Maybe we can just regard the Pink situation as happening first, whatever the outcome, following which the already-described events of finding the remaining orphans will happen?
I think we can wrap the warehouse situation up pretty quickly, given that the man is an unrepentant monster.
Unrepentant? Do you really think asking a series of questions and displaying visible shock and anger is going to rehabilitate a man you've encountered within the space of an hour?
*scratches head
While, again, I will definitely say you can do whatever you want, but if anyone Good is involved in murdering an unconscious disarmed man who surrendered there will be Alignment based consequences. Shelyn would never endorse this.
I hope we won't be expected to try to rehabilitate every serial killer who gleefully confesses to his evil deeds that we come across in order to stay Good. Do the Guards do that in this Korvosa, or do they execute them? If any creature, including a human, should die because he's preyed on her village, Shrike has no problem killing him herself in cold blood. To her independent/Chaotic way of thinking, it's just squeamishness or moral cowardice to rely on the state (or his disappointed death-cult friends) to do it for her.
But I recognize that a Lawful character might feel differently and want to rely on whatever legal channels exist. And Shrike doesn't want to upset Audria by just executing him in front of her, after seeing her general feelings about violence and death. So that's why she deferred to her here, and I explained her thinking in dialogue more than I usually would.
To claim your characters “know” he’s unrepentant after extremely brief dialogue is absurd. He’s never said what cutting means, and if you assume it specifically means killing, that’s assumptions your character is making or, more likely, you are making for your character. Given zero attempt has been made to “rehabilitate” him by any stretch, unrepentant is absolutely not a term you can use to define this character.
Do I think the group should attempt to rehabilitate every probable Evil person they encounter? That’s literally up to all of you.
But do I think proactively dispatching helpless individuals who have committed no specific crime of which you are aware will trigger alignment changes/penalties? 100%
What alignment you are is strictly for the mechanics requiring it. I could care less how you want to play this game regarding morality, but given how vocal some of you have been regarding involvement with other moralities or the appearances related to such morality (to the point I’ve made such play style evident to the new players), you better believe I’m going to hold you accountable.
I also find your logic to be faulty. Lawful characters are more likely to be willing to execute on behalf of the law when they know the penalty of the law and they believe themselves to be acting in the lawful agencies stead (see Judge Dredd, Punisher, etc.) Chaotic is more likely to see or accept possibilities of changes or redemption or just that this isn’t the place for decisions since things beyond the Law can influence a person. This paired with Good should make your character more likely to give a person a chance at life not less. CN is more the alignment, in my opinion, to make snap judgements and move on them feeling society is better as a whole.
Again, no anger, no judgement. Purely mechanics based consequences because of Pathfinder’s literal world. Like people breathe air and lions eat gazelles, everyone’s actions are tagged and recorded for the afterlife. Blame the unfortunate integration PF1 has forced on the world of Golarion by making existence alignment dependent. I can’t tell you how excited I am to finally see an alignment-free Golarion with the new PF2 revised coming up.
In hindsight, Punisher may be more of a NG/CG character as he's taking action when the Law did not, but Judge Dredd is right on the money for the archetype I'm thinking.
The main point here though is Good-aligned characters should hesitate to end a life unless there's no other option available due to the circumstances. No one has asked Pink what he will do with himself if he's freed. No one has any certainty that he's not looking for a chance to change himself. Perhaps that's why he accepted the test of the Red Mantis. He needs something more than what he's got. But your characters have done zero fact finding on that, so to off him out of hand is definitely not in-character with the Good alignment.
Again, pure mechanics here. Good person kills Evil person without any provocation or cause? Definitely going to have some consequences.
This specific man drew a weapon and stood before your characters. He never made any overt aggressive acts and merely described what was supposed to be occurring in the form of the assassination of Silver Sven. That's literally all you know aside from some unfounded statements of how tough he is. You don't know if he's lying!
Allow me to expound on Chaotic alignment a bit further as well.
Can I imagine a Chaotic Good person killing someone they believe to be Evil without necessarily changing alignment. Yes.
But that person is passionate and impulsive and acts without thinking because they feel like this is what they need to do now.
