Morality in RPGs (article)

It explains the mechanic, and why she likes it, but I don't see where the part about morality kicks in.

Well, I don't know how to answer that, since I'm not remotely familiar with how moral standards work in Dungeons and Dragons. But generally, in games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect, I make the choices I feel are most morally right, irrespective of whatever the "law" may be, either in-game or IRL.

Well, the link certainly helps me to understand what actions are "Good" and which ones are "Evil" according to the rules of D&D, but I already have my own perception of those values, just like everyone does. For instance, you say you need to align yourself with the Templars in all three games, because you can't do "grey" or "evil" choices. Personally, I consider siding with the Templars to be the evil choice, and I honestly can't comprehend the mindset of anyone who thinks otherwise.

One of the few things that I like about Dragon Age over other RPGs is that the game does not have a "karma" bar, or make moral judgements about my actions, or try to dictate how I should feel about certain characters. The choices we make are never presented as "good" vs "evil". If anything, the developers and writers of Dragon Age bend over backwards to try and make even acts of straight-up genocide seem somehow acceptable, if you squint and tilt your head just so.

That's why I don't understand why the article is even called "Morality in RPGs". It talks at length about the mechanics of the dialogue wheel, and how it contributes to creating a character's personality (things that a person who's played the games she mentions will already know, anyway), but doesn't talk about making moral choices at all. Although apparently that's in part 2.

While there is certainly a bit of myself in every character I create and play, they certainly don't all have the same alignment (though I usually ignore the entire alignment stuff, I just create personalities). I have enjoyed lawful good characters, chaotic good ones, and the most terrifying alignment of them all, lawful neutral.

Of course, I can't end this post without quoting the alignment section from the "real men, real roleplayers, loonies and munchkins" list:

Real men are lawful good.
Real roleplayers don't use alignment.
Loonies are amoral silly.
Munchkins are whatever gives the most plusses.

I never play as "lawful good". In the DA this seems an oxymoron. Hawke for example hardly can be lawful and good at the same time. Neutral good is the real knight here.

My problem with the "law" that is created by wo/men – so it can be wrong (This unjust was created by men – Bethany at Gallows). The law always must be questioned in the name of the righteousness – without question, blindly nobody can't serve the good, only can serve the law. We saw even in the real life history: to serve the "law" many times just serves the tyranny, the discrimination and in a serious case of genocide and the slavery.


In DA (especially in Kirkwall) the "lawful" can be paired with "neutral and evil". 

Of course laws are never perfect, being created by men. But righteousness is also a human concept, and thus just as imperfect. All we can do is try to find the best compromise.

Lawful good characters are hard to play no matter the setting. A lawful good character would likely not feel obliged to follow a law he/she considers as evil or oppressive, and instead stick to a good personal moral code. A lawful good character in Kirkwall would probably enter politics and attempt to effect good changes from within the system.

Lawful evil is something along the lines of believing in the rule of the strong over the weak. Just following the law, whether said law has good or evil intentions, is actually more lawful neutral... I think.

But I'm no expert in D&D morality. That system is in my opinion a mere crutch to help players creating their character's personality.

I believe the righteousness – while you're right about, that its a hard term, and easily can be just self-righteousness (chaotic good, chaotic neutral).

To plays as lawful good, is really hard.
How would you play as a "lawful good" in Tevinter? What would this character do, if sees, an escaped slave, who kill his/her master and the hunters?
This is why I can't understand the "lawful good" term. But perhaps, the lawful good character who insist the "universal law" – when the "local laws" are evil. But this is the neutral good.

Hawke entered the politics, but prevented to use his/her influence (to become a Viscount) and to change the law – and that unjust law was not especially Kirkwall's law. 

Hoo boy, that's a tough one. After giving it some thought, this is what a lawful good character played by me would do (which isn't necessarily what I myself would do):

In the extremely unlikely case (given that slavery exists) that the escaped slave has willingly indentured himself, i.e. is not a slave against his will, AND can expect a fair trial that would end with some mild punishment like a short jail term or the payment of a weregild, my character would hand the man over to the authorities, and then try to find out as much as possible about the circumstances of the deed to make sure justice is served, including punishment of any remaining slave owners for the bad treatment that led to the murder. But let's face it, that's not going to happen because societies that allow slavery are very unlikely to be kind and fair in all other aspects.

So, the most likely case is that he'd hide the slave and help him escape the city if so desired. Then he'd join the Lucerni to try and make a better tomorrow for all of Tevinter, one small lawful step by step.

Perhaps, you don't like the crowds (you're not alone in this feeling) – but probably many can love you.
Here's mine:

It's not about how they treat their slaves. It about accepts the slavery or not. There's no compromise. The slavery's not that something that needs some reform. The slavery's irreformable. Sadly, I don't see, Dorian even think about it – but I hope. Fenris spoke about that some Archons tried it – they died early. So, despite the sad end, the hope still exists. The question is they want it, or not.

(I would like to play as a Magister/Altus – and I would like to a possibility to destroy or support the system. I would destroy that.)

Yes, I know. Perhaps we have to choose between the "safe" solution with supporting the slavery (at least temporarily) or to support the radical change but in the cost of the risk of the destabilizing the Imperium. If you ask me, the Qun is worse – because there no will for any change, and everyone's the system's slave...
I hope we'll see interesting decisions
Fenris even said, that the Qunary able to defeat Tevinter – and it was not questioned, that with or without the slavery. 

The dreamers are very rare, but I even want a possibility to be possessed. As Wynne and Anders – and our spirit will be shaped by our decisions and personality.