One of my players just asked me if he could take the skill Profession: Philosophy to make money with teaching lessons and selling books.
I never thought about philosophy in a D&D world that way.
Would it be a viable profession?
I'm thinking unless you're in a big city with some nobles interested in philosophy, you won't make any money with this profession.Also, he's a cleric. I'm having trouble picturing a cleric talking about some random theories(because he wants to teach a bunch of different ones) instead of talking to people about his god.
Any ideas how to integrate this in a D&D campaign?
Thanks
Countless philosophers were religious. They use philosophy to extend and confirm their religious believes. In real world they tried to 'prove' their god exists, which ofcourse is unneccessary in a Pathfinder setting (the clerics performing miracles on a daily basis is a pretty clear indicator) but he might instead try to rationalize the tenants of his faith, or incorporate new ideas into it.
And certainly philosophers do better in big cities, but they dont HAVE to be in a metropolis. If they are good enough they can gain a following and a patron anywhere. But some kind of town or city is most certainly neccessary for a profession philosophy check.
I would allow him to take it, and then if he decides to take the leadership feat his followers could be experts and nobles that are followers of his teachings.
Now if his philosophy is in direct opposition to his church's tenants thats a different story. Offers some interesting roleplay where he may very well be abandoned by his god if his views and teachings are too oppositional.
|
Um, philosophers in this world don't make a strong living at philosophy, so I'm not sure what kind of income the player would expect. Great for story though.
Checkout The unemployed Philosophers guild.
Historically speaking, there's a reason that almost any philosopher who managed to get his name in the annals of time lived in thriving capitol cities, huge cities, generally at the height of his nation's peace and prosperity.
When nations are struggling, fighting wars against their neighbors, levying troops and taxes from all and sundry, nobody really has the time or inclination to sit around in marble halls discussing the music of the spheres. When times are hard, your prominent local philosophers are really just the Cliff Clavens in the local tavern.
But when times are peachy, when rich nobles and merchants have nothing better to do with their time and their vast fortunes than sit around the feet of some old grizzled wise-man writing down everything he mutters, then it's possible for that guy to make his mark upon history, if his mutterings are clever enough to inspire these bored socialites. And if he's that good, he can probably coax a few coins out of his loyal coterie, maybe even enough to call it a profession.
But to succeed, he needs:
1. A venue
2. A fan group
3. A large enough population base that can support an adequate number of wealthy socialite supporters
4. A society experiencing its "golden era", or something close to it
5. Something to talk about that the rapt young audience can't get in church every Holyday
There are exceptions. For example, Jack Kerouac managed quite well during the relatively dark times of the United States' Vietnam era by giving the bored (and scared) drug-addled aimless youth of America some kind of unified vision of freedom and peace that became a rallying counterpoint to the militant ruling class that kept on supporting and funding that seemingly endless war. Obviously, it remains to be seen if people will still be quoting him 2500 years from now (and those same people will be quoting 5,000 year-old Socrates proverbs so Kerouac will never really catch up; but I'd say two and a half milennia should count for something).
So, can it be a profession? Sure, why not. I wouldn't think holding a cardboard sign by the freeway exit begging for handouts would be a profession, but some of those guys make more monthly income than some people with a regular (minimum wage) job.
Is it practical? Depending on how realistic you like to model your world, you can make it as practical as you'd like. Make him run off to Absalom and find a suitable venue with all the schlarly trappings, or just let him sell witty fortune cookies in Sandpoint - and when the goblins attack, that might just double his customer base, assuming he can write some fortunes in Goblinish...
It's really up to the DM how far he wants to take the practicality of the game.
Philosophy cannot be used to prove anything. The moment it does, it ceases to be philosophy.
I think if the cleric finds a patron or opens a school/academy, he can make some gold off his venture (consider Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, the latter of which was hired by Phillip of Macedon to teach his son, Alexander).
Remember, philosophy isn't a bunch of random theories so much as a search for a truth that can never be found through the use of rational arguments and methods (a priori, a posteriori, recognizing fallacies, etc.). However, your player's character could create a philosophical belief system that facilitated the worship of his deity (consider other philosophies, such as Kantism, Stoicism, etc.).
