Okay, just got back from Gencon, loved playing PFS. Barely had time for anything else.
I ended up playing two characters while there:
Tyson - A Chelish thug working for the Sczarni.
Nico - A Halfing ex-bandit from the River Kingdoms working for Andoran
While playing Nico, I tried to tell the DM that I would coup-de-grace a mission target that the Andorans had to ensure died. The foe had fallen in combat with no sign of remorse, surrender, or mind control. This sparked a short conflict, wherein about half of the other players told me that my character was being evil and that such was not allowed in PFS. The GM handled the situation well, but there was definitely still a sense of bad blood lingering when we parted ways.
Later that day, I got a chance to play Sewer Dragons of Absalom as Tyson. I don't know if I am allowed to tell the faction missions even with spoiler tags, so I won't, but needless to say it was a pretty terrible thing to do.
Despite the entire table agreeing to try and help me complete my mission, I ended up passing on even trying, due to the fact that I would have had to enlist the aid of good characters in the party to do the worst part. We agreed at the table that even though the players wanted to help, the characters would have had no part in it at all. The mission was blatantly evil.
What if I had been playing with the same group from the first game? I know that any given table will have a specific set in mind of what does and doesn't fit PFS, but when a mission is blatantly evil, and furthermore in this specific case, starts an unnecessary fight, how is this good for organized play?
I get it that the Sczarni are pretty nasty folk, but this mission was just bad for table dynamics. In the future, can we please get faction missions that don't have such a high risk of tearing a table apart?
|
I'm thinking maybe you needed to work in a bit more subtlety?
I can't see a hitman walking up and whacking a target like that - "Hey guys I'm just gonna shoot this guy in the head because Don Corleone wants him dead, ok?"... maybe he could have had an 'accident'?
Mistook his plea for mercy as a Chelish insult and hit once too often?
Had a nasty moment falling out of a cart?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sorry you didn't enjoy the faction mission, hopefully you enjoyed the rest of the module.
The way I see it, people chose Sczarni because they want to play characters that belong to the criminal underworld.
Do you think the mission was out of line with what someone in the criminal underworld would be expected to do?
Should the good aligned characters in the party *want* to help you do favors for the criminal underworld?
For what it's worth, the DC for that task was lower than the DC for most tasks because I figured you wouldn't get as much cooperation.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Jumping in here: Dennis, as well you know, there are missions sprinkled throughout the scenarios (Taldan, mostly) which are outright evil. (The one where you have to kill a guy using a deliberately excruciating poison comes to mind.)
As a GM, I've considered those to be traps: if your PC tries to complete them, I'll note as much on your character sheet. If I already see such a note (or see that you received prestige award in such a scenario), I'll write a note moving your character's alignment one step closer to Evil. If you were already Neutral, your character becomes unplayable.
A PC isn't an automaton. Just because your faction-boss offers you a job and promises rewards, doesn't mean you have to do it. And moral qualms are a valid reason to turn down faction missions.
|
Jumping in here: Dennis, as well you know, there are missions sprinkled throughout the scenarios (Taldan, mostly) which are outright evil. (The one where you have to kill a guy using a deliberately excruciating poison comes to mind.)
As a GM, I've considered those to be traps: if your PC tries to complete them, I'll note as much on your character sheet. If I already see such a note (or see that you received prestige award in such a scenario), I'll write a note moving your character's alignment one step closer to Evil. If you were already Neutral, your character becomes unplayable.
A PC isn't an automaton. Just because your faction-boss offers you a job and promises rewards, doesn't mean you have to do it. And moral qualms are a valid reason to turn down faction missions.
Well, Chris, you're welcome to do that in your home games, but I certainly hope you aren't doing that in official Pathfinder Society play. There are no rules that would force a character closer to evil for completing these missions in the PFS rules, and if a character was rendered unplayable by your ruling, they would have definite grounds for appeal.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP, remember that the only opinion at the table that matters is the GM's. If other players try to tell you that you can or can't do something that you'd like to do, politely acknowledge them and then ask the GM for his/her opinion. Experienced 3.X players can sometimes be overbearing at the table, it's the nature of the system. They need to be reminded that if they aren't GMing, they need to leave the rules decisions to the GM.
