I dunno. Even if we have high enough wisdom to know that we're not very clever, it's not likely to be much higher than 15 or 16. 25 is pretty godlike in comparison.
what a meant was that anyone who was wise enough to know that wisdom would serve them best would already be pretty wise and intelligence would probably be better for them, because have the wisdom to know what to do with it.
For example: if I had 25 int I would probably show off all the time, and make a bunch of (probably very clever) people hate me, and then they would shoot me int the back while I was walking down the street. I don't think even 25 int could see that coming.
Kind of a circular argument, I know, but that's how most of my arguments go.
I was also poking a little fun at myself, having voted for intelligence.
Abrupt subject change, but am i the only one who thinks it doesn't make any sense that wisdom would make you a better priest? I mean spell casting wise, I doesn't make sense (to me) that the ability that lets you make good life choices also makes you able to memorize more spells. It looks to me that it does the same thing intelligence does for mages. But that's just silly little meagloth.
25 intelligence would probably be frustrating due to the lack of having any peers in your field (everyone would be Pinky to your Brain). 25 wisdom could probably get past the issue of loneliness that comes from totally outclassing everyone around you by transcending ego or somesuch, so that's probably my second choice.
But with 25 charisma, there's really no question - you're going to have a pretty awesome time.
@meagloth, that's a very interesting topic about priests and wisdom. Maybe it needs its own thread, so as not to derail this one. I'll go out and start it, and let's see if people are interested in a discussion.
If you wish for anything else, the Universe, or the genie, or the Devil, or whatever is granting the wish, will find some way to twist your words, or to ironically punish you for seeking to gain an unfair advantage over other human beings. It never fails. It's just how reality works, and it's inevitable.
There's no evidence for the existence of karma in the real world. Sometimes bad things happen to good people, and good things happen to bad people.
History has plenty of examples of bad people living long, happy and prosperous lives. And vica versa.
@karnor00, you're thinking too much in the short term, in my opinion. One of the elements of wisdom is to be able to perceive and understand the Big Picture, over the Long Haul.
Myths are very powerful, and they all contain Truth, if one has the wisdom to understand. Or, as one of the wisest people in history, Jesus of Nazareth once put it, about those who could not See, "They have eyes but they do not See. They have ears but they do not Hear."
My own experience has led me to believe in the Law of Karma as something akin to any Law of Physics. As you point out, we often cannot see It operating during our short lifetimes, but, I have studied the entire history of humanity, and I can most definitely see it operating over the 10,000 or so year recorded history of civilization.
I think that the reason that some people don't believe in Karma, is that it is very, painfully, *slow* to operate. Slow by individual human perspective, anyway.
Now, going back to Myth as containing Ultimate Truth: myths and stories abound in all cultures that I am familiar with, about "evil genies", "deals with the Devil", and that sort of thing. I am convicted at a fundamental intuitive level of the Truth of these myths and stories.
Again, I say, "Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it."
If there is any such thing as a being we might call "@God", then my (admittedly limited and hopelessly, humanly, flawed) understanding of that being is that It operates through what we might call, in some "wisdom traditions", "Karma".
Although, of course, I freely admit that I totally made up @God, and that It is a figment of my imagination. I still find comfort in It, in the face of all the tragedies of my individual existence, strangely and paradoxically.
And, just to be absolutely clear, I am a hard empiricist, and a "soft" atheist.
My own experience has led me to believe in the Law of Karma as something akin to any Law of Physics. As you point out, we often cannot see It operating during our short lifetimes, but, I have studied the entire history of humanity, and I can most definitely see it operating over the 10,000 or so year recorded history of civilization.
And, just to be absolutely clear, I am a hard empiricist [...]
These 2 statements seem to be conflicting, at least to me. The fact that you can look through history and find cases where, at least in your mind, karma has played a hand does not prove that karma exists, any more than looking through history and finding places where Nostradamus' predictions appear to have come true proves that he could actually predict the future. In either case your interpretation will be biased because you are trying to fit the data to your theory (likely without realizing), rather than fitting the theory to the data. There's nothing empirical about it.
Edit: Ok, I messed up a bit here. It is based on experience rather than thought exercise, so it is empirical in the sense of Empiricism vs. Rationalism. But it is also anecdotal, and about as far as you can get from making first-hand observations in a controlled setting (which is what I would consider empirical evidence).
I'm pretty sure karma is one of those untenable arguments that will cause more conflict that its worth. Its one of those cases where there are just as many arguments to be made FOR it as against it.
Ex:
Hitler was evil and died - Therefore, Karma exists Ghandi was benevolent and was assassinated - Karma doesn't exist
Go further down the road and you could alter these to support the opposite belief
Hitler committed suicide - Justice wasn't served therefore karma doesn't exist Ghandi died as a martyr leading to civil rights in India - Karma exists
The more important question though, I think, should karma be a relevant factor in whether or not we interact benevolently or malevolently with the world? If Karma could be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt tomorrow, do you think violent sociopaths murderers would magically stop killing? Or if it was disproven, would that mean we should stop trying to teach others with dignity and respect since in the end it doesn't make any difference after all? If there is no consequence for our actions what is to stop me from living the rest of my life as a sociopathic anarchist if I can get away with it?
