A Fallen Paladin sounds like a really cool character conception, as would be a disgraced Cleric. You'd have to build them using different classes, else you'd be stunted compared to the abilities of your peers.
Channeler of the Unknown from Antihero's Handbook (same as the Vindictive Bastard) is the fallen Cleric archetype, it and VB are both really kickass. And explicitly fallen archetypes. Sin monk is pretty nifty too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like the Sin Monk because it's basically the only non-standard alignment archetype that isn't strictly worse than the original version. Plus it stacks with Scaled Fist so you can make your chaotic monk sexy, which is the most important thing obviously.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Preventing unreasonable/differently opinionated GMs from wrecking your character? No, a GM who doesn't like clerics/paladins/divine casters/you, or how you're playing such a character, will still ruin your ability to do so successfully...
This makes a rather large assumption that all these grievances are due to jerk GM's.
I actually think the worst situations are from places where the GM has good intentions - and the GM and player are friends - it's when you believe you are both on the same page that it hurts the most when you are not.
But that's just me - at the very least I don't approach this as 'just GM's that are out to ruin your character'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Fallen Paladin sounds like a really cool character conception, as would be a disgraced Cleric. You'd have to build them using different classes, else you'd be stunted compared to the abilities of your peers.The antihero's handbook introduced a new type of archetypes with its specific rules : the ex-class archetypes which exactly answered this need.
I hope this ex-class archetype's type will be ported to PF2 because it opened a whole new vista of character concepts
To be fair, much like the grey paladin, the vindictive bastard is strictly weaker than a standard paladin in exchange for a tiny bit more versatility.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, much like the grey paladin, the vindictive bastard is strictly weaker than a standard paladin in exchange for a tiny bit more versatility.A Fallen Paladin sounds like a really cool character conception, as would be a disgraced Cleric. You'd have to build them using different classes, else you'd be stunted compared to the abilities of your peers.The antihero's handbook introduced a new type of archetypes with its specific rules : the ex-class archetypes which exactly answered this need.
I hope this ex-class archetype's type will be ported to PF2 because it opened a whole new vista of character concepts
Two things:
1: It's not "a tiny bit more versatility", it's A) every alignment in the game without even the Cleric's restriction of "you can pick any but once you have, don't stray", B) no code of conduct of any kind, not just a slightly less restrictive one, and C) the player now has nothing hanging over his head and can genuinely play his character the way he intends (which is really the only thing I'm after, the ability for any given player to completely opt out of this headache with a minimum (read: none of any kind) of fuss).
2: It probably is powered down compared to the stock Paladin. However, the Gray Paladin's abilities were almost all "like what the Paladin gets but lessened", while the Vindictive Bastard's abilities are more laterally different, emphasizing things like teamwork feats and his Gang Up ability which are nothing like the auras and healing/mercies that the Vindictive Bastard gives up. Except for the Faded Grace feature, almost nothing the Vindictive Bastard has is "like what the Paladin gets but lessened", so there's more room for the perception of equity. Furthermore, while the Gray Paladin and the Vindictive Bastard probably are both powered down and powered down to the same extent, the Vindictive Bastard does this by taking all (not most but all) of the Paladin's behavioral restrictions out behind a woodshed and shooting them with a shotgun. That is, the Gray Paladin could have also gotten rid of all of its behavioral restrictions, too.
|
To be fair, much like the grey paladin, the vindictive bastard is strictly weaker than a standard paladin in exchange for a tiny bit more versatility.A Fallen Paladin sounds like a really cool character conception, as would be a disgraced Cleric. You'd have to build them using different classes, else you'd be stunted compared to the abilities of your peers.The antihero's handbook introduced a new type of archetypes with its specific rules : the ex-class archetypes which exactly answered this need.
