D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Maxperson]

Also, unlike fires, cold can't catch your fat layer on fire and spread to be worse, or begin eating through your organs.

Right. Extreme instant cold would just burst the cells as the liquid in the cells freezes and expands. Much better.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Right. Extreme instant cold would just burst the cells as the liquid in the cells freezes and expands. Much better.

Yes actually. That cold is still limited in exposed area. If you walk around with a hole in your jacket that subjects your side to extreme cold that damage is going to be mostly limited to the exposed skin.

If you get unlucky with fire that ends up using your fat reserves as a fuel source, it spreads to your entire body.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes actually. That cold is still limited in exposed area. If you walk around with a hole in your jacket that subjects your side to extreme cold that damage is going to be mostly limited to the exposed skin.

If you get unlucky with fire that ends up using your fat reserves as a fuel source, it spreads to your entire body.

I cam into this conversation in the middle and someone mentioned spells, so I figured this was something like a coldball(fireball doing cold damage) doing lots of instantaneous cold damage. If this is simple elemental exposure, it will take a long time(15-30 minutes) to get to that point, but damage will still be done on the cellular level. Frostbite causes cellular damage as it freezes the water in the cells.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I cam into this conversation in the middle and someone mentioned spells, so I figured this was something like a coldball(fireball doing cold damage) doing lots of instantaneous cold damage. If this is simple elemental exposure, it will take a long time(15-30 minutes) to get to that point, but damage will still be done on the cellular level. Frostbite causes cellular damage as it freezes the water in the cells.

The point is that cold spells that can kill you with cold in six seconds are extremely cold, to the point that they are cold enough to also damage stone. Which is in the rules. 8d8 cold damge is enough to freeze a man solid after all.

The counterpoint was that Fire Extinguishers are cold and frostbite can kill a person. Later revealed to be liquid Carbon Dioxide Fire Extinguishers, and it takes the stone being incredibly hot then chilled to shatter and explode it, and that extremely cold temperatures can't damage stone.

As part of this I mentioned that frost burn doesn't seem to kill anyone, which is where the commnet of frost burns still being burns and killing people came in, which as I said, is usually more of an instance of infections and bleeding killing the person, not the burns themselves.

 

[Maxperson]

The point is that cold spells that can kill you with cold in six seconds are extremely cold, to the point that they are cold enough to also damage stone. Which is in the rules. 8d8 cold damge is enough to freeze a man solid after all.

The counterpoint was that Fire Extinguishers are cold and frostbite can kill a person. Later revealed to be liquid Carbon Dioxide Fire Extinguishers, and it takes the stone being incredibly hot then chilled to shatter and explode it, and that extremely cold temperatures can't damage stone.

As part of this I mentioned that frost burn doesn't seem to kill anyone, which is where the commnet of frost burns still being burns and killing people came in, which as I said, is usually more of an instance of infections and bleeding killing the person, not the burns themselves.

I don't know about killing people, but localized frostbite from fire extinguishers can happen within a few seconds, causing the cellular damage I mentioned.

It won't do much to stone, but D&D cold and stone aren't real world cold, so I wouldn't put too much stock in what a cold spell can do to stone in D&D.

A reason to be careful about frostbite injury: carbon dioxide fire extinguisher failure. | Semantic Scholar

Semantic Scholar extracted view of "A reason to be careful about frostbite injury: carbon dioxide fire extinguisher failure." by C. Şahi̇n et al.

www.semanticscholar.org

 

[Voadam]

I just realized I've just undermined my own point a little there because Pazuzu falls into sort of a similar category as Set. I withdraw my argument.

Pazuzu is a bit like Set in that the real world version has a tradition of being invoked against other evils while the fantasy version (D&D) is a different incarnation with a separate tradition and connotations.

 

[Helldritch]

Well, I can't find any evidence that shows frost burns killing people... ever. The closest I can get is the obvious "if your heart starts freezing you'll probably die" but that isn't frost burn. I've also got no idea what you mean by "coolants". Many of those are dangerous because they are toxic, not because they are cold. The ones that are dangerous because they are cold are in the -100's of degree area like I was talking about previously.

Additionally, if you are thinking of gangrene and sepsis caused by necrotic tissue that can be created by a frost burn... that isn't the frost burn killing you, that is the resultant infection killing you weeks later.

Depending on where the coolant or liquid co2 would hit you, death will be fast. That is something akin to make that saving throw.

Can you point me to wear I said "it explodes"? I said it would damage it. There is a difference between "damage" and "exploded" I also said it would especially damage it where the iron or steel bars are in the stone. I would like to remind you that metal heats and cools at different rates than stone.

IF the stone were to be damaged enough to allow easy escape as you claimed, you need large chunks of the stone wall to literally break in one shot. Thus exploding. Not all explosion are big bangs.

One of my links was powder, the other wasn't.

But yeah, talking about a liquid CO2 extinguisher was not anywhere near what I got from your original point.

Again, I am guilty of my experience. I use mainly those. (Well, trained to manoeuver but we never actually have had to use them. Thank god).

Well, there is a difference between submerging in it for a biological being and being sprayed with it.

Additionally, it CAN harm glass, if there is any flaws in it. I would hope that you are aware that scientific professional grade glass instruments are not the same material as the glass you can buy at Walmart. That's why certain glass (like Pyrex) is safe to put in the oven and heat to 300 degrees, and some glass will break if you do that.

Not that most people who are using Glass with Liquid Nitrogen are using scientific tools that are also meant to be utilized over Bunsen Burners. Which can heat the material to hundreds of degrees.

SO it can if you want it, but it can't if it does not fit your goal...

Or Eberron. But wow, that sure is convincing. It is the only setting we have except the four other settings. And "all" adventures take place there...

Hey! In Ebberon it would not be whether the cell would be treated with the spells, but if they would simply be already enchanted in the first place!

