D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[pemerton]

D&D and RPGs are cooperative games where the players and the GM are trying to build something together. If someone would come at my table and force upon me ludicrous ideas as what you have proposed or hinted at (or at least implied that you would do) then that player is breaking not only the fun of the DM that worked hard to create a game for the players, but the fun of the other players that are abiding by the table contract.

A player as no right to impose his view onto other players and to the DM. All your arguement tells me that you would might allow that if the player had a "good enough" reason.

To me, there is a tension between saying that the game is cooperative and then going on to say that one player has no right to contribute, and that others are entitled to veto them. If everyone can veto everyone else because they think it is "ludicrous", how is the cooperation going to be established? Or if - as I suspect is actually the case for you - it is the GM who get to exercised vetoes and decided what ideas do or don't make the cut, then where is the cooperation?

From what I read of @Maxperson posts history, we play a lot like the old school that 5ed is trying to emulate.
1) A DM is the sole authority on his world campaign.
2) A player has total freedom on his character creation as long as they are within the campaign's world parameters.
3) No deviation from 1 or 2 is acceptable unless the DM approves it.
4) Stuff from other books is not immediately integrated. Only parts of them are integrated if the DM deems it ok.
5) A player can try to change something in the game world if the DM approves it for story reason. These are rare, but still possible. But they will never be imposed on the DM.

Again, where is the cooperation? All I'm seeing here is unilateral GM authority.

 

[Helldritch]

But it is very hard to preserve continuity from edition to edition. With so many writers working on different projects and not always talking and checking each other and the previous materials...

 

[Helldritch]

To me, there is a tension between saying that the game is cooperative and then going on to say that one player has no right to contribute, and that others are entitled to veto them. If everyone can veto everyone else because they think it is "ludicrous", how is the cooperation going to be established? Or if - as I suspect is actually the case for you - it is the GM who get to exercised vetoes and decided what ideas do or don't make the cut, then where is the cooperation?

Again, where is the cooperation? All I'm seeing here is unilateral GM authority.

1) Again, everything that will be in a campaign from rule to setting will be discussed at session zero. This is where we will establish the parameters on character creations, optional rules that will be used or ignored, the chain genre (high adventure, dungeon delving, more political or all action, wilderness heavy or city bound? It is also there that all character will be created.

The only hard rule I ever had to enforced is no evil characters unless everyone is. One vote is sufficient to prevent evil campaigns as these will be very harsh and gory and not everyone is up to that level evilness.

And guess what? I have been out voted more than a few times. I do not like feats, but every single time I try to remove them I am the only one voting for that. Players really love feats... So I can clearly say with confidence that my games are much one democratic thatn the vast majority of other games out there.

The real problem where I might have to veto character creation is when a new player comes into an already ongoing campaign. Then, that player will coached into what is going on and which parameters the new character should respect. If a player goes out of the way to make a character that would effectively sabotage the campaign, the versimilitude, the continuity or simply something that simply isn't on the game world, then the veto will be a hard no. But If the character is within or close to the parameters, I simply take the character at face value, no questions asked.

I once even had a character so outlandish that I initially vetoed out, but the players were intrigued and decided to allow it, out vetoing me. This led to the creation of a dragonborn nation in the Abhor alz in Greyhawk.

I am all for cooperation. But I am not for those players trying to push their agencies onto other players and me. Everyone can have their fun. But not at the expense of other people.

So you are wrong on all account on your assumptions about me.

 

[Voadam]

But it is very hard to preserve continuity from edition to edition. With so many writers working on different projects and not always talking and checking each other and the previous materials...

Yep, also between sourcebooks within an edition, from one comic book storyline to another, one folklore story to another.

Just look at the timelines of Greek myth heroes which crash into each other inconsistently as everybody wants the popular Heracles or Theseus crossover team up storyline. Or just look at the 5e PH discussions of access to the life domain in appendix B "all non-evil deities" and its reference to the cleric section which instead says "almost all non-evil deities".

