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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="empireofchaos" data-source="post: 6749394" data-attributes="member: 6800918">The same would apply to the Fool character, and its cats, pikes, and other benefactors.I disagree. Just because they are not normal and speak does not constitute a valid reason to let them go. The son (the future Marquis de Carabas) in Puss lets the cat live with no guarantee that the cat can be useful to him. In fact, it is likely that a "normal" person would have been more likely to drown a talking cat because of the cat's obvious potential to get him into great trouble. The "Marquis" trusted the cat, where many others would not. Ditto Emelya and the Pike - Emelya does not test the pike's power until it is safely back in the frozen water. He trusts it - a foolish action, which unexpectedly turns out to be very wise. Again, disagree. Emelya is outside social norms. He lays about, where peasants are supposed to "work to death" (as the song goes) to survive or get ahead. Notably, he does so both before and after he gains unlimited wishes from the pike. He talks down to authority figures - sisters-in-law, the governor, and the Tsar. He uses the wishes when he needs to (to chop wood, have the sled move by itself, to score a righteous princess), but he does not do what most people would have done - to immediately wish for limitless wealth and power, but largely goes on with his life as before until he runs into state power. When he becomes Tsar at the end of the story, he largely does it to please his princess, not really for himself. And when the Tsar, after having thrown Emelya (and his own daughter!) into the sea in a sealed barrel, reappears at the end of the story, Emelya forgives him, which is probably not what normal people (like his brothers) would have done. In other fool narratives, older brothers frequently try to kill their fool sibling to use the magical power he had at his disposal more "rationally". I note that we are no longer talking about whether there is a fool archetype (which was the original point of discussion, and which is obviously true), but only about whether the archetype is playable as a PC. I think I've shown that the distinction between fools and "wise fools" is overwrought, and largely a product of a specifically modernist, Horatio Alger-type ethic (only those who apply their natural talents succeed and are deserving of success). Not only that, but if you wish, you can reduce the narratives of characters commonly regarded as heroic to the same kind of absurdity. Odysseus, who obviously earned at least one level with his quick thinking at Troy wanders about for 11 years, protected by Athena the whole time, until Poseidon deigns to forgive him and allows him to return home. The whole story would have happened no matter what. Moses can't speak up to save his life, has Aaron parlaying on his behalf with pharaoh, and then Yahweh destroys Egypt through the plagues, softens Pharaoh's heart to let the Hebrews go, then hardens it in order to destroy Pharaoh, then forces the people to wander around for 40 years while he feeds them manna from heaven, until old Moses dies. Maybe these two are fools also (but we are all the gods' fools).The only real question here is whether you can come up with mechanics to make the class fun to play and a good fit with other classes. Everything else seems irrelevant to me. And those who don't like it don't have to play it or allow it. For my part, I don't like barbarians.</blockquote>

Verification