"What" you are versus "who" you are.

[Lalato]

There have been times that I just roll the stats, straight down the line, and play whatever comes naturally based on the stats. So if the distribution ends up with High Str and High Cha, then I'll develop a story for the character for why that is... from there I'll pick a class based on the story that the stats "tell" me.

Who and what are not mutually exclusive in my brain... your mileage may vary, but I always find doing the above is a good thought exercise.

--sam

 

[Voadam]

In D&D, the only mechanic that touches on "who" is Alignment, and even then, it's pretty general (as it should be, given the game's primary focus). This is why I'm always puzzled at the big crossover between "people who value characterization and storytelling" and "people who hate Alignment".

I'm one

I feel alignment is a poor way to generate good characterization or storytelling. Disagreements over whether an action is evil and therefore a paladin should be stripped of his powers put the emphasis on constraining characterizations to conforming to a "right way" and focus on the mechanics of the alignment rules and DM versus player interpretations. I prefer for players to get into their own concept of their characters as opposed to attempting to conform to the DM's or some book writer's view of how their character should be.

Right and wrong, heroes and villains, exist in the game world outside of game mechanics.

Alignment is good as a "what", IMO. Paladins smite creatures with an evil alignment and unholy blight affects paladins but not Belkar or demons.

 

[Voadam]

(That said, I've never understood why having constraints ruffles the feathers of so many "people who are very focused on character roles". For actors, playing a role is all about working within parameters. It's doesn't seem very "who" to me to demand that you can do whatever the heck you want, and it's "in character".)

Role playing a character you create is different than acting under somebody else's direction to portray a role created by someone else.

Both can be fun, but definitely distinct activities.

Roleplaying Conan is different from roleplaying your own barbarian who might be Conan-like.

 

[buzz]

Roleplaying Conan is different from roleplaying your own barbarian who might be Conan-like.

Right, but in the Pendragon example, you're playing a character you created yourself. Why is it "restrciting" to have to play the characer the way you defined him in the first place? "Yes, my knight is chaste, but I don't want to have to be forced to play him that way." I don't get it.

 

[Henry]

Why is it "restrciting" to have to play the characer the way you defined him in the first place?

I agree; remember, Dr. Seuss did some of his best works with the more constraints he placed himself under.

 

[buzz]

Disagreements over whether an action is evil and therefore a paladin should be stripped of his powers put the emphasis on constraining characterizations to conforming to a "right way" and focus on the mechanics of the alignment rules and DM versus player interpretations.

Hey, you sign up to play a paladin, them's the breaks. If you don't want to be restricted in your actions, play a Neutral fighter.

 

[LostSoul]

Why would one need mechanics to define who one is?

Let me turn this around. Why would one need mechanics for combat?

 

[Voadam]

Hey, you sign up to play a paladin, them's the breaks. If you don't want to be restricted in your actions, play a Neutral fighter.

Different player versus DM understanding of the paladin restrictions can lead to problems. Whether paladins must be merciful can be a significant point of disagreement. Some see paladins as champions of good based on christian knights so mercy is big. Others feel the paladin's duty is to smite, not forgive or grant mercy. The rules are ambiguous and both are valid interpretations IMO.

If there is a conflict of player and DM interpretation of good and paldin requirements here then these roleplay mechanics are creating arguments and frustration instead of good characterization and storytelling.

A fighter can be just as heroic and noble as a paladin, so to play a paladin archetype and avoid RP characterization arguments yes, play a fighter the way you want to and avoid the alignment RP mechanic problems.

Btw I happen to be doing this with a LG aasimar fighter in a 3.5 Temple of Elemental Evil game. Quite the dedicated holy smiter of evil, he just can't detect evil or get his powers taken away because of DM interpretations of his prosecutorial zeal

 

[Crothian]

Let me turn this around. Why would one need mechanics for combat?

Because it is better then:

I hit you

No you missed

No, I hit you

No you missed

No I hit you

 

[Crothian]

Sure, there's more than nothing should a DM choose to do this. The chargen process, however, doesn't demand thought be given to "who". That's all I'm saying.

That's why we have DM's, the books are rather passive and fail at demanding anything.