|
Had a scenario this weekend, where a player who also DMs said that several evil acts can be punished by PFS by removal from the Pathfinders.
I'd like a clarification of what is evil. My Priest/Cleric of Pharasma rightfully hates the undead and necromancers, he travels in the company of a rather violent barbarian.
Now if someone decides to knock out a necromancer because they want to question him in a scenario. - Is a Priests of Pharasma allowed to pass judgement on the necromancer, after he has been questioned and have the barbarian execute the necromancer, as order of business, even though the prisoner is bound.
Or is killing an immobile prisoner ALWAYS an act of EVIL?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In before never ending discussion begins.
An evil act is determined by your GM. It will vary at every single table you play at based on your GM, the other players within the party, and the details of the exact situation.
In short, there is no answer to your last question, but that player is correct that a GM can remove a PFS character from play by performing too many egregious evil acts.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In before never ending discussion begins.
QFT.
There is no defined list of evil actions, whether for PFS or Pathfinder in general. It is, by design, something to be handled on a case-by-case basis with the GM.
If your PC is inclined to do things that you know is disagreed upon by GMs, you might consider checking with your GM before each game so you don't have speedbumps later.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or is killing an immobile prisoner ALWAYS an act of EVIL?
You can handle it a couple of different ways:
1) Let the necromancer free, hand him a dagger, yell "He's coming right for me!" and then the barbarian can kill him free of consequence.2) Keep a mook alive and offer him his freedom if he'll kill the helpless necromancer and take the evil act for you.
3) Go ahead and kill the necromancer, but be sure to throw the body into a lake along with any evidence. Then everyone in the party has to swear a pact to never tell anyone what happened over your summer vacation.
Remember, if you can make the GM laugh it'll lessen the chances of an evil act being recorded.
|
Had a scenario this weekend, where a player who also DMs said that several evil acts can be punished by PFS by removal from the Pathfinders.
I'd like a clarification of what is evil. My Priest/Cleric of Pharasma rightfully hates the undead and necromancers, he travels in the company of a rather violent barbarian.
Now if someone decides to knock out a necromancer because they want to question him in a scenario. - Is a Priests of Pharasma allowed to pass judgement on the necromancer, after he has been questioned and have the barbarian execute the necromancer, as order of business, even though the prisoner is bound.
Or is killing an immobile prisoner ALWAYS an act of EVIL?
This is a question that every single GM will probably answer differently.
My opinion is it depends on the circumstances. Was quarter offered? Is there a Paladin or otherwise LG or LN aligned person in the party?
Generally, if the badguy is trying to kill you, you take him down, then question him. Killing him later while immobile would not be considered evil.
But that's my opinion.
I'd like a clarification of what is evil.
You are not going to get one.
This decision is left up to the individual GMs for a reason.
If they came up with an 'official' list of evil vs not evil, people would try their best to cheese it nine ways to Sunday.
There is no 'official' answer to your question beyond "Ask your GM".
-j
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Eric Saxon: There will be table variation on whether or not certain actions are evil.
However, unless it's something especially egregious (like eating a soul - which, for the record, one of my PCs actually did), they don't get to instantly "kill" (I assume you mean remove from the campaign) your character.
If the GM decides the act is evil, they mark it on your chronicle sheet as an evil act. Then they look at your chronicles for previous such notes, in case this is a pattern. If they determine there's a consistent pattern of evil acts, they can shift your alignment (or ask you to get an atonement, or take some other measure).
So if you announce you're going to [whatever], and the GM thinks that's evil, it should go down like this:
GM: That would be considered an evil act and would get noted on your chronicle. Are you sure that's what you're doing, or do you want to do something else?
If instead the GM just says "Okay, he's dead. But that was an evil act, so your character's now illegal; I'll be reporting him as 'dead' in the system", then you need to report them to your local VC, or to Mike Brock if necessary.
|
|
My suggestion would also be to read the part in the Guide to Organized Play v4.3 about how the recording of evil acts is supposed to work before you get worked up into a lather.
Alignment Infractions
Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.) while following specific orders from their faction or the Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions. These are cases where karma applies to those making the orders, not their tools. However, “that’s just what my character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk.
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. We believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport, etc.). Hence, the GM can issue a warning to the player through a “feeling” he receives from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other similar roleplaying event.
If infractions continue in the course of the scenario or sanctioned module, an alignment change may be in order. If the GM deems these continued actions warrant an alignment change, she should note it on the character’s Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the Conditions Gained box. The character may remove this gained condition through an atonement spell. If the condition is removed, the GM should also note it on the Chronicle sheet.
Characters who become wantonly evil, whose actions are deliberate and without motive or provocation, are retired from the campaign. This measure is 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, or the local Venture-Captain or Venture- Lieutenant. If they agree with the GM, then the character is deemed wantonly 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, record the character as “Dead,” and the person who enters the tracking sheet should check that box as well. If the convention coordinator, Venture-Captain, or Venture-Lieutenant decides the character fits the criteria for being wantonly evil, she will then email the campaign coordinator to advise him of the situation, including the player’s name, Pathfinder Society Number, character name, and email address. She will advise the player of these actions and offer the player the campaign coordinator’s email address so the player may present his case.
The Campaign Coordinator will present all facts to the Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants at large with all names (both player 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 his actions, the campaign coordinator will contact the player and advise him 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 that game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let us know when it actually happens, we've had enough of the academic arguments. They go nowhere.
Doug Play a Paladin in one of my games at GenCon.
Have the Paladin buy a 1st level scroll of Restoration, Lesser written by a Paladin, then insist your Paladin does not follow a Deity and finally sacrifice 10 Puppies pretending to be Piglets to your non-god to complete a faction mission.
I will mark your Paladin as performing an evil act on the spot... ;)
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West
|
Let us know when it actually happens, we've had enough of the academic arguments. They go nowhere.Doug Play a Paladin in one of my games at GenCon.
Have the Paladin buy a 1st level scroll of Restoration, Lesser written by a Paladin, then insist your Paladin does not follow a Deity and finally sacrifice 10 Puppies pretending to be Piglets to your non-god to complete a faction mission.
I will mark your Paladin as performing an evil act on the spot... ;)
A yellow-feathered Tengu Paladin shouting "Play! Play! Play!" no less.
|
Or is killing an immobile prisoner ALWAYS an act of EVIL?Nope. Sometimes its a faction mission.
Ironically, usually for the good aligned Andoran faction.
And again, what's with all the paladin hate? I've seen plenty of paladins in PFS play, including my own, and never seen any of them violate the "Don't be a jerk" rule.
Doug, you need to hand write "Lawful Good doesn't have to be Lawful Stupid" 100 times on the blackboard, or turn in your 5th star.
|
|
Nice.
I would never play a paladin in PFS though, they violate the "Don't be a jerk" rule.
I lol'd. Now I'm glad I came to this thread.
the only thing that has been stated by campaign leadership is that casting spells with the [Evil] Descriptor is not an Evil act. search for one of hte 38590486043958 threads on Infernal Healing.
|
Had a scenario this weekend, where a player who also DMs said that several evil acts can be punished by PFS by removal from the Pathfinders.
I'd like a clarification of what is evil. My Priest/Cleric of Pharasma rightfully hates the undead and necromancers, he travels in the company of a rather violent barbarian.
Now if someone decides to knock out a necromancer because they want to question him in a scenario. - Is a Priests of Pharasma allowed to pass judgement on the necromancer, after he has been questioned and have the barbarian execute the necromancer, as order of business, even though the prisoner is bound.
Or is killing an immobile prisoner ALWAYS an act of EVIL?
At the local gaming store we have several people who always go about swinging through those surrendered prisoners, helpless or not.
Just last night a barbarian decided for good measure after the BBEG was killed that he should clean up the rest of her crew... seeing the BBEG go down her cronies all surrendered, and it was accepted by the rest of the party... barbarian charged into one of them and killed him. Seeing this the rest of the party was screaming for him to stop, meanwhile the surrendered party all surrounded the barbarian and stabbed him into submission. Carried their fallen comrade off the field of battle and prepared to make way on the ship... they allowed everyone but the Barbarian on the ship. He had to walk home. Was it evil? I dunno, but you don't always have to slap someone with an Evil Act for them to get the point that killing people isn't a good thing to do. You never know when those people might be your ride home.
|
|
Jeez, everyone is so scared of discussion.
No brainer evil actions that should be punished by GMs:
-Willingly torturing a helpless opponent.
-Willingly killing an innocent civilian.
-Any kind of sexual abuse.
-Continually taunting a fellow Pathfinder with racial abuse. (Don't be a jerk rule.)
My CN barbarian has done the first of those. A clearly evil guy pretended to be our ally, then tried to kill us and the civilians we were protecting. After we beat him in a fight, my barbarian tortured him for information, including threatening to cut off his foot, then carrying out that threat when the bad guy didn't talk.
I still say the evil of that torture was balanced by the good of being pissed off that the bad guy had tried to kill one of my friends (the ambush started with the bad guy getting one of the other PCs alone). So my barbarian's intentions were good, even if his methods were evil, thus reinforcing the neutral alignment.
