|
So a couple of weeks ago, I brought up a discussion on whether or not certain actions would be considered PVP, but that brought about a question of "what are some evil acts that happen in PFS, and when is doing something going too far since we're all supposed to be neutral or good?" I would like for people to bring up situations they've come across, and how they went about dealing with them (or how you feel they should've been handled).
For instance, I wasn't GMing, but I was playing with a Neutral Good Inquisitor of Iomadae. Now, I know Inquisitors aren't like Clerics or Paladins and they have a bit of leeway with what actions they can do (written into the class description). So we were fighting a BBEG, and the Inquisitor's faction mission was to make sure he was dead.
After the fight was over and the BBEG was dead, the Inquisitor decided to decapitate the body, just to make sure the guy couldn't be resurrected easily. Never mind that OOC the faction mission stated nothing of doing the sort, just making sure he was dead. In character, my Paladin of Aroden (yes, I know, that's a discussion for a different time), was pissed for treating the body of the dead man in such a barbaric fashion. He definitely would have gone to PVP if there wasn't a rule against it. This was after pleading before the action that we could burn the body and funeral rites could be said so it could satisfy his need for making sure the guy was dead and gone. But no, he went over and decapitated the body. Like I said before, I know inquisitors get leeway but I felt this situation went a bit too far. I am under the impression that, especially around a Paladin, decapitation is a desecration of a body and would be deemed an evil act.
Anyway, what are your thoughts and opinions? What situations have you guys come across with people committing acts you would consider evil?
|
First, let me say that the tenets and beliefs of paladins is a long discussed topic. Things like do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one as quite common. So to say that decapitating a dead body is somehow "desecration" is in the eye of the beholder.
Now, if your paladin is of this opinion and spent game time convincing the inquisitor of his stance even to the point of offering alternate "make sure he's dead" options that would satisfy both of you, then his actions may fall under the "don't be a dick" clause of the Guide. Even still, as GM, I would restrict any PVP because it doesn't solve anything and is usually not much fun for the other players at the table who are stuck witnessing the incident. As a player, the moment would likely dictate my response, but at best, I wouldn't play with that player anymore (and would make sure s/he was aware of it). At worst, I would get up and leave the table. This can be especially harsh depending on party make up or if your table is short on player and without you, no longer meets minimum player requirements. In the end, it is a game and if you're not having fun (especially when another play is being a jerk or creating conflict per personal reasons), why play?
|
|
First, let me say that the tenets and beliefs of paladins is a long discussed topic. Things like do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one as quite common. So to say that decapitating a dead body is somehow "desecration" is in the eye of the beholder.
Now, if your paladin is of this opinion and spent game time convincing the inquisitor of his stance even to the point of offering alternate "make sure he's dead" options that would satisfy both of you, then his actions may fall under the "don't be a dick" clause of the Guide. Even still, as GM, I would restrict any PVP because it doesn't solve anything and is usually not much fun for the other players at the table who are stuck witnessing the incident. As a player, the moment would likely dictate my response, but at best, I wouldn't play with that player anymore (and would make sure s/he was aware of it). At worst, I would get up and leave the table. This can be especially harsh depending on party make up or if your table is short on player and without you, no longer meets minimum player requirements. In the end, it is a game and if you're not having fun (especially when another play is being a jerk or creating conflict per personal reasons), why play?
I brought up the PVP because outside of PFS, I think my character would try to subdue him with a sap (think of hitting a dog with a rolled up newspaper and saying "No! Naughty!").
On the same vein, I have a Chaotic Neutral Rogue from Cheliax who brutally mutilated a man in a bar after he was dead. The rogue was pissed the minor BBEG was making snide comments all throughout the battle about how I couldn't hit him (I was rolling really low). I think the only reason he got away with it was due to the fact that there wasn't any overly good characters at this one session. If my Paladin were to have been there (I know, not possible), that definitely wouldn't have happened.
|
|
I brought up the PVP because outside of PFS, I think my character would try to subdue him with a sap (think of hitting a dog with a rolled up newspaper and saying "No! Naughty!").
Most GM's wouldn't allow that even though it is only nonlethal damage. It is still a PVP issue and, by RAW, it is not supposed to be allowed. However, what seems fairly common with society clerics, paladins, or other "goody-goody" types, is an in-game response. If your paladin happens to be the inquisitor's flank-mate, then maybe you won't be helping him come the next battle. Or perhaps, your party has no other healing. So while the inquisitor has some divine magic, it's not much. When you decide to convert smites into channels, he will not be in the blast. Hopefully, these types of tactics are more affective than beating the character into submission. In my experience, this just delays the inevitable. When the inquisitor wakes up, he gets pi$$ed and attacks the paladin. **sigh**
|
|
I brought up the PVP because outside of PFS, I think my character would try to subdue him with a sap (think of hitting a dog with a rolled up newspaper and saying "No! Naughty!").Most GM's wouldn't allow that even though it is only nonlethal damage. It is still a PVP issue and, by RAW, it is not supposed to be allowed. However, would seems fairly common with society clerics, paladins, or other "goody-goody" types, is an in-game response. If your paladin happens to be the inquisitors flank-mate, then maybe he won't be helping him come the next battle. Or perhaps, your party has no other healing. So while the inquisitor has some divine magic, it's not much. When you decide to covert smites into channels, he will not be in the blast. Hopefully, these types of tactics are more affective than beating the character into submission. In my experience, this just delays the inevitable. When the inquisitor wakes up, he gets pi$$ed and attacks the paladin. **sigh**
No, trust me, I know it wouldn't be allowed in PFS. If it were just a home game, I definitely would sap some though (and have before as a Paladin!).
|
|
Okay, I'll repeat myself. Just because you have to adventure (whether as a paladin or an oracle of Rovagug) does not mean that:
1- You will like your fellow Pathfinders. Some you'll like some you won't some you won't remember.
