Exchange of Realities

This one’s for RPG Blog Carnival, this month on the subject of morality in RPGs (and, it would seem, wherever else it’s relevant.)

A character’s moral code is, in my opinion, one of her more interesting aspects. It gives a good sense of what she will do in a situation, and at least as good a sense what she won’t; it provides lots of drama when strained; and not only are no two exactly alike, every difference between two or more is an event waiting to happen. It’s complex, made up of a number of factors that provide lots of room for variation. And best of all, almost everyone has one. Granted, a villain’s code may not be particularly “moral” as we would see it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there, nor that there aren’t things he would consider musts or mustn’ts.

The first factor, of course, is the behaviors that the moral code requires. “Good” characters’ moral codes often lean more towards things they will do, like protecting the environment or beating the tar out of people who pick on the helpless. That doesn’t, of course, mean that the baddies won’t, though their codes often stipulate behaviors that most people wouldn’t find ‘moral’, and it’s not unheard of for theirs to be a bit more flexible.

The second is the behaviors that it prohibits. This is the likeliest part of the moral code to show up, and certainly one of the largest potential sources of drama. Even villains often have traditional sorts of prohibitions, usually to demonstrate that they aren’t Caricature Evil and to make sure that they can still evoke some audience sympathy—or, just as often, because such and such a tenet is as much a matter of self-preservation as morals.

The third is the potential internal conflicts. Don’t pretend they’re not going to show up; moral codes where two prohibitions or a prohibition and a requirement are never, ever under any circumstances mutually exclusive are about as common as truly plain people in major Hollywood roles. More often, there spring up cases where two different tenets of the code just can’t be kept at the same time—a prime source of conflict, particularly since it doesn’t require a villain to be present or active (not that that keeps them from setting situations like that up, of course). At that point, either there are some priorities written into the code, or there is out and out moral indecision; either way, there is likely drama.

Another thing to note, though many people forget, is that in almost any moral code there is an “Us” and a “Them”: people to whom the code applies, and people to whom it doesn’t. In some people’s codes there are more, or at least there is an “Us”, a “Them”, and a “Those Things Over There”. This is one of the ways people try to stave off internal conflict in their codes; in fact, the difference between a hero and a villain may be not so much code as a difference in where their “Us”es end and their “Them”s begin. Sometimes, the “Them” is removed by behavior. Other times, they’re viewed as being not important enough to be worthy of protection under the code. In still others, they’re just different enough that the code doesn’t apply. Occasionally you even get a character under whose code it’s more dangerous to be an “Us” than a “Them”.

Complex, full of drama, and capable of differentiating characters who might otherwise be too similar, the moral code is a fascinating and often understated piece of characterization.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS