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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 7670938" data-attributes="member: 2067">The conceptual problemThis is what you describe as the "conceptual problem", right?I don't see the problem. If it's not self-evident that these qualities are admirable, then it's not self-evident that they carry a necessary implication of "worthiness of admiration," and so they lack that "evaluative" property - they describe an action or a trait, as simply as "chair" describes an object. It's rather trivial to use "generosity" to describe the bare quality of a "liberality in giving or willingness to give" without regarding that as inherently admirable or undesirable. I may say that a generous person is a fool, or that they are a saint, or that they are simply doing as they desire, or that they are generous in accordance with some internal system or that they simply like to give stuff away and I don't care why. The fiend and the celestial can agree that they are markers of generosity - that the person so described is liberal in giving and has a willingness to give - but only one would agree with your assertion that this implies a worthiness of admiration.This is without even getting into the thorny weeds of fantasy languages and cultures - perhaps there's no word in Abyssal for the concept that a player would regard as "Generosity", and so, much like English borrowing the word schadenfreude to describe something it has no word for, the fiend uses the Common phrase "generosity" to describe something it has no word for. Maybe if you wanted to describe someone as "generous" in Abyssal you'd have to use a word that would also mean "spreader of plagues."But put simply, one can describe the trait while acknowledging that there are competing value judgements on that trait and thus have a common basis for understanding without a common basis for values. The Practical ProblemIn PS, you care because to realize your goal, to relieve suffering and vindicate the innocent on a planar scale, you will need to change the minds of those who believe that these goals are wrong or harmful or unacceptable or undesirable in some way (that is your antagonist, and it is an antagonist that cannot simply be slain). These opponents make up a part of that consensus, and when you overcome them and change their beliefs, the consensus shifts to be closer to your own view, thanks to more people agreeing that what you say is true. The consensus is setting material - you can say "I don't care about the Dawn War!" when you play in the Nentir Vale, but that doesn't mean that the Dawn War isn't relevant to other characters in the setting - including other PC's, and/or your antagonists. You can even say "I don't care about the Dawn War!" in the midst of a campaign about a gods vs. primordials war in that setting and you wouldn't stand out - you might be just another mercenary with a handy sword-arm and the Churches aren't the ones threatening to wreck all the nice stuff you're spending their money on. No need to care about the setting material even a little, just point yourself at the things threatening your goal and end 'em. That's possible in PS. You can say "I don't care what other people think!" That doesn't mean that what other people think isn't relevant to other PC's and/or your antagonists. Since the setting is founded on the conceit of a battleground for ideas, it's likely going to affect your character, even if your character is just a well-paid mercenary making practical choices. In this respect, making such a character in PS is a little like the DM saying "We're going to have a campaign about the Dawn War" and the player saying "My character doesn't care about the Dawn War!" You can do it, but you're kind of ignoring the meat of the game. Because this is PS, even if you play a character who doesn't care about what others think, you will wind up affecting how others think, thus subtly changing that consensus. Similarly, in a Dawn War campaign, even a character who doesn't care about the Dawn War will still wind up slaying elementals and helping the gods. That's just the story being told, even if you're not digging deeply into it. And I'd say in both situations, for meta-game reasons, you're better off making a character who is invested in the conflict. 4e D&D has divine power linked to classes; PS has factions whose explicit goals are to change the consensus. In D&D, and rather more strongly in PS's concept of the planes and planar natives, the "force of good" (like the force of any alignment) is a magical mana that can be detected, transmuted, abjured, harnessed, etc. So if that force ceased to exist, that might mean that, for instance, the Talisman of Pure Evil cannot harm any creatures (since no creatures can be considered "good" - good has ceased to exist). Narratively, it might further mean that the upper planes and its residents cease to exist or slowly fade away (since there is no "good soul" that can go there, and people have lost faith in the "force of good" that powers them). The planes in PS are somewhat considered to be made of this nebulous alignment-mana, so without it, the planes powered by it would cease to be planes. If the other alignments don't change, then displaying the qualities of good don't have any more cosmic relevance than displaying the qualities of hunger or boredom or chairs - there is no greater meaning to your altruism, no cosmic force behind your conscience. You would create a world with no heavens, only hells, where the guy who burns down orphanages has cosmic power backing him but those defending the orphans have none. The particulars would probably vary pretty dramatically with the individual DM there, but it'd be a pretty good plot, I think!</blockquote>

Verification