Finally got this absolutely massive thread ready for transfer:
The concept of the “Character Toolkit.” by Fyne
Overview
You have an idea for a character? An archetype or concept? Then have a look at what you have in your character toolkit , to see how you can best express that concept to others, through this roleplay medium.
It is a bit like choosing a wardrobe and props and special effects for a character in a movie or television show or video game [!].
What sorts of things are available? What are the “tools” in your toolkit?
***** Character race.
***** Character class [and the spells that come with that].
***** Character professions.
***** Character talents that have nifty visual effects, and glyphs likewise.
***** Character combat level.
***** Character name.
***** Character wardrobe [armour, including transmog].
***** Character weapons [weapons and off-hand, including transmog].
***** Character “favoured” mount.
***** Character “favoured” minipet.
***** Character combat pet, if a hunter, or death knight, or warlock, or etc. Its name also, if appropriate.
***** Vanity items and “on use” trinkets with visual effects.
***** Speech style [such as transliterated accents], emotes and emote style.
You’ll likely settle, with some thought, on one combination of these things that seems to work best most of the time, and make small variations on these things to be most effective for a given time, in a given place, at expressing that character concept most appropriately for that scene. Sort of like a television show. Or a piece of theatre. Ignoring any of these tools means, well, it means that you’re ignoring some of the tools you could use to better represent your character - and stories, at their heart, are generally about characters.
Class
I’m just going to point out the obvious here; you needn’t really take class into consideration what so ever when creating a new character. All it does is limit you, really.
I would reverse that - it is not a matter of taking [an already chosen] class into consideration when building a new character concept, it is a matter of choosing a class to best suit your [already thought of] character concept . Players have a lot of tools to help express their character.
Thinking like a theatrical performance, we have things such as language and accent and slang; we have things like wardrobe [lots of players spend time thinking about “outfits” for their character] and weapon choices; we have things like even companion pets [and for hunters, even combat pets]. All these things can help us to visually demonstrate the archetype of our character to the audience - who are the other players and actors around us. This is not only useful to them as an audience, of course, it is useful as actors: it gives them cues and clues to know how to approach our character.
Similarly, character class and the abilities that come with it are a major tool in our “character building toolkit.” They are as important as wardrobe, and perhaps moreso. After all, they are the core and most accessible Special Effects we have available. Each class comes with a range of “special effects” of its own, some only seen as part of combat, some seen at any time. All of them can be put to use to help us represent the character we want.
So choose your character class to suit your character archetype. What class would best show off the idea you have? Classes are, in fact, more than simply armour and weapon proficiencies. They are more than simply wardrobe. They are abilities. They are talents. They are minor [and major] glyphs. They are a very powerful tool, and not one to be easily overlooked.
Class, and class spells/skills, just as profession and race choices, are part of your “character toolkit,” and can be used to support [or hinder] your portrayal of your chosen character archetype. The real questions to ask, I suppose, are not “is this idea allowed,” or “can this be done,” but rather “is this class choice the best one to visually represent my character idea in the game?” and “how can I use this class choice to visually represent my character idea in the game?”
Looking for a melee combatant who uses some minor shadow magic and/or fel magic? A warrior would make sense, having lots of visual support for the skilled melee combatant. There are a few trinkets and on-use items which might give visual support to fel-based minor magic use. Tracking them down would assist.
Looking for a caster who sometimes uses swordsmanship to get out of scrapes? A warlock or shadow priest might suit best, again, finding the right trinkets and the right look of outfit [choosing the most “armoured” looking of the cloth pieces for transmogrification, choosing the longest, wickedest-looking swords or daggers] to support the rest of your idea.
Ignoring class as “not ic” I think misses the point, slightly - your choice of class, as a player of that character, is just as important as your choice of race, your choice of outfit, your choice of professions, your choice of neat vanity items, your choice of mount… they all help you to express the idea of your character. Choosing poorly will make it harder for you to express that character [“My desert-dweller character rides a mammoth and wears heavy Northrend furs everywhere”], choosing well will make it easier for you to effectively express that character.
The class of a character is one of the tools in the toolkit of you, the player, for crafting a character. Alongside race, name, talents, wardrobe, and on-use items it can help you to express the character concept you have, to other players.
