My players shall curse you for the fun you’ll have given me on their next trek out of the city. I’m think Yeth hound stats but I’m flexible atm. Maybe a shadow.

Have him stab the mayor who’s evil because he’s greedy and selfish and borderline abusive in trade-deals with neighboring regions but is otherwise beloved (and has rewards heaped on him) because he’s so good at actually keeping order in the town and keeping their goodwill (although probably at least a little bit through some passive-aggressive blackmail). That’s always fun.

No argument save that all of that shouldn’t make you exemplary or unique in the way the rules present. It makes you motivated. Frankly even class levels shouldn’t make you special because everyone should have them. (The NPC classes of 3.5 fell into this trap to for the Warrior and Adept, imo.)*

Johnny Haysee who had some training in the town guard only to lose his family when his village was murdered by a sudden zombie incursion, who then goes on a vengeance fueled life of adventure to gain the power to fight the necromancer that created them isn’t any less of a Johnny Hayseed who signed up for basic training, washed out, and then decided to go adventuring. Either can fight but no better than any other guard at lvl 1, because all lvl 1 guards should be fighters (or some other class, not to go too deep down the rabbit hole of “what classes should have what skills in what jobs”). What makes the Adventurer special is their motivation, but their motivation shouldn’t start them with super-powers. It should deliver those to them as they explore the world, themselves, and their abilities.

(*) I guess you could define class levels as adventurer only, but even then at lvl 1 I’m not sure you’re “better” enough to qualify as meaningful, and in 5e at least its irrelevant because the divorced system between opponents - even npcs - and players means its all nonsensical to justify anyway because the town guard there isn’t a Fighter lvl 5 by the rules its a Monster labeled Fighter and will be stated according to what would be a challenge for the DM’s needs. Which demands a lot of world based hand waving but that’s not what the conversation was on.

Or a one note one. But, while I like monstrous races as options, I dislike the trend of 5e to make our characters “special”, unique, or noteworthy before the adventuring even begins. (If this is duplicated for some reason, I’m sorry. It tried editing and that didnt’ seem to take, then I tried deleting my original message and reposting. Not sure what’s up.)

deleted by creator

I need to watch that, I’ve heard good things but have never seen it.

I can’t think of any media that explores its magic at any level where that isn’t true though, tbh.

100% approve. Would strongly consider rolling something like a d4 to determine how the demon reacted (modified by species, because a palrethees isn’t likely to attack). So for a palrethees it’d be like:

1 - Furious, bitter anger. Every deal it makes for the next d12 weeks is entirely centered on ruining the fighter in the most humiliating and harmful ways possible. Leaving dead innocents (like children or loose acquaintances) in their rooms to frame them, assaulting loved ones repeatedly whenever they think they’re safe to cause them suffering, slandering them ahead of their travels, or even just trying to assassinate them.

2 - Cold respect and a reward for the fighter’s cleverness. Maybe money or even a magic item, that comes with huge strings. (It was stolen, its cursed, someone very dangerous wants it, etc)

3 - Indifference and pulsing its fear creating affect just to be spiteful and drive away the fighter

4 - Actual amusement and a decision to follow the fighter around. Their new “friend” would probably amuse themselves in the same way any demon would, so atrocities would follow the fighter indirectly, the demon would get to make deals with those the fighter wronged/conflicted with for their souls, and maybe the demon even “helps” the fighter on occasion. As seen through the guise of a demon’s idea of helpful of course. It might also just wander away after a week or so after it got bored.

A joke that keeps being told with slight variation.

I mean, if it works like the bag they’d be protected by walls of force (iirc) around them on the astral plane. So its nice to know they’re not subject to being eaten by an Astral Dreadnought or something.

Although that makes my DM brain consider the concept for a Berbalang cabal seeking to feed themselves on the astral plane through the subjugation/encouragement and selective attachment of cursed “holding” items (that don’t have that field) onto their preferred prey.

