
![]() ![]() ![]() |

This still all falls back to real world ethics not applying in full to Golarion. There, slavery is evidently not considered to be inherently evil. Would not it be easier to work off that premise than to argue about X being slavery while Y is not? Focus instead on the "why" of slavery not being inherently evil, possible mitigating circumstances, etc. Arguing about it isn't going to change the fact that you don't need to be evil to own slaves on Golarion.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

trollbill wrote:I simply stated that is was slavery. And since it is slavery...By definition, it's not.
Clarification: By the definition of slavery you chose to use it is not. But there are plenty of other definitions of slavery out there. Both in your own dictionary and others.
Quote:And since it is slavery, and it is not considered evil, then it is possible to have slavery that isn't evil.And no offense, but trying to argue that the act of incarcerating criminals somehow means slavery is not evil requires some tortuous logic. No pun intended.
Oddly enough, I thought my interpretation was pretty straight forward. If your freedom's have been removed and you are forced to commit acts that you would not normally commit if you had not had those rights removed then you are a slave. That seems pretty simple to me. Adding conditions like, it's not slavery if the state legally and justly takes those rights away from you, would seem to make it more tortuous.

![]() ![]() |

Oddly enough, I thought my interpretation was pretty straight forward. If your freedom's have been removed and you are forced to commit acts that you would not normally commit if you had not had those rights removed then you are a slave. That seems pretty simple to me. Adding conditions like, it's not slavery if the state legally and justly takes those rights away from you, would seem to make it more tortuous.
As you alluded to, there are other definitions of slavery. One such definition we see in play in the Western world today. Paying an income tax, or property tax or any other non consumption tax not based on your choice to use or not, is involuntary servitude. You are working to satisfy the requirement to pay said taxes. This is the new slavery. Combine that with a mortgage and you see we have an entire "civilization" hopelessly enslaved by our own hands and desires...

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

This still all falls back to real world ethics not applying in full to Golarion. There, slavery is evidently not considered to be inherently evil. Would not it be easier to work off that premise than to argue about X being slavery while Y is not? Focus instead on the "why" of slavery not being inherently evil, possible mitigating circumstances, etc. Arguing about it isn't going to change the fact that you don't need to be evil to own slaves on Golarion.
Arguing about the inherent nature of something is relevant because inherent, by definition, refers to a permanent element of something that cannot be removed. Thus if something is inherent anywhere, then it is inherent everywhere, be that the real world or Golarion. If, on the other hand, it is relative, then it can be one thing in the real world and another in Golarion. But just like inherent, if something is relative anywhere, then it is relative everywhere.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

I don't think its technically the ownership aspect of slavery that makes it evil, mostly the required secondary powers.
I mean you could theoretically buy a slave as tutor for your kids and ensconce him in your lavishly decorated library for 20 years then keep paying his room and board as pension. Its not exactly good but I think its a far cry from evil.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

trollbill wrote:Oddly enough, I thought my interpretation was pretty straight forward. If your freedom's have been removed and you are forced to commit acts that you would not normally commit if you had not had those rights removed then you are a slave. That seems pretty simple to me. Adding conditions like, it's not slavery if the state legally and justly takes those rights away from you, would seem to make it more tortuous.As you alluded to, there are other definitions of slavery. One such definition we see in play in the Western world today. Paying an income tax, or property tax or any other non consumption tax not based on your choice to use or not, is involuntary servitude. You are working to satisfy the requirement to pay said taxes. This is the new slavery. Combine that with a mortgage and you see we have an entire "civilization" hopelessly enslaved by our own hands and desires...
I do not disagree with that argument.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Letting an evil person die is itself evil? How is that any different than cutting down Aspis Consortium mooks? The problem is that everything is relative.
I don't have any chaotic good clerics, so I could never actually justify this, and none of the others have any healing capacity. I mean I guess my magus could not haste such targets, but he's not that much of a goody-goody.
Since nobody in PFS can be evil, you'd be letting a non evil person die based on a stereotype and preconceived bias. Now who's evil?
You don't have to like them, but in this campaign you are required to make a pathfinder.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

