Gailbraithe, may I ask where you're going with this? You seem to be repeating the same points again and again. Are you advocating a change? Suggesting a new direction in the guide book? These sorts of assertions are far more constructive.
|
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.
By play nice I mean abide by the rules at hand. If one can't do that, then why play with them? You're just advocating that what this other player is doing is okay, but it isn't okay to call them on it.
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?
Yes. It is good for the game. If I was playing with someone who was constantly murdering innocents at the expense of party safety and reputation I would be upset.
|
Gailbraithe, may I ask where you're going with this? You seem to be repeating the same points again and again. Are you advocating a change? Suggesting a new direction in the guide book? These sorts of assertions are far more constructive.
I'm just throwing out ideas, based on my experience. I don't really want to tell people how to play.
But okay, here's my constructive suggestion: Allow Evil characters, and focus more attention to the Three Commandments.
There's plenty of room for evil character in the Pathfinder Society. The first example that comes to mind is Rene Belloq, from Raiders of the Lost Ark. He's an evil, selfish man who cares nothing about the evil ends the artifacts he recovers for the Nazis will be put to, only caring about the fortune and glory. Neutral Evil to the core. I mean, look at the way he casually hands Marian over to the Nazi interrogator. He's a total creep.
I could easily see Rene working for Chelliax, or for Osrion, and being a distinguished (if not universally respected) member of the Society.
Honestly, I just can't see why Evil characters can't be PCs. The real problem is not evil characters, who can be played fine by responsible players, but rather what some irresponsible players might do under the aegis of "But I'm evil."
So, that's where the Three Commandments come in.
Move those to the front of the character creation section. Make that the first thing you read, not something you pass over on the way to death and dismemberment (hee hee, I'm glad they're arranged in such a way that I could say that).
Add a Forth commandment. Something that basically makes it clear that you can't do things that are shocking, disgusting and gross at the table. Something that bans racist, sexist, homophobic, and hateful statements, and forbids engaging in perverse or disturbing behavior at the table. Something that covers behavior that's not player versus player bullying, but prevents players from having their characters commit sex crimes against NPCs (the worst thing I've ever seen happen at a con).
And finally, add some actual procedural rules for kicking players who violate the commandments out, and don't make it pure GM fiat, which puts GMs -- many of whom who can't handle the stress -- in a very stressful position.
|
|
By play nice I mean abide by the rules at hand. If one can't do that, then why play with them? You're just advocating that what this other player is doing is okay, but it isn't okay to call them on it.
Jal, I'm just pointing out that the rules are really vague and hard to apply in a reasonable and fair way.
I'm not saying anything is okay, or not okay. I'm just talking about what really happens in game sessions, not what "should" happen.
Yes. It is good for the game. If I was playing with someone who was constantly murdering innocents at the expense of party safety and reputation I would be upset.
So what makes you comfortable is good for the game?
|
|
We can have Evil characters. We can have Paladins. We can't have both. And I know which I'd prefer to have.
So, Paladins can't work with evil people, but they can work with the neutral agents of evil people, even when those neutral agents are furthering the evil goals of those evil people?
Sorry, don't buy it.
And if we're just spitting out preferences, I can TOTALLY live without Paladins. And honestly, considering the scenarios I've played through already, and the one I've read in prep to run it (Mists of Mwangi!), Paladins seem a really odd fit in the Society.
I figure if a Paladin can work for the Pathfinder Society towards that organizations rather neutral goals, and work with people furthering evil ends, they can work alongside evil people.
|
So, as written, its better for me to allow people playing evil characters at the table, because they don't want to go by the "no evil characters" rule, so I don't have to ask them to leave, but if one of them shows up, its better for me to tell the guy that shows up with the paladin "sorry, the evil guys got here first?"
No offense, but I guess the assumption is just that DMs know how to run their games, and how to deal with these situations, and they don't need pages up on pages of examples and extra rules telling them exactly how to handle every situation.
|
|
So, as written, its better for me to allow people playing evil characters at the table, because they don't want to go by the "no evil characters" rule, so I don't have to ask them to leave, but if one of them shows up, its better for me to tell the guy that shows up with the paladin "sorry, the evil guys got here first?"
Go look up the paladin's code of conduct. Show me where it says that a paladin can't associate with evil characters.
Oh wait, it doesn't.
Thus, this entire line of argument is a distraction. Evil PCs don't prevent anyone from playing paladins.
