Adjule wrote: ClingClong wrote: What's default fluff as opposed to fluff? My guess is what he means by "default fluff" is what is printed in the CRB/PHB. Precisely. Default fluff is the published fluff, it's foundation material that gives substance to the rules in absence of individual creativity.
To use the earlier example I wrote in this thread, my favorite Paladin character wasn't a Paladin in-story at all.
He was a grizzled old war veteran who took it upon himself to try to do the best he could to make the best of this hellhole world he lived in. Protect the weak, uphold [steadily corroding] values of Honor and Charity, and bring waste to those who would corrupt or abuse the innocent.
Zero Paladin in his story. But he was a Paladin under the hood, gaining Paladin class features and spells and such as he progressively grew stronger, teetering near the edge of losing his Faith [in his own ideals] and thus losing access to the power he used in pursuit of those ideals.
ClingClong wrote: You keep sticking on this specific example for some reason. So I'll roll up my sleeves and dig into it with you.
I want to first expand the context. If you choose Paladin as your favoured class from the onset of the game, as your GM I would expect that this choice is explained by your backstory. Your backstory can't be "Because I want such and such a Paladin spell at level 6" or whatever mechanical explanation. I would expect you to imagine something up. I want to be reassured you have an understanding of the type of role you will be assuming in the months to come.
This backstory would explain your choice of Paladin as your character path.
I think this might be part of our disagreement.
I do not believe in 'character paths.' The character is...
... him or herself. The class is nothing more than a bag of rules used to make them work in the game.
If you WANT them to be a Paladin, that's fantastic. If you want something else that's more interesting? Even better.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
That's what I meant. phrases like "As reward for their (the paladins) righteousness, these holy champions are blessed with boons to aid them in their quests:"
This are base assumptions the game needs so that every player directly understands what a game element is about. Those assumptions are naturally not sacrosanct, but if you change them (like for your homebrewed setting), this should be explained to your players so as not to confuse them.
But just ignoring it because, as kyrt (I think) put it, "Fluff is there to be ignored", doesn't work for me.
edit:
kyrt-ryder wrote: To use the earlier example I wrote in this thread, my favorite Paladin character wasn't a Paladin in-story at all.
He was a grizzled old war veteran who took it upon himself to try to do the best he could to make the best of this hellhole world he lived in. Protect the weak, uphold [steadily corroding] values of Honor and Charity, and bring waste to those who would corrupt or abuse the innocent.
I may contradict what I just said before, but I think I would have loved to see that PC in action. Though I'd argue that you actually overwrote the official fluff on the paladin and replaced it by your own. And that is absolutely fine with me (and even awesome in my opinion).
kyrt-ryder wrote: ClingClong wrote: You keep sticking on this specific example for some reason. So I'll roll up my sleeves and dig into it with you.
I want to first expand the context. If you choose Paladin as your favoured class from the onset of the game, as your GM I would expect that this choice is explained by your backstory. Your backstory can't be "Because I want such and such a Paladin spell at level 6" or whatever mechanical explanation. I would expect you to imagine something up. I want to be reassured you have an understanding of the type of role you will be assuming in the months to come.
This backstory would explain your choice of Paladin as your character path.
I think this might be part of our disagreement.
I do not believe in 'character paths.' The character is...
... him or herself. The class is nothing more than a bag of rules used to make them work in the game.
If you WANT them to be a Paladin, that's fantastic. If you want something else that's more interesting? Even better. The character path is set not by class but by backstory. The class happens to be an element of the story. The word Paladin has a symbolic load that must be contended with. If you choose to oppose the symbolic fact that a Paladin is a certain type of being, you need that incorporated into your story. It has nothing to do with class, it has to do with semantics, culture and egregore.
I am describing this in academic-ish terms. To most this is easily intuited. Those who can't intuit this on at least an elementary level should play in games where I am not the GM. Or ask for help in learning this skill or accept the help when offered kindly.
To fail to understand this is, in my view, as egregious an error as mistaking a feat for a spell.
See, I've always seen classes as an invisible metagame thing. Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have.
kyrt-ryder wrote: See, I've always seen classes as an invisible metagame thing. Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. I know that's how you see it, to see it that way. I also am able to see other ways. And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: See, I've always seen classes as an invisible metagame thing. Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. I know that's how you see it, to see it that way. I also am able to see other ways. And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours. Do you have any idea how patronizing you sound?
kyrt-ryder wrote: Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. But just out of interest: Wouldn't you agree that getting different abilities (no matter where those are from) also influence the character's story (at least from the moment on where you get them)?
And to stay with the example, if you had already planned for taking a level in the oracle class at level 4, because you want to play an holy warrior in light armor, wouldn't that have probably influenced how you played this character from the start?
