Beauty in D&D

[Primal Fury]

Something occured to me not too long ago while I was studying one of Plato's many works. In a world where wizards can call to into existence the concrete representation of anything they wish, be it death, chaos, pain, or love, is it possible for the Platonic form of something to exist? Sure a wizards can create the ideal... chair, but since they've created that chair, they can duplicate it, thereby making it just another chair. It's a very nice chair mind you, but there's bunches of others like it now.

So what I'm basically asking is... Is there an unattainable higher representation of everything? Or is is the multiverse as it is just It?

[Athaniar]

Isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder (no, not that beholder)? One wizard's ideal chair might be repulsive to another wizard.

Or have I completely misunderstood you?

[Doc Roc]

Welcome to the outer planes, berk. Ain't much that ain't in a mage's blood to see the dark of, but cant* says that there's wot out there which no man can master.



*Kant works as well as cant here. :)

[Jergmo]

Well, magic can create infatuation with Charm Person, but it can't really create love. There are spells that act as Find Object that let you find folks that you're romantically compatible with, but love is Unobtanium.

[Melamoto]

Well, magic can create infatuation with Charm Person, but it can't really create love. There are spells that act as Find Object that let you find folks that you're romantically compatible with, but love is Unobtanium.

Mindrape.

[kamikasei]

In a world where wizards can call to into existence the concrete representation of anything they wish, be it death, chaos, pain, or love...

Since when can wizards do anything of the sort?


...is it possible for the Platonic form of something to exist?

So what I'm basically asking is... Is there an unattainable higher representation of everything?

Nope. Plato was full of it. Forms are nonsense.

[Jergmo]

Mindrape.

Brainwashing =/= Love ...er, what exactly is the deal with Mindrape? I haven't seen it in the sourcebooks I have, though I haven't really looked through the spell sections of most of them extensively...

[Melamoto]

Since when can wizards do anything of the sort?
Slay Living
Insanity
Power Word: Pain
Mindrape


Alternatively:
Gate: Death Slaad
Gate: Any Slaad
Gate: Bone Devil
Gate: Succubus :smallwink:


Brainwashing =/= Love ...er, what exactly is the deal with Mindrape? I haven't seen it in the sourcebooks I have, though I haven't really looked through the spell sections of most of them extensively...

That depends. The spell completely changes somebodies mind in any way you want. Thus, you could change their mind so that they loved you. It's not standard brainwashing; it is literally making them love you. And not forced or conditioned love either. You can make somebody truly love you. Or anyone. Or anything :smalleek:.


Despite all these possibilities, Wizards use it for making Solars into their minions. Typical Nerd Wizards. They wouldn't know what to do with the girl anyway.

[Jergmo]

That depends. The spell completely changes somebodies mind in any way you want. Thus, you could change their mind so that they loved you. It's not standard brainwashing; it is literally making them love you. And not forced or conditioned love either. You can make somebody truly love you.

That's a fairly messed up spell. :smallfrown:

Edit: They might be female Solars?

[Melamoto]

That's a fairly messed up spell. :smallfrown:

It is [Evil]. Although Sanctify the Wicked isn't. Probably because it makes somebody become good though. This is one thing that bothers me, by the way. People say things like "You're still brainwashing them against their will, and yet it's not evil." This is because they're becoming good. You're not making them into soldiers for the good side, you're making them into nice people who don't like crime, without altering anything else.
Honestly; nobody who's good is bad. People use things like Goblins or SoD as arguments; but in the end, assuming you're using alignment right, those humans shouldn't be considered good aligned and those goblins shouldn't be considered evil aligned.


Edit: They might be female Solars?
And then they gate in a whole load more female Solars. And every single time, with an army of completely subservient Angels, what will the Wizard do? Command them to help him conquer the world.

This is why I play Sorcerers.

[Jergmo]

And then they gate in a whole load more female Solars. And every single time, with an army of completely subservient Angels, what will the Wizard do? Command them to help him conquer the world.

This is why I play Sorcerers.

:smalltongue: Sorcerer-Five!

