I don't mind stories where good and evil work together to defeat a greater evil. But it should always be portrayed as an alliance of expediency, and an alternative should be provided, no matter how prohibitively difficult it is.
This is my sentiment as well. Taloone Puts it more eloquently than myself. In fact, choices are what make an adventure a great adventure. I don't mind the dilemma of choice between good and evil. That's always fun to run as a DM and see what the PCs will do. But when the evil alternative is present (and assumed to be the course of action by the author) and the good is not, that sours it for me.
...
I'm curious, though, to find out if the worry that we put too much evil in our adventures is shared by others? Again... the grittier adventures and elements we produce generally get good reviews and good sales, so I feel pretty justified in presenting these more mature, edgier products and adventures, but if folks...
I think the OP's complaint isn't about the amount of evil, so much as having to do a deal with the devil has become too common a plot device in the APs.
At this point, a straight forward G rated "let's go do some good" AP would be a change of pace. That doesn't mean you can't include flawed and interesting NPCs, evil bad guys, etc. It just means that a major story point won't depend on allying with them.
Regarding your concern of too much evil in the adventures -- Sure the bad guys have to be bad. Sometimes I think you're a bit too explicit, but that's my personal preference and another thread topic.
|
well...
i myself like my tories with their dark and shades as the enxt guy... but one point is true...
sometimes it becomes too repetitive...
if every story ends with such a ploy... then it slowly becomes boring, after all, you know how the story is going to end...
but marketing i understand... there is a trend for anti-heroes and and antipathy for the goody-two shoes heroes (anyone remembers ALL the threads complaining about the paladin being LG or having a code? there is such a whining that the code was changed so good can made a comprosime for evil)
but all in all... certianly rememebr we are not playing D&D anymore... D&D is an heroic game... no one says Pathfinder should be an heroic game!
but its not grim & gritty either, it has its dark aspects... Korvosa is pretty dark, but many other places are nice, pretty place with some shades of dark surrounding it. (Magnimar and underbridge ah and yes... the usual abuse of rich on the poor... even when LG paladin commands the guard...)
but yes... usually taking the path to evil is shown as easier, actually just being good and doing the good thing doesn't work on Pathfinder APs (it does work in some modules)
the question... so... if a player wants to follow the path of virtue, then he/she will be punished because they didn't compromise their mroal values?
the more common example is RotTL
so certianly... it would be nice to have an option... a possility to walk the hard path to complete the goal... when you present that the ONLY way to defeat evil is by joining EVIL, you just give no more options than that... so certianly a secundary option for doing it while following a good path would be very welcome... then its the DM and players choise what to take...
anyway even the computer games who let you be the bad guys also has the option to be the good guy in the first place, taing the hard options, doing the hardest, sacrificing yourself for the good of all others without compromising your ideals completely, its harder but there should be the option.
I've always thought that an interesting adventure path would be a group of PCs trying to accomplish something great -- rather than forestalling or preventing something horrible.
Instead of stopping the rise of a runelord or the a new age of worms, how about a series of adventures based on the effort to free a trapped "Merlin"?
Or a series where the PCs are helping an epic-level NPC -- and essentially good NPC -- achieve demigod status?
The stakes would be just as high -- and the evil guys just as motivated to stop the PCs -- but it sort of reverses the paradigm a little.
--Marsh
I like it.
|
|
How exactly does one define an evil act? Is an evil act that saves the lives of thousands really an evil act? Morality never has and never will be a grey area...both in RL and in games. I would argue that a paladin that is told "kill this innocent child or i will raze your city" who didn't do it would be considered evil.
I'm reminded of a something that occured during the holocaust (or was in a movie at least). A jewish man is brought into the camps with his family is told to spit on the torah or a member of his family will be killed. they repeat the challenge and he refuses...right up until it's his life that's threatened. While it would have been an affront to his deity to spit on the book from the start, the fact that he let his entire family be slaughtered (only to later save himself) is far more evil.
You are now $0.02 richer.
[snark]…but you don't get XPs for building things.[/snark]
Pages are precious, and I don't see this being something Paizo can commit to doing in the APs. What could be a possibility is something along the lines of the Players Guide to X. You could have Customising X Guide containing some brainstorming on how to rewrite parts of X to get around certain combinations of players / characters / parties.
Pages ARE precious, but so is a good experience. To me, the unspoken "You don't *have* to take it, we just want to detail what happens if you do" mindset that appears to take the place of explicit explanations is a gaping hole. It is there, and I know you never have to run ANYTHING a written, but when you do purchase something you do expect that reasonable alternatives are actually discussed and not implied. At this point, the onus is on the GM to provide the interesting moral quandaries that such choices should include by default. No, you don't have to ally with or cooperate with evil, but what are the alternatives? Very often, there is a lot that can be said of a character for the choices they make, and the writer can say a lot by presenting different choices as well.
As you're already advocating the expenditure of additional monies with Guides, I say why not just change up the format, charge a bit more per-issue, and give a better treatment to individual lines. As a customer, buying a product and then having to buy ANOTHER product to handle something that should be within the first product's scope is a sure-fire turn off. If I buy a product that has 30% material I might not use, at least the content is there to complete the cycle and it provides an alternative should my group jump the shark and go in a totally unforeseen direction.
