Imagine a world where everyone is omnipotent.

[Talakeal]

So one of my players has a stated motivation in gaming that "Character, story, and challenge are irrelevant. The only thing I find fun in gaming is cool powers!" As a result he only plays mystic theurge type characters who have as wide an array of spells at their disposal as possible. His current characters long term goal is to turn the campaign world into a setting where every single person is just like him, an archmage with limitless ability to reshape reality on a whim.

Leaving aside the practical concerns or logistics, what would the world look like if he succeeded?



All I can imagine is some sort of chaotic limbo where everyone lives in their own private demi-plane and never interacts with anyone, living out endless fantasies that become more and more extreme until the very nature of reality in each plane is incomprehensible to the inhabitants of any other. But I can't think of the specifics, and am not sure about anything. What do you think?

[Red Fel]

I think Jason Lee said it best.

Spoiler: Take it away, Syndrome!

Show

[Lord Raziere]

Did you read what you typed in the post I quoted? Unless I am missing some context, you seem to be saying that you hate systems with any sort of drawback or limitation to magic.

Also, I agree with what you are saying. I think if D&D had gone with a similar ideology in limited mages to frequent spell casting in a narrow field it would be far superior to what we have now.

that doesn't mean I want a reality of omnipotent gods. I mean, there is already Nobilis for that, and even they have limits.

No, I mean, thats the magic I want in general....

and please don't put me into some "reality warper extremist" box. I'm not an omnipotist. thats a new word now. it means "one who advocates making everyone omnipotent", learn it, because I'm gonna use it as shorthand. I just don't want magic that I can't see myself using in a high stakes superhero or shonen fight on the fly, you get me?

[veti]

Leaving aside the practical concerns or logistics, what would the world look like if he succeeded?

Leaving aside the possibility of miscommunication here, which looks pretty strong...

... I think that sounds really cool.

I'm thinking of Q, from Star Trek. "Everyone being 'omnipotent' to the level described here" doesn't, in practice, translate to anything of the sort. It simply changes the level of the game.

I mean - looked at from the perspective of a fifth-century peasant, or even a fifth-century noble for that matter, we are all omnipotent today. We have light, warmth, clean water at will! We have medical care and life expectancy that they could never have dreamt of. We have freedom and leisure, so much that "entertainment" is actually an industry now!

But in practice, all that means is that we compete and conflict on an entirely different level and about different things. People would still be intruding on/invading one another's sub-realities, for all kinds of reasons.

Of course I wouldn't try to do it with D&D, you'd need an entirely different game system. (Very likely one already exists.) But as a concept, it sounds great to me.

[Talakeal]

Leaving aside the possibility of miscommunication here, which looks pretty strong...

... I think that sounds really cool.

I'm thinking of Q, from Star Trek. "Everyone being 'omnipotent' to the level described here" doesn't, in practice, translate to anything of the sort. It simply changes the level of the game.

I mean - looked at from the perspective of a fifth-century peasant, or even a fifth-century noble for that matter, we are all omnipotent today. We have light, warmth, clean water at will! We have medical care and life expectancy that they could never have dreamt of. We have freedom and leisure, so much that "entertainment" is actually an industry now!

But in practice, all that means is that we compete and conflict on an entirely different level and about different things. People would still be intruding on/invading one another's sub-realities, for all kinds of reasons.

Of course I wouldn't try to do it with D&D, you'd need an entirely different game system. (Very likely one already exists.) But as a concept, it sounds great to me.

Miscommunication between you and I or between me and my player?

If it is the latter, he has stated flat out that his IC goal is to find a way to transform everyone in the world into a wizard with access to every spell and the ability to cast them as often as they like.

Anyway, I doubt even a caveman would consider a modern human anywhere close to omnipotent, certainly not anywhere close to the difference between a RL person and an uncapped wizard. We are still bound by all the laws of physics, are mortal (and quite short lived and fragile all things considered), have next to no ability to reshape our bodies or minds.


