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

[Chaosmancer]

Incorrect. That is not according to me. It is according to the PHB.

But I see that as a suggestion on a way to go. You are the one saying it is a rule that absolutely must be followed.

Or, as in the example I gave some time earlier, Noble can be adapted to barbarian use. Barbarian society exists and the son of a chief would qualify. Barbarians would be inclined to think the best of you. You would be welcome in the councils and such(high society). It's not as if someone with a traditional Noble would be welcomed into barbarian councils or that barbarians would be inclines to think the best of them.

So, I can't be a noble.

Nobility has a certain number of concepts attached to it, let me pull up the noble to post them. "You carry a noble title, and your family owns land, collects taxes, and wields significant political influence. "

Now, I'm no expert on tribal political systems, but, generally the tribe owns land as a collective, and the chieftain is elected or chosen to rule. A council of elders might advise them.

But the son of the chief does not hold land, tribal chiefs actually do not collect taxes, and "Son of the Chief" is not a noble title. Noble titles are things like Count, Duke, Marquiss, ect. These show your position in a complex web of society.

And since this is the fluff, sorry, since these are the rules of the Noble Background, "son of a tribal chief" would actually not qualify. That does not mean nobility in the same way.

It does say MIGHT include a token of courtly love. You do not have to have one. If you do have one, it is because you chose it. Nothing says you have to possess all of the traditional virtues of a knight, but if you CHOOSE knight, you are choosing enough of them to be recognizable as a knight, which takes more than a suit of armor. You are choosing to tie that roleplay to your character.

Absolutely correct. I agree entirely.

So I played my character as a knight. I chose Knight, I chose to roleplay as a knight, I chose to act like a knight. That was important to my character.

But, it seems to be your position that I was not allowed to do that by RAW, because I chose to be a barbarian as well.

So, how can you explain my right to choose to incorporate knightly values and actions into my character, while also telling me I have no right, by RAW, to actually incorporate those values and actions into my character.

One or the other must be true.

Yes. Those things are obviously different. Just like karate and kung fu are obviously different ways to achieve a similar end result.

So why is an ancestral Barbarian allowed to achieve that result through bawdy bar songs and not epic poetry?

You have taken the position that I must "Act like a barbarian, not a knight, otherwise I should just call my class Angry Knight", so it falls to you to defend this distinction. Why is it more in-line with the class to use one version and not the other if they achieve similar results?

And there is a Strawman of my argument. I specifically avoided the little specifics that don't change the general nature of the class, like being a scholar, having vows of poverty, being a lutist, etc.

It seems that your responses can only contain fallacious arguments. I'd love to see a valid argument from you in response to me.

I'm trying, but your only response seems to be "The rules say all barbarians are uncivilized, so you can't act civilized"

Well, the section on rogues say "Every town and city has its share of rogues. Most of them live up to the worst stereotypes of the class, making a living as burglars, assassins, cutpurses, and con artists. Often, these scoundrels are organized into thieves’ guilds or crime families. Plenty of rogues operate independently, but even they sometimes recruit apprentices to help them in their scams and heists. A few rogues make an honest living as locksmiths, investigators, or exterminators, which can be a dangerous job in a world where dire rats—and wererats—haunt the sewers. "

By your same logic that my barbarian must be uncivilized, a rogue must be a criminal, a locksmith, Investigator or Exterminator. A rogue can have no other pursuits. They cannot be entertainers, unless they are also thieves. They cannot be sages unless they use their knowledge to investigate crimes. They cannot be acolytes at all, ever.

This is what you are saying. This paragraph of text is an iron-clad rule that all rogues must follow. If they are in a guild, it is a thieve's guild. No exceptions. This is the position you seem to be arguing from, because that is the result of taking those sections as "rules" and demanding people toe those lines.

What makes you think that the entirety of a barbarian's personality is uncivilized? That seems foolish and unnecessarily limiting to me.

Because it seems the position you are joining is one where if my character acted civilized I would be asked to leave the table, because I was not following the rules of how barbarians are supposed to act.

That is the crux of this. If your class determines your character, your personality, to the degree that playing a Barbarian who follows the Code of Chivalry is breaking the rules, then every aspect of their personality has to be as savage, uncouth, and uncivilized as possible, because that is what the "rules" state.

"To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature-"

So, If those are the rules I must follow, then every barbarian must act like an animal, because those are the rules of the game. They must reject civilization, because that is weakness and against their animalistic nature.

If that's how you want to play it.

Up to you.

