Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7925191" data-attributes="member: 6801228">But I see that as a suggestion on a way to go. You are the one saying it is a rule that absolutely must be followed.So, I can't be a noble. Nobility has a certain number of concepts attached to it, let me pull up the noble to post them. "You carry a noble title, and your family owns land, collects taxes, and wields significant political influence. "Now, I'm no expert on tribal political systems, but, generally the tribe owns land as a collective, and the chieftain is elected or chosen to rule. A council of elders might advise them. But the son of the chief does not hold land, tribal chiefs actually do not collect taxes, and "Son of the Chief" is not a noble title. Noble titles are things like Count, Duke, Marquiss, ect. These show your position in a complex web of society.And since this is the fluff, sorry, since these are the rules of the Noble Background, "son of a tribal chief" would actually not qualify. That does not mean nobility in the same way.Absolutely correct. I agree entirely. So I played my character as a knight. I chose Knight, I chose to roleplay as a knight, I chose to act like a knight. That was important to my character. But, it seems to be your position that I was not allowed to do that by RAW, because I chose to be a barbarian as well. So, how can you explain my right to choose to incorporate knightly values and actions into my character, while also telling me I have no right, by RAW, to actually incorporate those values and actions into my character. One or the other must be true. So why is an ancestral Barbarian allowed to achieve that result through bawdy bar songs and not epic poetry? You have taken the position that I must "Act like a barbarian, not a knight, otherwise I should just call my class Angry Knight", so it falls to you to defend this distinction. Why is it more in-line with the class to use one version and not the other if they achieve similar results?I'm trying, but your only response seems to be "The rules say all barbarians are uncivilized, so you can't act civilized" Well, the section on rogues say "Every town and city has its share of rogues. Most of them live up to the worst stereotypes of the class, making a living as burglars, assassins, cutpurses, and con artists. Often, these scoundrels are organized into thieves’ guilds or crime families. Plenty of rogues operate independently, but even they sometimes recruit apprentices to help them in their scams and heists. A few rogues make an honest living as locksmiths, investigators, or exterminators, which can be a dangerous job in a world where dire rats—and wererats—haunt the sewers. " By your same logic that my barbarian must be uncivilized, a rogue must be a criminal, a locksmith, Investigator or Exterminator. A rogue can have no other pursuits. They cannot be entertainers, unless they are also thieves. They cannot be sages unless they use their knowledge to investigate crimes. They cannot be acolytes at all, ever. This is what you are saying. This paragraph of text is an iron-clad rule that all rogues must follow. If they are in a guild, it is a thieve's guild. No exceptions. This is the position you seem to be arguing from, because that is the result of taking those sections as "rules" and demanding people toe those lines.Because it seems the position you are joining is one where if my character acted civilized I would be asked to leave the table, because I was not following the rules of how barbarians are supposed to act. That is the crux of this. If your class determines your character, your personality, to the degree that playing a Barbarian who follows the Code of Chivalry is breaking the rules, then every aspect of their personality has to be as savage, uncouth, and uncivilized as possible, because that is what the "rules" state. "To a barbarian, though, civilization is no virtue, but a sign of weakness. The strong embrace their animal nature-"So, If those are the rules I must follow, then every barbarian must act like an animal, because those are the rules of the game. They must reject civilization, because that is weakness and against their animalistic nature.Obviously not, or the idea of playing a Barbarian who was a Knight and followed the Knightly tropes wouldn't have caused such a huge pushback, me being told by at least three posters I am breaking the rules and homebrewing, ect. If it were really up to me, then saying I was playing a Barbarian Knight would have gotten no response, so obviously, it is not up to me. It is up to the PHB to tell me what my character is allowed to be.For example:ad hoc tends to agree with your position and disagree with mine, and here they are stating it outright. If you do not follow the prescribed path in the PHB, you are no longer playing the class. If you disagree with that position, you need to make clear what difference you see between what he is saying, and my position that you are free to make decisions about your own background and personality when building a character. Note, in this entire thread, I have never once said anything about reflavouring class abilities to be something different, or creating a story where I am a fictional character from another universe, or even looking for a massive magical inheirentance from my rich family. All I have said is "I picked Barbarian, I picked Knight, and his personality out of combat was that of a knight, and his equipment in combat was appropriate for a knight" It seems Ad Hoc is no longer taking my calls, but since you are responding about my character, I would like to take exception to the line "where such stunts are hard to fit in" What stunt did I pull? This is what is constantly confounding me. I picked Human, Barbarian, Noble (Knight). I acted like a Knight. I used the combat abilities of a Barbarian in combat. In what way have I offended you? Would you be appeased if I stripped him naked and slathered him in oil? If I grunted instead of spoke? I know I'm getting a little heated about this, but the best anyone has been able to do to tell me why this character is wrong is to say "all barbarians are uncivilized brutes, it says so right in the rules/fluff" But if that were true, if I were not allowed to do what I did, then why does Noble not say in the rules "Cannot be taken if character is a Barbarian?" Why does the Barbarian not have a "personality section" that says "All barbarians must act like this, if you act differently, you lose all your barbarian class abilities"And you calling it a stunt makes it sound like I somehow was trying to trick people, like this was some clever ruse. I just made a character. A character who I was interested in, because honoring your ancestors is something that appears in many cultures, and I wanted to explore that from the idea of a traditional noble family instead of a tribal society. Why was that wrong?You know, if that was all that was needed, maybe this would work. He likes the thrill of combat. That is "uncivilized" so my Barbarian Knight is now completely aligned with all the rules and fluff of the class.</blockquote>

Verification