Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
A faction mission will not require a character to kill babies. However, this is a game where characters wield swords and kill monsters (and bad people). I think a degree of common sense should prevail here, and I would trust most GMs, coordinators and Venture-Captains to rule appropriately.
Cheers,
Stephen (DarkWhite)
Yeah... this isn't Greyhawk! ;)
|
If that's true, neither do paladins. Clerics are not nearly as alignment driven as Paladins are, they may be Faith driven, but that's a horse of a different stripe.I posted this in another thread but I believe it has some value here as well:
Alignments have no place in PFS in my opinion.
Necromancy is evil....why did you have to bring this thread back? Let this thing die, this has been debated ever since there was an alignment system and probably will be debated as long as there *is* an alignment system.
|
Necromancy is evil....why did you have to bring this thread back? Let this thing die, this has been debated ever since there was an alignment system and probably will be debated as long as there *is* an alignment system.
OTOH there is validity to the argument that maybe there shouldn't BE an alignment system, at least not in PFS because any alignment rules are in practice unenforcable in the organized play environment...
Reviving discussions such as this one is a way to help emphasise that argument.
|
At the risk of putting words in Mike's mouth, I will tell you that PFS leadership (staff/volunteers/otherwise) are not interested in eliminating alignment. We are striving to keep PFS rules as close to Core as possible and eliminating alignment would have a huge impact on how certain classes/rules function and require additional "house" rules and clarifications that would take us further away from Core.
You are free to debate the alignment system and your opinions on how it should work, but I believe that this topic has been beaten to death. Alignment is a polarizing concept and after 30+ years of gaming, most have very entrenched ideas. You are unlikely to change anyone's opinion.
IMO, everyone is better served by moving on to other topics where your efforts are more likely to have an effect.
|
|
At the risk of putting words in Mike's mouth, I will tell you that PFS leadership (staff/volunteers/otherwise) are not interested in eliminating alignment. We are striving to keep PFS rules as close to Core as possible and eliminating alignment would have a huge impact on how certain classes/rules function and require additional "house" rules and clarifications that would take us further away from Core.
You are free to debate the alignment system and your opinions on how it should work, but I believe that this topic has been beaten to death. Alignment is a polarizing concept and after 30+ years of gaming, most have very entrenched ideas. You are unlikely to change anyone's opinion.
IMO, everyone is better served by moving on to other topics where your efforts are more likely to have an effect.
Actually, we can't remove alignment from the game as it would break a lot of the mechanics associated with it. The amount of rules exceptions would be pretty high.
|
|
Whether pathfinder should or should not ditch the concept of alignments entirely is for a hypothetical Pathfinder 2.0 thread. (and yes, they should. for all the reasons given above, particularly that noone can agree on how they should be adjucated)
My interest in this thread is how PFS should (or perhaps should not) deal with a rule that is meaningless because it is unenforceable.
EDIT: Clarifying- The rule that is meaningless and unenforceable is 'Class X must maintain Alignment Y or lose abilities'.
A player of a paladin/monk/barbarian in any home game comes to an understanding with the GM of that campaign, and must roleplay the character in accordance with the required alignments (as adjucated by that GM, perhaps allowing for some of the player's views).
A player of a paladin/monk/barbarian in PFS is free to effectively behave how he wants. GMs in PFS are either outright unable to enforce the consequences of deviating from alignment (based on his opinion of what constitutes deviation..) or is unwilling, perhaps because he doesn't want to appear like a d-bag to a player he just met or doesn't know well.
The difference is, in PFS there's a TON of room for someone inclined to abuse the system to do so, and expect to get away with it in all but the most extreme of cases.
Look at the alternative. The cavalier class has a code of conduct that the player is expected to roleplay his character within. Never even mentions alignments.. ALL classes with an alignment requirement can, nay SHOULD, have something similar in its place. No reason PFS can't house-rule that for its own use. They can change something as major as experience (done in the name of the OP nature of the game).. they can/should do the same for alignments.