The point of this game is not blind adherence to rules. It's to have fun and socialize with like-minded people. If this is not happening at the table then we should re-examine why we play games.
|
|
To the OP, remember that the only opinion at the table that matters is the GM's. If other players try to tell you that you can or can't do something that you'd like to do, politely acknowledge them and then ask the GM for his/her opinion. Experienced 3.X players can sometimes be overbearing at the table, it's the nature of the system. They need to be reminded that if they aren't GMing, they need to leave the rules decisions to the GM.
The point of this game is not blind adherence to rules. It's to have fun and socialize with like-minded people. If this is not happening at the table then we should re-examine why we play games.
+1 well said Doug.
|
|
To the OP, remember that the only opinion at the table that matters is the GM's. If other players try to tell you that you can or can't do something that you'd like to do, politely acknowledge them and then ask the GM for his/her opinion. Experienced 3.X players can sometimes be overbearing at the table, it's the nature of the system. They need to be reminded that if they aren't GMing, they need to leave the rules decisions to the GM.
The point of this game is not blind adherence to rules. It's to have fun and socialize with like-minded people. If this is not happening at the table then we should re-examine why we play games.
I'm gonna jump in and back Doug up hear to. As your GM, after all the scenario lets the GM know what is possible to do with the faction missions. Feel free to ask.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to chime in with a call for making the missions not so blatantly evil. The ones that really bug me are the Andoran (a "Good" faction) "go kill person X because we don't like him." Really? Now, I know the Silver Crusade was introduced to get folks a "really Good" faction, but it still grates on me that apparently Good only means you kill those that leadership says are bad guys. No worries about turning them over to authorities/capturing them and giving them to friendly groups for trial, or silly things like "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings."
For the Sczarni, and Cheliax as well, I don't even understand how they're supposed to be playable factions with the restriction on Evil alignment for PCs. They basically seem like the "we know you want to play Evil and we can't allow that on paper, so here's some Evil stuff you can do that we won't call Evil for purposes of the game" factions.
And yes, I just used a whole lot of quotation marks. Odd.
Sorry you didn't enjoy the faction mission, hopefully you enjoyed the rest of the module.
The way I see it, people chose Sczarni because they want to play characters that belong to the criminal underworld.
Do you think the mission was out of line with what someone in the criminal underworld would be expected to do?
Should the good aligned characters in the party *want* to help you do favors for the criminal underworld?
For what it's worth, the DC for that task was lower than the DC for most tasks because I figured you wouldn't get as much cooperation.
The question for me would be, is the mission in line with what someone that is not Evil but is in the criminal underworld would be expected to do. This gets to why I see the Sczarni as such an odd faction for organized play that doesn't allow Evil. I really hope scenario authors (or at a minimum, the Paizo editors/tweakers) can do more to ensure missions aren't Evil in nature. I know some folks want to play the morally gray stuff, and that's fine, but make it something that's at least questionably non-Evil. Or, of course, just allow Evil PCs and be done with it...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, Chris, you're welcome to do that in your home games, but I certainly hope you aren't doing that in official Pathfinder Society play. There are no rules that would force a character closer to evil for completing these missions in the PFS rules, and if a character was rendered unplayable by your ruling, they would have definite grounds for appeal.
I certainly am making those calls. Likewise, if a Paladin murders someone with poison, he loses his Paladin class abilities. Just pointing to a faction mission and saying "Somebody told me to do that." is no defense.
Case in point: at last year's GenCon, I was GMing the Kaer Maga adventure. Some members of the party had managed to dismantle the enemy in one scene and demanded his surrender. He surrendered. Afterwards, some other PCs wanted to kill him, in accord with their faction mission. I gave them the choice: they could murder a prisoner in cold blood for personal gain, but they couldn't call themselves Good afterwards. They chose to forgo the prestige.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I've considered those to be traps: if your PC tries to complete them, I'll note as much on your character sheet. If I already see such a note (or see that you received prestige award in such a scenario), I'll write a note moving your character's alignment one step closer to Evil. If you were already Neutral, your character becomes unplayable.
A PC isn't an automaton. Just because your faction-boss offers you a job and promises rewards, doesn't mean you have to do it. And moral qualms are a valid reason to turn down faction missions.
If a GM removed my character from play for completing a faction mission then I'd be asking Paizo to remove the GM from the campaign, never mind appealing. That's the most absurd thing I've ever seen on these boards, which is saying something!