No offense, but I guess the assumption is just that DMs know how to run their games, and how to deal with these situations, and they don't need pages up on pages of examples and extra rules telling them exactly how to handle every situation.
Twenty years of gaming experience tells me that's a dangerous and frequently misguided assumption.
|
|
Go look up the paladin's code of conduct. Show me where it says that a paladin can't associate with evil characters.
Oh wait, it doesn't.
Technically, that is true.
It is under "Associates", not "Code of Conduct".
"While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."
|
|
Go look up the paladin's code of conduct. Show me where it says that a paladin can't associate with evil characters.
Oh wait, it doesn't.
Technically, that is true.
It is under "Associates", not "Code of Conduct".
"While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code. A paladin may accept only henchmen, followers, or cohorts who are lawful good."
Dammit. Stupid WOTC spreading the paladin's code of conduct over two entries. So, the minions of Chellix don't by their very nature as agents of devils offend her moral code?
God, it is really stupid to have character classes that force other people to change what they want to play. People are arguing that if you allow evil players, you can't have paladins. And that is somehow unfair to people who want to play paladins.
But the inverse is also true, if you let people play paladins, then you can't have evil characters. And that is equally unfair to people who want to play evil characters.
|
Uh, yeah. To repeat, the problem isn't the evil alignment. Those dimwit players who irresponsibly and childlishly use the excuse to do ridiculous things are the problem. Thus I would allow evil alignment, it'd settle that once and for all (also would open up more character possibilities!)
Furthermore, I'd make one house rule (oh my!) Erase the stupid code of conduct that restricts a paladin to be a sensible character. My dream would actually be to modify the alignment restriction to "any lawful", and just have the players create an equivalent class name, such as Crusader (LN), Templar, Blackguard, or Blood Knight.
Actually, a little aside from the topic to bring you a mind-boggling issue, that is completely legal under the rules of 3.5. A Chelish Paladin of Asmodeus is legal. Paladins are not restricted to a certain god, they can worship any, as long as they themselves are lawful good. Stupid, huh? Really, a paladin of Asmodeus. How cool is that?
|
|
You know, I was starting to be in agreement with Gailbraithe until Chris brought up the Paladin problem. Given that conundrum, it still is better to say "no Evil" for the sake of fairness.
But I do think the guidelines for fair play could use some spicing up, especially what the GM can do in such situations.
|
|
I haven't played or read the scenario you referred to, but your earlier posts seemed to suggest that they were simply in a hurry to get across the river (maybe they were late for their dinner?), and crept up on some poor unsuspecting fisherman, and slit his throat.
Your later posts seem to suggest that these guards are somehow willingly aligned with the villains, and the PCs need to get through them, to reach their boss, and prevent some evil plot.
There's a huge difference in the two situations.
It's not surprising that the consensus was that the PCs were acting evil, given the way the event was originally presented.
It's also very likely that most DMs would have no problem with the second event. If you throw in with criminals, you can't cry if you get hurt in the crossfire. I wouldn't waste a second thought on them, any more than I'd cry for the guests on Jabba the Hutt's Sail-Barge, as the fall into the Sarlacc Pit.
As the OP, I guess I should weigh in on the current discussion.
I'm adamantly opposed to Evil alignments being an option, for various reasons. Primary is that, to me, this is intended to be a game of heroes, even though some of those heroes may have some shady (i.e. Neutral) tendencies. This, I suppose, is one of the big reasons I questioned Cheliax being a faction in the first place. When the game ceases to be about heroes, I'll move on to something else. Second, the introduction of Evil alignment options opens up the organized play aspect to far more conflict than restricting Evil (which is a standard in every organized play campaign I've ever experienced.)
As for the outlined scenario, the "CN" character is acting Evil and I'd boot him from the game for violating PFS rules if such continued. Neutral characters have a concern for innocent life, and in general it's actually very easy to take down enemies without killing them (death is at -10 hp, after all). The Neutral character might resort to force before a Good character, but he should be just as reluctant to kill. Any group that goes around killing people randomly in my games finds itself in trouble with the local law (because normal people may fight, but they do not use deadly force unless absolutely necessary). This is exactly the way I DM at home as well as organized play, so I guess be forewarned if you're in any events I run.
Many good points have been made. I've read all of them. Some of them have given me ideas to chew on for version 1.2 of the guide book.
