No, that's true. Class isn't a straight jacket. But, unlike most other classes, fighter is probably the widest open of the classes. Even rogue comes bundled with a fair degree of flavor - Thieves Cant, and even the 3rd level archetypes - assassin? - come with a fair number of in game assumptions.Part of the issue here is that fighter, as a class, and soldier, as a profession, aren't the same thing. First, many fighters aren't soldiers, and second, many soldiers aren't fighters (in D&D terms).
The class is a lot more nuanced and flexible that simply being a measure of weapons training. You could build a character for any of the examples and make it work if you wanted to. Also, class in D&D isn't supposed to be a narrative straight jacket.
In class systems, what you can't do can be more defining than what you can. And nobody beats the champion fighter, on that score.Fighters, OTOH, are so broad that they aren't really a class. Just a collection of vaguely linked special abilities and a lack of anything supernatural.
We’re not talking about bread shops where the upper crust go. We’re talking about shops where the kneady go. You try to keep things calm but when things go a rye you need someone to take care of customers going against the grain.Why does the Baker's Guild need a bouncer?!
No. The problem is how you are defining "grimdark". It appears that everything from Moorcock and Howard to Martin and Jemisin, is for you "grimdark", possibly including stuff like Jordan and Hobb. And let's be clear - Moorcock and Howard are indeed even darker and more cynical than Martin or Jemisin, but that's a patently ludicrous definition, akin so saying anyone to the right of Marx is a "far-right extremist" or something (and yes there are people who say that). The vast majority of fantasy literature, including much (most?) of Appendix N falls into "grimdark" by your definition. So I'm not saying it's "superior" but I am saying the vast majority of D&D influences, especially the most major ones, fall under your "grimdark" category. There's a reason Good and Evil came after Law and Chaos, years later. So it follows that as what you arbitrarily and rather unfairly define as "grimdark" (ludicrous when juxtaposed with the actual grimdark of Warhammer) is more important to D&D.ALL of this stuff is part of D&D, new and old. You are leaning very close to saying that Grimdark is superior, and people who like anything else are wrong.
Yep. If all classes felt that way, it"d be a symptom the game might be in danger of achieving a modicum of class balance.Heh, when it comes to the Fighter, thank goodness for 5e backgrounds.
The best fighter will usually win the tourney, anyway - then die like a punk.". In Game of Thrones any character can die like a punk, and the person who wins the fight is the best fighter.
I had not thought of it this way. Would you consider The First Law Trilogy to be Grimdark since the Bloody Nine is nigh unconquerable?Howard and Moorcock are very far from Grimdark. The main point of Grimdark is that it is anti-heroic. - that doesn't refer to morality of the characters, it refers to "plot armor". In Game of Thrones any character can die like a punk, and the person who wins the fight is the best fighter. Conan (and Elric, etc) is completely different. They cannot die. They will always win, no matter how powerful or skilled their opponent is. If you tried to ambush Conan at the Red Wedding he would have been the last man standing. That is because they are "heroic". Not because they are nice people, but because of the type of story they inhabit.