Removing a character from play for being "Evil"


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 210 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Bartgroks, are you claiming that I can have my PC commit any series of actions, and it cannot change my character's alignment until I, as the player, decide it does?

If so, I would consider the "no evil PCs" rule for PFS to be meaningless.

Sovereign Court 2/5

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

from the Core Rules

Quote:

It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character.

There don't actually appear to be any core rules allowing a GM to change a character's alignment without the player's consent. Can anyone cite such a rule?

If this is true then we can finally end this ridiculous argument and get back to enjoying PFS.


Chris Mortika wrote:

Bartgroks, are you claiming that I can have my PC commit any series of actions, and it cannot change my character's alignment until I, as the player, decide it does?

If so, I would consider the "no evil PCs" rule for PFS to be meaningless.

Chris,

If you feel that some faction missions are inherently evil to the extent that completing them should remove a PC from the game.. then why doesn't the scenario say this?

To me it sounds like you are disagreeing with the author & editors here and imposing your own view points.

You seem to have enough of the ears of the coordinators and administration.. if you come across such a thing mention it and have them put in guidelines or warnings to that effect.

Otherwise its going to be your opinion to try to remove characters from the game, which I can't really see where you would be empowered to do this btw... is there a part of the campaign guide that deals with this?

-James

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

Bartgroks, are you claiming that I can have my PC commit any series of actions, and it cannot change my character's alignment until I, as the player, decide it does?

If so, I would consider the "no evil PCs" rule for PFS to be meaningless.

I am not claiming anything I am asking for someone to please point out the rule that allows a GM to permanently change a character's alignment without the player's consent and politely suggesting that there may not be one. Dragnmoon was kind enough to link the apt rules and I am slightly surprised there is no such rule myself.

This does not change the GM's ability to handle disruptive players of course I agree with Dragnmoon on that point completely.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Hi, James.

I apologize for being unclear.

Bartgroks put forth that "There don't actually appear to be any core rules allowing a GM to change a character's alignment without the player's consent."

So, let's say that a player at your next table has his character do all sorts of unpleasant things. Burning down populated buildings. Causing as much mayhem as possible. Insert whatever taboo activities you want.

It sounds to me like Bartgroks is claiming that you, as the GM, can't say, "Dude, if you do that, you'll be evil." It has to be the player's decision as to whether or not any given atrocity makes the PC evil.

And my question to him (or to you, if you agree with Bartgroks' position) is , what does this do to the "no evil PCs" rule?


Grumph Bronzebeard wrote:

from the Core Rules

Quote:

It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character.

There don't actually appear to be any core rules allowing a GM to change a character's alignment without the player's consent. Can anyone cite such a rule?

If this is true then we can finally end this ridiculous argument and get back to enjoying PFS.

Don't rejoice too fast if you haven't also considered the following:

Quote:
In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil.

This clearly states that a GM is to use the rules in the alignment section, plus his own judgment, to make alignment calls. As I've called for on the other thread, what PFS has to strive for is the last part--basic consistency that all players, authors, and GMs can reliably expect to encounter in PFS. That's a hard thing in organized play.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Just throwing this out there, but what is the alignment of your character? I find that many GM's (and players) like to categorize everything into either good or evil, with little regard to neutrality. Take for instance a Lawful Neutral Pathfinder of the Cheliax faction. Said individuals would preform their duties, whether good or evil, because those were the orders issued to them. There should be no real issue with said character doing an evil act if said act were necessary to further the goals of their superiors. Now please keep in mind that this dose not excuse excessive amounts of evil, or always taking the evil path.

This is just one example. My point being that many people are too quick to label someone evil for just a single evil act, ignoring the situational complexities. In short, sometimes the ends justify the means.

As for venture-captains having the authority to change alignment, I support it. It is necessary to keep players from just playing Neutral as Evil. But I agree that there needs to be a way of logging their reasons and explaining the situations. Perhaps a Three Strike system.

Anyway, hope I've helped! Happy Gaming everyone!

Sovereign Court 2/5

I think we can all agree that if someone were running around burning down villages that they also are liking being a very disruptive player and could be asked to leave the table so that the other players may enjoy the adventure. That is certainly within the rules of the PFS guide. I'm not sure that we need to make it so that GMs can rule a player's character illegal for play since we already have the option of removing disruptive players.

I think at this point we've made it clear that we'd like some ruling on this sort of thing from the powers that be. While I don't agree with the idea that evil acts should allow the GM to change a characters alignment (particularly if the character is neutral) if that is the ruling that is made, I will accept it and continue to play PFS regardless. I just don't believe that will be the case as a reasonable number of faction missions require questionable acts that I don't believe would have made it past editing if they did not intend to allow you the opportunity to complete them without losing your character.

Paizo Employee 5/5 * Developer

Chris Mortika wrote:

Hi, James.

I apologize for being unclear.

Bartgroks put forth that "There don't actually appear to be any core rules allowing a GM to change a character's alignment without the player's consent."

So, let's say that a player at your next table has his character do all sorts of unpleasant things. Burning down populated buildings. Causing as much mayhem as possible. Insert whatever taboo activities you want.

It sounds to me like Bartgroks is claiming that you, as the GM, can't say, "Dude, if you do that, you'll be evil." It has to be the player's decision as to whether or not any given atrocity makes the PC evil.

And my question to him (or to you, if you agree with Bartgroks' position) is , what does this do to the "no evil PCs" rule?

The no evil PCs rule is not a no evil actions rule. Unless you track every good thing a character does to see if things balance, you can't justify moving alignment. Further, unless every GM does this, you can't justify moving alignment. If someone is murdering townspeople left and right, they aren't being evil as much as disruptive. GMs always have the prerogative to deal with those players. You do not have the prerogative to make up values on a scale that doesn't exist.

While you can tell by the core what is good and evil, it doesn't give any measurement for a given action. You don't know how many evil points something is worth, nor how many good points. There are no such points. If you told me you were changing my alignment, you would be ignored. I doubt anyone in a position of authority would back you.

If we were given the authority to change alignments, we'd be given a scale. No GM is allowed to just make one up.

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/5

erian_7 you are quoting of context. the full section reads

Quote:

Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.

It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character. In some cases, changing alignments can impact a character's abilities—see the class write-ups in Classes for details. An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality.

erian_7 wrote:


This clearly states that a GM is to use the rules in the alignment section, plus his own judgment, to make alignment calls. As I've called for on the other thread, what PFS has to strive for is the last part--basic consistency that all players, authors, and GMs can reliably expect to encounter in PFS. That's a hard thing in organized play.

So there is a general rule stating that DM decides if things are alignment appropriate or not followed by a specific rule saying you can tell a player he is playing his alignment wrong and his alignment can be changed if he is ok with it. Nothing in there says "the gm can change a character's alignment without his consent" In spite of the payers consent being called for in the second paragraph. I am still waiting to see the rule that allows non-consensual alignment changes to be cited.


bartgroks wrote:
So there is a general rule stating that DM decides if things are alignment appropriate or not followed by a specific rule saying you can tell a player he is playing his alignment wrong and his alignment can be changed if he is ok with it. Nothing in there says "the gm can change a character's alignment without his consent" In spite of the payers consent being called for in the second paragraph. I am still waiting to see the rule that allows non-consensual alignment changes to be cited.

It's not a general statement, it's very specific. PFS does not allow Evil characters. A GM has the authority to determine if actions are consistent with the character's stated alignment. If the player truly wants to have a character running around killing villagers left and right, as noted previously, then the GM is authorized to determine this is not consistent with the alignment stated on the character sheet. The player can change his actions and act accordingly after a warning, or else face the final judgment of the GM. This falls, to me, under the "Don't Be a Jerk" rule. If a GM warns you to stop acting Evil, in accordance with the restrictions in PFS, and you disregard that warning and continue in your actions then the GM can most definitely write "Evil" on your sheet and send you packing. That's a reasonable position to take based on the rules. An unreasonable position is the "I can go do anything I want" mentality some are espousing. Note, I'm not talking about a character performing one morally gray action. I'm addressing the flagrant Evil that some folks want to portray as okay. I've got no position as yet on how PFS should track Evil citations, but I do believe something of this nature is necessary if the prohibition on Evil characters is to remain in place. I'll leave specifics for that to the leadership. Of course, I have also advocated that if Evil factions like Cheliax are going to be allowed, then PFS should simply allow Evil characters as well and be done with it...


The restriction on "No Evil PCs" in PFS play is basically a PFS House Rule. In my looking at everything, I feel this restriction should be treated no differently than the way classes with alignment restrictions are treated, with the option for an Atonement for the character along with a promise from the player to stop doing evil with the character. And then, only if the player refuses to change, that will cause the alignment shift to Evil to become permanent and the character removed from play.

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

Hi, James.

I apologize for being unclear.

Bartgroks put forth that "There don't actually appear to be any core rules allowing a GM to change a character's alignment without the player's consent."

So, let's say that a player at your next table has his character do all sorts of unpleasant things. Burning down populated buildings. Causing as much mayhem as possible. Insert whatever taboo activities you want.

It sounds to me like Bartgroks is claiming that you, as the GM, can't say, "Dude, if you do that, you'll be evil." It has to be the player's decision as to whether or not any given atrocity makes the PC evil.

And my question to him (or to you, if you agree with Bartgroks' position) is , what does this do to the "no evil PCs" rule?

Again I am not claiming anything. I am pointing that there does not appear to be a rule allowing this, asking for someone to cite the rule, and above and beyond all else stating that we need an FAQ here. I have changed character's alignments in home games and quite recently pulled the paladin in my home game aside for a chat to avoid having to do so again. But doing so in a home game is an easy thing compared to doing it in a shared game where you and hundreds or other GMs and authors are making their own calls as to what is and is not evil.

Removing someone's character from the campaign is a big deal and the justification for doing so in the rules is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Really this should be covered in the PFS rules if it is acceptable. There is a long section on PC death why not a section on banning PCs from the game permanently by changing their alignments?

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/5

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
The restriction on "No Evil PCs" in PFS play is basically a PFS House Rule. In my looking at everything, I feel this restriction should be treated no differently than the way classes with alignment restrictions are treated, with the option for an Atonement for the character along with a promise from the player to stop doing evil with the character. And then, only if the player refuses to change, that will cause the alignment shift to Evil to become permanent and the character removed from play.

This actually sounds reasonable and could even be the starting point for an FAQ. I would also suggest that if fulfilling a faction mission is considered an evil act that should be spelled out for the GM in the module itself.

Scarab Sages 2/5

If it's a faction mission, then no, the DM can not nor should not penalize the PC.

That being said, CN has really gotta go. All too often it's abused and used to justify evil acts.

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/5

erian_7 wrote:


It's not a general statement, it's very specific. PFS does not allow Evil characters.

I agree completely but this is not the specific rule I am looking for, I am looking for a specific rule governing how a GM should handle a character not playing his alignment the way the GM thinks it should be played and the only one i see is:

Quote:
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner.

I just don't see a lot of room to go from that statement to "I went through his character chronicle sheets saw he had PA for missions I personally thought were evil so i overruled the GMs who ran those games and threw him out of the campaign"

Scarab Sages 4/5 5/5

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

If it's a faction mission, then no, the DM can not nor should not penalize the PC.

