It is more of a low/mid magic setting but the scenario above is still possible.
The Ring of Glibness is a good item for this type of infiltration. It makes him believable and should protect him from truth spells. Any attempt to detect his alignment would only show that he is CN or whatever alignment he shifts to if his actions and mentality cause such a shift. So the only danger is being physically followed by spies of Penumbra to meetings with Richard and other FoE personnel, or being Scried on during such things. This will be mitigated by the fact that one of the other PCs is being assigned as the handler for the spy. But there is still some danger if these types of meetings occur or if conversations about the PC being a spy in Penumbra are overheard. One wrong word with someone is listening or a Scryer is watching is enough to topple the whole house of cards. Karavas would be very familiar with the PC at the point when the killing would take place and if he can Sleight of Hand some hair off the PC then all that sands between the PC spy and a Scrying spell is a Will save at a -15 penalty. Scrying is a 3rd lvl Bard spell, 4th level Sorc/Wiz/Druid spell, and 5th level Cleric spell. So, it would require a 7th level Bard or Wizard or a 9th level Cleric. I would think the 12th level Karavas might have access to these kinds of NPCs.
What is your definition of low/mid magic setting? I ask because by RAW the setting is what I would consider an upper mid magic setting. What I am saying is that some of the name-brand bad guys, and good guys for that matter, would have access to some decent level spells by level 12, unless the town is just isolated from magical influence for whatever reason, or if the town is too small to have such things available. Just food for thought, I am not sure how much detail and thought you have put into what kind of magic is available and why, but even a simple scroll of Scrying could change things in this spy game in a major way.
I actually don't quite understand how anyone that has read the alignment descriptions in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook could think that this act would threaten the alignment of a CN or N character.
Sure, if you only read the alignment descriptions it could be misconstrued that way. But if you go a bit above that and read the sections under Good vs. Evil you will see this.
Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit... Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
In this case he is killing an innocent person while she sleeps for profit and out of duty to an evil master. The profit is getting close to the guild master; the evil master is Karavas himself. This is an Evil act. It might not affect the alignment of a CN or N character as much as a G character under a scaling system, but the act itself is still Evil. It doesn't say that if you kill innocent people for a good cause that makes it N, it says killing innocent people is Evil.
What it says is that if you kill for fun or profit, or for sport, or out of duty to and evil master or diety, then that is evil.
It does not address killing for the greater good at all, at least not in the section you quoted. The situation described by the original poster does not involve killing for profit, nor does it involve killing out of duty to an evil master.
Your interpretation of PF alignments leaves no ground for neutral alignments whatsoever, making them into "apathetic good" alignments, instead.
-Kle.
Not really. I have played CN characters before and they get pretty ugly. But I never killed innocent people with my N characters. I have put plans in motion that got innocent people killed, but that was very regrettable and certainly not my intention. Gods help you if you were an enemy because my CN characters held some deep grudges. I snuck into a prison after one of my enemies and executed him in his prison cell while he slept; all because he had spit on me earlier in the day when I came in to interrogate him. I then set his cell on fire to erase evidence he had been killed and stole his body to be fed to pigs. If you were the enemy of one of my CN characters you usually met a very distasteful end. But innocent people were safe around me; I certainly didn't go out of my way to kill innocent people just so I could get in good with some guild.
Profit is more than just money. He is killing for gain, in this case for the sole purpose of getting closer to the guild leader. It is also an Evil master who is telling him to do it. That makes the base act Evil. The Neutral area says they have compunction about killing innocent people. So this could be considered Neutral IF the PC does it with extreme distaste and is genuinely regretful over the fact that he has done it. But this would be a DM call and I would have to see some regret being RPd before I would say it was Neutral. Doing something for the idea of some "greater good" with an attitude of "oh well I had to" is not enough to claim Neutrality. If he doesn't RP it really well and show that he had distaste for it and has regret over it, then it is Evil. He is in the end doing it for profit and at the orders of an Evil master. The base act is Evil, he could RP it down to Neutral if he is truly playing a Neutral character, but most people who play CN are really playing NE in disguise. If that's the case he probably won't RP any regret or care in the least. The "greater good" simply becomes an excuse to kill whomever he is ordered to kill. But that is for the DM to decide based on the Players RP attitude.
