the world. If you could ask these people if these acts are good or evil the response would depend on the social norms of the people you ask.

You can further expand on these example with that of going back in time before Hitler came to power. And you know know what he will do. Do you kill him or not? Is it evil to kill him or evil to not kill him?

In my oppinion the best game system for moral issues is a faction influence system. Where the deeds of the player either gains or reduces influence with a paticular faction. Of course each faction has an opposite and so each choice a player makes is never a win win.

[Chainsaw Aardvark]

[Onix]

Maybe instead of an alignment system, have a set of personal rules or guiding principles that a character lives by. Short phrases like "Aliens are bad". Now it gets really fun when you have a few that contradict, like "Will work for the aliens". The emphasis should be on coming up with a convoluted rationale that the character can reconcile those two (or even more) rules. There's the obvious "I'll work with them to bring them down from the inside". Or maybe "I hate these guys but I need to get a leg up on the other gang."

The more rules the player adopts the more convoluted things can get but it also gets really interesting.

I've never used anything like that but it sounds fun.

[misterecho]

sounds fun! I think a cool idea would be to have a grid or board. The GM moves a token along axis depending on the moral actions of the players. Its a little more relative (from the GM's perspective) than having a set stat per level of cruelty/kindness.

You could have a general guide for the GM who then interprets character actions.

[koipond]

So instead of the it's a board game of Morality?

It's a rather nifty idea though. You could actively see where the various characters are at any given time and then there decisions could be made where a character's token gets moved by the group in a certain direction.

[misterecho]

haha! I'd never seen that before!

perhaps a perversion of the grid from Grey Ranks by Jason Morningstar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSIDm6mQIeQ