That sounds like a really interesting setup. Did you each get a profession/craft to base a few skills around?

Very good points, Thank you!

I guess the most canon-compliant way to make this idea work is that they were a cleric of a deity that died. That does happen in DnD settings sometimes and I would expect that would remove their access to divine magic. Of course I would expect that rules would let you substitute a different deity with similar domains, and there are definitely skills and feats you wouldn’t lose with your magic, but it would be an interesting backstory.

I think there’s also a fun opportunity for the world to just evolve a lot in that time. Like, you were a wizard 100 years ago, but then spells were super different and way less powerful, so now you get to relearn the newer better spells and casting techniques. I imagine it’d be like learning to programming 50 years ago and then starting again now

I’d go with druid. It gives you a reason for high wisdom and the aspect of merging with animal minds. High Charisma for persuasion and intimidation, probably a background supporting intimidation.

The fact is that she can do super impressive magic, she just usually chooses not to, so you’d definitely want to go with a full caster.

Well, people don’t really have the choice to not vote for people they deem to old if they are the only person running for their party. If we had rules for maximum ages that would force parties to offer us younger candidates to vote for

Wait, you’re the first person I see claim that the black panthers were anarcho-capitalist - usually the claim is anarchists. What makes you say that?

I understand it as less “being in this party” and more “sharing an anticapitalist worldview, how do you not let feelings overwhelm you”, which seems like a very valid question

I second Anark’s content. Haven’t seen those two videos yet, but do feel like the focus on building a community that does good and does better seems like the way out of leftist depression (or at least to less of it)

While I’m all in favour of individual action, I think it’s very reductive to say that that will stop climate change. And even the politicians we explicitly vote for to actually do things don’t, or not enough. And it’s not like we chose to live in a world that is being destroyed by climate change, so how is it selfish if we leave behind other people who also do? They created it as much as me - barely, because none of us have any real recourse to deal with it.

What eras do they have/use?

I feel like this is getting down voted mostly for the picture. TL;DR: Young people might not have wisdom/experience, but they have a clearer view if morality, and in their protests they focus on the real issues, while the media focus on their protests rather than the issues they protest

I fully agree. I just think that the economic situations have been getting more and more precarious for lots of people, meaning getting to a modest amount moves further into the distance. I truly believe that we’ll have more people championing climate change issues if we put them in positions where fulfilling their own needs is easier

By changing the system to give them better options and easier choices. It depends on why they don’t care or know, of course. I’m assuming a low SES here, where there’s little energy to inform yourself or change, different strategies should be used for other groups, like more education in schools, etc

You’re right, that is also an effort, though I think it’s one that our current situations make easier, given the amount of free information and the ubiquity of smartphones. Still, I see your point.

On the idea of consuming less resources being a waste of resources: Every one of us has a limited amount of mental energy. Most of us have to spend a lot of that on making a living. If we want to live perfectly moral lives, we can expend the rest of it doing that. But then that is the only thing we will change in the world. On the other hand, if we spend that energy on reforming policy and inspiring societal change, we may have further reaching effects. I don’t think the former is necessarily the more moral choice, though it definitely is a moral one. In an ideal world, we’d all do both of course

Not an unfair point, I grant you. I’d say that while a single vote is a small drop as well, it also requires much less effort of someone, whereas changing your life consistently every single day in ways that are difficult and unpleasant is a lot more to ask. I’d say it’s a matter of effort vs. reward

Fair, I should have made the effort to use “poor” in quotations, too. I love the idea of mutual aid working that way. I guess I’d be worried about relying on it for anything as potentially life-or-death as healthcare, but that’s a few steps further down the line than we’re discussing here

I don’t believe that we can defeat polluting corporations by not buying their products simply because we can’t completely buying products - many people aren’t in positions to be choosy and often the same companies own the “good” product that do the bad. We need the support of the government to be able to influence these giant corporations with regulations and taxes on pollution

I’d agree with your politics there, too. The poorer you make yourself, the more likely you are to live a moral life. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to also make it a good, comfortable, safe life, and I think it’s a bit much to ask people to go that much against their own interests. (This varies from country to country of course, I’m sure there’s places where you’d be ok)

I’m all in favour of everyone deciding this for themselves. Every person acting ethically is a good thing.

What I disagree with is people pushing other people to act ethically in the same ways when the impact is so small and their activism could focus on much bigger fish