Some people are saying that it would be too much work to implement....I'll go one step further and say, with our current technology, it's impossible. First, we'd need a way to anolyze an individual's intent. Short of approximations, you'd likely need a true AI for that. Second, the AI would have to read you, the player's, mind.

About the only way to achieve what you're talking about is to force the player into morally black and white situations, which tends to be boring writing.

What's the third dimension you would add? I see nothing wrong with the two-axis alignment system. =/

It is Manichean. It is a very primitive "either/or" way of looking at life. It does not correspond to real-life moral choices. It is simplistic, reductionist and has no place in a sophisticated roleplaying game.

You do realize that D&D is not supposed to represent real-life right? It was never intended to have anything other than an objective alignment system because that's a trademark element of epic fantasy like Lord of the Rings, which is even more objective in alignment than D&D. It doesn't have to be sophisticated or overly complex with many shades of gray. If you want morally gray in your games, play some other game or homebrew that junk if you have to make the game more complicated and serious than it has to be.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. I like it when games opt for a more morally gray vibe as far as choice and consequence and characters go. Since things aren't as clear cut it gives it a more authentic feel and makes it more interesting IMO.

Accounting for motive would be too difficult. Someone could always have an ulterior motive for what they are doing. Thus, even though what they are doing may seem like an act of good faith, they are actually doing it for nefarious reasons. I think it's far simpler to just have morally ambiguous choices where there isn't necessarily a "right" or "wrong" option instead of the developer deciding for the player what is "good" and what is "bad." I, on occasion, will see a choice that the developer labels as "good" or "bad" in a different light that I don't necessarily agree with. That's one of the issues with morality as it can be subjective based on the context of the situation.

Soooo tired of "morally grey".... part of the whole dark/gritty/"realistic" trend (along with Game of Thrones & "humans are the real monsters!" zombie games)

Gimme some good, old-fashioned Good Vs Evil...

But yeah, that's a good point. Like my perception that the "Synthesis" ending of Mass Effect 3 is the most evil of the options (because mass-[censored] of a galaxy against their will). But, then, I saw the entire ending of ME3 as a giant "You Lose!" that didn't fit the Heroic Space Adventure/Triumphing Against All Odds tone of the other 99% of the series.

That's stupid cliché plots, it doesn't have anything to do with morality.

I stand corrected. "So tired of badly done 'morally grey'"

That's exactly my thoughts. There is enemies and others that we treat accordingly. With enemie the choice is not so much present, now who really wanted to join that cannibal johnson? i wondered when i got told he was good for a mission with the chinese invader forces.

nothing to worry, enemy is shoot ...

Exactly. From my perspective, Synthesis, Control, and Refuse were not options. They were morally bad for the galaxy. One is forced evolution that could backfire. The other is subverting control through the reapers. The last one is refusing to do anything and letting the cycle reset. Destroy was the only ending, in my eyes, that brought finality and a "good" ending to the game. Yes, synthetics are sacrificed, but that is the realities of war when in the end something is lost. Regardless of that fact that BioWare intended synthesis to be the best choice with "happy flowers and butterflies," that's not how it came across at the ending of the game.

See I interpreted the synthesis ending to be the best ending. Just goes to show how complex and dynamic people are.

Your right. others have said this would be to hard to add, traking the act is easy its the effects on dialog and npc reactions that are hard, this is further compounded by the realistic way your rep should be effected.

In your example, the act of adding the portion into the food is the trigger ,that what you are doing could have mixed motives. the fact it turns people into mindless drones is a fact the game knows, now if you give it to raiders to do good and stop them raiding your new settlement is just grey its not good but its done for good, but if you gave it to settlers or just random npc people, you know don't deserve it, that's bad, far from grey just evil.

