Morphic Tide said:
I am fully supportive of that. With one condition. If it's in an established setting that does not work that way, guve an explanation.
I'm a Comic Book-style mad scientist with an agenda. I don't need to justify it any further than that, regardless of setting, unless the GM says "Super science is impossible because reasons." Not even canon D&D does that.
D&D has several first party settings and Pathfinder has one first party setting. If you are playing a game in one of these settings, follow the rules or come up with an explanation about how the rules don't work the same way for that character. Otherwise, do whatever.
No. I have full authority to fuck with, disregard, defy, and distort first party settings as much as I want without having to justify it to anyone. "Here comes Drizz't with his light saber because the fucking Millenium Falcon landed on Faerun six years ago" is legit.
Yes, that is fine with me, because you aren't violating setting rules. If you are in Greyhawk, or Dark Sun, play by the rules or figure out an explanation.
Again, no. I don't even have to give the above explanation I gave. "My special snowflake came to Athas from another dimension" is literally already a core assumption of that setting.
Y'alls ever hear of FLAILSNAILS?
Okay, then use that as the basis of any 'rage against the heavens' character in a setting where Divine casters get power from the heavens they are raging against.
No. My character can do that entirely arbitrarily. Perhaps it's a mystery the player of the character never uncovers. I guess they're just Jesus maybe? Let the cult they accidentally inspired philosophize over it, you're not entitled to shit about nothing.
What is so hard about understanding that my problem with going against the default fluff is doing it in settings where that is the actual situation? I have no problem with ignoring the fluff in a setting that that fluff isn't a thing.
Ignore the fluff if you want and aren't in a first party setting, as in a setting made by the makers of the game. If you are in Dark Sun, or Ravenloft, or Planescape, then compleatly ignoring the fluff with no justification is something I have problems with because then you are acting like a bad fanfiction author by ignoring the game equivalent of canon. And Pathfinder does have one setting like this. Exactly one, because Pazio focused on one setting to do stuff in.
Well, firstly, the reason people aren't 'understanding' is because you moved the goalposts from what you originally said. Secondly, everyone disagreeing with you is saying that the distinction is 100% totally irrelevant. The canon exists to serve me, not the other way around. If a player wants to be a sentient monster truck, the setting has to change to fit THEM, not the other way around. The setting has no value without players within it, but the inverse isn't true.
Settings, especially first party settings with required lore, are socksocks. If I can't wank my RP needs with it, it's going in the trashbin where it fucking belongs. If I want to use the mechanics of a character class to represent another idea, the fluff is not an obstacle, it can change. There's no reason, value, or productivity in creating the alternate character class of "Heal Wizard", where everything's exactly the same as a cleric except I stripped out all the religious references. Just play a cleric and ignore the extraneous bullshit that didn't exist pre-WOTC anyway.
Seriously, it's garbage, and defending it is garbage and badwrongfun. Anything that tries to restrict, or condescend down to, or wag a finger at a game table taking the toybox and scribbling all over the board is toxic poison. It doesn't have no value, it has anti-value.
