|
I believe we can also accept the usual legal axiom that anything not explicitely forbidden is implicitely allowed.I Have never, and shall never except this concept of if it is not in there then must be allowed, for either PFS or RPGs in general. That opens way to many problems.
Sometimes things are implied, without the rules right out saying, but that is different.
From things I have seen Josh speak of, His greatest interest is making sure everyone has fun, so Though I would love to be able to bring characters that go against Canon, especially those that are purposely done that way, fitting into Canon, I don't think he will give the GM that power.
For now I will just have to be quietly upset about it when it comes up.
Though I still fully feel we should foster in both Players and GMs knowledge of the world we all play in.
+1. There are reasons that GMs are also called judges from time to time. A GM has to be on the lookout for what might cause problems within play and rule accordingly.
Given your example just because someone can aquire parts to make a gun, and has the skills to make said gun, doesn't mean that I should allow said gun into play. I'm going to stop that from happening right from jump street.
|
The PFS Guide covers this. More precisely, it explicitely states what is allowed and what is not. I believe we can also accept the usual legal axiom that anything not explicitely forbidden is implicitely allowed.
.
And you'd be wrong. the list is an exclusive list not inclusive.
The Campaign Guideline specifically says what sources are allowed for game play. Anything beyond those sources IS forbidden.
The last point is quite true. But then, the PFS guide explicitely states so on page 30 : "If a product does not appear on this list, then it is not considered legal for play." ;-)
The problem I see when you have something implicitely forbidden, is that some people will not understand it this way, will put efforts and time in making a character they believe is legal and then will have all of this reduced to ashes on what might appear to them as someone else's whim.
I most strongly believe that a common explicit understanding beforehand is the best way to reach the objective of fun for everyone.
Though I still fully feel we should foster in both Players and GMs knowledge of the world we all play in.
On this point, we are in total agreement. In fact, I think it enhances the fun of everyone. I guess that we differ in the how of it :-)
+1. There are reasons that GMs are also called judges from time to time. A GM has to be on the lookout for what might cause problems within play and rule accordingly.
Given your example just because someone can aquire parts to make a gun, and has the skills to make said gun, doesn't mean that I should allow said gun into play. I'm going to stop that from happening right from jump street.
In a housegame, you can definitely stop it even if it is not forbidden beforehand. After all, it is your game, where you are not only a judge (one who applies the law) but also (and most strongly) the one who decides what the law is. I would hope for some constructive debate between the player and GM though to create the common explicit understanding I was mentioning above.
However, the GMs in PFS are not the all-powerful gods they are in their housegame. The PFS Guide IS the law. And everyone has to follow it, whether GM or players.
|
|
In a housegame, you can definitely stop it even if it is not forbidden beforehand. After all, it is your game, where you are not only a judge (one who applies the law) but also (and most strongly) the one who decides what the law is. I would hope for some constructive debate between the player and GM though to create the common explicit understanding I was mentioning above.However, the GMs in PFS are not the all-powerful gods they are in their housegame. The PFS Guide IS the law. And everyone has to follow it, whether GM or players.
Actually in PFS, guns are banned. My example is done to explain that you shouldn't allow people to "game" the system.
But taking this forward, yes PFS is the law. But the GM is still the judge. The GM has too work within the guidelines in PFS, but when players move beyond the rules, the GM is the judge.
|
A GM knowing the world he is running IMO will make him a better GM.
A Player know the world he is playing in, especially that relevant to his character IMO will make him a better player.
I agree; and the sooner Paizo's writers and developers can agree on what is canon, then GMs and players can act on that.
Until then, it's rather presumptious to take a player to task, for bringing a PC that is mechanically legal (as laid out by Paizo writers in a Paizo product), and matches the flavour of the setting (as laid out by Paizo writers in a Paizo product).
|
I agree; and the sooner Paizo's writers and developers can agree on what is canon, then GMs and players can act on that.
Until then, it's rather presumptious to take a player to task, for bringing a PC that is mechanically legal (as laid out by Paizo writers in a Paizo product), and matches the flavour of the setting (as laid out by Paizo writers in a Paizo product).
Paizo is in agreement on what is Canon, the problem is, the players are not or don't want to be in agreement with Paizo...
|
|
I think this is an interesting discussion. Dragonmoon you have mentioned you have been having trouble with people showing up with non cannon characters could you give us some examples of what you have been having show up? I think the gods/cleric issue has been covered and everyone is in agreement. I think anything really crazy should be addressed if it seems like it is going to cause trouble, but if someone has done something that might be weird or "non cannon" that doesn't affect the overall play then I don't know that I would address the issue during the session. I had a player show up with a dwarf "outcast" that had a shaved face the whole nine yards. His back story was crazy (sorry I don't recall the exact details It's been awhile). Then he started telling me about how all his gear was made out of some special black iron that had special properties. It was at that point I had to tell him that his gear had to be standard out of the book gear. If he wanted it to look strange or describe it in some certain way that was up to him, but mechanically it was standard gear and for quality purposes it would appear so as well. I told him that his weird background may cause him trouble in the future and he might want to try to make it more in line with the setting other than that and some odd reactions by npc's no problem. You are going to have these strange cases from time to time in org play. As long as the crunch is right sometimes you just let the oddball be an oddball as long as they are not disrupting the game.
|
|
As Long as it confers no in game advantage, players can be as "non cannon" as they like.
That said, PFS has a setting and players have chosen to play in that setting. So they should be prepared for everyone else to think they are crazy. Their characters are free to believe what ever they like, whether or not others (PC and NPC) believe them depends on skill checks and roleplaying
|
|
Your job as a player is to do some basic research.
If you can't pick up the books and have a good read about the geo/demo/psychographic of the canon pertaining to the area from which your character hails (and then comprehend it al) then don't bother making up a convoluted backstory.
Just be Bob the Fighter from the local village.
Otherwise prepare to be met with a lot of 'cool story bro'.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Interesting that this thread was resurrected.
As a GM, I believe canon has its place, but forcing a player to learn it will drive players away from the game. If I followed true canon, one of my favorite characters wouldn't exist... Captain Andoran! This has gone on to inspire others to make their own versions of "Marvel Pathfinders" for sheer love of the game.
|
|
Ewww... thread necromancy.
I think it’s "OK" to make suggestions on how someone makes a character, however I don’t think you should try to force your opinion of canon onto someone else, unless it breaks a game rule. I’m surprised this questions was even asked.
Dragnmoon = Lawful Evil? :)
The only time you could enforce your view of canon, would be in a home or online game, where you can control who gets invited.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Jason, let's say I bring in a character that simply does not work in Golarion. Either of us can make up examples. (The son of Elminster, who now rules Galt. The PC isn't "deranged" or "mistaken". He really is the son of Elminster, who really did migrate from Faerun to Avistan, where he really has taken over Galt.) Would you feel a calling to explain to the two nice people at the table, who are playing their first Pathfinder game, that my PC must be deranged, despite my protestations?
|
|
Jason, let's say I bring in a character that simply does not work in Golarion. Either of us can make up examples. (The son of Elminster, who now rules Galt. The PC isn't "deranged" or "mistaken". He really is the son of Elminster, who really did migrate from Faerun to Avistan, where he really has taken over Galt.) Would you feel a calling to explain to the two nice people at the table, who are playing their first Pathfinder game, that my PC must be deranged, despite my protestations?
The player can say whatever he wants to say, it doesn't have to be true. There are lots of Dad's called Elminster (people new to PF won't even know), so who cares, everyone thinks their Dad is great. The PC can't possibly rule Galt because Korran Goss does. Even if that were true, he doesn't rule if he's not there (unstable government), and rulers tend to die quickly in Galt. So yeah, "former ruler" is more like it, but the PC is probably just a delusional freedom fighter.
