I like / don't like character fluff that's like X, because Y...


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

So there's another thread, and in an effort to not derail it specifically into talk where folks object or support certain fluff around PFS characters.

This is the thread to discuss/vent/etc your feelings about when a player brings a character who has fluff (aka a concept/backstory/picture) to a table you are about to GM.

Some of the examples from the root thread include:

NOTE: I'm not personally saying any of these things, they are merely examples.

* I don't like it when a character brings something silly, like eidolons who are named Nutsy the Squirrel or Fluffy the God of All Cute Things - they disrupt the seriousness and tone of the game.

* I don't like it a character makes up or invents lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo, because it's lazy and uncreative.

* I don't like it when someone plays a character clearly ripped from fiction, complete with name and picture - like a shield-hurling Captain America/Captain Andoran, Black Widow, Legolas, etc.

* I don't like it when a character has a background story that ties into the game world that isn't supported, like being a relative to Drendle Dreng, Aram Zay, Sheila Heidmarch, etc..

* I don't like it when a character includes references to another game/universe - like a witch's patron being an other world deity named Pelor, a support eidolon named (and based on) Kerrigan, Cthulhu, etc - these are copyrighten by another competing game company and show the player is too lazy to find something in Golarion to use.

* I don't like it when a character plays a witch/bard/oracle/etc that pretends to be a "cleric of X" where X is Fluffy / Pinky / Rock & Roll / The Church of Banjo /etc - not a valid deity in Additional Resources.

NOTE: I'm not personally saying any of these things, they are merely examples.

I suppose to further the conversation and enlighten (or warn players), you can even discuss when and if you'd strongly insist they rebuild their character to another concept and/or completely turn them away, refusing to GM for them because you feel so strongly about their character's fluff.

Or, if you've played a violator of the above (or later comments), share why you were turned away or pressured to rebuild your character.

5/5 5/55/5

Most of your examples I'm OK with as long as they don't get over-used.

The make up or invent things in the Paizo universe is OK by me as long as it doesn't override something in the universe and in some cases they end up being pretty creative.

One thing I don't like is players who have a concept tied to a modern day idea. For example a group of character who say they are a members of a heavy metal band.

5/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to add a character concept of any kind is preferable to a min-maxer who tries to exploit the rules.

The Character concept is in essence, I'm going to break the rules and here is how.

Scarab Sages

Now that you mentioned heavy metal, I have an idea many might be upset with...

I'm imagining swashbuckler/bards that are from pirate metal band Alestorm, whose band mythos say they travel through time...

Of course, were anyone upset, I'd happily play another character or remove the heavy metal part entirely and be a typical shanty pirate.

But back on topic:

Most of the time, I don't have a preference on any of things. I'd let them all fly, unless they bother another player or two at the table. Then I might ask you to reign it in a little to be nice to all present. But I've had the honor of playing at the Purple Fluffy Bunny Cat Gnome ' s table who does an excellent job with the cutesy and the not so cutesy.

Tl;dr: I don't have issues with anything non - offensive in a game, silly or otherwise.

Shadow Lodge

wakedown wrote:

* I don't like it when a character brings something silly, like eidolons who are named Nutsy the Squirrel or Fluffy the God of All Cute Things - they disrupt the seriousness and tone of the game.

Beware taking this too far. I made a character specificly because some forum members where saying an idea was too stupid/wrong/whatever because I felt they had a stick up their posterior. This is perfectly fair.

Spoiler:
It was my Summoner/Eidolon married couple, now with squire and herold vanities/children.

wakedown wrote:
* I don't like it a character makes up or invents lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo, because it's lazy and uncreative.

I think we should withhold judgement to see how they using/going off the implied, etc.

wakedown wrote:
* I don't like it when someone plays a character clearly ripped from fiction, complete with name and picture - like a shield-hurling Captain America/Captain Andoran, Black Widow, Legolas, etc.

Agreed.

wakedown wrote:
* I don't like it when a character has a background story that ties into the game world that isn't supported, like being a relative to Drendle Dreng, Aram Zay, Sheila Heidmarch, etc..

Disagree to an extent. I think tie ins that are unlikely to have many direct tie ins to an adventure are okay. I've had a characters that was inspired to become a pathfinder during her attendance of the only performance of Among the Living. Another who thanks any Pathfinder she meets who played "Night March of Kalkamendes" for 'helping her Uncle with that sleep walking problem'. She would probably avoid any adventure with her where Kalkmendes showed up again to avoid this problem.