The current scene has Shrike quelling her impulses and evaluating the man almost dispassionately like the aforementioned Judge Dredd or Batman. In other words, exhibiting total control over her emotional response. Killing Pink after knocking him unconscious would now be a deliberate act, whether by Shrike's own hand or simply sitting passively by while Audria decides to do it herself.
Deliberate action v. impulsive passion is really what we are discussing here when it comes to alignment repercussions and how I am/will be adjudicating this scene or future scenes.
All-in-all, I'm willing to simply let this go and move on. We can essentially ignore Pink and leave his fate to everyone's imagination. I don't really want to get bogged down in this as, quite frankly, I feel Abella has given excellent advice regarding this suddenly over-important NPC who is definitely generating some friction we really don't need to keep moving forward.
There's a reason Audria is struggling with this. I also think that maybe we see repentance through different lenses. I'm a Christian, and that definitely influences how I see things like redemption and repentance, and that seeps into my writing and characters. Being unrepentant doesn't mean that you can't repent. It means that you are not repenting for whatever sin you're being confronted with. The man has shown no remorse, so what else would you call him if not unrepentant? Being unrepentant is not the same as being irredeemable, although the reverse is not true.
So lets look at it from our characters' point of view. We have a man who has admitted to at least assault with a deadly weapon and possibly murder. He has also admitted to wanting to join the Red Mantis and that to do so means killing someone in cold blood. He sees that the weak are there to be preyed upon by the strong, and he has shown zero remorse or regret for his actions. For that matter, he hasn't even shown any gratitude for getting him away from the Red Mantis assassins overseeing the exam. He is definitely unrepentant, and if I'm allowed to put on my writer's hat for a moment, he comes off as a sociopath. It's about him, his skin, and his safety.
What has Audria tied up in notes is the code she's supposed to follow as a Paladin. She's not perfect at following it, partly because I forgot about some of the rules involved in the default code, but mostly because she's growing into the role. Part of the code is that she will not assume that someone can't be redeemed. Another part of it is that she has to try and offer someone the option to surrender or to try talking them out of fighting. That's not always possible, but it's why killing someone has an affect on her. She's coming to terms that sometimes you have to fight and you have to kill, but Giggles was the first person she killed, and the assassin was only the second. I'm not always 100% consistent on characterization, but once she's had some time to process things, she's going to be worried about how this time didn't affect as much, and she'll be setting out to find and talk to Bartholomew about it when she gets back to the Sanctuary.
As far as what Talanaliel said, well, she's not omniscient and has flaws of her own. She's trying to guide Audria on this path that she's been chosen for, and while she's not as fleshed out as Audria is, I'm starting to figure some things out. Maybe this is her first time acting as guide. She's a relatively young celestial and is trying to find her way through this as well. She knows doctrine and has wisdom, but how to apply that knowledge and wisdom is where she falls short. Sorry if this isn't how you pictured her, but that's my fault for not thinking her character through as much as I did Audria's.
So, to sum this up, we haven't seen any signs from Pink that he is repentant or remorseful. We have seen signs that he sees the world through a nihilistic and self-centered lens. He has admitted to, at the very least, assaulting an unknown number of victims with a deadly weapon, possibly even admitting to murdering them. He admitted to trying to join a group of assassins, and he seems far more concerned about the consequences for his own skin than for anyone else's. And there's Audria detecting evil on him and finding it clinging to him like rancid oil.
If he can be redeemed, that's a hard, long road, and I don't see any reason to be hopeful that he even wants to try being a better man. Like Talanaliel said, he seems lost and beyond hope of redemption. There's a possibility that he isn't, but that seems like a longshot at best and utterly futile at worse.
In any case, we have a decision to make, and I think we're about to see a clash of ideals worldviews here.
(I also have some thoughts on alignment, but I think I've made this wall of text big enough.)
Okay, looks like I cross posted with our GM here, and while he has a point about us not having tried to dig into the man's motives and see if there's something more to him than being a thug, we haven't seen any reason to do so either. Based on the answers he's given to our questions, I would call him a bully, someone that picks on those seemingly weaker than themselves.
