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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5606452" data-attributes="member: 42582">I knew that you got the quote from the Incredibles. I didn't know that it has been endorsed by Ayn Rand, although that's hardly surprising. In Glibert and Sullivan I assume that it's intended as a gentle mockery of Victorian social mores, but I could be wrong about that - G&S isn't really my thing.But this doesn't actually answer my question, what is the evidence in favour of it? For example, its crucial to some variants of Buddhism that a life free of suffering, and involving only pleasurable experiences, it not only conceivable but attainable. Why should I prefer Ayn Rand over the Buddha as a theorist of valuation?Well, there are some moral traditions that take the view that every person on the street is special, and that it's an error (of lust, or pride, or moral imagination, perhaps) not to treat everyone as one treats one's friends and family - eg Socrates, perhaps Plato, most mainstream religions, many consequentialists.Are they obviously wrong? I don't think so.Again, what's your evidence for this?For example, would I cease to enjoy Graham Greene's novels if everyone wrote as well as Greene? Would I cease to enjoy Tolkien's fantasy if all fantasy novels were as readable and engaging? I don't think so - in fact, I make a point of reading almost no fantasy, because most of it is in my view not very well written, and I try to avoid reading mainstream novels that aren't at least in the ballpark, as far as quality is concerned, of Greene's lesser works.When I have the chance to visit great galleries, I don't make sure to also study up on bad paintings and sculptures so that my tastes won't become jaded by seeing mostly quality works.Of course, the value of positional goods depends upon the contrast that exists between my {car, house, suit, tie, whatever} and yours - but not all goods are positional goods. Not even all consumer goods are, or need be, positional goods. And I would hope that for many people, their relationships with their fellow humans aren't merely or primarily positional goods. And you haven't given me any reason to think that magic items or epic destinies in D&D are (typically, or always) positional goods. Nor have you given me any reason to think that they are the sort of good which will cause jading of taste with excessive exposure.In my experience, the value of magic items and epic destinies in fantasy RPGing is a factor of (i) their contribution to buffing the PC, and (ii) their contribution to enabling the player of the PC to engage the gameworld. The first of these is typically the immediate source of pleasure. The second is what gives an item or a destiny staying power as an element of the game. And it seems to me that the 4e designers have a goal of making sure that both these sources of value are present in epic destinies and at least some magic items.But even if one thinks that the designers have failed at this goal, it wouldn't follow that the value of items or destinies comes from the contrast players draw between them and other fictional elements.</blockquote>

Verification