To be more precise: Would you simply have had your PC use heavy armor (because you could by playing a paladin) from level 1-3, only to throw it away to change to light armor at level 4, even if this would have gone against the very concept of the character you're actually trying to play?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: See, I've always seen classes as an invisible metagame thing. Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. I know that's how you see it, to see it that way. I also am able to see other ways. And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours. Could you highlight how a world where people walk around with their classes metaphorically float over their heads is a rich experience?
You've piqued my curiosity here. Maybe something like DotHack?
ClingClong wrote: And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours. I'd guess that kyrt already knows this other perspective from former experience and just decided to play from a different perspective because he has more fun this way.
necromental wrote: ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: See, I've always seen classes as an invisible metagame thing. Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. I know that's how you see it, to see it that way. I also am able to see other ways. And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours. Do you have any idea how patronizing you sound? I have an idea. I don't mean it that way. But I understand others may interpret it that way. So it goes...
kyrt-ryder wrote: ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: See, I've always seen classes as an invisible metagame thing. Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. I know that's how you see it, to see it that way. I also am able to see other ways. And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours. Could you highlight how a world where people walk around with their classes metaphorically float over their heads is a rich experience?
You've piqued my curiosity here. Maybe something like DotHack? I am not particularly inclined to do so. I made my argument, you made yours. You make your decisions, I make mine. You are at liberty to dismiss me as a fool. Full stop.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Could you highlight how a world where people walk around with their classes metaphorically float over their heads is a rich experience? World of Warcraft? :D
WormysQueue wrote: ClingClong wrote: And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours. I'd guess that kyrt already knows this other perspective from former experience and just decided to play from a different perspective because he has more fun this way. So be it.
ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: See, I've always seen classes as an invisible metagame thing. Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. I know that's how you see it, to see it that way. I also am able to see other ways. And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours. Could you highlight how a world where people walk around with their classes metaphorically float over their heads is a rich experience?
You've piqued my curiosity here. Maybe something like DotHack? I am not particularly inclined to do so. I made my argument, you made yours. You make your decisions, I make mine. You are at liberty to dismiss me as a fool. Full stop. If I were going to dismiss you a fool I would have done so. You got me curious about that sort of world in a Tabletop setting.
kyrt-ryder wrote: ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: See, I've always seen classes as an invisible metagame thing. Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. I know that's how you see it, to see it that way. I also am able to see other ways. And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours. Could you highlight how a world where people walk around with their classes metaphorically float over their heads is a rich experience?
You've piqued my curiosity here. Maybe something like DotHack? I love the immediate jump to the worst, silliest example. Can you really not imagine anything in between "classes as an invisible metagame thing" and "classes metaphorically float over their heads"?
One example would be Earthdawn. Earthdawn deliberately built a lot of mechanics and general rpg tropes into the setting. Classes (and levels) were actually a known thing in the world, along with the difference between Adepts (PC classed people) and normal people (with NPC classes). There were different rituals for different classes and ways to contact spirits of past teachers of your class's path for training.
Not how I'd normally structure a game, but definitely a neat way to tie mechanics and setting together.
WormysQueue wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. But just out of interest: Wouldn't you agree that getting different abilities (no matter where those are from) also influence the character's story (at least from the moment on where you get them)? Absolutely. The abilities play a significant role in how the story is shaped.
Quote: And to stay with the example, if you had already planned for taking a level in the oracle class at level 4, because you want to play an holy warrior in light armor, wouldn't that have probably influenced how you played this character from the start? If I wanted to play a Holy Warrior in light armor then I would do so from the start, using whatever classes I saw fit.
Quote: To be more precise: Would you simply have had your PC use heavy armor (because you could by playing a paladin) from level 1-3, only to throw it away to change to light armor at level 4, even if this would have gone against the very concept of the character you're actually trying to play? Oracle doesn't have any prohibitions against heavy armor. Either it would have been Light [or Medium] Armor from Day One, or it would have been Heavy from Day One.
thejeff wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: See, I've always seen classes as an invisible metagame thing. Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. I know that's how you see it, to see it that way. I also am able to see other ways. And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours. Could you highlight how a world where people walk around with their classes metaphorically float over their heads is a rich experience?
You've piqued my curiosity here. Maybe something like DotHack? I love the immediate jump to the worst, silliest example. That was the sincere vibe I was getting from what I was being told, I could have been mistaken. [He didn't dispute that comment though.]
Quote: Can you really not imagine anything in between "classes as an invisible metagame thing" and "classes metaphorically float over their heads"? At first I was going to answer 'yes, of course I can' but as I gave this question some deep and serious thought... I'm not so sure anymore. When characters are defined by their classes it tends to become a fairly all-or-nothing-thing in-setting, where the expectations are very clear cut [though expectations can be defied intentionally.]