We will not, however, be allowing evil-aligned characters. This is a public OP group that will very often have teenagers (and younger) playing at tables with adult strangers and the behavior that evil alignments unleash in some players would do nothing more than destroy the brand we're trying to build in the eyes of those kids' parents.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
We will not be allowing evil-aligned characters. This is a public OP group that will very often have teenagers (and younger) playing at tables with adult strangers and the behavior that evil alignments unleash in some players would destroy the brand we're trying to build in the eyes of those kids' parents.
That makes perfect sense, Josh.
But how does it sync with people playing agents of House Thrune? Is that the kind of character background that parents will find okay?
|
Many good points have been made. I've read all of them. Some of them have given me ideas to chew on for version 1.2 of the guide book.
We will not, however, be allowing evil-aligned characters. This is a public OP group that will very often have teenagers (and younger) playing at tables with adult strangers and the behavior that evil alignments unleash in some players would do nothing more than destroy the brand we're trying to build in the eyes of those kids' parents.
Ok Although I have to ask If this is the argument against evil characters and the Pathfinder society is going to be using the final pathfinder rules. How can you justify no evil characters under these rules then at the same time allow a race that is born from Violence? (Ie most half-orcs being product of rape) I would say more parents would find the half-orc thing more offensive than the someone being evil one.
|
|
We will not, however, be allowing evil-aligned characters. This is a public OP group that will very often have teenagers (and younger) playing at tables with adult strangers and the behavior that evil alignments unleash in some players would do nothing more than destroy the brand we're trying to build in the eyes of those kids' parents.
That... indeed makes much much sense. Heck, I never viewed this issue from the public eye! No wonder. :P
|
|
We will not, however, be allowing evil-aligned characters. This is a public OP group that will very often have teenagers (and younger) playing at tables with adult strangers and the behavior that evil alignments unleash in some players would do nothing more than destroy the brand we're trying to build in the eyes of those kids' parents.
If that's the case, then why is Chellix a playable faction? I mean seriously Josh, their whole theme is perverse comingling of sex, violence and Satanism. I mean, basically you're encouraging people to play dominatrixs and other kid-unfriendly character archetypes, and then saying that there can't be evil characters because of the kids? Evil characters or not, I wouldn't introduce anyone under 16 to Golarion simply because of the constant references to BDSM fetsihes and sadomasochistic practices. I also wouldn't want to explain it to my mom. And I'm 32.
I sense that you have a pie, and are contemplating eating it and keeping it at the same time. I don't think you can do that.
Frankly, if you're not going to allow evil characters, then you shouldn't allow evil factions. As a loyal Andoran, I'm clearly biased, but I wouldn't mind seeing Chellix replaced with a faction slightly less totally-in-your-face-evil.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, here's my suggestion, free and worth every penny.
Instead of a "Cheliax" faction, how about a faction of people made up of Chelexians who are not particularly allied with House Thrune. These people could be all gung-ho "law yay!" people, who work with the devil-worshippers at times (as the best tools towards lawful ends), and against them at other times.
Their goal is to gain control of the great city Absalom, to then use it as a power base to force Cheliax away from Asmodeus.
Make them a distinct House in Cheliax.
To outsiders, they may indeed masquerade as loyal Chelexians. But among themselves, they're playing a deeper game. (This would make it okay to play someone who's actin' all gothy and "pretending" to be LE.) (It would also make it simpler to play a paladin in service to the faction.)
If you ran with this, it would even be possible to put the Darklight Sisterhood into play in an adventure, because the "Cheliax" faction would not be working towards the same purposes.
I think it would solve a multitude of problems.
|
|
One of the issues at hand, being the one of Paladins associating with non-evil agents of evil, is somewhat reduced by a point that Joshua already brought up: the factions are involved in a shadow war. Most Chelish Pathfinders are working under-cover and probably shouldn't be waving their Chelish flags in the Paladin's face.
As has been said, Paladins and evil characters don't mix. Paladins have detect evil as an at-will ability. Therefore, a Paladin can automatically tell if any of his associates are evil. Thus, if the Paladin were to participate in a scenario where he is supposed to be involved with evil characters the character would either have to withdraw (thus granting him no experience and rewards) or suffer a breach of his code of conduct (which would be rather harsh).
With all that in mind, since Paladins are one of the PC class choices in the PHB, I'd rather keep outright evil characters out of the game. Neutral characters who work for evil masters are alright and even then they shouldn't flaunt the fact that their masters are puppy-orphanage burning fiends.
|
|
In a game where you slaughter pretty much any opposition you face, the theme of Cheliax is the least thing to worry about. Seriously. The diabolical status has been exaggerated a bit, and I find it hard to draw a connection between "satanism" and fetishes all that fast.
And I could tell about factions to my mom with ease. And I'm 22.
The diabolical status has been exaggerated a bit, and I find it hard to draw a connection between "satanism" and fetishes all that fast.
Exaggerated? You mean in the published material, or in this thread? In the published material, I find the following:
The pale-skinned Chelaxians believe themelves superior to all other peoples. Their compact with great devils gives them power beyond measure, and no other nation of the Inner Sea can compete with their summoners when it comes to trafficking with dark forces. These devils require payment for their service, often offered up in the form of tender flesh and fresh blood. Slaves are an important resource of the Chelaxians, as are artifacts of ancient power whose secrets are revealed to them by their timeless patrons. Even as Andoran revels in its newfound freedom, the tendrils of Cheliax’s empire continue to expand. Arcadia lays open before them and Sargava is ready to fall under their hellish sway. The Inner Sea will fall with the rest as soon as Absalom rests firmly in the bloodied hands of House Thrune.
and...
Chelaxians plan to spread the dark influence of Asmodeus across the face of Golarion. They bring order to chaos, quell the troublesome concepts of freedom and self determination, and leave broken souls eager to accept the bondage of slavery in their wake. The world must come to terms with the order of things. Mortals serve at the knee of greater powers. The devils of the Nine Hells are Golarion’s natural overlords and if the rabble gathered along the coast of the Inner Sea can’t be made to understand this simple fact, then they will be purged in a torrent of fire.
and let's not forget...
Chelaxians are masters of seduction as well as pain. They bring their enemies to heel with promises of aid, riches, and glory, but keep them in line with cruel lashes and hellfire. The Cheliax faction wins others to its dark cause with temptation. Lust, power, riches, vanity, the Chelaxians offer all, and cater to the sinful nature in every man to bring him low. If a foe cannot be seduced, he must instead be scourged. Many missions of the Cheliax faction involve tempting upright people into darkness and vice, and then threatening to expose their sins unless they aid the empire as dutiful agents. The tricks of devils have claimed men’s souls since time immemorial and they serve the Chelaxians well in their quest for control of Absalom.
So, willingly dealing with devils, offering them bloody sacrifices and slaves as payment, in order to bring all mortals under the rule of the Nine Hells. And they accomplish this goal by exploiting the sinful nature of man, with faction missions aiming to cause Good people to fall. Let's not forget the faction leader, Zarta, who is implied to have murdered her father and possibly brother...
Zarta paints the veneer of a cultured aristocratic lady on her outside, especially when appearing on official Chelish business (her cover role in Absalom is that of a diplomatic envoy), but the promise of soul-blasting sin is an ever present dance her sultry eyes, and the orgies of excess she holds at her private villa are legendary affairs that most scorn with curses, even as they secretly yearn for an invitation.
Ah, reveling in sin and orgies of excess. Good stuff. Nope, I don't see anything diabolical at all here...
On a re-read, my response might be taken as more condescending than the tongue-in-cheek tone I'm shooting for...
Deussu, definitely not meant as a personal attack against you--just pointing out the obvious connections between Cheliax and diabolism. Fetishism is certainly not an automatic indicator of involvement with diabolical forces, though it does present a secondary item that parents/some players might find troubling.
|
|
Seems like you beat me to it. :) I can't really say no to that. Okay, so they are inherently superevil with human sacrifices, blood, diabolical things and succubuses with boobs all over the place!
A contradiction, sure. Gawd, I really think they should just scrap this alignment system altogether to remove all these nonsense problems.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm not sure that D&D's alignment system, per se, is the problem here. Do you want your daughter gaming with adult strangers trying to roleplay that Hellfire-and-sex-parties affiliation?
Vampire LARPs have a lot of those trappings, too, but they're clearly marketted to adults.
Hi Chris!,
I agree with your proposed 'solution' to reconciling the Cheliax Faction with PFS's non-Evil requirement and Paladins:
Making them non-Evil (Neutral or Good), but still motivated from a Chelish-nationalist perspective (they don't have a problem with Chelish dominance, only the current REGIME of Cheliax).
Some of such a group's interests may well coincide with those of the dominant Cheliax regime, but in other ways they would diverge. And while they may share SOME interests with Factions OPPOSED to the Chelish regime, they equally would oppose others, since they're still "looking out for #1", Cheliax (well, and themselves, as the saying goes).
This seems like a position ripe with role-play potential, intrigue, and more generally compatable with the premise of the PFS, that different characters within a Pathfinder party may have differing allegiances which they pursue, but which shouldn't rise to the point of major inter-character conflict.
If a Cheliax Faction character were even still an Asmodeus worshipper/ Cleric (LN) or Devil Binder (which I presume we'll see as a Paizo-fied PrC at some point), it could be emphasized how there are actually Devils who are also working against the Diabolist State, though for their own nefarious reasons, of course...
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
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.
As someone who has judged at least 300 rounds of organized play events, I'd say the player was ok until he went for the coup de grace. I mean, he's being a bit of a dick, but it's within the bounds of acceptable behavior in the game. You can't really justify murdering the guards, though, at least not in my book.
So the player says, "I'm going to do this," and I might, as the judge, say "Ok, but you need to know that I am going to consider that an evil act." Further, I would tell the other players that "looking the other way" while they know this is about to happen would also be an evil act.
I would then calmly ask the players if they are sure that they want to do this, and then let play proceed as it will. You are the GM. It doesn't matter if the players are cool with this, it matters if you are cool with it.
Sure, some players are not going to like that, and will probably avoid playing with you again at conventions and stuff. But that's no different than how players avoid any judge they don't like, either because of stuff like this or because of body odor, inability to roleplay, personal issues outside of gaming, etc.
While you are the GM, you get to decide what is an isn't evil.
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.
This is, of course, an option. We've all made compromises in our play style or played with people we don't necessarily love because it was slim pickings for other players in our area.
In this case I actually think the large nature of the Pathfinder Society campaign helps you, as it should be a lot easier to find other PFS players at a convention, game day, or retail store than it would to find other gamers for some random campaign.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
The campaign will never allow evil-aligned characters.
As it is, there are a few douchebags who try to push things too far and cause arguments at the table. If we open the floodgates, all the game will ever be is a continuous argument about what is and isn't evil, and that's not the point.
No evil characters.
Ever.
Period.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I agree, but there are too many douchebags in the world for us to allow it. Allowing people to play evil makes problem players out of players who otherwise would not be problematic.
The rule is not aimed at the guys who will "play evil" no matter what their alignment is or no matter what we say. There will be those people, to be sure.
This rule is aimed at limiting the problem so that it does not come up with a frequency that makes the campaign unfun for people who don't enjoy arguments or theoretical alignment discussions in the middle of a dungeon crawl.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Fair enough, Erik.
But this thread began with a concern that the Cheliax faction goals, and their descriptions, describe either inherently evil actions, or else actions taken to further the aims of an evil organization.
Up above, I described the Cheliax faction as "all Hellfire and sex orgies", and I guess I'll stand by that.
Whatever people write down for their character's alignment, some of the faction goals are working towards evil ends.
|
|
Chris, as a member of the Cheliax Faction, I denounce this misconception that all we do is hellfire and sex orgies. We also plot world domination, go to houses and rearrange the furniture and sell cookies to raise funds on the side.
Evil should be handled by those mature enough to use it. Besides, evil acts can readily be done by good people.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey, Radaval, it's great to see you, and thanks for chiming in.
If you wouldn't mind being put on the spot: I see by your profile that you're playing a LN member of the Cheliax faction. That makes sense to me, as I'd imagine a Lawful Neutral character could get behind virtually all of the House Thrune agenda.
But have you seen any good-aligned Chelexians at any table you've played? How has that worked out? Has anyone ever voluntarily taken a pass at a faction mission for ethical reasons?
Oh, and for the record, I agree with you (and with tbug, on the previous page) that good people can do evil acts, so far as they do more good acts. But someone who does evil, as a habit, is evil, and out of the campaign.
Several of the Cheliax missions have definite sinister overtones, and Josh has already given permission to edit the mission in Silent Tide.
One of my concerns is that someone who continues to perform missions for the Paracountess will be advancing an evil organization --which is, on its face, an evil thing to do-- and will become evil, despite what it says on his or her character sheet. And we kick out evil characters. And it seems unfair to kick a character out for supporting his faction too enthusiastically.
|
|
This quote is from the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting:
"Despite the government’s promotion of devil worship and other infernal influences, the common folk continue living their lives much as they have for centuries. Unlike in the past, though, they also mainly live in fear. Most of the major gods remain popular, although every Chelaxian at least pretends to primarily worship Asmodeus, and every house, cottage, and rented room contains a small shrine or holy symbol of the devil-god.
"The official, state-sanctioned worship of Asmodeus and the constant appearance of devils across Cheliax barely concern most citizens outside of the cities, many of whom live their entire lives without seeing a devil of any kind. As the years pass, the sentimental longing of Cheliax’s citizens for the way things were before the rise of the infernal order ever decreases. Most citizens alive today know only Cheliax as a willing thrall of Hell, and while many do not care for the infernal regime, very few ever openly complain about it, much less act against it."
This shows it is the government of Cheliax that is evil, and not all of the citizens. An evil person can command a good citizen to do his bidding for the good of Cheliax. This is how you can have non-evil PCs from Cheliax in the Pathfinders Society.
I don't think anyone would question that a player can have a Good character from Cheliax. Indeed an early poster on this thread noted that the best model for a halfling paladin might be a Chelaxian that escaped into Andoran territory.
The harder question is whether a character, specifically a paladin but somewhat all Good characters in general, can be a member of the Cheliax faction and willingly participate in faction missions that obviously support an Evil cause.
|
|
Asmodeus only takes willing worshippers. In fact I am sure some have to plead to be graced by his divine wisdom. In fact the charm of Cheliax is the gusto they embrace the provider of their material success.
If it is hard for the good aligned player characters to complete their missions then it will be reflected in the achievements of their cabal.
|
|
From "Embracing Evil" by Topher Kersting:
How do you run a successful evil campaign?
1. Most monsters do not care about alignment. Most encounters do not need to be rewritten to fit an evil party.
2. Write alignment neutral plot hooks. Wealth is the easiest motivator for most parties, good or evil.
3. Set ground rules on how far evil can go in your game. Speaks for itself I think.
4. Let the party solve their own personnel problems. Regardless of dominant alignment of the party, the players should encourage each other to make characters that conform.
5. Give the party options.
6. Punish Stupidity. Evil doesn't mean stupid anymore than chaotic means crazy.
What a DM should expect from a player character playing an evil PC?
1. Just like a Good PC, an Evil PC should have a purpose.
2. Don't kill without a reason. Profit, of course, is sufficient reason for killing for an Evil PC.
3. Develop common goals for the party.
4. Don't be a Jerk.
Most parties are evil whether they admit it or not, evil parties are more honest about it, and honesty is a good thing, right?
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.As someone who has judged at least 300 rounds of organized play events, I'd say the player was ok until he went for the coup de grace. I mean, he's being a bit of a dick, but it's within the bounds of acceptable behavior in the game. You can't really justify murdering the guards, though, at least not in my book.
So the player says, "I'm going to do this," and I might, as the judge, say "Ok, but you need to know that I am going to consider that an evil act." Further, I would tell the other players that "looking the other way" while they know this is about to happen would also be an evil act.
I would then calmly ask the players if they are sure that they want to do this, and then let play proceed as it will. You are the GM. It doesn't matter if the players are cool with this, it matters if you are cool with it.
Sure, some players are not going to like that, and will probably avoid playing with you again at conventions and stuff. But that's no different than how players avoid any judge they don't like, either because of stuff like this or because of body odor, inability to roleplay, personal issues outside of gaming, etc.
While you are the GM, you get to decide what is an isn't evil.
This is, of course, an option. We've all made compromises in our play style or played with...
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.
The Pathfinder Society is an espionage chronicle. A shadow war for the soul of a city can be described as little else. The simple truth is that such a setting demands grey scale relativist morality rather than the traditional black and white of most DnD games.
I am something of a believer in relative morality. It adds a great deal of maturity and texture to a game on the whole.
While killing the two people is considered wrong under most conditions, there are many conditions under which many people would consider it legitimate. For instance, if you kill two men in an ambush during a war, it would usually be considered that the situation mitigated the fact that what you had just done was horribly amoral in other circumstances.