[snark]…but you don't get XPs for building things.[/snark]
So, GM Fiat, grant XP for building things. See, its that simple!
|
|
well...
i myself like my tories with their dark and shades as the enxt guy... but one point is true...
sometimes it becomes too repetitive...
if every story ends with such a ploy... then it slowly becomes boring, after all, you know how the story is going to end...
but marketing i understand... there is a trend for anti-heroes and and antipathy for the goody-two shoes heroes (anyone remembers ALL the threads complaining about the paladin being LG or having a code? there is such a whining that the code was changed so good can made a comprosime for evil)
but all in all... certianly rememebr we are not playing D&D anymore... D&D is an heroic game... no one says Pathfinder should be an heroic game!
but its not grim & gritty either, it has its dark aspects... Korvosa is pretty dark, but many other places are nice, pretty place with some shades of dark surrounding it. (Magnimar and underbridge ah and yes... the usual abuse of rich on the poor... even when LG paladin commands the guard...)
but yes... usually taking the path to evil is shown as easier, actually just being good and doing the good thing doesn't work on Pathfinder APs (it does work in some modules)
the question... so... if a player wants to follow the path of virtue, then he/she will be punished because they didn't compromise their mroal values?
the more common example is RotTL
so certianly... it would be nice to have an option... a possility to walk the hard path to complete the goal... when you present that the ONLY way to defeat evil is by joining EVIL, you just give no more options than that... so certianly a secundary option for doing it while following a good path would be very welcome... then its the DM and players choise what to take...
anyway even the computer games who let you be the bad guys also has the option to be the good guy in the first place, taing the hard options, doing the hardest, sacrificing yourself for the good of all others without compromising your ideals completely, its harder but there should be the option.
|
I guess I am nothing but a bored white kid Sith fanboi tired of playing goody 2-shoes. I find morally ambiguous campaigns far more engaging than something black and white.
Let's kill some more orcs.
Why?
'cause they're evil. No one knows why, they just are.
i doubt youve ever played a real goody 2 shoes< most sith lovers act like they ve played THOUSANDS of paladins so there DM will get off their back for wanting to play a Neutral evil ranger. It sound more like you have a weak DM who just throws the Bestiary at you and expounds upon nothing. I dont blame you for your viewpoint if villagers are just as wicked (or personality-less) as the orcs. in my games most villagers are trying to just survive and dont really mean anyone real harm. Orcs on the otherhand have as much empathy as brains and love to inflict bodily pain and death on everything not born an orc!(in general, there are definitely tribes that break the norm) butchering unarmed defenseless peaceful people is not a "lifestyle choice" or "matter what their point of view is" its just wrong in any world.
come to the light side, we dont stab each other in the back, AND cookies!
I guess I am nothing but a bored white kid Sith fanboi tired of playing goody 2-shoes. I find morally ambiguous campaigns far more engaging than something black and white.
Let's kill some more orcs.
Why?
'cause they're evil. No one knows why, they just are.
Hey CF, not picking on you or your response--wanted to note that up front--but this is a great illustration of "black and white" being improperly understood/portrayed. For a "good" person to go and kill a bunch of creatures just because "they're evil" does not actually work, in my world at least. It's Neutral at best, and more likely Evil, because that person is displaying no respect for life. If one kills orcs indiscriminately and without mercy, then that person is no better than the orcs (and thus by his own standard deserves to be killed...).
I think if properly written a "Good" AP would be far more challenging than a "shades of grey" AP because you can't just lie, kill, and steal your way through the modules to gain power and defeat the boss.
[snark]…but you don't get XPs for building things.[/snark]
But they should, if building things is a challenge worthy of XP...
|
|
As you're already advocating the expenditure of additional monies with Guides, I say why not just change up the format, charge a bit more per-issue, and give a better treatment to individual lines. As a customer, buying a product and then having to buy ANOTHER product to handle something that should be within the first product's scope is a sure-fire turn off.
Just to note I actually intended to refer to the free players guides for some of the APs. I envisaged this customisation guide as a 1 page JJ or SKR or whomever brain-dump of options. Something Paizo could put out if there was enough demand that it would increase AP sales but without having to alter how the APs are written.
How exactly does one define an evil act? Is an evil act that saves the lives of thousands really an evil act? Morality never has and never will be a grey area...both in RL and in games. I would argue that a paladin that is told "kill this innocent child or i will raze your city" who didn't do it would be considered evil.
I'm reminded of a something that occured during the holocaust (or was in a movie at least). A jewish man is brought into the camps with his family is told to spit on the torah or a member of his family will be killed. they repeat the challenge and he refuses...right up until it's his life that's threatened. While it would have been an affront to his deity to spit on the book from the start, the fact that he let his entire family be slaughtered (only to later save himself) is far more evil.
You are now $0.02 richer.
I disagree.
In the case of the paldin I think you're confusing morality with PR. Sure, his reputation will suffer for choosing the child, but that's how others will view him. As long as he chooses not to kill for the sake of the child, he has made the "good" choice. The villain is evil.
In your story of the Jewish man, he is fataly flawed. We can see how he truly prioritizes his values. Self, God, family. In game terms, he might be neutral. I fear he will not be well-rewarded in the afterlife. I fear I too would fail such a test.
|
|
How exactly does one define an evil act? Is an evil act that saves the lives of thousands really an evil act? Morality never has and never will be a grey area...both in RL and in games. I would argue that a paladin that is told "kill this innocent child or i will raze your city" who didn't do it would be considered evil.
I'm reminded of a something that occured during the holocaust (or was in a movie at least). A jewish man is brought into the camps with his family is told to spit on the torah or a member of his family will be killed. they repeat the challenge and he refuses...right up until it's his life that's threatened. While it would have been an affront to his deity to spit on the book from the start, the fact that he let his entire family be slaughtered (only to later save himself) is far more evil.