The campaign doesn't seem all that dark to me - more like real life, which I would take as an average.So you kill 16-year-old girls all the time?
(Joke!)
[joke]:: Of course, doesn't everybody. After all, that's the Neutral way of life, right? Right guys...? Seriously I'm Neutral right...? ::[/joke]
To answer to the post primary question : yes, it is evil... Though since I play with an alignement chart it will not neccessary mean alignement shift to me... ;)
I will give him, depending on his reaction from a few to a very big lot of evil point, and depending of his placement on the chart it will shift or not...
That said, playing an infiltred guy is very, very tough... Look at the TV drame : E-Ring... :)
If he "submarine" for too long his alignement will shift, no matter what...
As for me, and for the precise exemple you give, I would tell him just before the operation start he has to kill the girl, this will give him time to come with a genius plan if he want to try to save her... :)
P.S. : Oh, and I play with a big "neutral area, meaning if you are loyal good, but not that loyal and not that good, you are considered as neutral for most of the alignement based things... And there's no real playable races truly neutral, you need an animal to be truly neutral or some dragons or outsiders... Things with far less intelligence or a truly alien way of thinking to be truly neutral... :p
This is why certain Greyhawk and other setting type evil cults are nearly impossible to infiltrate. Either the would be infiltrator balks and is dispatched, or ultimately he becomes a true member of that he's trying to combat and is a loss to his original organisation.
That's not always true, a characters can become chaotic evil and still wanted to erase the evil cult... It's just that he certainly will find his "real" boss too timid and will just resort to any means to eradicate this evil cult... like an association with a demon, sacrifice of young girl, seeking more power than the cult etc. ;)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Phazzle,
If you're still reading this, and haven't ran the scenario, may I suggest an alternative being a sacrifice on the player's part?
In Masks of the Living God the party likely has to take part in extortion, intimidation, etc. The module is written with an 'out' of the party expending their own resources (paying the protection money themselves, giving money for the damages, etc) in a way their superviors won't notice. This represents a moral choice, and an 'out' for good characters infiltrating the temple.
Maybe with the girl, depending on party level, a similar sacrifice might be in order?
If murder is the 'only' option, then a scroll of raise dead (or feign death or something) on hand to fix the problem represents a considerable amount of party resources, appropriate for good characters. Feign death, an alchemical regent to simulate death, etc would be lower level options as well. (A high level option would be to polymorph any object to 'polymorph' her to dust. She'd revert, unharmed, after a few minutes.) trussing up a dummy and driving a knife into it while it's hidden under a major image could work too.
Likewise, a pair of casters could put on quite a show of 'disintigrating' her even at low levels (sorcerer tosses sleep, then casts invisibility while wizard uses illusions to 'burn her to ash').
Not to go into 'you're doing it wrong' territory, but giving the party an (expensive) 'out' or the cheep and easy way of just killing her, might be something thematically appropriate, w/o derailing the campaign.
|
When they kill all the guards they will find a 16 year old girl sleeping in her bed and the guild leader will ask the PC to kill her to "prove his loyalty."
I think it would be cooler if the guild leader just pointed to the chick and asked the PC to "prove his loyalty", that way the PC could interpret that as doing her, not killing her. If after doing her, the leader said "now kill her", the PC could reply "Why kill her when I've got this portable hole, bottle of air, rations, and waterskin? That seems like a waste." Test passed.
I know that I said that I would not continue to respond but since it seems like most of the "you're wrong," crowd has gone away I might as well post an update.
We played last night, awesome session all in all but somehthing that I had not considered happened. The PCs encountered another NPC in their current dungeon crawl that is an "associate," of Karvas. After they fought to a standstill they opted to parley. The NPC threatened to blackmail the PC by telling Karvas that he was involved with FoE. They eventually worked out a detailed agreement where the NPC will get some services from the PC in exchange for his silence (He is an excellent smith so he offered to make him a weapon and he said that he would ask a favor "very soon,"). Before anyone pulles out a paddle to whack me for "not doing this right," I will just say that the last two hours of the session were a glorious thing to behold. Pure roleplaying! 6 people sitting around a table talking in character about plans, deals, intrigue, etc. Whatever I did last night I did it right.