You could do it in D&D I suppose, if you gave everyone access to a magic item that could cast Wish at will.

that doesn't mean I want a reality of omnipotent gods. I mean, there is already Nobilis for that, and even they have limits.

No, I mean, thats the magic I want in general....

and please don't put me into some "reality warper extremist" box. I'm not an omnipotist. thats a new word now. it means "one who advocates making everyone omnipotent", learn it, because I'm gonna use it as shorthand. I just don't want magic that I can't see myself using in a high stakes superhero or shonen fight on the fly, you get me?

This thread isn't about you, I was planning on making it anyway to try and figure out where to go in my campaign and I just figured that if you were an "omnipotist" it might be a better place to continue our discussion. I didn't figure you were, but when you said "while rare, limited and can't solve all my problems is even worse! that just means I'm a mundane dude who happens to know a few rituals that could maybe help someday. I might as well just forget magic entirely by then." I thought you and said player might be in the same boat.

[Red Fel]

I'm thinking of Q, from Star Trek.

The thing is, the Continuum - being composed of similarly nigh-omnipotent beings - basically reached a state of equilibrium. So much so that apart from one delightfully memorable member of their race, they don't even refer to themselves as individuals, or indeed as a species - they are simply the Continuum, an almost composite entity composed of the entire race, effectively balancing against itself.

No wonder Q spent so much time among lower lifeforms. Being able to lord omnipotence over lesser beings is awesome and fun; hanging around in an etheric nonspace existing in perfect balance with innumerable nigh-identical beings seems so stuffy and boring.

And the reason for that balance becomes obvious, in retrospect: the Continuum, united, was able to exile Q, robbing him of his immortality and omnipotence. That's why they live in balance; if they didn't, they'd be constantly trying to depower one another.

Compare this with the "Eternal Battle" in Stargate, where an ascended being (such as the Ancients, or the Ori, or Anubis) engages with another such being in combat. Such an encounter requires absolute dedication of the being's entire self; should he yield even a fraction, he would be completely annihilated. As such, two beings locked in eternal battle are effectively and eternally removed from reality; neither can ever spare a mote of awareness to interact with the world. This is the balance that would have to be struck between omnipotent beings. Or they could take the path of the Continuum, and simply exist collectively.

Either way sounds pretty dull.

[Lord Raziere]

well whatever, there is a game system already devoted to this omnipotist concept. Nobilis. the only game where the demigod of Duct Tape can literally hold the universe together. and probably get Jedi powers to. but of course, the demigod of Scissors cuts through everything and gets rid of his bindings, and then the demigod of Rocks crushes Scissors, both of which are then wrapped up by the demigod of Paper.

you want to be able to run that....Nobilis is pretty much the only way you can in any way that is simple.

[Ravens_cry]

I imagine something like the Fae of Exalted. If you affect someone, it's because they let you, and vise verse, People might take on various 'roles' as fits their passing interest. They might be the hero, the villain, the bit parts and extras, or even the furniture, buildings or landscape. They might even decide to 'die', though that's over as soon as they tire of that game. Everything is mutable, everything changes, yet, at the same time, it is bound by the limits of imagination, by the 'laws' of narrative causality, of subversion and aversion without truly creating something new.
In the end, it is a snake biting its own tail, sterile with an air of tired tawdriness, of jaded palates and a fierce, ever-burning desire for novelty that can never truly be sated.

[TeChameleon]

They might even decide to 'die', though that's over as soon as they tire of that game. Everything is mutable, everything changes, yet, at the same time, it is bound by the limits of imagination, by the 'laws' of narrative causality, of subversion and aversion without truly creating something new.
In the end, it is a snake biting its own tail, sterile with an air of tired tawdriness, of jaded palates and a fierce, ever-burning desire for novelty that can never truly be sated.

... so, like (most) modern North American superhero comics, then? <.<

Er, sorry.

