Alignment and epistemology -Part 1- A Comprehensive or Narrative System?

I realise it's been a while since I posted anything. I have a number of articles approaching a state which one might call 'messy', and as such, it's taking a while to puzzle them all out before I feel it's right to actually publish them... Sorry everyone ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Excuse me, where is Ron?

Epistemology is a word I've been throwing around quite a lot recently, and I'm not sure I should continue to do so without offering a little explanation as to what I mean and why it's such an important word in understanding many things in a traditional D&D game, not least of all alignment (in my opinion).

Same alignments, different epistemology.
(also Ron is not important)

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge- how we know things, how we might go about differentiating the subtle line between opinion and some kind of more concrete and informed belief, how we construct knowledge, and systems of understanding. Michel Foucault and successive scholars who built on his writing developed his theory of social discourse over the course of several books, and it is this idea which I feel is key to understanding the importance of epistemology in RPGs. More specifically it is integral to understanding the reasons for different outlooks that groups of people have regarding the same thing, i.e. the world and its content. Basically what I'm trying to suggest is that with the addition of a bit of complexity, a few more layers of meaning, we can get to a system which is deeply meaningful and fulfilling when it comes to player interaction with the world. From the perspective of a DM, we can see that this might potentially help to create more believable NPCs, and from a player perspective it could help to solidify their character's relationship with the world around them.

Foucault

Of course, this discussion is nothing new. The topic of alignment is divisive and people will debate it forever, and I'm sure I'm not going to say anything that hasn't been said before by a great many people, but I'll say it now in my own words, for my own reasons.

(p.s. I'm not saying I don't want to hear other people's opinions. I really do- morality is a debate, and it will go on forever. To suggest otherwise is utter hubris.)

Actually no this is Foucault.

I don't want to suggest that the alignment system in D&D (for example- it's the main go-to I have when it comes to RPGs) is useless or somehow broken, but it can be seen as deeply flawed when trying to construct a more nuanced view of the world that a given character or NPC might have. It seems that. naturally, the alignment system presented in the Player's Handbook is somewhat devoid of context. Of course, it has to be. Any given rule system that isn't blind to context is inherently limiting, and the more constrained a given system is to a context, or a world, the less flexible it is in facilitating the kind of campaign the players or DM actually want to run. And I know, I know, that in D&D the alignment system is inherently absolutist, as are a great many spells and effects and actions and whatnot, and that's the game. It's touted as evil vs good, holy vs demonic, avenging heroes defeating villains bent on global destruction, and that's all fine. People are of course allowed to play the game exactly the way they want to play it, but I think we can go further with this. Of course, to create a system that isn't blind to context means you have to create that context, and that might take a lot of work. Potentially a looooooot of work, but with that work I think it's possible to make something a little more interesting. A little more complex. And by complex, I mean specifically in the academic way. Not unnecessarily purposefully obtuse or confusing, but the product of interacting layers that give an output which is less predictable and (in my opinion) ultimately more engaging. 

But you have to admit, they do look similar...

(p.s. I'm not going to suggest a system as such in this post- I'm not going to write a whole new RPG here. Not yet. I'm just discussing how it might be done. Make of it what you will and play the games you want).

So...

A person's outlook and behaviour is deeply linked to the world in which they live and the model of the world (both material and social) that they build in their minds. In traditional D&D, the different alignments reflect a person's opinion and ethical outlook- the likelihood of a person to do or not do a certain thing, act to benefit themselves or others and so forth. I mean, I don't need to explain this to anyone who might stumble across this, I'm sure, but I'm trying to explicate what I mean in order to suggest how things might be different.

What I mean to say is that things like social context, social class, and environment should play a big role in deciding how a character acts whether they are conforming to their role or acting against what is expected of them. Interpreting the same alignment for one character might be wholly different for another from a different context, and a large part of what a character things is informed by what they know. One person's lawful good might be one thing, whereas another's take on the same alignment might be wildly different, depending on their world based context. A helpful bureaucrat, looking to give the full support of the state to those in need, would be wholly different to a righteous crusader whose only aim is to smite infidels and evildoers. Similarly, a (good) serf living off the land and providing food for their community, being exploited and stripped of all their worldly wealth by their (evil) baron, might still follow the law and subscribe to the feudal model. Likewise, this baron (good, in their eyes) has no knowledge of the serf's life other than that they often withhold the resources necessary to to pay for their liege's standing army, which keeps the neighbouring kingdom (evil) from invading and slaughtering all the serfs. This neighbouring kingdom (good) might be seeking to invade in order to expunge the malign influence of a wicked sorcerer (evil) from the land. While all this is going on, this sorcerer (good) who has uncovered mysteries of the universe is working to bring all life to a halt, an un-moving state of entropy, eternal stillness, and harmony in order to counteract forces (evil) that seek to torture and destroy all living souls. I mean this sorcerer might have to do some pretty gnarly stuff to get there but, in the end, his (admittedly utilitarian) viewpoint can still be argued as the right thing to do. Of course, these aren't watertight examples. I'm just trying to illustrate that alignment cannot be devoid of context when everyone has a reason for their actions which isn't just 'I'm lawful good'. In-groups can see out-groups as whatever alignment is convenient for their own world-view, and justify their actions thus.

