Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Warpiglet" data-source="post: 7493719" data-attributes="member: 6689161">I am OLD school.&nbsp; Well, 1st edition anyway.&nbsp; These things matter to me too.The difference for me is that changing the fluff of a class for one character does not automatically mean all laws of reality or all shared assumptions about the game are thrown out.&nbsp; In fact, a player could never have such power over a campaign and I don't know that anyone is advocating for that.I think this is a false equivalence.&nbsp; If I allow one character to follow a philosophy and not a god as a cleric, I do not think that means that suddenly townsfolk are suddenly cool with dead people stomping through town (i.e. zombies).&nbsp; If a character insists that his retainers are undead in place of the servants of the noble background feature I would allow it but be clear: they are still noncombatants (no change in mechanics) will also run from fights, not go in a dungeon or anything like that.&nbsp; They can look how you want and moan &quot;brains&quot; as they fix your lunch.&nbsp; But you better stay rural...if you go into civilization, pitch forks and fire will assail you all and probably fatally.&nbsp; My world did not get rocked...if he abuses the refluff, his world will get rocked.As an aside, that sounds like a fun re-fluffing for a wizard of formerly noble background that I just pulled out of my a**.&nbsp; The character somehow found a way to keep his servants forever...its creepy, its unique and there would be a lot of funny stories told within an outside of the game regarding this.I used the feature with a warlock and had the retainers refluffed as three unearthly elven maidens with red eyes that wanted to follow him and his burgeoning cult.&nbsp; I left many details blank.&nbsp; The DM could add unearthly events around them and it was all for feel.&nbsp; They took care of the horses while we went into dungeons.Where is the harm?I think the harm comes when we imagine a terrible ripple effect in the campaign world.&nbsp; Maybe there is one and maybe not.&nbsp; It is situational.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warpiglet, post: 7493719, member: 6689161"] I am OLD school. Well, 1st edition anyway. These things matter to me too. The difference for me is that changing the fluff of a class for one character does not automatically mean all laws of reality or all shared assumptions about the game are thrown out. In fact, a player could never have such power over a campaign and I don't know that anyone is advocating for that. I think this is a false equivalence. If I allow one character to follow a philosophy and not a god as a cleric, I do not think that means that suddenly townsfolk are suddenly cool with dead people stomping through town (i.e. zombies). If a character insists that his retainers are undead in place of the servants of the noble background feature I would allow it but be clear: they are still noncombatants (no change in mechanics) will also run from fights, not go in a dungeon or anything like that. They can look how you want and moan "brains" as they fix your lunch. But you better stay rural...if you go into civilization, pitch forks and fire will assail you all and probably fatally. My world did not get rocked...if he abuses the refluff, his world will get rocked. As an aside, that sounds like a fun re-fluffing for a wizard of formerly noble background that I just pulled out of my a**. The character somehow found a way to keep his servants forever...its creepy, its unique and there would be a lot of funny stories told within an outside of the game regarding this. I used the feature with a warlock and had the retainers refluffed as three unearthly elven maidens with red eyes that wanted to follow him and his burgeoning cult. I left many details blank. The DM could add unearthly events around them and it was all for feel. They took care of the horses while we went into dungeons. Where is the harm? I think the harm comes when we imagine a terrible ripple effect in the campaign world. Maybe there is one and maybe not. It is situational. [/QUOTE]

Verification