A Game of Opposition

[Domriso]

This is an idea I had recently which is interesting to me on a theoretical level, but one which I probably will never use myself. Rather than let it just fester and slowly die in the back of my head, I thought I might share it with everyone!

Good & Evil

Good and Evil, as they are so colloquially known, are rarely understood. To the common mind, there seems little purpose for Evil other than to cause pain and suffering, while Good is there for the betterment of all. Yet Evil continues to exist, suffering continues to bewilder, and pain continues to afflict.

The truth of the matter is stranger than mere hedonism or sadism. All that is known to man and beast, indeed all of existence in the commonly held notion, is most easily explained as a game. Reality is a quirk of possibility given definite form, solidified into form, codified by rules, and left to its own devices.

The Great Game is the most common moniker given to the nature of existence. However it came about, the existential world was created to hold a singular purpose: to determine which side would achieve victory. On the one side there is "the Good," a congenial, camaraderie approach to existence which favors helpfulness and compassion. On the other there is "the Evil," a sadistic, hedonistic approach which pushes its purveyors to overcome their rivals and pursue the case of gratification above all else, the rest be damned.

However, the distinction between these two sides is more than simple morality. If ever were one side to succeed, the whole of existence would be cast into a constant, never-ending abstraction of said traits. The Good would result in a perfect, equal harmony, a time without end in which each piece worked among the others and never felt used or abused. The Evil would result in a constantly changing dystopia, where the constant bid for power and control rendered pleasure of any kind ephemeral and empty.

Most "civilized" folk would agree that the Good would be the best candidate for victory, and that the Evil would be a terrible catastrophe. But the truth is, either possibility means the end, both of future and past.

The universe, existence itself, and even time, all are a simple means to an end, a bubble of order in the infinite potential. Whether it be inscrutable intelligence's, natural possibility, or something completely ineffable, the universe exists, but only for so long as the Great Game goes on. As soon as one side emerges victorious over the other, then pure, abstracted morality will rule forevermore.

But forever is not a concept which the Endless Potential understands. Time itself is simply a form of rule created for this universe to work within, so while "forever" exists in concept for those within it, to that which works in the Endless Potential the universe has only two binary positions: existence or non-existence. If one side succeeds over the other, the universe will be wiped clean; true, there will be a forever within it, but because the results are had, the universe, and all within it, all which has ever happened, will never need have happened, for the question has been answered.

The Great Game is not about whether the Good or the Evil triumphs. It is about whether or not either side can be prevented from winning, if a tenuous balance can be created for all time. Because victory for either side means nothingness for everything, past, present, and future.

Law & Chaos

To this end, the mechanisms within existence must be examined. Throughout the course of time, some of the "rules" of the Great Game have been discovered. For one, the Great Game was never intended to be recognized. By merely acknowledging that there is a victory condition, the universe itself turns against you. This is the first rule: the Great Game must not be known.

Of course, some do know of it. The reason titles and codes exist to speak of the Great Game is because otherwise reality twists to remove the knowledge. Those who know of the game recognize the fact that neither side can be allowed to win. Thus, those players of the game who understand their position are relegated to the position of defenders of the status quo. The Good and the Evil must never be allowed to fall out of balance; if that means you must support the Evil, so be it.

This is the position of those who have come to call themselves the Law. Theirs is knowledge of the Great Game, and they have deigned to fight within the system to ensure its continued existence. However, there are those who become aware of the game and choose to bring about its true end. These are the agents of the Chaos, and they act with full knowledge that their actions further the Endgame. Indeed, that is their goal.

What has resulted is the barely held equilibrium of existence. The agents of the game fight a shadow war, a series of battles never allowed to be known to the public, for that itself would bring revision to reality, a continuance of existence with the memory of the game erased, which serves neither side.

This is the Great Game, and its players be mighty.

[Domriso]

So, quick off to explain, the basic concept is that reality is a game where either Good wins and Evil loses, or Evil wins and Good loses. Once one side wins the universe is eternally abstracted in the perfect form of Good or Evil, depending on which side wins. However, once a victor is crowned, the universe gets wiped from existence, because it no longer has a purpose. Since time only exists within the universe, this is a binary condition: either it always exists, or it never has existed.

Some might say, "Well then obviously balance has been preserved, because reality exists." To which I say, "No."

