"Narrativist" 9-point alignment

[Manbearcat]

You hardcore narrativists never have much sympathy for we humble vanilla narrativists!

As far as D&D alignment mechanics are concerned, in the sort of game I'm envisaging they all have to be dropped. The mechanics, and even moreso the cosmology, and even moreso the cosmology as read through the lens of Planescape, tend to assume that both law and chaos are compatible with good (and so both Olympus and the Seven Heavens are equally good; and both a dwarf and an elf will register to Detect Good; etc), and hence to assume away the very conflict that I am positing as the focus of the game.

A unilateral GM power to change PC alignments based on the players' play of their characters would also be at odds with a narrativist game.

When I talk about using 9-point alignment I'm certainly talking about the descriptions, not the traditional mechanics.

Yup

Yup

Yup

I think you're right that resolution mechanics would need to be robust, but (given my vanilla proclivities) I don't think the mechanics in question have to involve the sort of reward-for-theme you describe with Inspiration (though nor would your suggestion do any harm!). I'm envisaging a game in which the GM throws out challenge that raise the whole question of wellbeing in connection to social order or its absence, and the players (via their PCs) make action declarations whose resolution pushes things one way or another, both towards or away from wellbeing, and with or without respect for social order.

I've actually worked on hacking a Founding Fathers/American Revolution game (with multiple systems) where positive and negative liberty would be in conflict, and in the midst of that conflict shape the face of revolution and deal with post-war fallout. Most of the time the questions of such things require some form of revolutionary imperative or responsibility of rulership by the PCs (or both). Playing a game where you're on Thomas Jefforson's transformative philosophical journey through revolution and rulership would be quite fun!

Imagine if your paladin Thurgon had rallied the people, defeated the dragon, and restored order, security and prosperity. It is clear that the once goodly king, without a suitable heir, is unfit to rule and maintain that order, security, prosperity. What if it is the will of the layfolk, the clergy, and most of the military that Thurgon claim the throne? What then? Does Thurgon claim the throne with the full knowledge that it will come with a hefty price of further destabilization, bloodshed, an estranged ruling class, and general misery with a kingdom already heavily taxed.

What if Thurgon is then faced with the supernatural pall that is seizing the Iron Tower? If that order of knights isn't restored/helped, who will stand against the always encroaching evil of the untamed borderlands? But there are barely enough soldiers to man the ramparts, as is. Does he re-institute an ancient, unpopular decree to conscript all able-bodied males over 14 in the city and the outlying homesteads? Perhaps there is an executive branch check...maybe a senate where proposed proclamations of war or inquest are debated. Does he unilaterally suspend standard government procedure as a war measure?

What about the refugee problem? And the infrastructure problem? And the problem that the entrenched nobility expect a standard of living, protection, and benefit that is well beyond the means of the post-war crown?

In order to have a functional narrative gaming experience, all of those questions need to be sorted out in play. If the place of Law and Chaos is already established before play (1), then play has become pointless. If the resolution mechanics don't allow for player agency and the snowballing of conflicts such that their fallout distills the answer to the question of the relative merits of Law vs Chaos, through play (2), then play becomes pointless. D&D has historically struggled with 1 due to the constraints of established cosmology. D&D has historically struggled with 2 due to insufficient/incoherent resolution mechanics/PC build tools (such that players can actually and authentically "move units" in play), insufficient player buy-in (typically due to lack of focus and lack of reward/feedback system) and the substitution of GM Force (upending player agency and the "play to find out what happens" angle) where the prior two fall short. Solving 1 and 2 are key imo (4e certainly did its fair share of fixing 1 and 2).

 

[pemerton]

D&D has historically struggled with 2 due to insufficient/incoherent resolution mechanics/PC build tools (such that players can actually and authentically "move units" in play)

I think that somehow you would want to make the game more personal in its focus - which brings those resolution mechanics that D&D does have to the fore - yet establish and maintain the law vs chaos thing.