As for Nostradamus, the argument could be made that his statement led individuals to fulfill a self-fulfilling prophecy that would not have been acted upon had the prophecy NOT been made in the first place, so by virtue of predicting an unpredictable event, Nostradamus caused someone to act in such a way that it happened.
If the supposition matches what happens, who is to say it isn't the unfounded supposition which created a series of events leading to the supposition happening in the first place?
Ex: I predict someone will turn right at an intersection who, in their mine alone, plans on turning left and acting upon it. But BECAUSE I predicted they would turn right I influenced them to turn right creating an effect which occurred only because of my cause of predicting the event.
So in this case, is my data trying to fit my theory? Or did my theory give me my data of actually turning right?
...My head hurts now. Don't have your second major in Philosophy kids, this is why.
Edit: After typing and re-reading my re-read I think I may have gone on an unintentional, completely tangential argument in which case, feel free to disregard everything I just said.
Comments
I dunno. Even if we have high enough wisdom to know that we're not very clever, it's not likely to be much higher than 15 or 16. 25 is pretty godlike in comparison.
what a meant was that anyone who was wise enough to know that wisdom would serve them best would already be pretty wise and intelligence would probably be better for them, because have the wisdom to know what to do with it.
For example: if I had 25 int I would probably show off all the time, and make a bunch of (probably very clever) people hate me, and then they would shoot me int the back while I was walking down the street. I don't think even 25 int could see that coming.
Kind of a circular argument, I know, but that's how most of my arguments go.
I was also poking a little fun at myself, having voted for intelligence.
Abrupt subject change, but am i the only one who thinks it doesn't make any sense that wisdom would make you a better priest? I mean spell casting wise, I doesn't make sense (to me) that the ability that lets you make good life choices also makes you able to memorize more spells. It looks to me that it does the same thing intelligence does for mages. But that's just silly little meagloth.
But with 25 charisma, there's really no question - you're going to have a pretty awesome time.
Despite your are rogue or not, it gives you missile weapons THAC0 bonus & AC bonus.
Is there a stat for motivation and hardworkingness?
History has plenty of examples of bad people living long, happy and prosperous lives. And vica versa.
Myths are very powerful, and they all contain Truth, if one has the wisdom to understand. Or, as one of the wisest people in history, Jesus of Nazareth once put it, about those who could not See, "They have eyes but they do not See. They have ears but they do not Hear."
My own experience has led me to believe in the Law of Karma as something akin to any Law of Physics. As you point out, we often cannot see It operating during our short lifetimes, but, I have studied the entire history of humanity, and I can most definitely see it operating over the 10,000 or so year recorded history of civilization.
I think that the reason that some people don't believe in Karma, is that it is very, painfully, *slow* to operate. Slow by individual human perspective, anyway.
Now, going back to Myth as containing Ultimate Truth: myths and stories abound in all cultures that I am familiar with, about "evil genies", "deals with the Devil", and that sort of thing. I am convicted at a fundamental intuitive level of the Truth of these myths and stories.
Again, I say, "Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it."
If there is any such thing as a being we might call "@God", then my (admittedly limited and hopelessly, humanly, flawed) understanding of that being is that It operates through what we might call, in some "wisdom traditions", "Karma".
Although, of course, I freely admit that I totally made up @God, and that It is a figment of my imagination. I still find comfort in It, in the face of all the tragedies of my individual existence, strangely and paradoxically.
And, just to be absolutely clear, I am a hard empiricist, and a "soft" atheist.
Edit: Ok, I messed up a bit here. It is based on experience rather than thought exercise, so it is empirical in the sense of Empiricism vs. Rationalism. But it is also anecdotal, and about as far as you can get from making first-hand observations in a controlled setting (which is what I would consider empirical evidence).
Ex:
Hitler was evil and died - Therefore, Karma exists
Ghandi was benevolent and was assassinated - Karma doesn't exist
Go further down the road and you could alter these to support the opposite belief
Hitler committed suicide - Justice wasn't served therefore karma doesn't exist
Ghandi died as a martyr leading to civil rights in India - Karma exists
The more important question though, I think, should karma be a relevant factor in whether or not we interact benevolently or malevolently with the world? If Karma could be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt tomorrow, do you think violent sociopaths murderers would magically stop killing? Or if it was disproven, would that mean we should stop trying to teach others with dignity and respect since in the end it doesn't make any difference after all? If there is no consequence for our actions what is to stop me from living the rest of my life as a sociopathic anarchist if I can get away with it?
As for Nostradamus, the argument could be made that his statement led individuals to fulfill a self-fulfilling prophecy that would not have been acted upon had the prophecy NOT been made in the first place, so by virtue of predicting an unpredictable event, Nostradamus caused someone to act in such a way that it happened.
If the supposition matches what happens, who is to say it isn't the unfounded supposition which created a series of events leading to the supposition happening in the first place?
Ex: I predict someone will turn right at an intersection who, in their mine alone, plans on turning left and acting upon it. But BECAUSE I predicted they would turn right I influenced them to turn right creating an effect which occurred only because of my cause of predicting the event.
So in this case, is my data trying to fit my theory? Or did my theory give me my data of actually turning right?
...My head hurts now. Don't have your second major in Philosophy kids, this is why.
Edit: After typing and re-reading my re-read I think I may have gone on an unintentional, completely tangential argument in which case, feel free to disregard everything I just said.