Playgrounders in D&D

[LordOfCain]

Because the writers of BoVD invented Vile, a term for horrible evil deeds, and then labeled some stupid, rather innocent stuff as Vile. This is going off memory, I haven't read the book in ages, but still a terrible book. If we were ignoring it, I could argue for any of the three Chaotic alignments, but still most likely Neutral or Evil. I simply don't care about other people unless I feel a connection to them, it's just stupid to hurt other people without a big enough payout.

Okay, just curious.

[Eldest]

Okay, just curious.

In my own defense, I'd argue I'm still a decent person. Just not a Good one. Easiest way to get what you want is to have friends who have it, after all. So you make friends.

[Esprit15]

As an expert 1 or 2? Get a job teaching and look into studying magic if I have the knack for it. Still, while above average, I'm probably not intelligent enough to even qualify for the elite array. Of course, all those adventurers need someone to be the mentor who sends them on their way to go save the land, and someone who knows the best things to practice and train in would better serve as said mentor than as the person risking death on a regular basis.

[Masema]

In my own defense, I'd argue I'm still a decent person. Just not a Good one. Easiest way to get what you want is to have friends who have it, after all. So you make friends.

Perhaps this thread might be something you'd be interested in?

[Kelb_Panthera]

These are not at all unexpected responses. No one truly believes themselves to be evil. Even a token respect for authority and the rule of law is a sign of decency and humility. And the belief that you would happily flaunt of authority in the face of oppression is enlightenment thinking at it's finest.

As was pointed out upthread, we know -exaclty- what to look for to determine alignment based on the actual game rules. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm almost pathological in my introspection, a natural consequence of being a severe introvert with little to do with most of his time. I'm also entirely too predisposed to putting factual accuracy above basically anything, to the point that it often lands me in an argument with my friends, that I seriously doubt I've deluded myself.

I do have an inclination to some of the behavior that BoVD marks as being evil. At the same time, I don't act on those impulses (sometimes with difficulty) and I occasionally engage in Good behavior; solid neutral on that axis. Though I -could- see myself sliding toward good in the OP's hypothetical if circumstances conspire but that's not terribly likely.

I also have an appreciation for the weight of tradition (though I'm not comfortable with -blind- adherence to it) and feel quite strongly about the importance of the rule of law. Personal freedom is definitely a positive thing (though not a good one by RAW) and I don't much care for the idea of it being infringed without good reason but I'm not about to shirk tradition or duty just because I don't like what's expected unless it pushes quite strongly against my moral outlook. That certainly reads as lawful by my understanding of the rules.

It would be wonderfully simple if you could be sure you weren't lying.

Might've phrased that better as "... deluding yourself." Again, pretty sure I'm not. I could be but I don't see any part of what goes on in my life that would make it probable; low-stress, happy and committed relationship (just shy of 10 years now), no desire for temporal power (can't take it with you at the end), no desire to be anyone's savior or damnation.... Gods I'm a dull bastard.

Indeed. Very straightforward. Very moving.

The wish fulfillment fantasy of a true tyrant.

Well, yeah. It's RedFel. He's kinda famous for that around here.

I'm tickled by your use of the phrase "good totalitarian".

95% sure he meant good as in successful, not good as in morally upstanding. It's basic statecraft as layed out by Mahchiavelli; if you want to hold a principality after you take it, change little for the peasantry lest they rise in revolt. Though, Red put his own little orwellian spin on it with his police being draconian in their enforcement of his law.

He displays the knowledge of a statesman-strategist with some frequency.

[danzibr]

I mean, scholars had some pretty advanced math even back in the medieval/renaissance period. Wizards with Int boosts might even be as far as we are with our computers - not in terms of computational power, of course, but as far as mathematical theory goes they'd be pretty set. Unless you've got a doctorate (I'm not saying you don't, but it's statistically unlikely) then anyone who has a need for the math probably already has it.

He has a doctorate.

Indeed! :P

Didn't expect anyone to know that.

Huh. A Phd in mathematics. Well, that figures, doesn't it?

Danzibr, I retract my previous statement, and substitute it with an apology.

Totally fine! Not a very useful PhD, I'm afraid. Went the pure math route, dissertation's on Quasi-Metric Geometry.