However, in a world where other planes of existence, gods, extraplanar beings, life after death, and so on exist, there isn't as much mystery, since a clear and unequivocal path is provided by higher powers, so maybe people might find philosophy to be pointless.
However, in a world where other planes of existence, gods, extraplanar beings, life after death, and so on exist, there isn't as much mystery, since a clear and unequivocal path is provided by higher powers, so maybe people might find philosophy to be pointless.
I'm amused by this.
Anyone under, say, 9th level has no idea the planes even exist, nor what happens after death. Nobody can prove it unless they've traveled to that plane or can scry that plane or can give testimony under a zone of truth effect cast by a cleric of Abadar so it has a visual effect. People hear about all of these religions and such but really besides the miracles and the magic do you think the common people in the world of Golarion know without a doubt the exact processes of what happens after death, whether or not gods are real, what planes exist and who occupies them etcetera? If they did, why do some people worship non-good gods, knowing they're going to go to hell or the abyss and become lemures or worse?
To the people of Golarion, I imagine their religions are as muddled as ours are in reality. How many times have you seen a man stand up at the front of a church and exclaim that he knows without the shadow of a doubt the purposes of life, the machinations of divinity and what happens after death? The people of a fantasy world don't know that Cayden Cailean exists and is going to provide for them their salvation-- and to be honest, for the untrained skeptic, how do you tell the difference between shield of faith and shield? I'd imagine a lot of first level commoners who don't worship gods treat most divine magic as unspectacular or, at worst, as gussied-up arcane magic meant to swindle people's money into donation boxes.
Take your quote and re-read it.
However, in a world where other planes of existence, gods, extraplanar beings, life after death, and so on exist, there isn't as much mystery, since a clear and unequivocal path is provided by higher powers, so maybe people might find philosophy to be pointless.
Doesn't it sound almost as if you're talking about the real world?
@Ice Titan: lol whatever, dude.
@Ice Titan: lol whatever, dude.
Hmmm, I thought his point was well-made and poignantly philosophical on a thread about philosophy.
Is your derisive dismassal merely a tactless concession from which one might infer that you have nothing with which to counter his point, and that you consequently withdraw your previous assertion?
No, I'm just dismissing his idignation. Also, I wasn't making an argument, merely stating the possibility (hence the redundant "maybe" and "might"--hardly assertive language). Even if I were, the entire supposition is based on one's own perception of his own made-up campaign world. For him to tell me or me to tell him that people are or are not aware of the gods being real or how widepspread it is can be no more philsophical than debating what Frodo's favorite color is. Either is acceptable, anyway. How many angels dance on the head of a pin, and all that. My point for bringing it up is just for something for the OP to consider, because *maybe* that's how it is in his campaign world, and maybe that would affect how philosophy is viewed in his campaign world.
No, I'm just dismissing his idignation. Also, I wasn't making an argument, merely stating the possibility (hence the redundant "maybe" and "might"--hardly assertive language). Even if I were, the entire supposition is based on one's own perception of his own made-up campaign world. For him to tell me or me to tell him that people are or are not aware of the gods being real or how widepspread it is can be no more philsophical than debating what Frodo's favorite color is. Either is acceptable, anyway. How many angels dance on the head of a pin, and all that. My point for bringing it up is just for something for the OP to consider, because *maybe* that's how it is in his campaign world, and maybe that would affect how philosophy is viewed in his campaign world.
I apologize for any indignation or haughty, arrogant nerd-"You're Wrong"-ness that you read into my post or that I let seep into my text by accident.
Stating the possibility is always making an argument. Well, you're not "arguing" but you're placing your statement out there to be discussed-- your argument was that the people of Golarion or other fantasy worlds may not be able to reliably engage in philosophical discourse thanks to the potent proof of divinity and universal processes that surrounds them on a daily basis. I tried to discuss it-- I even left a good majority of my statements open ended as questions, rhetorical or otherwise, to be answered. You got mad at me. I think we're missing a step here.
Even if I were, the entire supposition is based on one's own perception of his own made-up campaign world.