I'm sure it's not uncommon to find Pathfinders with delusions of grandeur, or who are insane or complete liars.
As for the player, if you ignore stuff like this, it usually goes away.
|
Jason, let's say I bring in a character that simply does not work in Golarion. Either of us can make up examples. (The son of Elminster, who now rules Galt. The PC isn't "deranged" or "mistaken". He really is the son of Elminster, who really did migrate from Faerun to Avistan, where he really has taken over Galt.) Would you feel a calling to explain to the two nice people at the table, who are playing their first Pathfinder game, that my PC must be deranged, despite my protestations?
Why would I need to? Don't people 'get' that other players have no influence on canon?
I guess I don't think people, even new players, are incapable of making that distinction.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The player can say whatever he wants to say, it doesn't have to be true.
I'm afraid I wasn't clear, Jason.
You claimed "the only time you could enforce your view of canon, would be in a home or online game." A fellow comes in with a character whose backstory you dispute, and your response is to say that his story isn't true, that his character's delusional, insane, lying ... So you are enforcing your view of canon.
Why not allow that he really is the son of the sage of Shadowdale, who really has moved to Golarion and has calmed Galt down under his mighty rule? Why not allow that, at your table, during this adventure, Korran Goss has never ruled Galt? Why not allow his version of canon to be correct?
If that seems hard to swallow, then you are enforcing canon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a clarification could be added to the PFSOP guide? I mean, if canon is (a) important -- which I'd say it kind of has to be, for an organized game -- and (b) violations are common -- which, apparently, they are, at least enough that this thread got started -- maybe it's time for an official addendum stating what references contain 'Golarion Canon.'
This really seems a bit ridiculous, frankly: while there is little mechanical issue in a character's background, if one is playing PFSOP, one OUGHT to adhere to the world in which it exists. And I see no reason why a PFS GM would NOT have the right -- rather, responsibility -- to enforce canon character development.
Maybe that's just me.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MY two C-bills,
A GM/Player can help shape a new character's background when they're helping get the game started. If my niece (for example) wants to play a 'wizard' who went to 'hogwarts' I'm going to wonder the whys and then point her to an appropriate place.
Hypothetical:
Me: Well why do you want to play a wizard from Hogwarts?
Her: I think it's neat how they're born wizards and can do stuff with wands.
Me: Well Wizards aren't 'born' in Pathfinder, it takes time and study. Sorcerers are 'born' Wizards but they only know a few spells and can't change them easily. So do you want to have her learn spells from a book and possibly know more, or do you want to be 'born' magical?
Her: I want to be born magical.
ME: Ok, so sorcerer it is, what kind of magic do you want?
Etc etc.
Likewise if I had a new player show up with "Son of Elminster, ruler of Hermena" I'd work with the player as best I can to help him get the new character to 'fit in' better. In the end the "He's really delusional" is an option, and running with it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So, what do I do when a Judge says - "not in Cannon - not at my table"?
Remember that whatever options you use from outside the Core Assumption, you need to have a copy of with you at the table. If he questions/challenges something, politely offer to show him ("Oh, actually I've got it right here...") and you should be fine.
If when presented with legal material on paper he wants to say "no", then offer to play a different character, but also get his name and PFS number and report him.
Why not allow that he really is the son of the sage of Shadowdale, who really has moved to Golarion and has calmed Galt down under his mighty rule? Why not allow that, at your table, during this adventure, Korran Goss has never ruled Galt? Why not allow his version of canon to be correct?
If that seems hard to swallow, then you are enforcing canon.
I think there's a qualitative difference between adding something non-canon which can be harmlessly ignored (e.g. my dad is Elminster) -- 'cool story bro', as noted by Shifty -- and rewriting canon with your background (e.g. Galt isn't ruled by Korran Goss).
