i've been going back and forth with this for quite some time now...

what is appropriate when it comes to bringing in OOC philosophy, science, religion, etc into achaean context?

i've always considered the adaptation of OOC things to achaea not only difficult, but a great exercise in creativity...but i understand that there are limits. on the other hand, nearly everything that is IG right now was at some point purely OOC. there needs to be some sort of familiarity to OOC constructs, because without them, debates would be pretty boring. but when you start bringing in different schools of thought and the language that they use to describe the world......things start to break down.


so....what sort of conventions, if any, should be in place?


edit: poop, can't edit the retarded title.

Do u want to rp Jesus?

-Firey-

Only Daes can get away with that.

At first I had no idea what you were referring to... I thought that I had missed Daes on some kind of "I'm Uber-Good" course of roleplay. Then I remembered the incident.

I'd much rather RP someone with a little more depth than Jesus, but thank you for the suggestion.

This thread reminded me of [I think it was] Kiba's post on the Ashtan newsboards that was almost a direct quote from Star wars.
(Just after Sidious/Palpatine got all electrofried and was speaking to the senate) (yes, I know elecrtofried isn't a word)

Jesus was a complex figure. Have fun trying to create a character with "a little more depth" than our lord and savior.

ETA : I'm not religious, but I remember reading the bible, and he was complex, and little was truly told about him. Maybe I'd think otherwise, or even moreso, if I'd've read his view of what happened, but I haven't. So I can only think that he is complicated. You can always just talk about someone, and make them seem more or less important than they really are/were, but it's nigh-impossible to truly explain the depth and complexity of a person without actually being the person.

Religious or not, it's laughable to think that Jesus even -needs- to have depth. I've heard people say the Bible is a work of fiction, but it wasn't a -ing comic book.

Yes. It doesn't have enough pictures.

I'm not sure if it's the same thing you're talking about, but I have found that several times, I'd like to quote some famous dude... and even if the quote or excerpt applies very well to the situation, the quoted person isn't Achaean, so there's no way you can properly cite the reference. Unless we're just gonna go straight for plagiarizing Kant, etc.

This is just my opinion, but I don't see what's wrong about just blatantly plagiarizing Kant, say, or some other particular real-world philosophy, so long as it isn't done in such a way that it *really* doesn't make sense in an Achaean context. (Some philosopher's talk about death, for instance, might come off a bit strange if you didn't modify it at all to fit a context where people generally come back to life.) It's true that this tends to make in-game discussions sound an awful lot like some of the arguments you'd have in an intro philosophy class, but the alternative (in-game discussions of philosophy that rigorously eschew drawing on ideas from those more brilliant than oneself) seems even worse.

And I've seen people quote real-world aphorisms or whatever and say that "A wise person once said..." or "I once heard it said that..." or something of the sort. I like that way of handling it; it's at least a clue that you didn't actually make that up yourself but keeps it nicely in character.

Yeah, I was a bit surprised at that comment. Be you a rabid, Bible-bashing Christian, a hard-core Atheist or someone with no real interest in religion at all I think you'd be hard pressed to say the Jesus figure and it's associated mythology* has no real depth.

For Awan I don't think "blatantly plagiarising" anyone is cool, whether they are Kant or someone else. Spend an extra five minutes of your time and come up with your own thoughts instead of trying to pass someone else's work off as your own. Draw on other peoples' ideas and writings, sure, learn from others, of course, but to go ahead and blatantly plagarise something is fairly low.


* I know the word "mythology" may be considered rude by some Christians. Sorry about that, not intentional, I just haven't had coffee yet and can't think of the correct wording.

I remember one guildmate (yes, guild) who used to give these long lectures and news posts on cognitive philosophy. It annoyed me terribly, because it was so obviously OOC knowledge from some philosophical school that was brought IC as a really "wise and clever teaching", but without ever using any clear OOC reference which would have made it clearly illegitimate, and always with some IC pretexts, which made it impossible to do anything against it, or even just to tell the person that you didn't like it.

I appreciate it if people don't try to seem extra clever IC by spreading such wisdom and rather try to come up with their own IC teachings, even if they're somewhat less refined.

I actually think that's the correct usage. The definition of mythology, as I see it, is any collection of stories that a particular culture believes to be true. In this case, that culture is that of the Christian faith, and if they believe the Bible to be true, it counts as mythology. Some definitions, however, say that mythology is not factually valid, which could be considered rude.

That is the definition I was thinking of.

Sorry, I meant to be joking a bit when I said "blatantly plagiarising." Obviously if you're copying word-for-word from something or coming anywhere close to that, that would be lame. But on the other hand, if your own opinions and your reasons for having them happen to have been very much shaped by Kant, or if you've decided your character is a Kantian type because that's a convenient way of getting into view a certain set of presuppositions and intuitive responses they'll have to moral decision-making - then I don't think it's wrong to argue in a way that are drawn pretty directly from Kant.

That kind of thing would still be problematic in many contexts in the real world, but in a fantasy game I think there's a baseline expectation that we all grab ideas from various places and use them.

man...jesus has some fans here. what about voltaire and swift?

well, thanks for the attempts at help.

I really don't know if it's worth rolling my eyes twice in one thread. You clearly ignored actual attempts at helping you because we offended your obnoxious "lol jesus isnt real" tendencies. Real mature.

Speaking as probably the most vocal atheist around, this isn't a case of Jesus having some fans, it's a case of everyone but you realizing your comment was moronic.

As to the person who said it was cool to bring Kant into the game, you couldn't be more wrong. Keep OOC philosophies OOC. We have enough IC philosophies to choose from, and they all have plenty of interpretations. Don't be an asshat and try to bring whatever you read for homework in Philosophy 101 into the game.

