I'm working on a magic system and I want magic to have an ethical component. This is intended to impose a great sense of personal responsibility on those who wield magical powers.

In the magic system so far, if you use magic to do bad things to innocent people, directly or indirectly, you run the risk of having it affect you as well. For example, say you send a couple of guards to sleep so you can get by without any trouble. One member of your party, last in line, puts a knife into each of them as he goes by. Suddenly you feel drowsy and stumble.

On its own, this would make evil wizards very short lived, which is not something I want. Evil wizards enter a pacts with a diabolical entities. This allows the wizard to sidestep the ethical payback, so long as they can put up with a few escalating changes in appearance and behaviour. Once the entity has fulfilled its side of the bargain, it releases the tide of accumulated horror and tries to take the wizards soul - or the place of their soul.

My questions about this are as follows:

Q1) How can I avoid hideous levels of GM largesse when defining who is innocent and who is not? What should bad mean and what should innocent mean?

Q2) Should the repercussions affect any person who harms those under magical influence, whether they are the caster or not? It would certainly make people think twice about messing with people under the influence...

Q3) What if somebody uses this effect to intentionally harm a wizard? Should it still affect the wizard? The person who was trying to hurt them? Both?

Q4) Does a magic system with a mechanic for dealing with ethics kill the fun? I don't want to get too heavy...

Bert

Well, I wouldn't say it imposes a great sense of personal responsiblity. I'd say it just trains them. Like you might train a dog to be quiet and obediant, or train a dog to attack on command. The 'ethical system' simply trains someone to act in a certain way. It's not really about that person having personal responsiblity, it's about that ethical system imposing it's will on people and training them to behave in a certain way.

And I wouldn't call the rogue stab a 'risk'. The rogues mind isn't an object of chance. That was the rogues personal responsiblity - either that or all personal responsiblity is blurred into a blob. That'd mean under that philosophy somehow the rogues own free will is part of the wizards, because he cast sleep on some guards. Indeed anyone who messes with the sleeping guards is somehow part of the wizards free will.

  How does a wizard cast spells in your system? Does he draw power from a mana pool or is it more cast and forget like d&d. If its mana based you might consider lowering the amount of available mana after the wizard commits a questionable act with his magic. If its cast and forget the wizard could loose a spell from memory.

Bert,
  I think the way that yo can make your system work for bad guys is to have them summon a spirit and have the spirit cast the spell. That way the bad consequences happen to the spirit.
  Of course, what price the spirit exacts for that service is another matter...

  I think the idea of unintended consequences is pretty harsh, you might want to scale that back a bit.

  I think if it is an equal and opposite reaction, then that removes the moral judgment from it. So, maybe every time a sorcerer uses magic, they receive the effect (scaled down to reflect how common you want magic to be) as well. Like if they cast a fireball that does 6d6 to 10 monster, maybe they take 6d6, save versus none.

I like the idea here, but what is your goal? Are you trying to make wizards ultra ethical, with the fear of punitive effects from their spells? Is the punitive effect cosmic justice, or guilt? Would an unethical, but not evil wizard just be knee deep is karmic pay-back here?

As far as what is ethical; if a wizard cast sleep on a couple of guards so he can go about his ethical business, then he shouldn't be responsible for someone else's unethical behavior. Now, if that wizard cast sleep on the guards so he could go about his ethical business, but is being chases by a horde of hungry goblins, or a dragon, or lava, or whatever, then he pretty much knows that he should have just fire-balled the two screws and got it over with. On that note, if an ethical wizard has to sneak past any guards, then they are obviously evil and it shouldn't matter what happens to them.

As far as meters of ethical and innocent are concerned, some sort of alignment type system would probably be in order. At the very least, the common and general beliefs of the wizard should probably be sketched out, so that ethics could be inferred in a given situation. Or, there could just be a wizards code. That would put it straight pretty quick. Break the code at your own peril.

Maybe instead of magic backlash, knowingly breaking the code shakes a wizards focus and makes it harder for them to cast subsequent magic until they can atone. In this case, unethical wizards would be unaffected by the penalty.

Just some ideas. Thought?

Ken

Maybe you need to consider what may or may not be ethical to the wizard.

A believer in the natural cycle of life might deliberately choose to kill the old king who is extending their life through mystical means.

A mystic of law might be helping to preserve the old king, because the king has been a stabilising influence in the kingdom and none of the king's children would continue the peaceful reign over the empire.

Neither of these mystics agree with what should be done about the king, and each of them has a strong moral standpoint for their beliefs about the situation.

In each others eyes, the other wizard is "evil". The first would plunge the empire into chaos, the second would continue the abomination unto the natural cycle.

