|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
What happens when a player does something that has, in the opinion of the GM at the table, done something with long term and decidedly negative implications to his character? What permanent authority does a GM have over the player's character/chronicles?
Example: Paladin or Druid does something that is against their class code. Rules say they lose powers.
Assumption: GM annotates the deviation & whether an atonement has since been acquired.
Question: Is it being a 'Richard' to go beyond marking it in tiny little text in the 'conditions gained' text, so that future GMs don't miss out and erroneously let the paladin/druid use their powers again without having paid for atonement, based on your opinion that they should have lost them?
Question2: What if a player has such a mark, and you disagree with the earlier GM that the offense was worthy of loss of class powers.. you could give a free atonement, but can you annull the offense? (make it so that it never even happened so that atonement was never necessary)
Evil and alignment examples:
Example 1: In the GM's opinion, a character performs one or more evil acts.
Question: Should a 'track record' of evil be established/maintained? Are alignments effectively meaningless in PFS? What happens if a character is evil in every meaningful measure, but simply listed as 'neutral' on the character sheet?
Example 2: A sorcerer (or other class with limited spell options) knows a spell with the EVIL descriptor.
Question: Since casting an evil spell is one of the very few things that are spelled out in the rules as an unarguably evil act, may a GM restrict its use at his table? May a GM force the player to even pick a new spell or prematurely retire the character, based on his interpretation that repeated evil acts (casting evil spells) REQUIRES an evil alignment, which is not compatable with PFS OP?
Because of these problems, is it better for a GM to just out and out disallow any actions that he would have otherwise thought deserved permanent, negative effects?
Thanks to any long-timers who can share their experiences or opinions.
I looked into this quite a bit before making my death cleric. I was told the Command Undead feat and Animate Dead spell were evil and couldn't be used. After two days of searching, this was the best I could find. There are no official rules for GM's to force an alignment change or the tracking of evil deeds. This is a bit dated, so we'll have to see if Mike agrees, but here is Mr. Frost's take on doing something evil (animate dead in particular).
I was sure I put a statement in the guide book about spells cast in one scenario never extending over to the next, but I can't seem to find the page at the moment. If your PC wants to raise some skeletons and their alignment and deity are okay with that (animated dead is an evil spell, after all) then they should be allowed to. However, their fellow PCs and most NPCs will see this as a horrible, evil abomination and will likely destroy the undead. PVP isn't allowed, so there's really nothing a PC could do if they spent the time and gold and summoned a handful of skeletons only to watch the party's barbarian smash them to pieces.
So: no, you can't summon skeletons and keep them from one scenario to the next. Yes, you can use animate dead so long as your alignment and deity are okay with that. Yes, your fellow PCs might destroy them. No, you can't really do anything about that.
Class restrictions are a different as they have direct results listed in the RAW.
|
We already two huge blowout discussions early this year.
My personal favorite (8 pages)
Sczarni and not being evil
Removing a character from play for being "Evil"
and the resulting solution...
The PFS Evilometer
We had some good times in those threads! ;)
In those threads I learned that:
1) People like to argue the hypothetical situations; and
2) There is very little agreement in any alignment debate.
As I recall, nothing was really answered except to say it's at the GMs discretion and if a player disagrees he can take it to the event coordinator, his VC, then Mike Brock, in that order. We asked for this to be answered in the FAQ many times but I don't recall anything being done.
You're not trolling right? Heh. :)
This is why I hate alignment. It isn't that it's restrictive, it's that it doesn't make any sense and doesn't provide any solid, objective guidelines; any time you play a character with an alignment restriction, you are effectively leaving your abilities entirely up to the DM's whims.
This isn't to say that there shouldn't be classes with strong ethos requirements, but that the DM's authority over questions of morality in-game should neither be rigid nor absolute-- this isn't a procedural issue concerning the rules, it's the central part of the character's identity, and should be ruled by consensus.
|
This is why I hate alignment. It isn't that it's restrictive, it's that it doesn't make any sense and doesn't provide any solid, objective guidelines; any time you play a character with an alignment restriction, you are effectively leaving your abilities entirely up to the DM's whims.
This isn't to say that there shouldn't be classes with strong ethos requirements, but that the DM's authority over questions of morality in-game should neither be rigid nor absolute-- this isn't a procedural issue concerning the rules, it's the central part of the character's identity, and should be ruled by consensus.