As I stated, it's one of the few routes of protest left to such a PC. A PC that objects to another PC owning slaves has precious few options in PFS.
Bear in mind I don't have a healer-type that could remotely justify this. But given it's only the *rules* of the society that's having my good character heal the slaver PC, I could see a chaotic good cleric having a case to do this. He would still observe and report, just not 100% cooperate.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Do this often enough David, and its akin to the thread about someone killing town guards and getting arrested. Mike indicated that the person be marked dead.
In your case, a malicious refusal to cooperate would cause the Society to kick your character out. Thus marking him dead as you can't play a non Society character in PFS.
Roleplay is about adopting another personality. If all your characters carry the unbending hatred of all forms of slavery that you do, then you aren't really roleplaying, but rather imposing your personal real life beliefs onto other role players in a spiteful and malicious manner.
Fact: slavery is legal in golarion.
Fact: slavery is legal in PFS.
Fact: slavery as an institution in golarionbis not evil.
You can deal with that as a mature adult and roleplay, or you can be petulant. The choice is yours.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

I'm with you on the 'don't have to save them' rule David. If a character offends my character, I don't have to expend finite resources. Last game we'd played, we were 'passing around the happy sticks' while the Barbarian was lamenting no one was healing him to full, or letting him have all the healing potions. Even the other new player pointed out that he could spend his own resources to get a wand that others could use on him, just like the two monks had wands of mage armor to have the sorcerer and the bard* cast on them.
*
I eventually did. So I chucked it in the river "It's broken."
Monk goes and gets it. Asks the druid. "Can you used a wand?"
Druid: Sure. *tries the wand, it doesn't work, throws it in the water.* "He's right, it's broken."
Monk: "It's not broken! It still has 40 some chages of mage armor on it."
Druid: "Why are you giving me a wand of mage armor I am a druid!"
Everyone execpt the poor monk laughed.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Didn't I just say I didn't have any PCs that could justify it?
I just find the whole thing disturbing and people in here are way too nonchalant about it. It's telling that you find objection to promotion of slavery as "petulant".
Furthermore, only the characters with healing resources have any bearing. My lorewarden can hate slavery all day, but by the rules of Society, can't do a damn thing about it. I guess other than neglect to mention a monster's weakness to someone she doesn't like. Zippity-do-dah.
I am also not seeing a huge difference between not helping a slave-owning PC and sitting my cleric entirely and using a more "tolerant" PC than can't help anyone in the party at all. Because multiple PC deaths with a "cooperating" magus are better than one with a cleric with a grudge? Maybe you can blame my PC building, but my magus is just a much weaker PC than my cleric. So in light of that, I'm not seeing the huge difference.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

I also think it is a bit of the 'paladin standard'.
The Paladin is told he's the party disrupter because he has issues playing with the urgotha worshiping necromancer. Even if the party is all LG/NG Saranites and Pharsmans, it's not the guy bringing the necromancer that's 'disruptive'.
Likewise, objecting to slavery is seen as 'petulant' if you don't want to help the slaver. Why isn't the slaver petulant? If the Qaderian slaver is the only slave owner in a party of Andorans, isn't he the one being 'petulant' by keeping his slaves? You're asking the Andoran character to expend his resources (potions, charges, scrolls) to heal the person he disagrees with to 'cooperate'. Why doesn't the slaver expend his resources (freeing his slaves) to 'co-operate'?
now like David, I've characters who wouldn't care. (Ksenia) I also have characters that are violently opposed. (Mayim, Kodiak, Rey, Dexios). So I'm supposed to *not* role play my character because you're doing things to offend her/him?*
*

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

My magus is neutral good and primarily cares about the greater good and being a personal bad ass. He's aloof and doesn't care about petty issues such as slavery. That being said, do you really want him or the cleric in your group?
I've played with your magus, remember? I'd prefer the cleric, especially if he has an animal companion. :P
(kidding! kidding!)