Just some food for thought...

V

Ethics in RPGs can be tricky, and sadly isn't as black & white as we might hope.

For example, in an AD&D game years ago a friend was playing a Paladin and thereby was unable to do any "evil" acts or he would lose his Paladinhood. The party was wandering through an enemy complex and came upon a kitchen and surprised an Orc chef. The chef dropped his meat cleaver and ran in terror. The Paladin leaped forward and hacked the Orc down from behind.

Does he lose his Paladinhood for this action?

1. You can argue that all Orcs are evil by nature and that killing one would ultimately be a good action.

2. You can argue that attacking any unarmed creature from behind, regardless of its alignment, is an evil act.

We argued this for a long time and eventually this discussion killed the campaign becasue we couldn't continue without resolving the issue. We never agreed.

Turning then to your thought about ethics and magic -- I think it has a wonderful notion behind it and it's neat that evil spellcasters can try to beat the system somewhat, but I wonder if you are going to encounter this giant "gray area" such as the situation I described above.

Perhaps the solution to the problem might be to construct a table of examples and say "no matter what your personal ethics might be, here are the guidelines for ethics in this campaign" such that killing certain creature types is okay or attacking from behind is not. As play continues your tables would evolve and eventually you might have a really great list.

Just my two cents.

Hi Callan

Callan wrote:
Well, I wouldn't say it imposes a great sense of personal responsiblity. I'd say it just trains them. Like you might train a dog to be quiet and obediant, or train a dog to attack on command. The 'ethical system' simply trains someone to act in a certain way. It's not really about that person having personal responsiblity, it's about that ethical system imposing it's will on people and training them to behave in a certain way.

Callan wrote:
And I wouldn't call the rogue stab a 'risk'. The rogues mind isn't an object of chance. That was the rogues personal responsiblity - either that or all personal responsiblity is blurred into a blob. That'd mean under that philosophy somehow the rogues own free will is part of the wizards, because he cast sleep on some guards. Indeed anyone who messes with the sleeping guards is somehow part of the wizards free will.

Hi Sergon

Sergon wrote:
How does a wizard cast spells in your system?

Sergon wrote:
Does he draw power from a mana pool or is it more cast and forget like d&d.

Sergon wrote:
If its mana based you might consider lowering the amount of available mana after the wizard commits a questionable act with his magic. If its cast and forget the wizard could loose a spell from memory.

Hi dindenver,

dindenver wrote:
I think the way that yo can make your system work for bad guys is to have them summon a spirit and have the spirit cast the spell. That way the bad consequences happen to the spirit. Of course, what price the spirit exacts for that service is another matter...

dindenver wrote:
I think the idea of unintended consequences is pretty harsh, you might want to scale that back a bit.

dindenver wrote:
I think if it is an equal and opposite reaction, then that removes the moral judgment from it. So, maybe every time a sorcerer uses magic, they receive the effect (scaled down to reflect how common you want magic to be) as well. Like if they cast a fireball that does 6d6 to 10 monster, maybe they take 6d6, save versus none.

Hi Ken,

Ken wrote:
I like the idea here, but what is your goal? Are you trying to make wizards ultra ethical, with the fear of punitive effects from their spells?

Ken wrote:
Is the punitive effect cosmic justice, or guilt? Would an unethical, but not evil wizard just be knee deep is karmic pay-back here?

Ken wrote:
As far as what is ethical; if a wizard cast sleep on a couple of guards so he can go about his ethical business, then he shouldn't be responsible for someone else's unethical behavior. Now, if that wizard cast sleep on the guards so he could go about his ethical business, but is being chases by a horde of hungry goblins, or a dragon, or lava, or whatever, then he pretty much knows that he should have just fire-balled the two screws and got it over with.

Ken wrote:
On that note, if an ethical wizard has to sneak past any guards, then they are obviously evil and it shouldn't matter what happens to them.

Ken wrote:
As far as meters of ethical and innocent are concerned, some sort of alignment type system would probably be in order.

Ken wrote:
At the very least, the common and general beliefs of the wizard should probably be sketched out, so that ethics could be inferred in a given situation.

Ken wrote:
Or, there could just be a wizards code. That would put it straight pretty quick. Break the code at your own peril.

Ken wrote:
Maybe instead of magic backlash, knowingly breaking the code shakes a wizards focus and makes it harder for them to cast subsequent magic until they can atone. In this case, unethical wizards would be unaffected by the penalty.

Hi Vulpinoid,

Vulpinoid wrote:
Maybe you need to consider what may or may not be ethical to the wizard.