Anyhow, something to bear in mind is that a world where everyone is an uncapped wizard is not the same as a world where everyone is omnipotent. Even the mightiest wizard is still limited in what they can do by the nature of magic itself. Honestly, a world where everyone is Elminster would probably mostly cancel itself out, at least in terms of combat- sure, everybody could huck a fireball, but everybody else would already have protection from fire or whatever, so what would be the point? You'd have a post-scarcity society, since everyone could cast the spells and create the magic items they'd need to feed/clothe/house themselves, so 'industry' would likely be focused on the creation of new spells and enchanting items. Oddly, gold might end up being even more valuable than before, since you'd need it for enchanting and whatnot, and as far as I know, magic can't create gold in D&D >.>

If you wanted to make it really interesting, ponder this: what happens when the cadre of newly-massively-empowered selfish, evil old men/women decide that the whole 'death' thing really wasn't doing it for them before, and now they have the power to do something about it. Cue a sudden massive influx of liches, all over the world...

[LokiRagnarok]

Okay. I am not qualified to comment on the "uncapped wizard" thing, but on omnipotence.

Have you ever had a a really dark day? The kind when you feel the universe is only causing pain to its inhabitants and the rational - and merciful, in fact - thing would be end it all, wipe it all out of existence, yourself included?

Now combine that thought with omnipotence.

Unless someone else is faster than you and wishes for everybody to not have such thoughts, the universe wouldn't last a day.

Another approach:
Have you ever thought "I am special! Only I deserve to have x/be in charge of y"?
Now combine that thought with omnipotence. Suddenly, you are the only all-powerful being in existence.

The boring answer is: it would be over pretty soon.

[Jeff the Green]

Okay. I am not qualified to comment on the "uncapped wizard" thing, but on omnipotence.

Have you ever had a a really dark day? The kind when you feel the universe is only causing pain to its inhabitants and the rational - and merciful, in fact - thing would be end it all, wipe it all out of existence, yourself included?

Now combine that thought with omnipotence.

Thank you for reminding me why I shouldn't aspire to omnipotence. **shudders**

However, omnipotence can logically be applied to exactly one being per universe. Otherwise, what happens when two of them conflict?

[Sith_Happens]

Okay. I am not qualified to comment on the "uncapped wizard" thing, but on omnipotence.

Have you ever had a a really dark day? The kind when you feel the universe is only causing pain to its inhabitants and the rational - and merciful, in fact - thing would be end it all, wipe it all out of existence, yourself included?

Now combine that thought with omnipotence.

Unless someone else is faster than you and wishes for everybody to not have such thoughts, the universe wouldn't last a day.

Another approach:
Have you ever thought "I am special! Only I deserve to have x/be in charge of y"?
Now combine that thought with omnipotence. Suddenly, you are the only all-powerful being in existence.

While both of these things would assuredly happen--

The boring answer is: it would be over pretty soon.

--this does not follow from that. Think of it like this: If you were truly, absolutely omnipotent, then logic would necessarily no longer apply to you.

Okay, so some party pooper just wiped you from existence. So? Just reinstate yourself.

What's that, someone stripped you of your omnipotence? Why should that stop you from being omnipotent? Wave your hand and fix it.

Incidentally, this is my preferred solution to the Omnipotence Paradox. You want to create a rock that even you can't lift? Sure, you can do that. You can also still lift it, because screw logical contradiction, you're omnipotent.

However, omnipotence can logically be applied to exactly one being per universe. Otherwise, what happens when two of them conflict?

Simple, no meaningful outcome can result from such a conflict except by virtue of the two parties eventually getting tired of fighting and settling things like mature, rational people instead. Which, given the "omnipotent" bit, will generally involve both of them having their cake and eating it too.

[Kalmageddon]

No, I can't imagine it.
It's so disconnected from reality that I simply don't and can't care about it.

We can't even really wrap our heads around the concept of a single omnipotent being (what with paradoxes and all that), nevermind an unspecified number of omnipotent beings that are potentially in opposition against one another.

