Games with the best virtue systems?

[Tweed]

Digging up the graves in Otradnoye got me to thinking about karma/virtue systems in RPGs. If you don't hold the player accountable in some way for their actions, they'll do everything they possibly can to maximize loot and experience. Fallout's reputation system was both systems rolled into one, but it honestly didn't have that much impact unless you were a true monster, and then it just meant more fighting. Fallout 2 separated the systems from each other, and it played a bigger role in deciding how things went. I think Fallout 2 handled it pretty well overall, it was a good idea to separate karma from reputation. Karma was completely lacking from Underrail, but there aren't that many places where you're given the option to be a complete **** outside of murdering someone for no reason. Certain events might come back to bite you on the *** in the form of random encounters, but that's it.

Games like Ultima were all about the player's conduct and Ultima IV still has one of the best virtue systems because once you really start scrutinizing player behavior, you'll find it's a lot harder to be completely good than you think.

But what do YOU think? Should there be a system in place that keeps track of the player's moral compass? And which games handle it best?

[GhostShiroyama]

Fable on Xbox was one that stuck out to me as a kid.

[wndrbr]

Best virtue system is you feeling bad over doing evil things in a videogame.

[logincrash]

New Vegas had the karma system and the reputation system interact in a cool way.
But, sadly, the vast majority of games that try to have a virtue/morality system end up with ******** nonsense like "Save the kitten from a tree/Set the tree on fire and sell the charred corpse of the kitten to the child who asked you to save his pet."

[rusty_shackleford]

Pillows of Eternity has a neat system. Not going to bother looking it up but iirc my main issue with it was there was just a bunch of opposing virtues, rather than treating each as its own thing. I'm also not sure I'd call it virtues.
Something good would probably look a lot more like one of those radar charts often used by asian games to chart stats.

[Dorateen]

The Gold Box trilogy from the Dragonlance setting. It did not make sense to have a party of evil characters, since the adventures were all about opposing the forces of Takhisis. So the game flat out forbid picking an evil alignment, and explained it in the player guide.

Normally, I don't care for developers placing such constraints, but again, it is justified thematically. And there's something based about SSI telling players "no, you're not going to live out your edgy teenage angst by being evil, this is heroic fantasy! Deal with it."

[rusty_shackleford]

Pillows of Eternity has a neat system. Not going to bother looking it up but iirc my main issue with it was there was just a bunch of opposing virtues, rather than treating each as its own thing. I'm also not sure I'd call it virtues.
Something good would probably look a lot more like one of those radar charts often used by asian games to chart stats.

Looked it up, 'disposition'. Here's the list:

Aggressive – Hot-headed, bold, or impatient. Some characters will think that you provoke fights and make only trouble, but others will admire you for taking charge, being decisive, and not letting people push you around.[7]
Benevolent – Charitable, kind, soft, or weak. May be viewed as charitable and kind but others may consider the player weak or assume he or she will do things for free.[3]
Clever – Sarcastic, sassy, foppish, or irreverent. May be well received by some as amusing, but other characters will assume that you are not to be taken seriously.[3]
Cruel – Merciless, sadistic, brutal, or imperious. It doesn't typically earn you a lot of friends, but there are people who respect (and/or fear) brutality.[3]
Deceptive/Shady – Dishonest, manipulative, or shrewd.
Diplomatic – Cautious, tame, or courteous. For example gained by remaining silent when two people are arguing and you choose to not interject.[8]
Honest – Guileless, sincere, or straightforward. Gained for being straightforward. e.g. telling a guard that you broke in the house.[9]
Passionate – Zealous, romantic, or obsessive.
Rational – Practical, standoffish, or cold.
Stoic – Tight-lipped, cool-headed, or simple-minded. Gained for being unmoved/quiet in dialog options.[2]

I think what I liked most about it is they aren't virtues. If I see virtues in a game, they're just Good Boy meters that you want to max unless you're purposely being evil, so:

I'm also not sure I'd call it virtues.

Even if you can be penalized for robbing graves, every single one of these games has ways to trivially void it. Pillows is almost unique in that it has a very limited way to raise/lower your dispositions. Some of them still are just Good Boy meters e.g., 'cruel', they probably should all represent flaws and merits. Honesty, aggression, etc., represent that best — both are good in moderation but it's possible to be too honest or too aggressive. If we suppose some character is too honest, it would be very hard to do something like engage in diplomacy or negotiate, for example. Bluffing becomes impossible, etc., That could be tangible downsides.