But anyway, the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus wasn't discovered/invented until Isaac Newton's and Gottfried Leibniz's time, late 1600's. Then all the Calculus nonsense, infinitesimals and limits and whatnot, weren't made rigorous until Karl Weierstrass, late 1800's. That kind of stuff a math major would learn in undergrad. I imagine D&D math would be before Calculus, so even a person with just a BS in math would bring a lot to the table.

[Eldest]

Perhaps this thread might be something you'd be interested in?

"As likely to set allies alight as enemies"? Heck no, I'd only set allies on fire if I was gaining something worth burning () the friendship. That's a pretty bad chart when it comes to CE with brains, IMO.

EDIT: I realized this might derail into an alignment argument, so I'm not going to reply about my beliefs about my alignment in D&D terms anymore.

[Zanos]

Because the writers of BoVD invented Vile, a term for horrible evil deeds, and then labeled some stupid, rather innocent stuff as Vile. This is going off memory, I haven't read the book in ages, but still a terrible book. If we were ignoring it, I could argue for any of the three Chaotic alignments, but still most likely Neutral or Evil. I simply don't care about other people unless I feel a connection to them, it's just stupid to hurt other people without a big enough payout.

Yeah, if I recall masochism is one of those stupid things that makes you automatically Evil. There's a couple others in there too.

I'm tickled by your use of the phrase "good totalitarian".
A system of government in which the populace is beholden to the state through a codified and exacting set of laws, and which inculcates obedience in the populace by feeding them a steady diet of mainstream propaganda mostly centered on national pride and utter faith in those in power. It's a system whose success depends entirely on rigidly maintaining the rule of law at all costs. By it's very definition, it cannot be good, in exactly the same way the plane of Mechanus cannot ever be good, at the risk of annihilating itself.

In effect, life would change for everyone, since the rule of law must be absolute for the system to function. The laws do not serve the needs of the people, they serve the needs of the system. The only possible guarantee you could ever make anyone in such a system is that they will serve the needs of the system, and that they will climb exactly as high as the current, or anticipated, needs of the system dictate.

Not D&D Good. But it's possible for a system that relies on an autocratic style of government to be both prosperous and successful. The issue being that these governments only endure as long as a strong, intelligent, and skilled autocrat guides them, and tend to collapse soon after that autocrat loses power. One need only look to the formation of the Roman Empire as an example of this.

[Masema]

"As likely to set allies alight as enemies"? Heck no, I'd only set allies on fire if I was gaining something worth burning () the friendship. That's a pretty bad chart when it comes to CE with brains, IMO.

EDIT: I realized this might derail into an alignment argument, so I'm not going to reply about my beliefs about my alignment in D&D terms anymore.

That particular one... was not well thought out I will admit. Though perhaps you'd fit in better with

[Doctor Awkward]

As was pointed out upthread, we know -exaclty- what to look for to determine alignment based on the actual game rules. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm almost pathological in my introspection, a natural consequence of being a severe introvert with little to do with most of his time. I'm also entirely too predisposed to putting factual accuracy above basically anything, to the point that it often lands me in an argument with my friends, that I seriously doubt I've deluded myself.

I do have an inclination to some of the behavior that BoVD marks as being evil. At the same time, I don't act on those impulses (sometimes with difficulty) and I occasionally engage in Good behavior; solid neutral on that axis. Though I -could- see myself sliding toward good in the OP's hypothetical if circumstances conspire but that's not terribly likely.

I also have an appreciation for the weight of tradition (though I'm not comfortable with -blind- adherence to it) and feel quite strongly about the importance of the rule of law. Personal freedom is definitely a positive thing (though not a good one by RAW) and I don't much care for the idea of it being infringed without good reason but I'm not about to shirk tradition or duty just because I don't like what's expected unless it pushes quite strongly against my moral outlook. That certainly reads as lawful by my understanding of the rules.

This is all excellent. It highlights one of the most difficult things about self-examination: whether or not you actually have a problem with the things about yourself that might be considered worth changing.

Is it still bad if I enjoy it? As long as I am not hurting other people with it and no one is affected, who cares? What if only that one person over there disagrees? If he isn't hurt in any way, does that make it okay? How many people have to disagree with a thing before it becomes bad.

