[3.5/PF] New Spell: Trifluoride

[Another_Poet]

I was reading an issue (http://what-if.xkcd.com/40/) of What If XKCD that linked to some fascinating (horrific) chemistry articles and eventually I ended up reading about Chlorine Trifluoride (http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2008/02/26/sand_wont_save_you_this_time.php). The chemist/blogger says he will never work with the stuff, so let's summon some!

New Spell: Trifluoride
Conjuration (Creation) [Evil]
Level: Sor/Wiz 8
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) (mwahaha)
Target or Area: One 10-ft. square
Duration: See text
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No
Material Component: A green or violet fluorite crystal worth 1300 gp or more.

This spell coats one 10-foot square area with a spill of Chlorine Trifluoride. This has a number of immediate effects, long term effects and potential interactions.

Immediate Effects
All creatures in the target area take 1d6 fire damage per caster level. A successful Reflex save halves this damage.

This damage and all fire damage from this spell ignores up to 20 points of Fire Resistance from any source. This applies to all effects below.

If the target area is a surface less than 1 foot thick, it is immediately eaten through. The square of trifluoride, and all creatures standing in it, fall through to whatever is below. Creatures may attempt a Reflex save to avoid falling.

If the next surface the trifluoride lands on is less than 1 foot thick, it too is eaten through. The 10' square of trifluoride will go through multiple surfaces or platforms until it hits something too thick to instantly eat through.

All objects in the target area, or carried on any affected creatures, immediately ignite. Paper, wood or cloth are destroyed immediately; all other materials, including materials that do not normally burn, catch fire. Magical items receive a fortitude saving throw against this.

All creatures also catch fire. They too receive a Fortitude saving throw against this.

Each creature or item that catches fire is treated as if under the effects of Heat Metal, even if not made of metal. Each burning object or body is a separate source of fire damage and these sources stack. Creatures might try to put out the fire; see Interactions below.

Creatures or objects that leave the target area remain under these effects.

No known substance is immune to these effects.

Long Term Effects
On the first round after the spell is cast, a 60' high vertical column starting in the target area is treated as a Cloudkill effect.

At the same time, a Fireball effect erupts, centered on the middle of the target area.

Additionally, all creatures still in the target area take 1d6 acid damage. This acid damage happens again every round for all creatures in the target area.

On the second round, the fumes sink and spread out, forming a normal-shaped Cloudkill effect centered on the target area. This effect does not move away from the caster like Cloudkill does.

The target area continues to burn for 2d10 hours. Every creature in the target area takes 1d6/lvl fire damage each round they remain in the target area.

The trifluoride continues to eat through the surface below it, albeit much more slowly, creating a pit 1 foot deep per hour that the effect continues.

When the effect finally burns out it leaves the bottom of the pit coated in a highly toxic substance. This poisons groundwater and almost certainly kills children many miles away.

Interactions
Throwing liquids or powders on trifluoride flames only serves to fuel the fire. Even water or sand will ignite. If any known substance is thrown on a burning creature or object (or the target area) to try to put it out, it immediately causes a Fireball effect centered on that target.

Once the Heat Metal effect is complete, most burning objects are destroyed and useless. Metal objects survive; however, they are coated in a strange white substance. If this substance is scratched at or removed, the object is immediately the center of a Fireball effect, after which (if it survives) it is back to normal.

All references above to "known" substances refer to substances that would be known in a typical medieval high fantasy world. High technology worlds, or alchemically talented characters who have spent time studying chlorine trifluoride, may be able to develop materials suitable to contain or put out trifluoride fires, but these materials themselves are dangerous to create or handle.

[Kazyan]

Instead of Cloudkill, I suggest a source of Con and Dex damage, to simulate the nerve-and-bone obliterating effect of HF better.

I also found the repeated "and then it makes a fireball" after a variety of actions funny for some reason, but perhaps replace the second two with Lesser Fireball, as the online spell? Much more realistic radius, and makes sense because less of the chemical Iis involved.

Finally, though the chemical is horribly nasty, I disagree with the [Evil] tag. Though summoning it carelessly could cause lots of collateral damage and it should be noted as an evil act in the description, the actual spell could do without the tag.

As a chemistry nerd, I highly approve of this. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanuki Tales]

How do magic spells that specifically counter fire spells, even magically created ones, interact with the flames made by this spell?

Does Chlorine Trifluoride even trump magic water that specifically puts out flames?

[Another_Poet]

Instead of Cloudkill, I suggest a source of Con and Dex damage, to simulate the nerve-and-bone obliterating effect of HF better.