[Jeff the Green]

Simple, no meaningful outcome can result from such a conflict except by virtue of the two parties eventually getting tired of fighting and settling things like mature, rational people instead. Which, given the "omnipotent" bit, will generally involve both of them having their cake and eating it too.

Were that the case, neither of them would be omnipotent. For example, if I'm omnipotent, I can create an object that no one but me can destroy. If you're omnipotent, you can destroy anything you want. That's sort of in the definition.

[Sith_Happens]

Were that the case, neither of them would be omnipotent. For example, if I'm omnipotent, I can create an object that no one but me can destroy. If you're omnipotent, you can destroy anything you want. That's sort of in the definition.

See the previous part of my post: You're assuming that logic still applies, when in fact it probably doesn't.

"Realistically," a world full of omnipotent beings would almost certainly exist in some arbitrarily large number of seemingly-contradictory states at the same time. Luckily, everyone involved is capable of giving themselves the ability to make sense of such an environment.

[Jeff the Green]

See the previous part of my post: You're assuming that logic still applies, when in fact it probably doesn't.

"Realistically," a world full of omnipotent beings would almost certainly exist in some arbitrarily large number of seemingly-contradictory states at the same time. Luckily, everyone involved is capable of giving themselves the ability to make sense of such an environment.

In a world without logic you can't meaningfully call anything omnipotent. Cause and effect depends on logic and without cause and effect the ability to cause or do something (the "potent" part") is impossible.

[Knaight]

What's being described isn't actually omnipotence. It's an extreme amount of power, and an extreme amount of knowledge (or at least access to knowledge) behind the power, but that doesn't make it omnipotence.

Plus, the people with all this power are still people. They'll likely still engage in social activities and form societies, still have some sort of economy with labor and trade (if one based essentially entirely on specialized luxuries and creative works), etc. You might get the private planes everywhere, but that's basically just everyone having a really high amount of living area for their homes, and very advanced resources for decorating them - I'd expect trends in designs, fads, etc. more than a bunch of bubbles growing ever further apart.

Basically, think of modernity among the very rich, specifically the subset who don't need to labor and quite possibly just don't. You've got the money for very large bits of land that are heavily customized, but in this case it's much larger and based off of magic instead of cash. You've got the social interaction, the economy of creative work (e.g. art, really expensive cooked meals, etc.), only for this setting magic plays more heavily into it. You've got the information access, but instead of the internet, money that can hire researchers and set up think-tanks, etc. you've got divination, magical communications, etc. There's still a society there that has a lot in common with just about any other society, it's just that the proportion of resources involved in just surviving is much, much lower than most.

[Sith_Happens]

In a world without logic you can't meaningfully call anything omnipotent. Cause and effect depends on logic and without cause and effect the ability to cause or do something (the "potent" part") is impossible.

I guess I didn't say that right the second time. Logic still exists, people can just choose to ignore it whenever convenient.

[Mono Vertigo]

You know Changeling: the Lost?
Well, you'd get Arcadia.
Probably down to the fact nobody can have any meaningful interactions with anybody without deciding on rules first, even if that forces them to lose some of their omnipotence.

[Frozen_Feet]

Jeff the Green and Sith_Happens, you're on the right tracks but not quite there.

Here's what would happen: the moment any omnipotent actor believes in logic or wishes for logic to apply, everyone, including themselves, ceases to be omnipotent. Because in such scenario, by definition, the stricture for logic to apply is all-powerful and hence absolute. Logically nothing should be able to violate it, so nothing will.

In practice, this means any setting with even one omnipotent actor will immediately and irrecovably change the very instant such an actor thinks. What the setting will change to is effectively impossible to say beforehand, as it is dictated solely by the whim of that omnipotent actor and the strictures it places upon itself.

"Everyone is a tier 1 caster" in D&D 3.5 is a bit different, but a similar principle applies: the first person(s) achieving ultimate cosmic power get to dictate how all those after them get to use theirs. The logical outcome of that is probably Tippyverse if Epic and Divine rules are banned, or something akin to Outer Realms in Planescape or the domains of gods.

