D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[EzekielRaiden]

People are using casual English

Yes.

They are being vague.

That's LITERALLY the point!

 

[Bedrockgames]

"GM did a boneheaded thing while railroading" is simpler than "a ludicrously complicated series of events and justifications which somehow, someway, make this The Producers-level parody of religion somehow actually make sense."

The way something like that would make sense in a setting, is if you had a religion already that had that belief there. I think it is an odd one for sure, and I think people were trying to explain the unbribeable guard with a belief made to match the trait. There are much better beliefs that could explain it. But if such a religious belief existed in a setting already, like you had some weird Teetotaler Deity who didn't just punish drunkards, but their whole families, sure it could work lol

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In this case a game where that is the referee's goal is probably not the right fit for you.

If the table does have a clear enough idea what it means then it is useful. That's been the case for me in sandbox campaigns.

"if everyone understands what it means, then everyone understands what it means" is not a particularly productive or revelatory answer.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes.

They are being vague.

That's LITERALLY the point!

It is literally just people communicating with each other in a normal way

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The way something like that would make sense in a setting, is if you had a religion already that had that belief there. I think it is an odd one for sure, and I think people were trying to explain the unbribeable guard with a belief made to match the trait. There are much better beliefs that could explain it. But if such a religious belief existed in a setting already, like you had some weird Teetotaler Deity who didn't just punish drunkards, but their whole families, sure it could work lol

Is such a deity part of "realistic" worlds?

Because, again, if that's what we're allowing as "realistic", the term is meaningless. Nearly anything is "realistic" then--and so we're right back at square one, where the GM is doing whatever they feel like doing, because they can make anything they feel like doing "realistic".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is literally just people communicating with each other in a normal way

Yes...

Because when people communicate normally, they almost always ARE exceptionally vague. There is a reason "small talk" is notorious for being meaningless fluff.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Is such a deity part of "realistic" worlds?

If it is an established part of the setting. I think it would certainly add a humorous tone. But you could have a god like this.

Because, again, if that's what we're allowing as "realistic", the term is meaningless. Nearly anything is "realistic" then--and so we're right back at square one, where the GM is doing whatever they feel like doing, because they can make anything they feel like doing "realistic".

The realism comes from the GM working a character trait out of existing religions in the setting. You are putting the cart before the horse

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't think anyone was trying to be insulting. I just think they were creating a convenient belief to fit the NPC description in the example

No one was trying to be insulting with "dollhouse play", but you found insult in it and demanded either apology or retraction.

I don't think you can break that down to a set of procedures.

@pemerton and a very, very, very substantial group of others (including myself) emphatically disagree.

 

[The Firebird]

"GM did a boneheaded thing while railroading" is simpler than "a ludicrously complicated series of events and justifications which somehow, someway, make this The Producers-level parody of religion somehow actually make sense."

The question isn't whether this religion makes sense, but whether the GM thinks it does.

"if everyone understands what it means, then everyone understands what it means" is not a particularly productive or revelatory answer.

I disagree. We have Protection from Evil (or Protection from Evil and Good) in the game. You could confront the DM with questions about how we know what evil really is. Or you can ask how they can use alignments when the philosophers haven't resolved what good is.

But you know, we don't need this level of specificity to have a good game. Most people's ideas of good are close enough for it to work.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If it is an established part of the setting. I think it would certainly add a humorous tone. But you could have a god like this.

I mean, one of the common results of including the ridiculous in a work is humor, I certainly grant that, but in this case I would absolutely find such an inclusion offensive, not humorous.

The realism comes from the GM working a character trait out of existing religions in the setting. You are putting the cart before the horse

Am I? The DM invents all of these religions personally. They invented the teetotaler god who kills whole families for a single sip. They get to decide everything. Literally, actually everything. How is it "putting the cart before the horse" to assert that ridiculous inputs do an end-run on any limitations arising from "real-world logic"? GIGO is a thing.