Quote: One example would be Earthdawn. Earthdawn deliberately built a lot of mechanics and general rpg tropes into the setting. Classes (and levels) were actually a known thing in the world, along with the difference between Adepts (PC classed people) and normal people (with NPC classes). There were different rituals for different classes and ways to contact spirits of past teachers of your class's path for training.
Not how I'd normally structure a game, but definitely a neat way to tie mechanics and setting together.
Yeah, that's a totally different game and works well for what it is.
You probably should have an in-setting reason for taking a new class, though some are really easy to justify. Oracle is one of those, since it represents a deity deciding you should have such power, not anything you actually do yourself.
The answer to 'How are you an Oracle?' regardless of your number of levels in that Class, is always 'I don't know. I guess a God likes me.'
Well, unless you have Commune, anyway.
The Sideromancer wrote: A being, given sufficient time and resources, could experimentally determine much of the PF ruleset. Hence, a perfectly reasonable in-universe explanation for Pally X oracle 1 is "I ask [deity] how to leverage my strong personality over my weaker body, they ask [probably Nethys] for how that works, I accepted the drawbacks of this method, and now I have Cha to Reflex." This assumes you can choose to become an Oracle, or that Gods give you such things on request. Neither seems likely given how Oracles seem to work.
You could absolutely do this with many other Classes that actually represent training of some sort like Monk or Wizard, though.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Oracle doesn't have any prohibitions against heavy armor. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that, I was referring to an argument made earlier in this thread about the sidestep secret revelation of the lore oracle.
Still thanks for the answers. I think that in the heat of the moment, we sometimes forget, that with all the differences, we also have things in common, so that's what I was hoping for with those questions.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Deadmanwalking wrote: You probably should have an in-setting reason for taking a new class, though some are really easy to justify. Oracle is one of those, since it represents a deity deciding you should have such power, not anything you actually do yourself. In some cases, it really does come down to "My character isn't doing anything different taking this class. It's just that this combination of classes & levels best reflects her approach and abilities and since PF is a system where such things come in discrete class/level packages I have to take them in such lumps. I can't take 80%paladin/20%oracle at each level, I have to take 4 100% paladin levels and then 1 100% oracle levels to get to the same point."
Paladin/Oracle would actually work well conceptually as such a character - a paladin a little more directly chosen and blessed by her god than normal, for example.
Deadmanwalking wrote: The answer to 'How are you an Oracle?' regardless of your number of levels in that Class, is always 'I don't know. I guess a God likes me.'
Well, unless you have Commune, anyway.
The Sideromancer wrote: A being, given sufficient time and resources, could experimentally determine much of the PF ruleset. Hence, a perfectly reasonable in-universe explanation for Pally X oracle 1 is "I ask [deity] how to leverage my strong personality over my weaker body, they ask [probably Nethys] for how that works, I accepted the drawbacks of this method, and now I have Cha to Reflex." This assumes you can choose to become an Oracle, or that Gods give you such things on request. Neither seems likely given how Oracles seem to work.
You could absolutely do this with many other Classes that actually represent training of some sort like Monk or Wizard, though.
I've long wanted to play an Oracle who isn't devout, didn't ask for it and frankly wishes the god would mind his own damn business instead of sticking me with this job.
thejeff wrote: In some cases, it really does come down to "My character isn't doing anything different taking this class. It's just that this combination of classes & levels best reflects her approach and abilities and since PF is a system where such things come in discrete class/level packages I have to take them in such lumps. I can't take 80%paladin/20%oracle at each level, I have to take 4 100% paladin levels and then 1 100% oracle levels to get to the same point."
Paladin/Oracle would actually work well conceptually as such a character - a paladin a little more directly chosen and blessed by her god than normal, for example.
Oh, absolutely. But that's an in-setting reason of exactly the sort I'm talking about. Like, you can take a level of Wizard or Fighter by nothing but studying/training hard...but that too is an in-setting justification, specifically the fact that you've been training/studying.
thejeff wrote: I've long wanted to play an Oracle who isn't devout, didn't ask for it and frankly wishes the god would mind his own damn business instead of sticking me with this job. Absolutely! Could be super fun.
kyrt-ryder wrote: ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: See, I've always seen classes as an invisible metagame thing. Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. I know that's how you see it, to see it that way. I also am able to see other ways. And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours. Could you highlight how a world where people walk around with their classes metaphorically float over their heads is a rich experience?
