1121
Had this conversation with someone who chose to no longer be at my table after meeting a blind NPC
(files.catbox.moe)
Another player who was at the table during the incident sent me this meme after the problem player in question (they had a history) left the group chat.
Felt like sharing it here because I'm sure more people should keep this kind of thing in mind.
because some people are born blind? reasonably their "natural state" would then be a blind person, which means that healing can't restore their sight, because it was never there. Unless that "healing" is just body modification based on an ideal, in which case, why wouldn't it be able to turn someone into an adonis?
Also a thing I have in my DnD setting is that someone's personal image of themselves plays a role in regeneration
For example let's say someone who is blind has fully accepted it about themselves and someone for some reason needs to cast regeneration on them. It wouldn't restore their eye sight because they have embraced it as a part of themselves.
In the case of the blind man the party met they were blind for decades, they had fully accepted it about themselves. Not even bringing up the difficulty of getting to the point of knowing (or finding some who knows) Regeneration (a very very powerful spell) he had no use for sight in his mind. He lived his life as fully as anyone else. It was a part of him. So if someone cast Regeneration to save his life he'd still be blind.
Spells affecting willing creatures is a funny term in my eyes. Willing can be "willing to a point" is as valid as fully willing.
I can understand the argument that it's a form of modification rather than simple "healing" or "regeneration", but it's still taking an organ that either evolved or was designed (depending on the world's/race's mythology) to see, and enabling it to do so; whereas "bespoke" modifications sound like they'd be entirely arbitrary.