Blackros family is big. Same with Dalsines and a few other such families. They are fairly fair game.

My (unplayed) Aasimar credit baby will not be played until her father retires. Until then she is his squire vanity.

It would be cool to have some fairly rare (as in Paizo/Gen con auction bait) boons where you can claim Aunt Sheila or Uncle Drendle as your real Aunt or Uncle and get some benefit. The most expensive I predict one would be the one to have Torch as your Daddy.

wakedown wrote:


* I don't like it when a character includes references to another game/universe - like a witch's patron being an other world deity named Pelor, a support eidolon named (and based on) Kerrigan, Cthulhu, etc - these are copyrighten by another competing game company and show the player is too lazy to find something in Golarion to use.

This is going a bit too far. I know a player whose Eidolon eats something suspicously like Skoobie snacks. A Bard who has been charged by Kurgess and Sheyln to bring an "art" to competitions (involves short skirts and dance/acrobatics). But as longs as the joke isn't taken too far it's okay.

wakedown wrote:
* I don't like it when a character plays a witch/bard/oracle/etc that pretends to be a "cleric of X" where X is Fluffy / Pinky / Rock & Roll / The Church of Banjo /etc - not a valid deity in Additional Resources.

Agreed.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find a lot of the examples you listed to be very jarring. My gut reaction is distaste. So what?

We all have thoughts on how the campaign world should look. But these are only opinions. Some people think it is totally cool to have an Iron Man knock-off in the game; others think that all dwarves should be alcoholic and speak with a Scottish accent (and if you are a dwarf who is neither alcoholic nor Scottish, then you are some kind of abomination). Neither of them are right, and both of them are.

Play what you want and have fun.

Shadow Lodge

I just want to reiterate the examples above were culled from another thread, and do not express my opinions.

I agree with The Fox on the "Play what you want and have fun" statement and at least personally have never turned away a player for any fluff reasons or pressured them to select a different concept because their fluff didn't taste right to me. I also haven't ever seen this done in person at 200+ PFS tables and counting despite quite a laundry list of outrageous characters.

(However, in full disclosure - I was told I would be turned away by GMs from the PFS forums if I showed up with a witch who claimed their patron was a fictitious deity, which is part of this thread's genesis.)

I have heard one example though from GMs who attended GenCon where I can say I would have strongly encouraged the player to consider a new idea for their eidolon (mostly because I doubt it would truly feel rewarding after 10 levels of play with 100+ other players). This character's eidolon was literally described and roleplayed as a giant "pile of poop".

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Out of curiosity, did the pile of poop say HIIIIIIIIDEE-HOOO!!!!! when summoned?

Shadow Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The pathfinder game is something of a generic fantasy rules set. Some people imagine it as serious drama, some as comedy, some as Conan the barbarian, some as Xena/Hercules, some as anime, some as heavy metal, etc... So one person comes to the table with Red Sonya, one with Afro Samurai, and one with Bilbo and they all glare at each other for ruining their game. With a home game you decide the genre as a group, often subconsciously, and so it works out better. For pfs, you can be annoyed that other players are playing a different genre, or you can relax and enjoy the hodgepodge for what it is.
The one thing that does annoy me in pfs is when you ask for player introductions and the response is "I'm a first level wizard." As long as the player has put some thought into their character, I'm happy.


Most of those I'd shoot down in non-PFS home game. In a public PFS game, I'd accept it, though I wouldn't be thrilled about it.

Your backstory is your backstory. Your name and the special effects of your abilities are your problem.
Don't try to get any advantage from being related to prominent NPC though. I'll shoot that down.

4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Washington—Seattle aka Gwen Smith

wakedown wrote:
However, in full disclosure - I was told I would be turned away by GMs from the PFS forums if I showed up with a witch who claimed their patron was a fictitious deity, which is part of this thread's genesis.

As I read the other thread, the general consensus was that you couldn't play a cleric/paladin/inquisitor with a fictitious deity, because that's actually against the rules. I thought the witch was suggested as a workaround, because witches aren't restricted to Golarion deities, and witches don't necessarily know who their patron is anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dorothy Lindman wrote:
wakedown wrote:
However, in full disclosure - I was told I would be turned away by GMs from the PFS forums if I showed up with a witch who claimed their patron was a fictitious deity, which is part of this thread's genesis.
As I read the other thread, the general consensus was that you couldn't play a cleric/paladin/inquisitor with a fictitious deity, because that's actually against the rules. I thought the witch was suggested as a workaround, because witches aren't restricted to Golarion deities, and witches don't necessarily know who their patron is anyway.

