Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fanboy2000" data-source="post: 1868647" data-attributes="member: 19998">That was my point. D&amp;D rules, as written, allow for chaotic magic.Yes, in D&amp;D.Wich makes sense, becaue neutral and&nbsp; lawful encoumpas 2/3 of the law/chaos alignment axis. I don't understand how that argue for an anti-agonstic D&amp;D.Fantasy means that the world contains elements which are not explainable by natural law. D&amp;D uses the term supernatural in connection with magic because that is the right term. Because D&amp;D is a game, it has rules for magic. The rules are just a game construct, the setting can be anything.This is my point. Because they are both supernatural, the division can mean anything the DM wants it too.Wrong, in an <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&amp;va=agnostic&amp;x=15&amp;y=15" target="_blank">agnostic</a>&nbsp; setting, faith is the only thing that makes sense. If the gods are unkowable, if the gods have not revealed themselves in any physical way, then the only way people can belive in gods is through faith. My answer does adress your question: magic, by definition, doesn't need reason. If only people who call themselves clerics can cast certain spells, then that's the way magic works. I'm not useing rule zero. Not a single line in any of the 3 core rulebooks was altered. Not a single rule was created, altered, or removed. This isn't a rule, this is an in-setting explainition for a game mechaninc.My answer tells the player that magic is mysterious and chaotic, and can't be pined down by out of setting logic.Every setting is a decree then. The statment, &quot;in my setting, there is a city by the river,&quot; is equal to the statement, &quot;in my setting, divine magic is brought about by faith in the gods.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fanboy2000, post: 1868647, member: 19998"] That was my point. D&D rules, as written, allow for chaotic magic. Yes, in D&D. Wich makes sense, becaue neutral and lawful encoumpas 2/3 of the law/chaos alignment axis. I don't understand how that argue for an anti-agonstic D&D. Fantasy means that the world contains elements which are not explainable by natural law. D&D uses the term supernatural in connection with magic because that is the right term. Because D&D is a game, it has rules for magic. The rules are just a game construct, the setting can be anything. This is my point. Because they are both supernatural, the division can mean anything the DM wants it too. Wrong, in an [URL=http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic&x=15&y=15]agnostic[/URL] setting, faith is the only thing that makes sense. If the gods are unkowable, if the gods have not revealed themselves in any physical way, then the only way people [i]can[/i] belive in gods is through faith. My answer does adress your question: magic, by definition, doesn't need reason. If only people who call themselves clerics can cast certain spells, then that's the way magic works. I'm not useing rule zero. Not a single line in any of the 3 core rulebooks was altered. Not a single rule was created, altered, or removed. This isn't a rule, this is an in-setting explainition for a game mechaninc. My answer tells the player that magic is mysterious and chaotic, and can't be pined down by out of setting logic. Every setting is a decree then. The statment, "in my setting, there is a city by the river," is equal to the statement, "in my setting, divine magic is brought about by faith in the gods." [/QUOTE]

Verification