World / Class Flavor

[HWalsh]

I'm wondering how others handle flavor in their world.

In mine, certain classes have reputations.

Paladins are righteous and true, respected by those of both lawful (non-villain) and good alignments. The archetypes less so depending on features lost.

Fighters, generally, have reputations for getting things done, for good or ill.

Clerics, largely depend on their deity.

Wizard, each school has a reputation. Evokers are seen as destructive and bold. Enchanters are viewed with suspicion.

Rogues generally depend on alignment. Known good rogues tend to be viewed as tricksters, generally non-serious while known evil and neutral rogues tend to be viewed with suspicion.

These are just some examples of course.

[Eltacolibre]

Paladin, Druids,Monk, Wizard and Sorcerer are basically the most well known, mostly due to their strong ties with flavor in the game.

Cleric/Oracle/Warpriest are just known as Priests in general by most communities. Most commoners can't make the distinction between the classes.

People knows about Witches, but many witches pretend to be wizard, as dabbling and working with dark entities(even if some patron are not technically dark entities) is often frowned upon.

All the martial classes have different titles depending on how they present themselves. A fighter can present himself as a Samurai, soldier, a knight etc, just like a cavalier can present himself as a knight or soldier.

[KingOfAnything]

I try not to let class descriptions dictate roleplaying. A character's reputation should be determined by their backstory, not their levels.

[JosMartigan]

KingOfAnything wrote:

I try not to let class descriptions dictate roleplaying. A character's reputation should be determined by their backstory, not their levels.

While there's merit to the "class is just a chassis" school of thought. I think OP is stating that his world has distinct delineations of class.

Paladins for example are an affiliation if not a loose organization and as such have an overall reputation just like Spanish Conquistadors, Hessian Mercenaries and Mongols have a general reputation for us and for the people who lived during the times that those groups operated.

It stands to reason that a class such as paladin (ALL ARE LAWFUL GOOD) or monks (ALL ARE LAWFUL), would have a generalized reputation about them.

Groups like Evokers, Necromancers, Illusionists would all act in a similar manner if for no other reason than the flavor of magic they pursue and again generalizations about them would be commonplace.

In a world where no one identifies themselves by these group terms would obviously not have those generalizations heaped upon them.

[HWalsh]

JosMartigan wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

I try not to let class descriptions dictate roleplaying. A character's reputation should be determined by their backstory, not their levels.

While there's merit to the "class is just a chassis" school of thought. I think OP is stating that his world has distinct delineations of class.

Paladins for example are an affiliation if not a loose organization and as such have an overall reputation just like Spanish Conquistadors, Hessian Mercenaries and Mongols have a general reputation for us and for the people who lived during the times that those groups operated.

It stands to reason that a class such as paladin (ALL ARE LAWFUL GOOD) or monks (ALL ARE LAWFUL), would have a generalized reputation about them.

Groups like Evokers, Necromancers, Illusionists would all act in a similar manner if for no other reason than the flavor of magic they pursue and again generalizations about them would be commonplace.

In a world where no one identifies themselves by these group terms would obviously not have those generalizations heaped upon them.

And yes, I don't run "Class is just a chassis" in my games. I don't let people just freely pick whatever they want. If you want to be a druid you need to be trained, you can't just level up and say, "Well I want to be a druid now!"

Also just because those are the natural preconceptions of things don't mean that they are an unbreakable mold. The player character may be an evoker who isn't bold, or destructive, but they are going to have to still deal with the in-world assumptions about them.

Paladins are the same way, especially certain archetypes. Some archetypes people don't believe are Paladins. Some archetypes people get outright angry at because they think they are lying. I rule that things like divine health and aura of courage can be felt. When a Paladin who doesn't have those shows up, there are doubts.

To be a Fighter means that you need formal training at either a Fighter's Guild or some military group. To be a Barbarian means you need to be inducted to learn their ways, that can be an adventure in itself as the player does something to prove themselves to the tribe. To be a Druid one must be trained by a druid. The Wizards have various colleges that have various specialties. Sorcerers are one of the few exceptions as there is no real training, it is simply a "you were born this way" situation, but even then a little training helps them to learn how to call out the power in their blood.

Even then, with Sorcerers, those bloodlines mean something they aren't just mechanics. A person with the Celestial Bloodline has the blood of a Celestial running through their veins. To many people that means things, there are preconceptions, and as such the world reacts to it.