This presents a problem. Richard Maurer would probably be less likely to trust the PC given that he now knows that this NPC might blow his cover. However, he is still left with very few options. This is the ONLY chance that he has to have someone get close to Karvas but he is dealing with a PC that is untrustworthy, dangerous, and is now comprimised. It makes for a VERY cool situation though since now the party is sitting in the middle of what essentially amounts to three power groups and they know that if they make a wrong move it could be their last.
Of course, Karvas is unaware of everything that has transpired thus far and will still contact the PC to help him infiltrate the girl's house, kill the guards, and kill her. The PC now has less reason to commit the murders since no one will be employing him to spy on Karvas and Karvas is wise enough that he is not just going to get rid of a valuable 9th level enforcer just because he is squeemish about killing innocents. He can still be used effectively for other tasks.
[What is your definition of low/mid magic setting?
I strictly adhere to the recommended loot rules for the game. Low/mid magic is more a description of the flavor of the campign than of the level of power. PCs still have access to most of the magic items and abilities in the core rules but certain items like portable holes, bags of holding, flaming weapons, beads of force that either create logistical problems or just dont "feel," right I do not allow. Everything is done on a case-by-case basis. For instance one PC is very proud of a wagon that he spent a lot of time detailing, stocking with supplies, tracking the location of, implementing security measures, etc. I would not want a portable hole to make all of that effort wasted. PCs still have +X weapons, rings, and nifty armor (last session Richard Maurer actually rewarded one PC with an ancient elven shield that has spell resistance. I spent a good deal of time writing the history of this item.
You know what, we argue about morality a lot on these boards, more then we probably should sometimes. I think that if you think your players are good with a storyline like that then go ahead with it.
Personally (for me that is) the greater good is.... just that. I think that making hard decisions is an important aspect of roleplaying and I really enjoy watching the party when they're put in situations like that one... as long as the players have a chance to do whatever they want to do in the confines of your story then I don't see anything wrong with it at all.
Morality is too subjective to make much of an argument out of normally, but frankly our police do that sort of thing from time to time. Undercover work is frequently down and dirty, and the greater good is ALWAYS more important. People always refute these darker themes as being not heroic... but how could you ever become invested in a game world in which bad things never happen?
This is a common story element in undercover police stories. They're fun to watch, because we know the hero is struggling with the choice, or they come up with a creative solution to the problem. If the player is not going to struggle with the decision and just going to take an easy/obvious choice, it becomes less interesting as a story.
I would say it depends on the alignment shift, primarily on the intent of the player/character. If the player talks at all about how it's a hard decision, or how they feel bad about it afterwards, I would not include an alignment shift. If they become callous and indifferent, and there are further actions where they are willing to inflict harm on innocents to get the job done, I would tell the player that an alignment shift is happening. The alignment system in regards to morality is pretty much entirely rationalization about why any action is a specific alignment, so use whatever works for you and your player.
You know what, we argue about morality a lot on these boards, more then we probably should sometimes. I think that if you think your players are good with a storyline like that then go ahead with it.
Personally (for me that is) the greater good is.... just that. I think that making hard decisions is an important aspect of roleplaying and I really enjoy watching the party when they're put in situations like that one... as long as the players have a chance to do whatever they want to do in the confines of your story then I don't see anything wrong with it at all.
Morality is too subjective to make much of an argument out of normally, but frankly our police do that sort of thing from time to time. Undercover work is frequently down and dirty, and the greater good is ALWAYS more important. People always refute these darker themes as being not heroic... but how could you ever become invested in a game world in which bad things never happen?
Exactly. Thank you for being a voice of reason. This thread has inspired me to think of how much of "morality," is really just someone's interpretation of moral relativism. Some people wholeheartedly believe that homosexuality is the greatest evil on earth. Others, believe that drug use is A-ok as long as you pay your taxes. Dueling was a common institution as far back as the civil war era. Hell, Alexander Hamilton was prepared to kill Aaron Burr in a gunfight and he graces the $10 bill.