So what are the Circumstances for characters in the pathfinder sociaty? They are agents of their homeland or a nation they feel an affinity too. They are engaged in an active cold war. The fate of nations and their own survival rely on the choices that they make. It is reasonable to believe that a Chaotic Good andoran agent might kill those two guards and steal the boat, if it where the only way to ensure that hundreds of people are not killed and that he can maintain his cover, so that he can continue to do everything in his power to advance the goals of democracy in a world of kings. Being good, he will choose almost any other route first and will avoid making a habit of such actions, and undoubtedly will be wracked by guilt for some time.
In many way, killing an entire nest of goblins is a considerable more evil act, if the motivation is 'we are getting paid for this.', yet how often does an average D'n'D group bat an eyelid at killing of some goblins, when offered some GP for the job?
I think excluding Evil characters from the setting is a mistake, I really do, but if you are to continue with an espionage based campaign and plan to continue restricting evil character, please issue guidelines on morality which are in keeping with the themes which you have set up for the game. I hope at some point to get involved with the pathfinder society, and to be honest, getting into an argument with a DM, because our personal view on what is moral differ does not appeal to me.
On a connected note: If you are playing a paladin, and a mission for you faction breaks from your code, don't perform it. It is a good opportunity to take the high ground, after all, internal moral conflict, between what is expedient and what is good should be one of the great foundations of the paladin.
I am somewhat surprised at the comments by Paizo staffers about how it is easy to eliminate "evil" characters from the gaming table.
I agree a lot with Gailbraithe's and Zombies'... statements.
I must be dealing with a strange subculture, but the 4 gaming groups I have played in over the past 10 years tend toward the evil, much to my chagrin.
When I first began playing dungeons and dragons, I insisted on playing a LG Paladin. But that proved impossible... even with a group of CG, NG, CG, TN characters. They kept unnecessarily beheading innocent people, and looting buildings, and threatening to kill people. I tried to "look the other way" but just got frustrated since frankly, my character by rights should have left the adventuring group.
But, I would rather play than abandon the group and the GM kept "DM fiatting" terrible things to happen to my character since he was annoyed my character would whine every time the group wanted to "interrogate" a prisoner and then kill it even when they could obviously hand the character over to the magistrate. So I dropped the paladin's code and picked up a LG ranger. That did not work either. The amount of pure evil acts the CG players were committing was simply atrocious in the name of "getting things done so the right result is reached".
For my own ability to be true to roleplaying, the only characters I could honestly play with my group were LN and CN characters, so I did that, and played some interesting characters exploring a full spectrum of difference and diversity in those ranges. But still, that's not what I wanted to play.
In defense of fun, I became a GM. I do not permit evil characters and strongly discourage CN characters since most people cannot play them well. Still, I have a difficult time defusing "chaotic" stupidity. My main gaming group has shrunk to 3 people from 7, since we kicked out most of the "chaotic stupid" people (the first one to go was the one who REFUSED to come up with a character motivation beyond "I want power"... He apparently never grew out of elementary school- He said he was basing his motivation on some anime character... I countered with "Heavens, even Hitler and Stalin had more than a one-dimensional goal of 'I want power'", that didn't seem to convince him otherwise, so we waved goodbye), but there is something missing these days, the table is smaller and the games less involved. Perhaps we should recruit new people - but most of the dnd players I know prefer to play World of Warcraft/8 Bit Theatre style, burn the town, kill everyone.
That being said, a good GM can often defuse situations by simply having bad things happen to characters who INSIST on being evil. But those players get annoyed that they can't play the character the way they want, and then they get in a huff and leave the table- which is generally not fun for everyone else involved.
The low-point in one game was a 30 minute+ argument we had over whether a NG character could act true to his alignment despite killing an innocent nymph and stealing her treasures since he was of the opinion that doing so would allow him to "get stronger" to battle the BBEG, and the nymph was being "annoying", and that he was serving the "greater good", despite the fact that the worst offense the nymph did was insult him and play some tricks. That player also no longer has a place at the table.
-----
To defuse some of the obvious "evil" bent of my main group, I convinced another guy to run 1 high level "evil" session a year. Oddly enough, the group committed LESS atrocities playing that "evil" session than when they were good... I never quite understood that, and neither did they.
(My Highpoint in that game was, as a LE 19th Level Warlock/Soul binder?? prestige class, intimidating an Angel sent to kill me because I made a pact with a Devil (As part of prestige class reqs). I basically kept the Angel talking, did a divination combined with some screwy items I had, found the location of his next of kin, pointed that out to him and said well "I could fight you and kill you, but there is no purpose really- I haven't actually HURT anyone undeserving yet.
