Tough Choices: Player vs alignment vs ME

[Warshield73]

Last night I was watching The Peacemaker (1997: George Clooney, Nicole Kidman), the movie is about the left of nuclear weapons in Russia that leads to an attempt of nuclear terrorism in New York.

Near the end there is a great scene where the terrorist carrying a nuke in a backpack is walking down a crowded NY street and a police or FBI sharpshooter on a roof is tracking him though the scope. There are civilians all around, a child on her father's shoulders goes in and out of the line of fire, and the entire time the sharpshooter is saying he doesn't have a shot - with George Clooney's character ordering him to take the shot, which he can't do and the terrorist temporarily escapes.

This is a tough situation: Take the shot and a civilian, a child, might be killed. Don't take the shot and a nuclear bomb goes off in downtown New York.

My question, purely game mechanics, if you have a PC in this situation what determines if he/she takes the shot? Is it just the player saying "I shoot" or do you have to take alignment into account. I mean an anarchist or miscreant character would have no trouble pulling the trigger but wouldn't a scrupulous or unprincipled have a problem? Wouldn't a principled character find it almost impossible? Would they have to roll a save vs Horror Factor in order to pull the trigger?

The same question might be asked for a body guard that has a split second to block a shot aimed at the person he protects.

Is there anything in one of the books that covers this?

[Cinos]

Alignment isn't purely a factor. If there are people all over, particularly as you noted there is a person moving through the line of fire, that sniper did not have a clean shot. Even an evil character may not have taken the shot on principle of professionalism and self preservation (if he takes the shot and misses, the odds of the terrorist attempting to trigger the nuke on the spot with the sniper likely in the blast or fallout radius near 100%).

But to the question at hand, beyond very particular circumstances, I think it is the players right to play their alignment however they see fit, because it's one of those things that will never have a great, clear cut answer. Their alignment will shift based on some actions, but that's fine, peoples morality can shift for better or worse as well.

[Warshield73]

Alignment isn't purely a factor. If there are people all over, particularly as you noted there is a person moving through the line of fire, that sniper did not have a clean shot. Even an evil character may not have taken the shot on principle of professionalism and self preservation (if he takes the shot and misses, the odds of the terrorist attempting to trigger the nuke on the spot with the sniper likely in the blast or fallout radius near 100%).

But to the question at hand, beyond very particular circumstances, I think it is the players right to play their alignment however they see fit, because it's one of those things that will never have a great, clear cut answer. Their alignment will shift based on some actions, but that's fine, peoples morality can shift for better or worse as well.

I agree with you and this is how I have always played it, but that scene got me thinking are there times when the character can't do something even when the player wants to.

Another possible example. Dead Reign, the PC had a wife and two kids before the wave and travels home to find them. He encounters a zombie and it is his 10 year old zombie, should a player have to roll something (beyond the normal horror factor) to take the shot or is it just the players decision. Lets say it is the players decision, no roll, would you deny experience points to the PC for failing to play in character (if that is the case) or would you do an insanity check after? I just think there are always going to be times in real life when people want to do something and lack the mental strength to go through with it, I was just wondering if people ever used a game mechanic to simulate that.

Another movie reference: Puppet Masters (1994) with Donald Sutherland. Alien parasites take of people control them. In one scene of the movie a group of soldiers is being sent in to stop the invasion and the aliens send small children, all controlled by parasites, to counter them. The soldiers are ordered to fire, the know if they do not fire that they will likely be taken over by parasites, they know that if they do not fight them they might loose the Earth to these things but still they can not bring themselves to shoot and kill little kids. Put your PCs in this situation, is it just a matter of experience points giving big bonuses to those that play the difficulty of it well, or would they need to roll a horror factor or other save just to pull the trigger.

