[GroupDesign] Schrodinger's war: Nailing Axes

[Sydney Freedberg]

I'd like to totally drop the terminology of "axes" and start talking about themes

Generally:

Agreed. We do want defining "mechanics for morality" (in which sense, yes, this is similar to Sorcerer), which does imply we need to define key themes and embody them in mechanics. However, not only is a geometrical model looking more and more like a trap instead of a tool -- as others have said -- but also the idea that every Good Thing must exist in bipolar opposition to another Good Thing (which I've been pushing) may be a mistake.

Specifically:

I'm thinking that we may fall back on the core bipolar opposition being Transcendence -- the terrible, glorious knowledge of the true nature of the universe that sets you apart from mundane human concerns -- versus Humanity -- including both passion and dharma/duty, since both those things are ultimately about strong feelings that tie you to other human beings.

I still feel that Free Will has an important place, because in a game that deals with possession and alteration of history, you cannot avoid the issue of whether you give people freedom to choose: This holds especially true if we want to allow Archivists to reveal themselves (intentionally accidentally) to their Hosts. But our consistent failure to find a satisfying opposite for it may mean there is no clear opposite, at least none that works for this game (despite my earlier insistence there had to be one; wrong again, perhaps). So perhaps the function of "Free Will" is not as one of two opposed poles (the "axis") model, but as the fulcrum on which the Humanity vs. Transcendence opposition is balanced, one choice at a time.

Further, I'd imagine that a Free Will statistic or even mechanic is unnecessary for Archivists, even NPC ones. They're not the ones being manipulated; and for PCs, of course, player protagonism implies unrestricted Free Will.

On the other hand, a Free Will mechanic is necessary for Hosts and other humans (including perhaps human societies as a whole). Specifically, I very much like the idea (which I've raised before) that when the Archivists do not exert control and instead leave a decision up to the Host, or to human society as a whole, that point is the only time in the system when dice come out. Depicting free will by GM decision, i.e. Drama resolution, is too safe, because the GM has a stake in how the story comes out; depicting free will by a die roll, i.e. Fortune Resolution, shows how completely the players have put their fates in the hand of something they can't control: in-game, a human being; in mechanics, a die roll.

[Doug Ruff]

Now, this I can get on board with - Andrew and Sydney, thank you for putting this in better words than I could muster. Contracycle, thank you for pointing out that there must be at least something for the mechanics to stick to.

Sydney, in response to your specifics, yes, Transcendence vs Humanity apears to be at the heart of all this. and Free Will is an important issue.

However, all three of these appear to be inseparable from the possession mechanics, so I need to ask; is it possible to achieve the aim of this thread ("nailing" the crucial Axes/Themes/Whatever) without invoking the possession mechanics?

If it isn't, then I think we need to either move this discussion to Advanced Archivism, or start a new thread which takes the ideas from this thread and Advanced Archivism, and use it to "nail" possession instead - ensuring that these three themes are properly expressed within the mechanic.

Sydney, as acting Foot, are you willing to consider this or call a vote?

[Sydney Freedberg]

Sydney, as acting Foot, are you willing to consider this or call a vote?

I suspect a new thread may be in order. First, though, we should at least "nail" what the key themes are and how they inter-relate -- especially since I think the easiest way to work up not only individual-scale possession mechanics, but also macro-scale history-change mechanics, is to build them on top of the themes.

[digression] (I.e. don't try to figure out an answer to "the PCs killed Hitler in 1923, does that prevent World War II?" because you'll go crazy with chains of causation; instead, figure out how the PCs' actions moved the world towards Humanity or Transcendence and how they affected Free Will, then decide how that thematic change would work itself out in history. Yes, I'm talking Narrativist Time Travel here).[/digression]

Now, I've proposed (a few posts back) that Humanity, Transcendence, and Free Will are the key themes, with Humanity and Transcendence forming a pair of opposites -- in tension with each other although capable of being balanced -- while Free Will is a thing unto itself, without an opposite, acting as the pivot point for everything else. This idea distills a lot of what people have been saying, but it also throws away a lot (including some ideas I struggled very hard to make work, without success). The key question I would put to everyone is: Are we content with this set of themes and relationships among themes, or do we want to keep working on alternatives?

