|
It wasn't over slavery. It was over a necromancer and other issues. I've walked from other tables over GM and class composition as well. But are those some how better reasons?
I think the issue is that if you are playing PFS, you need to temper role-playing with the practicality of the environment. If you are going to make a character with any sort of extreme beliefs/behavior where it is likely to lead to table conflict or failed adventures then you either need to find a role-playing reason to avoid those conflicts, or be willing to accept the consequences of not doing so.
In the Eagle Knight example above, for instance, you could RP your character as one of those 'moles,' pretending to get along with slave owning PCs.
|
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.
FYI: I am also American.
I appreciate your opinion.
Read my post above where I give a real world example and a Fantasy example of slavery that is not evil.
The context of the relationship between master and slave is ultimately important when determining the evilness of it. I fully agree that the potential for abuse and evilness is more prevalent in a slave/master paradigm. But potential =\= actual.
Distasteful, yes. Automatically evil, no.
|
It wasn't over slavery. It was over a necromancer and other issues. I've walked from other tables over GM and class composition as well. But are those some how better reasons?I think the issue is that if you are playing PFS, you need to temper role-playing with the practicality of the environment. If you are going to make a character with any sort of extreme beliefs/behavior where it is likely to lead to table conflict or failed adventures then you either need to find a role-playing reason to avoid those conflicts, or be willing to accept the consequences of not doing so.
In the Eagle Knight example above, for instance, you could RP your character as one of those 'moles,' pretending to get along with slave owning PCs.
Would you say that GM conflicts or table composition issues are legitimate reasons to not play at a table but role play considerations are not?
Would you say that GM conflicts or table composition issues are legitimate reasons to not play at a table but role play considerations are not?
When you signed up to play PFS, you knew that cooperation between Pathfinders was the expectation regardless of a PC's personal background or morality. So making a PC too strident to bend is not the best idea and if that's the source of the role play consideration that would lead you to not play at a table, then that's your issue, not the organized play program.
|
|
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.
You are arguing in bad faith here and creating a false correlation between an in character organization and what I actually said.
An Eagle Knight doesn't tie their lawful goodness to the abolition of slavery. They just happen to be both. What I'm saying is, if your explanation for why you hate slaves and can't coexist beside a slaver as you being lawful good, then that character doesn't fit the cannon of PFS.
I've already explained about my Eagle Knight. What makes you think he isn't making notes and writing reports for his superiors in regards to those pathfinders he's had to go on a mission with that happened to be slavers? But because he also has an allegiance to the Society, he doesn't ruin the mission or cause friction during the mission.
But those reports go to his superiors, so yes done hisnpart to help stop slavery in that context. He also tends to be very short and terse with those he disapproves of, only communicating or interacting with them enough to get the mission done.
|
|
When you signed up to play PFS, you knew that cooperation between Pathfinders was the expectation regardless of a PC's personal background or morality. So making a PC too strident to bend is not the best idea and if that's the source of the role play consideration that would lead you to not play at a table, then that's your issue, not the organized play program.
Would you say that GM conflicts or table composition issues are legitimate reasons to not play at a table but role play considerations are not?
I never stated there was a problem with organized play. I was discussing the legitimacy of not playing at tables for various reasons. It is pretty much the standard that leaving the table is given solution for irreconcileable GM disputes/clashes, right?
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?
I try :) (and according to my significant other, I am trying too!)
Working on the "cooperation" part at the moment.|
|
I've never (knowingly) played at a PFS table with a player with a character that owned a slave. If they did, it didn't come up. The more I think about it, the more glad I am that this is the case and the more anxious I get over the thought that it might happen in the future. In spite of having two characters myself (Taldan cavalier, Chelaxian ranger) that see nothing wrong with the institution and, if they had the means, would likely own slaves themselves after their adventuring days are done, I'm super uncomfortable with the idea of slave ownership being RP'ed out at the table by anyone other than the GM.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@ 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.