Perfect continuity and canon is tough across broad stretches.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer
1) A first level party will be limited to a small region with may two or three villages. Important NPCs will be automatically defined. The rest? Who sincerely cares? The group might not even leave their first village if we go dungeon delving...

So the players must come from one of those two or three villages? They can't say, have been beaten in jail by a corrupt sheriff in a neighboring kingdom that isn't one of these two or three villages?

Because, that's the point, isn't it? By putting forth that backstory, I've now told you the DM that I'm imagining an evil and corrupt sheriff. If I'm not allowed to do that, then are you planning that sheriff in a neighboring kingdom that we may not go to? Or is doing that fine, and you have zero reason to veto that decision being made by a player who is now writing canon lore for your gameworld?

2) I did not ignored your ludicrous question. Thr whole world of 1st level characters is their small region. No one absolutely no one would ever do that which you implied. Just asking such a non sense shows that all you want is to "win" and not debate.

Of course it is ludicrous, the point is that it was ludicrous. No one puts that level of detail in their games. Which means that there are massive swaths of undefined gameworld for the player's concepts to find root in. Now, you can decide that player's can't do that, and then start defining those sections of the gameworld that you hadn't bothered to define before just to prevent a player from using that space... or you can let it happen and since you weren't using that space, how is it hurting you?

Because, "the whole world" is open for the player's backstories. They aren't limited to a small region... unless you refuse to let player's make characters who came from outside that region you want to start in.

3) For the cults, yes, those religions allowed to the players will be fully described. And I mean fully. But those that are not, will simply not be available. Reasons? Continuity, believability and a certain sense of logic. Demonic cults described for the players to play one? No F****** way. No evil PCs ever. Been there, done that. No thx.

So you ban the reformed cultist background? Do you ban the Fiend Warlock class?

I mean, I'm kind of curious how you determine what religions are "allowed" to players. Logically there are all sorts of local customs and religious ideas. You are starting a game, so likely continuity isn't a huge deal, unless you are continuing the same world with the same players, but even then you might not be contradicting anything by introducing something that wasn't explored before.

I'm also wondering why player ideas are getting shot down, pre-emptively, because you want them to be logical. Seems like a strange thing to do.

4) For my base campaign, I need exactly 9 churches. Not one more. In my second world of Dunadoria, I need exactly one. Well two, but the second is only for evil.... But if I needed the 58 that you claim, it would take me about three hours to make them. About a paragraph each and if one is chosen by the player, I would add more description asap.

So you don't have any cults to any fiends? No druids who worship the fey? No elemental cults? No monk temples?

But hey, three hours to make them and then let the players read through 50+ entries on various groups they are allowed to join, because they can't just make their own.

5) I gave more than "reasons" and "I am the DM". These thing are defined with all the players at session zero and I do introduce players to the game world with what is allowed or not. I was pretty clear on that. If you would come at my table, been briefed on the world and still try to impose a Vecna worshipper with the nature domain, you would simply receive a big "NO!" as an answer.

It seems if I tried to do anything you hadn't pre-planned I'd be likely to get a no, and you'd be upset I tried to do something without your permission. Or you wouldn'tm and in which case I don't know why you keep bringing this up like it is the most important point that I need the DMs express permission to make a character, any character, with any details.

For the thieves guild and whatever...
I really fail to see the logic behind your point. You will at session zero be briefed on the world and orientation of the game. Why on earth would you against what you agreed on with everyone at the table? The goal is not to make one player not have fun, biy to make everyone have fun.

And where did you assumed that the group would force you to play anything and you would have no say on the matter? You are inventing problems which I have never seen.

Because you seem to think that any idea I propose that wasn't in the PHB or planned ahead of time must automatically break this agreement at a table I've never been to and that it would go against what I said to other players.

You are the one inventing problems. You are assuming that any idea I put forth is unreasonable, breaks continuity and breaks my word... when none of those things are established parts of this discussion, then you treat my dismissal of those concerns as though I'm some maverick with no concern for others.

And for the ludicrous examples you never gave... You deny having given any and yet, you admit that your nature Vecna is unreasonable.... I read posts you write to @Maxperson too you know?

