Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Valen" data-source="post: 169791" data-attributes="member: 4394">I love this idea.  In fact, I love is so much that I registered just so I could reply.  I've been kicking around a variation on this idea for some time, essentially philosopher cities/kingdoms. Disclaimer:  Although I have been kicking around these ideas, I haven't read these books/philosophers for some time and may get a few mixed up.For instance, imagine the PCs encountering Plato's Republic as a living, working kingdom.  It would be ruled by philosopher kings and divided into the gold, silver and bronze (I think it was bronze) castes.  Each citizen would know their place.  This could provide hours of fun as PCs are confronted with having to deal with this regimented society.  Imagine governments based upon other philosophers:Mills Utilitarianism - The PCs enter a hedonistic city where the citizens are expected to do whatever brings them the most pleasure, provided that it does not impose upon the pleasure of others.  Or how about this, the PCs are walking down the street and witness two armed men attacking a third, unarmed man.  The PCs, being good, may step in and help the unarmed man.  The armed men then attack the PCs and are killed (or severely injured).  Now the city guard show up and charge the PCs with a crime, namely the PCs' actions resulted in two men dying when, had they not acted, they would have killed one.  To be acquitted, the PCs must prove that the value of the one life was of greater utility than the other two.Hobbes Leviathan.  Life outside the city walls is nasty brutish and short.  In order to enter the city, everyone must sign a social contract that they will submit to the absolute whims of the sovereign king and that they will obey his every wish and command.  In exchange, the citizenry are protected from one another.  The patrols are great and oppressive, making sure that no one harms another.  The citizenry will not revolt because they prefer draconian governments to anarchy.  What happens when a trusted friend of the PCs is accused of harming another citizen.  Will the PCs violate their social contract and protect their comrade from the sovereign king?II can't remember the name of the philosopher with the "veil of ignorance" idea, but the idea truly lends itself to fantasy.  The idea of the "veil of ignorance" is this: the ideal (or only truly acceptable) government is one that would be chosen by individuals who were under a veil of ignorance in which they did not know their race, background, social status, etc.  Such individual's ignorant of such things, would choose a governmental system that was truly the best for everyone.  Now imagine a kingdom in which the veil is real, a magical device that robs the citizenry of all knowledge of their social status, etc.  The citizens choose a form of government and leaders, and then find out who they are.  This lends itself to all kinds of ideas.  or accusations start to arise that one of the citizens had retained their memory while under the veil...In all, I have fondness for philosophy and I think it can have a great affect on an rpg, not only on the individual character scale, but on a larger campaign world/region scale.  It is ripe with story ideas.  It gives the DM options beyond is this city good or this one is evil.  If the players encounter a war between a good and an evil kingdom, they know immediately who to assist.  If they encounter a war between Hobbes' Leviathan and Mills Utilitarian City, the choice blurs.  Philosophies can stretch across alignments making it possible for a party of LG and CE to work together.  Does anyone else agree that these ideas have potential?  I for one would love to work on such a book.Sorry to ramble on so, but I really think we're on to something....</blockquote>

Verification