@Mistwalker,
I agree in principle that the players should get along. For me, to that end, 'leaving the slave home' for the slaver is the polite thing to do.
While the idea of buying off the slave is one that makes sense, the rules as they exist hamper that (no cash transactions between characters). Something I wish we could address, w/o jerkish behaviour ("oh, you want me to heal you? pony up" is not acceptable) being loopholed in.
Unfortunately in game the character has very few options. Either withholding aid to punish the character's transactions, or beign a completely different kind of Richard to show they're 'better' than the other character (no, not the player, the character*).
Dave's 'walk away' is the right thing to do. I've not gone to a couple games because I knew there would be a personality conflict between me and player(s), likewise, I'll make sure *after the game* that my antics didn't offend anyone. (There's one player I have to be careful about, as I can't quite tell if female PCs/NPCs I'm running wig him out. I'm about as un-feminine as you can get).
*
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
1) PFS is different than Golarion
2) It's pretty clear that an Andoran character can consider his 'lawful and goodness' being tied to fighting slavers. Sure he can pick his fights. I wouldn't expect him to pick a fight with the Ten, (well not until he at least hits seeker level) but he bloody well can oppose the Chel who's having his slaves tote him around. Can he buy the slaves off him in PFS? No. Can he slay the character and free the slaves in PFS? No. Does he have to expend his resources to help the slaver? No. Should he? Well freebies he should (like channels to heal the party) as to the rest...
There's a disconnect between what the player can do, and what the PC can do. We should address both in the context of the thread, and how to strengthen the (real life) society as a whole.
Edit: Fixed a typo. Contentious enough w/o bringing in body creams.
@Mistwalker,
I agree in principle that the players should get along. For me, to that end, 'leaving the slave home' for the slaver is the polite thing to do.
I agree that if possible, anyone playing a PC that is objectionable for the other players should do their best to accomodate the table (necromancer vs certain religions debate, slave ownership vs Andoran style response, mature themed PC vs young players, etc). I can see a PC leaving their slave behind at the inn, lodge, etc.. depending on where the adventure takes place, or simply tell the other players that that individual is not a slave, but an indentured servant (or servant) that is being paid back with sarcasm due to their earlier "Yes Master/Mistress comments".
While the idea of buying off the slave is one that makes sense, the rules as they exist hamper that (no cash transactions between characters). Something I wish we could address, w/o jerkish behaviour ("oh, you want me to heal you? pony up" is not acceptable) being loopholed in.
Ah, but the transaction doesn't have to be between the players - slave owning player sells their slave, records it on ITS - Andoran style PC buys a slave, records the transaction on their ITS (and the subsequent release). On paper, the PCs did not exchange gold, but the players at that table have a slightly different interpretation on how it actually happened.
Can you find an error with the above approach that breaks the rules? Incidentally, that is why I put the plug about fees in my first suggestion, so that the letter and spirit of the buying gear rules were respected.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I believe Mistwalker is suggesting that the PC with the slave sell it for 1/2 cost back to the "store," as if it were an old item they no longer wanted, and record that on his ITS.
Then the purchasing PC denote that they purchased a slave at full cost on their ITS, subsequently freeing it. The slave, for flavor, is the one formerly sold by the slaver PC.
The 1/2 cost that is "lost" in this process is due to various legalization fees for this type of transaction, which again is flavor.
Is this correct Mistwalker? I would find no fault with this.
|
|
1) PFS is different than Golarion
2) It's pretty clear that an Andoran character can consider his 'lawful and goodness' being tied to fighting slavers. Sure he can pick his fights. I wouldn't expect him to pick a fight with the Ten, (well not until he at least hits seeker level) but he bloody well can oppose the Chel who's having his slaves tote him around. Can he buy the slaves off him in PFS? No. Can he slay the character and free the slaves in PFS? No. Does he have to expend his resources to help the slaver? No. Should he? Well freebies he should (like channels to heal the party) as to the rest...There's a disconnect between what the player can do, and what the PC can do. We should address both in the context of the thread, and how to strengthen the (real life) society as a whole.
