Unholy Absence


Pathfinder Society


So, I've just looked up a group to join in my new town, logged in here to do it. In the course of fumbling through the website to find out where to look, I discovered the prohibition on evil alignments.

I'd say 'no big deal,' but it kinda is; I want my imp familiar at caster level seven, and I don't want to have to play a lawful/neutral wizard in order to get it.

Among other things.

I shan't waste time arguing in favor of evil PC's; I'm not gonna rock the boat, and Pathfinder Society looks like the best way to get my gaming fix in a new town.

But can somebody explain to me why one-third of the alignments have been excised? Is this just cowardly kowtowing to the right wing, religious zealots? 'Cause I'm gonna be really disappointed if that's the case.

Thanks in advance.

5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's basically not to give players an excuse to be jerks to their team.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*innocently* If this is the case... why didn't they ban Paladins, as well?


Hah, Angel: true dat!

Diego, wouldn't the mechanism of 'You're being a jerk to the other players and making an obnoxious pest of yourself at my table, you're out' cover that problem?

I have -- successfully -- played the sole evil character in a group full of good adventurers. Maybe I'm a paragon of restraint. But "evil" doesn't mean "dumb" unless you're writing a Forgotten Realms novel and need the Red Wizards to be a foil for Elminster and his cronies. No, you don't steal from/enchant/attack the other members of your band, because they're the ones who will keep you alive in the face of the hideous dangers you'll face.

I still think villains are a viable playing choice. I guess I'll bow to convention, but I'll probably grumble a lot.

Thanks

Dark Archive 1/5

LOL ... ban Palys for being obnoxious pests! +1

I question alignments in total.

Choatic means do anything at anytime?

True Neutral means balance, so what do you do after you've just saved the ophanage from burning to the ground (a good act)? You balance it with an evil act? If you don't does your alignment change?

Lawful Neutral means upholding the law both good and evil laws.

People have to play and work together. Alignments seem to codify some rules for people to get along with.

Without these rules PFS wouldn't appeal to the broadest base of gamers, which is a very realistic goal. Think about gaining new players. How many would come back after going home and telling their Moms "It was really FUN! I got to play an evil fighter, smashing people with my hammer while they slept! Good night Mom."


Actually, I have seen players being total jerkwads, and trying to hide behind their alignments, regardless of what they played.

Some alignments (or classes) just make this easier than others.


@ Crash:

Yes, the alignment rules have ALWAYS been wonky... but my objection isn't about the inherent problems with the alignment system, it's about the exclusion of my favorite alignment (lawful/evil). [My favorite alignment idiocy is calling l/e, l/g, c/e, and c/g "extreme" alignments -- as though being neutral/good or chaotic/neutral isn't just as extreme, or moreso: without a place on a second axis, one is pushing the envelope on the one alignment axis one has... but nevermind.]

At their best, alignments aren't RULES -- they're philosophical stances, descriptions, projections of likely behavior. And you seem to be confusing the "alignment rules" of the game with the alignment ruling about which ones we get to play, there.

To answer your rhetoricals,

*Chaotic means passionately-erratic, whim-driven, obsessed with one's own will and the freedom to pursue it.

*(True) Neutral doesn't mean dancing back and forth in behavior; rather, a Neutral individual sees that each alignment has its place in the world. Sort of a Taoist approach to things, trying to be oneself without having to do things to uphold one end or the other of any given axis.

*Lawful/Neutral alignment indicates the raising of order as the paragon of icons; as long as the law of the land increases order, whether that law brings weal or woe to the masses is immaterial. (You're right about upholding both good and evil laws.)

Anyway, despite the flaws in the alignment system, it's workable. Or WAS, until PS decided that letting people play evil characters was too hard, or too likely to cause bad PR.

Finally, Crash -- if those "new players" you mentioned are young enough to have their moms yank them from PS on account of evil characters, they are, in my opinion, too young to be sitting at the table in the first place. The SMART youngsters wouldn't clue mom into their evil alter-egos... the dumb ones I can really do without.

Sczarni 4/5

Alitan wrote:


I shan't waste time arguing in favor of evil PC's; I'm not gonna rock the boat, and Pathfinder Society looks like the best way to get my gaming fix in a new town.

But you just did.