You are now $0.02 richer.
no that guy was just a selfish jerk... he protected his soul not his faith... but when his life was threateend he protected his life not his soul... he was just a coward runt, not a true follower of his religion
as they say... when we take the easy path it all becomes so easy... just justify it... so we kill the kid and become worst because of that... how many times have such things presented themselves either in movies, fiction and reality...
give me that eprson... kill that eprson... deliver me that artifact...
yes there is a posibility of failure... but surrendering to evil just because its easier its wrong... its not just about the tennets of not killing an innocent.. is about showing the people that is a higher path, that is why being a paladin is so difficult, its not only acting with the best of interest... but beign a beacon , an example, is to teach through action.
that is why I like about Iomedae... her doctrine is that you won't take the easy path, you won't compromise your values to get the right done... that doesn't just eman that you would not butcher every inhuman race because they are supposedly evil... it means that you will take the hard path to defeat evil... yes Iomedaeans have a pantheon full of martyrs... but there is a reason why they still get people to go to Mendev, they have shown the example and lead the way... others follow.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Well Tikon Golarion isnt a world based on Western European Christianity. The rules and philosophy differ greatly. After all its a high fantasy setting, and part of the Pathfinder system is exploring shades of gray and morally questionable acts to attain a greater good. In the system actually encourages a person to face temptations and find a way to overcome them without being tainted by evil.
I think this was precisely the problem the OP had, not that temptations to evil were available, but that there appeared to be no real way to succeed WITHOUT taking the evil route. That's not "requiring them to face temptations" and "make interesting choices," it's "requiring them to choke down the evil choice whether they like it or not because there is no alternative."
My inference is that the OP wouldn't have any particular problem with "siding with evil" being *A* possible choice (including it being the easiest, most convenient, or even the most effective choice) in completing an adventure or an AP. His objection seems to be more that there is no choice if the PCs want to succeed.
In sum:
Type 1: PCs face a choice of siding with evil to succeed. If they choose not to side with evil, it probably will make the adventure more challenging.
Type 2: PCs are forced to side with evil to succeed. If they choose not to side with evil, it probably will make the adventure impossible.
Type 1 is interesting. Type 2 is boring. The OP's objection (to my reading) seems to be much less about having to side with evil at all and much more with Type 2 adventures.
After all don't forget evil can wear a fair face, and as we say in our world the devil can quote the scripture for his own purposes.
Sure, but in Savage Tide, for example, Orcus and Iggwilv and Malcanthet make no pretense whatsoever about being wholly evil in their actions, attitudes, and choice of lair. Again, there's no fair face, no subtle deception, no clever temptation - there's "Hi, we're EVIL, but we have something you want and can help you succeed at defeating a different EVIL (that might or might not be worse than us), so you can either take our help or you will fail."
It's not much of a temptation if there's no alternative.
By the way, for the benefit of the OP, to the best of my recollection in the Kingmaker AP there is no requirement for the PCs to side with the bad guys in any consequential way.
As for innocents being sent to hell well the Japanese culture seems to accept such an idea. Watch the Ju-on (English translation the Grudge) and you will understand a little better
The last clause to me seems a little patronizing; I think the OP understands the use of the "siding with evil" convention perfectly well; I think he just doesn't like it. It's like when you're having an argument with someone and they say "You're not listening to me," and you respond "Oh, I'm listening just fine. I just don't agree." Having a different view doesn't imply lack of understanding.
come to the light side, we dont stab each other in the back, AND cookies!
But but but...I have such a good interest rate at Evil Empire Banking...they make a killing on Wall Street...
I have no complaints about any existing product. I've enjoyed them all, and so have my players. In fact many of my players have become subscribers in their own right. I'm talking about 12 people in two different groups, most of whom either subscribed to a product linne or at least bought a Core Book.
Having said that, I think Captain Marsh had an interesting idea: an AP where "good" wasn't necessarily strictly on the defense. There's places where you could turn the existing paradigm around, i.e. the WorldWound.
How exactly does one define an evil act? Is an evil act that saves the lives of thousands really an evil act? Morality never has and never will be a grey area...both in RL and in games. I would argue that a paladin that is told "kill this innocent child or i will raze your city" who didn't do it would be considered evil.
Not by someone who understands moral categories and culpability. There is no excuse to murder an innocent. Note the period. The paladin should take the sword and kill the guy threatening to raze the city. If he fails that, the moral culpability for any subsequent murders fall on the murderer.
Likewise with your Holocaust story. Assuming that spitting on a Torah is gravely evil, the presence of mortal force and coercion to elicit the act would reduce the spitter's culpability for the act. The real evil would lie not with the spitter, but the Nazi.
Once upon a time, before postmodernism and legal positivism reduced philosophy departments, most folks knew these things.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with the APs in question. I've not read any of them, so the only AP-related comment I have is this: If the APs are written so that good-aligned PCs must commit evil acts in order to succeed, then there is almost certainly a design flaw at work in the adventure.
Actually, there are always a myriad of directions to go with it. In fact, I really hate to say this Chris, but the PF "shades of gray" works against your argument in this case; in fact, it works better in the other poster's mindset wherein there is absolute black & white, good & evil. If the world is gray, then there is no absolute destiny, no certainty that the kid really would grow up to destroy civilization, just the prophecy that he will.
** spoiler omitted **...
*taps microphone* Is this thing on?
I guess not. Whatever.
*Walks away, since people don't seem to be understanding what he's saying whatsoever.* (I never said it wasn't evil! It's not about shades of grey, it's that the evil action DID avert the worldwide crisis. And one last time, I'm NOT talking about the real world's myth of the Anti-Christ, I just don't know any other short hand term for "child destined to take over and destroy the world" so your real world mythologies about the Anti-Christ have NO bearing on my arguement. I made it PERFECTLY clear that this child DOESN'T have free will and is inherently evil by nature, but is too young to understand that.)
Anyway, I'm done. I know I have a temper problem, and I'm just gonna walk away before I start throwing names or something, as that's rather stupid, especially over the internet.
If you understand what I'm talking about, great. If not, then whatever.
|
|
How exactly does one define an evil act? Is an evil act that saves the lives of thousands really an evil act? Morality never has and never will be a grey area...both in RL and in games. I would argue that a paladin that is told "kill this innocent child or i will raze your city" who didn't do it would be considered evil.