Edit: Fixed a typo. Contentious enough w/o bringing in body creams.
He "can" but it doesn't wholly fit into the canon of Golarion. Secondly, if you make a character that is so set on a certain personality quirk that you can't find some way to absolve it or compromise, then you essentially have a character who's unwilling to cooperate, which doesn't fit in PFS.
This holds true for any extreme character, whether that be a Paladin, Necromancer, cleric of Pharasma, Eagle Knight, Slaver or whatever.
And if you create a character that flaunts these things despite some folks real discomfort, then the problem isn't the roleplay.
I believe Mistwalker is suggesting that the PC with the slave sell it for 1/2 cost back to the "store," as if it were an old item they no longer wanted, and record that on his ITS.
Then the purchasing PC denote that they purchased a slave at full cost on their ITS, subsequently freeing it. The slave, for flavor, is the one formerly sold by the slaver PC.
The 1/2 cost that is "lost" in this process is due to various legalization fees for this type of transaction, which again is flavor.
Is this correct Mistwalker? I would find no fault with this.
Exactly what I am suggesting.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ah, but the transaction doesn't have to be between the players - slave owning player sells their slave, records it on ITS - Andoran style PC buys a slave, records the transaction on their ITS (and the subsequent release). On paper, the PCs did not exchange gold, but the players at that table have a slightly different interpretation on how it actually happened.
Can you find an error with the above approach that breaks the rules? Incidentally, that is why I put the plug about fees in my first suggestion, so that the letter and spirit of the buying gear rules were respected.
Clever, no I never thought of doing it that way. I don't see how that violates any rules. *tips hat*
"but smothering him with a pillow during wild sex would be more fun!" - Mayim Qadir, anti-slavery advocate.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a player comes to the table while I'm GMing and his character has a slave I will tell him flat out he has a few choices.
1. Don't play at my table.
2. Free the Slave and pay for an Atonement.
3. Accept that I will report their character as Dead on the chronicle Sheet.
Slavery is Evil, owning a Slave is participating in the Evil Act of Slavery. Evil Acts cause your alignment to shift to Evil. Evil Characters are not permitted in PFS.
The reason Evil Characters are not allowed in PFS is it causes conflicts between players. It is very obvious that the subject of Slavery causes the exact same kinds of conflicts any other kind of "evil" does in an Organized Play setting.
|
|
If a player comes to the table while I'm GMing and his character has a slave I will tell him flat out he has a few choices.
1. Don't play at my table.
2. Free the Slave and pay for an Atonement.
3. Accept that I will report their character as Dead on the chronicle Sheet.Slavery is Evil, owning a Slave is participating in the Evil Act of Slavery. Evil Acts cause your alignment to shift to Evil. Evil Characters are not permitted in PFS.
The reason Evil Characters are not allowed in PFS is it causes conflicts between players. It is very obvious that the subject of Slavery causes the exact same kinds of conflicts any other kind of "evil" does in an Organized Play setting.
I would suggest you re-read the rules on evil acts in the guide before actually enforcing what you've said here.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Below is how slavery is treated by both Andorans and Cheliaxians.
The price of slaves in the Inner Sea has risen substantially because of the recent successes of the Gray Fleet of Andoran. Those slave-freeing radicals are single-handedly denying Cheliax the chattel it needs to thrive. We propose to do something dramatic: raise the prices higher.To this end we enjoin you: free slaves. It sounds Andoren but it is not. Free any slaves you can and direct them to the “philanthropist” Gazlak Amelin at the Emboldened Lamb pub in Absalom, who will quietly relocate them beyond the Inner Sea. The fools in Thuvia and Osirion refuse to join Cheliax in destroying the Gray Fleet forever. If they can’t be bargained with, then we’ll raise the price of slaves so high they’ll have to act and Cheliax can sit back and watch those actions unfold.