And yet that wasn't an example you called ludicrous. You called my examples of Boldrie and Hestia ludicrous. So, yeah, if you count examples not given to you and not part of what we were discussing, you can find one unreasonable example. Since none of that applies to the ones you ACTUALLY called unreasonable, that doesn't seem to matter.

And for a part of the the post where you answered to @Maxperson,

If it means that a dwarven cleric of Moradin only gets knowledge as a domain, yes, it means that your dwarven cleric, if Moradin is the only god giving available to dwarves, will have the knowledge domain. Either take an other god or comply with the world's narrative.

You focus so much on what you want as a player that you ignored the continuity of the group's narrative to the point of simply saying I have the right to do whatever I please. Comply with me or your a bad group...

Sorry man, but when you get into a group, you do not impose your views. You try to convince with discussion and openness. I have never had such an extreme case in 38 years as a DM. Yes sometimes I have had to veto on an aspect of a character (like an evil character, no way) but never to the extent of what you are describing. The no, no can't do would be for the extreme behavior you are describing. For your dwarven cleric, I would present/remind you of the possibilities your dwarven cleric would have in this or that particular world. Limitless choice isn't in every campaign world.

But you see, I've never had a single player ever care that my dwarven cleric of Moradin was a war cleric. Or that my character was part of a cult. No player I have ever played with has said "this ruins the continuity of the world, because Moradin Clerics can only possibly be the knowledge domain!" No one has ever said I can't be part of a reformed cult, it is literally an option in the PHB.

But for some reason... you have a problem with it. You have stated that this is somehow a problem for you and that I am being unreasonable by... using my imagination to fill the gaps left by the rules. I mean, the chances that you had a dwarven cleric of Moradin are pretty low, but if you did, what domains were they? Did it really matter that much?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes. That's what the PHB tells you, and the DMG confirms with respect to which deities are available and what domains they have.

Great, I need DM permission to do anything at all. Moving on from that position and assuming that they don't veto for the fun of it, we can assume that they will allow most things. After all, they allowed longswords and greataxes and barbarians and bards and elves and dwarves and ect ect ect, we can assume they will allow other things too.

Ask Crawford. He made the PHB rules that tell you to ask the DM which things are available for making characters, and the DMG rules giving the DM all of the authority over which gods are present and with which domains.

And he'd probably be cool with the things I'm doing. You are the one complaining that I'm not allowed to make anything at all without express permission from the DM, so you should have a reaosn why I need to ask permission for every, single thing. I mean, I guess this is the edition where rules rule supreme since your only defense seems to be "I believe the rules say..."

We know that the number of non-human worshippers of HUMAN gods is very small. The vast majority worship their own gods. That is written in various editions.

It intends them to be human gods, yes.

Then prove it. Because that isn't what I have read and it isn't the intent I have found. I've given evidence. Know if you have counter-evidence, demonstrate it.

Since by RAW portfolio=domain, without being a god of nature, Vecna cannot have the nature domain.

Vecna doesn't have the nature domain, the cleric does. The cleric picks the domain, not the god. Says so right in the DMG.

 

[Helldritch]

So the players must come from one of those two or three villages? They can't say, have been beaten in jail by a corrupt sheriff in a neighboring kingdom that isn't one of these two or three villages?

Cohesion. Does that ring a bell? So you're one of those players that creates impossible backstories for 1st level characters. Ok. Been there seen that. Can I laugh outloud?

Because, that's the point, isn't it? By putting forth that backstory, I've now told you the DM that I'm imagining an evil and corrupt sheriff. If I'm not allowed to do that, then are you planning that sheriff in a neighboring kingdom that we may not go to? Or is doing that fine, and you have zero reason to veto that decision being made by a player who is now writing canon lore for your gameworld?

No, you're imposing something on my narrative and the narrative of the other players. Your story'd better be damn good for me to take it into account.

