What if I introduced a Chaotic Evil version of 'Aristotle' into my campaign?

[Jon_Dahl]

Here's my idea: There would be a 20th-level Expert in my game, Chaotic Evil, and he would be the greatest philosopher in history. He would promote a sort of extreme metaphysical nihilism (I read about in Wikipedia) and he would explain that nothing exists, or at least, our fundamental ideas of existence are wrong. He would win every argument, usually via "KO" (Komplete humiliatiOn), and everyone that he hears him speak would find his arguments compelling and exceptionally well formulated.

What do you think about the idea and its implications?

[Coidzor]

Sounds like a Sue and boring for the players.

[With a box]

so a diplomancer?

[Jon_Dahl]

so a diplomancer?

Yes. 10 characters.

[mattie_p]

What story purpose (s) would be served by having such an NPC? I can imagine in some games he would work and in some he would be background noise that the players ignore.

Here's where I'm going with this. Table top RPGs are collaborative games (ie designed to be fun and interesting) that provide a common framework (rules) to create a story (setting, characters, plot).

The players are generally responsible for one character in this story, the PC (plus familiar, companion, etc, but safe to ignore those for this thread). The DM is responsible for all the other characters in the story. As such you should probably focus your efforts on the NPCs that are "on stage", meaning they are part of the plot of the story you are sharing.

You need to figure out where in the story Aristotle fits in that makes it fun or interesting. Just telling us that he's there doesn't help us help you with the story.

Hope this helps.

[DMVerdandi]

Greatest ORATOR in the world?

A philosopher would not in a world of magic, not study magic. It would be unwise, since through magic, one can understand the underlying nature of things. I see what you want to do, making him more "realistic" or "practical", but it just ends up being more unrealistic and impractical. Philosophy without subtracting natural philosophy is the study of the world on all levels, and it's application. Theoria et praxis.
Reducing one's tools of inquiry can be an exercise, but actually limiting oneself from effective tools when aiming to achieve a goal is illogical and inefficient.

Doing astronomy without a telescope can show ingenuity, sure, but if its there for you to use, making it unnecessarily hard on yourself is unreasonable.

Since philosophy is the science of theory and practice, not being a mage is... dizzyingly odd, if not a complete waste of time.



Now, that's not saying "and here's how you make an easy bake wizard", but he should be ridiculed as foolish and backwards. Like many of the philosophers throughout history. A madman, raving through the streets with his "wisdom" Nudging scrolls with formulas that don't do anything, and words that don't mean anything to them.

Now, I am not a fan of diplomancy, as there is no limit to it, and I am not a huge supporter of super high skill rolls anyway.
Making him successful as a non-magic user in having deeper actual insight into the world, where people routinely cast divination as easily as asking themselves the question is HIGHLY suspect, and as someone else said, VERY sue-ish.

Magic is real, gods are real, and doubt can't really even be a factor because people have the ability to KNOW.




So at best, he is the best ORATOR in the world. The best Charlatan, the best faker. He would be the guy in a world with space travel convincing people of flat earth theory. They have the means of knowing the truth, and are fed lies.



He sounds like a SOPHIST, not a philosopher, and definitely not a sage.


Best way is through muggle demagoguery. Either by the crown or the cloth, if those are still really options in such a world.

[Wraith]

> Be an Expert Nihilist Philosopher;
> Flawlessly convinces the PC's that nothing truly exists and that everything is ultimately pointless
> PC's agree
> PC's stab him to death and take all his stuff, reasoning that a) he is an evil, know-it-all jerk and thus deserves it, and b) they cannot get in trouble for it because he doesn't truly exist and their actions are ultimately pointless.

So.... what else were you hoping to achieve? :smalltongue:

[Jon_Dahl]

> Be an Expert Nihilist Philosopher;
> Flawlessly convinces the PC's that nothing truly exists and that everything is ultimately pointless
> PC's agree
> PC's stab him to death and take all his stuff, reasoning that a) he is an evil, know-it-all jerk and thus deserves it, and b) they cannot get in trouble for it because he doesn't truly exist and their actions are ultimately pointless.

So.... what else were you hoping to achieve? :smalltongue:

What you have just described would end this scenario and I would move on to the next adventure. And I would be happy with that.

