Either we take the fluff of the class as a whole, or none of it.
Wait, I thought you didn't like false binaries...
if the mechanics end up being the same, what's the problem with re-fluffing things?
Either we take the fluff of the class as a whole, or none of it.
The first rule of DMing is to make sure that people have fun and if that is the character that they want to build, why shouldn't they get to build their character. The other thing that DMs should try to do is find a way to so yes (not that you can always say yes to players but you should look for a reason to say yes) while you are starting from the point of No and convince me to say yes.
So here's what I say.
This is my story:
I am dwarf that has connected with the spirit of Bahumut. In exchange for my devotion to him he grants me powers, as I am not truly a priest, my powers manifest as a dragon's would. I don't "cast" spells I gain a breath weapon. For example, I don't cast Burning Hands, I breathe it (exact same mechanics, just looks different). When I fly, I grow wings.
As I gain in power, Bahumut gives me the ability to channel his strength (Divine Smite). Later on my breath weapon become more flexible (Sorcerer spells) and can do different things (you, know just like him) or I can choose to channel the breath weapon into my attacks charging them with the power of the Great Dragon.
Would you still rather me a straight Paladin after that discussion?
I consider cursing, of any ilk, to be dark magic. Frankly speaking, that's not a good character - that's pretty amoral and Id driven at best, outright cruel at the worst. Making someone suffer like that, even mildly, is not a good action.
I was asked why I considered the sorcerer, and I responded with my views, and then was accused of ignoring the fluff of the class, and responded by pointing out more fluff. Of course I was arguing to defend my case! I'm the one being accused!
I was the one who had to defend my view of the warlock, not tell anyone else they couldn't play theirs.
"Something like the Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer example is just a complete non-starter for a variety of setting reasons. But, say we start it anyway. Then, there is the plausibility of such an individual existing anywhere in the game world. The deity choices of the world. The structure/orders of Paladins that exist in the world. The presence (or lack thereof) of Warlocks and/or Sorcerers to begin with. There are a dozen reasons this character wouldn't fly in my particular game, without even taking "using MC" into consideration. "
But why do I need to be a Paladin/Warlock/Sorcerer? Why can't I just be a Champion of Bahumut or other dragon? Why can't your setting include a cult dedicated to helping the weak? Maybe I could just be a Champion of whatever god you have created? Surely there must be one with a dragon underling?
DMSD: "So we'll swap out the evocations for transmutations. Problem solved?"
DMSD: "Ah. So it's about the kewl powerz?"
DMSD: So you have this concept [that you just have to play and I should allow MCing for when I've said we're not doing MC], but don't want to wait for it? 4th level is too long [assuming we aren't starting over 4th to begin with, in which case, no wait]? Variant human for a weapon proficiency at 1st and get your armor at 4th...or vice verse? Or, while understanding that you will be a serious rarity as a dwarf wizard, Mountain Dwarf Transmuter for the armor from level 1 and get the weapon at 4th?
DMSD: Which is an optional system I've already said wouldn't be in the game. So why is this character in front of me in the first place? You have three possible ways to get this "concept" you're asking for, without it.
This wasn't said to me, but it is something I'd like to comment on (without specific context).
I would say that they shouldn't get to build their character if it interferes with the overall fun of the group--or if it creates one type of fun at the expense of another type of fun, when the latter type of fun is the intended goal of the session/game/campaign, etc. For instance, let's say that at a planned D&D session one player pulls out his MtG decks while the DM is away from the table and they all start playing. I think any player (including the DM) can rightly expect that they put the cards away once it is time for the game to start. It may be fun, but it isn't the fun that was planned, intended, and expected for the evening, and it is unfair to anyone who is actually there to play D&D to have their rightly expected fun replaced by other fun they may or may not be interested in, because a few other people didn't stick to the plan. If everyone is super excited to play MtG, then sure, put off the D&D. But most of the time at least one person is going to be rather disappointed, even if they pretend they're fine with it.
People keep saying that DMs should look for a way to say yes in character creation, or that during play you should always say, "yes, and," or that the DM is supposed to be giving the players what they want, etc. I disagree.
The DM (or GM) of any role-playing game is primarily responsible to provide the players (including himself) with the experience of fun, mystery, horror, reflection, or whatever else, that is planned, intended, and expected. Each player has a secondary role to support the PIE.
The assumption is that everyone has agreed to the same PIE. If that is the case then all other assumptions must of necessity be based on the PIE.
If it is a campaign where you are fighters with randomly rolled races and stats in a savage land where you are likely to die before you hit 2nd level, and you start off by auctioning off pre-made fighters with chocolate chips at the table, that's what you're all there to play, and if you eat all your chocolate chips before bidding begins you can't bid for your first preference in fighter. (Maybe I need some dessert...) Plus, PIE implies that you want the challenge of trying to survive to make 2nd level, and dying before then isn't going to detract from your overall enjoyment of the experience.
If you a playing a game where the PIE is that each character takes narrative control of the story at certain points and advances the plot, then if you don't do that you are ruining the experience for everyone else at that point.
If you play a game where PIE says that each player attempts to make the most wacky and broken character out there, and you refuse to min-max (or to let anyone help you do so), you are in violation of the PIE, and probably need to be kicked out of the game. No PIE for you.
There are a lot of different RPGs out there with a variety of different assumptions, but most of them have their assumptions fall within a defined set of parameters. On the other hand, D&D has been around long enough to have its own large variance in play styles, and so people can have extremely different expectations of what D&D is about and what a campaign is going to be. Much more so than with other games, it is vital that everyone understands what they want out of the game and are on the same wavelength. They agree on what they are going to play (often by means of the DM inviting people and informing them of what to expect, and then those people indicating they are interested), and then, in order to make sure everyone gets what they are there to get, should probably stick to PIE (or agree as a group to change PIE).
The idea that certain role-playing techniques which support specific playstyles are a better or worse way of creating that sort of enjoyment isn't true. They are better or worse at creating that sort of playstyle. Enjoyment is based on everyone getting their piece of the PIE. (Preferably pecan or french silk.)
Wait, I thought you didn't like false binaries...
if the mechanics end up being the same, what's the problem with re-fluffing things?
Player: "Sure, I guess that works. It still doesn't quite cover what I was looking for, but if you are willing to customize the Eldritch Knight for me, I'll take it."
OOC: In all seriousness, I am totally cool with this approach, as it is the sort of thing I tend to do all the time. Thing is, it won't work for every single situation. And, honestly, probably adds significantly more imbalance than actually using the multi-classing rules themselves.