How would you allow (or interpret) PC 'alignment' within a Traveller rule system/campaign?

[Nelphine]

So back to the Aztec priest ripping the heart out of a slave so that the sun god is happy and the empire continues.
Lawful Good?
The priest is following the law, the priest is doing for others.

Definitely lawful - he believes in an authority that can tell him ehat to do, either divine, or possibly just higher ranked priests. Good means he's doing something for others, instead of for himself. On the surface, killing someone else, rather than sacrificing himself, is evil. There would need to be exceptional other circumstances for it to be good. Note that 'greater good' is not the definition I've suggested. It's specifically based on yourself. It doesn't matter of you save 1 or 1000, they are all others. To be good, you'd need to sacrifice yourself before any number of others.

As a very specific one off, obviously the priest could commit an evil act and still be good. But that act by itself is still an evil act under that definition.

 

[agentwigggles]

Society doesn't quite care if your individually good or evil. It doesn't have strong definitions for either.
It has rules that sets a preference for behavior for the greater population. Those rules have exceptions for nuance and circumstances.
Alignments don't fit well with the above or have any meaning within it.
It asks if you broke the rules and if there are circumstances that warrant them being suspended.

We don't often charge someone escaping being held captive by human trafficker with destruction of private property for breaking out of bounds and breaking materiel goods and possessions to do so. Not are they often charged with theft if they took money from them. We aren't likely to charge them grand theft auto if they stole their kidnapper car to escape.

The problem with alignment systems is that is that it's 1st order consequences and doesn't acknowledge nuance and circumstances.
LG means all the above are wrong acts that deserve to be punished for it.
I would find that repugnant.
If the new players are younger, then they learn like a lot of has learned, 'freedom to act isn't freedom from consequences' or 'fuck around and find out'.
Or
Don't frame it in terms of good and evil.
Frame if it's worth going to prison for. If an authority will figure out you did and can act against you.
If you do this action can you sleep at night.
For younger players, the last question probably won't make much since but the first two will.
That framing will allow crime characters that aren't going postal.

 

[metlk]

Its a universe with vast differences in government, law, religious, and technological beliefs. An alignment system will only do 1 of 2 things:

First, It will force your players into a set scale of morality as you determine, which may run counter to their own personal beliefs and most certainly the beliefs of societies they may encounter. I.e. they land on a primitive planet whom sacrifices vegans to a volcano, but otherwise are peaceful people. Do your players attempt to force their morality upon them, upholding their own beliefs? Or do they ignore the situation, allowing it to continue and therefore disregarding their own beliefs? It's an untenable position to maintain any sort of morality, as intervening could lead them to having to murder an otherwise peaceful people, or intervening in itself may be seen as immoral. To make it more complicated, perhaps the volcano is actually a large creature that expects fed regularly, and your intervention now leads to the slaughter of the entire people. Still the right decision?

Or second, you simply apply a universal morality to your entire universe. While that's certainly an option, you curtail a large amount of creative options and how the travellers interact with those options.

Of the two, option 1 has the best potential for conflict which can help drive the adventure, but allowing them to make those choices fluidly as they arise can allow a morality to naturally come out for that character without having to confine them into a box, and without making them feel as if they have to choose an action based on a pre-determined morality. "Alignment" is more of a background based on character creation. Many career choices and event rolls help build a person's "alignment" but they are free to become better or worse than the sum of their experiences. Ask yourself, do you want an alignment system for their benefit to guide their decisions, or for you so you can call them on it when they violate that alignment?

 

[tytalan]

The point is that one person's principled is another person's diabolic - so the Palladium system is not much use either.

And you show all of use you don’t know anything about Palladium Alignment system

 

[agentwigggles]

And you show all of use you don’t know anything about Palladium Alignment system

look, just as long as we dont go throwing hot water at each other

 

[Limpin Legin]

The point is that one person's principled is another person's diabolic - so the Palladium system is not much use either.

Well, it just means that one person will likely resolve challenges differently to another person, which is the point of such a system as it should serve as a guide for roleplaying. It is meant to be relativistic (each character arbitrates differently) rather than absolute (where some universal arbiter tells your character what is acceptable or not.)

 

[Sigtrygg]

My point remains that good and evil are cultural definitions, not absolutes. You can decide that the Imperium considers action x lawful and good, but another culture may consider that action to be illegal and evil. hence you need to decide on a cultural morality, ethics and legal system.

For Traveller, where every world may have different laws, ethics and morality it is for the player to decide on the core beliefs of their characters.

The PCs land on the planet Afsaud - where they find women have to remain indoors at all times and have the task of making babies.

The PCs land on the planet Engales - where they find you can be arrested for having the wrong thoughts.

The PCs land on the planet Nevariztex - where they find there is a dueling culture and you can be shot in the street for any perceived insult.

 

[Sigtrygg]

And you show all of use you don’t know anything about Palladium Alignment system

Thank you for that really useful addition to the discussion.
The point I am making, is that the palladium system defines good and evil as we would, other cultures wouldn't.
It's something the progressives have great difficulty with, accepting others' points of view because they consider themselves morally superior and always right. Sadly this is not the case.
Live and let live, establish rules, don't try and force ideology on anyone, respect one another.

 

[Limpin Legin]

My point remains that good and evil are cultural definitions, not absolutes. You can decide that the Imperium considers action x lawful and good, but another culture may consider that action to be illegal and evil. hence you need to decide on a cultural morality, ethics and legal system.

I understand however I think this view of the Imperium merely obscures how cultures evolve, interact and adapt. Whether you consider your system to be on the level of a galactic empire, a world system, an individual city or faction, there are these points to consider:

• The empire arose out of the cultures that created it, therefore would likely embody traits that reflect their interests.
• Since the Imperium has been around for a long while, it is likely to have become a culture of traditions in it's own right.
• Local worlds and cities (who are part of the Imperium) would have likely adopted Imperium culture as a part of it's own culture.

So, a long lasting Imperium brings about and re-defines its own cultural norms rather than sits 'above' or 'beyond' them.

I did emphasis that I thought such systems of alignment/reputation involving notions of 'good' or 'evil' were applied at the level of the individual. So you could end up with a faction consisting of characters with different alignment, like in real life. Communities of people grow out of individuals.
How the faction or empire leaders deal with these differences are merely potential plots for adventure or sidequest ...

While it reflects reality, it is only intended as a rule-of-the-thumb or guideline for better roleplaying. A complete RPG novice might not have opinions what their character represents, but, sooner or later, such comparisons and views may transpire. The fact that a RPG rule system/campaign has included this as a consideration gives weight to what gamers make of their characters and npc interactions. The point of such a system not only is there to encourage good roleplaying, it also shows that you are part of a collective decision making, as well as being individual choosers/deciders within an adventure.