[Jon_Dahl]

What story purpose (s) would be served by having such an NPC? I can imagine in some games he would work and in some he would be background noise that the players ignore.

Here's where I'm going with this. Table top RPGs are collaborative games (ie designed to be fun and interesting) that provide a common framework (rules) to create a story (setting, characters, plot).

The players are generally responsible for one character in this story, the PC (plus familiar, companion, etc, but safe to ignore those for this thread). The DM is responsible for all the other characters in the story. As such you should probably focus your efforts on the NPCs that are "on stage", meaning they are part of the plot of the story you are sharing.

You need to figure out where in the story Aristotle fits in that makes it fun or interesting. Just telling us that he's there doesn't help us help you with the story.

Hope this helps.

The NPC would essentially be a sandbox element. Either the PCs take interest in the NPC or ignore the NPC. If the PCs approach the NPC, I would just play the NPC normally and maybe what Wraith described would happen. Whatever happens, happens. If the PCs ignore the NPC, the NPC would establish him-/herself as the #1 philosopher of all time, which actually wouldn't mean that much. A couple of the posters here I saying that it's a Mary Sue character but it's suppose to be a major NPC and nothing more. And when I say "a major NPC" I don't mean that the PCs have to care about it. It would still be a sandbox element and nothing more.

[Crake]

What I wanna know is: How did this guy get to level 20?

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Here's my idea: There would be a 20th-level Expert in my game, Chaotic Evil, and he would be the greatest philosopher in history. He would promote a sort of extreme metaphysical nihilism (I read about in Wikipedia) and he would explain that nothing exists, or at least, our fundamental ideas of existence are wrong. He would win every argument, usually via "KO" (Komplete humiliatiOn), and everyone that he hears him speak would find his arguments compelling and exceptionally well formulated.

What do you think about the idea and its implications?

This would be incredibly annoying, particularly when combined with such an obviously poor philosophy. It also runs into the problem where the DM is certainly not the greatest philosopher in history, and likely to lose an argument with a philosophically-inclined player who takes a more reasonable position.

I would advise against the idea. Characters simply defined by being 'the best' are rarely interesting.

[Jon_Dahl]

What I wanna know is: How did this guy get to level 20?

He was a neutral evil philosopher and did everything right until he hit 20th level and "saw the light".

[Jon_Dahl]

This would be incredibly annoying, particularly when combined with such an obviously poor philosophy. It also runs into the problem where the DM is certainly not the greatest philosopher in history, and likely to lose an argument with a philosophically-inclined player who takes a more reasonable position.

I would advise against the idea. Characters simply defined by being 'the best' are rarely interesting.

Thank you for the feedback. I just wanted to mention that the "philosophy" itself would be just rolling rolls.

NPC: "We do not exist."
(NPC's diplomacy roll with a circumstance penalty: 42.)
DM: "He sounds very convincing."
PC: (Formulates a very good argument why we, in fact, do exist.)
(PC's diplomacy roll with a decent circumstance bonus: 19.)
DM: "It seems that your argument is nothing compared to the NPC's argument. Please remember that the NPC has a penalty and you had a bonus, but that didn't help."

[mattie_p]

If it's part of the sandbox then whatever, sounds like you just want to drop a little extra weirdness and that's fine and dandy.


Thank you for the feedback. I just wanted to mention that the "philosophy" itself would be just rolling rolls.

NPC: "We do not exist."
(NPC's diplomacy roll with a circumstance penalty: 42.)
DM: "He sounds very convincing."
PC: (Formulates a very good argument why we, in fact, do exist.)
(PC's diplomacy roll with a decent circumstance bonus: 19.)
DM: "It seems that your argument is nothing compared to the NPC's argument. Please remember that the NPC has a penalty and you had a bonus, but that didn't help."

Except that NPCs can't use diplomacy against PCs . Ever. Free Will and all that. Against the rules. They can diplomacy other NPCs but not the players. If you are referring to Aristotle and the PC's having a debate to influence the crowd, fine and dandy, but PC's should never be told what they believe.