That is the quote from a Chelish faction mission in Season 0. While it doesn't explicitly state it, what is happening here is pretty clear: the PCs are being asked to "free" slaves and send them to Gazlak, who will ship them off elsewhere. In my opinion, these people are not being freed. I imagine they will just be slaves elsewhere outside the Inner Sea. This assumption fits with the theme of what we know of Cheliax.
In another Season 0 scenario, back in the day, Andoran PCs could earn a bonus prestige by freeing or purchasing a slave boy that is accompanying their caravan. The hint in the faction mission is subtle, but here it is.
As always our mission must be to spread freedom to our fellow men and women of the world. Keep this close to your heart and keep your sword at the ready. The deserts of Qadira are filled with venomous things and evil monsters.
The NPC that owns the slave-boy is introduced in Lopul, a trade city within Qadira. He is never mentioned as being outside his lawful rights to own the slave-boy, and there is no indication that the city officials, tradesmen, or other NPCs present have any qualms with his ownership of the child. I think this is indicative of the setting Pathfinder Society operates within.
Here is my view on the topic.
Different cultures, views, and customs permeate each PFS scenario you experience. And that's the point. These scenarios present your PCs with some very heavy decisions. To us, they are black and white (free slaves, slavery is evil, Cheliax is evil, Andoran is good, etc). But to our PCs, the characters we are roleplaying, the distinction may not be as clear. I am glad that we have scenarios that are testing the boundaries of our perspective. Giving Cheliaxian PCs the opportunity to turn down their faction mission in disgust, or allowing Andoran PCs to feel how powerless they are to free every slave is an amazing thing to be able to do inside an organized play environment. Heck, its amazing for a game to make you feel those things in general. To have a visceral, real response to a fabricated situation in a fantasy world is incredible.
If a player wants their PC to own slaves, I will allow it, provided it is handled in a mature fashion. The same goes for PCs that seduce or brutalize NPCs. It provides every PC that disagrees with that PCs action an opportunity to engage in better roleplaying and get more out of the game.
I remember that one of the best games I had was when I was playing [redacted] with my druid. After several hours of following clues, it was revealed that one of the NPCs of note had been brutally murdered his lover cursed with a terrible magic. What made matters worse was that theirs was a forbidden and secret love, one they had kept hidden for years. His death was tragic. I was legitimately crushed to discover what had happened, and had unbridled rage for the party responsible. The anger I felt in the pit of my stomach toward the NPC responsible was real in that moment, and it made roleplaying my character that much better.
I would be remiss to deny my players the opportunity to feel something similar.
|
|
If a player comes to the table while I'm GMing and his character has a slave I will tell him flat out he has a few choices.
1. Don't play at my table.
2. Free the Slave and pay for an Atonement.
3. Accept that I will report their character as Dead on the chronicle Sheet.Slavery is Evil, owning a Slave is participating in the Evil Act of Slavery. Evil Acts cause your alignment to shift to Evil. Evil Characters are not permitted in PFS.
The reason Evil Characters are not allowed in PFS is it causes conflicts between players. It is very obvious that the subject of Slavery causes the exact same kinds of conflicts any other kind of "evil" does in an Organized Play setting.
You can't legally enforce this unless a campaign staff member declares slavery evil.
This is not a call each GM gets to make on their own.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Andrew, as I understand PFS rules, a GM may ask a player to leave his or her table. Insofar as that's Drake's first option: "Don't play at my table," the other options are sort of irrelevant.
Drake, you should probably inform the PFS coordinator at the store or convention, that you'll be refusing people seats at your table on this matter. It might give you the reputation of somebody who's unreliable, but it'll let the coordinators know to expect one or two players to get up from your tables and look for other games to play.
