The Classical Elements, Alignment, and World-Building

The Four Symbols for the Elements are shown below the Alchemical Figures above, from Johann Daniel Mylius’ Philosophia reformata (1622).

The classical systems of elements popular in the great civilizations are usually known to gamers in quaternity: fire, air, water, and earth.  These four are also popular in the contemporary imagination thanks to the Avatar cartoons.  Adopting conceptions of these has seemed a natural (haha!) move for cosmological mythopoesis.  If you are working on the big picture for a game setting, you can immediately start thinking of these in terms of alignment.  I like doing so using the axis of Chaotic to Lawful.  Keep in mind that I am not being absolutist here and saying that all comprised of these elements are Chaotic or Lawful, but that the preponderance of an element seems to tend in a particular direction.  Asking myself what would be the archetypal nature of each element in terms of alignment, I find myself with the table below:

Four Elements	Alignment
FIRE	Chaotic
AIR	Chaotic
WATER	Chaotic
EARTH	Lawful

This is telling for me in two ways: first, the physical world is more aligned with Chaos than it is with Law.  Moreover, the element closest to humanity (humus-human or earth-men) is Law.  Hence, humans, (and for that matter, dwarves) are usually tied more closely to Law in RPG materials because they are tied to, and perhaps even primarily composed of, earth.  "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Genesis 2:7).  If they are primarily of the element which stands in contrast to the rest of the elements alignment-wise, this is a source of conflict.  There is a problem, however, when it comes to these four elements being enough to comprise the cosmos.  Air-atmosphere is one thing, but what about those heavenly or spiritual substances that are not material or physical?  Those that are literally no-thing?  If the atmosphere and its winds are chaotic, are not the heavenly orderly?  Don't the heavenly bodies provide the regular movements by which we may measure the terrestrial bodies below?  Is not the King of Heaven a deity of Law, the Law-giver himself?

These considerations bring us to face-to-face with the fact that many, if not most, many versions of the classical elements total five rather than four.  Consider the refinement below, which will use the letter Q to stand for the fifth, derived from Aristotle's quintessence.  


Five-Element System

Q	Lawful
FIRE	Chaotic
AIR	Chaotic
WATER	Chaotic
EARTH	Lawful

This schema might seem like just a Western variant, or perhaps even too Christian, but comparison to Indian, Japanese, and Tibetan systems reveal that it is not uniquely Aristotlean or Judeo-Christian.  (NB. I find the sections on Buddhism and China most inadequate and even confused/confusing and advise you to look further afield rather than make too many assumptions based on that portion of the Wikipedia entry.)  The system of five elements is dealing with questions and problems of thought that the fourfold system was insufficient to deal with.  Air needed to be split up to account for the kinds of questions above and beliefs about the realm above the dome of the sky.  You may call Q as best fits with your mythopoesis, but note the terms used for it in the past: Void, Heaven, Space, Aether, Spirit.  As we have moved from ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, we found a need to distinguish what was once a single word: wind/breath/spirit.  While the winds of the air blow where they will, the heavenly spirits proceed in the stately movement of their spheres -- precise and predictable. And note that, even in the world of Avatar, the story can't leave well enough (supposedly, four) alone.  The avatar (incarnate in a particular element-bender) can achieve an Avatar-state, and in addition to the standard four there is energy bending.

Image Source

A five-element cosmology still provides for plenty of conflict (three-fifths of the categories of all things are fundamentally against us?!) and for the idea that there is some connection between a transcendent Law and its reflection on earth.  For those who do not divide the elements into five but retained the four-element system, I would recognize the "split" within Air by saying that the element is Neutral.

Next time: Using this general conception of world building with gaming particulars.

Religion in Games

This Mythopoeic Monday sees post #400!  Huzzah!

In honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, it is fitting to have an explicitly religious posting today.  A friend of mind recently directed me to three videos on Penny Arcade TV.  In my professional work, I've given a lot of consideration to the issues around faith and rationality, and I've witnessed a lot of close-minded vitriol from those who are convinced that they know what, for example, science and religion are all about, and are unable to entertain any challenging or broadening of the mind.  So I was impressed at what the folks at PATV put together, but not as surprised as they were by the response their videos garnered.

So for a very good perspective on what faith is, on the relationship between faith and science, and for some starting points for consideration of how one includes these in one's gaming, check out these videos.  Though the videos are made with an eye towards video games, they can just as well inspire your thinking about religion in your RPG.

*

Religion in Games Part I
Religion in Games Part II
God Does Not Play Dice

Taijitu, Yinyang, and D&D Alignment

It's always fun when your readers are interested in something you are interested in, and perhaps even more fun when it's a reader that you know.  Perspicacious comments are pleasing!  So I was happy to see Paris' comments on Y is for YINYANG, yesterday.  Initially, he notes that the principles of motion and interactive arising would make it "challenging to equate Yang to Law and Yin to Chaos without describing a cosmology in which the one eventually changes to form the other."  He then goes on to reflect on an aspect of Pathfinder's Golarion setting to do just that.  There are a few responses I'd like to make vis-a-vis Paris' comments that I hope might develop what I have in mind and perhaps shed further light on my understanding of Yin-and-Yang and the Great Dao.