You say empiricism, I say idealism. :)
|
Ice Titan must live in a very different 'real world' than I do. We've got something like 600 different brands of Christianity, and that's just *one* major religion.
Clear and unequivocal path? Not so much.
Now, once we start dealing with campaign settings with 'heresies,' where a single diety could have a half-dozen churches, some violently at odds with each other, that could add some interesting wiggle room in which to squeeze a philosopher-priest, attempting to 'sell' his particular brand of the franchise.
Razmir seems like a good place for this in Golarion, as the priests of Razmir are attempting to sell their 'philosophy' that Razmir is a god, despite being unable to back that assertation up with some of the classical 'miracles' that the other gods grant their priests.
A monotheist religion, if such a thing existed in the setting, could also have professional philosophers, attempting to rationalize in what way their god is actually the patron of the various other domains and portfolios associated with the gods they denounce as false, or jumped-up spiritual parasites, or demons, or rakshasas or whatever.
Someone who believed that Sarenrae was the only true god, for instance, would be motivated to create a philosophical system based off of all things being measured by the effect of the sun upon them. The goddess of the sun becomes the goddess of the seasons, as even winter is a sign of her distance, the cold being a sign of her absence, and not an entity or force in it's own right. The tides become associated with her, the movement of the winds, etc. so that she can replace Gozreh. She becomes the source not just of light and fire, but all energy, and thus, patron of magic, replacing Nethys. She becomes the patron of war, with her dancing scimitar, blazing in the sun, replacing Gorum. Valor, chivalry, she takes away from Iomedae. Community and fellowship from Erastil. Sarenrae becomes the 'one goddess,' and those monotheistic philosopher priests work at their theories and conjectures, stripping away the attributes of the other gods, and saving those few that don't suit her to assign to her Adversary, the Rough Beast, Rovagug, who isn't a god, but is the darkness to her light, the coward to her courage, the monster to her maiden.
Ice Titan must live in a very different 'real world' than I do. We've got something like 600 different brands of Christianity, and that's just *one* major religion.
Clear and unequivocal path? Not so much.
Each one of those brands of Christianity believes their path to be clear and unequivocal.
Each religion on the planet believes firmly in its own divine processes and universal laws. Each of their paths are clear and unequivocal.
Each cult on the planet...
Every religious sect on the planet...
Every single obscure faith on the planet...
Each regionally different faith on the planet...
Paul must live in a very different 'real world' than I do. We've got something like 600 different brands of Asmodean worship, and that's just *one* major religion.
Clear and unequivocal path? Not so much.
|
|
Paul must live in a very different 'real world' than I do. We've got something like 600 different brands of Asmodean worship, and that's just *one* major religion. Clear and unequivocal path? Not so much.
Wow, thanks for 'fixing' my post! I wouldn't have known what I meant without you to correct me!
[warning, sarcasm]
Anyone under, say, 9th level has no idea the planes even exist, nor what happens after death.1st-level with expert with 1 rank in both Knowledge (planes) and Knowledge (religion). Make him human, give him a 15 Int and Skill Focus in both aforesaid Knowledge skills. That gives him a +9 bonus with both skills, which ought to be more than sufficient to put to bed your wild generalization.
I personally don't see the difference between someone who has a +9 bonus to Knowledge (Planes) and someone who has a college degree in paranormal studies.
Again, in my opinion, a lot of these ideas and concepts are beyond the knowledge of a lower level character in D&D simply because they have no proof to prove that these places exist. Where demons come from, well... a Knowledge (Planes) can answer that clearly according to the rulebook, but in a more realistic and less gamist universe, the answer to where demons come from could wildly variate between country to country-- Cheliax could have a much different opinion on planar knowledge, based on their abundance of arcanists specialized in demon binding and their close proximity to devils on a daily basis, than, say, the Land of the Linnorm Kings, who are a loose collection of barbarian city-states.
I don't know. I think Bob the 1st-level expert being able to take a 20 in a library to answer any and all questions with perfect accuracy just twinges me the wrong way.
I believe the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin is 7 if my last count was right.
Paul must live in a very different 'real world' than I do. We've got something like 600 different brands of Asmodean worship, and that's just *one* major religion. Clear and unequivocal path? Not so much.