[Yora]

That's a fairly messed up spell. :smallfrown:
That's why it's called Mindrape. :smallamused:

[Melamoto]

Sorry, I don't take Sorcerer-fives anymore after some incidents involving a smartass Prankster and Ghoul Touch.

[Primal Fury]

Welcome to the outer planes, berk. Ain't much that in a mage's blood to see the dark of, but cant* says that there's wot out there which no man can master.



*Kant works as well as cant here. :)

I honestly have no idea what you just said.

[Yora]

That's the beauty of cant. Very simple, but if you don't know it, you have no idea what it means. ^^

I think it means that there are no great secrets in the magic of experienced wizards, but common knowledge says, that there a things that no mortal can master.

[Primal Fury]

Oh :smalltongue: on you Yora. I only meant that the outer planes vernacular confused me.

[kamikasei]

Slay Living
Insanity
Power Word: Pain
Mindrape


Alternatively:
Gate: Death Slaad
Gate: Any Slaad
Gate: Bone Devil
Gate: Succubus :smallwink:

I was rather assuming the OP meant something more fundamental than "a wizard can kill people" when he said "call into being the concrete representation of... death".

[Doc Roc]

It was also a joke about Mr. Kant. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant)

[Primal Fury]

I was rather assuming the OP meant something more fundamental than "a wizard can kill people" when he said "call into being the concrete representation of... death".

Who's to say a powerful enough wizard couldn't call up the Grim Reaper for tea and scones? :smallwink:

[Fax Celestis]

Who's to say a powerful enough wizard couldn't call up the Grim Reaper for tea and scones? :smallwink:

Find me a spell that lets you do that (and no, gate doesn't count because AFAIK Death is not given a statistics block in any supplement and is therefore not a valid target for gate, as such a creature does not exist).

[ZeroNumerous]

Find me a spell that lets you do that (and no, gate doesn't count because AFAIK Death is not given a statistics block in any supplement and is therefore not a valid target for gate, as such a creature does not exist).

Pick a death god. Whichever one, honestly, who cares?

Death Ward.
Plane Shift.

Bam. Physical representation of Death.

[chiasaur11]

Who's to say a powerful enough wizard couldn't call up the Grim Reaper for tea and scones? :smallwink:

Well, yes, they might, but he might be feeding his cats at the time. Would be rude.

[Jergmo]

Sorry, I don't take Sorcerer-fives anymore after some incidents involving a smartass Prankster and Ghoul Touch.

Aw, you got me...

[Jair Barik]

Don't know what book MindRape's from but LoM has Morality undone. Same thing on a smaller scale

[Doc Roc]

Well, yes, they might, but he might be feeding his cats at the time. Would be rude.

There's a lesser known, but common, version of the Calling sub-school called Polite Calling, that has fallen out of favor for practical battle-field use.

You might try that.

[Fax Celestis]

Pick a death god. Whichever one, honestly, who cares?

Death Ward.
Plane Shift.

Bam. Physical representation of Death.

That's a god of death, not the ideal of death.

[Weimann]

From what I understand, a Platonic ideal is supposed to be the form after which all other items are created. The idea behind an object.

So I'm not sure why there couldn't be such a one? Wizards, after all, will summon a copy of an object, which will suffer from the usual flaws of a replica.

As for "representation of absolute [something]", it's a bit confusing. For example, are gods "perfect representations" of their domain? Or are there ideals of gods stored somewhere else? Are elementals the ideal of for example fire, or are there separate ideals of fire and a fire elemental?

The way I see it, Platonic ideals cannot take real form. In D&D, there can be representations of "pure law" or so, but it will always be mixed up with something else (most notably in most cases, life).

So I'd say, there's nothing preventing Platonic ideals to be a valid philosopy in D&D.

[Zeta Kai]

It seems that some folk around here aren't familiar with mindrape. It's a somewhat-controversial spell from the Book of Vile Darkness. It's a 9th level spell that lets you completely re-write a person's thoughts, memories, &/or personality. Nasty stuff, really, & aptly named.

[kamikasei]

Who's to say a powerful enough wizard couldn't call up the Grim Reaper for tea and scones? :smallwink:

You can't base an argument that says "wizards can do X; what are the implications" on a foundation of "well, maybe they can do X! how do you know?".