Except for Witchlight, or Candlekeep, or Descent into Avernus, or Frostmaiden, or Curse of Strahd, or Ghosts of Saltmarsh or Tomb of Annhilation... huh... that's seven... and aren't there only like 14 adventures that have been released. So, like half of them easily don't have "waterdeep" in mind at all? And I know for a fact that Storm King's Thunder and Rise of Tiamat have you traveling quite extensively. In fact, only two of the adventures actually address Waterdeep as a place you will definitely go. Which is a bit different than "all but two"

Houuuuuuuuu. Read them again. Witchlight starts in the Realm. So does Candlekeep, Descent into Avernus and ToA too. Ghosts of Saltmarsh is set in Greyhawk but if you look carefully, many of the "side" adventures are directly taken from adventures originally set in the Realms if I remember correctly. And if you read again my posts, since we only have the legal code of Waterdeep, if you remove all mentions of the Lords, you get a legal code that is quite acceptable for any places in the realm. Travelling has no bearing on whether or not the adventure is in the realm or not. The legal system can be used.

That would be the Player's Handbook, on page 159. To Quote:

"Hiring someone to cast a relatively common spell of 1st or 2nd level, such as cure wounds or identify, is easy enough in a city or town, and might cost 10 to 50 gold pieces (plus the cost of any expensive material components). Finding someone able and willing to cast a higher-level spell might involve traveling to a large city, perhaps one with a university or prominent temple."

Note how it talks about cities and towns, followed by large cities. Note how a small village is not a town, a city or a large city. Yes, I'm aware that the DM can change anything at any time for any reason, but since I would fully expect as a player that 3rd level magic would be found in large cities, not tiny villages, it would seem like the DM is altering the rules just to play the "gotcha" game.

So, does the DM get to decide? Sure. Do they have any reason other than petty spite to decide that 3rd level magic is now trivially found and utilized in small villages? Not really.

Note the "might". This is not a certainty. And nothing prevents the central authority to actually have a caster travel to said village to renew the spell if needed. If you need to repair your dishwasher, you will call in the repairman. Samething for magic. The mayor/constable/sheriff or whatever will send a letter or messenger for the central authority to send someone to replace the spell that discharged. And since years might pass between discharges it will not be such a drain on the coffers.

EXACTLY! Ding ding ding! He gets it! Now, I'm sure you are about to tell me that this makes me wrong. However, let us not forget your original and actual claim. That the wizard was paying HIS taxes. Not that he was sent to pay some noble's taxes, but that they were his taxes being paid.

Something you finally acknowledged makes no sense.

Wow! You are the champion on how to make wrong conclusions. The wizard can still pay his taxes by working for the noble. Where is the contradiction in that? None.

Now, I'm sure you are going to start pivoting, making this all about a servant wizard being sent by a noble whose taxes he is paying off. Which was not your original example. In fact, originally before it was about taxes, it was that the Sheriff could trivially spend 200 gold to enchant the cell himself.

So, we've moved from "the sheriff is buying a wizard's services to enchant the cells in the tiny village" to -> "The sheriff is benefiting from the wizard paying his taxes in the process of enchanting the cells in the tiny village" to -> "The sheriff is benefiting from a wizard being sent to cover a noble's taxes by enchanting the cells in the tiny village"

The sheriff, constable, or whatever is working for someone. That is evident. Claiming that I have to precise that the sheriff that beat you up is working on funds alone is utter BS. That is the weakest arguement you ever made.

And why are these cells in this tiny village being enchanted again? Oh, right, because potentially they could be used to house a spy or criminal. So they are willing to blow hundreds of gold on death trapping every cell in the region.

And how many cells would there be? How many would be thus enchanted when more than one was found?

And all this, because I said a corrupt sheriff beat someone. Not that they ever went to jail, but that they were beat. But you aren't controlling or anything, trying to force your will upon a character that isn't yours. I mean you've only changed the location, the setting, the price, then reasoning, the situation, the people involved... You know... ALL OF IT.

But unfortunately the world is there. The thing you control in the world is exactly your character. All the rest must conform to the world. If the world has no Tabaxi, you can't make a Tabaxi character. You have to follow the guidelines given to you by your DM.

Except for the repeated truth that not all priests and acolytes have access to spellcasting, which is repeated over and over and over again in the PHB. And the fact that limiting it to the PHB you still have to immediately have a caveat of not counting the acolytes.

Read the MM. Priests have access to 3rd level spells. IF you limit yourself to the PHB, the only fully religious characters are clerics and druids. (Monks could be arguably religious, but they are more martial than anything else and are more close to philosophical stuff than to religious. But that is debatable and for another thread). We are actually talking about casters here. So why do bring non sensical thing about non casting priests? Of course to use a spell that NPC must be a caster.

But sure, we have no historical evidence that powerful and influential people weren't forced to do menial labor that is a massive waste of resources. I mean, except for all the times that didn't happen in human history. I guess we have all of those.

And where do you get that I said that? Is casting a spell a menial labor? Is a general in a military campaign doing menial labor? Of course not! That point is utter BS. A court wizards, a priest, war wizards in armies, all these will work for the crown or lord of the land. Some paid, some to pay their taxes and some out of patriotism.

And you literally have no proof that says the prices change when NPCs buy things. Nowhere, anywhere in the PHB or DMG does it state that you should discount prices for NPCs.

Again, you can homebrew it. But that doesn't make it the rules.

Logic my friend. Simple plain old logic. To sell something at that price, you need to get it at a lower costs. And if you had travelled just a little bit, you would have seen how in bazaar you can get things for a much much lower price that what is called for in the first place. The prices in the PHB are for the players only.

 

[Helldritch]

There is also the model of the evil serpent god Set in the Conan World.

An evil state religion, the priests number powerful sorcerers. Set does not seem to offer people good stuff other than his priesthood being powerful and state sanctioned.Following him seems cultural for a whole society as well as for the power hungry.

There is also the question of whether serpent Set is really Yig from the Lovecraft Mythos with the mixing of the two by the authors. A bit different than real world non serpent Set who fights off Apep every night as the serpent tries to devour Ra the Sun god.

In Conan, the priests do not get their powers from their "god" but from their knowledge. Some are "white" sorcerers/wizards and others are evil to the core. It all depends on the type of "god" they are following. Conan is really close to the lovecraftian mythos in that horrors from other dimension/space are the real enemies. Religion is seen a way of controlling masses for their own "good" of the "benefits" of the actual religion or the benefit of the lord.

All in all, gods in Conan are simply powerful beings but they do not give priests any powers (but they can facilitate access to powers through knowledge and rituals).