That being said, CN has really gotta go. All too often it's abused and used to justify evil acts.

If you read a little past the section we keep qouting in the alignment rules you will see this gem.

Quote:
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.

1/5

bartgroks wrote:


There don't actually appear to be any core rules allowing a GM to change a character's alignment without the player's consent. Can anyone cite such a rule?

Nope I can not site any such rule. I can only site the rule that says that alignment changes are at the sole discretion of the GM.

"...unlike hit points or skill ranks or armor class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls." My emphasis. Page 168 of core rule book.

There is a section basically telling the GM to be nice about it and let the player make the change to the character to bring it back in lin (changing alignment or changing how character is played) but if the player does not want to change a thing you bet the GM can do it for him or her.

I have issues with my PFS group and the lack of alignment also. In fact, one of my players went to Gencon with a paladin, tried to sell off an evil act with a lame excuse (he had been warned many times by us in the past), and became a lvl 9 commoner right then and there (Beginning of the scenario).

Liberty's Edge 1/5

theirs only one faction that i can think of thats going to ask of u to do evile and thats chiliax and i don't understand y u can be part of them since the last rules say they are le
and since u can be part of them then their should be no consquince of u geting ur pa

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lab_Rat wrote:
In fact, one of my players went to Gencon with a paladin, tried to sell off an evil act with a lame excuse (he had been warned many times by us in the past), and became a lvl 9 commoner right then and there (Beginning of the scenario).

Ooooo... This year? Who did this, will this GM please step Forward! ;)

Scarab Sages 2/5

bartgroks wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:

If it's a faction mission, then no, the DM can not nor should not penalize the PC.

That being said, CN has really gotta go. All too often it's abused and used to justify evil acts.

If you read a little past the section we keep qouting in the alignment rules you will see this gem.

Quote:
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.

I know that part by heart. In all my years playing, I think I've only seen one or two players do something other than an act that is simply CE in nature. The vast majority of the time CN is CE lite. "I'm going to kill this here prisoner and use him as an Edgar Suit." And then try to justify such action by saying "I'm CN. I can do that." I have to have a talk with one of the newbies tomorrow before game and explain that CN doesn't mean you can play a sociopath.

I know of only one player who has played CN consistently. Though he's very entertaining, I would call his alignment more CS. I would even dare say that he is probably the only person I would allow to play a CN character in a home campaign.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Dragnmoon wrote:


I will still hold to my right as a GM though to Control my game when it come to disruptive players though.

Of course. But this isn't about being a disruptive player.

This is about completing a faction mission that some folks feel are evil and thus ok to remove a character from play for completing.

This is about killing a surrendered foe and some GM's declaring it as evil and thus removing a character from play for doing.

My entire point has almost nothing to do with what exactly is evil, or what is considered disruptive, or almost anything this entire thread has become, which I asked it not become.

It has to do with the subjective nature of what constitutes an evil act, and what constitutes enough evil that a character should be removed from play.

My entire point is...

A character being removed from play should not be subjective, EVER.

1/5

SIRHITMANHEART wrote:

theirs only one faction that i can think of thats going to ask of u to do evile and thats chiliax and i don't understand y u can be part of them since the last rules say they are le

and since u can be part of them then their should be no consquince of u geting ur pa

Not true. Qadira has asked my character to trick my party into attacking an NPC, then we had to kill him with poison and make it very painful. Luckily I had another player who did the deed as poison use was well out of the range of what my character felt was honorable.

The Exchange 2/5

Lab_Rat wrote:
SIRHITMANHEART wrote:

theirs only one faction that i can think of thats going to ask of u to do evile and thats chiliax and i don't understand y u can be part of them since the last rules say they are le

and since u can be part of them then their should be no consquince of u geting ur pa
Not true. Qadira has asked my character to trick my party into attacking an NPC, then we had to kill him with poison and make it very painful. Luckily I had another player who did the deed as poison use was well out of the range of what my character felt was honorable.

My Chelaxian monk ended up completing a faction mission for a Taldan teammate inadvertantly by killing the target they'd been told to assassinate. My Andoran summoner has been asked, in the past, to kill an "enemy of everything Andoran stands for". Pretty much all of the factions have required killing someone as a faction mission in the past.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:

My entire point is...

A character being removed from play should not be subjective, EVER.

+1

Maybe I'll just re-quote this every time the thread goes on another tangent.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Lab_Rat wrote:
I have issues with my PFS group and the lack of alignment also. In fact, one of my players went to Gencon with a paladin, tried to sell off an evil act with a lame excuse (he had been warned many times by us in the past), and became a lvl 9 commoner right then and there (Beginning of the scenario).

Technically, he should have become the equivalent of a level 9 fighter. Minus the feats and what not. Our group has actually had to strip a PC of his Paladin-hood.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Lab_Rat wrote:
I have issues with my PFS group and the lack of alignment also. In fact, one of my players went to Gencon with a paladin, tried to sell off an evil act with a lame excuse (he had been warned many times by us in the past), and became a lvl 9 commoner right then and there (Beginning of the scenario).
Technically, he should have become the equivalent of a level 9 fighter. Minus the feats and what not. Our group has actually had to strip a PC of his Paladin-hood.

For the record, this is not what I’m referring to. Many things that could be subjectively evil enough to change a character’s alignment to evil are certainly enough to remove a paladin-hood. That isn’t what this thread is about. This thread is about removing a character from play, which should have non-subjective or objective criteria.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Andrew,

Would you propose such an objective criterion?


Chris Mortika wrote:

Hi, James.