Assuming the deity actually came up in play and wasn't just a note on their character sheet, I'd probably have NPCs react to it as appropriate - which could be anywhere from "Never heard of Pelor" to "That's crazy, you worship a Banjo puppet!"

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerney wrote:
I made a character specificly because some forum members where saying an idea was too stupid/wrong/whatever because I felt they had a stick up their posterior.

Yep.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Damn. I think we have to make a third thread now: "I like/don't like complaints about character fluff that's like X, because Z..."

5/5 5/55/55/5

I don't like direct real world stuff because its verisimilitude breaking. My verisimilitude can stretch more than a fair bit to accommodate captain andor but captain america begs the question what the heck is an america?

Shadow Lodge

Dorothy Lindman wrote:
As I read the other thread, the general consensus was that you couldn't play a cleric/paladin/inquisitor with a fictitious deity, because that's actually against the rules. I thought the witch was suggested as a workaround, because witches aren't restricted to Golarion deities, and witches don't necessarily know who their patron is anyway.

The other thread didn't discuss cleric/paladin/inquisitor - that's crystal clear that said classes need to revere a single, legit deity.

It began win the context of a witch or oracle claiming their "deity" was something fictitious and quickly morphed into some folks turning away characters that didn't mesh with expectations due to too much make-believe or actual real world/other fantasy references.

That's what spawned this thread to separate the "I don't like and would refuse to GM" from the "That's not actually even allowed" points.

5/5 5/55/55/5

VAST difference between "I don't like" and the DM BAAAAN HAMMMER

Liberty's Edge 5/5

wakedown wrote:


* I don't like it a character makes up or invents lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo, because it's lazy and uncreative.

Completely misrepresenting what I said in the other thread.

Using existing lore and fleshing it out a bit more, such as create a small village where your character comes from next to a canon river in some canon country is fine.

Doing "world creation" type things is not ok. In other words, if a GM in a home game would have to approve of something you are creating, it likely is not ok for PFS.

There is a huge difference in world creation/development, which should be left to Paizo, and fleshing out your character's background.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

"I don't like it a character makes up or invents lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo, because it's lazy and uncreative."

Completely misrepresenting what I said in the other thread.

What you said looked and read as pretty clear to me, it was short and concise.

You said:

Andrew Christian wrote:
To flat out write your own lore is rude. Its like you are saying, "what's written isn't good enough." Save creation for your own home game.

and:

Andrew Christian wrote:
But creating a new Deity or bringing in another world's lore is lazy, not creative.

I read that as simply as it's stated - writing your own lore is rude, save it for home games. Creating a new deity or bringing in another world's lore is lazy, not creative.

If I misread you, then I'll admit I don't know your opinion here.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

wakedown wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

"I don't like it a character makes up or invents lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo, because it's lazy and uncreative."

Completely misrepresenting what I said in the other thread.

What you said looked and read as pretty clear to me, it was short and concise.

You said:

Andrew Christian wrote:
To flat out write your own lore is rude. Its like you are saying, "what's written isn't good enough." Save creation for your own home game.

and:

Andrew Christian wrote:
But creating a new Deity or bringing in another world's lore is lazy, not creative.

I read that as simply as it's stated - writing your own lore is rude, save it for home games. Creating a new deity or bringing in another world's lore is lazy, not creative.

If I misread you, then I'll admit I don't know your opinion here.

You left out my latest post in the other thread, as well as the meat of what I actually wrote above.

It really surprises me that you put fleshing out the minor details of a characters' background (village, river, family, etc.) on the same level as creating an entire new Deity.

One is world creation, and should be saved for Paizo. The other is creativity for the player at its best.

Its lazy to create your own deity, because Paizo has hundreds of options to choose from. It takes far more creativity and work to fit your concept inside what's been written, than try to force your pet concept into a world that doesn't support it.

If you want to worship a squirrel deity, find the closest thing that Paizo has published, research that, and worship that.