Furthermore, why would I deny my PCs the opportunity to roleplay through these interactions by imposing some rigid alignment standard on them. Just look at some of the greatest films of the last 20 years. "The Departed," "Donny Brasco," "Beyond the Law." All of the characters in these films had to grapple with the consequences of their actions and walk a fine line. It made for great cinema and it makes for great roleplaying too. I see this character either succumbing to his darker nature and falling from grace OR giving over to the better angels of his nature and using his unique gifts to prevent a great evil.
You know what, we argue about morality a lot on these boards, more then we probably should sometimes. I think that if you think your players are good with a storyline like that then go ahead with it.
Personally (for me that is) the greater good is.... just that. I think that making hard decisions is an important aspect of roleplaying and I really enjoy watching the party when they're put in situations like that one... as long as the players have a chance to do whatever they want to do in the confines of your story then I don't see anything wrong with it at all.
Morality is too subjective to make much of an argument out of normally, but frankly our police do that sort of thing from time to time. Undercover work is frequently down and dirty, and the greater good is ALWAYS more important. People always refute these darker themes as being not heroic... but how could you ever become invested in a game world in which bad things never happen?
Exactly. Thank you for being a voice of reason. This thread has inspired me to think of how much of "morality," is really just someone's interpretation of moral relativism. Some people wholeheartedly believe that homosexuality is the greatest evil on earth. Others, believe that drug use is A-ok as long as you pay your taxes. Dueling was a common institution as far back as the civil war era. Hell, Alexander Hamilton was prepared to kill Aaron Burr in a gunfight and he graces the $10 bill.
Furthermore, why would I deny my PCs the opportunity to roleplay through these interactions by imposing some rigid alignment standard on them. Just look at some of the greatest films of the last 20 years. "The Departed," "Donny Brasco," "Beyond the Law." All of the characters in these films had to grapple with the consequences of their actions and walk a fine line. It made for great cinema and it makes for great roleplaying too. I see this character either succumbing to his darker nature and falling from grace OR giving over to the better angels of his nature and using his unique gifts to prevent a great evil.
I don't think morality or honor are synonymous with Alignment. I would say that a "hero" doesn't have to be a "good man," and a "good man" doesn't have to be "Good." The protagonist of the movie "Taken" for example was a hero and IMO a good man, but he was certainly not Good. He was definitely N and possibly with a heavy slant toward E when he was after his "greater good." Just because a person is an iconic man and even a "good man" doesn't at all mean that their Alignment would contain a "G." They probably start out as Good or Neutral but over time the things they must do to achieve their "greater good" will wear on the soul.
I like these kinds of games too. I like playing a "hero" that isn't afraid to get his hands a little dirty for the cause, or A LOT dirty if necessary.
This presents a problem. Richard Maurer would probably be less likely to trust the PC given that he now knows that this NPC might blow his cover. However, he is still left with very few options. This is the ONLY chance that he has to have someone get close to Karvas but he is dealing with a PC that is untrustworthy, dangerous, and is now comprimised. It makes for a VERY cool situation though since now the party is sitting in the middle of what essentially amounts to three power groups and they know that if they make a wrong move it could be their last.
It doesn't have to be Richard who approaches the PC. If Richard no longer desires to get involved with the PC it could be another member of the FOE organization who is doing so without Richard's knowledge because he believes it's the only way. Just a thought.
It doesn't have to be Richard who approaches the PC. If Richard no longer desires to get involved with the PC it could be another member of the FOE organization who is doing so without Richard's knowledge because he believes it's the only way. Just a thought.
True. Richard would be pragmatic first. Here are my thoughts.
First, he has a 9th level cleric at his disposal (another PC who would become the PCs handler) who can cast zone of truth and he operates in much the same way as Karvas. I.E. "Meet me in this place, alone." Plus, he is alwyas in the presence of half a dozen fifth level rangers. He is not necessarily worried about being betrayed or lied to.
Second, he really is at the end of his rope. He reasons that since Karvas is pumping drugs into the city at no profit that he must be up to something more sinister. He has seen the city go downhill since Karvas took control and it looks to get worse.