I hope this ex-class archetype's type will be ported to PF2 because it opened a whole new vista of character concepts
Basis for comparison here should be ex-paladin rather than paladin. The vindictive bastard is extraordinarily better than the standard ex-paladin
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vindictive Bastard
This is the only paladin I contemplated playing. It fully beat to death the alignment/code restrictions AND didn't horribly gimp it. It might not be as strong as the paladin in the same way but it's not underpowered: it's just different.
Gray Paladin though... that was just mean... it was both awful AND still has restrictions attached...
Basis for comparison here should be ex-paladin rather than paladin. The vindictive bastard is extraordinarily better than the standard ex-paladin
This AND it still counts as a paladin: you can still use paladin only items, feats, ect. Heck, people that can detect your class still detect paladin. ;)
2: It probably is powered down compared to the stock Paladin. However, the Gray Paladin's abilities were almost all "like what the Paladin gets but lessened", while the Vindictive Bastard's abilities are more laterally different, emphasizing things like teamwork feats and his Gang Up ability which are nothing like the auras and healing/mercies that the Vindictive Bastard gives up. Except for the Faded Grace feature, almost nothing the Vindictive Bastard has is "like what the Paladin gets but lessened", so there's more room for the perception of equity. Furthermore, while the Gray Paladin and the Vindictive Bastard probably are both powered down and powered down to the same extent, the Vindictive Bastard does this by taking all (not most but all) of the...
There's no probably about it my dude, divine grace becomes one of the +2 to a single save feat. The smite requires the target to have struck you or an ally first and if you want the double level to damage they have to have dropped an ally.
You trade all your status fixing mercies for teamwork feats and your solo tactics has a swift action gate and round limit.
You lose most of your immunities, lay hands, channel energy, and divine bond.
Frankly it gets hit harder mechanically than grey paladin does, they just lose immunities, divine grace, and damage from their smite.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno - Maybe the reason none of this bothers me is I have never had a GM try to force a gotcha fall on me in all these years of gaming. I've never had a Paladin fall, save for one time, where I knew doing what I was about to do would cause the fall. I've never had a clash with the GM over what constituted a fall or not save for one time and it was a minor one.
I think that likely is the reason why none of this bothers you. Truly, a group that meets regularly is a gift to be cherished. To be honest, I'm slightly embarrassed that I didn't understand your point of view until you went and comprehended my side of the argument. But it's cool that we now know where each other is coming from!
This will, doubtless, foster mutual respect and understanding.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
2: It probably is powered down compared to the stock Paladin. However, the Gray Paladin's abilities were almost all "like what the Paladin gets but lessened", while the Vindictive Bastard's abilities are more laterally different, emphasizing things like teamwork feats and his Gang Up ability which are nothing like the auras and healing/mercies that the Vindictive Bastard gives up. Except for the Faded Grace feature, almost nothing the Vindictive Bastard has is "like what the Paladin gets but lessened", so there's more room for the perception of equity. Furthermore, while the Gray Paladin and the Vindictive Bastard probably are both powered down and powered down to the same extent, the Vindictive Bastard does this by taking all (not most but all) of the...
There's no probably about it my dude, divine grace becomes one of the +2 to a single save feat. The smite requires the target to have struck you or an ally first and if you want the double level to damage they have to have dropped an ally.
You trade all your status fixing mercies for teamwork feats and your solo tactics has a swift action gate and round limit.
You lose most of your immunities, lay hands, channel energy, and divine bond.
Frankly it gets hit harder mechanically than grey paladin does, they just lose immunities, divine grace, and damage from their smite.
I think you're missing the key portions of my argument, so I bolded them for emphasis. I'm not disputing how things pan out on an objective scale. I'm saying that the Vindictive Bastard comes across as less of a "screw you and your badwrongfun character concept" because of how its presented and how its class features are different enough to not be immediately comparable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I loathe the absolutist gamer. Things like anathema just fuel them. Id prefer if instead of always/never statements they would say what the deity favors. Like, "Shelyn looks favorably on those that use diplomacy before resorting to hostility." Then, instead of stripping powers when characters dont follow the tenets, they get a boon for fulfilling them.