[Ettina]

Incidentally, this is my preferred solution to the Omnipotence Paradox. You want to create a rock that even you can't lift? Sure, you can do that. You can also still lift it, because screw logical contradiction, you're omnipotent.

No, because then you can't make a rock that you can't lift. There is a limit to what you can do, and therefore you aren't omnipotent. Your answer completely misses the point of the Omnipotence paradox.

But in any case, I don't think the OP is talking about actual omnipotence here, just way more power than humans currently have. Which I think is workable.

The truly destructive people would be stopped by policemen of equivalent power. Most people would just use their powers to make their life more convenient. People would still interact plenty, because becoming powerful archmages won't make humans stop being a social species that craves interaction.

My guess is that it would look kind of like Second Life, with people making neat bases for themselves and showing them to other people, while at the same time altering their appearance at whim to look like whatever they want to look like.

[Jeff the Green]

No, because then you can't make a rock that you can't lift. There is a limit to what you can do, and therefore you aren't omnipotent. Your answer completely misses the point of the Omnipotence paradox.

I've always hated that paradox. Surely the answer is, "Yes, an omnipotent being can choose to no longer be omnipotent." I mean, it's an answer that shows up all the time in religion and fiction.

[NichG]

There are interesting philosophical metagame considerations that arise in a game in which everyone is omnipotent, but they may well be too cerebral for the tastes of most players. The major problems are twofold: 'no permanence' and 'what is meaningful?'.

The first problem is, lets say you go and make something. Anyone can unmake it if they like. Lets say you unmake something. Anyone can remake it if they like. If you have a world with 3 or 4 omnipotent people, then the answer to the lack of permanence is that permanence is solely in the mentality of the omnipotent individuals - if you convince all the other gods that something should exist, then it will exist; if you convince them that it shouldn't, then it won't; and as long as the mentality of the gods remains intact, that situation will persist. So in a small omnipotentocracy, social maneuvering is the most important thing. This is basically how Nobilis works.

Now make it so that its 8 billion omnipotent beings. All it takes is one of them deciding to mess with something and it gets messed with, because they're all omnipotent. So your choice is basically to solipsize yourself into another universe with a handful of other deities who you like, or just give up and live in chaos, or find meaning in the transient, or things like that. Existence becomes very abstract, because nothing has an inherent existence that can support itself. Arguably even the need to have multiple omnipotent beings coexist means that the universe is constantly solipsizing itself into localized sets whenever one omnipotent person attempts to influence another using power - the only way for both to remain omnipotent is for the universe to branch into two universes, each of which contains one omnipotent person and one shadow who is slightly less than omnipotent.

The second problem is related but distinct - as the ability to shape events increases, things outside the self lose meaning. If someone dies, if someone is sad, if something is destroyed or created, what are the ways in which it is meaningful? Nothing need have impact upon a person unless they choose to permit it to do so, which means that rather than meaning deriving from context and the world around one, it must derive from within. This amounts to each person having to develop an entire structure for understanding and evaluating the world based only on the limits they consciously place upon themselves. To an omnipotent character, 'mystery' only exists if they choose not to let themselves know; 'suffering' is always by definition self-inflicted; etc. This means that everyone is living an existence where they have to consciously hold themselves back in some ways, because every limit they allow themselves to break dilutes their ability to assign meaning to things outside themselves.

This risk applies to positive experiences as well. All it takes is for someone to decide to experience 'the best thing possible' for them to place themselves in a situation in which there is no exceeding what they have already done. Someone could burn through their possible changes and expansions of the self almost instantly if they permitted themselves to do so - since by definition, all of those things would be within their power. So the only thing that lends them stability is their own self control (or they place themselves in infinite cycles of forgetting and re-experiencing things, or into an infinite 'haze' in which they sustain by fiat their ability to enjoy things in directions they've already maxed out).

Of course, you could also get people who seek the alien. 'I will experience the best thing possible. Now I will experience something better than that.' Once you've done all the things that are possible, only the impossible remains. But at that point, you've passed beyond what can probably be described in a satisfactory way in a narrated game.