Solution: GMs should study morality and ethics someplace that isn't the paizo forums, like say the APA website, or better an actual morality or ethics class!
Solution: GMs should study morality and ethics someplace that isn't the paizo forums, like say the APA website, or better an actual morality or ethics class!
Would not really help, I don't think. The problem isn't that DMs are morally ignorant, it's that the RAW concerning alignment and ethos are maddeningly vague, and DMs mistakenly believe that their personal opinions of them are RAW. They think that their general authority to make rules judgments in play extends to making in-character moral judgments.
When I have the money, I like to audit ethics classes at the local community college as an elaborate form of trolling.
|
Solution: GMs should study morality and ethics someplace that isn't the paizo forums, like say the APA website, or better an actual morality or ethics class!Would not really help, I don't think. The problem isn't that DMs are morally ignorant, it's that the RAW concerning alignment and ethos are maddeningly vague, and DMs mistakenly believe that their personal opinions of them are RAW. They think that their general authority to make rules judgments in play extends to making in-character moral judgments.
When I have the money, I like to audit ethics classes at the local community college as an elaborate form of trolling.
Personally, unless it is particularly egregious or we are talking about a Paladin or something of the sort, I usually don't pay much attention to alignment issues at a table.
However, whenever there is something ambiguous or vague in the RAW, then you will see table variance.
If the GM isn't supposed to use his personal opinions when a GM adjudication is required because of the vagaries of a certain RAW, then what is the GM supposed to use to adjudicate the situation?
It's fine that he has to rely on his own common sense-- but I've found that most of the people involved in any contentious alignment thread are pitifully closed-minded. They don't stop to consider that the opinions of the people they're playing with are valid-- and important-- too, and the ramifications of an alignment call are more far-reaching than a simple ruling.
A bad rules call can inconvenience a character, and sometimes even kill him. (Which isn't much more.) A bad alignment call can ruin a character, making him no fun to play as or play with, and for far longer. And, unlike a bad rules call, a bad alignment call can't be corrected after the session by looking up the rules. People dig in their heels and get self-righteous about punishing their supposed friends for philosophical disagreements that arise over the course of a supposedly friendly game.
This kind of dickery has been encouraged for the past thirty years, and by the gods it needs to stop. Score one for WOTC for finally figuring this out.
|
|
It's fine that he has to rely on his own common sense-- but I've found that most of the people involved in any contentious alignment thread are pitifully closed-minded. They don't stop to consider that the opinions of the people they're playing with are valid-- and important-- too, and the ramifications of an alignment call are more far-reaching than a simple ruling.
A bad rules call can inconvenience a character, and sometimes even kill him. (Which isn't much more.) A bad alignment call can ruin a character, making him no fun to play as or play with, and for far longer. And, unlike a bad rules call, a bad alignment call can't be corrected after the session by looking up the rules. People dig in their heels and get self-righteous about punishing their supposed friends for philosophical disagreements that arise over the course of a supposedly friendly game.
This kind of dickery has been encouraged for the past thirty years, and by the gods it needs to stop. Score one for WOTC for finally figuring this out.
I find that when it affects me adversely, I tend to initially think it was a horribly bad judgement call. When it affects someone else, or I am the GM, it was common sense.
Take yourself out of the equation, set the scene, and in your minds-eye watch it back, and see if you can determine if the actions of that character were egregiously breaking alignment or not.
I agree, that the table is not the place for deeper philosophical discussions about alignment. It is also not the place for the GM to exert some extreme interpretation or their own philosophical belief system.
That being said, the GM is the one who has to make the judgement call on whether a Paladin has broken their code and should fall or not.
The cool thing about that is, largely you won't lose your paladin-hood forever, because you can get an atonement spell to get your powers back. At least the first time. In some circumstances, as a GM, I might disallow it working the second time, because the Paladin shows repetitive and malicious negligence to their code. This especially is where it would not be good for a GM to exert their extreme interpretations of alignment because it isn't just about determining what alignment means, but its about reading the player's mind to determine if they are truly having their character be repentant.
