Having read through the Player's Guide and realize that the expectation is that they will be pirates. However in the history of pirate movies and classic pirate stories (treasure island) there is room for characters beyond ruthless murderers. Or is this basically an evil AP.
Well they will be stealing from merhent ships at the very least so LG types will most certainly have problems. Restraining from rape, torture, and other cruelties can help keep the hardcore nasties out, although it is assumed that the PCs will need to be ruthless in order to keep their rep with the other pirate lords.
Having read through the Player's Guide and realize that the expectation is that they will be pirates. However in the history of pirate movies and classic pirate stories (treasure island) there is room for characters beyond ruthless murderers. Or is this basically an evil AP.
We have four PC's and none of them are evil - though none of them are officially good either... they're just out for themselves.
The way we've played it is that we have a female captain (a Lotus Geisha run by a female player) who prefers the company of women, but the group decided to play on that and named the ship 'the Maiden's Promise'. The 'promise' is made every time we take a merchant ship (its not extended to other pirates, pirate-hunters or slavers) - the ship is looted and then its captain (or highest surviving officer) is taken for ransom. The remaining crew and officers are allowed to resume sail and are told that any ship which surrenders to the Maiden's Promise will be guaranteed that no one will be hurt, that they will be allowed to keep their ship and that only their captains will be ransomed. In many cases its more worthwhile to the crew to mutiny on the captain and more worthwhile to the ship's officers that only one of their number be taken rather than all of them killed. The 'promise' has begun to spread and we've had two ships actually surrender to us rather than fight and in both cases the promise was kept.
We also put it out that our ship's captain was a maiden (in the biblical sense) awaiting the one man who could claim her and with her her ship and fortune... a patent lie of course but its made her somewhat of a minor legendary figure with more than a few dashing rogues or lascivious pirate captains showering her with gifts and attention - a fact she often laughs about while bedding the likes of Tessa Fairwind.
Finally, keep in mind that while piracy is the surface theme of the AP, really its an adventure at sea (and under it) where you spend more time fighting evils like Sahuagin and battling or out-manuevering other pirates than you do engaged in actual piracy.
Depends upon who you are stealing from. Effectively, by a certain point in the AP, you are working for the governing council of the Shackles as a a semi-military vessels, which make your actions against foreign vessels... "legitimate", by Shackles law. The dieties of LG would protest, though
overall, you can run this AP well within a Robin Hood-esque "we the merry oppressed men" mode, or down the total villainy path. And let's remember, even total villains can act heroically
Nevermind that plundering tombs (disturbance of the grave, robbery against the deceased), your enemies(robbery vs their inheritors) etc are not all that honourable "acquisitions of property" which many LG characters regularly engage in.
In fact "to take your enemies' riches" was considered proper form throughout history. It still is modern times, especialy among nations.
|
It depends on motivation and conduct.
For example, Good PCs could consider themselves to be privateers or partisans of a particular nation (say, Andoran) only attack ships of enemy nations.
Or they could style themselves "tax collectors" taking some percentage of each ship's goods.
Or they could only raid the ships of evildoers, like slavers and Chelaxians and the like.
I started a thread a while back about how you could run a Skull & Shackles campaign with an all-paladin party.
The only PC alignment that really doesn't fit this AP is Lawful Good.
As others have said it's up to you and your players how you want to conduct your campaign as far as bloodthirstiness goes. There are several CG NPCs on the Wormwood and later on in various modules, so Good characters per se are not out of the question.
Thanks for the replies I appreciate the responses. That makes me want to read more.
|
|
The only PC alignment that really doesn't fit this AP is Lawful Good.
As others have said it's up to you and your players how you want to conduct your campaign as far as bloodthirstiness goes. There are several CG NPCs on the Wormwood and later on in various modules, so Good characters per se are not out of the question.
Even lawful good is theoretically possible. But it would probably turn the whole campaign into just one long exercise in trying to accommodate that alignment, so it's more trouble than it's worth.
It feels like an 'evil AP', with it's Infamy rules and everything.
Attacking people who aren't attacking you goes beyond mere neutral. Neutral is 'do unto others'. I can't see how you could play S&S straight without an all-evil party.
We're playing Jade Regent now, but I've half a mind to completely rip the whole thing to shreds, respec it as the PCs as privateers and pirate-killers. Or Chelaxian agents supporting the lesser of two evils.
As Story Archer says, you could probably cut the whole pirate theme with some effort, and just run the maritime encounters.
Of course you can play this adventure path with neutral (or even good) characters
For one : consider who you rob and plunder... and how you go about it. Honourable thievery, in the concept of overwhelming evil is... a story staple. Or does anyone intend to call Robin Hood evil ? Or call smuggling "despicable"
Second : Infamy is a matter of perception.. good thieves are those who are never caught, but pirates are required to brag and shout about their deeds. So go for the really outlandish and "impossible" stuff good for barroom stories.
