D&D General The Role and Purpose of Evil Gods

[Maxperson]

Ish.

Overall I think it goes towards default DM decides deities and the associated domains from gods that are available with which deities.

But there are parts like DMG page 10 "In rules terms, clerics choose domains, not deities."

Sure. You decide to be a Life Cleric. You choose that domain, then you get to go find a god with that suggested domain in it. You still have to match up the domain with the god per the PHB rules. The context of page 10 was that 100 deities with all domains spread out and repeated, or one god with all domains doesn't matter. The cleric is picking the domain, not the god, but since domain=portfolio...

Without the stuff about gods having portfolios the implication of suggested domains for gods like the DMG sample Dawn War Pantheon on page 10 and PH appendix B would be that a cleric picks a domain for his character from the list of cleric domains and the deity entry includes some suggestions for the cleric of thematically appropriate ones for specific gods.

That ignores the specific cleric rules, though.

PHB Page 59(Divine Domains), "As a cleric, you choose one aspect of your deity's portfolio to emphasize, and you are granted powers related to that domain."

PHB Page 58(Divine Domain), "Choose one domain related to your deity: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, or War."

Those are prescriptive. Specific beats general AND they provide context to the DMG passages.

 

[Voadam]

Sure. You decide to be a Life Cleric. You choose that domain, then you get to go find a god with that suggested domain in it. You still have to match up the domain with the god per the PHB rules. The context of page 10 was that 100 deities with all domains spread out and repeated, or one god with all domains doesn't matter. The cleric is picking the domain, not the god, but since domain=portfolio...

That ignores the specific cleric rules, though.

PHB Page 59(Divine Domains), "As a cleric, you choose one aspect of your deity's portfolio to emphasize, and you are granted powers related to that domain."

PHB Page 58(Divine Domain), "Choose one domain related to your deity: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, or War."

Those are prescriptive. Specific beats general AND they provide context to the DMG passages.

Overall with all the references I read it as saying the DM picks specific domains for each god.

If you read the first cleric pronouncement on it, the page 58 one it can go either way and taken alone says pick from among these eight.

"Choose one domain related to your deity: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, or War."

I would normally read that on its own as "you as the cleric pick one domain you feel is related to your deity from among this list of eight. Not as "Choose one of the domains your DM says your god has."

It would be clearer to explicitly say at one point in the PH that the DM says which domains are related to which deities and so a player of a cleric needs to ask the DM for the list of gods and related domains for the specific campaign.

Preferably this would be clear up front in the books.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It would be a lot more interesting and conducive to rival sects and heresies if the cleric picks.

 

[Helldritch]

Sure. Obviously not if the PC was trying to escape a super-max, heavily guarded, magical prison. But a PC that managed to escape a small jail, especially if there was luck involved? Why not?

Highly unlikely but it would depend a lot. We do not know if the character is stealthy or not. Or has access to picklocks or not. Since this is thread about clerics and worshipers... I doubt that this could be the case.

From a purely mechanical point of view, a 1st-level PC should be able to sneak past or even injure/kill a typical CR 1/8, 11 hp, AC 16 NPC guard with only a small amount of trouble (and especially if they're playing something like a stealthy rogue with sneak attack).

From a purly logical mechanical point of view, the sheriff must have deputies (guards) but the sheriff, should be the equivalent of a veteran or something more along the CR 2 or 3. Way too much for a single character of level 1 to handle.

Wow, random insult time.

My apologies. Was not my intention, more of an expression on your comment. It was not meant as a personal insult. Even I can be guilty of lacking imagination on some subjects sometimes.

Sure, I think that it's possible a kingdom might not have the magic involved. For starters, depending on the setting, magic may not be common; it might even be vanishingly rare. PCs are often loaded with magic, because they go kill monsters and people and take their stuff. But how much magic do NPCs have? Does each jail have one or more wizards on staff? Are they built with magical materials? Antimagic field is an 8th-level spell that lasts for an hour. Even if it had an option for casting each day for a period of time to make it permanent option--which it doesn't--you'd still need at least a 15th-level cleric or wizard to cast the spell. That's going to be prohibitively expensive to hire even once. Maybe you could justify prisons like that in your world, but every prison? Even small-town jails? Really?

Mmmm.... This is not what 5ed shows us. In 1ed or 2ed perhaps. But in 5ed where almost all classes have magical abilities (save one monk, fighters, rogues and barbs and even them have a few subclasses with magical abilities). This makes magic very common and even worse, check the history of the Realm. Have you ever checked the amount of high level casters, especially arcane? The amount is staggering. So yep, pretty much common and even a cleric can trap a lock with explosive runes for a few gold. If something other than this key enters in the key hole... BOOM. Dead is the 1st level. And this comes from a players that did this during 1ed to show the DM (It was not me) that magic can do a lot even without high level spells. So all you actually need, is a fifth level caster.

