How many colors do you like in your gaming? Do you prefer four-color games? Or should game morality be black and white or shades of grey, and if the latter, how many? Are "evil" characters acceptable? Does your preference depend on genre? Do your preferences affect the genres you like?
But in the beginning of RPing was the Law and the Chaos.
I skipped that in favor of nine-color morality.
The basic morality of my first world was that Gods worked by three-color morality: Law, Chaos, and Balance.
And real people just couldn't work that way.
They had to have many more choices. This became that three-by-three grid that TSR and AD&D 2nd edition came out with shortly thereafter. When the official company came out with that, I promptly went more 'modern' in my fantasy gaming and transitioned to a world where Characters were not sure that such choices were wise or needful. After all, entire cultures and history had shown that those Choices were a great way to get folks warring with each other.
All in all, I think I might be a bad GM when it comes to morality choices.
And there is the morally gray range of choices in Amber DRPG gaming.
For instance, current game play from Eternal City:
Cassandra returns to Amber with her younger brother (7), Eidolon, for a visit. The two have become better friends despite the age gap. Eidolon has not seen his father in quite some time—as Evander and Thelia are estranged for over a year.
Cass believes it right and proper to tell her father, Evander, that her mother, Thelia is getting married to a shadow Emperor very soon. The second part of this is that the Emperor plans to adopt and make Eidolon his heir.
Notice that Cass feels she has a duty to her father in this, and that her father has a duty to Eidolon that may be affected by events coming.
Long story short, this is not where the conversation really goes.
As usual, Cassandra and Evander get jammed at a threshold of moral communication between them. Very bumpy exchange ensues—and as so often happens, Cassandra is frustrated and angry by the time she gets to the message. She even leaves out the matter of the adoption because the general tone of things has gone so badly.
Cassandra: raised by an industrial matriarchal society. They enjoy civilized customs and invite even enemies to tea and diplomatic exchanges.
Evander: raised by the hunter clan society of the Weir. They bite people that they like and feed pregnant women raw meat.
The story goes completely to disaster as the two jab at each other until a verbal drama ensues. Evander decides to leave Amber permanently, breaking his royale parole. A chase to capture him follows. A fight in forest Arden. Several people almost get killed, as Evander has learned a great deal about Amber bladework in his years as a paroled prisoner.
Is this morality at all or is it cultural asumptions? Well, that's the problem with my GMing you see—- in my game most people think first from their cultural roots, not their ethical understanding.
Ethically, Cassandra and Evander are really on the same side and shoulder to shoulder. Neither one would think so, but IMC, they fight for honor, what they believe to be right, and protection of the weak.
Culturally, they can't have a simple conversation without trying to judge and hurt each other—-not to mention the "history baggage" of the two—-which includes all kinds of bad assumptions about behavior to mutual friends and family. These conversations are quite often dancing around ethics. Who is right. Who is wrong.
Another example would be the constant tensions between Darrheabarr, Amber, and the Courts of Chaos. None of this is morally driven, though a few people might drag religious issues into the arguement and confuse things. It is very personal and very confused about who did what to whom and when.
IMC, Amber is founded on theft, madness, and death. Darrheabarr represents an older civilization that holds higher values and integrates many cultures. The Courts is a conqueror that does not think that shadow people have equal rights with Real People.
Yet none of these large groups are Evil or any large part of Evil (the Courts comes close).
All of them have done evil things.
All of them would work together (badly) if they understood the Evil that opposes them separately and seeks to destroy Life.
So why am I saying I'm bad at this? Well, I'm not sure RP games should simulate complex ethics, or ask Players to go through cultural gymnastics in roleplay. I think I could simplify all of this and everyone would have more fun.