Planescape and narrativist play

[Quickleaf]

This is a forked discussion from the 5e thread.

The first thing I'm curious about is how you handled alignment. It seems to me to be integral to Planescape as a setting, but near-fatal to narrativist play - I want to hear how others have squared that circle!

Quick disclaimer: I'm trying to remember back to high school, and, well there is a huge maturity gap...at least I hope so.

So I DMed for two old buddies, one was a LG Sensate aasimar fighter and the other a CG Anarchist tiefling mage/gish. One example of narrativist play was how the characters evolved. The tiefling mage/gish changed from a moody distrustful anti-hero to a devout proxy of the goddess of magic, his alignment gradually switching to LG. Also he switched factions to the Sensates, though it was only clear later that this was genuine (and not an Anarchist ploy), even I didn't know. That change was prompted by conflicts between the two PCs and also dilemmas that I came up with.

One scenario that stands out alignment-wise was trade in sensory stones with horrendous experiences recorded on them, really vile stuff that no one really wanted to ask how it got on the stones. The official Sensate take was that we can learn from these experiences no matter how perverse. The PCs ran into this issue while hunting down a particular sensory stone for another quest, and both of them decided something had to be done.

For the aasimar fighter this was a big deal because (a) it was going against the factol's orders and potentially LG alignment, and (b) it went against the PC's embracing the extreme hedonistic parts of the faction. Basically he said theres a line I won't cross - and this is it.

For the tiefling mage/gish it was a turning point in faction allegiance. It turned out that an Anarchist was involved in the vile sensory stones, hoping to sow chaos among the Sensates. So the mage basically confirmed he was pro-Sensate and felt he was actually serving the factol (who allegedly didn't have the full story), which was a convoluted LG/CG logic.

Anyhow, there's a lot more to the story but I think that's a good starting point for discussion.


P.S. Thanks for the new planescape prefix!

 

[pemerton]

Quickleaf, good stuff.

As you describe it, this sounds like narrativist play - player-driven, based on engaging their thematic concerns via their PCs.

On alignment, it sounds like the players rather than you as GM were interpreting what alignment permits and requires. Which is what narrativist play requires, I think (otherwise the GM is apt to assert force at key moments, by enforcing mechanical alignment).

Assuming that this is what your players were doing, how did that fit with the alignment dimension of the Outer Planes, which seems to require the GM to interpret alignment? Did you downplay that aspect of the Outer Planes, or find some other way of handling it?

With the Faction stuff, it sounds like you downplayed the loyalty/NPC-ish dimensions of the Factions, and had them working as vehicles for the players to pursue their interests in the game. Is that right?

 

[Quickleaf]

Quickleaf, good stuff.

Thanks for taking the time!

On alignment, it sounds like the players rather than you as GM were interpreting what alignment permits and requires. Which is what narrativist play requires, I think (otherwise the GM is apt to assert force at key moments, by enforcing mechanical alignment).

Totally. I didn't see alignment as a straitjacket, but as a set of parameters for what sort of themes would probably be interesting. What's an intriguing conflict for a LG character could be a no-brainer for a CG character, though I'm over simplifying.

Assuming that this is what your players were doing, how did that fit with the alignment dimension of the Outer Planes, which seems to require the GM to interpret alignment? Did you downplay that aspect of the Outer Planes, or find some other way of handling it?

Hmm, not sure I'm totally grokking your question... Do you mean ethics/morals being set in stone in the various planes, such that on Mount Celestia, for example, LG is strictly defined and there is no inter-angel conflict?

I remember we had an adventure where the PCs made the decision to planeshift a gatetown into Elysium. In order to do so thy needed to get the townsfolk to do good deeds - it was a condition of travel in Elysium outlined in Planes of Conflict, and I adapted it for planeshifting. Their dilemma was one of intention - is a good deed done for selfish reasons still carry the same weight as a good deed done for pure reasons. Or are all motives to some degree selfish? The setting books were silent on the matter and I didn't have an absolute answer, so it was up to the players.