2- You have to fully agree with what they do.
3- Don't be a jerk
4- Don't be a pig-headed jerk who is the only one who is right
Use that move on the part of another player to excite role-playing at the table. Grumble at him, threaten him with repercussions, get into the game. There are ways other than to start beating up on party members to resolve conflict.
Do it in the spirit of the game. Does this change your character? Does he changes his views of his faction? of the other guy's faction? What did the others say (most likely they formed up against you)? What did your character think of that?
Its more than just "1PA" or "I'm a paladin and you are all wrong" (I know you are). It is "How can this situation advance or change my play?" Next time you adventure with this inquisitor, don't be afraid to warn him "I have my eye on you, don't pull those shenanigans again."
You don't have to like them, they don't have to like you. You have a job to do. It's just like real life... in a game... ARGH!
JP
Edit: Sap, best 1gp spent. EVER
|
|
No, trust me, I know it wouldn't be allowed in PFS. If it were just a home game, I definitely would sap some though (and have before as a Paladin!).
LOL, exactly why I cheesed my last non-society paladin with a dip into rogue. You can argue that nearly any attack by an ally would be a surprise and you get sneak damage on top of normal. I know it's not much damage, but the look on a "naughty" player's face when the paladin saps 'em with sneak damage is priceless. Even more so, since the GM had a house rule that bludgeoning nonlethal damage gave a chance of instantly knocking them unconscious.
|
|
I understand why the paladin has some issues. At the same time - I'm aware of at least one faction mission that describes to kill the BBE as 'take his head'. I know that in the GM notes you don't have to decapitate him - but the flowery language of the mission notes could lead to such actions.
And on a funny note - I had to chuckle when you recommended a pyre to burn the BBE. My group did this in the last game I GMed and burned their faction mission together with the BBE. No PvP as the players whos PA went up in flames was the one whoms mission burned.
If you do want to burn someone - investigate the area first. At least the gold that was also hidden didn't burn as well. So the group at least got their money for the adventure.
Thod
|
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but if the mission was the 'make sure this guy is dead' then decapitating the body is certainly within the bounds of play and I would NOT rule this as an evil action. In fact, many characters with such a mission would probably cut the body up into pieces, burn each one and scatter the ashes to the wind. Something similar was done with Kazavon. They chopped up the dragon's body and spread parts of it across the world. A Paladin of Abadar took party to this, as well as a Priest of Irori.
It sounds like to me you are looking for a way to penalize the player through Society rules for something your PC was angry about in-game (although it really seems that out of character you are angry about this as well).
My advice: Let it go. JP's rules are good advice. You won't like everyone you play with, and don't have to like them, but you have to be civil towards them during play. Not only that, in PFS we all have to be team players. If I get a reputation for my Cleric of (Insert Good God) who only assists/heals those PCs that agree with him, then not too many people are going to want to play with me.
|
|
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but if the mission was the 'make sure this guy is dead' then decapitating the body is certainly within the bounds of play and I would NOT rule this as an evil action. In fact, many characters with such a mission would probably cut the body up into pieces, burn each one and scatter the ashes to the wind. Something similar was done with Kazavon. They chopped up the dragon's body and spread parts of it across the world. A Paladin of Abadar took party to this, as well as a Priest of Irori.
It sounds like to me you are looking for a way to penalize the player through Society rules for something your PC was angry about in-game (although it really seems that out of character you are angry about this as well).
My advice: Let it go. JP's rules are good advice. You won't like everyone you play with, and don't have to like them, but you have to be civil towards them during play. Not only that, in PFS we all have to be team players. If I get a reputation for my Cleric of (Insert Good God) who only assists/heals those PCs that agree with him, then not too many people are going to want to play with me.
So I don't think you're understanding the situation or the point of the thread.
1. The decapitation was done after the fact the BBEG was dead dead (AKA dropped below CON dead). But this isn't a thread about any single specific situation.
2. This thread isn't about penalizing people. It is to discuss 'evil acts' that people run across in PFS. For an organized play setting that doesn't allow any evil, a good number of actions people do (hey, I've had my moment described above as well with my rogue from Cheliax) are seen as evil.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Senor Giuseppe,
I feel for you. The Pathfinders are a diverse society. And with that diversity comes conflict. Sometimes conflict of a fundamental nature.