For that matter, I personally don't think any bits of a PC's back story should impact how the scenario runs much at all (e.g. just because my PC's back story says he's a member of a (canon) fabulously wealthy merchant house, that doesn't mean that he can get a loan for 100,000 gp).
So, what do I do when a Judge says - "not in Cannon - not at my table"?
Maybe your PC should worship William Conrad instead. He's definitely Cannon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not fight with the Judge at a table. While I might respectfully point out his error (and I bring page prints for all the PDFs I am using for the characters), NEVER argue with the Judge. Esp. before the game.
I play with the Judge at the table, NEVER against. It's never a score, and the Judge never loses... ever.But I guess that's just me.
YMMV
Blasphemy!!! It you Vs the Judge, Fight to the Death, Take 10 vs no Take 10, Winner Takes All! And if the Judge is Kyle, expect your PCs death...
|
|
Blasphemy!!! It you Vs the Judge, Fight to the Death, Take 10 vs no Take 10, Winner Takes All! And if the Judge is Kyle, expect your PCs death...
You know, I think I might start a schism movement here, based on the premise that Kyle might not actually try to kill my character.
Of course, I will also never, never, never sit at Kyle's table, and that way I can't be proven wrong. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point thou is that the Judge at the table is the lens we see the world thru. If he say's "In Galt, the common language is Sylvan"... well, that's the way it is at his table. And I'd hope to be able to T10 on a Kn(Geo) or maybe Kn(Local) for my PC to know that.
I am confused here...
This does not compute...
Wait, if you went to a public game with your character, and the GM questioned the character and you showed him the source and he still refused to accept it, you would agree with that?
No way in hell I would do that, a GM in a "Public" game at least can't do that, and I would not take that crap from a GM. I would walk away and do whatever it was in my power, if talking to the GM did nothing, to report that gms actions...
GMs are important but there powers have limits, and over abusing them should not be encouraged.
PFS operates only in Golarion, correct?
Then why would it not just be assumed that canon was gospel?
Why would someone try to play a character from Toril in Golarion?
|
|
You claimed "the only time you could enforce your view of canon, would be in a home or online game." A fellow comes in with a character whose backstory you dispute, and your response is to say that his story isn't true, that his character's delusional, insane, lying ... So you are enforcing your view of canon.
That's only one way to handle it, I prefer to handle it by either ignoring or poking fun at the PC with inconsistencies.
What I'm saying is that I've dealt with several players with "crazy stories" and it has never bothered me. They could say they were Aroden reborn. OK... so? Can really prove it one way or the other. They could say they're the ruler of Galt? So... where's your money/power? Honestly, stupid claims like that allows everyone to laugh at the person's PC at their expense, when the inconsistencies are pointed out. So what I've saying is that "it doesn't matter".
Why not allow that he really is the son of the sage of Shadowdale, who really has moved to Golarion and has calmed Galt down under his mighty rule? Why not allow that, at your table, during this adventure, Korran Goss has never ruled Galt? Why not allow his version of canon to be correct?
Sure, no problem, but it doesn't confer any in-game advantages. And will probably prompt lots of "Where's your daddy?" and other jokes. No, I WANT people to make up stuff like this, do you have any idea how fun it is to tease them mercilessly during a session? :) It actually adds roleplaying flavor as well as a tonne of jokes.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Jason,
As a player, I maintain that he's neither delusional nor lying. I have taken pains to make sure there are no inconsistencies in his background. He really is the son of Desna.
So, if I sat at your table, you would mock and tease me? Remind me again how that's a fun way for me to spend my time?
I would find mockery and teasing to be disrespectful. I imagine that some other players would feel as I do.
As table GMs, we are ambassadors, of sorts, introducing the world of Golarion and the Pathfinder RPG to a lot of people, through the PFS OP environment. Some day, there may be as many players who know about Absalom or the struggles between Cheliax and Andoran as there are who have heard about Iuz the Undying, or about Waterdeep. But they won't, if we mock them for their early efforts to participate.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
LazarX -- none. So far as he's concerned, he's given up all claims, but he can't give up his parentage.