I apologize for being unclear.

And my question to him (or to you, if you agree with Bartgroks' position) is , what does this do to the "no evil PCs" rule?

Hi Chris,

You still haven't answered my question:

If a faction mission is inherently evil, then why doesn't the scenario address it and ramifications for completing it directly as written?

I think that your position is flawed.

There are many things that a home campaign GM can rule and do that a society play judge is NOT empowered to do. Organized play has a strange 'half'-GM position that you are finding yourself in. The role of real DM of the campaign is taken by the coordinators, and many calls are theirs and not the table GM's to make. That you wish to take it upon yourself to say 'I don't like what you're doing, don't play this game anymore' I find abhorrent. When you judge society scenarios you are entrusted with a responsibility, and I see what you are describing as abusing that responsibility.

TO Answer your question (and again I'd hope that you would please answer mine):

If the player is doing something SO egregious then simply disallowing them from doing so is the answer. At the very least this confines your personal judgment to the table. Hopefully your judgment is sound and not overstepping.

NOW this is different from the scenario that spawned this:

Meanwhile if the player is simply having his/her PC try to complete the given faction mission that the campaign coordinators (who in society play are essentially 'the DM') have approved without any mention that 'unless the PCs are careful this should impact their alignment, etc'... this is something entirely different.

It is more akin to you being a fellow player at a home campaign and declaring that another player is now a different alignment. It's not your place to do. It's not even demanding that the DM change the offending PC's alignment as that would be simply reporting the 'evil acts' to the society administration!

I've seen no support for your actions in the guide, and you haven't ever responded that there was one. So its clear that you are overstepping your authority here, just as if you decided 'as the DM' that you would let a player rebuild their PC, swap this or that out, trade in gear, or anything else that frankly is the purview of the coordinators.

There are many calls that they make that you might not personally agree with. There are perhaps many calls that they don't make that you feel that they should. But when we judge society play we accept their rules, however annoying or 'wrong' they might be. I've got my issues with a few as I find them either counterproductive or simply silly, but that doesn't mean that I tell players at my tables that they don't exist when I judge or that these 'extra' rules DO.

-James

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

Andrew,

Would you propose such an objective criterion?

When I have time to sit down and come up with such an idea on Thursday evening, I was planning to, and will.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Chris Mortika wrote:

In the first month of the Pathfinder Society, there was some concern about the Cheliax faction mission for "Silent Tide".

** spoiler omitted **

There was some concern that the mission was evil. Josh said, "That's ridiculous. You're supposed to take a skull. There's nothing wrong with that."

Some of us disagreed. Saying that the faction mission isn't evil is like standing in the same kitchen as a homicidal maniac who has a woman duct-taped to a chair, struggling and panicked. He asks you for the paring knife next to you, so that he can use it to pop out her eyes. "Oh, I was just handing him a knife. That's not evil at all." "Oh, I was just handing Her Majestrix a skull and an oath."

Josh considered and...

Irony:

Spoiler:
When I ran that for our home game (and for the society once) I really thought the "Get some of that poison for our use." Kind of grey. I didn't think about the skulls.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Hi James.

Let's talk about faction missions.

A Season 0 Adventure:

From "Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch"

Qadira[A]n old Street Shah named Belal Al-Sarif has recently added espionage to his repertoire. You needn’t know who he’s spying for, just know that he must be dealt with. For many reasons it is best if his death appears to be the work of outsiders rather than Qadirans, so killing him in the course of your Pathfinder duties is the best plan. If he isn’t involved in your current affair, find a way to involve him. Enclosed please find a vial of black scorpion venom—it’s a particularly painful way to die, and I want him to be a good example for others. Coat your blade with it and a mere scratch will do the job. And if you can do so without being overheard, tell him Muhlia sent you.

Taldor I have taken the trouble to forge a very authentic-looking document indicating that you and your comrades are actually moonlighting for the Osirian government and that you’ve been ordered to deal as much death and destruction necessary to make good their recovery. Leave the document somewhere the agents of the Satrap will find it, and engage in at least one spectacularly destructive spectacle, and we’ll have Qadira and Osirion at each other’s throats in no time.

I certainly wouldn't call the first mission Good, and willfully carrying it out would certainly strip a Paladin of her class powers permanently. But I wouldn't consider it Evil.

The second mission, causing as much spectacular death and destruction as possible -- the scenario's author suggests the PC can set fire to a building in a heavily-populated market; innocent people die -- with full knowledge aforthright that you're trying to smear an innocent third party, all for personal gain (a prestige point); that I would consider Evil.

So I'd warn the player: "If your PC carries that out, I'll put a note on the character sheet that he's slipping towards Evil. If you do something like that again, you'll have removed your character from the campaign."

I don't expect PCs to wander through Absalom or Kaer Maga or any other large city, setting fires and causing mayhem. And a note from Baron Jacquo doesn't make it magically okay.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
For the record, this is not what I’m referring to. Many things that could be subjectively evil enough to change a character’s alignment to evil are certainly enough to remove a paladin-hood. That isn’t what this thread is about. This thread is about removing a character from play, which should have non-subjective or objective criteria.

I was correcting what I thought of as a mistake. Paladin-hood is very easy to lose. It can be lost through inaction (which is how our paladin lost his) or through committing ONE evil act. Whereas a fighter or ranger of even a good cleric won't lose anything if they commit an evil act or if they don't something.