Acting as a soldier always means sublimating one's personal goals to something else -- ideally to something greater. When you find that the constraints of the organization prevent you from doing good as you see it, honor demands that you make a clear but difficult choice; sublimate your goals to the organization, or leave the organization.
You and I, alike, are soldiers in the Pathfinder Society. They ask one thing of us; that we not use violence against our fellow soldiers, no matter how much we differ. This is not an unusual standard for an armed organization -- though, on the other hand, many Captains order soldiers to follow the rules of just war, while Venture Captains do not often hold their people to such standards.
To be sure, there are some members of the organization that, if my Venture Captain saw fit to regularly pair me with, I would be unable to continue, and would resign my Wayfinder.
But if you wish to continue working as a soldier of the Pathfinder Society, you must curb your temper vis-a-vis your compatriots -- even when (and perhaps especially when) they are morally lacking. Instead, show that you will not sink to their level, and walk an ethical high road.
In response to some of what I saw, I left one lodge to join a lodge that kept to more ethical standards.
If you make it clear that you will personally guarantee that the high road is always easier than the low road, then perhaps your fellow Pathfinders will perforce accept your Wisdom. Remember that they, like you, will forfeit their membership in the society if they attack you physically.
By way of examples:
It became clear to me that one of my fellow pathfinders stole. I spoke a word into the ear of a local constable, and let things take their course.
My fellow pathfinders attempted to do violence to a beautiful woman who -- though guilty of sorcery and of attacking us -- was human, and thus capable of redemption. I interposed myself and accepted on my body many of the blows of my fellow Pathfinders, until I could convince her to submit herself to my protective custody. (OOG: The GM allowed me to make reflex saves which, if they matched the attack roll, would allow me to absorb the damage instead of the NPC.)
I bull-rushed one potential casualty around the corner to safety and whispered at him "run" -- advice that he took! (OOG: Granted, I had to use a standard action and Intimidate)
I have left my horse, Willow, to guard a prisoner for whose life I feared. Willow could then sound a challenge and bring me quickly, if the less scrupulous Pathfinders came near.
Perhaps you and I, Sir, would be on opposing sides. To me life is sacred, not corpses. The challenge, for a decent person in a state of war, is to use necessary force -- and no more -- to attain his ends. But once it has come to blood, and the person who fights you has made it clear that he will happily trade life-blood for life-blood, you may find few alternatives to slaying the individual. I may pray for his soul, but I do not object to my comrades taking steps to prevent a monster from being raised back to life.
But, Giuseppe, you and I agree that gentlemen can disagree on the right thing to do. And I think that you and I, alike, would that there were some flexibility in the Society's standards. Many is the time that I would have bound a fellow-Pathfinder, and brought her or him back in chains to the local authorities or to the Venture Captain.
However the Society is organized how it is. And unless the Venture Captains make some difficult choices, perhaps the only alternative for forthright and decent Pathfinders will be to resign. Perhaps this is part of the call of the Shadow Lodge?
In our conflicts with the Shadow Lodge, I have not as yet encountered a single member who complained that he was prevented from visiting justice on or physically interfering with an another member of the Shadow Lodge.
Of course, on the other hand, the lack of organization and the every-agent-for-himself attitude of the Shadow Lodge will probably be their downfall. So, for me, I stand by the Pathfinders, even if I am not always thrilled by the mercenary attitudes of some colleagues.
-- Senor Vicente Maria Sanz de la Vina y Moreno
|
|
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but if the mission was the 'make sure this guy is dead' then decapitating the body is certainly within the bounds of play and I would NOT rule this as an evil action. In fact, many characters with such a mission would probably cut the body up into pieces, burn each one and scatter the ashes to the wind. Something similar was done with Kazavon. They chopped up the dragon's body and spread parts of it across the world. A Paladin of Abadar took party to this, as well as a Priest of Irori.
It sounds like to me you are looking for a way to penalize the player through Society rules for something your PC was angry about in-game (although it really seems that out of character you are angry about this as well).
My advice: Let it go. JP's rules are good advice. You won't like everyone you play with, and don't have to like them, but you have to be civil towards them during play. Not only that, in PFS we all have to be team players. If I get a reputation for my Cleric of (Insert Good God) who only assists/heals those PCs that agree with him, then not too many people are going to want to play with me.
So I don't think you're understanding the situation or the point of the thread.
1. The decapitation was done after the fact the BBEG was dead dead (AKA dropped below CON dead). But this isn't a thread about any single specific situation.
2. This thread isn't about penalizing people. It is to discuss 'evil acts' that people run across in PFS. For an organized play setting that doesn't allow any evil, a good number of actions people do (hey, I've had my moment described above as well with my rogue from Cheliax) are seen as evil.
Most of the replies are commenting on your specific situation so I threw in my two cents.
1. A PC doesn't know about "dropping below negative Con". That is metagame knowledge and I think a good amount of players would take 'make sure so-and-so is dead' to mean exactly that.
