I originally came here to ask a simple question, but the more I think about my RPG, the more I question it's foundation.  Maybe there's nothing wrong with it and these feelings of doubt will pass, but I don't know.

As I compare my RPG's goals, namely, to immerse the players in a rich fantasy world where they can go on adventures and perform great deeds, to what my world offers players, I seem to be hitting far from the mark.  My world is dull; you have twelve different kinds of humans to play, every major nation's biggest problems are economic or political in some way, any major evils are far removed from civilization and not really interested in world domination.  I feel like I need to draw a line down my map and say, "the guys on this side are now all orcs," or something.  Right now it feels like the players might as well don cloaks, go and camp in the woods for two days, and then walk to a town and ask for work.  It seems like the most dramatic thing in my world is on par with today's economic troubles.  My world is too close to the real thing.

I think that the problem is that my world is incomplete.  I can only see the details that I've come up with myself.  When I try and add descriptions of the world to my rule set, I think I'll be forced to come up with more details that will make the world more interesting.

What are some things I can do to enrich the fantasy setting without seriously altering my world?

I think I may have started off on the wrong foot when I began this project.  My best bet seems to start over and rewrite the whole thing after considering a number of things about what my goals are and how I can accomplish them.  And of course I can recycle anything that fits the new design.

As for this point in particular, my best bet may be to start with a generic Tolkienesque world and mold it into a more detailed shape as I go.  Or to create the world in a similar method as the game itself, by starting off with questions of the world's purpose within the game and how to accomplish that.

Hi Egonblaidd,

How would you define a 'great deed' in your own words? Perhaps writing that out will help you figure what the game world needs...or perhaps already has?

Nothing is stopping you from having rifts to the spaces beyond time and space open, devastating the world and warping what's left as hordes of demons and worse beasts swarm over the land, only able to be opposed by a small group of heroes who have received great power from the cataclysm in an epic showdown for all the ages.

Seriously though, if things are boring just inject all sorts of crazy shit until things are interesting enough. Maybe everyone on one side of a line actually does become an orc. Maybe the players were on that side of the line? What caused it? Are things going to get worse? Just because you're an orc are you evil now? Are you going to be hunted by the humans, who are now using you as a convenient scapegoat for their economic issues?

(Before I start, I should mention that I’ve always had a bias to be intrigued by realistic fantasy, especially the morally ambiguous variety, where even though you think your side is good, if you had started on their side, you might think they were good)

Stupid question, but what do you define as a “great evil”?  Hitler was born of massive political and economic problems.  So was Napoleon (or at least political).  So was communism.  So were the crusades.  And many have argued that so is the war on terrorism.  There have always been wars and dictators (not to mention plagues).  Can this not be made epic enough (I mean, how many comparisons have been made between LotR and WWII)?  

And if you’re looking for more, what about people who want to colonize the wide-open spaces with the big evils?  Why are people not going out there?  Can your world have its own Lewis and Clark’s?

And if this really is not enough, I say take whiteknife’s advice, and add crazy shit.  One way to think about it: science fiction authors take our current world (which is roughly functional) inject targeted bits of craziness, or even just hyperbole, into it, and take it to it’s logical(?) conclusion.  Can you do that with your world (it might almost be easier if you can add in “oh, and there are wizards that do this”)?  It might add a neat feel to it.

Just a thought.

Simon

“The only difference between fiction and non-fiction is that fiction has to be credible.” – Mark Twain

Hmm, it took me so long to type this that there have been three replies since I started.  So this post might not respond to some of yours.

I did some reading up, mostly on Troy's blog, Socratic Design, and thought a lot about the Big Three and what my game was really going to be about.  I followed his advice and just wrote what I thought a session, adventure, and campaign would look like, then looked at what I had.  From that I got these answers to the Big Three:

1. What is the game about?

Morality versus Ambition.  What is important to the characters?  What are they willing to do to accomplish their goals?

2. What do the characters do?

The characters make choices that lead to the completion of some final goal.  These choices can be difficult and war with different aspects of a character's personality, or with that character's desire to accomplish his or her goals and that character's beliefs or morals.  Every choice has consequences; is a character willing to pay the price to achieve his or her goals?

3. What do the players do?

The players experience the moral ambiguity of the world through their characters, wading through everyday gritty greyness when suddenly faced with opportunity, with a price.  And yet, through it all, there is always a right choice, even if the player just can't find it.

For some reason, I started off by saying a session was trying to accomplish some goal, and things just took off from there.  It seems that what at least this initial concept is about is morality vs. ambition; are you willing to compromise for an easy success?  Not everyone will be a paladin, but every character should have things that are important to that character, preferably that relate somehow to that character's goal.  What might start as a quest to avenge a fallen family member might turn into a mad rush for power if a character compromises his or her morals in order to achieve his or her goal.  One point I want to get across is that none of the choices may appear to be the right one, but a right choice always does exist, even if you never find it.

I must say that this was not what I had in mind at all a few minutes ago, so the old system that I had been working on may or may not work with this concept, in which case I can either make a new system or make a new concept.  Just looking at those goals, it looks like the system should be "rules lite", and for some reason I find it much more interesting to design "rules heavy" systems.  I revel in complexity.  I should probably try my hand at a Gamist type, though I'm leaning more toward doing a Narrative type, because I don't want to make a game about "killing monsters and taking their stuff."  The above concept is interesting, but I'm not sure it's what I want to pursue in a game design.

In any case, I'm still early on in my design, so it's definitely not too late to start over no matter what I decide to do.  Creating a world is not that easy though, the one I was going to use had been outlined a while back.  I suppose it would be alright if you wanted to do a campaign where a bunch of the nations go to war with each other for one reason or another, and one or more groups of characters are running around resolving certain issues having to do with disinherited princesses or evil despots and whatnot.  You know, the kind of thing that would make a good book, but isn't really good for roleplay (I mean, if the players botch it up, thing are bad).  "High" fantasy seems to me to be another way of saying, "here's the script, I'll let you know if you guys start deviating from it."  If high fantasy types of settings where actually played out as some of the darker RPGs were, then nine times out of ten the world would burn, that is if the players didn't join the bad guys or even usurp the arch villain's position.  Not that I mind the high fantasy setting, I just think "the world" is too high a stake to put on the shoulders of a bunch of roleplayers.  Well, if you want to have more adventures in the same world, that is.  You could always start over, I suppose, but it would be interesting to play in a world suffering the consequences of the characters' actions.  You just need to have a world left to play in.  But maybe I'm just babbling at this point, which wouldn't surprise me since it's 2am here right now.  I should probably go to bed or something.

The "Devices and Desires" series, by KJ Parker, is definitely fantasy. Except, well, it's more like the "fantasy" is that the setting is an alternate but fairly plausible world, rather than one with magic, monsters, etc. The series definitely has its moments, and it has some great storyline stuff, even if it's a bit boring and drags at times... my point is, I wish I could give a better-quality example of a "realistic fantasy" series, but it can be done.

Egon, is it possible that you're not doing enough to put people in the middle of the conflicts you already have worked out? Crazy, fantastical stuff is fun and all, but it has a purpose - either it's fluff and color, or it serves as allegory for the "real" subject matter, or both. Do you need that to talk about what you want to talk about?

It can even be "ancient world" style and still be plenty interesting without phantasmal elements - what about the Renaissance, or the Christianization of Northern Europe, or the dying days of Rome? I guess what you should ask yourself is, "Do I want to play this game?" If you don't, that's a problem. But if you do think it's pretty cool as-is, then there's probably other people who like it too.

I'm play-testing my design for Mask of the Emperor right now, and supernatural stuff plays a moderate, not large, role. There are sorcerers, and there are mildly-gifted psychics, but it's not "high fantasy" by any stretch of the imagination. What matters are relationships between people; I think the magic exists almost entirely to explore those relationships from another angle, as opposed to being there Just Because.

"Fantasy" means a lot of things, namely that it's not real/istic, but in what way is up to you. Personally, an alternate world that's a bit less riddled with supernormal goings-on could be refreshing, I think. I'm intrigued by this definition of "high" versus "low" fantasy, meaning, to you, that the stakes are high or low, rather than the amount of magic. Hadn't looked at it that way, myself.