Wow, thanks for 'fixing' my post! I wouldn't have known what I meant without you to correct me!
[warning, sarcasm]
I apologize for irritating you.
Though, I would like to say that I think you missed the point of what I said in favor of being mad that I changed your quote text to demonstrate a point. I used your argument you presented, with an inflammatory tone directed at my opinions, and redirected the same words to use in my own argument. I didn't even say something aggravating like FTFY or "LOL FIXED." I didn't even call you a name. I directly refuted your argument with my own. I provided an example of how what you said could easily be attributed to a fantasy universe when you clearly stated that my ideas couldn't be correlated to our own universe, after presenting you my opinion on how my ideas could be correlated to our own universe.
Everyone is so touchy today!
Everyone is so touchy today!
Mixing philosophy, religion, and Mondays.... The only thing missing is politics!
What did you expect? LOL And this is a good read by the way.
|
One of my players just asked me if he could take the skill Profession: Philosophy to make money with teaching lessons and selling books.
I never thought about philosophy in a D&D world that way.
Would it be a viable profession?
I'm thinking unless you're in a big city with some nobles interested in philosophy, you won't make any money with this profession.Also, he's a cleric. I'm having trouble picturing a cleric talking about some random theories(because he wants to teach a bunch of different ones) instead of talking to people about his god.
Any ideas how to integrate this in a D&D campaign?
Thanks
There's a distinction to be made between parlor philosophy and dialectic philosophy. The former is for students (idle nobles perhaps) who are interested in adding some color to their conversation. They want to sound smart, and a little trivia is all they need. The latter is for people who intend to sharpen their cognitive and oratory abilities: politicians, military leaders, bards, wizards, etc. These types would have philosophy as the backbone of a serious education and would pay well for it, for them and their wards.
In a world where the gods existence is a given and magic is omnipresent, philosophers would probably focus on a some odd matters:
- What is natural and what is magical, and how does one become the other.
- With Aroden's death, has destiny abandoned Golarion? Who controls destiny if not the gods?
- In a land where monsters and beasts can reason and possess souls, what gives man (and elves, and dwarves...) the right to treat them as vermin?
- Should you not eat a pig that can talk or a cow that can sing?
- Are clerics intermediaries to the gods (old Catholic style), or can a common man pray alone and be heard? If so, why are only clerics granted divine magics?
- If a cleric of good asks you to break allegiance to your lord, can you? Must you?
- What is the just punishment for a starving man who steals a loaf of bread?
- Are the gods perfect?
- If the gods were to vanish, would magic? Would the world vanish?
- Can I become a god?
|
As a related aside, I'mcurrently playing my second monk character ever, and as with the first, I like to keep a collection of wise sayings around, and throw one out on occasion. I think it lends a bit of flavor to the character.
As for philosophy in D&D, I'd say if a DM was willing to develop some scenarios dealing with that, it might be pretty interesting.
There's a distinction to be made between parlor philosophy and dialectic philosophy. The former is for students (idle nobles perhaps) who are interested in adding some color to their conversation. They want to sound smart, and a little trivia is all they need. The latter is for people who intend to sharpen their cognitive and oratory abilities: politicians, military leaders, bards, wizards, etc. These types would have philosophy as the backbone of a serious education and would pay well for it, for them and their wards.In a world where the gods existence is a given and magic is omnipresent, philosophers would probably focus on a some odd matters:
- What is natural and what is magical, and how does one become the other.
- With Aroden's death, has destiny abandoned Golarion? Who controls destiny if not the gods?
- In a land where monsters and beasts can reason and possess souls, what gives man (and elves, and dwarves...) the right to treat them as vermin?
- Should you not eat a pig that can talk or a cow that can sing?
- Are clerics intermediaries to the gods (old Catholic style), or can a common man pray alone and be heard? If so, why are only clerics granted divine magics?
- If a cleric of good asks you to break allegiance to your lord, can you? Must you?
- What is the just punishment for a starving man who steals a loaf of bread?
- Are the gods perfect?
-...