Evil alignment is banned for reason. Players can interupt and disrupt gameplay even without it, with it , it would be 10 times worse.
It's there to prevent conflicts with people.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Its exceedingly difficult to hold a game together when your players don't have a reason to adventure. While this is a rare problem in PFS play, I've encountered it numerous times throughout the course of homebrew games - even ones that lasted many years. And the problem always seems to hinge on character interaction.

One character will do something entirely "un-heroic" and use their alignment - CN or NE - as a sort of shield, preventing them from being at fault. While I, as a GM, don't really care what your characters do, it's the other players that are hurt by it. It makes no sense for Joe the noble, heroic traveler to work hand in hand with Paul, the homicidal arsonist. By eliminating the main "problem" alignments, it makes parties more likely to mesh.

Sure, you are eliminating a key element of the roleplaying atmosphere (as with the restrictions on PVP), but its a small price to pay for ensuring that each game of PFS, no matter who plays or where, runs more smoothly and ushers in a welcoming atmosphere to new blood, rather than stabbing them in the back when they turn around.

1/5

WalterGM wrote:
Sure, you are eliminating a key element of the roleplaying atmosphere (as with the restrictions on PVP), but its a small price to pay for ensuring that each game of PFS, no matter who plays or where, runs more smoothly and ushers in a welcoming atmosphere to new blood, rather than stabbing them in the back when they turn around.

Exactly so. The "no evil alignments" rule isn't unique to PFS; going all the way back to the first "Living" campaign, the RPGA's Living City, nearly all such "shared" campaigns have banned evil alignments, for these very reasons.

Yes, some players insist on being jerks, and can find ways to do it without an evil alignment for their PCs. But, it's the most obvious way for a campaign staff to cut down on the worst of it.


Malag wrote:
Alitan wrote:


I shan't waste time arguing in favor of evil PC's; I'm not gonna rock the boat, and Pathfinder Society looks like the best way to get my gaming fix in a new town.

But you just did.

Evil alignment is banned for reason. Players can interupt and disrupt gameplay even without it, with it , it would be 10 times worse.
It's there to prevent conflicts with people.

Actually, I complained about the lack of evil, rather than arguing in favor of it. Yes, splitting the hair fine.

And I didn't really expect as much action on the thread as has happened; at the time I said I wouldn't argue in favor, etc., I thought it was going to be pretty much wrapped.

I'm of the opinion that the people who will cause conflict will do so REGARDLESS of the alignment printed on their character. Banning evil won't really cut that down, it just makes the problematic ones weasel harder.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Alitan wrote:


I'm of the opinion that the people who will cause conflict will do so REGARDLESS of the alignment printed on their character. Banning evil won't really cut that down, it just makes the problematic ones weasel harder.

If you have a player that wants to be problematic then that's a problem that no amount of rules can fix.

If, on the other hand, you have creative people that want to make exciting characters, eliminating the "evil" option may limit them a bit, but it will prevent people from making characters that are inherently at odds with others (Paladins, anyone that's good aligned, etc).

A major tenet of PFS is cooperation. How can we ask strangers to cooperate for "the greater good" if the people on either side of them are just plain evil?

If we allowed evil alignments it would put an undue strain on an already difficult situation - the balance of PFS is something very delicate, and throwing evil alignments into the mix is something far to volatile to end well.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Removed a few posts that were turning into a personal flame war. Keep it civil folks.


WalterGM wrote:

Its exceedingly difficult to hold a game together when your players don't have a reason to adventure. While this is a rare problem in PFS play, I've encountered it numerous times throughout the course of homebrew games - even ones that lasted many years. And the problem always seems to hinge on character interaction.

One character will do something entirely "un-heroic" and use their alignment - CN or NE - as a sort of shield, preventing them from being at fault. While I, as a GM, don't really care what your characters do, it's the other players that are hurt by it. It makes no sense for Joe the noble, heroic traveler to work hand in hand with Paul, the homicidal arsonist. By eliminating the main "problem" alignments, it makes parties more likely to mesh.

Sure, you are eliminating a key element of the roleplaying atmosphere (as with the restrictions on PVP), but its a small price to pay for ensuring that each game of PFS, no matter who plays or where, runs more smoothly and ushers in a welcoming atmosphere to new blood, rather than stabbing them in the back when they turn around.

The problem in the above scenario is the GM letting them get away with alignment-based justifications for bad behavior.

It seems that everyone is defining evil as hyperchaotic/evil, too. Homicidal arsonists? Really? You'll never dominate the world with THAT m.o. :)

A rational, intelligent villain is careful to make SURE that he (or she) meshes with the group. Pissing off the people who have your back in a fight is a good way to find a knife sticking out of it.