They ended up engineering all these opportunities for the townsfolk to do good deeds - which seems ass backwards (they're sabotaging the town!), but it made sense given their belief: intention matters when evaluating the moral weight of an action.

Btw Li Po's Hermitage http://www.pathguy.com/planes.htm has a great take on the outer planes and ways on interpreting alignment.

With the Faction stuff, it sounds like you downplayed the loyalty/NPC-ish dimensions of the Factions, and had them working as vehicles for the players to pursue their interests in the game. Is that right?

You mean the factions as top-down mission givers? We had some of that, more towards the lower levels as the PCs were getting a feel for the Planescape setting, and it seemed to help them get the whole "belief equals reality" meme (and me to get a read on what they were interested in). And sometimes the players just ignored the faction hooks I would drop.

At later levels they were among the top three most important people in their faction (besides the factol), and actually debated several policies with her and opposed a radical sect within the faction. At that point havin them receive mission was pretty rare.

Though, honestly, it was rather challenging having an Anarchist PC - who is against the factions altogether - and come up with cooperative faction missions!

 

[Balesir]

Since this is a separate, dedicated thread I thought I would chime in with 2d worth...

I ran a few sojourns in PlaneScape some while ago - I love the PS setting; it and Birthright actually drew me into running some 2E, even though I was way down on the D&D systems at that time. I also ran some PS in 3.5, but the system, even then, did not really give the setting what I thought it deserved.

We were approaching the setting mainly from a Simulationist angle, but enough tugs came up towards what could have developed into some functional Narrativism (if the campaign had persisted) to make me think that PS could work well as a "Simulationist with support for Narrativist if developed" setting. Looking back now, I am more than ever convinced that is so.

It's true that the setting has no obvious, simple, non-prescribed conflicts from the get-go, but when you start to delve into the ramifications of some of the rules of the planar setting (the initial "Sim" angle), the potential starts to pop out at you. I'll try to explain with examples.

The most memorable event that caused me to realise this was a random encounter. The low level (1st or 2nd?) PCs met a party of devils. Well, they did venture into Ba'ator... Anyway, I found myself trying to rationalise why said devils didn't just kill the PCs - but then I realised I didn't need to! Consider: a devil kills a good/neutral aligned creature many levels lower than itself. What happens? The creature's spirit goes straight to the plane of their deity/belief and joins the forces there. Being a low level creature, the devil doesn't even learn anything (i.e. get experience) from the encounter, either. The devils simply have no reason to kill the PCs - in fact, they actually lose by doing so.

This opens the door for some much more interesting motivations, and also sheds an intriguing light on the much vaunted "Blood War". What the demons and devils really want to do with characters of non-evil alignment is tempt them. Convert them. What better an intro for that than recruiting them to fight evil? Especially if they have some (other) burning "cause" that they want to pursue...

Obviously, this doesn't help with the players generating "issues" that they want to address - but it does give options when setting obstacles/challenges for them that relate to those issues.

Now, those "Factions". I know pemerton baulked at the "philosophers with clubs" line, and that is only reasonable. But that's a confusion of what the factions are, I think. At the time I ran PS I viewed them as essentially like political parties. As I look back I think this is a more profound analogy than I imagined at the time; the PS setting, as a whole, postulates a sort of "democracy of belief". The more 'votes' you can get for your desired state, the closer the local reality will be to it. With that in mind, the factions are very much like political parties in a democratic state. As such, the majority of the "rank and file" are in it basically for the "what's in it for me?" These are the guys the 'traitor seeking' and 'party discipline' stuff is for. Only a minority in the party actually have a well developed model of what the beliefs espoused actually mean and what implications they hold. Not so much "philosophers with clubs" as "philosophers and guys with clubs". The point of getting the "low level" recruits, for the cognoscenti who actually have a coherent belief model and who set the "agenda" for the faction, is to keep them away from competing factions and gain the chance to "educate" (-cum-brainwash) them into the factions' beliefs.