It's a good discussion to have. Knowing the rules isn't always enough. Because you also have to know how, if, and in what ways they might be applied to you.

For instance, in D&D, the act of animating the dead is always evil. There are a lot of people that disagree with this, on various ethical stances of even more varying strength. The point that nearly all of those arguments miss is that the reason it is an evil act is because it involves the desecration of a corpse. It's an ethical violation of the bodily autonomy of another living being. In that sense, your reasons for animating the corpse are irrelevant.

95% sure he meant good as in successful, not good as in morally upstanding. It's basic statecraft as layed out by Mahchiavelli; if you want to hold a principality after you take it, change little for the peasantry lest they rise in revolt. Though, Red put his own little orwellian spin on it with his police being draconian in their enforcement of his law.

He displays the knowledge of a statesman-strategist with some frequency.

Ah, but that calls in to question your definition of success. Do you measure it by the wealth generated by the nation, or by if the needs of it's citizens are met? How much of the populace needs to be content for a system to be successful? There will always be those people that value their personal freedoms over the needs of the state. Will the system be able to provide for their needs as well?

The short is answer, obviously, is no. But it's a "no" because the needs of the people are never served. Only the needs of the state are. There only time the needs of the people will be met is when those needs coincide with those of the state.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is all excellent. It highlights one of the most difficult things about self-examination: whether or not you actually have a problem with the things about yourself that might be considered worth changing.

Doesn't matter in the context of the rules.

Is it still bad if I enjoy it? As long as I am not hurting other people with it and no one is affected, who cares? What if only that one person over there disagrees? If he isn't hurt in any way, does that make it okay? How many people have to disagree with a thing before it becomes bad.

Doesn't matter. D&D verse alignment is objective. Whether I or anyone else thinks a thing is bad or not doesn't figure into whether it's evil or not. Same goes for the other three. The outlines given are fairly clear. Morally, I think I'm a good person as much as the next guy. By the alignment rules, I'm quite firmly neutral on the "moral" axis.

It's a good discussion to have. Knowing the rules isn't always enough. Because you also have to know how, if, and in what ways they might be applied to you.

Except it is. The rules leave -some- room for subjectivity in discussing specific instances of behaviour but virtually none for determining a character's alignment once behavioral -patterns- have been observed. On either axis, either your behavior leans you one way, the other, or is balanced enough or lacks enough aligned instances to leave you neutral. Simple as that.

For instance, in D&D, the act of animating the dead is always evil. There are a lot of people that disagree with this, on various ethical stances of even more varying strength. The point that nearly all of those arguments miss is that the reason it is an evil act is because it involves the desecration of a corpse. It's an ethical violation of the bodily autonomy of another living being. In that sense, your reasons for animating the corpse are irrelevant.

Acutally, it has more to do with the inherent harm undead do to the prime material simply by existing. Not that it matters. Whatever the line of reasoning used to justify it, the rule remains the same. It is an immutable -fact- that animating undead is an evil act.

Ah, but that calls in to question your definition of success. Do you measure it by the wealth generated by the nation, or by if the needs of it's citizens are met? How much of the populace needs to be content for a system to be successful? There will always be those people that value their personal freedoms over the needs of the state. Will the system be able to provide for their needs as well?

The short is answer, obviously, is no. But it's a "no" because the needs of the people are never served. Only the needs of the state are. There only time the needs of the people will be met is when those needs coincide with those of the state.

Again, 95% certain that success here is measured entirely by the ruler's ability to hold and exercise power as he wishes. If you're overthrown or usurped, you don't need to worry about how to run things anymore.

[FocusWolf413]

OR abyssal. Praying to Pelor that it's not Abyssal.

For you, it's Dark Speech.

Very little after that. I expect they'd go blind.

It wouldn't take that. Your natural... uh... radiance would take care of that.

Indeed! :P

Didn't expect anyone to know that.

Totally fine! Not a very useful PhD, I'm afraid. Went the pure math route, dissertation's on Quasi-Metric Geometry.

But anyway, the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus wasn't discovered/invented until Isaac Newton's and Gottfried Leibniz's time, late 1600's. Then all the Calculus nonsense, infinitesimals and limits and whatnot, weren't made rigorous until Karl Weierstrass, late 1800's. That kind of stuff a math major would learn in undergrad. I imagine D&D math would be before Calculus, so even a person with just a BS in math would bring a lot to the table.