I suppose my real issue is being told I can't play [x]. Not a substantial position. And I've had lots of fun with nonevil characters.

But I think the proper course would simply be to throw out the problem players (regardless of alignment) and let those of us who are serious about gaming, game. Pipe dreams, I know. I appreciate your time and explanation (and courtesy, thank you).


WalterGM wrote:
Alitan wrote:


I'm of the opinion that the people who will cause conflict will do so REGARDLESS of the alignment printed on their character. Banning evil won't really cut that down, it just makes the problematic ones weasel harder.

If you have a player that wants to be problematic then that's a problem that no amount of rules can fix.

If, on the other hand, you have creative people that want to make exciting characters, eliminating the "evil" option may limit them a bit, but it will prevent people from making characters that are inherently at odds with others (Paladins, anyone that's good aligned, etc).

A major tenet of PFS is cooperation. How can we ask strangers to cooperate for "the greater good" if the people on either side of them are just plain evil?

If we allowed evil alignments it would put an undue strain on an already difficult situation - the balance of PFS is something very delicate, and throwing evil alignments into the mix is something far to volatile to end well.

You again?

:)

The key is to insist on extraordinary evil, rather than the just plain variety. And the answer to how we can ask them is, because the threat of [x] is a peril to us all, and we must put aside our petty differences and vanquish [x].

I can (just BARELY) accept that not every gamer is mature and well-rounded enough to portray a convincing and cooperative evil. It just grates.

1/5

Alitan wrote:
I can (just BARELY) accept that not every gamer is mature and well-rounded enough to portray a convincing and cooperative evil. It just grates.

Fundamentally, 90% of the rules in a shared campaign like PFS are in there because 10% of the players can't be counted on to behave in a mature fashion. And, any such rule can't keep someone who's determined to be a problem from doing so...it discourages the petty abuses. It's the price we pay for having the opportunity to play in such a campaign.


Mike Mistele wrote:
Alitan wrote:
I can (just BARELY) accept that not every gamer is mature and well-rounded enough to portray a convincing and cooperative evil. It just grates.
Fundamentally, 90% of the rules in a shared campaign like PFS are in there because 10% of the players can't be counted on to behave in a mature fashion. And, any such rule can't keep someone who's determined to be a problem from doing so...it discourages the petty abuses. It's the price we pay for having the opportunity to play in such a campaign.

>sigh<

It's just so much easier to conquer than persuade. Darn it. I like my poisons, my clever deceits, my on-demand horde of undead plagues. Oh, well. I'm going to have to go back to the drawing board... dust off the blueprints for a hero. Been using antihero schematics for years, now...

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Alitan wrote:


The problem in the above scenario is the GM letting them get away with alignment-based justifications for bad behavior.

It seems that everyone is defining evil as hyperchaotic/evil, too. Homicidal arsonists? Really? You'll never dominate the world with THAT m.o. :)

True, such "childish" methods of evil won't cut it in the long run for any evil character (NPC or PC), but that's what CE is. The 9 alignments seek to categorize all possible human actions (including homicidal arsonry) and break it down into more manageable chunks. So yes, there are varying "shades" of evil - which we break into lawful neutral and chaotic, but, as a whole, they are all still evil. And, as far as my interpretation goes, a LE, NE, or CE could burn down an orphanage and be playing "their alignment," the difference comes in their motivation and reasons behind the act. But the bottom line is that the orphanage is still burned down, and most people like their orphans alive.

Quote:
A rational, intelligent villain is careful to make SURE that he (or she) meshes with the group. Pissing off the people who have your back in a fight is a good way to find a knife sticking out of it.

This is quite true. There are some legendary stories about how to play an evil PC in a group of goodie-two-shoes. My problem comes when you have a shifting group of gamers each week. Not all PFS groups are the same people each time, that know your PC and that he's a team player - despite being evil. Inevitably, you'll run into a Silver Crusader or Andoran that's got some anti-evil baggage and then the party ceases to function, and stalls into arguments about alignment.

Quote:


I suppose my real issue is being told I can't play [x]. Not a substantial position. And I've had lots of fun with nonevil characters.

But I think the proper course would simply be to throw out the problem players (regardless of alignment) and let those of us who are serious about gaming, game. Pipe dreams, I know. I appreciate your time and explanation (and courtesy, thank you).