Following up the "democracy of belief", again, brings us to the planes, and 'planar alignment'. The planes, logically, in such a scheme, do not have an "alignment", per se - they simply reflect the belief "votes" of those who live there. The dwellers on Mount Celestia aren't LG because they live on Mount Celestia - Mount Celestia is LG because LG beings live there. Even then, this does not define what LG "is" - it is defined by what these inhabitants believe, and what they believe LG is. If a character were to think their conception of LG fundamentally wrong, whammo - real conflict!

Finally, consider alignments and factions together. The beliefs of the factions are an essentially arbitrary set of beliefs - it is made clear that others have existed, and the current 'set' is subject to change - that are not directly linked to alignment*. This means that we have, potentially, a multi-layered weave of conflict! Not only are there the obvious conflicts between alignments and between factions, there are also (lower key) conflicts along alignment lines within factions ("is brainwashing the rank and file really the best way to pursue faction beliefs?") and faction based conflicts within alignments ("we are all fighting for Law and Good, here, but your 'gods' getting primacy over others "just because" is not acceptable! They are powerful, to be sure, but that doesn't make them special!").

In the end, PlaneScape might not have the obvious 'handles' sometimes seen on Narrativist supporting games, but scratch the surface and I think there is oodles there to go at, for the right group.

* Maybe the "alignments" were once "factions" that got planes of their own - but I digress...

 

[pemerton]

There's interesting stuff here. Some stuff on alignment stuck out in particular.

Do you mean ethics/morals being set in stone in the various planes, such that on Mount Celestia, for example, LG is strictly defined and there is no inter-angel conflict?

I remember we had an adventure where the PCs made the decision to planeshift a gatetown into Elysium. In order to do so thy needed to get the townsfolk to do good deeds - it was a condition of travel in Elysium outlined in Planes of Conflict, and I adapted it for planeshifting. Their dilemma was one of intention - is a good deed done for selfish reasons still carry the same weight as a good deed done for pure reasons. Or are all motives to some degree selfish? The setting books were silent on the matter and I didn't have an absolute answer, so it was up to the players.

Following up the "democracy of belief", again, brings us to the planes, and 'planar alignment'. The planes, logically, in such a scheme, do not have an "alignment", per se - they simply reflect the belief "votes" of those who live there. The dwellers on Mount Celestia aren't LG because they live on Mount Celestia - Mount Celestia is LG because LG beings live there. Even then, this does not define what LG "is" - it is defined by what these inhabitants believe, and what they believe LG is. If a character were to think their conception of LG fundamentally wrong, whammo - real conflict!

I'm getting a picture, here, of play in which alignment is what the players make of it, rather than what the GM makes of it, even when it comes to the Outer Planes.

So Quickleaf's players get to resolve among themselves what it takes to get a gatetown shifted into Elysium.

And in Balesir's account, LG has a sort of dual meaning as an ideal - both what those on Mount Celestia believe, and whatever ideals the player of a PC paladin is striving towards - and there is scope, then, for conflict between these.

Which leads me to another question for Quickleaf - what (if anything) did you use to generate conflict for your players trying the Elysium thing? What was the analogue, in your game, of Balesir's hypothetical dispute between the inhabitants of Celestia, and the PC paladin, disagreeing over what LG really requires.

Also a mechanical question - does 2nd ed drop the original AD&D rules about alignment graphing and penalties for alignment change? Because the discussions of alignment here certainly seem to assume that those rules are not in play. (From memory, 3E dropped the penalty rules but kept the graphing stuff, and so still assumes that the GM is in charge of what alignment really requires.)

 

[TarionzCousin]

In the end, PlaneScape might not have the obvious 'handles' sometimes seen on Narrativist supporting games, but scratch the surface and I think there is oodles there to go at, for the right group.

Feature, not a bug.

I think the Planescape setting strongly tended to challenge PC's beliefs. "Philosophers with clubs" isn't possible without philosophies, and it was great fun to challenge players' preconceptions in a fun, fantastic setting.