In my game my players like it because they feel that their choices matter in more than just mechanical ways. A Paladin has certain assumed status that other classes don't. An Oracle with the Legalistic curse is marked by others to be someone who is shackled and influenced by Hell itself and that can have benefits and disadvantages.

[KingOfAnything]

HWalsh wrote:

Even then, with Sorcerers, those bloodlines mean something they aren't just mechanics. A person with the Celestial Bloodline has the blood of a Celestial running through their veins. To many people that means things, there are preconceptions, and as such the world reacts to it.

I agree that those choices should mean something to the character and how it is played. I disagree that they should mean the same thing to every character that takes those options. A Celestial bloodline sorcerer descended from angels might be revered, while one descended from archons might be considered overbearing.

[The Dandy Lion]

The main way any sort of class decisions show in organisation or society in my setting would be at the trade city, where the economy and government are made up of retired adventurers, who became traders or political elites.

Much of the law enforcement is made up of monks and followers of a few specific gods, simply due to their reputation and vested societal interests. Others can train and serve as guards, but will have a harder achieving much authority in wealthier areas.

Arcane casters are feared and heavily regulated in some regions, but in the trade city, they are a central part of its government and economy. Each school of magic has its own office and reputation.

Illusionists and transmuters are widely popular. They set fashion trends, run shows and events and manage construction and repair across the city. The evokers' office is a run down ramshackle after elitists in various guilds considered them a menace and disgraceful waste of magic - their remaining source of trade and publicity being illumination specialists, working with illusionists at theatre, and keeping the streets visible at night.
Diviners have the most authority, working closely with law enforcement and directing government decisions, but face heavy opposition by illusionists who call them out for being "out of touch with reality".

[necromental]

HWalsh wrote:

And yes, I don't run "Class is just a chassis" in my games. I don't let people just freely pick whatever they want. If you want to be a druid you need to be trained, you can't just level up and say, "Well I want to be a druid now!"

Also just because those are the natural preconceptions of things don't mean that they are an unbreakable mold. The player character may be an evoker who isn't bold, or destructive, but they are going to have to still deal with the in-world assumptions about them.

Paladins are the same way, especially certain archetypes. Some archetypes people don't believe are Paladins. Some archetypes people get outright angry at because they think they are lying. I rule that things like divine health and aura of courage can be felt. When a Paladin who doesn't have those shows up, there are doubts.

To be a Fighter means that you need formal training at either a Fighter's Guild or some military group. To be a Barbarian means you need to be inducted to learn their ways, that can be an adventure in itself as the player does something to prove themselves to the tribe. To be a Druid one must be trained by a druid. The Wizards have various colleges that have various specialties. Sorcerers are one of the few exceptions as there is no real training, it is simply a "you were born this way" situation, but even then a little training helps them to learn how to call out the power in their blood.

Even then, with Sorcerers, those bloodlines mean something they aren't just mechanics. A person with the Celestial Bloodline has the blood of a Celestial running through their veins. To many people that means things, there are preconceptions, and as such the world reacts to it.

In my game my players like it because they feel that their choices matter in more than just mechanical ways. A Paladin has certain assumed status that other classes don't. An Oracle with the Legalistic curse is marked by others to be someone who is shackled and influenced by Hell itself and that can have benefits and disadvantages.

Hey aren't you the guy who in M/CD threads always says PCs shouldn't know everything and usually have no clue what are underlying laws of magic/world/physics unless they have Knowledges (and maybe not even then)? How come all your commoners have Sense Class Feature now all of a sudden? I mean, paladin auras make sense but other class features..

To answer you question, I don't. I have organizations that are thematic to the world and feature multiple classes as their members. For example I could have Merciful Justiciars who are regarded as paragons of virtue and law, and while many/most ARE paladins, many are clerics, oracles and inquisitors, and other classes are not unheard of. People expect them to be lawful and good and with some healing powers.
Evoker's Guild is certainly full of evoker wizards, but many elemental, draconic and orc bloodline sorcerers and bomb based alchemists are core members. People expect them to be able to make BOOM, but have no preconceived opinions of their character.
People have preconceived opinions of member of certain churches rather than clerics.

Class choices can matter to my players if they want them to, and if they don't have an idea for a backstory I can certainly point them in direction of their class as an idea, but the system is too full with race/class/multiclass/prestige class/archetype variations, and verisimilitude couldn't be kept if every combination had a specific backstory/organization.
I encourage my players to be members of organizations and part of the world they adventure in, but both them and me usually consider classes as too vague to be a base building block of a world.