I agree that being told what you can and can't play "sucks," but it keeps things in balance. If we let people have evil characters, we'll have to let them do all sorts of other janky things that will derail PFS. Like people that don't see a problem with purchasing a dozen slaves each game, killing them and raising them as undead to use throughout the adventure. Not to mention tables that will be entirely populated by evil characters. "Why should we help out lady so and so? Let's kidnap her and ransom her back for twice what these clowns are asking!"

Also, if we let evil alignments into PFS, then why would PVP be forbidden? Evil characters are, by definition, people that commit evil acts. Betrayal and murder are evil, so by forbidding PVP, we're limiting the RP potential of these hypothetical evil characters. If the alignment wall comes down, the following flood would be problematic.
-------------------------------

Mike Mistele wrote:


Fundamentally, 90% of the rules in a shared campaign like PFS are in there because 10% of the players can't be counted on to behave in a mature fashion. And, any such rule can't keep someone who's determined to be a problem from doing so...it discourages the petty abuses. It's the price we pay for having the opportunity to play in such a campaign.

Mike has it right. Everyone that's taken place in this discussion would likely be able to handle evil alignments if we all played a game together. I'm sure Alitan's character would make for a memorable time at the very least (on-demand horde of undead plagues!). But not everyone has X hours a day to devote to gaming. Most people in PFS only get to do it a few days a month, and the only time they think about it is when they're rolling the dice. And for the inexperienced, restrictions help structure how they learn the game, and ensure they don't become the homicidal arsonists we all dread.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Alitan, I feel your pain. As someone who is preparing to run an evil home game, utilizing the Carrion Crown adventure path, an evil campaign can be one of the most memorable role playing experiences one can have. Back in the 90s while living in Connecticut, I was a part of a three year, very successful evil campaign.

With that said, evil alignment unfortunately is not a good fit in organized play, at least not at this time. We have players who cause disruptions when using good and neutral alignments. These same players would be even more disruptive under the guise of evil alignment. As someone who is trying to move toward inclusion of as much of the Core Rulebook as possible, it is something I have looked at. Maybe one day, it is something we can consider. That day is not today, though. It is on my radar. If there ever is a time we can fit it in and do it right, you can bet I will give it serious consideration.

Thanks for your input and I hope you find the current Pathfinder Society an enjoyable experience.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:

Maybe one day, it is something we can consider. That day is not today, though. It is on my radar. If there ever is a time we can fit it in and do it right, you can bet I will give it serious consideration.

I have four words for you, Mike.

Aspis. Consortium. Organized. Play.

You don't have to make a decision on it now. Just think about it for a bit and let it sink in. How cool could those missions be? Perhaps some intersecting plot lines where PCs undo some of the "good" done by previous PFS scenarios.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
WalterGM wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Maybe one day, it is something we can consider. That day is not today, though. It is on my radar. If there ever is a time we can fit it in and do it right, you can bet I will give it serious consideration.

I have four words for you, Mike.

Aspis. Consortium. Organized. Play.

You don't have to make a decision on it now. Just think about it for a bit and let it sink in. How cool could those missions be? Perhaps some intersecting plot lines where PCs undo some of the "good" done by previous PFS scenarios.

Already thought about it ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm playing in a long-running (almost four years now) game where my character has gone from NG at the beginning all the way to LE now. He's not some lunatic or killer - he's just done with doing things the nice way. He wants to do what he thinks is the right thing, but he's fine with torture or coersion if that seems to be the fastest means to an end. He has never gone out of his way to be evil or even mean - He's just not a good person anymore.

We have a pretty wide range of characters in a relatively small group - we have five players: LG paladin, LE rogue/spymaster, NG wizard/rogue, N rogue, and LN cleric. The characters have formed a tight bond despite their apparently opposing alignments.

The LE rogue and LG Paladin are brothers in the game and they get along as well as they probably could. They do have a lot of really sad conversations about morality and the nature of good.

...our table is often a somber one :\

Liberty's Edge

Alitan wrote:

>sigh<

It's just so much easier to conquer than persuade. Darn it. I like my poisons, my clever deceits, my on-demand horde of undead plagues. Oh, well. I'm going to have to go back to the drawing board... dust off the blueprints for a hero. Been using antihero schematics for years, now...