I'm reminded of a something that occured during the holocaust (or was in a movie at least). A jewish man is brought into the camps with his family is told to spit on the torah or a member of his family will be killed. they repeat the challenge and he refuses...right up until it's his life that's threatened. While it would have been an affront to his deity to spit on the book from the start, the fact that he let his entire family be slaughtered (only to later save himself) is far more evil.
You are now $0.02 richer.
I disagree.
In the case of the paldin I think you're confusing morality with PR. Sure, his reputation will suffer for choosing the child, but that's how others will view him. As long as he chooses not to kill for the sake of the child, he has made the "good" choice. The villain is evil.
In your story of the Jewish man, he is fataly flawed. We can see how he truly prioritizes his values. Self, God, family. In game terms, he might be neutral. I fear he will not be well-rewarded in the afterlife. I fear I too would fail such a test.
But what about The Greater Good™? He may be killing the child, but in doing so, he is saving the lives of hundreds of children. I am not saying he should do this as the first option, but if all other options have been exhausted then it is the better of two bad choices and would be the "good" act IMHO.
As to the jewish man...in the end it comes down to not only morals being "grey" but good and evil are as well. Is a god going to punish you if you "desecrate" a symbol of it but only do so for show, knowing that in your heart of hearts you only did it to preserve life? I would think not.
|
|
come to the light side, we dont stab each other in the back, AND cookies!But but but...I have such a good interest rate at Evil Empire Banking...they make a killing on Wall Street...
didnt you hear? Evil Empire Banking embezzled everyones money and now is living large in a non-extradition country with a rough trick named Todd.
...
that is why I like about Iomedae... her doctrine is that you won't take the easy path, you won't compromise your values to get the right done... that doesn't just eman that you would not butcher every inhuman race because they are supposedly evil......
Agreed. For me personally Iomedae has been the most appealing of all the gods presented in the APs so far for just this reason.
Once upon a time, before postmodernism and legal positivism reduced philosophy departments, most folks knew these things.
Woo-hoo!
|
|
Hey CF, not picking on you or your response--wanted to note that up front--but this is a great illustration of "black and white" being improperly understood/portrayed. For a "good" person to go and kill a bunch of creatures just because "they're evil" does not actually work, in my world at least. It's Neutral at best, and more likely Evil, because that person is displaying no respect for life. If one kills orcs indiscriminately and without mercy, then that person is no better than the orcs (and thus by his own standard deserves to be killed...).
recently I played an advetnure where i was a cleric of Iomedae along with a Paladin, we were in the Belkzen and discovered a tribe of orcs who have a lot of humans captured and enslaved..
there were 3 of us... and lots of them and we were low level.. the options were... leave the prisioners there and go for reinforcement with the possibility of many slaves dying during the 3 or 5 days it all would take...
entering by the front gate and get surrounded and killed or enslaved...
or the 3rd option...
use the tactical approach...
the decisions options were thrown, and my character took the hardest for her, enter the barracks and assassin every orc there before they could rise the alarm, why the other 2 a) freed the prisioners, b) prepared an avenue of escape
the hardest for her was to assassin the orc, because, even when she hate them (they were responsible of her mother's death) she knows that murder is a cowardly and wrong action, but she woudl do it so the paladin would not dirty his own hands, and would not ask such an act of another one... when all was done in the end she herself took away her armor and sword and accepted her penitence and punishment for her sisn... yes they rescued a lot of humans enslaed, defeated lots of orcs (she even got to kill the orc that got her mother killed), yet she knew her actions were wrong and asked the for the penitence herself.
She should have returned as a hero (she was the one discovering the camp and beating the chief) yet she choose to not take the glory and face her sins... she had to chose the dark easy path and chose to pay for it.
But what about The Greater Good™? He may be killing the child, but in doing so, he is saving the lives of hundreds of children. I am not saying he should do this as the first option, but if all other options have been exhausted then it is the better of two bad choices and would be the "good" act IMHO.
A) Its not a "good" act. It is evil. There's evil and evil in that base choice, no good, no moral relativism.
B) I had a similar train of thought to this in a discussion about Paladin tactics, and here's what I don't get: people like to *think* they put Paladins in these "GOT YA!" situations, and try to reason ways out by saying there was no other choice but to take evil or evil. Or morally ambiguous or morally ambiguous. The trick is, there is almost ALWAYS a way out that involves neither Door #1 NOR Door #2. Case in point, the Paladin with the "impossible choice" can stall the villain out until an ally can get a shot off. Or, the Paladin can say "Screw it" and charge the villain. Its just as likely you can't trust the villain and know that either choice you make, the villain will destroy the city, the child, and yourself. At that point, the preservation of good outweighs the options, damn the choice and take the chance of taking out the villain; it might mean you die, it might mean the city dies, it might mean the child dies, but you're not compromising your own values and there's still a chance (better chance than all three of you surviving the villain) you can achieve the greater of the greater good and kill the villain before he can take out the city or the child.Without knowing more about circumstances, there could be any number of other ways out of the situation. Or, there's a thing called a leap of faith; taking an action you *know* is the most illogical choice, but having the faith that the rightness of course will see you through.
That's the trick with a Paladin; people always seem to try to cut the corners without thinking the situation fully through to a solution that accomplishes the goal (saves the child AND the city) and can preserve the Paladin's moral stance to issue just edicts against evil. And until you HAVE exhausted all opportunities, you don't know that all opportunities have been exhausted. Just *saying* you have it doesn't make it so.
But what about The Greater Good™? He may be killing the child, but in doing so, he is saving the lives of hundreds of children. I am not saying he should do this as the first option, but if all other options have been exhausted then it is the better of two bad choices and would be the "good" act IMHO.
As to the jewish man...in the end it comes down to not only morals being "grey" but good and evil are as well. Is a god going to punish you if you "desecrate" a symbol of it but only do so for show, knowing that in your heart of hearts you only did it...
"The Greater Good" should be a motivation for personal or community sacrifice, not a rationalization for evil. Each person is responsible for their actions. The choice for the paladin is to kill the child or not. The villain then has a choice to raze the city or not.
