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="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1423555" data-attributes="member: 3146">One could also eliminate the Commune spell from the campaign. I don't think it's necessary but it's certainly possible.It's also quite possible that the deity would answer only doctrinal questions with very simple answers and that ones requiring long or complex answers would be unanswerable through Commune. For orthodox Christianity, there's a huge gap between the complexity of answering the question "Was Jesus raised from the dead" and "how does atonement through Jesus' suffering and death work?" (Even the wording of the latter question, though it seems simple enough, has definite theological implications).And for those who think that the notion of truth (and indeed rational thought) ceases to be meaningful if relativized, complex answers capable of being interpreted in more than one way are certainly possible. After all, if one takes the initial documents that raised the questions of doctrine as divinely written (I deliberately choose this word in order to avoid the questions of meaning that surround the Christian concept of Divine "inspiration"), it's likely that many of the legitimate implications of particular passages are correct without necessarily being mutually exclusive. Consider D&D rules as an example of this: there are perenial rules debates continually raging in the Rules Forum. Every now and then, a D&D FAQ entry or erratta comes out to "answer" a particular question like "does the con increase from polymorph effect your hit points?" Sometimes that stops the debate. But sometimes it doesn't. Recent threads indicate that "hit points remain unchanged" can be interpreted by proponents of the yes camp to mean "[base] hit points remain unchanged [but bonus hit points from con may change with con scores]." Their position is clearly somewhat weaker with the DMG erratta but is not untennable (or if it is, everyone hasn't yet abandoned it). And, of course, there are always questions of the honesty of various sources. A year or so ago, there were questions about the 3e interpretation of Shield on the rules board. Someone posted quoting a PHB that incorporated the D&D FAQ wording. It turned out after much questioning that he had downloaded a repaginated and edited version of the PHB from kazaa or some other such site. In a world where there may be clerics of demon lords with access to trickery domain spells and polymorphing demons who can impersonate angels, a divine equivalent of this is easily conceivable.</blockquote>

Verification