 

[Maxperson]

Read the MM. Priests have access to 3rd level spells. IF you limit yourself to the PHB, the only fully religious characters are clerics and druids. (Monks could be arguably religious, but they are more martial than anything else and are more close to philosophical stuff than to religious. But that is debatable and for another thread). We are actually talking about casters here. So why do bring non sensical thing about non casting priests? Of course to use a spell that NPC must be a caster.

How are you defining "fully religious?" My last character was an wlven bladesinger with the Acolyte background. I roleplayed him as a fully religious priest of Corellon, but whose devotion took him to be a bladesinger of Corellon, rather than a cleric of Corellon. He had prayer books, a holy symbol, and roleplayed his religion to the hilt.

If you're talking spellcasting, then I would consider Paladins to be a fully religious(though not a full caster) class.

 

[Helldritch]

How are you defining "fully religious?" My last character was an wlven bladesinger with the Acolyte background. I roleplayed him as a fully religious priest of Corellon, but whose devotion took him to be a bladesinger of Corellon, rather than a cleric of Corellon. He had prayer books, a holy symbol, and roleplayed his religion to the hilt.

If you're talking spellcasting, then I would consider Paladins to be a fully religious(though not a full caster) class.

That is in the eye of the beholder. But getting your powers only from gods and only through prayer and devotion would be ok. Druids could be debatable but since there are gods like Sylvanus...
As for paladin, they can get their spells from "whatever philosophy". Gods are not mandatory.

As for your Bladesigner. Being devout is quite commendable. But your devotion is not on the level a priest/cleric will have with the god. The connection is stronger with the god, but maybe it is my background in previous editions that is tainting my perception of what is "fully religious".

 

[Chaosmancer]

Depending on where the coolant or liquid co2 would hit you, death will be fast. That is something akin to make that saving throw.

This is literally true of all things. But again, is it the frost burn or the bleeding or the suffocation or the infection that kills you?

IF the stone were to be damaged enough to allow easy escape as you claimed, you need large chunks of the stone wall to literally break in one shot. Thus exploding. Not all explosion are big bangs.

This is a result of you adding things I never said, so that you can debunk them. That is called a strawman. The point I was making is that this glyph would damage the cell, not that it would damage the wall enough for a person to escape. As you already pointed out, there is no way a 1st level character could survive this spell going off. However, considering it would damage the cell, the fact that using this as a containment measure that will eventually require the rebuilding of the cell... again, poor use of resources. As I keep saying.

SO it can if you want it, but it can't if it does not fit your goal...

What does this have to do with standard glass cracking at extreme cold temperatures while scientific grade glass won't because it has fewer impurities?

Hey! In Ebberon it would not be whether the cell would be treated with the spells, but if they would simply be already enchanted in the first place!

And this isn't taking place in Eberron, unless you are changing the goal posts AGAIN.

Additionally, Eberron says that 1st and 2nd level spells are widely available, but 3rd and higher are not. And, "tiny village" isn't one that is going to have all the bells and whistles of the city. Including magic.

Houuuuuuuuu. Read them again. Witchlight starts in the Realm. So does Candlekeep, Descent into Avernus and ToA too. Ghosts of Saltmarsh is set in Greyhawk but if you look carefully, many of the "side" adventures are directly taken from adventures originally set in the Realms if I remember correctly. And if you read again my posts, since we only have the legal code of Waterdeep, if you remove all mentions of the Lords, you get a legal code that is quite acceptable for any places in the realm. Travelling has no bearing on whether or not the adventure is in the realm or not. The legal system can be used.

Realms =/= Waterdeep. I don't know why I need to keep reminding you of that? Do you need a map of the realms? Additionally, I don't care that we have an official set of laws for Waterdeep but nowhere else. Assuming all laws are Waterdeep's laws from that, when we KNOW FOR A FACT that is wrong, is just ridiculous.

Witchlight starts "in the realms"? Okay, that could be Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter, Cormyr, Luskan, Icewind Dale. There are lots of places that have laws that aren't Waterdeep. Some of those whose laws we have some insight into because of the Sword Coast Guide. Does it give us an exact legal code for every realm? No, but it certainly gives us enough to know that not everyone on the continent is copying a single city.

Candlekeep is 600 miles away from Waterdeep. Claiming they would share in Waterdeep's laws, while being an independent organization is like claiming that Isreal's laws mirror Egypt's. And they are closer to each other than 600 miles.

Descent to Avernus takes place in Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate does not have the same laws as Waterdeep, especially considering their entirely different ruling classes.

Tomb of Anhilation takes place in CHULT. It isn't even the same REGION as Waterdeep.

Ghosts of Saltmarsh may have borrowed from Realms adventures... but it still takes place on an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PLANET.


If your best defense of this idea is that every setting and place in DnD 5e must copy Waterdeep because it is the only legal code you are aware of, then you are making a ludicrous claim.

Note the "might". This is not a certainty. And nothing prevents the central authority to actually have a caster travel to said village to renew the spell if needed. If you need to repair your dishwasher, you will call in the repairman. Samething for magic. The mayor/constable/sheriff or whatever will send a letter or messenger for the central authority to send someone to replace the spell that discharged. And since years might pass between discharges it will not be such a drain on the coffers.

Who says that it will be years between discharges? Are crime rates really that low?

Also that "might" can't only be interpreted as "maybe you'll find high level magic in this village" but it is ALSO "you might not find high level magic in big cities." Because, sure, in the modern America you can call a dishwasher repair man to come to your house.... unless you live in somewhere far off, like Alaska. Then you might not have that option. In fact, it is well known that if you live in Alaska, you might not be able to get doctors or ambulances if you are in need of medical help. Depends on where you live.

Because traveling a large distance through hostile territory is dangerous and expensive.

Wow! You are the champion on how to make wrong conclusions. The wizard can still pay his taxes by working for the noble. Where is the contradiction in that? None.

I thought he owed his taxes to the Crown? Working for a noble isn't working for the crown. Additionally, since the wizard is (as I showed in the math you refused to accept) likely WEALTHIER than most of the nobles, I don't see him really choosing to work for them.

The sheriff, constable, or whatever is working for someone. That is evident. Claiming that I have to precise that the sheriff that beat you up is working on funds alone is utter BS. That is the weakest arguement you ever made.