The contention here is that since the universe exists, it must always exist, but that is only possible by viewing it from within. Once a victory condition is reached, the universe is wiped clean off the board, regardless of the history which it has bequeathed. By the mere virtue of being within the universe, you cannot know if existence has been solidified or wiped.

With that out of the way, we come to another core of the matter: Alignment. This setting would define alignment quite differently.

The first question would be whether or not a character understands the role it plays. If it is unaware of the game, then it is most usually Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis. Law means that the character is actively pursuing a continuation of existence, while Chaos means that the character is actively pursuing its destruction.

Then comes Good versus Evil. A character can be Good or Evil without knowing that they are serving the universal system, but most don't embody either alignment, instead being simply Neutral, tending towards one side or the other. Those which recognize that they must play a role in existence usually choose to remain simply Neutral, supporting whichever side they view as requiring the most help currently, but there are those which pick a specific side to act as an avatar of, specifically because they feel there must always be players which embody a side.

Which brings us to Paladins. This setting would be perfect for the variant Paladins (Slaughter, Tyranny, and Freedom), because each has a specific role and place. Paladins would always, by their nature, be agents of the game, each strict and unyielding in their position. Paladins of Honor (Lawful Good) are agents of the game which recognize that there must be bastions of strength and compassion if Good is to be kept balanced. Paladins of Freedom (Chaotic Good) are agents of the game which choose to promote goodness as perfection, hoping to bring the end of existence with wellness. Paladins of Tyranny (Lawful Evil) recognize that there must always be towers of Evil in the land if Balance is to be had, and they choose to dominate in that field, standing tall amongst the rest. Paladins of Slaughter (Chaotic Evil) desire the end of existence, but believe that pain and suffering is the easiest route to achieve it.

The best part is, misguided individuals can still exist. Take a Paladin of Freedom which truly believes that Good must overwhelm, or a Paladin of Tyranny who wants only to rule and oppress.

In the end, this was mostly a thought experiment I felt the need to share. Perhaps it will spawn some new ideas itself.

[Tovec]

Love the write up. Got a couple of quick questions/notes.

1, it occurred to me that the axis might be backward. You define the law-chaos extreme as "continuation of life vs. the destruction of ALL life" that strikes me as something more understandably good-evil as opposed to law-chaos for most people. Similarly, you defined the good-evil as "harmony vs. constantly changing dystopia" that also strikes me as law-chaos instead. With all of that said, I would think the argument still works as you said it, the struggle is about blue-vs.-orange with green being continuance and red being ultimate destruction. This leads me to my second point.

2, if the "chaos" (red) alignment is about universal destruction, wouldn't that make ALL C characters be anti-continuance. In such a case I see the paladins of X being less vital. If all chaotics seek the end of time, then being CG wouldn't hold a lot of weight. Now, if you switched the alignments (per my 1) then CG and LE kind of swap. In that case, evil is all about universal-destruction. So, LE paladins of tyranny becomes about harmony and ending as opposed to continuation of life/time and dystopia. Similarly, CG of freedom instead are no longer harmony but destruction of all life, and become constant struggle mixed with continuation of life.
Just a thought. If you leave it the axis the way it is, I don't see the C paladins being overly necessary.

There were some other thoughts I had but they've escaped me as of finishing this post, I'll stop by later to see if they come back to me.

[Omeganaut]

That is a very interesting way of reworking the alignment axes. This of course also would imply that the gods all play the game for one goal or another.

[Domriso]

@Tovec

The alignments could definitely be switched. I had honestly only planned for it to explain Good and Evil, with agents for the destruction of the universe and agents for the continuation of the universe, but when writing it up I decided I would throw the terms of Law and Chaos on top, just to keep it cohesive.

@Omeganaut

Ha, I totally forgot that part. In the original idea I had, one of the first creatures to understand the game was a god (being much more powerful and knowledgeable than mortals makes it easier to recognize it) who then explained it to his (or her; doesn't really matter) followers, and was quickly erased and replaced by the game itself. So, millennium down the line, those few who know of the game pay lip service to this first god who sacrificed him/herself to make the game known.

Another aspect I forgot to include, I originally planned on introducing the concept of a category of Outsiders called Enforcers who quite literally only exist as physical manifestations of the Game's rules. They would be somewhat like Inevitables in that they are there to destroy those who break the rules, but they would mostly target those who know of the rules and act differently, one way or the other.