[Darrin]

In a world where wizards can call to into existence the concrete representation of anything they wish, be it death, chaos, pain, or love, is it possible for the Platonic form of something to exist?


There are perfect Platonic forms in D&D, but there are only five of them:

d4, d6, d8, d12, d20.

Pentagonal trapezohedrons don't get no justice.

[Primal Fury]

You guys are gonna keep gettin me until I correct myself aren't you? When I said Platnoic form, I of course meant Platonic ideal. Sheesh. :smalltongue:

And thank you for your very... thought provoking response, Weimann. Very useful. :smallwink:

[kamikasei]

So I'd say, there's nothing preventing Platonic ideals to be a valid philosopy in D&D.

Nothing that makes them less so in D&D than in reality, rather.

[Primal Fury]

Nothing that makes them less so in D&D than in reality, rather.

At first I thought magic did exactly that.

I know better now. :smallbiggrin:

[Tiktakkat]

Welcome to the outer planes, berk. Ain't much that ain't in a mage's blood to see the dark of, but cant* says that there's wot out there which no man can master.



*Kant works as well as cant here. :)

Ouch.
Severe ouch.

But the not-so-dark of it is "cant" is the slang, "chant" is cant for information, so I will have to rule it allows a save.
:smalltongue:
Still, ouch. Philosophers with clubs indeed!

[Melamoto]

I was rather assuming the OP meant something more fundamental than "a wizard can kill people" when he said "call into being the concrete representation of... death".

That's why I said about gating in Outsiders that represent things in their raw form.

[kamikasei]

That's why I said about gating in Outsiders that represent things in their raw form.

Chaos and Evil are what a demon is, but a demon is not what Chaos and Evil are.

[Starbuck_II]

Chaos and Evil are what a demon is, but a demon is not what Chaos and Evil are.

Is this apples and apple cores argument?

[EleventhHour]

Is this apples and apple cores argument?

Fairly sure it's the rectangle and square arguement.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

It is [Evil]. Although Sanctify the Wicked isn't. Probably because it makes somebody become good though. This is one thing that bothers me, by the way. People say things like "You're still brainwashing them against their will, and yet it's not evil." This is because they're becoming good. You're not making them into soldiers for the good side, you're making them into nice people who don't like crime, without altering anything else.
Honestly; nobody who's good is bad. People use things like Goblins or SoD as arguments; but in the end, assuming you're using alignment right, those humans shouldn't be considered good aligned and those goblins shouldn't be considered evil aligned.Man is not a Clockwork Orange.

This is an old and oft-treaded argument, but here we go. In standard D&D(Greyhawk/FR), there is an afterlife. This is a proven fact that all natives of the world are aware of. This means that even after you kill someone, they go on for all eternity. Sanctify them, and who they were is gone, replaced by someone you find preferable. That's a much more final death than the one you get from Fireball.

[John Campbell]

Find me a spell that lets you do that (and no, gate doesn't count because AFAIK Death is not given a statistics block in any supplement and is therefore not a valid target for gate, as such a creature does not exist).

The Rite of AshkEnte?

[nefele]

Something occured to me not too long ago while I was studying one of Plato's many works. In a world where wizards can call to into existence the concrete representation of anything they wish, be it death, chaos, pain, or love, is it possible for the Platonic form of something to exist?
No. A Platonic Form (which, in common English, would be better understood by the word "ideal") is outside time and space, and it's not in your mind either. Bring a "concrete representation" of anything into reality, and it's not a Platonic Form any more. It's a shadow of "the real thing" (which exists outside time and space etc).

If the planes weren't so... mundane, philosophically speaking, you could argue that they contain such "ideals". But they don't. The planes and the gods and demons and angels and "incarnations of chaos/beauty/etc", all these have stats. They exist, they can change (a Platonic Form is immutable), they can die or be destroyed. High-level adventurers plane shift over there and rearrange the furniture and maim things. You can't do such a thing to an ideal.