Do not fret overmuch about it. You can be a perfectly legal Neutral character doing all of the above as long as you do not casually abuse/kill innocents. A few Good acts here and there will help too ;-)

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Michael Brock wrote:
WalterGM wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Maybe one day, it is something we can consider. That day is not today, though. It is on my radar. If there ever is a time we can fit it in and do it right, you can bet I will give it serious consideration.

I have four words for you, Mike.

Aspis. Consortium. Organized. Play.

You don't have to make a decision on it now. Just think about it for a bit and let it sink in. How cool could those missions be? Perhaps some intersecting plot lines where PCs undo some of the "good" done by previous PFS scenarios.

Already thought about it ;-)

Ooooooh. I just got a nice little tingling down my spine :D

Silver Crusade 2/5

Michael Brock wrote:
WalterGM wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Maybe one day, it is something we can consider. That day is not today, though. It is on my radar. If there ever is a time we can fit it in and do it right, you can bet I will give it serious consideration.

I have four words for you, Mike.

Aspis. Consortium. Organized. Play.

You don't have to make a decision on it now. Just think about it for a bit and let it sink in. How cool could those missions be? Perhaps some intersecting plot lines where PCs undo some of the "good" done by previous PFS scenarios.

Already thought about it ;-)

Ooooh. Where do we sign up? Can we sign up now? How about now? Are we there yet?

PS: I can you missed it: I like this idea.

Dark Archive 3/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Brock wrote:
WalterGM wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Maybe one day, it is something we can consider. That day is not today, though. It is on my radar. If there ever is a time we can fit it in and do it right, you can bet I will give it serious consideration.

I have four words for you, Mike.

Aspis. Consortium. Organized. Play.

You don't have to make a decision on it now. Just think about it for a bit and let it sink in. How cool could those missions be? Perhaps some intersecting plot lines where PCs undo some of the "good" done by previous PFS scenarios.

Already thought about it ;-)

I was going to make a post about how part of the issue is writing an adventure that works for both good/heroic PCs and evil/antihero PCs is very difficult and work better as separate campaigns entirely.

And then I saw this.

And began eying possible Aspis PC concepts.


Michael Brock wrote:

Alitan, I feel your pain. As someone who is preparing to run an evil home game, utilizing the Carrion Crown adventure path, an evil campaign can be one of the most memorable role playing experiences one can have. Back in the 90s while living in Connecticut, I was a part of a three year, very successful evil campaign.

With that said, evil alignment unfortunately is not a good fit in organized play, at least not at this time. We have players who cause disruptions when using good and neutral alignments. These same players would be even more disruptive under the guise of evil alignment. As someone who is trying to move toward inclusion of as much of the Core Rulebook as possible, it is something I have looked at. Maybe one day, it is something we can consider. That day is not today, though. It is on my radar. If there ever is a time we can fit it in and do it right, you can bet I will give it serious consideration.

Thanks for your input and I hope you find the current Pathfinder Society an enjoyable experience.

Oh, I don't have any doubts on that score; Pathfinder is a superlative system, and the Society folks I've arranged to game with soon are delightful. And the idea of being able to take my character all over with me is attractive, too.

Alitan the Virtuous

PS: Aspis? What is this Aspis of which the others whisper? Is it crunchy, my precious? :)


Alex Head wrote:

I'm playing in a long-running (almost four years now) game where my character has gone from NG at the beginning all the way to LE now. He's not some lunatic or killer - he's just done with doing things the nice way. He wants to do what he thinks is the right thing, but he's fine with torture or coersion if that seems to be the fastest means to an end. He has never gone out of his way to be evil or even mean - He's just not a good person anymore.

We have a pretty wide range of characters in a relatively small group - we have five players: LG paladin, LE rogue/spymaster, NG wizard/rogue, N rogue, and LN cleric. The characters have formed a tight bond despite their apparently opposing alignments.

The LE rogue and LG Paladin are brothers in the game and they get along as well as they probably could. They do have a lot of really sad conversations about morality and the nature of good.

...our table is often a somber one :\

That's it exactly, Alex; not some lunatic or (casual) killer -- just done with "nice" and getting chillingly-ruthless when it comes to getting one's way. Just not a good person anymore.

In a Pathfinder game I was in, in Anchorage, my (lawful/evil) cleric and the paladin in the party were forced to be allies, because the rest of the group were barking mad chaosites: in order to get them all pointed in the same direction and MOVING, he and I had to put aside our distaste for each others morals and cooperate.