[ExLibrisMortis]

As per the PHB, "Diplomacy includes etiquette, social grace, tact, subtlety, and a way with words". Diplomacy allows you to influence someone's attitude. It does not let you win debates, nor does it make you a great philosopher. In addition, influencing PCs with Diplomacy is impossible, as PCs are not legal targets for the skill.

Opposed Knowledge checks can simulate philosophical or scientific debate; it is, for example, required to access the Catalogues of Enlightenment. However, a trivial redefinition of '(non)existence' is fairly uninteresting, and it probably only requires a DC 15 Knowledge check to recall the counterargument. Meanwhile, actual metaphysical nihilism does not assert that there is nothing, only that there could have been no concrete objects, which, in D&D, might be empirically verifiable (by travelling to the quasielemental plane of Void, for instance).

[TheTeaMustFlow]

Thank you for the feedback. I just wanted to mention that the "philosophy" itself would be just rolling rolls.

NPC: "We do not exist."
(NPC's diplomacy roll with a circumstance penalty: 42.)
DM: "He sounds very convincing."
PC: (Formulates a very good argument why we, in fact, do exist.)
(PC's diplomacy roll with a decent circumstance bonus: 19.)
DM: "It seems that your argument is nothing compared to the NPC's argument. Please remember that the NPC has a penalty and you had a bonus, but that didn't help."

Yes, and that's incredibly annoying. Having your arguments be ignored due to what is essentially DM fiat is incredibly annoying.

Diplomancers are not a good thing. They're even worse when they're not the players.

[Jon_Dahl]

As per the PHB, "Diplomacy includes etiquette, social grace, tact, subtlety, and a way with words". Diplomacy allows you to influence someone's attitude. It does not let you win debates, nor does it make you a great philosopher. In addition, influencing PCs with Diplomacy is impossible, as PCs are not legal targets for the skill.

Opposed Knowledge checks can simulate philosophical or scientific debate; it is, for example, required to access the Catalogues of Enlightenment. However, a trivial redefinition of '(non)existence' is fairly uninteresting, and it probably only requires a DC 15 Knowledge check to recall the counterargument. Meanwhile, actual metaphysical nihilism does not assert that there is nothing, only that there could have been no concrete objects, which, in D&D, might be empirically verifiable (by travelling to the quasielemental plane of Void, for instance).

That sounds better! Thank you, ExLibrisMortis!

[Coidzor]

Thank you for the feedback. I just wanted to mention that the "philosophy" itself would be just rolling rolls.

NPC: "We do not exist."
(NPC's diplomacy roll with a circumstance penalty: 42.)
DM: "He sounds very convincing."
PC: (Formulates a very good argument why we, in fact, do exist.)
(PC's diplomacy roll with a decent circumstance bonus: 19.)
DM: "It seems that your argument is nothing compared to the NPC's argument. Please remember that the NPC has a penalty and you had a bonus, but that didn't help."

Don't be rude to your players. This example here? You'd be a **** to do that.

[EldritchWeaver]

However, a trivial redefinition of '(non)existence' is fairly uninteresting, and it probably only requires a DC 15 Knowledge check to recall the counterargument.

What is the counterargument?

[mattie_p]

Best part about the counter argument, none of the players need to know or care, it's just a PC skill check away and there it is in game.

Just like spells. I don't know how to do magic but as long as the character does, story goes on.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't see how the existence of a nihilist philosopher is going to enhance the setting, particularly if he's just wandering around talking at people, and doubly so if the talking is just going to turn into opposed skill checks. If you want something like that, punch it up. The interest isn't that Anti-stotle is going around preaching about the nonexistance of the universe and the futility of all actions, it's that his ideas are spreading like a virus in his wake. Entire cities are devolving into anarchy, committing suicide, or flocking to his banner to further spread the bad word. He's started sending out books, now, so perfectly written and argued that anyone who reads them is instantly converted. Even the players are at risk if they hear him speak; even a few words can be enough. If he's not stopped, soon the entire city/kingdom/world might be tipped into void.

tl;dr: Philosophers are boring. Cult leaders are fun.

(Also, "level 20 expert" doesn't really do anything to help here. Look at things like Exemplar, Evangelist, Mindbender, Thrallherd, and so on. Some sort of Wilder/Thrallherd build might be awesome for this, actually; focus heavily on telepathy-type powers like Psionic Charm/Dominate, Ego Whip, Death Urge, Mindwipe, that sort of thing. Refluff all psionic powers as the result of his words being supernaturally persuasive.)