2. I have yet to see anyone actually DO an evil act in PFS play. Some acts that I would consider evil (and WRITE DOWN on the chronicle sheet) would be:
-Sacrificing NPCs to a demon/devil
-Putting good NPCs in harms way for your own protection
-Killing NPCs just because you can
-Spellcasters doing AOE evocation spells in an non-enemy NPC rich environment
Now, what a GM considers an evil act may not be what a Good aligned PC consider an evil act, but that's a difference between roleplay and roll play.
|
|
Most of the replies are commenting on your specific situation so I threw in my two cents.
1. A PC doesn't know about "dropping below negative Con". That is metagame knowledge and I think a good amount of players would take 'make sure so-and-so is dead' to mean exactly that.
A heal check can give you that knowledge. Or the GM can just say "oh, well now he is dead dead," which is the more common occurrence from my experience of playing and GMing. :)
2. I have yet to see anyone actually DO an evil act in PFS play. Some acts that I would consider evil (and WRITE DOWN on the chronicle sheet) would be:
-Sacrificing NPCs to a demon/devil
-Putting good NPCs in harms way for your own protection
-Killing NPCs just because you can
-Spellcasters doing AOE evocation spells in an non-enemy NPC rich environment
I've had a neutral cleric who praises an evil god raise dead while I was a GM (raising dead is always considered an evil act). It was alright because the party was sketch as hell and didn't care if they had an undead walking around with them.
|
We had an adventure where one player lured the barkeep into a room and attacked him unprovoked. We were almost certainly going to fight this guy regardless but the player jumped the gun because of her faction mission.
It was quite awkward for the good aligned characters in the party. I think it's a bad side-effect of the fact that a good number of faction missions are essentially assassinations and players are laser focused on those faction missions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Awesome freakin' stuff.
There are very few posts on any forum, ever, that are better than this one.
Wow.
On my best day, and surrounded by angels and muses, and double caffeined, and with the ghost of Hemingway whispering in my ear, I don't think I'll ever have anything either as thoughtful nor as well stated.
Thanks for sharing.
-Pain
|
|
Awesome freakin' stuff.There are very few posts on any forum, ever, that are better than this one.
Wow.
On my best day, and surrounded by angels and muses, and double caffeined, and with the ghost of Hemingway whispering in my ear, I don't think I'll ever have anything either as thoughtful nor as well stated.
Thanks for sharing.
-Pain
I know, right? I have it saved, for posterity's sake.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
The group I ran this weekend proved particularly bloodthirsty. Their ruthlessness toward the Aspis Consortium and its minions surprised me. Defeated thugs were summarily executed; Aspis leaders were briefly interrogated, then slaughtered as well. One particularly cruel and unrepentant foe was bound, then thrown into a tank with a reefclaw!
While the party was justly concerned that captured foes would raise an alarm if they were released, I asked them whether they really thought thier characters' alignments were as noble as they originally claimed. Several players adjusted their alignments away from good and law.
In the following scenario, the party encountered a Taldan knight in their foes' service. As the high-born mercenary fought, he berated his foes as cowardly brigands and cutthroats, unworthy of his steel.
|
|
Most of the replies are commenting on your specific situation so I threw in my two cents.
1. A PC doesn't know about "dropping below negative Con". That is metagame knowledge and I think a good amount of players would take 'make sure so-and-so is dead' to mean exactly that.
A heal check can give you that knowledge. Or the GM can just say "oh, well now he is dead dead," which is the more common occurrence from my experience of playing and GMing. :)
2. I have yet to see anyone actually DO an evil act in PFS play. Some acts that I would consider evil (and WRITE DOWN on the chronicle sheet) would be:
-Sacrificing NPCs to a demon/devil
-Putting good NPCs in harms way for your own protection
-Killing NPCs just because you can
-Spellcasters doing AOE evocation spells in an non-enemy NPC rich environmentI've had a neutral cleric who praises an evil god raise dead while I was a GM (raising dead is always considered an evil act). It was alright because the party was sketch as hell and didn't care if they had an undead walking around with them.
Heal checks can be failed, GMs may not always say that. "To ensure" the bad guy is dead, decapitation is a simple way out. My paladin wouldn't be any less offended than yours, BUT I'm not going to have him get physically violent with the other PC. I'll still even help him out with other faction missions or defend him from harm, all the while 'preaching' to him about the glory of doing good things.
An evil act is an evil act no matter who is around, be it a paladin, a cleric of Asmodeus, or a pretty pink butterfly.
Spells with the Evil descriptor are a great example. It doesn't matter the circumstances, it's still an evil action to cast 'em. Whether or not anyone but the GM cares is a completely different story.
|
Spells with the Evil descriptor are a great example. It doesn't matter the circumstances, it's still an evil action to cast 'em. Whether or not anyone but the GM cares is a completely different story.
When it comes to Animate Dead that seems to be waved a lot, there are a lot of Animate Dead PCs out there...
|
|
IMHO I think that we're reading too much "modern" morality into this. Several centuries ago taking heads/various other body parts was a standard method used for collecting bounties that had been put out. Heck, it's even still in vogue in Mexico these days.
