"Your Class is Not Your Character": Is this a real problem?

[Aldarc]

Then you have no basis to argue that it's entirely metagame. Besides, the interchangability is because the cleric itself is just words on a paper. The player has to choose on behalf of the in-fiction PC what his in-fiction domain is.

You are muddling three separate arguments here, Max.

Regardless of whether or not the cleric chooses a god, it's clear that clerics themselves choose domains. Gods don't own domains. They are just able grant access to them, so clerics who gain their in-fiction domains other ways, still gain an in-fiction domain.

How is it clear, Max? You had to dig through a side bar in Xanathar's Guide to Everything directed to players who choose atypical deities (e.g., concepts, entire pantheons, etc.) for the only piece of supporting evidence you could cite, and even then it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.

So are you honestly arguing that in the fiction of D&D that Max the Cleric says to themselves that "I pick the 'Light Domain' as part of my clerical veneration of Pelor"? IMHO, it seems fairly clear that the names of domains exist for the sake of the players' understanding rather than having any actual in-fiction reality.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

From Xanathar's Guide to Everything, Page 18:

"The typical cleric is an ordained servant of a particular god and chooses a divine domain associated with that diety."

Not the player picks the domain. The Cleric chooses the domain. Domain is clearly an in-fiction thing.

DMG 150: Adamantine Armor

This suit of armor is reinforced with Adamantine, one of the hardest substances in existence. While you're wearing it, any critical hit against you becomes a normal hit.

Are you saying this passage applies to me, Sabathius42, and not my character? Is it possible the books interchange reference to player choice and character choice inconsistently?

 

[Aldarc]

Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity?

 

[Maxperson]

Also, ruminating on this further, does this mean that the deity has no say in the domain of the cleric, since the wording indicates that the cleric is the actual agent for selecting the domain and not the deity?

It also says that the cleric chooses from the domains offered by the deity, so the deity would have say. Deity says, you can pick from X, Y and Z.

 

[mrpopstar]

You guys have heard the phrase "your class is not your character," right? the idea is that you don’t have to be an baby-eating psychopath just because your sorcerer has the Abyssal bloodline. You don’t have to be a purehearted hero just because you know your way around a smite evil.

I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?" I may just be lucky in my groups, but I haven't ever encountered that mess out in the wild.

Comic for illustrative purposes.

I have managed players who hold expectations of class contribution. For example, it is expected that clerics have access to healing magic. When the player of a cleric fails to deliver on that expectation when healing magic is needed, I might anticipate another player's frustrated disappointment resulting in criticism.

 

[the Jester]

You guys have heard the phrase "your class is not your character," right?

Honestly... never heard it. But I take your meaning!

I'm curious if this is a real problem that people have encountered, or if it's just a good soundbite. Have you ever encountered a GM or another player who told you that you were "playing your class wrong?"

I've seen it a few times, but almost exclusively with paladins. And far more in earlier editions, when there actually was a "right way" to paladin (e.g. you had to play with the morals and ethics of Superman or Captain America or lose your status) and there were consequences for failing to do so (you are now a fighter who takes extra xp to level up!).

I do think that with, for instance, a cleric of a god, the DM should inform the player as to the expectations of the god empowering that pc, and I don't have an issue with a setting in which the gods are willing and able to penalize misbehavior. But that stuff should be made clear before the game starts rather than after a pc has already invested a dozen sessions and four levels into the character and class.

 

[Xetheral]

The PHB uses the term domains and applies them to portfolios for deities. Nothing there implies that it's a game term, or that any of those are game terms. That also follows prior editions where they were in-fiction terms. If @Hussar is going to claim that somehow the strong implication in 5e, which follows the in-fiction state of the term domain in prior editions is somehow changed, he needs to show proof.

I've played since 2nd edition, and until reading this thread it never occurred to me to treat domains as in-fiction terms. At most (in a setting civilized enough to permit academic philosophy), maybe some NPC comparative theologians have devised terms for patterns they see as they study the similarities and differences between the deities, but I wouldn't expect such NPCs to use the same terminology as is found in the book (or the same terminology as each other, for that matter).

I can definitely see a campaign setting existing where domains are in-fiction terms, and have no problem with that (although until reading this thread I have would have assumed that such settings were parody settings that break the fourth wall for comedic effect--I see now that this assumption would have been incorrect). I've just never interpreted any of the rulebooks in any edition in a way that led to me to think that such was an expectation.

 

[Xetheral]

Yes.

All that stuff that people call 'fluff' is, actually, rules.

If you remove that from the game it ends up being a very lengthy and poorly thought out cooperative combat game.

A board game would make for a much better implementation of such a game.

Removing or changing the fluff that appears in the book doesn't mean running a game without any fluff at all. For example, consider official settings like Dark Sun that are rich in fluff that differs from the fluff in the PHB.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It also says that the cleric chooses from the domains offered by the deity, so the deity would have say. Deity says, you can pick from X, Y and Z.

Actually, it says a typical cleric chooses from the domains offered by the deity. So a non-typical cleric, when offered X, Y and Z could choose Horned Viper.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, it says a typical cleric chooses from the domains offered by the deity. So a non-typical cleric, when offered X, Y and Z could choose Horned Viper.

Why do you even bother to respond if you aren't going to say anything that pertains to the discussion? @Aldarc was specifically talking about gods and clerics, so anything outside of that is irrelevant. In the context of gods and clerics, gods have say in what domains the cleric gets.