|
So, some will think this is a troll, but it is not.
With some of the recent rulings coming out, restricting things that have been a part of the campaign since inception, how long will it be until Asmodeus is put on the banned list?
I'm being very practical here, and want legitimate discussion, so please if you do reply, stay on topic. One of my arguments is simply that as Society continues, it reduces the amount of semi evil things allowed, and has taken the society from more of an ambiguous group of essentially grave robbers, to essentially heroes for hire.
If the intent is to become a solidly good campaign with no moral quandaries, and remove as much gray (or black) as possible, I understand, and would applaud the staff for choosing to go that way, even if it deviates from what drew at least myself into PFS.
Thanks, and I hope to see a lot of different responses that will hopefully illustrate both effective sides of this potential discussion.
|
I wouldn't expect it that soon.
They would have to change the PFS Roleplaying Guild Guide of which page 10 specifically says "Characters may elect to worship an evil god...".
Also one of the scenarios that a level 1 character can play (won't mention which) specifically has a DC for sleight of hand to steal an object as one of the ways to overcome a challenge in it. The object that the player is stealing is not illegal and does indeed rightfully belong in the possession of the person who has it. This scenario comes out and has outright theft as a possible solution to the heroes challenge.
Some of the Factions have high ranking members, or are even lead by, evil NPCs. Dark Archive comes to mind: Zarta Dralneen
I wouldn't worry about it all that much.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that mildly irks me is that the Society, in world, shouldn't be as accepting as is organized play. I really can't see the Society allowing open followers of Rovagug, Urgothoa, etc.
It does, however, make sense to me that the in world society accepts followers of Asmodeus. His followers are at least sane and predictable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, not the Profession part. The entire motivation of one of my characters =|
My Paladin of Rowdrosh is a nomadic Zenj Human with the Farmstead Vanity. Whenever he makes money via his Day Job (which isn't much) he turns around and uses all of it to purchase livestock Trade Goods. Eventually, when his herd reached a value of 500gp, his plan was to cash it in as a dowry and "purchase" a wife (the 500gp Slave from Adventurers Armory). I mirrored his whole character concept off of real life cultural practices today.
There's no detailed write-up on Rowdrosh ("The Divine Herdsman") in Inner Sea Gods, so I drafted up a Paladin Code for him. In it, and via his roleplay, I liken the legitimacy of lawful slave ownership to herding animals. For it would be hypocritical to tell a Human that they couldn't own a Halfling while he walks away with a herd of goats in tow.
^ a similar view is held today by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (P.E.T.A.), who liken pet ownership to slavery. It's a viewpoint I also hold pretty dearly myself.
He currently has a slave that tends his herd while he's adventuring, too. A boy he purchased that had committed crimes. He'll eventually set him free (once he no longer has need of his herd), after he's spent enough time paying back his worth (75gp IIRC). My character speaks often about using that time to teach the lad a good life lesson about stewardship and hard work.
So, I'm disheartened to say the least. I never considered that slavery would disappear from the Campaign. This also impacts my Chelaxian Swashbuckler, who owns a Halfling. Although that's not the focus of her entire being, like it is with my Paladin. For her it would just be a business transaction.
Why was this decision made?
|
Contributor
|
Why was this decision made?
I can only speculate. The linked post is your best bet for gaining insight.
That said, while I assume you haven't had any trouble from GMs over your characters, I suspect that eliminating table variation over such a contentious issue may have played at least a partial role. If a GM told you you had to get rid of all that and atone, how much trouble would have been caused for everyone involved?
Pathfinder Society is probably not the ideal space for characters of this sort, or for creating your own canon. I suspect any new information about Rowdrosh would have invalidated your character just as thoroughly, since there's about a 1% chance your version of Rowdrosh lines up with Creative's vision.
I won't opine on real-world slave-marriage practices here, nor on PETA, but I suspect that pointing to those things as appropriate inspirations for a paladin may be contentious as well.
|
|
The character has provided many teachable moments, especially about the ownership of other creatures, but it's never been contentious. Regardless of his roleplay, and Rowdrosh, there's nothing atonement worthy about lawful slave ownership. Especially with an end goal in sight. If a GM had mentioned it (nobody has in 6 levels thus far), I would highly protest.