Absolutely! This thread has been mostly about whether Golarion needs philosophy to, say, prove the existence of gods and extraordinary phenomena, or whether a Cleric would have any reason to pose philosophical questions, when he's seemingly already made up his mind about what he believes. But philosophy is about a lot more than just what does or doesn't exist, what can or can't be proven, and whether or not one loses one's faith.
1) Persons of conviction, whether religious or determinedly irreligious, have often looked to philosophy to help refine, interpret and understand their ideals, not just to demonstrate them to others.
2) Many devoutly religious philosophers remain very interested in questioning the order of things or examining other belief systems - and not necessarily only because they wish to show that their way of thinking is best. I love the idea of a Cleric-Socrates, say, who believes in the divine but also engages the youth with his elenchus.
3) Even if we assume that every person on Golarion knows exactly what does and does not exist, we still have plenty of philosophy to do. Ethical questions don't go away, even if you already adhere to religious principles and have faith-based values. Also, there are abstract philosophical problems to be examined that probably get even more complicated once a pantheon of extremely diverse, rather demonstrably accessible gods is introduced. (Like the Euthyphro problem. Didn't that one just get a whole lot *more* complicated?) And epistemic views are going to differ widely between individuals, as well. What does a character think is the best way to acquire knowledge? What kind of evidential standards does he/she consider appropriate? What counts as truth? Above all: what does a character think it means to live well?
There's plenty of philosophizing left to be done in Golarion. (Heck, if we were in the same city, my character might want to take this fellow's character's course. She could benefit from a little instruction!)
On the other hand, the question of how much he would make is a dismal one...
A quick Wiki search of Philosophers leads me to believe that justifying Profession: Philosopher could be a bit tricky.
Most of the famous philosophers of antiquity had day jobs as teachers, doctors, advisers, priests, etc.... Also, most came from wealthy (or at least well off) families, which is how they'd been able to learn how to read and write in the first place.
I don't think you could expect to make money between adventures with Profession: Philosopher any more than you could expect to make money between adventures in a modern game taking Profession: Quantum Physicist.
A quick Wiki search of Philosophers leads me to believe that justifying Profession: Philosopher could be a bit tricky.
Most of the famous philosophers of antiquity had day jobs as teachers, doctors, advisers, priests, etc.... Also, most came from wealthy (or at least well off) families, which is how they'd been able to learn how to read and write in the first place.
I don't think you could expect to make money between adventures with Profession: Philosopher any more than you could expect to make money between adventures in a modern game taking Profession: Quantum Physicist.
Oddly enough, this is exactly why I was thinking they would make a pretty good living. If your customers are from the wealthier classes, you'd only need a few (perhaps 1?) patrons/students to make the equivalent that some other professions would make peddling their skills to less well off clients.
I think Profession: Quantum Physicist would make a lot more money than some other professions in a modern setting too. At major universities even starting salaries are getting close to 6 figures. Of course, part-time might only be half that, but that's a fair bit more than you might expect at other part-time jobs.
Less overwrought answer: Sure, if they're in a place that has paying gigs for philosophers. Just like you're only going to make money with Profession: Sailor if you're on the water. Most major cities would count - I think a brief even uneducated look at Golarion would indicate the opportunity for philosophy in Andoren, Galt, Cheliax, etc. Of course pure philosophizing doesn't pay a lot, but you are on the right track with tutoring nobles' (or rich people in anti-noble environs) kids, selling tracts, etc.
Philosophy is in modern days equated with pointless meandering. However, philosophy is theology, politics, ethics, science, etc. You'll note real world priests (Catholic, Buddhist, etc.) can't cast spells (some don't even really have a deity) but make a living at it. Not a good living, but it's competing against other barely living wage type of jobs, it's not a path to riches.
Beyond the very good reasons for its feasibility, a DM should strive to say "yes" rather than "no." Is there a game balance reason to not allow it? Is it better for your game for him to be making his couple gold a week off Profession: Beekeeper or Lacemaker?
Sorry, didn't mean to derail the spinning off into pedantry and religious warring and actually address the OP's point. Back to your regularly scheduled program.
Everyone is so touchy today!Mixing philosophy, religion, and Mondays.... The only thing missing is politics!