Generally, I’d recommend figuring out the sort of character you want to play, first, and from THAT choosing race and class. If an old, corrupt, orc spellcaster is what appeals to you, gnome warrior won’t help much.
From that perspective, rogue is a very flexible class with a lot of interesting abilities to help you express your choice. Rogues can wear leather and cloth, can dual weild, have a number of abilities built in that have visual effects.
Perhaps the most obvious and most problematic of those abilities is stealth, but that can be (a) hiding behind things, for a low-magic explanation; (b) engineering “invisibility”; (c) minor magic. Beyond that, some of the concepts mentioned above can easily suit.
Rogues of course also, being one of the less iconically themed classes [unlike shaman, say, or as mentioned, a paladin], have the option to be class secondary. Archaeologist who also happens to swashbuckle a bit? Alchemist with some training in combat? Heck, this very character is a surgeon, who applies his medical skills “in the field” [applied practical phrenology].
Mounts, pets and travel
Roleplayers spend time thinking about the armour choices for their character, to find something which best expresses their character to others, like a stage costume. Roleplayers spend time thinking about weapon choices for their character, to find something which best expresses their character to others, like stage props. Roleplayers spend time thinking about names and titles for their character, to find something which best expresses their character to others. Roleplayers spend time thinking about class choice, talents, combat pets, trinkets with visual effects, and vanity items for their character, to find something which best expresses their character to others.
Roleplayers should [yes, that dangerous word “should”] spend time thinking about mount and minipet choices for their character, to find something which best expresses their character to others.
Mount choice is one of many tools available in your toolkit, to help express your character concept best, for a given location, and a given scene.
Travel in “lore” and its complications depends entirely on the needs of the narrative for that scene, with those characters, at that time. It took Thrall’s advance scouts a full week to cross Durotar, moving quickly as skirmishers. It took a military force from Stormwind, with supply train and camp followers, one day to travel across Elwynn to Lakeshire. The needs of the scene.
There is not “one right answer for all characters in all places at all times.” There is also not “an answer that is wrong for all characters in all places at all times.” Both of these assumptions remove tools from your toolkit, and set you up for being wrong. Yes, even “Heart of the Aspects.” Yes, even “not a gryphon.” Yes, even a talbuk.
Sometimes each of these could be the best choice to express that character concept in that place during that scene. Eliminating them as “not possibly in character” is a poor choice.
Not a DK IC
I think the main difficulty here is less not a Death Knight but more not an undead . And why?
For one thing, because the game gives us both very noticeable visual and audible cues regarding this character type. The signals that a character is a death knight are readily apparent long before reading through someone’s Addon Flag [if one even uses one of those addons - especially so when the addons were made incompatible for a while]. The likelihood of having to retroactively “not have seen and heard” something in a crowd scene that you’ve already been reacting to… would be like having to retroactively pretend that human there is actually a goblin, that forsaken there is actually a normal living human, or that paladin in plate there is actually supposed to be wearing robes [but has only written that in their Flag, instead of wearing robes].
For a second thing, why bother needing to level to ninety? If a character is supposed to be a blacksmith or farmer, who needs levels above five? Any bank character can easily fill such a concept. We have eleven character slots. Aiming for that “shortcut” under the belief that it shortens leveling time for your level ninety fresh fruit vendor suggests that you need to level to ninety before you can roleplay a fresh fruit vendor. Which is, admittedly, silly.
I think those are the two principal sources of argument against such that I’ve read, the first moreso, the second less so.
Couldn’t a forsaken DK roleplay as a apothecary just as forsaken warrior, mage or a warlock could?
The difficulty doesn’t seem to be “death knight portraying something else also undead.” I see it being recommended for Necromancer concepts, for example, and for plague apothecaries.
It seems a matter of choosing the best OOC class to support, visually [and, in this case, audibly thanks to the voice effect], your chosen character concept. The character concept of “holy, plate wearing knight” is best supported by paladin, between wardrobe and spells, perhaps second by warrior, between wardrobe and spells, but warlock would make a poor choice overall for that concept. Not Undead characters are not well supported visually [thanks to the eye glow visual cue used to vehemently signal “undead” in this setting] and audibly thanks to the spooooooky voice [similarly]. Other classes are better choices, just as draenei might make a poor choice to try to represent a Grummle visually, thanks to their stature, and a forsaken might make a poor choice to represent a living elf. The visual cues for our first impressions are off, and this is a visual medium.