[Omeganaut]

Since law belongs to those who want the game to continue, those enforcers might as well just be Inevitables, unless you had the urge to homebrew replacement monsters.

As for the paladins, the chaotic paladins could simply draw their strength from a "ends justify the means" philosophy wherein the world would be best off in a perfect state (whether they know the game or not), and thus work towards a perfected world where their side (good or evil) is all there is. Lawful are devoted to protecting the world by adding more of their chosen philosophy to balance out the other. Also: lawful has an explicit set of rules, while chaotic is tied to whether their actions help their side or not (aka utilitarian philosophy), meaning that chaotic paladins can easily loose their powers temporarily until they make an act that balances out their error.

This also help give lawful good and evil characters some reason to work together obviously. Chaotic good and evil might work together to disrupt a lawful institution, but would be less likely to band together as probably should be true for chaotic characters anyway. Also, chaotic neutral would mostly work to unbalance existing institutions for personal gain one way or another, and lawful neutral would work for whichever side needs it more. Of course, this means less variety in alignments for an adventuring party unless you want eventual conflict, but I think that's probably more realistic anyways.

[Domriso]

That actually sounds like a good set up for alignments, in my opinion. Less room for interpretation, but better reasons to be certain alignments.

And, yeah, Inevitables probably would work. I just didn't want to step on the toes of the existing fluff for what they stand for. The Enforcers are pretty much just a reskin.

[TheStranger]

I like the idea, but I don't necessarily agree with how you've used the law-chaos axis (or rather, I like the conflict, but not the labels). Preserving the universe doesn't strike me as having any real connection to lawfulness - you could argue that the Game is an inherently chaotic state, and that true order requires one side to win.

If I were to implement this idea, I'd probably drop the law-chaos axis entirely. Instead, I'd have the debate about "winning" vs. perpetuating the game exist, but without the baggage of the Law/Chaos labels.

Also, I think this is a great setting for exploring what Good and Evil actually mean. Although you'd think that Good and Evil are metaphysical certainties in this setting, that's not necessarily true. The universe itself need not give any guidance on how to bring about the end condition, so you can have serious conflicts about what it means to be Good or Evil.

Finally (for now), I'd have the gods (or at least the major gods) be players of the game. The dead god is the only one who told his followers, but they all know. So the Good (or Evil) gods are the ones who actively try to bring about a win for Good (or Evil), and the Neutral gods are invested in continuing the game. They may harbor sympathy to one side or the other, but they feel like "winning" the game isn't worth the cost. Mortals, even powerful or strongly aligned mortals (like paladins), could simply be serving a god, with no knowledge of the stakes.

You could do an interesting, and possibly even more compelling, take on this by having the primary conflict be law/chaos instead of good/evil. So the Lawful win condition would be a single unified society with all beings working towards a common end, and the Chaotic win condition would be absolute individual freedom. Then you could have debate on the Good/Evil axis about what would move the universe closer to one of those goals. For example, can tyranny bend the public to a common cause and enforce unity, or does oppression breed discord by its very nature? Are free debate and democracy vital to a unified society, or does that place too much emphasis on the individual and does allowing the existence of factions within a society prevent the victory of Law? Does chaos mean respecting the freedom of every individual, or does it mean that the strong are free to take what they want?

On another note, this setup gives doomsday cults a good reason to exist: belief that the game can be simplified and therefore won by the removal of all the pieces.

[Domriso]

@ TheStranger

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Like I mentioned in the above post, I mostly threw the Law & Chaos label on as an afterthought, but the original idea was of just Good versus Evil.

I especially like the Doomsday Cults idea. That does make sense as a viable strategy, in this sort of setting

[Alexkubel]

can I just say?

wouldn't doomsday cults work both ways?
I mean, they could either believe in
A: by killing everything someone will win, thus the end will come and we will live in utopia.
or
B: by killing everything no one can win, thus meaning the universe can continue.

[Domriso]

The doomsday cults probably could work either way, but would require slightly different criteria to reach either goal.

If we go with the original idea of the victory conditions being Good or Evil succeeding, then the doomsday cults which wipe out all life in a terrible, sadistic way could cause an Evil victory condition.