If you want to come from some backwater village from Nidal, then find a place on the map that isn't already fleshed out, put your village in (with enough ambiguity that if Paizo did eventually flesh that area out further, you could still make it work).

The point is, when playing in an organized campaign, you have a social contract to play in the same world as everyone else. And that means you can't just make your own cosmology up, because the currently one doesn't perfectly fit your ideas. You are not a world crafter in this campaign, so please stop getting offended with people say as much.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Except when we aren't allowed to play things that do exist in Golarion, because the GM is using a rule meant for something else entirely to prevent it.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
You left out my latest post in the other thread, as well as the meat of what I actually wrote above.

This thread spawned at 10AM PST this morning with the as-of-then posted summary of views. Your further comments didn't come until after 1PM PST, so at that stage you hadn't elaborated yet that inventing lore for a village was okay by you and I just had your fairly short and clear comments at the time (and again).

Andrew Christian wrote:

To flat out write your own lore is rude.

..
Its like you are saying, "what's written isn't good enough."
..
Its lazy to just create your own thing, because it takes less work and research to fit into existing lore.
..
But creating a new Deity or bringing in another world's lore is lazy, not creative.

As a reader, that read to me as ~ I don't like it a character makes up or invents lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo, because it's lazy and uncreative.

If that's not what you're saying, that's why we're exchanging posts so I can understand what you're saying.

Based on posts since then, you're saying there's a difference between inventing NPCs and villages as long as those NPCs aren't claimed to be deities/religions/patrons/oracle power sources (right?).

Where's the line exactly when it comes to players at your table? It appears it's somewhere between inventing a witch patron and inventing the mayor of a newly invented village. Does it stop at defining a patron/eidolon/oracle power source? Could a player at your table invent the lore of prior rulers of Sarkoris and build a story where that's their family, and they want to fight in the Worldwound for their prior home? Or does that go too far into inventing lore that it has become lazy/uncreative?

I honestly don't see a big difference between inventing a name and details for a witch's patron and inventing a village the witch was raised in along some river. To me, they're identical fluff that are both equally creative in defining and enabling roleplay for a PC.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

wakedown wrote:
I'd be interested (there, in that new thread) in understanding why you draw the line at a player inventing lore by way of a small village (aka Happytown) but are upset by someone who invents own lore for a witch patron, oracle's power source or eidolon and claiming it as a "deity" (aka Nutsy the Squirrel-God).

The first is fleshing out the minor details. These are things that the world will largely never have fully fleshed out, because Paizo doesn't have the time or manpower to detail every small village, stream, pond, bluff of trees in every single area of the world. Campaign setting books and APs can be very helpful in finding more granular details than the ISWG. For example, in Dragon's Demand, I'm playing the son of a minor Taldan Hedge Noble. When I saw the map of the area, there was an arrow pointing north to another village/town. I decided my guy was of the Blackthorns (my creation) of said village. It fit with why I was playing Dragon's Demand in campaign mode. Will Paizo ever flesh out that town? Who knows. Maybe. But that doesn't mean my family can't be from there and have some sort of minor nobility in most cases. Or picking a street and district in Absalom to have your Townhome vanity. Or choosing to create a particular heretical sect of Torag by choosing Separatist cleric archetype. You'd choose to be the only member. You could choose a small shrine in an obscure mountain range to have come from. You could even say that you are an underground sect working out of Molthune.

These are all options that the game has given you to work with, that you can flesh out in a personalized way specifically for your character. Doing so in such a way that it interrupts the created canonical lore of Golarion as little as possible. This takes a lot of research and a lot of work sometimes, to find the right story, the right creative way to wedge your concept into existing material. There are literally an unlimited number of options you can build from in the published material they have. Fleshing out minor areas, coming up with a family name and tying it to a village or town, even claiming parentage of an existing powerful NPC are not outside the realms of propriety. You are using the existing lore to create your uniqueness. You are taking your concept and finding a way to fit it into the existing canon. This takes time and effort.

Then you have what I am calling "world creation". This is the design phase of the world. This is the creation of the geopolitical circumstances. Geography, major rivers, countries, cities, cosmology, etc. This is what makes Golarion, Golarion. Who are the God's? What's the major cities? How does industry, trade, and import/export work? Where do the various races come in? Do they have their own countries or are they part of the human communities? What are the seasons, the days, the months, the years? What is the history of this world?

