|
During a scenario(for PFS) this weekend on my gameday I had a interesting dilemma occur in my round(game). The party had just defeated an enemy during one of the encounters who was dropped to negative HPs but not dead. They needed some information from her about a cult they are persuing so they stripped her of weapons and tied her up. Then healed her to 1 hp and asked her some questions. She was not forthcoming so the Inquisitor of Desna (Alignment CG) used intimidate and succeeded and got the information they needed, then coup de graced her and killed her! She was tied up and helpless and gave them the information, but grudgingly. The Inquisitor said he was well within the guidelines of the character class as the enemy was evil and thier cult was opposed to her own faith. I said it was an evil act but he did not see it that way. Was it an evil act(I say it was)? What are the guidelines for the Inquisitor to serve judgement and impose there own rulings as they see fit. Also what are the guidelines that the other players and as a DM during a scenario when someone does a evil act be(as if a another player decided it was an evil act and an arguement ensued and they both fought then they both would be ejected from the round)? Is it within my right as the DM to say you just murdered a helpless opponent that could have been brought to the proper authorities and you must face the authorities? If another player insists it was an evil act and the DM agrees should they be brought to justice? This is a point in PFS that I think needs to be discussed. Some help and discussion on this would be very helpful in the future. I would like to here what should be done if someone commits an evil act and if they think it isnt should it be up to the DM to make a determination.
|
|
Good characters are not immune to performing questionable acts. There is no alignment tracking, so honestly, if this is the only "infraction," there really isn't a problem. There is no Pathfinder Society prohibition against "evil acts," there is a prohibition against an evil character. That would imply repeated evil actions, and what happened I wouldn't even call 100% obviously evil.
Josh has said that overtly illegal actions are essentially the same as being killed, meaning that if you go through a city performing major acts against the law, you should warn someone about their actions, and if they persist, essentially the character is removed from play. Other than this extreme situation, there really isn't anything to do about the situation you described.
In the above example, unless the cultist were already in the care of the authorities, why would they even get involved in the situation? The PCs just killed everyone else, why would one more cultist be any different?
To take this one step further, let's assume that the character did perform an evil act. Let's assume that it was bad enough to move them away from Chaotic Good. Desna is Chaotic Good, and a Chaotic neutral Inquisitor of Desna is a-ok with Desna. Between sessions, the character might be the best, most beatific person ever and go back to being 100% Chaotic good, and that's fine since there is no alignment tracking in Pathfinder Society.
Essentially, there is no player versus player action in Pathfinder Society, there is not obvious playing of evil characters, and there is no obvious flaunting of major local laws in public in scenarios that take place in public. It doesn't sound like any of that occurred here.
I'd be interested to hear other people's opinions, but this is my take on the situation.
|
I guess my take on this one is that the Inquisitor did not commit an act that would be in violation of Desna's ethos.
Grim and determined, the inquisitor roots out enemies of the faith, using trickery and guile where righteousness and purity is not enough. Although inquisitors are dedicated to a deity, they are above many of the normal rules and conventions of the church. They answer to their deity and their own sense of justice alone, and are willing to take extreme measures to meet their goals.
To me the answer is right there. Inquisitors are willing to bend the rules when need be, period. As KnightErrantJR mentioned, under usual circumstances the character may be completely "good", but when it comes down to brass tacks, everything the inquisitor does is going to be focused on maintaining the greater good, even if it means going off the reservation for a little while. Even Desna isn't immune to this.
Some believe Desna is f lighty, frivolous, and easilydistracted, but she has a hard, cold side that few see, born of loss, tragedy, and battle. As a luck goddess, she always believes there is a chance for success. She knows that people fear the unknown, that dreams can turn to nightmares, and a bright destiny can become a dark fate; these opposites in her own nature define her and give her things to strive against. She challenges those who would corrupt her domain or have wronged her friends or followers.
That role is the roll the inquisitor fills, and they do it by walking that line in some cases. The Lawful Good character is occasionally going to have to skirt the law to kill the creature that the normal "lawful" arm of the church is unable to cross, the neutral Inquisitor of Pharasma is going to have to have to help a group of undead worshipers in order to find a way to infiltrate Lich Keep because the Lich is a greater threat than the humans who worship him. There are millions of examples, and that's (at least to me) the interest in the class, it's about being the paladin without being the paladin. It's about working in shades of gray rather than the black and white. That is why I would say that the alignment is a guideline and it's a guideline that's occasionally going to have to be crossed.
Now note, the inquisitor that constantly violates the tenants of her faith, or always causes more suffering than she relieves, or actively does something that is in direct violation of his tenants without a greater picture of helping her deity in some other way is crossing that line you're talking about.
Just my two cents.