So, my two cents is that for somebody of "good" alignment to take the head of a bad guy he had been instructed to "make sure was dead" is not unreasonable. It's obviously a lot less effort than dragging the entire body back. And if one burns the body there's no "proof" that so and so is actually dead beyond the word of the party members who were there. How do they know they didn't get the guy's security double who just pretends to be him?
|
|
IMHO I think that we're reading too much "modern" morality into this. Several centuries ago taking heads/various other body parts was a standard method used for collecting bounties that had been put out. Heck, it's even still in vogue in Mexico these days.
Now that depends what part of the world this history is coming from. If you're looking at the Middle East or India, they don't see it as kindly as Western Europe did historically.
|
|
Spells with the Evil descriptor are a great example. It doesn't matter the circumstances, it's still an evil action to cast 'em. Whether or not anyone but the GM cares is a completely different story.
Casting a spell with an evil descriptor is NOT an evil act and does NOT remove your character from play. What matters is the end goal. I don't have to time to search through the forums but it was posted somewhere long ago.
If you cast animate dead to attack the nice local natives, then that's an evil act. If you cast animate dead to destroy the invading [baddies], then that's not an evil act.
In LG, evil spell = evil act. Not so in PFS.
JP
|
|
Spells with the Evil descriptor are a great example. It doesn't matter the circumstances, it's still an evil action to cast 'em. Whether or not anyone but the GM cares is a completely different story.When it comes to Animate Dead that seems to be waved a lot, there are a lot of Animate Dead PCs out there...
It's still an evil action. If a GM chooses to waive that, it is their prerogative. Conversely, I wouldn't fault a GM for marking on a chronicle sheet that a character used an evil spell to assist the party.
|
|
Heal checks can be failed, GMs may not always say that. "To ensure" the bad guy is dead, decapitation is a simple way out. My paladin wouldn't be any less offended than yours, BUT I'm not going to have him get physically violent with the other PC. I'll still even help him out with other faction missions or defend him from harm, all the while 'preaching' to him about the glory of doing good things.
Someone remind me next time to NOT put my thoughts on whether I would PVP if it weren't a rule in PFS. I definitely stated "if there wasn't a rule against it," but apparently seeing those 3 letters still makes everyone slip off the main topic.
Nothing against you Todd, I'm just baffled as to why an unimportant offhand comment has become worthy of so much derailing.
/I'd PVP everyone on these boards if there wasn't a rule against it!
//Roll of inish.
|
|
Spells with the Evil descriptor are a great example. It doesn't matter the circumstances, it's still an evil action to cast 'em. Whether or not anyone but the GM cares is a completely different story.Casting a spell with an evil descriptor is NOT an evil act and does NOT remove your character from play. What matters is the end goal. I don't have to time to search through the forums but it was posted somewhere long ago.
If you cast animate dead to attack the nice local natives, then that's an evil act. If you cast animate dead to destroy the invading [baddies], then that's not an evil act.
In LG, evil spell = evil act. Not so in PFS.
JP
Actually I believe the post stated that casting evil spells did not affect a PFS character alignment. Josh stated that it was okay to cast an evil spell as long as the character alignment an deity didn't conflict with it.
This still makes it an evil act, but one evil act does not kick you from PFS (nor were any of my statements meant to convey that).
|
|
Heal checks can be failed, GMs may not always say that. "To ensure" the bad guy is dead, decapitation is a simple way out. My paladin wouldn't be any less offended than yours, BUT I'm not going to have him get physically violent with the other PC. I'll still even help him out with other faction missions or defend him from harm, all the while 'preaching' to him about the glory of doing good things.Someone remind me next time to NOT put my thoughts on whether I would PVP if it weren't a rule in PFS. I definitely stated "if there wasn't a rule against it," but apparently seeing those 3 letters still makes everyone slip off the main topic.
Nothing against you Todd, I'm just baffled as to why an unimportant offhand comment has become worthy of so much derailing.
/I'd PVP everyone on these boards if there wasn't a rule against it!
//Roll of inish.
Seeing as I was only the 4th person to reply to that offhand comment, I don't take offense, but am quizzical as to why nothing is being directed to the three people that posted off topic before me :P
|
|
Seeing as I was only the 4th person to reply to that offhand comment, I don't take offense, but am quizzical as to why nothing is being directed to the three people that posted off topic before me :P
I count you as the 2nd, actually. I did reply to TwilightKnight, as you can see above. But since you brought it up again, I am coming to the conclusion that the mere mention of PVP is the PFS boards naughty word, akin to mentioning TPS reports. LOL
/Who are the other 2? I didn't respond to Thod because he was talking about a situation he was involved in.
//Vicente's doesn't count. I don't know if that was actually directed towards me, or just a letter to everyone (Is giuseppe a form of Mr or something that I'm currently unaware of?). It's just beautiful, evoking a "my god, it's full of stars" moment in me.
|
|
Seeing as I was only the 4th person to reply to that offhand comment, I don't take offense, but am quizzical as to why nothing is being directed to the three people that posted off topic before me :PI count you as the 2nd, actually. I did reply to TwilightKnight, as you can see above. But since you brought it up again, I am coming to the conclusion that the mere mention of PVP is the PFS boards naughty word, akin to mentioning TPS reports. LOL
/Who are the other 2? I didn't respond to Thod because he was talking about a situation he was involved in.