[Cinos]

I think it's something of an illusion when people talk about 'this player isn't playing in character'. There are egregious elements that are easy to spot (player plays a paladin and goes around murdering villagers). The sniper example, both options could be in character, because that's a tough call that's very much a grey area. Both options can lead to thousands dying. Morality isn't a factor there (unless they're opposed to killing, or killing an unsuspecting opponent even to protect) so it's not an alignment issue at all. In addition hard choices like this can define a character in a way they haven't seen themselves (or the player hasn't seen them) before. I wouldn't expect a player to take such a choice lightly.

Your Dead Reign example isn't a moral issue as well, unless said person is opposed to killing zombies (or strictly believes there is a cure, and thus killing zombies is paramount to killing people). I will agree though that the situation is a step beyond normal zombie horror factor and should likely require a save vs insanity pre and/or post killing of some degree. If enforced post killing only, that may provide a player incentive to not do it (there by avoiding mechanical risk). Again however, no player can be faulted for making either choice in terms of 'playing in character'. The result of their choice is character revealing, it's not something any human could even know going into that sort of situation.

As to the latter point, this is a lot grayer in terms of morality and is a very good 'tough' question. The tactical choice is obvious, kids don't make good fighters, but there are a lot of questions, like can they be saved, do they still feel, etc that those soldiers are going to be asking. And again, there isn't a right or wrong choice from a role playing stand point, it might be a shock to discover that person was capable of pulling the trigger (Opening the question whether they did it out of heartless determination or self preservation). And forcing any player to choose of their own volition is it's own reward to me. If you wanted to force characters to have a high enough ME (which I think is a poor idea in this case, as most low ME characters would often favor cowardice and self preservation, it'd take a person more committed to their values to -not- shoot, even if they regret the choice later or enter a suicidal depression afterwards) to be able to make these choices, a Save vs Insanity wouldn't be entirely out of place. But keep in mind, then your player is not making choices, their dice are. An after the fact Save vs Insanity, such as the zombie situation above, to deal with the guilt of killing children that might have been savable however, seems much more fitting.

I actually don't offer EXP bonuses for 'playing in character', because that should be its own reward to a player (and a group). On extremely rare occasion I'll restrict actions because of it (mostly in attempts to use out of game information, intentional or otherwise), but generally I'll just bring it up to the player that it is a conflict with their alignment and it may shift as a result. I do enforced a lot of saves vs insanity type stuff for some of those 'hard choices' for moral characters. In addition I've long since had a moral system, a pool of points which could be spent for skill bonuses and the like (like re-rolls or a flat +X% to a skill), refilled by leisure. Actions like this could drain many, permanently reduce their pool, or cause them to lose an immense amount over time (often forcing them to turn to 'unwise' leisure actions, like drugs or alcoholism). It's shocking how little I need to promote players to play their character, even if it would disadvantage them, after I stopped offering recompense for 'doing the right thing' (both in terms of morality and 'in character' actions).

[Pepsi Jedi]

The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few. In the situation described, you take the shot. You might hit the kid. Yes that's a possibility. If the bomb goes off in NYC the kid is dead anyway. Only by taking the shot does the child have the CHANCE of living. You don't sacrifice millions on the chance that one might die, when that one will surely die if you don't take that chance.

It's a situation that doesn't really illustrate your point well. That said I get what you're saying.

Frankly Palladium's alignment system is..... dated. That's a nice way to put it. And... unrealistic in the extreme. Superman would be unprincipled or Aberrant under Palladium's system and he's what we hold up as the bastion of good. I toss an alignment on the sheet, out of habit, but after that we 'play our characters'.

How do we know if our characters would "Take the shot" in the above? We are 'in character' and do what our char's would do. IRL there's no check list that you go down before each decision. Even the hard ones. You can have existential conflict. Sure. You can suffer for your decisions. Your char can feel bad about doing things and making mistakes, but alignment doesn't stop you. Or it shouldn't. If your char 'would shoot that guy' and the only thing stopping you is a line on your alignment saying you wouldn't, then your char isn't actually that alignment. He's the one that would allow you to take the shot. If your character would NOT take the shot, due to whom he is and his beliefs, then he's that alignment, even if it's not the one on the sheet. Etc.

[mrloucifer]

In my experience, the best luck I've had with dealing with a tough, consequential situation is to play the player's conscious for a moment and remind them of what's at stake. I'll add in the alignment issue if its pertinent. This happens in the movies, books, and TV shows to the point of cliche, but its a cliche because it works.

If the player still wants to make a questionable choice, they (and the rest of the players/group) understands what may come to pass because of it. Sometimes players want their characters to do something others dont/cant agree with, consequences be damned. In these situations, dealing with the fallout can lead to some wonderful role-playing opportunities and can become the focus of an adventure or two in and of itself.

[Rallan]

Frankly Palladium's alignment system is..... dated. That's a nice way to put it. And... unrealistic in the extreme. Superman would be unprincipled or Aberrant under Palladium's system and he's what we hold up as the bastion of good. I toss an alignment on the sheet, out of habit, but after that we 'play our characters'.

The problem with Palladium's alignment system isn't that it's dated (although let's be honest, it is dated), it's that it's incredibly simplistic and black and white. It describes a handful of heroic and villainous archetypes that you'd expect to find in a four-colour supers comic or a stock standard high fantasy novel, and it's really really bad at covering the morality of characters if they're nuanced or they're complicated or they aren't larger than life.

And that's fine if you're going for that sort of tone (even if it's not very useful since the alignment system doesn't really do much mechanically). But if you're trying to realism or deconstruction or grimdark or moral ambiguity or a bunch of other tones, Palladium's alignment system is about as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.

[Warshield73]

Frankly Palladium's alignment system is..... dated. That's a nice way to put it. And... unrealistic in the extreme. Superman would be unprincipled or Aberrant under Palladium's system and he's what we hold up as the bastion of good. I toss an alignment on the sheet, out of habit, but after that we 'play our characters'.

The problem with Palladium's alignment system isn't that it's dated (although let's be honest, it is dated), it's that it's incredibly simplistic and black and white. It describes a handful of heroic and villainous archetypes that you'd expect to find in a four-colour supers comic or a stock standard high fantasy novel, and it's really really bad at covering the morality of characters if they're nuanced or they're complicated or they aren't larger than life.

First, all of this has gone way outside the OP, I was pretty specific in asking about game mechanics for this which is what I am still interested in. But not a bad conversation.

I can understand people not liking the PB alignment system, not sure if dated is the right word just too restrictive for how many people like to play and can lead to consequences for unrealistic behavior which lots of people also don't like. I know some people like to let players do what ever they want regardless of the situation, and this is a lot easier role playing without having built in restrictions.

I do agree it is hard to put certain characters in the PB alignment system. Forget Superman, I have never really been able to get Batman to fit into it. You, as a GM, also have to have some flexibility with edges of the restrictions.

The problem I have with a lot of what was said is that it completely ignores real human consequences of actions. Put the Peacemaker example I used in real life and assume he took the shot and misses hitting a bystander. He will have real psychological issues. We know in the real world people in this situation like this have real consequences including not being able to pull the trigger in the future. What a lot of you seem to be saying is that if a player says he is not affected by a situation then he is not affected. To me this is a little like a player being shot by a pulse rifle and simply saying "I don't take damage from this". Another, admittedly closer examples, is a if a player knows information about a monster, say it's vulnerable to iron, but the character does not have the skill or knowledge. To me this is no different then the player saying "I know this" regardless of skills. Alignment, when used correctly, is one more limitation on a character that a player needs to work with just like SDC/MDC, skills, or PP.

Also,ME is an attribute for a reason, just like PP or IQ, I just think it might have a function here.

[Noon]

My question, purely game mechanics, if you have a PC in this situation what determines if he/she takes the shot? Is it just the player saying "I shoot" or do you have to take alignment into account.

Unless you find holding characters to alignment fun somehow, the player just roleplays the character by saying if they take the shot and if they do, then they do.