Huh? No, just being corrupt does not mean you work for someone else. Now, if you mean that by having the official position, he has an official boss, then sure that's true, but that doesn't mean he has access to hundreds of gold beyond the budget he was given. I will also note that beyond saying "corrupt" I never established the type of corruption. And that could make a big difference on not only if any illicit funds exist, but whether or not they are available for having a wizard come and enchant any cells.

Again, you just keep adding to the example things that were never established. For no other reason than to declare it impossible and veto it.

And how many cells would there be? How many would be thus enchanted when more than one was found?

How many cells in a region? I believe earlier I had 30 as an incredibly low estimate. It was something like 8 villages with 2 cells (16) and 2 towns with 4 (8) and a city with 6. Which, again, is INCREDIBLY LOWBALLED. I've included zero forts, zero keeps, zero castles, and only a single city in the entire region.

When more than one what was found? More than one spy? Well, since my example had nothing to do with spies, why are we assuming spies have anything to do with it? Maybe there are no spies, they certainly weren't a common tactic of the medieval world, even if they are in DnD.

But unfortunately the world is there. The thing you control in the world is exactly your character. All the rest must conform to the world. If the world has no Tabaxi, you can't make a Tabaxi character. You have to follow the guidelines given to you by your DM.

And that's the logic you hide behind as you bend and twist things until the only options that are allowed are the ones you like. "I'm sorry, you can't play an urchin who ran away from home after being beaten by law enforcement, it just so happens there has been a massive surge in spies infiltrating every level of society, so your tiny, unimportant village has actually just be been executing people same day. You'll have to make a new character, hey, did I mention that everyone else is from the Church? Maybe you could make an orphan raised to be an acolyte of the church like everyone else did."

There are ways that the world needs to be conformed to, but a rigid world that can't accomodate the players is problematic.

Read the MM. Priests have access to 3rd level spells. IF you limit yourself to the PHB, the only fully religious characters are clerics and druids. (Monks could be arguably religious, but they are more martial than anything else and are more close to philosophical stuff than to religious. But that is debatable and for another thread). We are actually talking about casters here. So why do bring non sensical thing about non casting priests? Of course to use a spell that NPC must be a caster.

Because acknowledging that not every member of the clergy can cast magic is a fact of DnD. It is brought up CONSTANTLY. But again, of course you'll ignore and twist anything that doesn't conform to your vision.

And where do you get that I said that? Is casting a spell a menial labor? Is a general in a military campaign doing menial labor? Of course not! That point is utter BS. A court wizards, a priest, war wizards in armies, all these will work for the crown or lord of the land. Some paid, some to pay their taxes and some out of patriotism.

Just as there is a difference between writing down orders that will deploy troops and writing down how many sheep were born, there is a difference between casting a spell in the castle, and casting a spell in a tiny village on the off-chance they happen to catch a spy and put them in prison.

The purpose of the work is just as important as the work itself.

Logic my friend. Simple plain old logic. To sell something at that price, you need to get it at a lower costs. And if you had travelled just a little bit, you would have seen how in bazaar you can get things for a much much lower price that what is called for in the first place. The prices in the PHB are for the players only.

I don't see any Bazaar listed in the PHB. Give me some page numbers, or, again, are you just making things up.

 

[Maxperson]

That is in the eye of the beholder. But getting your powers only from gods and only through prayer and devotion would be ok. Druids could be debatable but since there are gods like Sylvanus...
As for paladin, they can get their spells from "whatever philosophy". Gods are not mandatory.

If the DM allows the alternative religions where clerics can get their abilities from philosophies, gods are not mandatory there, either. My point is that the paladin class talks about gods all throughout the description. That makes them a fully religious class in my eyes. Besides, philosophies that you have faith in to the point of getting paladin powers are also religions. Religions don't need a god.

As for your Bladesigner. Being devout is quite commendable. But your devotion is not on the level a priest/cleric will have with the god.

Except that by RAW, it was. An acolyte is fully capable of not only being a priest, but being a high priest. You don't need to get divine spellcasting to be fully religious.

"...and work with your DM to detail the nature of your religious service. Were you a lesser functionary in a temple, raised from childhood to assist the priests in the sacred rites? Or were you a high priest who suddenly experienced a call to serve your god in a different way?"

The connection is stronger with the god, but maybe it is my background in previous editions that is tainting my perception of what is "fully religious".

This is probably it, though 3e had clerics of philosophies, so you didn't need gods for clerics in that edition, either.

 

[Helldritch]

This is literally true of all things. But again, is it the frost burn or the bleeding or the suffocation or the infection that kills you?

Who cares? Not me. System shock is also a thing to consider.

This is a result of you adding things I never said, so that you can debunk them. That is called a strawman. The point I was making is that this glyph would damage the cell, not that it would damage the wall enough for a person to escape. As you already pointed out, there is no way a 1st level character could survive this spell going off. However, considering it would damage the cell, the fact that using this as a containment measure that will eventually require the rebuilding of the cell... again, poor use of resources. As I keep saying.

And I claim it would not. At the very least, it would have resistance. I'd give it immunity unless a special circumstance would come up. A dank cell in a dank dungeon. But we're talking about a jail here.

What does this have to do with standard glass cracking at extreme cold temperatures while scientific grade glass won't because it has fewer impurities?

Some glasses are better than others. Just as some materials are more resistant to others. I don't see the point of saying that stone would be destroyed. You just proved that a good quality glass will resist but not a lesser one. A good stone will resist the same. And guess what? Stone in a prison will be of a good quality. You don't want prisoners to escape don't you?

And this isn't taking place in Eberron, unless you are changing the goal posts AGAIN.

Additionally, Eberron says that 1st and 2nd level spells are widely available, but 3rd and higher are not. And, "tiny village" isn't one that is going to have all the bells and whistles of the city. Including magic.

You brought up Eberron. Not me.

Realms =/= Waterdeep. I don't know why I need to keep reminding you of that? Do you need a map of the realms? Additionally, I don't care that we have an official set of laws for Waterdeep but nowhere else. Assuming all laws are Waterdeep's laws from that, when we KNOW FOR A FACT that is wrong, is just ridiculous.