---

But I think I'm getting too far away from OP's question. I'm not sure if t here's a good way to handle this with some 'virtue' system.
The example given, digging up graves, should have tangible consequences depending on the setting. Perhaps it angers gods, makes the local folk very suspicious, etc.,

[Tweed]

The Gold Box trilogy from the Dragonlance setting. It did not make sense to have a party of evil characters, since the adventures were all about opposing the forces of Takhisis. So the game flat out forbid picking an evil alignment, and explained it in the player guide.

Normally, I don't care for developers placing such constraints, but again, it is justified thematically. And there's something based about SSI telling players "no, you're not going to live out your edgy teenage angst by being evil, this is heroic fantasy! Deal with it."

Dark Sun was the same way, you can't be evil aligned because you're supposed to be the **** heroes.

[GhostShiroyama]

New Vegas had the karma system and the reputation system interact in a cool way.
But, sadly, the vast majority of games that try to have a virtue/morality system end up with ******** nonsense like "Save the kitten from a tree/Set the tree on fire and sell the charred corpse of the kitten to the child who asked you to save his pet."

Meh, the karma system pretty much just affects the ending slides. I'm still stealing everything not bolted to the floor >:P even though I'm in the NCR

[rusty_shackleford]

The Gold Box trilogy from the Dragonlance setting. It did not make sense to have a party of evil characters, since the adventures were all about opposing the forces of Takhisis. So the game flat out forbid picking an evil alignment, and explained it in the player guide.

Normally, I don't care for developers placing such constraints, but again, it is justified thematically. And there's something based about SSI telling players "no, you're not going to live out your edgy teenage angst by being evil, this is heroic fantasy! Deal with it."

The Gold Box trilogy from the Dragonlance setting. It did not make sense to have a party of evil characters, since the adventures were all about opposing the forces of Takhisis. So the game flat out forbid picking an evil alignment, and explained it in the player guide.

Normally, I don't care for developers placing such constraints, but again, it is justified thematically. And there's something based about SSI telling players "no, you're not going to live out your edgy teenage angst by being evil, this is heroic fantasy! Deal with it."

Dark Sun was the same way, you can't be evil aligned because you're supposed to be the **** heroes.

Very, very few games are capable of providing a satisfying playthrough for good/evil, I'm not sure if it's even worth it because such a playthrough is often fundamentally different in how it should unfold. If anything, it should be two separate but related campaigns probably. Maybe good base game + evil DLC based upon the base game

[madbringer]

The only game with a working karma system is an obscure hack of Pokemon Fire Red where you play as a member of Team Rocket and can steal people's pokemon.

[logincrash]

New Vegas had the karma system and the reputation system interact in a cool way.
But, sadly, the vast majority of games that try to have a virtue/morality system end up with ******** nonsense like "Save the kitten from a tree/Set the tree on fire and sell the charred corpse of the kitten to the child who asked you to save his pet."

Meh, the karma system pretty much just affects the ending slides. I'm still stealing everything not bolted to the floor >:P even though I'm in the NCR

You write like such a ******.

[GhostShiroyama]

New Vegas had the karma system and the reputation system interact in a cool way.
But, sadly, the vast majority of games that try to have a virtue/morality system end up with ******** nonsense like "Save the kitten from a tree/Set the tree on fire and sell the charred corpse of the kitten to the child who asked you to save his pet."

Meh, the karma system pretty much just affects the ending slides. I'm still stealing everything not bolted to the floor >:P even though I'm in the NCR

You write like such a ******.

Okay boomer

[rusty_shackleford]

He's right, I wrote about it somewhere but ending slides suck. It's a complete COOOPE for being unable to make actual 'post-game' content. IIRC there's a mod for FNV that has extensive post-game stuff showing how the world changed
'post-game' should be seen as a mandatory state for most western RPGs IMO

[Dorateen]

The Gold Box trilogy from the Dragonlance setting. It did not make sense to have a party of evil characters, since the adventures were all about opposing the forces of Takhisis. So the game flat out forbid picking an evil alignment, and explained it in the player guide.

