Quote from: FishMeisterSupreme on April 06, 2025, 08:47:24 PMBecause societies running on master morality are the norm, so to speak, it takes a revolution of sorts to spread slave morality.

So by making a setting where master morality is the norm and where slave morality would be mocked, you make a setting that is more believable than a setting in which the only people who would disagree with Christianity/Judaism/Taoism/Buddhism are either stupid or cartoonishly evil. Other than people who say 'I do not believe in such and such god'.

Yes, but weakness is more interesting than strength, isn't it? In Nietzsche's paradigm, it's like how there are a million ways to be sick, but only one way to be healthy.

Also, isn't disrespecting Judaism . . . anti-Semitic??

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 06, 2025, 06:59:51 PMNietzsche is correct about one thing, one very big primary thing, Power does not corrupt, power attracts the corruptible. power amplifies what was already there. men who don't want power know well enough what may be amplified within themselves.

No. He was wrong.

I have seen far too many cases were someone was given power and for god unknown reasons they flip out. They did not seek the position. But once they have it they Jeckyl/Hyde into a monster. Sometimes gradually. Sometimes poof and they are an endless problem.

These ones are a pain because you never see it coming. With power mongers you can often see it taking shape.

It's simple: Slaves exist in my game cause Thralldom is a possible punishment for crime. And they'll cost upwards as much as a year's wages for an unskilled laborer.

Thrall, Body Servant   600p
Thrall, Combat           480p   
Thrall, Laborer    240p
Thrall, Pleasure    300p

Otherwise, I'm not sure what Nietzsche has to do with RPGs....

Honestly the most useful part of Nietzsche's philosophy is the Ubermensch, especially the extreme some idiots take it to, where the Ubermensch gets to redefine physics the same way they do values.

Quote from: FishMeisterSupreme on April 06, 2025, 11:20:23 PMHonestly the most useful part of Nietzsche's philosophy is the Ubermensch, especially the extreme some idiots take it to, where the Ubermensch gets to redefine physics the same way they do values.

Where in Nietzsche does he indicate that Ubermenschen work together? I haven't found anywhere where he says there can be an entire society of them; the masses must remain forever undermen.

While I might be a Heathen of a sort myself, and one who's views do somewhat line up with his, Philosophy really isn't the realm of tabletop gaming if you ask me, It's an escape from the real world lol.

I guess the average murderhobo PC is kind of like an ubermensch. No rules, go wherever you want, exploit everything to enrich yourself as you will. All the more reason you don't need to make it explicit or talk about it.

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 06, 2025, 06:59:51 PMAs C.S Lewis might put it, Nietzsche was in some sense trying to  raise from its grave (its shallow and unquiet grave...) the pre-Christian ferocity of Achilles by a "modern invocation".

I just wanted to share this essay, as I think it's worth a listen:


I don't want to go too much farther into it, as it'd decidedly off-topic for this forum, but I think Lewis is hitting on a primary paradox of Christian civilization. Short version: Christianity is at it's best when Christian ideals of humility, compassion and service are operating in balance with primarily pagan ideals of valor, honor, and individual excellence. 

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 06, 2025, 10:21:15 PM

Quote from: FishMeisterSupreme on April 06, 2025, 08:47:24 PMBecause societies running on master morality are the norm, so to speak, it takes a revolution of sorts to spread slave morality.

So by making a setting where master morality is the norm and where slave morality would be mocked, you make a setting that is more believable than a setting in which the only people who would disagree with Christianity/Judaism/Taoism/Buddhism are either stupid or cartoonishly evil. Other than people who say 'I do not believe in such and such god'.

Yes, but weakness is more interesting than strength, isn't it? In Nietzsche's paradigm, it's like how there are a million ways to be sick, but only one way to be healthy.

Also, isn't disrespecting Judaism . . . anti-Semitic??

Nietzsche generally considered Jews to have Master Morality, and the way they pioneered film, air-conditioning, music production, and a wide range of banking and investment firms, it's easy to see that he was right.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 07, 2025, 09:43:40 AM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on April 06, 2025, 06:59:51 PMAs C.S Lewis might put it, Nietzsche was in some sense trying to  raise from its grave (its shallow and unquiet grave...) the pre-Christian ferocity of Achilles by a "modern invocation".

I just wanted to share this essay, as I think it's worth a listen:

I don't want to go too much farther into it, as it'd decidedly off-topic for this forum, but I think Lewis is hitting on a primary paradox of Christian civilization. Short version: Christianity is at it's best when Christian ideals of humility, compassion and service are operating in balance with primarily pagan ideals of valor, honor, and individual excellence. 

That leans more on valuing syncretism than it does Christianity's own internal moral system. Christianity is not a syncretic religion, and Nietzsche would not have tolerated any syncretism with it, anyways. I would say that a number of Old Testament figures such as David, Joseph, and Moses all demonstrate what you are ascribing as pagan ideals, but they are held in balance with other ideals or with metaphysical understanding. 

I suppose this is my cue to explain why Nietzsche is wrong.

To quote Francis Schaeffer, "Christianity is not conservative, but revolutionary." Christianity's fundamental aim is to replace it's current ruler (Satan) with Christ. People like Nietzche tend to not appreciate this because 1) they don't appreciate the spiritual warfare aspects involved, and 2) they don't appreciate that because political precedent is a thing, the how a revolution is inseparable from the what. Nietzsche missed that what he called "slave morality," is not an alternative morality. It's intended as a disruptive strategy.

This all just returns to my point that roleplaying settings based on Nietzsche, his ideas, and their implications, are inherently dynamic. If they aren't dynamic, you aren't actually doing the conflict lines justice so much as using it as window dressing.

Christian v Pagan morality is a theme in my Wilderlands campaign. The default for the setting is pagan/master but the Mycretians especially teach Christian/slave morality and it has influenced beyond them. And of course the players IRL all have slave morality to a large extent. I like to challenge their assumptions, but the Mycretians tend to win the debate I think.