Vulpinoid wrote:
A believer in the natural cycle of life might deliberately choose to kill the old king who is extending their life through mystical means.

A mystic of law might be helping to preserve the old king, because the king has been a stabilising influence in the kingdom and none of the king's children would continue the peaceful reign over the empire.

Neither of these mystics agree with what should be done about the king, and each of them has a strong moral standpoint for their beliefs about the situation.

In each others eyes, the other wizard is "evil". The first would plunge the empire into chaos, the second would continue the abomination unto the natural cycle.

Hi Finarvyn,

Finarvyn wrote:
Ethics in RPGs can be tricky, and sadly isn't as black & white as we might hope.

For example, in an AD&D game years ago a friend was playing a Paladin and thereby was unable to do any "evil" acts or he would lose his Paladinhood. The party was wandering through an enemy complex and came upon a kitchen and surprised an Orc chef. The chef dropped his meat cleaver and ran in terror. The Paladin leaped forward and hacked the Orc down from behind.

Does he lose his Paladinhood for this action?

1. You can argue that all Orcs are evil by nature and that killing one would ultimately be a good action.

2. You can argue that attacking any unarmed creature from behind, regardless of its alignment, is an evil act.

We argued this for a long time and eventually this discussion killed the campaign becasue we couldn't continue without resolving the issue. We never agreed.

Finarvyn wrote:
Turning then to your thought about ethics and magic -- I think it has a wonderful notion behind it and it's neat that evil spellcasters can try to beat the system somewhat, but I wonder if you are going to encounter this giant "gray area" such as the situation I described above.

Perhaps the solution to the problem might be to construct a table of examples and say "no matter what your personal ethics might be, here are the guidelines for ethics in this campaign" such that killing certain creature types is okay or attacking from behind is not. As play continues your tables would evolve and eventually you might have a really great list.

Bert wrote:
I'd dearly love to avoid subjectivism. A subjective approach would almost definitely mess up compacts and sorcery. All a player has to do is put "Maximinus Thrax has no moral issues with killing people, innocent or otherwise, to achieve his aims" and they'd have a license to print mayhem. I need a clear cut good/bad thing. I think Ken's wizards code idea has legs.

How about this suggestion?

All schools of magic have ethics that link into the types of effect they are able to cast.

In my earlier example of a mystic who believes in the sanctity of the natural order, their beliefs might have been reinforced by a range of spells that focus on the natural world above other concerns.

A mystic who believes in the laws of the state might gain a range of spells that focus on civilisation and law enforcement.

A mystic who performs darker spells involving the dead, or perverting the natural order might have a schools that imposes morals that mark their practitioners as "wrong" in the terms of the outside world. They cling to this "wrong-ness" because it marks them as very different, and therefore able to cast very different magics. Like the old ritual of breaking a taboo to release its power, no one wants you to do it, and you're socially outcast if you do; but once you do so you earn huge amounts of fear among your peers.

Characters who try to learn magics from two or more skills will find that their values come into conflict. One school says to perform a certain action, while the other school says to act in a different way. The character will have to break one of their codes of morals, and they will either lose prestige in the eyes of their school, or suffer some other type of weakness. That's the penalty they get to offset the diversity of magic they're able to cast.

Again...just some ideas...

V

Bert wrote: I'd dearly love to avoid subjectivism. A subjective approach would almost definitely mess up compacts and sorcery. All a player has to do is put "Maximinus Thrax has no moral issues with killing people, innocent or otherwise, to achieve his aims" and they'd have a license to print mayhem. I need a clear cut good/bad thing. I think Ken's wizards code idea has legs.

Hi Callan,

Callan wrote:
if you are interested in furries...I forgive you ;)

Hi Contracycle,

contracycle wrote:
For a lot of people who lived life informed by magical ideas, the operative concept was "sin",  or something like what we think of as sin.  Doing certain things made you inherently tarnished, and therefore opened you up to the influences of evil spirits.  This does not rely on the subjectivity of the magician or the players as such, and can be used as a form of setting exposition,laying out the cosmological influences of the world.

Vulpinoid wrote:
How about this suggestion?

All schools of magic have ethics that link into the types of effect they are able to cast.

Hi!

I'd like to caution you against relying on codified stuff or its evolution too much. Writing stuff down doesn't elimante gray areas, it pushes them deeper - if that weren't the case, lawyers wouldn't be able to make a living. Basically, methinks you need to acknowledge, on a system level, that there's gonna be a degree of moral uncertainty no matter how the "wizard's code" is written. RPGs do have a way of dealing with uncertainty, though - roll for it!