Things supported by the visual evidence seem supported for RP by DKs, even when not a death knight - examples such as Royal Apothecary Plague Scientist, or Necromancer, or undead non-human, say.
Hope this helps to continue the discussion and debate.
Subraces and classes
Again, I see little trouble with making use of subdivisions to roleplay an “unplayable” segment of a race which is visually identical to those we have - Frostmane Trolls, say, or Revantusk; Wildhammer dwarves or dark iron. When the character can no longer be visually represented in the game, I think the players have chosen the wrong medium. Want to play a naga? Try the Open Role Play threads on the forum, or some game over iRC, as it were.
Why? Much as with choosing class and profession to well represent your character, “race” [species] is one of the tools in your character toolkit.
Whilst it is possible to try to represent a Demon Hunter with a death knight in the game, doing so would handicap yourself to a great degree, since the two have very few points in common [dual wield, specifically]. It is akin to choosing to represent a troll Witch Doctor with a warrior. There are other classes very much available, which would come with a much more applicable tool-set to assist you in adding verisimilitude to the representation. The choice in the end, of course, is yours, but I feel you would have a much better representation, and likely much more enjoyment in the long run, by choosing a class which lends more support for you to be able to represent the archetype in which you have taken an interest. You will find that both warrior and rogue have many more points in common, and add far more useful abilities to your “toolkit” for portraying a Demon Hunter in the game itself.
I do expand upon or re-name my characters’ classes, but root them firmly in the capabilities of their class/race/professions. After all, a tauren Sunwalker rather than a tauren paladin would qualify as “not your class,” as would a Blood Knight or Vindicator, and that’s only with paladins.
Examples
Tsathoggua is a witch doctor, although in truth that seems LESS specific than “shaman.” Any troll caster could qualify, and to further cement the definition, I made sure he took Alchemy.
Fyne is a surgeon, and so First Aid is his defining character ability, 'though rogue seemed to hold well with scalpel use, and skinning seemed applicable as well.
Scurvy is a dead sailor and quartermaster. Sailor has no applicable professions that I could find. Quartermaster is in charge of the ship’s log-book, so Inscription seemed closest. As for dead, a forsaken death knight seemed the deadest I could arrange.
Gnapoleon is a musketeer. With “hunter” unavailable to gnomes, either rogue or warrior seemed to best suit, as actually being able to use a gun seemed important. Both could seem appropriate, 'though engineering seemed a certainty for a gun-focused gnome. In the end, the engineered shields made the decision to go with warrior instead of rogue, to support the various historical aspects of entrenched musketry.
And so forth. The only one of the lot who is occasionally best defined by the game-term for his class is Tsathoggua, with his connections to the Earthen Ring. But then, many of the “prestige classes” referred to [to steal the DnD term being bandied about above] are not so much “over and above” the WoW classes, but more limitations within those classes. Can warriors specialize in disrupting casters? Yup. Can warlocks avoid summoning demons? Yup. Can hunters focus on bows rather than pets? Yup.
As usual, I regard this less a matter of “choosing a ‘prestige class’ to power up your game class,” and more a matter of “choosing a game class that will give you the tools to best represent your chosen character archetype.” Want an Apothecary? Take first aid, and alchemy. Wear robes [thus easier with a caster class, as you won’t be tempted to change into plate mid-adventure]. Want a hexxer? Choose one of the troll caster classes that can curse or hex someone in some way [warlock, shadow priest, mage, or shaman, principally]. Want a tech-mage? Choose a mage with engineering. Consider class and its abilities, and professions and their abilities, to be tools in your toolkit to help visually represent your character.
Gender?
On topic, avatar genders obviously play a huge part in how we respond to people, both IC and OOC.
I admit that I likely do a terrible job of portraying a female character, as gender and sexuality never really enter into it. Similarly, I must do a terrible job of portraying a male character, as gender and sexuality never really enter into it. Other elements of the character are always far more important than whether male or female. “Fishergoblin” or “surgeon” is evocative as a concept to me. “Female” or “male” is not much of a hook.
