Forum

Let's talk moral codes. Partly to clear my confusion on some of them, partly because I think some of the examples given in the archetypes just aren't very helpful or right.

First off, just to be clear, I love the moral codes, big dreams, and buddy system, stress, and all of these mechanisms that tie actual roleplaying and unique characters to mechanics. Forcing players into tough choices and a system that encourages more than murder hobos is great no matter how you slice it.

Here's some examples from the text that confuse me or strike me as kind of bad examples, though:

THE CIVILIAN
"You have a vision and must see it realized."
This one just doesn't seem to do anything for me, without making it very clear WHAT the vision is!

THE GRUNT
"The world is a blank slate, and you can be anything you want."
As a statement, fair enough. But how does this put my character in a situation where I have to make tough choices? This seems like a weak moral code that I can always use to justify anything.

THE GUNNER
"The team relies on you and your rate of fire."
I can vaaaaaguely see how this applies -- if as a player I'm trying to run away and save my own hide rather than support the team, sure, this applies. But surely it could be phrased better.

"You're in hell, but hell is pretty funny."
Don't see how this applies to hard choices at all.

"War is insanity -- you might as well join in."
When would this apply? If you were trying to play a gunner character that was a pacifist?

A few of the other examples took a bit of mental wrangling for me to work on. All told I think most of them are fine... but this is such an important aspect of characters that I think the book should present some really unimpeachable examples of how to come up with good ones!

(while I'm here I'll also just note that the way the appearance options are presented often comes across as kind of silly. My appearance is "Sunglasses"? I can choose between shoes or a Walkman? I think presenting them as "the options below" is doing a disservice.)

I agree about the morality elements. I love the idea...the problem is that morality is a fluid thing, it's very situational. And the penalty is that you gain a stress point...but then you get to rewrite that moral code....I don't think it should work like that.

I would have liked to see a "perks and hindrances" type system where your moral code is defined during character development, and your character is played that way throughout...

Like "The Sir Lancelot complex" who cannot let a damsel in distress go unassisted.

The "cowardly lion" who has a low break threshold and, with a poor dice roll, will cut and run in stressful situations - or, with the right die roll - will conversely fight like a lion.

The thief who compulsively steals. Even from the party....

The sociopath who kills without remorse...

Overall, though, I agree with you completely.

M.

Eh, I've soured on perks and disadvantages through the years. I think a system like this is far more rewarding to roleplay and far less likely for people to metagame. People don't always follow their codes. And they change with time and experience. How it is works fine, based on experience with other similar systems.

I just think it calls for very very clear examples and definitions, since this is the kind of thing players (and myself) seem to have a lot of trouble figuring out.