//Vicente's doesn't count. I don't know if that was actually directed towards me, or just a letter to everyone (Is giuseppe a form of Mr or something that I'm currently unaware of?). It's just beautiful, evoking a "my god, it's full of stars" moment in me.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmm yeah I'm going to need you to stop mentioning TPS reports, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmk?
If I read it correctly:
1. TK
2. JP - kind of generic but maybe?
3. Thod - just the first part
4. Me
I still look at Vicente's post in awe and have no idea who it was directed to. It would be great if this is some speech he gives to his players before he GMs. If so, I'm sorry Painlord, but it edges you out in best GM opening :P
|
|
We had an adventure where one player lured the barkeep into a room and attacked him unprovoked. We were almost certainly going to fight this guy regardless but the player jumped the gun because of her faction mission.
It was quite awkward for the good aligned characters in the party. I think it's a bad side-effect of the fact that a good number of faction missions are essentially assassinations and players are laser focused on those faction missions.
To be fair to the character, she worked relatively hard to obscure the awkward facts from the other characters in the party. I am not sure what reaction might have happened if I had, instead, limited the knowledge of what happened behind closed doors to those just behind the closed doors.
It was also an issue that the (often true) perception that, if you delay in accomplishing your faction mission, you will lose the opportunity to accomplish it at all.
As the GM for that particular game, I also tried to pull away the awkwardness by (weakly) declaring that he actually killed a good Pathfinder quite recently. I could have also made it more difficult, in the end, by having the assassination target beg for his life, which would have likely put party members at odds, I even thought about it as something he might do while in the horrible, horrible tactical position he was he, but I immediately dismissed it for the party issues it would create.
Honestly, I feel that any error that there was in that encounter is my fault.
I should have expected that conclusion and worked harder to prepare for it happening. I could have taken the players in the room to a private chat to discuss what actions were happening in the room. When the battle started I might have announced the bartender's "badness" with much more clarity. There was even the chance that I could have refused to put the party in that situation and immediately throw the party into combat when I should have realized where it was going.
--
As for the original post, I don't personally thing that was specifically an evil act. It was definitely something you wouldn't like, but I would say that it should be left to the GM to arbitrate what is evil in those situations and how to deal with it. Maybe let your character use words to display his outrage if reasonable rather than doing nothing or (in other games) through a sap which could quite fairly leave them more than just cause to respond with their own sap attack ["No! Bad paladin!"].
|
|
An evil act is an evil act no matter who is around, be it a paladin, a cleric of Asmodeus, or a pretty pink butterfly.
Spells with the Evil descriptor are a great example. It doesn't matter the circumstances, it's still an evil action to cast 'em. Whether or not anyone but the GM cares is a completely different story.
Based on the responses, this appears to just be your interpretation of the rules. In your home-style games, this may be true, while in mine, not so much. The key is there is a ruling (albeit by previous leadership) that casting a spell with the evil descriptor is not, in an of itself, an evil act. I would not be happy if my GM added a note to my chronicle for simply casting an Animate Dead. Granted, if it was used in the commission of an evil act, it would be warranted. What if a neutral conjurer was to summon an Azata Bralani and instruct it to kill an innocent. Since the creature is good, the spell inherits the "good" descriptor. However, we can all agree that this is not a "good" act. If my NG Cleric of Sarenrae summons the same creature with the intention of using it as a trap finder, is that an evil act? Like Cutlass said, sometimes we apply our modern sensibilities to ancient practices. We have to remember that all PC's are not all heterosexual, middle-aged, christian, white guys ;-). There has to be a balance between "role" playing your character and just having fun gaming. PVP does not solve anything, and in most cases, makes the situation worse.
|
|
To be fair to the character, she worked relatively hard to obscure the awkward facts from the other characters in the party. I am not sure what reaction might have happened if I had, instead, limited the knowledge of what happened behind closed doors to those just behind the closed doors.
It was also an issue that the (often true) perception that, if you delay in accomplishing your faction mission, you will lose the opportunity to accomplish it at all.
If we'd know he had killed a Pathfinder and that he was a rat bastard before he was attacked then you could claim we were doing some form of justice. We didn't though, he was lured from behind the bar into a room and attacked. IMO that is what would make it an evil act.
As you say players are rewarded for nailing the faction missions early and thoroughly, when you have faction missions that are assassinations it's going to come up. On the evil scale I think assassination is way past beheading a corpse or animating dead.
Honestly, I feel that any error that there was in that encounter is my fault.
I can't think of anyone who would have handled that significantly better than you. You don't give yourself enough credit. Ultimately it wasn't a huge problem, I just thought it was worth mentioning since the question of evil acts came up.
|
|
Based on the responses, this appears to just be your interpretation of the rules. In your home-style games, this may be true, while in mine, not so much. The key is there is a ruling (albeit by previous leadership) that casting a spell with the evil descriptor is not, in an of itself, an evil act. I would not be happy if my GM added a note to my chronicle for simply casting an Animate Dead. Granted, if it was used in the commission of an evil act, it would be warranted. What if a neutral conjurer was to summon an Azata Bralani and instruct it to kill an innocent. Since the creature is good, the spell inherits the "good" descriptor. However, we can all agree that this is not a "good" act. If my NG Cleric of Sarenrae summons the same creature with the intention of using it as a trap finder, is that an evil act? Like Cutlass said, sometimes we apply our modern sensibilities to ancient practices. We have to remember that all PC's are not all heterosexual, middle-aged, christian, white guys ;-). There has to be a balance between "role" playing your character and just having fun gaming. PVP does not solve anything, and in most cases, makes the situation worse.An evil act is an evil act no matter who is around, be it a paladin, a cleric of Asmodeus, or a pretty pink butterfly.
