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

[The Crimson Binome]

But, considering we seem to agree that the "codified fluff" is actually in the realm of the DM instead of the PHB, we are talking a minor difference in preference and little more.

I would say that the codified fluff is in the PHB, and the DM is the one responsible for finding it, but close enough.

And now I will assume all conflict has been resolved here, and proceed to mute this thread.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

If it was possible for a nobleman without such an upbringing to manifest the extraordinary abilities which allow you to survive otherwise-lethal blows and deflect arrows with your rock-hard abs, then the class would have a different name.

Noble is the character's upbringing.
I also have to ask: where are you getting the "deflect arrows with your rock-hard abs" idea from? I'm pretty sure there is no fluff like that specified in the PHB.

Are you essentially agreeing that Nobles and Barbarians are mutually exclusive? Despite one being your upbringing, and the other simply a skill set??

We may not know the specific factor of that upbringing which allows these abilities to manifest, but we know that the whole picture is sufficient. As you navigate further and further from the archetype, you are taking a stand about what is not necessary for this to work. And as a player, that's not your call to make; that's a matter for the DM, or the setting designer.

There's no reason you can't be both a Noble and a Barbarian. It just means that you were a Barbarian who became a Noble, or vice versa. That doesn't mean your Background informs your Class abilities in any way.

Taking levels in the Barbarian class doesn't stop you from being a Noble though.

Trying to interpret the Rage of a Barbarian as the Rage of a Noble would be extremely disingenuous. There's nothing about being a Noble which allows you to Rage. You can only Rage because you're a Barbarian.

I'm pretty sure that they have never claimed that their character was not of the Barbarian class.

 

[ClaytonCross]

In lieu of a comprehensive setting guide, that's a matter for you to work out with the DM, since the DM is also the one responsible for understanding how the world works (and for reconciling inconsistencies within the rules). They are the one who decides which specific aspect of Barbarian fluff is necessary to generate the relevant system mechanics.

Where a given class and background would be in direct conflict, I would honestly expect a reasonable DM to disallow that combination, in the same way that they might disallow certain race/class combinations.

I would say that the codified fluff is in the PHB, and the DM is the one responsible for finding it, but close enough.

And now I will assume all conflict has been resolved here, and proceed to mute this thread.

I guess you might not read this this but it bears posting to the topic. All setting guides have specific fluff for race and class with setting. SCAG for example lists all the races and classes from the PHB and defines their place in the setting. The Ranger does not have a new subclass in SCAG it is only has fluff describing rangers by race and how they are generally fit into the setting. Then setting guides set fluff over anything in the PHB and when your in a GM homebrew setting created by the GM he has full and unlimited control of what classes mean in there setting. Most tables play some level of homebrew even if trying to follow a setting guide because it is a lot to ask that a GM know EVERYTHING at all times that might come up as a setting or that they are completely happy with the setting and would not adjust it at all.

1. Does the GM provide the rules session 0 for "The rules of the game create a shared expectation." the way a setting guide would? Or 2. Does the GM get to change the rules at their whim? Because 2 is when the problem of "your character is your class" becomes a problem as your players invest into their characters then find the GM has changed the setting rules under them forcing them to play their character as the GM intends instead of how the player intends.

This does happen in reverse though, where a player is playing "your character is your class" at the cost of fun and the detriment of the party. The prime example being the Lawful stupid paladin, which is a big part of why there is so much paladin hate. Where the advise of the GM is often "your character is not your class" you don't have to be a pain to the group your choosing to do so,

 

[univoxs]

You guys have heard the phrase "your class is not your character," right? the idea is that you don’t have to be an baby-eating psychopath just because your sorcerer has the Abyssal bloodline. You don’t have to be a purehearted hero just because you know your way around a smite evil.

I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?" I may just be lucky in my groups, but I haven't ever encountered that mess out in the wild.

Comic for illustrative purposes.

I think there is a difference between justification and concept. If the concept is that the character is a baby eating anti-paladin but is working with the rest of the party for specific reasons like a shared enemy then I allow it as long as it continues to fit. If those goals become misaligned, then they have it out and everyone has a good time with the ensuing PvP. If the thing that came first was the player wants to make an anti-paladin and then tries to bend it to fit the good aligned campaign and there is no real concept then that works less well for me because the player is not roleplaying that aspect of the character but is instead ignoring what makes an anti-paladin evil.

I make characters that are evil in good campaigns all the time and it is never a problem because I know what motivates the character and, at our table, we like a little interpersonal drama between the characters. The best roleplaying I have ever been a part of is when they players are all slightly at odds. Alliances held together by string and backstabbing abound. Its really about the theme of the game setting in the end and everyone agreeing to what they are trying to play. If one person shows up as the anti-paladin and everyone else is lawful good, there has been a miscommunication in what the adventure is about.

