Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8758356" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, but I would take it a step further and imagine that there's no clear delimiters within the fictional fantasy world (I mean, such would not be apparent if we considered this point). That is, who is or is not 'faithful' is not determinable in any objective fashion. Nor is exactly what does or does not 'please the gods', nor are their rules, plans, ideas, and principles clearly understood in an unambiguous way. This is pretty often noted in most D&D setting material that deals with religion, where it is often pointed out that there could be various schisms and disagreements amongst those who consider themselves 'the faithful'. Nor are gods obliged to clarify such matters! Now, combine that with the idea, again oft stated in various forms within the game material, that concepts like 'class' are simply GAME MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTS aimed at codifying the character generation/build choices of players, not objective canonical facts within the fiction. A character might be called a 'Paladin' fictionally, but that is not the same thing as being 'a PC who is a member of the Paladin class'. While most versions of D&D have allowed for classed NPCs (and the majority effectively assume they exist) it is also clear that this is also a mechanism of simplification and codification. Witness the existence in AD&D of such things as Witch Doctors, who are essentially a 'class' having certain typical traits, but are not constructed formally as such, and which lacks advancement rules and is not open to PCs. In other cases it is made clear that NPCs who have fighter levels are NOT the same as PCs, generally lack the ability to advance by XP accumulation, etc.So, any arguments that certain 'powers' or abilities of whatever sort are definitively codified by the class rules, and that classes are some sort of 'physics of D&D' seem to be on extremely thin ice. I would instead posit that classes represent an easy way to pigeonhole and characterize a heterogeneous and continuous range of fantastical persons and beings. I would further state that such things as 'powers', 'spells', and all the various other shades of such codified particularly by 3.x, likewise are general representations of a continuous range of abilities that beings often manifest. This is convenient and useful, perhaps necessary, in order to construct a playable game, but it is a mistake to believe these codifications should be taken as GOVERNING the fictional world, they merely describe it so we can play our games more easily, nothing else.</blockquote>

Verification