[HWalsh]

"necromental wrote:

"Hey aren't you the guy who in M/CD threads always says PCs shouldn't know everything and usually have no clue what are underlying laws of magic/world/physics unless they have Knowledges (and maybe not even then)? How come all your commoners have Sense Class Feature now all of a sudden? I mean, paladin auras make sense but other class features..

To answer you question, I don't. I have organizations that are thematic to the world and feature multiple classes as their members. For example I could have Merciful Justiciars who are regarded as paragons of virtue and law, and while many/most ARE paladins, many are clerics, oracles and inquisitors, and other classes are not unheard of. People expect them to be lawful and good and with some healing powers.
Evoker's Guild is certainly full of evoker wizards, but many elemental, draconic and orc bloodline sorcerers and bomb based alchemists are core members. People expect them to be able to make BOOM, but have no preconceived opinions of their character.
People have preconceived opinions of member of certain churches rather than clerics.

Class choices can matter to my players if they want them to, and if they don't have an idea for a backstory I can certainly point them in direction of their class as an idea, but the system is too full with race/class/multiclass/prestige class/archetype variations, and verisimilitude couldn't be kept if every combination had a specific backstory/organization.
I encourage my players to be members of organizations and part of the world they adventure in, but both them and me usually consider classes as too vague to be a base building block of a world.

Well as I said, this is for *my* personal world. Not a blanket statement for all of Golarion. It isn't so much that Peasants have "sense class" so much as if you are a Rogue, then you were trained by one of the organizations that do that kind of thing.

This isn't saying that a Peasant will see a Rogue and go, "Look, a rogue!" Their preconceptions only come into play when they can identify the thing they have a preconception of.

For example:

A wizard who comes in dressed like a normal person, not casting spells, etc nobody is going to know they are a wizard or what school they come from.

However... If they apply for a job, those are questions an employer might ask. Namely, "Where did you study magic?"

Since the world is codified that those options are limited, that means something in the world.

A Barbarian of the Entaku Tribe is going to be different than a Barbarian of the Sotal Clan.

Now, a PC can lie, of course...

A PC fighter can show up to take a particular job, for example, and when asked, "Where did you learn to fight?" Can reply, "Oh, you know, here and there... Mostly self-taught."

They are going to get a lower offer than someone who shows up and says, "I was trained in the Fighter's Academy of Brisony."

Same thing with a rogue... Someone who is a member of the New Haven Thieve's Guild is going to have benefits that some guy who's a personal cut purse just doesn't. Be it respect from NPCs to professional respect from other rogues to a potential bad reputation if it gets back to the local sheriff.

The biggest way I differentiate it, in my world, is this:

There are NPC classes. Generic warrior? That is the NPC class. A Fighter is formally trained. This is what they do. A Cleric spends years learning their craft, a country preacher not so much. A Rogue is trained, formally, to do what they do. Etc.

Limited the classes also has the advantage of control. It allows me, as the GM, to monitor and control what options are available to PCs. This cuts into a lot of the power gaming problems that can occur and it also helps to curb some of the magic abuse too.

[GM Rednal]

I actually enjoyed the way Bard's Gate, by Frog God Games, handled this. In that book, there's the concept of Social Status since the city in question is a massive, prosperous trade city with all kinds of residents. People's classes can and do affect the way they're seen - modified by the kinds of lifestyles they live.

Wizards, for example, tend to lead expensive lifestyles and spend a lot of money... so people tend to like them, especially because there's a Guild in the city that gently regulates things to help ensure casters aren't causing too much trouble. Paladins are highly respected (moreso than anyone else, actually) and treated as several social classes higher than they really are, while Barbarians and creepy classes tend to be seen as lower than the lifestyle they're living at. It's quite neat.

[necromental]

HWalsh wrote:

For example:

A wizard who comes in dressed like a normal person, not casting spells, etc nobody is going to know they are a wizard or what school they come from.

However... If they apply for a job, those are questions an employer might ask. Namely, "Where did you study magic?"

Since the world is codified that those options are limited, that means something in the world.

A Barbarian of the Entaku Tribe is going to be different than a Barbarian of the Sotal Clan.

Now, a PC can lie, of course...

A PC fighter can show up to take a particular job, for example, and when asked, "Where did you learn to fight?" Can reply, "Oh, you know, here and there... Mostly self-taught."

They are going to get a lower offer than someone who shows up and says, "I was trained in the Fighter's Academy of Brisony."

Same thing with a rogue... Someone who is a member of the New Haven Thieve's Guild is going to have benefits that some guy who's a personal cut purse just doesn't. Be it respect from NPCs to professional respect from other rogues to a potential bad reputation if it gets back to the local sheriff.