The Inner Sea World Guide and Inner Sea Gods gives a great overview, and each campaign setting book details things out to more and more granular levels. The various modules and APs to an even further granular level in most cases.

Creating a deity is akin to using your home game of Kingmaker's new country as the location where your PC comes from. Its like you are saying, "This huge and wealthy glut of lore isn't good enough, so I'm going to create my own thing." Instead of finding a way to fit your concept into what currently exists, which is ultimate creativity, you are simply saying, My idea is better than what exists, so I'm going to make everyone deal with my idea, whether it truly fits into Golarion lore or not. This is lazy. Because it doesn't take any more time than coming up with the concept. You aren't considering the world you are participating in simply because you want to use the purest form of your concept. That's lazy, presumptuous, and rude.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

wakedown wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
You left out my latest post in the other thread, as well as the meat of what I actually wrote above.

This thread spawned at 10AM PST this morning with the as-of-then posted summary of views. Your further comments didn't come until after 1PM PST, so at that stage you hadn't elaborated yet that inventing lore for a village was okay by you and I just had your fairly short and clear comments at the time (and again).

Andrew Christian wrote:

To flat out write your own lore is rude.

..
Its like you are saying, "what's written isn't good enough."
..
Its lazy to just create your own thing, because it takes less work and research to fit into existing lore.
..
But creating a new Deity or bringing in another world's lore is lazy, not creative.

As a reader, that read to me as ~ I don't like it a character makes up or invents lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo, because it's lazy and uncreative.

If that's not what you're saying, that's why we're exchanging posts so I can understand what you're saying.

Based on posts since then, you're saying there's a difference between inventing NPCs and villages as long as those NPCs aren't claimed to be deities/religions/patrons/oracle power sources (right?).

Where's the line exactly when it comes to players at your table? It appears it's somewhere between inventing a witch patron and inventing the mayor of a newly invented village. Does it stop at defining a patron/eidolon/oracle power source? Could a player at your table invent the lore of prior rulers of Sarkoris and build a story where that's their family, and they want to fight in the Worldwound for their prior home? Or does that go too far into inventing lore that it has become lazy/uncreative?

I honestly don't see a big difference between inventing a name and details for a witch's patron...

Where's the line? Good question. But easy to answer.

Are you creating something new that is meta to the world, or are you creating something new that's simply fleshing out the details of your character's background.

Creating a new Deity, witch Patron (outside the bounds of what Witch Patrons are and what already exist within Golarion that could be such), etc is meta.

As for Oracles, there is no question. They get their powers from either the mini-pantheon assigned to their mystery itself, or the concept of the mystery as it coincides with the influence of power(s) of the mini-pantheon. The point with Oracles, is you don't need to define where the powers come from, because they come from that mini-pantheon in some fashion.

Creating a witch patron? If you wanted to create some powerful entity that is or is near being divinity, then that's probably ok up to the point that it actually conflicts with the existing Cosmology of Golarion. Because these types of powerful creatures are the purview of a GM in a home campaign and thus the purview of Paizo in organized play.

The line is this:

If it typically is something you need to ok with your GM in a home game, because it may, or may not, come into play and have mechanical effect in the game itself, then its not ok for you to create that in PFS.

If its some obscure village or a building on some street in Absalom or whatever, and generally will never actually have a game mechanic effect during game play, then its ok in PFS.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Kalindlara wrote:
Except when we aren't allowed to play things that do exist in Golarion, because the GM is using a rule meant for something else entirely to prevent it.

That isn't what I'm referring to at all.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

And to answer your question, if a player brings a character like that to my table, I will typically roll my eyes, and play on. Especially at a convention. During play, I will also usually ignore all the nutty craziness that springs from this character choice that doesn't fit into Golarion. But I won't deny them playing that character. I just won't reward them by engaging in that aspect of their roleplay.

Now on the flip side, if you create a character that's from the dock district in Cassomir, and you can learn information specifically about that district, I may just give you the 10+ or 15+ info without a roll. Because you spent the time to engage your character in the lore of the world itself.

Shadow Lodge

Andrew Christian wrote:
.. lots of details ..

Thanks for detail.

I agree about players creating full-blown countries ("Yeah, the country of Blargledarg occupies a tiny sliver of the Stolen Lands, and that's where I'm from..."). Although, even then I'm not sure how much I'd object as I know at least one local PFS character from The Old Country (a character based on Rolf from Ed, Edd n Eddy) and I really don't object to some obscure Old Country as part of their backstory. I honestly think it's super creative. It would depend on how disruptive it is to the game more than the sheer fact they invented a "country"-like thing.

