|
Recently I have heard a few things from people on these forums regarding Alignment and Evil Acts in PFS. The rules clearly state that characters cannot be of Evil alignment, but I have not really found a statement about Evil Acts. Alignment is a blurry concept and the rules suggest that it shouldn't be a staightjacket, but where are the lines with regard to PFS?
At a table of PFS that I GMed recently I felt that it was necessary to speak with a player about his actions after the game and in the end I wrote a note on a chronicle sheet mentioning that his character had performed a cruel act. I chose my words carefully, but I meant it to show to a GM in the future (if they ever read over his chronicle sheets) that if he continues down this path then his character is (in effect) of evil alignment which is not within the rules of PFS.
I'm sure that many of us have come across characters committing evil acts in game as both players at the table or as GMs and I wondered what opinions were on this contentious subject. For example, is it an evil act to cast a spell with the evil descriptor? How many evil acts are able to be overlooked. What, as a GM should I do? It was definitely causing trouble at the table that I spoke about. Other players were finding the game less enjoyable because of it.
Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland
|
I think as far as Society play goes, speaking to the player is all you can really do. I agree with making a note on his chronicle sheet, but I can foresee many GMs in convention settings not having the time to look over previous chronicles. At least you did what you could.
Mainly though I would make a point to sit down and talk to the player, not to ruin his fun, but to clarify who he sees his character as, and whether it agrees with Society play. As much as people tend to deny the role-playing aspects of PFS, it is there and we have to keep in mind what is allowed and what isn't as far as alignment goes.
|
Previous discussion of Evil Acts
Here's another one
This is one of those topics that cycles through the messageboards every so often. I really don't want to rehash everything that was discussed previously. This is a topic that everyone has a view about and it isn't always shared. At the end of the day, the only rule is "Have fun and don't be a jerk". I don't care how wicked and depraved the PCs get as long as they are having fun and no one is offended.
|
Previous discussion of Evil Acts
Here's another oneThis is one of those topics that cycles through the messageboards every so often. I really don't want to rehash everything that was discussed previously. This is a topic that everyone has a view about and it isn't always shared. At the end of the day, the only rule is "Have fun and don't be a jerk". I don't care how wicked and depraved the PCs get as long as they are having fun and no one is offended.
+1
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
The only time I can see this being a true problem is in the case of an alignment dependent class (i.e. cleric, paladin, etc.). At a recent convention, I heard of a paladin leaving his party behind after taking damage in his first round of combat in an encounter. The advice of Mr. Moreland on the subject was to give warning; if it continued into the future continuously, to use the rules as intended and take away his paladin abilities until he has atoned, noting it on his Chronicle.
Ideally, this is great when that player operates under the same GM (or stable of GMs), outside of that situation though, I can see this being accidentally missed by another GM.
|
I think people are being overly dismissive regarding evil acts at PFS tables.
Examples that have occurred locally:
- Alchemist targets an innocent with a bomb in order to deal splash damage to surrounding zombies, but kills the innocent in the process.
- Deliberately killing slaves to annoy Andoran faction players.
Neutral alignment does not give you a licence to balance every good act with an evil one.
Deluge summed this up rather concisely in the Gaming Enjoyment thread, and is worth repeating here:
Page 166 of the PF Core Rulebook lays it down pretty clearly in the section on Good vs Evil. Particularly look at the section about people who are neutral with respect to good and evil.
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."
We've all heard Andoran missions occasionally require assassination of evil-doers such as slavers. Assassination is generally considered an evil act, though in this case it benefits the greater good.
However, for random acts of violence without redeeming circumstances, I would not hesitate to write an alignment warning on a chronicle sheet.
Cheers,
Stephen (DarkWhite)
Pathfinder Society 4-Star GM
Venture-Captain Australia
|
This is one of those topics that cycles through the messageboards every so often. I really don't want to rehash everything that was discussed previously. This is a topic that everyone has a view about and it isn't always shared. At the end of the day, the only rule is "Have fun and don't be a jerk". I don't care how wicked and depraved the PCs get as long as they are having fun and no one is offended.