I also found the repeated "and then it makes a fireball" after a variety of actions funny for some reason, but perhaps replace the second two with Lesser Fireball, as the online spell? Much more realistic radius, and makes sense because less of the chemical Iis involved.

These are great ideas.


Finally, though the chemical is horribly nasty, I disagree with the [Evil] tag. Though summoning it carelessly could cause lots of collateral damage and it should be noted as an evil act in the description, the actual spell could do without the tag.

I expected some people would feel that way.

I'm no expert on ethics in warfare, but the real world Geneva Conventions forbid the use of poison gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Efforts_to_eradicate_chemical_wea pons) and chemical warfare of any kind is likely to draw international charges. Additionally, use of this spell would leave a toxic hazard site with far-ranging environmental and public health consequences, potentially rendering an area uninhabitable or poisoning groundwater.

So I stand by the [Evil] tag. Any spell that automatically commits a war crime on casting gets that tag in my book.

Obviously, individual GMs are free to rule the evilness of spells as they wish, as with any [Evil] spell.


As a chemistry nerd, I highly approve of this. :smallbiggrin:

Success!


How do magic spells that specifically counter fire spells, even magically created ones, interact with the flames made by this spell?

Does Chlorine Trifluoride even trump magic water that specifically puts out flames?

Very good question. I'm open to ideas?

[Kazyan]

I expected some people would feel that way.

I'm no expert on ethics in warfare, but the real world Geneva Conventions forbid the use of poison gas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#Efforts_to_eradicate_chemical_wea pons) and chemical warfare of any kind is likely to draw international charges. Additionally, use of this spell would leave a toxic hazard site with far-ranging environmental and public health consequences, potentially rendering an area uninhabitable or poisoning groundwater.

So I stand by the [Evil] tag. Any spell that automatically commits a war crime on casting gets that tag in my book.

Obviously, individual GMs are free to rule the evilness of spells as they wish, as with any [Evil] spell.

The Geneva Convention obliterates my argument. Definitely keep the [Evil] tag, then.

[Tanuki Tales]

I don't feel like the tag being used is appropriate. The amount of damage or potential for causing toxic environments is not grounds for a spell being "Evil". Evil is a universal constant that can be measured empirically and which you can sit down and have afternoon tea with.

Just because our human morality calls it "evil" does not make it evil in the grand scheme of the DnD cosmology.

Otherwise spells like Sandstorm, Gate, Volcano, Dire Drought, Global Warming, etc. would have the Evil tag.

[The Mentalist]

Just because our human morality calls it "evil" does not make it evil in the grand scheme of the DnD cosmology..


^ This, and I feel that's it's too powerful, you have made all other blasting spells (Even the epic Hellball) obsolete. You cast this spell and then have your allies through flasks of water at it for around 15 fireballs in a round, +cloudkill + acid damage + fall damage + a lot of heat metals. + More fireballs for later when you scratch off the coating from the stuff you threw into the fire.

[Another_Poet]

^ This, and I feel that's it's too powerful, you have made all other blasting spells (Even the epic Hellball) obsolete. You cast this spell and then have your allies through flasks of water at it for around 15 fireballs in a round, +cloudkill + acid damage + fall damage + a lot of heat metals. + More fireballs for later when you scratch off the coating from the stuff you threw into the fire.

Hmm. If only there was a catch saying no non-evil party can do that.

I respect the difference in view on the [Evil] tag guys, really I do - feel free to ignore it if you like. In my world, it stays.

Good point Mentalist about how powerful it is when used like that. Bear in mind though it's stationary, and all those fireball are likely to be on one spot. Casting 15 fireballs and a Cloudkill on one 10 foot square isn't exactly the same as getting 15 free fireballs and Cloudkill to sling wherever you want.

With that said, do you feel these changes would balance it out:


Change the Cloudkill to a simple Con damage cloud as Kayzan suggested
Reduce the Fireballs to Lesser Fireballs
Bump the spell level to 9th
reducing it to Lesser Fireballs and then upping the

Would that do it?

[Tanuki Tales]

Speaking hypothetically:

If an entire plane of, or somewhere on another plane, Chlorine Trifluoride existed and someone used Gate to open to that plane and then had it pouring out onto the Material Plane, would the Gate spell suddenly get the Evil tag retroactively? :smallconfused:

Edit:

As to your earlier reply to my original question in this thread:

I'd have them counter it. The CIF3 is created magically but its effects are otherwise mundane.

