A Case for the Axiomatic Universe

I am a believer that, in order to be consistently surprising and interesting, a setting needs rules. It needs rules not necessarily like 'rules for combat' or 'rules for spellcasting'. Those are game rules, not setting rules. A setting needs rules that are more like immutable axioms. Laws. Ones that can be used and interacted with and that have consequences for transgression or attempts thereat. General laws that function like mathematical axioms (although it's fine if you're fairly sparse with the numbers. I'm certainly not going to spout any algebra) can help to bring a kind of reliability and structure to a more free-form campaign, or spark inspiration for a deep and involved storyline and meaningful character motivations and revelations.

Amidst the intricacies of world building, there comes a point where you have to grapple with the cosmology of the world. A point where you have to consider what actually happens to a person when they die, and why. Whether it is a simple as going to sleep forever and being subsumed by the soil, or whether it is more complicated than that, is open to different interpretations. This is not a description of the beliefs of people or their convictions or belief in any specific eschatology, but a literal account of the metaphysical (or purely physical) structure of the universe itself, including how living creatures figure into that construction.

For example, a child out for a walk with a parent (I may be recalling from life here) might see a dead bird and make some kind of comment about it, maybe ask what the bird is doing, whether it's okay, and the kid might be a bit sad because I think on a fundamental level, all children understand death in a way, unmolded by growing up. The parent might try and explain death, saying it is dead and leave it at that, or they might try to assuage the child's sadness by suggesting that its spirit is in heaven and is generally having an okay time despite its crumpled body being face down in a puddle (or indeed, that seemingly popular thing that adults say to children, 'bird heaven'. A kind of vanilla version of the Christian argument that only humans really have souls and nothing else is destined for the kingdom of eternal bliss and happiness). Does this then mean that every species on the planet has a specific heaven that they go to? Does this extend to plants? What happens when it gets all crowded? Where actually is it- is it up in the sky? Can I see it? All those innocent and practical things a child might think when first confronted with the idea of 'heaven' have an amusingly apt and appropriate place in fictional world-building.

Anyway, I digress. There are a few key questions that need to be answered in order to address the issue with the hope of coming to any meaningful conclusion. And these questions, although contentions is reality, are so easy to think about in a fictional context. Things that are tragic and immutable in the real world can function differently in fiction. They can be powerfully symbolic and catalysts for profound interpretations of our own lives. That is, after all, I feel what roleplay is for. Getting inside something or someone else in order to allow for reflection on one's own actions and life. These things can be crafted and informed by intent and the desire to convey a particular feeling, metaphor, or, you know, just because they allow for some cool stuff like magic and demons and undead and so on.

A prime example of belief informing practice- Allegedly, The Greeks and Romans were sent on their passage with gold placed upon or in their mouth to pay the ferryman to the afterlife- no one wants to be caught short in that kind of situation.

Some necessary questions (necessary for myself, anyway- take from them what you will, dear reader):

1) What is real?

Detailed in reams and reams of religious doctrine are accounts of the reality of souls, how we are animated by a divine spark or a kind of spirit, energy, identity, or consciousness separate (or not separate) from our material bodies which endures in some way after that body ceases to live in a way that is more than just memory. Scores of different belief systems around the world ascribe to the persistence of a person after they die, in some way or another. They attest to there being something more to being alive than just being able to think. Something that cannot be immediately apprehended and can be accessed through spiritual or otherwise non-physical means.

If the answer is, in actual physical real terms, anything like a 'no', then the sole existence of life after death relies upon human belief and cultural tradition. There is no reality after death that we can definitely verify, there is no afterlife except what people imagine in their minds, and people persist in no other way than the memories of the deceased that reside with the living. This system is not unlike the one we find ourselves in here on earth (that is of course if one isn't particularly religious or spiritual but let's not get into talking about things that are real. It's just D&D here, you understand).

If, however, due to the luxury of fantasy and fiction, we can imagine the answer to this question resembles a rather more concrete form of 'yes', the second question must be addressed.

2) If souls are real, what are they?

This question is not really quite as straightforward as the last one. In fact it's a bit misleading because it could more accurately be described as lots of smaller questions that can or cannot be answered definitively all masquerading as one larger question that is full of holes and confusion...

These questions might be something like-

- Is the living creature's consciousness directly tied to the soul and does it persist with the soul after death?

- Following from that, does the soul have any kind of agency or is it simply an impartial piece of matter or energy, pulled around by the universe to whatever end?

- Do souls have any kind of physical reality or is it impossible to interact with on a physical level? I.e. can a living person actually see or otherwise apprehend it and likewise can it do anything to interact with the physical world?

- If they can exist without bodies, are there souls that have always existed without bodies? Like angels, devils, what have you.

- Where do souls come from? Are they eternal? Without beginning or end? Are they created or do they come into being when something is born? Do they cease to exist as an individual entity at any point?

You can of course kind of riff of anything here until you get to a point you like, or until you feel you've gone far enough to cope with anything that might crop up during the course of play (of course, this is no guarantee, no matter how much you plan).