Sure you can. Uncivilized people can ALSO honor their word, be romantic to their lovers, enjoy wine, and epics of glory.

Obviously not, or the idea of playing a Barbarian who was a Knight and followed the Knightly tropes wouldn't have caused such a huge pushback, me being told by at least three posters I am breaking the rules and homebrewing, ect.

If it were really up to me, then saying I was playing a Barbarian Knight would have gotten no response, so obviously, it is not up to me. It is up to the PHB to tell me what my character is allowed to be.

For example:

The book lays out what a class is. Not adhering to what the class is means it is no longer that class. There is no need for an argument, it's just what the words mean.

ad hoc tends to agree with your position and disagree with mine, and here they are stating it outright. If you do not follow the prescribed path in the PHB, you are no longer playing the class.

If you disagree with that position, you need to make clear what difference you see between what he is saying, and my position that you are free to make decisions about your own background and personality when building a character.

Note, in this entire thread, I have never once said anything about reflavouring class abilities to be something different, or creating a story where I am a fictional character from another universe, or even looking for a massive magical inheirentance from my rich family.

All I have said is "I picked Barbarian, I picked Knight, and his personality out of combat was that of a knight, and his equipment in combat was appropriate for a knight"

You are right that good fluff is contradicted, but no game mechanics are exploited in the original example as far as i can see it.

It is not my preferred game style, i like to create worlds where such stunts are hard to fit in, but it is legitimate and might even be fun if underlayed with good fluff.

It seems Ad Hoc is no longer taking my calls, but since you are responding about my character, I would like to take exception to the line "where such stunts are hard to fit in"

What stunt did I pull?

This is what is constantly confounding me. I picked Human, Barbarian, Noble (Knight). I acted like a Knight. I used the combat abilities of a Barbarian in combat. In what way have I offended you? Would you be appeased if I stripped him naked and slathered him in oil? If I grunted instead of spoke?

I know I'm getting a little heated about this, but the best anyone has been able to do to tell me why this character is wrong is to say "all barbarians are uncivilized brutes, it says so right in the rules/fluff"

But if that were true, if I were not allowed to do what I did, then why does Noble not say in the rules "Cannot be taken if character is a Barbarian?" Why does the Barbarian not have a "personality section" that says "All barbarians must act like this, if you act differently, you lose all your barbarian class abilities"

And you calling it a stunt makes it sound like I somehow was trying to trick people, like this was some clever ruse. I just made a character. A character who I was interested in, because honoring your ancestors is something that appears in many cultures, and I wanted to explore that from the idea of a traditional noble family instead of a tribal society. Why was that wrong?

Broadly describes indicates what I've been saying. It describes the general nature of the class fluff. Barbarians are uncivilized(the general fluff). The specific way that your barbarian is uncivilized is up to you.

You know, if that was all that was needed, maybe this would work.

He likes the thrill of combat.

That is "uncivilized" so my Barbarian Knight is now completely aligned with all the rules and fluff of the class.

 

[Xetheral]

Strangely enough, the posters who have replied seem to be in agreement that being a Jedi is against the rules, rules that they express don't exist. I'm still puzzled by that.

I think everyone is agreement that you shouldn't play a character that doesn't fit in the campaign setting. The widespread objection to Jedi is because a character who belongs to the Jedi Order wouldn't fit in most medieval campaign settings, not because Jedi are in any way "against the rules". In the rare case where a D&D campaign setting happened to include the Jedi Order, I think it would be perfectly fine to play a Jedi.

The difference between what is required by the campaign setting and what is required by the rules seems to be the crux of much of the disagreement. If I understand correctly, you believe what characters are permissible at a table is determined by the descriptive text of the PHB. You're fine with a DM allowing other types of characters as long as the descriptive text of the PHB is first changed with a houserule. Is that correct?

By contrast, I think many other posters believe that what characters are permissible is determined solely by the campaign setting, and that the text of the PHB has nothing to do with it. They interpret the descriptive text accompanying the classes as suggestions and ideas, and that deviating from them does not require any sort of houserule at all.

Assuming I'm understanding correctly, that means that you and many of the posters who disagree with you are interpreting the text of the PHB radically differently. However, the practical consequence of that difference in textual interpretation is virtually nil: you think a houserule is required to permit characters that deviate from the descriptive text of the PHB while others don't think a houserule is required.

I don't see that distinction as particularly important. If a table permits characters that deviate from the text of the PHB, does it make any difference at all whether or not they say it's a houserule?