I disagree with you about players being lazy who create legit details for patrons/eidolons/oracle power sources. I'm usually impressed by creativity when I encounter a player whose patron is "The Dweller in the Darkness" (complete with some player invented mythos) or "Garzak the Hungerer" (same) or even "Nutsy the God of Squirrels." Usually the reason for this is because Rovagug didn't fit the bill in some way, which is a way you get to discover when you roleplay with them.

It's totally fine we disagree on this point, though. Your elaboration is definitely helpful on where you draw the line so that players in your region know the limits of their creative sandboxes.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't like direct real world stuff because its verisimilitude breaking. My verisimilitude can stretch more than a fair bit to accommodate captain andor but captain america begs the question what the heck is an america?

Well, there have been proven links between Earth and Golarion in APs. If characters can go from Irrisen to Russia, why not from America to Andoran?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This thread makes me sad. :(

Silver Crusade 5/5

maybe I shouldn't post here?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
And to answer your question, if a player brings a character like that to my table, I will typically roll my eyes, and play on. Especially at a convention. During play, I will also usually ignore all the nutty craziness that springs from this character choice that doesn't fit into Golarion. But I won't deny them playing that character. I just won't reward them by engaging in that aspect of their roleplay.

I think this is a perfectly appropriate stance. We can roll our eyes, sigh, groan, etc., but then we just need to let it go. The campaign is big enough for everyone.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:

* I don't like it when someone plays a character clearly ripped from fiction, complete with name and picture - like a shield-hurling Captain America/Captain Andoran, Black Widow, Legolas, etc.

I resemble that remark.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
This character's eidolon was literally described and roleplayed as a giant "pile of poop".

That reminds me of the time I convinced a summoner to give his Ape eidolon the Throw Anything feat. For obvious reasons.

Grand Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex McGuire wrote:
wakedown wrote:
This character's eidolon was literally described and roleplayed as a giant "pile of poop".
That reminds me of the time I convinced a summoner to give his Ape eidolon the Throw Anything feat. For obvious reasons.

Did it have a handy haversack full of barrels?

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't like direct real world stuff because its verisimilitude breaking. My verisimilitude can stretch more than a fair bit to accommodate captain andor but captain america begs the question what the heck is an america?

Well, there have been proven links between Earth and Golarion in APs. If characters can go from Irrisen to Russia, why not from America to Andoran?

If you do, remember that in Golarion as of PFS Season Six, that it is the year 1919 AD on Earth -- so nothing more modern than that actually exists yet.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Two quick points:

1) Claims that "Captain Andoran" doesn't fit the setting are more appropriately addressed to Paizo than to the player. The martial arts master who throws a ricocheting/returning shield *screams* Steve Rogers. Any character with that archetype will move and fight like Captain America, even if you desperately try to keep a straight face and call him a Blakros from Taldor. The archetype isn't based on some medieval fighting style, it's based on Captain America.

2) The setting is pretty kitchen-sink to start with. Complaining that the displaced traveler from another high fantasy D&D rules world breaks immersion sounds pretty strange coming from the 100% PFS legal gnome dragon disciple with a jetpack and a chainsaw. That gnome is even legal in the core campaign.

Golarion has people who look like 11th century crusaders alongside 17th century black-powder pirates; a whole nation styled after the Dracula stories of the 19th century living next to the Wooly Mammoths of pre-history. We're fine with Cthulhu, colonial big game safari hunters, androids, a guy who became a god while on a bender, dinosaurs, revolutionary France, giant robot spiders, and LITERAL RUSSIAN TANKS all sharing a setting.

Grand Lodge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*Ahem*

I would like to point out that the points that I made in the other thread were vastly misrepresented here. I stated that PFS, as a organization run by Paizo should not encourage the use of copyrighted materials from competitors without authorization, not that I disliked it or found it lazy. Bluntly this entire thread seems to be whining about how he was disagreed with in another thread.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
wakedown wrote:


* I don't like it a character makes up or invents lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo, because it's lazy and uncreative.

Completely misrepresenting what I said in the other thread.

Using existing lore and fleshing it out a bit more, such as create a small village where your character comes from next to a canon river in some canon country is fine.

