Spriggan Bride wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 9:40 pm
It seems we're veering into banning over "well, this is how I think it should be" instead of how the books were written though.
That's how I feel too. I understand the opinions given, I just don't share them and don't think they should limit player choice. Some priestess' and agents of Lloth are encouraged to travel directly by Lloth herself, for example, in canonical stories I've read. The additional meanings given to domains like travel don't seem to exist in source books, and neither does anything about travel domain and spells being forbidden by tyrants.
Hinty wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 5:59 pm
Sure, the spells suit Lloth, but the sort of personality that would gain a travel attunement? That doesn't.
Domains are no longer just a mechanic. They can once again be a reflection of who your character is. What is important to them.
I don't and never did see it as purely mechanical either, nor do I see travel domain in the very specific light its being painted in. That's just one interpretation of why someone could have been drawn to the domain.
There's nothing about travel domain only being chosen by freedom and liberty loving people or it opposing tyranny. Travel can be important to a Llothite and that is perfectly acceptable within lore. Lloth is not against travel or people who like to travel, that's the opinion of players and not supported by source material. Despots don't like this or that is another opinion and painting with a very broad brush, despots also love it when their spies, agents, loyalists and etc travel. Lloth has her fingers in
many pies outside of the Underdark, and Llothites travel all over the place. There are plenty of stories to back this up, and plenty of stories where travel was actively encouraged or demanded.
Travel is also important for the raiding aspect of Drow, and traversing their domain with superiority.
I think to some of us we'd prefer seeing domains being banned because they directly oppose what that god would stand for. I hear the arguments given why Lloth would be against travel, but they don't seem supported by source material. Even one of the spells added in 'Drow of the Underdark' for Llothite priestess' to use requires travel domain, things like this support the notion that travel domain is open to Drow and not prohibited by Lloth and also has nothing to do with despots or personal freedoms or liberty, but is more about the actual abilities granted and that Lloth does want her followers to have the ability to traverse (travel domain) while impeding the ability of others (travel domain again).
We seem to be conflating the meaning of travel domain with something else. Travel domain, as far as I know, has nothing to do with personalities, politics or philosophies.
It can be simplified down to two views.
One view that says "This is what I think Travel Domain should mean on Arelith, and this is why I think Lloth would be against it."
A second view that says "That's not what Travel Domain means in the source material, and that's why Lloth isn't against it."
It is more the premise that is being rejected than the actual conclusions.
I think this ban should be held off until there's an actual Freedom/Liberty domain to be banned, and not use Travel as a substitute in the meantime. We're using 3.5ed for a reason, and Travel is already a domain that exists with powers granted by it that are not prohibited by the gods we're discussing. in;b4 someone says "tHiS iSnT dNd", yeahIknowthanks.
BUT! I also think this debate could be endless, and I think Red Ropes has done a really great job of explaining and probably has a lot on his plate. Also the team has said they'll discuss internally, so I think out of respect for everyone and their hard work (and their stress levels

) this is the last thing I'll say on this topic.