You'd probably land a nice cushy job as a scholar.

[Red Fel]

Find an inn.
Start cooking for them.
Marry bar wench.
Get disease.
Die painfully.

More people should have your vision and aspirations.

Indeed. Very straightforward. Very moving.

The wish fulfillment fantasy of a true tyrant.

Aww, and it's not even my birthday!

I'm tickled by your use of the phrase "good totalitarian".
A system of government in which the populace is beholden to the state through a codified and exacting set of laws, and which inculcates obedience in the populace by feeding them a steady diet of mainstream propaganda mostly centered on national pride and utter faith in those in power. It's a system whose success depends entirely on rigidly maintaining the rule of law at all costs. By it's very definition, it cannot be good, in exactly the same way the plane of Mechanus cannot ever be good, at the risk of annihilating itself.

In effect, life would change for everyone, since the rule of law must be absolute for the system to function. The laws do not serve the needs of the people, they serve the needs of the system. The only possible guarantee you could ever make anyone in such a system is that they will serve the needs of the system, and that they will climb exactly as high as the current, or anticipated, needs of the system dictate.

... And that bothers me why, exactly?

Well, yeah. It's RedFel. He's kinda famous for that around here.

You guys! Did you plan this?

*gasp* Did you get me a present? Is there a dead mime behind that curtain?

95% sure he meant good as in successful, not good as in morally upstanding. It's basic statecraft as layed out by Mahchiavelli; if you want to hold a principality after you take it, change little for the peasantry lest they rise in revolt. Though, Red put his own little orwellian spin on it with his police being draconian in their enforcement of his law.

He displays the knowledge of a statesman-strategist with some frequency.

Yeah, I really didn't mean capital-G Good, as in "righteous, selfless, or of decent character," but rather lowercase-g good, as in "has a freaking clue what he's doing."

I mean, me, as a Good tyrant? That's just...

Okay, stop, I'm laughing so hard I might pee.

It wouldn't take that. Your natural... uh... radiance would take care of that.

... You callin' me ugly?

[Kelb_Panthera]

You guys! Did you plan this?

*gasp* Did you get me a present? Is there a dead mime behind that curtain?

Better; a half-dead mime and a dull knife. Enjoy!

I hope I didn't just kill a reference.

[Erit]

You know it. Only the highest quality plasma displays.

I appreciate the cleverness behind this pun, Fel One. If'n your imperial regalia ever needs repairing I'm willing to talk discounts.

With regards to what alignment I'd ping as, Lawful for certain. I'm not sure between Neutral and Evil, since that one has a habit of shifting with my mood.

EDIT: Well crap, I forgot about the sadism/masochism thing. In which case I ping Lawful Evil courtesy of things what go on behind closed doors. Stupid WoTC demonizing what is possibly the most common fetish group in the first world.

[WhatThePhysics]

I've been thinking more about this.

Philosophy: In a nutshell, "divine mutual prosperity" asserts that divine power is universal to all sapients, can be amassed/transferred, is capable of causing metaphysical effects, and that mutual prosperity is generally the most effective strategy towards universal satisfaction. Borrowing analogies from Earth's lore to simplify/conceptualize it for those with different worldviews may help.

Ability Scores: Realistically, I'd be nonelite with Str 8, Dex 9, Con 10, Int 13, Wis 12, Cha 11. It'd likely get me killed at early levels, barring lucky circumstances and rolls.

Domains: Artifice and Creation, for the creation spell level boost and utility spell lists.

The average 1st level trained worker can get 9.75 GP/week with an average Profession roll = [10.5 + 4 (Ranks) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Assistant/Masterwork Tools)] / 2. Factor in 5.6 GP for week-round common quality bed and breakfast, plus 0.95 GP for a 10% tax rate, and you're left with 2.95 GP/week in profits. This nets an average of 153.4 GP/year, which is enough for a commoner to live comfortably.

In perspective, a continuous/use-activated wondrous item with no space limitation form that stores a 0th level spell usually costs 1,000 GP to craft, which a dedicated and trained community of 150 could subsidize in 16 days. It'd also take them around 6 years to fund a 6th level spell item, so large cities could more easily crank out autoutopias and space/planar colonies. Still, accelerating returns could shorten the time until a hamlet becomes self-sufficient.