"The question is, will you preemptively punish me because I associate with evil creatures who you have a racist hate for (devils)? How is that justice? Justice would be a fine, perhaps imprisonment. I can pay a fine (although it may be mob-like extortion), but cannot trust racists such as yourself who seek to kill rather than imprison people who transgress your ILLEGAL and racist laws.
"And if you fail to kill me, then I am sorry, but I will have to slaughter your entire family, since that will increase deterrence against another of your ilk stalking me. I frankly do not have time for angels harassing me when I am in the midst of special projects that do not harm them, nor concern them in any fashion. I have no wish to confront you, and I do not slaughter any save those who are evil." The angel flew away...
(My character basically THOUGHT he was LN, but because he, like The Punisher, enforced vigilante justice and was borderline insane, ended up being LE more often than not. Still, I managed to play a LE creature that never once killed when he was not "forced" to. That's what I think LE players in Golarion should be able to do- I can understand forbidding NE and CE, but LE characters really aren't as 'evil' per se. They just are extremely selfish LN characters who believe they are above the law, or who follow harmful/racist laws--think Miko from Order of the Stick. She does not want to practice 'evil' per se, she just tends to effect evil acts after she "falls" from paladinhood because of her ego and lack of respect for others' rights to live and self-actualize.) Regrettably, the people I played with had much narrower motivations and views of "evil." Theirs is more of the kicking puppies variety.
----
I assumed my experiences were a common experience among DnD players. I must say, I am glad for Paizo's sake that Paizo's games are more RP-conscious, but I fear that the majority of their consumers' experiences are closer to mine than theirs and can understand other players' concerns with the way Cheliax is presented.
|
|
I keep my groups away from evil acts with one simple tool, Reputation. Having an NPC disturbed by the party's bloodthirsty actions, in a way, holds a mirror up to the players. The fact of the matter is no matter if the actions are performed by a fiendish mastermind or a noble protector evil acts often have one thing in common. They are easy. It is easy to kill the giant after capturing and questioning him but it is hard to figure out what to do with a giant that will be left alive. Will the enemy left breathing end up a detriment to the party and their friends later on? This involves some work and planning to avoid returning repercussions. That is why players often do evil things. Also in the case of irritating nymphs the game or PCs are often not equipped to deal with such situation. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
|
|
A situation that came up during play. The scenario in question was The Frozen Fingers of Midnight:
Now, said character has an alignment of True Neutral. At least that's what his character sheet says. In my opinion this kind of behavior is clearly evil. The problem is that there really is no in-game or off-game mechanic that deals with this kind of thing. It is not possible to penalize the player or the character for what he has done. There is no continuity, so no follow-up on the repercussions of committing bloody murder. There is no way for the other characters to respond to this kind of behavior that does not violate the no PvP -rule. The same scene has a time limit that activates if the situation gets messy. I recall that it was something like 1d4 minutes or some such. However, the scenario does not describe what happens when the time's up. Are the offenders arrested automatically and sentenced to life in prison? Do they get away with a warning? What happens if the perpetrators decide to fight the guards or try to escape?
In my opinion there needs to be some kind of mechanic in place for in-game law and order, that would enable the DM confronted with any of the described scenarios in a consistent and fair way. This goes especially for scenarios set in large cities like Absalom or Oppara. There should be in-game repercussions for murder, even in D&D.
|
|
Navdi, following on from your point, the D&D alignment system is made moot by the fact that there is no consensus within the rules as to what constitutes a good/evil/lawful/chaotic act except for some very broad guidelines. Since D&D has no mechanical representation of alignment (such as those featured in many World of Darkness games) all matters of alignment are up to DM fiat. This becomes even more problematic within organized play campaigns, since players will go through many tables with many different DMs, who might all have different ideas on what constitutes good and evil.
This is why I'd like to see some sort of guidelines for DMs in the society for adjudicating alignment. Maybe just have a sidebar in the scenario which lists "21 ways for your Paladin to breach his code during this scenario" and be sure to remind the players of the repercusions of their actions. With that said, these guidelines should provide enough of a grey area where certain actions aren't explicitly good or evil. Going off a note by Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, the choice shouldn't be between Mother Theresa and baby-eater. All I'm saying is that even Mother Theresa must get a little peckish now and then...