Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8409926" data-attributes="member: 6801228">No, I expect people to stick by their arguments, and we are basing our arguments on the text of DnD. you have a problem with me making sure that when someone argues X I don't let them shift to arguing X+1 just because it is suddenly more convenient, that's your problem, not mine. If they want to stop discussing X, or they want to admit they were wrong, then that's different, but you took offense to me pointing out what someone's argument I was responding to actually was. And that isn't my problem.If you have an opinion on what the books say, and you think that that opinion contradicts what I see the books saying, then we can discuss it. If you want to hop in and say "well, nothing in the books says anything, but you could make up this" when we are trying to discuss what the books say, well, that is an interesting idea, but it is just as irrelevant as bringing up Michael Jordan. I'm discussing with people who are claiming "No, the book absolutely has an answer and it says you are wrong." If you think that conversation is a waste of time because the books don't have an answer, great, I'm not forcing you to participate in the conversation I'm having with people who say you are wrong about that.  I'm not super familiar with all of the details. I do think that there was a God who ended up with Winter and Death, which are complimentary, but they very much got them because that was available at the time. But frankly, as much as we talk about the portfolios changing hands, it actually is a fairly rare event. Because there aren't any free portfolios.The claim was made, since you seem to keep losing sight of this, that the ascended mortals don't disrupt the cosmic balance because they take portfolio's that no one was holding. No exception was made for being of a different pantheon, in fact, with references to Overgods, it could be assumed that this is interpantheonic and applies to all pantheons. So ,being a goddess of specific pantheon had nothing to do with the claim. So, we have a being who has "Magic needs to always be balanced"/"Knowledge above all" and "Magic used to gain power"/"Necromancy". If this is the cosmic order, which it would have been before Vecna ascended, then Vecna suddenly having "The secrets of magic" as part of his deal seems to me that he had to take it from those areas. That would change the cosmic balance. This would disprove the assertion that the Gods maintain the cosmic balance and that ascended mortals never change the cosmic balance. Which was the assertion I was arguing against. If you think the initial assertion was wrong... congratulations. But I'm not going to argue with you over whether or not the original asserion is something I should even be arguing, becuase it was Maxperson's argument, and I was engaging his argument. Not making up my own argument to argue against.I don't care if it isn't the most interesting way to you to have this discussion, it is the discussion we are having.Nothing. Now, right here and right now, tell me where I have ever said that people can't have redundant gods? Even if you find one example, I've stated a half dozen times in the past two days that people can do whatever they want, my entire argument is just to show that they are redundant.What preferences? Maxperson and Helldritch are arguing that their answers are right via Canon. Max has multiple times written "RULES" to prove that he is correct and that anything that goes against what he is saying is wrong according THE RULES (his emphasis). You seem to have missed this, and that is why this conversation with you is so frustrating, because you keep yelling at me for attacking preferences, when I'm arguing points that are being claimed to be official canon, not preferences. It means that Maxperson's claim that the canon answer is that cosmic order isn't disrupted the apotheosis or mortals isn't true. That should be fairly obvious, since I keep mentioning that I am arguing against their claim.I tried. You decided to join into the conversation, if you have no stake in the answer, then drop it, and I'll go back to trying to ask them.In the absence of "magical secrets" (which is the state before Vecna becomes a god) do you honestly think it makes logical sense that "Magical Knowledge" doesn't include secrets of magic? The entire idea of magic is that it is unknown and secretive.  Again, you want to focus on personality, but that has nothing to do with anything being claimed.First, I'm not sure how the dozens of examples, book quotes and ect quoted by myself, Pemerton and others somehow isn't evidence. Would you mind explaining why you can dismiss all of that while accepted the same sort of evidence from Max and others? Secondly, it isn't that hard to understand. Max is a person who believes in the ultimate an unquestioned authority of the DM to change literally anything. He is of course going to say that any DM can change canon if they feel like it. Meanwhile, he will also continue pointing out that he has the canon answer, and that he is following it, and supported by the books. Just because he isn't saying people must be bound by his answer doesn't mean he isn't arguing Canon.Back when Heironeous was conceived, before St. Cuthbert, Paladins would lose all of their powers if they lied. They were no longer paladins. So, a more accurate comparison rather than the god and food and ranches, would be the god of food and Calories. Because just like without honesty you are not a paladin, without some number of calories, you aren't food. Now, by the time of 5e, paladins have changed. Notably, St. Cuthbert now exists. Paladins in Greyhawk at least, can serve any god as of 3.X. St. Cuthbert is well-known for being a "spare the cane, spoil the child" type of god. So, would he support a Paladin of Vengeance, who seeks the greater evil no matter the cost... yup. That is right up his alley. Meanwhile, Conquest Paladins are also known as Hell Knights, and are often supported by the Nine Hells, much like the Blackguard of the past. Did Heironeous' portfolio change in 5e? Very likely. But, I'm talking about back in 1e, when Cuthbert apotheosized into a god.And since the question at hand is "Did Cuthbert's apotheosis into a god alter the cosmic balance" not "who is more powerful" again, it has no relevance to the point.I "complain" when people eitherA) Completely ignore the discussion to begin making wild tangentsB) Claim my position is wrong, and provide textual evidence to try and prove their answer canonically correct.My endgame is to attempt to reach a consensus based on the facts. Since you have already decided that there are no relevant facts, then I don't understand why you keep jumping into these discussions to accuse me of various wrongdoings.Double Facepalm followed by HeadeskSince part of my position is that is has changed multiple times and is unclear if their a single through line definition, allow me rewrite this sentence for you"Because you haven't actually shown it to be the case, is why. And that's because (Part of my exact position)." Do you see how silly that sounds? I haven't proven my position because my position?So, since there have been multiple times in multiple editions, that we can prove, and have proven, that Archfiends have been equal to gods... doesn't that show that across all editions of DnD, there has not been a consistent agreed upon difference between Archfiends and Gods.This is just so bizarre to see someone telling me I'm wrong because I'm right.Again, how are the dozens of examples, books, and other evidence presented by me, Pemerton and others not evidence? Why do you dismiss it out of hand? And, again, I'm not saying people must adhere to any rules. you keep reading that into my position as some sort of evil plot of mine, but it has nothing to do with what I am saying. And, yes, when people say "you are wrong, here is evidence that says you are wrong" I see that as something against my position. It might have something to do with them saying I am wrong and presenting evidence to prove I am wrong.Because they haven't provided any actual proof. If they said "I don't find them redundant because they have different personalities" I'd be like "Okay, but their personalities have nothing to do with their status"... because they don't. If they were just shrugging and saying "just because I prefer it that way" then I really wouldn't have anything to argue against. But they are providing evidence, and so we are discussing evidence.</blockquote>

Verification