It worked, too; he fell about four months into the game. ;)

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Alitan wrote:
PS: Aspis? What is this Aspis of which the others whisper? Is it crunchy, my precious? :)

The Aspis Consortium is the basic foil to the Pathfinder Society. They do the same sorts of quests (killing baddies, stealing treasure, etc) but only do it to expand their influence and profit. They are also the sort of "go-to" antagonists for PCs in most PFS games.


"Alitan wrote:

That's it exactly, Alex; not some lunatic or (casual) killer -- just done with "nice" and getting chillingly-ruthless when it comes to getting one's way. Just not a good person anymore.

In a Pathfinder game I was in, in Anchorage, my (lawful/evil) cleric and the paladin in the party were forced to be allies, because the rest of the group were barking mad chaosites: in order to get them all pointed in the same direction and MOVING, he and I had to put aside our distaste for each others morals and cooperate.

It worked, too; he fell about four months into the game. ;)

Hah! I've always liked the idea of LG and LE being forced to get along (and your story of them having to play buddy-cop to a bunch of chaotics is awesome) for the greater good.

I bet that in that scenario, the Paladin and Cleric of opposing moral-directions secretely respected each other almost as much as they would someone of their own faiths. Good luck getting them to admit that, though.


(Alex Head wrote:)

Hah! I've always liked the idea of LG and LE being forced to get along (and your story of them having to play buddy-cop to a bunch of chaotics is awesome) for the greater good.

I bet that in that scenario, the Paladin and Cleric of opposing moral-directions secretely respected each other almost as much as they would someone of their own faiths. Good luck getting them to admit that, though.
*
That game was really fun, for a variety of reasons; the interaction between my priest of the Binder (a lawful/evil god who ascended from mortal status through underhanded means, god of bargains, hell, and magic -- similar to PF's Asmodeus in some aspects) and the paladin of the Champion (basically Bahamut) was one of my favorite parts.

And yes, both of the characters had a great deal of respect for each other. It helped that the chaosites were PARAGONS of random whimsy, needing CONSTANT oversight to keep the party on-task. We were stuck with each other because of a prophecy that tied us all together, facing threats of assassination by factions that wanted to alter the outcome of [x] big event foretold. Almost none of the characters would have associated with the others without that problem, and there were at least three pairs of people who really wanted to kill each other.

So we (me and the pally) had our work cut out for us.

Once he fell, he joined my church as a knight; we founded the Order of the Iron Thistle on his prowess and my scheming. [The DM was kind and let him just convert his old levels of Paladin into levels of Knight, so he didn't even lose as much as he would have typically.] We continued to work together through the end of the campaign, and had a great deal of fun. Between us we were able to effectively direct the party to further our own agenda, and kept the chaotic urge towards disorder reigned in.

Ah, good times. Well, evil times, but you take my meaning. :)

Sovereign Court

Alitan wrote:
and the Society folks I've arranged to game with soon are delightful.

Dawww thanks :)!

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
WalterGM wrote:
Alitan wrote:
PS: Aspis? What is this Aspis of which the others whisper? Is it crunchy, my precious? :)
The Aspis Consortium is the basic foil to the Pathfinder Society. They do the same sorts of quests (killing baddies, stealing treasure, etc) but only do it to expand their influence and profit. They are also the sort of "go-to" antagonists for PCs in most PFS games.

Note: The really, truly hilariously funny part is.... if you write up the Pathfinder Society in even-handed 3.5 style, the organization alignment should read CE.

Just like the entry for the Aspis Consortium.

Think closely about it, Silver Crusaders. This is not a campaign for the good character.

Dark Archive 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Maybe one day, it is something we can consider. That day is not today, though. It is on my radar. If there ever is a time we can fit it in and do it right, you can bet I will give it serious consideration.

I have four words for you, Mike.

Aspis. Consortium. Organized. Play.

You don't have to make a decision on it now. Just think about it for a bit and let it sink in. How cool could those missions be? Perhaps some intersecting plot lines where PCs undo some of the "good" done by previous PFS scenarios.

Necro to add:

THIS YEAR AT PAIZOCON AND GENCON.

THREE YEARS IN THE MAKING.

RISE OF SERPENTS: Now you will learn how it feels to fall under the blades of Pathfinder Agents.... firsthand.

Sorry, just having a continuing moment of glee - I'm very excited about this year's specials.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

TetsujinOni wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Maybe one day, it is something we can consider. That day is not today, though. It is on my radar. If there ever is a time we can fit it in and do it right, you can bet I will give it serious consideration.

