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

[Boendal2]

What is the problem with that?
.......

I think you misunderstood or I didn't make my point well enough (english is not my first language). Let me clear things up:

1. Nothing bad with playing a death domain cleric the way described above. But stating that it's the only way is wrong imo. And that's what she stated.

2. Nothing wrong with asking the party to have a somewhat fitting alignment. But stating that the the party won't work if his alignment is not fitting (and she meant fitting as in correspond/conform) is wrong imo. It basically fit with her argument that paladins have to be LG anyways - so the party should be LG or at worst NG to LG. (which none of my friends ever agreed on before she mentioned it, and we dont take alignment very seriously anyway (also not her))

3. I never said, that following the books creates one-dimensional characters. I said SHE probably created one-dimensional characters (because she follows the books and doesnt add creative stuff). Granted, that's an assumption and not a very nice one. But I feel it might be true with this player.

I think you really want to make a point when there is none to be made. I wrote about a specific player I experienced. Nobody else. I am sorry if anyone felt it was directed towards him/her. I just wanted to share a personal experience with the person asking the original question above. Not attack anyone who uses the books as source for character creation. Thanks for he tips on character creation though.

On the flip side of your final argument

Playing against what the books say isn't a mark of imagination. It's trying to use a crutch to be remarkable.

it feels like you make exactly the point you you want to critisice. I personally think not every player who uses "a crutch" wants to be remarkable. Maybe try making a character with a gimmick. Create a character without a strong archetype. Then use your imagination and creativity to make that characteristic work with your class according to the rule books.

 

[ad_hoc]

I think you misunderstood or I didn't make my point well enough (english is not my first language). Let me clear things up:

1. Nothing bad with playing a death domain cleric the way described above. But stating that it's the only way is wrong imo. And that's what she stated.

Right, definitely wrong. The more important thing is which Death deity do they worship? And what is the deity's take on these things. Clerics of the same deity often behave in different ways too as they can represent different aspects of the deity.

In the time of playing 5e it has only actually come up once when a player made a character that I said no, I don't want to play with that character.

They made a Trickery Domain Cleric and didn't want to worship a deity. I said, 'no problem', you can represent the ideals of the philosophy of trickery and a deity will bestow upon you your powers. Afterall, a trickery deity wouldn't want open worshippers in the first place. But nope, they only wanted the powers of the class and none of the identity. That just didn't fly for me as it is counter to the fiction we are playing in.

2. Nothing wrong with asking the party to have a somewhat fitting alignment. But stating that the the party won't work if his alignment is not fitting (and she meant fitting as in correspond/conform) is wrong imo. It basically fit with her argument that paladins have to be LG anyways - so the party should be LG or at worst NG to LG. (which none of my friends ever agreed on before she mentioned it, and we dont take alignment very seriously anyway (also not her))

Yeah, a player can have a preference but that doesn't mean the table has to yield to it.

3. I never said, that following the books creates one-dimensional characters. I said SHE probably created one-dimensional characters (because she follows the books and doesnt add creative stuff). Granted, that's an assumption and not a very nice one. But I feel it might be true with this player.

Right, okay. It's just a common thing I've heard people say. There is a trend of looking down on people for creating Elf Rangers and the like as though they are the superior roleplayer for making something wacky.

 

[DwarfHammer]

I’m cool playing in games like that. But in the games I run. If you are monk then you are part of monastery. If you are a cleric you are a priest of a god. If you are a paladin you are part of a religious order. I don’t want to play any other way. But it is 100% cool for other people to want to play games other ways.

 

[ad_hoc]

If you are a paladin you are part of a religious order.

Why this one?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I’m cool playing in games like that. But in the games I run. If you are monk then you are part of monastery. If you are a cleric you are a priest of a god. If you are a paladin you are part of a religious order. I don’t want to play any other way. But it is 100% cool for other people to want to play games other ways.

Huh. You don't accept Monks who were taught by a single master, clerics who worship some of the divine forces given in the PHB, or Paladins who swore their oath in the ruins of their destroyed village for example?
If I may ask, what setting do you play in?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Why this one?

Presumably they regard some of the flavour text in the Paladin description as part of the rules of the class and doesn't like homebrew.

 

[ad_hoc]

Presumably they regard some of the flavour text in the Paladin description as part of the rules of the class and doesn't like homebrew.

That's not actually in the Paladin class though at least in 5e.

 

[Hussar]

It is a guideline. Here is some barbarian fluff.

/snip
Barbarians are uncomfortable when hedged in by walls and crowds. They thrive in the wilds o f their homelands: the tundra, jungle, or grasslands where their tribes live and hunt."

That serves as one of the guidelines for what a barbarian is. Whether you are a dwarven battle rager, an orc, a tribesman, or something else along those lines is up to the player to decide. However you decide, though, the guideline is that barbarians are uncivilized.
/snip
. You have completely thrown out the guidelines and what makes the class a barbarian and have created a new class.

So, according to you, it would be impossible to be a dwarven barbarian. Dwarves according to the fluff for dwarves, live underground. They do not, CANNOT, according to you, live anywhere else and still be dwarves. Thus, according to @Maxperson, it is against the rules to play a dwarven barbarian.

If the flavor text is immutable, then it is immutable. You cannot have it both ways. You can't cherry pick whatever flavor suits you if flavor is central to the character, as you argue.

So, @Maxperson, how do you allow for dwarven barbarians in your games without home brewing or breaking the rules?

 

[Hussar]

People keep saying that they can define something as 'fluff' and then therefore it is not a rule.

Firstly, how do we define something as fluff in the first place? Where in the rules does it say how we determine that?

Can I play a human with the elf mechanics? Just throw out all that fluff and say my character is actually just a human in the narrative. What is rules and what is fluff?

Funny you should say that. I have a PC in my game right now who is an orc. He didn't want to break out the monster manual (or didn't own it, or was just lazy, not sure) so, he just used the mechanics for a half orc from the PHB. Not really a big deal.

I brought up an example of playing a Jedi and people lost it.

Well is it against the rules to play a Jedi? If it is against the rules, then there are rules. If there are no rules then it is perfectly fine for a player to come to a table with a character choosing the Elf race, Rogue class, and Guild Artisan background but the character is actually a human Jedi from the Star Wars universe.

There are either rules that forbid that or there aren't.

It is not against the rules to play a Jedi. It is generally considered very bad play, however, for the player to write in massive changes to the setting (adding in the Star Wars canon to a D&D game is pretty massive). Against the rules? Not specifically. But certainly a violation of the social contract of the table. You'll note that no one had a problem with playing a Jedi-like character made to fit with the game. So, at some point, yes, you are right in that flavor shouldn't be altered too much.

However, it's a pretty big stretch to compare adding the entire lore of Star Wars to a minor alteration to a single paragraph of examples. There are degrees at work here. Changing the flavor that only applies to your character is a fairly different proposition to changing the flavor that affects the entire table. Most groups don't allow players to make changes to that degree. Your Lore Warlock keeps his Book as tattoos on his body which he then uses to cast the rituals? Yeah, not too many folks are going to have much of a problem with that. Your Lore Warlock has an AI slot in his Spartan body armor that he plugs Cortana into in order to use his rituals is probably going to be a bit too far.

 

[DwarfHammer]

Why this one?

Paladins get their abilities from their divine god in the games I play. As always other people can do what they want and works for them.