If you replace every plank and nail in a ship...

[jeffh]

Strange that you would not accept the modern usage of the phrase since you are posting in a thread that uses modern language.

I'm accepting the correct usage of the phrase .

On a slightly more serious note, the only way I can make sense of that response is if you're under the impression the correct original use is somehow outdated. That's not the case at all; it still comes up on a daily basis in philosophy.

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm accepting the correct usage of the phrase .

On a slightly more serious note, the only way I can make sense of that response is if you're under the impression the correct original use is somehow outdated. That's not the case at all; it still comes up on a daily basis in philosophy.

Thank you. I appreciate your setting me straight. Original and/or correct usage of that particular phrase aside. . .

. . .you do understand, I hope, that in my own posts I am stating that that I believe that there is an answer to the question that merely hinges on the question I raise as to the definition of the nails and planks?

In your zeal to correct and sebsequently defend your right to correct my use of language, you fail to adequately address my point(s).

 

[skinnydwarf]

A party of PCs is going through the World's Largest Dungeon. If each original member of the party dies and is replaced by a new character so that the party now contains none of its original members or equipment, is it still the same party?

Can a party be transitive? I don't see why not.

For example:

Party at time 1- Has characters 1 2
Then character 1 dies.

Party at time 2- Has characters 2 3 (3 replaced character 1).

At time 2, the party is pretty much the same, right? You wouldn't call it a different party. Only one character died. So "Party at Time 1"="Party at Time 2."

Then character 2 dies.

Party at time 3- Has characters 3 4 (4 replaced character 2).

At time 3, the party is pretty much the same as at time 2, right? You wouldn't call it a different party. Just one different character. So "Party at Time 2"="Party at Time 3."

You can see where this is going. At time 3 the party is entirely made up of characters that were not in the original party.

But I think "Party at time 3" is the same as "Party at time 1."

The same way that we know that if A=B and B=C, then A=C, we know the "Party at time 1"="Party at time 3." This is because the "Party at time 1"="Party at time 2," and "Party at time 2"="Party at time 3." Therefore, "Party at time 1"="Party at time 3".

Of course, this example could be repeated with a larger party and have the same result.

Yeah, I'm a philosophy geek.

 

[Aaron L]

I'm accepting the correct usage of the phrase .

On a slightly more serious note, the only way I can make sense of that response is if you're under the impression the correct original use is somehow outdated. That's not the case at all; it still comes up on a daily basis in philosophy.

I think you are confusing common vernacular usage of a term with its formal usage as technical jargon. The phrase "begs the question" is quite commonly (I would say nearly universally) used just as Mark did in everyday speech by the majority of people in the US, who have no knowledge of its formal philosophical use. There are quite a lot of terms like this, that have different meanings depending on the contect they are used in. But that doesnt make them incorrect.


You can see the term "which begs the question... " in quite a lot of literature stretching back quite a while. Did you wish to go back and tell all of those people they were using the term incorrectly? While it has a specific meaning in philosophical terms, it has a different meaning in everyday usage, one which it has had for quite a while.

This is interesting after reading the "penultimate" thread. While I dont agree with the incorrect use of a word which has a set definition, I think using a phrase which makes sense based on the words in it to be fine. You could exchange "begs" for "demands" but really youd just be pedantic at that point, and either way the meanng is the same, the statement requires that the question be asked.

 

[Cheiromancer]

I'm a philosophy professor, and I prefer to say "raise the question" if a new line of inquiry is being opened up. If I meant the original use, I'd probably tell them they are arguing in a circle. The confusion with the phrase "beg the question" makes it almost unusable nowadays. At least if you are trying to communicate ideas accurately.

With the case of the adventuring party, what if the group played twice a week, but with different campaigns on Tuesday than they play on Saturday. Suppose John's character (one of the "Order of the Thunderbolt") dies near the end of the session on Saturday. On Tuesday he has similarly rotten luck; his PC falls victim to a teleporter trap that sends him to a different prime material plane. Rather than have John roll up a new character for both campaigns, the DM rules that the Tuesday character is introduced to the Saturday group, where he meets a whole new set of comrades (the "Sly Companions"), gets caught up on the backstory there, adopts a new set of campaign goals, etc..

