Honestly, Sozz, and again, this is said in friendship and with good intentions, but I feel that you're quite determinedly (though I'm sure not deliberately) mischaracterising me and what I'm saying - to reiterate where you say I stand, despite the fact that I just corrected you on that and informed you that that take was not accurate - to repeat, again, no, I do not stand there, and the 'one' I use is an entirely in-universe 'one', like I said previously. Please don't ignore and disregard that in order to characterise me otherwise a second time.
I think I'll address this by asking you a question. Every table has a line, where do you draw it? To bring it back to perspectives, I consider the line to be drawn by the universe, while you consider it to be drawn by the people at the table. The 'one' and the 'one' from before. Both are perfectly valid, depending on the table, but I consider one more conducive to meaningful play. For a level 1 Forgotten Realms game, having a Githyanki PC doesn't immediately cross the line, but it does bring us to it, and because I, or someone like me, is there to accommodate and arbitrate, it becomes a matter of negotiation. Every interaction at the table can be considered a negotiation, between the world, the characters, the rules, and the players; with the DM trying to make it a coherent entity.
Now, because this is actually a conversation about a video game, that negotiation can't happen. For the story to be coherent the game has to have already accommodated the choices made. So, when you allow players to make choices that that aren't in the matrix, you're making the story less coherent.
I would prefer it if you answered my question by answering my question - because your answer feels like you're trying to
avoid saying openly "Yes, if a player came to my table with a character combination that I thought sounded weird, I would disallow it regardless of whether it was officially permitted or not, and I would not accept an unusual or unique backstory as an appropriate vehicle for explaining or justifying their character's unusual situation". That's not a DM I would ever want to sit at a table with, and that's not a DM
anyone should ever want to sit at a table with. It sounds like that's where you actually stand, because of how you chose to address the question - if that's not correct, then you might do better clarifying yourself by answering the question clearly... if that's not how you feel, then a straight "No, that's not accurate" would do well here... and if it is, then don't dance around it as though you know it for the bad take that it is already - because that is how it comes off when you do.
So no; a githyanki playable character does not immediately come up to the line and require negotiation, unless the Dm is ruling to lock out official content ahead of time - and that weight is on the DM for being more restrictive than the game world and game lore suggests they should be. It's an officially published race set up and presented as a playable character, well before any content related to astral play and spelljammer was raised. A DM that would deny that is the one stepping on extant world lore, and disregarding it - not the player. It's their right to do that if it fits their game of course (the entry even says as much), but make no mistake - it is the DM straying from the world presented by the lore, not the player, in that case. Not allowing them in your game space as players is a DM choice to remove something from the world.
A githyanki joining the game to assist an otherwise good and neutral neutral aligned group of people for a quest based on Toril would almost certainly need to have backstory elements that explained how this came to be, because it's incredibly unusual - that's what backstory is literally for; to do that exact work. That's part of the game, not straying from it or taking away from it. Certainly, a player who has no interest in providing any kind of backstory to support their unusual situation is potentially posing immersion difficulties or world coherency concerns... but again, that's what backstory is for; to do that work; a DM should ask the player, during character generation or during pre-session or session zero discussions, how their unsual situation came about and work out those backstory elements... not tell them flat that their choice is to weird and requires a live adventure to explain, so they cannot do it.
Do you doubt that I can present you a perfectly believable backstory to explain how and why this githynaki character lives on the outskirts of Daggerford, pays dedication to Lliira and gives thanks in her name, and is interested in joining the group of adventurers who are now embarking on an adventure to explore the recently uncovered dungeon of the mad mage Halaster Blackcloak, and is approximately at the same level of skill and prowess as the other adventurers setting out (level 1)? Because I can, very easily... and if you would not doubt it of me, then why would you doubt it of anyone else, to the point of ruling it out of your games for being 'incoherent'?
Break for air and space: I don't want this to feel like an argument and I'm trying to vet my wording to be as even-handed as I can. I'm still trying to work out and be clear where you stand, or stood, when you objected to the example I make initially, and why you did so, and there's no hostility.
==
In universe, a Bard is very different from a bard - that's entirely
in universe and has no meta-break involved in it at all. One of them is a person with a natural talent for manipulating the world around them through song, sound and word magic, while the other is a lute player, and their skill at playing the lute is not a relevant consideration in the distinction. Yes folks who speak different languages in different parts of the world will naturally use different words for it, but the term of reference is 100% an in-universe term of reference for a person with that particular capability, whatever language it is spoken in. The same is true of Sorcerer, of Warlock and of Druids, and yes, of Paladin too. I'll give that there's a lot more fuzz surrounding some of the others, that's fair.
A Fighter, might have no connection to any higher power beyond his service, and still be considered a [...] paladin.
No, they would not. You can insert
our-world fuzziness into your organisations in your
own world if you want, but that's
you harming the coherency of the world and stepping away from its established structures of lore... in any Toril-based situation they would be frowned on for misleading and misrepresenting themselves if they did so - Paladins are a tangibly definable thing, and no fighter who fought for a deity as part of an organisation would be called or be permitted to call themselves a paladin if they were not one - unless it were an unscrupulous order, or particular individual, that actively sought to deceive people. Yes the exact word used would change in different languages and different nations, but that's neither here nor there and is irrelevant to the point.