Normally, I don't care for developers placing such constraints, but again, it is justified thematically. And there's something based about SSI telling players "no, you're not going to live out your edgy teenage angst by being evil, this is heroic fantasy! Deal with it."

Very, very few games are capable of providing a satisfying playthrough for good/evil, I'm not sure if it's even worth it because such a playthrough is often fundamentally different in how it should unfold.

I agree with this statement, but then, doesn't that run counter role-playing game philosophy? That the player should be able to create a character however he sees fit, including alignment. In most traditional, classical fantasy, it does not make sense to allow evil PCs. Even Gygax had written back in the late seventies, warning against evil player characters and how it could disrupt a campaign. I prefer design favoring neutral and good approaches, but still let a player choose evil and leave to them to rationalize their actions. That is to say, the developer/designer need not cater to every player's whim.

[rusty_shackleford]

The Gold Box trilogy from the Dragonlance setting. It did not make sense to have a party of evil characters, since the adventures were all about opposing the forces of Takhisis. So the game flat out forbid picking an evil alignment, and explained it in the player guide.

Normally, I don't care for developers placing such constraints, but again, it is justified thematically. And there's something based about SSI telling players "no, you're not going to live out your edgy teenage angst by being evil, this is heroic fantasy! Deal with it."

Very, very few games are capable of providing a satisfying playthrough for good/evil, I'm not sure if it's even worth it because such a playthrough is often fundamentally different in how it should unfold.

I agree with this statement, but then, doesn't that run counter role-playing game philosophy? That the player should be able to create a character however he sees fit, including alignment. In most traditional, classical fantasy, it does not make sense to allow evil PCs. Even Gygax had written back in the late seventies, warning against evil player characters and how it could disrupt a campaign. I prefer design favoring neutral and good approaches, but still let a player choose evil and leave to them to rationalize their actions. That is to say, the developer/designer need to cater to every player's whim.

doesn't that run counter role-playing game philosophy?

I consider roleplaying to be fundamentally about creative problem solving, which is why I consider games like Ultima Underworld to be the apex of the cRPG genre. Gygax seemed to at least believe this was the reason for D&D's popularity:
https://f.rpghq.org/1GU1TA320Krt.avif?n ... opa_1.avif (it's a really big image so I won't embed it, but I believe it's one of the first times Gygax refers to D&D as a role playing game)

It is my opinion, however, that there is another explanation for the popularity of the game. It is simply that it is a constant challenge. A never-ending exercise in problem solving, with a variable knowns and suddenly-known unknowns.

---

Alignment itself is likely too rigid and limiting TBH.
What I originally meant is that it's hard to make a game satisfying where one person plays it to be Big Good and the other plays it to be Big Evil, you'll end up having two parallel paths through the game that branch significantly. It's probably fine to have a game that covers a certain range of the alignment 9-axis because covering too much would simply replace depth with breadth.
A decent example is in the SWTOR MMO, there's class stories for the Jedi and Sith, but they're not merely Good/Evil class stories, the Jedi and Sith both allow a wide range of expressing morality within their side of the Jedi/Sith binary. This is more like an additional binary axis(Jedi-Sith) being overlaid on top of alignment than merely a range of Good/Evil-Law/Chaos.
I believe much of this originated with Avellone in KOTOR 2's writing, which would be unsurprising as he was very critical of the Jedi/Sith Good/Evil simplification — Avellone probably being the most influential Star Wars writer after the writers for the movies themselves despite so few knowing of him. But to get back to my point, these class stories all run in parallel and are often viewing the same story from a different POV rather than allowing the player to make one character and have an unrealistically wide range of options to choose from in any situation.
It's much harder to create a story that allows for one character to be either the Big Good or the Big Evil than it is to have two separate characters that perhaps overlap a lot in their journey.


Much to think about.

[Tweed]

Lands of Lore 2, while being simplistic, does something similar. It's the same game with theme and variations depending whether you're the good guy or the bad guy.

[Tweed]

I've noticed that most games designed around being "truly evil" tend to be comedic in nature and there are very few games dedicated to being pure evil. Compare original Postal to Postal 2, though those aren't RPGs.