Say - do not only cripple the "Dominator", but sink, her humiliate Cheliax in the bargain AND steal their Commodore's penannt and their Battle Flag ! Won't make you infamous ? I daresay, it will. And I guess you will still be good or neutral... so why not possibly dance through Port Peril in the Commodore's wardrobe ?
Sail into Correntyn, steal the governor's personal treasure chest, paint his wife blue and his spouse red, dangle them (alive) from the yardarms and give the golden swag to the disenfranchised of Bag Island or Hell's Harbour (but not yourself). Notority incarnate ! Where exactly was the evil part in that ?
The problem with this : The nigh total lack of interesting naval encounters beyond AP-II. AP-IV and AP-V are basically Dungeon Crawls, ahem "island explorations", so one would have to be creative. AP-VI is not out yet, but I guess at that point in the camapign, infamy and reputation have already been etsablished.
So well, be creative and GMish ! All of it without actually touching on the main plot of the AP
And I really feel a certain... apprehension in exterminating orkish tribes and taking their wealth as "good", while preying on the agents of devil-ruled Cheliax (or the godless of Rahadoum) as... "evil". Why exactly is wiping out goblins "better" than robbing the merchants ?
Why exactly is wiping out goblins "better" than robbing the merchants ?
Because in the context of most games - say, Rise of the Runelords - the goblins are attacking or just attacked the helpless villagers.
If PCs just waded in and slaughtered a bunch of peaceful goblins (assuming such things might exist) , then that too would be evil.
Smuggling is merely chaotic, because it's a victimless crime against the law. Unless you kill or hurt innocent people in the process of it.
Robbing someone at knife-point - or attacking a merchant ship or caravan - is evil.
Neutral is 'do unto others', not 'evil-lite'.
Question for you Vikingson - how would good characters react when the AP pretty much forces them to do evil deeds? Yes, you can play non-evil, good-natured scoundrels... but you'd have to rework the AP to account for it, or handwave a LOT of what it presumes.
Even lawful good is theoretically possible. But it would probably turn the whole campaign into just one long exercise in trying to accommodate that alignment, so it's more trouble than it's worth.
Trinite, I liked the logistics of your all-paladin party.
But it didn't really address the issue of how they'd need to act when the AP assumes they will do evil deeds. Attacking innocent merchant ships and stuff, not helping innocent people who are being attacked.
I think you could do it, but you'd have to skip the whole pirate stuff like the Regatta and have the pirates simply as foes. Diplomacy might be possible, as not all the pirates are infatuated with their lifestyle, and might well come over to the other side in exchange for pardons, etc.
But I just don't see how it would work as written.
Robbing someone at knife-point - or attacking a merchant ship or caravan - is evil.
While I agree with a lot of your sentiments, I'm of the opinion that robbing someone at knife-point is merely a chaotic act (assuming you're in a society with laws against such actions).
On the other hand, if the innocent unarmed victim resists and you attack them with the knife, that would be evil.
The same can be said about attacking a merchant vessel. The theft of goods I wouldn't consider evil, but killing unarmed sailors I would.
That said, it's all quite far from "good" as that implies altruism and protecting the innocent. Luckily, none of my players have elected to play good (or lawful) characters and about half of them are evil which I think is for the best for this AP.
If PCs just waded in and slaughtered a bunch of peaceful goblins (assuming such things might exist) , then that too would be evil.
Smuggling is merely chaotic, because it's a victimless crime against the law. Unless you kill or hurt innocent people in the process of it.
Robbing someone at knife-point - or attacking a merchant ship or caravan - is evil.
Neutral is 'do unto others', not 'evil-lite'.
Question for you Vikingson - how would good characters react when the AP pretty much forces them to do evil deeds? Yes, you can play non-evil, good-natured scoundrels... but you'd have to rework the AP to account for it, or handwave a LOT of what it presumes.
for one : I was refering to the goblins at the start of the Jade Regent AP: doing nothing very much, but needed to "questioned" (whether they wish it or not) to find a certain junk. Since you are just playing that.
Second : neutral is a balance of "not good, not evil, I'd like law, but don't feel bad if chaotic stuff happens. basically your average "innocent" bystander. Neutral does not mean "nice". Not "friendly". Not "I will leave you with your ill-gotten gains, dear Merchant of the Apsis Consortium". Not "helpful".
Third : how 1% - 100% of your alignment are you ? Convinced fanatic ? Or a lacklustre member of the congregation ?
Fourth : Good and honourable means so many different things depending upon your religion... take a hint from the very different attitudes the paladinic codes in "faiths of purity" embrace.
And the AP... does not force the players to commit "evil" deeds. You can stand by as the "Man's Promise" is attacked (it's even referenced in the rules ). After that, you are pretty much your own measure.
You can sleep or incapacipate people. Trick them. Convince them through initimidation. Mine did, even the "evil" oracle.
Throughout the first three parts of the AP, I see no action to be considered outright evil (such as say... freeing an entrapped Demon Princess in "Savage Tides" to gain information and support ).