Finally, if the PC does get captured or killed he really does not lose anything. He will certainly remind him of the danger and do his best to offer him protection but if Karvas finds out what is up and interrogates the PC he really cannot tell him where he is, the strength of his forces, or what his plans are because he does not know. The information will flow only one way.
*droned*
"The Greater Good"
*/droned*
*droned*
"The Greater Good"
*/droned*
I never thought of it that way? Thanks?
Is the character being railroaded?
My concern is more aimed at the player: Will the player find it fun to have his character put in the position where he has to make a choice between two evils.
Would you enjoy it if he did it to you?
If either answer is no: then it's railroading.
Ok I am going to rewrite the adventure... You make a convincing argument. If I present a pc with a choice and there is no OBVIOUS solution then it is railroading even if I have prepared for the consequences of each decision and am familiar enough with the milieu to account even for unforeseen outcomes.
Yes, you are right, this PC who has been allowing a murderous thieves guild to use his establishment to traffic drugs could not have seen this coming. He is completely unprepared.
In fact, instead of Karvas asking him to kill her or leave unharmed I will have Karvas say "Hey PC, no bond will be forced on you. I want you to kill this girl to prove your loyalty. If you do not kill her you may leave in peace and serve me in the capacity that you have thus far. If you do kill her I will bring you into the Penumbra and you will have untold wealth and power...or...or...you can take her out to the woods, pick wildflowers, and have a picnic in the gumdrop forest. BUT YOU MUST CHOOSE!!!"
You are right. This is what I would want if I was playing in his dark adult themed campaign.
My concern is more player-oriented: Will the player find it fun to have his character put in the position where he has to make a choice between evil and failing his mission?
Would you enjoy it if someone did it to you when they were GM'ing?
If either answer is no: then it's railroading.
This isn't railroading at all. Railroading is when, regardless of PC actions/desire, the GM forces them into specific situations and consequences. This is called story telling. Whether it's good or not is up to the GM and PC.
This isn't railroading at all. Railroading is when, regardless of PC actions/desire, the GM forces them into specific situations and consequences. This is called story telling. Whether it's good or not is up to the GM and PC.My concern is more player-oriented: Will the player find it fun to have his character put in the position where he has to make a choice between evil and failing his mission?
Would you enjoy it if someone did it to you when they were GM'ing?
If either answer is no: then it's railroading.
Exactly. Here is what railroading looks like
GM: "Karvas sends a message to meet him in the woods."
PC: "Well, I get out of town."
GM: "You see a dark figure following you gesturing to the woods and brandishing a wicked blade."
PC: "I fight him."
GM: "He casts a spell and you fall into a deep sleep. You wake up in a clearing in the forest with Karvas standing over you....etc."
Update.
So, I set this storyline in motion last night. For the last couple of weeks I have used the optional rules for depravity from heroes of horror. Essentially, I modified them to apply increasing penalties for players who do clearly evil acts who do not have an evil alignment.
The player in question gained a point of depravity a couple of sessions ago for killing someone in a game of cards because he owed the owner of the tavern a "favor." Because his opponent initiated the fight I gave him one depravity point.
Last night Karvas, the leader of the thieves guild, gathered some of his closest allies and offered to bring the PC into the thieves guild (the PC is acting as double agent for a CG radical group). The price of admission? He had to kill an innocent merchant in cold blood in front of Karvas. Before he did so Karvas gave him the option of taking the innocent man out of the woods to safety and assured him that he would never bother him again. The player killed the merchant for Karvas's favor and gained three points of depravity. Karvas also gave him a mission to retrieve a book that he needs. The PC dutifully informed his other employer, Richard Maurer, of the mission, but neglected to mention the murder. This book contains a prophecy that Karvas needs if he is to resurrect the spirit of Omicidio, the god of murder, strife, and addiction.
So, both the PC and player are aware of the consequences of committing evil acts. The PC now has a permanent -1 to AC for the depravity because he has become so aggressive that he has begun to neglect himself in combat. If he does one more evil thing and does not change alignment he will become so aggressive that, when in combat, he will start to take attacks of opportunity even against his allies.
Thanks for the input so far. This is working out well. All of my PCs like the story, except the PC who is committing the evil acts. He LOVES it!