Spoiler: 0th Level Cleric Spells

Show

Time Until 1 Of Each Crafted: 28 weeks.
Time Until 1 For Each Member Crafted: 7 years.
Time Until Each Per Member Crafted: 78 years.

Create Water: 28,800 gallons produced/day.
Cure/Inflict Minor Wounds: 14,400 hit points/day.
Detect Magic: 814 million feet^3 scanned/day.
Detect Poison: 1.8 million feet^3 scanned/day.
Guidance/Resistance: 14,400 bonuses provided/day.
Light: 482 million feet^3 illuminated/day.
Purify Food And Drink: 14,400 feet^3 purified/day.
Mending: 14,400 breaks/tears mended/day.
Read Magic: 14,400 inscriptions deciphered/day.
Virtue: 14,400 temporary hit points/day.

The community has recycled hydropower, on demand illumination, persistent food surpluses, the ability to identify/dispose of toxic substances, and the means to provide scroll based services. They accommodate living and undead alike, have awareness of local magic/poisons, are augmented relative to outsiders, and own tons of maintained masterwork tools. Visible lasers are their internet's backbone, and they use modern cryptography to deter infiltrators.

[Inevitability]

Yeah, if I recall masochism is one of those stupid things that makes you automatically Evil. There's a couple others in there too.

Not quite. It says masochism is 'a horrible trait common to the evil and the perverse', but it's not actually called out somewhere as being absolutely evil 100% of the time. 'Horrible' is relative, even in a strictly defined alignment system, and the fact that evil people do something a lot doesn't necessarily mean

I am fairly sure they intended it to be evil, though. Masochism (the spell) implies that much.

[Hecuba]

For instance, suppose you were to walk into a temple and throw yourself upon the mercy of the clerics and they decide to cast any of the series of Detect Alignment spells on you.

What do you expect them to see?

LN, maybe LG. The Good acts I do are primaly driven by the impetus of friends rather than any personal drive for justice or generosity, but in the deontologicaly governed D&D world that could still be enough.

Left to my own devices I have no particular interest in nor aversion to, for example, the end of all things. My only concerns would be:
1) Whether the process would be messy (a minus)
2) Will it be interesting in by to watch (a plus)

[Solaris]

Compared to your average D&D commoner, educated and nerdy forumites like ourselves have much higher Int and Wis scores, and likely Cha too, and be able to rise through the ranks quickly.

Intelligence I'll give ya.
The other two, on the other hand, vary significantly.

Btw, it would be fun if 50 of us were dropped on the Prime Material Plane with a level in a PC class. I'd give us about 5 years, tops, before we took over half the multiverse.

I've seen how a lot of conversations here go.
You're being... optimistic.

And after that? We figure out how to get Netflix across the planar divide. And HBO.

I need my Game of Thrones fix.

Point of order: You wouldn't need to watch a show to get a Game of Thrones fix in a D&D setting.


As for what I think would happen were I to show up? I'd break the setting. I mean, between my military training, my survival training, my (admittedly out of practice) martial arts training, my (even more out of practice) heavy armor fencing, my knowledge of chemistry, that course on blacksmithing I took a while back, my studies of the technology involved with the Industrial Revolution, my studies of medicine... Assuming I manage to avoid something nasty, I'd have the makings of something real interesting. Most of those would just keep me alive, but the science? The medicine? The medicine? That's the kind of thing that can change the world.

Thus, my Step One would be to try hooking up with a cleric and a wizard. Convince them that having a live fighter is a symbol of prestige while I try and figure out which of their magic works best for me (I figure wizardry, but it's best to hedge the bets) and figure out how translate real-world science and technology into D&D.

[Madara]

I've seen how a lot of conversations here go.
You're being... optimistic.

I was thinking about this thread (specifically 50 forumgoers getting dropped) and I thought, "What if the banned ones rose from the earth to chase us down?"

Then I just concluded they'd all study unoptimized things like being monks or fighters.

We'd probably end up with a functional group of 15, maybe another of 5, and 10 rando wanderers who ditch/die.

[FocusWolf413]

... You callin' me ugly?

