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: 8410756" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Not when the discussion is about what the books tell us is the case.They do, they just don't succeed. That's because a God succeeding is usually a major adventure or "world-shaking event". And yes, new writers add things all the time, this is another problem with Maxperson's position that the Cosmic Order is always maintained, but it is a meta-textual issue, and less relevant because it has to be addressed meta-textually, not within the world, which is what we are discussing.Didn't I just do that? What makes you so willing to dismiss what I just showed you?Wouldn't that be better directed to Maxperson who made that claim?Haven't I done that by showing the incredibly high likelihood that adding a new god seems to have taken pieces from other gods? Instead of demanding that I show you things, why don't you respond to why what I have shown you is somehow insufficient?Part of Max's claim was that an Archfiend getting a portfolio would unbalance the cosmos, getting AO involved to stop Archfiends from becoming gods. If you need proof on that, maybe address the person who made the original claim,Hey, you know who would be a great person to address those concerns to? Maxperson. The guy who made the original claim. He seems like a great guy to address these concerns to, since he is the one who was must concerned with the cosmic balance and how the Portfolio's going to the wrong beings would be met with an overgod reversing that so that the Cosmic balance is maintained.That's what you were talking about? I thought you were talking about how to have the discussion we are having about the role and purpose of Evil Gods in DnD. I don't care how you go about creating gods. What does that process have to do with anything we are actually discussing?No, the bit I misunderstood was thinking you had any interest in participating in the discussion. Yes, I personally find their redundancy undesirable, but I'm not pushing my preference on anyone. Instead, this conversation has continued because the position of "Yes, they are redundant, here are facts to support that claim" is being met with "No, they are not redundant, your facts are wrong, and these real facts prove it." So, yes, I do expect that this conversation is going to continue until we can reach a consensus.Because that's what Maxperson did. But, here's a funny question, how are the rule's text I've quoted and Pemerton quoted not supporting us? And, why do they need textual support if, as you claimed, they were only caring about their preferences. Or, are you fully aware that this discussion has basically nothing to do with preferences.Really? So what about personality makes a Demi-God different from a Greater God? Because those are the types of discussions we are having. And I don't think personality has anything to do with that distinction.And before Vecna existed, who stepped in to do that?so, one of the points of difference claimed is that the Gods can grant spells and the Archfiends can't. We've quoted sources from 1e, 2e, 3.X, 4e and 5e showing spells being granted by archfiends. That is slightly different than what you seem to think we've demonstrated.Because we are discussing what the canon is. And you keep yelling at me because I'm telling him his preference is wrong. Make up your mind, is he arguing canon, or is he arguing personal preference. Am I allowed to discuss canon?Huh, I didn't know that. Was Heironeous extant in Gygax's game before Cuthbert's Apotheosis? Then you can provide me a food that has literally no calories, in any way shape or form? And, hey, maybe they do share a trait, or, you know, one of those "traits" is a portfolio bound to the fundament of reality. Which makes it a bit different than a personality trait. And Honesty is only one aspect of being a Paladin, true, but if you are a god of paladins and all they represent, then being a god on one of their core aspects seems to be pretty obvious.Huh, I thought he came from Greyhawk.You wanted to know why I was "complaining". I assumed you included in that both my increasingly frustrating conversations with you trying to talk about anything except the core discussion and my actual discussions with people in the main discussion lines. I personally would divide these. I complain about you constantly trying to derail the conversation and constantly getting on my case about the fact that I'm trying to focus on the main discussion instead of following you down these merry little paths. My discussions with the others on the actual debate isn't complaining.So, let me ask you this. What is the purpose of declaring that I can't continue the discussions that we have been having? Why should I discuss with you how we design gods for pantheons in this thread, when that isn't what the discussions centered on?</blockquote>

Verification