[Havitner]

If you're not going to put the time and effort into genuinely supporting an evil narrative alongside the good one, don't bother. 'The world-saving hero kicks puppies in side quests' is ********.

If you still want a something-meter, make it Mercy vs. Justice/Vengeance instead. You can use the same main quest narrative for both, while keeping most of the things people like about Good vs. Evil in an aesthetic sense. Clean vs. Dirty/Bloodstained, Loved vs. Feared, Fuzzy vs. Gritty.

[Tweed]

Renegade/Paragon

[rusty_shackleford]

Renegade/Paragon

The later games seemed to have different writers who misunderstood what renegade was, as it took on a much more evil narrative

[TKVNC]

Mount and Blade has an interesting half-baked system. It's expanded in some mods such as Viking Conquest.

[Oyster Sauce]

Medieval 2 has a chivalry/dread system where they have different effects on battlefields or while governing a city.

[J1M]

The litmus test of a good virtue system is whether or not there is an equivalent amount of interesting content and benefits associated with neutral alignment.

Can't think of any games right now that pass this test.

[Tangerine]

The litmus test of a good virtue system is whether or not there is an equivalent amount of interesting content and benefits associated with neutral alignment.

Can't think of any games right now that pass this test.

A lot of quests/tasks that would be appropriate for neutral alignment--such as mediating between two different factions--tends to get put under the "good" umbrella.

[Tweed]

New Vegas had the karma system and the reputation system interact in a cool way.
But, sadly, the vast majority of games that try to have a virtue/morality system end up with ******** nonsense like "Save the kitten from a tree/Set the tree on fire and sell the charred corpse of the kitten to the child who asked you to save his pet."

Curious George syndrome. For those who don't understand and never saw those corndog cartoon shorts it always goes something like "It was wrong for you to do X, but you made up for it by doing Y." So that you can always get out of your evil deeds by donating enough money to charity or giving water to some ****** outside of town who's perpetually dying of thirst.

There should be a breaking point in there someplace or additional weights tied to your actions. New Vegas wasn't the exception here and there were even karma shifting perks at the high-end of the game for resetting your karma level with certain benefits. Although I guess those can be seen as roleplaying perks.

[J1M]

The litmus test of a good virtue system is whether or not there is an equivalent amount of interesting content and benefits associated with neutral alignment.

Can't think of any games right now that pass this test.

A lot of quests/tasks that would be appropriate for neutral alignment--such as mediating between two different factions--tends to get put under the "good" umbrella.

I'm not talking about choosing "neutral" solutions to everything. I'm talking about the game recognizing a player reacting situationally/whimsically/chaotically over time, such that they don't accumulate virtue/morality points only in one direction. The way most games are designed, the virtue choices may as well be a menu selection at character creation.

To use a hypothetical Mass Effect game as an example, each choice could be either Paragon or Renegade, but if you end up choosing each them roughly an equal number of times, the game recognizes you as someone who is a "maverick wildcard" because you have both paragon and renegade points. There is a set of content that is only unlocked by being a "maverick wildcard", and certain equipment that is restricted to those without a clear paragon/renegade preference.

[rusty_shackleford]

The character is too detached from most choices that involve morality. A dwarf character that is avaricious should be tempted to steal when he won't get caught(or maybe even when if he judges poorly) even if the player disagrees. I think the only RPGs that do something like this are the Realms of Arkania games, and Darkest Dungeon.
Without this, there's simply not enough impact, the player can simply choose to avoid the negatives.

[TKVNC]

Fable on Xbox was one that stuck out to me as a kid.

Fable's sytem is actually pretty good. The restriction is that the game has too narrow of a scope to really utilise it.

[DemoGraph]

But what do YOU think? Should there be a system in place that keeps track of the player's moral compass? And which games handle it best?

D&D-like alignment sucks ***. Chaos-Order substitute sucks balls.
There should be a reputation system based on faction-specific "sins", not morality check system. If you kill elven kids, elves (including your teammates) should hate you, Khorne should meh at you and dragons might despise you even though they're enemies of elves.
There also shouldn't be just a single "current rep" slider, because it's too shallow. It should be reinforced by "all time high/low rep" and/or "specific deed" triggers, because being a hated enemy and being a hated traitor are different.
But, most importantly, rep system should change NPC interactions, otherwise there's no point in it.