[@Cyclone]

I disagree that gods need to be broadly weaker. One of the things I like about Divinus is the sheer power you wield. The reason we want Gods to be weaker, if I'm not mistaken, is to avoid abuses where we nuke planets and the like. If we lessened their creative powers to do this, I feel like it would be detracting from Divinus. However, limiting their destructive power without altering their creative power allows players to retain the feeling of god-like power without risking wanton destruction.

(P.S. In Kho's words: "Gods need to be powerful, semi-transcendent beings with tremendous power." I feel this is a core part of Divinus.)

I agree that a pre-existing planet would be useful for Divinus Lite. While creating the universe from scratch really allowed us to personalise our universe, and thus should be kept in full versions of Divinus, it is probably excessive for Divinus Lite. The initial planet, I think, should have basic continents and oceans and a good atmosphere and stuff like that, but no life (or only mundane life. Nothing sentient or magical or monstrous); allow the players to invent whatever sentient races and monsters they like without the GMs imposing it upon them. Customising the world around us is, I feel, an important part of Divinus.

What is gained by discarding Fate and Amul? Lore-wise, they provide coherency within the Divinus multiverse. They can also be used to give direction to the gods, even as simple as a quick speech at the opening. And it gives the gods something greater than themselves to potentially interact with, and call upon for help if need be. Mechanically, they give the GMs a ready-to-use tool for intervening with IC affairs if necessary without having to contrive something ex nihilio or bend their own characters to do it.

On Domains and Portfolios: Conceivably, you could get rid of Domains. I'll see if I can explore some of the consequences of that.

Without Domains, we will have to permit Portfolios to be potentially as broad as Domains (or almost as broad). Otherwise, the gods would be very good at a very small number of things and completely equal at everything else, which is dull. Maintaining themes would emerge naturally from the way Portfolios must be acquired. A Fire god could get the Rain portfolio, but they still have to spend 3 Might on rain-related actions first. Also, we reduce overlap between gods, because they cannot have anything in common any more, not even a Domain, because those have been turned into Portfolios. However, by changing Domains into Portfolios, we also have a mixed hierarchy of Portfolios. If you have a God of Water, can you also have a God of Rain? Rain would normally be a subset of Water, but here we have an interesting clash of specialisations; the Water God is equally good at all water things, but the Rain God is very good at rain but no good at any other water things.

I'll explain what role Domains do have: they provide a description of what your god is broadly good at, without laying exclusive claim to it. It maintains the division between being broadly good at something (Domain) and being highly specialised in something (Portfolio). Discarding Domains removes this division. You could get away with it. Doing so would allow for gods with more diverse skill sets. But you'd very much change the dynamic of how Divinus Gods work.

For instance, having the Crafting Domain means I am broadly good at crafting, and I then claim Portfolios which indicate areas in which I am extremely skilled. Without Domains, I would have had to choose the Crafting Portfolio, then picked what are essentially sub-Portfolios, or else I would have lacked the breadth of skill I had otherwise.

As a compromise: new Domains should be easier to acquire. Kho's current version of Divinus Lite says you can get your second Domain at Level 10, third at Level 15, and so on. I propose that instead you should be able to get your second Domain at Level 5, third at Level 10, and so on. The wait to acquire new Domains even here is too long.

As for conflicting Domains/Portfolios and allowing Portfolios outside your thematic reach: it depends how much we want to build in niche protection. The current system protects each God's area of specialty. I don't have to worry about Jvan getting better at building robots than Teknall; Jvan doesn't have to worry about Teknall getting better at making life than her; Astarte doesn't have to worry about Ilunabar getting better at magic than her; and so on. Portfolios are acquired on a first-come first-served basis during the course of the game, so dropping all restrictions (including Domains) turns the game into a free-for-all Portfolio land grab.

P.S. While I was writing this, Kho also commented on Domains, and got to my point much more succinctly. It gives gods a broad region of sovereignty, and prevents them from stepping on each other's toes.
 
 
This is interesting discussion, though. It is worth critically examining the system to see what works and what doesn't. I will note that a lot of the consequences I have listed for these possible changes are not all necessarily "bad", although they do all constitute considerable changes.

[quote=@Kho]I think we should choose one or the other - either Might is lost at Turn change and one can level up regardless, or Might is kept at Turn change but to level up it needs to have all been spent.[/quote]

I think having Might lost at Turn change is simpler, and directly prevents problems which can be caused by stockpiling Might.