As for removing a character because they carried out a faction mission, that's just ridiculous. Are there some questionable faction missions? Yes. Should there be objective criteria for removing a character from play? Yes. Having a DM that would remove my character from play for fulfilling my faction mission, would piss me off to no end and I would never game with him again. And I would report him. Sometimes, good characters have to do evil things. I play nothing but good aligned characters. Each has a different variation on what is good. My bard would do whatever it takes to help Osirion. So if the faction mission is to kill someone, he'd do it. And I came very close to trapping the party in a tomb because they were tomb raiders. All for the greater good of Osirion.

My Qadiran on the other hand, would look at each situation differently and decide. Maybe capturing the target and turning him over would serve the greater good. It's a case by case thing.

My fighter, on the other hand, just usually blows off the faction mission. She's gotten the "evil" andoran faction missions and as usual, just blew it off.

If you sit back on really think about what the characters are doing, there are NO good characters. In the course of a mission, we conduct B&E's, genocide, assassinations, theft--usually of the grand type, bribery, and so on. So if a DM is going to sit there and remove a character from play for an evil act, then he needs to remove ALL characters from play. But yet, the DM doesn't.

Removing a character for fulfilling a faction mission just makes the DM look like an ass.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

Hi James.

Let's talk about faction missions.

** spoiler omitted **

I certainly wouldn't call the first mission Good, and willfully carrying it out would certainly strip a Paladin of her class powers permanently. But I wouldn't consider it Evil.

The second mission, causing as much spectacular death and destruction as possible -- the scenario's author suggests the PC can set fire to a building in a heavily-populated market; innocent people die -- with full knowledge aforthright that you're trying to smear an innocent third party, all for personal gain (a prestige point); that I would consider Evil.

So I'd warn the player: "If your PC carries that out, I'll put a note on the character sheet that he's slipping towards Evil. If you do something like that again, you'll have...

We didn't have a Qadiran at my table when we played it, but the Taldorans at the table got inventive and ended up doing a lot of damage without getting people killed.

I do agree with you. There are faction missions that explicitly ask the characters to do evil things. But I won't remove a character from play for fulfilling their faction mission. I will penalize a paladin of Qadira until he undergoes an Atonement.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

We didn't have a Qadiran at my table when we played it, but the Taldorans at the table got inventive and ended up doing a lot of damage without getting people killed.

I do agree with you. There are faction missions that explicitly ask the characters to do evil things. But I won't remove a character from play for fulfilling their faction mission.

I congratulate your Taldan PCs for doing their job while taking care to avoid loss of innocent life.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:

We didn't have a Qadiran at my table when we played it, but the Taldorans at the table got inventive and ended up doing a lot of damage without getting people killed.

I do agree with you. There are faction missions that explicitly ask the characters to do evil things. But I won't remove a character from play for fulfilling their faction mission.

I congratulate your Taldan PCs for doing their job while taking care to avoid loss of innocent life.

Both of those faction missions rubbed people the wrong way. When I went through it with my Qadiran, he was ambivalent. I did end up doing it, but I don't recall of using the poison on him. I think I ended up using it on one of the thugs we were fighting.

The Exchange 2/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

Hi James.

Let's talk about faction missions.

** spoiler omitted **

I certainly wouldn't call the first mission Good, and willfully carrying it out would certainly strip a Paladin of her class powers permanently. But I wouldn't consider it Evil.

The second mission, causing as much spectacular death and destruction as possible -- the scenario's author suggests the PC can set fire to a building in a heavily-populated market; innocent people die -- with full knowledge aforthright that you're trying to smear an innocent third party, all for personal gain (a prestige point); that I would consider Evil.

So I'd warn the player: "If your PC carries that out, I'll put a note on the character sheet that he's slipping towards Evil. If you do something like that again, you'll have...

I remember that. I was Qadiran and wouldn't do the mission (NG cleric of Sarenrae). Neither would our paladin. Luckily, we had a LN fighter with us who didn't have a problem with it, or we certainly wouldn't have gotten our PA.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:

Elyas,

Even if the player in your example had continued to do that, it would not be evil if it was not being done in a sick and twisted way or was not being done to innocents. After all, there have been plenty of cultures and tribes in Earth's history that believed the ritual consumption of the flesh or blood of a fallen foe would give them their foe's strength or knowledge. So while we find it repulsive and totally against modern morals or ethics or whatever, the primitive tribes that practiced cannibalism were generally not evil. So, as long as the character does not turn into Hannibal Lecter, I do not think it would be evil. Unacceptable in more civilized society, but not evil.

Enevhar Aldarion,

Thank you. You make an excellent point about primitive, or aboriginal people believing that taking part in ritual cannibalism to grant them the strength of a fallen foe and because of the cultural context it isn’t considered an evil act.

Let me tell you a little about my past. My father is an anthropologist and a curator in the Natural History Museum on the Mall, which is part of the Smithsonian. Several times he took his family (including me) with him while he did his research in the “field” studying a tribe in Brazil called the Canella. I had the opportunity to live in the tribe and play with the other children there. I also had the opportunity to live with an aboriginal people in Micronesia for a year from the ages of 9-10.

Growing up things weren’t strange as in bad “why is he wearing feathers, and why are there spools in his ears?” they were different as in interesting.

I have perused a carrier in photography, and while working for a student exchange program, called “The Experiment in International Living”. Over the years they have sent me to Spain where I was a participant and a student in one of their high school student exchange programs; and then as an employee and photographer to China, Ecuador, New Zealand and India. In each of these places I got to take part in a home stay and lived with a family. I remember one of the mottos was “To expect the unexpected”.

As an Adult I have also been able to go back to the Canela, and photograph them as well.

So in short yes you do make a very good point, which I can appreciate. Many things while strange to us are culturally relative.