I suppose I'll just have to use one of the Follower Vanities in place of spending gold, but the whole decision still irks me. And the shepherd boy will require his own parting story as well =\
|
Contributor
|
Regardless of his roleplay, and Rowdrosh, there's nothing atonement worthy about lawful slave ownership. Especially with an end goal in sight.
That position is by no means universal.
If a GM had mentioned it (nobody has in 6 levels thus far), I would highly protest.
Hence "trouble for everyone involved".
Does this similarly mean we can no longer purchase animals?
I guarantee you that it does not. If you believe that it should, I recommend creating a thread where you can make the argument for expanding the restriction.
|
Contributor
|
I forgot to also mention "Prison Industrial Complex" as one of my teachable moments.Regardless of his roleplay, and Rowdrosh, there's nothing atonement worthy about lawful slave ownership. Especially with an end goal in sight.That position is by no means universal.
I'm not sure that's something a paladin should be in favor of. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?
|
Contributor
|
(rereading my responses, I realize now they could be construed as having a certain "tone" about them. It's not directed at you; just frustration at the loss of another in-depth character concept, especially after the recent swath of errata)
No worries. By the standards of the forum, you've been quite civil. ^_^
|
|
I'm not sure that's something a paladin should be in favor of. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point?I forgot to also mention "Prison Industrial Complex" as one of my teachable moments.Regardless of his roleplay, and Rowdrosh, there's nothing atonement worthy about lawful slave ownership. Especially with an end goal in sight.That position is by no means universal.
No, he wouldn't be. I don't liken the shepherd boy's position to that of real world slaves in America today (way different scope and scale). And I use the differences to educate people that aren't even aware of the practice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a good life practice to suppress that "cringe" response and actually listen to what's being said.
We are a speciesist society that rarely considers our own hypocrisies. Morally, why is it okay to disavow the slavery of one species and not even consider the slavery of others?
*I* am not in favor of slavery, IRL, at all. I "cringe" when I hear that someone just purchased a designer dog to complement their household or when I read about another racehorse being put down because it broke an ankle running at breakneck speeds.
I use my Paladin to highlight that hypocrisy. If we as a society are fine enslaving multiple species (nobody blinks an eye at his herd of goats), what's one more (his shepherd boy)?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
^ as a somewhat derail, the "Killing Goblins" comment stems from an experience I had with a (like 9 years old) boy who was brought to the table by his father. He would do the stereotypical tactic of charging forward with his greatsword, but always did nonlethal damage. When he charged and killed a Goblin with nonlethal, he was sad. Everyone else at the table consoled him with "it's okay, it's just a Goblin".
Every game after that he would just kill everything left and right.
I still wonder to this day what effect that "moment" had on his view of the world.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A social setting where murder-hoboing is perfectly acceptable? Got it.
Do you make people atone for killing Goblins?
Most of the time you fight (especially in PFS), the opponents are either unquestionably evil (undead, evil outsiders, etc.), evil enough to warrant lethal force be used to stop them (Aspis Consortium evil stuff, etc.), or monsters (which don't really correlate to any real-world example.
While I can see why people would want to keep slaves and Profession (slaver), I certainly understand why PFS campaign management has made the decision to remove both options.
Slavery is not necessary to any parts of the success of a mission, whereas killing and/or robbery might be. Also, everyone knows there is a possibility of someone taking it too far at the wrong time, and having word spread about how PFS and Paizo endorses slavery in their organized games. Besides, there's always "that guy" (everyone knows one).
This simply isn't something that any company would allow to happen.
As an aside, I believe that any paladin who owns a legit, paid-for, non-indentured servant, slave for more than as long as it takes to get that slave to safety, is on the path to falling. Yes, slavery is legal. The "Lawful" part means you can't free other slaves in places where it's legal. The "Good" part tells you to release that slave as soon as you purchase him. Any other definition of paladin morality is skewed.