Yeah right. "I want to do as I please, follow no rules but my own and still get power from the deity I'm sworn to. If by any chance I decide to be graceful and once in a while do as my deity says then it should feel grateful and grant me more power".
Funny how the mind of some players works, really.
I loathe the absolutist gamer. Things like anathema just fuel them. Id prefer if instead of always/never statements they would say what the deity favors. Like, "Shelyn looks favorably on those that use diplomacy before resorting to hostility." Then, instead of stripping powers when characters dont follow the tenets, they get a boon for fulfilling them.Yeah right. "I want to do as I please, follow no rules but my own and still get power from the deity I'm sworn to. If by any chance I decide to be graceful and once in a while do as my deity says then it should feel grateful and grant me more power".
Funny how the mind of some players works, really.
If thats the type you play with it makes sense you need strict rules to beat them into submission with.
If thats the type you play with it makes sense you need strict rules to beat them into submission with.I loathe the absolutist gamer. Things like anathema just fuel them. Id prefer if instead of always/never statements they would say what the deity favors. Like, "Shelyn looks favorably on those that use diplomacy before resorting to hostility." Then, instead of stripping powers when characters dont follow the tenets, they get a boon for fulfilling them.Yeah right. "I want to do as I please, follow no rules but my own and still get power from the deity I'm sworn to. If by any chance I decide to be graceful and once in a while do as my deity says then it should feel grateful and grant me more power".
Funny how the mind of some players works, really.
For people who play PFS they have no real control over the "types they play with" and therefore the aforementioned idea of carrot + carrotcake system of anathema and divine servant classes is incompatible with "plays with randoms"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, to be fair, after thinking for a while, I think that I'm completely against removing alignment restrictions, but mildly in favor of removing alignment from the game entirely. Outsiders, planes and that can refer to their concepts as Powers that Be, something of a setting rather than rules. All alignment restrictions would then be replaced with well-detailed codes. The Paladin should still be the classic Paladin if its code demands and speaks about being paladin-y. I just don't think we need *that* specific mechanism on morality (alignment) ^^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If thats the type you play with it makes sense you need strict rules to beat them into submission with.I loathe the absolutist gamer. Things like anathema just fuel them. Id prefer if instead of always/never statements they would say what the deity favors. Like, "Shelyn looks favorably on those that use diplomacy before resorting to hostility." Then, instead of stripping powers when characters dont follow the tenets, they get a boon for fulfilling them.Yeah right. "I want to do as I please, follow no rules but my own and still get power from the deity I'm sworn to. If by any chance I decide to be graceful and once in a while do as my deity says then it should feel grateful and grant me more power".
Funny how the mind of some players works, really.
It's not about the people I play with. It's about people asking no rules or limitations of any sorts over their actions.
It's very simple: unlike a paladin a cleric is someone who is always granted power by a deity. This superior being gives fantastic abilities to its most devout followers in exchange of their faith and devotion. If such followers act against the requirements of their deity in a sustained or particularly blatant way the deity notices. Depending on the nature and gravity of the offense it can warn its sinning follower, punish him or even strip him of his powers. This is nothing new and the GM has the power to implement such "punishments" if he sees fit. This doesn't mean the GM should do so lightheartedly or arbitrarily, of course but a player should not expect to play a cleric and be allowed to act against his deity's tenements with no retribution incoming.Asking for codes of conducts to be removed "because unscrupolous GMs may use these rules to stip away a cleric's powers" is not even an argument. A bad GM already has the power to do that, code of conduct or not.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I risk saying what everyone knows, but...
"Anathema", in real world believes, isn't a common sin or something light. This is the sort of thing that gets you *excommunicated*, and even then anathema is bad even for excommunication, like, "be cursed!". And people want anathema to be a minor rule you can break once in a while...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I risk saying what everyone knows, but...