Did he attack us? No, but Audria also showed she wasn't helpless nor harmless when we first encountered him and his late companions. He also, if I recall, didn't have a chance to attack either before a spell addled his brains and by the time he was out of it, we were running from the Red Mantis. Audria saved him more out of reflex than anything else. He's done a pretty fair job of making her regret that bit of impulsiveness ever since.
So, while we haven't looked deeper into this man, what has he shown us to make such a look warranted?
The largest problem with what you've described as definitive proof of Pink's sense of self is that you forget, the notion of repentance must first be presented to a person that they are wrong morally. If Pink grew up sheltered in a death cult of Norgorber, one could say he's actually a better person than he was taught to be as of this moment, but not one of the characters involved in pronouncing this judgement is taking that into consideration.
Whatever your real world religious views are, if you're trying to convince someone who is not of your views they need to change their ways, you first have to provide them a means to understand their ways are wrong. If I describe myself as non-voter in the U.S., I could receive a lot of vitriol from those who feel I may have contributed to the current problem they attribute to the current political regime. But if I was raised out on a militia group compound who taught that voting was merely a mechanism of placating the masses and no value, would my stating a fact of my life regarding abstaining from voting make me "unrepentant"? Or simply providing information which provides insight into my way of looking at the world?
To be unrepentant one must have a comparison for the shame or regret you are wanting that person to feel. So far, not one of you has made any attempt to "shame" him. Just asked and received the answer to questions. Yes you asked him point blank if he feels bad, but his answer could be entirely flippant or guarded or whatever. To judge a man solely a few questions without introspection or analysis (not even discussing the complete lack of rolls made for the in-game rules for "changing people's attitude") is quite preposterous. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.
For all you know this man is a charlatan, and everything he's said is a lie. Or even an agent of the Korvosan Guard or Sable Company undercover and trying to maintain his persona so he can potentially still infiltrate the Red Mantis.
That's how little your characters know about Pink. Truly Good-aligned people should always have doubts before deliberately ending life.
Edit: It appears the post I responded to has vanished, so some of this text may not quite make sense without it, but the bulk should still stand.
Edit's edit: Actually it is still there. Just higher up!
Rolling here to see what Audria knows about Runelords.
Absolutely nuffin'! :D
If you are a vigilante, you:
• Value the justice delivered by your own hand.
• Are motivated to punish evildoers.
• Disregard laws to bring about your own justice, and are, therefore, often a wanted individual.
Code: You risk limb and life to bring wrongdoers to justice for their crimes, and in doing so, make life better for others."
*Except she doesn't consciously think in terms of vengeance, punishment, or even justice. That would be more like Calistria, and instead the people she took as her role models were devoted not to Calistria but to the ideals of Ketephys, the Hunter: both destroying threats to the community, and providing for that community. Just as a personal opinion, I think you need both to be counted as Good; the Punisher character, depending on the writer, can definitely fall on the CN/Calistria side of the line, and when Lania has to confront the fact that she's been doing a lot of destroying lately and not much providing, she is shaken by that. So I think I agree with you that being too trigger-happy, even against Evil creatures, should shift someone's alignment away from Good. However, I don't agree that CG necessarily has to involve being merciful or giving second chances.
We caught this man in the act of attempted murder of a random person in order to join the death cult that would allow him to do more murders more effectively. Then he confessed to habitually doing more evil deeds in the same vein, and we have no reason to disbelieve him. This seems straightforward to me. But alignment arguments never change anyone's mind, so I'll drop it.
@Shrike: No, the discussion is about the consequences of your characters making a deliberate calculated act and what sector of alignment behavior in which that exists. Cold-blooded murder is never sanctioned by Good, no matter how much of a spin you place on it.
Justice =/= death to wrong-doers
Edit: well, in some cases it does obviously per law, but I mean that to know someone may be a bad person and may have done bad things doesn't often equate to death as the only punishment. Specifically for those aligned Good. Neutral and Evil of course, that's entirely different matter.
No one is saying how you're treating or handling the situation in your roleplay is out of character for your character if that's what you choose, just that it will affect alignment.
