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: 6792317" data-attributes="member: 2067">Did you read Erin M. Evan's take a few pages back? It's not like the dragonborn are going around saying "the gods don't exist," it is like they are going around saying "gods are like needy children and you don't need to give them your attention." Returning from the Fugue doesn't make that later statement untrue, it just gives those needy children the ability to put your soul into a Wall instead of embarrassing you by throwing a tantrum in the store. It makes them dangerously powerful needy children. One logical response is to capitulate to these powerful needy children.A more heroic response is to blow up the Wall. I can't really disagree more with the part I put in bold.To keep using the Star Wars Analogy, that's like saying Vader blowing up Alderaan isn't evil, because Alderaan could just fight the Rebellion and be loyal to the Empire and thus avoid the fate of being blown up. To use a more D&D analogy, it's like saying summoning Tiamat isn't evil, because people could just agree to be ruled by her and thus avoid the horrible things she would do to them. We also don't think like this in the Real World - if you get into an argument with someone and they punch you, it doesn't matter if you could've avoided the punch by not arguing with them, they're still responsible for their own actions (and guilty of assault). There's no system of morality or religion that would say that the one who threw the punch isn't committing some form of sin. Whether something can be avoided or not is irrelevant for it's moral abhorrence (and bleeds into things like victim-blaming, where we say it's your fault you got punched because you could've just not argued and thus YOU'RE guilty of provoking him to assault!), and for it's Evil-ness in D&D terms.So the arc of a fight against the Wall in your FR is about convincing people to believe in something different - an afterlife where if you believed in yourself or your friends or an abstract concept like Peace, you could still go there, because there would be belief creating this world where you and your friends can live in peace. Very Planescape-y. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I mean, mostly you would remove the Wall because you're Saying Yes to an idea the player brought in and is interested in exploring. It's not like everything is hunky-dory in the afterlife of standard D&D without the wall (as the fights against demon lords and the like show). You can include strife in death without the Wall. The gods of the Realms aren't transcendent beings. They're powerful magical individuals. Some of them are ascended mortals who have killed gods. They're more like the polytheistic pantheons. And in those pantheons, you clearly had thunderstorms without Zeus (because it's not like there weren't thunderstorms in Persia!), so belief was irrelevant. Then you're forbidding it. It will never happen in your games.I'm still not exactly clear on the benefit you gain from disallowing it.</blockquote>

Verification