"Anathema", in real world believes, isn't a common sin or something light. This is the sort of thing that gets you *excommunicated*, and even then anathema is bad even for excommunication, like, "be cursed!". And people want anathema to be a minor rule you can break once in a while...
Indeed, for an example here is the Anathematization of Baruch Spinoza by the rabbis of Amsterdam in 1666:
By sentence of the angels, by the decree of the saints, we anathematise, cut off, curse, and execrate Baruch Spinoza, in the presence of these sacred books with the six hundred and thirteen precepts which are written therein, with the anathema wherewith Joshua anathematised Jericho*; with the cursing wherewith Elisha cursed the children**; and with all the cursings which are written in the Book of the Law; cursed be he by day, and cursed by night; cursed when he lieth down; cursed when he riseth up; cursed when he goeth out, and cursed when he goeth in; The Lord shall not pardon him, the wrath and the fury of the Lord shall henceforth be kindled against this man, and shall lay upon him all the curses written in the Book of the Law. The Lord shall destroy his name under the sun, and cut him off for his undoing from all the tribes of Israel, with all the curses of the firmament which are written in the Law.
And we warn you that none may speak with him by word of mouth nor by writing, nor show any favor unto him, nor be under one roof with him, nor come within four cubits of him, nor read any paper composed by him.
*Joshua's army destroyed the city of Jericho, massacred its men, and enslaved its women and children.
**Elisha summoned bears to tear apart forty-two children that had been mocking him.
In other words, serious f#%%ing business. A dire consequence for a dire crime (though the crime for which Spinoza was so excommunicated, namely heresy, is not considered a crime by most religious people nowadays and Spinoza himself is remembered as one of the fathers of liberalism).
I haven't been following the thread closely so I don't know who wants Anathema to be applied to minor rules that can as such be bent once in a while. Though it is an interesting parallel that people can come to conflicting interpretations of the laws laid down in a book.
|
|
For people who play PFS they have no real control over the "types they play with" and therefore the aforementioned idea of carrot + carrotcake system of anathema and divine servant classes is incompatible with "plays with randoms"If thats the type you play with it makes sense you need strict rules to beat them into submission with.I loathe the absolutist gamer. Things like anathema just fuel them. Id prefer if instead of always/never statements they would say what the deity favors. Like, "Shelyn looks favorably on those that use diplomacy before resorting to hostility." Then, instead of stripping powers when characters dont follow the tenets, they get a boon for fulfilling them.Yeah right. "I want to do as I please, follow no rules but my own and still get power from the deity I'm sworn to. If by any chance I decide to be graceful and once in a while do as my deity says then it should feel grateful and grant me more power".
Funny how the mind of some players works, really.
Its even more important that anathema rules are relaxed for PFS.
There is large table variation on how to interpret various moral requirements. You can never be sure how this specific GM is going to interpret them.
How does it work for PF1 Paladins in PFS ? PF2 anathemas will likely follow the same rules
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If thats the type you play with it makes sense you need strict rules to beat them into submission with.I loathe the absolutist gamer. Things like anathema just fuel them. Id prefer if instead of always/never statements they would say what the deity favors. Like, "Shelyn looks favorably on those that use diplomacy before resorting to hostility." Then, instead of stripping powers when characters dont follow the tenets, they get a boon for fulfilling them.Yeah right. "I want to do as I please, follow no rules but my own and still get power from the deity I'm sworn to. If by any chance I decide to be graceful and once in a while do as my deity says then it should feel grateful and grant me more power".
Funny how the mind of some players works, really.
It's not about the people I play with. It's about people asking no rules or limitations of any sorts over their actions.