I agree with this but...
If one (or more) of your players is trying to play a 'good' character and there are others who are deliberately killing innocents and in general being rat-bastards it makes for a really un-fun experience for some of the players. IMO this falls into the "Don't be a jerk" but that's a very hard thing to enforce.
|
|
Examples that have occurred locally:
- Alchemist targets an innocent with a bomb in order to deal splash damage to surrounding zombies, but kills the innocent in the process.
- Deliberately killing slaves to annoy Andoran faction players.
Both of these players received alignment warnings on their chronicle sheets for these behaviours.
I wouldn't put an alignment warning, but if one player was making it un-fun for other players they might get a nasty comment from me:
"Deliberately Antagonized other Players".
Ultimately the message isn't going to be to other GMs so much as to the player.
|
|
I don't have any heartburn over warning players when they make alignment infractions. That's the GM's perogative. What I don't want to see happen is a definition of an Evil Act. Once you define an Evil Act, the players will immediately A) try and find a way around the RAW, and B) use the definition to try and tell other players what they can and can't do. This only creates animosity at the table. Let the GMs handle their players, instead of the other way around.
|
|
I don't have any heartburn over warning players when they make alignment infractions. That's the GM's perogative. What I don't want to see happen is a definition of an Evil Act. Once you define an Evil Act, the players will immediately A) try and find a way around the RAW, and B) use the definition to try and tell other players what they can and can't do. This only creates animosity at the table. Let the GMs handle their players, instead of the other way around.
I hate it when you handle me.
I hate it when you handle me.I don't have any heartburn over warning players when they make alignment infractions. That's the GM's perogative. What I don't want to see happen is a definition of an Evil Act. Once you define an Evil Act, the players will immediately A) try and find a way around the RAW, and B) use the definition to try and tell other players what they can and can't do. This only creates animosity at the table. Let the GMs handle their players, instead of the other way around.
Do we need a doll so you can point out how the GM handled you?
|
|
I guess this would be as good of a place as any to ask but...
If I have a neutral cleric of Urgathoa and I walk around with a Darkskull on my person, would that be considered evil?
Darkskull
Aura moderate evocation [evil]; CL 9thSlot —; Price 60,000 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
Description
This skull, carved from ebony, is wholly evil. Wherever the skull goes, the area around it is treated as though an unhallow spell had been cast with the skull as the touched point of origin. Each darkskull has a single spell effect tied to it. This spell is from the standard list given in the unhallow spell description, and it cannot be changed.
I could see walking around with something with an evil aura be evil, but I just want to know what y'all think.
Secondly, if this item is actually allowed in PFS, it's kind of lame because you get to attach another spell to it (death ward, freedom of movement, invisibility purge would be nice choices). In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think it needs to be banned. And it doesn't have an equivalent for good-aligned characters (yeah you have Lord's banner of crusades but that cost 40,000 more, has to be displayed a certain way, and doesn't get to add another spell in its effect radius).
I guess this would be as good of a place as any to ask but...
If I have a neutral cleric of Urgathoa and I walk around with a Darkskull on my person, would that be considered evil?
Darkskull
Aura moderate evocation [evil]; CL 9thSlot —; Price 60,000 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
Description
This skull, carved from ebony, is wholly evil. Wherever the skull goes, the area around it is treated as though an unhallow spell had been cast with the skull as the touched point of origin. Each darkskull has a single spell effect tied to it. This spell is from the standard list given in the unhallow spell description, and it cannot be changed.
I could see walking around with something with an evil aura be evil, but I just want to know what y'all think.