If we think outside of D&D and more about WoD, having conflicted party goals is nothing new and in fact that system often promotes it.

 

[abirdcall]

What do you do when those two narratives clash?

It is on the player to make a character that makes sense.

I would take issue with a character who was 'a noble knight' but the player took the Barbarian class for the abilities and powers only and played them with the identity of another class.

Improv is just about the most freeform roleplaying there is, but there are still rules. An improv actor who breaks the rules or breaks character is a bad actor. (I realize there can be brief exceptions. In WLIIA sometimes the actors break the rules for comic effect. It only works though because they follow them most of the time.)

You are saying a class has "codified fluff", things which must be true about the character. So, continuing the barbarian discussion, which parts of their "fluff" is codified and unchangeable? Because many of the details of what is listed in the barbarian class are exactly the types of things a background will change. So, when those two narratives conflict, what happens?

Backgrounds don't change a class.

Backgrounds are what your character was. A class is what your character is. Class comes after background in the character's history.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It is on the player to make a character that makes sense.

I would take issue with a character who was 'a noble knight' but the player took the Barbarian class for the abilities and powers only and played them with the identity of another class.

Why?

What if they played a Zealot, as an armored holy warrior? They could appear like a paladin on the surface, following a god, in armor, "smiting" when they are filled with divine fury. That is in line with the Zealot Barbarian, why take offense?

Backgrounds don't change a class.

Backgrounds are what your character was. A class is what your character is. Class comes after background in the character's history.

So an acolyte who becomes a fighter is no longer religious? A jeweler who becomes a wizard no longer can make jewelry or care about starting a business?

How about Sage? That background seems to imply you are still in contact with other sages and seek knowledge. Why does that "disappear" just because you also are a ranger?

It doesn't matter what comes "first" or "last" chronologically. Race comes before both things, since you are born how you are, but choosing your class doesn't overwrite your race? Why would it overwrite your background?

 

[abirdcall]

Why?

What if they played a Zealot, as an armored holy warrior? They could appear like a paladin on the surface, following a god, in armor, "smiting" when they are filled with divine fury. That is in line with the Zealot Barbarian, why take offense?






So an acolyte who becomes a fighter is no longer religious? A jeweler who becomes a wizard no longer can make jewelry or care about starting a business?

How about Sage? That background seems to imply you are still in contact with other sages and seek knowledge. Why does that "disappear" just because you also are a ranger?

It doesn't matter what comes "first" or "last" chronologically. Race comes before both things, since you are born how you are, but choosing your class doesn't overwrite your race? Why would it overwrite your background?

This is all up to the player to make a character who works by the rules of the game.

If you can't make a character raised in nobility who became a Barbarian work, then don't make that character.

It's as simple as that.

If a player responded to our table the way you're doing now they wouldn't be welcome to play.

Play in good faith.

 

[Hussar]

It is on the player to make a character that makes sense.

I guess the basic question then becomes, "Makes sense to who?" Makes sense to me the player or you the DM? Is it acceptable that it only makes sense to me?

Backgrounds are what your character was. A class is what your character is. Class comes after background in the character's history.

I really cannot agree with this. My noble character doesn't suddenly become a commoner just because I pick a PC class.

In fact, most backgrounds are still VERY relevant throughout the lifetime of the character. As they should be.

Heck, my noble paladin right now is far more noble than paladin. His background informs 99% of what this character does and why. The class is certainly not in the forefront.

 

[abirdcall]

I guess the basic question then becomes, "Makes sense to who?" Makes sense to me the player or you the DM? Is it acceptable that it only makes sense to me?

The table.

Makes sense to the table and fits into the game.

I really cannot agree with this. My noble character doesn't suddenly become a commoner just because I pick a PC class.

In fact, most backgrounds are still VERY relevant throughout the lifetime of the character. As they should be.

Heck, my noble paladin right now is far more noble than paladin. His background informs 99% of what this character does and why. The class is certainly not in the forefront.

The character was a noble who became a Barbarian.

They were not a Barbarian who became a noble.

It's really very simple. Don't make it sound complicated.

Most tables are going to expect the player to make a character who is an adventurer. Making a character who just wants to attend to matters of state or run their artisan business, or live alone in the woods, etc. would not be acceptable at most tables.

The game is designed around characters forming a party to go on adventures. Make a character that works for that.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The character was a noble who became a Barbarian.

They were not a Barbarian who became a noble.

It's really very simple. Don't make it sound complicated.

You know...this character already exists and is INSANELY popular AND a trope all by himself.

Tarzan.

Born a noble, raised a barbarian, then both a noble and a barbarian simultanrously....and the dichotomy of those two lives is what makes his character interesting.