Ah, see, I was preaching to the choir. You’re on top of it already. =P

That sounds insanely dangerous for like a bunch of reasons. Like “that’s a Planescape campaign by itself” dangerous. So, yeah, let us know what happens when you get there. Sounds like fun. =P

Killing him altogether seems pretty epic level, like level 25+, given that he’s a deity. (But your DM could be ballsier than me, lol. Killing an aspect of him to weaken him for a bit seems more my speed.)

Alternatively you could try shifting goblin worship in localized communities to another deity. Maybe someone like Kikanuti (since I imagine getting them to worship someone like Tymora immediately might be too much of a jump?) or some other goblin. (Were Konsi to be more arrogant, I’d suggest her. =P) Kill him slowly, death by 1000 cuts of lost faith style.

Thank you, I think that helps parse out where I was unclear. There’s specifics in the language at play. It makes me wonder how often bad actors prevention of even small distinctions being discussed has made it muddier and harder for everyone else.

I guess my question’s always been that since gender is (to my incomplete understanding) a social construct and can change, and transgender people seek to change to a gender that feels more appropriate, how did you (a) know what felt right, (b) that what felt right wasn’t completely appropriate for your gender and the active definition of gender needed to change, and © where does chemical and surgical transition factor in for a gender based thing when attempting to find for comfortable self? Because that seems like a sex (in the clinical terminology) thing as much as a gender one (which of course there’s probably a connection, I guess I’m just not clear where the line really breaks.)

To be clear, I think my questions are entirely too “rationalizing a deep emotional and person thing” so I don’t really expect an answer, I’ve just never been invited to address the question to anyone before.

Devil: There are RULES, we had an AGREEMENT. I can’t just lie about those!

Demon: Sure you can!

The two get into a fight in the Sigil tavern. Harmonium soldiers come in to detain them, a fight ensues, both are slain. . . . Eternal blood war continues unperturbed

This is just my guess (I must solidly highlight that I haven’t played the game), but in normal D&D conditions its because you don’t survive Illithid tadpole implantation. Within about an hour or two you’re dead, and even if you kill the parasite before it completes its job you’re left pretty much brain-dead without a higher level Restoration or Heal spell because they directly eat gray matter.

They don’t just plug into your brain, they eat the gray matter and perform some sort of biological grafting between themselves and your nerves, then generate some sort of alien chemicals/hormones to morph the body over a week or more. So, despite BG3 letting you live, likely due to some sort of plot complication I’m unaware of slowing things down, killing the host isn’t likely to drive the parasite out of the body until its finished chowing down on your brain matter. (Even wild tadpoles left unattended eat brains until they grow into monsters.) Either way at this point you probably can’t actually be resurrected with Revivify, you’d need higher level Resurrection because your body isn’t fully intact anymore. (I mean, maybe you could but at best you’re in a brain-dead vegetative state with 1HP because Revivify doesn’t replace lost parts.)

Also a good chance the creature only abandoned the other host because they were already close to being out of brain food or something weird. Like them psychically being forced/ordered out of the host.

I mean, your argument is “we can’t ever be perfect so we should never even aspire to be good”, which is sortof putting the cart before the horse. That we can even recognize the distinction of not being special already places in a position where we can try and do a little better. What is better, how much, or how? What even is good or morality? All of those questions are at necessity to even define good, let alone become it. Before even glancing at perfect. Sure it might be an eternal inane treadmill, but just as fish have gills to breathe, we by chance of fate have the organs necessary to think. And that’s just as much in our nature. The fish doesn’t consider how long it has to swim, it just does it towards a target it can see/sense. By the same mechanism that means we aren’t special, why shouldn’t, why wouldn’t, we do the same thing? Just because what we can see/sense may be artificial, imagined, or drempt?

Okay, chad faced joke aside (which is what I was going for there and couldn’t undercut it with =P) I do prefer more simulation based ruleset which sortof demands that at least some basic rules of physics are able to be mapped between reality and the gamestate. Abstractions can exist, and explanations can be provided (like the idea of a potion only being a mouthful/shot in quantity and/or size), but strain of an increasingly divorced rulest from the actual narrative is always a problem and should be avoided, imo.

No

If you play Planescape:Torment after this you might dig the Sensates/Society of Sensation. (Assuming that character has similar tastes to you.)