Secondly, if this item is actually allowed in PFS, it's kind of lame because you get to attach another spell to it (death ward, freedom of movement, invisibility purge would be nice choices). In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think it needs to be banned. And it doesn't have an equivalent for good-aligned characters (yeah you have Lord's banner of crusades but that cost 40,000 more, has to be displayed a certain way, and doesn't get to add another spell in its effect radius).
At 60,000gp, it requires 54TPA to buy. If you only played 2PA missions, and managed to get every single PA point, you would need to complete 27 scenarios before you had sufficient TPA to purchase the Darkskull.
At that point, you are 10th level, and have 6 missions left before retirement. Do you really think that the Darkskull will be that game breaking for you over those six missions?
Really, if you can pull this off, then you deserve to be able to buy something nice, just before you retire.
(Also note, a wand of infernal healing will make you radiate evil while it's working on you. And that's available by spending just 2PA at first level. And it's a spell specifically allowed in the campaign.)
Jeez, it's like people are afraid to actually role play a character.
I guess this would be as good of a place as any to ask but...
If I have a neutral cleric of Urgathoa and I walk around with a Darkskull on my person, would that be considered evil?
:-O
I never noticed that the PFRPG buffed up the Darkskull that much. A slotless Freedom of Movement/Death Ward/whatever for everyone in the party for 60K gp? Wow!
|
|
I guess this would be as good of a place as any to ask but...
If I have a neutral cleric of Urgathoa and I walk around with a Darkskull on my person, would that be considered evil?
:-O
I never noticed that the PFRPG buffed up the Darkskull that much. A slotless Freedom of Movement (or whatever) for everyone in the party for 60K gp? Wow!
I actually didn't realize that either until I posted it. I was on a kick last night thinking about making an Undead Lord cleric and how I could help boost his negative channeling abilities. I assumed that the Darkskull worked like a lord's banner, but posting this made me realize it was even BETTER.
|
|
I think people are being overly dismissive regarding evil acts at PFS tables.
Examples that have occurred locally:
Both of these players received alignment warnings on their chronicle sheets for these behaviours.
- Alchemist targets an innocent with a bomb in order to deal splash damage to surrounding zombies, but kills the innocent in the process.
- Deliberately killing slaves to annoy Andoran faction players.
My Andoran-faction paladin will roleplay arresting that character's ass and hauling him to the local magistrate on a charge of murder. He will either go willing, or unwilling -- and it is possible that both characters will be removed from play as a result of however it plays out.
"John?" <asking DM> "Am I sensing Evil here?" <fingering manacles with left hand while right hand rest upon pommel>
"You think you can talk your way out of this? Fine. We'll load the poor fellow's body up on your horse and carry it to the nearest city where you'll spend your gold Raising him."
We've all heard Andoran missions occasionally require assassination of evil-doers such as slavers. Assassination is generally considered an evil act, though in this case it benefits the greater good.
None of these missions my pally has participated in use the word "assassination" in the context of slavery, which they regard as an abomination -- to refer to a slaver being "assassinated" is as absurd as referring to a vampire or a red dragon being "assassinated".
|
|
Stuff.
Local Magistrate: So you are bring him here with charges of murder? How do you murder property?
Idealistic Paladin: He wasn't property. He killed a free man!Local Magistrate: No, the "man" was not given official papers declaring his freedom certified by the State. In fact, in the eyes of our LAWS the property went renegade and that's punishable only by death. In fact, the man you bring before us has actually done this community a service. Now quit wasting my time and leave my sight before I press the issue further!
Idealistic Paladin: Bu...I...bu...
Local Magistrate: Or would you like me to see how you've come across declaring freedom for property we know not to be yours?
Idealistic Paladin: No, I think we will be leaving! Have a good day, sorry to bother you!
|
|
Local Magistrate: Or would you like me to see how you've come across declaring freedom for property we know not to be yours?
Idealistic Paladin: No, I think we will be leaving! Have a good day, sorry to bother you!