[ExLibrisMortis]

That sounds better! Thank you, ExLibrisMortis!
Thanks, I'm glad that was useful. It's not easy to find a use for that intersection of D&D trivia and philosophical trivia :smalltongue:.


What is the counterargument?
With the caveat that I haven't studied metaphysical nihilism specifically, I would say that a simple claim along the lines of "no concrete objects exist" is either "no problem, I wasn't using them anyway" (not a realist), or something like "okay, so if this rock is not existing, what word would you like to use to describe the state of me perceiving/conceptualizing it?". You need to draw a conclusion from "no concrete objects exist", because the statement by itself is not that interesting.

Various philosophies maintain that concrete objects do not exist (e.g. idealism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism)), or deny that abstract objects exist (e.g.
nominalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism)), which would imply that they might challenge the validity of the statement on those grounds, or deny the utility of the concrete/abstract distinction. Alternatively, some philosophers would probably just agree with you, and move on.


(warning: personal thoughts below)

In general, statements along the lines of "everything/nothing is X" can be considered uninteresting, in the sense that X is no longer a useful way to communicate--the information content of X is set to zero.

For example, if I say "everything is a banana", I can no longer divide the world into bananas and non-bananas. If I then proceed to say "the dog barks and is a banana", the "is a banana" clause contains no additional information, because it was already given that everything is a banana.

(preparing for philosophical disagreement in 3... 2... 1...)

[Feantar]

My biggest question at this point is - why is he evil?

No, seriously nihilism isn't evil it's, if anything, as neutral as it goes; evil goes out of its way to hurt things, nihilism gives no value to anything including the Nihilist. An extreme nihilist might just lay down and die, not hurt people. Even a moral nihilist, in a healthy society, might be altruistic in deed (not in thought though).

I am not saying they definitely won't hurt people just that nihilism isn't inherently aligned.

That being said, check Planescape's Bleak Cabal for inspiration(although not exactly what you want) and possibly the Doomguard for a more militaristic (but also destructive and not completely nihilist) bent. And if you want to run a philosophy campaign, in general, use Sigil, especially prior the faction war (or maybe during).

PS: I thought your post implied "nihilism = inherently evil/inherently anti-good". I am re-reading it now and I am not definite that's what you meant. If it wasn't just ignore the first part of my post - check the planescape factions though, that will still be relevant to your query.

[Astralia123]

Personally I don't think nihilism by itself is evil - an anarchist could be, but a philosopher who promotes anarchism is usually not. Actually they tend to have quite noble causes. (Their solution to the evil of their time is not quite effective, though - in my opinion.)


Historically, some philosophers has been used by war-preachers, like Friedrich Nietzsche; but he himself is by no means an open war-preacher. It was the war-preachers who made selective use of Nietzsche's philosophy. Nationalists (alongside some other types of war-preachers) make use of every bit of "evidences" that can be twisted to serve their cause, including history. No philosophers would do such a thing, and if he does, he would not be entitled as a philosopher anyway.

If you ask the implications - telling the players that you are hostile to some certain philosophies? Other than that, seriously, I don't know.

[Bakkan]

To make him interesting to the players, he should have some easily-explained arguments for his position. Zeno's Paradoxes are good for this, as they use fairly simple arguments to conclude that motion is impossible, therefore our lives are an illusion or dream. In my opinion, a good counterargument to his arguments didn't show up in real life until 2000 years later with the development of calculus in the 18th century.

[Jon_Dahl]

To make him interesting to the players, he should have some easily-explained arguments for his position. Zeno's Paradoxes are good for this, as they use fairly simple arguments to conclude that motion is impossible, therefore our lives are an illusion or dream. In my opinion, a good counterargument to his arguments didn't show up in real life until 2000 years later with the development of calculus in the 18th century.

Thank you, this helpful, and nice to see that not all see my idea from a negative point of view. However, don't get me wrong: I appreciate honest feedback.


My biggest question at this point is - why is he evil?