 

[abirdcall]

I think everyone is agreement that you shouldn't play a character that doesn't fit in the campaign setting. The widespread objection to Jedi is because a character who belongs to the Jedi Order wouldn't fit in most medieval campaign settings, not because Jedi are in any way "against the rules". In the rare case where a D&D campaign setting happened to include the Jedi Order, I think it would be perfectly fine to play a Jedi.

If a player is not allowed to play a Jedi then playing a Jedi is against the rules.

If playing a Jedi is against the rules then there is a rule that a player may not play a Jedi.

 

[Xetheral]

If a player is not allowed to play a Jedi then playing a Jedi is against the rules.

If playing a Jedi is against the rules then there is a rule that a player may not play a Jedi.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm drawing a distinction between whether a character concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with the text of the PHB, or whether a concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with elements of the campaign setting. It sounds like you're saying that there is no difference between these two.

If I'm understanding correctly could you please elaborate on why you don't see a difference between the text of the PHB and a campaign setting? If I'm not understanding correctly, could you please re-explain?

 

[abirdcall]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm drawing a distinction between whether a character concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with the text of the PHB, or whether a concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with elements of the campaign setting. It sounds like you're saying that there is no difference between these two.

If I'm understanding correctly could you please elaborate on why you don't see a difference between the text of the PHB and a campaign setting? If I'm not understanding correctly, could you please re-explain?

A campaign setting alters, adds, or remove rules from the default game. The PHB comes with a ton of rules. Included in those rules are what it means to be an elf, or a barbarian, or what have you.

Multiple people in this thread have said that 'fluff' is not rules. But then I've also been told that playing a Jedi would be against the rules.

Both cannot be true. In an RPG there can't be a distinction between 'fluff' and 'rules'. There can be types of rules so you could describe a rule as a narrative rule for example, but they're all rules.

They are things that a person at the table can or cannot do. That is what we call a rule.

 

[Xetheral]

A campaign setting alters, adds, or remove rules from the default game. The PHB comes with a ton of rules. Included in those rules are what it means to be an elf, or a barbarian, or what have you.

Multiple people in this thread have said that 'fluff' is not rules. But then I've also been told that playing a Jedi would be against the rules.

Both cannot be true. In an RPG there can't be a distinction between 'fluff' and 'rules'. There can be types of rules so you could describe a rule as a narrative rule for example, but they're all rules.

They are things that a person at the table can or cannot do. That is what we call a rule.

The purpose of my post was to try to explain where the difference in opinion appears to be coming from. What you've written above just seems to be a restatement of your position in the dispute. Accordingly, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with my assessment of the source of the dispute, or if you're disagreeing.

 

[Fenris-77]

In an RPG there can't be a distinction between 'fluff' and 'rules'. There can be types of rules so you could describe a rule as a narrative rule for example, but they're all rules.

I'm trying to think of a nice way to say bollocks. An obviously false statement, although that doesn't mean I don't see where you're going. They are not, however, all rules, not in any common usage of the word rule anyway. If you want to talk about narrative that sets the parameters of the gamestate you might find some traction with some 'fluff', but you won't get it with class fluff, mostly because the character is generally entirely within the realm of the player to describe, and the difference in a class between rules and fluff is pretty clear.

 

[DwarfHammer]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I'm drawing a distinction between whether a character concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with the text of the PHB, or whether a concept is unacceptable because it conflicts with elements of the campaign setting. It sounds like you're saying that there is no difference between these two.

If I'm understanding correctly could you please elaborate on why you don't see a difference between the text of the PHB and a campaign setting? If I'm not understanding correctly, could you please re-explain?

I like this explanation. If someone would want to refluff the paladin in my forgotten realms or Dragonlance game and call it a Jedi. I would disallow this for not being good for the setting. I would also disallow a person wanting to refluff a monk as a brawler for the same reason. But there is a distinction I think. But I see what he is saying.

 

[Don Durito]

I've played a vengeance paladin as basically a superstitious barbarian who calls on his god in battle - primarily because I'm not fond of the barbarian class and felt the paladin would be more fun (I'm not sure it was really.)

However, if the DM had turned around and said "no" I wouldn't have protested.

 

[Hussar]

If a player is not allowed to play a Jedi then playing a Jedi is against the rules.

If playing a Jedi is against the rules then there is a rule that a player may not play a Jedi.

Nope. That is flat out not true. Not being able to play a Jedi is not against the rules. It IS against the social contract of the table, but, nope, it's not against the rules, otherwise NO ONE would ever be allowed to play a Jedi in D&D, and, I'm sure, someone out there is.