Regarding your second, very good point, we all of us modify canon to small extents when we introduce any character into the campaign. (Paizo realizes this: once you start in on an Adventure Path, you have essentially calved your campaign off from canon, which assumes that the entire AP doesn't happen.) Let's say your PC interacts with a Venture Captain, and you get along well with him. If this were a home game, you could develop that relationship as his protege, or maybe his lover. That's changed a campaign canon character.
(As an aside, every dragon-bloodline sorcerer I've ever met in PFS has had a canon character ancestor.)
In Organized Play, having an impact on the campaign is much tougher, because there's no continuity from session to session, except that which you can bring with you. So if you want personality role-playing hooks, you need to make them part of your character's backstory. And if you want the rest of the table to play along with you, you need to make the backstory characturable in a five-second introduction. Which is one of the reasons why there are so many circus-act PCs in PFS OP.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS operates only in Golarion, correct?
Then why would it not just be assumed that canon was gospel?
Why would someone try to play a character from Toril in Golarion?
Part of it is the old saying "Write what you know." Most everyone imports *something* into their character, whether it being using Harry Dresden for the basis for my own Reynard, or someone else picking the Osirian faction because they love The Mummy.
If someone is familiar with Realmslore but not so much with Golarion, I could see stealing names (like my 'Hogwarts' example above). When you add that interplanetary (interstellar) travel is possible in Golarion, except for that pesky IP issue, being from Toril is possible.
(Heck, if Elans were allowed in PFS, my first level Psion could literally be from "A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away.")
The important thing is working with new players to find out what they want from their "Son of Elminster, ruler of Hermia" character and educating them to options to fit in.
To use that example above, Why do they want to be the son of Elminster? Is it the name? Then there's no problem. Is it being the son of an archmage? Then work out who daddy is/was (and emphasize that daddy won't come saving their bacon). Do they want to play a child of a noble? Well, besides going the DA:O/Alistair route, you also can look at scaling down their expectations. The son of a Taldor noble (who's not going to intervene because of the decline of power and politics) or a deposed Cheliaxian house will give the player that 'noble hook' that he craves, and ties him into the game world more. (Talyn's a good example for me. To start, I shamelessly swiped the name from Farscape, but he is the son of a Taldan noble, with skill points in knowlege (nobility) and a signet ring. He's also Grand Lodge, not Taldor.)
Now the other duty of the GM is to take those background hooks you've helped him craft and run with it. If the player is wanting to be a noble and the NPCs know about the PCs, make a comment, maybe using a title. Not everything needs a mechanical impact. When I GM, my Paracountess makes a point to teasingly tempt the Paladins in the party, complete with the 'first one's free' type lines. It rewards the player with a chance to shine. If "Son of Elmister, ruler of Shadowdale" becomes "Son of powerful mage X, senator in Taldor" my Taldan NPCs are going to give that character a chance to have the spotlight, and my Andoran characters are going to be less forthcoming. That meshes the player even deeper in the Taldor lore, and if he goes home and gets on the Pathfinder wiki to find more about his 'new' homeland (or better still, buys a book from the FLGS for the info) everyone wins.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Jason,
** spoiler omitted **
I would find mockery and teasing to be disrespectful. I imagine that some other players would feel as I do.
As table GMs, we are ambassadors, of sorts, introducing the world of Golarion and the Pathfinder RPG to a lot of people, through the PFS OP environment. Some day, there may be as many players who know about Absalom or the struggles between Cheliax and Andoran as there are who have heard about Iuz the Undying, or about Waterdeep. But they won't, if we mock them for their early efforts to participate.
Chris,
Would you take seriously someone claiming to be the Way made flesh in the real world? If they didn't have any exceptional* powers?
