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.
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.