I definitely want to hear from everyone who's contributed to this thread before we move on.

[Doug Ruff]

90% content (which is very good for me!)

The 10% is based on:

- The possibility that Free Will is actually linked to the Humanity/Transcendence, instead of being an isolated "thing unto itself"

(I could post on this now, but I think it will just turn this thread into the "possession" thread again. Sydney, your call as Foot if you want to hear it; I can also PM it to you for a decision on whether it's the right time to discuss this.)

- not sure that Humanity and Transcendence are the best names for the final draft. But for now, they are good enough as we know more or less what these mean.

- Want to allow the possibility that, in the process of working the rest of the game out, other "key" themes may click into place.

In other words, yes, we should continue along these lines - but this is only Nailed as a framework, and not as the 100% finished product. I think that's good enough for now.

[Andrew Morris]

figure out how the PCs' actions moved the world towards Humanity or Transcendence and how they affected Free Will, then decide how that thematic change would work itself out in history. Yes, I'm talking Narrativist Time Travel here).

Nice. It fits better and prevents headaches.

Are we content with this set of themes and relationships among themes, or do we want to keep working on alternatives?

I'm not content, but that doesn't mean much, because while I feel that we are missing something, I can't think of what it is.

Okay, so here's what we've got for themes (fill in anything I left out):

Core Themes
Humanity vs. Transcendance
Free Will

Possible Themes
Chaos vs. Order
Orthodoxy vs. Independence
Sacrifice

And what happened to maintaining a balance? Now that we are moving away from the geometric model it originally pushed us toward, should we be considering "maintaining a balance" as one of the core themes?

[Michael Brazier]

Qualified agreement on Humanity/Transcendence as a key theme -- we need to remember that Transcendence names the Good Thing that Archivists, as such, pursue, while Humanity is all the Good Things that aren't Transcendence (because you find them within history.)  I think the passion/dharma distinction within Humanity would be useful, but it's not in the Core.

Total agreement on Free Will -- that it's a key theme, and that it's not balanced against anything else.  My only quibble is Mr. Freedberg's image of a fulcrum; I'd say Free Will is the whole balancing scale, in which Humanity and Transcendence are weighed.

Andrew Morris: maintaining a balance between Humanity and Transcendence certainly seems to be important, since it practically defines the position of an Archivist ... one can't be an Archivist without being interested in Transcendence, and an Archivist wouldn't try to change history without an interest in Humanity.

[daMoose_Neo]

~_-
Cross-post with HTT/GT Thread:

The topic of aliens came up and Doug made a comment about 'Archivists [who] may no longer be recognisably human, despite their origin on Earth.'

Just a thought: Too much Trancendance and they become so alienly removed they can no longer possess a Host or care to (think trying to use Digital signals with an Analog-only reciever) or too much humanity/compassion they lose sight of their trancended state of mind.

Posting this both places because this *might* be a step onto explaining the Nemesis. We've already agreed for the most part Nemesis are Archivists as well, but how about Archivists taken to an extreme?
The Nemesis could possibly be a 'horde' of these Archivists who have forsaken so much humanity they no longer have their own identity, possessing only the Collective Mind.

In which case, mechanically, we'd still have Humanity and Trancendance as two parts of a scale, with the Archivist finding middle ground, the more sophisticated the Archivist, they more they can draw on both spectrums without slipping into either.

[Sydney Freedberg]

And what happened to maintaining a balance?

I think it's a theme, but an "inevitably emergent" theme rather than an axiom. If you just look at the last few posts, it seems that setting Humanity and Transcendence (agreed we may need new terms...) in dynamic tension with each other inevitably leads to questions of "so what if you go too far in one direction?" -- e.g. the Archivist-turned-alien Nate talks about.