Doing "world creation" type things is not ok. In other words, if a GM in a home game would have to approve of something you are creating, it likely is not ok for PFS.

There is a huge difference in world creation/development, which should be left to Paizo, and fleshing out your character's background.

There is another way in which Andrew Christian's statement was completely misrepresented. He did not say making up or inventing lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo was lazy and uncreative. He said that just taking a god from a completely different game world (and claiming that that is somehow creative) is lazy and uncreative.

OP: be fair.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
rknop wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
wakedown wrote:


* I don't like it a character makes up or invents lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo, because it's lazy and uncreative.

Completely misrepresenting what I said in the other thread.

Using existing lore and fleshing it out a bit more, such as create a small village where your character comes from next to a canon river in some canon country is fine.

Doing "world creation" type things is not ok. In other words, if a GM in a home game would have to approve of something you are creating, it likely is not ok for PFS.

There is a huge difference in world creation/development, which should be left to Paizo, and fleshing out your character's background.

There is another way in which Andrew Christian's statement was completely misrepresented. He did not say making up or inventing lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo was lazy and uncreative. He said that just taking a god from a completely different game world (and claiming that that is somehow creative) is lazy and uncreative.

OP: be fair.

"Its lazy to just create your own thing, because it takes less work and research to fit into existing lore."

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
Quintin Verassi wrote:

*Ahem*

I would like to point out that the points that I made in the other thread were vastly misrepresented here. I stated that PFS, as a organization run by Paizo should not encourage the use of copyrighted materials from competitors without authorization, not that I disliked it or found it lazy. Bluntly this entire thread seems to be whining about how he was disagreed with in another thread.

Gah. Not that again.

What was said in the other thread is that it might be copyright violation for a PFS player to bring in another company's stuff at a PFS game. This is quite simply wrong. Paizo (nor anybody else) can publish copyrighted stuff, or derivative works, without authorization (such as is given by the OGL for Pathfinder in the first palce, or something more individual). But copyright says absolutely nothing about what gamers sitting around a table playing a game can talk about. There's absolutely no copyright violation involved in playing a mash-up game that puts together elements of worlds with various copyright characters and places.

It's sad to me how the copyright maximalists have convinced so many people that copyright is the ultrapowerful speech control mechanism that they all want us to believe it is.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
rknop wrote:

There is another way in which Andrew Christian's statement was completely misrepresented. He did not say making up or inventing lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo was lazy and uncreative. He said that just taking a god from a completely different game world (and claiming that that is somehow creative) is lazy and uncreative.

OP: be fair.

"Its lazy to just create your own thing, because it takes less work and research to fit into existing lore."

Yeah, OK, you're right, I was wrong. Still, the soundbyte quote was quite a misrepresentation, and made Andrew's very reasonable argument sound idiotic.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Kalindlara wrote:
rknop wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
wakedown wrote:


* I don't like it a character makes up or invents lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo, because it's lazy and uncreative.

Completely misrepresenting what I said in the other thread.

Using existing lore and fleshing it out a bit more, such as create a small village where your character comes from next to a canon river in some canon country is fine.

Doing "world creation" type things is not ok. In other words, if a GM in a home game would have to approve of something you are creating, it likely is not ok for PFS.

There is a huge difference in world creation/development, which should be left to Paizo, and fleshing out your character's background.

There is another way in which Andrew Christian's statement was completely misrepresented. He did not say making up or inventing lore that isn't in a book printed by Paizo was lazy and uncreative. He said that just taking a god from a completely different game world (and claiming that that is somehow creative) is lazy and uncreative.

OP: be fair.

"Its lazy to just create your own thing, because it takes less work and research to fit into existing lore."

The whole quote from Andrew Christian was:

Andrew Christian wrote:

There is a huge difference between creativity and rudely ignoring the lore of the campaign you are actually playing in.

If you can find some lore to support your alternate idea, that's great and creative. To flat out write your own lore is rude. Its like you are saying, "what's written isn't good enough." Save creation for your own home game.

I find it much more creative the make something unique while using existing lore. Its lazy to just create your own thing, because it takes less work and research to fit into existing lore.