Again, there is a right way to adjudicate this sort of thing as a GM, and a wrong way. One way is to allow and another way is to be rigid. As long as you aren't doing it to be a jerk, or based on some personal bias against the player themselves, and everyone seems to be having fun, then chances are you are doing it the right way. If everyone rises up against your judgement call, there are ill feelings, shouting occurs, you feel a wicked glee at causing the 'pain', then chances are you are doing it the wrong way. As long as you adjudicate fairly, and without real life personal judgement against the player, with an expanded thought process that allows for different interpretations within a moderate scope, there should be no issues.
|
What happens when a player does something that has, in the opinion of the GM at the table, done something with long term and decidedly negative implications to his character? What permanent authority does a GM have over the player's character/chronicles?
Like in any campaign a PFS GM has the authority to revoke Paladin status, enforce the loss of granted powers and spells, etc.
Example: Paladin or Druid does something that is against their class code. Rules say they lose powers.
Assumption: GM annotates the deviation & whether an atonement has since been acquired.
Question: Is it being a 'Richard' to go beyond marking it in tiny little text in the 'conditions gained' text, so that future GMs don't miss out and erroneously let the paladin/druid use their powers again without having paid for atonement, based on your opinion that they should have lost them?
I do not know what a "Richard" is, but I find it natural for GMs to make a note of such events on the Chronicle Sheet.
Question2: What if a player has such a mark, and you disagree with the earlier GM that the offense was worthy of loss of class powers.. you could give a free atonement, but can you annull the offense? (make it so that it never even happened so that atonement was never necessary)
No. GMs should not take such actions on hearsay alone. The GM should if possible take time to speak with the other GM - if nothing else to know what player behaviour to expect.
Evil and alignment examples:
Example 1: In the GM's opinion, a character performs one or more evil acts.
Question: Should a 'track record' of evil be established/maintained? Are alignments effectively meaningless in PFS? What happens if a character is evil in every meaningful measure, but simply listed as 'neutral' on the character sheet?
Blatantly evil acts can be noted on the Chronicle Sheets. Repeted offenses can result in alignment change and inability to continue play with that character. The player can of course try using atonement to get back in the game, but without the necesary resources available that character eventually gets barred from further play.
Example 2: A sorcerer (or other class with limited spell options) knows a spell with the EVIL descriptor.
Question: Since casting an evil spell is one of the very few things that are spelled out in the rules as an unarguably evil act, may a GM restrict its use at his table?
May a GM force the player to even pick a new spell or prematurely retire the character, based on his interpretation that repeated evil acts (casting evil spells) REQUIRES an evil alignment, which is not compatable with PFS OP?
Page reference please for this rule.
Because of these problems, is it better for a GM to just out and out disallow any actions that he would have otherwise thought deserved permanent, negative effects?
Thanks to any long-timers who can share their experiences or opinions.
Alignment is a very real part of the PFRPG and PFS rules. For PFS evil characters are not allowed. The rules state this plainly and if a player has a problem with it, s/he should find another campaign to play.
However, alignment is a minefield for any GM. Even the best of friends disagree on morality and ethics.When I run into these problems as a GM I tell players that what they are about to do is something considered an evil act. Most players take the hint and choose a diferent course of action. If they want to argue about it I let them explain briefly why they disagree. If I agree with them player I let them procede without repercussion. If I disagree I tell the player why briefly. From this point on the player has been warned about "the mood of the gods today" and is free to take whatever action s/he chooses; however, the player should be prepared to deal with the consequences.
As any pair of friends no two GMs can agree 100% on all alignment issues, and ALL players should be aware of this and be prepared for this fact.
If alignment based actions cause the loss of paladin status, spells, granted powers etc., another GM does not have the authority to annull that. Only the local Venture-Captain or Campaign Coordinator have that authority.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
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. They will advise the player of these actions and offer the player my email address so the player may present his case.
I will present all facts 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.
Take yourself out of the equation, set the scene, and in your minds-eye watch it back, and see if you can determine if the actions of that character were egregiously breaking alignment or not.
Hell, I'm never a part of the equation. I haven't played a Paladin in over ten years. All the arguments I'm talking about where I end up wanting to punch the DM in the mouth for being a jerk? All of those have happened to other people. All my years of talking about D&D on the Internet, I have never seen an alignment argument about a Paladin losing his powers in which I thought it was even remotely justified-- not even "little" Evil acts, but Good acts that just weren't Good enough in the DM's eyes.