Of course it is ludicrous, the point is that it was ludicrous. No one puts that level of detail in their games. Which means that there are massive swaths of undefined gameworld for the player's concepts to find root in. Now, you can decide that player's can't do that, and then start defining those sections of the gameworld that you hadn't bothered to define before just to prevent a player from using that space... or you can let it happen and since you weren't using that space, how is it hurting you?

Absolutely, players start in one place for a good reason. Is it so hard for you to work with others?

Because, "the whole world" is open for the player's backstories. They aren't limited to a small region... unless you refuse to let player's make characters who came from outside that region you want to start in.

Well, in many cases, players do not even know where they will be from. We will start in one region and if one wants to be from somewhere else, the story better be good, logical for the level of the player and has a ring of believability.

So you ban the reformed cultist background? Do you ban the Fiend Warlock class?

Reformed cultist.. Is that in the PHB? No? Then not allowed.
Fiend warlock is allowed. But the contract might not be to your liking. There is always a tragic ending on that one. One player tried it once and we had a blast having him nearing the end of the contract where his soul and life would end. It was a nice story, but other wise, the warlock of the fiend is best reserved for evil campaigns.

I mean, I'm kind of curious how you determine what religions are "allowed" to players. Logically there are all sorts of local customs and religious ideas. You are starting a game, so likely continuity isn't a huge deal, unless you are continuing the same world with the same players, but even then you might not be contradicting anything by introducing something that wasn't explored before.

This is a fantasy world where the gods can and do interact with their worshippers (if they have cleric, it is even more direct). But yes, I have two of my players that has been with me for 39 years, three have 20 years, 6 have 15 year and one got two years with me, he replaced one that has been with me for 39 years but whose work called him in a different region.

I'm also wondering why player ideas are getting shot down, pre-emptively, because you want them to be logical. Seems like a strange thing to do.

Only for you.

So you don't have any cults to any fiends? No druids who worship the fey? No elemental cults? No monk temples?

Why do you assume that? I can tell you exactly where are all monk temples dedicated to every style (read here subclasses) in Greyhawk and their general alignment. Strange that you bring this up. 39 years of playing does have its advantages you know?

But hey, three hours to make them and then let the players read through 50+ entries on various groups they are allowed to join, because they can't just make their own.

No they would not read them all. Only those they would be interested in. Then we would fill in the detail for those that would get picked. You seem to like to make things complicated.

It seems if I tried to do anything you hadn't pre-planned I'd be likely to get a no, and you'd be upset I tried to do something without your permission. Or you wouldn'tm and in which case I don't know why you keep bringing this up like it is the most important point that I need the DMs express permission to make a character, any character, with any details.

I love to be surprised. But I much prefer something that will align well with the choices of everyone. It takes a great story that can work for first level for me to be impressed. The dragonborn kingdom in Greyhawk was one of them.

Because you seem to think that any idea I propose that wasn't in the PHB or planned ahead of time must automatically break this agreement at a table I've never been to and that it would go against what I said to other players.

No, and yes. You keep throwing strange ideas and assumptions toward me. Again, with players lasting this long with me, it is safe to assume that I am not the tyran you seem to assume that I am. I am very opened to discussion, especially at session zero. But once session zero is over, any character made to replace losses (and there are a lot in the first few levels, believe me) then the new characters must follow the agreed upon premisses that were laid on session zero.

You are the one inventing problems. You are assuming that any idea I put forth is unreasonable, breaks continuity and breaks my word... when none of those things are established parts of this discussion, then you treat my dismissal of those concerns as though I'm some maverick with no concern for others.

Because you seem to be bound to impose your views onto others. You keep ignoring that there was some agreement at session zero and keep adding more and more excuses for weird concept that might not align with either campaign world continuity or simply the current campaign.

And yet that wasn't an example you called ludicrous. You called my examples of Boldrie and Hestia ludicrous. So, yeah, if you count examples not given to you and not part of what we were discussing, you can find one unreasonable example. Since none of that applies to the ones you ACTUALLY called unreasonable, that doesn't seem to matter.

If you see it that way.