Yes, that last paragraph was poorly constructed, but the meaning is there: Creating your own thing that doesn't fit in with existing lore is lazy. It takes creativity to make your own, unique, thing and integrate it into the existing whole.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

That's why I linked it, rather than just quoting it. :)

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

2) The setting is pretty kitchen-sink to start with. Complaining that the displaced traveler from another high fantasy D&D rules world breaks immersion sounds pretty strange coming from the 100% PFS legal gnome dragon disciple with a jetpack and a chainsaw. That gnome is even legal in the core campaign.

Some people aren't happy with the jetpack and chainsaw either.

Scarab Sages

pH unbalanced wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't like direct real world stuff because its verisimilitude breaking. My verisimilitude can stretch more than a fair bit to accommodate captain andor but captain america begs the question what the heck is an america?

Well, there have been proven links between Earth and Golarion in APs. If characters can go from Irrisen to Russia, why not from America to Andoran?
If you do, remember that in Golarion as of PFS Season Six, that it is the year 1919 AD on Earth -- so nothing more modern than that actually exists yet.

Well the one portal that we know of is linked to 1919. There are many in universe ways to mess with time, it's not a stretch to have someone make a halfway layover in a reverse time plane.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Fesolateharmony, yeah sometimes trying to convey a complicated distinction from my phone creates a garbled paragraph construct.

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I don't like direct real world stuff because its verisimilitude breaking. My verisimilitude can stretch more than a fair bit to accommodate captain andor but captain america begs the question what the heck is an america?

Well, there have been proven links between Earth and Golarion in APs. If characters can go from Irrisen to Russia, why not from America to Andoran?
If you do, remember that in Golarion as of PFS Season Six, that it is the year 1919 AD on Earth -- so nothing more modern than that actually exists yet.
Well the one portal that we know of is linked to 1919. There are many in universe ways to mess with time, it's not a stretch to have someone make a halfway layover in a reverse time plane.

I'm not talking about time travel or interplanar travel. Earth and Golarion are both in different parts on the Prime Material Plane. It is currently the year 1919 AD -- that's canon.

I'm not aware of any in-universe time travel methods or what you mean by a reverse time plane. My lore knowledge is limited to Golarion-specific stuff. But if there are any, I'm pretty sure they couldn't be utilized by characters of PFS play levels. :)

My main point was really that if you are going to try and justify a character from Earth based on the Golarion lore of travel between the two places, that you should know that lore well enough to meet the parameters that have been established. Otherwise just go ahead and play Buck Rogers from the 25th century without trying to justify it.

Dark Archive

Legacy of the Stonelords:
The one time effect I have seen is the Sky Key, as seen used in the special. That is a major artifact producing a fantastically unstable and very temporary effect; time is not something easily manipulated.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville aka thaX

Ah.... my forte'

Let us see.

I have a character whose namesake may be his grandfather or grandson because senior is/was/will be a time mage and isn't/wasn't/will not be very good at it.

Another character is famous, you know, from the Puddles. (The Celebrity Archtype listed a population limit, so I had to focus down to a district instead of being from Absolam)

My sylph is from a land very far away and is completely out of her element in the human society. She has bought a Donkey to carry the stuff that would overburden her, and thinks his name is "Poor little Bugger" because that was what the merchant was saying while shaking his head as she walked away. She finds everything... "Interesting!"

I have a Tiefling Investigator (Rogue Archtype) that is now a Sleepless Detective that has set a goal in her life to make the Teifling race more accepted in human society.

My (grandfathered) first worlder Summoner is named Toad, with his Eidolon, Toad.

Two characters I have are the Daughter and Son of my Half-Orc Fighter weapon specialist. One was given away in a fail diplomancy check to a Copper Dragon. The other traveled around with the first character's Grandfather/Grandson and is three times older than Da. (He is an Oread)

I created a halfling that thinks he is a Goblin when the boon I should have gotten was not given as our table was scored on the wrong tier.

My first CORE character is the person that took care of him when he was brought into the orphanage after the raid on his Goblin tribe that raised him. Her nickname is "Ma," though she will never tell you this.

Ah, I could go on....

The best game I ran recently had two brothers playing dwarven Paladins "Hanz" and "Franz." They "Will Bible-Thump...*Clap* You up." They stayed in character the whole game.

Ah, good times...

Community Manager

Please dial back the accusatory tones—it's not helping the discussion. Also, please keep in mind that this thread is in the PFS forums, and responses should be geared with that in mind.

1 to 50 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / I like / don't like character fluff that's like X, because Y... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.