- Abby

To me the big strength of fantasy is that it takes a single step back from reality and lets you cut away setting that detracts from your message and exaggerate setting that enhances your message.  The big weakness of fantasy is when it becomes about exploring itself for its own sake, when it stops being about reality and starts being about how cool elves are.  It sounds like you have a firm message worked out in your mind with the whole ambition vs. morality thing, so that should really be the centerpiece of your game.  If you build a fantasy world specifically to represent the various nuances and challenges involved in the struggle between ambition and morality an interesting, dynamic, creative setting should almost write itself.  Don't make a nation orcs because you feel like you need an alternative to humans.  Make a nation orcs because they offer a different outlook on the ambition/morality struggle than any of the other nations.  Even then be careful not to ask yourself "Well, what would an orc *really* think like?" when designing them, which is a sort of a weird idea since they don't actually exist.  Design your world from the ground up, always keeping in mind your core concept, and make sure you use other fantasy settings as inspirations rather than guidelines.

I'm not sure yet that I want to do the Morality vs. Ambition thing, I think what I had in mind when I first started was that canned response, "my players go on adventures and have fun," and strangely enough, I still want to do that.  But that phrase is so vague, the phrase on the front of the WFRP rulebook gives you a much better idea of what Warhammer is about, it's "a grim world of perilous adventure."  I think I'd rather tend more toward high fantasy than dark or low fantasy, so less "grim" but I still want it to be "perilous".  But I suppose that making a game about Morality vs. Ambition could range from giving the players a couple options and asking them to make a choice, then rolling to see if they succeed and telling them the consequences of their actions (i.e. a "session" in five minutes), to a full blown RPG experience where they're trying to decide what gear to buy or skills to learn or whether they can escape from those bandits or what will happen if they get caught breaking into this noble's house, with the conflict of Morality vs. Ambition buried subtly under a host of distractions meant to pull you off guard when the real choice comes.

I think I'm going to try and come up with a second set of answers to the Big Three and see if they suit what I'm going for better, though I don't doubt an interesting game could be made from the Morality vs. Ambition concept.  Making an RPG is a lot of work, so I want to be sure about what I'm doing before I start something.

Hmm, that didn't take long.  How about this?

1. What is the game about?

Using your resources to accomplish your goal.  Finding alternatives when you lack the proper abilities.

2. What do the characters do?

The characters use their abilities to accomplish their goals, and learn new abilities when necessary.

3. What do the players do?

The players decide what abilities are important to them during character creation, then decide how best to utilize their characters' abilities to accomplish their goal.

I can see this as being "tactical" in a sense.  I have certain skills, you have certain skills, here's what we want to do, now how are we going to do it?  In the system I was designing skills advance through practice, with failures advancing faster than successes.  Therefore, a new skill could be picked up in a short amount of time, but the difference in proficiency between that new skill and the ones that character used all the time would be huge.  Also, based on how attributes are rolled up, different characters will be inherently better at certain skills, even if some of those skills aren't ones that they've trained.  This seems to match up much better to what I had been working on, actually.  But what will a world that revolves around this look like?

Hey Egon,

I'm not seeing a disconnect between your world where "every major nation's biggest problems are economic or political in some way" and "major evils are far removed from civilization and not really interested in world domination" and your goal of "morality versus ambition," with players experiencing the "moral ambiguity of the world through their characters, wading through everyday gritty greyness" and opportunities that come "with a price." It seems to me you get the exact moral ambiguity you want from your twelve races of humans and a lack of fantastical, black-and-white malevolent (and benevolent) forces.

That all seems entirely artistically coherent.

So, what's behind the "rich fantasy world where they can go on adventures and perform great deeds" goal? It seems a desire that's out of left field relative to all of the setting and game design that you've actually put work into. In my experience, resolving these kinds of inconsistencies between artistic desires and how an artist is actually expending his creative energy requires some self reflection.

Is your shades of grey world perhaps something you desire to run (as gamemaster), and a rich fantasy world with adventures the kind of thing you want to play (as player)? Or vice versa? Or perhaps, does your goal of a rich fantasy world come from doubt that anyone would want to play in your grey world, a belief that what players want is fantasy and heroism?

Dig into your psychology a bit. What's behind having put so much creative energy into the grey world? And what's motivating your anxieties about the lacking of fantastical elements?

Paul

Egonblaidd wrote:
1. What is the game about?

Using your resources to accomplish your goal.  Finding alternatives when you lack the proper abilities.

2. What do the characters do?

The characters use their abilities to accomplish their goals, and learn new abilities when necessary.

3. What do the players do?

The players decide what abilities are important to them during character creation, then decide how best to utilize their characters' abilities to accomplish their goal.

Hmm, I think I see what you guys mean.  I'll have to think about things and see how I can bring together the Morality vs. Ambition thing with my system and world.  I guess my initial concern with my world was that I didn't have the faintest idea what sort of adventures a gaming group would be running, but I think as long as I created a detailed enough and yet vague and open ended enough world, they will find something to do.  Actually, I'm starting to get ideas myself.  The more I think about it, the more the world seems suited to this idea of Morality vs. Ambition.  I initially designed the (not for an RPG, but still) so that every nation had problems, the sort that might lead to a war that nobody wants (almost nobody anyway) but that they feel they must win to survive.

For example, one northern kingdom can't feed its population because the bad winters have killed the majority of their crops every year, and yet the kingdom they trade with is having the same problem, they only have enough to feed themselves.  Nobody wants to fight, just survive.  There may always be a right choice, there may be a way to resolve the problem without conflict, but while you're trying to think of what that right choice is, people are dying.  To a highly moral character the issue of Morality vs. Ambition is compounded when you hold the lives of others in your hand.  Do you compromise your own morals to save others, or do you stick to your beliefs and let the people die?  I suppose that the PCs don't necessarily have to be the ones that make these decisions, they could encounter NPCs that are the ones making these decisions.  They might be hired by someone faced with one of these choices, or be sent to stop someone making these choices.  Even if the players aren't the ones being faced with the decisions, they can still see the effects such difficult choices have.  And when possible, the players can face those choices themselves.

The more I turn it over in my mind, the more I like it.

huzzah! my first post!

from your very brief description, i don't see anything wrong with your game world.  it seems more like you are just burnt out. so here are my suggestions...

keep your world "boring" and keep it in line with realism as far as politics and economics are concerned.  Then throw something at the players out of left field.  someone else said rifts through space and time.  that is certainly an option.  make the players think that their world is mundane and just when they are about to lose interest, throw in a demon invasion. and not just something small like a cult trying to bring over a demon or three, but a full-fledged worldwide demon invasion involving every nation, every territory all at the same time. turn the whole planet on its ear.

or, ask someone else to use your rules and mechanics and come up with a supplement.  although this is easier said than done.  most people will gladly say that they will help, and then do nothing.  that's my experience anyway.

I'm looking at the Power 19 and know that I can't answer all of the questions yet, but I'll do the ones I can and come back and post them here with questions.  It's interesting to see how some of the design elements I had already implemented actually support my design goal.

One thing I'm struggling with is how to portray magic in my world.  I read some articles on John Kim's site about how to make magic less scientific and more magical, and that's something that seems like a great idea to do.  The question is, how can I make magic fit the design goal?  Should a PC cower as an enemy is getting ready to strike the finishing blow, only to watch as lightning leaps unbidden from the PC's hands and blasts the foe?  Or should there be actual wizard characters that can use magic whenever they want?  It seems like the best thing might be to cut out magic altogether, but that makes the world more of an "alternate" world than a fantasy world.  Besides, the brief details I have on my world do include magic, and wizards of some kind.  I think the key is to make magic weak and/or spontaneous enough that you can't do anything with magic that you couldn't do some other way, and yet powerful and focused enough that it can pose a serious threat in the hands of the enemy.  I like the idea of spontaneous, uncontrollable, mysterious magic.  My current system has the GM rolling up the magic stat for the characters and keeping it hidden from the players.  They might not even be able to recognize when their power manifests, except when explicitly trying to cast a spell.  In fact, it could be kind of neat to keep all the character's stats hidden from the player, but I don't know how many players OR GMs that would appeal to.  I can explain my current ideas for magic if people want to evaluate them.

The Power 19

1. What is the game about?

Morality versus Ambition.  What is important to the characters?  What are they willing to do to accomplish their goals?