[Frozen_Feet]

But at that point, you've passed beyond what can probably be described in a satisfactory way in a narrated game. by human beings.

Fixed your typo.

[NichG]

I had to think about it for awhile to see whether or not your revision is consistent with what I meant. I think that the situation of embracing both possible and impossible can be described by human beings, even in a way which captures the idea of it. But at the same time, if I'm running a game and you have your character take that step, the best I'll be able to do is to provide a very cerebral, distant impression of what it actually means. As a DM, I wouldn't be able to create a visceral impression that helps you actually imagine what it'd be like. That's the specific deficiency that I was addressing.


E.g. its not too hard to see this kind of thing happening in the very abstract world of mathematics. I can build a system with two inconsistent axioms, and explore how their interaction makes everything simultaneously true and false. But that won't really help me understand what it is to actually live it, and won't help me convey it.

So at the point where it comes up in game, the facsimile that you'd get instead would be very disappointing. Like having a character have a heart to heart with a god of wisdom about actual complex topics only to find that the verisimilitude of the god of wisdom is limited by the wisdom of the DM.

[Daishain]

I can see two scenarios arising, and neither are remotely pretty.

1. Pretty close to pure unmitigated chaos. Those willing to abuse such powers to their own gain would tend to greatly outnumber those that are willing to spend significant amount of time preventing them, at least prior to being directly affected. For there to be relative peace and equilibrium, you need a social construct to give the "police" of this world of wizards a chance to do their job, which leads us to scenario 2.

2. Either in anticipation of or in reaction to scenario 1, an inquisition style organization pops up that strictly monitors and regulates the use of magic. So long as the organization itself remains uncorrupted, this can actually work out okay, aside from a loss of privacy in regards to how one uses magic. When it does become corrupt however, you've got a big problem.

[LibraryOgre]

Thank you for reminding me why I shouldn't aspire to omnipotence. **shudders**

However, omnipotence can logically be applied to exactly one being per universe. Otherwise, what happens when two of them conflict?

All-Star Superman answered this.

What happens when the immovable object meets the irresistable force?

Spoiler: Answer

Show

They surrender.

I tend to agree, however, that you get either the Q continuum, where everyone is in balance, or you get a brief conflict until only a few remain (after all, if A and B are locked in eternal combat, C might stab B in the back).

[AuraTwilight]

I have a setting just like this.

It essentially works out like Arcadia from Changeling: The Lost, where one must continue thinking in order to continue existing, and so your greatest enemy can also be your deepest lover, because no matter what, the two of you will never be bored together.

[Geostationary]

Of course, if you want to play a high-powered game, Nobilis has already been mentioned and I will never not endorse it as a thing to try.

If you want a game about people with phenomenal cosmic power who are also liable to find themselves within a solipsistic paradise? Check out the Solipsist rpg; what I've seen of it looks pretty cool. You play a solipsist, with all that that entails. Unfortunately for your player, both have strong focuses on character and the meaning of your actions.

[Sith_Happens]

No, because then you can't make a rock that you can't lift. There is a limit to what you can do, and therefore you aren't omnipotent. Your answer completely misses the point of the Omnipotence paradox.

Actually, your argument against my answer completely misses the point of my answer. The paradox exists because logic dictates that one cannot be both able and unable to do something. My answer states that logic itself is for people who are limited in what they can do.

But in any case, I don't think the OP is talking about actual omnipotence here, just way more power than humans currently have. Which I think is workable.

The truly destructive people would be stopped by policemen of equivalent power. Most people would just use their powers to make their life more convenient. People would still interact plenty, because becoming powerful archmages won't make humans stop being a social species that craves interaction.

My guess is that it would look kind of like Second Life, with people making neat bases for themselves and showing them to other people, while at the same time altering their appearance at whim to look like whatever they want to look like.

As for what the thread is actually about (as opposed to what its title makes it appear to be about), this.