D&D 5E The Multiverse is back....

[I'm A Banana]

At least in the Real World, it's functionally impossible to tell objectively if they are flawed or not. There's no definition of "right" and "wrong" that isn't culturally, personally, and temporally bound, making those principles open to interpretation and open to debate (because one person's position to determine right and wrong isn't in any way privileged over another person's) and open to change (what is wrong in 1345 AD is different than what is wrong in 2014 AD).

As I've already mentioned upthread, this claim is hugely contentious among contemorary analytic moral philosopher, and is denied by the mainstream.

One of the important words I used was "functionally." Most people aren't contemporary mainstream analytic moral philosophers, nor do they have one handy to tell them what moral decision they should make (nor, actually, do I know of any contemporary mainstream analytic moral philosophers who bother to offer their counseling services to those who desire to answer moral questions objectively). Of course, there's little reason for me to accept that all contemporary mainstream analytic moral philosophers have any kind of truly objective moral code (you've stated that there is, but by way of evidence just directed me to academic journals -- the closest I've gotten in my outsiders perspective is some "science of morality" stuff that is pretty significantly flawed), but even accepting the proposition, that doesn't make such a code functionally useful to anyone in actual decision-making.

This is part of how PS resembles the real world in its conflicts. No one can tell you what you "ought" to do with any true authority. It is up to the player to determine what they feel is right and wrong, based on the goals that they set for the multiverse via their character.

Anyone who has trouble accepting that premise certainly would have problems playing a Planescape game, just as someone who had trouble accepting the premise of a magical university hidden in England would have trouble reading Harry Potter. Even from those who believe there is an objective moral truth in the Real World, PS would like you to suspend that belief for this setting. (I don't think I've actually ever played more than one session of PS without a predominantly religious player base, FWIW, so I've certainly seen people who believe in an obvious and functional objective morality willing to entertain the idea that in this game, the answers are less clear. In part, I think, because PS characters think about things as people functionally think about these things, but they have little risk of being "wrong" due to the multiverse not having an objective viewpoint on what "wrong" is.)

 

[Parmandur]

Again, I like the Grwat Wheel, think it is fun, Modrons and Sigil included. But under no analytical model is it anything other than a cartoon.

But I like cartoons, too.

 

[Parmandur]

Positing an objective basis for morality dose not mean that it is obvious; ethical arguments get as convoluted as theoretical physics.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Positing an objective basis for morality dose not mean that it is obvious; ethical arguments get as convoluted as theoretical physics.

Of course, physics is a description of what is, which spares it from the problem of trying to objectively define what ought to be. Physics has no telos, no goal, no further purpose for which to describe things. It is a description only.

 

[Parmandur]

Of course, physics is a description of what is, which spares it from the problem of trying to objectively define what ought to be. Physics has no telos, no goal, no further purpose for which to describe things. It is a description only.

Key point there is "description." Many would argue that it is impossible to break through into the actuality of what *is* with the model; even if that is the case, that does not disprove that there is an *is* to be found.

 

[Parmandur]

Again, not suggesting there is some perfect model in circulation.

But if I take the 7 habits of highly effective people to heart, it might make me somewhat more effective, and if I follow the eating advice of J. J. Virgin, I might shed a pound or two. Those...are more relevant facts based on observing reality than String Theory, even if it is less strictly empirical.

 

[Remathilis]

Note just for clarity. No one is arguing for a "no flavour" core. That's Remalthaus's personal strawman. What I want is a "setting light" core where favor is not set in stone. I want qualifiers like "sages believe" or "tavern tales say". That sort of thing.

First off, Remathilis. Re Ma Thil Is. Remy if you want to shorten it

Now, I don't see much different from what we have and what you want. Always assume "Sages believed" and such things are right up there with Rule 0 in the "things we shouldn't have to spell out"

Really, there is little difference between "Kobolds are small reptilian humanoids that worship dragons" and "Kobolds are small reptilian humanoids that some say worship dragons." Any DM worth his salt shouldn't need that spelled out.

Remalthalis mentions the Eye and Hand of Vecna as an example of D&D's story. Thing is, in thirty years of gaming, under dozens of DM's, and as a DM for years as well, I've never once seen either used in the game. Not once. I've never even heard gaming stories, outside of jokes about the Head of Vecna, of anyone using either. Heck, there's a couple of centuries worth of DMing experience between the people in this thread alone - have any of you used or seen used, either the Hand or Eye of Vecna? Has anyone seen it used more than once?

Does playing through Die Vecna Die count? If so, I did with my namesake PC.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Key point there is "description." Many would argue that it is impossible to break through into the actuality of what *is* with the model; even if that is the case, that does not disprove that there is an *is* to be found.

I can't really parse this paragraph, but you seem to be implying that we need something more than physics to "break through into the actualy of what *is*," which isn't really here or there. I'm just saying it's not unreasonable for someone to play a D&D game in PS where morality is not objective, as this reflects how people often make moral decisions in the real world (even if the real world does have objective morality).

 

[Parmandur]

I can't really parse this paragraph, but you seem to be implying that we need something more than physics to "break through into the actualy of what *is*," which isn't really here or there. I'm just saying it's not unreasonable for someone to play a D&D game in PS where morality is not objective, as this reflects how people often make moral decisions in the real world (even if the real world does have objective morality).

Thomas Kuhn, among others argues that the model and the modelled shouldn't be confused. By my reading, he doesn't believe it is possible to actually know physical reality, since all we have are models. Doesn't mean physical reality doesn't exist, if we don't have a handle on it.

 

[Lord Blackstone]

I'm a little behind on my 5E-isms; was there something that explicitly said that Tiamat and Takhisis are the same entity?

The Dragon Orb preview.