I.e., whenever a magic-user performs something that is kinda-sorta immoral, you flip a coin to see what the cosmos thinks. If it didn't like the spellcaster's actions much, the GM gets a token. And when he gets enough...

...a demon accountant appears, adjusts his spectacles, says "I'm sorry, your account has been overdrawn" and rips the sorceror's soul out...

...anything close to edible turns to sludge as soon as the druid who toyed with nature's way touches it...

...the corrupt little mage of order gets imprisoned unjustly and scheduled for execution...

And so on. Give those bastards a little (well, whopping, really...) taste of their own medicine. Which is what the great big cosmic scales are all about, right?

Heroes of Horror from D&D has rules for taint; maybe when a wizard uses a spell in an unethical way, they gain a corruption point (or more than one, depending on the act). As I remember, corruption points give you mental and physical depravity, which can give you horrible nightmares or yellow skin to name just a few examples. It has 3 ranks, Mild, Moderate, and Severe, I believe, and each tier had its own unique drawbacks. This worked in a campaign of mine a few years back, forcing the Sorcerer to think twice before he cast his spells. It's more of a deterrent to bad behavior than anything else.

Have you thought about some kind of positive reinforcement for characters who only practice "white" magic? Maybe they can use it more often or are more resistant to the magic of corrupted mages.

Chronology

Hi Chronologist,

Chronologist wrote:
Heroes of Horror from D&D has rules for taint; maybe when a wizard uses a spell in an unethical way, they gain a corruption point (or more than one, depending on the act). As I remember, corruption points give you mental and physical depravity, which can give you horrible nightmares or yellow skin to name just a few examples. It has 3 ranks, Mild, Moderate, and Severe, I believe, and each tier had its own unique drawbacks. This worked in a campaign of mine a few years back, forcing the Sorcerer to think twice before he cast his spells. It's more of a deterrent to bad behavior than anything else.

Chronologist wrote:
Have you thought about some kind of positive reinforcement for characters who only practice "white" magic? Maybe they can use it more often or are more resistant to the magic of corrupted mages.

Greetings DWeird,

DWeird wrote:
Basically, methinks you need to acknowledge, on a system level, that there's gonna be a degree of moral uncertainty no matter how the "wizard's code" is written. RPGs do have a way of dealing with uncertainty, though - roll for it!

I.e., whenever a magic-user performs something that is kinda-sorta immoral, you flip a coin to see what the cosmos thinks. If it didn't like the spellcaster's actions much, the GM gets a token. And when he gets enough...

Okay, after re-reading all the posts on this topic, doing a little bit of research (into buddhism) and thinking long and hard about how to make an ethical magic system work effectively, here's where I'm at. If anyone can see any flaws, limitations or the need for more clarity in what I'm going to outline below - please keep posting. Magic is SO important to a fantasy game, I've just got to get it right. Here it is...

All magic users are bound by a code of ethics referred to as the six pillars of light and shadow.

The three pillars of light
Each of the three pillars of light is associated with an action that is unequivocally positive and brings with it the blessing of the light.

This blessing of the light can manifest in either of two ways. Where appropriate, the magic user will be subject to the same spell that incurred the blessing of the light. Where this is inappropriate, the magic user will gain as many harmony points as they lost in casting the spell.

The three pillars of light are as follows:

• To save an innocent life; that carries the blessing of the light
• To ease suffering; that carries the blessing of the light
• To mete justice; that carries the blessing of light

In cosmic terms justice is very much an eye for an eye, and applies to those who have perpetrated unethical acts or are attempting to do so. Furthermore, innocence is defined as one who has not carried out an action under the three pillars of shadow.

If there is any ambiguity over the active auspices of the pillars of light and no consensus within a group of players can be reached, the GM must roll 1d6. A result of 1-3 is positive and result of 4-6 is negative.

The three pillars of shadow
Each of the three pillars of shadow is associated an act that is unequivocally negative and brings with it the curse of the shadow.

The curse of the shadow can manifest in either of two ways. Where appropriate, the magic user will be subject to the same spell that incurred the curse of the shadow. Where this is inappropriate, the magic user will lose as many harmony points as they lost in casting the spell.

The three pillars of shadow are as follows:

• To harm the innocent; that carries the curse of the shadow
• To take that which is not honestly gained; that carries the curse of the shadow
• To engage in sexual misconduct; that carries the curse of the shadow

The mark of shadow is negated if the act also carries the blessing of the light, although no blessing is received. It is possible to protect against the curse of the shadow using the art of Warding and Negation.