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Didn't I just say I didn't have any PCs that could justify it?
I just find the whole thing disturbing and people in here are way too nonchalant about it. It's telling that you find objection to promotion of slavery as "petulant".
Furthermore, only the characters with healing resources have any bearing. My lorewarden can hate slavery all day, but by the rules of Society, can't do a damn thing about it. I guess other than neglect to mention a monster's weakness to someone she doesn't like. Zippity-do-dah.
I am also not seeing a huge difference between not helping a slave-owning PC and sitting my cleric entirely and using a more "tolerant" PC than can't help anyone in the party at all. Because multiple PC deaths with a "cooperating" magus are better than one with a cleric with a grudge? Maybe you can blame my PC building, but my magus is just a much weaker PC than my cleric. So in light of that, I'm not seeing the huge difference.
I think you are taking this way, way to seriously. This is a game. If you can't separate my (or more importantly yours) real life feelings on slavery from my in game feelings, then we have a different problem.
After all we play a game where we run around killing other creatures for their loot so we can become more powerful. And its the thought if slavery not being evil that personally offends you?!

Mistwalker |

Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a PC bring along a slave, or is this whole discussion still about the theory?
If it has been seen, how often?
Are the slaves abused?
And are they listed on the PC's ITS?
:)

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

I haven't seen the above, but I did play with a PC who mentioned being a slave owner. So far, this is all totally theoretical.
Group members with my cleric have only died because of his crappy init. Sneak round -> NPC goes, Regular round -> NPC goes again, killing PC, Regular round -> cleric goes, but too late.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

I have such a problem, let me tell you. Two of my seven PCs object strongly to slavery. Not because *I* object (although I do), because it makes sense for *them* to object.
My first character ever for PFS is a Sir Knight Captain if the Eagle Knights and a Gray Corsair with his own ship. I paid for a nobles outfit and jewelry and call it his dress blues with all the brass and badges. He was a slave and hates it with a passion.
But he's also a pathfinder. And as such sometimes he has to tolerate unsavory characters in the name of the society.
If you can't make a Pathfinder, that is willing to be a Pathfinder before their own personal garbage, then you are doing yourself and the campaign a disservice.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a PC bring along a slave, or is this whole discussion still about the theory?
I've seen players at a couple of conventions, in northern Indiana and Michigan, who had purchased slaves. In neither case, did the player have the social skills to avoid offending other players.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a PC bring along a slave, or is this whole discussion still about the theory?
If it has been seen, how often?
Are the slaves abused?
And are they listed on the PC's ITS?
:)
There was a guy in my area whose character owned a slave. I don't recall him ever actually bringing the slave on adventures, though.
On a bit of an ironic note, I know a character in my area that always brings a servant along, 'accidently' puts him in harms way and gets him killed in some sort of comedic fashion. Then he goes and hires another one for the next adventure. I'm not sure I wouldn't rather be the slave.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

As I said, it's a moot point. Lawful good PCs can't justify such lack of action, and a lorewarden is helpless under the mechanics of PFS, even though she is chaotic good.
Yes they can. If their lawfulness only is a problem if something is illegal. Goodness is only a problem if something is evil.
Since Slavery as an institution is not evil in and of itself, in Golarion, and it isn't illegal, then your lawful good character's hatred is personal. As such, they can show compassion for the slave, and within the bounds if the law try to free them, but they are not compelled by being lawful good to do so.
If you decide to create a character that declares their lawful goodness is at stake for stopping the slavery, then you haven't made a character that fits in Golarion.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a PC bring along a slave, or is this whole discussion still about the theory?
If it has been seen, how often?
Are the slaves abused?
And are they listed on the PC's ITS?
:)
My Chelaxian gnome alchemist/cavalier has the porter vanity. He calls the guy Manservant. Its a slave, but I'm never overt about it. I don't think in game play I've ever revealed that Manservant is a slave.

![]() ![]() ![]() |

Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a PC bring along a slave, or is this whole discussion still about the theory?
If it has been seen, how often?
Are the slaves abused?
And are they listed on the PC's ITS?
:)
I have a Porter for my alchemist, who primarily either pulls my PC around in his pimped-out rickshaw, or follows him around with a pimped-out umbrella when he deigns to walk. I've had people ask if he was a slave, but I haven't really decided for sure one way or the other. Of course, he is unflinchingly obedient, and I'm not paying him any wages out of my gold for the scenario, so...