It's very simple: unlike a paladin a cleric is someone who is always granted power by a deity. This superior being gives fantastic abilities to its most devout followers in exchange of their faith and devotion. If such followers act against the requirements of their deity in a sustained or particularly blatant way the deity notices. Depending on the nature and gravity of the offense it can warn its sinning follower, punish him or even strip him of his powers. This is nothing new and the GM has the power to implement such "punishments" if he sees fit. This doesn't mean the GM should do so lightheartedly or arbitrarily, of course but a player should not expect to play a cleric and be allowed to act against his deity's tenements with no retribution incoming.Asking for codes of conducts to be removed "because unscrupolous GMs may use these rules to stip away a cleric's powers" is not even an argument. A bad GM already has the power to do that, code of conduct or not.
The bolded part was strictly not true in PF1 corebook, as clerics of ideals were a thing. Also some people play like classes are bags of mechanics rather than with predetermined flavor.
IMO, roleplaying restrictions should never be part of mechanics of the class, and balancing should never be made around restrictions. Flavor part of the class can and should embrace those parts.
|
|
To be fair, much like the grey paladin, the vindictive bastard is strictly weaker than a standard paladin in exchange for a tiny bit more versatility.A Fallen Paladin sounds like a really cool character conception, as would be a disgraced Cleric. You'd have to build them using different classes, else you'd be stunted compared to the abilities of your peers.The antihero's handbook introduced a new type of archetypes with its specific rules : the ex-class archetypes which exactly answered this need.
I hope this ex-class archetype's type will be ported to PF2 because it opened a whole new vista of character concepts
To clarify, I was not asking for porting the specific Vindictive Bastard ex-Paladin archetype, but the very concept of the ex-class archetypes type which was both creative and open-ended. It allowed for creating many kind of ex-class archetypes, each of which could exemplify how the character fell from grace
Unfortunately for clerics of ideals, PF2 is going to be golarion centric.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately for clerics of ideals, PF2 is going to be golarion centric.
I know and it's mostly things like these that put me of the idea. I have no problem in reflavoring the Golarion stuff, but fighting against mechanical restrictions is much more difficult.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not about the people I play with. It's about people asking no rules or limitations of any sorts over their actions.
It's very simple: unlike a paladin a cleric is someone who is always granted power by a deity. This superior being gives fantastic abilities to its most devout followers in exchange of their faith and devotion. If such followers act against the requirements of their deity in a sustained or particularly blatant way the deity notices. Depending on the nature and gravity of the offense it can warn its sinning follower, punish him or even strip him of his powers. This is nothing new and the GM has the power to implement such "punishments" if he sees fit. This doesn't mean the GM should do so lightheartedly or arbitrarily, of course but a player should not expect to play a cleric and be allowed to act against his deity's tenements with no retribution incoming.
As was mentioned, Clerics could get powers from faith in a particular philosophy. Even Paladins are considered especially blessed by the deities or are particularly notable adherents to a philosophy. The issues, which many have noted, are that there isn't a warning mechanism (the GM must remind the player that an action may be a violation) and there is no 'degrees' to falling - that is, either all the powers are there or they are all gone. There's no slow weakening or removal of minor powers for minor violations or similar.
If there's going to be anathema the rules should state that a GM must provide a warning to Clerics and Paladins when the player is about to have their character perform an act the GM thinks would qualify for a fall. This would allow the player to at least know the consequences and reconsider rather than having it happen afterwards ("Oh, you didn't remember that was a violation? Too bad. You're still stripped of all your abilities.")
Asking for codes of conducts to be removed "because unscrupolous GMs may use these rules to stip away a cleric's powers" is not even an argument. A bad GM already has the power to do that, code of conduct or not.
A GM cannot normally strip Wizards, Fighters, Rogues or similar of their abilities outside some in-game event (ability drain, for instance) and certainly not because of a feature mentioned in their classes that can be too broadly interpreted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of interesting thoughts here. I'd like to chime in on some of them!
Gradual Falling: Hypothetically, this is a better solution than 'binary fall.' It requires a lot of extra design time that I'd rather the developers spend on making the rest of the game better. I feel like there's a superior solution to this, as a result.