If there is any ambiguity over the active auspices of the pillars of darkness and no consensus within a group of players can be reached, the GM must roll 1d6. A result of 1-3 is positive and result of 4-6 is negative.

The role of intent
Intent is of fundamental importance to all magical acts.

A wizard is not responsible for any unintended consequences resulting from their magic, positive or negative, and will receive neither the blessing of the light or the curse of the shadow.

However, acts of magic are intended to facilitate an act that falls within the bounds of the six pillars of light and shadow do carry the blessing or curse, as appropriate.

Three stripes of magic user
Some magic users have lofty ideals and strive always to work their magic under the auspices of the three pillars of light. Such magic users do not try to protect themselves from the curse of the shadow. Some schools of magic use binding spells to render their adherents subject to more extensive and exacting codes.

Some magic users are rather more pragmatic and find themselves having to work in an ethically grey world. Such magic users often protect themselves from the curse of the shadow with warding spells. Others, most notably sorcerers, use spirits to exploit loopholes in the six pillars. Sorcerers are generally mistrusted because their approach to magic provides more options for exploiting such loopholes.

Some magic users flout the six pillars of light and shadow. They have no moral basis for their actions. They use magic to protect against the curse of the shadow or form compacts with entities that to negate or at least defer its effect. Again, sorcerers are more likely to pursue this course of action, as their approach to magic lends itself to working with entities of dubious moral fibre.

Thanks to everyone for helping me get this far! And keep it coming!!!

Bert

Hi again!

A little bit about intent... What about the cases where fireballs and poor aim produce grilled villagers? The wizard in question didn't mean to fry them - he was aiming for the bandits that threatened the very same villagers. Pushing this a little bit further, maybe the wizard in question would even get a lil' blessing of the light - just 'cause, y'know, his intentions were pure. Good-hearted, yet unable to forsee or control the long-term effects of one's actions...

"Well, I did summon that Ten-Ton-Tengu, but I never thought it would bring about the destruction of man and beast alike!"

Doesn't really fit the archetype of a wizard, does it? Might want to scribble in some sort of requirement for "wisdom" or some such. Screwups being frowned upon, but allowed - just as long as a caster does her best to mop up the problems she has inadvertedly caused).

Ohh! And I just remembered... Have you played any Ultima game? It's a CRPG, so it has limited depth... But it does focus on the protagonist honing moral virtues, such as Justice, Compassion (which your three pillars already cover, it seems), but also Honour, Humility, Honesty, Valor (and so on), and with them, the characters' abilities. All of these virtues have different codes of conduct required - so you could be just and honourable but not at all compassionate or honest (like Hamlet... or a vengeful action movie hero), but no relativism is promoted, as it is certainly possible for one person to embody all of the virtues.

What "virtues" are appropriate to a spell-caster for your game, and whether you want to call them virtues at all, would of course be for you yourself to devise... But methinks taking this route would allow for morality to enter your game less as a legalistic system that can be gamed and more as a thing worth striving for.

Though, uh, that may be not at all what you want. Just my two cents.

  I would probably advise checking out Clinton’s Paladin rpg for a good look at putting in a moral code system. I think that an example should be in place but a strong frame work supplied this way it can jive with what ever group is playing; lest you end up with a d20 style alignment system which is often used when convenient.
It also might not be a bad idea to purposefully leave grey areas this way you can have cunning/conniving characters trying to loop hole their way through casting. With a clear black and white you simply create a list of do’s and don’t to adhere to but with a mildly vague system you have the characters actively working to use the moral system to their advantage, or another’s disadvantage.
Just my 2 cents
Regards, Seth

Bert,
  One thing I noticed, Your light side has very vague and hard to interpret guidelines (mete out justice, what does that mean?). While the shadow side is very specific, steal, rape and hurt innocents.
  I can sort of see why you did it that way, I mean, it is easy to tell when someone is being evil, if the evil conditions are more specific.

  But, from a practical stand point, it seems counter-intuitive. So, you are good, as long as you don't steal, rape or cause suffering of innocents.
  Its seems like what it takes to be good is less defined in your system. Save a life, ease suffering and mete justice. With the exception of save a life, it is hard to define. And subject to interpretation.

  I struggled with this issue when I decided to run a Star Wars:KOTOR campaign using non-Star Wars rules. I decided that good vs. evil can be determined with two tests:
1) How much does the action in question benefit your character?
2) Who benefits from this action besides your character, and how much does it benefit them?
  This is a little simplistic and slightly subjective. But, I explained it to the players at the beginning of the campaign and it worked out pretty well. In fact, there were times where players assumed one thing or the other and I just said (when they voiced their doubts), who benefits and by how much? And that usually set them on the right track.