Good versus evil as self-interest- We might be able to help tease this argument apart by explaining what we mean by 'good' and 'evil' in the alignment system, and we can explain it in a couple of different ways. It is often thought that characters in the 'good' bracket are lacking in self-interest. They place their own needs after the needs of others, and that would perhaps include things like economic and bodily security. Conversely, evil characters are inherently self-interested. They put their own needs above others, which would imply they are okay with theft and violence. The problem here is where we draw the line. In an adventure game, there is a certain degree of violence required for almost all characters. A lawful good fighter would still have to fight, and most likely kill, even if it were in defense of another. Similarly there is the need for cooperation is paramount. An evil character might have to actually help another at their own expense, justifying it by providing more long-term personal safety. Again, we see that the implications are in- and out-groups. The lawful good fighter can kill as long as they are destroying a kind of 'other', an 'evil', in the process, and the evil character can help their in-group because they are part of the group, and it is in their own interests to do so. In the same way, we can see how actions relating not only to self interest but also self sacrifice can be made apparent between members within a group. A good character might act against the interests of the group (and thus themselves) by trying to purge evil from within, and an evil character might similarly take from within to benefit themselves personally. A good character might fight a member of the group if they are putting group safety in danger, whereas an evil character might seek to kill a good party member if they feel they are putting the group (and thus themselves) at unnecessary risk. Furthermore, can we not argue that a good character's inner motivation for self sacrifice actually comes from a self interested desire to be praised? If everything is a form of self interest, no matter how obtuse, can good even be said to exist? Is an evil character's motivation for group destruction actually a hidden self-loathing, wanting all to hate them as much as they hate themselves for being such a rascal? Dunno.

I believe here we can begin to see that the traditional alignment system is potentially quite difficult when it comes to actually justifying the 'right' actions for the 'right' reasons, in that ... well, they are all justifiable, really. I might even go so far as to say that 'good' and 'evil' as such are almost entirely meaningless. Even if we add more dimensions to the equation, namely the third moral category of 'neutral', what happens? All we see is another category that is kind of self interested, but not as much as evil characters. Does that then shunt evil from self interest in a passive sense, to actively wishing or enacting harm towards others regardless of who they are? I mean, perhaps, but I have real issue with citing that as a core motivation for any character. We might be verging on discussing the difference between a rationally minded and a mentally ill person, but then again that is a discourse that Foucault has written extensively on and I wouldn't go as far as to critically engage with that right here right now in a fantasy RPG context. Furthermore I wouldn't espouse anyone to actively play a mentally ill person in an RPG without extremely careful and considerate thought, nor would I like to suggest that an alignment system can accurately account for mental illness. Categorisation of the mentally ill is a minefield that I am not remotely qualified to talk about.

We might then talk about whether a person's core motivations and principles can be accurately represented in their actions in context to all that is going on around them. Some characters are more courageous than others, and stand up for their own beliefs, but then again some characters don't necessarily have strong beliefs about method, and others care little for outcome. It's all a bit tricky really. Furthermore, I'm a staunch believer that in real life, no one wants to be evil. No one wants to cause pain and suffering for its own sake. It's tragic and misguided. But then in an RPG, the rules are different. We can do these things. We can explore impossibilities. I get that.

One thing we can do, however, is to be aware of a character's context and knowledge, and take into account what they think of other groups of people and other individuals as well as themselves in order to gain a more realistic and less reductive picture of what they are like as a person. If it might have seemed so earlier, I'm not trying to suggest a system for restricting player action, only that player actions should be convincingly justifiable within a system that can account for human complexity without violating itself several times over.

A comprehensive system of alignment can be a good thing- it allows for greater understanding of characters and NPCs within a given system and a more believable sense of verisimilitude when it comes to roleplaying. However, perhaps one advantage of a more simplistic system of alignment is that, when a character's actions don't fit with their pre-determined alignment, we can see it as an opportunity for change- a deepening of a character's complexity and a furthering of their development as a person- in other words, a narrative. And in essence, is that not what RPGs are about? In my eyes, they have always been a medium for collaborative storytelling. I will try to write up some more of my notes on the matter soon.

Of course, there are almost infinite potential systems. One interesting, putative model might be something akin to a Myers-Briggs test, which combines four mental processes in various forms to produce a complex array of personalities. In my opinion, it could offer an interesting way of looking at alignment without getting into all the 'good guy' and 'bad guy' stuff... Plus it does go so far as to suggest societal roles that each type might embody. I don't think this test has all the answers, of course, but it is an interesting (actually quite fascinating) tool with which to think about people. The pictures are from 16personalities, for those who are curious. Worth a look, in my opinion.

A well as that, this page gives an interesting analysis of alignment in a slightly different way.

I suppose I could sum up all my thoughts on the matter by with a typical Chaotic Neutral response. In the end any system of rules is unimportant as long as you play the game you want. Comments are actively welcomed. :)

And as always, of course, the hunt continues for a gaming group in which I can actually run some of these ideas...