What did you expect? LOL And this is a good read by the way.
Speaking of politics:
There are some historical precedents for adventuring philosophers. Confucous, for example, was a wandering minstrel when he was not occupying a political post. He tended to get fired often.
It was probably Alexander the Great's interest in philosophy that prompted him to conquer the world.
As for getting paid for it, you could perhaps give lessons. Confucious had trouble with keeping a job, but nobles and aristocrats might be likely to pay for lessons. Even in a backwater village, perhaps the mayor wants a few lessons for himself or a member of his family in order to not come off as so backwater. Perhaps his daughters want lessons so they can have a better chance of marrying into a baron's house.
If there is a political dispute, one side might hire a philosopher to put together an airtight argument that he is right.
On the other hand, one way for a philosopher to get into trouble is to tell the ruling authority figure that he is wrong.
This would probably work best with a bard PC.
In short philosophy would go hand in hand with various knowledge skills and it would deal with the regular topics in front of the in game ignorant masses who do not know about the planes, after-life, etc.
But if those topics are obsolete, there are plenty of philosophical debates to be held related to fantasy-specific themes mentioned earlier.
Finally, philosophy can go hand in hand with knowledge skills and perform (oratory) for the philosopher to serve as a tutor in noble houses or rousing crowds or key figures to a fantasy-specific cause (and getting paid for it by those sponsoring said cause). Again, several people pointed out at some fantasy-specific open ended themes or mysteries about which philosophers could debate for countless hours.
Sorry if this seems off topic but it's *kinda* within the same theme:
How to reflect/represent psychology within the current system?
Perhaps a feat to allow characters to use Int scores to be used instead of Cha scores for Sense Motive/Diplomacy/Bluff?
Or simply Sense Motive?
I have nothing to add regarding philosophy other than 'There will be beards, oh yes, there *will* be beards...
-.o
Planescape is a good source for philosophy in D&D. Kinda pointless to argue if the gods exist, but philosophy can also be used by clerics to argue why their god is better than the other gods.
In theory, Knowledge: Religion would be the basis for most Philosophy in a D20 game structure. You could, I suppose, create Knowledge: Philosophy and Profession: Teacher for what this character wants to do, though his religion skill should cover most of what would be applicable.
Since even Golarion is in large part a 'medieval' style game world, one must remember that the vast majority of the people in it are ignorant of what a vast majority of PC's know. Outer planes, transdimensional magic, the structure of the cosmos are basically the advance phsycics, chemistry and molecular biologu of their world. Folks may have an extremely basic understanding of 'that stuff' (the heavens is where the gods live and the underworld is where the devils rule) but by and large only the trained experts know the 'truth' in any details.
Additionally, and this is extremely important, try to remember that there is no mass media, internet, TV, Radio or other means of long distance or instant/mass communication. Education is a premium for the vast majority of normal people in that world. If you want to be well informed you have to find someone who is well informed and learn from THAT PERSON. Most people are too busy dodging orc raids or avoiding sea monsters and trying to make a simple living while doing such to have the time or money to be that esoteric.
It is extremely reasonable for a well educated priest to want to be a teacher (in fact that is a priests possibly most important role, to teach of their deity and the reasons why they are important) and using his trained skills to do so.
No real faith (let alone one strong enough to allow the channeling of divine energies) is solid unless it is constantly examined and the tools for doing that are logic and philosophy. And frankly, thinking that philosophy would be lacking topics of debate simply because the question of whether the gods exist or not is answered just shows how little most folks know of philosophy.
My GM from 1983 till about 1995 was the best DM/Storyteller I have ever encountered and he had a degree in Philosophy (among others). It made the stories and enemies we met that much deaper and more meaningful. Evil was not just 'evil' it had REASONS it was evil.
Unemployment Lady "What do you do?"
Guy "I'm a stand up philosopher!!"
Unemployment Lady "Oh, a Bullsh!t artist!!"
Mel Brooks, always topical :)
|
|
Ooh, good stuff Selk!
- What is natural and what is magical, and how does one become the other.
