El Mahdi
Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
What I use in my games is based more in "Roleplaying", rather than a system or mechanic. It's more of a guideline for character and personality development, than a strict codification.
I start with, IMO, the basis of morality. This is the basic instinct that almost all living things share, the instinct for survival. This underlying motivation affects nearly everything we do. The need for survival motivates creatures to eat, sleep, hunt, fight, hide, reproduce - everything.
This can also be broken down into two different instincts:
True Evil is extremely rare. What most living things consider "Evil" is in essence, that which threatens or triggers a creatures survival instinct. With this concept, goblins, ogres - monsters in general - would be considered Evil by most PC races. Conversely, most monsters would usually view PC's as Evil also. True Pure Evil would be that which threatens all life, or that which is in complet opposition to life. With these concepts, perception of Evil is common (as it is in real life), but True Evil is extremely rare (at least in real life - considerably more common in RPG's
). Evil is almost always a subjective and relative thing.
On top of the basic motivations, a character needs to determine how other things, such as religion/deity/church rules and mores, group affiliations, etc., affect their character - and how strict they are in adherence to them. Also, I have them add some basic adjectives or character descriptions to round out their characters personality - such as selfish, shy, talkative, aggresive, etc. I tend to find labels like "Extrovert" and "Introvert" a little to vague. Even the most "Introverted" person will have situations where they can become a veritable "Chatty Kathy". List Extroverted or Introverted if you want, but try to define the limits of these characteristics.
Then, during game play, I expect players to play their charcters within these parameters, but not necessarily limit them to only these parameters. I expect a player to be able to explain their characters' motivation or reasoning behind actions that veer outside of the parameters they themselves defined. But, if their reasoning is plausible (and I give pretty wide latitude in this) then I don't have a problem with it. As long as the players reasoning or actions aren't blatant metagaming, I usually don't have a problem with anything they do. For the most part, there is no real penalty for actions unless the character has a very strict "code" - a code determined by the player, not me - or the player insists on consistently violating the personality he derived and defined for metagaming reasons. Code violations would be determined during character creation, and will always be in game things (excommunication from the characters religion, expulsion from the applicable group or organization, etc.). Violations for blatant metagaming can be reduced XP awards or just in game "bad luck" (as determined by the GM - ultimately the GM has complete control over the game world - including fate).
This also affects my reasoning behind essentially nixing "alignment detection" spells. In order for such a spell to work with this background conceit, the spell would have to essentially be able to read the mind of all targets within range, and compare their motives and instincts to that of the casters, in order to gauge relative "Evil". Because of this, these detection spells just don't make sense. Besides, by not using them, it removes a potentially problematic adventure/plot derailment mechanic.
Now, I know that even the above is overly simplistic when it comes to defining character, personality and motivation. We have so many things that influence our morals, ethics and values - from basic instincts to learned responses - with triggers we may not even be aware of - that attempting to define a real person with such absolutes is laughable. But for PC's, I find that it helps make "Characters" that seem more real and alive than standard alignment systems or mechanics usually allow or cultivate.
I start with, IMO, the basis of morality. This is the basic instinct that almost all living things share, the instinct for survival. This underlying motivation affects nearly everything we do. The need for survival motivates creatures to eat, sleep, hunt, fight, hide, reproduce - everything.
This can also be broken down into two different instincts:
- Personal Survival (at it’s most basic – instinct for food, shelter, defense, reproduction, etc.)
- Familial Survival (extension of the personal - can extend to tribe, village, country, race, species, etc.)
True Evil is extremely rare. What most living things consider "Evil" is in essence, that which threatens or triggers a creatures survival instinct. With this concept, goblins, ogres - monsters in general - would be considered Evil by most PC races. Conversely, most monsters would usually view PC's as Evil also. True Pure Evil would be that which threatens all life, or that which is in complet opposition to life. With these concepts, perception of Evil is common (as it is in real life), but True Evil is extremely rare (at least in real life - considerably more common in RPG's
). Evil is almost always a subjective and relative thing.On top of the basic motivations, a character needs to determine how other things, such as religion/deity/church rules and mores, group affiliations, etc., affect their character - and how strict they are in adherence to them. Also, I have them add some basic adjectives or character descriptions to round out their characters personality - such as selfish, shy, talkative, aggresive, etc. I tend to find labels like "Extrovert" and "Introvert" a little to vague. Even the most "Introverted" person will have situations where they can become a veritable "Chatty Kathy". List Extroverted or Introverted if you want, but try to define the limits of these characteristics.
Then, during game play, I expect players to play their charcters within these parameters, but not necessarily limit them to only these parameters. I expect a player to be able to explain their characters' motivation or reasoning behind actions that veer outside of the parameters they themselves defined. But, if their reasoning is plausible (and I give pretty wide latitude in this) then I don't have a problem with it. As long as the players reasoning or actions aren't blatant metagaming, I usually don't have a problem with anything they do. For the most part, there is no real penalty for actions unless the character has a very strict "code" - a code determined by the player, not me - or the player insists on consistently violating the personality he derived and defined for metagaming reasons. Code violations would be determined during character creation, and will always be in game things (excommunication from the characters religion, expulsion from the applicable group or organization, etc.). Violations for blatant metagaming can be reduced XP awards or just in game "bad luck" (as determined by the GM - ultimately the GM has complete control over the game world - including fate
).This also affects my reasoning behind essentially nixing "alignment detection" spells. In order for such a spell to work with this background conceit, the spell would have to essentially be able to read the mind of all targets within range, and compare their motives and instincts to that of the casters, in order to gauge relative "Evil". Because of this, these detection spells just don't make sense. Besides, by not using them, it removes a potentially problematic adventure/plot derailment mechanic.
Now, I know that even the above is overly simplistic when it comes to defining character, personality and motivation. We have so many things that influence our morals, ethics and values - from basic instincts to learned responses - with triggers we may not even be aware of - that attempting to define a real person with such absolutes is laughable. But for PC's, I find that it helps make "Characters" that seem more real and alive than standard alignment systems or mechanics usually allow or cultivate.