All these can of course lead into many larger questions about the nature of the universe, its structure, processes of change, its beginning and end.

3) Is the world multidimensional?

In basic terms, this is asking 'does heaven exist?'. Are there any places in the world that cannot be directly seen or interacted with by people living in the material world except by means of magic or symbolic ritual or something, and what are they? There are again many questions one can imagine when trying to puzzle out the nature of these extra-dimensional places. Such as-

-Do they have an inherent nature or meaning or are they just 'other' kind of places?

-How did they get there? Did they exist since the beginning of the universe, if indeed there was such a thing, or did some fluke or the universal mechanics cause them to be, or did some will create them?

-Do they overlap with they world in which humans live or are the two places completely separate? For example, in D&D cosmology the plane of shadow or the ethereal plane could be said to 'overlap' whereas outer planes like the abyss are, although in certain ways connected to the material plane, more or less separately located.

-Do they provide a kind of function to the universe? Like organs within a body, are they necessary to keep the structure of the universe ticking over or are they inherently meaningless? For example, Purgatory serves a purpose in that is a place that souls go if they were kind of okay but not great, or Jewish, or Pagan, or something else deemed by ye olde Catholics to be 'not really cool'.

-What are the contents of a given alternate dimension? Does it look like an alternate version or our world or is it something entirely different?

-Are there a finite number of extra dimensions?

-Are they easily accessed (and if so, how) or are they completely hidden?

Again, like, go mad with the ideas until you feel like you're at an acceptable level of cool, or weird, or intricate, or profound. I don't have to tell you, I'm sure.

This question then feeds directly into the last question

4) As a result of interaction between the answers to questions 2 & 3, what generally happens when someone or something dies, and what can happen?

Once all the things in the world pertaining to the cosmology are in place, I find it becomes quite interesting to think about what might happen to a soul after it leaves the body, or perhaps doesn't leave the body. I dunno. This then helps you answer things like-

Can the dead come back to life?

Did they ever even leave?

Does the experience of death stay with one as a concrete memory that carries on into the afterlife, or are all memories and impressions of individual personality erased upon death?

Can one influence or communicate with the dead in any meaningful way? If so, how?

How do the living interact with souls that are devoid of body (whether dead, having left the body, or other-dimensional, having never had one in the first place)?

This section of questioning is interesting in that it opens the way for some really interesting interactions and ideas, but that it also potentially suggests that no matter the structure of the universe, there are some things that are just not possible (but then that just incites a greater challenge in the minds of players upon discovery, no doubt allowing for even more story potential and DM contortion).

Conclusion

Either way, by using the framework you have previously conceived of, you can create logically consistent and interesting interactions that follow the rules that you have set down. Even better, it allows the players to do the same. If the bones of the world are eventually laid bare (in a story-appropriate kind of way, naturally) and the players see that all is not subject only to the fickle will of their DM, a fallible human, but that in many ways the DM is subject to those rules as well, it can act as an empowering experience that helps players feel invested in their story and their character.

Contrary to precluding cultural beliefs and faiths, questions like these can be used as a starting point for imagining ways in which people interpret what they can see of these processes into their own belief and faith systems. Religions and cultural practices can be informed by these things and the ways in which they impact upon the lives of people in the setting. If souls are real, and there are multiple dimensions to the world, and there is significant and meaningful interaction between all of these things, they can perhaps manifest as spirits, demons, angels, inexplicable beings, ghosts, travel to the afterlife (and back?) and they can be present in people's mythology not just as metaphor or folklore, but as tangible things about which to learn, about to wonder, about which to be afraid, and about which to whisper prayers in the dead of night. It all goes together to form a kind of mindset which people in the world have, and upon which they base their actions, beliefs, and knowledge (epistemology- sorry, I said it again).

All these questions of course do not need to be made and answered explicitly to players in a D&D campaign (in fact it is more interesting and exciting for them to figure these things out by themselves as long as, of course, these rules they discover remain the same- enough so they know what to expect next time) but, in my opinion, it really helps a DM to have a fair idea of what happens in definite terms in their cosmology when the players do things like kill stuff, get killed, travel to different planes, mess with magic and the fabric of reality. Converse to limiting player's decisions, I feel it actually allows them to interact with the campaign world in a more meaningful way. If they come to understand the structure of the world they play in, they can inhabit it and use it, they can manipulate it, protect it, destroy it, whatever really.

In any case, the jury is out when it comes to the metaphysical structure of fictional worlds, and you can have as much fun as your imagination can cope with. The key point I'm making here is that laws like this help DMs and players to create consistently interesting worlds and meaningful experiences with logically consistent cause and effect relationships that actually matter. Good things, in my opinion.

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...

A Paradigm- Magic, Knowledge, and Belief in RPGs

So, this is a post I've been working on, thinking about, and refining for a little while now. I have other posts in the works, but I keep on coming back to this one, trying to finalise and fully articulate what I actually think about the matter.