Witchlight starts "in the realms"? Okay, that could be Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter, Cormyr, Luskan, Icewind Dale. There are lots of places that have laws that aren't Waterdeep. Some of those whose laws we have some insight into because of the Sword Coast Guide. Does it give us an exact legal code for every realm? No, but it certainly gives us enough to know that not everyone on the continent is copying a single city.

Candlekeep is 600 miles away from Waterdeep. Claiming they would share in Waterdeep's laws, while being an independent organization is like claiming that Isreal's laws mirror Egypt's. And they are closer to each other than 600 miles.

Descent to Avernus takes place in Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate does not have the same laws as Waterdeep, especially considering their entirely different ruling classes.

Tomb of Anhilation takes place in CHULT. It isn't even the same REGION as Waterdeep.

You seem to like to remind me of things I already know then for some reasons you decide to ignore your own logic... Not all of these starts in Waterdeep. But all these starts in "civilized" places. Thus all these must have a legal system. Basing yourself on Waterdeep's system is relatively easy as most medieval countries had the same basic laws with some differences, yes, but the basics were close. The same can be assumed. I have a all the FR 1-16 from 1ed and guess what? All legal systems, whenever shown, were close to those of Waterdeep. Your lack of knowledge of previous editions is showing here. But even without that, refusing to acknowledge that like cities would apply the same basics as laws is simply being stubborn.

Ghosts of Saltmarsh may have borrowed from Realms adventures... but it still takes place on an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PLANET.

And? Who cares? You apparently. You know that it can be easily adapted to the Realm don't you?

If your best defense of this idea is that every setting and place in DnD 5e must copy Waterdeep because it is the only legal code you are aware of, then you are making a ludicrous claim.

Just like you. You claim that no cities will have a legal system close to Waterdeep. .

Who says that it will be years between discharges? Are crime rates really that low?

Not necessarily. But if you are warned that the lock is trapped with a deadly spells, and you know that this is a common practice, would you dare to prove the guy wrong or would you acknowledge that and stay quiet as long as you are in jail? Every sensible being would. Who would be stupid enough enough to knowingly touch a 14.5kv elecritcal fence to prove it is not so? Remember this is a world where magic exists. People are aware of it and are more than likely to have seen it into action. So yep. No one would try to discharge it unless death would be near.

Also that "might" can't only be interpreted as "maybe you'll find high level magic in this village" but it is ALSO "you might not find high level magic in big cities." Because, sure, in the modern America you can call a dishwasher repair man to come to your house.... unless you live in somewhere far off, like Alaska. Then you might not have that option. In fact, it is well known that if you live in Alaska, you might not be able to get doctors or ambulances if you are in need of medical help. Depends on where you live.

Ha but we are in a fantasy world! Anything can go!

Because traveling a large distance through hostile territory is dangerous and expensive.

That is new... who said you were in a hostile territory? A small village can be near a megalopolis you know...

I thought he owed his taxes to the Crown? Working for a noble isn't working for the crown. Additionally, since the wizard is (as I showed in the math you refused to accept) likely WEALTHIER than most of the nobles, I don't see him really choosing to work for them.

You know that a baron can own a crown? A baroness can wear one too! A lot of titled lords will represent the Crown. At this point, you are splitting hair.

Huh? No, just being corrupt does not mean you work for someone else. Now, if you mean that by having the official position, he has an official boss, then sure that's true, but that doesn't mean he has access to hundreds of gold beyond the budget he was given. I will also note that beyond saying "corrupt" I never established the type of corruption. And that could make a big difference on not only if any illicit funds exist, but whether or not they are available for having a wizard come and enchant any cells.

But being a constable, sheriff, deputee or whatever means that you are working for someone. You can't be corrupt if you are own boss. Abusive yes. Corrupt? Well, it could depend on your point of view. But being a constable means you work as a representative of the laws of (insert any country, king or whatever you think here).

Again, you just keep adding to the example things that were never established. For no other reason than to declare it impossible and veto it.

Hey! I use your style! Don't like it? Stop using it yourself!

How many cells in a region? I believe earlier I had 30 as an incredibly low estimate. It was something like 8 villages with 2 cells (16) and 2 towns with 4 (8) and a city with 6. Which, again, is INCREDIBLY LOWBALLED. I've included zero forts, zero keeps, zero castles, and only a single city in the entire region.

Good! That is a lot less costly than what you estimated by my standards. I love it when the rich can save money! Just like in real life! We can make a simulationnist out of you yet! There is still hope.

When more than one what was found? More than one spy? Well, since my example had nothing to do with spies, why are we assuming spies have anything to do with it? Maybe there are no spies, they certainly weren't a common tactic of the medieval world, even if they are in DnD.

Your guess is as good as mine. Pick a number. From zero to a few who cares? If a king, lord or whatever thinks that this security is needed, no costs will be too low. This is the kind of thing we see right here right now in our world.

And that's the logic you hide behind as you bend and twist things until the only options that are allowed are the ones you like. "I'm sorry, you can't play an urchin who ran away from home after being beaten by law enforcement, it just so happens there has been a massive surge in spies infiltrating every level of society, so your tiny, unimportant village has actually just be been executing people same day. You'll have to make a new character, hey, did I mention that everyone else is from the Church? Maybe you could make an orphan raised to be an acolyte of the church like everyone else did."

Well, as I said, you should comply with the character creation process that is allowed at a table. I would conform to your rules. Why can't you conform to mine?

There are ways that the world needs to be conformed to, but a rigid world that can't accomodate the players is problematic.

I perfectly accomodate my players. Not you, my players. Remembers that rules are voted by the players too. Majority rules.

Because acknowledging that not every member of the clergy can cast magic is a fact of DnD. It is brought up CONSTANTLY. But again, of course you'll ignore and twist anything that doesn't conform to your vision.

But acknowledge that there are some that can is also canon too! Not all, but some. And these some are called priests. They are in the MM. They can cast 3rd level spells. You are the one insisting that no clergy members can cast spells. Not me.

Just as there is a difference between writing down orders that will deploy troops and writing down how many sheep were born, there is a difference between casting a spell in the castle, and casting a spell in a tiny village on the off-chance they happen to catch a spy and put them in prison.