For your specific case, even in PFS you have to follow the general paladin code in addition to yours, and you can't even fall back on the defense that your code contradicts yours (as Torag's often does), because your god doesn't have one published from a legal source.
Your paladin that actually owns a slave and uses him at a table I run would certainly fall quickly unless he released the slave, no matter what nonexistent boundaries you place on yourself from your "code".
Edit: spoilered for length.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really sure what you are getting at with the first comment, but I've actually yet to be in a situation in which I felt I needed to make one of my players atone. I try to leave alignment issues for discussions away from the table unless they are particularly egregious or mechanically relevant, both for time and for the negative energy they bring.
I'm not trying to teach players moral lessons about the real world. It's my job as a GM in PFS to facilitate a good time while following the rules as best as I can. Believe me, I am an insufferable social justice paladin away from the table. I just keep that away from tables of people I barely know who are just trying to relax for 4-5 hours at the end of the week.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you make people atone for killing Goblins?
I could see myself doing so. It all depends on the situation. Was it done with particular cruelty? Was the goblin an active aggressor at the time, or was he begging for his life? Does the paladin have reason to believe the goblin is a threat to others?
There are plenty of potential complicating factors.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for the Goblin comment. You are truly in the minority. That being said...
As an aside, I believe that any paladin who owns a legit, paid-for, non-indentured servant, slave for more than as long as it takes to get that slave to safety, is on the path to falling. Yes, slavery is legal. The "Lawful" part means you can't free other slaves in places where it's legal. The "Good" part tells you to release that slave as soon as you purchase him. Any other definition of paladin morality is skewed.
For your specific case, even in PFS you have to follow the general paladin code in addition to yours, and you can't even fall back on the defense that your code contradicts yours (as Torag's often does), because your god doesn't have one published from a legal source.Your paladin that actually owns a slave and uses him at a table I run would certainly fall quickly unless he released the slave, no matter what nonexistent boundaries you place on yourself from your "code".
I don't understand this point of view from an in-game perspective. He is doing a greater good (I, and he, would argue) by keeping this boy as a slave rather than releasing him into the world to do more crime. There are multiple storylines IRL that mirror this reality, where someone is kept against their initial will and taught the error of their ways. Rehabilitation is a good word.
You would apparently be one of the GMs that I would "highly protest", but I suppose it's a moot point, now.
And I suppose I would have to force any characters of yours to atone for owning any purchased horses.
I would still allow you to "highly protest" my call, though ^_^
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I suppose I would have to force any characters of yours to atone for owning any purchased horses.
I would still allow you to "highly protest" my call, though ^_^
If I'm being honest, the tone here comes across as "if you're going to punish me for owning slaves, I'm going to punish you for owning horses". I'm assuming you didn't mean it this way, and it may be in line with your beliefs, but it comes across as petty and vengeful - which doesn't seem like appropriate behavior for a 5-star GM.
In addition, I suspect Leadership will not be on your side at all, and I'm guessing you know that too. So you would essentially be making a lot of trouble for other players, venture-captains, and Leadership. I won't tell you not to follow your morals... but you're going to be making things hard for a lot of people. Is this what's best for Pathfinder Society? It certainly wouldn't encourage me to come back for another session.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He is doing a greater good (I, and he, would argue) by keeping this boy as a slave rather than releasing him into the world to do more crime.
And this is where I disagree. You could just as easily buy the slave and then release him to a temple or an orphanage home, or any number of places. Heck, any true Andoren would say that releasing him into the streets to commit crime and be sent to jail would be a better alternative than living in servitude (and I would agree with this sentiment, in-world.)
Keeping him as a slave and having him work for you is slavery, no matter how you twist or turn it, and is very much so un-paladin-like.Also, "more crime"? Is he a criminal slave or something?
I don't exactly know where to draw the line with "slavery" and horses, pets, etc., but I am around 100% you won't get the same reaction for having a bought horse, in the real world, as owning another human being.
