"Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?

[Jd Smith1]

I strongly disagree. If PCs don't reflect the setting at large, then you aren't really playing in that setting.

If I tell you that I'm playing a Paladin, and that doesn't tell you anything about who my character is or how they act, then you've just squandered the rich history of fantasy tropes. We might as well be playing a sci fi game, at that point.

Well said!

 

[Maxperson]

The most important feature to make someone a samurai (real world) is noble birth (and gender). The training goes along with that, and there is nothing in the paladin class (or a rogue swashbuckler, or a battlemaster fighter, etc) that contradicts that.

Except that while all Samurai were nobles, not all nobles were Samurai. Training made the Samurai, not the nobility.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm prepared for mockery about this, but my sarcasmometer is on the fritz at the moment, and I'm new enough here (and don't know you well enough) to feel certain without it. Is this sarcasm or no?

No. How are order and command the same? They aren't. By changing the fluff, it changes how the domain works in the world. A god who would have the order domain, might not offer the command domain. It doesn't matter if the spells are the same.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Except that while all Samurai were nobles, not all nobles were Samurai. Training made the Samurai, not the nobility.

No. All nobles were Samurai, but not all Samurai were Bushi (warriors).

 

[Hussar]

I take the view that the PC's choice of a class reflects their outlook. They chose an intensive course of training for a specific outcome.

Being a Druid who hangs out in town, a Cleric who neglects the tenants of his faith, a Paladin who does not set the moral example, is going to be penalized in my campaigns. A class is not a character, but it still must be depicted properly.

Now the vanilla classes such as fighter, barbarian, bard, those don't carry that responsibility because they are just skill packages.

I don't allow multi-classing. I've never liked that aspect.

But, here's the thing - those are extremely broad elements. A druid that hangs out in a town - well, in Waterdeep, there is a druid's grove right in the city where the faction of Emerald Enclave has their headquarters. So, it makes perfect sense for an Emerald Enclave druid to spend considerable amount of time in Waterdeep.

What moral example should my Vengeance paladin be setting? Or my Oath of Conquest paladin? Neither have any sort of interest in setting anything remotely like a "moral example". While I've never played the video game, the Witcher TV show on Netflix would make a textbook Oath of Vengeance paladin.

And, of course, I notice that the examples you focus on are the classes that come parceled with probably the most amount of flavor. What about a ranger or a sorcerer? What is the "proper" depiction of those classes?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No. How are order and command the same? They aren't. By changing the fluff, it changes how the domain works in the world. A god who would have the order domain, might not offer the command domain. It doesn't matter if the spells are the same.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Cleric A follows Ohsidee the Compulsive. They have the Order Domain.

Cleric B follows Su-Zan the Bossy. They have the Command Domain.

They have exactly the same domain spells, channel divinity etc. In fact, they are the same character, only the names are different.

 

[Aldarc]

No. How are order and command the same? They aren't. By changing the fluff, it changes how the domain works in the world. A god who would have the order domain, might not offer the command domain. It doesn't matter if the spells are the same.

Why are you insisting that a meta-game/narrative concept, namely the name or label of a cleric class domain, has any actual meaning in the fiction? That may be one of the strangest arguments I have ever heard from someone who purportedly hates metagame concepts in their game.

 

[Azzy]

Except that while all Samurai were nobles, not all nobles were Samurai. Training made the Samurai, not the nobility.

No.

 

[Jd Smith1]

But, here's the thing - those are extremely broad elements. A druid that hangs out in a town - well, in Waterdeep, there is a druid's grove right in the city where the faction of Emerald Enclave has their headquarters. So, it makes perfect sense for an Emerald Enclave druid to spend considerable amount of time in Waterdeep.

No, it doesn't.

What moral example should my Vengeance paladin be setting? Or my Oath of Conquest paladin? Neither have any sort of interest in setting anything remotely like a "moral example". While I've never played the video game, the Witcher TV show on Netflix would make a textbook Oath of Vengeance paladin.

And, of course, I notice that the examples you focus on are the classes that come parceled with probably the most amount of flavor. What about a ranger or a sorcerer? What is the "proper" depiction of those classes?

Those type of Paladins are pretty lame, IMO; its just a munchkin method to get abilities without the obligation of alignment. But there's nothing to prevent the GM from whipping up and enforcing codes of conduct .

A Ranger should be someone who by preference operates in the environment of his specialty, same as a Druid.

A sorcerer is just a vanilla class, so you wouldn't expect anything from that player.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

All types of paladins are lame, that goes without saying.

But even by the strictest application of RAW, Vengeance and Conquest paladins do not seek to set a "moral example".

As for munchkins, I find that they are quite happy to play a cliché lawful stupid paladin, since they are only interested in what the character can do, not who they are. It's the hard-core role-players who will want to take the character in a different direction.