In fact, in AP-4 and AP-5, it basically sets up a basic heroic questline which is far more "heroic do-gooder" than "selfish, craven and evil".
You do not _have_ to rework anything.
BUT. That being said, a GM should IMHO always absorb player ideas and motivations, incorporate them and ....if they go to Correntyn or whatever, it is my job as a GM to pull up a feasible story to flesh out their ideas or discourage them. Roleplaying is a group-endeavour.
And....go ask a Priest of Cayden, whether he considers the Pirates of the Shackles defying Chelian usurpation and empire building as "evil" or something worth utterly worthy of embrace.
Plus one can sin and still redeem yourself... called Atonement ? "I do terrible things for the greater good and I honestly regret doing them but they needed to be done, for I know there is no other way ? Or: I repented and saw the error of my ways ? Ask Saulus, Cornelius, Francis of Assisi... Penace. Insight. Enlightenment.
Good is not being 100% good, good is a matter of preference, and being honest about it. I steal a key (bad), getting the guard in trouble (evil) because I need to free an innocent prisoner (good).... so good or evil ? Should I have killed the guard because stealing is "evil" and "selfish" ? Nevermind that one religions "good" is not that of another religion.
Some things need to be done. And while that is pretty much the standard excuse of politicians for the last few thousand years and YES, they can be honest and forthright about it.
Or... after all, the Romans thought their merciless occupation and conquering until nothing was left absolutely "good", enlightening and beneficial in the perspective of their Republic and Empire. They "made a better world"...But go, ask the Carthagenians. The Gauls... or whoever. Back then. Than, ask their descendants 100 years later. Or 1000 years later....
"Evil" is... very much in the eye of the beholder. And the moment. And the perspective in time. Evil : It.is.Never.Simple.
Try playing this AP with a couple of characters in the vein of "Yojimbo". Trying to become pirate lords to eventually abolishing piracy and "freeing" the Shackles. Everything they do... they do it "for the greater Good". ooops.
No rewrites required, so far.
|
Ultimately debating alignment in D&D is a very old and entirely fruitless pasttime. Every GM seems to define the lines between good and evil and neutral a little differently. Gaming as a rule is about having fun. You should do what you find fun. Your mileage may vary. Bla bla bla...
But as someone who avidly studies and writes about ethics I take a more stringent view on what actually qualifies as good than most of the people in this forum.
To my mind your average citizen is Neutral. They care about their families and friends. They work. They cheat a bit. They speed when cops aren't around. They might look the other way about shoplifting or recreational drug use. But they wouldn't attack someone with a weapon and definitely wouldn't kill someone unless in self-defense. They would regard basically everything done by pirates - armed robbery, murder, slaving, pillaging as without any question evil, even if done to "evil" people, or with supposedly good reason.
To qualify as Good you have to actively and altruistically seek the good of other people even at the detriment of yourself or your friends/family. A good person joins the peace corps or volunteers at the local orphanage, or puts their life in harms way to protect others when they aren't paid to do so and there is no particular advantage for them in doing so.
Evil doesn't just mean hand-steepling, cackling, plotting mad-men. Evil is self-interest and the willingness to harm others (or overlook harm of others) for your own gain.
Obviously in real-life (and sometimes in games) people can be a mix of these things. Someone might do evil things occasionally, but also do remarkably altruistic things in other instances. Clearly as Vikingson points out, there is a great deal of ambiguity about these things in literature and history, and you can probably find a way of contextualizing the story that you and your players find morally acceptable.
I was just thinking of this because i may be playing or running a Skull and Shackles game, but it seems the confusion I have about whether a chatoic good character would fit is the same as some others.
Though, to those that say piracy is straight up evil, maybe that might be true in a real life situtation, but in fantasy its not so much. Take Pirates of the Cairibean for example. Barbosa? He's evil. For sure. Probably netural evil IMO. Captain Jack Sparrow? Chaotic Neutral... now Elizabeth Swan... hmmm would she be Chaotic Good actually?
Second, look at Besmara, the goddess of pirates. She's not evil, she's chaotic neutral.
Captain Jack Sparrow? Chaotic Neutral... now Elizabeth Swan... hmmm would she be Chaotic Good actually?
Second, look at Besmara, the goddess of pirates. She's not evil, she's chaotic neutral.
Who exactly does Elizabeth Swan plunder, pillage, murder rob or maraud for undeserved loot ? CG..... the chaining of Jack Sparrow to the Pearl in part II - might be seen as self defense. Nevermind her going all out in order to ressurect him. Tries to protect the innocent....
Similar for Orlano Bloom's character. Or even the boatsswain's mate.
Far too little robbing in PotC for a real piracy movie....Argggggh !
And Besmara loves her freedom to cause chaos and take what she wants (and seems quit at ease with the pirates than squandering or being robbed themselves).
Besmara is basically the anti-pode to Abadar