|
If we are just talking about an evil act, then the character was a little evil. Heck, if the bad guy was obviously evil, and the character repaid him in kind, it may not even be an evil act so much as just not a good act.
If you are talking about someone acting consistently evil through a whole scenario, well, that is a problem. Josh has said before, though, that rather than tracking anything like this, he would rather you just tell the player that they are becoming evil, and they need to stop their current trend, right now.
If they do something so evil that the authorities would get involved, Josh has also said that if a Pathfinder agent does something so bad and evil that they need to be arrested by a legitimate authority, then its the same as the character dying.
I guess the point is, there is no ongoing tracking for this sort of thing. If its disruptive, then you should warn them, but give them a chance to change their behavior, and if they keep it up, then you gave them their warning.
Still, I think you really need to be careful with something like this, making sure that the character isn't just a hard ass or a one that pushes the boundaries without being full on evil before you get on them too much.
The main reason evil is prohibited is so that the character is at least somewhat bound by some kind of code to help motivate the character, and most importantly, so that the player doesn't have any reason or excuse to use alignment as a reason to act out against other PCs or NPCs that might be important. If its not a problem with one of these, I wouldn't worry too much.
|
If they do something so evil that the authorities would get involved, Josh has also said that if a Pathfinder agent does something so bad and evil that they need to be arrested by a legitimate authority, then its the same as the character dying.
To me, killing a presumably defenceless person in cold blood (ie what the PC apparently did) is exactly the kind of thing that local authorities tend to frown on.
|
I'm inclined to agree with K.E.jr on this subject.
I don't look at it as an issue of "evil acts" or trying to determine if something was naughty enough to move some subjective 'evil meter'. These things tend to lead into greater arguments about what is and isn't evil, which then always leads into the argument about where morality comes from, and then things get really heated.
Instead I look around and try to gauge how the rest of the players at the table feel. Are they enjoying themselves? Are they aghast by the deed? Are they apathetic? It's my job to make sure my players are enjoying themselves. If a PC starts executing prisoners and other players object, then I will intervene and inform the player perhaps the Society would not condone such actions and he may lose their favor if he persists. Between the lines I will try to push him/her away from whatever act is going to upset the other players at the table. Keep in mind there's a huge difference between an upset player and an upset PC.
Before I get too long-winded, I'll just say that as long as the players are having fun, "go nuts". Anyone who's played PFS in quantity knows that factions will call upon PCs to perform "morally questionable" acts from time-to-time. Those missions are some of the most popular ones out there, too. Players love to misbehave, and it's even better when their actions are sanctioned by a government.
I'll also add that I have never audited a player's Chronicle sheets. I've run over 100 PFS tables now. Unless that player were to draw my attention to his Chronicle notation, I would never catch it if he was playing at my table.
Finally, I'll remind everyone that PFS is a morally gray campaign, not a heroic campaign. Many GMs experienced with LG have been conditioned to stamp out 'evil acts' when these are actually part of the PFS campaign flavor.
In closing, I'll throw in a trite "YMMV" so you know I'm only speaking for myself here :)
|
I feel that this kind of leeway makes matters of alignment useless, serving only as rules' restrictions with zero weight on how PCs behave.
How would you deal with a paladin who commits such an act if other players enjoy it ?
The problem with trying to track a character's alignment is that you are only seeing a snapshot of that character.
Even Lawful Good characters can occasionally be called upon to perform evil or chaotic acts (or at least relatively evil or relatively chaotic acts) when working towards the greater good.
It's really up to the character to "not cheat".
I've had my character walk away from a party that I felt was acting contrary to what my character would do. Fortunately for me, my character was holding the mcguffin at the time, so the party was somewhat forced to get back in line. I'm saying this to point out that I'm not cheering for evil paladins (though the Paracountess would no doubt welcome them with open legs, err arms).
Unless there is a consistent way to fairly track alignment throughout a character's career, doing so based upon one incident is simply a wasted exercise. As the original poster pointed out, the character performed his act behind closed doors, so as far as any observers would know, he challenged the deceased to an honorable duel and won. (I know he didn't, but as far as they knew, he could have). If the character killed was evil, then the act was probably morally neutral. (How many parties of Living Greyhawk characters kill goblins without bothering to assess their motives? Why is a human or elf due more consideration before labeling an act evil?)
As KEJR points out, pathfinders aren't boy scouts. They aren't heroes. They are adventurers. Picture Indiana Jones, and his nemesis Bellog. Both are adventurers. Both would be welcomed in the Society. Neither one is particularly honorable. (What Indy did in taking artifacts from tombs would be severely frowned upon today.) Do your players a favor and worry less about their alignment, and more about whether they are enjoying the game.
|
|
I feel that this kind of leeway makes matters of alignment useless, serving only as rules' restrictions with zero weight on how PCs behave.
How would you deal with a paladin who commits such an act if other players enjoy it ?
That's completely different, from a rules perspective. A paladin that violates their alignment or their code "falls," and their fallen status is only cleared if they have an atonement cast on them.
Similarly, if you are talking about a cleric that violates their religion or a druid, those are conditions that need to be cleared, and can be marked on a character sheet.
However, a fighter that is LN edging towards LE isn't a condition that has any mechanical effect on the character, as so long as he is only "edging" and not going full bore, its not really an issue.
|
|
When I was running Sniper in the Deep Sunday at GenCon, I had a player in the Cheliax faction perform an overtly evil act. Here is what happened:
- They encountered bad guy.
- They started fighting him.
- Cheliax-boy casts Chart Person and it succeeds.
- The party stops fighting.
- They get the info they need from Bad Guy.
- Cheliax-boy takes Bad Guy to another room, where he performs a faction quest and then outright kills Bad Guy.I told him that this moved his meter towards Evil, and I noted it on his Scenario Log. How are we supposed to deal with it? Let's say another GM notices the note, and then he performs another evil act, and decided that Cheliax-boy's alignment is now Lawful Evil during the scenario. What happens to the character? Do you kick him out right there? Do you finish out the scenario and then alert Pathfinder Society people and de-activate the character?
To your last point in the scene description, was the Bad Guy's name Larro?
I think there's two things to keep straight here.
First is that we're talking about Society restrictions--and like the "being able to buy four suits of armor from the one dead guy" rule they aren't there to be realistic. They are there so folks feel comfortable dropping off their 12 year old at a public game without fearing they'll be witness to (or a participant in) baby-eating monstrocities. It's not a real game rule--it's a public image rule--and should be enforced accordingly. It's like the (admittedly sorta' dumb) LARP rule that if you have a weapon at a game that it's supposed to be represented by a recipe card that says "gun" on it. It's so people don't freak out and call the cops, boycott the gamestore, or whatever.
In other words having PCs in a Pathfinder Society game that are evil is just fine--as long as they aren't "evil". In Pathfinder Society you might call this Neutral+. They don't hack people apart and eat them, they don't sacrifice goatskulls to el diablo, they don't listen to Marilyn Manson.
Or basically this: If Nick Logue would do it--it's probably too much for a public run game of Pathfinder. Save it for the home group. Otherwise, just wink and call it Neutral+.
Or basically this: If Nick Logue would do it--it's probably too much for a public run game of Pathfinder.
QFT
Sorry, Nick.