So,
Story flaws are generally meant to act as plot hooks for stories, hence the name.
However I find Pagan is almost used as the opposite.
As Europe has a negligible pagan population, and pagan religious rites tend to be done in private far away from prying eyes. It furthermore gives carte blanch to ignore social norms of the time.
On the other hand practicing Christians have lots of story obligations, from attending Church weekly to confessing their sins to priests, the occasional pilgrimage. Plus a lot of the Church's clot only comes from the assumption that magi care about the opinions of priests.
Most players seem to play people that are only technically Christian, but generally don't care about the Church. Being either atheists or lapsed Christians in real life.
I was wondering about adding a minor story flaw: practicing Christian, which can uniquely be taken in addition to another story flaw to incentivise the Christian paradigm of the medieval world without forcing it on people
Any thoughts? Is there a better way to address this?
A flaw is only a flaw if it has in game effects. By taking Pagan as a Major Story Flaw you are telling the troupe you want it to be a big deal and want to be persecuted.
If you don't want that, just leave it alone, mechanically.
I could say the same thing about virtually every story flaw in the game. They rarely come up in game, because there are too many stories to tell and/or the SG(s) do not have a good idea how to exploit a given flaw.
Like any other story flaw, it is possible to make a good story which screws the pagan character over. That's the responsibility of the SG.
However, the player also has a responsibility. You can be pagan in private without ever catching attention. That would be a minor personality flaw at the most. When you do take a story (or personality) flaw, it is a contract to play it as a flaw.
As to your proposed minor story flaw, I would not recommend to change the standard pattern of one story flaw which is minor if it has a side benefit and major otherwise. Firstly, if you have more story flaws, they become even harder to cover in game. Secondly, exceptions make a source of confusion. OTOH. What you suggest sounds more like a minor personality flaw, and only subtly distinct from pious.
As mentioned by others, a flaw is not a flaw if it does nothing. Pagan at the major flaw level is actively showing the religion and proselytising. The character is regularly saying Christianity is wrong, and having to live with the consequences of that. They will not renounce the religion, no matter the social cost.
For example - If a meeting is conducted with important dignitaries, the character may be asked not to attend by the troupe, as the unwillingness to say grace will be a faux pas. The character saying "I'll say grace for the sake of the meeting" the SG says "not with a major flaw". Fair warning at character creation should be given of course.
In the game, one does not have to go deep in to religion with players. It's sort of assumed they go to church, say grace, etc. If it comes up often, and they keep ignoring accepted norms, after a few warnings that there are certain social norms the character is ignoring, tell them they have a level 1 reputation irreligious.
It furthermore gives carte blanch to ignore social norms of the time.
I don't think it does. If you mean "I don't have to roleplay my character as a devout Christian", sure, but neither do most characters in a covenant. A covenant is already a kind of social outsider, home to all kinds of weird beliefs and practices. If you mean "my character can violate social norms in public without causing a stir", that's just not true - the Christian populace isn't going to accept "I'm a pagan, this doesn't apply to me".
But more basically: you don't need to take a Story Flaw to play as a pagan. No Story Flaw is "worth it" unless it makes stories, so if the player doesn't want their paganism to create complications they can't take it as a Story Flaw.
Exactly, just because there isn't a one hour mass scene for each day/week, it doesn't mean that the characters are not partaking in the religious life of the time, just that nothing eventful/noteworthy happens during the mass, just as the characters relieving themselves on trees isn't depectied on camera unless an ambush happens at that moment.
I'm with Loke on this: a "Practising Christian" flaw sounds more or less the same as "Pious" as applied to a Christian. It's a sensible flaw, already supported.
While many magi are only nominally Christian, they have no problem attending Mass or recieving the eucharist, or doing other Christian stuff if needed - possibly to prove to a priest that they are not infernalists.
Someone with the Pagan story flaw on the other hand will refuse to take part in Christian rites - possibly because it violates their beliefs, or because they think it could remove some of their powers, or for some other reason.
This can very, very much matter. Someone who is not willing to even pretend to be a Christian can very quickly get much unwanted attention from the Church. And from ordinary mundanes for that matter.
If they also openly practice, and perhaps prosyletize for, their religion, it is even more likely they will be denounced as satanists even if they aren't.
During the Livonian Crusades locals were often required to adopt Christianity and did so nominally- they added Jesus to their pantheon and worshipped him along with their other gods.
If found out they were considered heretics, not pagans.
This is in an area where the rules already specify that the Pagan flaw cannot be taken because it is too normal.
I won't go into the long process of conversion of the culture from nominally Christian to thoroughly Christian (which many people in the area today deny ever fully happened- won't debate that topic either), but it does illustrate how easy it is (depending on location) for someone following a pagan path to not be Pagan, as defined by the flaw. If you are major flaw Pagan then your behavior in the fully Christianized parts of Europe is definitely worth a story flaw. Especially in the parts where you could be hunted and killed for embracing the wrong type of Christianity, or being a Jew.
First of all, Story Flaws are a way for players to tell the troupe "As a player, I want this type of stories to come looking for my character. The character may not like them, but I do". So, if a player takes Pagan for his character, it means that a) he will elaborate on the Flaw, finding a convincing reason why his character can't/won't avoid the problems, so as to make the life easier for the Storyguide and b) he wants the Storyguide to preferentially hit him with stories about the problems arising from his being an outspoken Pagan. One should never take a Story Flaw if one does not enjoy, or simply cannot picture, Stories of that type to hit the character. Not every character concept can be accommodated into every saga, and that's the reason why it's particularly important that the troupe as a whole is ok with the individual PCs, particularly with their Story and Major Personality Flaws, and their Social Virtues and Flaws.