While the average commoner isn't going to argue with someone who can kill them with little or no effort (ray of frost/acid splash is going to kill a commoner 1 in two shots, one if he rolls well) his fellow companions (and his commanders) are going to look at him askance. Especially the higher ups that are familiar with Razmir.
Now along the line of talking about "Son of Elminster, ruler of Galt" why did you want to go this route with your character?
*
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Matt,
Thank you for sharing your common sense.
All of that seems to apply to players developing new characters. What would you do with a player who sat at your table with a 5th-level son-of-Elminster?
You mean besides wonder "Why hasn't anyone nipped this in the bud for 15 sessions?"
More seriously, I would explain to the player that the titles he claims have absolutely no impact, and, since as of 4212 the leader of Galt is X, if he claims this, people who a) have heard of Galt and b) know who the true leader is, are going to think he's a little soft in the head. If the player wants to sit down after the game (so we're not detracting from the fun of everyone else) and rework the background to fit more 'in universe' I'll use my mini, my phone, and the Golarion Wiki to help him make his character fit in better.
|
|
Perfect example how cannon can be interpreted differently by different people. Blame my nephew who sends me such things.
Thing is, most people don't violate cannon. When it comes up or even if an iffy case like Chris' comes up, I'm willing to go with it and as a DM take the viewpoint 'it might be so'. Though my personal enjoyment of that level of special snowflakedom is limited. I'm not going to show it to your face. Besides, my Oracle is the 'beloved of Zyphus', so who am I to talk?
The problem I fear more than the player who wants to say their wizard went to Hogwarts is the GM who are what I term Cannon Nazis, who go beyond knowing the setting, to expecting everyone else to know everything in detail but also get mad when your interpretation differs with yours.
I saw this in a conversation, talking about a Cheliaxian (nationality) Cleric of Milani. Person I was talking to insisted no such cleric could exist, because the Hellknights would hunt them down and kill them. I said the character would have to be underground, but they would not be dead. He said he would have to allow it it in his PFS games.......but, and then went on with all the restrictions and barriers he would put up. I got very quiet and changed the subject.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two things to keep in mind here.
1: The “Inner Sea World Guide” and other Golarion specific material is not considered core assumption, so we should temper any judgment or derision with that fact.
2: If you have legal material that supports your character build and/or background concept, and you have the hard copy or watermarked PDF printout of said material available, then a GM would be wrong to refuse you.
And a GM would also be wrong to change things to fit their view of the world. Ambiguous things, or things they don’t have information on (see item #1 above) are fair game for him to try and come up with reasonable information based on the scenario or any player questions.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
LazarX, your comments elevate this conversation.
You're the only one who has brought up "authoral rights", and I think it's important to keep that distinct from canon. The question at hand is "should a GM let a player character violate canon?" That's a distinct thing from "should a GM let a player character background involve canon?" My position is mostly "no" on first, but "yes" on the second.
If I want to write up a background for my character in which Col. Maldiss saved me from a slave gang, gave me a personal token, and urged me to pay the favor forward, I'm not breaking with canon in any way -- Maldiss has been established as rescuing slaves -- but I'm certainly "making a statement on a campaign character". I don't think I need "authoral rights" on Maldiss; do you disagree?
--
We want players to enmesh their PCs in Golarion lore and background. But we want them to do it in a way that's consistent with existing background. Andrew is right -- there's a lot of information out there, and we should be respectful of anybody who runs afoul of the smaller tidbits out there. And we should be open to someone whose background details information, places, or NPCs that Paizo has left vague for now.
--
Out of curiosity, how would people feel about a player who asserts that her character is the daughter of VC Adril Hestram?
Out of curiosity, how would people feel about a player who asserts that her character is the daughter of VC Adril Hestram?