  I think it is a great idea you are shooting for and I hope you hit the mark, because it sounds like a cool game.

Hi dindenver,

dindenver wrote:
So, you are good, as long as you don't steal, rape or cause suffering of innocents.

dindenver wrote:
Its seems like what it takes to be good is less defined in your system. Save a life, ease suffering and mete justice.
With the exception of save a life, it is hard to define. And subject to interpretation.

dindenver wrote:
I struggled with this issue when I decided to run a Star Wars:KOTOR campaign using non-Star Wars rules. I decided that good vs. evil can be determined with two tests:
1) How much does the action in question benefit your character?
2) Who benefits from this action besides your character, and how much does it benefit them?
This is a little simplistic and slightly subjective. But, I explained it to the players at the beginning of the campaign and it worked out pretty well. In fact, there were times where players assumed one thing or the other and I just said (when they voiced their doubts), who benefits and by how much? And that usually set them on the right track.

Hi DWeird,

DWeird wrote:
A little bit about intent... What about the cases where fireballs and poor aim produce grilled villagers? The wizard in question didn't mean to fry them - he was aiming for the bandits that threatened the very same villagers. Pushing this a little bit further, maybe the wizard in question would even get a lil' blessing of the light - just 'cause, y'know, his intentions were pure. Good-hearted, yet unable to forsee or control the long-term effects of one's actions...

"Well, I did summon that Ten-Ton-Tengu, but I never thought it would bring about the destruction of man and beast alike!"

Doesn't really fit the archetype of a wizard, does it? Might want to scribble in some sort of requirement for "wisdom" or some such. Screwups being frowned upon, but allowed - just as long as a caster does her best to mop up the problems she has inadvertedly caused).

DWeird wrote:
Ohh! And I just remembered... Have you played any Ultima game? It's a CRPG, so it has limited depth... But it does focus on the protagonist honing moral virtues, such as Justice, Compassion (which your three pillars already cover, it seems), but also Honour, Humility, Honesty, Valor (and so on), and with them, the characters' abilities. All of these virtues have different codes of conduct required - so you could be just and honourable but not at all compassionate or honest (like Hamlet... or a vengeful action movie hero), but no relativism is promoted, as it is certainly possible for one person to embody all of the virtues.

What "virtues" are appropriate to a spell-caster for your game, and whether you want to call them virtues at all, would of course be for you yourself to devise... But methinks taking this route would allow for morality to enter your game less as a legalistic system that can be gamed and more as a thing worth striving for.

Hi Seth,

Seth wrote:
I would probably advise checking out Clinton’s Paladin rpg for a good look at putting in a moral code system. I think that an example should be in place but a strong frame work supplied this way it can jive with what ever group is playing; lest you end up with a d20 style alignment system which is often used when convenient.

Seth wrote:
It also might not be a bad idea to purposefully leave grey areas this way you can have cunning/conniving characters trying to loop hole their way through casting. With a clear black and white you simply create a list of do’s and don’t to adhere to but with a mildly vague system you have the characters actively working to use the moral system to their advantage, or another’s disadvantage.

What do you mean by "innocent" in this context?  If a wizard kills a guard in front of a gate how is it handled?

Is the guard "innocent" if he's working for an honorable cause at the moment of his death, regardless of his life choices?

Is the guard "innocent" if he has personally lived an honorable life.  Is there some method of determining this, or is it completely based on GM snap-judgment?

Is the guard "innocent" if he hasn't done anything dishonorable in front of the player, regardless of how good or bad he's been in life?

Innocent is a really vague concept, and tends to come out as a trait that's either really situational and subjective or impractical for the PCs to actually know.  The subjective approach seems to be the standard, but it sounds like it's something you really don't want.  How are you going to handle this.

Also, I'm curious about the "sexual misconduct" section of shadows.  What qualifies sexual misconduct?  Does a wizard get shadow-points for only really harmful things like rape or does magic backfire on you for things like premarital sex, homosexuality, or getting blown by a woman on her period?  I can understand the idea of a universe getting all up on a wizard for harming others, but sexual morality tends to be a lot more culturally based rather than damage-prevention based.

Hi again!

When I was talking about virtues, I had in mind specifically wizardly ones - wisdom/prudence, the ability to forsee the long-term effects of your actions, curiosity, the need find out the truth about things, restraint - dealing with vast wizardly power in a proper way. Justice, ambition, gravity, discipline, yadda yadda. You could peg specific attributes of magic (uh? mana regen, number of spells that can be bound, spell duration, spell potency? Dunno.) to specific virtues virtues and these to specific schools.