Twenty years of playing D&D, and I've only ever seen one Paladin justifiably lose his powers-- and that was a kid who just didn't "get it".
|
|
Take yourself out of the equation, set the scene, and in your minds-eye watch it back, and see if you can determine if the actions of that character were egregiously breaking alignment or not.Hell, I'm never a part of the equation. I haven't played a Paladin in over ten years. All the arguments I'm talking about where I end up wanting to punch the DM in the mouth for being a jerk? All of those have happened to other people. All my years of talking about D&D on the Internet, I have never seen an alignment argument about a Paladin losing his powers in which I thought it was even remotely justified-- not even "little" Evil acts, but Good acts that just weren't Good enough in the DM's eyes.
Twenty years of playing D&D, and I've only ever seen one Paladin justifiably lose his powers-- and that was a kid who just didn't "get it".
Viktyr
Some of the language towards GMs isn't the best to get over your argument. After all - this is the GMs discussion area.
Most GMs try there best - but there often is a miscommunication. I think what Mike writes is the best you can get. Give a player an ahead of time warning. And you have a group of independant GMs to appeal to.
I failed the ooc warning last time I took away the Paladinhood (ahead of starting PFS games) as I did it in-game - and he just didn't see it coming. Even afterwards he tried arguing including blackmail - you give me back my Paldinhood or I truly become evil and kill the whole party next time we rest in their sleep and nothing you can do against it. Sad - this isn't made up.
And no - I didn't rule that reaction as being "truly repentant" - I stopped the campaign instead.
Some of the language towards GMs isn't the best to get over your argument. After all - this is the GMs discussion area.
And I'm a GM. I rarely get to play, and as I've said, when I do I never play a Paladin. I've also never had to gig a Paladin in any game I've run-- though I did warn one once. This isn't some personal grievance of mine; this is a problem with the game rules and a perennial problem with GMing style for which I blame consistently bad module writing and GMing advice going all the way back to 1978.
Most GMs try there best - but there often is a miscommunication.
Of course. And I think that the GMs that I am complaining about are a tiny minority-- the crux of my complaint is that I believe that the rules encourage this nonsense, and that some GMs believe this is not only acceptable but mandatory.
|
|
... Score one for WOTC for finally figuring this out.
I myself was rather disappointed at the half solution they chose.
At the core I agree the game should have no alignment system (at all).The only thing we need are subtypes like those monsters have evil/good for these entities that epitomize that moral standpoint. Alignment based spells might get a nerf on this account, but I could live with that.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I myself was rather disappointed at the half solution they chose.
At the core I agree the game should have no alignment system (at all).The only thing we need are subtypes like those monsters have evil/good for these entities that epitomize that moral standpoint. Alignment based spells might get a nerf on this account, but I could live with that.
An interesting idea... how would those sub-types apply to a character? Would a Paladin automatically gain the Lawful & Good sub-types? What about clerics? Would they receive sub-types based on their "alignment" or thier diety? Would ALL characters receive these sub-types or only the ones that have a alignment restriction currently? And how would this work for the Barbarian or Monk? Do ALL monsters gain the sub-types of their previous alignments or just those from that alreadyhad those sub-types?
Not shooting your proposal down... just wondering how far do you go with this.
|
Intent is the one thing that needs to be the biggest factor in deciding infractions. My cleric channels negative energy and boy do people automatically assume I'm evil. I use the power granted by my god to achieve my mission and aid those who assist me. When I take control of undead in defense of myself and then turn them on those attacking me, I don't see it as evil. Now, some may disagree with me on the next, but that is their choice. I may have to harm an ally when I channel, but by doing so my intent is to aid them by harming those near my ally, while I have selective channel, sometimes you cannot deselect everyone.
As for alignment itself? People tend to think of Lawful only as LAW in the sense of the written laws. Lawful in this case is the opposite of Chaotic, Law vs Chaos. So law should be viewed as Structure and Order. Remember, "an eye for an eye", or chopping off the hand of a thief was the law in some countries and seen as evil by others.