So I would probably make the focus be on something small-scale - a family, or an small organisation (thieve's guild? wizard's cabal?) - rather than something at the scale of the American Revolution or Jeffersonian government.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think that somehow you would want to make the game more personal in its focus - which brings those resolution mechanics that D&D does have to the fore - yet establish and maintain the law vs chaos thing.

So I would probably make the focus be on something small-scale - a family, or an small organisation (thieve's guild? wizard's cabal?) - rather than something at the scale of the American Revolution or Jeffersonian government.

I think you can zoom in on the small-scale (such as family) and still have the big picture as the backdrop, being inexorably influenced by those micro-conflicts. I think your 4e campaign play reports showed deftness there (micro cosmological concerns proliferating toward macro effect).

Not sure if you've seen it, but consider the HBO mini-series John Adams. Obviously the setting was the American Revolutionary War. However, the thematic material was very focused, very intimate, and very small in scale. D&D, resolution mechanic-wise, would have a difficult row to hoe with some of those themes (such as maintaining your family's welfare/prospects for prosperity vs staying true to your professed belief that all men, especially the low or despised, deserve legal representation and a fair trial....or duty to family vs duty to country) but there are plenty of others that it could manage well enough (particularly the violent parts or the parleys with prospective allies) I think. The problem, I think at least, is that the former is where most of the intimacy and nuance of self-actualization, duty, sacrifice, liberty, and justice resides...and finding a way for those themes to resolve themselves under the auspices of GM-Force-free play procedures.

 

[pemerton]

D&D, resolution mechanic-wise, would have a difficult row to hoe with some of those themes (such as maintaining your family's welfare/prospects for prosperity vs staying true to your professed belief that all men, especially the low or despised, deserve legal representation and a fair trial....or duty to family vs duty to country) but there are plenty of others that it could manage well enough (particularly the violent parts or the parleys with prospective allies) I think. The problem, I think at least, is that the former is where most of the intimacy and nuance of self-actualization, duty, sacrifice, liberty, and justice resides...and finding a way for those themes to resolve themselves under the auspices of GM-Force-free play procedures.

True.

For some reason my mind is wandering to Runequest-style play. Put the family (or other small group) into some sort of conflict or challenge with the kobolds/goblins/ogres: probably not full-on raiding or warfare, which in D&D will probably default very quickly to humanoid-bashing, but semi-political conflict (say, a demand for tribute, or sacrifice) which then puts pressure on the cohesion of the family/village, opens up space for PC (and therefore player) choices that may foster or undermine that cohesion but, until actually resolved (via combat or social conflict), have an uncertain connection to wellbeing (both among the family/villagers, and among the evil humanoids).

The other issue in D&D is that the fragility of low-level PCs (outside of 4e) tends to make expedience an ever-present and rational option. To get around that issue you might have to start at (say) 3rd level, or alternatively use the first couple of levels to warm up and introduce some of the conflicts, rather than directly address them. (This sort of "story not-quite-now, but in a little while once we're all good and ready" is also something of a time-honoured FRPG tradition, although not therefore of necessity a good thing!)

 

[Celebrim]

If the point is that some people might think that the aspirations of LE are in fact desirable (maybe the classical Spartans, or at least a certain stereotyped conception, would be an instance?), and hence will disagree that goodness as defined above (by me, drawing on Gygax) exhausts the permissible ends of human striving, then I agree.

I see this in the D&D framework as being fully equivalent to saying that evil is a permissible and desirable and indeed correct end to human striving even if it is explicitly labeled as evil. Or to put it another way, just because it is evil doesn't mean it is wrong. You keep assuming that it's not possible to celebrate being evil as being the most correct and appropriate approach to life. But that's not even true in the real world, much less in a world were philosophical beliefs sit around the universe as peers at some great round table.

But I don't think the question "Should we label this as good or evil?" makes for very productive play.

I have never suggested that it does.