But I wouldn't push it by doing that sort of thing every game. It was once in his career, on a PC that hit level 13 in Society play.
|
|
There's no hard and fast rules for this stuff. It's going to vary DM to DM. Some people consider torture evil regardless of circumstances. Others consider it pragmatic.
I think the key to this whole thing is the DM remain transparent with the players involved.
"You want to do X? I'm going to consider that an evil act if you follow through."
From there it's up to the players to deal with it.
I've had times where I'd have gladly taken a black mark on my record if the DM deemed my decisions an evil act.
|
|
If a player can argue an evil act has merrits of goodness I can look past it.
I am sick of people saying "I am chaotic neutral so it gives me the excuse to be evil when I want."
I warn the players that their acts are evil. I had a player wanting to murder townsfolk because he started a fight with them.
|
Jeez, everyone is so scared of discussion.
No brainer evil actions that should be punished by GMs:
-Willingly torturing a helpless opponent.
-Willingly killing an innocent civilian.
-Any kind of sexual abuse.
-Continually taunting a fellow Pathfinder with racial abuse. (Don't be a jerk rule.)
I don't think the torture one is always a evil act. Say you have an enemy that attacked you tied up, and you want him to give you some information, does roughing him up if he doesn't talk really make you evil? If you're doing it purely for enjoyment, then that's evil in my opinion..
|
|
Um... what?!
How can you say that murdering an innocent is not an evil act?
Under any circumstances, if the individual is innocent (and you know it), its evil if you kill them. Even if that makes things difficult, uncomfortable, or inconvenient for you.
Because a faction leader told you so....?
I actually agree with the point that murdering an innocent would be an evil act. Personally, I would mark down killing a bystander on accident as an evil act (NOTE: I would only do this to my own characters, they hold themselves to a high standard).
|
|
Um... what?!
How can you say that murdering an innocent is not an evil act?
Under any circumstances, if the individual is innocent (and you know it), its evil if you kill them. Even if that makes things difficult, uncomfortable, or inconvenient for you.
Because a faction leader told you so....?
I actually agree with the point that murdering an innocent would be an evil act. Personally, I would mark down killing a bystander on accident as an evil act (NOTE: I would only do this to my own characters, they hold themselves to a high standard).
So far there haven't been any faction missions that require you to kill an innocent. I would wager there won't be.
|
|
There actually has been...
The twist is that he's actually innocent and the only way to succeed is to talk to him to learn the truth before executing him.
I am happy to say that my inquisitor earned that one thanks to his anti-violence stance.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Andrew
That other faction is innocent of mayhem, of course, but is busy injecting extraordinarily painful poison to some other innocent target.
|
|
Evil is an intention.... Accidentally causing the death of thousands because you start a small fire in the woods that burns down a village is not the same as fireballing the same village into oblivion (or otherwise intentionally razing it). Razing an evil place is generally a good thing, even if intentional.
|
Well well well, if it isn't the mandatory alignment thread what spurs up from the soil each season. Oh what fun.
As a GM I actually couldn't care less about the evil acts the characters do. Most of the times those 'border-line evil' acts create memorable role-playing moments which I endorse. If, however, the character acts in a jerky-evil way, I punish. Not outright, but punish still.
For example in a con last year I ran Frozen Fingers of Midnight, and the group happened to have an aasimar paladin. Mind you, I *hate* aasimars and even more so aasimar paladins. This paladin, however, chose to barge into a warehouse in the middle of the day with a crowd looking. I chose not to let him nor the group go easy and made the watch arrive once they got out. I could have forced the paladin to take an atonement for breaking his code, but this was his first PFS game so I settled on a warning.
So I'm more inclined to follow the law of the world, not the arbitrary markings on a piece of paper. If the character does something attrociously evil in public (rape the queen in broad daylight, let the orphanage in flames after boarding it up, go on a killing spree in the God's Market etc.), or it becomes known, the character might get banished from the campaign not for the evil act reason, but for lawful reasons. If a character would create too much of a stir among the Pathfinder circles, the high-ups would likely wish for the character to not represent the society.
I hope I made sense.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Deussu, how would you interpret breaking into a building, searching for a cure to save a man's life, a violation of a paladin's code worthy of an atonement?
How would you enforce "character removed from play for being an embarrassment to the Society"?
I'm afraid that, no, you haven't made much sense to me. That might be my fault.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Deussu, how would you interpret breaking into a building, searching for a cure to save a man's life, a violation of a paladin's code worthy of an atonement?
Breaking and entering, destruction of private property, theft, fleeing the scene of a crime. All very unlawful acts.
Or as pathfinders call it, Tuesday.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Deussu, how would you interpret breaking into a building, searching for a cure to save a man's life, a violation of a paladin's code worthy of an atonement?