Short answer: Just to spice up his philosophy.
Long answer: I have noticed that basically all professors put something of themselves into their teaching, and sometimes this "something" has little to do with the subject. I have noticed a professor of clinical psychology is religious, and I witnessed more than once how my ex-professor of American culture mocked Christians. More importantly, I have a professor whom I have believe to be genuinely evil, at least in D&D terms, because he is so blatantly sadistic. These personality traits, opinions etc. show up from time to time. Come to think of it, designing this NPC would be easy: I just need to model him/her after my sadistic professor of English linguistics and add a little murderous intent there - voilá!

[Anymage]

Having him as a sandbox encounter really doesn't work.

It might work in Exalted, where a super-persuasive orator of death has mechanical backup for the fact that he argues nihilism so convincingly, that average people become markedly lethargic and the especially susceptible die on the spot due to sheer existential ennui. He'd also need some mechanical backup to ensure that he wasn't stopped by a simple sword to the face, though, and to give him incentive to travel and preach his views instead of succumbing to them personally and not bothering anyone else ever again.

It miiiight work in FR or a similar setting where atheism is explicitly bad, as a super persuasive disguised demon could inspire ennui and apathy in otherwise good-aligned souls to keep them from going to good-aligned planes/the domains of good-aligned gods gods when they die. That's something that'd take some caution to avoid making certain players feel on the spot for their real life beliefs, though. And more importantly, instead of a one-off meeting, that'd be the focus of a longer adventure to reach the point where you could weaken him through counterargument and then kill him with a sword to the face.

As just a one-off encounter with someone who sounds like you're just taking a shot at a particularly douchey professor you've had? I mean, it's okay as a one-off just because the players can proceed to ignore it and move on to something actually interesting to do. But no need to make him 20th then, and indeed to give much mechanical or plot attention to this pompous windbag who's really just a minor background element.

[Jon_Dahl]

I mean, it's okay as a one-off just because the players can proceed to ignore it and move on to something actually interesting to do. But no need to make him 20th then, and indeed to give much mechanical or plot attention to this pompous windbag who's really just a minor background element.

I'm ok with this idea (i.e. they ignore him and the NPC is just a minor background element), but please tell me how surprised would you be, on a scale of 0-10, if they actually got interested in the NPC and invested time and effort to help/stop the NPC?

[DMVerdandi]

I'm ok with this idea (i.e. they ignore him and the NPC is just a minor background element), but please tell me how surprised you would be, on a scale of 0-10, if they actually got interested in the NPC and invested time and effort to help/stop the NPC?

Stop him from what? Talking?
If he were a level 20 bard, or even something like a true namer(If you fixed it), that would be something worthwhile, but as a level 20 expert, he holds no threat. If he does, it's just through ownership of magic items, which anyone can really do at level 20, so it's...It's just not dangerous.

So, he can only be dangerous from a standpoint of political power/authority. So his army, or his mob, or his flock, those are the scary ones. He would only be scary by demagoguery.


And since it doesn't work on heroes, he just turns out to be that sly guy that the PC's know is bull****, but everyone else can't seem to do.



NOW, if you refluffed some other arcane caster with the true namer fluff, And he's changing reality just to show people they are WRONG, then it would be interesting. Especially if they were just like..."We can't even tell what type of energy he's using"

And he would just be like, Im just telling the truth.

Any way you slice it. Philosophy is supposed to make your life easier. Saying, "there are no real objects" is like basic level emptiness awareness. Then the next thing someone says is... So? Or if they are unenlightened, they punch him in the face, and say, nothing just punched you, right?

It's not the end of a philosophy, but the very beginning. Philosophy says, okay, you gave a hypothesis, or assertion. Now what do I do with that?

[Jon_Dahl]

Some of the posters have expressed doubts that this philosophy would work and I think their doubts are more than reasonable. That would be my first thought too: this philosophy won't work (e.g. because the players might be better at it). Therefore I wish to represent his arguments here. Feel free to take a shot at them.