[Doug Ruff]

Re: Free Will

Here's something I PM'd to Sydney as I thought that this might be drawing to a close and I didn't want to drop a bomb on that.

However, there's still some good work going on here, so:

It just strikes me that the whole Transcendence/Humanity thing is so very close to being Will vs Passion.

It's possible to consider a "transcendent" being to be one who has mastered their passions; similarly, Free Will could be considered to be refusing to be ruled by passion (although you can still choose to indulge...)

It may also help to explain why the Archivist is usually assumed to be in charge, unless they allow the Host to exercise Free Will (or the Host overwhelms them with their emotions.)

Because the Archivist is also assumed to be more Transcendent than the Host (this is virtually a definition of Archivist). As the Archivist is also assumed to have a stronger Will, maybe this isn't a coincidence?

So, we have Transcendence and Will on one side of the fence, and Humanity and Passion on the other. I'm proposing that we start from this very general picture, and see how this plays out in terms of possession. Then consider whether these are sufficient (in conjunction with Elasticity) to work out the History angle. If not, we may need some extra themes.

Re: "Alien" Archivists

Posting this both places because this *might* be a step onto explaining the Nemesis. We've already agreed for the most part Nemesis are Archivists as well, but how about Archivists taken to an extreme?
The Nemesis could possibly be a 'horde' of these Archivists who have forsaken so much humanity they no longer have their own identity, possessing only the Collective Mind.

I'd also considered a Collective of wierded-out Archivists as a protagonist, but as a neutral entity, rather than the opposition. However, I think this needs to wait for the (hopefully) upcoming thread on factions. Once we've nailed the HTT and Axes threads, we'll be in a much stronger position to decide what the Nemesis (and any other factions, including Archivists) are up to.

[Sydney Freedberg]

It just strikes me that the whole Transcendence/Humanity thing is so very close to being Will vs Passion. It's possible to consider a "transcendent" being to be one who has mastered their passions; similarly, Free Will could be considered to be refusing to be ruled by passion (although you can still choose to indulge...)

As I PM'd Doug, this is an interesting idea. It may indeed allow us to collapse everything to two poles: Transcendence (knowledge/logos and will) vs. Humanity (passion, duty, dharma, etc.).

I remain wary, however, because this works better for "will" as in "force of will"/"willpower" rather than "will" as in "free will"/"freedom to choose." Although the two concepts are related, they are not identical: Satan in traditional Christian cosmology, or Sauron in Lord of the Rings, as examples, have tremendous willpower, e.g. to dominate others, but arguably very little free will remaining, e.g. to choose to stop being evil shites and redeem themselves.

You can also argue that a defining aspect of being human is the capacity to choose, if only because you are ignorant of the possible outcomes, and that transcendence beyond the human involves submitting oneself to terrible knowledge of terrible necessities.

Thus I think we need rules that can accomodate a being with tremendous willpower and knowledge, yet very little freedom to choose -- because they are so far down the path of good, evil, or Necessity that they  cannot change course -- and conversely an ignorant, weak-willed creature who still can say "yes" or "no" at the critical juncture.

So for now my vote would be stick with Humanity vs. Transcendence as the polar opposition and Free Will as the fulcrum, for now, while remaining open to the idea that Free Will might collapse into transcendence in the future.

{EDITED to correct embarassing spelling errors}

[Doug Ruff]

I remain wary, however, because this works better for will as in "force of will"/"willpower" rather than will as in "free will"/"freedom to choose." Although the two concepts are related, they are not identical: Satan in traditional Christian cosmology, or Sauron in Lord of the Rings, as examples, have tremendous willpower, e.g. to dominate others, but arguably very little free will remaining, e.g. to choose to stop being evil shites and redeem themselves.

High Will, but higher Passion. Both of these BigBads are consumed with Anger and/or Pride.

