Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jack7" data-source="post: 5194844" data-attributes="member: 54707">A silver tongue can buy a lot of things that money cannot purchase, and gold would never risk.That's an interesting hypothesis CB, and one I hadn't really considered in this way in developing the thread. I don't object to it as unreasonable, but I'll argue it in two different ways.First of all what you can do is "who you are" or at least a large part of it. If you can't do a thing then you can't express that thing as part of your nature. If you can do a thing then you can express it as part of your nature. Therefore what you (your nature) are depends at least to a large degree on what you can or cannot do. If you're a great scientist, you can do science. If you are a great artist, you can do art. If you are a brilliant surgeon, you can do surgery. If you are none of these things, you cannot really "be any of these things." (Though in the future the possibility is always open that you may become most anything you wish with proper effort and practice.) So your actual nature, versus your theoretical nature, is, as far as the world (objectivity) is concerned, and to a large degree how the individual is concerned (subjectivity) is determined by either what you can do, or what you will put effort into doing. (For a man may be capable of many things in theory, but if he attempts only one real thing, then that one real thing is what he will actually become.)Secondly I would say that being able to develop, express, and maintain good relationships is a part of what you can do, not a separate thing from what you do. It is a sub-set of doing things, in this case, developing, maintaining, growing, exploiting (networking), benefiting form, and being of benefit to others through your relationships. We all know those who are good at networking, social skills, and developing (inter)personal relationships. We all know those who are not. I'd argue that those capabilities are part of our "Ability Hoard" and not a separate function. And that we benefit, or don't accordingly. That is to say relationship abilities are part of our nature and develop from our nature, not that our nature develops from our relationships abilities. (I say this because one can become better at relationships through practice and discipline and learning, as one can become stronger through exercise and diet. To me one's nature is all of our innate potentialities, and our abilities are those we actually develop and exploit. So I see "relationships" as developmental. Not necessarily "natural or fixed.) But, just to be fair, I can see that others might consider a "Relationship Hoard" a separate type of treasure altogether, and therefore classify it as "other." Or at least to think of it as a parallel treasure, inter-related to the ability hoard, but someone at the fringes or frontier or edges of the larger hoard. I got no problem with that at all, I just consider relationships as already covered under one's personal "Ability Hoard." Though I will say this, the better we become at a thing, the more it changes our nature. For instance if one becomes really good at relationships, if one becomes a more loving and self-sacrificial person, then that changes our Hoard (by making it more valuable in that way, you might think of hits as exchanging iron for silver, or even as alchemically transmuting lead into gold) and eventually our nature. Or to add a sort of twist upon, "where our heart is, there also is our treasure," I'd also say, "the nature and value of our treasure is a matter of our nature." Improve your nature and improve the nature and worth of your treasure.As an aside, when I say Ability Hoard I basically mean all of those things one can do as a result of innate capabilities (and through the development of innate capabilities), versus all of those things one can do with outside assistance, through possessions, or with the help of tools. That's how I was defining it. But I'm open to hearing other people define these things in their own way. Another thing that occurred to me this morning about the Ability Hoard is this - if one is captured and stripped of all external possessions, with an Ability Hoard you are never without response, capability, or treasure. As a fantasy example I think of Elric. Without Stormbringer he was basically helpless. (Although he did know some magic and maybe this is not the best example because he was by nature physically infirm, but it is an obvious and easy to see example.) But the point is if one has an internal ability hoard, or has developed innate capabilities, then strip him of everything else he possesses and he still remains fully capable. The same cannot be said of that individual who only relies upon other types of treasures, possessions, and capabilities.I've got nothing against that either RR. I think that clever invention, crafting of, and employment of possessions (and I've used a lot of gadgets in my own work over the years) is extremely useful and is a type of skill I'd even classify as part of one's innate Ability Hoard. But if you take away all of those gadgets can you still function and succeed at whatever your objective, mission, or task? Can you survive or even flourish? Strip Batman of his gadgetry and he still succeeds, not because of his gadgetry, or loss thereof, but because his equipment was only a small part of his total ability hoard. But without that part of his hoard he is still fully capable and "armed." I'm saying that most folks oughtta be that way too. Armed and capable regardless of what they carry or don't carry on them. Your real capability oughtta be what you carry around "inside you."Well, this has been a good and interesting discussion.  But I gotta get back to work. See you guys later.</blockquote>

Verification