Going through with the rest of your threat, though, involves several layers of venture officers and such to reset those characters back to "alive", so you're making a lot of work for other people. You might want to double-check whether that's the kind of GM you want to be.
|
|
If a player comes to the table while I'm GMing and his character has a slave I will tell him flat out he has a few choices.
1. Don't play at my table.
2. Free the Slave and pay for an Atonement.
3. Accept that I will report their character as Dead on the chronicle Sheet.Slavery is Evil, owning a Slave is participating in the Evil Act of Slavery. Evil Acts cause your alignment to shift to Evil. Evil Characters are not permitted in PFS.
The reason Evil Characters are not allowed in PFS is it causes conflicts between players. It is very obvious that the subject of Slavery causes the exact same kinds of conflicts any other kind of "evil" does in an Organized Play setting.
Well alrighty then. That escalated quickly.
|
|
If a player comes to the table while I'm GMing and his character has a slave I will tell him flat out he has a few choices.
1. Don't play at my table.
2. Free the Slave and pay for an Atonement.
3. Accept that I will report their character as Dead on the chronicle Sheet.Slavery is Evil, owning a Slave is participating in the Evil Act of Slavery. Evil Acts cause your alignment to shift to Evil. Evil Characters are not permitted in PFS.
The reason Evil Characters are not allowed in PFS is it causes conflicts between players. It is very obvious that the subject of Slavery causes the exact same kinds of conflicts any other kind of "evil" does in an Organized Play setting.
You can't legally enforce this unless a campaign staff member declares slavery evil.
This is not a call each GM gets to make on their own.
But GMs can toss people without having to give a reason. Kind of makes the reason irrelevant, doesn't it?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
glad not to see a trail of stars after this persons name...If a player comes to the table while I'm GMing and his character has a slave I will tell him flat out he has a few choices.
1. Don't play at my table.
2. Free the Slave and pay for an Atonement.
3. Accept that I will report their character as Dead on the chronicle Sheet.Slavery is Evil, owning a Slave is participating in the Evil Act of Slavery. Evil Acts cause your alignment to shift to Evil. Evil Characters are not permitted in PFS.
The reason Evil Characters are not allowed in PFS is it causes conflicts between players. It is very obvious that the subject of Slavery causes the exact same kinds of conflicts any other kind of "evil" does in an Organized Play setting.
Feh, stars don't mean anything :P That said, yeah, beign a GM means having a thick skin sometimes.
Or as I explained to the VL here... "Justin, making the GM cry does not earn you a prestige point."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew, as I understand PFS rules, a GM may ask a player to leave his or her table. Insofar as that's Drake's first option: "Don't play at my table," the other options are sort of irrelevant.
Drake, you should probably inform the PFS coordinator at the store or convention, that you'll be refusing people seats at your table on this matter. It might give you the reputation of somebody who's unreliable, but it'll let the coordinators know to expect one or two players to get up from your tables and look for other games to play.
Going through with the rest of your threat, though, involves several layers of venture officers and such to reset those characters back to "alive", so you're making a lot of work for other people. You might want to double-check whether that's the kind of GM you want to be.
Chris, if its public play, and they have a legal character, they don't have the right to ask the player to leave unless the player is being excessively disruptive. The GM has tge right to leave if they want.
|
|
But GMs can toss people without having to give a reason. Kind of makes the reason irrelevant, doesn't it?If a player comes to the table while I'm GMing and his character has a slave I will tell him flat out he has a few choices.
1. Don't play at my table.
2. Free the Slave and pay for an Atonement.
3. Accept that I will report their character as Dead on the chronicle Sheet.Slavery is Evil, owning a Slave is participating in the Evil Act of Slavery. Evil Acts cause your alignment to shift to Evil. Evil Characters are not permitted in PFS.
The reason Evil Characters are not allowed in PFS is it causes conflicts between players. It is very obvious that the subject of Slavery causes the exact same kinds of conflicts any other kind of "evil" does in an Organized Play setting.