Also, what happens if it comes in contact with Force effects or a Prismatic substance? Or a Sphere of Annihilation?

[Another_Poet]

Speaking hypothetically:

If an entire plane of, or somewhere on another plane, Chlorine Trifluoride existed and someone used Gate to open to that plane and then had it pouring out onto the Material Plane, would the Gate spell suddenly get the Evil tag retroactively? :smallconfused:

Finding an evil use for a spell does not make the spell evil; a spell that always does something morally horrific is, in my opinion, evil.

Note that a spell that summoned a stable container of this stuff would not be evil at all.


Edit:

As to your earlier reply to my original question in this thread:

I'd have them counter it. The CIF3 is created magically but its effects are otherwise mundane.

That seems reasonable. I was leaning toward the "higher caster level wins" ruling but you have a point that the chemical is mundane.


Also, what happens if it comes in contact with Force effects or a Prismatic substance? Or a Sphere of Annihilation?

They would work normally. They aren't "substances," they're spell effects.

[LordErebus12]

Perhaps it could instead create/conjure a vial/flask of this stuff. it would make for a lower level spell and a neat splash weapon.

[137beth]

Hmm...if your party's sorcerer gets to cocky with this thing, you could always throw a Neon elemental at them:smallsmile:

I like it, anyways.

[Another_Poet]

Hmm...if your party's sorcerer gets to cocky with this thing, you could always throw a Neon elemental at them:smallsmile:

I like it, anyways.

Nice :smallsmile: And thanks!


Perhaps it could instead create/conjure a vial/flask of this stuff. it would make for a lower level spell and a neat splash weapon.

The flask would catch on fire :smallbiggrin:

But I see what you're saying. I'm not sure whether a stable container of it would be a lower level spell... or a higher one. :smallconfused:

[LordErebus12]

Nice :smallsmile: And thanks!



The flask would catch on fire :smallbiggrin:

But I see what you're saying. I'm not sure whether a stable container of it would be a lower level spell... or a higher one. :smallconfused:

okay, looking it up, metal containers would work best. Sounds like this would be lovely so combine with a hollowed out metal crossbow bolt as a focus/material component. it would last for a few rounds until it struck something and detonate with the contact of blood as its broken on impact or during extraction from the wound.

they use bromine triflouride in some oilfields, nasty similar oxidizer. Pretty potent mental image: burning snow.

[Another_Poet]

they use bromine triflouride in some oilfields, nasty similar oxidizer. Pretty potent mental image: burning snow.

:smalleek:

About the containers: early chemists used fluorspar (a mineral) containers for these kinds of compounds, apparently not reactive or at least not quickly. It seems a lot of containment relies on "this only reacts more slowly, so it'll be controlled 'enough'."

According to the original article, metal containers only work once the reaction has built up a coating of non-reactive by-product on the inside, after which it is stable; but if that coating is disturbed, the metal container catches fire.

Hence the white coating on metal objects :smallsmile:

Given the tools of a fantasy setting I think a wall of force style containment is probably best. Or - hah - filling a bag of holding with the stuff and storing it extradimensionally.

What are the walls of a bag of holding's extradimensional interior made of? Would they react? I suppose it depends whether they are made of sackcloth or simply by the warping of time-space itself.

[TuggyNE]

Given the tools of a fantasy setting I think a wall of force style containment is probably best. Or - hah - filling a bag of holding with the stuff and storing it extradimensionally.

What are the walls of a bag of holding's extradimensional interior made of? Would they react? I suppose it depends whether they are made of sackcloth or simply by the warping of time-space itself.

Bags of holding can be punctured and ruined by sharp objects from the inside, so they definitely won't work.

Just use riverine (from Stormwrack).

[LordErebus12]

Bags of holding can be punctured and ruined by sharp objects from the inside, so they definitely won't work.

Just use riverine (from Stormwrack).

an excellent idea.

[The Mentalist]

Having now read through the entire "Stuff I won't work with" archive, I want to see how many of these I can stat up, and maybe some other exciting chemicals

[Debihuman]

The major problem is that it is a gas at room temperature [ it boils at -11.75ºC (53.15ºF)]. The melting point is -76.32ºC (-105.38ºF) Also, you'd need about 2,000 lbs to burn through that much material.