Would there be a single jail cell for all criminals, or would there be a Medium-sized cell and a Small-sized cell? And if so, why couldn't a Medium person escape from a Medium cell? If Small races are barely known in the area, or are known but aren't really trouble-makers or who have their own areas (and thus their own law enforcement), who would waste time and money creating a Small jail in a human town?

Hollywood tropes are over and done in our area. Small size cells would be a thing with any place where halflings would be present.

Are faeries common in the area? Are they bound by human laws, or if you try to put one in jail, would a more powerful fey noble come and turn you into a mouse for your audacity?[/QUOTE]
Depends on the game world. I personally do not use faeries much, the Witchlight got me on it. I really like what it did.

Right, because I, a woman, want to escape into a world where I'm considered property of my husband and wouldn't be allowed to travel, let alone learn how to use a sword or cast (heretical) spells. Riiight...

Don't see it this way. The big difference with fantasy and medieval time is that in D&D women are truly treated equally. Martial or caster, a woman is as dangerous as any males and perceived as such by everyone and every races. A dream come true. I really hate how our world acts with women. Equal work, equal pay is not a simple sentence for me. It is a way of life. But we're not here to discuss the real world are we?

You can also rephrase the above to include "man who is of a different ethnicity than the local norm," "non-heterosexual," and "any person who doesn't want to be an illiterate serf who dies of the plague."

I do not use the term man with any negative connotations. I was not aware you were a woman. And truly do not care. Your opinion is as good as mine whatever your sex, orientation or whatever else you consider yourself.

So now who's lacking an imagination? You seem to be assuming that in an incredibly fantastic world that shares absolutely no history with the real world, has magic, non-humans, and demonstrably real gods, the inhabitants will have the exact same point of view as they did in the real world.

Education did a lot to improve the ignorant ways of mankind. Unfortunately, uneducated means that the error of the real world are doomed to happened in a society where education is so scarce. The game assumes that all adventurers are special in that regard as they all know how to read and write (often more than one language) but that is not so with the vast majority of the people. Even guards might not know how to read. Like problems, like solution as Darwin would say.

"That many forget." Or, that people may have deliberately chosen not to include because reality often sucks, or that people have decided "hey, this is society is actually mostly Lawful Good, so they aren't going to have such horrible prisons, and any horrible, corrupt sheriffs will be removed from office by Lawful Good superiors." I don't want to get into real-world politics, but I think we can all agree that in the medieval and renaissance periods there weren't any societies that were D&D-style Lawful Good.

I wish it were so easy. Remember that a constable's words were more highly valued than the word of a peasant (or free man/woman) and less so than even the lowliest noble. If the constable says he killed the poor sod in self defense, it will be more than enough proof for the lord.

(No, a Lawful Good society doesn't mean all inhabitants are LG. But it does mean that there's enough LG inhabitants that evil, corrupt people wouldn't be able to get away with evil acts for long.)

Not necessarily. Again, applying modern thinking to a fantasy medieval/renaissance world is not really working. But at least the gods can intervene in someways and clerics can be quite useful if enough people complaint against someone.

(And no, many people don't use alignment. I don't. But many people do.)

And I do. So what's your point?

At least until you rise as an undead and get your revenge...

Not everyone has the will to do so.

(Also, speak with dead requires a mouth; it doesn't say anything about a tongue.)

But requires the body/head to be relatively intact.

What sort of secret rolls? For things you should be rolling in the game, like attack rolls, Perception checks, and saves? Because if so, you're sounding like you cheat (by picking a pre-rolled number) to make sure that combats go the way you want them to instead of sometimes going awry because the enemy rolled badly. If this is actually the case, I'm pretty sure that everyone in my group would be ready to kick you out. If you're not rolling for attacks, skills, and saves, then what are these secret rolls?

Mainly perception/insight/investigation rolls that the characters are not aware of. Especially when the passive score is too low to my taste. So I do a secret active check. I take the first roll, write what it was used for at what time and go on. If it is a success, it is a success. If it is a failure, the characters are not even aware that they failed. At the end of the session, the sheet where the rolls are is given to the players. Sometimes, no rolls were used. Sometimes, a few were. The rolls are not taken arbitrarily as you implied. They are taken in order and this is to avoid the famous a roll? Why? I/We check too! If the roll is a success they will know immediately. A fail and they're none the wiser but the players will not go into "search" mode because a roll was made. And again, they do see everything at the end of the session.