2. What do the characters do?

The characters interact with people faced with difficult choices, and are at times faced with difficult choices themselves.  Who do the ally with?  Who do they fight?  How do they resolve conflicts between themselves and those standing between them and their goals?

3. What do the players do?

The players experience the moral ambiguity of the world through their characters, wading through everyday gritty greyness when suddenly faced with opportunity, with a price.  And yet, through it all, there is always a right choice, even if the player just can't find it.

4. How does your setting (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

Every major kingdom is facing some sort of crisis, and tensions run high as each monarch looks to his neighbors as a potential solution to his problems.  Most don't relish the thought of taking what they need to survive, but do they have a choice?

5. How does the Character Creation of your game reinforce what your game is about?

Players have little control over their character's attributes, and those attributes are set in stone thereafter.  They determine what a character can and can't do.  Players have greater control over what skills to give their character.  How will they complement their strengths and supplement their weaknesses?  What approach do they wish to use to solve the problems they will encounter later?
(Does this seem to hit the mark?)

6. What types of behaviors/styles of play does your game reward (and punish if necessary)?

They players should think about how they are going to tackle a problem instead of picking option A every time.  Different choices have different results and consequences, and the players must understand what those are before they can make a good choice.

7. How are behaviors and styles of play rewarded or punished in your game?

Combat is deadly, and can easily end in death for the PCs.  NPCs can end up hating the PCs because they failed them, betrayed them, or turned against them.  Nations could potentially destroy one another based on the actions of the PCs.

8. How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?

The Game Master presents the problem to the players, withholding information their characters would not know, such as what sort of consequences might result from their actions.  The players deliberate among themselves and decide how best to handle the problem.
(This seems rather vague.  Maybe I don't quite understand the question?)

9. What does your game do to command the players' attention, engagement, and participation? (i.e. What does the game do to make them care?)

The players are caught up in people's problems, trying to find ways to deal with them in a way that is satisfactory, or admit defeat and flee, leaving the people to solve their own problems.
(This doesn't seem like it quite does the job.  Am I missing something?)

10. What are the resolution mechanics of your game like?

I'm planning to use d100 rolls for all resolutions.  In most cases a success performs the actions, while a failure results in no action.  In a conflict, the winner gets to perform their action.
(I need to think about this one.  I could also use suggestions on resolution mechanics.)

11. How do the resolution mechanics reinforce what your game is about?

I don't really know yet.  My resolution system might need some work.

12. Do characters in your game advance? If so, how?

Characters advance primarily by learning skills.  Other kinds of advancement are not dealt with mechanically, though they could exist in narrative.

13. How does the character advancement (or lack thereof) reinforce what your game is about?

Characters learn most by failing (skill advancement).  Players learn most by experiencing the consequences of bad choices.

14. What sort of product or effect do you want your game to produce in or for the players?

I hope that the players will think more about their actions, both in play and in life.  Is there a better way to deal with a problem?  Or should I plow through it in a heavy handed manner before it gets worse?

15. What areas of your game receive extra attention and color? Why?

A host of skills exist that cover every possible action a character, player or non player, could take.  This provides a number of diverse options for dealing with conflicts.
(Could this actually detract from the design goal?)

16. Which part of your game are you most excited about or interested in? Why?

How characters will develop in the world.  How they will cope with their weaknesses and deficiencies.
(I wasn't exactly sure how to answer this one.)

17. Where does your game take the players that other games can’t, don’t, or won’t?

A world where right and wrong aren't easily distinguishable, where sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils and stoically face the consequences.

18. What are your publishing goals for your game?

At this point, a free downloadable PDF.

19. Who is your target audience?

Adults or teenagers interested in adventuring in a fantasy world, but also in the moral questions this game poses.

Hmm, some of those I'm not really sure about.  As I mull things over in my mind maybe they'll become more clear.

I'd say this is a great start for a fantasy setting. How would this world react if Orcs did invade? Would humans unite or would some of them take advantage of the chaos for their own ends? Maybe the orcs are the sole carriers of knowledge making orc captives very valuable for their knowledge. I'd love to see a semi-realistic world introduced to some fantasy elements. Introduce your players into the middle of it and you have the makings for some interesting interactions.

Two thoughts:

morality:

I think there's a contradiction between wanting a world full of "moral ambiguity" but asserting "a right choice always does exist".

A possible problem: you present a dilemma, with a 'right' choice hidden away: a player sincerely chooses another option -  are you going to hose their character for a different opinion?

For some dilemmas, could say cold utilitarian logic + machiavellian cunning + swift brutality actually be 'right'?

I think what im trying to say is: is there a danger the game becomes "second-guess the GM's philosophical opinions"?

**

scale:

my interpretation is the characters (to start with) are not particularly powerful or important - how will the big picture details youre worried about actually affect them and create play?

Maybe you should just set the vague parameters of the world and then concentrate on detailing one area - perhaps a weak kingdom at a crossroads of much more powerful, competing states. Create a good set of rival NPCs - many ambiguous - and see what develops.

You've got a good point there, how can I immerse players in moral ambiguity and at the same time assert that there is always a "right" choice?  No, I don't expect the GM to have a ready-made "right" choice.  In fact, most of the time it should be the players that compare their options, not the GM saying, "you can do this, this, or this."  Probably what I'm more looking for is to enforce a philosophy that there IS a "right" choice, but that choice is a needle in a haystack.  There MUST be a way to resolve an issue so everyone is happy and alive, but you don't have time to sit and think about it, so just do the best you can.  Perfection is unattainable, but to be constantly striven for.  Another way of saying it, I suppose, is that an Absolute Good does exist, but our ability to find the right moral choice is limited because we don't know all the options or all the consequences of what our actions would be.  There needs to be a driving force that there is a "right" choice, otherwise characters and players alike will cease looking for one.  It's not the GM's responsibility to decide what the right choice is, it's the players job to make the best choice that they can, even if it falls short of that perfect choice.

I guess another thing to think about is that a "perfect" choice could be arrived at if different people were willing to participate, but often the actions of others will force your hand.  You may be forced to choose between allowing an atrocity to occur or committing some grave sin yourself (like murder) in order to prevent it.  If you were all powerful then you could force people to do the right thing, but you're not, so you have to choose the lesser of two evils.  It's not always what you do, but how you feel about it.  There's a huge difference between enjoying what you're doing and feeling regret at what seemed like a necessary action.

In one of the recent Star Trek episodes I watched, the main character is recounting his attempt to save lives and end a war, and while it starts innocent enough, things quickly turn sour.  He bribes, lies, and allows two men to die, questioning during the whole narrative whether he was in the right or not, whether he should have stopped at certain points.  But in the end, he says, given a second chance, he'd do it all over again in a heartbeat.  He considers the two dead men and his own lost self respect a small price for what he accomplished.  He's ashamed by what he did, but the alternative was worse.  This is exactly the sort of thing you might see as an adventure in my system.  Contrast this with another episode.  In this other one, a group geniuses is calculating the chances of winning the war, and conclude that victory is impossible.  At first they recommend surrender, but of course that is rejected.  In order to save lives, they decide to betray their people by giving information to the enemy.  One of the characters disagrees with this and stops them.  In the end, the characters hope that their calculations had been wrong (in spite of the fact that they felt so strongly about them they were ready to betray their people in order to reduce casualties), and, if not, are prepared to go down fighting.  Who is right and who is wrong?  I don't think that's a question that we can answer.

I see religion being a big part of the game, and am thinking of implementing mechanics based around some kind of "faith" stat.  It could be used in holy magic, you know, the priestly spells, and also as a divine intervention system where a character can be inexplicably pulled safe from danger.  I imagine it working in a similar way to spontaneous magic, except that anyone can increase or decrease their faith based on how they act.  At this point, it becomes a GM call, however.  Does this character believe that they are doing the right thing?  Could there be some sort of selfish motive behind someone's actions?  It seems like it would be a difficult thing to judge.  My advice would probably be to rate a person's "holiness" on a scale based on action and attitude.  The knight who constantly gives to the poor, puts himself in danger to rescue others, and adheres strictly to his code of honor would have a rather high faith.  A priest who is constantly berating peasants over theological interpretations might have a lower faith; he's too caught up in his own self righteousness to actually follow his strictures.  I should probably stress that faith would be based on a non legalistic view of religion, more on doing what's right instead of following some set of rules.