In your story of the Jewish man, I tend to interpret the Torah as a Manifestation of God in the man's eyes. As he sees it, to spit on the Torah would be to spit on God himself. I don't think the question for the man is whether God will punish him or not. The question is where does God rank in his priorities. (Maybe I build up the story to be more than it is.)
Tikon2000, have you been a player in these? Have you GMed? Have you read the APs without playing? I'm guessing some combination of these, but some clarification would help.
I think that tempting Good characters with Evil is an important element of the kind of saga that Adventure Paths model. Difficult choices need to be there or else the only conflict in need of resolution is that bad guys need to be slaughtered. I think that if Paizo had a lot more word count then they could expand on alternatives a little more, but I haven't had too much trouble figuring it out for myself. I'll comment on the APs I've run.
Rise of the Runelords:
Curse of the Crimson Throne:
Second Darkness:
Legacy of Fire:
So my take on these APs is different from yours. I think that we as GMs are given ways of making life difficult for Good-aligned PCs, and this is a good thing. You ask what's with the constant call to corruption, and I think that you answer your own question when you say that doing the right thing is hard. These are just examples of how it's hard in ways other than high-CR antagonists to fight. I've found that these boards are full of helpful people who will happily assist GMs who want to tempt their Good PCs to corruption without forcing them to break. If you're having trouble with specifics then post away and we'll jump in where we can. :)
I am completely fine with confronting good characters to evil protagonists or antagonists, in situations where negotiating with "the devil" could be more productive than just fighting him.
BUT the negotiation shouldn't be the only way to succeed the adventure.
First because that's a kind of railroading which is not fair.
Second because it is not fair to force a good character to betray his values and beliefs just to win a module.
So the negotiation alternative should be attractive, as it would make things easier or more profitable, typical for temptation.
But there should always be another way, even if more difficult and more dangerous.
Evil is easier, that's common knowledge.
|
|
But what about The Greater Good™? He may be killing the child, but in doing so, he is saving the lives of hundreds of children. I am not saying he should do this as the first option, but if all other options have been exhausted then it is the better of two bad choices and would be the "good" act IMHO.A) Its not a "good" act. It is evil. There's evil and evil in that base choice, no good, no moral relativism.
B) I had a similar train of thought to this in a discussion about Paladin tactics, and here's what I don't get: people like to *think* they put Paladins in these "GOT YA!" situations, and try to reason ways out by saying there was no other choice but to take evil or evil. Or morally ambiguous or morally ambiguous. The trick is, there is almost ALWAYS a way out that involves neither Door #1 NOR Door #2. Case in point, the Paladin with the "impossible choice" can stall the villain out until an ally can get a shot off. Or, the Paladin can say "Screw it" and charge the villain. Its just as likely you can't trust the villain and know that either choice you make, the villain will destroy the city, the child, and yourself. At that point, the preservation of good outweighs the options, damn the choice and take the chance of taking out the villain; it might mean you die, it might mean the city dies, it might mean the child dies, but you're not compromising your own values and there's still a chance (better chance than all three of you surviving the villain) you can achieve the greater of the greater good and kill the villain before he can take out the city or the child.
Without knowing more about circumstances, there could be any number of other ways out of the situation. Or, there's a thing called a leap of faith; taking an action you *know* is the most illogical choice, but having the faith that the rightness of course will see you through.
That's the trick with a Paladin; people always seem to try to cut the corners without thinking the situation fully through to a...
To me letting hundreds of children die over the life of one child is evil. If the situation was "kill the child or i kill you" then killing the child would be evil IMHO.
There was an episode of House recently where Chase killed a visiting foreign leader who was behind an ongoing genocidal campaign in his country. The man was helpless at the time, but he was still responsible for all those deaths. Is that evil?
The situation with the child is a bit different but boils down to the same thing...by not doing as the bad guy asks, you are saving one life but at the same time condemning thousands to die.
she knows that murder is a cowardly and wrong action, but she woudl do it so the paladin would not dirty his own hands, and would not ask such an act of another one...
I hope the paladin was not aware of this plan or she's in for some heavy spanking!
Could someone fix the "I" in the thread title? It's making my eye ache.
Thanks.
|
|
But what about The Greater Good™? He may be killing the child, but in doing so, he is saving the lives of hundreds of children. I am not saying he should do this as the first option, but if all other options have been exhausted then it is the better of two bad choices and would be the "good" act IMHO.
As to the jewish man...in the end it comes down to not only morals being "grey" but good and evil are as well. Is a god going to punish you if you "desecrate" a symbol of it but only do so for show, knowing that in your heart of hearts you only did it...
"The Greater Good" should be a motivation for personal or community sacrifice, not a rationalization for evil. Each person is responsible for their actions. The choice for the paladin is to kill the child or not. The villain then has a choice to raze the city or not.
In your story of the Jewish man, I tend to interpret the Torah as a Manifestation of God in the man's eyes. As he sees it, to spit on the Torah would be to spit on God himself. I don't think the question for the man is whether God will punish him or not. The question is where does God rank in his priorities. (Maybe I build up the story to be more than it is.)
I like to think that a purportedly good deity would see this for what it was...not an affront to the deity but a way to save innocent lives.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Villains get boring if all they do is be villains. Giving the PCs an opportunity to interact with bad guys in things other than combats is something that Paizo adventures have always had an element of.
Which is a very cool element. Why bother giving villains the power of speech if they're just using it as a spell component and never have anything interesting to say... :)
By the same token, we often make our good guys have flaws or elements that might make them not the perfect ally.
Hopefully without sliding over the edge into Gygaxian "good outsiders are complete jerks" a la the Gord the Rogue series. "Yeah, I know you guys are saving the universe, and you just rescued me from eternal imprisonment, but not only am I not going to help you, I'm also only going to raise one of your allies from the dead even though I could bring both of them back to life."