Of course in hindsight we usually have a better perception on things. I think that if this player’s had described his character’s heart munching activities in some sort of “tribal” terms i.e.: my character comes from a jungle tribe and we believe in eating the hears of our enemies to gain their strength…or some sort of colorful Fluff explanation, I think I would have been much more likely to encourage more detail about the customs etc. His explanation was simply that “my character is CN and crazy”.

While someone can be “crazy” or insane and “legally incompetent to stand trial for their activities”, in my opinion in the context of the pathfinder game, with an alignment system, and spells that detect alignment, so evil can be objectively verified, there are some acts that are inherently evil, regardless of how insane the perpetrator is. In my opinion in the context of the Pathfinder game, I think the same can be said for cultural relativism. I think there are some things (devils demons daemons Rakshasa etc), which are evil, and there are some acts that are inherently evil, regardless of cultural relativity and context. But then again that is simply my opinion and interpretation. I think the designers have deliberately left some things such as alignment, Good, evil, Law, Chaos etc un-defined. This lets us GMs interpret some things according to our own preferences and view points.

The other thing is this; there were other players at the table (in addition to myself) who were uncomfortable with this activity. While I do have a responsibility as a GM to be welcoming and encouraging, and to make sure this new player is having fun, that responsibility extends to the other players at the table…If the heart munching made other players uncomfortable, Then I as the GM needs to step in and moderate things somehow.

Perhaps it would have been better to take the player aside and quietly comment that his characters heart munching activities were making other players and myself uncomfortable.

As the GM I am also responsible for setting the tone of the game…and this is something that everyone (including myself) has to feel comfortable with.

I know this player with his heart munching character runs his own game at the gaming store on Monday nights. While I am at his table, he gets to set the tone for his game, and while he is at a table I’m GMing, Ill go ahead and set the tone (the tone has to be something all the players at the table are comfortable with.

Also I am gaming at the “local Game store” and as a public store which in addition to selling Pathfinder gaming books, the store sells model trains, comic books,Magic the Gathering cards, Leggo, etc, it also sells cribs and baby strollers. I would prefer to keep the game around PG 13, and sometimes little lighter depending on the groups composition. Sometimes we have players who are between the ages of 11 to 15 (they sometimes come with a parent).

So Enevhar Aldarion, while I do agree that you do have an excellent point concerning cultural relativity, I also think that I have some good reasons for steering the game away from a (NC-17) type of game.

Cheers,
Elyas

P. S. I apologize for this long post, but before i knew it i had typed out quite a long post.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

Hi James.

Let's talk about faction missions.

** spoiler omitted **

I certainly wouldn't call the first mission Good, and willfully carrying it out would certainly strip a Paladin of her class powers permanently. But I wouldn't consider it Evil.

First of all, permanent is a strong word. An atonement spell is available to help Paladins regain their mantle, so to speak.

Quote:

The second mission, causing as much spectacular death and destruction as possible -- the scenario's author suggests the PC can set fire to a building in a heavily-populated market; innocent people die -- with full knowledge aforthright that you're trying to smear an innocent third party, all for personal gain (a prestige point); that I would consider Evil.

So I'd warn the player: "If your PC carries that out, I'll put a note on the character sheet that he's slipping towards Evil. If you do something like that again, you'll have...

Spectacular mayhem doesn't have to include innocent death. So yeah, you have to weigh the consequences of actions that are unnecessary.

But if to succeed at a faction mission, you HAVE to kill someone, I don't think that the campaign coordinators are intending this to send PCs rocketing towards evil.

And secondly, if GM's are going to hold to the letter of the faction mission as written, and not use the "creative solutions" clause in the campaign guide to allow for creative solutions of faction missions, then they have to allow for potentially and subjectively "evil" acts (i.e. killing a surrendered foe) without it negatively affecting the characters.

You can't have it both ways. You can't essentially make it impossible to complete the mission because if you do, you lose your character. That's a ludicrous premise.

Sovereign Court 5/5

The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to have fun, as I believe Doug Miles mentioned in this thread. This is something that we, as GMs and indirect representatives of Paizo, must keep in mind above all else. With that said, alignment is a tricky rule to adjucate, but it is indeed a rule. This thread specifically addresses the issue of, "can a GM permanently ban a character from playing?".

First of all, keep in mind that GMs already have that power, for everyone who is crying havoc about the disastrous nature. When a character permanently dies, then that character is removed from the game. For those who would respond that character death is not arbitrary, I say there is definitely an arbitrary element to it. Call it cheating, ruling or fudging, but GMs generally have a hand in whether a character permanently dies or not. "That wasn't a slay living, that was an inflict massive wounds!" Obviously, there are some times when a GM would choose to go one way or another, depending on the player and the situation. A death deserved from poor player tactics (I'm at 1/4 hit points and I run up to the BBEG right before his full attack!) is very different from one where a GM has dice rolls that negate good player decisions (the monster wins initiative and crits the bard with a scythe!). At the given time you may fudge both or neither of these situations. I am simply saying they are different.

As a GM, our job is to make calls. And an inherent part of playing PFS is that NOT every GM will make the same calls consistently. Additionally, especially at events, you have little control over which GM you play with.

Just as player deaths have a judgement call on them, so too does alignment. I believe it is impossible to standardize them absolutely (we shouldn't kid ourselves, even the rules aren't standardized absolutely, otherwise why would we even have discussions about them). Eliminating players from the game because of our subjective feelings is something that could rapidly result in misuse. You cannot apply the same standards in a PFS game as you do in a home game. We need to think carefully about maximizing player fun, and about how much harm that there is in eliminating the player. If the reasons for actions are justifiable for that character, or incentivized by faction missions, I think that should be taken into consideration. I know this is pretty broad. I'm not saying what I would and would not allow at a table, because that has no effect on what other GMs would do. I am just making a case for leniency at PFS.