From: http://web.archive.org/web/20060318221608/http://www.airproducts.com/nr/rdonlyres/8479ed55-2170-4651-a3d4-223b2957a9f3/0/safetygram39.pdf


During the liquid rocket propellant era, a major incident involving ClF3 occurred the first time a one-ton steel container was loaded with liquid ClF3 for bulk shipment. The container had been cooled
with dry ice to perform the liquid transfer and help make the product safer to handle, since the ClF3 vapor pressure would only be about 0.007 kg/cm2 (0.1 psia) in the subcooled state. However, the dry ice bath embrittled the steel container wall, which split while it was being maneuvered onto a dolly, instantaneously releasing 907 kg (2,000 lb) of cold ClF3 liquid onto the building floor. The ClF3 dissolved the 30 cm (12 inch) thick concrete floor and another 90 cm (36 inches) of gravel underneath the spill.

How much ClF3 does the spell create?

Debby

[Yitzi]

I don't feel like the tag being used is appropriate. The amount of damage or potential for causing toxic environments is not grounds for a spell being "Evil". Evil is a universal constant that can be measured empirically and which you can sit down and have afternoon tea with.

Just because our human morality calls it "evil" does not make it evil in the grand scheme of the DnD cosmology.

Otherwise spells like Sandstorm, Gate, Volcano, Dire Drought, Global Warming, etc. would have the Evil tag.

Contagion?

[LordErebus12]

The major problem is that it is a gas at room temperature [ it boils at -11.75ºC (53.15ºF)]. The melting point is -76.32ºC (-105.38ºF) Also, you'd need about 2,000 lbs to burn through that much material.

From: http://web.archive.org/web/20060318221608/http://www.airproducts.com/nr/rdonlyres/8479ed55-2170-4651-a3d4-223b2957a9f3/0/safetygram39.pdf



How much ClF3 does the spell create?

Debby

covers a 10 ft. area, so maybe a couple gallon containers, idk?

[Tanuki Tales]

Contagion?

Contagion just arbitrarily has the Evil tag. There are plenty of spells, some from even the same school, that do similar or worse effects than the Contagion spell but don't get the Evil tag.

[Yitzi]

Contagion just arbitrarily has the Evil tag. There are plenty of spells, some from even the same school, that do similar or worse effects than the Contagion spell but don't get the Evil tag.

I think it's not arbitrary; I think it's because Contagion, by its nature, doesn't allow you to control who it affects. If you use biological weapons (which is what Contagion is), it's pretty much guaranteed that it'll affect a lot of innocent people. Chemical weapons such as this are more iffy, though, as they don't have the same uncontrollable spreading as a plague.

[Tanuki Tales]

I think it's not arbitrary; I think it's because Contagion, by its nature, doesn't allow you to control who it affects. If you use biological weapons (which is what Contagion is), it's pretty much guaranteed that it'll affect a lot of innocent people. Chemical weapons such as this are more iffy, though, as they don't have the same uncontrollable spreading as a plague.

And casting a massively damaging fire spell isn't the same? It's a double standard when many, many, many spells could indirectly negatively affect many innocent lives with one casting of them.

The application of the Evil tag is in several cases completely arbitrary. Human definition of "Evil" is not the Universe's.

[LordErebus12]

The application of the Evil tag is in several cases completely arbitrary. Human definition of "Evil" is not the Universe's.

The material plane is based around these ideals, sorry, that argument isnt gonna cut it when this stuff is a known toxic substance. If a caster is summoning it with the intention of hurling it at someone or the land, the act is evil.

This stuff poisons the earth, something seen as innately evil and unnatural by all of the natural realm, not to mention its a spell meant to deal more than just damage. Beyond excessive. You know how many demons are gonna abuse this now? a lot.

When people make arguments like this makes me wonder, lol. You wouldnt be working as a spy for asmodeus, are you?

[Tanuki Tales]

The material plane is based around these ideals, sorry, that argument isnt gonna cut it when this stuff is a known toxic substance. If a caster is summoning it with the intention of hurling it at someone or the land, the act is evil.

This stuff poisons the earth, something seen as innately evil and unnatural by all of the natural realm, not to mention its a spell meant to deal more than just damage. Beyond excessive. You know how many demons are gonna abuse this now? a lot.

When people make arguments like this makes me wonder, lol. You wouldnt be working as a spy for asmodeus, are you?

And here's a classic example of the inability to understand that Human/Material Plane morality =/= Universal Evil.


When a spell that can literally create a Volcano, a spell that can open up into a complete vacuum or a spell that can can turn a fertile belt into a desert are not considered Evil, it's mind boggling that a spell that can give one person Leprosy and possibly more people is Evil just by existing.