I'd probably feel the same about any player who said "my PC is the daughter of some really important person" (canon or non-canon) -- I'd think "that's nice", but I wouldn't give the PC any advantage that's not on the rules part of the character sheet.
|
|
You're the only one who has brought up "authoral rights", and I think it's important to keep that distinct from canon. The question at hand is "should a GM let a player character violate canon?" That's a distinct thing from "should a GM let a player character background involve canon?" My position is mostly "no" on first, but "yes" on the second.
------Out of curiosity, how would people feel about a player who asserts that her character is the daughter of VC Adril Hestram?
I agree, a Character comes out a lot more if you involve canon into it, but there is going to far.
For example you Character that is the Daughter of a Goddess does not fit into the Pantheon of Golarion, as far as I am aware, and go ahead and point it out if I am wrong, there are no examples of Mortal Children of Gods in Golarion. If it was more like a Greek pantheon, sure it would fit.
There are examples of people claiming to be, but those a Boast and not actual truths, so as a GM, unless you could prove other wise, if you insisted on bringing it up in game, I would treat it as a Boast and not a reality.
Same with your second Example, You should stay away from being Direct descendants of Important NPCs. Distant relatives would be fine IMO.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Out of curiosity, how would people feel about a player who asserts that her character is the daughter of VC Adril Hestram?
Really, part of it goes to motivation.
Does the person want to tie their character deeply to the world? Does the player want to RP 'daddy issues'? That's fine. Does the player expect that having him as daddy will provide some kind of perk? Then I'd disappoint him.
At my table*, a character claiming (truthfully or not!) to being one of Hestram's offspring will get chuckles and maybe looks of pity. If I'm running adventure X** that says NPC Y has a frienship or rivalry with Hestram, then I'd likely colour the dialogue accordingly. The player can run with that or not. But that's the same as the Paracountess trying to tempt the paladin in the party, or the Silver Crusade leader looking askance at a Pathfinder following Zon Kuthon.***
*
**
***
|
As a PFS GM, I'd have to politely ignore your claims as a player, but I wouldn't have to do anything about it unless you pressed your claim in a way where it impacted on the running of the session. What I can't do is acknowledge any such claims to being a child of divinity. And NPC's won't do so either.
Exactly.
Just as another non-hypothetical example, I have a friend who plays a paladin of Aroden with intelligence and wisdom of 14. That's not 14 each. That's 14 combined, ie 7 int + 7 wis = 14. She dumped those stats to start with a 20 charisma and other good stats, and she plays the character as a gorgeous, dumb blonde bimbo. We jokingly refer to the character as Paladin Barbie.
The silliest part is that the character is absolutely convinced that Aroden is not only still alive, but also female!!! Whenever something bad happens and she survives it, she always exclaims "My goddess protects me!" It's pretty funny from a role playing perspective, once you realize what's going on, and everyone in our small local group is in on the joke.
But last month, we traveled to a big convention a few hours drive from home, and I was at the table with my friend playing that character twice with GMs who had no prior knowledge about the character. In fact, those two GMs were a venture captain and venture lieutenant. When they realized what the character was saying, one of them laughed, and the other just smirked. But neither GM said a word about it, and just let the player have her fun role playing her babbling bimbo character.
In this case, the player is intentionally playing a delusional character. But I think that's the best response for any off the wall back story: Don't let it affect the current session. If the player pushes the story in their role playing, then the NPCs will just roll their eyes and assume the person's insane. As long as the player doesn't try to get any in game advantage from their back story, it shouldn't really matter.
If the campaign setting matters, then I would imagine a modicum of enforcement/persuasion is important. Heck, if we used maybe 10% of the emphasis that is placed on rule enforcement and focused it on the setting, we would all be playing in a much more interesting and realized setting.
Approach the setting in a similar spirit that the rules are approached. No one is expected to know every rule, but be somewhat familar with what applies to their character. Likewise, no one is expected to know all of the Inner Sea, for example, just be familar with what applies to your character. Such a simple thing.