Then they have to deal with the spread of info of your deeds, reputation( rep), this is where most games fail, you steal a item in an empty room you get guards jumping all over you, as you step out of the building.... Very bad.
1. If you can steal an item and get clean away you should do and any npc people should be non the wiser...
2. If you get seen leaving the building after the crime it starts a rumour that you might be dodgy after the item is missed.
3. If you get nabbed red handed your rep with the npc that catches you changes instantly. If you can kill the npc quickly and quietly you can still maintain your rep if you don't get seen leaving the location.
4. If you get seen red handed and flee your rep is damaged. The extent of the damage to your rep then enters a second system if your unknown in the area your rep change will be tied to your description if you disguise yourself you may still interact with Npc's in the area unaffected. Unless you bump into the Npc that saw you, you are busted. And any npc in the area at the time you get busted will also be effected.
5. The extent of your evil doing or good can finally trigger recognition, but only if extreme being in the middle is not note worthy you don't get wanted posters with your face on for stealing food nor do you get your description read out on the radio for being Mr Mrs average player. Good or bad.
6. Reps can be very local unless your an extreme and have got your self noted.
7. Over lapping rep areas this is where in one area your good another your the walking incarnate of death. If either area your rep grows to the point your well regarded or hunted this triggers any evil reps to spread and over rule areas your rep is good. I see it as more of an erosion of your rep rather than instant change.
If wanted posters or radio descriptions get played or posted in a town you have a good rep you then have 2 choices, own it, or disguise your self.
9. Changing your rep... Going good... This should be very hard. The most obvious way is disguise your self and Change your ways. This is less going good more just hiding from your past. Truly going good could only be done from extreme valour or selfless deeds...
Going bad... simple just go kill some innocents in very public places.....

10. The game then needs to track all this info and adjust dialog options this doesn't have to add hundreds of thousands of choices to dialog there are only 3 settings, good, bad, and average. Rep then only needs to be tracked at an NPC level, if your recognised by them to have a rep the dialog needs to reflect it if not you play as Mr or Mrs average unless you start every conversation with I am going to kill you....... Or shoot first talk later.... Or they ask you your name and they recognise it. You can lie but that means you have to pull the lie off..... If you have a rep and your lie fails then you get the resulting dialog based on your rep.

11. I say only 3 levels of rep but with the control of how your rep spreads, you can own all 3 at the same time, or just one. ( very real world) you can get a very complex result from a more simple 3 level rep system. With only 3 levels of dialog choices needed. Because your rep is not universal but local, it gives the game far more depth.
12. Your name. if you wish to trade on it you can. this is a way to spread your rep good or bad " my name is Bond James Bond" this can be good or bad Npc can be told to expect you and what name you use when greeting them will effect your choices A. if you have a rep that blocks your quest for items or info. your only other option is to gain their trust from actions you do for them that earns their trust. B. your rep proceeds you and you are quickly trusted by a good or evil NPC, or try for a lie.
13. Multiple reps and names. This is where games should try to go let players make different persona's complete with disguises. In one your mayor in another, a shoot first ask questions later....baddy this can let players explore all aspects of the game if they remember to switch disguises....

This is my suggestion to control players interactions with the world to give a full spectrum of results from a simpler system biased on karma or morality, or reputation. (Rep).

i like this 13 steps into doom methodologie.

you can go bad but you can't go good again after, makes sense in some ways.

it is transparent also nothing complex and has clear limits that can keep definition with good and evil even beyond reputation via faction belongings(don't shoot your neighbor even he stole your chef).

so you can be madly evil and still be the shining good example.

I didn't mean "3D" literally, as in "Just add a third axis to AD&D's 2-axis system", but rather a more general "a system with a bit more depth than binary".

Personally I think an individual-faction-based, 3-axis reputation system using something like Selfless <=> Selfish, Proactive <=> Reactive, and Ambitious <=> Content, with the results derived from quantifiable game actions (dialogue choices, quest decisions, combat actions, etc.) and the numerical totals hidden from the player would do a pretty solid job of balancing complexity and depth with practicality and gameplay. Stays nicely away from an ironclad Good vs. Evil system, too, without omitting either as a possibility.

Also, any secular alignment system should exclusively be based on actions that are public knowledge. I don't mind "omniscient alignment" in a setting where someone/something is watching your actions (TES, D&D, WoD, etc.), but in a "realistic" setting reputation should strictly reflect public opinion within a faction.