Natural phenomenon and substance are not evil just for existing. It's human intent that uses them for evil.

[Yitzi]

And casting a massively damaging fire spell isn't the same?

No it isn't, for the simple reason that it doesn't affect anyone outside its radius, and therefore it can often be cast in a situation where it won't harm any innocent people. A spell doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor if it sometimes has an evil use, only if it actually draws from the powers of evil or (practically) any use of it is evil.

[Tanuki Tales]

No it isn't, for the simple reason that it doesn't affect anyone outside its radius, and therefore it can often be cast in a situation where it won't harm any innocent people. A spell doesn't have the [Evil] descriptor if it sometimes has an evil use, only if it actually draws from the powers of evil or (practically) any use of it is evil.

And Contagion is the exact same. Unless you purposely take someone it was used on and purposely manipulate and use them to spread it on a pandemic level, its not going to affect anyone except the original person it was cast on.

It's hypocritical to call it "Evil" when the right casting of Fireball can start something like what is happening in California.

[Yitzi]

And Contagion is the exact same. Unless you purposely take someone it was used on and purposely manipulate and use them to spread it on a pandemic level, its not going to affect anyone except the original person it was cast on.

Of course it can. Diseases tend to spread even without purposeful manipulation. Furthermore, the chance of spreading is part of the point of the spell; otherwise it really wouldn't be all that impressive (compare it to Poison, which does a lot more ability damage during the battle and at higher levels has a higher DC.)

[Rabidmuskrat]

I'd call it [Evil] just for balance. Wouldn't want my LG wizard beginning to mass produce this stuff to sell on the open market.

Really, its a pretty easy refluff to make the tag stick. I'm no chemist, but it seems to me that this chemical doesn't occur naturally? Just say that the origin of this stuff is a particularly nasty level of the Abyss and the spell only summons the stuff. Now its evil not because the stuff itself is evil, but because the spell has to go fetch it from Hell.

[LordErebus12]

I'd call it [Evil] just for balance. Wouldn't want my LG wizard beginning to mass produce this stuff to sell on the open market.

Really, its a pretty easy refluff to make the tag stick. I'm no chemist, but it seems to me that this chemical doesn't occur naturally? Just say that the origin of this stuff is a particularly nasty level of the Abyss and the spell only summons the stuff. Now its evil not because the stuff itself is evil, but because the spell has to go fetch it from Hell.

it would lose the creation subtype.

[Tanuki Tales]

Of course it can. Diseases tend to spread even without purposeful manipulation. Furthermore, the chance of spreading is part of the point of the spell; otherwise it really wouldn't be all that impressive (compare it to Poison, which does a lot more ability damage during the battle and at higher levels has a higher DC.)

So you're assuming mechanics that don't exist in the spell or the disease rules to justify it being worth its level and worth the Evil tag? :smallconfused:

[Yitzi]

So you're assuming mechanics that don't exist in the spell or the disease rules

The disease rules mention transmission of disease by manners such as "contact", drinking tainted water, or inhalation. It's not very explicit what those mean, but it's fair to presume that they work in the D&D world roughly the same way they work in the real world.

[Tanuki Tales]

The disease rules mention transmission of disease by manners such as "contact", drinking tainted water, or inhalation. It's not very explicit what those mean, but it's fair to presume that they work in the D&D world roughly the same way they work in the real world.

But there's no real rules for how long a disease can survive and be transmitted or how you'd go about mapping pandemics and similar extrapolations of a highly contagious pathogen.

I think the rules are just too devoid of specifics to really use examples of how real world bio-weapons are used in warfare and terror attacks as justification for the Contagion spell to be Evil above other, more world altering spells.

[Yitzi]

But there's no real rules for how long a disease can survive and be transmitted or how you'd go about mapping pandemics and similar extrapolations of a highly contagious pathogen.

I think the rules are just too devoid of specifics to really use examples of how real world bio-weapons are used in warfare and terror attacks as justification for the Contagion spell to be Evil above other, more world altering spells.

The rules don't have to have specifics when there are other viable sources to get the specifics from. Looking at the spell, the obvious way to use Contagion is as a bioweapon; anything else and Poison is substantially stronger. It's not in the rules, but the rules are only half of what goes into a D&D game, and probably the less important half.

[Tanuki Tales]

The rules don't have to have specifics when there are other viable sources to get the specifics from. Looking at the spell, the obvious way to use Contagion is as a bioweapon; anything else and Poison is substantially stronger. It's not in the rules, but the rules are only half of what goes into a D&D game, and probably the less important half.