However, RPGs are a game of consequences. If actions violate the "don't be a jerk rule", damage the play experience for other characters, or fall dramatically in the evil category, then GMs need to take action. I absolutely believe that as good GMs, we should talk to the player, either at the table or individually. I believe the loss of class abilities, and atonements should be in order if they do not respond to those warnings. If the actions by the player violate "don't be a jerk", I may ask them to leave.

But this goes back to the key question: can DMs eliminate a player from the game? Here's where my death tangent comes in. If none of these things work, how I would handle things would again, vary by the situation. Is this a regular character that I see that would continue causing problems? Am I at an event where I have other GMs to consult, or a Venture Captain is present? What exactly did the player do: kill a helpless prisoner or sacrifice babies in a dark ritual? Is this a player who is truly bent on causing grief for the game?

In conclusion, I would only eliminate a player from the game (by reporting him or her as permanently dead) only in the rarest of situations. I would keep in mind that this is a particularly difficult thing for the player, and that the rest of the table may have a negative reaction. I would attempt to do it in such a way that I am not a jerk. However, given that permanent death happens to players can and does happen, I believe that it is within my right as a GM. Allowing a player to play a truly evil character would be just as much cheating as allowing them to have a +5 vorpal sword. But instead of slamming them the second that an incident happens, I would try to handle it in a mature fashion that would still allow the players and myself to have fun.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Nani Z. Obringer wrote:

The goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to have fun, as I believe Doug Miles mentioned in this thread. This is something that we, as GMs and indirect representatives of Paizo, must keep in mind above all else. With that said, alignment is a tricky rule to adjucate, but it is indeed a rule. This thread specifically addresses the issue of, "can a GM permanently ban a character from playing?".

First of all, keep in mind that GMs already have that power, for everyone who is crying havoc about the disastrous nature. When a character permanently dies, then that character is removed from the game. For those who would respond that character death is not arbitrary, I say there is definitely an arbitrary element to it. Call it cheating, ruling or fudging, but GMs generally have a hand in whether a character permanently dies or not. "That wasn't a slay living, that was an inflict massive wounds!" Obviously, there are some times when a GM would choose to go one way or another, depending on the player and the situation. A death deserved from poor player tactics (I'm at 1/4 hit points and I run up to the BBEG right before his full attack!) is very different from one where a GM has dice rolls that negate good player decisions (the monster wins initiative and crits the bard with a scythe!). At the given time you may fudge both or neither of these situations. I am simply saying they are different.

As a GM, our job is to make calls. And an inherent part of playing PFS is that NOT every GM will make the same calls consistently. Additionally, especially at events, you have little control over which GM you play with.

Just as player deaths have a judgement call on them, so too does alignment. I believe it is impossible to standardize them absolutely (we shouldn't kid ourselves, even the rules aren't standardized absolutely, otherwise why would we even have discussions about them). Eliminating players from the game because of our subjective feelings is something that could rapidly result in misuse. You cannot apply...

I hear what you are saying. And I agree. The GM's need to have authority at their table, otherwise you end up with players whining to the campaign staff constantly.

However, death at the table is not subjective if the game is played by RAW. You have a set of rules and a designed encounter to adhere to. If you do, and someone dies because of the arbitrariness of random dice rolls, well that is still objective, because you are following the RAW. If a GM fudges some dice rolls so someone doesn't die, I suppose that's their call, and nobody can necessarily question that without knowing the full circumstances. If a GM fudges things and it winds up with a permanent death, then shame on them. That isn't in the spirit of what their authority should be able to do.

The question here is, should a subjective variance be allowed to permanently remove a character from play. I emphatically say no.


Chris Mortika wrote:

Hi James.

Let's talk about faction missions.

** spoiler omitted **

I certainly wouldn't call the first mission Good, and willfully carrying it out would certainly strip a Paladin of her class powers permanently. But I wouldn't consider it Evil.

The second mission, causing as much spectacular death and destruction as possible -- the scenario's author suggests the PC can set fire to a building in a heavily-populated market; innocent people die -- with full knowledge aforthright that you're trying to smear an innocent third party, all for personal gain (a prestige point); that I would consider Evil.

So I'd warn the player: "If your PC carries that out, I'll put a note on the character sheet that he's slipping towards Evil. If you do something like that again, you'll have...

And any sane player would simply throw that chronicle in the garbage, where it belongs.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nani Z. Obringer wrote:
A death deserved from poor player tactics (I'm at 1/4 hit points and I run up to the BBEG right before his full attack!) is very different from one where a GM has dice rolls that negate good player decisions (the monster wins initiative and crits the bard with a scythe!).

But in neither situation did you begin the session by handing the player a piece of paper stating that their only means of getting a prestige point that session was to stand right next to the scythe-wielding BBEG. Nor does a player death situation inherently preclude the possibility of reversing the outcome (i.e., Raise Dead), while the evil-therefore-banned situation has no means of reversal whatsoever under any circumstances.