Over the next several weeks a variety of accidents result in all the original PCs from the Tuesday group being transferred to the Saturday group.

Which group can claim to be the Order of the Thunderbolt? If the group in the Saturday campaign met the group from the Tuesday Campaign, couldn't the former say they are the "Real" Thunderbolts? Does the Order of the Thunderbolt exist in two places at once, or did the Tuesday group stop being Thunderbolts at some time (perhaps when the majority of the membership transferred over?)

That's one way of getting the Ship of Thebes thought experiment to work in terms of D&D adventuring groups.

 

[skinnydwarf]

<SNIP>

Which group can claim to be the Order of the Thunderbolt? If the group in the Saturday campaign met the group from the Tuesday Campaign, couldn't the former say they are the "Real" Thunderbolts? Does the Order of the Thunderbolt exist in two places at once, or did the Tuesday group stop being Thunderbolts at some time (perhaps when the majority of the membership transferred over?)

That's one way of getting the Ship of Thebes thought experiment to work in terms of D&D adventuring groups.

Yep, you're a philosophy professor. I miss undergrad (I was a philosophy major). Although law has lots of interesting hypotheticals, as well. None that involve teleportation, unfortunately.

 

[Conaill]

It can well be. Anyone familiar with the Black Company novels? The mercenary company the books center around, the Black Company, is generations old. It's forgotten much of its past, because the Annals detailing where it came from ("We're the Black Company, last of the Free Companies of Khatovar. What the hell's Khatovar?") have been lost.

Continuity can still exist even though the old members are all dead and rotting bones.

Heh - my thoughts exactly.

Note that if you expect a high turnover but would prefer a continuing party, you can actively encourage this type of continuity. Having some type of Annals is not a bad idea. Naming significant magic items after their original PC owner helps too. Backgrounds of new PCs could have a link to the old ones built-in. Not "I'm Moe the Fighter, twin brother of Joe the Fighter who was slain in battle last week", mind you! But the occasional son trying to avenge his father (or vice versa, for that matter) wouldn't be out of place.

If you keep the names of the slain PCs alive within the party, maintaining that feel of continuity should come a lot more natural.

 

[Andor]

This is my grandfather's axe...

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, there's a riddle (I guess you'd call it a koan, since it has no answer) that says, "If you repair a ship gradually until every plank and nail has been replaced and there is no part of the original ship remaining, is it still the same ship?"

I like to add, "And if you take those planks and nails from the original ship and reassemble them elsewhere so it is exactly like the first ship, which one is the original ship? Both? Neither?"

Just something to think about.

The first ship is still the original ship, and the second ship is a new ship, by convention. The former ship had a name, an identity therefore, and that identity was not changed at any point of the gradual replacement. If I then take that pile of parts and craft a ship it is a new creation, and must be christened with it's own name. The fact that it is made out of recycled components does not apply.

Identity is a matter of continuity rather than one of components. The United States is still the United States, even if all the founding fathers are pushing up daisies.

 

[The Lost Muse]

Assuming you have a party of 4 characters, and each character dies one at a time. The original party is version 1.0. Once character dies, and you might get up to version 1.1, or 1.25 (depending on how different a character they are). As each character dies, the version number increases; however, so long as at least one of the original party members is alive, the version is always 1.x. When you get to party version 2.0, you have all new characters. (but it's just a newer, possibly better, party)

Just make sure you don't get to Party Millenium Edition...

 

[tonym]

This question shows why a group of adventurers should always have a party name (e.g., "Party of the Bright Spear"). If the name remains, then any members of that group are still in the same party, even if all the founding members have quit or died.

Look at it this way. If every party member suddenly quit that group and formed a new group with a different name (e.g., "Party of the Iron Axe"), that new group would be a new group, even though it contains all the same members!

But if your party doesn't have a name, it doesn't really matter whether or not it's the same group, because it was never an official group anyway--only a bunch of guys traveling together, swinging swords, looking for gold.

Tony M