I've come to the conclusion that computer RPGs - and tabletop ones at that - should *either* have a single-axis alignment system, or just go with attaching reputations to the player instead of tracking a pre-chosen Lawful Whatever alignment.

I'm of the opinion that the D

Oh feck, ampersands also eat comments.

As I was saying - I'm of the opinion that the Dungeons and Dragons game really needs to lose an alignment axis - or at least present both of them, but not deploy both of them. Computer game designers and DMs find dealing with nine possible interpretations of someone's actions frankly too much work to bother with, and from a computer game angle trying to write nine unique and interesting and exciting dialogue options - one for each alignment - would be insanely difficult.

KOTOR's alignment system works well for me for two reasons - 1) it's plain good and evil, no ambiguity, and 2) if you want to be good, you should act like a reasonable human being, and if you want to be bad you should be horrible. This fits the films, where the good Jedi are flawed human beings who nonetheless make the right choices in the end, whilst the Sith are hissing villains.

The classic, non-Advanced D

Whoops, another ampersand.

The classic, non-Advanced D and D game - before AD and D lost the "A" and the original D and D line was discontinued - only had a Law/Chaos axis, which worked great (especially when it became more nuanced and wasn't just another term for Good/Evil). Under that system, your corrupt cop would have been fine, while your thief could have said "oh well, at least I can try and make them more enlightened from within". Or, you know, just stayed independent (unless that wasn't an option). It also means that the 1st level Detect Evil and Detect Good aren't the most powerful and useful divinatory spells in the game.

Hmmm...perhaps I'm wrong, and I don't have your experience, but surely with tabletop RPGs there more scope more complex morality systems, not less? I mean, you can always turn round and say the players and the GM: "I'm doing this for this reasonably well fleshed out reason" whereas there's no way you can have that dialogue with a computer. It's like in the last Weapons of the Gods game when my Taoist killed the demon scholar - Dan was all "take a deed in force" and I was like "no way dude, I'm taking righteousness because I was restoring balance under the heavens." I guess Weapons of the Gods works quite well that way because the virtues and the corrupt virtues don't *necessarily* carry a moral weight - being ruthless is just another way of getting stuff done. KOTOR I don't mind as much as D

WArgh! The ferretbrain ate my comment, alas for ampersands. I was saying I didn't mind KOTOR as much as D and D or Jade Empire because the whole Star Wars world is set up with the jedi / sith opposition in mind. But in Jade Empire, for example, the Open Palm / Closed Fist opposition feels shallow and artificial. I think the difference is that Star Wars has always been, well, sort of a fairy story? So a direct good / evil / fresh-faced young boy / withered guy in a hood axis seems perfectly acceptable. But some worlds pretend to be more complex, but their attempts to model a more complex morality can't support it.

I think you're right that a GMed game has more scope to deal with complicated alignment systems. I'm not convinced they're necessarily a good idea, however. Dan pointed out out to that the D and D Law/Chaos/Good/Evil shebang is a good way to generate nine archetypal modes of behaviour you can use as a shorthand for declaring your character's outlook on life, which is true, but I'm not convinced that it's any good for passing judgement on the way a character behaves in-game, as CRPGs tend to do and as most iterations of the D and D game encourage the GM to do.

The example of the paladin is probably illustrative here. From the d20 System Reference Document:

"A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

"Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents."

Now, while at least in a tabletop RPG a paladin's player can talk over their actions with the GM to explain their motives and so forth, but the problem is the paladin's player has to *constantly* do this. The DM can't really let up, because the paladin is so ridiculously powerful it needs this restriction to balance it out. And then there's the perennial arguments over whether the paladin's code of conduct applies to the other party members - can a paladin knowingly condone un-Lawful actions on the part of his/her comrades, or does he have to punish those as well?

That's my problem with the D

and D system: for most characters, it's completely irrelevant. For a small minority, it's *insanely intrusive*. For the cases where it's intrusive, deciding whether a particular course of action is Good or Evil/Lawful or Chaotic would be a lot easier than arguing that an action is Lawful Good as opposed to Neutral Good or Lawful Neutral or something.

Weapons of the Gods' system is nicer because a) your character isn't be ruined if they get a corrupt Deed every once in a while, and b) it applies to everyone equally.

I hear ya. But then I play very little tabletop so most of my comments about tabletop versus computer play were basically rhetorical potshots from a position of no authority whatosever. I think we're both agreeing that the D and D alignment system is ... well ...non ideal, in CRPGs and tabletops but surely that's because the game isn't particularly interested in deep moral philosphy it's interested in wandering around dungeons killing monsters and taking their stuff. Which, I suppose, suggests the game'd be better off without it.

I'm not convinced that *any* game can really set out to discuss deep moral philosophy with its players. Computer games certainly can't, because you can't have a meaningful conversation about morality with 2 gigabytes of code. As for tabletop games, moralising through game mechanics ends up depending so much on the judgement of the GM you get to a point where you may as well scrap the mechanics and let GM and player decide things between themselves, since that's what you're doing anyway.

Indeed - on the other hand CRPGs often make big of the fact that they offer moral complexity and moral freedom so forth. I wasn't trying to say that they *should* I was just trying to explore if they *did* - and what I found unsatisfying in the current trends. Doesn't Dogs in the Vineyard claim to be about moral judgements (as well as riding around being wild west mormons?)

Dogs claims this, but it tries to achieve this by *never addressing morality through the game mechanics at all*. In fact, it explicitly forbids the GM to make a call on whether the characters have done the "right thing" or not: it's meant to be down to the players' conscience.

I'd go on to talk about whether this is actually successful but Dan was considering writing a review for Ferretbrain and I don't want to steal his thunder.

I think the fact that he doesn't think it suceeds is what made me think of it but, you're right, let's leave that for Dan...