I see people talking about objective versus subjective on determining what counts and what doesn't count as an evil act or for what the guidelines should be for changing a character's alignment. Unfortunately, any judgments on this will always be subjective since there is variation in what people believe is evil or more, how evil an act might be. GMs really have to pay attention to how the character is role-played and how the player is reacting in the situation. If someone is hating the faction mission but does it anyway because it is for their Faction, after all, I would never penalize them. But if the player, either in character or out, seems to be enjoying what they are doing, you better believe they will get a warning about behaving evil and will get a note on the chronicle if they do not stop. And if this type of behavior has already been noted several times, but an absolute minimum of three times, on chronicles by other GMs, I reserve the right to remove that character from play at the end of the scenario and report it as "dead" and not longer playable when the scenario is reported online.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
I see people talking about objective versus subjective on determining what counts and what doesn't count as an evil act or for what the guidelines should be for changing a character's alignment. Unfortunately, any judgments on this will always be subjective since there is variation in what people believe is evil or more, how evil an act might be. GMs really have to pay attention to how the character is role-played and how the player is reacting in the situation. If someone is hating the faction mission but does it anyway because it is for their Faction, after all, I would never penalize them. But if the player, either in character or out, seems to be enjoying what they are doing, you better believe they will get a warning about behaving evil and will get a note on the chronicle if they do not stop. And if this type of behavior has already been noted several times, but an absolute minimum of three times, on chronicles by other GMs, I reserve the right to remove that character from play at the end of the scenario and report it as "dead" and not longer playable when the scenario is reported online.

And I think this is not the right way to handle it.

Removing a character from play for what ends up being a subjective system is in my opinion an overuse of authority.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I was asked how to make the system objective. I said I'd come up with something comprehensive on Thursday. Well I came up with something just now so I will post it just now.

1) There is no way to make what is evil completely objective. What is evil to one person is not evil to another.

2) There is a way to make sure that the player in question can get a fair shake and not be hammered by one hard core GM with questionable subjective ideals.

So here goes:

- If you notice a player about to do what you deem evil, warn them.
- If they continue and do that thing, then mark it on a chronicle.
- To remove a character from play for being evil, there must already be 3 such notes on chronicles from 3 separate GM's. This will help to ensure that a wider range of ideals will be viewed before character removal.
- If the PC is a paladin, the gloves come off for losing paladinhood, these rules only apply to removing a character from play.

The next two options should both be available:

- If the faction mission is deemed evil, then as GM you should allow for creative solutions that don't involve the evil act.

- or -

- If the faction mission is deemed as evil, then ignore the evil act.

That's what I got. Simple and fair I feel, and it allows hard core GM's to state their opinion and old softies to be old softies.

It allows for subjective opinion, but won't penalize the player overly much and gives an objective bench mark for removal.

EDIT: The 3 separate notes from 3 GM's doesn't mean 3 GM's each have to have given 3 notes. Just that there has to be 3 separate instance of evil done, and that a total of 3 separate GM's should have given such a note.

Keep in mind, if you are the only GM that player will ever have for PFS, and you think they are too evil for your table, you have a right to tell that player they cannot play that character at your table. But to tell them they can't play that character ever again needs more criteria than just one GM's judgement, in my opinion.

Grand Lodge

james maissen wrote:

You still haven't answered my question:

If a faction mission is inherently evil, then why doesn't the scenario address it and ramifications for completing it directly as written?

I would be shocked if any author felt that a faction mission he wrote was inherently evil. He's not looking at it from the perspective of a paladin/etc., but in terms of what the players need to do to accomplish the faction goal.

If the party is expected to fight an NPC, then ensuring that the NPC dies isn't a big deal. If it wasn't for the fact that my characters generally push the others to keep someone alive to question, I doubt that we'd ever take a prisoner.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Fozzy Hammer wrote:
And any sane player would simply throw that chronicle in the garbage, where it belongs.

Fozzy, can you show me where accepting chronicle sheets is optional? I suppose I could throw away the sheet where my character died, too, if that were the way PFS ran.

What you're suggesting is called "cheating". And that will get you banned from PFS.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

sieylianna wrote:
james maissen wrote:

You still haven't answered my question:

If a faction mission is inherently evil, then why doesn't the scenario address it and ramifications for completing it directly as written?

I would be shocked if any author felt that a faction mission he wrote was inherently evil. He's not looking at it from the perspective of a paladin/etc., but in terms of what the players need to do to accomplish the faction goal.

If the party is expected to fight an NPC, then ensuring that the NPC dies isn't a big deal. If it wasn't for the fact that my characters generally push the others to keep someone alive to question, I doubt that we'd ever take a prisoner.

There are people in this thread who disagree on the bolded part, and will declare a character evil and ban them from play for exactly that.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Andrew and Jiggy,

I agree with points that both of you made. I tried to stay away from specific situations as to what I would do. My biggest point in my post is that this is indeed highly subjective and situational. And player fun and fairness is #1. Let me reiterate that this should only happen in the RAREST of situations, where I believe a player is intentionally violating the spirit of PFS. I disagree with the posts on this forum that would eliminate a player for killing a helpless prisoner, for example. This is especially true if this is in their faction mission. I apologize if this was unclear in my post.

My analogy of player death and fudging is only to point out that GMs do have subjective control over player death. Not all GMs choose to use it, and I know many who GM using open rolling (which I find results in higher incidences of player death, but thats off topic). Additionally, Jiggy, if I was unclear, I was referring specifically to permanent player death, which does indeed happen (dying at lower levels, death effects etc).

Back to a point made earlier in this thread, if the rule is unenforceable, then why have a "no evil" rule at all? I can just make a character that regularly tortures every NPC I come across. Would you allow blatantly evil acts that disrupt your game and drive away other players? I would not. You can argue it however you want: permanently killing the character due to alignment change, banning the player because of cheating, whatever. Point being, as GMs we should and must enforce the rules of Pathfinder Society.

Don't get me wrong, I have seen and played plenty of characters who toe the line in PFS. If a GM forced my character to become permanently dead because I cast "animate dead" then I would take enormous issue with it. This is a fantasy game where people are playing characters to have fun. I am simply arguing that there are limits that are just as important as how many d6s you roll on a fireball.

51 to 100 of 210 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Removing a character from play for being "Evil" All Messageboards