So...

Basically you're saying, "My RAI makes the RAW say what my RAI says?"

Edit:

Because you're essentially trying to re-interpret RAW with outside factors and still call it RAW. At least, that's what I'm reading from what you're saying. If that isn't true, I apologize for misinterpreting you.

[Yitzi]

So...

Basically you're saying, "My RAI makes the RAW say what my RAI says?"

Edit:

Because you're essentially trying to re-interpret RAW with outside factors and still call it RAW.

Not quite; I am interpreting the RAW with outside factors and calling it D&D; when it comes to things that are more on the roleplay end of the roleplay/rollplay spectrum*, things that are not written in the rules are still relevant.


*No, this is not the Stormwind fallacy; there need not be a spectrum for characters, but there definitely is a spectrum for features.

[Tanuki Tales]

Not quite; I am interpreting the RAW with outside factors and calling it D&D; when it comes to things that are more on the roleplay end of the roleplay/rollplay spectrum*, things that are not written in the rules are still relevant.


*No, this is not the Stormwind fallacy; there need not be a spectrum for characters, but there definitely is a spectrum for features.

I'm still failing to see how it isn't RAI.

[Another_Poet]

Tanuki Tales, let me put it this way: rather than dropping [Evil] tag, I would sooner edit the spell to say "the toxic residue poisons groundwater and almost certainly kills children many miles away," because that is a much more honest solution.

edit: and that's the last I'll comment on the evil tag issue; if anyone has helpful comments on the spell itself (rather than "I'd like to argue that war crimes are not evil"), I'm still following the thread and will gladly respond.

[Tanuki Tales]

Tanuki Tales, let me put it this way: rather than dropping [Evil] tag, I would sooner edit the spell to say "the toxic residue poisons groundwater and almost certainly kills children many miles away," because that is a much more honest solution.


The addition of defining tags to a spell is a valid line of discussion when it comes to the reviewing of the mechanical confines of a spell. There are many feats, classes, prestige classes and other aspects of the rules that are affected or are based upon such tags. It also sets precedents and brings into question the ramifications of spells with similar effects or implicated uses.

I am more in agreement with Muskrat's opinion that the Evil tag is solely for balance than "the Geneva Convention said this is evil, so it's evil!" line of reasoning.

Edit:

It's even more confusing when you already admitted summoning a jar of the stuff isn't evil. So apparently Chlorine Trifluoride's morality depends upon not actually the material itself but the state it happens to be laying around the Material Plane unattended.

[Yitzi]

I'm still failing to see how it isn't RAI.

It is. Why is that a problem? I'm describing a fluff-based portion of D&D (alignments are primarily fluff, though they do have some mechanical ramifications) by RAI, which is perfectly normal and acceptable.

[Tanuki Tales]

It is. Why is that a problem? I'm describing a fluff-based portion of D&D (alignments are primarily fluff, though they do have some mechanical ramifications) by RAI, which is perfectly normal and acceptable.

Then am I simply misinterpreting you as trying to say that RAI is RAW? I thought we were having a conversation concerning RAW. :smallredface:

[Yitzi]

I thought we were having a conversation concerning RAW. :smallredface:

No, we're having a conversation regarding D&D.

[Tanuki Tales]

No, we're having a conversation regarding D&D.

I was having a conversation concerning the RAW side of it, which includes the fluff as written and represented to the point where 3.5 ended. Though technically this conversation also covers Pathfinder.

You on the other hand were approaching it from a RAI perspective, which was heavily based on real world morality and societal implications.

So while you can say we were both discussing the same topic, it was really only in a very broad sense.

Edit:

And at this point, I don't see the conversation going any further than just semantics.

I still stand by my point that the use of the Evil tag is inappropriate and arbitrary here and leave it there.

[Yitzi]

I was having a conversation concerning the RAW side of it, which includes the fluff as written and represented to the point where 3.5 ended. Though technically this conversation also covers Pathfinder.

You on the other hand were approaching it from a RAI perspective, which was heavily based on real world morality and societal implications.

So while you can say we were both discussing the same topic, it was really only in a very broad sense.

Yeah, "two different conversations" is a fairly common reason for disagreement.


And at this point, I don't see the conversation going any further than just semantics.

Actually, it is more than semantics; the question of whether fluff should follow strict RAW or RAI can be seen as an extension of the question of whether D&D is primarily gamist or primarily simulationist (though it clearly has heavy aspects of both), and has applications regarding things such as the relevance of Tippyverse-based arguments.