I am assuming that the sorts of consequences that are the focus of play will be fairly readily identifiable as instances of, or failures of, wellbeing.

This isn't true in the real world, why should it be true in a world where every ends has an advocating force arguing for that end. The powers of Neutral Evil don't concede that their ends are inferior to those of good. The only real difference here is they are more likely to concede that the label 'evil' applies to them, but like Darth Sidious, they don't have to concede that they are in the wrong and any decent evil advocate can make an argument for why "good" and its advocates are worse than evil (less honest, less feeling, more judgmental, more pathetic, etc. depending on exactly what the advocate sees as the means of and reason for evil). Yes, if you have a party that already agrees on the ends but doesn't agree on the means, then yes the "efficacy of means will be thrown into sharp relief". But I think you are glossing over the fact that even the ends are in question with your assertion that arguing about the ends is a "recipe for game-ending arguments". Maybe, but if this is the case, either your player pool probably isn't mature enough to make alignment, philosophy, politics or whatever you want to call it a focus of play because they aren't actually ready for their perceptions to be challenged, or don't have the RP tools for developing characterization that doesn't quickly devolve to violent disagreement.

 

[pemerton]

just because it is evil doesn't mean it is wrong. You keep assuming that it's not possible to celebrate being evil as being the most correct and appropriate approach to life.

In general, "It's evil, therefore it's wrong" is a necessary truth.

There are arguaby some interesting and challenging exceptions, identified by the "dirty hands" approach to political morality, but I think 9-point alignment completely lacks the resources to deal with those approaches (for instance, it draws no distinction between personal and political morality).

But putting those exceptions to one side, one doesn't find many (any?) rational people affirming that what they do is both evil and the right thing to do. (Even in the notorious argument with the Melians, the Athenians don't accept that they are evil. Rather, they deny that they are operating in a context in which moral judgements are applicable.) Supposing for the sake of argument that Satan is acting rationally when he says "Evil, be thou my good" he is clearly using the word "evil" in an ironic fashion. He is not asserting a self-contradiction.

I'm not denying that one could have an interesting RPG campaign that explored the tensions between the claims of morality and the practical exercise of power, but I don't think 9-point alignment has the least contribution to make to such a campaign. Whereas the topic of my OP was to identify what sort of moral thematics 9-point alignment could make to a FRPG campaign.

 

[pemerton]

I think you are glossing over the fact that even the ends are in question with your assertion that arguing about the ends is a "recipe for game-ending arguments". Maybe, but if this is the case, either your player pool probably isn't mature enough to make alignment, philosophy, politics or whatever you want to call it a focus of play because they aren't actually ready for their perceptions to be challenged, or don't have the RP tools for developing characterization that doesn't quickly devolve to violent disagreement.

As I have posted upthread, if I wanted to run a game which focused on debates about ends, I wouldn't use an alignment system that already tells us which ends are the good ones.

 

[Celebrim]

In general, "It's evil, therefore it's wrong" is a necessary truth.

As I said, you've assumed your conclusion and so tossed out the possibility of interesting discussion of the topic within the framework.

There are arguaby some interesting and challenging exceptions, identified by the "dirty hands" approach to political morality, but I think 9-point alignment completely lacks the resources to deal with those approaches (for instance, it draws no distinction between personal and political morality).

Such distinctions have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

But putting those exceptions to one side, one doesn't find many (any?) rational people affirming that what they do is both evil and the right thing to do.

Sure they do. The biker gangs recently in the news believe both that they are evil, adopt the iconography of evil, and also that they are doing the right thing. Loosely, the average self-titled 1%er outlaw biker holds a philosophy that can be described as Chaotic Evil. As one ex-member described it, they don't do violence in order to gain power and wealth, power and wealth are tools whose purpose is to further a life of violence. They believe that they alone are truly alive - "living the life" as they call it - and that everyone else is a fool. Unlike the mafia, they don't believe in a strict hierarchy. The gang doesn't exist to run a business, nor are profits channeled up to a central heirarchy. The individual members are simply free to engage in whatever wanton behavior they desire, calling on their brothers to volunteer to help them further their ends. But this is merely a minor sub-culture I can pick on with little fear of offending someone. The general pattern here is extremely common.

