POPJEF - Morality and Alignment System

This is an idea I've had for a while for a novel way of handling Morality and Character Alignments that's perhaps a bit more nuanced and true-to-life than what we're used to in, say, Dn D 5th Edition- which is what the group I'm a part of is using now. I'm somewhat new to TRP Gs, so I wanted to run this by some veterans to see if you think it's workable.

It's called POPJEF because it's an acronym for the six base concepts that comprise the system. These are, in order:

Peace: Violent conflict is needlessly destructive and inherently pointless, and the suffering it inflicts upon innocents is unacceptable. Senseless bloodshed should be avoided at all costs. There is nothing anyone could ever aspire to that would not be better served by a commitment to nonviolence.

Order: All things and people have their proper place. The rules that govern society exist for a good reason, and should not be broken or disregarded arbitrarily. Individuals are bound by iron codes, and it is only right and just that this is true.

Progress: To be alive is to move, and there's no direction worth moving in but forward. To seek- to yearn- has been a part of the Human soul since time immemorial. There exist new horizons just out of reach, and life could be so much better if only we made the choice to pursue them.

Justice: A person's worth is defined by their willingness to fight for what is right, and no matter where they come from or what they claim to believe, deep down, everyone knows what that is. To do good is to do what is you know to be right no matter the circumstances, in defiance of law or tradition, to the full extent of your ability and without exception. To shirk this duty is to do injustice, and to do injustice is to invite retribution upon yourself.

Equality: All peoples are fundamentally equal and should act towards one-another in the spirit of brotherhood. No one person or group of people may justly hold themselves as being of higher status than others, and everyone deserves the same basic treatment no matter who they are or what their station is in life.

Freedom: A person's will is sovereign, and individuals possess an absolute right to pursue their will wherever it takes them. No one may legitimately seek to restrict the freedoms of someone else according to their personal whims, and anyone who would try is a tyrant and a criminal.

POPJEF is a rather odd name, but I hope it will be memorable. The idea is you pick two of the concepts listed above, and these will be your character's Ideals. They represent their most cherished beliefs, what they think is most important in life. Then you pick two others. This second pair of concepts are called Contrasts, and they are what your character will be willing to sacrifice in the name of the first two. They are called Contrasts because they're there to better define what kind of person your character is and what their priorities are, drawn against their Ideals. If all a character had were Ideals, that doesn't tell you all that much about them by itself- but if you also know what they'd sacrifice to see those Ideals fulfilled, that tells you a lot more. For instance, a character whose Ideals are Justice/Freedom and whose Contrasts are Peace/Order might be a vigilante, anarchist or rebel. Someone whose Ideals are Justice/Peace and Contrasts are Progress/Freedom might be a policeman or inquisitor. You get the picture.

I decided to invent this because the kinds of games I eventually want to run are a bit different than what people normally play. It was quite important for me that the morality system be something that was based in real-ish moral and political philosophy because of the nature of the setting I'm designing it for and the kinds of conflicts that appear in it. This is not the kind of 'verse where you have gods that stand as physical manifestations of Good and Evil or anything like that. For instance, having a place like Bytopia, which is a realm of metaphysical good, just wouldn't make sense. In fact, if you got a Cleric of Pelor and he or she tried to explain it to someone from my 'verse, they'd think the concept was ridiculous. So, instead of the traditional Lawful-Chaotic vs. Good-Evil axis, you have this more freeform system where you can mix and match concepts however you please to suit whatever kind of character you come up with.

So, tell me what you think. Is this a good idea? Would you use it in your own games? Would you modify it?

I think that this could be good to stat good guys or Well Intentioned Extremists/Visionary Villains, but I don't see how I would stat a true villain who's only in it for the money in this. Not everyone is an ideologue.

So what if my character doesn't really care about any of them? How do you enter that?

I'd also point out the obvious: Considering the nature of most RPG (And doubly so D&D since you especially mention replacing its alignment system), Peace would go straight out the window for most.

Plus Justice and Equality feels like the overlap. I mean, by definition, Justice should apply equally to all. When people are not equal, that's the very definition of Injustice. Like, I don't know how someone can pick justice, but not apply it equally and therefore pick Equality too.

Honestly, I don't see the point of Alignment systems. Even D&D 5e treats theirs as mostly The Artifact. It's there coz the grognards expect it and if we remove it people will get pissed. But it does nothing. It did in 3rd and before (Where stuff affected specific alignment) but otherwise... what's the point of an alignment system?

Like, what does this achieve that, say, having a background and writing your character's personality. Like, this just seems like some... artificial limitation to a character. "Your character cares about 2 of these 5 specific things and nothing else!"