But you see, I've never had a single player ever care that my dwarven cleric of Moradin was a war cleric. Or that my character was part of a cult. No player I have ever played with has said "this ruins the continuity of the world, because Moradin Clerics can only possibly be the knowledge domain!" No one has ever said I can't be part of a reformed cult, it is literally an option in the PHB.

Really? You're a lucky man then.

But for some reason... you have a problem with it. You have stated that this is somehow a problem for you and that I am being unreasonable by... using my imagination to fill the gaps left by the rules. I mean, the chances that you had a dwarven cleric of Moradin are pretty low, but if you did, what domains were they? Did it really matter that much?

Actually, we had one before she died and got replaced by a cleric (NPC) of Lathander (life) they found in the underdark. That cleric had been petrified along with her husband a magic user. By sheer chances, the players had found two scrolls of greater restorations (intended for a beholder they slew with three criticals in a row from the hasted barb.) The knowledge aspect has been sorely missed but the players have adapted. The dwarven wizard is still mad that she (the cleric) died at the hand of an illithid and still prefer to use potions of healing instead of using the cleric of Lathander's power. She is playing the dwarven stubborness to its breaking point. I am eager to see where this will lead.

 

[Maxperson]

Great, I need DM permission to do anything at all.

Nice bit of drama there. I give it a 9.3.

Moving on from that position and assuming that they don't veto for the fun of it, we can assume that they will allow most things.

No DM I've ever played under would 1) approve most things, and 2) veto for the fun of it.

That bit of drama is only a 7.7, though.

After all, they allowed longswords and greataxes and barbarians and bards and elves and dwarves and ect ect ect, we can assume they will allow other things too.

Sure. They will allow nature gods to have nature, since by RAW, in order to have the nature domain, your portfolio has to include nature. Since Vecna does not have the portfolio of nature, he cannot by RAW have the nature domain.

And he'd probably be cool with the things I'm doing.

Not a normal DM. Normal DMs don't allow ridiculousness like Vecna being a nature god with the nature portfolio.

You are the one complaining that I'm not allowed to make anything at all without express permission from the DM, so you should have a reaosn why I need to ask permission for every, single thing.

You mean other than the rules? No. You need to show why the rules are wrong and should be ignored.

I mean, I guess this is the edition where rules rule supreme since your only defense seems to be "I believe the rules say..."

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. That's also RAW. Who the rules don't serve are the players, so unless the DM gives you the authority to do so, you can't add domains/portfolios to gods.

Then prove it. Because that isn't what I have read and it isn't the intent I have found. I've given evidence. Know if you have counter-evidence, demonstrate it.

I did prove it. For me to be wrong, YOU need to prove that there is a category of god that isn't human and isn't non-human, then prove that Helm is part of it. Can you do that?

Vecna doesn't have the nature domain, the cleric does. The cleric picks the domain, not the god. Says so right in the DMG.

Clerics can only choose from the domains associated with the gods. Says so in the PHB. Unless the DM changes it, which is what it says in the DMG. Clerics cannot choose domains not associated with their god, and only since domain = portfolio, that list is very small.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Cohesion. Does that ring a bell? So you're one of those players that creates impossible backstories for 1st level characters. Ok. Been there seen that. Can I laugh outloud?

Sure, you can laugh as soon as you explain how being beaten in a jail cell by a sheriff is "impossible". To my knowledge all it would take is... a sheriff, to physically strike someone... in a jail cell.

I'm sorry for blowing your mind though. I didn't realize how powerful this level of imagination was.

No, you're imposing something on my narrative and the narrative of the other players. Your story'd better be damn good for me to take it into account.

How is "I was beaten by corrupt police" imposing on your story if it takes place in a city you haven't made? Do you... think that corrupt police are impossible?

I mean, this is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about. My story better be "expletive good" because I'm imposing on you by saying I was roughed up by law enforcement in a city? What, did everyone suddenly decide they were all part of the city guard and therefore they don't want me to play a character who had a bad run in with the law? Would I be imposing on your story if I said my character had a loving mother? Where does this even begin, let alone end?

Absolutely, players start in one place for a good reason. Is it so hard for you to work with others?