It's just that the presence of an Elder God tends to negatively affect physics and biology.

I'm sure you're popular with the Elder Goddesses.

[Virdish]

I really do think that a large group of us dropped into the world of D&D would be a force to be reckoned with. Survival is always easier as a group. Also we would bring considerable knowledge of the setting to the playing field. Sure some of us might try to game the system in ways that could hurt us but you would be surprised what effect social cues have on us. We could rather easily self govern. Of course there would be those that for one reason or another would be unsuited for the group but banishment would be a plausible option for most of them.

Assumptions for the following scenario:
English=Common
Diverse spread of people including optimizers, people with useful real-world skills(blacksmithing, survival skills, social skills, etc)
One or two people with advanced knowledge in math, science, medicine
We are not susceptible to some disease that knocks us out immediately

When we first arrived, after the shock wore off, we would need to focus on immediate survival. As a large group our best bet would be to follow what the survival experts said and focus on fire and shelter. Water should be a close second but in most environments it can wait until shelter and fire are made though with a large group it wouldn't have to. Once all that is taken care of we would need to figure out food. This would perhaps be the most difficult aspect as there are creatures roaming around the world that we really do not want to tangle with. Again the survival experts would come in handy here, especially anyone with primitive weapon making skills and trapping skills.

Assuming we can get the basics set up at some point we will need to figure out how leveling actually works in world. For this the hunters would be our best source of information as well as the optimizers. The hunters would accrue experience the normal way while I am sure that the optimizers could teach us all tricks to gain xp more efficiently. Assuming we are all still alive (relatively speaking, I do expect a couple deaths before this stage) we would also need to start scouting out the area around us for a village or town. We are going to likely be needing trainers for some of the more magical classes, though I have a sneaking suspicion that some of us may have already found a divine path to power at this point. There are a few gods of knowledge that I can think of who would likely be glad to act as our patron and raise up clerics among our midst.

After we have established ourselves we can start looking into using our knowledge of the system as well as technology and other real world stuff in order to better our lives. Traps of create water, food, and cure light wounds along with cure disease and other such things. I mean assuming we are able to get off the ground (something that a large group makes statistically more likely) we shouldn't have much issue thriving in our new world.

[Vizzerdrix]

especially anyone with primitive weapon making skills and trapping skills.

Huzzah, Id be usefull! I also make amazing shelters too.

We would need to find clay. Handy stuff, clay. Can do all sorts of things with it.

Hmm... Would we level up up individually, or is someone going to insist that it is managed by a councel of optomizers?

[Madara]

Huzzah, Id be usefull! I also make amazing shelters too.

We would need to find clay. Handy stuff, clay. Can do all sorts of things with it.

Hmm... Would we level up up individually, or is someone going to insist that it is managed by a councel of optomizers?

Well, we'd want a group of higher level individuals, and one or two people who would be like level 1 spellcasting crafters, utilizing the XP river and the party of people mowing down monsters to get a bunch of cheap low cost magic items.

[Virdish]

Huzzah, Id be usefull! I also make amazing shelters too.

We would need to find clay. Handy stuff, clay. Can do all sorts of things with it.

Hmm... Would we level up up individually, or is someone going to insist that it is managed by a councel of optomizers?

That is an interesting question and it doesn't have a really simple answer. My more chaotic side says that infringing on personal liberty in levelling would be unwanted but then there is group survival and cohesion to think about. I think the best answer would be to have a group of optimizers to council people in levelling up but not have their advice be binding.

[Doctor Awkward]

Not that I want this thread to get any more meta than it already is, but something occured to me in regards to the original question:

You, as you are right now, with your equivalent mental stats, physical stats, class levels (probably expert 2 or 3), etc., are transported into the D&D universe. Assume you have complete knowledge of the rules, physics, and universe as written. What do you do?

If we are to assume this universe functions as per the rules as written in D&D books, does it not follow it is overseen by a single, all-powerful entity who watches every second of our lives and is capable of arbitrarily altering out destiny on a whim through the introduction of horrible nightmare creatures and opponents that haunt our every step?


...No I don't mean Red Fel. I'm talking about a DM.

