Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rystil Arden" data-source="post: 2092972" data-attributes="member: 29014">That's funny because disliking that same forced frame of reference for other contributors is the reason I suggested the opposite. If you say its a scholarly theory, then the DM can just choose to ignore it if he doesn't like it. On the other hand, if you make it established canon, and force the other contributors to use it as a frame of reference, then it might become so entrenched that it becomes requisite to use the setting without changing or eliminating many many other things. As an example, a DM who read Mouse's first post about Taufenacht and wanted to say that Taufenacht is actually just a myth and doesn't exist would have some real problems, not from the post itself, but because we used that post as a frame of reference. That said, you could just say that the "spark" is an innate quality that comes from the Positive Energy of life and the Negative Energy of death and have the extraplanar beings formed from the energy (after all, somebody had to just be formed from the energy or the void, we're just picking whom), keeping everything else the same and your (otherwise fine) coherent explanation of magic, religion and psionics would still exist, without forcing a creator deity. Then you can add on the Creator theory as an optional theory posited by some scholars.  This is my preference, as it leaves it open for future contributors. If nobody else backs me up, though, this is the last I'll mention of it. Edit: Ah Arkhandus posted in the middle of my post. Now I don't feel like nobody agrees with me.  Thanks for the support!</blockquote>

Verification