You can't legally enforce this unless a campaign staff member declares slavery evil.
This is not a call each GM gets to make on their own.
No they can't. A GM can't just arbitrarily ask a player to leave their table in public play.
Any GM that did this would not be welcome to GM at my game days.
|
If a player comes to the table while I'm GMing and his character has a slave I will tell him flat out he has a few choices.
1. Don't play at my table.
2. Free the Slave and pay for an Atonement.
3. Accept that I will report their character as Dead on the chronicle Sheet.Slavery is Evil, owning a Slave is participating in the Evil Act of Slavery. Evil Acts cause your alignment to shift to Evil. Evil Characters are not permitted in PFS.
The reason Evil Characters are not allowed in PFS is it causes conflicts between players. It is very obvious that the subject of Slavery causes the exact same kinds of conflicts any other kind of "evil" does in an Organized Play setting.
Your personal opinions are yours, and you are most certainly welcome to those. However, they do not allow you to make these sorts of decisions on certain subjects. Slavery on Golarion has been specifically called out as not being an evil institution. It is therefore not something that you could sling an alignment infraction for, require them to buy an atonement for, or what have you unless they are actually doing terrible things with/to said NPC.
What you DO have the right to do is decline to run at that time and/or place, citing irreconcilable differences with a player or players. There is no shame in that game; it's certainly better than engaging in the system abuse you mentioned above.
|
|
If a player comes to the table while I'm GMing and his character has a slave I will tell him flat out he has a few choices.
1. Don't play at my table.
2. Free the Slave and pay for an Atonement.
3. Accept that I will report their character as Dead on the chronicle Sheet.Slavery is Evil, owning a Slave is participating in the Evil Act of Slavery. Evil Acts cause your alignment to shift to Evil. Evil Characters are not permitted in PFS.
The reason Evil Characters are not allowed in PFS is it causes conflicts between players. It is very obvious that the subject of Slavery causes the exact same kinds of conflicts any other kind of "evil" does in an Organized Play setting.
Your personal opinions are yours, and you are most certainly welcome to those. However, they do not allow you to make these sorts of decisions on certain subjects. Slavery on Golarion has been specifically called out as not being an evil institution. It is therefore not something that you could sling an alignment infraction for, require them to buy an atonement for, or what have you unless they are actually doing terrible things with/to said NPC.
What you DO have the right to do is decline that player entry to your table based on irreconcilable differences. There is no shame in that particular game, y'know?
Actually one small correction.
The GM can leave the table. They cannot ask the player to leave on personal opinion alone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the local media in Seattle finds out that Paizo runs an organized play environment where players can choose to purchase and own slaves, how do you think that's going to go over? How do you think this would go over in Atlanta? Or D.C?
I have serious doubts that it would even register. PFS, nay, Pathfinder as a whole is looked at as being the equivalent of a video game with dice by a lot of the populace at large. Would you be having this same reaction to video games with slavery? Skyrim had slavery, several MMOs have had slavery, the Star Wars franchise is full of slavery that is recognized as legal by the galactic powers in any given era, and even Star Trek has some civilizations where slavery is legal. Due to this legality and their own rule structure, the Federation is unable to intervene in the least. Slavery is a very commonly touched upon subject in many games, movies, and settings; some more than others.
Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland
|
I am legitimately at a loss for how this relates to PC's owning slaves. But you really think the social benefit to PFS is greater if the players are allowed to own slaves? I am curious what aspect of PFS do you think benefits from condoning and promoting slavery as you are doing now? If the local media in Seattle finds out that Paizo runs an organized play environment where players can choose to purchase and own slaves, how do you think that's going to go over? How do you think this would go over in Atlanta? Or D.C?
I'm really at a loss for how PFS can look at the other way at allowing players to participate slavery in an organized play environment where parents are encouraged to bring their kids.
But yet it's ok in PFS to rip out someone's tongue to keep him from talking? Would you walk away from a GM who allowed that faction mission to succeed?
It is completely ok in society play to poison NPCs who act against your faction, presumably so that they will die; it's ok to destroy incriminating evidence for people who have outright broken the law; it's alright to own a Thieves Guild that breaks the laws (even in Good countries!), but you draw the line at Slavery?
|
Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland
|
I could go own for quite awhile about scenarios that have morally objective missions in them for quite awhile, all the way back to Season 0. I can't recall people so upset over one small portion of society before (well, the tongue mission stirred up quite the hornet's nest as well now that I think on it).
As The Beard mentions, almost every genre in existence has slavery, often with no one batting an eye at it's existence. I don't know many parents who refuse to allow their kids to watch Star Trek, so why would they here?
|
|
If a player wants their PC to own slaves, I will allow it, provided it is handled in a mature fashion. The same goes for PCs that seduce or brutalize NPCs. It provides every PC that disagrees with that PCs action an opportunity to engage in better roleplaying and get more out of the game.Very disturbed to hear this Walter. I hope you reconsider your position.
I am disturbed to hear you do not think Walter's response is reasonable. It is reasonable both in the sense of fair play and in the sense of the PFS guidelines.
Do you think it's possible you lack some sensitivity on this subject?
Do you think it's possible you may be over sensitive on this subject?
|
|
But GMs can toss people without having to give a reason. Kind of makes the reason irrelevant, doesn't it?If a player comes to the table while I'm GMing and his character has a slave I will tell him flat out he has a few choices.
1. Don't play at my table.
2. Free the Slave and pay for an Atonement.
3. Accept that I will report their character as Dead on the chronicle Sheet.Slavery is Evil, owning a Slave is participating in the Evil Act of Slavery. Evil Acts cause your alignment to shift to Evil. Evil Characters are not permitted in PFS.
The reason Evil Characters are not allowed in PFS is it causes conflicts between players. It is very obvious that the subject of Slavery causes the exact same kinds of conflicts any other kind of "evil" does in an Organized Play setting.
You can't legally enforce this unless a campaign staff member declares slavery evil.
This is not a call each GM gets to make on their own.
No they can't. A GM can't just arbitrarily ask a player to leave their table in public play.
Any GM that did this would not be welcome to GM at my game days.
Hmm. I've been told otherwise. In reality, it makes little difference, since it is generally a poor idea to play under a hostile GM.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Do you think it's possible you may be over sensitive on this subject?
Considering I have no issue with the slavery being legal in some parts of Golarion, no, I don't think I'm overly sensitive on the topic. What I am exhibiting is sensitivity.
Considering that slaves provide little or no substantive benefit to characters, the fact that so many of you are trying to promote slave ownerships is disturbing. But then I suppose a large part of America had little issue with slavery when it was occurring, so I can't be too surprised with the opinions expressed here.
Yes, because slavery was a uniquely American institution *rolls eyes*
|
|
Considering that slaves provide little or no substantive benefit to characters, the fact that so many of you are trying to promote slave ownerships is disturbing. But then I suppose a large part of America had little issue with slavery when it was occurring, so I can't be too surprised with the opinions expressed here.
One, no one is promoting slave ownership. Two, not everyone here is American.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
DId I say that? No.
Yes, because slavery was a uniquely American institution *rolls eyes*
You did single out America, "But then I suppose a large part of America had little issue with slavery when it was occurring, so I can't be too surprised with the opinions expressed here."
I note you didn't mention Europe (you know where the word 'slave' came from the enslavement of the slavs) or Saudi Arabia (which abolished slavery in the 50's) or Sudan where, you know it's still practiced.
Nope, first you bring up race. "I assume you are Caucasian? Do you think it's possible you lack some sensitivity on this subject?"
Then you go on to make the above statement.