[Strigon]

Not that I want this thread to get any more meta than it already is, but something occured to me in regards to the original question:



If we are to assume this universe functions as per the rules as written in D&D books, does it not follow it is overseen by a single, all-powerful entity who watches every second of our lives and is capable of arbitrarily altering out destiny on a whim through the introduction of horrible nightmare creatures and opponents that haunt our every step?


...No I don't mean Red Fel. I'm talking about a DM.

I'd argue no.
It specifies the D&D universe, not a D&D universe. The D&D universe is what is printed, which I would argue does not come with a DM. Every D&D game has a DM, of course, but those games are self-contained; none of them could be considered the one true D&D universe.

For this reason, I choose to believe that the question, as written, does not imply the existence of a DM.

[WhatThePhysics]

Spoiler: Other 0th Level Spells

Show

Acid Splash (Sor/Wiz): 28,800 damage to stationaries/day.
Arcane Mark (Sor/Wiz): 2 billion combinations in base-36.
Dancing Lights (Brd/Sor/Wiz): Personal network replacement to Light.
Daze (Brd/Sor/Wiz): 14,400 dazings/day.
Disrupt Undead (Sor/Wiz): 28,800 damage to stationaries/day.
Flare (Brd/Drd/Sor/Wiz): 14,400 dazzlings/day.
Ghost Sound (Brd/Sor/Wiz): 14,400 patterns/day.
Know Direction (Brd/Drd): Mostly fool proof navigation tool.
Lullaby (Brd): Great for insomnia patients.
Mage Hand (Brd/Sor/Wiz): 16.9 watts at 50% efficiency.
Message (Brd/Sor/Wiz): 14,400 10-minute conversations/day.
Open/Close (Brd/Sor/Wiz): 14,400 openings/day.
Prestidigitation (Brd/Sor/Wiz): Magical swiss army knife.
Ray of Frost (Sor/Wiz): 28,800 damage to stationaries/day.
Summon Instrument (Brd): Beats owning a fragile lute.
Touch of Fatigue (Sor/Wiz): 14,400 fatiguings/day.

Arcane casters provide local internet with Dancing Lights signals, radio with Ghost Sound tin can phones, and telegrams with Message hubs. Mage Hand powers as much as Create Water would with a 9.4 foot height at 50% efficiency, making it a tidier auxiliary. Open/Close is great for booby trapped chests and waste management, and Daze is a healthier alternative to inebriation. Prestidigiation is...Wish-lite, basically.

Bards bring Lullaby and Summon Instrument to the community, lending psychological outlets and defensive applications.

Sorcerers and wizards add new industries with a Acid Splash -> Create Water -> Purify Food and Drink cycle, which can cut 128 5' cubes out of unworked stone daily. They also support authentication and record keeping with Arcane Mark. Depending on interpretation, Disrupt Undead is ranged healing for the living, and would enhance paramedic responses. Ray of Frost gives convective refrigeration and ice superconductors. Touch of Fatigue would be useful for nonlethal law enforcement.

Bards and druids both have Know Direction, increasing the odds of proper navigation.

Bards, druids, sorcerers, and wizards all add Flare as a cheap defensive trick. If you wear sunglasses, it's also an impromptu light signal.

[Red Fel]

It's just that the presence of an Elder God tends to negatively affect physics and biology.

I'm sure you're popular with the Elder Goddesses.

For this reason, I choose to believe that the question, as written, does not imply the existence of a DM.

Really, now?

[Psyren]

Not that I want this thread to get any more meta than it already is, but something occured to me in regards to the original question:



If we are to assume this universe functions as per the rules as written in D&D books, does it not follow it is overseen by a single, all-powerful entity who watches every second of our lives and is capable of arbitrarily altering out destiny on a whim through the introduction of horrible nightmare creatures and opponents that haunt our every step?


...No I don't mean Red Fel. I'm talking about a DM.

I'd argue no.
It specifies the D&D universe, not a D&D universe. The D&D universe is what is printed, which I would argue does not come with a DM. Every D&D game has a DM, of course, but those games are self-contained; none of them could be considered the one true D&D universe.

For this reason, I choose to believe that the question, as written, does not imply the existence of a DM.

Most D&D universes do, however, have gods. Lacking a DM, you simply end up with their overdeity lacking oversight, or failing that, their own internecine politics determining the outcome of any conflicts.