You're not keeping the record straight. You're nitpicking about something that nobody else really cares about.
They cared enough to argue it to exclude and example I made for nearly two days.
And... what, one person said that all settings are homebrew? Maybe two people? And here you're nitpicking one person's beliefs as if they're some sort of universal truth that everyone else clearly must also believe, and not accepting that whether or not that's the truth has no bearing on anything else.
I, for one, literally don't care that someone thinks that all published settings are homebrew. I doubt anyone but that person cares.
Which is why I was discussing it with that one person. Then another jumped in to tell me I was wrong. Then another. Then you. If you don't care, don't engage with the conversation. I didn't force you to hop into a discussion about this, I was only talking the Helldritch who made the point, before other people decided to get involved. And I'm not going to dismiss people tell them "sorry, I'm only discussing this with this individual, no one else" because that would be rude and dismissive.
No, I really don't. The gods who would fight over Murder are already murderous. They're already willing to use violence to get what they want. But the gods who are interested in Truth are not the type of beings who would shed blood over the concept, unless they felt that a god was trying to take Truth in order to pervert it.
Each portfolio is power. The Gods in FR squabble over them constantly. They don't just go for the ones they like or that compliment their personalities.
"Every writer" is the important part here. Dozens of people have written about Vecna, bringing their own beliefs and misconceptions about him. Do you really think that they all collaborated with other to make sure his portfolio was consistent? That there was some sort of board on the wall that contained all the info that must be kept canon no matter what and everyone was required to memorize it? I went to some TSR offices once, in the early 90s (they gave me some Monstrous Compendium Appendices!), and while I have a crappy memory I don't recall any such info boards.
And in-universe, people can think he's the god of magical secrets and be wrong.
It's called a setting bible, and if they didn't keep one that's on them. Vecna has been written as tied to magical secrets every single time I've run across him. If he wasn't supposed to be written that way, then someone should have corrected that.
Additionally, since he has been portrayed and written that way constantly... where do you have evidence that he is NOT supposed to be a god of dark magical secrets? Where do you think my interpretation of him goes wrong, since you seem convinced that that isn't part of his portfolio.
No, the debate is on whether or not evil gods are necessary and if so, what's their role and purpose.
You have that backwards. It is their role and purpose, and then depending on that role and purpose whether or not they are necessary.
And it doesn't happen--in Maxperson's campaign. But it could happen in our campaign, or in mine. (Do people need to preface every comment with "in my campaign"?)
You seem to once again be going down the road of telling me I shouldn't debate with someone over their claims, because you believe their claim is only for their game. If you feel so strongly about this, why don't you talk to the other side about their positions being only for their own campaigns and not universally true? Because I've gotten the impression that they are arguing for universality and thus I am arguing against them, because at best it is only true in their campaigns.
If every single time I discuss with someone over how their campaign isn't universal, you are going to swoop in to lecture me about how I shouldn't tell someone how to run their game, because they can do anything they want in their campaign, then I'm honestly going to start ignoring your responses on these subjects, because that is tedious and counter-productive.
So let's go with Maxperson's assertion that Flowers would be unclaimed, because neither Agriculture nor Wild Nature is Flowers, although flowers exist in wild nature and can be grown.
The existence of Pistil doesn't mean that either Chauntea or Silvanus lost control of flowers. Chauntea can make a field of sunflowers produce wonderful seeds; Silvanus can make a sylvan glen burst with floral colors. But if Chauntea wanted to turn a particular wildflower pink while Pistil wanted to turn the same flower yellow and it turned into a conflict of some sort, Pistil would likely win that conflict, because Pistil has dominion over flowers. This is literally no different than if Chauntea wanted to make a wild strawberry as big and tasty as a domesticated strawberry and Silvanus said no. Of course, since Chauntea is good aligned, and presumably Pistil is as well, any conflict between them would likely be minimal. Now, this isn't 100% the case. Chauntea, being older and more powerful than Pistil, may very well be able to assert her will over Pistil's and turn the flower pink. And if it a flower on a domesticated plant, then Chauntea might have enough dominion over it that she would have full control over it even without the power difference.