If a degree in Anthropology has taught me anything (aside from the fact that it will never be relevant for the purpose of job interviews), it's that human systems are interesting. As myriad and multifarious as the human species itself, and a product of countless iterations of the most complex object we currently know of (that being the squishy lump of fat in our skulls), human culture and society is a source of never-ending brilliance and baffling oddity in equal measure. Ingenious and flexible and enduring.

So why not take inspiration from it? Why not use the massive amounts of scholarly and anecdotal information available to make some vaguely interesting stories for an RPG? Hmm?

(as an aside, I hate the use of the phrase 'why not.' Such as 'why not try one of our tasty new cinnamon sugar bagels, now with added STUFF?' or 'why not treat yourself to a relaxing bath-soak-bubble-bliss-bomb-ball?' (which doesn't sound very relaxing, really) because they're only trying to sell you something. They're only trying to appeal to the part of your brain which says 'oh, people say you should always try new things, even if I think I shouldn't. In fact, if I think I shouldn't then I probably definitely SHOULD.' And don't get me started on the word SHOULD. It's all total garbage.)

Think about gods as concepts, personifications or representations of time, place, object. A manifestation of the anthropic principle. It's the time/place/object's importance to the people that need them which makes a thing sacred. Regardless of whether they exist physically or not, a people's deities are important because the objects around them are significantly intertwined with their lives.

In many RPG systems and settings the presence of belief in a person's life seems all too often to be a mere addendum, a bolt-on to be considered after the fact- the fact itself being the creation of a society or culture in which the belief structure resides. It seems like many settings are merely a secular society much like our own which has merely had a pseudo-feudal veil draped over it. But then feudalism was only considered a right and proper way to govern because of the divine right of monarchs- something people actually had to believe in, or at least pretend they did. More often than not, a set of religious, spiritual, or metaphysical beliefs is quite integral to how the inhabitants of a given culture understand themselves and negotiate their life within this system. The feudal system was intertwined with the idea of 'God and the King', with the church being the reason why most people did anything at all.

And this is heavily linked to how people view their daily lives- the normal and profane sphere of their existence as well as the special and sacred. Consider a more polytheistic or animist setting. A pantheon of deities and spirits specific to one village might be subtly different to one a few miles away. Different saints, different spirits, different festivals, different rites to observe, and different sacrifices to be made. Belief is about culture, and culture can be argued to be a manifestation of a person's deeply held beliefs about themselves and their world. I don't even want to use the word 'religion'. It has too many connotations, and what I'm talking about isn't the 'go to church on Sunday and feel bad for an hour about your life and how you're not living it properly' kind of thing a lot of us are vaguely familiar with (in the anglophone-sphere). With the ideas which I'm trying to get at here science could belong, too (and I mention this specifically as a cultural posture and not the scientific method, which I consider to be different). It's a set of precepts by which you understand the world and how to live within it.

(before I go any further with this, I want to point out that I'm not trying to equate religion and science. I don't want to get into an argument about empiricism and research and evidence or lack thereof when it comes to informing someone about how to conceptualise their world. I'm not going to address how someone comes to have this information, nor whether or not it is 'correct'. I only want to talk about what they do with it and how it influences the way in which they interact with the world, themselves, and others. For the purpose of this post, consider *all* knowledge as an epistemology on an equal footing with any other systemic and intra-dependent system of knowledge. An economist might view the world different to a physicist, a conservationist, a teacher, an artist, etc etc. based on how they think and what they know and believe to be important. In a way, it touches on cognitive linguistics and could be a certain manifestation of the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis.)

The scope of this article is quite huge in an RPG sense. It could be applied to a myriad of things and I could devote hundreds of hours to writing about it. Indeed, more eloquent and informed persons have done so already. I intend to write more on it, but for now I will content myself by suggesting that I think it adds so much more flavour to a setting and makes something in the way of an attempt at verisimilitude, or the approach to something with the appearance of the authentic. I feel it makes a constructed world like that of an RPG setting more cohesive, more real, more engaging.

This book features quite a lot in my thinking on the matter

As does this one. I recommend it- it's pretty interesting.

So, how can this be related to an actual game session or a setting? Imagine a pantheon of spirits and deities which represents the metaphysical beliefs of a single village somewhere in the countryside. I'm thinking along the lines of bucolic deities of the woods, the fields, the mountains, the sea. That kind of thing. Personifications of those forces that lord over the elements, the sky, stars, winds. They reflect the world in which people live, and represent not only aspects of humans and their lives, but also that which is external to society. That is to say, in this context, that the gods are the bridge by which people conceptualise the line between the tame and the wild- that which is civilised and that which is savage. It's a dichotomy that people carry with them at all times, and one which informs the extent of that they consider human or humane, and that which is inhuman, that which is monstrous or unknown or unknowable. They are deities with two sides- the inscrutable aspects of divine beings who are beyond the knowledge of mortal souls.

Mortals honour them, love them, and fear them in equal measure.

I want to continue with my thoughts on this theme in the future, so watch this space, if you're interested in what I think.