I've read this and I'm none the wiser:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7497081.stm
Take this quote: "Over time, poverty has become more associated with differences in character development, so while in the past a poor, deprived child would have about the same chance of developing a good character as a more affluent child, our research suggests that children who were born in the 1970s, as opposed to in the late 50s, into deprivation were much less likely to develop good character than more affluent groups."
Does this mean that poverty has a different effect on character now than it used to? Or does it mean that our definition of 'good character' (whatever that is) has changed?
And apart from the obvious, like not taking part in criminal or antisocial behaviour, what defines a 'good character' anyway? Are you, for instance, a good character if you consider criminal behaviour but decide its not worth it because you might get caught?
I'm confused!
Without a definition of 'good character' I'm not sure how the study can be considered valid. Presumably they had one when they did it. I wonder what it was.
I've got a suspicion that any given person's definition of a good character would sound a bit like themselves!
Yep. I bet even Hitler thought he was a great guy!
Does that count as Godwin's Fallacy? If I'm permitted to continue the thread, I'd have to say that yes, Hitler did think he was a great guy - and in many respects he was. He did some pretty amazing things with the shattered and emasculated German state in the 1930s. Yes, he was what we might describe as "evil" - but I don't think he should automatically be cited as the ultimate example of human evil, as he so often is.Originally Posted by Mike Hall
Returning to the main subject, I have serious misgivings about the study much along the lines of Mike Hall's first response - what exactly constitutes a "good character" in this study? Is a significant portion of the paper given over to a debate on ethics? It seems unlikely somehow. I suppose they would have just taken a broad view of some of the more obvious "virtues": generosity, humility etc.
Fighter with 18s in charisma and int, but a con of 4? I've messed up big time.
Start again from scratch with 4th edition.
We fear change!
Sneak it in through Star Wars: Saga Edition. Same basic rule set as 4E but much more cinematic, it's less loot orientated and face it who doesn't like Star Wars :)
But everyone knows Cha is the dump stat for fighters
Last edited by Mongrel; 10th July 2008 at 12:30 PM.
I'm trying to do something witty with the phrase "rapier-like wit", but I think I failed on my throw versus irony.
So the sword IS mightier than the pen... errr keyboard
That would be an Int check by the way
Anyway, everyone knows that rapiers are a thieves weapon of choice
Er... {looks at feet} that'd be me....face it who doesn't like Star Wars
But with an 18 charisma ya still gots to love me.
damn this Roll playing
*I was going to answer with some thing witty and inciteful, But Crit Failed on INT and CHR so.*
Harknor like ogres and soft woman clothing. I kill you all in sleep and have fun with corpses
he just needs to take a level in an obscure prestige class such as "dashing swordsman", hey it worked for Elan…
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks