As I'm betting this question comes up this weekend when I talk about the PFS material at our local meet-up, I figured I'd poll the folks here for some thoughts...
It seems odd that no character of evil alignment is allowed, yet one of the five primary factions (Cheliax) is Lawful Evil. I understand the logical/mechanical reasoning for no evil characters--they can be highly disruptive to group dynamics--but the inclusion of Cheliax as a faction seems to create dissonance with this goal. The nation's overt goal is to enslave or destroy all others through the use of fiendish powers, after all. I'm sure questioning players will bring this up (whether to cast doubts on why Cheliax is a faction, to push for playing as evil as possible, or some other reason).
Anyone else considered this? Anyone ran into such questions from players as yet?
|
If you feel that the players in question wouldn't be able to reconcile playing a non-evil character with loyalty to Cheliax then you should probably counsel against them trying to do so unless and until they have a character concept that works.
All of the factions have stock, caricture, character concepts -- it's just that the stock caricatures for Cheliax aren't easy for inexperienced players.
One thing that may help them is for you to come up with a couple of concepts for viable Chelaxian characters and when you find players who are keen to play a Chelaxian go through your concepts with them and let them use your ideas as a basis for their own character concepts.
If they still struggle to handle the double think then you should probably nudge them in the direction of one of the other factions :)
|
One oddity occurs due to the restriction.
You can worship an evil god; at least I didn't find anything to say otherwise, and most Chelaxians worship Asmodeus. Thus you could make a Cleric of a Chaotic Evil god (Rovagug), but not a cleric of a neutral evil god due to cleric's alingment rules.
Odd, huh?
I agree with the OP's observations and actually feel that the Cheliax faction is a creative misstep on the part of Paizo. Truth be told, the whole faction concept earns a "meh" from me--instead of the focus being placed on individual PCs at the table, players seem more interested in what factions are being played.
Why not? One step away would be True Neutral which is completely legal.
Not in 3.5.
"A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful-chaotic axis or the good-evil axis, but not both). A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral."
(I read "neutral" as "true neutral" in that quote.)
The Cheliax faction, with its obvious moral blackness (they're not even close to being gray) does present an interesting roleplaying opportunity counter to traditional tropes. However, the current faction selection actually already provides enough moral ambiguity without the fiend-binders coming in as a solid Evil. Taldor is no goody-two-shoes and both Osirion and Qadira are Neutral at best (Qadira seems a bit darker considering the faction leader). So those that want to play the cut-and-dry good guys are stuck in Andoran (who, I know, are not free of their own Evil tendencies).
Of course, Year 0 is a sort of play test in itself, so maybe there will be some faction shake-ups in addition to rule and procedural changes. I'm okay with the Faction mechanic itself--from my experience with Living Greyhawk I definitely see characters having a group interest that can be personal to them (not just the entire group being Pathfinders) as having positive values. I'd actually not mind a broader choice of factions, though I recognize that the current selection represents the logical choices as these are the five nations surrounding Absalom. I'm not certain I'd include Cheliax--they just seem too much like Bad Guys to cast as a full faction when we're telling the players they can't make Evil characters. Of course, another angle would be to cast the faction leader in some different light--focused more on Law then Evil, perhaps someone that's moved to Absalom to escape some of the more nefarious aspects of the nation while still supporting its focus on order.
If faction expansion is on the table, I definitely wouldn't mind adding groups like this:
Tian Xia and/or Vudra as both are distant but major foreign powers with less local influence--provides extreme exotic options beyond even Qadira.
Some sort of Alliance for Trade--a conglomerate of the smaller but still influential nations/cities that don't want any of the major factions to actually gain a stranglehold on the city. Members might include Korvosa and Magnimar in Varisia (putting both of those in the same faction would be a hoot for internal politics!), Nex and Geb (another interesting pairing), Halgrim (White Estrid is already breaking Linnorm King stereotypes and would want Absalom to remain fairly Neutral), and finally Druma (maybe seeing itself more as a patron of the group--probably running the thing behind the scenes using the Prophecies). Such a broad alliance could encompass many more character backgrounds than the current selection of 5, giving some more leeway for players.
Hmm, but I'm probably taking the thread too far afield from the Evil discussion.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm not so worried about Cheliax, per se, being evil. I might create a Lawful Good character who was honor-bound to work for an evil organization, but so far as the organization didn't ask me to do anything evil, I'd simply be upholding my vow.
And the campaign rules have suggested that it's possible to be a good guy from Cheliax, because there's a large number of folk there who do not worship Asmodeus or agree with the ruling house. You could well be a Chelaxian rebel.
But I am very worried about the Faction Awards for Chelaxian characters. Without giving away too much, the letters from the Paracountess make it clear that Chelaxians are being asked to facilitate binding more souls to Asmodeus or otherwise strengthen the Unholy House of Thrune.
I'm getting ready to run "Silent Tide", and I have a player who has built a fairly good-guy Chelaxian. If he actually agrees to follow the Faction directive, I don't see as I have any choice but to declare that his character has willingly participated in a seriously evil act, and that his alignment is in peril.
But I am very worried about the Faction Awards for Chelaxian characters. Without giving away too much, the letters from the Paracountess make it clear that Chelaxians are being asked to facilitate binding more souls to Asmodeus or otherwise strengthen the Unholy House of Thrune.
I'm getting ready to run "Silent Tide", and I have a player who has built a fairly good-guy Chelaxian. If he actually agrees to follow the Faction directive, I don't see as I have any choice but to declare that his character has willingly participated in a seriously evil act, and that his alignment is in peril.
That is actually the exact thing that got me thinking about this issue, as I ran Silent Tide at our area meet-up this weekend. I ended up not having to deal with it, as no one chose Cheliax (or even Taldor--they were a fairly Good bunch with 3 Andorans, 2 Qadirans, and an Osirion).
But as you say if I am playing that exemplary difficult character presented in the guide--a halfling Paladin of the Cheliax faciton--willing participation in evil is going to be a problem. In a home game if said paladin actually complied with the Cheliax faction goals for Silent Tide as written, I'd be slapping them down to ex-paladin status. Now, I know that gets into specifics of enforcing alignment and such, which is always a contentious topic, but as presented I just don't see the Cheliax faction as ambiguous enough to support Good characters long-term.
Maybe that's the point, and of course those in the Neutral camp have more leeway. Perhaps the ultimate goal here should be reinforcing the language in the Player's Guide about incompatibility of certain character concepts, or even placing an alignment range on the factions. Cheliax might be anti-Good, while Osirion is pro-Law and Andoran is pro-Chaotic or some such (just examples, BTW).
|
|
Alright this is my take on this issue
1st I love the setting as is. I love the factions and I love the whole cold war theme. Shadow factions using a neutral organisation to further their goals is a very cool twist on the dungeon crawling theme.
2nd I understand the problems with Evil characters but I think that within the setting as it is presented the factions definitely include evil people. It could be the Andoran rebel who has no qualms about killing an entire family of nobles to prevent succession, the Quadiran capitalist who values money more than lives, or the Osirian archeologist obsessed with finding ultimate power but some of these people will definitely find themselves in the pathfinders. But we have to remember the rules of the pathfinders which include cooperation. Pathfinders are people who are used to dealing with people with different cultures and different values and even if they don't agree with them they can work with them.
3rd The metagame problem comes with the paladins who cant be with a group that includes an evil character...well paladins are exactly the type of people who find the idea of a shadow war distastefull. They would rather be on the front lines fighting it out than in the shadows making deals with the enemy for use later.
My suggestion for a solution is to go easy on allignement issues at least for year 0 or Chelaxian faction members are going to constantly have to justify their actions.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I'm getting ready to run "Silent Tide", and I have a player who has built a fairly good-guy Chelaxian. If he actually agrees to follow the Faction directive, I don't see as I have any choice but to declare that his character has willingly participated in a seriously evil act, and that his alignment is in peril.
Perhaps the best faction for this PC isn't Cheliax, then. A character can be from Cheliax but not be a member of that faction. In fact, my PC is a former Chelaxian slave, and she doesn't want anything to do with that kind of Asmodean evil. (She does, however, worship Zon-Kuthon.) In any case, if a character's concept just doesn't jive with the faction, I think that changing either the PC himself or the faction is the only real solution, unless you just sort of hand-wave the conflicting motivations as a non-issue.
|
|
Regarding the Cheliax faction goal in Silent Tide:
The orders are quite clear: bring in said items. It is implied that the items will be used for a nefarious purpose, but this isn't really part of the mission. Its just "mwahaha I'm a satan-loving evil b1tch" -color. As such it isn't any more evil than say, a Qadiran lord implying that he'll use McGuffin X to force group Y of people into eternal debt, thus strengthening the financial status of the mighty moolah-worshipping Keleshite empire.
The problem, however, is that such an explicit evil purpose should be in conflict with a paladin's code--he's being specifically told that his success will results in soul's being enslaved to an evil being. Sure a paladin may not be the best fit for Cheliax, but unless we're going to explicitly say "don't play a Cheliax faction paladin" then the issue bears consideration. And for me, going easy on alignment restrictions is a disservice to the paladin class. It is true that the actual mission objective is not inherently evil, and indeed if it were presented in a better light--more focused on Law and less on Evil--then it would be much easier to adjudicate.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
... I understand the problems with Evil characters but I think that within the setting as it is presented the factions definitely include evil people.... some of these people will definitely find themselves in the pathfinders. But we have to remember the rules of the pathfinders which include cooperation. Pathfinders are people who are used to dealing with people with different cultures and different values and even if they don't agree with them they can work with them.
The metagame problem comes with the paladins who cant be with a group that includes an evil character...well paladins are exactly the type of people who find the idea of a shadow war distasteful. They would rather be on the front lines fighting it out than in the shadows making deals with the enemy for use later.
Thanks for the comments, Groulx. The issue here is that the Pathfinder Society rules don't allow for evil characters. There are certainly evil people in Absolom, and probably evil pathfinders. But those characters can't be PC's. So, paladins shouldn't have any issues, theoretically, because nobody's being evil.
And that's why I have such a problem with the Chelaxian faction requiring evil acts. If a PC follows those instructions, he's drifting towards evil. He commits more than one of them, and well, he's evil, and out of the campaign. That strikes me as a dirty trick.
Perhaps the best faction for this PC isn't Cheliax, then. A character can be from Cheliax but not be a member of that faction. In fact, my PC is a former Chelaxian slave, and she doesn't want anything to do with that kind of Asmodean evil.
A good solution. Thanks, friend.
The orders are quite clear: bring in said items. It is implied that the items will be used for a nefarious purpose, but this isn't really part of the mission.
Hi, Navdi.
You make a really valid point, in general. If, for example, a party were hired by a patron to retrieve an object under false pretenses, and if the patron were to go off and do Bad Things with the object, then the party has some justification that they didn't have any clue that the Bad Things would be the outcome of their work. (It might be a great follow-up quest, to track down their old patron and bring her in, in order to clear their names.)
In the case of this adventure, though, the use of the object isn't "implied", it's explicitly stated. The Chelaxian PC who completes this task is willingly doing his or her part to further a scheme to enslave innocent souls.
... It isn't any more evil than say, a Qadiran lord implying that he'll use McGuffin X to force group Y of people into eternal debt, thus strengthening the financial status of the mighty moolah-worshipping Keleshite empire.
If you were to consider that an innocent person owing a lot of money was equivalent to having her soul trapped in Hellish torment till the world grows cold, then I'd agree with you, that both are evil acts.
A new bit of info that's further confused me...in reading through the Campaign Setting I cam across the Darklight Sisterhood, one of the Lesser Groups on page 198. Therein it states " Cheliax and the Pathfinder Society have been enemies for almost as long as the latter has existed." It goes on to describe how Cheliax created the Darklight Sisterhood as a counter to the group "In order to try and beat the Pathfinders at their own game" and that they "perform all the same functions as Pathfinders, but with absolute loyalty to Cheliax."
If Cheliax counts the PS as an enemy, enough so to support an opposing group, why do they use Pathfinder resources in their bid to take over Absalom, especially considering the loyalty issue? Should Chelaxian Pathfinders actually be undercover Darklights (of course, they'd have to all be female...)?
This is a bit aside from the issue of evil characters, but further confounds me on the inclusion of Cheliax as one of the factions considering the overall premise of play in the Pathfinder Society games centering around being Pathfinders first and foremost.
A new bit of info that's further confused me...in reading through the Campaign Setting I cam across the Darklight Sisterhood, one of the Lesser Groups on page 198. Therein it states " Cheliax and the Pathfinder Society have been enemies for almost as long as the latter has existed." It goes on to describe how Cheliax created the Darklight Sisterhood as a counter to the group "In order to try and beat the Pathfinders at their own game" and that they "perform all the same functions as Pathfinders, but with absolute loyalty to Cheliax."
If Cheliax counts the PS as an enemy, enough so to support an opposing group, why do they use Pathfinder resources in their bid to take over Absalom, especially considering the loyalty issue? Should Chelaxian Pathfinders actually be undercover Darklights (of course, they'd have to all be female...)?
This is a bit aside from the issue of evil characters, but further confounds me on the inclusion of Cheliax as one of the factions considering the overall premise of play in the Pathfinder Society games centering around being Pathfinders first and foremost.
The main reason is because the Darklight Sisterhood isn't really welcome in Absalom. The Pathfinder Society is generally welcome everywhere. Cheliax is also a shrewd nation--why put all your eggs in one basket? Especially when the one basket is an obvious front (DLS) for Chelish interests Golarion-wide. Infiltrating the Pathfinder Society makes much more sense for them, since the shadow war in Absalom is an attempt by the five nations to take control of the city in a way never tried before: quietly and subtly.
I wouldn't let the DLS concern you overmuch--I don't imagine them popping up in the org play environment.
Thanks Josh. I wouldn't say the DLS is concerning--it's just another item that seems to make the Cheliax faction more difficult to play. The "Evil" issue as discussed above is much more difficult to work with than a lesser group most people in Golarion have never even heard of...
I'm betting most will assume (just as I had until reading that entry) that a Pathfinder from Cheliax is no problem. Is the enmity between this nation and group discussed anywhere else? Really the DLS entry seemed odd given the ubiquitous nature of the Pathfinders.
A nation isn't necessarily its people.
A nation isn't necessarily its people.
On that I'd agree, but as discussed above when the Faction tasks involve and/or support an Evil cause, it can lead to character conflicts. I've only ran one scenario so far--PFS 1--and so this may not be indicative of all Cheliax assignments but the tone of that assignment would definitely be difficult for Good Cheliax characters to handle. The assignment itself wasn't necessarily Evil in its execution, but the implications for success were. A heavier emphasis on the Lawful aspect of Cheliax versus the Evil (another item discussed above) would go a long way toward ameliorating this difficulty and making the Faction more "friendly" to players.
Agreed.
|
|
And that's why I have such a problem with the Chelaxian faction requiring evil acts. If a PC follows those instructions, he's drifting towards evil. He commits more than one of them, and well, he's evil, and out of the campaign. That strikes me as a dirty trick.
Is that the rule? Two evil acts and you're evil, regardless of what else you do? Is that in the SRD or is it a Paizo thing? Maybe that's a rule that needs changing.
In the case of this adventure, though, the use of the object isn't "implied", it's explicitly stated. The Chelaxian PC who completes this task is willingly doing his or her part to further a scheme to enslave innocent souls.
I really like that the Cheliax faction asks its agents to do stuff for explicitly evil purposes. I think that it's what distinguishes Cheliax from the other factions, and I like the characterization.
I think that one of the points of playing a paladin of that faction would be to enjoy the conflict inherent in the allegiance. If I were playing one I'd want to agonize a bit every time I completed a mission. To a lesser extent, this is true of any Good-aligned PC in that faction. It's one of the things that makes it fun.
That is, unless there's a rule that says that following these missions means you can no longer play your character. That stops being fun really quickly. How certain are we that this rule exists?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Is that the rule? Two evil acts and you're evil, regardless of what else you do? Is that in the SRD or is it a Paizo thing? Maybe that's a rule that needs changing.
Hi, tbug. Thanks for posting. Most of what I'll say here is colored by the expectations which my gaming groups have developed regarding heroic behavior. So, please, asume that there's a "As I understand things..." or "In my opinion..." attached to most of the rest of this post.
I've never seen a "two strikes and you're out" rule written down, but that's the way I've seen it played out. Murder a bunch of innocents once, you get a warning. Twice, and it's an alignment shift.
I think that one of the points of playing a paladin of that faction would be to enjoy the conflict inherent in the allegiance. If I were playing one I'd want to agonize a bit every time I completed a mission. To a lesser extent, this is true of any Good-aligned PC in that faction. It's one of the things that makes it fun.That is, unless there's a rule that says that following these missions means you can no longer play your character. That stops being fun really quickly. How certain are we that this rule exists?
If a paladin member of the Cheliax faction attempted to fulfill that mission, there wouldn't need to be any agony at all. As the DM at the table, I'd simply strip her of her paladin status. There you go, free to collect as many souls for Hell as you please. Atonement is a fifth-level spell. (I'm guessing that, like Raise Dead, there is no experience point penalty in PFS.)
You can't play evil characters in the PFS organized play; that is a rule,not just my opinion. If your PC makes a habit of committing evil acts, she's evil, regardless of what her character sheet says. And helping to send the souls of innocents to eternal torment for Asmodeus is an evil act.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. ... People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
So if you refuse that faction mission, you're making a sacrifice (no faction points) to help the innocents who would otherwise have their souls trapped by this new type of undeath. That's what heroes do.
I admit, I'm at a loss to see why this is even a discussion topic. Josh, if a DM declares that a PC at his table is doing evil things and bans that character from PFS play, I assume there's an appeals process, yes?
|
|
Most of what I'll say here is colored by the expectations which my gaming groups have developed regarding heroic behavior. So, please, asume that there's a "As I understand things..." or "In my opinion..." attached to most of the rest of this post.
Thanks for pointing that out. Similarly, this post is about my opinions. I'm not sure that we're disagreeing on any point, but if we are then I certainly acknowledge that I could be wrong.
I've never seen a "two strikes and you're out" rule written down, but that's the way I've seen it played out. Murder a bunch of innocents once, you get a warning. Twice, and it's an alignment shift.
I think that it's really important that if this rule is in effect in this campaign that it be clearly stated someplace obvious and official, such as in version 1.2 of the campaign document. This rule could ruin the campaign for a lot of people who are only trying to play the way that the rules say that they can.
If a paladin member of the Cheliax faction attempted to fulfill that mission, there wouldn't need to be any agony at all. As the DM at the table, I'd simply strip her of her paladin status.
After rereading all the relevent documents, I've come around to this point of view. The Silent Tide mission is quite explicit.
I think that fulfilling a mission with a statement like this attached would be enough of an evil act that a paladin couldn't do it. I'm okay with that.
You can't play evil characters in the PFS organized play; that is a rule,not just my opinion.
I don't think anyone is disputing that.
If your PC makes a habit of committing evil acts, she's evil, regardless of what her character sheet says.
What if your character is committing ten good acts for every evil act? I'm not being facetious. I think that there's room for neutral characters to commit the occasional evil act, particularly when the actual stuff that they're doing isn't intrinsically evil but only will be used for evil by other people. (Note that I'm no longer talking about paladins here.)
So if you refuse that faction mission, you're making a sacrifice (no faction points) to help the innocents who would otherwise have their souls trapped by this new type of undeath. That's what heroes do.
Agreed. My point is that I think that it's important that paladins (or even Good characters) serving Cheliax should occasionally have to do this. Being a paladin who is a member of the Cheliax faction should be really hard.
Josh, if a DM declares that a PC at his table is doing evil things and bans that character from PFS play, I assume there's an appeals process, yes?
When did we move from requiring an atonement to banning a character from PFS play?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What if your character is committing ten good acts for every evil act? I'm not being facetious. I think that there's room for neutral characters to commit the occasional evil act.
I agree. Greyhawk has a lot of characters with that kind of militant neutrality.
... particularly when the actual stuff that they're doing isn't intrinsically evil but only will be used for evil by other people.
I don't think we can accept that argument, this side of the Nuremburg trials.
When did we move from requiring an atonement to banning a character from PFS play?
When I shifted from talking about Paladins falling to characters repeatedly committing evil deeds --either because their faction leader requests it or just for giggles-- and getting ejected from the OP environment.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I don't think we can accept that argument, this side of the Nuremburg trials.Who am I to argue with Godwin?
(smile) Yes, I know. But in this case, the reference actually seemed germaine. (As opposed to random name-calling.)
The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
There really isn't any ethical system that exempts you from the consequences of your actions because you yourself didn't take the final step in a sequence of woe and evil, because you were "just doing your job," not even Kant's "categorical imperitive".
If you have good reason to believe that your innocuous actions allow others to commit great evil, your actions are no longer innocuous.
|
Does it actually say they'll be more innocent souls, though? It could just mean that mighty Asmodeus will bring more evil souls under his power where they will be tormented for their lawbreaking. A rather legalistic, hair-splitting approach, but, well, this is the church of Asmodeus we're talking about. ;-)
This assertion that the Cheliax faction is required to do "evil acts" via their mission assignments is preposterous. The first six Cheliax missions are:
Recover the skull of an undead creature
Aid in the disposal of a murderer's corpse
Claim evidence that someone was disrupting trade to a rival nation and take the bad guy or any of his bandits alive
Obtain a personal item, such as a lock of hair, from a key NPC
Bring back a piece of an artifact
Acquire a broach from a key NPC and bring back a sample of water from a key location
There might be some grey area in the matter of the 2nd mission listed, but the rest could easily be accomplished by a LG Paladin in service to Cheliax.
How you and your players choose to handle these situations is not a reflection of the mission themselves. There was too much grey in the 2nd mission and I've pushed the missions away from that much uncertainty, but none of the Cheliax missions would be considered an evil act.
Does it actually say they'll be more innocent souls, though? It could just mean that mighty Asmodeus will bring more evil souls under his power where they will be tormented for their lawbreaking. A rather legalistic, hair-splitting approach, but, well, this is the church of Asmodeus we're talking about. ;-)
A Good being can't wish for/support any soul being enslaved to another, at least by my understanding. The church of Asmodeus may indeed see it differently (they're not Good, after all).
The point, at least for me, is to make the scenarios, materials, etc. as easy for GM's and players to use as possible. Creating a "paradox" of sorts where Evil character alignment is prohibited but Evil results from character actions are encouraged introduces a situation where GMs and players may come into conflict over mechanics, thus disrupting the game. I'm all for character conflict, whether it be internal or with the party (as long as it isn't too disruptive) but the GM and player should be on fairly equal and solid ground. Josh agreed above (well, I think, please correct if wrong) that an emphasis on the Lawful aspect for the Cheliax faction is a good way to solve this issue and I hope for such in future scenarios. I know a GM could, of his own accord, use such an approach but especially in organized play at cons and such the material should support them in this as best it can.
This assertion that the Cheliax faction is required to do "evil acts" via their mission assignments is preposterous.
I'm definitely not saying the action required to complete the Scenario 1 Cheliax faction mission is Evil. But it explicitly states the results, and I think many could reasonably interpret the results as Evil.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This assertion that the Cheliax faction is required to do "evil acts" via their mission assignments is preposterous.
I'm sorry, Josh, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I just don't understand.
Given the entire faction mission letter from Cheliax in the first adventure, especially regarding Cheliax's plans for the item, I don't understand how a paladin could be party to that.
Let me offer an analogy to show you my perspective. A madman has kidnapped a child and asks the paladin to hand him the cleaver on the table, explaining that he's going to use it to kill the child.
Could the paladin do that in good conscience, since handing someone a cleaver is certainly not an evil act unto itself?
The language of the mission handout in scenario 1 is certainly pushing the boundaries of good/evil. It went a little more in the direction of flavor than the direction of mechanics than I'd like and we're certainly moving away from that.
If it makes it easier, feel free to cut the first and last paragraph of that handout. The base mission itself is fine--the flavor surrounding it in the handout is where most everyone's consternation seems to stem from.
|
|
The language of the mission handout in scenario 1 is certainly pushing the boundaries of good/evil. It went a little more in the direction of flavor than the direction of mechanics than I'd like and we're certainly moving away from that.
If it makes it easier, feel free to cut the first and last paragraph of that handout. The base mission itself is fine--the flavor surrounding it in the handout is where most everyone's consternation seems to stem from.
Works for me.
And it's the responsibility of the GM to inform those players they're not playing their alignment.
|
|
And it's the responsibility of the GM to inform those players they're not playing their alignment.
Yeah, exactly. Because there's nothing quite so much fun as arguing with player's over how they RP their alignment when they're CN.
Don't misinterpret me, I'm not arguing Pathfinder Society should allow evil characters, I just know from years of having a "no evil characters" clause in my games that players who want to be evil and dastardly will be evil and dastardly regardless of alignment rules.
Then you ask the players to leave. We talk about this in the Pathfinder Society guide book.
|
|
I think at the point it is becoming an argument the GM would be within their power to politely ask that player to leave the table. It's organized play, there is no time to waste on people who refuse to follow the rules.
That would be all well and good, if there were actually rules to point to. But there aren't. "Don't be evil." isn't a rule, it's an invitation to debate what evil is.
Also, I'm not a big fan of kicking people out of a game that isn't mine. Since I rotate GMing with the other players in my game -- including the "CN" Chellix cleric that seems evil to me -- I won't be doing that. It would make playing with these people, and that guy in specific, the next session rather difficult.
I mean, if I kick him out because I think his actions are evil, and he can't argue it with me, then what exactly stops him from kicking me out next week because he thinks I'm playing my CG Andoran Fighter "evil."
The point being, it's a pretty useless rule. Enforcing it is always going to be pretty arbitrary and unfair, especially in corner cases. And it's one of those topics that is just bound to create friction. I mean seriously, people go to war over the definition of evil.
|
That would be all well and good, if there were actually rules to point to. But there aren't. "Don't be evil." isn't a rule, it's an invitation to debate what evil is.
See page 20 of the Guide to Organised Play, for a fuller discussion of this issue.
Admittedly, it mostly covers Player vs Player conflict, and could maybe use an extra paragraph, covering respect for the sensibilities of the other participants, re profanity/gore/sexual explicitness.
Just a reminder that you may not be at your usual table, with your usual group, so stuff that wouldn't raise an eyebrow with your regular, jaded players may not be welcome in a public environment, among strangers of all ages/genders/races/religions.
I know, I know, in a perfect world, you shouldn't need to point this out, but there's bound to be one jackass at every convention, who uses the immortal line "It doesn't say I can't do that...".
And the middle of a scenario with a tight real-time deadline is not the time or place to waste on debating alignment.
|
|
See page 20 of the Guide to Organised Play, for a fuller discussion of this issue.
Admittedly, it mostly covers Player vs Player conflict, and could maybe use an extra paragraph, covering respect for the sensibilities of the other participants, re profanity/gore/sexual explicitness.
That section has nothing to do with alignment at all. Alignment isn't even mentioned.
|
Contributor
|
That section has nothing to do with alignment at all. Alignment isn't even mentioned.
You're right...but it does say:
Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated. (p. 20, last paragraph)I think taking advantage of moral ambiguity (or the inability to perfectly define what evil is or isn't in a social game) to do whatever you want to do regardless of your alignment at the expense of others is covered under the concept of dysfunctional play.
While the section refers to "player versus player" conflict, getting into an extended argument with the GM is pretty disruptive to the other players, too. Although this point isn't made very often, I consider the GM a player, too, albeit with different responsibilities. Thus, everyone at the table is bound by the rules of Organized Play to treat each other fairly and work together to resolve conflicts that arise.
If people can't cooperate, the last line of that section clearly states: Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved by asking the offender to leave, (p. 21).
|
|
Well great, but that's not really what I'm talking about at all.
Here's a scenario:
A player joins a Pathfinder Society group. He creates a NE Half-Orc cleric of the Cheliax faction. He creates a personality and motivations for the character.
He gets to the first session, shows his character to another player, that player says "You know, Pathfidner Society doesn't allow evil characters." He says "Oops!" and erases NE and replaces it with CN. He makes no changes to the motivations and personality of the character, and plays him as neutral evil.
Now, by "plays him as neutral evil" I don't mean "Engages in player versus player conflict" or any of the things listed on page 2o. Let's assume the player is not a jerk, is not a problem player, and is not ruining anyone's fun.
But he is clearly playing his character as evil. For example, when presented with the pressing need to row out into a harbor, he decides to steal a boat. He walks up to the guards overlooking the boat, distracts them, and then hits them flat-footed. The guards defend themselves, and the rest of the party jumps in and beats up the guards. Now they're unconscious, but Mr. NE/CN doesn't want to bother with prisoners, so he tells all the good characters "Hey, look at that." and then coup de grace's the prisoners while they are bound.
The good players go along with this, consenting to his clearly evil act (murdering a hostage) by their willful turning away (let's assume this isn't the first time this has happened, and the Good characters kinda know what will happen). Now the entire party has engaged in evil acts! But all the players are clearly okay with this, and willing to go along. Apparently they are all relativists who think the ends justifies the means.
Let's say I'm DMing, and I'm coming from an absolutist position on morality. So I say "No, you can't do that, that's evil." All four of my players disagree with me, and wish to argue the point with me, in order to justify their actions. Several of the players are immediately resentful of me imposing my ideas of good and evil on their play. Other players simply don't want to deal with the inter-player conflict that arises from imposing their morality on other players.
So...what then? I just kick them all out, pat myself on the back for my moral superiority, and go find a new Pathfinder Society group? Meanwhile, they seek out and find a new fifth player who isn't going to challenge their ideas about how to play good, and continue on playing, since me kicking them out a sessions doesn't do anything to prevent them from playing in Pathfinder Society games.
The end result being that I'm less likely to be able to keep playing (since I have to find four new players), while they're more likely to keep on playing since they only have to replace me.
Or, I could just not care, and let the Chellix player play his CN character as if he were NE, and actually get some gaming done.
And yes, I am talking about the Pathfinder Society game I'm currently involved in, so this scenario is what actually happens at our sessions. The Good characters do intentionally turn away knowing full well that the "Neutral" character will then commit a clearly evil act.
It's easy to say "Kick the problem player out." and talk about EXTREME cases. But EXTREME cases aren't the problem, it's the corner cases -- the gray area moral dilemmas that constantly pop up in any D&D game -- that make the "No evil characters." rule almost completely pointless and unenforceable.
|
|
But clearly that player is getting away with something by way of being in an ignorant group (and by ignorant, I mean don't care about playing their alignments). If said player were to take their character into an organized event, say at a Convention, they would likely find themselves out in the cold - most groups wouldn't tolerate their constant evil behaviour.
Now, said player probably feels they are being clever by cheating the system, but they are just being immature. OP can only work if everybody follows the rules, and No Evil Characters is one of the rules. It doesn't matter what you write on your sheet. If I write LG on my sheet and proceed to murder captured prisoners willy-nilly, I am clearly betraying the spirit of both the alignment system and the OP regulations.
In addition, such behaviour is providing this character with an advantage in scenarios. If the player had chosen to simply murder the guards rather than subdue them, that would be an easy solution not available to a Good or even Neutral-aligned party.
Just because alignment is malleable doesn't mean you can out-and-out cheat the system. Height and weight are malleable, but you can't make a 8'11'' dwarf or 30 lb. human to take advantage of that. By the same token, as I have said, playing CN as NE is disengenuous and quite frankly impossible.
It is the pervue of the GM to tell that player they are not behaving CN but NE. If the entire group disagrees, it would be the responsibility of the GM to call the game. Give up on Society play and simply play the scenario as a regular game. It's perfectly fair for those involved, much moreso than allowing a player to get away with murder when everyone else in the Society is following the rules. Given we are having a discussion about the distinction between Evil and Chaos, I feel obliged to point out this is an ethical problem not a moral one. Paizo is trusting the GMs of PS to stick to the rules, and if they do not the OP system breaks down.
|
|
But clearly that player is getting away with something by way of being in an ignorant group (and by ignorant, I mean don't care about playing their alignments). If said player were to take their character into an organized event, say at a Convention, they would likely find themselves out in the cold - most groups wouldn't tolerate their constant evil behaviour.
I've been running games both at home and at conventions for 20 years, and the people I am playing with are not aberrations. They are completely normal gamers, exactly the sort who go and play at those conventions. And this is how pretty much all gamers act, in my experience.
So, no, I disagree completely. I think the average D&D player is far more comfortable with evil behavior than most people want to recognize. I have, in fact, quipped many times that the average D&D player turns into a complete sociopath once they hit the table, regardless of their character alignment. And whatever, it's a game, it's supposed to be fun.
I personally like the alignment system, but I never enforce it. I only make use of it for Detects, Banes and Smites -- that sort of thing. Trying to enforce it is just impossible. Alignment is vague and loose guideline, and trying to enforce vague and loose guidelines just causes headaches and sore feelings. And most of the DMs I've played under who were big on enforcing alignment used "enforcing alignment" as a means of dictating player action, i.e. "No, a Lawful Good character would do X, so you have to do X."
Now, said player probably feels they are being clever by cheating the system, but they are just being immature. OP can only work if everybody follows the rules, and No Evil Characters is one of the rules. It doesn't matter what you write on your sheet. If I write LG on my sheet and proceed to murder captured prisoners willy-nilly, I am clearly betraying the spirit of both the alignment system and the OP regulations.
...
Just because alignment is malleable doesn't mean you can out-and-out cheat the system. Height and weight are malleable, but you can't make a 8'11'' dwarf or 30 lb. human to take advantage of that. By the same token, as I have said, playing CN as NE is disengenuous and quite frankly impossible.
It is the pervue of the GM to tell that player they are not behaving CN but NE. If the entire group disagrees, it would be the responsibility of the GM to call the game. Give up on Society play and simply play the scenario as a regular game. It's perfectly fair for those involved, much moreso than allowing a player to get away with murder when everyone else in the Society is following the rules. Given we are having a discussion about the distinction between Evil and Chaos, I feel obliged to point out this is an ethical problem not a moral one. Paizo is trusting the GMs of PS to stick to the rules, and if they do not the OP system breaks down.
You say that all so very easily, while ignoring the reality that Chaotic Neutral is the most difficult of the alignments to authoritatively define. And ignoring the actual social dynamics of gaming.
I mean seriously, do you think this is how people actually play this game? Do you really think people for whom in-store or at-home organized play are the only opportunity to game at all are going to stop gaming on principle because other players tend to more or less ignored the alignment system? I mean, you do know that many -- possibly most -- D&D players actually hate the alignment system, and rarely if ever reference it?
|
|
In addition, such behaviour is providing this character with an advantage in scenarios. If the player had chosen to simply murder the guards rather than subdue them, that would be an easy solution not available to a Good or even Neutral-aligned party.
Spoiler's about The Hydra's Fang inside:
When I played through the Hydra's Fangs, when we got to the under-the-boardwalk dock, my CG Andoran Fighter walked up to those guards and said "Lives are in grave danger, it's an emergancy, and I'm taking your boat. I'll try to bring it back." I walked right past the guards and up to the boat, they whistled for the sea cat, and it attacked me. So I was caught up in fighting it. Meanwhile the other two (Good) players stood by and did nothing as the CN Chellix Cleric attacked the two guards. The next round, they jumped in and helped him polish off the last guard, while I killed the sea cat.
From where I'm sitting, my character's actions were clearly Chaotic and probably Good, since I only killed an insentient seacat in self-defense, and was unable consider stopping my ally from murdering the guards. However, I must admit that as a player I figured it was likely I was provoking an attack, and would thus could trigger an opportunity to kill in self-defense. A classic ploy.
Meanwhile the rest of the party commited a clearly evil act by killing both guards when it was unnecessary. The GM did not even raise questions about their actions.
|
|
Well you obviously will continue to play the way you want, and more power to you. But don't expect to get away with it in other groups, is all I'm saying.
The OP rules say "no evil characters". Why can't you just play nice?
Also, in reference to your Hydra's Fang scenario: you can always choose to deal nonlethal damage or use tactics to subdue opponents. D&D involves killing, for sure, but I refuse to believe it directly advocates murder. And yes, this is seriously how I think people should play this game, when they are participating in OP events.
|
|
The OP rules say "no evil characters". Why can't you just play nice?
And by play nice you mean complain about other player's behaviors, kick them out of the group, and stop gaming with them?
I'd also point out that I'm not the one playing my character evil. I'm playing him entirely according to his alignment.
Also, in reference to your Hydra's Fang scenario: you can always choose to deal nonlethal damage or use tactics to subdue opponents. D&D involves killing, for sure, but I refuse to believe it directly advocates murder. And yes, this is seriously how I think people should play this game, when they are participating in OP events.
Yeah, but do you seriously think is how hey play? I mean, those tactics are losing strategies. Taking a -4 to all attacks? Most players won't do that because it seems "dumb," and most players won't respond well to a DM kicking someone out of the game for not making attacks at 20% penalties (especially at 1st level!).
I mean, do you seriously think more people will play if more GM's enforce alignment? Do you think that's actually good for the game?
I'm thinking since most D&D gamers have a lax attitude about alignment, it makes sense for Pathfinder Society GM's to have a lax attitude about alignment. I mean, part of the goal has to be broad appeal.