Again, levels of security is decided by the lord, crown, king, emperor or whomever is in charge. Not the player. Who knows? Maybe the village is near an hostile territory or on a very well traveled road that justifies more that one cell being protected by such spells!

The purpose of the work is just as important as the work itself.

That is the only sensible thing in your argumentation so far.

I don't see any Bazaar listed in the PHB. Give me some page numbers, or, again, are you just making things up.

So you don't acknowledge marketplaces (aka Bazaar)... I did not know that such evidences had to be written down... Ho but wait! There are market places in Baldur's gate maps, Waterdeep's map and in its description in the Dragon's Heist. I bet I could find even more in other books as well... Come on man, stop nitpicking for the fun of it.

 

[Helldritch]

If the DM allows the alternative religions where clerics can get their abilities from philosophies, gods are not mandatory there, either. My point is that the paladin class talks about gods all throughout the description. That makes them a fully religious class in my eyes. Besides, philosophies that you have faith in to the point of getting paladin powers are also religions. Religions don't need a god.

Except that by RAW, it was. An acolyte is fully capable of not only being a priest, but being a high priest. You don't need to get divine spellcasting to be fully religious.

"...and work with your DM to detail the nature of your religious service. Were you a lesser functionary in a temple, raised from childhood to assist the priests in the sacred rites? Or were you a high priest who suddenly experienced a call to serve your god in a different way?"

This is probably it, though 3e had clerics of philosophies, so you didn't need gods for clerics in that edition, either.

I know all this. But personnally, I balk at the thought that a non divine caster could be a high priest in a world where god are real and active.

Yet, I could see a divine soul, a tricky bard, or even a paladin taking the mantle when the cleric died until a replacement has been shown by the god.

And yet, I acknowledge that these options are in the PHB and I would allow them. There would be a need to have quite a backstory and we would discuss it not only with me, but with other players.

Religion is very strong in my games. Up to the point that priests (clerics) will not raise a non believer/follower of the god from the dead for any costs. And being devout is more than giving a few copper or gold pieces to the church. The player must show that his character is actively following the precepts of the god(s).

 

[Maxperson]

I know all this. But personnally, I balk at the thought that a non divine caster could be a high priest in a world where god are real and active.

I did at one point as well, but when 99% of your priests are not clerics, would you rather have your few spellcasters heading up the church preaching to the masses, or out doing things that the non-spellcasters can't do and advancing your cause?

Yet, I could see a divine soul, a tricky bard, or even a paladin taking the mantle when the cleric died until a replacement has been shown by the god.

And yet, I acknowledge that these options are in the PHB and I would allow them. There would be a need to have quite a backstory and we would discuss it not only with me, but with other players.

Religion is very strong in my games. Up to the point that priests (clerics) will not raise a non believer/follower of the god from the dead for any costs. And being devout is more than giving a few copper or gold pieces to the church. The player must show that his character is actively following the precepts of the god(s).

That's fair. The above is how I look at it now. The DMG says(and I've run my games like this for years) that spellcasters are relatively rare. In my mind a god is going to be utilizing the clerics to do things other than stay at home and be a church administrator.

 

[Helldritch]

I did at one point as well, but when 99% of your priests are not clerics, would you rather have your few spellcasters heading up the church preaching to the masses, or out doing things that the non-spellcasters can't do and advancing your cause?

That's fair. The above is how I look at it now. The DMG says(and I've run my games like this for years) that spellcasters are relatively rare. In my mind a god is going to be utilizing the clerics to do things other than stay at home and be a church administrator.

And that is the dichotomy of 5ed. Spellcasters are relatively rare. And yet, how many non spell casting classes are there? Even the fighter and rogues have spell casters. Hell! Even a lot of the Barbarian subclasses look like spell casters...

A rarity of spellcasters should imply minimal stat requirements. 14 wisdom for clerics for examples and subclasses receiving a second requirement. I could totally see a knowledge cleri with a minimum intelligence of 13 as a requirement. A war cleric with 13 strength minimal score or a trickster cleric with a Dexterity of no less that 13... Same with wizard, minimum of 14 in Intelligence but depending on the school, other stats would spring into the requirered stats. I could see an enchanter with a 13 in charisma. And so forth....

As it is now. There are only requirements for multiclassing and these are ridiculously low.

And the books tries to tell me that casters are relatively rare? Am I truly supposed to believe that as the rules do not support that claim? At least in 1ed and 2ed there were true restrictions on casters.

 

[Maxperson]

And that is the dichotomy of 5ed. Spellcasters are relatively rare. And yet, how many non spell casting classes are there? Even the fighter and rogues have spell casters. Hell! Even a lot of the Barbarian subclasses look like spell casters...

A rarity of spellcasters should imply minimal stat requirements. 14 wisdom for clerics for examples and subclasses receiving a second requirement. I could totally see a knowledge cleri with a minimum intelligence of 13 as a requirement. A war cleric with 13 strength minimal score or a trickster cleric with a Dexterity of no less that 13... Same with wizard, minimum of 14 in Intelligence but depending on the school, other stats would spring into the requirered stats. I could see an enchanter with a 13 in charisma. And so forth....

As it is now. There are only requirements for multiclassing and these are ridiculously low.

And the books tries to tell me that casters are relatively rare? Am I truly supposed to believe that as the rules do not support that claim? At least in 1ed and 2ed there were true restrictions on casters.

The PHB classes are for PCs and PCs are a special case. That's why they have so much spellcasting available. There are only a very small number of PCs in the world, so even if every last one chooses to be a spellcaster, it doesn't contradict the rarity of spellcasters as stated in the DMG.

 

[Helldritch]

The PHB classes are for PCs and PCs are a special case. That's why they have so much spellcasting available. There are only a very small number of PCs in the world, so even if every last one chooses to be a spellcaster, it doesn't contradict the rarity of spellcasters as stated in the DMG.

Just look at the PoTA. So many NPC casters as the enemies of the PCs. And it is not the only one where casting NPC are numerous. And a lot of the NPCs that are friendly patrons for the PCs are casters themselves. Yeah... casters are rare in 5ed...