Supposing for the sake of argument that Satan is acting rationally when he says "Evil, be thou my good" he is clearly using the word "evil" in an ironic fashion.

No, he is quite clearly not being ironic, and quite clearly also not contradicting himself.

 

[Hriston]

But I think once you set up a framework that defines good and evil, you've settled the question as to what the proper end of human striving is. If we want the sort of radically anti-egalitarian meritocracy that NE advocates to be on the table as a candidate for moral truth in our game, then we shouldn't start by labelling it evil. Whereas what I'm trying to do is outline an approach to alignment that accepts 9-point alignment as a starting point, including the fact that NE has been labelled as evil and hence already has its moral character settled.

Okay, I didn't quite get that the premise was to accept good and evil as absolute value judgments, which does seem to invalidate the evil approach. I'm not sure that was EGG's intention, but his system does seem to encourage players to choose good alignments for their characters rather than evil. Personally, I find it refreshing to have philosophies resembling social-Darwinism, etc. openly labeled as evil in the game, when in the public discourse of the real world to do so might be considered politically naïve. At least, it wouldn't win any arguments. In light of this, are you planning to limit choice of alignment in your campaign to only good options?

 

[Celebrim]

I think that overall, the bias toward selecting good in the 9 point alignment system is pretty weak. In fact, I've been with several groups that thought it was obvious that you should choose evil under the system, and one that openly mocked anyone that would play good as being foolish. This would seem strange if good was obviously the correct choice.

I think that the most obvious way to see why EGG doesn't bias the choice is to imagine the geometry that EGG employs to describe the cosmos of the multiverse, and that is a great ring. Each of the alignments is a like a peer sitting at round table, none larger, more important or more dominating than any other. This presentation contrasts sharply with traditional Western presentations of the divisions of the dominions of good and evil, in which the dominions of evil are invariably depicted as inferior, circumscribed, beneath, and subjugated. For example, consider the more traditional good positive cosmology in the third party D&D book, 'The Book of the Righteous'. Now, 'The Book of the Righteous' is perhaps my favorite RPG book ever, because of its well realized mythology so well suited to providing a backstory and setting for the average game of D&D. But what it loses compared to The Great Wheel is any sense that evil makes a case for itself worth considering seriously, or that the setting is really meant to or can support evil PCs.

I likewise find it refreshing to see things clearly labeled good and evil, but I don't at all think that that is the end of the matter. Yes, you can quibble over which bucket things are dropped in, but for me that's not the most interesting discussion. Far and away for me the most interesting discussion is after all the buckets are clearly labeled and cataloged, what do you choose? What would you advocate for and how? Because I don't think it all obvious that people do prefer the contents of one bucket over another, or even that the brand label Good strikes everyone as the better marketed label. EGG himself with his biases presents for example Lawful Good in a seemingly contradictory manner, both as 'the best good', but also as one of the most despicable, narrow minded, objectionable, and violent philosophies. And in their own presentations, D&D players often present things similarly - very rarely is a Paladin presented in a truly positive way.

Over 30 years of campaigning with multiple groups, I don't think I could say that I've seen a marked preference among players for Good aligned characters, nor have I seen a marked preference among players for advocating for the bucket 'Good' either in character or out of character. This would be really strange if it were the case that Good was obviously right and correct. What I have seen is a marked preference for Chaotic alignments over Lawful alignments, to the extent that I would be really surprised if a table could maintain an interesting discussion of the merits of Law and Chaos. My suspicion, completely unprovable, is that the strong preference for Chaotic alignments over Lawful ones is a bias resulting from American culture with its preference for radical Individualism.