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.

Hit points and abstraction. A flexible narrative device, or unhelpful meta-gaming?

The situation as it is

So, I quite like D&D as a system, but one of the things I really would rather do without is the hit points. I feel like it does a couple of things which I would argue are detrimental. As follows.

One- it encourages too much in the way of the 'reduce to zero' kind of thinking prevalent in RPGs and games. It's a whole mentality. Imagine the scene. You're in Skyrim and you see a wolf in the woods. It just fucking COMES AT you and WILL NOT STOP until you've battered it to death. Even if you land a solid hit to its nose with a war hammer or set its pelt on fire it just won't leave you alone. It won't run skulking off into the woods never to bother you again. It hasn't learned its lesson not to bother heavily armed travelers on lonely roads through the wilderness. Even if it does run the other way, it will regroup and COME BACK. The idiot. Either that or you'll be compelled to run after it and continue to batter it until it can't run anymore, then you steal its fur and for some reason a gold coin it was carrying (where??).

I mean, the specific gripe I have here is enemy AI in games but in the context of player-game mentality, it reinforces the idea that they have to kill everything. This way, killing means a neat and tidy job of reducing things to zero hit points whereafter they pose no threat and can be conveniently looted.

It's an endangered species you dick. Just leave it alone.

But really, things can take quite a long time to die. For me, reaching zero hit points and lapsing straight into unconsciousness fails to reflect that brutal but necessary moment when you beat an opponent into the floor after inflicting upon them a series of increasingly grievous injuries and, once they're lying helpless on the floor, begging and blubbering for mercy or defiantly cursing your name, you run them through and finish the job. Or you could just leave them to die. It's more unsavoury. More realistic.

I feel it would be a little like this.

Two- I get that it can represent an abstract system of fatigue, bruising, and whatnot, but it's not ... fun. I can't look at hit points on a character sheet and get an accurate depiction of what state my character is in. Maybe it's because I'm more of a visual person and I really like the idea of cards detailing abilities, equipment, and effects arrayed in front of me in picture form rather than scrawled on a character sheet in an incomprehensible list, complete with smudgy eraser marks. It makes for an easier and more enjoyable game (in my opinion) if you can give a card to a player and it has the effect right there on it, complete with a neat little picture.

Another way

So, the alternative? Something a little less abstract, perhaps. I haven't really had a chance to test this, but I feel like it could work. It could be fun. Though I can't figure out if it would make combat more deadly, or less so. I'm always in favour of upping the deadly.

Injury- There are already plenty of injury-based systems around, but I'd rather like to create my own. I'm not very well read when it comes to RPG systems specifically (it's more the lore and story I'm interested in, to be honest) but I'm wanting to come up with something at least fun if not workable.

So, AC can still come into play, and to-hit mechanics would have to overcome the AC of their target, but if a hit is made, no hit points are lost because there are none to lose. Instead, the player rolls an injury die. Depending on their toughness, or their evasiveness, or their training, they roll. A d4 reflects a squishy character without toughness, instinct, or training (perhaps a magic-user), whereas a 10 represents someone almost untouchable. I mean, this is a putative mechanic at the moment. It feels a little unbalanced, but it can be changed, of course.

On a roll of 1, or maybe even a 1 or 2, the player sustains an injury, determined at random by drawing a card. Could be anything, from getting a lacerated artery to merely a flesh wound. Preferably, the nastier the better. Some early ideas include...

• Lacerated artery (time): Something hit just the wrong spot. -1 con and a fortitude save per turn. On a roll of 0 or less, you fall unconscious and continue to lose con until dead. A successful heal check will staunch the bleeding and limit further con loss.
• Gouged eye: Some bastard got you right in the eye. The injury could be permanent, but only time will tell. -1d6 wis and half any perception roll.
• Torso stab: Your core strength has been seriously compromised. -1d4 str, -1d4 con.
• Bashed in the head: -1d6 int, wis, and/or cha. Fortitude save or fall prone.
• Ear-whack: Momentarily disorientated. Left with a ringing and a rattling. Might need a sit down.
• Fractured arm: One or more bones in your arm seem ... crunchy. -1d6 str and -1d6 dex.
• Fractured leg: One or more bones in your leg seem ... scrape, scrape. Crunch. Oooargh... -1d6 dex, 50% movement, no dex to AC.
• Missing chunk: Something took a big bite. -1d6 con.
• Gored: Something pointy has ripped you open. It really hurts. -1d6 str, dex, and con.
• Just a flesh wound: But it still really hurts. -1d4 str, dex, or con.
• Bleeding: Something in you is gushing quite a lot of blood. -1d4 con per turn until staunched.
• Fatigued or Exhausted: Not necessarily an injury, but an effect that could come into play once too many minor injuries are sustained. Perhaps.

Furthermore, there could be a list of grievous injuries that a player might sustain if something gets them really bad (critical hit or something really, really big). They could come with a suite of their own regular injuries as standard.

• Cracked skull: Fort save every turn or fall unconscious, -1d6 int, wis.
• Loss of limb: Lose use of limb, Bleeding
• Disembowelment: Organs are spilling. Hold them in or you might snuff it pretty quickly.
• Crushed bones: Not just a simple fracture
• Impaled: Cannot move. -1d6 dex and con. If removed, apply Bleeding.
• Cut throat: -1d6 con per turn. Save fort or fall unconscious.

You get the idea. They would of course come with fully articulated effects and a nice hand-drawn illustration.

Mandatory illustrative diagram

This would mean players who have taken a bit of a beating would be able to continue the adventure, probably. Healing ability loss as a result of broken bones etc would take longer than the average gaming session, so it might make players choose their fights a little more carefully, and role-play their way out of potentially deadly combat encounters. I don't want to force players to do things, though. I just think it would be more fun, and encourage more creative thinking.

Further implications for game mechanics could come into play. New feats could allow players to shrug off one injury per day, or per encounter, or up their injury die to the next level.

• Tough: +1 injury die type
• Really tough: A further +1
• Huge and tough: Another +1

• Canny: +1
• Really canny: +1
• Foxy bastard: +1

• Combat Training: +1 die type

• Deadly: Allows player to reduce opponent die type by 1. But that seems a little powerful.

Different injury die- Gregor might have a d10, poor Oberyn might be stuck on a d6.

Barbarian rage could allow the player to temporarily ignore the effects of any injury, making it possible to sustain a lot of damage until it wears off, at which point they might immediately drop down dead. Hmmm... Many possibilities.

Anyway, I feel like a system of this sort could have positive effects on gameplay, in making character sheets simpler and more streamlined. And although this system is more complex than hit points, it can be implemented in a way that makes it more interesting. Far more interesting.

I'll follow up on this in the future. A more concrete system, and some nice little injury cards to download.