In the first part of this post I tried to outline a concept: morality in an RPG, if present, has its roots in the setting. However the set of rules should encompass a mechanic which provides a reward to the players who have understood how to role-play consistently within the game (and ideally penalized or ‘slowed’ those who behave inconsistently). This has to be applied regardless to the faction the player has chosen, if this faction is “in line” with the rest of the world in the setting or not.
Now, back to the original article about Morality where all this discussion comes from: the article is ‘Do the right thing - A commentary on morality in role-playing games’ by Allen Varney (Inter*Action magazine, Issue 1, 1994) and the first part of this post helped me to define the first main outcome so that this conversation can continue by quoting the most outstanding thoughts of Allen. For those who have not read the first part, the starting point was a critique to an RPG without moral (or amoral).
‘What’s the problem with that game in particular? Many games are like that. Nearly all post-holocaust settings, most of the cyberpunk games, and many fantasy RPGs give no thought to ethical values. (“Okay, let’s go down into the lair of the monsters who haven’t been bothering anyone, kill them, take their possessions, and then head back to town.”)’
Spot on! In an amoral RPG (both rules and setting!), there are no guidelines to what is right or wrong: every character is free to behave as he prefers. What is relevant is that this ‘freedom’ enables also inconsistent behaviors (‘Today I help my comrade for a certain reason - or no reason at all - and the day after I kill him as I realized I was wrong the day before’). Honestly speaking I am in trouble to think what is the worst aspect: whether the absence of morality or the absence of enablers for its consistency… that’s a hard choice since the end result in a game is nearly the same.
Almost any setting’s inherent morality rewards examination. … Morality itself, or a vicious parody of it, can become the subject in these games. …
Or better: it can be the backbone where actions have an explanation, or stories have consistency, or behaviors are reasonable. That it is the difference between a deep setting and a ‘mere landscape’ where a character moves.
‘What should a game do, then? Should it impose a moral code on the PCs? “You can’t legislate morality,” either in society or in games.’
…
‘But a good campaign setting should offer unlimited options. I don’t like games that build in brute-force rules like ‘hero points’, mechanics that reward a specific agenda. A designer who tries to force the players into a mould just restricts adventures and players alike.’ … Rules differ from campaign settings, though. Just as a setting doesn’t necessarily make for good adventures simply because you can do anything you want, so the reverse is true, that a good setting doesn’t necessarily imply unlimited freedom of action.
Both these self-questions the author addresses himself seem to be rhetorical but they are not at all indeed. Needless to say I will skip any commentary on the morality in society and focus on our interest only: morality in an RPG. So, in that case my answer is yes, you can’t legislate morality in a game (as a game designer) however if you have defined morality in a setting you have implicitly opted to force the GM to legislate, even if that was not your intention. Please consider that even if this could be a hard task for a GM, it is not a negative aspect of the game: this is what I call the ‘underlying flavor’ of a setting.
Rules mechanics usually represent physical reality: how people and objects move and act, effects of damage, and so forth. A campaign background represents the reality of a culture: what the inhabitants live for and aspire to, and how they interact. To impose a moral agenda on the physical world (that is, the rules) is dangerous and limiting. But a useful, effective cultural background requires it.
Why? Every culture depends on guidelines. … These are the universal concerns of life and the concerns of story. Characters in a role-playing setting presumably face the same issues. Their varying solutions create the conflicts that produce powerful adventures. Players become more deeply involved in a scenario when setting and NPCs are plausible, when they address the same universal concerns that real societies do. This implies a moral basis for the society.
That is the first core concept and I can only agree over it at 110%. I want only to clarify one detail from the quotation here above: the presence of rules about morality in an RPG is not always a dangerous and limiting feature of the game. In case the rules are there to preserve consistency of a moral position, (and no constraints are present over the freedom of choice, what Dante called ‘libero aribitrio’), the constraints can result useful (this in my opinion and what I actually used it in the VI·VIII·X game). These constraints avoid a character behaving one day as a ‘good’ guy and the day after as a ‘bad’ one: since the main assumption of the morality is that it is the most intimate code of conduct of a person therefore that cannot change from one day to the following one.
‘Why would players become more deeply involved in an adventure when their characters’ actions are restricted?’
Say rather, ‘defined’. They act from points of reference. They know typical behaviour, so that if and when they deviate from it, that departure creates drama. Without societal guidelines, too, it’s harder to acquire goals. Here’s a line from writer Thomas M. Disch’s 1981 story ‘Understanding Human Behavior.’ It concerns a man who has his memory erased so he can make a new beginning:
‘The major disadvantage of having no past life, no established preferences [was that] he just didn’t want anything very much.’