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

David Bowles wrote:As I said, it's a moot point. Lawful good PCs can't justify such lack of action, and a lorewarden is helpless under the mechanics of PFS, even though she is chaotic good.Yes they can. If their lawfulness only is a problem if something is illegal. Goodness is only a problem if something is evil.
Since Slavery as an institution is not evil in and of itself, in Golarion, and it isn't illegal, then your lawful good character's hatred is personal. As such, they can show compassion for the slave, and within the bounds if the law try to free them, but they are not compelled by being lawful good to do so.
If you decide to create a character that declares their lawful goodness is at stake for stopping the slavery, then you haven't made a character that fits in Golarion.
I meant lack of action of healing another PC. Not being a slavery crusader.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Law is subjective though. If I'm playing an Andoran (i.e. player had traumatic head injury) then the law of my land is thatsalves should be free. How is it not Lawful?
If i'm playing a character who obeys the laws of the land he's in (as being Lawful Good) and he and slaver sam go to Andoran... again trying to free the slave is lawful good?
And I'm amazed to find out the Eagle Knights don't fit in Golarion.
Perhaps you should educate Paizo that they created an organization that doesn't fit in Golarion?

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

its clear to me that many of you don't know how difficult it is to. Keep your manor well maintained. My father fed and clothed his slips better than most of the servants I have seen in lodges across golaion, though some weren't as well treated at other manors.
I have grown beyond such simple servants, people can be bought or controlled with magic, I prefer my servants to be unseen, or for them to be my similacrums perfect loyalty AND power...what's not to love.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Law is subjective though. If I'm playing an Andoran (i.e. player had traumatic head injury) then the law of my land is thatsalves should be free. How is it not Lawful?
If i'm playing a character who obeys the laws of the land he's in (as being Lawful Good) and he and slaver sam go to Andoran... again trying to free the slave is lawful good?
And I'm amazed to find out the Eagle Knights don't fit in Golarion.
Perhaps you should educate Paizo that they created an organization that doesn't fit in Golarion?
I know you said this tongue in cheek. But this comment is also arguing in bad faith.
How does your comment have anything remotely to do with my point?

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a PC bring along a slave, or is this whole discussion still about the theory?
If it has been seen, how often?
Are the slaves abused?
And are they listed on the PC's ITS?
:)
ah... I have a PC with Profession Slave, does that count?
She's on "loan" to the PFS.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Mistwalker wrote:Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a PC bring along a slave, or is this whole discussion still about the theory?
If it has been seen, how often?
Are the slaves abused?
And are they listed on the PC's ITS?
:)ah... I have a PC with Profession Slave, does that count?
She's on "loan" to the PFS.
Given some of the set up to faction missions... I'd say she's an abused slave in PFS :-)

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Given I'm not the one who edited out saying that a Lawful good character who feels slaves should be freed doesn't belong in Golarion, I'll just have to remember to a) quote you before you edit, or b) stop taking anything you say at face value.
Uh I didn't edit anything. What I wrote above is the original. You misread.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Jane "The Knife" wrote:Given some of the set up to faction missions... I'd say she's an abused slave in PFS :-)Mistwalker wrote:Out of curiosity, has anyone seen a PC bring along a slave, or is this whole discussion still about the theory?
If it has been seen, how often?
Are the slaves abused?
And are they listed on the PC's ITS?
:)ah... I have a PC with Profession Slave, does that count?
She's on "loan" to the PFS.
She is quite will maintained... often better than many animal companions.
She hasn't yet been sent to Andoran, I'm not sure what will happen if she is...

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Andrew Christian wrote:I meant lack of action of healing another PC. Not being a slavery crusader.David Bowles wrote:As I said, it's a moot point. Lawful good PCs can't justify such lack of action, and a lorewarden is helpless under the mechanics of PFS, even though she is chaotic good.Yes they can. If their lawfulness only is a problem if something is illegal. Goodness is only a problem if something is evil.
Since Slavery as an institution is not evil in and of itself, in Golarion, and it isn't illegal, then your lawful good character's hatred is personal. As such, they can show compassion for the slave, and within the bounds if the law try to free them, but they are not compelled by being lawful good to do so.
If you decide to create a character that declares their lawful goodness is at stake for stopping the slavery, then you haven't made a character that fits in Golarion.
I have a question. If you were an army medic fighting insurgents in Afghanistan and one of your squad members got shot, do you think it would be okay to deny him medical treatment based on whether or not you approve of his personal moral choices?

