"Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?

[Paul Farquhar]

Why do you even bother to respond if you aren't going to say anything that pertains to the discussion? @Aldarc was specifically talking about gods and clerics, so anything outside of that is irrelevant. In the context of gods and clerics, gods have say in what domains the cleric gets.

Not according to your quote. If you want to use a quote in an argument, you can't just use the bits you like, and ignore any words you don't like.

What I am doing is not to suggest that clerics should simply make up their own domains, I am showing that taking your quote literally leads to ridiculous conclusions.

Obviously, in a real game, the player and the DM work together when creating the character to choose what works for the setting.

 

[Maxperson]

I've played since 2nd edition, and until reading this thread it never occurred to me to treat domains as in-fiction terms. At most (in a setting civilized enough to permit academic philosophy), maybe some NPC comparative theologians have devised terms for patterns they see as they study the similarities and differences between the deities, but I wouldn't expect such NPCs to use the same terminology as is found in the book (or the same terminology as each other, for that matter).

I can definitely see a campaign setting existing where domains are in-fiction terms, and have no problem with that (although until reading this thread I have would have assumed that such settings were parody settings that break the fourth wall for comedic effect--I see now that this assumption would have been incorrect). I've just never interpreted any of the rulebooks in any edition in a way that led to me to think that such was an expectation.

In 3e the Deities and Demigods went into detail about how when gods surrender their divinity, other gods have to take up the abandoned domains and so on. They have clearly been in game things. You don't have to play it that way, but the game assumes domains are in-fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

Not according to your quote. If you want to use a quote in an argument, you can't just use the bits you like, and ignore any words you don't like.

This is the quote I was responding to. Respond in context or please don't respond to me. I don't like wasting my time on things that are irrelevant.

"Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity? "

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is the quote I was responding to. Respond in context or please don't respond to me. I don't like wasting my time on things that are irrelevant.

"Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity? "

Did you, or did you not, say this:

From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Page 18:

"The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god and chooses a divine domain associated with that diety."

Not the player picks the domain. The Cleric chooses the domain. Domain is clearly an in-fiction thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Did you, or did you not, say this:

You're seriously trying to drag a different discussion into this?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You're seriously trying to drag a different discussion into this?

It's not a different discussion, it's the same discussion, you just can't abide to be wrong, so you look for any feeble excuse to rule out anything that proves you wrong, don't you?

That quote actually contains an answer to the question you just raised:

"Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity? "

A cleric typically chooses the domain, but a non-typical cleric could have a domain thrust upon them. See Jonah: chosen by god, given powers by god, but doesn't want them and tries to run away.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not a different discussion, it's the same discussion, you just can't abide to be wrong, so you look for any feeble excuse to rule out anything that proves you wrong, don't you?

That quote actually contains an answer to the question you just raised:

A cleric typically chooses the domain, but a non-typical cleric could have a domain thrust upon them. See Jonah: chosen by god, given powers by god, but doesn't want them and tries to run away.

Here. Let me help you out since you're having trouble. I said,

"From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Page 18:

"The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god and chooses a divine domain associated with that diety."

Not the player picks the domain. The Cleric chooses the domain. Domain is clearly an in-fiction thing. "

Had you answered with your response above, it would have actually made sense conversationally.

However, Aldarc responded with,

""Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity?"

Thereby limiting this portion of the discussion to clerics with deities. At which point I responded with,

"It also says that the cleric chooses from the domains offered by the deity, so the deity would have say. Deity says, you can pick from X, Y and Z. "

Dealing with clerics with deities as appropriate.

Your response to me regarding the current tangent was completely inappropriate. If you want to have this discussion, you need to quote, you know, the ACTUAL post you are responding to. Do that and I will talk to you about it.

 

[Xetheral]

In 3e the Deities and Demigods went into detail about how when gods surrender their divinity, other gods have to take up the abandoned domains and so on. They have clearly been in game things. You don't have to play it that way, but the game assumes domains are in-fiction.

Hmm. There is a single sentence on page 12 of that book that says "The other gods must take over the surrendered domains, and squabbling may result". I acknowledge that the sentence qualifies as evidence supporting the idea that in 3rd edition the designers may have viewed domains as an in-fiction concept. However, I don't find that evidence persuasive, for two reasons:

First,

Spoiler: textual analysis spoilered for length

that sentence is directed to the DM to indicate that a turf war may result as other gods fight over the abdicated responsibilities. I think we can agree that there was no deliberate intent in that sentence to make an affirmative statement that domains are in-fiction concepts, because organizationally it would be a very strange place to provide that information? Accordingly, the question becomes whether the sentence's implication that domains are in-fiction reveals the author's expectation that domains are in-fiction concepts, or whether that's reading far too much into the language on the page.

I think it's the latter, because the usage of "domains" on page 12 appears to me to be a casual reference to the idea of divine responsibilities in general. Evidence for my interpretation can be found on page 19, where the death (rather than abdication) of a god is discussed, and the discussion of transferred responsibilities uses the word "portfolio" rather than "domains". Accordingly, it appears to me that the author's intent of the sentence on page 12 would be fully realized if "domains" were replaced with "portfolio". I'm thus not willing to put much weight on the fact that the author happened to use the word "domains" on that page rather than "portfolio". Notably, the implication that domains are in-fiction disappears if the author had used "portfolio".

Second, the first paragraph on page 4 of Deities and Demigods makes it very clear that the entire book is meant to be a tool for the DM to help them figure out how they want to treat issues relating to the divine in their campaign, and there that there are no right or wrong answers. Accordingly, even if Deities and Demigods contained a direct statement to the effect that "domains are in-fiction concepts", I wouldn't be willing to assume the designers meant the statement to apply generally. I'm definitely not going to find an implication that domains are in-fiction concepts to be dispositive.

Regardless of any of the above, my original point was that I've played D&D since 2nd edition, and the interpretation of domains as in-fiction concepts never even occurred to me until now. That fact undermines the idea that its obvious that domains are in-fiction concepts. Sure, maybe there is text out there that I've overlooked that demonstrates that the designers expect(ed) domains to be in-fiction concepts, but even if there is, I can't credit the idea that it was obvious if I was able to entirely miss it for over 25 years. (If a consensus were to emerge that it was obvious, and I somehow just missed it, then I might reconsider.)

 

[Charlaquin]

The Paladin / Warlock build for example, is not that powerful unless our a GM that loves whittling your parties resources down with a ton of short combats in the same adventure day. If your a GM who typically does one combat per adventure day the Paladin / Warlock is actually far weaker than a pure paladin.

Err... Whittling down the party’s resources with multiple short combats per adventuring day is how the game is designed to work. The DM certainly has the ability to run fewer combats per adventuring day, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume the former as the baseline when evaluating how strong a class (or multiclass combo) is.

When you see players pull out monks, battlemasters, and rogue builds it likely a reaction to players getting tired of always being out of resources so they are adapting to the GMs play style. Why shouldn't they? If they are tied of something and want to lighten the load to have more fun at the table with the same group... that seems like a natural chain of events. If the GM doesn't like it then he should adapt to include more long rests the way the players adapted to short classes and sub-classes.

You say that like monks, rogues and Battlemasters become overpowered in games with several encounters per adventuring day, but that’s not the case at all. They, like all 5e classes, are balanced around the assumption of several encounters per adventuring day, and are actually underpowered in games with only one or two big encounters per day.

 

[Charlaquin]

In 3e the Deities and Demigods went into detail about how when gods surrender their divinity, other gods have to take up the abandoned domains and so on. They have clearly been in game things. You don't have to play it that way, but the game assumes domains are in-fiction.

5e is not 3e.