Ah, good times. :)
It's all about giving dimension to characters, be they friend or foe or friend who becomes a foe or foe who becomes a friend. And setting up situations where the PCs have to choose between the lesser of two evils helps to model the fact that there are degrees of evil and degrees of good.
Sure, but there should also be choices (and consequences) for abstaining from even minor association with evil, WITHOUT it being an automatic "Ha ha, you didn't side with lesser evil, so now GREATER EVIL WINS!!!" every time. Some of the time? Sure, no problem. All of the time? That's when it becomes "gotcha" game design that punishes a certain style of gameplay.
And finally... what's the point of trying to be a virtuous soul filled with good if there's not evil to tempt you? How will you know you're TRULY good if you don't have evil to tempt you with and then prove yourself the better by avoiding it?
Well there's the sticky wicket, right? CAN you avoid it? The OP seems to feel like the APs have not allowed you that option; it's "side with evil or YOU LOSE." That's not a choice.
And yes... I'm a fan of darker, grittier fantasy stories, and as I'm the Creative Director, that sentiment tends to creep into most of Paizo's offerings. And we've had very few complaints.
Hey, as you know perfectly well, I'm not averse to dropping in some truly horrible stuff in my campaign (ah, poor Shensen), but if the OP's assertion that it happens every AP is accurate, it might be a good idea to mix it up a bit by NOT using that trope for a change. Fortunately for him and anyone who feels likewise, I think Kingmaker is a departure from that pattern.
As a movie example, darkness and grittiness can be great (see the recent Batman Begins and Dark Knight movies), but at the same time a movie like Iron Man can also be terrific by emphatically NOT trying to be gritty. In fact, if Iron Man had tried to go for a dark and gritty atmosphere, it would've been a disaster, not true to the character. It succeeded precisely because it avoided the "everything should be gritty just because THAT was gritty and it was good" trap.
The same is true of adventures. Some should be gritty. Some should not. Every adventure shouldn't be the same flavor.
When you get right down to it... the bad guys are usually more interesting than the good guys is all.
This part I don't really agree with, and maybe the Star Wars axiom about the dark side being easier and quicker applies here as well. Bad guys are easier to write, certainly more lurid in their exploits and in some ways more spectacular - or at least it's easier to make them seem spectacular.
But are they actually more "interesting"? A lot of bad guys are all sizzle and very little steak, and maybe that's ultimately okay for game writing as a medium. You don't have hundreds of pages to set up the psychological motivations, background, and behavior of a villain as you would in a novel. You have a certain number of pages of adventure background setting up the villain's plot, plus their allies, their personal combat stats, their lair. Villains are easier to construct for use in an adventure game story.
Perhaps it's just a matter of taste. I tend to find heroes more interesting than villains, and not just the "flawed, brooding, dark, and gritty anti-heroes" like Wolverine and the Watchmen. I find good guys very interesting. Then again, James and I often have very different tastes in movies (yeah, Midnight Meat Train... PASS!).
One more thing: In adventures, the expected role of "good guy" is the Player Character. And those are the only characters we DON'T stat up or orchestrate in an adventure... we present everyone else. And that skews towards foils or villains or antagonists.
This is the million-dollar point right here. Who are the good guys? YOU ARE!!! These modules aren't stacked with good guys because modules are stacked with things you're supposed to FIGHT. That's why there are 5 evil monsters in the Bestiary for every good monster.
If there are tons of developed good guys in the adventures, why aren't they taking care of problems before the PCs ever get there? And if they are, then do we start feeling like it's FR on steroids with the uber-good-guys either cleaning up all the real messes or else constantly having you fetch their boots and go on missions for them while they sit around smoking a pipe? Or, if there are always armies of good guys on call to stomp the bad guys, that ends up making your players more SCOUTS just out there finding problems for Good Guy Army to go crush, rather than ADVENTURERS seeking their fortune and fame.
Those are the kinds of choices that make players feel emasculated with their characters, like they don't really matter, so there are real legitimate reasons for Paizo not to go that route with Golarion.
Still, I think there is a good reason to think a little harder about having "side with evil" be a regular feature that comes up again and again, especially if it is presented in such a way as to be unavoidable. That is fun for some, but no fun for others.
I'm curious, though, to find out if the worry that we put too much evil in our adventures is shared by others? Again... the grittier adventures and elements we produce generally get good reviews and good sales, so I feel pretty justified in presenting these more mature, edgier products and adventures, but if folks...
Evil and corruption aren't inherently more mature, and ironically they have been so used they may have lost their edge; perhaps the "edgy" thing to do at this point is to swing the pendulum back from "dark and gritty" to more pure heroic fantasy.
Heck, look at this year's Superstar monsters; over half were gross-out monsters, and most of the ones that really stood out were ones that avoided that kind of "dark and edgy" trope and instead stood out by NOT trying to stand out.
Just a few thoughts...
What I've learned is that no matter how an adventure is set up, players will find some way of doing things that I (or the adventure) do not predict. Paizo doesn't publish Choose Your Own Adventure Paths books with absolute "you can do this or that". Among the myriad choices players have to accomplish their goals (which may or may not even end up being what the Adventure Path predisposes), there are hard ways and easy ways. Players are not forced, they choose. And they constantly surprise and frustrate me :)
To me letting hundreds of children die over the life of one child is evil. If the situation was "kill the child or i kill you" then killing the child would be evil IMHO.
There was an episode of House recently where Chase killed a visiting foreign leader who was behind an ongoing genocidal campaign in his country. The man was helpless at the time, but he was still responsible for all those deaths. Is that evil?
The situation with the child is a bit different but boils down to the same thing...by not doing as the bad guy asks, you are saving one life but at the same time condemning thousands to die.