Argument #1: "I have observed the world for a great many decades. I have known many brave men and women, who have done heroic deeds. I have discovered something important. When you are a new hero, your enemies are not that strong, just orcs and goblins. If you defeat them, you become stronger but your enemies become stronger too. This is something that just happens. And when you become a lot stronger, you do not become stronger if you defeat weak orcs and goblins. The stronger you become, the more difficult the world becomes. Therefore if everyone became weak, as weak as possible, there wouldn't be any powerful monsters anymore. Everyone who is a powerful adventurer knows this to be true."
(A 20th-level NPC adventurer hears this and says: "BS! Let's go see this guy!")
(The adventurer hears the philosopher speak: "Wow! This guy is right! I have been wrong all my life!")

Argument #2: "In this world, there is always something that is more powerful than us. And then there are the angels and demons that are more powerful than mere mortals. And then we have the gods, who are more powerful than all mortal and immortals. The gods have different power levels as well. There are the weaker demigods and powerful deities like Boccob. But if there is always something more powerful, then why should we believe that the most powerful of all gods are the most powerful in all of existence? We have this world, and gods have their worlds, so there is another place that we don't know and that we can't understand. It is like an ant that can't humans. So what can we do? Most likely the gods understand what is above them, but they won't tell us, because that would take away their power. There are good gods and honest gods, but even they won't let us know the truth. Why not? The only explanation is that the truth would destroy them. That is why it cannot be spoken. The only thing that we can do is to abandon the gods, so that they would fade away and die. If the gods can't control the truth, then it will be easier for us to see it, and once we see it, we will be free and become like gods."

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm ok with this idea (i.e. they ignore him and the NPC is just a minor background element), but please tell me how surprised would you be, on a scale of 0-10, if they actually got interested in the NPC and invested time and effort to help/stop the NPC?
If he's just talking...? Pretty surprised. If they did take action, I suspect they'd bend their brains trying to fit him into an existing plot.

[Feantar]

I'm ok with this idea (i.e. they ignore him and the NPC is just a minor background element), but please tell me how surprised would you be, on a scale of 0-10, if they actually got interested in the NPC and invested time and effort to help/stop the NPC?

Really depends on your group. My usual group would definitely engage, but we tend to get easily distracted from interesting sights (Think, PC RPG Side Quest Syndrome - We were going to fight the Dark Lord and save this worldtm, but your mole issue sounds intriguing!). If your group is more goal orientated then they might just consider him an oddity - and if they're mostly the deck of encounters type, they're going to ignore him completely.


Argument #2: "In this world, there is always something that is more powerful than us. And then there are the angels and demons that are more powerful than mere mortals. And then we have the gods, who are more powerful than all mortal and immortals. The gods have different power levels as well. There are the weaker demigods and powerful deities like Boccob. But if there is always something more powerful, then why should we believe that the most powerful of all gods are the most powerful in all of existence? We have this world, and gods have their worlds, so there is another place that we don't know and that we can't understand. It is like an ant that can't humans. So what can we do? Most likely the gods understand what is above them, but they won't tell us, because that would take away their power. There are good gods and honest gods, but even they won't let us know the truth. Why not? The only explanation is that the truth would destroy them. That is why it cannot be spoken. The only thing that we can do is to abandon the gods, so that they would fade away and die. If the gods can't control the truth, then it will be easier for us to see it, and once we see it, we will be free and become like gods."

Seriously, check the Athar Faction in Planescape. If he feels that this world is fundamentally fake, check the Dustmen as well, and if he thinks that the world should be unmade, check the Doomguard. Sorry for repeating myself.

Finally, from a mechanics standpoint, all these (I think) have related PRCs, but if he is mostly a Sophist(Doesn't truly believe in his Philosophy), you could give him the Exemplar PRC.

It miiiight work in FR or a similar setting where atheism is explicitly bad, as a super persuasive disguised demon could inspire ennui and apathy in otherwise good-aligned souls to keep them from going to good-aligned planes/the domains of good-aligned gods gods when they die.

Minor Nitpick / Clarification: As I understood it, in FR being faithless isn't bad(as in, evil), and that's precisely why the Wall of the Faithless exists, to stop these souls from (eventually) heading to the corresponding plane (Which might be good, bad, lawful, chaotic, but let's be real, it's probably the Outlands :smalltongue:). In fact, from how I understand it, Kelemvor had to switch alignment to LN mostly due to keeping the wall. If what I just stated is wrong, please tell me, that's one of the few parts of FR Lore I find really interesting.
Sorry, the post felt long.