Spells with the Evil descriptor are a great example. It doesn't matter the circumstances, it's still an evil action to cast 'em. Whether or not anyone but the GM cares is a completely different story.
It's very possible I'm regurgitating judge views from LG and perhaps spells with the evil descriptor aren't the best example of what worries me.
With that said, however, it is up to the GM to notify players when they are playing out of alignment (albeit in a nice way). It's a vary vague alignment rule that was carried over and I can see potential abuse in the way PFS handles evil actions. To my knowledge, a person could build what they consider a CN character, but be completely evil at the table. Granted this goes against the "Don't be a Jerk" guideline, but there is potential for someone to have zero regard for alignment. Even IF there is no enforcement for an evil action, by writing it down on the chronicle sheet, you are at least tracking something. The person can look at their 20 chronicles and see that 18 of them have something evil noted. GMs and organizers can see this documentation if people complain about the player.
TK, to use your example, if my LN Cheliaxian Conjurer summoned a Good being from a higher plane and basically abused the being, or used it for nefarious purposes (probably wouldn't be able to if it were an intelligent being) then I wouldn't be opposed to a GM writing it down. Similarly, if I contracted Ghoul Fever and for some odd reason declined to get assistance for it, writing it down would remind me to continue trying to make saves and warn the party that I probably shouldn't ever die :P
|
|
There is reason my friends dub anything ??? neutral as "??? evil lite."
I think a N character has to be really tough to play. I would need to keep a score sheet like "Okay I helped this lady get her cat out of a tree, so this time I will cut the tree down and berate this other lady. I followed all the laws in this city, so now I will do whatever the heck I want."
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a N character has to be really tough to play. I would need to keep a score sheet like "Okay I helped this lady get her cat out of a tree, so this time I will cut the tree down and berate this other lady. I followed all the laws in this city, so now I will do whatever the heck I want."
I've seen that interpretation of Neutral alignment before, and it just doesn't ring true to me. Does anyone really act that way, keeping a tally of good vs. evil deeds?
(WARNING: ARBITRARY ALIGNMENT INTERPRETATION AHEAD)
(Cue dramatic theme music...)
I tend to see true neutral people as halfhearted about the good of others, not malicious, but apathetic and self-centered.
This is a person who may care about his friends and family, but doesn't much care about others. He tries not to harm others himself, but doesn't do anything else about their problems.
Should he see someone doing evil, his initial reaction is "I shouldn't get involved". He goes out of his way to be decent only when someone's looking.
If you asked him, he'd tell you that "A real man stands on his own two feet and doesn't look for handouts". He claims that "I worked like a dog to make a decent life for my family. Sure, I cut some corners once in a while, but I never cheated anyone who would feel the pinch and I generally made up for it by giving a little extra when I could."
|
|
One of my favorite PFS modules takes place in Taldor (but of course).
The Emperor says that 'Joe' can have location 'X.' However, 'Bob' owns the deed to location 'X'. Joe was given permission by the Emperor to claim the land, because the Emperor see's it as being in his own best interest (and that of Taldor). While I think the stats list 'Joe' as evil, they really shouldn't. He's Joe, just doing what any good citizen would do when their Emperor says they can do.
I really like TALDOR. Sure the guy was an evil prick and a cleric to an evil prick god, but does my LG Paladin need to do that foul deed to his head and then do that even fouler deed to his family (who then get's upset about the whole thing and declares that TALDOR will meet it's end)?
I like being Lawful Neutral. I'm just doing what the laws of the land/society/religion/culture/aspect that I have chosen to follow state that I can follow. Slavery is legal (in certain political regions) and it's not an 'evil' issue in game play. Play in the Society is about getting the loot that may help the Society. It's not about helping 'humanity' or the 'elves' or anybody else other than the Society itself.
As members of the Society, or greatest foe is the Consortium. If you are proven (proof is in the pudding/eye of the beholder [used not as the trademarked Wizards of the Coast monster]) to be a member of the Consortium, you should be executed (unless your VC says not to). At least until the Consortium get's its own faction to be played in Society play (oh wait, we're members of the Pathfinder Society. That would just be wrong, even more so than having a secret Shadow Faction).
I don't think that a spell with evil descriptor makes one evil. I cast a spell with the cold descriptor. That doesn't make me cold hearted. By todays standard (I mean US 2011) slavery is evil. Murdering people because they belong to one cultural region is an act against humanity and punishable by aspects of the Geneva Convention.