You have to see this issue as a real-world issue, because it is a real-world issue (not accounting for your paladin). No company in their right mind wouldn endorse slavery, and by allowing the purchase of slaves and Profession (slaver) as legal options, they are doing so.
(Coincidentally (and ironically), not a single one of my PFS characters owns a bought horse, other animal, or slave. But that's not really the point here.)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The hypocrisy (and narrow-mindedness) of humanity just staggers me sometimes.
Slavery is not an appropriate activity for PCs to engage in, especially in a campaign that is inclusive and open to everyone. Including young people. Frankly we're not that many generations removed from the practice, and the hurt it caused is incalculable.
I can understand why slavery exists in the campaign, because it is a societal evil which can be opposed, and therefore makes an excellent foil for storytelling.
While one can debate what is actually evil on a cultural level, PFS is not a course on Sociology. Lines must be drawn at some point. GMs are asked to entertain, not teach, let alone handle a topic like this with sensitivity.
Domesticated animals are not slaves because they lack self-awareness. That doesn't preclude treating them with kindness. My dog is not my slave, but I must set boundaries for him for his protection, health, and safety. Animals do not belong in a discussion about institutional slavery.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We are a speciesist society...
I use my Paladin to highlight that hypocrisy. If we as a society are fine enslaving multiple species (nobody blinks an eye at his herd of goats), what's one more (his shepherd boy)?
Look I understand your point of view about the treatment of other animals by humans. But like you said society is speciesist and the majority of people feel that treating people like animals is wrong.
Now you seem like a good person with a good heart who is very passionate about the causes you support. I admire that. The issue is that PFS isn't about one player having a teachable moment for six other people sitting around the table. It's a time for people to relax and enjoy a game. Campaign leadership has decided that since slavery is evil in Golarion that evil should not be represented in game by having players engage in selling and buying slaves outside the scope of the scenario.
In addition having a group of people sitting around the table talking about enslaving people and buying slaves is very bad PR to casual players and non-gamers that happen by. And feels morally wrong to myself personally and to others.
In addition your example of a getting a dowry for a wife doesn't require the purchase of a slave. You can just write Dowry on your ITS with the money you spent and have the same effect without forcing a slave to marry your character. Slave NPC had no in game effect anyway.
Also you could just have the boy be a worker on your farmstead who you support and take care who was once a criminal but your character is educating him and helping him find his way in the world. It says more for a Paladin to have a person who isn't chained up and is willing to change then one he has to force to do it. As that would have the same mechanical effect in game you should have no problem.
You could even tell people that your farmstead is unfenced and that you let your livestock choose whether to graze from your fields or wander away. And that you care for them as a herdsmen in order to support them like other paladins protect cities and settlements because animals are just as alive as humans and deserve the same level of protection.
You could tell the same story and be still be teachable when people are ok with it, without showing the hypocrisy, but by be an example against it.
Sorry I'm a bit rambly in the morning.
|
|
While I agree on the decisions made by campaign leadership on the topic of "not-nice" things, I also believe this won't stop people (myself included) from finding ways around it in order to be able to discuss the topics of said not-nice things in an informal and carefree environment such as with friends and some dice at the end of the week.
And though statements by campaign leadership make sense to me mechanically, I also have faith in humanity's ability to see things with humor and learn from them. I find PFS play a very welcoming environment to do so. My point is; who are you to tell me how to play the game? Not to accuse anyone of the Wrongbadfun argument, but this reeks of censorship.
Finally, I believe that I, as a player, have a responsibility to dial it back if the PG-13 nature of the game is jeopardized. To do so through forum rulings that for the average player are hard to find (a different topic altogether), seems like an effort in futility.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I agree on the decisions made by campaign leadership on the topic of "not-nice" things, I also believe this won't stop people (myself included) from finding ways around it in order to be able to discuss the topics of said not-nice things in an informal and carefree environment such as with friends and some dice at the end of the week.
And though statements by campaign leadership make sense to me mechanically, I also have faith in humanity's ability to see things with humor and learn from them. I find PFS play a very welcoming environment to do so. My point is; who are you to tell me how to play the game? Not to accuse anyone of the Wrongbadfun argument, but this reeks of censorship.