Mistwalker |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

So far the only real examples are PCs with a vanity, usually the porter vanity - which could be a servant or a slave (I don't have enough information on trollbill's dying servant example to comment). I don't think that most even stop to think that the porter could be a slave.
@ Matthew, if Slaver Sam brought slaves into Andoran or the River Kingdoms, I can see them being set free, regardless of how Slaver Sam felt (if he wasn't running to avoid a lynch mob) - as a GM, I wouldn't have any problem doing this.
I don't see the need to expend costly resources on fellow PCs who neglect to bring their own (like wands of CLW). However, if I am playing a cleric, that cleric shouldn't be excluding the slave owning PC from their channelling - to me this would be breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule and violating the "cooperation" aspect of the PFS.
If I have a PC that is anti-slavery, I would likely have that PC try and convince the slave owning PC to free their slave, and if not, consider purchasing the slave (I pay full, the other PC get's half of what they paid, the balance goes to pay the processing fee to register the sale) and free the slave in an appropriate place (i.e. in a country where slaves could be freed, and where they have a chance of making a living - as opposed to starving) - putting my PCs gold where their mouth is, that is, suporting their morals and beliefs.
Rather than debate how slavery is viewed on Golarion, I would rather focus on how PCs (and their players) should react, based on their backgrounds, to slaves.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Forgive me for wasting people's time here. I knew the answer was gonna be "leave the table" or "play a different PC". My cleric has refused two tables, and one turned into a TPK, so I guess that's my fault as well by your logic?
???
this response seems to be a bit childish...(IMHO)
not that it really matters to me - I'm only following this thread in a haphazard manner.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

David Bowles wrote:I have a question. If you were an army medic fighting insurgents in Afghanistan and one of your squad members got shot, bo you think it would be okay to deny him medical treatment based on whether or not you approve of his personal moral choices?Andrew Christian wrote:I meant lack of action of healing another PC. Not being a slavery crusader.David Bowles wrote:As I said, it's a moot point. Lawful good PCs can't justify such lack of action, and a lorewarden is helpless under the mechanics of PFS, even though she is chaotic good.Yes they can. If their lawfulness only is a problem if something is illegal. Goodness is only a problem if something is evil.
Since Slavery as an institution is not evil in and of itself, in Golarion, and it isn't illegal, then your lawful good character's hatred is personal. As such, they can show compassion for the slave, and within the bounds if the law try to free them, but they are not compelled by being lawful good to do so.
If you decide to create a character that declares their lawful goodness is at stake for stopping the slavery, then you haven't made a character that fits in Golarion.
In general, no. But holding slaves is a little different than a "personal moral choice", since that choice is affecting other people. As I said, it's a moot point and likely to never come up since my cleric is almost a Seeker and my lorewarden really can't mechanically act on her objections.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

