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="gizmo33" data-source="post: 4807696" data-attributes="member: 30001">I don't see how this supports the conspiracy we're talking about.  If anything, not putting Commune answers under the control of a specific deity would make disinformation harder AFAICT.    This is possible but seems to me to fall into the "DM fiat" category.  Prior to 4th edition, alignment was a measurable and universal condition.  Individual DMs might decide that alignment morals are relative, but the vanilla interpretation IMO was not that way.   Same thing with demon and devil - take 4e for instance.  These are creature subtypes, and the rules would imply that there is a physical reality to this.  It seems somewhat far-fetched (but not impossible) to treat this otherwise - comparable to saying that an NPC with 18 strength might not actually be physically stronger than one with 10 strength, and instead is just so lucky that every time he attempts a feat of strength he gets a bonus.  The DM could say that this is the case, but does not seem IMO to be the intent of the strength mechanic in the game.  Do I get an insight/sense motive check? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />  Ultimately, based on my "hop on one foot" analogy, the DM can do whatever he wants.  I'm not arguing that the issue would be settled by a single, historical casting of Commune where everyone will just settle for the answer for the rest of eternity.  *All* of the various divination spells, divine servants, creatures (clerics and otherwise) with 25 intelligence and contact with various deities, etc. would all have to support this conspiracy.  I can't imagine a cleric continuing to get spells from a deity who is misrepresenting his deities beliefs.  So to the extent that there is a conspiracy, it would not be initiated by a mortal agent without approval of the deity IMO.  Ultimately I agree that the GM can fiat his way out of this.  After all, there's no real simulator that you can run to answer this.  Whether or not the players in the campaign find this believable will ultimately come down to whether or not they hold opinions about this similar to mine, for example.  And ultimately, it wouldn't be polite of me as a player to be shooting my mouth off about how "oh, that wouldn't happen for real".  What the GM says here goes - and if the gods and creatures all behave a certain way then that's how it is.</blockquote>

Verification