One problem I see here is over multiple religions.  Many fantasy worlds have polytheistic religion, so the worship of another god is, at least, tolerable, if not expected.  My world, on the other hand, is dominated by two different monotheistic religions, with other types of religions existing but not so dominant.  Obviously I can't say "only this religion gives faith points to its followers because it's the true religion," especially considering that my two monotheistic religions bear a strong resemblance to two real world religions that shall remained unnamed but suffice to say they aren't on the best of terms these days.  However, mechanics aside, I see a great deal of plot potential from opposing religions, especially given my design goal.  You may be faced with the choice of siding with the wicked follower of your own religion or an innocent follower of another religion.  Probably the best way to deal with the issue is to perhaps give different rules for divine intervention for each religion, and if a character doesn't believe in that religion then the effects can be attributed to spontaneous magic.

One issue I'm trying to figure out is my resolution system.  It seems like a perfect place to exploit my design goal, where a success accomplishes your goal but a failure has some sort of consequence.  Or maybe consequences would be heaped on both sides.  I could see really expanding on the resolution system and making it central to the game; but I don't really see why trying to move a heavy box out of your way or picking a lock or climbing a wall should be so dramatic.  I'm inclined to stick with the standard success/fail mechanic in most RPGs.  "Your attack misses the opponent.  He hits you."  "I attack him again."  "You hit.  He's dead."  Large scale "resolutions" would be played out in a more narrative fashion.  Do you make it to the baron's chamber and slay him, or do the guards force you to retreat, or worse, capture or kill you?  There's dramatic consequences for large decisions, but a single skill test is irrelevant in the big picture.  The important choice was assassinating the baron, not whether to slash him with your sword or shoot him with your bow.  I COULD get rid of "skill tests" altogether and just have the players decide what to do, roll the dice, and then narrate what happens (or have them narrate), with the success or failure of that one large decision resting on that single dice roll, while the details are minute and just played out in narrative form.  But that takes something out of the game for me.  Part of the question seems to me to be, "am I capable of doing this?"  You can't really consider an option that you have no hope of succeeding in, and hence the skill system.  The real consequences of the players' actions are felt when they let the evil baron raze a village and kill everyone, or when the baron's little girl bursts into the room and starts sobbing over her father's copse.  Either way, you feel like a dastard.  THAT is where the consequences are felt and the rightness of the party's decision is evaluated, not when you're trying to pick the lock on the back door.

I guess I'm saying I want to design a fairly standardized RPG with a narrative emphasis on my design goal, instead of making a game that doesn't really resemble an RPG that is all about my design goal.  By "design goal," I'm referring to the Morality vs. Ambition thing.  I want my players to go on adventures and have fun, but while they do that I want them to consider the philosophical implications of what they do in their adventures.

Hey!

That last reply of yours seems awesome to me, especially the examples. Definitelly paints a picture of something I'd like to play. Sadly, I don't have much time to post, so I'll be quick:

Seems to me you're not going for Morality vs. Ambition as much as you are for Morality vs. A Different Kind of Morality. The question of "whether that was the right thing to do" never gets really answered, but trying to do so with your actions brings consequences - both to the world and your conscience.

So I suggest you simply have the players provide more than one sort of morality (for instance: "I will never..."/"I will always..." + an allegiance to a group - one's family, country, or religious group) and then chuck 'em in situation where these moralities are at odds.

Sound good?

This is starting to sound a lot like some of the concepts I'm working toward at the moment. Conflicting morality patterns, with characters trying to find their own morality within the groups around them (and players being forced to consider their own).

I think the important thing to consider here is that there should never be a black and white...not even shades of grey.

I'll use a colour analogy instead.

One person is green, another is red. Shine a red light on them and the red guy appears much lighter, shine a green light on them and the green guy appears lighter, shine a blue light on them and they both look dark.

The green guy has moral standards that look good in one situation, the red guy has moral standards that look good in another situation...in the third situation they both look bad.

It sounds like you've got some good ideas though...

I'll bounce some more your way shortly...it's what I do.

V

As someone who just plunked down cash in this economic downturn for his second version of an RPG based on the low-magic world created by George R.R. Martin in A Song of Ice and Fire, I think I can safely vouch for the interesting situations and stories you can create in a world where the problems are mostly human - money, power, lust, glory - these things have prompted more death and betrayal in the world than any magic ring.

Take your setting seriously. Trust yourself. You don't have to have orcs to have adventures.

Egonblaidd, I don't know what your history is in rpgs but it sounds just a little bit like some of your older games are sneaking into your new world where they don't need to be:

You've wanted to make this world with all it's complexity, and you seem to be making it into a puzzle world, where "solving" some part of it by bringing your own kind of peace to an area is a big part of the game. This is worth diving into head first! You can focus your mechanics on solving situations, on balancing consequences, and use that to tone how you effect combat, opening doors, every activity the people engage in.

I suspect you want a sense of heroism in a complex world, striving to make things right when solutions are difficult to find. In that world, perhaps direct "I hit you" combat resolution is as irrelevant as sandwich eating mechanics for D&D!

In that sense perhaps you need a "strategic" skill system, so you talk about "forward attack!" "assassination", or other such approaches.

In a sense these match V's "moralities" but it is easier to define a fit when dealing with a strategy, although of course moral standpoints can have attached strategic concerns like "we do not negotiate with terrorists" = diplomacy, "we fight our foes honestly"  = assassination etc.

They could also influence how many people you need to keep on your side, as "forward attack!" may require an army to follow you for full power, whereas others could work with less conditions. This could be done mechanically with circumstantial bonuses, that must be called in during narration and so risked. So if you involve someone's family, you may get them killed or made destitute.

A lot of good advice here, thanks guys.  I don't think I want to put the spotlight on the moral issues, making the game about finding a solution to some moral crisis (i.e. "You and your comrades are trapped in a cave and starving to death.  Roll a moral resolution test, if you pass you find food to hold you over until you are rescued, if you fail you kill and eat one of your comrades.").  To me that seems too, well, simple.  I think I'd rather take an approach that's more standard, where the "I hit you" resolution is important, because failure to perform some task could result in being forced to take a morally less preferable route to success or in failing to prevent some great evil from happening.  For example, you may try to capture someone about to do something you find distasteful (an assassination, perhaps), but when you try to overpower him he kills one of your comrades, and you have to kill him if you want to stop him because you aren't strong enough to merely subdue him.  Therefore skills are among the most important character features; are you capable of succeeding at a morally preferable approach to a problem, or do you have to fall back to some less preferable plan, or when things go badly are you even able to deal with such a situation?  Can you talk your way out of a fight, for example?  Or are you better off killing everything in front of you?  If you can't talk your way out of a fight, can you keep from dying yourself?  (Or would you rather die than harm your attackers?)

I think it might be interesting to have players define their character's moral views, but it might also be restricting.  Each player will bring a different moral view to the game, and will further play a moral view they believe to fit their character.  One player might play both a "ne'er do harm" priest and a battle-ready, but cautious, mercenary.  By letting players enact their own moral views they will be more able to bring out their characters' personality, but by forcing them to formulate their views ahead of time it could help them to get a concrete idea of what exactly their characters' moral views are.  I'm tempted to make moral codes a part of character generation, but not have it enforced (so it's more of a guideline, a way to develop your character's personality).  Just have them write down a few moral rules for their character (like "Evil men should die" or "One should always obey authority"), then challenge them to think about what exactly they mean by said rules (like "Are any men truly 'evil'?" or "What if an order is given that would violate one of your other moral rules?").  Or perhaps the GM could look for these kinds of hard questions and work them into an adventure, such as showing the benevolent side of an otherwise evil man, or an authority giving an order that contradicts that person's moral rules.

By the way, I'm completely new to RPGs, aside from the electronic format, both playing and designing, but I pick up the basics quickly (although I have tried to design other worlds, mostly for fantasy novels that I never ended up writing).  Right now I'm trying to figure out what skills I want and how to group them (skills in the same group get a bonus).  I want every possible action a character can perform to either be automatic (i.e. walking, breathing, etc.), depend on attributes (i.e. lifting a heavy object), or depend on a skill (i.e. shooting a bow), so I need a lot of skills.  I'm sure there's some aspects of life I haven't even thought of yet when it comes to skills, though.  I have some combat skills, trade skills, and scholarly skills, but even in those areas I'm sure I'm missing things.

