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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6791789" data-attributes="member: 2067">The question is why would you preserve the wall. It presumes the PC wants to tear down the wall and that, as a DM, you can make that possible if you want. You've ceded that such PC's and campaigns could exist. If such a PC came to your game, why would you choose not to let them succeed? What do you gain from such a choice compared to the cost of losing player autonomy? What is the benefit? The above are all reasons why someone could not. Remove those barriers (as DMs can). Why, then, would you still preserve it (if you would)? For instance, imagine a Dragonborn elder who was raised from the dead by a powerful Dragonborn bard, saved from the Fugue Plane. That elder knows what lies in store, and knows its unjust. This PC - a dragonborn apprentice of that great bard - follows in that elder's tradition, seeking an afterlife for herself and her people and all unbelievers that is just and righteous. As the party delves into ancient ruins and explores the history of the gods and other worlds, they see the possibilities layed out before them - afterlives where everyone receives justice. This plot works, no? So why WOULDN'T you allow it? What do you gain from forbidding it? (in the Star Wars analogy, you might as well say that Leia could not succeed because the Rebellion is small and most people go along with the Empire and don't challenge it and think that the only people that get their planets blown up are those who fight the way things are - but the player came with a character who wanted to overthrow the Empire, and the DM made that possible for that character when for any other character, it wouldn't be possible. What do you gain as a DM by saying "The Empire cannot be overthrown in my campaign"?)The Wall causes pain and suffering (and unnecessarily so, given that alternatives canonically exist).These aren't gods that anyone had to have faith/belief in, though.It is, because the just concept of Hell relies on monotheism and a transcendent deity that represents all that is good and loving in the world. FR has no such deity, no such monotheism, so for it to try and grab Hell makes it an unjust Hell compared to the Hell that lots of people here in the Real World believe in. The justice available to Hell is not available to the Wall. It does if some person chooses to make tornadoes and earthquakes. That's the nature of FR - either Ao or some god chooses to inflict this suffering. That makes it evil. If you replace it with the D&D standard, that's not at all what that means. Standard D&D doesn't either and it gets away with not requiring worship.It really sounds like you don't understand the standard D&D afterlife very well.</blockquote>

Verification