What if my character cares about the environment? Is that not a virtue? Or what if he doesn't care about any of them? He's content to do his thing, not based on any higher ideal? What if my character's goal is independent of any higher metaphysical ideal?

Heck, there seem to be no "negative" or "evil" virtue. What about personal ambition. What if my character's main drive is increasing his power, standing, reputation, etc...

For lack of a better term, this seems like a solution in search of a problem to fix.

edited 22nd Jul '17 12:42:21 PM by Ghilz

I don't think it's all that hard to imagine any one of these having it's own "evil" interpretation, even though part of the point of using these specific concepts is that there isn't really supposed to be any clearly "evil" option. Taken individually, each concept is generally considered to be a positive and desirable thing, and that's part of what makes the nuance.

Regarding Justice specifically, you can have a conception of Justice that does not include Equality. Justice applies to everyone equally, but it doesn't actually need to be in favor of any kind of actual meaningful equality. One example might be punishing a poor man for stealing food from a rich man- that would still fulfill the terms of Justice under that particular interpretation. Stealing is capital-W Wrong, it doesn't matter how much you need it or how little it would harm someone else, you can't do it. Like that.

As for Dungeons and Dragons, the traditional 2-axis Alignment system is hugely important to Dn D's cosmology. I mentioned in the OP, Dn D's gods are all more-or-less manifestations of the various positions on the three-by-three Alignment chart. It even has a presence in the mechanics. There are spells that function according to a target creature's stated Alignment.

Moreover, Dn D's Alignment system reflects the kinds of games it's designed to support and the campaign settings that come with it. Dn D is first and foremost about tales of traditional High Fantasy heroism, and so it has an Alignment system that reflects that sort of story. Just as Dn D's alignment system is very stark, painting the world in broad strokes of transcendental good-and-evil, I'll need my Alignment system to be more about the various concepts that comprise common political values and that have no direct relation to any transcendental good-and-evil.

If you want a description of a character that's primarily self-interested, you could set their Ideals as being Freedom/Progress, the latter more in the sense of advancing one's own position in life. Progress is a pretty good stand-in for ambition generally. The concepts are deliberately broad, and the idea is for your character to be able to interpret them in a manner that is consistent with their personality and goals.

edited 24th Jul '17 1:41:08 AM by Gault

I don't think it's all that hard to imagine any one of these having it's own "evil" interpretation, even though part of the point of using these specific concepts is that there isn't really supposed to be any clearly "evil" option. Taken individually, each concept is generally considered to be a positive and desirable thing, and that's part of what makes the nuance.

I don't deny that you can have evil version of each concepts, but you're still limited by those concepts. Again, what if a character has no ties to any of them? Is there a neutral option? Or a pure selfish option? Why are there only those specific 6 options? What if my character values something else than those 6 options? Do I pick one and shoehorn it until it loses all meaning?

I still feel it's a solution in search of a problem, and ultimately, it has the same flaws as the original alignment system: It forces you to picks arbitrary values a character has as stances that probably don't actually reflect your character's personality. Heck, at least the D&D one has the advantage of being so much more generic it's easier to shoehorn your character since evil and law and chaos and such are such wide concepts any alignment can take several forms. Plus you do have the option to not pick anything (neutral).

Only partially true. Several campaign setting recommend either ignoring or subverting the alignment system because of its constrictive nature (See Eberron, Dark Sun and Ravenloft for examples or either mostly ignoring (Eberron) or subverting (Ravenloft and Dark sun) the alignment). I've run dozens of campaign where I've never even asked my player's alignments. Because alignments do not matter.

I mean, obviously it's your creation, use it as you want and have fun. But you ask for opinions and I still stand by mine: It's got the same issues the regular D&D Alignment system has (Being restrictive to arbitrary concepts, while at the same time making those concepts so broad they lose meaning because they've been catch all), and doesn't particularly bring anything else to the table.

edited 24th Jul '17 5:39:35 AM by Ghilz

I agree that the system really doesn't show much room for types who don't fundamentally care all that much about morality. If someone's primary value is personal enrichment and "fuck you, got mine," then they aren't going to be pushing any of these values in any form.

Mind you, +Freedom +Justice -Equality -Order might well fit someone who made the above into a moral philosophy (Objectivism, ho!), but that's a bit different in kind from someone who doesn't care about anyone's freedom or justice but their own.

And a St. Trinian's type would be opposed to every one of the above except Freedom, which isn't something the system allows for.

edited 26th Jul '17 5:44:02 AM by Ramidel

Maybe a person who's just in it for themselves would emphasize "Freedom," but only for themselves.