…really I could not have found a better text to express what I have in my mind and in my heart! This is one of the key messages I found in ‘The Abolition of Man’ (by C.S.Lewis, 1943)! And being neither a writer nor a great communicator, I was simply struggling to find a way to transfer this to the VI·VIII·X reader/player! Now I got it!
Not every way of establishing campaign guidelines can succeed, and some approaches are disastrous. At one extreme lies ‘Here is the one true way. Stray not from it, upon pain of dismissal from the game’. At the other we find the games wherein PCs can bless or slaughter as they like, where every action equals every other, all occurring without significance against a background as impersonal and vacuous as outer space. The latter setting inspires no more interest than the former. A balance is the key. What actions in a setting are considered positive, what negative, how broad is the range for each, and how does the design encourage or discourage each? The answers make up the campaign setting’s moral viewpoint.
First strike: I do not feel any need to add more words or explanations to this part. Kudos to Allen is my only contribution here.
‘But the referee determines a campaign’s viewpoint! A group of players can just throw out the designer’s definitions of right and wrong, then play the setting as they like. Some referees and players don’t want their games to be stories, or they prefer a neutral backdrop.’
That’s fine. They can play any way they want, obviously. The issue is the designer’s attitude toward the material, and the kind of experience the design tries to create for the players. A coherent moral viewpoint strengthens most adventures, because it inspires atmosphere, thematic unity, well rounded characters who reflect their settings, and clear, believable goals. The products that players use are better for that viewpoint, even if they discard it in favor of their own, or none. … ‘Morality’ here doesn’t mean one particular moral agenda. … ‘Morality’, in this case, means any reasonably coherent viewpoint about behavior, a sense that some actions are right and others are wrong, and a willingness to assert that view. So the designer should have an agenda. Its details are a matter of choice and open to discussion by the players.
Second strike! What is amazing is that from a beginning where I felt the author was thinking slightly different (with the idea of rules vs setting for morality), I found as the reasoning went into this depth of details that I am totally aligned with him!
‘I have moral beliefs of my own, but I see no reason to foist them on the players.’
The morality of the setting need not be the designer’s own code of behavior. Quite the contrary. But the designer should convey ideas of right and wrong appropriate to the setting and its adventures.
…and let me add: the designer should set the play-field with some rules to both foster the players to understand the importance of the presence of morality in a setting and provide them the fullest free will to let them enjoy their own characters with an underlying ‘reason why’.
‘Some settings and games are amoral. Why is that bad? Lots of people play them and have fun. Do these settings somehow corrupt players?’
No, they don’t. If the players have fun, that’s great.
‘So what is the point here?’
There are other grounds for discussion besides danger, though we seldom hear of them nowadays. People seem to assume that if they don’t hurt anyone, all approaches are equally valid.
Sorry if I want to add a more arsh view on the last thought, however in the the last 20 years the assumption has moved from ‘they don’t hurt anyone’ to ‘they don’t hurt anyone important’. And on this base I found the strength to start my project here. If possible by leveraging on the ‘futile’ and ‘light’ concept of a role-playing game, I wish to transfer the message that we are losing a great part of our essence in this transition to nowhere in terms of code of morality.
Conscientious designers of scenario settings and role-playing adventures do the best work they can—not to guarantee future assignments, but because self-respect obligates them to work to the limits of their powers. That must include the desire to communicate something worth hearing. This might be a joke or funny situation, a scene of beauty, an insight into the way people live or the consequences of behavior. In the last case, the insight must convey, at least implicitly, judgement. How does this behavior influence the setting? What are the strengths and drawbacks of this way of life? Without this moral judgement, the designer might as well leave the job to someone else and take up knitting, because this so-called creator’s work is really saying, ‘Look: no action is more worthwhile than another. All actions are justified. People are objects, societies are trivial, and concern about how things turn out is pointless.’
Third strike and home base! (I hope that’s the correct way to say)
The only detail I might humbly amend is that this should not be referred to adventures only… I could not find a better essay that explains my point and my view and I am both proud to have met Allen and reported his great job here!
What is really amazing is that more than 30 years have passed and the lesson is still valid: this implies the universality of a moral code… let me add that it is not only still valid, it is even more important than the message of the 1994 since our culture has evolved (or involved according to your stand-point)… we do not need to be philosophers, it is enough to observe how the RPG industry has evolved and where the ‘mainstream’ (call it this way, or call it D&D) is going… alignment and morality have abdicated to make room for concepts that have an ephemeral duration and satisfaction such as average damage points and character builds… proof is that these continue to grow in size to satisfy today's bored gamers…
Ok, better is stop here, otherwise this post becomes a rant whereas I want to keep a positive overall mood and conclude by thanking again and again Allen as well as stating that there is still hope we can find the way to do the right thing!
PS re to the question about the artwork of the Green Knight’s severed head, I find that it is not necessary to discuss about the answers anymore… all this post would otherwise be useless…