D&D 5E How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?

[hawkeyefan]

Suppose we have the following notion

IFF A and B are true, C is true.

We know it's faulty to conclude that where B is true, C is true; notwithstanding that in some cases where B is true, C is indeed true. (Just those cases where A is also true.)

Supposing further

IFF A and D are true, C is not true.

In this potted construct, B and D are of course my stand-ins for individuals with different preferences. I think it would be perfectly fine to use some neutral label for A... and you have said that -

Perhaps meaning that for you, "Mother May I" is a neutral label. But let's just check what we're labelling...

"Mother May I" rightly labels C, not A.


EDIT A of course being factors like system features that together with B, lead to C.

Sorry, I'm not quite able to parse all of that.... what are the clauses represented by A and B and so on?

 

[clearstream]

Sorry, I'm not quite able to parse all of that.... what are the clauses represented by A and B and so on?

I think one can safely say it failed as an explanation, in that case

 

[Umbran]

Thanks Umbran. While you have vastly more information than us around just how many reports there have been made and the overall context of them I want to offer one point of consideration - while this thread has went off track into nastiness multiple times, overall we do seem to be working through that and are mostly able to get it back on track. You likely already are considering this but I wanted to call it out just in case. Obviously, however much you want to weight this consideration with the other information you have available is solely your prerogative.

Mod Note:
Please do not respond to moderation in-thread. If you have a comment to make, do so in PM with a member of the moderation staff.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Noble background is about being seen as a member of aristocracy. It is not about being personally known. I think it would be pretty transferable among societies that operated analogous class structure. First European visitors to Japan certainly recognised the daimyos as noble lords, and I don't believe the Japanese much questioned the noble credentials of their foreign visitors either.

Now what I find to be a bigger challenge is the assumption of such a class based society in the first place. Not all historical, let alone modern human societies operate in that way. And of course in a fantasy world we also have non-human cultures to deal with. How common such societies must be in the setting for the background to not be unreasonably foiled, and will it need to have any effect on "common folk" or leaders of societies that do not recognise aristocracy? Could it even have negative effects in some circumstances?

 

[clearstream]

I’m Mathy and that was tough for me to follow.

Per my above, an explanation should at least explain (meaning the fault is mine.)

That said, I think it does show rather elegantly that A (features that with B produce C) shouldn't be labelled "Mother May I" because that label belongs with C (the resulting feelings and evoked behaviours).

@hawkeyefan For what it's worth, and I'm not trying to salvage my non-explanation, it does also show why what I've called objective and subjective definitions are distinct. Objective definitions label A with "Mother May I". Subjective definitions label C. But let's not worry about all that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Noble background is about being seen as a member of aristocracy. It is not about being personally known. I think it would be pretty transferable among societies that operated analogous class structure. First European visitors to Japan certainly recognised the daimyos as noble lords, and I don't believe the Japanese much questioned the noble credentials of their foreign visitors either.

Now what I find to be a bigger challenge is the assumption of such a class based society in the first place. Not all historical, let alone modern human societies operate in that way. And of course in a fantasy world we also have non-human cultures to deal with. How common such societies must be in the setting for the background not to be unreasonably foiled and will it need to have nay effect on "common folk" or leaders of societies that do not recognise aristocracy? Could it even have negative effect in some circumstances?

These are all good points. Probably something to discuss when the player says "I want to take the noble background". Have a discussion about what that means in the setting and for the game. If for some reason the setting isn't meant to have some kind of landed aristocracy, then best to modify or remove the Noble background in some way.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan For what it's worth, and I'm not trying to salvage my non-explanation, it does also show why what I've called objective and subjective definitions are distinct. Objective definitions label A with "Mother May I". Subjective definitions label C. But let's not worry about all that.

I appreciate the attempt.

Let me summarize my issue. My comments were not "labeling A with Mother May I". They were labeling A as "susceptible to Mother May I".

I feel you've taken it a step further, which was not my intention.

 

[Maxperson]

No, not at all! There are dozens of examples from the real world, before we even need to get to fictional examples.

There really is nothing implausible about the nobility of a far away land taking a very considered and diplomatic approach to visiting nobility from other lands. It is literally how things developed in the real world.

Sure, and those nobles showed up with men-at-arms, servants, goods, etc. It was an entire train of people that commoners could not match. Not some lone guy with a few scruffy friends showing up and making a claim.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I commented because the idea of the player not getting what he wants so that the table gets what it wants seems contradictory, at least as far that player goes.

How is such conflict resolved?

That is a fair question.
I can only speak to my table - I generally rule according to the table. Can I veto a creative choice on my own, sure - due to a number of reasons such as internal consistency, fictional consistency as well as secret backstory, in the same way that I can nix or bend a rule when a situation arises where the RAW is not clear. Sometimes for the latter I seek counsel from the table - I value their input and they know the setting well enough.

If anything the players usually squabble amongst themselves.

 

[FrogReaver]

I appreciate the attempt.

Let me summarize my issue. My comments were not "labeling A with Mother May I". They were labeling A as "susceptible to Mother May I".

I feel you've taken it a step further, which was not my intention.

If a game is susceptible to mother may - what are you trying to say the game is susceptible to?

I would say the answer there is susceptible to players feeling like they have to ask the DMs permission to do something… is that far off?