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

[Maxperson]

I mean the PC could have been anything and killed said NPC father for zealous reasons and have the same effect. Would said NPC hate paladin's or hate anyone who calls himself a paladin and is a member of a certain sect.
so said Cleric introduces himself as a paladin the NPC would hate him the same unless the NPC has metaphysical awareness.

Sure. Perception matters. That said, we are going afield a bit. I'm talking about how class abilities affect roleplay, not whether or not you can make claims in the game world and how NPCs might react to such claims.

If you are playing a "paladin," you will have unique abilities that only the paladin class has. Those impact how you play your PC and how NPCs perceive you when you use those abilities.

 

[Coroc]

5e doesn't do that, though. Where more than one class has the same ability, it has the same name. Expertise is Expertise for both bards and rogues. Unarmored movement is the same for both barbarians and monks. Fast movement and unarmored movement, both movement increases, have different names due to having different mechanics.

Yep, you are analyzing this correctly. Still it does not hurt if you do it. It does not change the mechanic the number of dice to apply, the game balance, or anything else, just the name.

5e is a complete set of crunch, but not a complete set of fluff and you can always add or remove fluff and its associated crunch.

So if I do not want paladins in my game I remove them. If I do want some other class (fluff) e.g. Rose Knights in my setting I add them. So now I think that paladin mechanics (crunch) would be a nice fit so I attach them to the Rose Knight class.
So I decide they are all bastards not even "antipaladins" and their preferred method is not to smite but "slam", I attach that extra fluff and I am good.
Still no change in balance etc., and absolutely no connection to one of the Paladin orders of the PHB or how a player might portray them.

 

[Xetheral]

In the game of D&D as written, they are something real within the fiction of the world. If they weren't, they would just be a collection of mechanics with nothing else attached. The rules might then give you ideas of different ways to play certain sets of mechanics.

I think the dispute in this thread is strong evidence that classes are "something real within the fiction of the world" only in some campaigns.

More broadly, I think the dispute in this thread is strong evidence that the answer to @Fauchard1520's original question in the OP is "yes". Some DMs and/or players feel that it is possible to "play your class wrong".

 

[prabe]

More broadly, I think the dispute in this thread is strong evidence that the answer to @Fauchard1520's original question in the OP is "yes". Some DMs and/or players feel that it is possible to "play your class wrong".

It also seems as though "play your class wrong" is going to mean different things at different tables, and have different repercussions.

 

[Stoutstien]

Yep, you are analyzing this correctly. Still it does not hurt if you do it. It does not change the mechanic the number of dice to apply, the game balance, or anything else, just the name.

5e is a complete set of crunch, but not a complete set of fluff and you can always add or remove fluff and its associated crunch.

So if I do not want paladins in my game I remove them. If I do want some other class (fluff) e.g. Rose Knights in my setting I add them. So now I think that paladin mechanics (crunch) would be a nice fit so I attach them to the Rose Knight class.
So I decide they are all bastards not even "antipaladins" and their preferred method is not to smite but "slam", I attach that extra fluff and I am good.
Still no change in balance etc., and absolutely no connection to one of the Paladin orders of the PHB or how a player might portray them.

Wouldn't it be easier to say you allow refluffing just with DM buy in depending on setting restrictions?

 

[Maxperson]

I think the dispute in this thread is strong evidence that classes are "something real within the fiction of the world" only in some campaigns.

Campaigns that deviate from how the rules present them, sure. There's nothing wrong with such deviations, though. Both home brew and house rules are perfectly fine and I encourage the use of both. Whatever makes the group happy.

More broadly, I think the dispute in this thread is strong evidence that the answer to @Fauchard1520's original question in the OP is "yes". Some DMs and/or players feel that it is possible to "play your class wrong".

I don't think the disagreement about fluff and crunch necessarily means that we feel that you are playing your class wrong if you home brew changes and/or have your PC call himself something else. It certainly doesn't have that meaning for me. I have skipped some posts, though, so someone might have taken that stance and I missed it.

 

[Maxperson]

It also seems as though "play your class wrong" is going to mean different things at different tables, and have different repercussions.

In my experience "play your class wrong" only really matters at the table you are at. If the DM or player feels that you are playing your class wrong and says something or acts on it, it will have a negative effect on you and the game. That negative effect is greater coming from the DM who has correspondingly greater ability to act. People out here won't have the same or perhaps even any impact.

 

[FrogReaver]

uh...

Oath of Ancients Paladin + Archfey warlock you have a cooperate boss and a branch manager
Oath Breaker Paladin + any warlock - your just changing directions.
Oath of Conquest Paladin + any warlock patron who supports your conquest
Oath of Devotion Paladin + Hexblade or Undying Warlock - serving the Raven Queen
Any Warlock + Oath of Redemption - you made a bad choice and your trying to fix it.
Any Warlcok + Oath of Vengeance - your patron turned on you so your turning the tables, or someone betrayed your patron and you want to get them back.
Any Warlock + Oath of the Crown - you just changed jobs under the same management become and inforcer of their rules.

This took longer to type than to think up. Really, it doesn't take much thought for Paladin/Warlock to work... it does however require SOME thought. Instead of halving a default "No x/x multi-class" I find it generally better so say, "Before you multi-class let me know so we can iron out the lore and reasoning before you bring it to the table and you have to role-play out what we agree on." meaning with any multi-class (even fighter / ranger etc) you take the mechanical you take an agreed lore BUT we build the lore on a mutual understanding. This is not the GM dictating to the player how they will play a class or multi-class or a player just abandoning all lore and thought magically picking up mulit-classes that don't make since and have 0 context. "Your ranger picked up fighter while alone in the woods? Who taught him? You never mentioned any attempt to learn or train those skills before showing up with this multi-class."

Right but the general reaction to ban Paladin Warlock is a reaction to perceived munchkinism. No amount of ironing out the lore and reasoning for such a combination is going to make it more acceptable to DM's that ban it for that reason. That is, they believe the Paladin Warlock multiclass is too powerful and so they justify the limitation of it by appealing to fluff.

 

[Umbran]

But, even that doesn't really apply. A Vengeance or a Conquest Paladin certainly don't give a rat's petoot about standing with good things. Yes, what they list is A paladin, but, hardly ALL paladins, even the ones that are actually in the PHB.

Well, it seems you know what those paladins are too. That speaks to there being very little ambiguity as to what they are.

 

[prabe]

Right but the general reaction to ban Paladin Warlock is a reaction to perceived munchkinism. No amount of ironing out the lore and reasoning for such a combination is going to make it more acceptable to DM's that ban it for that reason. That is, they believe the Paladin Warlock multiclass is too powerful and so they justify the limitation of it by appealing to fluff.

I don't disagree, and part of my reason for giving a player bringing a concept dependent on this multiclass combination, and ideas for lore to back it up, the sideeye is exactly what you call "perceived munchkinism." I've been pretty fortunate in not having huge powergamers in the two campaigns I'm running, and I'd prefer to continue not having to deal with the phenomenon.