The biggest way I differentiate it, in my world, is this:

There are NPC classes. Generic warrior? That is the NPC class. A Fighter is formally trained. This is what they do. A Cleric spends years learning their craft, a country preacher not so much. A Rogue is trained, formally, to do what they do. Etc.

Those situations also come up in my game, the only difference is that the schools, guilds and academies are NOT limited to a single class. I don't find this believable in context that many class abilities are similar and can have the same value in the world, and some classes have archetypes that make the use a mechanic from a different class making their role in the world basically the same. A commoner doesn't care if the healing came from cleric, oracle, bard or a wand. A caravan master doesn't care if you killed the bandits with sword or magic.

HWalsh wrote:

Limited the classes also has the advantage of control. It allows me, as the GM, to monitor and control what options are available to PCs. This cuts into a lot of the power gaming problems that can occur and it also helps to curb some of the magic abuse too.

In this context your world-building does make (some) sense but I don't have problems with power-gaming, our table being mostly made from such individuals. We do, though have problem with restrictions, but I already know that our tables wouldn't be a good match from mechanical perspective ;)

[wraithstrike]

I am pretty open about it. The different classes are known, but not automatically identifiable. That leaves the player's room to use th class as a chasis. As an example a barbarian's rage can be focused aggression, or him entering an alternate state of mind.

[Ventnor]

HWalsh wrote:

JosMartigan wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

I try not to let class descriptions dictate roleplaying. A character's reputation should be determined by their backstory, not their levels.

While there's merit to the "class is just a chassis" school of thought. I think OP is stating that his world has distinct delineations of class.

Paladins for example are an affiliation if not a loose organization and as such have an overall reputation just like Spanish Conquistadors, Hessian Mercenaries and Mongols have a general reputation for us and for the people who lived during the times that those groups operated.

It stands to reason that a class such as paladin (ALL ARE LAWFUL GOOD) or monks (ALL ARE LAWFUL), would have a generalized reputation about them.

Groups like Evokers, Necromancers, Illusionists would all act in a similar manner if for no other reason than the flavor of magic they pursue and again generalizations about them would be commonplace.

In a world where no one identifies themselves by these group terms would obviously not have those generalizations heaped upon them.

And yes, I don't run "Class is just a chassis" in my games. I don't let people just freely pick whatever they want. If you want to be a druid you need to be trained, you can't just level up and say, "Well I want to be a druid now!"

Also just because those are the natural preconceptions of things don't mean that they are an unbreakable mold. The player character may be an evoker who isn't bold, or destructive, but they are going to have to still deal with the in-world assumptions about them.

Paladins are the same way, especially certain archetypes. Some archetypes people don't believe are Paladins. Some archetypes people get outright angry at because they think they are lying. I rule that things like divine health and aura of courage can be felt. When a Paladin who doesn't have those shows up, there are doubts.

To be a Fighter means that you need formal training at either a Fighter's Guild or some military group. To be a Barbarian means you need to be inducted to learn their ways, that can be an adventure in itself as the player does something to prove themselves to the tribe. To be a Druid one must be trained by a druid. The Wizards have various colleges that have various specialties. Sorcerers are one of the few exceptions as there is no real training, it is simply a "you were born this way" situation, but even then a little training helps them to learn how to call out the power in their blood.

Even then, with Sorcerers, those bloodlines mean something they aren't just mechanics. A person with the Celestial Bloodline has the blood of a Celestial running through their veins. To many people that means things, there are preconceptions, and as such the world reacts to it.

In my game my players like it because they feel that their choices matter in more than just mechanical ways. A Paladin has certain assumed status that other classes don't. An Oracle with the Legalistic curse is marked by others to be someone who is shackled and influenced by Hell itself and that can have benefits and disadvantages.

So, this is a character concept I've had for a while that I haven't found the right game for: a holy warrior who, after witnessing a Paladin or Cleric save her family's life, swore a personal oath to her god. The oath was that she would never utter a lie, would always seek to end disputes peacefully, and act in all ways as a good and upstanding person should. Said god in return granted her extraordinary divine power.

Mechanically, the character is an Oracle with the Battle Mystery and the Legalistic Curse. Would this character fit into your game?

[HWalsh]

Ventnor wrote:

So, this is a character concept I've had for a while that I haven't found the right game for: a holy warrior who, after witnessing a Paladin or Cleric save her family's life, swore a personal oath to her god. The oath was that she would never utter a lie, would always seek to end disputes peacefully, and act in all ways as a good and upstanding person should. Said god in return granted her extraordinary divine power.