But you know what? My combats are almost always really hard as well. I generally balance for "difficult" or "deadly" encounters, often several in a row (since I see no point in spending time stating up easy encounters that are over in a less than a round), and no, the PCs don't usually rest between each of them. But I don't cheat, and sometimes the enemies roll badly and screw up. Just yesterday, one of the warlocks enemies abound'ed one monster and it attacked one of the other monsters (I rolled randomly to determine the target; fortunately, there were exactly ten participants in the battle, making it easy). Because these monsters weren't allies to each other (they were undead who rose at the same place but beyond that had no loyalty to each other), I decided to give the second monster a Wis check to see how it would react. I rolled a 1 for it, and decided that it would attack the first monster. It only did a point or two of damage, but it used up the second monster's turn, thus giving the PCs a very necessary brief break from taking more damage.

Save for the rolls I told you about, everything is rolled in the opened. Absolutely everything. The secret rolls were introduced to avoid slowing the game because a "roll" was made. This speed up play by a lot and players accepted to try it at the beginning of third edition and they would not go back. It really speed up play. You might want to try it. But show the rolls and what they were used for at the end of a session. My players really appreciate this. They know I do not fudge. Ever.

 

[Maxperson]

Overall with all the references I read it as saying the DM picks specific domains for each god.

If you read the first cleric pronouncement on it, the page 58 one it can go either way and taken alone says pick from among these eight.

"Choose one domain related to your deity: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, or War."

I would normally read that on its own as "you as the cleric pick one domain you feel is related to your deity from among this list of eight. Not as "Choose one of the domains your DM says your god has."

It would be clearer to explicitly say at one point in the PH that the DM says which domains are related to which deities and so a player of a cleric needs to ask the DM for the list of gods and related domains for the specific campaign.

Preferably this would be clear up front in the books.

But it goes on to show which domains are related to which deities in the cleric section and in Appendix B. If you get to just pick any domain for any deity, literally no domains are related to any of them.

 

[Helldritch]

Overall with all the references I read it as saying the DM picks specific domains for each god.

If you read the first cleric pronouncement on it, the page 58 one it can go either way and taken alone says pick from among these eight.

"Choose one domain related to your deity: Knowledge, Life, Light, Nature, Tempest, Trickery, or War."

I would normally read that on its own as "you as the cleric pick one domain you feel is related to your deity from among this list of eight. Not as "Choose one of the domains your DM says your god has."

It would be clearer to explicitly say at one point in the PH that the DM says which domains are related to which deities and so a player of a cleric needs to ask the DM for the list of gods and related domains for the specific campaign.

Preferably this would be clear up front in the books.

And you can not take one sentence out of the context and apply it as you do. It is a list of all the domains available but not the list of a single god (unless monotheistic campaign).
It is clear that you pick the god as said in the cleric's introduction. Then among the available domains, pick one that your god has. If the god only has one domain, tough luck. Some have two and rarely (two or three in the PHB) have three.

But yep, It would have been much clearer if they had taken an extra step in saying what you wrote.

 

[Maxperson]

And you can not take one sentence out of the context and apply it as you do. It is a list of all the domains available but not the list of a single god (unless monotheistic campaign).
It is clear that you pick the god as said in the cleric's introduction. Then among the available domains, pick one that your god has. If the god only has one domain, tough luck. Some have two and rarely (two or three in the PHB) have three.

But yep, It would have been much clearer if they had taken an extra step in saying what you wrote.

Another word on the term "related." If I asked you or @Voadam to point out someone who is related to you, you wouldn't point to anyone and everyone in the world. You'd point to those people specifically related to you. It's a narrow range. Similarly, only those domains that are a part of a deity's portfolio are related to that deity. That and ones that make sense to be added later like Trickery to Vecna.

 

[Helldritch]

Another word on the term "related." If I asked you or @Voadam to point out someone who is related to you, you wouldn't point to anyone and everyone in the world. You'd point to those people specifically related to you. It's a narrow range. Similarly, only those domains that are a part of a deity's portfolio are related to that deity. That and ones that make sense to be added later like Trickery to Vecna.

I have the exact same reading as you. This a list of the possible domain(s) a god might have. Not a list that you can pick no matter which god you worship. They even go so far as to list the gods associated with each domain in the domain description.

 

[Maxperson]

I have the exact same reading as you. This a list of the possible domain(s) a god might have. Not a list that you can pick no matter which god you worship. They even go so far as to list the gods associated with each domain in the domain description.

Right. That's pretty much a clincher for the context of that quote.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Perhaps, but this is not anywhere near the point where it stops being about the rules and becomes about control. This is about player entitlement. You feel entitled to violate the rules and do whatever you want.