That'd be the line in the code about how the paladin falls if they ever willingly commit an evil or chaotic act. Wait, you mean it doesn't say that? It only says they fall if they commit an evil act, nothing about a chaotic one? Gosh, silly me.
How would you enforce "character removed from play for being an embarrassment to the Society"?
This one's easy; it's right there in Guide 4.3, in the section about alignment infractions. Says that if the PC's actions aren't exactly "evil", but they do something which (in the GM's sole discretion) could be construed as embarassing to the Society, you report the PC as dead, removing them from the campaign.
What?! You mean that's not there either?! Oh man, I could've sworn that's what the Guide said, right before where it says that questionable PC actions should be allowed with no GM intervention/warning, and then punished after the fact, like Deussu was doing with the aasimar paladin he hated. Cripes, that's not there either? Whaddya mean it actually says the opposite, that a GM should caution a player before they commit to a questionable action?
Man, I'm 0 for 3 today. Better get my head in the game!
|
|
If they determine there's a consistent pattern of evil acts, they can shift your alignment (or ask you to get an atonement, or take some other measure).
I would say that's usually the case. However, very occasionally there are cases where the act is so egregious I would declare them evil on the spot.
Only case I've encountered like thisFortunately/Unfortunately the GM
Fortunately/Unfortunately had it been me behind the screen, I'd be looking for a legal way not to allow atonement.
So if you announce you're going to [whatever], and the GM thinks that's evil, it should go down like this:
GM: That would be considered an evil act and would get noted on your chronicle. Are you sure that's what you're doing, or do you want to do something else?
Agreed. Even in the case I mentioned above, a warning is in order.
If instead the GM just says "Okay, he's dead. But that was an evil act, so your character's now illegal; I'll be reporting him as 'dead' in the system", then you need to report them to your local VC, or to Mike Brock if necessary.
Dead like this can be appealed, and in most cases probably would be overturned.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That'd be the line in the code about how the paladin falls if they ever willingly commit an evil or chaotic act. Wait, you mean it doesn't say that? It only says they fall if they commit an evil act, nothing about a chaotic one? Gosh, silly me.
Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment
The code in inherently related to the lawful AND good parts of the alignment.
Lawful good is not the best good. lawful good does not mean just doing the right thing. (that would be neutral good). A lawful character values and is supposed to work within the system: breaking into the warehouse is completely circumventing the system.
With that said its not the call that I would make. If, in a home game, the paladins acted like pathfinder paladins i would probably shift their alignments over to NG (or further.. given some of them). But given the episodic nature of PFS, any individual act of Chaos can be explained as being "for the greater good" without being a big enough of an alignment violation to be a sudden shift in alignment on its own.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That'd be the line in the code about how the paladin falls if they ever willingly commit an evil or chaotic act. Wait, you mean it doesn't say that? It only says they fall if they commit an evil act, nothing about a chaotic one? Gosh, silly me.Code of Conduct: A paladin must be of lawful good alignment
Yeah, so if he commits enough chaotic acts to shift his alignment, he'll fall.
As opposed to the good/evil axis, where if he commits even ONE evil act, he falls, even if his alignment remains LG.
Lots of people seem to get the two mixed up; they see the "one strike and you're out" of evil actions, and apply it to the law/chaos axis as well, which is not how it works.
When it comes to performing chaotic acts, if a monk wouldn't need an atonement, neither does the paladin.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
What I find amusing about the Paladin breaking into the warehouse anecdote, is that the problem with it seems to be that he did it in the middle of the day with a crowd looking and that they got caught by the watch.
Would he have been fine if they did it at night and didn't get caught? Is that more lawful?
My thought with the situation is: why is breaking into the warehouse the only option?
Has the paladin parlay'd with the owner of the warehouse? The magistrate or city guard to try and get clearance to enter the premises? What if the owner or caretakers of the warehouse are refusing to grant access, even though his comrade is dying? That could easily be an unlawful act (we have a law that prevents this), so entering could be a lawful act to prevent their unlawful one. What if the paladin is under orders by the Pathfinders to enter that warehouse? What if he is under orders to protect his comrades, and in this case, getting access to the warehouse means just that. He's just doing his job to the letter, which is pretty lawful.
My point is this: If the PC in control of the paladin exhausted numerous black and white lawful approaches to gain entry, I'd commend him for his roleplaying and try to work something into the game. I wouldn't strip his powers and force him to break down a door. Seems like a pretty jerky move.
And that's why these "what if" anecdotes fail when taken apart. No two situations are identical, and what passes for a good ruling varies from table to table. That's why the guide is open ended, to trust knowledgeable people to make the best decision they can given X circumstances.