 

[Maxperson]

Just look at the PoTA. So many NPC casters as the enemies of the PCs. And it is not the only one where casting NPC are numerous. And a lot of the NPCs that are friendly patrons for the PCs are casters themselves. Yeah... casters are rare in 5ed...

I don't count adventures. They're written by too many different people to please a wide variety of player type, including those who like spellcasters. They aren't really indicative of the core book defaults.

The other thing to consider is that PCs encounter things more often than the general populace does. I mean, if monster encounter rates for PCs were the standard rate for NPCs in the world, the world would be dead. All the PC races would have long since been wiped out.

The same goes for spellcasters. There might only be a few dozen in the entire country, but those are the ones that the PCs run into.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Who cares? Not me. System shock is also a thing to consider.

Yes, it should be considered. One of the only forms of System Shock from Cold that we have is the Cold Shock of being submerged in water. Here's a link

the-cold-shocking-truthabout-cold-water-shock-

www.rya.org.uk

Most of the causes of death? Drowning, either because you gasp and breath in water, or you fall unconscious and hypothermia from staying in cold water for MINUTES kills you.

And you still haven't addressed the undeniable fact that 8d8 cold damage in the spell Cone of Cold specifically talks about being frozen solid. It takes a stupid amount of cold to freeze a body solid in seconds. Instead, you keep talking about things that will cause secondary effects which will kill you. You can keep denying it, but the cold from DnD cold spells is EXTREME.

And I claim it would not. At the very least, it would have resistance. I'd give it immunity unless a special circumstance would come up. A dank cell in a dank dungeon. But we're talking about a jail here.

And resistance does jack all to prevent damage, it just lessens the damage. Which will still build up over time and will eventually require the walls and bars to be replaced. And it could easily be dank or even humid in the jail cell. Climate Control doesn't exist and it is always possible for this glyph to be activated during a rainy day.

And of course you would give it immunity, I'd expect nothing less after you've fought so hard to try and prove it would be immune to damage. That doesn't mean i have any reason to agree with you, especially since you are so clearly biased.

Some glasses are better than others. Just as some materials are more resistant to others. I don't see the point of saying that stone would be destroyed. You just proved that a good quality glass will resist but not a lesser one. A good stone will resist the same. And guess what? Stone in a prison will be of a good quality. You don't want prisoners to escape don't you?

Impurities and imperfections. Tell me, how many jail cells are going to be made of smooth stone? Is it going to be made out of granite or out of Quartzite? Are we talking about hand-sized bricks and mortar or man-sized stones?

You declare confidently that a jail will be made out of good quality stone... but we are talking about a small village that may not have a single stone building, so no, the jail cell might not even be made of stone, because small villages didn't have those sorts of resources, they used wattle and daub, or cob, or clay.

And, again, I like how you keep going from "damaged" to "destroyed". You can keep acting like you don't read my posts, but that doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to forget my own words.

You brought up Eberron. Not me.

Because you started listing settings to prove that the Forgotten Realms is the only setting and forgot it. Like somehow it wasn't a published setting that actually exists.

You seem to like to remind me of things I already know then for some reasons you decide to ignore your own logic... Not all of these starts in Waterdeep. But all these starts in "civilized" places. Thus all these must have a legal system. Basing yourself on Waterdeep's system is relatively easy as most medieval countries had the same basic laws with some differences, yes, but the basics were close. The same can be assumed. I have a all the FR 1-16 from 1ed and guess what? All legal systems, whenever shown, were close to those of Waterdeep. Your lack of knowledge of previous editions is showing here. But even without that, refusing to acknowledge that like cities would apply the same basics as laws is simply being stubborn.

First, let's look back on your claim: "For the moment, all adventures written has been with Waterdeep in mind save two?" This was 100% false, not true by even the most extreme stretching.

But, why did you start bringing up Waterdeep? Well, it was for this bit "Yep. Depending on the amount the pick pocket might be hanged. If you have the Waterdeep legal system, you will see that death is not automatic. Probable, but not automatic. But you discovered a corrupt official. Your chances of going to jail are next to nothing.

Again, there are degrees in various crimes and their sentences. Read the legal system of Waterdeep as a basis."

And why did you bring up that? Oh right, because you made a completely self-contradictory statement: "Pick pockets and drunk will not try to escape as their lives will not be endangered. Spies and criminals on the other hand..."

Originally it was that all character put in jail were hanged the next day, medieval laws and all that. You SPECIFICALLY said you wanted medieval laws as justice. Then when I pointed out that no one is going to be putting this sort of security up for drunks and pickpockets (you know, small village and all, it isn't like there is a bunch of major crime) you switched gears and said that pick-pockets might not be that important but criminals would be. When I pointed out that that statement is ludicrious, because pickpockets ARE criminals, you started turning to Waterdeep's laws to start saying that, against your own earlier point that all criminals would be hung within a day or two of going to jail, that in Waterdeep and its controlled regions that was different.

And since then you have been pounding this drum, we are playing in Waterdeep, Waterdeep is the place that matters, the laws of Waterdeep are our model for all possible settings. Even though I keep reminding you that... not everywhere is Waterdeep and Waterdeep's laws are not necessarily going to apply to everything.

And once more you try and shame me into not pointing out your own hypocrisy by making this about 1st edition, or 2nd edition and how I clearly am wrong for going into 5th edition without an encyclopedic knowledge of these older editions, when all I am proving is... the laws of one city are not universal as the laws of every possible city, town and village in every single setting.

And know you want to try and hide behind something as basic as "cities would have similar laws". Would they? Sure, murder and theft are generally illegal, but the punishment for stealing a waterskin in the swamp is likely different than stealing one in a desert. Maybe a place has the death penalty for crimes, maybe it is maiming, maybe it is slavery, but you keep insisting that all places share Waterdeep's laws, which is laughable.

And? Who cares? You apparently. You know that it can be easily adapted to the Realm don't you?

So? Your statement that you seem to be willfully ignoring was "For the moment, all adventures written has been with Waterdeep in mind save two?" Just because you can adapt it doesn't mean that Greyhawk is in Waterdeep.

So, yes, I do care that you seem to have no idea where anything is located, yet you constantly try and shame and lecture me.

Just like you. You claim that no cities will have a legal system close to Waterdeep. .