I have to admit I'm not crazy about the idea that a single evil-ish action can instantly turn you evil for life (PFS or no PFS).
Having said that, I think I'm going to be switching some of my existing characters to the Silver Crusade.
Chris brings up the exact case that causes me problems. If the party defeats an opponent with ease and captures the enemy, and then for the sake of the faction mission the paladin, cleric of Sarenrae, etc. is supposed to kill said person? That's just wrong and I can't see any way of making that something a Good character would do. Ever. This is a violent game at times and opponents can die in the heat of battle. But after the battle is over no Good character should walk over to the helpless enemy and kill him. Nor should the Good characters have to fabricate some scheme in-combat to ensure the target dies. If this were tied to the Sczarni or Cheliax it might at least be expected and part of the Neutral mentality (although it's a stretch even there in not being Evil). But for Andorans to ask their paladins and such to kill targets with no mercy or option for redemption is entirely unreasonable. And the sad thing is, in that particular module there's an easy way to resolve the moral issue--simply turn the villain over to a friendly organization (in this case the anti-slavery bunch in Kaer Maga).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chris brings up the exact case that causes me problems. If the party defeats an opponent with ease and captures the enemy, and then for the sake of the faction mission the paladin, cleric of Sarenrae, etc. is supposed to kill said person? That's just wrong and I can't see any way of making that something a Good character would do. Ever. This is a violent game at times and opponents can die in the heat of battle. But after the battle is over no Good character should walk over to the helpless enemy and kill him. Nor should the Good characters have to fabricate some scheme in-combat to ensure the target dies. If this were tied to the Sczarni or Cheliax it might at least be expected and part of the Neutral mentality (although it's a stretch even there in not being Evil). But for Andorans to ask their paladins and such to kill targets is entirely unreasonable.
I think it perfectly acceptable for good character to kill an enemy, whether or not he's helpless, but that's because we disagree on the definition of 'good' I guess. I also believe, both as a GM and as a player, that it's up to the player to decide what his character would do (including refusing the mission if necessary) and it shouldn't be some arbitrarily imposed standard which will change with every GM.
If a character wants to kill someone then its on his own conscience, and its up to the player to decide what the outcome of that is. If the player feels it necessary to change their own character's alignment then that's their call. As a GM I'm just there to present the situation; what the character does with it is up to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it perfectly acceptable for good character to kill an enemy, whether or not he's helpless, but that's because we disagree on the definition of 'good' I guess. I also believe, both as a GM and as a player, that it's up to the player to decide what his character would do (including refusing the mission if necessary) and it shouldn't be some arbitrarily imposed standard which will change with every GM.
If a character wants to kill someone then its on his own conscience, and its up to the player to decide what the outcome of that is. If the player feels it necessary to change their own character's alignment then that's their call. As a GM I'm just there to present the situation; what the character does with it is up to them.
We obviously disagree--as I've found to be the case with many folks in regard to real-world morality. However, for the game I'm not using an arbitrary standard for defining Good. It's written into the rules of the game:
Good Versus Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
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.
and
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.
Chaotic Good: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
Moral relativists can go back and forth on what does or does not make murder (that's what killing a helpless person is, by the way) Evil, but the game has a clear definition of what it means to be Good. None of the above definitions allow killing someone in cold blood.
Yes, I'm quoting rules for alignment. And yes, I know on the Internet with roleplayers involved that's a sure-fire way to nerd-rage a thread to death. But I can't let the "I can kill somebody if I want to and still be Good" lie unanswered. It's not true, at least in the context of the game.
I don't disagree with what's written in the quotes you used, I just think its possible to have a respect for life and the dignity of living things, and yet still feel the need to kill someone. I would expect the good character to have qualms about doing so: is this the best decision, is there no alternative etc, but they would still do it if it proved necessary. The evil quote above actually excludes this kind of killing, implying its not evil.
I also disagree that killing a helpless person is murder. In the absence of a sound legal system and trial by jury then executing the man who just tried to cut your head off seems perfectly fine to me. It may not be legal, but its not murder (ethically speaking).
If murder implies illegality then thats a different issue of course, but we're talking about Good, not Law.
I oppose the death sentence in real life because it's always possible the evidence was misread, or someone was lying. But this is a game, and it's just not feasible or desirable to have a three week trial with a 12 man jury, forensic teams, pathologists plus counsel for both the prosecution and defence when playing a game of PFS. :-)
Although my cleric would quite enjoy it...
I don't disagree with what's written in the quotes you used, I just think its possible to have a respect for life and the dignity of living things, and yet still feel the need to kill someone. I would expect the good character to have qualms about doing so: is this the best decision, is there no alternative etc, but they would still do it if it proved necessary. The evil quote above actually excludes this kind of killing, implying its not evil.
I also disagree that killing a helpless person is murder. In the absence of a sound legal system and trial by jury then executing the man who just tried to cut your head off seems perfectly fine to me. It may not be legal, but its not murder (ethically speaking).
If murder implies illegality then thats a different issue of course, but we're talking about Good, not Law.
And therein lies the problem for PFS--the faction missions often leave no alternatives nor do they adequately reinforce the necessity of the act. See the referenced faction mission in Kaer Maga. This one is particular egregious in that there is a viable alternative to the PC killing the target in the very setting material. Yet the mission specifically states "kill target X" with no alternative. I don't know if the author was simply unfamiliar with Kaer Maga (seems unlikely given the other material in the scenario), if the faction missions have to be cut-and-dry, or whatever. No need for a three-week on scene trial or some such. Simply have the faction mission allow for turning the target over to another org for properly handling. At present these missions are indeed "traps" as described above because they force a Good character into the position of violating his alignment or forfeiting the mission. That's fine for me from one of the morally grey factions, but not from Andor which is supposed to be Good itself.
We could have the morality of killing conversation in the Off Topic forum, but it won't result in much I assume given how those conversations generally go. Suffice to say I'm not an "end justifies the means" or "eye for an eye" person, either in real life or in how I run my games.
Sticking solely to the thread, (1) give Good characters missions that can actually be Good and (2) don't give the "evil but not Evil" factions missions that are clearly Evil and then not allow Evil characters. For number 2, either don't provide such missions, or allow Evil characters. The current approach too often makes no sense compared to the PFS character guidelines.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Chris, you're welcome to do that in your home games, but I certainly hope you aren't doing that in official Pathfinder Society play. There are no rules that would force a character closer to evil for completing these missions in the PFS rules, and if a character was rendered unplayable by your ruling, they would have definite grounds for appeal.I certainly am making those calls. Likewise, if a Paladin murders someone with poison, he loses his Paladin class abilities. Just pointing to a faction mission and saying "Somebody told me to do that." is no defense.
Case in point: at last year's GenCon, I was GMing the Kaer Maga adventure. Some members of the party had managed to dismantle the enemy in one scene and demanded his surrender. He surrendered. Afterwards, some other PCs wanted to kill him, in accord with their faction mission. I gave them the choice: they could murder a prisoner in cold blood for personal gain, but they couldn't call themselves Good afterwards. They chose to forgo the prestige.
Quite frankly, I would be speechless if a GM removed my character from play due to a faction mission that I had undertaken. The players don't get to choose what their faction missions are, and I most certainly do NOT believe that certain factions should be treated as traps for the player. Under your ruling, people who play members of the Silver Crusade are doing the 'right' thing, because you are far less likely to remove them from play for going against your definition of good and evil. In a system when all factions are supposed to be equal, this is a grave mistake and not something which I believe the organisers of Pathfinder Society Organised Play should support.
I will continue by saying that if I were to ever draw you as my GM knowing your opinion on these rules, I would request to be moved to a different table, or failing that withdraw from the slot entirely, regardless of my faction. I have quite literally never heard this opinion voiced by any other GM of my acquaintance, and I find the stance you are advocating to be utterly astounding.
What you need is the Buddhist faction where no violence is allowed and your own death is nothing to be worried about, so why fight in the first place?
Give up your desires for these artefacts and end the suffering you endure because of them...
Is there a vow of non-violence in UC?
|
Well, Chris, you're welcome to do that in your home games, but I certainly hope you aren't doing that in official Pathfinder Society play. There are no rules that would force a character closer to evil for completing these missions in the PFS rules, and if a character was rendered unplayable by your ruling, they would have definite grounds for appeal.I certainly am making those calls. Likewise, if a Paladin murders someone with poison, he loses his Paladin class abilities. Just pointing to a faction mission and saying "Somebody told me to do that." is no defense.