Ehh, it isn't really to sound extra clever or to bring in stuff that doesn't exist, it's just that sometimes, it applies well. How would you say that you thought of it yourself, then? What you read OOC does end up affecting you, since ultimately, this IC being is still what you've created from your OOC knowledge, so when you recognize that you've been influenced, but it's still what you would think regardless of what famous dude's backing it, should you not say it, since it's not an IC thing? Or should you say it and not reference it?

All in all, I guess they don't really have their famous dead guy seal of approval on ideas, just happened to be the ones who wrote about it enough... but what of entertainment, then? It takes a good deal of effort to adapt short stories you've heard elsewhere to an IC context, and I at least would find them interesting. However, the 'author', though heavily modifying it, would still be basing it off of something they heard.

Do you think, then, that this should also not be allowed?

There's a difference between being influenced by something OOC, and bringing that OOC source into the game. I could say that Aerek has been influenced by some Buddhist teachings, but I'm not preaching the Sutras at Centre Crossing.

Your character should not be you. Just because you think something doesn't mean your character should think it. If this problem even comes up for you, it means you're doing it wrong and should probably go find a single player game.

Yesyes, I assure you, I don't even read enough of what I'm talking about to preach it, I'm well aware. However, beyond an IC/OOC thing, when I do recognize that I've made a reference to something I've heard before, I give credit where it's due, even if a large part of my own thinking went into it as well. The purpose isn't to pull on stronger backing or give it more credibility, just for credit purposes only.




Whoa, overreaction there. I do a little filtering, give me some credit . What I meant was that if I couldn't have thought of it, then neither could my character. My character is not me, certainly, she's much more extreme. However, I don't really find it that abhorrent if people have characters who (based on RP, etc., etc.) have traits similar to their own... Because... unless you're extremely good at it, it's much more believable to have at least -a little- backing to it. Sure, it's a cop out method for those of us who aren't actors/creative geniuses, but I'm not here for them, am I?

Anyhow, this is sounding like a massive derail, so ignore me if you like, I'd just thought about it recently, so I figured I'd ask folks what they thought. If you're too uncomfortable, neither I, nor my character, would approve of causing you or yours suffering.

ALL HAIL THOTH LOLOLOLOL

seriously, when Maya brings you back to life it is because it "was not your time" as Thoth sees fit. When it is time for your soul (you) to move on (you die/stop playing/scramble your password cause your mommy doesn't like you spending that much money on games/pull a Jaizsur where your character actually dies) you(meaning your character) actually die.

So when you actually experience Death in capitals, you do not come back. (Except through powerful necromancy so it really is possible).

it is very obvious that swift, voltaire and even lapham have few friends here.

it took 11 posts to actually get a reply from someone not enamored by the mention of jesus. so, out of...hold on, lemme count...17 posts before your observation of my apparent religious tendencies, two were posts relating to the topic and not discussing jesus, jesus mythology, or the lack of illustrations in the bible. the second page fared much better. i'm sure it's great fun to castigate people on the internet, but really....do me two favors. one, please don't make assumptions because it's just not good form. two, be more creative! i really do need better entertainment. i'd appreciate you obliging me in these matters. thanks.


now, back on topic....my whole point rests on the issue that almost nothing IC (at least in terms of philosophy) is purely original. the erisian stuff was based on (guess!) OOC erisian stuff. darkness, the church, evil...they're all based on OOC philosophies or ideas. if i have read something or know of something OOCly that relates to one of the wellsprings of these different schools of thought, why shouldn't i be able to adapt it to the game? it's not about there being no divide between my character and i, but more about...i dunno, evolution within the game. if that makes sense. i don't want to seem like i think that bringing in the specific language of some philosopher would enrich RP or game play, but i think that it's important that there is a chance for growth and progress. i mean...how many theories of chaos will you have before you get something that sounds like quantum physics?

somebody said that their character via them had been influenced by buddhist teachings but scoffed at the idea of preaching about the sutras. but why? if you can adapt the sutras to achaea, why not teach them after you spend 40 days under the world tree? that may be a bit blatant and obvious, may have even been done before...but, hopefully, you get what i'm saying. i don't really see a problem with bringing in things like that, so long as it's done tastefully.

The problem is that most people can't do it in a 'tasteful' way, to use your word. The Erisian nonsense is terrible. The whole Erisian Pyramid, for the most part, is one giant, weeping, OOC sore on Achaea's face. The parts of Darkness' philosophy that are copy/pasted right out of the real world are disappointing, too. 'Adapting' something OOC for IC use is, nine times out of ten, a terrible thing.

Most of Achaea is OOC-inspired. It might borrow a name, or make a reference, but that's where it should stop, and usually that's where it does stop. Shallam is inspired by the middle east. The architecture, the imagery, the names, and so on, but it's not copied. It takes those middle eastern elements and creates something new, something original. If you take the Sutras, throw in some 'Achaean' terms, and dress them up as the Verses of Oneiros, that's not 'adapting' them to Achaea, that's just plagiarism.

Aerek's beliefs are OOC-inspired. They really started from one line of a movie. (Serenity, to be honest.) I took that line and ran with it, making up my own teachings, sayings, and stances. Now I have a rather all-encompassing religion. That's how you 'adapt' something OOC. Reading something on Wikipedia and deciding "This should be in Achaea!" is not, no matter how much you try and paraphrase it.

Maran died for our sins.

Preach the Kama Sutra, plzkthnxbai

How much XP would Jesus be worth?

None, he has a delayed starburst.
3 months and he re-pops, then he'll always go run and hide.

stupid veil

As a Priest of the Light, I will be happy to preach against the evils of the Karma Sutra.
(Which, after looking up what the word 'sutra' really means, would be a pretty ironic Sutra in Achaean vernacular.)