In the real world, anything that actually happens, by definition, isn't 'unnatural' or 'supernatural,' because, duh, it happened!
In a fantasy world, where things from other universes, with different physical laws, can show up and cause otherworldly things to happen, any such simple metric goes out the window...
The ability of an undead to create spawn, for instance. It may be 'natural' to the undead, but it's darn unnatural by the standards of material planes residents.
- With Aroden's death, has destiny abandoned Golarion? Who controls destiny if not the gods?
This, number one with a bullet, would have people in the streets, arguing about 'what it all means.' Destined sorcerers might have suffered any sort of whiplash effects from being born, to spontaneously dying in a burst of magical fire, when Aroden died, as old 'destinies' came undone, and new ones were forged.
I'd love to see a Destined Sorcerer who is all about the age of lost omens, with the fluttering threads of some sundered prophecy hanging off of him, causing strange and unnatural things to occur in his passing, like a living wild magic zone or something.
- In a land where monsters and beasts can reason and possess souls, what gives man (and elves, and dwarves...) the right to treat them as vermin?
- Should you not eat a pig that can talk or a cow that can sing?
- Are clerics intermediaries to the gods (old Catholic style), or can a common man pray alone and be heard? If so, why are only clerics granted divine magics?
- If a cleric of good asks you to break allegiance to your lord, can you? Must you?
Pretty much the entire focus of the Bhagavad-Gita is this question, a young prince questioning whether it is right to fight a war against his uncle, betraying the bonds of family, and his charioteer, an avatar of the god Krishna, instructing him that his duty to the greater principles, including the gods themselves, must outweigh his duty to his family.
- What is the just punishment for a starving man who steals a loaf of bread?
- Are the gods perfect?
- If the gods were to vanish, would magic? Would the world vanish?
- Can I become a god?
And, in that last vein,
'What is the Starstone?''Are the Scions of the Starstone as worthy of worship as the gods who raised themselves? (Nethys, Irori, Urgathoa) Are the gods who raised themselves as worthy of worhip as the gods who were, as far as we know, always there? (Desna, Erastil, Rovagug) Are the gods who were once demons, devils or angels as worthy of worship as the old gods? (Asmodeus, Lamashtu, Sarenrae)'
'Does a god who staggered drunkenly by accident into a big magical rock and came out as the god of beer really count as a god?'
'If Aroden made the Starstone, and it had four bridges, one for each person that passed the Test, then who are those four? Everyone knows Norgorber, Cayden and Iomedae, but is the fourth Arazni or Razmir? Why did the fourth bridge collapse when Aroden died, and not when Arazni died, if the bridge was supposedly tied to Arazni and not Aroden, who had nothing to do with any of the bridges?'
'Does the nature of worship in any way influence the nature of the gods? If thousands of goodly people began to pray to Rovagug to moderate his rage, would he, over time, 'lighten up?' If the Church of Abadar was overly influenced by the Vault of Abadar, concerned only with money and gold, could Abadar himself be turned into an evil god of greed? If that's possible, it is absolutely in the interests of the goodly servants of Nethys and the evil servants of Nethys to war upon each other, each attempting to define their faith as the 'true' will of the god, and sway his wandering eye towards their own moral path, even as the morally neutral clergy of Nethys regard them both as extremists and heretics?'
'What forces come from the gods, and what do not? The gods make clear distinctions about good and evil, positive and negative energy, through the channeling of their priests, but is fire in any way good or evil? The gods of earth are good (Torag) and neutral (Abadar), does this mean that magics that manipulate the earth or generate stone and sand are 'good-flavored.' The gods of Air are good (Shelyn) and neutral (Gozreh), is power over the air also therefore, more good than evil?'
'If most of the gods who grant uphold the Domain of Darkness, Destruction or Trickery are evil, and none are good, does this mean that the tenets of Darkness, Destruction and Trickery are always suspect? Are the tenets of Charm, Community, Healing, Liberation, Nobility and Sun, contrarily, always on strong moral ground, as only good aligned dieties promote them?'
