Forums of the Megaverse®

I want to add a stat in my upcoming game to track the character's growing disconnect as they face the tough decisions that are so abundant in survival situations. I'm not sure if I should call it Apathy or Humanity; comments/thoughts are welcome.

I'm planning on this being a twenty point track that would change based on their actions or inactions. The lower your humanity (or higher your apathy) score, the more disconnected a character becomes, and easier it is to perform cold-hearted acts. I'd also run this stat in tandem with a Sanity stat that I've used in previous games, so if a character's Sanity and Apathy/Humanity reach their extreme ends they run the chance of a psychotic episode at which point the player would loose control of their character.

Does anyone else run something similar?

I have found that tracking things like morality is complicated in-game, largely because of the GM's interpretation of what is/is not "moral".

Different people have different opinions about what is right and wrong, and while we can probably all agree that mass murder or cannibalism is immoral, less extreme actions might be considered justified by one and not by another. A Jewish or Muslim GM might consider the consumption of pork to be immoral, even if the character is starving. A PC who is homosexual, or identifies as transgender might be considered as immoral by some, but is playing withing the confines of the character that they have rolled up. If the group is being told what is moral, then what role does their alignment play in their behaviour? Is a person playing an ex-convict with an evil alignment much closer to losing control of his/her character, simply by role-playing well?

Likewise morality can be context bound. Theft is considered immoral, but is stealing medicine to save life? What if the PC opts to allow a fellow to die, simply because he/she does not want to "lose control of his/her character" by stealing antibiotics? Murder is considered immoral, but to kill in self-defense, or the defense of the greater good? What about violence? Is violence against humans worse than violence against the undead, and does a person lose more sanity from punching a human in the chest than from bashing a zombie's brains out with a baseball bat? Will a situation arise when one PC loses sanity/humanity for doing something that another PC did earlier but was not penalized for?

For what it is worth, I don't enforce "morality" in my games. I don't even push the adherence to Alignments particularly. The world has come to an end, and what came next is shaping the survivors... but it is also shaped BY the survivors. I use the actions of the players as a sort of metric for how the world, as a whole, is responding to the apocalypse. If the characters tend to act more righteous or moral, then the world at large tends to be "nicer". If the group slips into amoral, violent, or extreme behaviour, then the rest of the population takes a similar slide to the Dark Side, so to speak. I consider this to be tailoring the world to their expectations, using their actions as a barometer. I don't tell them I am doing this, however, as it would likely spoil the effect. Conflict still arises, and bad/good people are still to be found regardless of what the group is doing. But it helps me gauge if the NPC stranger offers aid from across the road, or shoots first and asks questions later.

My intent wasn't to track morality with this stat, but the disconnect (not sure if that's the correct term) one experiences and accumulates with certain tough survival decisions (see "This War of Mine"). Another term I might consider using is "Burnout".

For example:
* You receive a radio transmission from a group of survivors (three adults and five children) who are running out of food and whose shelter probably won't stand up against another zombie siege. Do you go risk your or your groups safety and your dwindling supplies to aid these strangers, or do you ignore their pleas for help knowing that they will not survive the week?
* You're group has packed all their belongings in an truck and are travelling to a safe zone when you come across another small group of survivors. They want to join you, but you have no room left in the truck. Do you ditch your belongings to make room for them, or wish them luck and continue on your way.
* Your group has been the target of continuous attacks from a group of raiders. You've captured one of the raiders alive. Are you willing to torture the raider for information on the raiders group? Would you be willing to use him to make a "statement" to the raiders to back off?
* Would you kill an infected companion before they turn, kick them out of your shelter before they turn, or wait to kill them after they turn?
* Would you take/steal needed supplies from a group that's unwilling to trade with you, knowing that taking these supplies will leave the other group vulnerable?

The Rifts Coalition War Campaign has some rules on Shell Shock for survivors of war...
...basically PTSD, based on saves vs Insanity/Horror Factor. I would start there.
As you get more numb your save goes up (it takes more to shock you) but you also take penalties to things like MA (it is hard to be charismatic when your almost as hollow inside as the zombies), or even rolls like strategy to predict how people will react ("huh, what do you mean they didn't just abandon the kids? Their just slowing them down. Don't make no sense sir. Sorry, guess we'll need to hurry a bit faster to rescue those engineers, might need more room on the bus too if their gonna insist on bringing kids. My bad.")

I guess I'm a realist "Morals have no place on a battlefield" way of thinking. Why would you risk everything for another potential Zombie?

If they contributed enough to make you less likely to become a zombie, basically.

Heck I'd risk my life to protect a Mock Zombie (like the little girl one who could become an asset to the group described in one of the random scenarios) if it could increase survival chances. In exchange for taking out dozens of zombies who can't fight back against her, you just let her kill human enemies like psychotic death cultists or retro-savages to feed herself every month or so. Or no killing at all if you keep her in a freezer for most of the time.

The ideal world would of course be if you have a Death Cultist since then no feeding at all is necessary.

Is Rali asking about "Morale" maybe? Low Morale could feasibly lead to amoral decisions.

As GM it is you're prerogative to set what is morally ok or not. However as said above different people believe in different moral justifications. A small list would cover it. Stuff such as cold-blooded murder, a request for help to go unheeded, callously abandoning a friend, or anything along those lines! Hope this helps.

GMs can make house rules to change anything, but what is morally ok or not is already established by the alignments.

Of course... interpreting alignments can get complicated in places. 'Always help others' especially.

IE you could always be helping Rick but you could always be helping Gvnr or Negan too.