You've piqued my curiosity here. Maybe something like DotHack? I am not particularly inclined to do so. I made my argument, you made yours. You make your decisions, I make mine. You are at liberty to dismiss me as a fool. Full stop. If I were going to dismiss you a fool I would have done so. You got me curious about that sort of world in a Tabletop setting. Ok, I will believe you and hope that you are not trolling and baiting me. We shall see if my hope was misplaced.
I will do my best to explain to you the way I see it.
I mean no offence when I say the following. I say it out of a degree of respect: You appear stuck in a literal thinking rut. The materials of the game, rules, mechanics, classes and so forth are there for you to springboard into the realm of the imagination.
To quote Grant Morrison: "Metaphor is one of a group of problem-solving medicines known as figures of speech which are normally used to treat literal thinking and other diseases."
Now I'll quote the Pathfinder core rulebook on page 9 in the "getting started" section. : "The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is a tabletop fantasy game (...) Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game." And: "The Most Important Rule - The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. (...) Remember that these rules are yours."
I mean, they put that there for a reason. It is a statement of intent. Because they know that allowing yourself to look at the game from this perspective opens doors to a rich experience. I would hope that gamers are at least giving this point of view a fair shake before dismissing it.
When I say, your class informs your character, a person capable of symbolic thinking should understand this intuitively. But I will try to outline my mode of thinking in a blow by blow kind of way.
Let me zoom out to describe the big picture as I see it. To proceed any further in describing my perspective one must accept the premise that the imagination is important. That it is a valid part of the human experience. That is has a potency which affects our lives in a real way. I would point out as evidence of this countless men who killed and died on war fields in the name of imaginary beings. I would point out the effect works of fiction has on our mode of thinking. Its ability to generate economic growth. Every innovation of mankind starts in the imagination. We have jet planes because we imagined we could fly. In my view, imagination is as fundamental to reality as gravity. And it is equally incomprehensible despite its ubiquitousness.
If I lost you here, drop out. Because the rest of my perspective hinges on this point. It is not a point from which I am willing to budge. All attempts to move me from this position will fail for I have arrived to it only through tremendous effort and pain. I certainly would not ask you to adopt this viewpoint as Truth for there would be no greater sin. I simply request that you recognize it as a valid viewpoint, in a sea of others.
Now that we got that laid out let's scale down and bring it back to game level. The "fluff" is not fluff at all. It is the material with which the fabric of Golarion's reality is made. To draw an analogy between our world and Golarion, the rules of the game are like the laws of physics in our world. That's why I like the term mechanics for the rules. The rules, define the parameters of the imaginary. It truncates infinite possibility into a form that is digestible, usable, comprehensible. The fluff (I have literal hate for that descriptor by the way) has a similar function. Just as physics can not explain all of what you experience as a human being, so do the rules fall short of your experience as a PC in Golarion. The map is not the territory.
Now drilling down further still. What is a favoured class in Golarion? The way I see it is that class is the tendency your character has in life. Think of your character as an actual person in the world. Because, operating on the opening premise, she is. PC and NPC characters have affected my life more than that random stranger on the street whom I will never again see. So who is more real to me if we're measuring realness by effect on my life? The Tengu fighter I spent 9 months interacting with? Or the person who sat next to me on the bus for 28 seconds yesterday?
Just as in our world certain types of people have certain tendencies, so does your character have a certain path laid out ahead of her.
Let me use an example to clarify. How many friends do you know who are the artist type? How many are more of an academic bent? Why are colleges socially divide roughly along intellectual lines? The engineers as a group are in many ways not like those who study the humanities. There is a tendency to these things. A person pursuing a career as an artist will make many decisions that are very different than an engineer's decisions. They will gain different skills. They will encounter different people. They will become different people. Same goes for race. I will have a very different default outlook than a person born asian. That is the tendency of things we observe in the world.
So in a similar way, a Paladin has a tendency. And that is what the rulebook describes when it describes the general direction a Paladin will take. The abilities available to the Paladin as she levels up are representative of a more or less typical Paladin's career path. In the same manner that an artist in our world lives a life that generally resembles that of an artist.
Yes there are exceptions. We could list them all day, and there is generally an interesting reason for this. If you encounter a glassblower with a masters in medicine, would you not be intrigued what is behind this incongruity? Yes, because that is what makes that person that person and not another person.
So now, your Paladin takes a level in Oracle. Why?! What makes that person, that person. I want to know! Show me your imagination!
If you played in my game and wanted to play a character who does not conform to any class tendency, I would get excited and I would ask, why? Because it's an opportunity to tell a story. An opportunity to make the world more alive! To make it richer! But if you just state mechanical reasons... well, I think you can see why I would not consider this to be a particularly rich thing.