David Bowles wrote:Forgive me for wasting people's time here. I knew the answer was gonna be "leave the table" or "play a different PC". My cleric has refused two tables, and one turned into a TPK, so I guess that's my fault as well by your logic????
this response seems to be a bit childish...(IMHO)
not that it really matters to me - I'm only following this thread in a haphazard manner.
Maybe, but this topic is pretty disturbing to me, so I'm acting out of character.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Do this often enough David, and its akin to the thread about someone killing town guards and getting arrested. Mike indicated that the person be marked dead.
In your case, a malicious refusal to cooperate would cause the Society to kick your character out. Thus marking him dead as you can't play a non Society character in PFS.
Roleplay is about adopting another personality. If all your characters carry the unbending hatred of all forms of slavery that you do, then you aren't really roleplaying, but rather imposing your personal real life beliefs onto other role players in a spiteful and malicious manner.
Fact: slavery is legal in golarion.
Fact: slavery is legal in PFS.
Fact: slavery as an institution in golarionbis not evil.
You can deal with that as a mature adult and roleplay, or you can be petulant. The choice is yours.
Andrew, I almost always agree with things you post here on this board. This thread is an exception. In particular, the statement "slavery as an institution in golarionbis not evil". I think that, unless the 'slave' is a prisoner, working off a sentence, then it IS evil - legalized evil, but still very evil.
Maybe my discomfort is due to my being American and being pretty well aware of our history with said institution. In a home game I would probably be comfortable with another player role-playing slave ownership. Part of this is because I generally know all the people I'm playing with fairly well and have a degree of trust in them -- call it a 'different social contract'. On the other hand, the idea of people role-playing slave ownership at a PFS table makes me uncomfortable. I don't know these people well enough to trust them to roleplay such a PC-NPC relationship in a way that I (or others) wouldn't find offensive. Frankly speaking, there are certain things that happen in our world (and in Golarion) that the campaign does NOT allow to be roleplayed at PFS tables. In my opinion, slavery should be one of them.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
So far the only real examples are PCs with a vanity, usually the porter vanity - which could be a servant or a slave (I don't have enough information on trollbill's dying servant example to comment). I don't think that most even stop to think that the porter could be a slave.
@ Matthew, if Slaver Sam brought slaves into Andoran or the River Kingdoms, I can see them being set free, regardless of how Slaver Sam felt (if he wasn't running to avoid a lynch mob) - as a GM, I wouldn't have any problem doing this.
I don't see the need to expend costly resources on fellow PCs who neglect to bring their own (like wands of CLW). However, if I am playing a cleric, that cleric shouldn't be excluding the slave owning PC from their channelling - to me this would be breaking the "don't be a jerk" rule and violating the "cooperation" aspect of the PFS.
If I have a PC that is anti-slavery, I would likely have that PC try and convince the slave owning PC to free their slave, and if not, consider purchasing the slave (I pay full, the other PC get's half of what they paid, the balance goes to pay the processing fee to register the sale) and free the slave in an appropriate place (i.e. in a country where slaves could be freed, and where they have a chance of making a living - as opposed to starving) - putting my PCs gold where their mouth is, that is, suporting their morals and beliefs.
Rather than debate how slavery is viewed on Golarion, I would rather focus on how PCs (and their players) should react, based on their backgrounds, to slaves.
what is this? a clearly reasoned out response that is not likely to upset anyone? am I still on the PFS boards?
sarcasm - really it was just sarcasm!

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Forgive me for wasting people's time here. I knew the answer was gonna be "leave the table" or "play a different PC". My cleric has refused two tables, and one turned into a TPK, so I guess that's my fault as well by your logic?
The fault lies not in deciding not to play at that table. We all know that there are some codified mutual exclusivity, such as a necromancer insisting on animating dead while in the presence of a cleric of pharasma.
The fault lies in creating a character that would have these no compromise conflicts on something that could derail an entire scenario or party.
When you sign up to play PFS, you know one of the campaigns core tenets is cooperate. If you can't make a character who is willing to cooperate, then that character is not right for PFS.

![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |

Given I'm not the one who edited out saying that a Lawful good character who feels slaves should be freed doesn't belong in Golarion, I'll just have to remember to a) quote you before you edit, or b) stop taking anything you say at face value.
Edit, and nwo the quote is back. It did read about 'bringing personal baggage' instead of the LG organization.
I'll appologize and blame it on net weirdness.
That said, I was replying to "If you decide to create a character that declares their lawful goodness is at stake for stopping the slavery, then you haven't made a character that fits in Golarion" And the Eagle Knights are specifically "Formed in 4600 AR by permission of King Cullaim II,[1] the Eagle Knights of Andoran are an organization sworn to protect their homeland, and to destroy slavery and those who profit from it. Often working as moles inside slaving organizations, the Eagle Knights, while well intentioned, are as insidious as many of the more evil organizations in Golarion"
[emphasis mine]
So apparently since they are lawful good, and are for 'stopping the slavery' they don't have a place in Golarion.
So I'm so glad they don't exist in Golarion, nor can Pathfinders be Eagle Kni-, oh wait.