All in all, I've come to appreciate my world and the potential it offers for this sort of theme of clashing moralities.  Probably one of the best ideas for a campaign is to simply start a war between two or more kingdoms and toss the players in.  And that can be scaled up or down to whatever level the GM wants, from a minor squabble in a hamlet somewhere to an epic battle between good and evil as all the kingdoms band together to fight off some ancient evil.  That latter scenario present interesting possibilities if the kingdoms aren't wholly united and looking for some way that they can defeat the evil and still end up on top of its rivals.  "We managed to 'liberate' that city the undead had captured, unfortunately your forces are already spread too thin or you would have been able to afford more men to defend it, so we hold on to it for you."  ("We saw a chance to seize your city under the pretext of liberating it from the enemy, and took it.")  As I said, though, the scale of the situation can be whatever the GM wants, making things quite flexible, allowing a more high fantasy feel to a darker low fantasy feel.

I'm glad to see that you aren't trying to inject "fantasy" for the hell of it any longer. The world you are talking about seems extremely interesting, and has plenty of opportunity for "adventure"

So, I have some things I'd like to understand:

What is "adventure?" Are you thinking of the players exploring ruins? Or are you thinking of legendary quests for epic items that involve espionage, diplomacy, wits, and acts of heroism and glory, whether combat focused or not?

One is a method to a Fantasy Heartbreaker. The other is reminiscent of real-world mythology. Which by the way, I strongly suggest getting a good understanding of. You don't need fantasy races at all. Twelve different human groups is more than enough. Compare: Native Americans (as a whole, their individual tribes are of course unique and distinct), Roman mythology (it is actually VERY different from greek mythology), Norse mythology, Greek Mythology, Celtic mythology, and the Chinese Religion/mythology. These are all wildly different cultures, with different views on morality, gods and their power, how magic woks, how the world was created, and many other aspects of the world as we know it. Don't force yourself into two major world religions (unless it is what you truly want to do, and have a reason for it. By this I mean, think to yourself, why only two?). Instead, imagine that each nation will have its own unique beliefs and practices. They may be subservient to one of the two over-religions, but would still have their own practices. And withint different regions within a given country, those practices themselves would be different. You could even have regional gods. Think of religion like language. People may have the same language, but different dialects.

Rome took over countries but absorbed the religion. So, you got to keep your religion, so long as you re-named your gods and paid token praise to the key roman ones. Something similar could work for you, only keep each nations religion strong. Maybe they've only recently converted?

Once you have the religion problem solved, you can start worrying about magic. How does each religion approach the mystical? Is it the sole purveyance of gods, or do the gods themselves need to use magic from time to time. How about this: Magic is a matter of morality itself. That is, the "right" way to do things is the natural way, with blood, sweat, and tears. But, magic comes at a cost of your humanity, but allows you to accomplish things easier and faster. So, once you start to lose your empathy with humankind, will you still be motivated to help them? If not, what do you do with your new-found power?

Now, to address your idea of not making morality present in everything.

What I think you are trying to do, is make a standard world to be explored and adventured in, in which the GM creates lots of interesting moral questions and consequences. This is a huge amount of work to be putting on the GMs shoulders in addition to everything else he will inevitably be doing. Also, if it is the sole responsibility of the GM, they might just skip it. If adventures can take place without all the hassles of making moral choices and consequences, they will take place as such.  I'm not saying all GMs are lazy. But, if morality isn't a regular feature of the rules in some way, it will be forgotten plenty of times. That is why there needs to be a key morality mechanic that figures into everything, or at least, most or many things.  You can either make morality an interesting part of your world, to be explored or ignored, or you can make morality the world itself, in which case all players MUST interact with it, whether they want to or not. This itself can create interesting internal conflict for a PC. How does he deal with Morality? What if he just wants to get away from the pain and responsibility. Delve into the mystical arts my son...watch as weak emotion leaves your body and you become purified...

I hope this helps you develop your world. It doesn't need orcs, elves, and dragons to be a fantasy world. An all human world with different tribes/clans/cultures that are each distinct in size, shape, and habits is more Race specific than all the crazy stuff you see out there in fantasy games nowadays. The work you have put in sounds great, and all of the politics, economics, and foreign relations make for great context in the world.

Here's a thought. What if each player had a goal or set of goals on their character sheet that functioned something like a stat. It would give them bonuses and be tied to their morality. These could change and go up or down over time as the character progresses through the stories.

Anyhow, hope this helps. Take it easy and good luck in your design! I'd love to hear more about the cultures and their religions too. Post it somewhere!
--Norm

About the religion:
What I meant was that the particular kingdom that I have kind of centered my world around (sort of like the Empire in the Warhammer RPG) is not only primarily of a certain monotheistic religion, they are the center of that religion.  Most of the Western civilizations have adopted this particular religion, which I am calling the Word at the moment, though some have ancient tribal gods that are still worshiped in rural areas, and a degree of superstition runs through most of the populous making them fear the old gods they have forsaken.  For example, I have a Norse-styled (from which the other kingdom that is the center of the Word emigrated from long ago) culture like this.  The details of the Word aren't really fleshed out, but I obviously want it to resemble medieval Christianity.  The other major monotheistic religion, the Way, is practiced in a desert realm of nomads, so obviously I want it to parallel Islam, possibly with a flavor of Judaism.  These desert dwellers have a culture that is on par with the kingdom that is the center of practice of the Word, so I'm making an effort to, since people will obviously catch on to the similarities to real-world religions, to not portray one culture or religion as "better" or "stronger".  I haven't thought much about it yet, but there is potential for old and forgotten religions in the desert region as well.  Besides that I also have a Greek styled culture, though (I haven't thought about this yet) they will probably practice the Word, they will have their own ancient religion as well; also I have an India style kingdom that I haven't thought much about in terms of religion but it will have something to do with astrology, as well as a Chinese/Japanese style kingdom that are pantheistic in their religion.  I've also been thinking about adding an Egyptian-style kingdom to my world that will probably practice the Way but will also have its own ancient pantheon.  I also have a continent roughly equivalent to Africa that I haven't thought a whole lot about, so I haven't decided if there are any major tribes or groups in that area; it will probably be something I can write a supplement about.  In any case, I have quite a variety of different cultures many of whom have their own religious background even if they practice a different religion "today".  To top it off, I have two different nations which are more of traders and merchants (and/or mercs and slavedrivers, depending on which one we're taking about) that are either completely secular or at most pay lip service to a religion.  So I have the bones of a lot of different cultures and religions, I just need to put some meat on them.

As far as magic goes, what I had thought to do was divide the different "schools" of magic into several different types:  One draws on that person's spiritual force to do something "manually", which will quickly tire the character out (think about how much energy is in one bolt of lightening).  This one is kind of the base form of magic that the other forms build off of.  Another uses geometric symbols and equations which are then "activated", something along the lines of a temporary or permanent alteration (or interruption) of physics, but the symbols must first be drawn before the spell can be cast and th spells are limited to very simple things (for example, it would be much easier to knock over a door (exert one force in one direction of one magnitude) than to pick a lock (exert a combination of forces in different directions of varying magnitudes), given the complexity of a lock).  Another is a sort of divine magic, which requires the character to pray to cast a spell, I'll get to that a little later.  Another makes use of astrology, I haven't given this one much thought so I'm not sure how it will work yet.  Lastly we have two forbidden forms of magic, Dark and Black.  Black magic is similar to the one that draws on a person's spiritual force, except that the user casts his spells through an evil spirit (which are much more able to use such magic without exhausting themselves, if they can be exhausted at all).  Dark magic I haven't thought a whole lot about either, but it may have something to do with drawing on the person's dark side in order to make his magic more powerful, sort of the sacrifice of humanity for power idea that you mentioned.

