D&D 5E Survey: What should the next Magic the Gathering Campaign Setting be?

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Everything has whatever value people are willing to assign to it.

I think this is the basis of our disagreement. What is value? How is it assigned? Are special criteria required for a value considered assigned? Are all assigned values equally viable? How does one discover if one value is more viable than another?

Fortunately, it aint up to you. I'm sure people quake in their boots when you tell them their government aint "legitimate" in your eyes.

Why would I ever desire to make anyone "quake" in his or her boots? I would love to find a way to prove legitimacy can exist besides "might makes right." That would be truly wonderful.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

If something speculative fiction should teach new generations is about the ethical principles of the Natural Law, for example the respect of the human dignity. If the ideas by characters of some work is like Nietzsche's point of view about the Übermensch and the master-slave moral, then these characters have to be reported as psychopaths, as Jofrey Baratheon, Tywn Lannister or Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish from Game of Thrones.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

If something speculative fiction should teach new generations is about the ethical principles of the Natural Law, for example the respect of the human dignity. If the ideas by characters of some work is like Nietzsche's point of view about the Übermensch and the master-slave moral, then these characters have to be reported as psychopaths, as Jofrey Baratheon, Tywn Lannister or Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish from Game of Thrones.

Which is basically virtue ethics, which I think are quite sound, as long as you allow individuals to choose their own heroes.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Cicero said:

There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Cicero said:

There exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.

Cool. I'm all for natural law. But cannot name a single law system actually based on law. I would love to see one proposed, though. It would be fascinating.

Natural law is interesting because it allows nature (god, the physical world, etc.) to assign value rather than individual whim. But I think the process of writing down natural law might corrupt it to the point that it is no longer based natural law, but merely inspired by it.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think this is the basis of our disagreement. What is value? How is it assigned?

It's very simple. Person A says "I will give you my banana in exchange for your apple". Person B says "No. Give me two bananas for my apple". Person A says "Okay". Between them, Person A and Person B have established that the value of one apple is two bananas.

Are special criteria required for a value considered assigned?

No.

Are all assigned values equally viable?

No.

How does one discover if one value is more viable than another?

Easily. If people pay that amount it is viable. If they don't it aint.

Why would I ever desire to make anyone "quake" in his or her boots? I would love to find a way to prove legitimacy can exist besides "might makes right." That would be truly wonderful.

There is no such thing as "legitimacy". It's a meaningless word people use to attack anything they don't like. What matters in government is competence. Yes, some governments are better than others, and it is everyone's responsibility to try and make their government as good as possible. Many governments have little or no military power and rely on the general consent of the people. It's not for me to comment on your government.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

It's very simple. Person A says "I will give you my banana in exchange for your apple". person B says "No. Give me two bananas for my apple". Person A says "Okay". Between them, Person A and Person B have established that the value of one apple is two bananas.

No.

No.

Easily. If people pay that amount it is viable. If they don't it aint.

There is no such thing as "legitimacy". It's a meaningless word people use to attack anything they don't like. What matters in government is competence. Yes, some governments are better than others, and it is everyone's responsibility to try and make their government as good as possible. Many governments have little or no military power and rely on the general consent of the people. It's not for me to comment on your government.

Cool. I absolutely agree with you on an individual, economic level. A person can say, on an objective level. "I value 1kg of oranges at 2 euros, but not 3." But those aren't laws. But I cannot tell you, "The value of 1 kg of oranges and you must buy them. If you don't buy them, you will be penalized."

I disagree that legitimacy is meaningless. You have legitimacy in deciding how much those oranges are worth to you. Likewise, the seller has the same legitimate ability. Therefore, I would say legitimacy is meaningful.

The problems with government is defining what is good. Abortion is a wonderful example. Some see the freedom to abort a fetus is an absolute. Others see the murder of a developing human being as an absolute evil. To choose either side is to impose tyranny, from the perspective of one side. Which is why explaining the legitimacy of government is important - so that the side and that is not been chosen understands why the the other side has the ability to impose their views.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I dunno... Archetype Entertainment was established in April 2019, Odyssey of the Dragonlords was released as a product in PDF form in October 2019, and Mythic Odysseys of Theros doesn't come out until June 2020. WotC will have been in contact with James Ohlen et. al. for well over a year (probably even longer since they had to negotiate contracts and stuff to create Archetype) and have been aware of the Dragonlords product for even longer than that. That's more than enough time in the Theros production pipeline for them to decide to not include an adventure in MOoT.

Interesting! It does seem plausible that they might have veered away from adventures for Theros because of that. Nice synergy if so. I hope the rules in both books are largely compatible, but I suspect they are.

I will note, the whole "Thylean X" thing with races did seem very "Let's not tread on any toes" and future-proofs the races of Odyssey of the Dragonlords, so you could presumably use either the WotC Theros version of Satyr, or the Thylean Satyr, same with Centaur, etc.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There is no such thing as "legitimacy". It's a meaningless word people use to attack anything they don't like.

The rest of your argument is sound, but this is a terrible argument. "Legitimacy" is as valid as any number of other abstract concepts. Like any abstract concept, it is vulnerable to abuse, and is abused in the manner you describe, but it has a real and relevant meaning, that of "conforming to the law or rules", and depending on the context, that can be very important. You say, apparently as an example, that all that matters to a government is competence, and this is demonstrably untrue. A "government" that is set up in defiance of existing law and rules of a given nation will likely have an extremely hard time convincing people to follow laws (even ideologically-aligned factions within the same nation may see it as "optional", at least initially), convincing other nations to cooperate with it (ideologically-aligned and/or unscrupulous ones will make exceptions), and so on, at least until it establishes it's own "rule of law", and yes, legitimacy. Usually by a matter of existing for sufficient time and having some kind of solid-seeming legal system which is fairly consistently followed (and thus has a "rule of law").

And yes, history is full of examples of unscrupulous nations/kingdoms/etc. unfairly accusing other governments of being "illegitimate" (we won't discuss which lest politics be involved, but it's gone on for a very long time), but that doesn't make the concept "meaningless". It has meaning, but is vulnerable to abuse.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

Is there a good primer overviewing the stories of these MtG worlds?
(I could have sworn someone posted a link recently, but I can't find it...?)

My limited exposure to it is as only a game, and so the overarching lore has been lost on me. However, these worlds are certainly interesting, and I'd love to find a quick history of them.