In game play, this is what we do. You're an Orc. You are of a cultural aspect that is deemed evil. You must be killed. Your family must be killed (how many of us saw the 'Goblins' strip. See, if you don't kill them all, the little bastards grow up and become PC's of their own and then destroy whole cities). The Orc's of Golarion book describe rape as a social order for the furthering of their society. Unthinkable.
So our concepts of what is evil for a modern society isn't the same as one for a civilization that believes that they should follow the rules of Asmedous. Using evil as a descriptor is just an aspect of a language based mechanic. There may not be a language based word for what we want as a game mechanic that is easily recognizable in place of the word 'evil'. Not even intent can be true to the concept of evil. Greatest good? One culture identifies a great hero (A. Jackson) while another cultural identifies that same hero as a mass murderer (Trail of Tears). Even anarchy for anarchy's sake can't be deemed evil. Then of course, we have religious based aspects of what is glorious and what isn't. This is touched upon quite nicely in BSG and the suicide bombers.
I really hope the alignment system would go away in Pathfinder 2nd edition. Or at least give collectible, yet non-tradeable fortune cards that allowed a character to bypass the system.
I call Qadirians cockroaches (this is also not against society rules, per se, but it could be taken as being offensive and therefore determintal towards a players overall enjoyment of the game). That's not evil, it's not racist either. However, it's being culturally insensitive, but only because they invaded Taldor. Of course, Taldor never 'invaded' any country. We were freeing the savages from their plight of not being 'Taldoran'. As such they where stripped of their valuables for the future and maintainable aspect of the Glory of Taldor.
In Society play, I think based upon the world of Golarion's political and sociological aspects, a player could really post messages to the forum claiming freedom to do anything short of attacking another player character.
This has got to be an offensive post to someone.
Be Well. Be Culturally Identified.
Theocrat Issak
|
Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD
|
Alrighty, so is there a basic list of evil acts, for example, so far it has been mentioned here about decapitating a body being possibly evil (though some disagree) and that the better option would be to burn a body.
Now In a scenario with my chaotic Neutral Magus we came across a body of a doppelganger, and I was told by 2 GM's that to burn the corpse was an evil act, I had 2 motives for doing so, 1 prevent to corpse being used to falsify another persons death (misuse a corpse) and also give the body a proper send off as it was being stored in a storage room and was being preserved.
Then another thread talks about theft being allowed, Once more on a Rogue of mine I was denied such activities (a bar brawl occurred, and when the place was abandoned, I was not allowed to acquire anything valuable around the place...it is evil)
Given that the PFS guide and the rule book does not give context to what constitutes an evil act I was wondering if there was any threads that might?
Or what is peoples views on how they judge an evil act, my argument is that a criminal act is not necessarily an evil act.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
No, there is not a basic list of evil acts.
For opinions on what constitutes "evil", try going to each of the following sections of the forums:
• Advice
• Pathfinder General Discussion
• Gamer Talk
• Pathfinder Society General Discussion
• Pathfinder Society GM Discussion
• Rule Questions
Then in each section, search for "evil act" and read the first 20 results from start to finish.
That should give you an idea of what to expect from the random assortment of GMs you'll encounter in PFS. :)
No, there is not a basic list of evil acts.
For opinions on what constitutes "evil", try going to each of the following sections of the forums:
• Advice
• Pathfinder General Discussion
• Gamer Talk
• Pathfinder Society General Discussion
• Pathfinder Society GM Discussion
• Rule QuestionsThen in each section, search for "evil act" and read the first 20 results from start to finish.
That should give you an idea of what to expect from the random assortment of GMs you'll encounter in PFS. :)
Additionally, i suggest to give a read to some paladin threads. You will be surprised how eating salad instead of pizza is an evil act since it could could cause harm to entire sector of the national industry and leave thousand of people without work. And ofc makes you fall.
Or conversly, how torching alive entire villages will actually save entire population fron starving and bring joy and salvation to hundreds of thousand. And ofc makes you fall.
*casts disrupt unthread...*
|
|
Well, I've certainly got a couple good examples of evil. Over my time playing PFS, I've been grouped with two separate gunslingers guilty of this. The party would defeat an opponent, disabling without killing either intentionally, or that just happening to be how it would go. In one instance it was someone we needed to keep alive. First instance it was a little girl. The mob we took down, we chose to heal it slightly. Gunslinger proceeds to point blank it in the face. The next incident was a very similar one, except that the mob wasn't even conscious at the time. It was a creature that we actually needed to take prisoner for questioning to progress in that particular scenario. Gunslinger (not the first gunslinger) proceeds to do a full round of attacks on this unconscious but stable (note that we had already tied them up) NPC. And no, this was not for faction mission purposes. Then a third gunslinger incident involving the first gunslinger I mentioned was similar to the second situation spoken of above. Party has disabled an opponent that must be kept alive, or you compromise the mission. They administered a coup de grace (via pistol whipping) when the party was distracted. No need to do it.
Now I hadn't been the GM in any of these situations, otherwise the last two noted would have resulted in alignment infractions. The first one could be at least partially justified by the fact that the small child did attempt to attack the party again once it was given minor healing. That being said, we did have others in the party that could easily have taken it down again with nonlethal damage. It was sitting at 1 HP.