Now, something I think I want to do is to have the GM secretly roll a character's Spirit stat (used for most magic) at character creation, so the player never knows just how talented they are with magic and can only hazard a guess after many attempts to use magic.  This adds an element of uncertainty and mystery to magic; it's never a sure thing.  Furthermore, I also want to integrate some sort of "spontaneous" magic system into my game.  Basically, people use magic all the time but don't know it.  This can make them perform their tasks better than average, thus giving that person a "magical" touch, or in rarer situations manifest itself in a recognizable way, such as blasting an enemy that was about to end that character's life, but only if that person's Spirit is very high.  Players would have no control over they use of spontaneous magic, it would mostly be something to further mystify the players and characters alike (and a potential lead for a plot for the GM).  There's another aspect to magic, though.  Each character would also have a Faith stat (used for divine magic) that, unlike Spirit, would change dynamically with the character's actions.  Faith would function like Spirit for divine magic, and would have its own version of spontaneous magic, divine intervention.  It would mostly be a judgment call on the part of the GM on how to adjust a player's Faith according to his actions, but I think I can find ways to work it out.  Even if a player doesn't know his or her Faith, they still know that they can influence it, so a character that consistently acts in a morally reprehensible way will not even attempt divine magic or expect divine intervention, while a fairly religious character can hope, at least, that he will do fairly well in both of those (of course, he may only be fooling himself).  So, magic does have a scientific aspect to it that is found in many fantasy settings, but also has a mysterious aspect and a religious aspect.

To answer your question "What is adventure?" I'd opt more for the legendary quests than the dungeon crawling, although I don't know that my setting will be keyed for "legendary" quests.  Sort of an in between of high and low fantasy, sort of as if the character's are living in a low fantasy environment and are striving for a higher fantasy, like a peasant boy who hopes to one day become a heroic knight that starts his adventure off by running away from his village and dodging the local authorities that would either return him to his (angry) lord or kill him on the spot.  Dungeon crawling does not interest me in the slightest, though something similar might function as a small part of a larger plot (exploring ancient ruins is quite a bit different from "dungeon crawling").  What I'd like is for the players to strive to be heroes but at the same time realize that they are only human, like every other NPC in the world.  They can't sling fireballs with impunity, they can't take a dozen sword hits and be virtually unscathed, and they will not find ancient magical weapons wielded by the gods themselves of old.  They might find that to truly be a hero will mean doing something that will most likely result in rolling up a new character.

Something that I thought of might be to have characters have a kind of morality stat, where one end is "light" and the other is "dark", basically tendencies toward peace, mercy, and healing, or judgment and destruction.  These could give bonuses and penalties to certain actions, and perhaps change with a character's actions, like Faith.  I could have a couple different morality gauges like this, though I think one for good and evil is probably not a good idea, but maybe one for honor vs. deception or something.  I'd have to think about this to come up with some good ideas.  Since most everything is a percentile roll, what I could do is have these gauge values range from 10 to -10 (or 10 one way to 10 the other) and add or subtract from the rolled number.  So a 5 in light would give you a 5% bonus on light type actions but a -5% bonus on dark type actions.  If you have a 5 on honor and an action is both light and honor, then you'd get a 10% bonus.  If I have a lot of these gauges then it may be better to limit them to a max of 5 rather than 10.  Anyway, I could use some ideas on how to implement and manage these.

By the way, there will be dragons.  And giants.  And liches.  And undead.  There will not be elves.  There will be dwarves.  *deletes joke about short fantasy races and those with growth disorders*  I thought it was kind of funny, too, but I don't really want to upset anyone (especially considering that the editing of posts it turned off).  Anyway, it's time I went to get something to eat.  Preferably something with meat, since I don't mind upsetting PETA.

I was thinking about the morality thing.  Either I could do as I was saying, having a gauge with opposing morals on either end, or I was thinking another way to handle it would be to have players put points into certain morals, but have to remove points from others.  So a player could put points into, say, both Violence and Peace, but at the expense of something else.  Even if we might say Violence and Peace are opposing morals, I'm sure the player could rationalize it and come up with a moral code that makes sense in this case.  If I did it this second way, then a moral would only apply a bonus and not a penalty (though if points are taken off that moral to put on others the bonus will be negative, in other words, a penalty) to certain rolls, so having many points in Peace and zero in Violence would not affect a roll on a violent action, but a character that values Peace might choose to take points out of Violence in order to put them into Peace.  On the other hand some morals seem like they would be directly opposed, like Humility and Pride, or Mercy and Judgment.  I guess players would be reluctant to put points into opposing morals if they can't construct a rational moral code around it, unless they are Gamists, in which case they would still find some way to min/max regardless of the system (not a bad thing in some games, but not what I'm going for).

Another way to do it would be to go for the deficiency-moderation-excess approach, used in Islam (apparently).  For example, they have Stupidity-Wisdom-Slyness, Stupidity is a deficient use of intellect, while slyness is an excessive and inappropriate use of intellect.  Or Submissiveness-Justice-Tyranny.  I could come up with some of those types of things myself.  Anyway, this particular decision may be the most important one I'll make regarding my RPG's mechanics, so I might do well to consult some of my philosophy major friends.  I'm sure they'd love to discuss the idea anyway.

I like your idea about scales that go from bad-moderate-excessive. It adds an interesting level of morality. Having scores in moral "stats" also sounds like a good idea, even if they seem opposed.

As for humility and pride, they are not opposites, or at least not strictly so. I properly humble person will not deny their actual ability. That is, they will not say, "Oh, it was nothing." This is a misunderstanding of humility that is very commonly made. A truly humble person simply takes just as much joy in someone else's achievements as they take in their own, and they don't go out of their way to make a deal of their achievements. They let others judge them for what they are.

Likewise, a proud person isn't someone who boasts endlessly. That is a braggart. Pride comes from being happy that you have done a job well. So, from your scales you could have

Arrogance-Humility-Timidity

and

Timidity-Pride-Boastfulness

Notice this links both gauges in an interesting way. It doesn't necessarily make pride better than humility. You could even make a third gauge starting with Boastfulness and ending with Arrogance, to make a triple. But just an idea. And maybe it is these things that could have the numbers.

As for adding percentage bonuses based on morality, it could work well that way.

Overall, I like how you are thinking. Just keep asking yourself the hard questions, and really focus on why you want questing at all, and what can be accomplished in doing so. Also ask why dragons? Why Liches? What do they add to your world? What moral dilemmas arise because of them?

Cheers!
--Norm

I wouldn't go too far towards structuring morality, myself, because allowing players to say "my character is about this" naming specifically the things their character lives for and the value dichotomies that structure their perspective is pretty meaty to many players. On the other hand, other players are just not that into "structuring perspectives", so ideological stats might be pretty useful. Especially if they set in general terms the limits of application, so people cannot keep adding "devotion" to all their rolls because they keep their loved one about!
Perhaps you could add a requirement to sketch out a short description of their morality, but I wouldn't use that as a balancing measure, instead to stop min-maxers I would rely on the following two conceits: In ancient rural china, knowing only one move is a bonus, because that makes you amazing at that one thing. But in modern times, when people who dislike you can get to know you, a single move makes you more beatable, because people can learn how you work, and take you down janken style. The second idea, assuming there is some potential for "countering" in your system, is to stop symbiosis, where the paladin the seducer and the ruthless assassin team up to deal with problems "in their field". Now I wouldn't want to stop players with different codes working together, but you could have a sort of bonus drag, where someone deeply opposed to dishonesty cramps your style when you are trying to trick someone. The tricky bit is how to balance it, so people still work together, without encouraging the full blown absurdity.

I wasn't suggesting a morality roll, if you look at what I said before, my version of your example would be something like having a "prepare" skill test, which gives you freebee "good thing I brought x" for a certain amount of time spent before-hand. You pay the cost/time beforehand, and this provides an interesting guessing game for the player who wants it, but will be contradicted by the morality "Swift action pierces obstacles" or even "Preparation is for the fearful!". In your system the virtue bonuses would apply, and perhaps more than one at once!
I also wanted to fit in something to increase the narration, so people don't just say "I'm going to plan ahead" but instead might say something like "my character will spend some time talking to the armourer, and then to the quartermaster", and each of those actions would enable something when the ability was used, but also put some requirements on explaining what it was.
Finding ways to get players to be graphic that don't interfere with the amateur dramatists, or stage-fright the tacticians is a balance, but mostly it's about flexibility, so your rules melt away when they don't help.
The other alternative is using the "dual" skill on one of your companions in order to kill and eat them, or use "exhort" to get them to agree to sacrifice themselves!