Why anyone would pass up something so fascinating and beautiful is beyond me. When I sit at the gaming table with my friends and they offer a piece of their imagination to me... that experience is beyond words. If my friends each offered me 1000$ or an opportunity for me to see a bit of their heart and soul in the imaginary world, I would gladly take the latter without hesitation. I'd rather feel alive and connected to others.
I will dig up and update a comment I made in a different thread: "In my view, pathfinder and ilk are the only non-elite forums where individuals can bond via the imagination. It is very important to me for this reason. I think we lost touch with what makes us human when we stopped telling stories around a fire. DnD, pathfinder, etc... are the only modern equivalent.
There are other such forums but the price of admission is years of dedication. Such as being a musician in a group for instance.
But tabletop roleplay is available to a wide range of societal strata. This is my favourite thing about the game. I can bond with friends via the imagination. They express themselves in their play style, the ideas they come up with for characters, the choices they make that affect the world we created together, I can see their heart and their deep self when I see their imagination. Why ever would anyone pass on this amazing thing is beyond my understanding. Why would you not want to expand your perspective? I have previously had a reductionistic approach to life, it does not compare. I can understand why one would want to do that. Maybe your parents taught you to be afraid of change, maybe you were raised in a strict religious household. I'm drawing up those examples because they both happened to me. But I broke out of that. And boy am I glad I stepped out of my comfort zone! I want my friends to have that too if they don't already.
For me TTRPGs are a platform where we can explore what it means to be alive in the world of the imagination. It is a reminder of the true power we all wield, to transform the world around us. It is the reflection of a world that is not purely mechanical, but also alive!"
I will top it all off with a link to a TEDx talk on the topic of DnD.
And that's why as your GM, I would insist that you imagine an in-world reason behind your Paladin's Oracle level.
Go ahead and disagree. It may not be a worldview that suits you well. But at the very least I think it deserves to be acknowledged as a coherent and valid point of view.
WormysQueue wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Oracle doesn't have any prohibitions against heavy armor. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that, I was referring to an argument made earlier in this thread about the sidestep secret revelation of the lore oracle.
Still thanks for the answers. I think that in the heat of the moment, we sometimes forget, that with all the differences, we also have things in common, so that's what I was hoping for with those questions. Yeah, that revelation would only be compatible with a Light Armor Holy Warrior.
Though there might be times a character might change his methodologies for some reason.
Heck, the aforementioned Vet [Paladin] didn't dump his medium armor until he failed to save a child. Then the cheap Bastard finally shelled out for a Mithral Breastplate.
The only problem I have with the above post is the example, because in-world, per the way that Class works, nobody decides to be an Oracle. That's something decided for them.
Deadmanwalking wrote: The only problem I have with the above post is the example, because in-world, per the way that Class works, nobody decides to be an Oracle. That's something decided for them. If you're referring to shifting away from heavier armor, there are dozens of reasons one might do that.
Or the character might not use heavy armor from the start. [Frankly, I can count on one hand the number of characters I've played that used Heavy Armor, and half of them were dwarves.]
Regarding the whole 'nobody decides that they want to be an Oracle'... you're right. Nobody decides they want to be an Oracle...
... but there could be thousands of reasons that a Person might gain abilities that are encapsulated in the oracle Class.
Frankly when I look at the Oracle I see a whole lot of 'Cursed With Awesome' plotlines where someone goes through trauma of some sort and winds up simultaneously disabled in some way but awakens new powers.
Deadmanwalking wrote: The only problem I have with the above post is the example, because in-world, per the way that Class works, nobody decides to be an Oracle. That's something decided for them. Well then that can provide the opportunity for the player to discuss with the DM why their character was chosen to be a vessel that divine, to be an oracle. The player can then decide how they character reacts and handles being so chosen. Maybe they consider it with honor, accepting without hesitation order out.
Yet perhaps on the other hand they find themself with doubt or uncertainy. That they may even have confusion or maybe even push back against such a decision made by the deity who chose them. Then there's even the question of which deity chose them and for what purpose.
This can then be woven into the character's overall path and decision of being a paladin, as well consideration of whether or not to continue on the path of oracle or continue that of a divine warrior.
What can make things even more interesting with this consideration is that the paladin, in finding out who chose them, realizes that this could actually potentially conflict with the path they wish to follow. One scenario that I think could lead to many great opportunities for a great roleplay is a paladin chosen as an oracle by an evil deity for an unknown purpose.
Really, there is a richness in consideraction of multiclassing and even archetypes other than simply the mechanics. If a player is willing to take the time and effort to bring this into their thoughts as they play their character, as they continue playing the campaign, it could allow for something truly grand fun other than simply numbers or dice rolls.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Now days I'm more worried about rule playing than roll playing
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Deadmanwalking wrote: The only problem I have with the above post is the example, because in-world, per the way that Class works, nobody decides to be an Oracle. That's something decided for them. Of course that's just fluff, right?