Mechanically, the character is an Oracle with the Battle Mystery and the Legalistic Curse. Would this character fit into your game?

Yes, and no.

Lemme explain.

You could, in my game, make a character that is a holy warrior who witnessed a Paladin or Cleric save her family's life. She swore a personal oath to her god. The oath was that she would never utter a lie, would always seek to end disputes peacefully, and would act in all ways as a good and upstanding person should. And believes that after swearing such an oath said God in return granted her extraordinary divine power...

Believes being the key word...

Though, according to legalistic, as a curse there is more going on.

Quote:

The shackles of Hell impose savage consequences should you violate a covenant, but also imbue you with remarkable guile.

That is what legalistic means. So, unless your God is a demon lord from Hell, the curse didn't come from your God.

So, what that would mean is, unbeknownst to you, things went on that you don't know about.

So you swore your oath... And something from Hell was listening. Maybe it was a curse from the demonic thing that you were saved from, maybe it was an enemy of your God, in any case... It tainted you.

It cursed you.

Your God, taking pity on you, granted you powers but, no matter how you slice it, you were cursed. The shackles of Hell wrap around your soul and forever taint you.

[Ventnor]

HWalsh wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

So, this is a character concept I've had for a while that I haven't found the right game for: a holy warrior who, after witnessing a Paladin or Cleric save her family's life, swore a personal oath to her god. The oath was that she would never utter a lie, would always seek to end disputes peacefully, and act in all ways as a good and upstanding person should. Said god in return granted her extraordinary divine power.

Mechanically, the character is an Oracle with the Battle Mystery and the Legalistic Curse. Would this character fit into your game?

Yes, and no.

Lemme explain.

You could, in my game, make a character that is a holy warrior who witnessed a Paladin or Cleric save her family's life. She swore a personal oath to her god. The oath was that she would never utter a lie, would always seek to end disputes peacefully, and would act in all ways as a good and upstanding person should. And believes that after swearing such an oath said God in return granted her extraordinary divine power...

Believes being the key word...

Though, according to legalistic, as a curse there is more going on.

Quote:

The shackles of Hell impose savage consequences should you violate a covenant, but also imbue you with remarkable guile.

That is what legalistic means. So, unless your God is a demon lord from Hell, the curse didn't come from your God.

So, what that would mean is, unbeknownst to you, things went on that you don't know about.

So you swore your oath... And something from Hell was listening. Maybe it was a curse from the demonic thing that you were saved from, maybe it was an enemy of your God, in any case... It tainted you.

It cursed you.

Your God, taking pity on you, granted you powers but, no matter how you slice it, you were cursed. The shackles of Hell wrap around your soul and forever taint you.

See, I disagree.

The curse could be "devils messing with you," but I think it's an equally valid way to portray a character whose vows are so intrinsically tied up with their power that violating them makes them feel physically ill. Making this kind of vow is a prerequisite for the deity to imbue said character with the ability to use the most powerful divine magic that they can give their mortal followers. They certainly aren't going to just hand it to a character who isn't committed to their cause - if you don't swear yourself to honesty, they're not going to let you perform literal miracles.

(Just in case I didn't make it obvious, the deity in question would be a Lawful Good Crusader God, like Iomedae, Heironious, or St. Cuthbert.)

[Athaleon]

I can easily see a stern LG deity meting out minor punishments for minor transgressions, along the lines of the Legalistic curse, rather than the only options being a binary Let It Slide or Shut It Down.

[HWalsh]

Ventnor wrote:

See, I disagree.

That is fine, you can disagree. Though the book is clear on the shackles of Hell thing. I don't let players re-write the lore of the setting. So in my game that is a no-go.

[Ventnor]

HWalsh wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

See, I disagree.

That is fine, you can disagree. Though the book is clear on the shackles of Hell thing. I don't let players re-write the lore of the setting. So in my game that is a no-go.

I find that, by necessity, players have to rewrite sections of lore in all RPGs they participate in . They need to add parents, mentors, & friends who weren't conceived of by the GM to make their backstories work (unless that backstory is "walked into tavern 5 minutes ago and that's it). I've had players add organizations to my settings & modify settlements (for example, adding an office that they worked out of or a family mansion that got burned down in mysterious circumstances), and it's only increased their immersion.

