what really does alignment do? It simply posits some very narrow definitions of moral theories that barely even correspond with the sorts of actual real-world things we face as moral agents. Again I direct you to
@pemerton's post #63. What does D&D alignment have to say about a question like "Is it morally acceptable to kill certain people, regardless of concepts of law or justice, in order to promote the good of the whole community?" D&D can say NOTHING on this subject, and where any given GM would come down on a particular instantiation of this question in play is completely arbitrary. Alignment labels will not help you even a tiny bit here. Yet THESE are the sorts of questions that actually face people, especially if they're acting in significant social roles, like as heroes or something like that. This means that alignment is also pretty much toothless in signaling what we want to engage with on this front. It's fine in terms of adding color to your game, the LG party wants the trappings of being 'good guys', the shiny armor, the place in the Sun, etc. Otherwise it's worthless.
Well, first of all, if you read the rules for AW or DW they don't grant any sort of absolute authority, there's no 'rule 0' kind of concept there. Yes, the GM has the job of deciding when a given move is There are a few details with DW bonds that I think could afford to be tweaked that would be helpful. Like, suppose I decline to exercise my "I will defend the halfling no matter what!" in a situation where it OBVIOUSLY should apply. I think that qualifies as resolving the bond, you simply proved that you don't ACTUALLY value that relationship. I note that a lot of DW players don't seem to do this when they probably should. The GM can be pretty instrumental here in making this subsystem really have some heft.
These are two very good posts. I think the second, in particular, is important in relation to DW Bonds. A similar sort of point could be made about Burning Wheel Beliefs.
As you properly point out, AW does say nothing, but it doesn't PRETEND to say something
Here, on the other hand, we find ourselves in disagreement. I'll explain.
The basic structure of AW play is (1) GM makes a soft move, (2) player declares an action for their PC, then either (3a) GM makes a move (soft or hard, as appropriate) in response to (2) or else (3b) player rolls the dice to resolve a move that is triggered by their (2). (3a) will be followed by another (2). (3b) will be followed by (3a) and then another (2).
In this basic structure, the only opportunity that a
player has to resolve the rising action via some sort of climax - even just a local/immediate one - is by triggering a move and hence disrupting the (1), (2), (3a), (2) etc cycle of play.
And there are ultimately only two moves by which players can do that: seizing by force, or seducing /manipulating a NPC. (Going aggro, even if fully successful, still lets the player of the other character have the last word.)
So AW
does say something. I mean, in principle the game could have an action,
when you make a point to someone motivated by your sincere love for them. But it doesn't! The fact that seizing by force, and seducing or manipulating, are the two pathways to finality in resolution is the game saying something about the situations that it presents.
Of course a player can respond to the game's opinion on these matters as they wish - for instance, renounce violence and drive off into the desert sunset - but that's likely to be the end of the game.