At a lot of tables this would violate the social contract. Many tables want PCs to make sense within the game.
I could see a barbarian that rescued a princess and got knighted, giving him the noble(knight) background, but that wouldn't change him from a barbarian tribesman into someone who dresses nicely and uses court etiquette. I could see a barbarian who is the son of the chief or elder, giving him the noble background as translated into what it means to barbarians.
When you toss out all of the class fluff and just use the mechanics of a class with a background, though, you are not that class any longer. The class is more than the mechanics. It is also the major portions of associated fluff. There is absolutely nothing anywhere in the barbarian fluff that describes what you describe above. That for many tables would violate the social contract which is the same as a rule violation.
That begs a question.
Why bother to include backgrounds in the game? At that point, just say "All Barbarians take Outlander, All Wizards take Sage, All Fighters take soldier, All Clerics take Acolyte, All Rogues take Urchin" ect
Hey, why not take it a step further. All Fighters are gruff men with beards who have seen too much war. All Wizards are old men with long beards seeking power for powers sake. All clerics are beautiful and kind women who act as the mother of the party.
I mean, if you are going to require people to play a trope, go all the way. All wizards are named Gandalf. All Fighters named Bob.
I mean, my PC makes sense in the gameworld. In fact, they are a logical follow up of a barbarian tribe who is protected by their ancestors getting a noble title and acting as the royal guard for a kingdom. Their ancestors aren't abandoning them, because they still fight for the glory of the family name. They are still a martial people. They just aren't womanizing, hard drinking slobs.
But, that is unnacceptable because of the almighty trope, even though that trope is itself younger than the archetype this represents.
Why? Because a lot of people view classes as, and want to maintain classes that are are more than just a collection of mechanics. As does the game itself. If WotC and TSR before that wanted classes to be the mechanics only, the fluff wouldn't exist to define those mechanics.
If they didn't want to change fluff, they wouldn't create any setting other than Greyhawk, because once they made a different setting, they changed the fluff of races and classes.
If the fluff was
that important, Dark Sun and Eberron and Planescape and all the others would not exist.
Yes. The example which has been repeated is a character who is a Noble only and the character's class, Barbarian, has no effect on who the character is. It's just there because they needed a class.
Nobles don't adventure. Guild Artisans don't adventure. Hermits aren't adventurers. They need something after.
A character still has those skills they gained during their background. A noble still has a title and a guild artisan might still have their guild membership. But that isn't what they DO anymore.
Are you actually serious? Like, completely serious?
Because you, the person calling on me to follow classic archetypes, is going to say "nobles don't adventure" when I specifically said that he was a
Questing Knight?
I mean, if you haven't read it, I'm sure you'll love Le Morte d'Arthur. It is about a place called Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table, and about all they do is go on adventures and quests.
I mean, I can easily get a Guild Artisan adventuring too, because explorers were often looking for new sources of raw materials to increase their businesses, but I'm just flabbergasted that you are going to throw away the entire archetye of the Questing Knight.
I said primarily.
Downtime is meant to be handled away from the table and meant to be a very small part of the game.
The majority of your character's identity is adventuring. That is what the game is designed for.
Those aren't valid answers.
They are valid answers. It depends on the campaign. "Our campaign focuses on the recovery of ancient holy relics lost in a great war. The first character is an Acolyte."
The answer to the question of background isn't suddenly "I am no longer an acolyte and have no ties or intentions to work within the church, I'm all about the gold now" No, the campaign is being built around a concept where a party who has deep ties to the church makes perfect sense.
And, surprisingly, you can still be mostly adventuring and still be something like a con artist, a sage, an entertainer, a smuggler, a nomadic tribesman, a soldier, a spy. Because adventures are wider than tomb robbing and dragon slaying.
It's the way words work.
If I said what is your proficiency bonus?
And your reply was: Cake.
You would be giving an invalid answer.
The way words work? Really.
Okay, let us test that a little bit. The questions were "The most important question to ask about your background is what changed? Why did you stop doing whatever your background describes and start adventuring?"
So, let us rephrase them a little bit and try Panda-s1's answers
"Why did you stop fighting for your country and start mercenary work?"
"I didn't"
Hmmm... answer makes sense, I can even add context like "I didn't, I took on a role as a government contractor, not a mercenary."
Let's try the other one
The most important question to ask about your career as a Rock Star is what changed?
"Nothing"
Seems like a valid answer, especially if we go with "Nothing, I am taking my music to the people, instead of letting them come to me."
It seems words work just fine. Must be an operator error then.
I'm also not saying not to change things. I just think if race, class, and background don't matter to who the character is why even have them in the first place? Play a game that doesn't have those things. Square pegs and round holes.
If race, class and background don't matter.. why even have them?
That is my question, if background means nothing, if my Barbarian is a trope-standard barbarian no matter if I put sage, urchin, soldier, knight or spy as my background, then why even have backgrounds?
If they do not change the character, who they are, what they care about, ect. Then why include them in the first place.
