PDA

View Full Version : Philosophy i DnD



Obak
2015-02-12, 07:03 PM
This thread is not philosophy and D&D, this thread is about philosophy IN d&d. What great qestions of ethics, reality, free will and the nature of the multiverse are philosophers on oerth engaged in?
We know that the gods are real, that souls exist and go to heaven or hell and we have a fair guess at where said souls will go by casting Detect Evil.
The material plane is a balance of the elemental planes (so long atom theory) and there are an infinity of universes with their own set of laws.
How would this knowledge (assuming a philosopher having the same knowledge as us, readers, of his world) affect the philosophical tjoughts created?

Take such a thing as good and evil, on oerth the debate of ethics cane be extrapolated to empirical studies.
make a list of difrent actions
Perform each action in turn and afterwards cast detect evil
Have the person comitting the actions become more evil, the action in itself is evil.
Create a big book of cause and effect, complicated diagrams, paragraphs and clauses.
Sell to lawfull stupid paladins
Profit

(Un)Inspired
2015-02-12, 07:31 PM
Well, there's always Pyrrhic and Cartesian Skepticism.

There can still be ethical and moral debates. The alignments good and evil, as described in the source books aren't necessarily the same thing as the good and the bad.

Who's to say that analogues of Deontology and Utilitarianism haven't formed?

Then there is the problem of vagueness which is in no way solved in DnD. Perhaps Oerth has a Cleric or Expert or Truenamer that corresponds to Wittgenstein who sends letters to a colleague that corresponds to Frege about an ideal language.

Sith_Happens
2015-02-12, 08:50 PM
The alignments good and evil, as described in the source books aren't necessarily the same thing as the good and the bad.

Or at least that's what some sides of the debate would claim.:smallwink:

Here's one: While matter on the Material Plane is stated to be made of the classical elements, matter in the Outer Planes is made of [Alignment]ness. How is it possible that the two are so fundamentally different yet functionally almost identical? The Inner Planes are just as weird for that matter; for instance, most of the ground on the Plane of Fire is made of solid fire. How does fire get solidified? Is it actually compounded with trace amounts of earth, and that's how? If so, what does that say about ice?

Thinking about it those would be scientific questions rather than philosophical ones, though.

(Un)Inspired
2015-02-12, 08:55 PM
Or at least that's what some sides of the debate would claim.:smallwink:


Well I believe that fact that a debate can exist over this issue means that they aren't necessarily the same thing.

Note that I'm not claiming that they're different. I'm claiming that it can be debated that they are different.

Sith_Happens
2015-02-12, 08:59 PM
Well I believe that fact that a debate can exist over this issue means that they aren't necessarily the same thing.

Note that I'm not claiming that they're different. I'm claiming that it can be debated that they are different.

Now you're sounding like a philosopher!:smallwink::smalltongue:

Jay R
2015-02-12, 09:02 PM
Knowledge (Philosophy) is not useful in melee, and takes skill points away from things that are. Therefore a competent philosopher would conclude that it is non-optimal, and therefore a poor choice, and would stop learning philosophy.

GorinichSerpant
2015-02-12, 09:16 PM
Knowledge (Philosophy) is not useful in melee, and takes skill points away from things that are. Therefore a competent philosopher would conclude that it is non-optimal, and therefore a poor choice, and would stop learning philosophy.

Unless your the royal scribe who never plans entering any sort of combat, but have a keen interest in the meaning of things.

Wait, I think I just had made a literal reply to a joke...

Alent
2015-02-12, 09:22 PM
Knowledge (Philosophy) is not useful in melee, and takes skill points away from things that are. Therefore a competent philosopher would conclude that it is non-optimal, and therefore a poor choice, and would stop learning philosophy.

While true, a competent philosopher would ask himself "What would happen if I lost this skill rank?" and thus be glad that he had invested it in Kn(Philosophy) even if it did not contribute to his battlefield prowess.

(Un)Inspired
2015-02-12, 09:26 PM
Now you're sounding like a philosopher!:smallwink::smalltongue:

Well I did major in Philosophy for my undergraduate degree and I'm working in Metaphysics for my PhD...

BWR
2015-02-13, 07:27 AM
I prefer my philosophy with clubs.

Spore
2015-02-13, 07:53 AM
The Inner Planes are just as weird for that matter; for instance, most of the ground on the Plane of Fire is made of solid fire.

That one's relatively simple. Without bringing particle physics into this, fire is basically a process. I'd say the ground is made of heated solid materials of undefined quality. I love to think "surface of the sun" for any comparison involving the elemental Plane of Fire. Except with entirely different sets of physics. There's the difference between solid (ground) liquid (magma) and gaseous ("air") fire on the plane There's no dependancy on temperature neither an actual temperature on the plane. It's just the mental embodiment of flames forged into a physical form.

And before you start going all "you can't change something by thinking about it" think "chaos theory" and the fact that you can't tell if Schrödinger's Cat is alive or dead before you open the box. But not knowing the state the cat is in COULD very well change it's momentary situation.

Zyzzyva
2015-02-13, 10:55 AM
It seems to me that plenty of philosophy would still be similar: ethics kinda has issues, but epistemology and metaphysics seem reasonably untouched by the existence of other universes, gods, magic, etc. Platonism is still a perfectly viable school, you could probably make a case for TN Stoicism, etc.

(Not a philosophy major, so take all this with a grain of salt.)

(Un)Inspired
2015-02-13, 11:43 AM
It seems to me that plenty of philosophy would still be similar: ethics kinda has issues, but epistemology and metaphysics seem reasonably untouched by the existence of other universes, gods, magic, etc. Platonism is still a perfectly viable school, you could probably make a case for TN Stoicism, etc.

(Not a philosophy major, so take all this with a grain of salt.)

Epistemology gets wonky when you're in a world where you can read people's thoughts.

nedz
2015-02-14, 11:31 AM
I smash therefore I am


... and the fact that you can't tell if Schrödinger's Cat is alive or dead before you open the box.

What you need is to entangle two cats and put them in separate boxes. Then by opening one box you know whether the other cat is dead or alive.

BWR
2015-02-14, 11:36 AM
What you need is to entangle two cats and put them in separate boxes. Then by opening one box you know whether the other cat is dead or alive.

Problem: if you entangle two cats they will likely be dead or nearly so before you can separate them. In any case they will be bloody furious.

Spore
2015-02-14, 01:38 PM
I smash therefore I am



What you need is to entangle two cats and put them in separate boxes. Then by opening one box you know whether the other cat is dead or alive.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100527.gif
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1894#comic