That was more of a clarification of what I meant... Don't really expect you to find it useful, but one can never know.

Now, this is actually supposed to be helpful:

I think I got a grip of the main effect you want your morality system to produce in-game: and that is to make the moral grey zone inbetween two extremes more interesting to explore. Extreme good is to be ignored 'cause it's so damned boring, and extreme evil is to be made extremelly inconvenient (probably because it usually is disrupting to play?).

Does that sound right?

If so, I think we should suspend the discussion on morality as a working, coherent system ('cause that one's misleading and immensly interesting, which is never a good combination), and focus on how "cosmic justice" produces wiggle space in the grey zone.

For that effect, I think a contrived, somewhat self-contradictory system would actually work better, especially if coupled with somewhat absurd atonement rituals... A mage accidentally steps on a puppydog's tail and causes the poor creature pain - so now he has to go and give his enemies a big hug as atonement for the deed. Given the genre, said enemies are likely to be angry and armed in some proportion, so hugs'd be absolutelly impossible without first paralysing the guys in question... or something like that. Carrying out the instructions of the code to the letter, twisting them in the process would be a fairly regular event for most mages.

Not sure how far towards the absurd you'd want to push it ("You sexed up that corpse, so now you have to marry it!") - possibly not at all. However, a thing to keep in mind is that it's perfectly possible to aproach such events with some amount of seriousness (thus getting some unholy combination of Kafka and Pratchett), and pretty much depends on how the GM sets the mood.

For instance... A necromancer warden, reanimating the corpses of convicts so they could serve out their 799 year-long sentences in full could be the epitome of justice in your current system. PCs meeting such a guy can be either a sad and unsettling or cheery and creepy moment, depending on how it's played.

You can find the free html version here [url}http://files.crngames.com/cc/paladin/paladin.html but I would suggest the free pdf version here http://www.crngames.com/crngames/store. A beta well worth tossing some money into the tip jar for.
Regards, Seth

Hi Otspiii,

otspiii wrote:
What do you mean by "innocent" in this context?  If a wizard kills a guard in front of a gate how is it handled?

Is the guard "innocent" if he's working for an honorable cause at the moment of his death, regardless of his life choices?

Is the guard "innocent" if he has personally lived an honorable life.  Is there some method of determining this, or is it completely based on GM snap-judgment?

Is the guard "innocent" if he hasn't done anything dishonorable in front of the player, regardless of how good or bad he's been in life?

Innocent is a really vague concept, and tends to come out as a trait that's either really situational and subjective or impractical for the PCs to actually know.  The subjective approach seems to be the standard, but it sounds like it's something you really don't want.  How are you going to handle this.

otspiii wrote:
Also, I'm curious about the "sexual misconduct" section of shadows.  What qualifies sexual misconduct?  Does a wizard get shadow-points for only really harmful things like rape or does magic backfire on you for things like premarital sex, homosexuality, or getting blown by a woman on her period?  I can understand the idea of a universe getting all up on a wizard for harming others, but sexual morality tends to be a lot more culturally based rather than damage-prevention based.

Can't you just play out this thing as some sort of cosmic character in itself, that dishes out whatever according to whatever it happens to think is right at the moment?

This doesn't appear to be a game system, it appears to be a character (with the power to punish wizards).

Callan wrote:
This doesn't appear to be a game system, it appears to be a character (with the power to punish wizards).

Hi DWeird,

DWeird wrote:
When I was talking about virtues, I had in mind specifically wizardly ones - wisdom/prudence, the ability to forsee the long-term effects of your actions, curiosity, the need find out the truth about things, restraint - dealing with vast wizardly power in a proper way. Justice, ambition, gravity, discipline, yadda yadda. You could peg specific attributes of magic (uh? mana regen, number of spells that can be bound, spell duration, spell potency? Dunno.) to specific virtues virtues and these to specific schools.

DWeird wrote:
I think I got a grip of the main effect you want your morality system to produce in-game: and that is to make the moral grey zone inbetween two extremes more interesting to explore. Extreme good is to be ignored 'cause it's so damned boring, and extreme evil is to be made extremelly inconvenient (probably because it usually is disrupting to play?).

Does that sound right?

DWeird wrote:
If so, I think we should  suspend the discussion on morality as a working, coherent system ('cause that one's misleading and immensly interesting, which is never a good combination), and focus on how "cosmic justice" produces wiggle space in the grey zone.

DWeird wrote:
For that effect, I think a contrived, somewhat self-contradictory system would actually work better, especially if coupled with somewhat absurd atonement rituals...