Now this is a rather different take. This seems to imply that portfolio's are shared. However, this has traditionally not been the case. It has often been asserted (and I'm using FR examples simply because I'm staying consistent with Chauntea and Silvanus who are FR dieties) that if a deity dies then the thing they have control over dies as well. If you kill the Goddess of Winter, there is no more Winter until someone else takes up that portfolio. This implies that these portfolio's are not shared spaces that can be conflicted over the opinion of two different dieties, but that they must be held solely by a single party.
Now let's assume that Maxperson is wrong and that the portfolio of Flowers had been claimed, partly by Chauntea and partly by Silvanus. Pistil is created, took the portfolio for herself, and now Chauntea and Silvanus are slightly weakened. OK. Well, how they respond depends entirely on their personality. They may very well be OK with Pistil taking a bit of their power, in the same that that good parents don't mind if their children outshine them. Or, they may be furious at this intrusion. Or they might not truly be able to understand what happened, because their internal "script"--their divine DNA, if you will--has been rewritten, removing "flowers" from their makeup. Once Pistil appears, Chauntea and Silvanus may be able to remember having had flowers as part of their portfolio, but have no emotional or magical connection to them anymore. Perhaps, if Pistil were to die, Flowers would then return to Chauntea and Silvanus. Or perhaps it would be its own thing and not have an attached god until one took the portfolio.
This seems far more fitting with the idea of Portfolio's as presented, but you are taking this in the wrong direction. I don't care about how their personalities would have them respond, that has nothing to do with the point. Maxperson's claim was that the cosmic order (the way things are) would not be disrupted, because disruptions to the Cosmic order get beings like AO involved to smack people down.
So, if it once belonged to a god, and then is taken from them and given to a mortal to make them a god, this is a disruption of the cosmic order, by definition I think. And this was my assertion.
Or perhaps there's no cosmic order and no single unit of a portfolio, and as many gods can claim an aspect as want to. Silvanus, Chauntea, and Pistil can all coexist without sharing portfolios, even if they have the same aspects. Just within the concept of War, there's a ton of overlap. Arvoreen, Gaerdal Ironhand, and Gorm Gulthryn are all gods of vigilance. Selvatarm, Tethrin Veralde, and Haela Brightaxe are gods of combat prowess. Ilnevil and the Red Knight are gods of strategy. And so forth. This number only increases when you include different settings. And this is without any suddenly-appearing ex-mortals-turned-god popping up.
See, the thing is, there's no single, canonical answer. Any of the above are perfectly acceptable answers. There are probably many other possibilities. It's ridiculous to assume that every gamer needs to use the same rule.
Then why did Maxperson claim that gods are part of the cosmic order, and that newly ascended gods take unclaimed portfolios (which we have shown to be highly unlikely due to overlap) and
that this is the canonical answer that every gamer should abide by?
Oh sure, he'll tell me that he is perfectly fine with people changing it, but his position was clearly that he way was canoncially correct, and THAT is what I am debating him on. If you are just here to lecture me that I shouldn't judge home games, because there is no single canonical answer, then you are missing the entire conversation. Max didn't make a claim about his own home game, he made a claim about the game as a whole for all gamers.
Cuthbert is more widely worshiped than Heironeous. Perhaps he's older.
And paladins may indeed be super big into honesty--but honesty isn't limited to paladins. Heironeous is the god of paladins, not the God of a Trait That Paladins Are Super Into.
So, the god of Paladins wouldn't cover the realm of Honesty? What do they cover then?
Also, Cuthbert is a mortal turned God, Heironeous is a god, therefore Heironeous is likely much older. And "who is worshipped more" is a point with zero relevance.
Nobody has claimed that you said that. Where are you getting this idea?
From your post when you started putting forth that idea. You seem to have a very strange concept of what this discussion is about, so I'm trying to make sure points are clarified so we stop going on weird tangents.
So, you're done in this thread then, right? You said your piece and in your mind, the discussion is over. What else are you here for?
You have agreed, others have not. I'm getting sick of going in circles with them and may be done soon, but the discussion is still ongoing.