[Paradozen]

In my campaign setting I assume class can't reliably discerned by sight. So class features with no outwards signs (many oracle curses, divine health, purity of body, venom immunity, etc) or ones with vague and ill-defined signs (any kind of aura, rage, smite, judgement, challenge, (mis)fortune, a couple curses, mysteries, uncanny dodge, evasion, trapfinding, spellcasting, etc) can be flavored any number of ways. Only a few features have any real connotations, and those are all due to direct events that shaped the history of the world. Bombs and Alchemy are the biggest (as the inventor of alchemy radically changed multiple cultures).

I also removed alignment descriptors on spells, and the L/C alignment restriction on monk/barbarian. And I am open to Paladins without these restrictions, but since my players are not interested in trying these types of characters I just use the Champion of Faith Warpriest for any pseudopaladin NPCs.

The lower emphasis on pre-written flavor works better with me and my players, as many like unusual combinations of class and concept.

[graystone]

HWalsh wrote:

And yes, I don't run "Class is just a chassis" in my games.

'Class as a chassis' is the only was I play. The 'flavor' from the rules is mutable and easily altered to fit the situation.

HWalsh wrote:

I don't let players re-write the lore of the setting. So in my game that is a no-go.

For myself, I don't find the little bit of fluff from the rules pieces 'set in stone' lore. They are but one example of how those mechanics can come into play. For instance, there are dozens of reasons a trait could give a +2 initiative: It's the height of silly to think the only way is to be " bullied often as a child" to manage it.

HWalsh wrote:

To be a Fighter means that you need formal training at either a Fighter's Guild or some military group.

To me there can be organizations but I can't imagine that they are filled entirely with single class characters. A fighting guild would be filled with martial people of all stripes. A rogue's guild would be filled with people of larcenous intent of all classes. A barbarian tribe could have almost any class included. Unless it's some truly esoteric knowledge, there shouldn't be a limited amount of places to learn it.

For instance, a wizard could: go to a school, be trained by a parent, self taught from books, trained by a Dragon, Fey, undead, Angels, Fiends, ect [from UC backgrounds]. There should never be one true way to get to a character; that's what 'cookie cutter' means. Someone from a rogues guild that learns magic from a crate of stolen books on magic is as valid as going to 'hogwarts' to do it.

[necromental]

HWalsh wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

See, I disagree.

That is fine, you can disagree. Though the book is clear on the shackles of Hell thing. I don't let players re-write the lore of the setting. So in my game that is a no-go.

Mechanically, what does it change? You cannot scream abuse if the PC follows the restrictions...so it is your inflexibility (not the first time witnessed on these forums) that restricts the player. You always try to justify your control of the PC by saying it's ROLEplaying, but I always see you restricting the roleplay to written fluff and then claiming the PC is trying to evade restrictions.

[graystone]

necromental wrote:

Mechanically, what does it change?

For some, the fluff IS a mechanic. I don't understand it either, but some see putting your own spin on the fluff in the same light as changing improved initiative to +6 to initiative rolls... It seems super restrictive IMO, but it seems to be what they like.

*shrug* As long as I don't have to play that way, they can have their fun their own way. ;)

[HWalsh]

graystone wrote:

necromental wrote:

Mechanically, what does it change?

For some, the fluff IS a mechanic. I don't understand it either, but some see putting your own spin on the fluff in the same light as changing improved initiative to +6 to initiative rolls... It seems super restrictive IMO, but it seems to be what they like.

*shrug* As long as I don't have to play that way, they can have their fun their own way. ;)

Well that comes from you having a different, not wrong, just different, philosophy on the game.

Fluff, as you call it, I call lore. I respect lore every bit as much as I respect mechanics. Lore is as important as mechanics, to me. It helps create a world that functions in a logical way.

To me, and my players, changing the lore is every bit as serious as changing a feat.

As graystone said, if a player came to you, playing a Monk, and said, "I want to multiclassing into Wizard, but I want to use Wisdom instead of Intelligence, because my Wisdom is high."

That is the same with Legalistic, you're saying, "I want these mechanical benefits, but I don't want to bother with the social drawback that comes with it. Instead, I want a social benefit."

[Imbicatus]

HWalsh wrote:

Well that comes from you having a different, not wrong, just different, philosophy on the game.

Fluff, as you call it, I call lore. I respect lore every bit as much as I respect mechanics. Lore is as important as mechanics, to me. It helps create a world that functions in a logical way.

To me, and my players, changing the lore is every bit as serious as changing a feat.

As graystone said, if a player came to you, playing a Monk, and said, "I want to multiclassing into Wizard, but I want to use Wisdom instead of Intelligence, because my Wisdom is high."