No, I said their legal system isn't guaranteed to be Waterdeep's legal system. Which it isn't. Some places might have similar laws? Of course they might, but that isn't a guarantee, and we KNOW that it isn't true of all places.

Not necessarily. But if you are warned that the lock is trapped with a deadly spells, and you know that this is a common practice, would you dare to prove the guy wrong or would you acknowledge that and stay quiet as long as you are in jail? Every sensible being would. Who would be stupid enough enough to knowingly touch a 14.5kv elecritcal fence to prove it is not so? Remember this is a world where magic exists. People are aware of it and are more than likely to have seen it into action. So yep. No one would try to discharge it unless death would be near.

Like say, the fact that you originally claimed that "You know that jail in these times (medieval) was not the same as jail in ours. Very rarely would a prisonner survive. They would not care to give sustenance to the person unless that, from that person they could muster some ransom for. If not, you were not beaten up, but simply hanged, publicly in a matter of a day or two."

So, unless death would be near... like the near certainty of being hanged in a matter of a day or two? Or starving to death because no one bothered to bring sustenance?

Again, your own arguments defeat your own point. If I know my options are to starve to death, die in a few days from hanging, or try to escape and hope that the wizard that services the jail of Mudville hasn't been called since the last person was in here... well even if I'm wrong it is a quicker and less painful death.

Ha but we are in a fantasy world! Anything can go!

Funny, last post you were all "logic, logic tells us this" and now it is "This is fantasy, abandon all logic, anything goes". IT seems that once more it is only your own opinion that matters, and the facts will change to support you now matter what.

That is new... who said you were in a hostile territory? A small village can be near a megalopolis you know...

It could be, or it could be in the middle of the boonies. But let me ask you, how many times can your PCs travel without you rolling a potential random encounter that could include monsters or bandits? I'm sure for this you'll suddenly have this small unimportant village be on a road patrolled by the King's Guard and within only a mile of the capitol, but not all small villages are like that. Maybe I wanted my character to be from farther out, but I guess you'd tell me that I can't do that because reasons.

You know that a baron can own a crown? A baroness can wear one too! A lot of titled lords will represent the Crown. At this point, you are splitting hair.

Representing the Crown isn't the same as being that Crown, and that isn't splitting hairs when one claim is loyal and the other is a coup.

But being a constable, sheriff, deputee or whatever means that you are working for someone. You can't be corrupt if you are own boss. Abusive yes. Corrupt? Well, it could depend on your point of view. But being a constable means you work as a representative of the laws of (insert any country, king or whatever you think here).

And just because you work for the mayor on paper doesn't mean the mayor is the one actually in charge, but again, having a boss doesn't mean you suddenly have more money than you did before.

Hey! I use your style! Don't like it? Stop using it yourself!

So is this a second admission that you are just dragging this out to troll me? That you don't actually believe any of this and are just trying to "get back at me" because of some perceived slight or dislike of how I post?

I mean, you are starting to just flat out lie at this rate, so it wouldn't shock me, but you'd think you'd let someone like @Maxperson in on the fact that this is just a ruse to punish me.

Good! That is a lot less costly than what you estimated by my standards. I love it when the rich can save money! Just like in real life! We can make a simulationnist out of you yet! There is still hope.

I was using this 30 cell model when I estimated those costs. That alone was enough to put this wizard as extremely wealthy, and it is a severe lowball estimate. Instead of celebrating my simulationist abilities, maybe you should acknowledge that your claims are just ludicrous.

Your guess is as good as mine. Pick a number. From zero to a few who cares? If a king, lord or whatever thinks that this security is needed, no costs will be too low. This is the kind of thing we see right here right now in our world.

And how many kings who thought that way bankrupted their countries? Oh, right, all of them? I mean, spies being in a tiny village with nothing of importance are unlikely enough, but putting anti-spy measures there at huge costs just because is insane.

Well, as I said, you should comply with the character creation process that is allowed at a table. I would conform to your rules. Why can't you conform to mine?

Because your "rules" seem to exist solely to control me for no other reason than your own need to assert dominance. None of this has been reasonable at any level, it is just attempts at forced obeisance.

I perfectly accomodate my players. Not you, my players. Remembers that rules are voted by the players too. Majority rules.

Yeah, I remember you claiming that. Funnily enough I even brought up how strange it was that in a discussion involving 2 people I seemed to keep getting outvoted by "the group" even though the majority would be us agreeing with each other.

But acknowledge that there are some that can is also canon too! Not all, but some. And these some are called priests. They are in the MM. They can cast 3rd level spells. You are the one insisting that no clergy members can cast spells. Not me.

No, yet again, this is a strawman and a blatant ignoring of my actual post. In fact, you again literally just contradicted yourself and agreed with my actual post.

You before: "In fact, if you follow the rule and only have access to the MM (and no splat book) all priests in a church are fifth level (not counting acolytes) so all priests in a small village can and will provide this service."

Me before: "Except for the repeated truth that not all priests and acolytes have access to spellcasting"

You Now: "Not all, but some. And these some are called priests."

So, if you ignore the DMG and PHB then you can make a ludicrous claim, one that you no longer stand by as you try and shift me from saying "not all priests" to "no priests" Again, strawmanning my actual position.

Again, levels of security is decided by the lord, crown, king, emperor or whomever is in charge. Not the player. Who knows? Maybe the village is near an hostile territory or on a very well traveled road that justifies more that one cell being protected by such spells!

Uh huh, this is just a thinly veiled "I as the DM will do whatever I can to kill your character concept" You don't like me, so you are going to call anything I come up with or argue unreasonable, and twist yourself in knots to deny a concept that didn't even need denying.

So you don't acknowledge marketplaces (aka Bazaar)... I did not know that such evidences had to be written down... Ho but wait! There are market places in Baldur's gate maps, Waterdeep's map and in its description in the Dragon's Heist. I bet I could find even more in other books as well... Come on man, stop nitpicking for the fun of it.

So, you are relying on a marketplace existing, which in no way provides alternative "NPC only" pricing. So, again, your claim that the PHB prices are only for players and that NPCs will have different, much lower prices is just your own baseless claims, founded on rules for other games and not 5e.

Whether or not a marketplace exists doesn't mean that the prices in the PHB don't apply to all people equally.