So you say, but again, I don't agree with you about the rules being bound in iron and unalterable except by the unlimited power of the DM. I don't even agree that doing something as basic as a war domain cleric of Moradin is against the intent of the game rules.

When you can quote even a single thing from the PHB that says you can pick any domain you want, I'll listen. So far you haven't.

The DMG is clear that the DM decided the domains.

You haven't before, so why would you start now?

That one is easy. It's because there's no poetry or song domain and they had to give her something. This is the result of 5e deficiency in making a lot of domains. Light is the closest domain to music. My father had one of the largest light shows in the late '60s and early '70s and did shows at the Filmore West. Go to a concert and lights are everywhere. It's not perfect, but it's what they had to work with.

The origin of poetry comes from spoken epics that recorded history. Music also has a strong tradition in history. So, why not the Knowledge domain?

Oh right, because the designers didn't think about that, so trying to play a knowledge domain cleric of poetry is me being entitled and breaking the rules. Not me seeing an obvious and perfectly legal connection between what my character is about and what the god would be about. Instead, the medieval would has light shows like what were found in the 1960's and 1970's. You know, before the invention of the lightbulb or the laser or even concerts we totally had concerts with laser light shows, so gods of music can allow you to throw fireballs.

I do agree that had to give him something to have as a suggested domain. I just disagree with you that I'm breaking any rules at all by going beyond their suggestions.

You are assuming that humans weren't made in the form of the original gods and/or that worship doesn't affect the gods when we know that it does.

Sure they could. Humans made in the image of the pre-existing human gods, or gods that became human through the overwhelming majority human worship.

If you mean "I know the lore of the Forgotten Realms" then, yes, you are right. I do know the lore of the forgotten realms. and the things you are talking about didn't happen.

Honestly, this is almost kind of embarrassing. Do some research.

Oooookay. Artwork that 100% in all editions shows them as human proves nothing, but a tenuous similarity between the planer races proves that they are all "planetouched."

Yeah, I mean I know so many humans who have tree branches growing out of their heads. And being short and stocky clearly is a human only body type, not like we have dwarves or halflings who could look like this. Human is the only possible answer.

Cool story, but secret knowledge of the rules isn't anything I said or claimed. The rules there are for the DM's USE only. Not player use. Feel free to learn them. You don't get to enact them without DM permission.

So only the DM is allowed to know that players can pick their own domain? Weird, it would seem that's something the player should know, since they are the one who gets to pick it.

 

[Maxperson]

You haven't before, so why would you start now?

You haven't quoted anything that overcomes the quotes we have provided.

The origin of poetry comes from spoken epics that recorded history. Music also has a strong tradition in history. So, why not the Knowledge domain?

Ask the DM. Seems reasonable to me. Ideally there would be a domain for song or poetry, but there isn't.

Oh right, because the designers didn't think about that, so trying to play a knowledge domain cleric of poetry is me being entitled and breaking the rules.

No. You doing it yourself is breaking the rules. Were you in my game I'd allow it.

So only the DM is allowed to know that players can pick their own domain? Weird, it would seem that's something the player should know, since they are the one who gets to pick it.

Nothing in the DMG allows the player to pick any domain it wants. This is the rest of the quote you keep trying to use.

"In rules terms, clerics choose domains, not deities, so your world can associate domains with deities in any way you choose."

It's not your world. It's the DMs, so HE can associate domains with deities in any way HE chooses. Then it goes on to describe the various ways HE can do so by providing alternative religions.

You as the player are stuck with the cleric rules which say you have to pick from the domains related to your god, which if you look in the cleric domains, are the ones in Appendix B.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I. Because you asked what I would do. This means you invited yourself to my game. I graciously allowed it to see where it would go.

So wait. You "graciously" took what I said (ie my character was beaten by a sheriff and escaped) and then assumed that my character was in jail. Which I never said. And that's okay because... I invited myself to your game, so you get to rewrite my backstory, so you can call it impossible?

Wow, so "gracious" of you to add details so you can veto my idea. Next time I'll say "I was trained as a soldier" so you can say "I'm sorry, it is impossible for your first level character to have wrestled a giant to the ground with only your pinky finger." Or maybe I'll go with "my character is a traveling bard" so you can say "I'm sorry, there are no spaceships in my world, stop making impossible characters"

Me. Again. As you invited yourself.

Weird, thought it was a vote with a group. Guess that was just a lie and you just do what you want...

Even without you being in my game. There isn't much a low level character can do. And with a paragraph or two for a background...

Yeah, can't travel to another village, or survive a few punches. I bet I can't learn magic or read either. 1st level characters are so limited.

