Divination, by the default rules of the setting, is the "trump." Nothing can be hidden that cannot be revealed through a higher form of divination, short of DM fiat.
Except when things are guarded by higher levels of illusion/obscuring. One of the greatest forms of divination,
Discern Location, still can be trumped by another spell
Mind Blank, or by simply never meeting the person or seeing the object. One of the most potent illusions,
Screen *specifically* foils scrying. Even
True Seeing can be foiled by a wall. Even
Commune has significant limitations. These spells have existed for millenia, to not make use of the counter-measures offered for them is just not playing the rules as they are written, IMHO. Even the local farmer knows that if Magey McMagicpants can get a lock of your daughter's hair, he can find her.
You posited that there is no fear of the unknown. Even when the PC's can ask their god "Is there something looming in the dark?" "Is it dangerous?" "Can we rest safely here tonight?" "What is the alignment of King Steve?" "Is that approaching dragon real?", that doesn't dispel the unknown. At most, they know there *is* something in the dark, that king steve *is* strongly chaotic evil, that they *cannot* rest safely here tonight......that's plenty scary. There is still fear of the unknown, because the known is never, ever complete.
Commune is the act of petitioning the gods directly for the answer to any question-- and the knowledge that whatever action is suggested is the right action. (And if not-- atonement.)
See, just asking a deity whether it is 'right' or not is useless....it's the effects of the actions that the PC's will have to live with, wether they're moral or not. I can ask Pelor if killing the evil king is Right, and regardless of what he says, still come to the descision myself. If he says 'no,' maybe I just need to think of a way to incapacitate the king without killing him......is letting the people suffer right?
Commune only answers yes or no questions, man. And even if it did provide a 'trump card divination,' you don't need to change to a low magic setting just because you don't like one spell, or even a handful of spells.
And it can still be an alignment detector...("Is McBaine Evil?")
You posited that there was no moral uncertainty. I'm saying that's patently untrue because even if you know what is right, what is good, what is wrong, what is evil, the circumstances that the players are in will dictate their actions. Even if harming King Steve in any way is the most vile act you could comit, if he comes at you swinging a flail, the character has two choices -- die or sin. This is very much morally challenging.
I think you got that backwards. It is impossible to "make the adventure the journey" when the journey is accomplished by teleport and is over in the blink of an eye. That's not much of an adventure.
Imagine Lord of the Rings with a Helm of Teleportation.
The fact of the matter is, Lord of the Rings != D&D. To imagine LotR within the D&D rules, you'd have to assume Sauron knew about Teleportation, and that he either took that into account....Gandalf had never been to Mount Doom, he couldn't've teleported there if he wanted to, since the spell requires a knowledge of the area. And the hobbits were in an even worse boat.
And you make the adventure the journey by making the goal something to be accomplished on the way. "Getting from Point A to Point B" is a very simplistic plot idea, and it works for the low levels. After that, especially in going back to places where you've already been, it's just annoying. But if the Epic Gewgaw lay lost somewhere near the Mount of Evil, all the teleporting in the world won't help you to *find* it. And when you do find it, using it is a quest in and of itself. Or heck, if you have it in your hands immediately, and have even been to Mount of Evil before, Teleport is still unreliable....methinks the fate of the free world is a bit too much to risk on a potential mishap with the Epic Gewgaw. And if it's the PC's that are doin' it, and they still arive on target, they should still have enough fire elementals, orcs, and goblins to keep them busy on their way up the mount.
Mordor in LotR was about one character's struggle with the burden of evil. Combat was avoided because it was deadly. If LotR met D&D it would've been a different story, but it wouldn't have removed all the arduous journey out of it.
Tackling the dragon when you know there's no coming back is a sacrifice. Tackling the dragon knowing you, personally, might just decide, "Ahh, I'm tired, screw it, I'll stay dead." is not a sacrifice. Sacrifice is giving yourself over to things beyond your control.
You need a body part, or at least a piece of one, for all but the highest level of resurrection -- tackling a dragon who might kill you might also kill your friends, and would definately kill them if they had to drag your corpse around. Also, this is why you burn them, slash them, smash them, eat them -- no corpse = no resurrection. Throwing yourself down the mouth of a dragon is VERY heroic, because you DO sacrifice yourself, except with maybe a lot of gold and a true resurrection, I don't see you comin' back from that, or most of your friends. It's not in your control anymore, it's in control of your buds. And by the time they can afford to True Res you, they can also afford to have the dragon wished out of existence, so the concept of sacrificing yourself to a single monster is very much lost anyway.
You posited that there was no noble sacrifice. Gold, XP, time, and your friends, are plenty of things to sacrifice. And you still sacrifice your life, if but for a day or two, in order to further the cause, to ensure your friends escape, etc. You give up a lot, and make your party give up a lot, every time you die -- it's not something to be considered lightly just because it can be done.
So you're saying you are forced to redefine what the spells say they do, in order to make the story do what you want it to do.
I kinda think that's what the low-magic DMs are doing, too.
Leaving the spells in your game and then completely nerfing them through DM fiat is no better than just removing them in the first place.
I'm not redefining anything, or using DM fiat. And yes, simply getting rid of a problematic spell or three is vastly superior to restructuring the entire bloody magic system. All I'm doing is RTFM, and assuming that these spells are not rare and once-in-a-lifetime events, because the rules almost posit specifically that they are not.
Divinations do not remove fear of the unknown, because knowing, say, 20 things doesn't make you know it all. Commune doesn't equal no moral ambiguity, because the tasks you must accomplish are sometimes at cross-purposes to what you believe. Teleportation doesn't negate arduous journeys, because new places still must be journeyed to, and epic gewgaws are far too important to trust to a roll of the dice. Raising the dead does not negate noble sacrifice, because you still make the sacrifice in terms not measured in life, and it's still for a 'greater cause.' I'm not re-defining the spells, I'm simply applying the rules as they are written. As they are written, the rules allow anyone to use the unknown, moral ambiguity, arduous journeys, and noble sacrifice in their campiaign without changing a word.
And if you can't wrap your brain around a noble sacrifice that you can come back to life from, you don't need to overhaul the spell system -- just alter or remove the spells you have a problem with. That's making a mountain out of a molehill.
Now, if you don't like the feel of a lot of magic or an impermanent death in general, now we're in territory I can cede.