Esoteric Roman v. Greek Ranting (was Philosophers)

[Rytek]

philosophers are nice to use in the early game when you are short on money. Once money is plentiful you will always want to buy an oried instead.

[noname]

"sigh." People who read Plato often have polarized views on the matter. Some people who read his work are convinced that his ideas have led to the democratic republics the free world has today, while others (i.e. Karl Popper), think that his ideas have led to tyranny. Of course, the states describes in his works were probably not actually endorsed by Plato, but were merely used as ideas to get the reader to think for himself about politics. Furthermore, there are multiple states described in the republic, some of which are better than others. Democracy is shown to be happy for a time, but is place just above the state of tyranny because it has the capacity to turn into one (like the Weimar Republic turning into the Third Reich.) Also, Plato was invited to join the thirty tyrants, but refused. Here is an excerpt from his seventh letter about democracy and what the thirty tyrants did:

"And seeing, as I did, that in quite a short time they made the former government[democratic state] seem by comparison something precious as gold-for among other things they tried to send a friend of mine, the aged Socrates, whom I should scarcely scruple to describe as the most upright man of that day, with some other persons to carry off one of the citizens by force to execution, in order that, whether he wished it, or not, he might share the guilt of their conduct; but he would not obey them, risking all consequences in preference to becoming a partner in their iniquitous deeds-seeing all these things and others of the same kind on a considerable scale, I disapproved of their proceedings, and withdrew from any connection with the abuses of the time." -- Plato, the seventh letter.


P.S. Are orieds better at research, though? And aren't they meant for combat purposes more than they are for research?

[thejeff]

Oriads (sp?) may be better for combat than research, but they also open up magic paths (or levels) not available in non-capital mages, including randoms I believe. And can forge or cast rituals when needed and research when not.

Even for combat you're going to want a bunch of them in the long run.

That's my problem with philosophers. They're one trick ponies. Cheap researchers, but that's all. They can't site search, summon, forge, go into combat. If you concentrate on philosophers, you'll have good research, but you won't have built up a pool of mages to draw from as magic becomes more powerful.

And, one for one, I believe Oriads are better at research. Not more cost-effective, but more rp each. So philosophers aren't even good at research, they're just cheap. I buy them when I'm low on cash, but that's about it.

[Tichy]

(Warning: more babbling about Plato, scroll down for Arco!)

-=-

Please stop sighing. I'm trying to talk about a fascinating and complex individual and you're going back to the sanitized heroic Plato from a thousand Phil 101 classes and then claiming that I'm giving the Popper Plato what leads to tyrants.

I said nothing about what Plato has "led to." It seems obvious that his ideas can be mined by democrats (e.g. his arguments against democracy likely influenced - by way of Rousseau - the arguments against the tyranny of the majority in the Federalist papers) as well as would-be dictators (oddly enough, again by way of Rousseau). What Plato himself was after is a separate issue entirely, and has to be understood not only by his own words, but in terms of the interests and the political players of the day, and the crises and recriminations associated with the end of the Peloponnesian war. Like any player in the polis Plato wants to claim the high ground here, as do his opponents, so we can't read any of their writing uncritically.

You're right that the Republic can be interpreted as an ethical analogy. When one does parts of it are second only the Nichomachean Ethics as the foundations of the whole discipline. The Laws, on the other hand, is pretty straightforwardly an account of the founding principles of a state; the Athenian Stranger repeatedly argues that civic life should be directed by those who know the Good, and not just whoever shows up to vote. Is that pipe-dreamy, dictatorial, or a recognition that the state needs a way to avoid tyrannical majorities? Open to debate, but not in a games-forum...though I have a feeling that our presiding educator-gamemaker doesn't mind that his game attracts debates like this.

(Ok, I'm really done now...unless there's more sighing.)

--=--

As for Arco:

Orieads are sneaky, versatile, seductive but fragile. With the sloth scale philosophers come out of the box with rp9, more than Oreiads, but Oreiads come with a lot more. (A possibility, however remote, for A4 or N4 out of the box...and awe, recuperation, sacred...)

I tested EA Arco with sloth in an SP game on impossible. It's not pretty. It may be different in MP or in a no-independents SP game, because vanilla impossible is all about dealing with massive amounts of chaff *now*. But I'd much rather have more strong troops for expansion and defense early and mystics researching until I can afford multiple Oreiads, than slightly faster research.

[Cor2]

I feel like i just had a History of Philosophy class. Can I get credit for reading this?

[llamabeast]

To be fair I really quite enjoyed reading all this. It's great the variety of backgrounds you get in this forum.

[Cor2]

thejeff said:

And, one for one, I believe Oriads are better at research. Not more cost-effective, but more rp each. So philosophers aren't even good at research, they're just cheap. I buy them when I'm low on cash, but that's about it.

Without checking, I dont think that is true, if you have taken sloth 3.

My problem with them is that they have old age, otherwise I swear by them. in the Clash mp game I had no fewer than 15 at a time. Needless to say I was light years ahead of the compitition in research

[noname]

I don't have much more to say, except that, in the Laws, Socrates doesn't appear. This is important to note because Socrates was used as Plato's mouthpiece in so many of his dialogues. This means that he has no character which expounds his viewpoints in this dialogue. Personally, I've always thought that the Laws were a dialogue on what law was, what the role of intellect was in making laws, the natural laws, and the connection between philosophy and politics. Although a Cretan city is mentioned, the book was probably not intended to be a literal, step-by-step guide for making a city.

[tibbs]

I always use Oreiads for home province research. If your capital is sieged you have good casters for defense and you can also use their lure ability to convert/kill enemy generals.

[Tichy]

I'll accept that in part; the Laws are a very late work, and since at least the middle period of the Republic "Socrates" was at an almost explicitly critical distance from Socrates. My take is that in the Laws Plato finally abandons the ironic use of "Socrates" to offer his own view more directly. (Plato is the Athenian stranger, much as he was when he went to Sicily to try his own hand at statecraft...) A lot of what you say about the Laws seems right -- it's not a how-to manual for statecraft -- but it still seems that an aristocracy (in the meritocratic sense of rule by those whose intellects are capable, disciplined, and trained in philosophy) is supposed to be empowered to make and enforce the laws meditated upon in the dialogue.

My interest in all of this has been to avoid both the one-sided hero Plato and the villainous anti-open-society Plato, because both make him less interesting than he is. I got a bit rankled when you claimed me for a Popperite. And then the thread derailment began in earnest.