Also, I find it bizzare that you are associating length of the backstory with amount of stuff done. I could make more impossible things happen in a paragraph than I did in a three page story of how my character had a religious awakening. Detail doesn't necessarily mean I've done too many things.

Ho... and your own assumptions about domains are ok? Even if they're against the rules. Ok thank you for that clarification.

Huh? So, your point is that you purposefully changed the rules to make one of the options impossoble, so I'm wrong to say it was in the rules?

Additionally, even though this line had nothing to do with domains, I beleive I've stated quited a few times that I don't accept your reading of the rules locking people into such narrow domain chooses. I don't believe that is how the rules are supposed to work.

Me neither. That is why I was confused. That background exist though. If you want to play catch 22, warn me that you are using a "suggestion" in the Acolyte section. Strange that a rule on domain can be ignored by you but a "suggestion" with big "may be" can not be ignored by us.

Suggestions imply choice. Suggested domains mean that you have the option to use them or not use them. They are a player choice, because mechanically it doesn't matter. Saying it is impossible for a character to have a background, because that option doesn't exist... when it is clearly given as a suggested option is not even close to the same thing.

You make a pact with a fiend. Go to fiend, they make pacts to get souls. Come on man. You know it as good as I. You even argued for that explicit thing so that they can be gods! Now all of a sudden, they're no longer interested in souls???? Make up your mind my friend.

And no I did not imposed my will on player's character. You are trying to impose your view on our game. When you join a table, you must abide by the table. AND my table is very democratic. You may call it the tyranny of the majority if you will. But democracy rules. Especially at session zero where the players and I votes on which rules will be applied. You keep ignoring this fact. Are you so open with your players? Or is it just a pretense?

See, this is where I know that you are not interested in having actual discussions. Because to talk with you, someone must first accept that the only thing you will discuss is the game as it is run at your table. And yes, I know you keep saying that there is a vote at your table... but funnily enough when the two of us are talking, you seem to have all the votes. It isn't 1 to 1, it is 1 to "Helldritch wins because the group who never speaks up and isn't part of the conversation agrees with him".

Yes, demons and devils are interested in souls. I'm interested in books. Not every single interaction I have with someone is about books. If I need a plumber, I don't talk to them about how when they mow the yard they need to be careful not to leave the gate open. You, despite harping on me for lacking imagination, have set forth that fiends only have one goal, one situation, and one outcome. But that is just wrong. They have diverse needs and diverse plans, and maybe I ended up with a different deal. You don't get to unilaterally decide what sort of deal my character has.

Nope, I ask you to conform to the parameters of the PHB. You are in no obligation to write a full back ground story. In fact, all you need is to choose or roll under acolyte (if that is the background you wish) on the little tables under Acolyte and here you go. Details will add up as the character progress in the campaign.

And I would definetly not bother with those tables, they are terrible.

But sure, I'm not under an obligation to write a backstory. I WANT to write a backstory. That's what helps me figure out who my character is. It helps me establish the types of things they care about. You don't. That's fine, but why should I not be allowed to make my character in the way I want? It's my character, not yours.

Well, you invited yourself to my game with your questions. And yes, the tyranny of the majority applies to my games.

You keep saying I invited myself to your game. I didn't. I'm trying to talk to you about the game in general. I didn't sign any paperwork saying I was registered as playing under Helldritch.

For a first level? Of course it is. For a 4th level thief/monk or any character with lock picking? Much more believable. But as of 1st level. Nope.

Any character with lockpicking... so any character with the urchin background from level 1.

But, wow, I guess the small village jail is impenetrable, all of the guards are immune to bribes, and rotated out of the village every three months so you can't build up a rapport with them, and they use masterwork locks OF COURSE that are enchanted to scream out alarms when someone attempts to pick them. And it isn't until 4th level, when all your bonuses are exactly the same as they were at 1st level that you have the skill to roll high enough, on something that has nothing to do with rolling and is just establishing a background.

A paragraph or two at most. Which include family, some acquaintance and a few other things related to class and race if necessary. 1st level character might not survive past 2nd or 3rd level so why write pages of essay on something that might not even see the glimmer of light of play?

Because not all of us play that way. And some of us enjoy making characters with an actual past.

Again, been there done that. Even you have heard these stories and probably laughed at it. And if you knew how "constables" were truly administering justice, you would simply not do these stories.

So, I'm not allowed to write the story I want to have for my character, because you've decided that isn't how things work. You've been there, you've done that, so there is no reason for me to do it.

No, I just limit them to basic things. And again, players are quite happy with that.