So you use skills to decide what you can do, with relative difficulties based on the situation. For example, you can still try to fight an army single handedly, but the circumstance modifiers I mentioned before will make it very unlikely! The modifiers for something more subtle may be less severe, although that easy option may be excruciating poisoning.

To make things interesting with "the word" and "the way", how about making the islam-ish one a bit more sufi, with lots of teachers and saints and stuff, whereas focus "the word" more on hardcore books-only Islam with hints of Lutheranism. I wouldn't go all the way to the stereotypical puritan, as then "the way" will get all the art, but perhaps give "the word" the geometry of Islam and the architecture of Catholicism, meaning they build these impressive spaces where solemn calls to prayer can resound. They still get to be cool, but in a big way, whereas "the way" could be more about icons and incense and humming on your mat doing special prayer motions.

As to the virtue pools, one way to do it is to require them all to add up, and have some minimum amount of pluses and minuses, as well as a maximum for any one stat, plus and minus. That way people can set up whatever dichotomies they want, with each stat acting as it's own scale going from "honest" to "anti-honest" or "creative" to "anti-creative", which you could then apply special meanings to.

Norm,

Something you have to consider was that I didn't make this world up specifically for this RPG, it was already lying around when I decided, "Hey, I want to make an RPG!" and I just decided it would be both easier to recycle this world and also a way to put the world to good use instead of letting it collect dust.  The world hasn't been used all that much, and I'm not opposed to making changes, particularly since there are elements of it that aren't mine (it was part of a shared-author fiction RPG on a different forum that died out fairly quickly, but I was the one who hosted the thread, so I did the bulk of the work creating the setting).  Anyway, in its previous uses, I have acknowledged the existence of, at the very least, ice dragons, ice giants, frost wolves (a type of undead/werewolf thing), and one powerful lich.  The central kingdom descended from a Norse type of culture, hence the majority of these creatures are winter-based, and even the lich lives in a far northern frozen wasteland.  So it's not that I'm adding these, it's that they were already there before I started adapting the world to a tabletop RPG.

I admit I like the deficient-moderate-excess type of gauge, in a sense it makes sense.  Also, I could have the "negative" effect of Dark magic be that it pushes the person more toward the side of excess (in the sense that they'll become more arrogant, forceful, violent, and such).  One potential problem, though probably not a big one, would be assuming that a 0 is perfect, the very center of the scale (if it's from -10 to 10, say).  I know for myself I tend to be rather stubborn and defiant, and I'm happy with using violence to solve a problem, though I don't like to actually hurt people and wouldn't want to oppress people myself, so on the Submission-Justice-Tyranny scale I'd probably put myself at a 3 or 4 (on a scale from -10 to 10).  I'd say that the use of force is not only appropriate, but that submitting to evil is evil in itself.  As Edmund Burke said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."  However, someone else might feel that the use of force is never justified, and that you should submit to any authority no matter how evil, and that there are ways to fight against evil besides force and direct confrontation.  An example that comes to my mind is Jesus: he challenged people to look at the Law that had been passed down to them and to compare it with the legalism that the religious leaders were enforcing and oppressing the people with at the time (you'd have to read the Bible to get a good idea of what I'm talking about).  If it had been me I would have been bashing those religious leaders' heads together, yelling, "You idiots!  You think this is what God really wants?!"  But then I'm not the Son of God (good thing, too, I'd actually be a very poor deity, I'd be too easily frustrated with humanity and tempted to blast them all and start over).  However, those who would be new to the system might not catch on to this at first, especially if they want to play a "good" character.  They might see it as being more evil the further away from 0 a moral gauge was.  I could deal with this by not allowing values of 0, though, I suppose.

In a way, it seem like this is the most important aspect of my rules since it deals directly with the theme, so I need to choose a system carefully.  I think the major question is what view of ethics do I want to portray?  Do I want a Christian view?  Do I want a Western view?  Why would I consider a Middle Eastern or Asian view over a Western view?  (Example: To Roman Catholics, Sloth, Lust, and Gluttony are three separate vices.  According to the info I found on Islam, Sloth (Lethargy) would be a deficiency of Chastity, while Gluttony/Lust (Rapaciousness) would be the excess.)  Even though my world contains non Western regions, I'm clearly designing things from a medieval European fantasy standpoint, so a Western or even (or especially) a Christian view makes sense, but I do think I want to have a system that any kind of culture can easily identify with.  The core of the issue, I think, is: how am I portraying Good and Evil?  Is "Good" a happy medium flanked by Evil on all sides?  One viewpoint I remember hearing about was Evil as an absence of Good, which was compared to Cold as an absence of Heat or Dark as an absence of Light.  Once you get to absolute zero you can't get any colder, however you can continually get hotter without limit,  and you can achieve total blackness by cutting off all Light, but can continually add Light to make things brighter and brighter.  Perhaps a moral system based on this view would be better.  Like I said, I think I need to talk with some of my friends about this.

I don't know that I would want the gauges to be linked like in your Humility/Pride example, since the question of whether a person has a score both in Pride and Humility or only one of them would have to be answered.  Does a person have to choose between Pride and Humility?  Can a person tend toward Boastful on the Humility end and Timidity on the Pride end?  It COULD work, but it would make things more complicated, and the fact that it's not readily apparent how it would work means that it would be harder for gamers to understand (it doesn't make intuitive sense, where as something like higher numbers being better makes perfect sense), forcing you to spend more time and paper explaining things and making the rules more difficult to remember.

Anyway, I'm thinking about the deficient-moderate-excess approach.  If nothing else, developing it a bit will give me terms to use in a different system if I go for something different.  Here's what I'm thinking so far (though some don't quite seem to fit):
Peace-Justice-Violence                    amount of force used to solve problems
Naivety-Mercy-Vengeance              how defeated enemy's are treated
Blasphemy-Piety-Fanaticism          how one feels toward religion
Pity-Charity-Judgmental                  how one deals with the less fortunate
Manipulation-Honesty-Legalistic    the importance placed on words
Deception-Honor-Arrogance          one's code of conduct, how others are treated
Fear-Courage-Recklessness            how one regards personal safety
Selfishness-Duty-Myrmidon            loyalty and obedience of authority
Poverty-Contentment-Greed          one's value of the material
Unrestraint-Discipline-Rigidity        one's measure of self control, and feelings toward tradition
Abnegation-Chastity-Indulgence    one's value of worldly pleasures

JoyWriter, you posted while I was typing, so now I'll answer your post.

I think there's something to what you're saying, and I think it might work very well to do some sort of mix.  Perhaps each character would be required to have X number of moral gauges, and X gauges would be provided, but a player could scrap a gauge and substitute it with something else, or rework them slightly.  That way there would be a structure for those that wouldn't care to come up with their own, but it would also give the freedom to players to define morality in their own terms (as well as providing some ideas).

As to your example of preparation, I'm not quite sure I understand how that has to do with morality.  Also, I'd hope players would simply say, "I talk to so-and-so," I'd want the actually conversation to be played out, so that the players could garner hints and clues and information actively, rather than pulling the event out later, saying, "Well, when I talked to this guy he told me about this secret passage we can use."  If you know about a secret passage, then you should know about it (and what it might implicate) beforehand instead of when you really need to find a way into someplace.

As for the Word and the Way, I think I do want to model the Word after Christianity (especially Catholicism, to fit with the medieval setting) and the Way after Islam/Judaism.  However, there are some stark disagreements between those religions in real life, for example, the divinity of Jesus.  Christians will not admit that Jesus was only a man, and Jews and Muslims regard that as a form of polytheism, or at least idolatry, and neither side will give.  I'd like to make the Word and the Way such that from a theological standpoint the two could be unified, but won't be from a cultural standpoint.  Since it's my world I can mix and blend and edit as I please, so I suppose it shouldn't be that difficult to get something that works.  One way that I had thought to characterize them was that the Word has historically placed an emphasis on theology and orthodoxy, and yet its theology has become so convoluted that dissident movements (not unlike Protestantism) have begun to form that call for a casting off of the meaningless, old, and sometimes oppressive, traditions and a return to the ways at the Church's formation; while the Way places a greater emphasis on good works and righteous acts, but has become a complex system of rules regarding what one should do and when one should do it that is strictly enforced.  This is kind of linked to the idea that religion (the institution) is not perfect, even if the religion (the beliefs) are good.  This should provide an extra source of tension for the religiously minded between how they think religion should be practiced and how it actually is practiced around them.