In short, if you want to incorporate a Platonic Form in a D&D game, don't even think of giving it crunch. Make it fluffy and food for thought - not an encounter or a "wizard did it". :)

[Primal Fury]

In short, if you want to incorporate a Platonic Form in a D&D game, don't even think of giving it crunch. Make it fluffy and food for thought - not an encounter or a "wizard did it". :)

Is this really the best I can do? I wanted to make a whole class based around someone attempting to aspire to their own "Platonic Self" (or someone who is a conduit for Platonic energies if that even makes any sense :smalltongue:), and you're telling me there's no way to do it because the Platonic ideal of anything can't be represented in any kind of physical form?

That's not fair. :smallfrown:

[Fiery Diamond]

Fair or not, it is true.:smallfrown:

[chiasaur11]

The Rite of AshkEnte?

You might just get a temp, though.

[Primal Fury]

Is there anything I can do though? I've got all these ideas for a new class that draws power from the comsmic infinitude of the multiverse, and uses aesthetic abilities so powerful and pure that they can inspire awe, fear, maddess, and even death with their sheer brilliance... And I can't do it cuz Plato said I couldn't.

Jerk. :smallannoyed:

I shoulda never watched The Fountain. Got me all worked up over here.

[Yahzi]

Is there anything I can do though?
He can draw physical copies of the forms into the world, and use those to awe/inspire/crush people. The higher level he is, the more/better copies he can summon, and the longer they last.

Of course, that basically boils down to a spell list and a custom PRC, but hey... that's the only form the ideal of D&D allows. :smallbiggrin:

[nefele]

II've got all these ideas for a new class that draws power from the comsmic infinitude of the multiverse, and uses aesthetic abilities so powerful and pure that they can inspire awe, fear, maddess, and even death with their sheer brilliance...
Poor D&D. As if having a universally accepted objective morality wasn't absurd enough, now you'll have objective aesthetics. :smalltongue:

...It's not a bad idea, you know. :smallsmile: You don't have to use a Platonic Form per se, right? You can make up something else. Something of your own. Give it any feature you want, to your heart's delight. Improvise, and say you were inspired by Plato (or the Fountain) - instead of turning the poor chap's theory into something so definitively un-ideal as crunch. :smallyuk:

[Gralamin]

Man I was going to say.


That's a god of death, not the ideal of death.

Get me 4 CCs of Rat's blood :smallwink:

But then I saw

The Rite of AshkEnte?
:smallfrown:



Is there anything I can do though? I've got all these ideas for a new class that draws power from the comsmic infinitude of the multiverse, and uses aesthetic abilities so powerful and pure that they can inspire awe, fear, maddess, and even death with their sheer brilliance... And I can't do it cuz Plato said I couldn't.

Jerk. :smallannoyed:

I shoulda never watched The Fountain. Got me all worked up over here.

Well. Platonic Forms/Ideals aren't the only way to go, and even if they were, they wouldn't match up with Aesthetics. Platonic Forms/Ideals are part of Epistemology and I think Metaphysics.

If you want to use Aesthetics, it might be an idea of linking them to Experiences - It'd fit much better with the ideology behind Aestheticism, which presumably a class about Aesthetics would follow.

[ZeroNumerous]

That's a god of death, not the ideal of death.

Physical representation of an idea.

vs

Physical representation of an idea.

Oh look, it's the same thing.

You can argue semantics all you want, but it fulfills the criteria put forward.

[kamikasei]

Is there anything I can do though?

Sure there is. Whatever you want to do.


I've got all these ideas for a new class that draws power from the comsmic infinitude of the multiverse, and uses aesthetic abilities so powerful and pure that they can inspire awe, fear, maddess, and even death with their sheer brilliance... And I can't do it cuz Plato said I couldn't.

Is Plato your DM? Does he play at your table? I mean, that'd probably be neat, but I doubt that it's the case.

Just do exactly what you were going to do, except either a) don't refer to Plato, or b) say that you're manipulating close approximations of the Ideals rather than the things themselves.

[nefele]

Physical representation of an idea.

vs

Physical representation of an idea.

Oh look, it's the same thing.
But the Platonic Form is neither physical nor a representation.