Case in point: at last year's GenCon, I was GMing the Kaer Maga adventure. Some members of the party had managed to dismantle the enemy in one scene and demanded his surrender. He surrendered. Afterwards, some other PCs wanted to kill him, in accord with their faction mission. I gave them the choice: they could murder a prisoner in cold blood for personal gain, but they couldn't call themselves Good afterwards. They chose to forgo the prestige.
a single act that is questionably evil or even outright evil should not be grounds for forcing an alignment change. Unless the character is a Paladin, Druid, Cleric, or Cavalier/Samurai, there should be no grounds for much if any alignment discussion.
Two evil acts for a neutral character should not be grounds for removing them from play because they are "now evil."
Sorry Chris, I think you are inserting way too much of your own personal feelings on this one into a situation where you should actually pull them back for society play.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey there, Andrew.
You're confusing me with James Jacobs, who has answered the question "How many evil acts does it take to change a character's alignment?" with "In my campaign, one."
Changing alignment is a gradual process. To repeat myself, informing a player that his character's actions don't match his stated alignment a serious issue that I don't take lightly. I make sure it doesn't happen by accident (I talk with the players to make sure they understand the ramifications) and I check their records to see if some other GM's notes or other evidence suggests this kind of activity is a recussing decision.(Paladins and willful use of poison to kill someone, though: one strike.)
Some people here have implied that it's never acceptable for a GM to inform a character of a change in alignment. For example, Stormfrield has written: "If a character wants to kill someone then its on his own conscience, and its up to the player to decide what the outcome of that is. If the player feels it necessary to change their own character's alignment then that's their call. As a GM I'm just there to present the situation; what the character does with it is up to them." I reject that position, outright. If your PC [insert atrocity of your choice], then that character has become Evil. And in the PFS OP environment, that removes the character from play.
Others have suggested that, even if an action were to be Evil under general circumstances, getting a shadowy message to "burn down buildings in a city and commit general mayhem and frame another faction for it" makes it okay. That is, faction missions can't be evil acts.
Erian_7 succintly captured my opinion in his/her last paragraph above. I don't like the fact that there are faction missions that bollox the typical members of a faction (the "good choices" from earlier editions of the Guide to Organized Play). But one of my characters is a Paladin, working for Cheliax. I expect that the Paracountess will ask the character to do things now and again that go against his conscience; that's part of the fun of the character.
|
|
I will agree with Chris coming down hard on people. Why? Because 99% of judges aren't going to want to confront out-of-control players. So PFS has lots of evil PCs running around because 1) the rules aren't well established to deal with them and 2) judges are reluctant to take a stand because of the grief which ensues.
|
|
As his DM for his character Tyson, I allowed the group to decide as a group if their characters would help him or even allow it to happen, they as a group (including the OP) decided that they would not so I let them run it that way. I also passed on to the OP that he could do it on his own away from the other characters but he decided that his PC would not be able to succeed so he passed on that, but he did Roleplay into the game to make it easier for another Sczarni NPC to be able to do it at a later date which was cool.
On the alignment thing I personally would not ding someone for going against their alignment for doing a faction mission, but if they went against their alignment outside of that I sure would.
Alignment and the rules governing them are a part of the game, we just can't decide arbitrarily to ignore a rule the player may not like.
On the faction missions, I agree this one was a bit too much.
Let's talk in specifics to see if we can find common understanding here. An example mission for Andoran:
Mission Notes: Andoran faction PCs need to ensure that NPC X dies—whether that’s during the course of combat or from a nasty accident after is entirely up to the PCs and the GM.
So, we have a supposedly Good leader telling us to find this guy and kill him. Not capture him and transfer to a friendly org for proper handling. Kill him. And why? Because he says so. And the irony is City X has a perfectly viable organization that aligns directly with the goals of Andoran. It would be an easy enough task, I think, to have written the faction mission as "Apprehend NPC X at all costs and turn him over to our friends in Organzation X, alive if possible." The end result is the same--Andoran's interests are defended, the NPC in question is taken out of action, and the PC can reliably continue to be a Good character knowing he didn't kill a target that had surrendered/gotten knocked unconscious.