Idealistic Paladin (a redundancy, to be sure) concludes said magistrate is no longer a legitimate authority worthy of any respect by persons of conscience, reports his conclusions to Andoran faction and offers his services to further missions aimed at toppling a despotic regime. Furthermore, should he be in a similar position again, it will fall upon his sole discretion as to what constitutes proper justice at the moment.
PC pally: <take off helmet; let drop with clang; remove gauntlets> "Son? Before I help you make amends like I know you're going to, I'm going to have to beat the bad out of you...." <grapple>
DM: "Do you have Improved Unarmed Strike?"
Me: "Nope! Bring on the AoOs!" <DM, having fun and interested to see what happens, tells other player to play it out>
Me: <roll punch damage + STR, etc; then call out added Smite Evil damage, all non-lethal>
Other player: "I'm not evil/you didn't Detect Evil/yadda-yadda!"
Me: "<snort> ...who needs Detect Evil? -- I saw what you did!"
<LoH/punch><eat AoO><LoH/punch><eat AoO><LoH/punch><etc>
|
|
Stuff
See, this is the problem with you Andoran types. You think you can dictate the laws of a town, of a people you don't care to respect or follow the laws of in the first place. Your self-righteousness will be your undoing.
At least Qadira understands what it takes to change a society. Everyone has a price, you just got to figure out how low they're willing to got to sell their soul! :)
|
|
See, this is the problem with you Andoran types.You misspelled "paladin". Bite my shiny, metal sword.
You think you can dictate the laws of a town, of a people you don't care to respect or follow the laws of in the first place. Your self-righteousness will be your undoing.
Mediocre armor-class and inability to evade digestive acids are much more likely to be my undoing. :-P
|
|
It is important to remember that the Pathfinder Society campaign is a morally gray one and playing Lawful Good types (especially paladins) will often put you at odds with the missions you are sent on. If there's a conflict at the table over a suspected evil act and you are at a home game with players you know, have fun by all means. If the same situation happens at GenCon where it takes an hour to get mustered and find your seats, you can expect the GM to keep the players on a short leash. No one to my knowledge has ever lost their character over an evil act, or for attacking another PC. More likely the GM settles the matter by asking the player in question to change their action so the game can move forward.
More likely the GM settles the matter by asking the player in question to change their action so the game can move forward.I have had to do this at Gen Con.
has anyone ever been tempted to not give out a chronicle to a player who has just ruined it for everyone?
|
|
It is important to remember that the Pathfinder Society campaign is a morally gray one and playing Lawful Good types (especially paladins) will often put you at odds with the missions you are sent on.
That's generally a problem only if you choose a faction that is obviously going to get you into trouble.
Tip for assassin-minded PCs: take traits that enable you to conceal your nefariousness from the paladins in your group. Nonchalant Thuggery comes to mind.
|
|
It is important to remember that the Pathfinder Society campaign is a morally gray one and playing Lawful Good types (especially paladins) will often put you at odds with the missions you are sent on.That's generally a problem only if you choose a faction that is obviously going to get you into trouble.
Tip for assassin-minded PCs: take traits that enable you to conceal your nefariousness from the paladins in your group. Nonchalant Thuggery comes to mind.
That's assuming you actually care about what the paladin thinks.
|
|
As a GM, it is our job to make sure, first and foremost, that the players have fun. Then to make sure that the game goes smoothly.
If the players are all having fun roleplaying over some perceived slight or evil act... let them have at it. You can gently remind them that standing the middle of a dungeon hallway arguing over whether slapping the manacled guy across the face is evil or not, but if you do, you may not be able to finish the module.
If they persist, let them have fun.
|
|
If the players are all having fun roleplaying over some perceived slight or evil act... let them have at it. You can gently remind them that standing the middle of a dungeon hallway arguing over whether slapping the manacled guy across the face is evil or not, but if you do, you may not be able to finish the module.
IIRC correctly, the example in question was "murdering somebody just to piss off the Andoran paladin".