They've even already done the ground work in the case of paladins.. the Faiths series has codes of conduct for Paladins of compatable gods already written. I'd like to see PFS OP change that section from fluff to canon and BAM problem of 'what's LG and what isn't?' is done. Clear cut, no quibbling, what takes away Paladin powers is defined.
|
|
IMO, there are waaay too many variables to what would constitute a violation of tenets, code of conduct, etc. It will be nearly impossible to define all the issues that would force a loss of powers. That is part of the GM-player contract. Sure, it is easier to adjudicate in a home game, but I see no reason to take away the ability of the GM to adjudicate this aspect.
As a player, if a GM has, in your opinion, overstepped his/her authority, talk to them about it. If that doesn't work, report the event to your organizer, regional Venture officer/s, or directly to Mike Brock.
The GM can give a gentle reminder, "You realize your action will be contrary to your tenets and could impact your powers" so the player can make their own decision, knowing that THIS GM might penalize them for it.
In the end, it is up to the GM to enforce the rules or not. If they choose not to, having more rules are not going to change anything.
|
|
Well, I realize this isn't an alignment thread, but, One of the reasons I did not find 4.0 D&D to be my cup of tea, was because they messed with alignment. To me one of pathfinder's many attractions was its backwards compatibility including keeping the alignment system intact. It has worked well for the past 30 years and has survived relatively intact over the various editions of the game. As MR. Jonquet mentioned up thread, people are very intrenched about this issue.
Hmm i have even forgotten the origional point of this tread
|
|
I don't want GM's removing a paladin's powers
Me either. The issue is not that the paladin has special tenets or alignment requirements and that a GM would have to remove their powers should unacceptable actions be performed, the issue is the paladin player CHOOSING to perform borderline/questionable actions that force a GM to adjudicate.
As a paladin player, I intentionally make decisions that do not force the GM to question my motives, nor am I so "Lawful Stoopid" that the other players will be at conflict with me. I have only ever had one disagreement regarding the treatment of a prisoner and we cam to a compromise that was acceptable to both characters.
It only becomes an issue if one side or the other dons the "douche" hat and refuses to play nice in the sandbox.
|
|
I'm going to lock this topic and refer people to the topic HERE.
As for the campaign ruling , you will find it on above thread and it reads as follow:
Alignment Infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but the GM must warn the player his character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and make sure that the player understands the warning and what actions initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. However, I believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice as long as the action(s) wasn't too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc...). Hence, why the GM can issue a warning to the player through a "feeling" he receives from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscious talking to him, or some other similar roleplaying event.
If infractions continue in the course of the scenario, an alignment change may be in order. If the GM deems continued actions warrant the alignment change, the GM should note it on the character's Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the "Conditions Gained" box. A character may remove this gained condition through a Atonement spell. If the condition is removed, the GM should also note it on the Chronicle sheet.
Characters who become wantonly (read as deliberate and without motive or provocation) evil are retired from the campaign. These measures are a last resort; there is more than one way to play a given alignment.
If a character has become wantonly evil as defined above, the GM should escalate the report to the convention coordinator and/or Venture-Captains or Venture-Lieutenants. If they agree with the GM, then the character will be deemed as evil and considered removed from the campaign. Again, these measures should be taken as a very last resort.
In the event of a wantonly evil character, the GM will record the character as "Dead" and the person who enters the tracking sheet should check the box as well. If a decision that a character who fits these criteria and the above actions have been taken, the convention coordinator and/or Venture-Captain or Venture-Lieutenant will email me to advise of the situation, and include the player's name, character's name, PFS number, and email of the player. I will present it to the Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants at large with all names (both real and character) removed. If the majority of Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants feel that the act was wantonly evil and the character is irrevocably evil, then character will remain removed from the campaign. If the majority feel the character should be able to atone for the actions, I will contact the player and advise of such. The email may be printed and taken to the next game session so the GM may adjudicate the atonement and document it on the Chronicle sheet of the next game.
The above will be added to the FAQ, and possibly the Guide 4.1, when I get into work tomorrow.