[Warshield73]

My question, purely game mechanics, if you have a PC in this situation what determines if he/she takes the shot? Is it just the player saying "I shoot" or do you have to take alignment into account.

Unless you find holding characters to alignment fun somehow, the player just roleplays the character by saying if they take the shot and if they do, then they do.

I think holding the characters to alignment, OCC description, Attributes, and skills is part of what makes the game fun yes. Players just running god like characters with no limits has never been all that fun.

The other part of this is simple, are there any character consequences for this? He takes the shot and misses hitting a civilian does the player just get to say "well it wouldn't bother my character" or does his alignment or ME come in? Again I just really want to know what people do here.

[Rallan]

My question, purely game mechanics, if you have a PC in this situation what determines if he/she takes the shot? Is it just the player saying "I shoot" or do you have to take alignment into account.

Unless you find holding characters to alignment fun somehow, the player just roleplays the character by saying if they take the shot and if they do, then they do.

I think holding the characters to alignment, OCC description, Attributes, and skills is part of what makes the game fun yes. Players just running god like characters with no limits has never been all that fun.

The problem is that the Palladium alignments are just a handful of stock character archetypes with a very short "will they or won't they" list of things that define the limit of what they'll do. So unless you want your character to have one of a (very) limited range of personalities and worldviews that fit the seven pulp archetypes Siembieda chose to represent the range of human morality, holding PCs to alignment will just get in the way of portraying their character. It also completely destroys any grey areas and makes ambiguity and conflicts of interest impossible, because it reduces every moral dilemma to a dry, characterless abstract exercise in matching the current situation to what's on your checklist and seeing what your alignment would do.

And if you're routinely running into situations where you can't figure out what your alignment would do, then it suggests that maybe the alignment system isn't really very good for anything more than a fast rough sketch of your character's personality.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Well part of role playing your character is role playing the results of your actions. If you're a super hero and you "take that shot" and you hit the kid. That sucks, but then you shoot again to 'save millions'. Yes, you should role play out the grief and guilt of having taken the shot and killed the kid. It is now a part of your char. if you don't. That's bad role playing, not a failure in the system.

What I've never liked (and never held to) Was having to check every action against a list of 10 or so bullet points. "Ok My char can do this but not that" No. People aren't like that. Every decision is new and unique to itself. IRL I Don't hit women. __UNLESS__ They're literally trying to kill me with some sort of weapon. Then that rule is suspended untill I'm safe again. My alignment would say "Doesn't hit women. Hates women abusers, HATES Rapists" But if some girl came at me with a knife. I wouldn't go "oh my alignment says doesn't hit women, so I gotta just bob and weave while she stabs at me and can't fight back.

[Noon]

My question, purely game mechanics, if you have a PC in this situation what determines if he/she takes the shot? Is it just the player saying "I shoot" or do you have to take alignment into account.

Unless you find holding characters to alignment fun somehow, the player just roleplays the character by saying if they take the shot and if they do, then they do.

I think holding the characters to alignment, OCC description, Attributes, and skills is part of what makes the game fun yes. Players just running god like characters with no limits has never been all that fun.

The other part of this is simple, are there any character consequences for this? He takes the shot and misses hitting a civilian does the player just get to say "well it wouldn't bother my character" or does his alignment or ME come in? Again I just really want to know what people do here.

The fact is it's a matter of whether the player cares about playing in character.

You can't force someone to care about playing in character, no matter how much you try to enforce alignment - they might play within alignment, but they wont necessarily care about doing so. They'll still play a 'god like' character, just restrained within the alignment, as much as you enforce it.

For the player who cares about playing their character, the nature of the character is the consequence, if any. Ie, the characters on concience is the consequence. Some characters have a concience about such things - some do, but don't realise what could have happened. And some characters don't have much of a concience.

For players who care about playing their character, you as DM don't do anything - you just trust them to play their role and see what happens.