Therefore I propose a social/cultural solution: Let's shift the solution to the player/GM side rather than the game system side of things. Let's take some of the 'character knows their code better than the player' sentiments in this thread, and include them in the rulebooks.
A little blurb about how GMs need to warn/advise players about anathema/falling behavior and discuss it, to see why the player's doing it, would go much further than several pages on gradual fall rules.
Imagine something like this at the end of the Anathema rule: "If a PC undertakes actions that would violate their Anathema, the GM must pause play to discuss this with that player and request an explanation for why the PC is doing that. It may be they have a legitimate reason that is consistent with their faith; if so, no 'fall' occurs. If they don't, the GM should explain what the issue is and give the player a chance to retract that action. Excessive incidents requiring the GM to pause the game in this way are grounds for, at GM discretion, waiver of Anathema protections and the PC may fall without further consultation."
PFS Organized Play could set their own standards for what 'excessive' is.
Regarding Abuse of Shelyn's Rules of Surrender: This is a non-issue for most practical purposes. A murderer shows up, surrenders to Shelyn, and... in the best case scenario? Congratulations, they're now basically a prisoner of a Shelynite temple. They can't leave, and are now surrounded by people whose values are the very opposite of the murderer's.
I imagine being trapped in a temple with a lot of people who love art and healing and beauty and niceness and singing and all that fuzzy-goodness stuff would basically be a living hell for such individuals. "And with this stroke of the brush, I shall express the vivid warmth of the forest and the mountains on a summer eveni--" "OH MY GOD SHUT UP SCREW THIS I'M OUTTA HERE"
And that's best-case; chances are the Shelynites aren't going to be stupid. They can do, as others said, the obvious thing and go call the local guard to arrange a hand-over of said 'asylum seeker.'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something tells me that Shelyn isn't too huge on the whole "The crimes you have committed are too great, may the gods have mercy on your soul" *Glaive chop* schtick.The more annoying thing about the unconditional surrender acceptance thing is more the annoyance factor that goes around when you're not in town.
Having to drag around a clown car of cowardly goblins, bandits, and savvy evil wizards around till you can return to town to throw them to the gallows/temple before going back to the quest at hand is more tedious than anything else.
Uhm... Just to point out.
You have to accept surrender. If they've committed high crimes you *can* execute them. So long as you are lawfully empowered to do so.
It's completely merciful for someone which accepted surrender to realize a trial and then apply the penalty if they are legitimately empowered to do so.
Otherwise, why do deities have inquisitors?| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DOES NOT WORK FOR SHELYN.
Sorry.
Caps are necessary here.
I am peaceful. I come first with a rose. I act to prevent conflict before it blossoms.
I never strike first, unless it is the only way to protect the innocent.
I accept surrender if my opponent can be redeemed and I never assume that they cannot be. All things that live love beauty, and I will show beauty's answer to them.
I will never destroy a work of art, nor allow one to come to harm unless greater art arises from its loss. I will only sacrifice art if doing so allows me to save a life, for untold beauty can arise from an awakened soul.
I see beauty in others. As a rough stone hides a diamond, a drab face may hide the heart of a saint.
I lead by example, not with my blade. Where my blade passes, a life is cut short, and the world's potential for beauty is lessened.
I live my life as art. I will choose an art and perfect it. When I have mastered it, I will choose another. The works I leave behind make life richer for those who follow."
The Paladin code is more permissive than the Anathema as presented thus far.
EDIT:
Also, I could see the argument that some are making about 'battlefield executions' from followers of Iomedae, Torag, Abadar, Pharasma, Asmodeus, Nethys, and Calistria.
Much less so Saranrae, Irori, Cayden Cailean...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A little blurb about how GMs need to warn/advise players about anathema/falling behavior and discuss it, to see why the player's doing it, would go much further than several pages on gradual fall rules.