Completely malleable if you just want the mechanics without any of the in-world trappings.
ClingClong wrote: I would point out as evidence of this countless men who killed and died on war fields in the name of imaginary beings. Which, when you describe it that way, makes it seems very pointless and silly, doesn't it?
ClingClong wrote: Now that we got that laid out let's scale down and bring it back to game level. The "fluff" is not fluff at all. It is the material with which the fabric of Golarion's reality is made. Wait... you just lost me. People adhering maniacally to imaginary stuff leads them to pointlessly die IRL, so we should encourage and, indeed, enforce it in a game, too?
Hopefully that's not where you were headed. I'll try and develop the courage to read paragraphs 75-116 of your post and see if I'm misunderstanding.
My previous comment was an example of "I want Cha for reflex" being, more or less, an in-universe concern as well as an ooc descision.
Deadmanwalking wrote: The only problem I have with the above post is the example, because in-world, per the way that Class works, nobody decides to be an Oracle. That's something decided for them. You say that, but I could easily see a character that might not work that way. For example, let' say that we have a devout worshipper of Iomedae who one day sees his town invaded by orcs. He makes a vow to his goddess that he will never tell a lie if she will grant him the power to save his home.
Mechanically, he would be an Oracle with the Battle Mystery and the Legalistic Curse. In-universe, though? He totally asked for those powers, and his goddess answered!
thejeff wrote: Deadmanwalking wrote: You probably should have an in-setting reason for taking a new class, though some are really easy to justify. Oracle is one of those, since it represents a deity deciding you should have such power, not anything you actually do yourself. In some cases, it really does come down to "My character isn't doing anything different taking this class. It's just that this combination of classes & levels best reflects her approach and abilities and since PF is a system where such things come in discrete class/level packages I have to take them in such lumps. I can't take 80%paladin/20%oracle at each level, I have to take 4 100% paladin levels and then 1 100% oracle levels to get to the same point."
Paladin/Oracle would actually work well conceptually as such a character - a paladin a little more directly chosen and blessed by her god than normal, for example.
Deadmanwalking wrote: The answer to 'How are you an Oracle?' regardless of your number of levels in that Class, is always 'I don't know. I guess a God likes me.'
Well, unless you have Commune, anyway.
The Sideromancer wrote: A being, given sufficient time and resources, could experimentally determine much of the PF ruleset. Hence, a perfectly reasonable in-universe explanation for Pally X oracle 1 is "I ask [deity] how to leverage my strong personality over my weaker body, they ask [probably Nethys] for how that works, I accepted the drawbacks of this method, and now I have Cha to Reflex." This assumes you can choose to become an Oracle, or that Gods give you such things on request. Neither seems likely given how Oracles seem to work.
You could absolutely do this with many other Classes that actually represent training of some sort like Monk or Wizard, though.
I've long wanted to play an Oracle who isn't devout, didn't ask for it and frankly wishes the god would mind his own damn business instead of sticking me with this job.
To go all the way and combine with another thread: how about an atheist who becomes an oracle
?
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
you going and making me have to break this up
ClingClong wrote: Bandw2 wrote:
but here's the point, that's like asking "why do you have paladin levels?" "because I want to be good at fighting demons"
We all understand your point dangit! :P
You keep sticking on this specific example for some reason. So I'll roll up my sleeves and dig into it with you. in the rest of the passage i removed paladin levels from the equation.
ClingClong wrote: I want to first expand the context. If you choose Paladin as your favoured class from the onset of the game, as your GM I would expect that this choice is explained by your backstory. Your backstory can't be "Because I want such and such a Paladin spell at level 6" or whatever mechanical explanation. I would expect you to imagine something up. I want to be reassured you have an understanding of the type of role you will be assuming in the months to come.
This backstory would explain your choice of Paladin as your character path.
When your character deviates from his Paladin-y path and suddenly learns oracular things, I want there to be an imaginary reason for this. Otherwise, you are making no contribution to the game world.
but my character never was a paladin in-game, like i said, he's just really good at fighting demons.
ClingClong wrote: As your GM, I would feel you are wasting an opportunity to collaborate with the rest of the group. and I feel like you're forcing me to waste my time with something I don't think is important for the story.