And this whole situation is exactly why I hate alignment based mechanics so much.
So as a perpetual paladin player, a couple of things.
First of all, detect evil is magic, yes, but it has some very real limitations. People with 4 HD or lower who don’t have an aura class feature detect as *nothing*. Also, “Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.” So, say, someone actively intending to kill someone else purely for personal gain as an assassin, something that has been defined since 3.0 as an evil action, would detect as evil regardless of whether that is their actual alignment! If they are normally a good person, they might even detect as both good and evil!
The point is that it is just a sense. It is no substitute for judgment. It’s you getting a bad vibe about someone, and while your senses are better than most in this regard as a paladin, they are not infallible, even before magic to hide alignment is factored in
My other thing is that unless you have an actual job that says otherwise, you have zero legal authority as a paladin. A paladin is just some schmuck with a self-imposed code. You are not abdicating you responsibilities as a paladin by saying “hey, I think I’m out of my depth here, we should let the authorities handle this.” You are even within the purview of a paladin to say “I don’t know the answer here, so I am going to step away rather than make a decision that can’t be walked back from.”
And for a Shelynite, my interpretation of the intention of the code is that violence should always be a last resort. The burden of proof is on violence, always. It would be very in-character for an idealistic Shelynite paladin, for example, to never kill anyone because they believe in their heart that *anyone* can be redeemed, and that the beauty and weight of a single demon repenting is worth the risk. That is of course an extreme example, but there is at least two reformed demons in Golarion lore, so it’s not as unlikely as one might think!
Take it from me that it’s super easy to get caught up in the question of whether what your paladin is doing is “good” or “lawful” and forget to focus just on what *this person* would do. A paladin is not a better person than anyone else by virtue of being a paladin. They are someone *trying* to be better based on what *they think* is better. And particularly as a young low level Chosen One paladin, I think it’s worthwhile to lean into that
My other thing is that unless you have an actual job that says otherwise, you have zero legal authority as a paladin. A paladin is just some schmuck with a self-imposed code. You are not abdicating you responsibilities as a paladin by saying “hey, I think I’m out of my depth here, we should let the authorities handle this.” You are even within the purview of a paladin to say “I don’t know the answer here, so I am going to step away rather than make a decision that can’t be walked back from.”
This is very true. No reason Audria can't punt to the Korvosan Guard on the question of the man's fate. Shrike wouldn't do so if it was just her, but Audria might not share her lack of faith in the Guards and their ability to keep the metaphorical village safe.
Honestly, alignment wasn't even my main consideration while arguing my point of view. I wasn't trying to be difficult, just explaining where I was coming from, and to be honest even without alignment in the mix, I think Audria would be having the same issues.
Having said that, I have had some time to think and here's what I would like to do if everyone's okay with it.
1. Tie Pink up and leave him here for the time being.
2. Find the last half-dozen or so children from Lamm's hideout and get them to the Sanctuary of Shelyn.
3. Find Bartholomew, a retired Sable Company Marine that taught Audria how to fight. (There's a discussion I wanted to have with him anyway.)
4. Take him to Pink. Explain the situation and see if he has any advice or ideas about what to do with him.
Besides, even knowing that if he gets free, he is probably going to hurt someone again, Audria really, really does not want to kill this guy, especially in cold blood.
Sounds fine to me.
The way I see it, it's a win-win.
- Audria gets some character development.
- Talanaliel gets some character development.
- One of my background NPCs gets to be brought into the game!
GM, let me know if you want or need some more information on Bartholomew Holdt. I have this foggy recollection that I sent you something with some information about some of the NPCs, but I don't really trust it and don't remember if he would have been on it.
@Audria: Please send me any new and more relevant data you wish to present. Whatever you feel is the current NPC info will be used over whatever may have or could have been sent.
@Everyone: I apologize if I came across as a tyrant about this. Unfortunately, with the world literally built on principles of nine different shades of black, white, & gray; I'm required to draw the Good/Neutral line somewhere. And for me, calculated murder of a helpless person is definitely that line. I can think of a whole lot of different scenarios where the deliberate killing of someone who is Evil or possibly just Neutral may still be within the bounds of Good, but this is not one the way I see it given how little is known about the intended victim prior to being consigned to death.