They have all the freedom they want within the parameters that were set by them upon voting. Who am I to contest their will? They do not want to lose hours on character creation (which, again, might not even survive past 3rd level). Story and background will arise from interaction from the world as we keep background opened. It is not a fixed thing as background will evolve over time as the character will grow, so will their background.

And if anyone wants to talk to you about the game, they must understand that this group of people they've never met have already had a vote on how everything will continue to work after 40 years, and you agree to abide by those rules that you had no say in, therefore you can't discuss the game other than in those contexts.

But I'm the one trying to force my view on others.

 

[Voadam]

Another word on the term "related." If I asked you or @Voadam to point out someone who is related to you, you wouldn't point to anyone and everyone in the world. You'd point to those people specifically related to you. It's a narrow range. Similarly, only those domains that are a part of a deity's portfolio are related to that deity. That and ones that make sense to be added later like Trickery to Vecna.

I would say that I am a better judge of who is and is not related to me than my DM is.

If you asked me to pick a concept that was related to a god, I would make a judgment call about what was related to the god and make a choice from among those.

In the PH talking to a player, that would generally imply the player is making the judgment call, as you would generally expect on such player options as class powers.

I would not generally expect that you were actually asking me to pick a concept that specific other person X subjectively considered related to the god.

 

[Maxperson]

I would say that I am a better judge of who is and is not related to me than my DM is.

If you asked me to pick a concept that was related to a god, I would make a judgment call about what was related to the god and make a choice from among those.

In the PH talking to a player, that would generally imply the player is making the judgment call, as you would generally expect on such player options as class powers.

I would not generally expect that you were actually asking me to pick a concept that specific other person X subjectively considered related to the god.

It doesn't require person X to do that, though. You can look at the nature domain if you want to be a nature cleric and note that Vecna is not there, but that Silvanus, Chislev and Balinor are. Then you pick one of those per the earlier RAW.

 

[Helldritch]

So wait. You "graciously" took what I said (ie my character was beaten by a sheriff and escaped) and then assumed that my character was in jail. Which I never said. And that's okay because... I invited myself to your game, so you get to rewrite my backstory, so you can call it impossible?

You invited yourself in my game. With a corrupted sheriff, you're either dead, or in jail and soon to be. Tough luck man. Sorry.

Wow, so "gracious" of you to add details so you can veto my idea. Next time I'll say "I was trained as a soldier" so you can say "I'm sorry, it is impossible for your first level character to have wrestled a giant to the ground with only your pinky finger." Or maybe I'll go with "my character is a traveling bard" so you can say "I'm sorry, there are no spaceships in my world, stop making impossible characters"

Hey! I'm a generous man. What can I say.
But being part of the region is usually mandatory. A region can be big. Or small. It would mean discussion with me and the other players. Ho the tyranny of the majority...

Weird, thought it was a vote with a group. Guess that was just a lie and you just do what you want...

According to you. But once the vote are cast. You and I have to abide. Why do you constest that I apply the votes and the rules?

Yeah, can't travel to another village, or survive a few punches. I bet I can't learn magic or read either. 1st level characters are so limited.

No you discovered that the Sheriff is corrupted. And he surely knows because he beat you. It will be either to a pulp or simply put you in jail and hang you next morning just to make a nice example of you.

Also, I find it bizzare that you are associating length of the backstory with amount of stuff done. I could make more impossible things happen in a paragraph than I did in a three page story of how my character had a religious awakening. Detail doesn't necessarily mean I've done too many things.

Point conceded here. But usually, this is not what we will see.

Huh? So, your point is that you purposefully changed the rules to make one of the options impossoble, so I'm wrong to say it was in the rules?

Nope, you are the one trying to changing the cleric's rules. Not me.

Additionally, even though this line had nothing to do with domains, I beleive I've stated quited a few times that I don't accept your reading of the rules locking people into such narrow domain chooses. I don't believe that is how the rules are supposed to work.

That you accept it or not has no bearing. I read the rules, and see that you are wrong. Wheter you agree or not in my game is of no consequence as everyone in my games sees this the same as I. You are the one with a weird interpretation. Tyranny of the majority again...

Suggestions imply choice. Suggested domains mean that you have the option to use them or not use them. They are a player choice, because mechanically it doesn't matter. Saying it is impossible for a character to have a background, because that option doesn't exist... when it is clearly given as a suggested option is not even close to the same thing.

Nope, a suggestion is a suggestion. It can be ignored or acted upon. There is the Acolyte background, the text is relative fluff. Even you said that the tables are mere suggestions and that you can ignore them and write your own TIB if you so choose (and if the DM chooses to allow you to do it) Unless you no longer feel that way?