ClingClong wrote: It is entirely a semantic thing. Because the new abilities your character possess are called something different thing than what your favoured class has been called for several months, this begs for an imaginary explanation. There is no rule in the book requiring you to do so. If you need rules to make decisions then I would make a house rule that says something to the effect "changes in character must be driven by character narrative at the discretion of your GM". Something like that. it's not a change in character, my character gained more levels; asking me why? you told us we leveled up. asking me to provide a reason is changing the character, nothing I was my character to do, he's still just joe bob demon slayer.
ClingClong wrote: If again you would insist on simply saying you are taking a level in oracle for a mechanical reason I would encourage you to find an imaginary/narrative explanation for it. As a GM I put a lot of effort creating an imaginary platform for an imaginary adventure. The players I play with put forth an effort to contribute. I also put a lot of effort understanding the mechanics, so... like i said, if you told me this, I'd just point out that I haven't given any more decent explanation for any of the previous stuff. classes are purely mechanical in nature, if you want me to choose classes without consulting their mechanics I'd have to roll for them or flip to random pages until i found a class page.
which is what i'd probably start doing after that. he'd be an unmitigated disaster but there he is, me choosing class levels without care for mechanics.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote: Bandw2 wrote: "it's not important to my character's story, she gained these powers the same way she would have gained paladin powers, which i'm purposefully leaving open." I already read this the first time. And here's the thing: By default, oracles don't get their powers the same way paladins do. You might not care about default, but I do. That does not mean that we can't deviate from default, but it means that I expect an explanation for this deviation, no matter if you think it's important for your character's story or not. To me it matters, and if we can't find common ground on that, it's probably reason enough not to partake in the same game.
But just not to be misunderstood: That has nothing to do with the thread topic. You're character might still be awesome, as might your roleplaying skills. It's just that our outlook on the game might be way to different to have fun together. so what, I can't play a barbarian as a black knight at your table? there's no explained deviation other than "he's not actually an oracle, he's just a unique version of a paladin.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
"I don't believe in any gods...
"well one of them believes in you AND has a sick sense of humor about it...
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. But just out of interest: Wouldn't you agree that getting different abilities (no matter where those are from) also influence the character's story (at least from the moment on where you get them)?
And to stay with the example, if you had already planned for taking a level in the oracle class at level 4, because you want to play an holy warrior in light armor, wouldn't that have probably influenced how you played this character from the start?
To be more precise: Would you simply have had your PC use heavy armor (because you could by playing a paladin) from level 1-3, only to throw it away to change to light armor at level 4, even if this would have gone against the very concept of the character you're actually trying to play? yeah because my faith wasn't strong enough yet/my character hadn't fully conceptualized how fighting without armor could benefit him yet/ to protect me like fullplate does.
as a player i decided he was going to end up in lighter armor, but my character himself is no fool and would have worn armor until something clicked at 4rth level.
like seriously my character would be as aware of the power of full plate as anyone else, and only would forgo it when his skills permit him to do so safely.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: ClingClong wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: See, I've always seen classes as an invisible metagame thing. Your list of classes doesn't have to make one lick of difference to your character's story aside from informing what abilities they have. I know that's how you see it, to see it that way. I also am able to see other ways. And I think you are missing out on a richness of experience available to those willing/able to look at it from a perspective different to yours. Could you highlight how a world where people walk around with their classes metaphorically float over their heads is a rich experience?
You've piqued my curiosity here. Maybe something like DotHack? I am not particularly inclined to do so. I made my argument, you made yours. You make your decisions, I make mine. You are at liberty to dismiss me as a fool. Full stop. i refuse to not completely grasp your idea. I want to understand what you believe is gained from people being strictly their classes. no sarcasm.
BigNorseWolf wrote: "I don't believe in any gods...
"well one of them believes in you AND has a sick sense of humor about it...
'Seriously, when I find out which one of you fake gods pulled this on me, why I'm gonna ..."
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: "I don't believe in any gods...
"well one of them believes in you AND has a sick sense of humor about it...
'Seriously, when I find out which one of you fake gods pulled this on me, why I'm gonna ..." just because you don't understand a phenomenon does not mean it's not a perfectly natural state for the universe.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote: The only problem I have with the above post is the example, because in-world, per the way that Class works, nobody decides to be an Oracle. That's something decided for them. I don't understand, the paladin decided his faith was stronger than steel and so shed off her armor, and it worked.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
ClingClong wrote:
Ok, I will believe you and hope that you are not trolling and baiting me. We shall see if my hope was misplaced.
I will do my best to explain to you the way I see it.
...stuff... hmm it seems to me you're more reliant on the literalness of the class.
I'm trying to say a guy with class levels isn't always literally a paladin, sometimes he's just a guy who has smite evil, and is lawful good.
a class CAN inform you, or you can choose to drop it, if you find it isn't useful for you.