My cleric being LN, I see her as trying to create order out of the chaos around her and their being so many factions she will try to use them to do such even though having so many factions is chaotic. Though she understands that striving to do this she need to find a balance between both good and evil as neither can exisit without the other and too much of one or the other bring more chaos.
|
|
An interesting idea... how would those sub-types apply to a character? Would a Paladin automatically gain the Lawful & Good sub-types? What about clerics? Would they receive sub-types based on their "alignment" or thier diety? Would ALL characters receive these sub-types or only the ones that have a alignment restriction currently? And how would this work for the Barbarian or Monk? Do ALL monsters gain the sub-types of their previous alignments or just those from that alreadyhad those sub-types?
Not shooting your proposal down... just wondering how far do you go with this.
I ran a mock-up/test version of this system for my 3.5 campaign back then.
Iconic outsiders would have a subtype of either good or evil. Some extraordinary/paragon NPCs (high level clerics, paladins, blackguards - but also other classes) would also have subtype. PCs would initially be unaligned. They can behave badly or well or can even mix it up depending on the situation; basically having as complex personalities as most normal people have. PCs could also be moral paragons and declare themselves as good or evil (none ever chose evil) and would have a corresponding subtype.I think the system worked really well, especially considering it was still in its infancy.
Hey Paizo! How about it? :)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for alignment itself? People tend to think of Lawful only as LAW in the sense of the written laws. Lawful in this case is the opposite of Chaotic, Law vs Chaos. So law should be viewed as Structure and Order.
And this is one reason why paladins are difficult to play. Too often the GM feels that strict adherence to the laws of the land are required, because otherwise, you are not being Lawful.
But law can refer to other aspects as well. My paladin's views on law are more internal. His word is his bond. He does not lie, nor try to find exploitable loopholes in the paladin code.
He believes that everyone should understand their place in society, but stops short of enforcing societal hierarchy. He does not blindly follow the local laws unless they are good for the people therein. An evil law is not to be obeyed and should be combated. Evil rulers, even if "legally" in power, are to be opposed. Chaos, in the form of anarchy, is to be opposed, especially those who actively try to foster it (like demons).
|
|
Not to nitpick, but I think there's a wrong word in the post and the FAQ entry based on that post.
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.
I think you want either "conscience" or "unconscious." But I may be mistaken on this. English Grammar is not a class skill for math teachers.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is one reason why paladins are difficult to play. Too often the GM feels that strict adherence to the laws of the land are required, because otherwise, you are not being Lawful.
But law can refer to other aspects as well. My paladin's views on law are more internal. His word is his bond. He does not lie, nor try to find exploitable loopholes in the paladin code.
He believes that everyone should understand their place in society, but stops short of enforcing societal hierarchy. He does not blindly follow the local laws unless they are good for the people therein. An evil law is not to be obeyed and should be combated. Evil rulers, even if "legally" in power, are to be opposed. Chaos, in the form of anarchy, is to be opposed, especially those who actively try to foster it (like demons).
If everyone were familiar with Kant's Categorical Imperative and the premise that 'the only thing which can be considered Good without qualification is a Good Will' (my apologies for not drawing out the actual translated quote), there would be a much better understanding of the ideals to which Paladins aspire.
The Paladin is effectively bound to the Moral Law (the exercise of pure reason irrespective of personal inclination, and where every being must be treated as an End unto his/herself and never as a means). Civil and criminal laws need not have any moral weight or consideration, and while a Paladin should not feel his/herself above them as a divine servant, it is the service to Good without qualification they are (ideally) serving.
Having typed all of that, so long as players don't play there Paladins as blood-thirsty killbots who are rapacious and plunderous I generally let them be without any questioning of the PC's actions (at least not at the table).
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If everyone were familiar with Kant's Categorical Imperative and the premise that 'the only thing which can be considered Good without qualification is a Good Will' (my apologies for not drawing out the actual translated quote), there would be a much better understanding of the ideals to which Paladins aspire.The Paladin is effectively bound to the Moral Law (the exercise of pure reason irrespective of personal inclination, and where every being must be treated as an End unto his/herself and never as a means). Civil and criminal laws need not have any moral weight or consideration, and while a Paladin should not feel his/herself above them as a divine servant, it is the service to Good without qualification they are (ideally) serving.
Having typed all of that, so long as players don't play there Paladins as blood-thirsty killbots who are rapacious and plunderous I generally let them be without any questioning of the PC's actions (at least not at the table).
After taking philosophy classes semester after semester for my entire undergraduate career I can safely say that if I had to read through or summarize Kant on a regular basis for my PCs I would probably take a swan dive off something very tall.