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

[Panda-s1]

As an example consider the samurai subclass. Is the samurai a dwarf from Mirabar known for his lethal axe flurries and neat handwriting, or the honourable warrior from Kara-Tur?

[The answer is the dwarf, the person from Kara-Tur is a paladin]

why is the honorable warrior from Kara-Tur a paladin? do they get divine magic? paladins swear oaths to some sort of virtue and get magical abilities from it, but that's not how samurai work. sure samurai take oaths of fealty, but so does the knight from Faerun, they ain't special. also they get their powers, perceived or otherwise, through years of martial training. this doesn't even begin to touch the wandering samurai archetype, what happened to those oaths? I know 3.5 had a ronin prestige class that covered this, but they too didn't lose all their powers the same way a paladin did.

Question then, on the wizard part. Could I describe a wizard as a wizard, in the sense of Merlin is a wizard or Harry Dresden is a wizard? Not a mechanical bundle of abilities, but more that that the word is a noun or an adjective depending on use.

yeah this is the issue I have with defining your character by their class. like in a typical D&D world where magic is prevalent but still exclusively used by the elite your average NPC is gonna probably call a sorcerer a "wizard". warlocks, too. all arcane magic users are wizards, the same way your grandma thinks all video game consoles are "nintendo". well except maybe bards, but they sing and stuff, what do you mean "magic"?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Seems to me a far greater sin towards simulationism to suppose any two individuals would have access to the exact same set of capabilities. The only way that class as a concept makes sense in any kind of simulationist sense is if you’re playing one those “MMO but real life” concepts that are so popular in modern anime.

The Arcane Archer is a perfect example of why every member of a class would have access to the same set of abilities. If you want to learn how to launch a Cone of Cold from your arrow, then you need to belong to one specific organization of elvish archers, where they teach you. Otherwise, that specific knowledge is unavailable. And if you do belong to that organization, then they have a standard set of tricks that they teach all of their members.

Other classes are similar. If you want to be a Cleric of Wee Jas, or an Eldritch Knight, then you belong to an organization where they teach you a standard set of tricks. It's just a thing about how the setting works. For generic classes, like Fighter, there are a lot of different organizations that get you to a similar-looking endpoint. And while I suppose you could play in some other setting, where you don't learn your class abilities from an organization, such a setting would really be better represented with a non-class-based system.

 

[Seramus]

Sure. You can also call yourself Kool Aid, but it won't make it true. Your artificer and cleric call themselves paladins, but they are not paladins.

It's true in the only way that matters - the people in the campaign call me a paladin and respond to me as one. I'm recognized as a paladin by other paladins, and my own God calls me 'her paladin' in visions.

Haven't done the artificer yet, but I can easily imagine refluffing it as a Joan of Arc style inspiration. I haven't decided on the best archetypes yet. Maybe battle smith?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think that we may be using the terms differently to each other. I was using "crunch" to represent the rules mechanics (Paladin spell list, or tenets of the Oath of Ancients subclass for example,) and "fluff" to represent the flavour (Paladins being heavily-armoured knights who stand for goodness and justice for example.)

I think we're in agreement as to what the terms mean. I'm just saying that the paladin class mechanics exist as they do because they are a reflection of the paladin class fluff. They started with the concept of a heavily-armoured knight who stands for good and justice, and then derived mechanics to reflect that concept. If they had started with a different concept, then they would have used different mechanics to reflect it.

The specific translation from that specific fluff to that specific crunch is a rule. For example, that paladins have three spell slots at fourth level is a rule. If you extend that translation to some other specific fluff, then it would be a different rule, because it no longer represents the specific connection between the same fluff and the same crunch.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It's true in the only way that matters - the people in the campaign call me a paladin and respond to me as one. I'm recognized as a paladin by other paladins, and my own God calls me 'her paladin' in visions.

Yes, but some random guy on the Internet calls your character a cleric, so your character’s experience doesn’t count.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I think we're in agreement as to what the terms mean. I'm just saying that the paladin class mechanics exist as they do because they are a reflection of the paladin class fluff. They started with the concept of a heavily-armoured knight who stands for good and justice, and then derived mechanics to reflect that concept. If they had started with a different concept, then they would have used different mechanics to reflect it.

The specific translation from that specific fluff to that specific crunch is a rule. For example, that paladins have three spell slots at fourth level is a rule. If you extend that translation to some other specific fluff, then it would be a different rule, because it no longer represents the specific connection between the same fluff and the same crunch.

That paladins have three spell slots at fourth level is crunch. That those paladin spells are granted by a god is fluff.
That paladins gain the Heavy Armour proficiency is crunch. That paladins are heavily armoured knights is fluff.
The tenets of the Devotion paladin are crunch. That paladins stand for goodness and justice is fluff.

Changing the crunch is house rules. Changing the fluff is not house rules, or home brew, or deviating from the rules. Just re-fluffing.

 

[prabe]

That paladins have three spell slots at fourth level is crunch. That those paladin spells are granted by a god is fluff.
That paladins gain the Heavy Armour proficiency is crunch. That paladins are heavily armoured knights is fluff.
The tenets of the Devotion paladin are crunch. That paladins stand for goodness and justice is fluff.

Changing the crunch is house rules. Changing the fluff is not house rules, or home brew, or deviating from the rules. Just re-fluffing.

Mmmmm. Something about your medium example. I get the point you're making, even if @Saelorn disagrees with it, but I'm not sure the distinction between "Paladins get Heavy Armor Proficiency" and "Paladins are heavily-armored knights" is ... entirely a distinction with a difference. I mean, one is rules-speak, and the other is, something like in-setting-speak, but the gap between them is less than the other two.

Geez. I'm quibbling with an argument I agree with. I'll stop now.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Mmmmm. Something about your medium example. I get the point you're making, even if @Saelorn disagrees with it, but I'm not sure the distinction between "Paladins get Heavy Armor Proficiency" and "Paladins are heavily-armored knights" is ... entirely a distinction with a difference. I mean, one is rules-speak, and the other is, something like in-setting-speak, but the gap between them is less than the other two.

Geez. I'm quibbling with an argument I agree with. I'll stop now.

I'm mostly just making the point that adherence to those rules does not require adherence to the fluff. Having heavy armour proficiency does not require your paladin to wear heavy armour.

 

[prabe]

I'm mostly just making the point that adherence to those rules does not require adherence to the fluff. Having heavy armour proficiency does not require your paladin to wear heavy armour.

That's true. It's an unusual paladin who doesn't (in most campaigns/settings) but it's neither impossible nor disallowed.

Apologies.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm mostly just making the point that adherence to those rules does not require adherence to the fluff. Having heavy armour proficiency does not require your paladin to wear heavy armour.

Regardless of an individual's personal preference while walking down the street, the fact they have the proficiency on their sheet reflects the fact that they have learned how to wear it effectively at some point in the past. You still went to paladin school (or whatever), even if you make a point of looking like you hadn't.