Some additional thoughts I had:

Perhaps it might be better to change the Discipline morality to Passion-Discipline-Coldness, which reflects self control and emotion.

Anyway, I was looking over John Kirk's Design Patterns of Successful Role-Playing Games, specifically his Alignment and Idiom Patterns, since they kind of characterize what I'm trying to do with my morality system, and one of the things he said about the Idiom system was that there is normally some kind of gauge that points are added to when the character behaves according to his idiom and points are subtracted from when the character behaves contrary to his idiom.  So I was thinking I could have a similar thing.  For example, let's say in Peace-Justice-Violence you have a 3 (slightly violent), so when you are faced with a situation that you approach with a slightly violent action you would gain a Justice point.  If the action is too violent or not violent enough (or rather, it is specifically Peaceful) then you might risk losing a Justice point.  One possible use of "Morality Points" might be that once enough (10?) are accumulated then you can spend them to make the next action that fits that morality succeed automatically.  The problem with this sort of thing is that it might make certain moralities less relevant (for example, the Justice morality might come into play all the time, while the Charity morality might almost never com into play), thus demeaning that morality.  The advantage is that it should shake up groups quite a bit if one player wants to do one action, from which he stands to gain a Morality point, while the other players would risk losing a Morality point by allowing/participating in that action.  It might make better sense to apply the gaining or losing of Morality points to a situation rather than individual actions.  For example, you might gain a Justice point by attacking a group of bandits, rather than every time you hit the bandit with your weapon.  In this case, it might be appropriate to allow one point to be spent for an automatic success of an individual action.  So, when you attack the group of bandits and gain a Justice point, you can spend it to get an automatic hit during the battle.  Although some other use and/or bonus/penalty might be appropriate for Morality points.

This also begs the question of whether or not moralities should garner Morality points AND provide a passive bonus/penalty to actions (not to be confused with the Morality points applying such a passive bonus).  Also, should moralities change during play, or remain fixed after character generation?  I would think they COULD change, but it would be under drastic circumstances, such a character losing faith in his religion or suffering the loss of someone close to him.  Another possibility is, instead of gaining Morality points, to alter that character's morality.  For example, if a character does a violent enough action, he will move up a notch on the Violence scale.  A better way to do this might be to combine this with Morality points.  Instead of players losing Morality points when they behave contrary to their moral code, their moral code changes (the direction it changes in should be fairly apparent in any given case).  In any case, there should be some leeway where Morality points are neither gained nor lost, as the action is only a slight deviation from that person's moral code.  I think I like the idea of changing the person's morality better then deducting a Morality point.  It somehow feels more threatening than simply deducting a point.

I see people are getting tired of my insanely long posts.  I can't help it that I tend to ramble.  Anyway, I talked with my friend and he really liked the deficiency-moderation-excess idea.  So here are my thoughts so far.  I can either go for a simple system with fewer moralities, or I can go for a more complex one that offers more choices, it's the difference between 4 and 12.  Here's one I whipped up based on the four Western Cardinal Virtues (which bore a striking resemblance to the four virtues on that Muslim site I originally got the idea of the deficiency-moderation-excess arrangement from) and the Seven Deadly Sins.

Sloth-Temperance-Greed
Foolishness-Prudence-Slyness
Cowardice-Fortitude-Rashness
Corruption-Justice-Wrath

And here's the more complex one.

Peace-Justice-Violence         amount of force used to solve problems
Death-Humanity-Life             one's value and view of life
Naivety-Mercy-Vengeance       how evil is dealt with
Fear-Courage-Recklessness     how one regards personal safety
Blasphemy-Piety-Fanaticism     how one feels toward religion
Selfishness-Duty-Myrmidon     loyalty and obedience of authority
Deception-Honor-Arrogance     one's code of conduct
Manipulation-Honesty-Legalistic the importance placed on words
Passion-Discipline-Coldness     one's measure of self control and emotion
Malice-Charity-Pity             how one deals with the less fortunate
Poverty-Contentment-Greed   one's value of the material
Abnegation-Chastity-Indulgence one's value of worldly pleasures

Personally, I think I'm more in favor of the complex one, since it gives more options and allows for a better representation of different moralities.  For example, a Hindu could max out Humanity on the Life end to represent how they value all forms of life.  That kind of idea doesn't really fit into the Western Cardinal Virtues, Westerners have typically held human life in high regard (more or less), but we have always eaten animals as food, so this kind of idea doesn't quite resonate with us.  Also, with this system someone (like me) could properly represent themselves by putting points toward both Violence and Life; we tend to be a bit forceful sometimes but that does not necessarily equate to killing.

Anyway, here's what I'm thinking for a reward/punishment system to enforce moral conduct.  First, it will be on a situation by situation basis, rather than an action by action (e.g. individual skill tests) basis.  Characters can act contrary to their moral code, but their moral code will change toward the direction they are acting (i.e. a Peaceful person committing a violent act will shift toward Violence), and they might incur some kind of "guilt" penalty for a certain period of time to represent their inner turmoil as they struggle with their conscience.  Actions conforming to that character's moral code will generate a Morality point for that morality, which can be spent for an automatic success on any single resolution that fits that morality and that does not contradict that character's moral code.  Actions that neither contradict nor conform to a characters moral code have no effect.

So, for example, let's say we have Bob the Orator.  Bob hears about an evil tax that will further increase the poverty of the poor and the wealth of the rich.  Since Bob has a Justice of -8 (very Peaceful), he makes a resounding speech calling for the Senate to strike down the tax and not allow it to come into effect.  This action agrees with Bob's morality, and so he gains a Justice point.  Later, as Bob is walking home, he is attacked in an alleyway by thugs sent from a political rival.  He can't escape, and he doesn't want to die.  He has no choice but to either fight or die.  He can't use his Justice point because fighting is Violent and opposed to his morality.  However, he manages to get lucky and beats off his attackers.  The resulting conflict leaves him in turmoil, and his Justice goes from -8 to -7.  Now that he has experienced violence, he will have greater tendencies to use it again, though it would take a lot for him to actually embrace violence.  If Bob's Justice had been closer to -3 or -2 he could have used his Justice point in the combat, since self defense, though not in accord with his morality, is justified and not opposed to his morality either.

Should I create a new thread for the morality discussion?

Egonblaidd wrote:
And here's the more complex one.

Sorry, I think I've decided to go ahead and use it, but you're free to tweak it or even copy it if you want to.  I'd think it would require at least a slight adaptation to your system or something, though.  I mean, technically you can copy my entire system as long as you explain it in your own words and there's nothing I can do to stop you.  And if you can make a decent game with it, then go for it.

(Besides, I have a tendency to not finish things I start, so if that happens someone might as well do something with my ideas so they aren't wasted.)

Egon,

Point taken about the world already existing. So I guess my question becomes, "Why are there still liches, etc, in your world?" They should all address morality somehow.

Also, I like your scales mostly. I don't have the time (at the moment) to go into any depth-filled suggestions, but I had an idea I think you might want to use.

What if the only stats in your game were your morality gauges?

Instead of having one -10 to 10 scale per gauge, what if each step had its own -10 to 10 scale, and once you hit "11" you spill over onto -10 of the next rating instead. So "11" Pride would actually be -10 Arrogance.  You could even do away with negatives in this case, and go from 0 to 10 with each. Then, whenever attempting an action related to a given morality, you roll dice according to the appropriate stat. If you are taking an action that is prideful, a success makes you more proud, as it should. But too much pride, and too much success, and you will become arrogant.

This has the effect of making your entire system about your moralities. That in and of itself would be interesting. From there, you could allow small-scale conflicts, like fights, be resolved by the violence rolls, with the winner becoming more violent. You could even increase the size of the gauges if you needed to for this eventuality, like 0 to 20.

Or heres another idea. Make different religions spill over at different points. Maybe the islamic based religion is prone to certain excesses or finds it harder to escape certain depravities. Those scales don't spill over at 10, maybe at 15 though. Likewise, maybe its easier to go from pride to arrogance in one religion, so it only takes 5 pride to get to 1 arrogance. This makes religious choice have a huge impact on the way your character plays out, especially if the only stats in the game are the morality ones.

Just something to chew on,

--Norm