 

[GSHamster]

Also a mechanical question - does 2nd ed drop the original AD&D rules about alignment graphing and penalties for alignment change? Because the discussions of alignment here certainly seem to assume that those rules are not in play. (From memory, 3E dropped the penalty rules but kept the graphing stuff, and so still assumes that the GM is in charge of what alignment really requires.)

The key thing here is that there are more planes than alignments. 8 non-neutral alignments, and 16 planes if I recall correctly. So implicitly, the setting has multiple perspectives on each alignment. So you're looking at Mount Celestia's image of Lawful Good versus Bytopia's image. Or even within the deities' realms within.

My sense of Planescape, back when I played it, was that the Good/Evil conflict didn't really come into play. It was sort of taken for granted. The "active" conflicts were more Law vs Chaos, and all the various faction philosophies.

This differs, imo, from most other campaign settings, where Good vs Evil is the major conflict in the game.

 

[Quickleaf]

And in Balesir's account, LG has a sort of dual meaning as an ideal - both what those on Mount Celestia believe, and whatever ideals the player of a PC paladin is striving towards - and there is scope, then, for conflict between these.

Good observation. I think [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] is pointing to the D&D alignments not being the sum total of character ethics and morals.

Actual play example around Mount Celestia:

The aforementioned Sensate fighter was guiding a fallen deva on the road to redemption up Mount Celestia. This required reaching "the holy of holies". However, according to the Planescape source material, the 7th heaven was unknowable. The Sensate fighter decided that the "holy of holies" wasn't the 7th heaven perfection of Law and Goodness, but an inner spirit of purity. Here was a conflict outside of the alignment system.

Which leads me to another question for Quickleaf - what (if anything) did you use to generate conflict for your players trying the Elysium thing? What was the analogue, in your game, of Balesir's hypothetical dispute between the inhabitants of Celestia, and the PC paladin, disagreeing over what LG really requires.

The town they wanted to planeshift into Elysium was already pretty far along toward sliding over, but was held back by several inhabitants who struggled with inner demons and ghosts of the past (at one point these were give life of their own).

So the principal conflict became setting up circumstances specific to those individuals that would give them a chance to let go of their baggage and be the radiant that they truly were. However, they had to be sneaky about it - to *fool* these individuals into purely good acts.

I remember one of the players described it as their PCs playing guardian angels.

We never had any conflict between the PCs and inhabitants of Elysium. I imagine to the inhabitants of Elysium the idea of a separation between intention and deed would be an alien concept. The conflict the PCs experienced - does intention matter with regard to good deeds? - simply wouldnt exist for the petitioners of Elysium.

Also a mechanical question - does 2nd ed drop the original AD&D rules about alignment graphing and penalties for alignment change? Because the discussions of alignment here certainly seem to assume that those rules are not in play. (From memory, 3E dropped the penalty rules but kept the graphing stuff, and so still assumes that the GM is in charge of what alignment really requires.)

IIRC the alignment graphing was an optional part of 2nd edition, though there were XP penalties for alignment change. We talked about it when one of the PCs switched from CG to LG and decided that rule was too punitive for our tastes, and just played out the consequences in game.

 

[pemerton]

IIRC the alignment graphing was an optional part of 2nd edition, though there were XP penalties for alignment change. We talked about it when one of the PCs switched from CG to LG and decided that rule was too punitive for our tastes, and just played out the consequences in game.

I assume that this is the same alignment change that you referred to in your OP.

Did the change happen with the consent of the player? As a sort of consensus at the table? Or by GM decision (I'm assuming not, but I think this is the default D&D assumption - an is explicit in Gygax's AD&D).

 

[Quickleaf]

I assume that this is the same alignment change that you referred to in your OP.

Did the change happen with the consent of the player? As a sort of consensus at the table? Or by GM decision (I'm assuming not, but I think this is the default D&D assumption - an is explicit in Gygax's AD&D).

Yep, the same. It came about thru consensus. I think the fighter's player made a joke which got the mage's player thinking. I agreed and help explain the LG alignment to the mage's player in a more palatable way; he was pretty anti-alignment and had this notion that all LG was the same as Lawful Stupid.