Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7920764" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Hmm. There is a single sentence on page 12 of that book that says "The other gods must take over the surrendered domains, and squabbling may result". I acknowledge that the sentence qualifies as evidence supporting the idea that in 3rd edition the designers may have viewed domains as an in-fiction concept. However, I don't find that evidence persuasive, for two reasons:First, [spoiler=textual analysis spoilered for length]that sentence is directed to the DM to indicate that a turf war may result as other gods fight over the abdicated responsibilities. I think we can agree that there was no deliberate intent in that sentence to make an affirmative statement that domains are in-fiction concepts, because organizationally it would be a very strange place to provide that information? Accordingly, the question becomes whether the sentence's implication that domains are in-fiction reveals the author's expectation that domains are in-fiction concepts, or whether that's reading far too much into the language on the page.I think it's the latter, because the usage of "domains" on page 12 appears to me to be a casual reference to the idea of divine responsibilities in general.  Evidence for my interpretation can be found on page 19, where the death (rather than abdication) of a god is discussed, and the discussion of transferred responsibilities uses the word "portfolio" rather than "domains". Accordingly, it appears to me that the author's intent of the sentence on page 12 would be fully realized if "domains" were replaced with "portfolio". I'm thus not willing to put much weight on the fact that the author happened to use the word "domains" on that page rather than "portfolio". Notably, the implication that domains are in-fiction disappears if the author had used "portfolio".[/spoiler]Second, the first paragraph on page 4 of Deities and Demigods makes it very clear that the entire book is meant to be a tool for the DM to help them figure out how they want to treat issues relating to the divine in their campaign, and there that there are no right or wrong answers. Accordingly, even if Deities and Demigods contained a direct statement to the effect that "domains are in-fiction concepts", I wouldn't be willing to assume the designers meant the statement to apply generally. I'm definitely not going to find an implication that domains are in-fiction concepts to be dispositive.Regardless of any of the above, my original point was that I've played D&D since 2nd edition, and the interpretation of domains as in-fiction concepts never even occurred to me until now. That fact undermines the idea that its obvious that domains are in-fiction concepts. Sure, maybe there is text out there that I've overlooked that demonstrates that the designers expect(ed) domains to be in-fiction concepts, but even if there is, I can't credit the idea that it was obvious if I was able to entirely miss it for over 25 years. (If a consensus were to emerge that it was obvious, and I somehow just missed it, then I might reconsider.)</blockquote>

Verification