This is a moral relativist approach. By my counting, it is actually:
Letting hundreds of children die = Evil
Killing one child to save others = Evil
Killed a visiting foreign leader who was behind an ongoing genocidal campaign in his country = Evil
An action doesn't become "Good" because the end result is desirable. Evil is Evil. The choices are actually harder than moral relativism implies, because in the first scenario you describe (limited to the two choices given), there is no "Good" and thus no proper choice.
The second situation isn't nearly as hard. A helpless man is responsible for genocide? Why is the only option to kill him in his helpless state? Turn him over to the authorities and thus respect the Rule of Law. Otherwise you are not only Evil (by having no respect for his life, just as he had no respect for the lives he took away through genocide) but you are also opposed to the very system of laws that our country is founded upon.
I like to think that a purportedly good deity would see this for what it was...not an affront to the deity but a way to save innocent lives....
In your story of the Jewish man, I tend to interpret the Torah as a Manifestation of God in the man's eyes. As he sees it, to spit on the Torah would be to spit on God himself. I don't think the question for the man is whether God will punish him or not. The question is where does God rank in his priorities. (Maybe I build up the story to be more than it is.)
In this case I agree. As I conceive a just God, he wouldn't get upset about spitting on a book, however symbolic. But it does bring to mind a scene from one of C.S.Lewis' works in which a nominally unreligious man is told to desecrate a crucifix to gain some personal advancement (maybe a raise or a job), and can't bring himself to do it because of the power of the symbol even though he's not an ardent believer.
If you'll excuse me, I have a lot of work to should be doing. It's been interesting talking to you.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think what the OP is hinting at is that by the book, the AP assumes that you have to give in to whatever evil is offering you power in order to do a good deed. Which, to me, is a different thing than 'gritty'. After all, the antagonists can still be vile, evil and/or incomprehensible [and yes, I like the direction Paizo is taking there], but the APs shouldn't necessarily force the PCs to align with them. If you want to emulate the 'lure of evil', I would propose adding in a sidebar that describes in a few sentences how the PCs might come by a certain piece of information in a way OTHER than allying with NPC X, and what additional challenges they must face if they want to do so. After all, being Good, especially Lawful Good, should be the hard choice - but it shouldn't be impossible.
(Yes, I know that the APs cannot possibly appeal to every combination of PCs as written, and that any GM out there is free to rewrite the adventures as it suits him. However, the effect of 'what's already in the book by default' should not be underestimated.)
Agreed above - for situations where there's a designed "here's the module's intended course - to have the PCs ally with these bad guys," there should be a sidebar describing "But what if the PCs just don't want to do it?"
It doesn't need to be a fully fleshed out scenario, but at least a paragraph or three of guidance on what will turn out differently if they go the non-evil route or whether there are alternate means of acquiring or achieving the same in-adventure information goals.
The situation with the child is a bit different but boils down to the same thing...by not doing as the bad guy asks, you are saving one life but at the same time condemning thousands to die.
But again, that stance is predicated on the assumption you HAVE to do one or the other. And, until the situation actually occurs, you don't know that all options are exhausted, and you have no guarantee that the villain WON'T destroy the city; I mean, the villain is enough of a bastard to make a hero choose between killing an innocent child and destroying a city, what's to actually stop him from killing you after you've killed the kid, and THEN destroying the city? You're going to take a villain on his word, on his honor, that he won't do it?
As to the House example, that is a significantly different situation. A Doctor has a Patient. By the Hippocratic Oath, that is all that matters. WHO that Patient is doesn't matter. By factoring in the "Who", Chase played God, determining who is fit to live and who is fit to die, and compromised the Oath. Should *every* doctor take that position, its that slippery slope into evil, because then doctors could simply decide politicians who stand in the way of what they feel to be sweeping, beneficial legislation, were similar threats to the greater good. Then more could decide that certain big businessmen were a threat to the greater good, on down the line to the point where an average doctor walks through a ward and treats people for totally arbitrary reasons, all starting at that greater good.
To an extent, a Paladin and a Doctor have a lot in common~ Unfortunately in the real world, a good number of doctors are swayed by the dollar and not the duty.
I think what gets lost in these discussions of "greater good" is what one can actually live with after the fact.
Stephen King's Storm of the Century plays with this theme quite nicely.
So.. the entire population of the town and all the other children.. or just one child, who will not be killed?
What I loved about Storm of the Century is that it opened the question up beyond just the "greater good" to include "What can you live with AFTER the decision is made?"
How do you look yourself in the mirror, the day after. Was it the right thing to do, or was it just the easiest thing to do?
That, my friends, is something that is difficult to translate in a RPG game. The personal emotional consequences are not always felt, but are very real... here in the 'real world'.
Kudos to the designer who can get that across.
Could someone fix the "I" in the thread title? It's making my eye ache.
Thanks.
OUCH
Points to thread title.
Fixez-vous, s'il vous plaît.
|
|
she knows that murder is a cowardly and wrong action, but she woudl do it so the paladin would not dirty his own hands, and would not ask such an act of another one...I hope the paladin was not aware of this plan or she's in for some heavy spanking!
lol certainly... but someone had to take the shorter straw :S
|
|
"What ifs" are always a bit of a strawman sort of arguement as the one posing the question gets to determine all the avalaible options and these don't always mirror reality.
That being said, while I like dark themes (in moderation)and think RPGs are a viable vehicle for exploring difficult choices, I think one can go overbaord with requiring that evil be negotiated with in order for success to be gained.
I do have to disagree that RotR is really full of negotiating with evil though, even counting the weapons. I did not see the forging of the runeweapons as being analogous to negotiating with evil. That is, the weapons were instruments of magic and vehicles for a school of magic. They were not evil aligned. The Thassilonians in their warped thinking simply interpreted the schools of magic in relationship to a sin. My PCs used the weapons but did not go overboard in allying with any evil entities.
I would like to see what Paizo could do with a more heroic sort of campaign in which good is being actively pursued and not just one where evil is being fought.
