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.

 

[actionman]

Chaotic Neutral Terran: Let's introduce coke to the Vilani.

I'd love to play in a campaign centered around a group of Solomani military personnel, SolSec agents, and criminals trapped behind Imperial lines after the Rim War, who organize themselves into a stay-behind force and fund their operations through various forms of crime. A campaign like that would provide a lot of opportunities for secret agent, rogue military, mafia, and heist adventures.

 

[Condottiere]

The Phoenix Project is a reported plot by Solomani guerrillas on Terra to rise and destroy Imperial forces occupying Terra.

The project was said to have consisted of two distinct parts: prepositioned caches of military goods to supply the rising, and a continuing program for the training of guerrillas.

The caches were concealed in many different places on Terra, in areas calculated to preclude accidental discovery over the years. Each cache contained large quantities of munitions, weapons, vehicles, and medical supplies, all of varying technological levels so as to be of use regardless of the technical knowledge of the users. Each cache was hidden with its location entrusted to a single local family. These families were to form the core of the guerrilla forces when the rising was to take place.

A massive Imperial counter-guerrilla effort in 1040 to 1045 was directed at the discovery and destruction of the caches and the arrest of the families entrusted with their secrets.

History
Imperial intelligence reported penetration of the project command in 1045, with subsequent compromise of its basic plans and dismantling of its structure.

The Phoenix Project was supposedly born in the final years of the Solomani Rim War (990 to 1002) as Solomani leaders saw the possibility of their defeat and the loss of the homeworld to the invading Imperials.

Persistent rumors of two additional aspects of the project - "Lambda" (a codeword to trigger the rising, and "Omega" (the reinforcement of the uprising by off-world Solomani) - have been dismissed as baseless by Imperial officials.

Many historians believe that the extent of the plot was greatly exaggerated by Imperial authorities, holding that it was little more than an extreme example of wishful thinking on the part of the Solomani leadership. At any rate, the Phoenix Project no longer threatens the security of the Imperium, if indeed it ever did.

Some believe that the Solomani Rimward Expedition may be related to this project.

 

[actionman]

So, alignment is a reputation system that gets players thinking whether their character is going to be "Good", "Evil", "Chaotic", "Lawful", etc in a fantasy game.

While some folk argue this is not necessarily a brilliant implementation of a reputation system, I was wondering what equivalents (same, better, or worse) might be found in a Traveller rule system or campaign?

Basically, the purpose of my question is to explore/discuss that some potential RPG players appear to have dark fantasies, that they like to align with, through their PC, and act out in a fantasy context. They subsequentially seem to be put off playing Traveller as being too "clinical", and find the representation of it's science fiction devoid of such possibilities. Does this absence make Traveller too "clinical" in any way? Or have you found a way of encouraging players to think that alignment/reputation matters in your Traveller science fiction?

Or, possibly, is the future of the universe better off without it's sentient inhabitants being aligned to anything except the Imperium or any other Empire?

There is PC backstory, but that is an inconsistent implementation, as it doesn't necessarily get all PCs thinking about the same set of criteria.

Those are some thoughtful questions.

The D&D alignment system was a decent implementation for what it was: a game mechanic for dividing characters into groups that received different abilities based on their alignment. It wasn't useful for helping players developing a good idea how their characters' personalities.

Traveller is very clinical, but the absence of an alignment system, for lack of a better term, is not what makes it clinical. What makes Traveller clinical is the profound lack of consideration of any kind of emotion in the source material. Characters and situations are presented in a coldly rational light, and a lot of it comes off like a dry history book. I guess that's not surprising, given Traveller's wargame heritage. GURPS Traveller has a little more emotional flavor to it, but not much, and so does TNE.

On the subject of potential players with "dark fantasies" (cue spooky voice), I think a better way to phrase it is that some players are interested in more dramatic or emotionally engaging adventures rather than sterile exercises in problem solving, tactical battles, and making money. (Unless you mean players who want to express their personal issues through their characters, or who only want to have their characters do outrageous things for laughs. Both of those situations get very boring very quickly, and they should be corrected quickly by the referee, i.e. tell the player directly that you're not going to waste spend session time on it. The referee gets to have fun too, and setting up one dimensional NPCs for the players to victimize for laughs is probably a waste of your time).