Generally, I agree with Gillawyn’s post, quoted above, although I find that I place more consideration on a character’s wardrobe and appearance choice than their sex. I realize academically that the character’s sex is just as much a part of that character’s “wardrobe,” just as much a tool in the character-expression-toolkit, as wardrobe and character race and character class, but I find I put more stock in wardrobe choice, as far as visual appearance goes. My unintentional ambivalence may come from an uncertainty regarding another player’s intentions or understanding about what a sex choice for a character might signal, whereas wardrobe choices might seem more likely obvious. Maybe.
Warrants more thought.
Edit: Adnaw and I did run with the “arranged marriage” trope, however. We did it to avoid either of us not having an excuse ready to hand for the “notorious” RP server ‘romance’ questions. In our story as we’d built it, neither of the two had any choice in the matter, nor wanted it; it was not her being promised, or him being promised, it was THEM being promised, so they had equal shares in the pain.
Character level
Why is a character that is a “nobody” (but happens to be level 85) automatically stronger than level 10 character who has a background of being a long-time soldier?
In a couple of nearby threads, I have suggested that the race and class you choose for your character are tools in your “role-playing toolkit;” which is to say, choose the character class and character race that best help you to portray your character concept in the game. I would also suggest that character combat level is similarly.
I personally have two level 85s [eventually, I intend to have four level 85s, once the remaining two characters finish gaining the in-game, in-character experiences which will further their combat experience. I also have characters of varying levels down through level 10, reflecting their varied combat capabilities.
My “non combat civilians” are, perhaps surprisingly, of lower levels than my characters whose stories include more combat experience. One of the lower-leveled characters is a dwarf priest formerly a soldier who has not fought since the second war. With lack of practice, his combat skills have deteriorated significantly. Were he to spar with Waywatcher, he should lose, with only the slimmest narrative chance to succeed [and that only should we desire a funny scene].
Were we in a dramatic scene, I would normally suggest /duel, wherein he would lose quickly to the more combat-capable dwarf. Should we be looking for a very slim chance for him to win, I would recommend that we use /roll level or /roll highest attribute, in each case giving a VERY slim chance that luck would show him through. Should we know we want him to win, for a funny “what the!” scene, we would arrange that in advance, and use a straight /emote fight with no rolls and both players working towards a pre-determined outcome.
As the situation requires.
Why is he not level 85? Because he is not a strong combatant. Oh, sure, his knowledge of theology is quite solid, and his ability to use rhetoric and to give a commanding sermon is great, but those of course have -nothing to do with- combat level. Character combat level reflects a character’s current combat abilities. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are there exceptions? Sure. Are there not to most things? But as usual, having been a table-top roleplayer for a few decades now, I retain my table-top roleplaying habits: character level is a part of the mechanics of every system out there in one way or other [some systems instead increase dice pools through experience, others raise skill percentages through successful use, yet others increase your traits pool [add adjectives to your list] through experience]. This one is no exception. My DnD characters had to have adventures to gain experience, as did these characters.
The games I’ve been part of - playing or running - never [started characters all at maximum level, fully skilled; instead we started at low levels and adventured our way up to being powerful]. We always created excuses into the character histories to explain why we were currently not a heroic combat level.
I like to see evidence in-game through the visual medium we’ve chosen, for a player’s claims for a character. This may mean leveling up [“My character is a champion gladiator!”], or it may mean avoiding leveling [“Inkpen is a priestly paladin - more at home amongst books and scrolls than on the field of battle”]. Sometimes a specific effect is only available at a given level [“Tsathoggua is a ghost - the glyph of Astral Form combined with Druid Bearchicken form will support that, visually!”].
Generally, for me, character combat level is useful only in that it shows a character’s competence in combat. Very little else. Sometimes, 'though, it unlocks a particular ability which can be the key to using the “character toolkit” to represent the concept desired [see the Dead Tsathoggua example above].
I do roleplay both with and as low-leveled characters, and while questing, but I do see character level as part of our “character toolkit” in character building, able to be used as much as abused, and sometimes recommend NOT leveling a character’s combat level, depending on concept.