See, this is where I know that you are not interested in having actual discussions. Because to talk with you, someone must first accept that the only thing you will discuss is the game as it is run at your table. And yes, I know you keep saying that there is a vote at your table... but funnily enough when the two of us are talking, you seem to have all the votes. It isn't 1 to 1, it is 1 to "Helldritch wins because the group who never speaks up and isn't part of the conversation agrees with him".

Ho no, it is not run only at my table. But I am telling that apply rules. You just do not accept the rule that I use RAW and RAI in favor of your weird reading where a cleric of Vecna could choose nature because "I read it that way" no one can tell me the I am wrong because it is me.

Yes, demons and devils are interested in souls. I'm interested in books. Not every single interaction I have with someone is about books. If I need a plumber, I don't talk to them about how when they mow the yard they need to be careful not to leave the gate open. You, despite harping on me for lacking imagination, have set forth that fiends only have one goal, one situation, and one outcome. But that is just wrong. They have diverse needs and diverse plans, and maybe I ended up with a different deal. You don't get to unilaterally decide what sort of deal my character has.

If you go to the book store. Do you expect to find a freezer and buy it there? Ho the Devils will go along your plan, make fine prints and exceptions and yaddi yadda. End point? They'll get your soul. Demons? Straight forward ask for it. No bargains, don't want it? Go away. Their philosophy is quite straigth forward and if they can't get your soul through a deal, they'll simply try to get it right here and now.

And I would definetly not bother with those tables, they are terrible.

But sure, I'm not under an obligation to write a backstory. I WANT to write a backstory. That's what helps me figure out who my character is. It helps me establish the types of things they care about. You don't. That's fine, but why should I not be allowed to make my character in the way I want? It's my character, not yours.

Wait???? Tables are not suggestion but you can and will ignore them. But a simple suggestion has more bearing than whole tables... You are very consistant in your approach.

You keep saying I invited myself to your game. I didn't. I'm trying to talk to you about the game in general. I didn't sign any paperwork saying I was registered as playing under Helldritch

.
Fortunately you did not. As your patron, I'd ask for your soul! (details details... but one can hope doesn't it?)
If you want to talk about the game in general, why do you go with books other than what you are sure that everybody here has?
Why do you bother defending a reading that do hold close scrutiny unless you ignore the whole text?
Why do you ignore that under domain, you have gods listed as having these domains?
Why do you ignore the Appendix B that tells you which gods have which domain(s)?
Your reading only works in your game and only if you ignore zounds of text rules.

Any character with lockpicking... so any character with the urchin background from level 1.

Read again my friend a 4th level with pick locks. This is about what you would need to solo the sheriff and survive if caught.

But, wow, I guess the small village jail is impenetrable, all of the guards are immune to bribes, and rotated out of the village every three months so you can't build up a rapport with them, and they use masterwork locks OF COURSE that are enchanted to scream out alarms when someone attempts to pick them. And it isn't until 4th level, when all your bonuses are exactly the same as they were at 1st level that you have the skill to roll high enough, on something that has nothing to do with rolling and is just establishing a background.

You are first level.
You bribe with what?
A single explosive runes on the lock and you're dead unless about 4th level. 200 gold is not that much for a sheriff.

Because not all of us play that way. And some of us enjoy making characters with an actual past.

Yep. That I can understand. But as I said in another answer, the death rate ratio in the first three levels is pretty high in my games. Very high if you compare to a lot of tables. Doing such a long back story is a total waste of time and character creation is always with everyone at the table. Once the votes are done with, it takes about 20 minutes to get started on the adventure itself. Not a lot of time to write one.

So, I'm not allowed to write the story I want to have for my character, because you've decided that isn't how things work. You've been there, you've done that, so there is no reason for me to do it.

Unless you want to slow down everyone else. Not really.
If we are in another system. Such as Vampire the Masquerade. The back story will be more than mandatory. Usually a few pages long and one part will be done by you and one part will done by me (more or less, see the following). You would have to take a bit of notes the second part of your background as I would tell you Who is your Sire. Why you think the embraced you. The life you have had with your Sire until your Sire released you. How your Sire presented you to the Prince and the vampire community and a bit about the Masquerade and the town (vampire version) that you are in. There are games that are better suited for full background.

And if anyone wants to talk to you about the game, they must understand that this group of people they've never met have already had a vote on how everything will continue to work after 40 years, and you agree to abide by those rules that you had no say in, therefore you can't discuss the game other than in those contexts.

Only those who invited themselves. Such as you. You asked, unknowingly but you did.
But hey, you are the one with a weird interpretation of the rule. You are the one homebrewing gods into being able to give every single of their cleric any domain they want. This is clearly not the rule and even you admited that a nature cleric of Vecna is farfetched.

But I'm the one trying to force my view on others.