On the other hand, a doomsday cult which simply excised all life, without inflicting pain and suffering on said life, would be a neutral act, thereby simply leaving the universe empty and unable to win.

And, on the third hand, if a doomsday cult doesn't wipe all life out, just all life which doesn't support the cult's own ideas, then the result could be any of the three possibilities, because the remaining life could then do whatever it wishes to in order to push victory in one way or the other.

[TheStranger]

Another wrinkle I though of: don't have an afterlife in this setting. Instead, souls are reincarnated (after a year or so to allow time for resurrection, because PCs). The universe only exists to answer this question, so souls are recycled endlessly until an answer is reached. Religions can have various beliefs, which may or may not be true, about how your actions in this life affect your next life. Of course, other religions, to promote behavior that moves the universe towards a win for one side or the other, may teach some type of afterlife that rewards the desired behavior (limit the use of speak with dead, plane shift, etc. so that this can be an open question in-universe).

But a "win" for either side will break that cycle and allow all souls to earn their final rest, in a Rapture-like sort of way. Since the win condition is absolute victory for one side or the other, nobody will be left behind or suffer an unpleasant alternative afterlife. If the victory condition is met, then, by definition, everybody will pass on to the afterlife they want. That gives the doomsday cults a justification beyond simply settling the metaphysical question, and makes the debate between winning the game and perpetuating the universe less one-sided.

Or maybe this makes the conflict too open, instead of being hidden knowledge that could bring about the end of the world? I don't know - just throwing it out there.

[Alexkubel]

I would recommend if you do include reincarnation (it makes sense) for that the player to not be aware of it, and simply give the reincarnated small child a easier learning. also the souls would probably be reset each time, restoring neutrality, and any knowledge of the 'game' removed, though fragments may remain, which could be hints to players it's a reincarnation.

[TheStranger]

I would recommend if you do include reincarnation (it makes sense) for that the player to not be aware of it, and simply give the reincarnated small child a easier learning. also the souls would probably be reset each time, restoring neutrality, and any knowledge of the 'game' removed, though fragments may remain, which could be hints to players it's a reincarnation.

I was imagining that everybody was a reincarnation, because reincarnation was the way things worked in this world. And yes, reincarnation would be pretty much a clean slate. It wouldn't be a provable certainty in-universe at all, but perhaps would be the teaching of many religions. Most D&D religions lean towards "do X, go to afterlife Y;" this would be "existence is a repeated cycle of lives in search of enlightenment/harmony/agency/cake." From a PC perspective, it's simply a matter of "the church of X teaches reincarnation," there's no need to go further than that until it comes up in-game. Of course, since the gods are the "players" of the larger "game", their primary goal is to encourage their followers to act in the desired manner. Some may say there's an afterlife, knowing full well it isn't true, because they think people will do what they want in that case. Others may teach some more or less "safe" version of the truth.

I had a strange vision of a mad scientist god who created a multitude of dimensional pockets of various sizes to test the basic question of whether the conflict between good and evil could be resolved, and whether circumstances mattered. So, universe A is whether Good or Evil can truly triumph in the mind of a single man living on a desert island. Universe B is a small tribe in a forest. Universe C is the same thing on a volcanic archipelago. Universe Z is a massive galactic civilization using sci-fi level magitech. Universe P is a disc on the back of four elephants on the back of a turtle. All to see what universe conditions contribute to an answer being reached - because SCIENCE!

[Domriso]

I love the idea of reincarnation being the basic premise. My thoughts as to reincarnation, to make it a bit more interesting, would to make reincarnation less about specific souls, but more about "soul-lines." In essence, experience is the basis of reality, but reality exists to answer a question, so individuals are simply lumps of perception acting in (and therefore guiding) reality. A "soul," in this case, would be a group of experience, with points of view on certain issues. As such, when someone dies, this experience is "lost" in that it is expended back to the multiverse. However, when a new life is formed it inherits experience, but not necessarily all from one source; hence, there are lines of experience and reincarnation which can go back, well, forever.

This avoids the problem of explaining why people "forget" dying, because it is not individual personalities being reincarnated.

As for the Mad Scientist god... yes. Just yes. That works so perfectly, and it reminds me of Odin making a small bauble of reality to test Ragnarok in The Sandman, which just makes me like it more.