First, Yin and Yang are not opposing forces (I note, Paris, you said "supposedly").  They are complementary opposites, and so can only be in opposition of a very special kind.  This fits with a Neutral view of a threefold alignment universe.  The proponents of Law and of Chaos each take their side to be the the rightful whole, and the other side its destruction, which itself needs to be destroyed (in ways keeping with its alignment).  Neutrality would view all things as arising from the interaction between Law and Chaos, with both being necessary.  Balance would not be a stasis between them, but needful disintegration of order and ordering of chaos.  While forces and individuals who side with one against the other would resist every instance of this, those who understood its necessity would work for the best outcomes and overall balance.  So a cosmology in which Law and Chaos were constantly in motion, rising and falling, would be a feature of what I was envisioning.  I take it that Law and Chaos do give rise to one another, and that like any of the pairs of complementary opposites in my example chart below, if one were to dominate   it would be detrimental.  Like the perspectives of Confucianism and Daoism themselves, one might argue that Chinese civilization flourished when the two were in harmony.

YIN	YANG
Low Wet Female Soft Cold Dark Unseen Negative	High Dry Male Hard Hot Light Seen Positive

I have some passages from the Daodejing (Tao Te Ching) in mind as I write this.  Sadly, my two translations were destroyed last year and this semester I taught out of the class anthology without replacing them, therefore this post does not have the quotations I would have liked to use.  Let me finally note that, for such a system to work from my point-of-view, Good and Evil in their moral or ultimate senses could not be sorted as Yang-Yin.  I believe that philosophical Daoism agrees with me here, as well.  Maybe I will revisit this topic at some future date and include some quotations.  I also noted that at least one other A-Z blogger this year shared my interest.  Yay!

Those lucky South Koreans and their awesome flag...

Y is for YINYANG

Posting unexpectedly from out-of-town. It helps one discover how much one hates the iPhone blogger app.

Yinyang, or yin and yang as we tend to say it in English, is the theoretical complementarity of opposites in Chinese tradition such as Daosim and Confucianism. It is famously recognized (though hardly ever correctly named) in the taijitu (great power diagram) symbol.

The symbol has been used in mythopoesis by author Robert Jordan. The symbol could be used by gamers who play with a three alignment system, especially one where they do not equate Law and Chaos with Good and Evil. Law as Yang and Chaos as Yin would make the taijitu the perfect symbol for Neutral alignment. I've been playing around a little for how I might use this in my Ygg setting. More to come on that, soon.

W is for WONDER

Tarantulla Nebula from the Hubble Spacescope, Courtesy of NASA.

One of the basic human responses is wonder.  It's an inner state, a mood or attitude, that seems to have an accompanying emotion that can be very intense.  There are also certain thoughts that go along with it.  The external universe elicits these thoughts with its size, beauty, complexity, and simplicity.  But just as we know from our own internal experience that the seen has unseen behind it, so we suspect that the external universe hides even as it expresses mystery.  I'm not sure if WOW! is a thought or not, but the inner state produces questions, so we often use it as a verb and say, "I wonder what/if/etc."

Why is there something rather than nothing?  Why are these the somethings that are and not some others?  Wonder is a crucial part of religion, philosophy, art -- and especially fantastical fiction.  We express our sense of wonder in science, in worship, and in the sub-creation of worlds that have the inner consistency of reality.  What other animal wonders?

Here's wishing you all the wonder you want, and then a bit more to surprise you at just the right moments.

S if for SAGE

The images of Zeno of Citium and Confucius provide two strongly contrasting images of the sage from two classical societies that valued the wisdom of the wise, while disagreeing internally over the nature of wisdom and the man who wielded it.  The sage is important in the real, external world as the rare possessor of valuable knowledge.  They have a correspondingly high place in our internal and secondary worlds.  For Jungian investigations, you will want to look under the term senex.  Both as teachers and as figures, their value extends beyond their lifetimes.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world?


1 Cor 1:20

Correspondingly, the sage has had an important role in fantasy role-playing, as well -- both in the primary world of the player or gamer, and in the secondary world of the game or characters.  There is the sage who knows the way of gaming, and so dispenses wisdom to the gamers.  The late Jean Wells was one of the original sages, dispensing wisdom in our Dragon Magazine feature, Sage Advice.  There are also sages as NPCs in the game itself.  They serve as an expensive resource for characters who need help solving a problem with knowledge to which they have no other access.  They can also serve as a nice plot device for GMs who want to present players with an option for play.

Sages to the Seventh Power
If one sage is good, then seven sages must be awesome.  Many cultures have thought so.  Sumeria had theirs.  Ancient India had the saptarishi.  Pre-Socratic Greece had their seven sages.  Three Kingdoms China had their Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove.  Finally, there is the fascinating case of the fictional Seven Sages of Rome, a cycle of early European romances that appear to have Sanskrit, Persian, and Hebrew origins.  This makes me want to create my own council of the wise!

K is for KNOWLEDGE

People make all kinds of claims, constantly.  The ability to analyze claims and exchange them in fair and civil ways does not seem to be thriving.  Instead, shouting slogans flourishes.  Maybe that makes philosophy not only a faint hope, but a public service.

Epistemology is the study of the nature and conditions of knowledge.  Western philosophy since Plato (or Socrates -- not sure we'll ever know which) has, by and large, offered a classic epistemic package that may be summed up thusly:


Belief that is True and Justified is Knowledge.  K = JTB.

On this understanding, when people claim to have not beliefs but knowledge, they are confused.  They have beliefs, and are attempting to bypass the asked-for account that presents a rational account for the probability that their beliefs are both True and Justified.  They're either unconscious of what they are doing or they are intellectual cheats if they simply assert there knowledge against your belief.  Putting adjectives in front of them, like say scientific knowledge versus religious belief, only dresses up the attempted epistemic crime.  While you may be practically justified in having a belief you can't give an adequate justificatory account for, when arguing, account for the claim or shut up.  Don't just assert with more force.

The classic epistemic package: may it live another few thousand years at least, triumphing over postmodern, politically-dominated, and post-colonial BS excuses for epistemology -- and over Gettier-type objections.  Hears to hoping we all grow in knowledge.