I have not "jumped" on you for debating homebrew anything. However, you seem to think there is or should be a single answer that everyone should adhere to and that your claim that there are redundancies means that the discussion is over.
In which case, the answers are: no. You don't get to dictate that your way is the only way and no other discussion should be held.
I have never once claimed that everyone should adhere to my answer. I have never said my way is the only way. So, you can stop accusing me of things I've never done.
OK. So what?
You have established that the evil gods and the archfiends can do the same job. (Presumably, that means that you also believe that elven gods, and non-elven gods of nature, luck, the arts, and maybe even magic are redundant with archfey). Now what? You clearly think that the discussion should be over. So... is it bothering you that people are continuing to discuss the matter? Is it bothering you that people disagree with what you're saying? It certainly sounds like it.
People have refuted that I have established that. They are still arguing that it isn't true, therefore I am still discussing it with them.
I'm not going to come in, say something that I think is plainly obvious, then ignore people who disagree with me. I'm going to continue discussing, check their facts against mine, and make sure that I am not actually in the wrong. The point of a discussion isn't to just declare yourself right then move on, it is to actually discuss.
You want to move on to the next part, the "now what?" but that is best handled by everyone's individual preferences, and while we could talk about our preferences and the things we have done, it seems a little premature to stop the ongoing discussion with people over the first part to move on to the second part.
So again, we have another problem. And that is, you are outright saying "They're redundant! There's no reason to have both! They do the same thing!" But other people are saying "Well, no, they're not. And here's why." And instead of saying "Huh, those are interesting ideas I personally wouldn't use," you're going off on tangents and insisting that everyone follow your lead on it because you seem to think that there can be only one true answer, discussion over.
In reality, there are either no canon differences between evil gods and archfiends, or there are lots of differences that have been presented in one book or another over the editions or that people have made up for themselves. Both of these statements are true, depending on which edition you're using, how you define god and archfiend (perhaps Orcus is a actually a god but everyone incorrectly thinks he's an archfiend), and how you want spells to be granted.
That is nonsensical. It cannot be that there is both no differences and lots of differences between two things in an established body.
I also note that you are giving equal weight things people have made up, and the rules presented in the books. At a table level, these things can be given equal weight, but at a discussion at this level where we are discussing what the books have established, things people made up have no bearing.
Additionally, lets take a moment to read through your summary.
"They're redundant! There's no reason to have both! They do the same thing!"
I have tried to establish that they are redundant. Being redundant would mean they do the same thing. I have a personal opinion that that means you don't need both, but I have never argued that people should get rid of either side. In fact, I have repeatedly told you that that is not my argument. So, you including it is rather indicative of the fact that you either aren't listening, or think I am lying since you keep adding that to my position. I also note that you made short statements with exclamation points, making it sound like I am screaming at people, or pounding the podium. I do not appreciate that, as it biases the summary.
"Well, no, they're not. And here's why."
This a reasonable response. They are presenting evidence, so I should engage with that evidence.
"Huh, those are interesting ideas I personally wouldn't use,"
And this is so incredibly rude I almost can't believe you posted it. Or it is just kowtowing to them, one of the two. See, by saying "I personally wouldn't use" then I am establishing one of two things. Their evidence is meaningless, and not worth discussing. Or they are 100% correct, and my evidence was meaningless and either not worth discussing or outright wrong. The proper response is to actually discuss their evidence and if it contradicts mine, or if my own evidence is still upheld. Perhaps one of us is wrong, that's worth discussing.
Again, you seem to have this impression that we are discussing people's personal homebrew worlds, and therefore I'm trying to dominate other people's way of playing the game. We aren't. We are discussing what the game books have told us, and how the issue has been presented in the game, over time. If they are presenting evidence, then it isn't just "interesting ideas" it is evidence in the discussion.
You seem to be taking the route that there is no canon truth and therefore there is nothing to discuss, which is fine, because we have established that the canon is wildly contradictory, which is part of the reasoning behind there not being any clear distinctions
established in the books. But I don't see establishing that as somehow being me telling people what they can or can't do in their home games.