That is the same with Legalistic, you're saying, "I want these mechanical benefits, but I don't want to bother with the social drawback that comes with it. Instead, I want a social benefit."

What social drawback? There is nothing about the oracles curse that has a socal drawback, unless there is a physical deformity such as the wolf scarred curse or the wasting curse. Legalistic doesn't come with an aura of brimstone and a flashing cursed by he'll sign. You become sickened if you don't speak the truth. There is no way that a character in the game works would be able to see why that happens.

Even if the source of the curse was Asmodeus himself, the oracle would have no knowledge of that and neither would any other mortal. Oracle curses are divine mysteries. If they don't make you look like a leper or a werewolf, there would be very little reason to have a social drawback.

You are inventing lore and enforcing that is your house rule. It's not how the game works as written, and if you and your players are having fun with that, then good for you. But I doubt you're going to find many here that agree with your view.

[HWalsh]

Imbicatus wrote:

HWalsh wrote:

Well that comes from you having a different, not wrong, just different, philosophy on the game.

Fluff, as you call it, I call lore. I respect lore every bit as much as I respect mechanics. Lore is as important as mechanics, to me. It helps create a world that functions in a logical way.

To me, and my players, changing the lore is every bit as serious as changing a feat.

As graystone said, if a player came to you, playing a Monk, and said, "I want to multiclassing into Wizard, but I want to use Wisdom instead of Intelligence, because my Wisdom is high."

That is the same with Legalistic, you're saying, "I want these mechanical benefits, but I don't want to bother with the social drawback that comes with it. Instead, I want a social benefit."

What social drawback? There is nothing about the oracles curse that has a socal drawback, unless there is a physical deformity such as the wolf scarred curse or the wasting curse. Legalistic doesn't come with an aura of brimstone and a flashing cursed by he'll sign. You become sickened if you don't speak the truth. There is no way that a character in the game works would be able to see why that happens.

Even if the source of the curse was Asmodeus himself, the oracle would have no knowledge of that and neither would any other mortal. Oracle curses are divine mysteries. If they don't make you look like a leper or a werewolf, there would be very little reason to have a social drawback.

You are inventing lore and enforcing that is your house rule. It's not how the game works as written, and if you and your players are having fun with that, then good for you. But I doubt you're going to find many here that agree with your view.

I disagree.

Every Oracle, in the lore, who has that curse, that exact same curse, has ties directly to Hell. A PC isn't the first Oracle to have it. Realistically speaking it has probably been studied. It has probably been looked into.

Heck a high enough Religion check *should* reveal what it means.

So, there you go, a basis for people in universe to know what it means.

Now, will a common peasant know? Probably not. That doesn't mean there aren't people who do.

There would be people who worship those with this curse. There would be those who fear it. It is a curse, that means it can be detected the same as any other curse.

[Air0r]

HWalsh wrote:

I'm wondering how others handle flavor in their world.

It largely depends on the world.

I like my worlds a bit more metropolitan, with races from all over living (almost) everywhere, mingling, etc. races like kobolds and ratfolk usually have the jobs/tasks that no one wants to undergo (sewer maintenance, trash collection, street cleaners, etc.). Like that. I let me players pick most any race (after I review it), though I don't generally allow templates.
Ideally, your class will not describe your character. I have noticed some players will just pick a class and build a character around that instead of making a character (personality, a very basic backstory, some defining mannerisms), and then selecting the class(es) that best fits their image of the character. My players are free to pick most classes (with review).

So how this sometimes works at my table:
player: "I want to play a vampire who fight using his shadow."
Me: "Maybe not vampire; it wouldn't really fit this campaign. at least not right now. what part of the vampire appeals to you?"
Player: "The immortality, basically."
Me: "Here is a list of immortal races that I am ok with, though you can pitch ideas my way if you want." (hands player stats for Elan, Houri, and Spring Child)
Player: "Cool! What class can fight with their shadows?"
Me: "Tough one to pull off, most classes wouldn't be till later levels. If you don't mind the extra bookwork, Psychic Warrior has an archetype called Silhouette, which gives you a shadow duplicate of yourself that can fight alongside you."
Player: sounds great!

[Ventnor]

Something tengentially related that I'm curious about:

Let's say that we have a Paladin who was raised in a democratic society, who believes that democracy is the only safeguard that the common people have against nobles who will abuse their power to hurt them. Not just a Paladin, an entire order of Paladins who are dedicated to safeguarding the laws of this democracy to make sure that said laws are not abused and the will of the people is done.