And Passion can still be harnessed for power over others; if someone with a high Transcendence/Will and high (evil) Passions fights against their nature, they are likely to end up as a trainwreck; but if they decide to throw their Will behind their passion, then look out, world!

Reading this, I realise that it's not the same as my PM - Passion doesn't always oppose Will. Each Passion is a force that drags in one direction only, whereas Will can be exerted in a direction of one's own choosing. But the Hard Choices will usually revolve around a conflict between two or more Passions (Love vs Duty vs Greed vs Revenge!) with the character having to decide where to stake their Will.

OK, possible "lightbulb" moment. When I got frustrated with the whole Axes thing in a previous post, I said that there was no single valid geometric arrangement of "values" that the game should adhere to. Perhaps part of this is because what is a good "value" differs from person to person and is influenced by that person's Passions.

Therefore, the "geometric" model for a particular Scene is actually constructed from the Passions of that Scene's protagonists. Free Will (or Transcendence) is applied as a force upon this model, this determines which Passion (if any) is in the ascendant.

Hmm... this is a lot harder to say than to visualise... I think I'm going to sleep on this!

[Sydney Freedberg]

Satan in traditional Christian cosmology, or Sauron in Lord of the Rings, as examples, have tremendous willpower, e.g. to dominate others, but arguably very little free will remaining, e.g. to choose to stop being evil shites and redeem themselves.

High Will, but higher Passion. Both of these BigBads are consumed with Anger and/or Pride.

Very good point. But how do you deal with the opposite case -- the angelic being or messianistic visionary (e.g. Joan of Arc) who sees What Must Be Done and is driven to do it?

And I will now stop jumping up and down in excitement over Doug's ideas and let everyone else take a shot.

[Doug Ruff]

But how do you deal with the opposite case -- the angelic being or messianistic visionary (e.g. Joan of Arc) who sees What Must Be Done and is driven to do it?

Still High Will, High Passion. In this case, only the Passion is different ("Duty", "Spread the Word", or even "Free my People"). The Passion is still something that constrains your actions - Joan isn't going to be able to side with the English even if she has a good reason to.

But Sydney is right, someone else's turn - I just wanted to answer his question.

[daMoose_Neo]

I think Dougs got something. Passions do drive just about everything some one does. The question is how much control do they have- is it directed Passion (Someone with High Will would be able to direct those passions) or is it aimless (at a loss for a mechanical example).

Passions also have a direct effect on how, I'm going to say how 'we' as humans, view an act.
IE Someone who gives to charity because it benefits them and only because it benefits them is looked at differently than someone who gives even though they're having financial difficulties of their own, even if their contribution is less. (not always, but~)
Or, kind of same case, we unilaterally determine that killing another human being is wrong. However, there are several situations where killing someone in self defense is certainly viable and to a degree acceptable- protecting ones home or family from immediate, physical threats, or soldiers protecting their country. Person A who has delusions of granduer and believes they are God and kills on a whim is viewed differently than a fighter pilot who may have taken out a dozen enemy fighters while in service of their country.

[Michael Brazier]

Hello?  Anyone here?

The only comment I have on Doug Ruff's ideas (other than "Whee!") is that there really ought to be "passions", or something like them, on the Transcendent side of the balance, representing aspects of the terrible glory the Archivists know -- symmetrically to the way that Passions represent aspects of human experience.  (In fact, were the name "Logos" not taken for the Archivists' superhuman powers, I'd claim it for these superhuman drives.)  This gives a way during possessions for Archivists to influence their Host without suppressing their will; the Archivists introduce one of their Transcendent drives into the Host's psyche, balancing it against the Host's Passions.  The Host experiences this as a burst of inspiration, which they can choose to explore or ignore (an act of will simulated by the dice.)

For that matter, Archivists could as easily introduce one of their Passions (as recalled from their human lives) into a Host's psyche, which the Host would experience as an overflowing of the Passion in question, and which they would either master or yield to (again the dice come into play.)