Unfortunately yes. You are trying to make us see a reading of the rule of which you have to ignore everything else in the cleric and domain descriptions. We provided quotes. We've shown you the texts, pointed you everything and yet, you keep saying that your homebrew is RAW but it is not.

I gave you a bit of your own medicine by "graciously" let you into my games. The taste is bitter isn't it? As I do unto you what you do unto us. We pointed you the RAW and RAI but keep on insisting that your homebrew interpretation is the new RAW. Yes, taken out of the context, such a reading could be interpreted that way. But have to ignore everything else in not only the PHB but also in the DMG and all other splat book in which they add a domain. Because in all splat books where there is a new domain they list everygods that might have that domain available for their clerics! So yep, you are trying to force your view on others. But you do not see it that way.

And from now on, I will leave my campaign world at home. I think you've got enough. Can we now discuss the true RAW that gods do not have all domains available to their clerics?

Edit: And check the bolded parts. You are very inconsistent in your answers...

 

[Mirtek]

those religions allowed to the players will be fully described. And I mean fully.

Would be the first religions in D&D to be fully described. Not even the religions of major faerunian deities that are part of D&D since 30+ years are fully described

 

[Voadam]

It doesn't require person X to do that, though. You can look at the nature domain if you want to be a nature cleric and note that Vecna is not there, but that Silvanus, Chislev and Balinor are. Then you pick one of those per the earlier RAW.

That is not quite it though RAW.

The specified listed gods associated with specific domains are suggestions to the DM, not defined lists for D&D. The DM can be using those suggested domains or not. The DM can be using those gods or not. You cannot just pick Chislev and Nature. The DM might not be using Chislev. The DM might use Chislev but not go with the suggestion for Chislev to be associated with Nature (Chislev is a good fit for Nature but some others like the poetry god and light domain are more likely for a DM to say not related).

Looking at sections like the gods in the domains section in isolation would indicate that the domains are defined for specific gods in D&D as a baseline, but other sections and reading the PH and DMG references as a whole we know that is not the case.

There are enough differing indications throughout the 5e PH and DMG that generally any one in isolation can be taken differently than all of them as a syncretized whole.

 

[Voadam]

Would be the first religions in D&D to be fully described. Not even the religions of major faerunian deities that are part of D&D since 30+ years are fully described

Fully describing is a pretty subjective measure though.

The 2e Forgotten Realms gods books like Faiths & Avatars and Powers & Pantheons go pretty in depth on describing churches and holy days and dogmas and other aspects of the various henotheistic religious traditions of large numbers of the Faerunian gods.

 

[Maxperson]

That is not quite it though RAW.

The specified listed gods associated with specific domains are suggestions to the DM, not defined lists for D&D. The DM can be using those suggested domains or not. The DM can be using those gods or not. You cannot just pick Chislev and Nature. The DM might not be using Chislev. The DM might use Chislev but not go with the suggestion for Chislev to be associated with Nature (Chislev is a good fit for Nature but some others like the poetry god and light domain are more likely for a DM to say not related).

Sort of. Page 6 of the PHB says this.

"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game."

By the time you get to making a character, you will already know if the DM has changed anything. So you are either picking from the domains associated with the gods as the DM has selected, the ones as the PHB lays out in the cleric section and Appendix B, or some combination of both. No matter which of those it is, though, by the time you have picked cleric and are ready to choose domains, you'll be able to do it yourself since you already know how it's being done. You won't need to check with him again unless you want to make a case for an exception of some sort.

Looking at sections like the gods in the domains section in isolation would indicate that the domains are defined for specific gods in D&D as a baseline, but other sections and reading the PH and DMG references as a whole we know that is not the case.

It is the case. Baseline/default is just what is in place unless things change. From what we see in the cleric section, we know that the suggested domains in Appendix B are the baseline/default for the gods. The cleric class uses prescriptive language on how to choose domains. The DMG doesn't come into play unless the DM wants to make changes to the default, and you've already found out if any changes have been made when you asked the DM about house rules.

 

[Mirtek]

Fully describing is a pretty subjective measure though.

The 2e Forgotten Realms gods books like Faiths & Avatars and Powers & Pantheons go pretty in depth on describing churches and holy days and dogmas and other aspects of the various henotheistic religious traditions of large numbers of the Faerunian gods.

Subjective indeed. F&A and co barely scratch the surface. If you take out the space "wasted" on game rules like spells and specialty priests, they barely have a single page for each major religion.

Even if you were to collect all non-rules stuff over all the different splatbooks, you'd probably still be below 5 standard (letter or A4 format) for any given religions (and that would even included the parts where the different sources are just repeating each other without adding anything)