Second, the difference between Minor and Major Story Flaws is not that Major Story Flaws cause major inconvenience, and Minor ones minor inconvenience to the character. No. Both cause stories, i.e. intrusions on what the character would otherwise want to spend his time on. The difference is that Minor Flaws tend to be about something good for the character that drags him into Stories, while Major Flaws tend to be about something bad for the character that drags him into Stories. A helpful friend you must occasionally help yourself (dropping whatever you were doing) is a Minor Story Flaw, an annoying rival you must occasionally actively confront (dropping whatever you were doing) is a Major Story Flaw. Roughly speaking the "good" from a Minor Story Flaw is worth about a Minor General Virtue, while the "bad" from a Major Flaw is worth about a Minor General Flaw - so the "Story" part always yields two points of "reward" (Flaw points are a "reward" in that they can be used to purchase Virtues).
Third, note the difference between (Major and Minor) Story Flaws and Major Personality Flaws (such as Pious). While both generate Stories, Story Flaws have stories come looking for your character. These are stories that the character would rather avoid (even though the player wants and enjoys them); in some sense, they are exogenous. Major Personality Flaws on the other hand generate Stories that the character actually seeks out; in some sense, they are endogenous. You could think of Major Personality Flaws as the combination of a Minor Personality Flaw (roleplaying colour that is worth a one-point "reward") plus the two-point "Story reward", because a Major Personality Flaw is big enough to cause the character to seek out Stories.
So, if a character takes the Major Pagan Story Flaw, but no related Personality Flaw, it means he's a Pagan, for some reason he can't/won't hide it, and while he'd rather be left in peace he's constantly confronted with problems because of it -- these problems are big enough that they will occasionally drag him into a Story. (Major Story Flaw = constant trouble + occasionally Story-worth trouble). It's the responsibility of the player and the troupe to decide exactly how this comes into being.
If a character takes the Major Personality Flaw "Driven (to defend/spread/restore his Pagan or Christian Faith)", it means that the world would leave him alone, but instead he's constantly jumping at every opportunity to advance his faith; and occasionally these opportunities will lead to stories. This is essentially Pious (Major).
One can certainly take a Minor Story Flaw about being a good Christian. However, this is very different from taking a Minor Personality Flaw about being a good Christian - essentially Pious (Minor). The latter means roleplaying colour. The character strives to go mass, frequently quotes the Scriptures, refuses to join the grogs in - and in facts scolds them about - their whoring and profanity, etc.; it may occasionally cause a situational difficulty, but nothing serious. If one goes for a Minor Story Flaw, instead it means three things:
a) Being a good Christian provides him with extra benefits (on top of those provided to other characters), on par with a Minor "standard" Virtue.
b) Being a Christian drags him into Stories, and
c) These are Stories that he would rather avoid (and certainly he would not seek out on his own) but he can't. Note that the player does want those stories, even if the character does not.
For example, he might enjoy the respect and occasional assistance of his community (providing him with a positive Reputation and the ability to call upon them in times of need) ... but his community will come to him for assistance with their problems. He'll be the one called upon to resolve disputes; to bring the community's grievances to the local priest; to raise the funds for rebuilding the local church; etc. even though he wishes someone else took care of those problems. The player, on the other hand, is actively asking for them!
It requires that the character ignore social norms, sure ("You do not follow the teachings of the Church . . . You do not observe Christian holidays . . . You cannot pretend to go along with society . . ."), but the whole point is that it does not immunize the character from the social consequences of doing so, but rather marks that the player wants those consequences to fall on the character.
Such flaws are dangerous. The character has a carte blanche to ignore social norms and face the consequences, and soon enough the SG and/or the troupe are sick of playing out those consequences, and move on to something else. That's when the flaw is not worth its points.
This idea comes from a UK Regency era LARP that has fantasy elements.
The organisers were concerned that the exotic and supernatural elements would be extremely tempting and everybody would be playing something weird, undermining the vibe of the event.
So to incentivise playing to brief they introduced the flaw: "God-fearing Englishman/woman." Which you could only take if you were a largely normal human. Which gave those who leaned into the specific vibe of the setting a small additional bonus.
The problem I've mostly seen with the Pagan Flaw is players wanting to play a Pagan character take it without expecting any repercussion (not that there was - time is usually limited - at when everyone is at least atheist / lapsed christian, chances are, no one will make a story in which the pagan character is "punished" for being pagan). It was, at best, a Major story flaw taken as a minor personality flaw, if not a character trait
That's not really a problem with the Flaw, just a table communication problem regarding what a Story Flaw is. Lots of players have been "trained" by other rpgs to think that any significant fact about their character should be represented mechanically, which doesn't help.
There's something to be said for Story Flaws being more generically phrased, to be flavoured as desired (as some already are, like Enemies). Something like "Religious Outcast", or "Persecuted for [Trait]". But so long as communication is clear at the table, it's good as-is, and you obviously lose a lot of the medieval flavour (which can help less historically-inclined players) if these things are less specific.
That seems like a problem that could happen for any Story Flaw, though I can see why it happens more with Pagan. It isn't a problem with the flaw itsf, but with any character whose Story Flaws are coming up too often - which (a) creates too many similar stories and (b) leaves less room for stories from other characters' Story Flaws.
Sorry, yes the system was entirely based around a point buy system, so in that case it would allow you to buy additional mundane skills, backgrounds or abilities such as being wealthy or being skilled with a blade.