[AvatarVecna]

"What if this character existed?" I dunno, so what if they exist? Saying "there's a Chaotic Evil Expert 20 in this world spreading a nihilistic philosophy" is about as relevant as saying "Drizz't exists in this world" - not to say that's what Drizz't is, but rather to point out that existing in a world is not the same thing as affecting it...or rather, more importantly, affecting the PCs. Why should the players care, how does this guys' existence affect them? I have to tell you, if you're hoping that this NPC's existence in the game is going to cause the players themselves to experience mind-blowing revelations, you're probably going to be severely disappointed by the general apathy and/or mindless violence they direct at this NPC. Granted, those would be kinda ironically funny in and of themselves...


Preachy McMouthpiece: "You see, we are all just figments in the minds of greater beings, imagined up for their entertainment and gone as soon as their interest wanes. Everything we do in this world, every action we take, is as meaningless and pointless as attempting to whittle down a mountain with just..."

PCs: "Whatever, dude. Come on guys, let's go see if the other old man here in town has a quest for us."


Preachy McMouthpiece: "You see, we are all just figments in the minds of greater beings, imagined up for their entertainment and gone as soon as their interest wanes. Everything we do in this world, every action we take, is as meaningless and pointless as attempting to whittle down a mountain with just..."

PCs: "If there's no point in life, you probably wouldn't mind being dead, right? Since life is meaningless, death is the same? Cool, cool...

*kills Expert 20 pretty easily because of course they do*

"Hey DM, how much XP is this guy worth, and what kinda loot does he have?"

...but I doubt you're including this character for a single moment of cheap and potentially dark humor that's only going to amuse you. Plus, there's way better things to do with somebody like this by having them affect the plot in some way. Maybe CE-Aristotle will gather together a small tight-knit group of true believers who want to liberate everybody from this false reality (by killing them) and they're enacting a plot; maybe CE-Aristotle, like the real one, will influence somebody who will go on to do great and terrible things; maybe CE-Aristotle is a con artist scamming people by convincing them the world is pointless and offering them some wisdom in exchange for relieving them of their material burdens, and the duke wants him dealt with nonviolently; maybe CE-Aristotle is using his own philosophy to justify killing lots of people ("Since nothing we do matters, I can do whatever I want, and the Jeffersons have stolen my mail for the last time!").

Overall, there's a lot of possibilities in what a philosophy could lead a person to do that could get the PCs involved, but the mere existence of a dude with a strange and extreme ideology does not a plot hook make (unless the players or their characters are particularly interested in philosophy, perhaps).

[weckar]

You would run a HUGE risk of some player going metaphilosophical by claiming the whole world is really just a game played in someone else's heads.

[Jon_Dahl]

You would run a HUGE risk of some player going metaphilosophical by claiming the whole world is really just a game played in someone else's heads.

Is it bad if I really, really, really liked this idea, a lot?

[denthor]

You would have a historically correct version of Aristotle. He was a traitor to his mentor Socrates.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

You would have a historically correct version of Aristotle. He was a traitor to his mentor Socrates.

An impressive achievement, given that even a cursory knowledge of the subject reveals that Aristotle was born fifteen years after Socrates died.

[AvatarVecna]

An impressive achievement, given that even a cursory knowledge of the subject reveals that Aristotle was born fifteen years after Socrates died.

My vague recollection is that Socrates taught Plato, and Plato taught Aristotle (who then taught Alexander the Great), but it's admittedly been awhile since I looked into that stuff, so I'm not sure. It's possible that they meant Aristotle betrayed Plato's teachings, or that Aristotle ended up coming away from Plato's teachings with ideas that were a betrayal of things Socrates taught to Plato, but I don't know enough about each of their philosophies to really say one way or another what this person might've meant, because I don't really know the philosophies of those three guys.

[rferries]

An impressive achievement, given that even a cursory knowledge of the subject reveals that Aristotle was born fifteen years after Socrates died.

Well, just goes to show how fiendishly clever he was!

[Jon_Dahl]

Thank you, everyone, for your feedback! Almost all of the comments were helpful.