Imagine something like this at the end of the Anathema rule: "If a PC undertakes actions that would violate their Anathema, the GM must pause play to discuss this with that player and request an explanation for why the PC is doing that. It may be they have a legitimate reason that is consistent with their faith; if so, no 'fall' occurs. If they don't, the GM should explain what the issue is and give the player a chance to retract that action. Excessive incidents requiring the GM to pause the game in this way are grounds for, at GM discretion, waiver of Anathema protections and the PC may fall without further consultation."
PFS Organized Play could set their own standards for what 'excessive' is.
I agree with most of this, but I'd argue there are two varieties of 'excessive incidents' - the first being a player that seems to constantly want to violate their codes (forgetting happens, as do unfortunate situations, but a player should have a fairly good idea of acceptable behaviors).
The second is that the GM asks constantly even when the player is acting in good faith or clearly not trying to violate their codes - in other words, the GM is constantly looking for a reason to strip the player's character of powers and could use the 'excessive incidents' waiver as a way to do it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its even more important that anathema rules are relaxed for PFS.
There is large table variation on how to interpret various moral requirements. You can never be sure how this specific GM is going to interpret them.
Oh - please go on with how alignment has table variation at PFS (a place where you must use 'raw' as much as possible) - we are hearing from many people here how that never happens at real games.
I am interested in a problem that PFS has had to remove from the game (alignment) and why it is still good and healthy for the game at large - when the huge running playtest that is PFS can't seem to handle using it - using the RAW.
I mean - if alignment is objective in the game - then there should be no variation - because any variation would prove that alignment is subjective - due to not having rules in place to handle that variation....
Or am I missing something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the first being a player that seems to constantly want to violate their codes (forgetting happens, as do unfortunate situations, but a player should have a fairly good idea of acceptable behaviors).
I've seen this a few times. It's rather annoying when it happens.
The second is that the GM asks constantly even when the player is acting in good faith or clearly not trying to violate their codes - in other words, the GM is constantly looking for a reason to strip the player's character of powers
The game rules can only go so far in catching bully GMs. I've seen GMs go out of their way to shame a male player for not playing a 'manly class' (the guy was playing a Bard). Or throw in nonstop sexism in every adventure with every NPC just piling all kinds of awful remarks on female characters.
I'm very sympathetic to the problems that can arise from my proposal, as I've seen both really awful players and outright cruel GMs. However, I truly do feel that it's a better use of developer time and rulebook space to 'soft rule' these, to lay down expectations, than to try explicitly policing it with the 'gradual fall' rules proposed in this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its even more important that anathema rules are relaxed for PFS.
There is large table variation on how to interpret various moral requirements. You can never be sure how this specific GM is going to interpret them.
Oh - please go on with how alignment has table variation at PFS (a place where you must use 'raw' as much as possible) - we are hearing from many people here how that never happens at real games.
I am interested in a problem that PFS has had to remove from the game (alignment) and why it is still good and healthy for the game at large - when the huge running playtest that is PFS can't seem to handle using it - using the RAW.
I mean - if alignment is objective in the game - then there should be no variation - because any variation would prove that alignment is subjective - due to not having rules in place to handle that variation....
Or am I missing something?
Uh...
PFS didn't nuke alignment.
PFS requires alignment. My Paladin is Lawful Good. PFS just banned evil alignments. In fact you can't be evil in PFS.
Fun that you take the point of my post (table variation - which you claim doesn't exist) and ignore it to argue something else.
However to your claim - taking evil out of the game is scrapping fully 1/3 of the existing alignments possible in game - that is 'removing something from the game'.
I'm still interested to hear about how PFS has "large table variation on how to interpret various moral requirements" - seems like 'it only happens on the forums' is a false statement, and a bad faith argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's perfectly fair for there to be NPC only options in a game. Evil alignments in a massive organized rpg campaign where the majority expects to be playing heros is one of those NPC only options that is perfectly fair.
Beyond which the alignment isn't "removed" there are still NE and CE and LE beings in the game, they're just not an available PC option, much like playing a wyrmling dragon isn't in most campaigns but may be availalble in some.