I have four words for you, Mike.

Aspis. Consortium. Organized. Play.

You don't have to make a decision on it now. Just think about it for a bit and let it sink in. How cool could those missions be? Perhaps some intersecting plot lines where PCs undo some of the "good" done by previous PFS scenarios.

Necro to add:

THIS YEAR AT PAIZOCON AND GENCON.

THREE YEARS IN THE MAKING.

RISE OF SERPENTS: Now you will learn how it feels to fall under the blades of Pathfinder Agents.... firsthand.

Sorry, just having a continuing moment of glee - I'm very excited about this year's specials.

That Necro really was not necessary, I read quite a lot until I saw the orginial posting date.

The serpent thing might be exiting for a number of players, but not being on that particular continent, does temper my motivation somewhat.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South

Sebastian: I believe this will be one of the 4 Specials that will be run at our Pfscon this year.
Correct me if I am wrong but i think this scenario will become a 4 or 5 Star exclusive scenario after the gencon and we have quite some 4 Star-Gm and a 5 Star Gm so I think we will experience this scenario this year without travelling to america

Grand Lodge 4/5 Global Organized Play Coordinator

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Maybe one day, it is something we can consider. That day is not today, though. It is on my radar. If there ever is a time we can fit it in and do it right, you can bet I will give it serious consideration.

I have four words for you, Mike.

Aspis. Consortium. Organized. Play.

You don't have to make a decision on it now. Just think about it for a bit and let it sink in. How cool could those missions be? Perhaps some intersecting plot lines where PCs undo some of the "good" done by previous PFS scenarios.

Necro to add:

THIS YEAR AT PAIZOCON AND GENCON.

THREE YEARS IN THE MAKING.

RISE OF SERPENTS: Now you will learn how it feels to fall under the blades of Pathfinder Agents.... firsthand.

Sorry, just having a continuing moment of glee - I'm very excited about this year's specials.

That Necro really was not necessary, I read quite a lot until I saw the orginial posting date.

The serpent thing might be exiting for a number of players, but not being on that particular continent, does temper my motivation somewhat.

Reread my Gen Con blog then. As normal, the multi tier specials are available for regions to run. The two pregen specials will be four and five star GM exclusives that can be run anywhere the 4 and 5 star GMs want to run them, you don't have to attend Gen Con to have a chance to play it. Gen Con nets the first chance to play one and PaizoCon nets the other one. After Gen Con, they will be available for play worldwide.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Michael Brock wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:

Maybe one day, it is something we can consider. That day is not today, though. It is on my radar. If there ever is a time we can fit it in and do it right, you can bet I will give it serious consideration.

I have four words for you, Mike.

Aspis. Consortium. Organized. Play.

You don't have to make a decision on it now. Just think about it for a bit and let it sink in. How cool could those missions be? Perhaps some intersecting plot lines where PCs undo some of the "good" done by previous PFS scenarios.

Necro to add:

THIS YEAR AT PAIZOCON AND GENCON.

THREE YEARS IN THE MAKING.

RISE OF SERPENTS: Now you will learn how it feels to fall under the blades of Pathfinder Agents.... firsthand.

Sorry, just having a continuing moment of glee - I'm very excited about this year's specials.

That Necro really was not necessary, I read quite a lot until I saw the orginial posting date.

The serpent thing might be exiting for a number of players, but not being on that particular continent, does temper my motivation somewhat.

Reread my Gen Con blog then. As normal, the multi tier specials are available for regions to run. The two pregen specials will be four and five star GM exclusives that can be run anywhere the 4 and 5 star GMs want to run them, you don't have to attend Gen Con to have a chance to play it. Gen Con nets the first chance to play one and PaizoCon nets the other one. After Gen Con, they will be available for play worldwide.

Yeah sorry about that off hand comment, I vaguely remember my VO mentioning that he plans a couple of specials for the 3. German PFS convention.

Maybe it is just the fact, that I am a relatively new player and that the Aspis Consortium has not played a big role in the adventure paths I have run or played outiside of PFS. You could say that I am just not as invested in the idea as my fellow players.

I am sure it will be fun, Legacy of the Stonelords was one of my first scenarios (no 6 to be exact) and I was praising to all my friends. At this point, I am just not hyped for it just yet, which is not a bad thing, considering that it is still about 6 months away.

Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Unholy Absence All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society