I truly hope I'm not ruining anyone's fun with this decision, and if we should open a forum for discussion on ways to improve intersections of alignment behavior I'm certainly open to hearing your thoughts.
Naaaah, you didn't ruin my fun. It got me to think more about this situation, so it's all good on my end.
Talomyr here with my character.
I have no problem with your ruling.
My stuff is tainted by old school D&D stuff that predates pathfinder. There was a Dragon article with the title Lawful Good does not mean Lawful Stupid that made a huge impact on the thoughts of Lawful Good at the time. Execution of an evil creature was considered a good act, chaotic if vigilante (not lawful) and lawful if following laws. In the middle was of course neutral good. Helpless was not a factor.
Then there were hard lines in the sand = poison is always evil. Breaking oaths is always chaotic.
Most people do not know the alignments very well and use it as an excuse to argue to remove them. Judge Dredd was supposedly Lawful Good years ago, but now he is supposedly Lawful Neutral as the don'ts of good have increased.
Didn't mean to derail anything, my alignment knowledge and beliefs were fully formed over 20 years ago before Paizo added some twists.
@Gregor: While I'm sure Audria's going to be happy to meet you, she's not going to be happy about the gun the first time she hears it fire. ;)
@Pip: I kinda see alignment the same way I see the political spectrum. It's a reductive way of looking at morality like describing something as left or right wing is a reductive way of looking at social and political views. That said, I didn't play any TTRPGs before Pathfinder in 2011, and haven't really played in anything old school either.
The biggest problem with alignment is that it brings something philosophical into the mechanics of the game, and I don't think that most games do a poor job of explaining what is meant by lawful, chaotic, neutral, good, and evil. There are things that most people would classify as good or evil, but where things really break is when dealing with the law vs. chaos and the neutral parts of the chart. What does it mean to be Neutral on either access? It breaks on the edges where what one person considers an unalloyed good is what another person would consider questionable and a third evil. It just gets even messier when you consider that not every religion is going to be like those based off of Judaism where there is an objective good and an objective evil or at least not as we understand it here in the US or in Europe. I think Zoroastrianism considered order the ultimate good and chaos the ultimate evil, but that is my I-read-the-back-cover-years-ago understanding.
For alignment to work you have to have clear definitions of what each part of the access means and everyone at the table has to agree on using those definitions. Even then I don't think it'd do a good job.
@Gregor: While I'm sure Audria's going to be happy to meet you, she's not going to be happy about the gun the first time she hears it fire. ;)
I guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it. That being said, it certainly won't be an every round thing. Ammunition is expensive (1 gp per bullet + 10 gp per dose of black powder).
I missed one day! And look at all that I have to catch up on!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Gregor: While I'm sure Audria's going to be happy to meet you, she's not going to be happy about the gun the first time she hears it fire. ;)I guess we'll have to cross that bridge when we get to it. That being said, it certainly won't be an every round thing. Ammunition is expensive (1 gp per bullet + 10 gp per dose of black powder).
Yikes. I guess that's one way to balance it.
I missed one day! And look at all that I have to catch up on!
Hey, could be worse. You could have nothing to catch up on. :D
(And with this, I hit 30,000 posts on the forums.)
Looking forward to meeting you, Gregor. I've never played with an investigator or a gunslinger - seems cool mechanically.
Congrats on the milestone, Audria.
Hey at least this time I caught it. When I hit 10k, 20k and 25k, I kinda blew right by them without even noticing until a couple of dozen posts later.
Not to over-explain, but "beak" is one of the oldest slang terms known for constables. In keeping with our general bird theme, I've been using "beaksman" for the Sable Company specifically and "robin" for the Guards.
You guys are doing great on the roleplay. You can keep it up. Let me know me know once you need something from me. At the moment, I can't really tell if you're needing me to interject or adjudicate anything, so I've been staying quiet.