Why do you have to control things to the level that everyone was born in the same village? How am I the problem by wanting to tell a story, while you are the reasonable one by not allowing me any freedom to do anything?

Or, can I be born somewhere that isn't where my character ends up years later when they are looking for a party? Like, you know people traveled, right? Even before the invention of the car, people could walk from town to town. So just because I wasn't born in "Generic Village #2" doesn't mean that's not where I am at the start of the game.

Well, in many cases, players do not even know where they will be from. We will start in one region and if one wants to be from somewhere else, the story better be good, logical for the level of the player and has a ring of believability.

Are you kidding me?

Here's a good logical story. I left home and traveled (insert direction here) and ended up in this place. This is called "traveling" it is a thing I expected to do as an adventurer. I'm sure it will revolutionize the world alongside my new invention "breathing"

Reformed cultist.. Is that in the PHB? No? Then not allowed.
Fiend warlock is allowed. But the contract might not be to your liking. There is always a tragic ending on that one. One player tried it once and we had a blast having him nearing the end of the contract where his soul and life would end. It was a nice story, but other wise, the warlock of the fiend is best reserved for evil campaigns.

Acolyte, PHB 127 "Perhaps you were the leader of a small cult outside of any established temple structure, or even an occult group that served a fiendish master that you now deny."

So, yes, it is in the PHB, that's why I said "it's in the PHB".

Also, why is my contract for my character A) Not going to be to my liking and B) always going to end tragically. Let me guess, you are the DM and you refuse to allow players to have any other outcome. You likely make the contracts terrible and then force it to end poorly for the player, no matter what, and dress it all up in a "well, they are devils, what did you expect" coating.


I really hope you can start to see why I find this all incredibly controlling. You have determined my character's hometown, birth, background, and you can't even let me write my own backstory. You have an entire world to play with, why do you have to control the PCs too?

This is a fantasy world where the gods can and do interact with their worshippers (if they have cleric, it is even more direct). But yes, I have two of my players that has been with me for 39 years, three have 20 years, 6 have 15 year and one got two years with me, he replaced one that has been with me for 39 years but whose work called him in a different region.

So because you've had a player playing with you for 40 years, all the cults and religions for your world have been spelled out and there is zero room for something new., Because I was asking how we had "allowed" religions and it seems that what is "allowed" is what you have done before and nothing else. Only reason I can think of that you want to make continuity with 40 years of play part of your answer.

Why do you assume that? I can tell you exactly where are all monk temples dedicated to every style (read here subclasses) in Greyhawk and their general alignment. Strange that you bring this up. 39 years of playing does have its advantages you know?

I assumed it because I was talking about religions, and you answered with how many gods there are.

But yeah, I'm getting the picture. Nothing new under the sun. Your game world has been measured and laid out and the only thing a player can do is follow in the paths you have laid out.

No they would not read them all. Only those they would be interested in. Then we would fill in the detail for those that would get picked. You seem to like to make things complicated.

How do I know if I'm interested in it if I don't read it? Am I supposed to see the future and just learn about them through osmosis?

I love to be surprised. But I much prefer something that will align well with the choices of everyone. It takes a great story that can work for first level for me to be impressed. The dragonborn kingdom in Greyhawk was one of them.

Could have fooled me. So far you've said I can't have a character who traveled anywhere, was faced with a hardship as bog standard as being beaten by law enforcement, and told me that if I want to play a fiend warlock that you'll be making sure I suffer a tragic end. I can't really "surprise" you when I'm locked down so tight that I can't make any creative decisions.

Also, it doesn't escape my notice that the Dragonborn Kingdom you are talking about is the same one you said you voted AGAINST, because you didn't like the idea.

No, and yes. You keep throwing strange ideas and assumptions toward me. Again, with players lasting this long with me, it is safe to assume that I am not the tyran you seem to assume that I am. I am very opened to discussion, especially at session zero. But once session zero is over, any character made to replace losses (and there are a lot in the first few levels, believe me) then the new characters must follow the agreed upon premisses that were laid on session zero.