Finally, I believe that I, as a player, have a responsibility to dial it back if the PG-13 nature of the game is jeopardized. To do so through forum rulings that for the average player are hard to find (a different topic altogether), seems like an effort in futility.
The Campaign Leadership.
|
|
Someone is really using PETA and animal rights type arguments for something besides jokes?
1) Domestic animals cannot exist in the wild. So if they are not kept by man you are condemning them to extinction.
Only partly true. Feral domestic cats, for example, are very good at surviving in the wild. For example, colonies live in abandoned whaling stations in quite hostile terrain in the Southern Pacific
|
Anyone who sits down at a table with me and starts lecturing me on animal rights will get a request to shut up. If he doesn't I will request the GM step in. I play to relax not hear sermons
Hey,those rants are entirely in character and come with 72 levels of spells for your pet and or monk's protection.
More seriously, any advocacy group has some really out their views.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just find it strange that there are so many people complaining that real world morally heinous acts pop up in a magical land of make-believe. When they spend most of their time, in the same world of make-believe, killing anything that moves until they can get their mcguffin.
I think that is a misrepresentation of the position taken. I think it is widely accepted that this land of make-believe has morally heinous elements. They're necessary for conflict and drama, components of storytelling.
Seriously, I can't speak to all of the forums but I don't see this position being argued in this thread.
Rather the discussion is about whether player characters should be engaging in morally reprehensible acts. The PFS campaign is not an appropriate place to explore that. Hell's Vengenance, for example, is a campaign where it is appropriate. Society missions have shades of gray, in terms of morality, but there is very little "gray" in slavery. Not to the slave anyway. The standard for PCs is not the same for NPCs, in an organized play campaign. Home games are an entirely different matter.
Why haven't people cryed out that Geb is allowed to exist when it has farms full of humans being raised as a food source for it's undead citizens?
They haven't been given an outlet to do so? It stands to reason they might when confronted with a scenario or module or AP where that was a theme.
Perhaps the campaign should change PFS to a G rated game, and we can go around making deliveries for local businesses or saving cats from trees.
I think that is an extreme comparison to having other player characters owning other people as chattel.
Like a young person complaining that because they're prohibited from vandalizing buildings and strong-arm robbery against the elderly, they must now be confined to making lace doilies and knitting. No, they still go camping, play basketball, read comics, and play video games.
Slavery is an extreme act, and prohibiting it does not alter the PFS since its inception. I honestly never heard of anyone owning slaves in PFS since the last 12 hours.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two things:
1) Re: the existence of Geb and so on, there's a difference between saying that evil things exist in a campaign setting and putting those options in the hands of players in an organized play program where people are playing with strangers.
There's a difference, as a player, between hearing that something evil exists in a world--generally as something for you to fight against, and having it done to your character, or having to sit at a table next to a player playing a character that's supposed to be your ally while they engage in it.
The Paizo creative team isn't perfect, and we're not avatars of perfect moral understanding and sensitivity. However, we have collectively put a lot of time into thinking about what's appropriate for a roughly PG-13 campaign, what's generally likely to hurt people playing our game or make them uncomfortable, and so on. Individuals are individuals, and everyone's going to react differently, so we can't prevent every corner case. We try to strike a careful balance between portraying evil in our world, and having enough stuff happen offscreen, or not described in gory detail, to keep the stakes high without forcing people into a R-rated experience they didn't sign up for.
Not to put too fine a point on it: We can't guarantee that everyone who shows up at a PFS table has put thought into how their actions, character design, etc. might affect other people at the table, or even, sadly, that they aren't intending to hurt people with whom they're playing.
Therefore, we try at least not to give them easy tools with which to do so--torture exists in Golarion, but that doesn't mean we're going to give PFS players a torture system.
At the end of the day, it's largely up to the GM to make sure people at the table aren't being abusive to one another, but we try to at least set up an environment where the mechanics aren't encouraging players to do so.
2) Stop comparing humans who've been forced into slavery to animals. It is an incredibly offensive comparison.