It isn't a representation, because on the contrary, everything in the world is merely an imperfect representation of the From (of the Ideal, shall we say). And it's not physical, because it exists outside time and space. So the God of Death may indeed be a "physical representation of an idea", but has nothing to do with the OP's, errr.. idea. :smalltongue:

(Here, there's a wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms) for everything these days.)


Is Plato your DM? Does he play at your table?

Just do exactly what you were going to do, except either a) don't refer to Plato, or b) say that you're manipulating close approximations of the Ideals rather than the things themselves.
*dies laughing*
So true.

[mint]

Chaos and Evil are what a demon is, but a demon is not what Chaos and Evil are.

I got a sudden urge to draw Venn diagrams :3

[JeenLeen]

Is this really the best I can do? I wanted to make a whole class based around someone attempting to aspire to their own "Platonic Self" (or someone who is a conduit for Platonic energies if that even makes any sense :smalltongue:), and you're telling me there's no way to do it because the Platonic ideal of anything can't be represented in any kind of physical form?

That's not fair. :smallfrown:

In the literal terms of Platonic philosophy, as I think I understand it, yes. The Ideas are never fully seen in the world. I think this even more true in D&D, where there are gods like the Greek gods (emotional; full of vice; mutable), which I believe was the reason Plato rejected the idea of the gods as seen in Greek mythology.

IF Platonic form exists in a D&D-esque cosmology, I would play it in the Outer/Far planes, whichever is where magic doesn't work or works wierd, and gods who go there usually die, and where beings beyond imagination seem to dwell. Just add that in addition to the Cthulu (sorry is mispelled), there's also Platonic forms, or perhaps them in a 'More Far Plane' to be more accurate.

For the idea of someone wanting to reach their ideal self, the Form of Man (anthropos (human), not aneer (male)), so to speak, I think it is possible. HOW one would go about it is odd. (Also the idea that there is a more-natural state for mankind isn't really D&D cosmology from what I've read, except maybe in BoED.)
Have you ever read The Place of the Lion by Charles Williams? It deals with Platonic forms, or angelic intelligences (same thing to the author, it seems), coming down to Earth. I won't say more lest it enter spoiler territory, but it's an interesting book, both philosophically and theologically.

From it, a balance of all the traits possible to man, in their most exalted (both good-intentioned and powerful), being incorporated into a person would be one who obtains, or perhaps really participates in, the Platonic form of Man.

From a mechanics standpoint, I would give the class auras of some sort, representing his mastery of himself and, through his own perfection, all reality.

[Primal Fury]

Does he play at your table? I mean, that'd probably be neat, but I doubt that it's the case.


Yeah he does actually, but it's not as cool as you might think. Diplomacy is the only sword we get to swing. :smallwink:



If you want to use Aesthetics, it might be an idea of linking them to Experiences - It'd fit much better with the ideology behind Aestheticism, which presumably a class about Aesthetics would follow.

On a more serious note... Experiences. That's the word I needed. And you're right, that does make a hell of a lot more sense.

[deuxhero]

That's a god of death, not the ideal of death.

So... Nyx?

[ZeroNumerous]

So the God of Death may indeed be a "physical representation of an idea", but has nothing to do with the OP's, errr.. idea. :smalltongue:

You may notice that I was not responding to the OP, merely the question that a wizard could/could not have tea and scones with the Grim Reaper. Answer: He can. With Death Ward + Plane Shift.

[Acrux]

Why don't you read The Place of the Lion by Charles Williams (one of the lesser known Inklings)? The novel is precisely about Platonic Forms becoming real in our world and the consequences thereof. A lot of great fodder for your idea (which I consider a good one).

[Primal Fury]

Hm. Since JeenLeen and Acrux think that it might help with my idea, I'll be sure to check out The Place of the Lion. :smallsmile:

[nefele]

You may notice that I was not responding to the OP, merely the question that a wizard could/could not have tea and scones with the Grim Reaper. Answer: He can. With Death Ward + Plane Shift.
Oh, sorry, misunderstanding there. :smallredface:

[Tatsel_Ganav]

To Fax... Epic magic. A powerful enough wizard can just make a spell that says "I summon the ideal of death, give it sentience, force it into a humanoid form that looks like a skeleton dressed in a pimp suit, and have tea with it. And it can't hurt me."