Again, I'm not going off of your record, I'm going off of what you've said. And at every turn and every idea you have declared how you as the DM are going to shape it to match what you want.

Beaten by a sheriff in another town? Impossible for a level 1 character.
Being from somewhere else? Only if I have an excellent story that woos you with its logic and power
Want to be a fiend Warlock? No you don't
Want to be part of a cult or a monk order? Here is the pre-approved list of everything you are allowed to know, determined over 40 years of gaming you had no say in.

Because you seem to be bound to impose your views onto others. You keep ignoring that there was some agreement at session zero and keep adding more and more excuses for weird concept that might not align with either campaign world continuity or simply the current campaign.

Because you keep forcing 40 years of your game onto me and demanding that I follow your rules and your expectations, when we don't even live in the same country, let alone play the same games. You seem to have no space for anyone's version of the game but your own.

If you see it that way.

Have you actually responded to any of those previous ideas with anything other than vague dismissal? Nope. So, how else should I see this?

Really? You're a lucky man then.

If that is true, I mourn for the state of players in DnD. Being able to make your own character is the most basic thing a player should be allowed to do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nice bit of drama there. I give it a 9.3.

Not drama, it was the question I asked. Not that I didn't know the answer, and you gave exactly the answer I expected you'd give.

No DM I've ever played under would 1) approve most things, and 2) veto for the fun of it.

That bit of drama is only a 7.7, though.

Really? Because we can't seem to get passed "But the DM may veto your cleric" as the answer to EVERY QUESTION. And in trying to find reasons for people to keep bringing it up... it seems to be just because.

So, if you have reasons beyond "because" then like I said, let's move past the DM vetoing everything and discuss the other aspects of this.

Sure. They will allow nature gods to have nature, since by RAW, in order to have the nature domain, your portfolio has to include nature. Since Vecna does not have the portfolio of nature, he cannot by RAW have the nature domain.

First of all, you have your own argument backwards, again. Since Portfolios are just collections of domains, you would be saying that since he doesn't have the nature domain he can't have nature in his portfolio.

Secondly, we've addressed this ad nausem,

Not a normal DM. Normal DMs don't allow ridiculousness like Vecna being a nature god with the nature portfolio.

You can't even get my own example right... I've never once said he was a nature god. Still a god of secrets, this entire time. I also feel like you aren't in a position to decide what a "normal" DM is.

You mean other than the rules? No. You need to show why the rules are wrong and should be ignored.

Or I could follow the rules, like I've been doing, and you could accept that. But you won't. Because you've decided the rules say something else, and you refuse to even consider you might be wrong.

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. That's also RAW. Who the rules don't serve are the players, so unless the DM gives you the authority to do so, you can't add domains/portfolios to gods.

For serving the DM they sure do seem to be calling the shots. Also, the DM is a player, so kind of weird that they don't serve players, but they serve a player.

I did prove it. For me to be wrong, YOU need to prove that there is a category of god that isn't human and isn't non-human, then prove that Helm is part of it. Can you do that?

You mean like Mystra? A goddess who isn't a human goddess, as she existed before humans were created but isn't listed as a goddess of any particular race? A goddess who is famous for being neutral in all things, and so CAN'T be a racial deity as that would disrupt the balance.

Also a peer of Helm, who is an old god as well. Helm who is also not listed as a human god... nor is he listed as a god of any particular race, as he has followers of all races.

I feel like I've presented these facts before. And your response was... since they aren't a non-human deity, they must be a human deity. Which controverts the very existence of Mystra, Chauntea, Shar and Selune and their roles in the creation of Abier-Toril.

Clerics can only choose from the domains associated with the gods. Says so in the PHB. Unless the DM changes it, which is what it says in the DMG. Clerics cannot choose domains not associated with their god, and only since domain = portfolio, that list is very small.

The cleric picks the domain. Unless the DM is the cleric, I wonder how you get this being the DMs decision first. Well, actually I don't, I know you believe the DM to have absolute power to do anything for any reason, no matter what, so everything is actually "unless the DM changes it" Including the rule that says that everything is "unless the DM changes it"