Thanks! I'm glad you're enjoying it. Unless anyone else has something they'd like to add to the scene, I think we could move on to either whatever you have planned after we find the children and get them back to the Sanctuary of Shelyn or to Audria looking for Bartholomew. She'd start with Olga, his wife, or with Brother Theolan or one of the other clergy if she's not at the Sanctuary.
In case you don't see the post count yet, Gregor, there's something for you in the Gameplay!
In case you don't see the post count yet, Gregor, there's something for you in the Gameplay!
Saw it. :)
Got ninjaed by the GM :)
Fortunately, nothing should be contradictory, and quite a lovely contribution.
I'm here! Sorry for not posting yesterday. I've been trying to build healthier sleep habits and just decided to go to bed early as part of resetting my clock.
'Snot my fault I have a 66% duty cycle! Take it up with the manufacturer! :P
heh, "duty."
I got knocked on my butt yesterday at work. I'll get something posted soon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this mean Audria's Profession (Cook) is really -4? :P
Nah, it means that Olga runs a tight ship and the last thing she needs is a young teenager in armor and dusty from running around the city all day getting underfoot.
Although she probably has had her fair share of spectacular messes and misses in the kitchen.
Why am I suddenly picturing Audria learning to cook like in Food Wars! with the different dorms being the prevalent religious in Korvosa: Asmodeus, Abadar, Sarenrae, and Shelyn? Lol!
@Everyone: My next planned updates will be fairly significant, so I'm doing the usual writer thing and agonizing over every word. Feel free to continue to RP and bond for the time being as I'm not 100% sure how quickly I'll have it ready. Tomorrow at worst, tonight at best, most likely.
@Regarding Silver Sven: As some of you have shown some interest in the possible meaning behind his ravings, allow me to say this: nothing* he's said so far** has anything to do with the actual campaign of Curse of the Crimson Throne. I am more than happy to allow research into anything he has said or will say (assuming you encounter him again), but for now just know, he is simply a fun concept I pulled out of the bag after Audria chose to create the name in one of her posts.
@Shrike: If you'd like to semi-retcon your exit in order to continue to converse with the others before retiring to your home while I prepare the next updates, feel free!
@Dal: I can't recall if I assigned you a Harrow Card during our PMs for your character generation and story. Please remind me if so. Yes, this referring the Harrow card Zellara would have been responsible for placing among your possessions to drive you to meet with her. This may be very pertinent to the conversation Audria is starting with you regarding your search for the lost Lamm's Lambs.
@Gregor: I will have more with Hammond for you shortly, possibly before my other updates since those will also include you.
Why am I suddenly picturing Audria learning to cook like in Food Wars! with the different dorms being the prevalent religious in Korvosa: Asmodeus, Abadar, Sarenrae, and Shelyn? Lol!
This sounds like the concept for a hilarious one shot.
As for Silver Sven, I figured he was more flavor than substance as far as this campaign goes. That said, Audria's no run across the teachings of Groetus (I think I got the spelling right) so she's naturally going to be a bit curious.
And before you fret too much about your writing, we still have an assassin to deal with! Audria's here because this is where she expects she'll find Bartholomew.
and finally, I just rediscovered this treasure. Hope y'all enjoy.
Abella assumes out of hand that nothing he said is of importance, so I shall continue operating under the assumption that is true until proven otherwise :D
@GM I just checked back through our PMs and I don't see that you did.
@GM I just checked back through our PMs and I don't see that you did.
Thank you. I will be updating that soon.
Oof, sorry. Work's been busier today than the rest of the week. Still aiming for more today on the bigger updates, however.
I got The Survivor Not sure what everyone else got. GM Elfriede sent them via PM.
Thank you, Audria.
Alright major update post #1 completed! More to come, but I'll take a breath in case anyone wants to chime in with more roleplay pre-The Bear and for Dal and Gregor to respond to their ongoing stories.
I've got some ideas. It's late. I'm going to be busy tomorrow, so going to bed.
I guess poor Pink is going to be stuck in the warehouse, assuming it doesn't become collateral damage when riots target the bar.
I guess I misunderstood, I thought you wanted to advise Bartholomew about him and then he would be taken into custody. Were you wanting to roleplay the scene out? I just thought the action was descriptive and off-camera. My bad.