Hi Callan,

Callan wrote:
Can't you just play out this thing as some sort of cosmic character in itself, that dishes out whatever according to whatever it happens to think is right at the moment?

Callan wrote:
This doesn't appear to be a game system, it appears to be a character (with the power to punish wizards).

Hi Vulpinoid,

Vulpinoid wrote:
Almost like paradox spirits in "Mage: the Ascension"...

If the majority of people around you think that an act is immoral, you get punished for it. And that's why most sorcerers work their craft in private.

It seems to me the Consensual Reality of Mage: the Ascension is really on the mark here.

When you work magic you suffer consequences based on what the general feeling of the locals is. Thus sexual misconduct (to pick on criterion)can be 'simply having it' if you're in an abby of pious celibates, all the way to 'no one cares' because there aren't any locals to have an opinion. The sexual habits of many animals would qualify as rape in many human societies, for instance, but out in the deep woods you have only the Lynx's morals to go by.

Points in the appropriate cultural knowledge would be tremendously important for a traveling wizard.

Bert wrote:
Hi Callan,

Callan wrote:
Can't you just play out this thing as some sort of cosmic character in itself, that dishes out whatever according to whatever it happens to think is right at the moment?

I'd rather not pin it down to a 'cosmic character', certainly not a capricious one as you seem to suggest. Saying that it would be interesting to have various factions squabbling about which deity is behind it all. People have been personifying impersonal forces for a long time...

Callan wrote:
This doesn't appear to be a game system, it appears to be a character (with the power to punish wizards).

A d20 isn't a game system either, but it does have the power to punish wizards (and everyone else) and is innately capricious, as I know to my cost. I have lived in fear of the wrath of the Grim Icosohedron for decades. :)

Howdy Callan,

Urk.

Callan wrote:
Perhaps you've personified rules and dice so much you assume the can be made to punish, rather than to merely act according to physics and logistical set up?

Bert wrote:
I'd rather not pin it down to a 'cosmic character', certainly not a capricious one as you seem to suggest.

Callan wrote:
Can't you just play out this thing as some sort of cosmic character in itself, that dishes out whatever according to whatever it happens to think is right at the moment?

Bert wrote:
A d20 isn't a game system either, but it does have the power to punish wizards (and everyone else) and is innately capricious, as I know to my cost. I have lived in fear of the wrath of the Grim Icosohedron for decades. :)

Bert wrote:
This doesn't appear to be a game system, it appears to be a character (with the power to punish wizards).

If lying, cowardice, dishonourable conduct etc. causes harm to the innocent, it falls under the pillars of shadow. Ker-slap!!! While people might read moral messages into how the cosmos works, its no more moral than gravity. There's no judgement in it.

In what way do I portray it as a character?

Hi otspiii,

Here's what I'm thinking on those questions you posed:

otspiii wrote:
Is the guard "innocent" if he's working for an honorable cause at the moment of his death, regardless of his life choices?

otspiii wrote:
Is the guard "innocent" if he has personally lived an honorable life.  Is there some method of determining this, or is it completely based on GM snap-judgment?

otspiii wrote:
Is the guard "innocent" if he hasn't done anything dishonorable in front of the player, regardless of how good or bad he's been in life?

otspiii wrote:
Innocent is a really vague concept, and tends to come out as a trait that's either really situational and subjective or impractical for the PCs to actually know.  The subjective approach seems to be the standard, but it sounds like it's something you really don't want.  How are you going to handle this.

Hi Callan,

Thanks for your constructive criticism, probing insight and positivity.

Lots of people have provided creative ideas, sage advice, valuable criticism and thought provoking questions. They've really helped me to think carefully about the kind of problems I'm going to encounter on working this into my game (plenty), but also how it might be used to provide some very interesting in-play experiences. There are some fine minds and engaging personalities here at the Forge. I think the last post by DWeird was the clincher for me and I'm pretty much wrapped up - this post is so over. I have a new found respect for the alignment system in D&D which I previously regarded as utter crap.

I won't try and explain the rationale behind the mechanistic enaction of ethical consequences. When somebody repeatedly demands that you 'hit' them with something they don't believe is possible, you know you can make them feel as happy as a proverbial pig by saying 'gosh, I'm stumped - you are so right, how could I have been so dumb'. :P

Interestingly, the theory of matter proposed by Leibniz in his New System, penned in 1696, was based on these little particles called monads. The monadic system was developed with the view of solving the mind body problem and providing a mechanistic rationale for morality. As this is a game set in a fantasy universe, I guess I could just assume it operates under Leibnitzian mechanics.

Thanks again for your contribution.

Bert

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy."
William Shakespeare