Bandw2 wrote: I don't understand, the paladin decided his faith was stronger than steel and so shed off her armor, and it worked. That isn't how oracles or multiclassing work! Stop being difficult and end your stubbornness. Classes, in some form or another, are a thing.
Classes are not simply mechanics but have actual narrative and in game substance. You can't simply have it that a character just so happens to have the features of another class and have it be something that just clicked or happened suddenly.
What of the curse, how do you explain that? You can't simply have the character suddenly have Sidestep Secret without any of the extra narrative detail that comes with being an Oracle.
Maybe multiclassing fighter you could try getting away with it but even then this represent an in character decision to focus more on combat. In learning about weapons and armor than before.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
JonathonWilder wrote: Bandw2 wrote: I don't understand, the paladin decided his faith was stronger than steel and so shed off her armor, and it worked. That isn't how oracles or multiclassing work! Stop being difficult and end your stubbornness. Classes, in some form or another, are a thing.
Classes are not simply mechanics but have actual narrative and in game substance. You can't simply have it that a character just so happens to have the features of another class and have it be something that just clicked or happened suddenly.
What of the curse, how do you explain that? You can't simply have the character suddenly have Sidestep Secret without any of the extra narrative detail that comes with being an Oracle.
Maybe multiclassing fighter you could try getting away with it but even then this represent an in character decision to focus more on combat. In learning about weapons and armor than before. you don't want me to bring up NPCs do you?
like
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/npc-s/npc-3/pirate-officer-half-elf-bard-4
I explained this all ealier.
curse = tongues and celestial during combat with you constantly shouting words of encouragement and hatred upon evil to keep yourself in the zeal.
anything else?
my story seems way more likely than some dude being picked by god randomly.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
JonathonWilder wrote: Stop being difficult and end your stubbornness. Your argument isn't nearly good enough to declare that someone not agreeing with you is out of stubborness, not the glaring problems with your argument.
Quote: Classes, in some form or another, are a thing. Classes are not simply mechanics but have actual narrative and in game substance. They do not have to.
Being a paladin means something in world. being a druid means something. Many of the others do not. You would be hard pressed to tell a fighter in light armor from a ranger, or a heavy armor wearing barbarian from a fighter.
Classes are an out of game abstraction for what your character does. Most of them are even not an in world term.
Quote: You can't simply have it that a character just so happens to have the features of another class and have it be something that just clicked or happened suddenly. That is in fact how an oracle works. Or a sorcerer.
Quote: What of the curse, how do you explain that? You can't simply have the character suddenly have Sidestep Secret without any of the extra narrative detail that comes with being an Oracle. You can have a lightningbolt strike out of the sky or have a vision of the deity on the road faster than you can say "you're putting a skill rank into what?"
Quote: Maybe multiclassing fighter you could try getting away with it but even then this represent an in character decision to focus more on combat. In learning about weapons and armor than before. You can usually manage to explain your multiclassing shenanigans with an in story decision with a little creativity.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
JonathonWilder wrote: Bandw2 wrote: I don't understand, the paladin decided his faith was stronger than steel and so shed off her armor, and it worked. That isn't how oracles or multiclassing work! Stop being difficult and end your stubbornness. Classes, in some form or another, are a thing.
Classes are not simply mechanics but have actual narrative and in game substance. Optional narrative and in-game substance.
Personally I find characters far richer and more *real* when the classes are kept under the hood.
Quote: You can't simply have it that a character just so happens to have the features of another class and have it be something that just clicked or happened suddenly. You're missing the point Jon. You don't 'so happen to have the features of another class' because you don't have a class to begin with. You have a person.
A living, breathing fictional person with skills and powers that are all their own.
Quote: What of the curse, how do you explain that? You can't simply have the character suddenly have Sidestep Secret without any of the extra narrative detail that comes with being an Oracle. Sure you can. He explained one option. Haunted is a klutz. Blackened experienced horrible burns. Clouded Vision gets permanent damage to their eyes.
I could go on all night. Now yes, these conditions could theoretically be repaired by mid-level magic but they're tied to the powers. Heal them, lose your special powers you acquired as a result of the experience. It would be like healing Zatoichi's eyes.
I ran a vigilante as a ranger. No one knew the difference until I told them.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
TriOmegaZero wrote: I ran a vigilante as a ranger. No one knew the difference until I told them. Hippy (very into herbs and mushrooms) was my favorite druid I ever played.
Using the Bard class.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
kyrt-ryder wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: I ran a vigilante as a ranger. No one knew the difference until I told them. Hippy (very into herbs and mushrooms) was my favorite druid I ever played.
Using the Bard class. Multiclass discrimination
It was totally worth it to open my heart to y'all. So long and thanks for all the fish.
|