If these Paladins depose the Lawful Good monarch of another country to install a democracy in that Kingdom (in essence, trading an Evil government with a decent head of state to a Good government with an uncertain head of state), would they fall?

[HWalsh]

Ventnor wrote:

Something tengentially related that I'm curious about:

Let's say that we have a Paladin who was raised in a democratic society, who believes that democracy is the only safeguard that the common people have against nobles who will abuse their power to hurt them. Not just a Paladin, an entire order of Paladins who are dedicated to safeguarding the laws of this democracy to make sure that said laws are not abused and the will of the people is done.

If these Paladins depose the Lawful Good monarch of another country to install a democracy in that Kingdom (in essence, trading an Evil government with a decent head of state to a Good government with an uncertain head of state), would they fall?

Yes.

The Paladin code requires that they respect legitimate authority. The king treats his people well, is lawful good, and is not harming his people. His people are not in revolt, they are not being oppressed, thus this order of Paladins would fall for not respecting legitimate authority and for deposing a legitimate, benevolent, ruler.

Remember, Good and Evil in the world of Pathfinder isn't open to personal interpretation. They are legitimate things. We know what good is. So just because someone considers something evil doesn't necessarily mean it is. Just because they think something is good likewise doesn't make it so.

[Ventnor]

HWalsh wrote:

Ventnor wrote:

Something tengentially related that I'm curious about:

Let's say that we have a Paladin who was raised in a democratic society, who believes that democracy is the only safeguard that the common people have against nobles who will abuse their power to hurt them. Not just a Paladin, an entire order of Paladins who are dedicated to safeguarding the laws of this democracy to make sure that said laws are not abused and the will of the people is done.

If these Paladins depose the Lawful Good monarch of another country to install a democracy in that Kingdom (in essence, trading an Evil government with a decent head of state to a Good government with an uncertain head of state), would they fall?

Yes.

The Paladin code requires that they respect legitimate authority. The king treats his people well, is lawful good, and is not harming his people. His people are not in revolt, they are not being oppressed, thus this order of Paladins would fall for not respecting legitimate authority and for deposing a legitimate, benevolent, ruler.

Remember, Good and Evil in the world of Pathfinder isn't open to personal interpretation. They are legitimate things. We know what good is. So just because someone considers something evil doesn't necessarily mean it is. Just because they think something is good likewise doesn't make it so.

Thing is, they don't consider that king a legitimate authority. They consider no king a legitimate authority. The king may be a good individual, but kingship in and of itself is an evil form of government.

[WormysQueue]

HWalsh wrote:

I'm wondering how others handle flavor in their world.

In mine, certain classes have reputations.

In mine, classes basically do not exist as depicted in the rule books. I mean I use the mechanical chassis of the classes to build characters, but just because a character has levels in , let's say the barbarian class, doesn't mean that he considers himself as a barbarian or that he is considered a barbarian by his environment. Same for the other classes.

AS far as reputation goes: people have reputations, organizations or other groups have reputations, but that seldom depends on their class, especially as I'm not too fond of one class-organizations.

So to take an example from Golarion, that you're a fighter or a paladin doesn't necessarily gives you a certain reputation. That you're Hedrik Draxxus or Reginald Cormuth, certainly will. As will if you're a member of the Andoran Eagle knights, as those fine gentlemen. And that you're an Andoren already might give you a certain reputation.

It's a bit more complicated in my own world, but generally, a character is much more defined by origin, culture and personality than he is by his class. It's more like in D&D/PF fantasy novels where you often can guess from a character's actions which level he must have in which class without the character being referred to as a member of said class.

[WormysQueue]

Ventnor wrote:

but kingship in and of itself is an evil form of government.

I guess that's the thing. Because the paladin's don't get to define what's good and what's evil. Depending on the setting and its definition of kingship, they could be right. In most official settings, monarchy is certainly not evil (just remember Gareth Dragonsbane, the king of the Realm's Damara, who was himself a paladin, so if kingship was evil, he would have fallen)

[HWalsh]

Ventnor wrote:

Thing is, they don't consider that king a legitimate authority. They consider no king a legitimate authority. The king may be a good individual, but kingship in and of itself is an evil form of government.

No.

The kingship is a form of government they don't like. It is not evil. They would know it's not evil because they can Detect Evil.

Pathfinder doesn't use subjective morality.

[David knott 242]

Also, evil =/= illegitimate. Just ask any Chelish paladin -- and I mean a real paladin, not a mythical "paladin of Asmodeus".