Re: Practical and Cultured?
For me practical has not much to do with intellegence, it means the character is good at solving practical problems, yet he might know a lot about philosophy. It's just that he uses what he learns for practical purposes rather than theoretical ones.
Cultured means to me that the person is an urban fellow who knows and loves the urban culture and the art that comes with it. He also knows how an urban environment works
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Having tons of 'utterly pragmatic' governors, I believe the cultured-line has it's advantages as well. Cultured governor gain more influence, as opposed to the management the pragmatic governors gain. Whether there is any correlation between being practical and logistic skills or atheistic thoughts (atheist, despises the gods, hates the gods and traits like that), I do not know. I seem to be 'earning' the latter.
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Practical means you are better at building stuff with your own hands, or solving logistical problems. Cultured means you spend more time at the opera/odeon. Neither really has anything to do with intelligence, although there may be an element of education involved - which is quite different.
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Practical generals and FMs always better... they has management bonus and no military penalty, but those cultured FMs usually ends up as rotten 0 stars low management high influence corruptors...
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Cultured is the first step in the Cultured-Erudite-Scholastic-Pedantic line of traits. Erudite is the best, but after it, you get pure penalties. Which should not be that way, as it makes no sense for an Erudite to have +1 management and a scholastic or pedantic person to lose that in favour of influence and hitpoint penalties.
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Aemilius Paulus
Cultured is the first step in the Cultured-Erudite-Scholastic-Pedantic line of traits. Erudite is the best, but after it, you get pure penalties. Which should not be that way, as it makes no sense for an Erudite to have +1 management and a scholastic or pedantic person to lose that in favour of influence and hitpoint penalties.
Naturally the Q arises: why? Why then do the scholastic and pedantic lose the management in favour of the influence and hitpoint penalties?
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vartan
Naturally the Q arises: why? Why then do the scholastic and pedantic lose the management in favour of the influence and hitpoint penalties?
As they become more theoritical and forget practical reasons. Just like today's utopian economic that think everything would be best if (insert some fantastic economical theory here)
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Well if being pedantic as a negative trait for a FM of mine then that is something i can live with, For one influence isnt that hard to get, I'l just hope they dont go past Erudite.
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Valion
Well if being pedantic as a negative trait for a FM of mine then that is something i can live with, For one influence isnt that hard to get, I'l just hope they dont go past Erudite.
It sometimes works to move a FM out of a city once he recieves the Erudite trait, if you leave him outside (without a Tutor, or cource) for 1 turn, his education (the cultured-erudite-scholastic thing) stops. After that you can move him back to get extra traits, like philosopher, poet or the all-important Logistics
Re: Practical and Cultured?
I think the reason why a FM who moves beyond erudite to scholastic would lose management is because he has crossed the line from being cultured and enjoying academics to being more concerned with academics then he is with his job (namely governing your city). Basically, instead of managing your city, he is sitting in the library reading Socrates, which is why he loses management.
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
WinsingtonIII
Basically, instead of managing your city, he is sitting in the library reading Socrates, which is why he loses management.
That's funny, Socrates didn't write anything.
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Holysahib
That's funny, Socrates didn't write anything.
Hardly makes any difference since Plato wrote down a lot of what he said (or what Plato wanted him to say).
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Conradus
Hardly makes any difference since Plato wrote down a lot of what he said (or what Plato wanted him to say).
Exactly, Socrates as historical figure vs. Socrates as a literary device exempt from criticism.
I suddenly see a interesting parallel between Socrates and Jezus...:idea2:
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Holysahib
Exactly, Socrates as historical figure vs. Socrates as a literary device exempt from criticism.
I suddenly see a interesting parallel between Socrates and Jezus...:idea2:
Nevermind now that most of what we know of Socrates as a historical figure comes from Plato too ;) (
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Conradus
Nevermind now that most of what we know of Socrates as a historical figure comes from Plato too ;) (
Xenophon wrote about him too, didn't he?
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Apázlinemjó
Xenophon wrote about him too, didn't he?
Yes he did, that work is called the apomneumaneumatha sokratou or something like that :p
And there were some others as well, but Plato's still the main source.
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Holysahib
I suddenly see a interesting parallel between Socrates and Jezus...:idea2:
Not just them. A great deal of the founders of philosophical/religious movements did not write their thoughts down. Lao Tzu for instance, has a story about him that he was leaving China and the border-guard, after quite a bit of persuading, finally talked him into writing down his beliefs. Yet Old Master's writings spanned only ~500 words. Which sort of fits the Taoist idea of wu-wei (non-action) principle.
Or so the story goes, which is thought to be true, but I am not entirely sure here. Well, at least Huston Smith said it was true, and the only person greater than him in his field would be Joseph Campbell, who did not mention this story.
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Valion
Greetings fellow EB fanatics :beam:
What exactly does these two traits mean for you? Does it mean because your practical your less intelligent than others? or just someone who doesn't want to understand the origins of life? :sweatdrop:
And does being cultured mean your more intelligent than others? someone who locks himself in the academia? until he gets a :idea2:
In EB i've noticed Practical FM's more often get the Understanding of Natural Philosophy trait and cultured FM's mostly get the Philosopher trait. But it seems in the long run Practical FM's are better than Cultured seeing the cultured trait can become Pedantic which is -2 Influence and -1 Hit Points :dizzy2:
In any case does having one of this traits make way for gaining other traits?
Cheers!
sounds like me in RL:clown:
Honestly, I prefer my characters balanced, and cancelling of their more unwanted traits. I hate to have FM's who are smart but theoretical, and practical men who are uneducated. why not balance the two, and have a practical and intelligent, well educated, man.:yes:
besides, both traits, if maintained and enhanced, can lead to other good traits.
Re: Practical and Cultured?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Holysahib
That's funny, Socrates didn't write anything.
Sorry, my mistake. Let's say your family member is reading what are essentially Socrates ideas as written by Plato. Thus, he spends all his time doing this, and neglects his duties as governor. Does my theory make sense now?