First and foremost, know your players. If they're the type of players who want some roleplaying and drama along with their problem-resolution, then read on. (If they're not the type of players who care about characters with distinct personalities and just want to get to the battles or problem-solving, they won't appreciate attempts to include drama or an emotional component in their game sessions).

Talk to your players. Ask them:

• What kind of person is your character?
• What are the character's beliefs and opinions about himself, other people, society, and other societies? Does he have any conflicts about these beliefs?
• What has he been through during character creation?
• How have those experiences affected him?
• How do his experiences affect how he interacts with others?
• Does the character have any unfulfilled desires? What is the character want to do about it?
• Does the character have any regrets? What happened? What does the character want to do about it?
• Does the character have unresolved business? What happened? What does the character want to do about it?
• How deep or consistent does the player want to be with this in his character's portrayal?
• Does the character have any conflicts between any of these issues? What are they and why?
• How did the character come to be with the group and the adventure?

Something to keep in mind is that Traveller characters are separated from their families and societies of origin, which they would reasonably care about. Encourage players to think about how their characters feel about the people and characters in the current environment of the adventure. It's ok if it's bare bones at the start. Characters will become more developed through their adventures.

If you want some rules to help players be consistent, and the players are ok with it, try something like the Pendragon passions and allegiances mechanic. What moves the character? What does he love? What does he fear? What does he care about? What is he moving toward? What is he running from? If a character is acting in accordance with his passions and allegiances, allow the player to ask for a +1 on a particular die roll. Every session you could roll a D6 and say that every player has that many opportunities to ask for a +1 when the task at hand is aligns to one or more of the character's passions or allegiances.

Example passions and allegiances:

• Loyalty to homeworld
• Loyalty to code of honor or moral framework (what are the character's values?)
• Loyalty to society
• Loyalty to team
• Passion for justice/fairness
• Passion for revenge
• Passion for lover/spouse
• Passion for honor
• Passion for courage
• Passion for competence at a chosen specialization
• Passion for helping others
• Fear of being left to die
• Fear of letting someone come of harm
• Fear of letting the team down
• Hatred of war enemies
• Hatred of tyrannical authorities
• Hatred of people who violate the character's moral code (liars, cowards, tricksters, etc.)

I hope these ideas are useful.

 

[actionman]

These players identify with liking dark themes and, while I like Traveller very much, I cannot see a way of offering that to them.

Traveller is very dark, but Traveller doesn't see itself that way.

War, piracy, mercenaries, absolute monarchy, wars for the throne, xenophobia, imperialism, police states, arbitrary ill-defined laws, and lawlessness.

Consider the mentality these social conditions breed.

But, like I said, Traveller doesn't see itself as dark. It's quite the bit cognitive dissonance.

The Third Imperium is an absolute monarchy which coerced thousands of worlds into its power, but it's the "good guy" of the setting. The emperor has absolute power and rules by decree, but somehow he's not corrupt and self-serving and instead tolerates Sophonts' Rights. His military-corporate aristocracy has absolute power besides vaguely-defined Imperial High Law, and somehow they're not corrupt power-seeking imperialists. Somehow the noble families of the Imperium all get along instead of vying for power and wealth. In Agent of the Imperium, the protagonist of the story has an admiral shot for demanding to be treated with the respect on his own ship.

Oh yes, Traveller is dark. It's more like Rebel Moon than Star Trek.

 

[actionman]

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.

Consider phrasing your questions about good and evil as a spectrum of "values life and the consideration of others" and "doesn't value life and places no value on the consideration of others".

Consider law and chaos on a spectrum of "prefers and respects self-control, delayed gratification, and order in society" to "prefers gratifying one's impulses and desires regardless of the cost to self, others, and society."

It's a lot more words, but it describes actions and behaviors. This way you can sidestep questions about what is good and what is evil in different cultures and focus on behaviors.

An example is an Aztec priest performing a human sacrifice. That action is "good", according to his culture. Do he and his culture value life? Heck no.

EDIT: I know it's been a few months, but I hope that your players are still willing to try Traveller.

 

[Sigtrygg]

If you want to see how dark the Third Imperium is go to the Mongoose store and purchase the first two classic Traveller adventures, A:1 Kinunir and A:2 Research Station Gamma (actually only the first is necessary to see how dark the Imperium really is)

Read the rumours section of A:1, read the proposed scenario outlines. Read the Library Data, especially the Forboldn project as it reveals a lot about the core worlds of the Imperium.
A:2 shows that the Imperium routinely ignores its own laws, and that Imperial Naval Intelligence are anything but the good guys.

 

[Ol'Weedy]

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.

After initially dismissing the idea, I can see how it would be more useful as a DM err, sorry, referee than anything. I make a lot of NPC's, many that are never thought of again until I need a professional <fill in blank> for plot/fodder. Adding alignment would make it easier to remember what was going through my head during character creation.
Back in my DM days, I ran the last campaign without alignment at the start, but kept track of it myself, and adjusted it based on the players actions.
I stole my current system from Traveller2300. I don't know if they kept it after 1st edition, but it had a system using a deck of regular playing cards. At the end of character creation, draw 2 or 3 cards at random; each suite is tied to a general emotion/motivation, (which you can modify based on what already occurred during creation) i.e. Diamonds=All about the profit; Clubs=Violent nature; Hearts=Love etc.
Then the card value denotes level of emotion, so Ace of diamonds would assassinate his own mom for profit, while a one of diamonds would give you the shirt off his back,
It's not really alignment, but it adds a twist to otherwise cookie cutter npc's, and you can use a hybrid version to track whatever 4 'archetypes' you want, and use it as a pseudo alignment (Spades=Evil, Hearts=Good etc.).

 

[Jetrock]

Alignments don't seem to have any place in Traveller (caveat: IMTU), but all the PCs in the campagins I ran were Chaotic Greedy. The kind of SF that Traveller was based on was often morally ambiguous, without set "good guys" and "bad guys" so much as a mixture of large, impersonal forces vs. individuals; even the historical accident of Traveller becoming popular due its release during a revival in space-opera SF with an explicit "light side" and "dark side" (and a hardcover game book with a cover that featured Totally Not Han Solo in front of Totally Not The Millennium Falcon) didn't really change that, since nearly all the LBB adventures were basically "Murderhobos In Space Doing Crimes For Money." Even the early Traveller assumption of the Zhodani as "bad guy" didn't last very long, nor the idea of the Imperium as an explicitly evil entity.

 

[Condottiere]

Hierarchy of rewards.

Or needs.

 

[-Daniel-]

After reading this thread and thinking on it, no thank you. I really do not want, nor need, a D&D like Alignment system in my Traveller games.

I do not see it adding anything except more drama and I do not mean the good kind either. So I will pass.

But please, enjoy doing it in your game and have fun.

 

[MaxTac Transfer]

Traveller is very dark, but Traveller doesn't see itself that way.

Traveller as a background - may be (depending on the edition and the material - Ie I never have read Agent nor intend to)

Traveller for most people in the setting - not so much. The Imperium does not affect the individual, on the level of persons and even local companies it is a Nighwatch-Man state. And many if not most planets/systems have "good" governments.

Monarchie, even absolute, in itself is not negative. Yes, it is your count that votes but most people do not care. They care about their personal wealth and well being. As long as "the ruling class" provides they are happy(1).

Piracy exists. Just like it always did since ships with valuable cargo set sail. Most people do not care because they are not affected. Greece and late republic / early imperial Rome are seen as bright lights yet even Caesar fell victim to pirats.

Oh and Emperors as well as Nobles HAVE been corrupt and self serving even prior to 1116 and in very old material. The "Children of the Marches" is CT material (Azhanti High Lightning) and has corruption it it. There is a reason stuff like the "Right of Assasination" exists and IIRC QLI T20 (that saw the removal from power of an ArchDuke!) is still Canon. So it is not that the 3I is perfect (unless you play CandyCrush Traveller aka GT) but that it has means to stop the worst offenders. Corruption is (Tammany Hall / Boss Tweed anyone?) but most of the time it does not make a situation "dark"

==============

With Traveller it is the MT and TNE subsettings that make it (too) dark. Yes, the setting at that time had become stagnant and needed an overhaul or a re-write. With the previous attemt at a second SciFi verse (2300AD) not taking in as many fans the GDW team opted for "nuke the setting, rebuild on the skeleton" and when they wrote themselfs into a corner they applied more nukes.


(1) Look at Germany or Russia or France - the big revolutions like 1789, 1848, 1905, 1917, 1919 only came when the government did NOT provide