Arbitrary thematic restrictions forcing mechanical limitations.

[MrMyth]

I don't see any real problem. There is some non-arbitrary limit being made here - namely, that they don't want domain access to be completly open for everyone to pick and choose precisely what they want. Just as it might seem a shame certain racial feats are limited to one race, or weapon feats limited to one weapon - by imposing limits on options, they are able to present more options without simply allowing players to only pick the options that are absolutely the best.

In terms of deities, the breakdown of where those limitations fall is more arbitrary, due to settings - but the same can be true of other elements. ("Why should it be a problem for my FR character to take a Dragonmark, since those are available in Eberron?) And the answer is - it may not be, and that is a perfectly reasonable area for a DM to step in and allow it as they see fit. That doesn't mean the limitations should be thrown out as a whole - just that cases where they should be are better off dealt with through DM approval more than anything else.

 

[Amphimir Míriel]

Gruumsh.. the god of destruction, slaughter and love.

I like it.

Gruumsh.. the god of destruction, slaughter and love.

This comment is made of 100% pure win, so I'll expand it (with a little help from TVTropes):

"Gruumsh commands its followers to love! Yes my fellow orcs, GRUUMSH IS THE GOD OF TRUE LOVE!!!

Slashing and burning through a human village is to LOVE HUMANS, since any survivors will be made stronger and fiercer for the greater glory of Gruumsh!

In the same way, to hunt down and kill the man who killed your parents in a blood feud is to pay back his love, and to thank him for tempering you like the true steel you are now!

Challenging your chief to ritual combat to the death is to love him and your tribe, since this will ensure that they are led by the strongest warrior!

And who of you have not felt your loins stir when you see a female take up club or knife and utterly destroy those who menace her children?

Yes, my fellow orcs, go out and destroy your enemies in a Roaring Rampage of Looove!!" WAAAAAAGH!!

 

[Umbran]

But seriously, all thematic restrictions are arbitrary. It's called 'poetic licence'.

"Arbitrary" has two possibly applicable definitions.

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion

4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported

Poetic license fits the first, but not the second. I mention this because I have seen people talk past each other on this point.

 

[pawsplay]

A thematic restriction is not arbitrary, except insofar as the themes are arbitrary. If you feel a Skill domain is more appropriate to a Strength avenger, then perhaps you feel the themes are not expressed very well, which is also not the same as arbitrary.

 

[Byronic]

I don't mind having mechanical limitations for thematic reasons myself. In my world for example Elves, Eladrin and the Drow simply can't take any divine classes. It simply doesn't make sense for them.

I frown on ones that don't seem to enforce either balance or theme though. Ikinda think that things such as "Reckless curse" and "domains" is to make sure that characters are different from each other. So that two divine classes might not both worship tempest, and that there's a larger difference between two warlock classes. How efficient this is is another topic though.

 

[Snoweel]

"Arbitrary" has two possibly applicable definitions.

1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion

4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported

Poetic license fits the first, but not the second. I mention this because I have seen people talk past each other on this point.

Honestly mate, I don't think there's any real difference between your two definitions.

We can analyse anything and break it down to the point where it no longer resembles anything else, but this means it will also no longer resemble reality, which defeats the purpose of the analysis in the first place.

It's commonplace that one man's decision is arbitrary as per your first definition, yet is seen by someone else as fitting the second definition.

We live in a society which worships 'reason' and 'logic' as though we don't apply our own interpretations to everything we see and hear. So in the case of creativity, especially, the only logic or reason that needs to apply to the creator's arbitrary thematic restriction is how much he likes it.

What this means is that whether the reader applies the first or the second definition of 'arbitrary' boils down to how much he likes it.

 

[Otterscrubber]

But seriously, all thematic restrictions are arbitrary. It's called 'poetic licence'.

.... the flavour of a setting comes from its restrictions.

Bingo! Most settings like Eberron also provide arbitrary bonuses in the form of neat powers or abilities that aren't in other settings and could even be construed as unbalanced, but that is the "flavor" it provides. Start complaining about the restrictions then you are just taking the good parts and leaving the parts you don't like. Why even bother playing in a D&D game at that point, just make up a game where you do whatever you want with no restrictions, never miss the bad guys and NPCs always do what you want.

That seems boring to me though....

 

[Kwalish Kid]

If one is not going to implement the thematic and story elements of the game into the mechanics, then why have different mechanics? This kind of thinking drives people to Champions and the Hero System, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

[S'mon]

My heart bleeds for you.

 

[the Jester]

If you really want the domains just talk to your DM. I'm sure he (or she) won't have a problem allowing you to file the serial numbers off and use the domain power with different descriptive fluff.

Unless he values the consistency and flavor of his campaign and doesn't feel it will fit. Which is perfectly reasonable. Sometimes, mechanical restrictions for reasons of flavor are perfectly fine.