'Animals are considered morally and ethically blameless for their actions. An animal that threatens the life of a man can be killed without legal difficulty, although it may be the property of another, and recompense may be due. The same logic applies to a slave, in the matter of killing one, so does the same logic also apply to the slave in the first matter, making a slave inherently blameless in law-breaking or immoral acts? Similarly, if a person does not benefit from the protection of the law, such as a slave or a foreign citizen or a 'monster,' should the law have any power over them? Is a law only preferentially enforced to the detriment of the outsider a valid law, or merely an excuse for unethical treatment of others?'
This last one could be a powerful rationale for more or less 'lawful' Andorans to justify ignoring Chelish laws, considering them fundamentally 'un-lawful' for not being fairly applied to both citizen and slave, local and foreigner.
The Chel legalist, naturally, would disagree. :)
Philosophy cannot be used to prove anything. The moment it does, it ceases to be philosophy.
I think if the cleric finds a patron or opens a school/academy, he can make some gold off his venture (consider Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, the latter of which was hired by Phillip of Macedon to teach his son, Alexander).
Remember, philosophy isn't a bunch of random theories so much as a search for a truth that can never be found through the use of rational arguments and methods (a priori, a posteriori, recognizing fallacies, etc.). However, your player's character could create a philosophical belief system that facilitated the worship of his deity (consider other philosophies, such as Kantism, Stoicism, etc.).
::Charges at red cape::
Depends on what you mean by "proof." How would you prove something without a philosophy?
Everyone is so touchy today!Mixing philosophy, religion, and Mondays.... The only thing missing is politics!
What did you expect? LOL And this is a good read by the way.
Speaking of politics:
There are some historical precedents for adventuring philosophers. Confucous, for example, was a wandering minstrel when he was not occupying a political post. He tended to get fired often.
Do you mean Nanki Poo?
Yes, I think it would be a viable profession.
With regards to cleric&philosophy: If we take, just Western medieval history, there was very little distinction made between philosophy and theology. Plenty of other examples from the East.
As an aside, if your understanding of philosophy amounts to "random theories," then I hope you get a chance, at some point in your life, to dive back into philosophy, because it is so much more. Thinking through philosophy is a challenge, but the reward is worth the effort.
Best.
One of my players just asked me if he could take the skill Profession: Philosophy to make money with teaching lessons and selling books.
I never thought about philosophy in a D&D world that way.
Would it be a viable profession?
I'm thinking unless you're in a big city with some nobles interested in philosophy, you won't make any money with this profession.Also, he's a cleric. I'm having trouble picturing a cleric talking about some random theories(because he wants to teach a bunch of different ones) instead of talking to people about his god.
Any ideas how to integrate this in a D&D campaign?
Thanks
From gaming point of view I'd say that proper skills would be knowledge (philosophy) and profession (teacher), as the philosopher probably doesn't qualify as a legitimate job unless you can make a certain type of stone...
I would not make it a skill in itself, it seems to me rather a smattering of skills. It is a good concept to base many of your skills on.
diplomacy, various knowledge skills, seem to be the main ones.
Religion fact that there are are Gods doesnt really do much to quench that.. there always has to be something mortals do not or are not meant to know, politics, the nature of good and evil, and other typical hot items in forums are excellent for phylosifical debates.
Yeah. Knowledge: Knowledge. Knowledge: Truth. High INT and WIS. ;P
|
OT:
Play D&D with a philosopher or two from time to time.
I guarantee the experience lives in memory forever after.
But yeah, Knowledge, Diplo, maybe Bluff, would all be key skills for the actual in game "be a philosopher dude" role. Profession: Philosopher seems a little onerous, especially as the GP earned, unless you really twink out the skill, remains a pittance.
I love the idea of having Philosophy in a fantasy setting!
42
42
"The Babel fish" said The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is a small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconsious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the consious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish."
"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindboggingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this:
`I refuse to prove that I exist, says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic."
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
"Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his bestselling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God."
"Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened
If this turns into a 'Hitchhiker's' thread, I'm sold! ^^
Majikthise: I mean, what's the use of our sitting around half the night arguing whether there may...
Vroomfondel: Or may not.
Majikthise: ...be a God, if this machine only goes and gives you his phone number in the morning?
Vroomfondel: That's right! We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.