In sum:
Type 1: PCs face a choice of siding with evil to succeed. If they choose not to side with evil, it probably will make the adventure more challenging.
Type 2: PCs are forced to side with evil to succeed. If they choose not to side with evil, it probably will make the adventure impossible.
In my opinion, the Paizo AP's I'm familiar with (Runelords and Second Darkness more than the rest) are Type 1 - it's not impossible to win either sticking to the good side. That doesn't mean you'll be perfectly able to follow the Path of the adventure path though.
Second Darkness for instance sets it's expectations pretty low on that scale, because these are Bosses out of Riddleport. I had two paladins in that game, and if they had stayed the whole way through, there would have been changes no doubt. But the campaign would not have been "unwinnable" with them.
However, there could be some better options/details for those staying strictly good, there I agree. It needs to be limited and variable though, or groups will learn to metagame and know that "if we reject the evil people, something good will come to us." It's not a moral choice to reject evil assistance/deeds if you know at the time you won't need the help.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I like it.I've always thought that an interesting adventure path would be a group of PCs trying to accomplish something great -- rather than forestalling or preventing something horrible.
Instead of stopping the rise of a runelord or the a new age of worms, how about a series of adventures based on the effort to free a trapped "Merlin"?
Or a series where the PCs are helping an epic-level NPC -- and essentially good NPC -- achieve demigod status?
The stakes would be just as high -- and the evil guys just as motivated to stop the PCs -- but it sort of reverses the paradigm a little.
--Marsh
Me too.
FWIW, I think the Kingmaker AP is much more in this vein - it's about what the PCs want to DO, not so much about stopping some Plot of Ultimate Evil (though there are elements of that in the AP as well). Now, whether you think setting up a kingdom in the River Kingdoms (kind of a scum-neutral area) kind of taints the Pure Heroism end of things... well, that's a faint point too I suppose.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
[snark]…but you don't get XPs for building things.[/snark]So, GM Fiat, grant XP for building things. See, its that simple!
Not to be completely pimping the Kingmaker AP, but that is one of the things that is quite explicitly built into the AP - in-character rewards for stuff other than smash-and-grab adventuring.
So, GM Fiat, grant XP for building things. See, its that simple!
In theory. I am still waiting to see any sort of meaningful XP reward being tied to something other than killing things and taking their stuff in a D&D game.
i doubt youve ever played a real goody 2 shoes
No, I have not. I played CG almost exclusively. I have seen too many GMs gleefully screw over the LG character. Also, in my personal opinion, playing a LG in character requires you make some very poor tactical decisions, which, if you read through some other threads, it is often framed as 'stupid' and necessitates player death and loss of at least one level.
For a "good" person to go and kill a bunch of creatures just because "they're evil" does not actually work, in my world at least.
I would actually agree with you there. I was mostly trying to point out a lot of the hypocrisy I have seen. I still stand by my assertion, that, for me, black-and-white is boring. I do not care for Superman. He just feels too one dimensional for me. I have seen enough old westerns where the good guys wear white hats. It just does nothing for me.
I like Batman because he feels he has to do bad things to accomplish good things. I find those kind of moral dilemmas far more interesting. That is why I play CG. I am willing to do questionable activities if I believe the ends justify the means. But where is that line? How much bad can be justified? Just as is being argued in this thread…do you kill Hitler to save millions of other lives? I do not believe a LG character would, but I believe a CG character could. And dealing with his conscience afterward is a role playing playground for me.
I'm curious, though, to find out if the worry that we put too much evil in our adventures is shared by others? Again... the grittier adventures and elements we produce generally get good reviews and good sales, so I feel pretty justified in presenting these more mature, edgier products and adventures, but if folks...
I have (read) two APs in full (Legacy of Fire and Curse of the Crimson Throne) and possess about half of the other two Pathfinder ones. While I can see the OPs and other's concerns, I and my players actively enjoy the morally ambiguous nature of the stories. Since I usually use the adventures as written as starting points rather than anything else anyway, this might overall affect me less than other customers.
All I can say is: continue to be awesome, Paizo! ;)
I spoilerized the first post.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
But what about The Greater Good™? He may be killing the child, but in doing so, he is saving the lives of hundreds of children. I am not saying he should do this as the first option, but if all other options have been exhausted then it is the better of two bad choices and would be the "good" act IMHO.A) Its not a "good" act. It is evil. There's evil and evil in that base choice, no good, no moral relativism.
B) I had a similar train of thought to this in a discussion about Paladin tactics, and here's what I don't get: people like to *think* they put Paladins in these "GOT YA!" situations, and try to reason ways out by saying there was no other choice but to take evil or evil. Or morally ambiguous or morally ambiguous. The trick is, there is almost ALWAYS a way out that involves neither Door #1 NOR Door #2. Case in point, the Paladin with the "impossible choice" can stall the villain out until an ally can get a shot off. Or, the Paladin can say "Screw it" and charge the villain. Its just as likely you can't trust the villain and know that either choice you make, the villain will destroy the city, the child, and yourself. At that point, the preservation of good outweighs the options, damn the choice and take the chance of taking out the villain; it might mean you die, it might mean the city dies, it might mean the child dies, but you're not compromising your own values and there's still a chance (better chance than all three of you surviving the villain) you can achieve the greater of the greater good and kill the villain before he can take out the city or the child.
Without knowing more about circumstances, there could be any number of other ways out of the situation. Or, there's a thing called a leap of faith; taking an action you *know* is the most illogical choice, but having the faith that the rightness of course will see you through.
That's the trick with a Paladin; people always seem to try to cut the corners without thinking the situation fully through to a...
See the paladin O'Chul in Order of the Stick. Very well written paladin in just these kinds of "paladin's dilemma" situations. Rich Burlew has a nice hand with both Evil (the Last Temptation of V, or oh my, Xykon's speech at the end of Start of Darkness) and Good in the comics.