Here's another problem--the target is a Pathfinder. What is the basic premise of why PvP is disallowed in PFS games? Well, even though folks may be from different factions, they are all still Pathfinders and so must work together. So players can't have their characters going against one another because they are all Pathfinders and have to work together, but that same group can kill another Pathfinder because the faction says so. This undermines the PvP foundation. The Venture-Captains and Decemvirate are the proper authorities to levy punishment against a fellow Pathfinder. Not random Field Operatives blindly obeying a directive from a faction within the Society.
The scenario authors and PFS staff can, hopefully, take this for thought in crafting future faction missions.
Erian_7 succintly captured my opinion in his/her last paragraph above.
I'll certainly agree with that; I don't like faction missions that are flirting with evil (and sometimes doing more than flirting). Hopefully the Silver Crusade will have some actual good missions, too.
Andoran mission stuff
I don't recognise the mod specifically. What would organization X have done with him? How would they have stopped him from continuing to be a problem?
|
|
Grr... wrote a long post and then my internet went out and lost it.
Suffice it to say, we cannot apply today's morals to the morals of what is essentially a wild west environment.
Characters are deputized to do certain things, and as such they have become judge, jury and executioner.
As such, it is certainly not an unlawful act to kill a really nasty bad guy who kills innocents for fun, whether or not he has surrendered.
The character may have hesitation or really feel bad about killing the surrendered bad guy, because they are good, and inherently killing someone no matter the circumstances really isn't a good act. But because they have been deputized, and they have discovered the moral reprehensibility of the bad guy, killing them after they have surrendered is not an evil act. After all, they have been given the lawful right of being the executioner.
|
|
I will agree with Chris coming down hard on people. Why? Because 99% of judges aren't going to want to confront out-of-control players. So PFS has lots of evil PCs running around because 1) the rules aren't well established to deal with them and 2) judges are reluctant to take a stand because of the grief which ensues.
There is a huge difference between an out of control player and one or two questionable acts based on a faction mission.
|
|
I will agree with Chris coming down hard on people. Why? Because 99% of judges aren't going to want to confront out-of-control players. So PFS has lots of evil PCs running around because 1) the rules aren't well established to deal with them and 2) judges are reluctant to take a stand because of the grief which ensues.There is a huge difference between an out of control player and one or two questionable acts based on a faction mission.
The OP actually approached me and asked me about this at Gen Con. I told him to expect different opinions as everyone has their own opinion on this, and many of them are drastically different.
If the GM had sided with the players and chose to make him evil, or even one step towards evil, because he did a faction mission... I told him I would have gone directly to Mark Moreland about it.
I don't suggest doing this for every niggling question.
But removing a character from game play for performing a faction mission is WAY, WAY, WAY over the top.
I like ya Chris, but I don't like your opinion on this.
stuffI don't recognise the mod specifically. What would organization X have done with him? How would they have stoped him from continuing to be a problem?
They might have tried him, found him guilty of violating the rules of the city, and punished/imprisoned him. They might have used their resources to ship him back to Andoran for said judgment. In any case, the leader of the organization is himself Neutral Good and so would handle the target in a manner appropriate to Good-aligned PCs.
|
|
They might have tried him, found him guilty of violating the rules of the city, and punished/imprisoned him. They might have used their resources to ship him back to Andoran for said judgment. In any case, the leader of the organization is himself Neutral Good and so would handle the target in a manner appropriate to Good-aligned PCs.stuffI don't recognise the mod specifically. What would organization X have done with him? How would they have stoped him from continuing to be a problem?
But the characters were deputized as Judge, Jury, and Executioner. It was within their lawful rights to kill said bad guy regardless of the circumstances of said death.
And deputized as executioner, it would not have been an evil act to act as such.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say, reading through this thread I'm slightly astounding that everyone (or at least a reasonably large portion) seems to think that a good character would never kill another person. Maybe my thinking of good and evil is somewhat muddied by frequent trips to the 40k universe, but if a evil person dies and can no longer cause harm to the world at large, how is that not good. Granted a lawful good character (i.e. a Paladin) should not be killing a non-combatant regardless of how evil he is as that is not following the moral code of Law (though I'd argue it is legitimately good to snuff out evil-doers). I feel like if it were really the goal and a requirement of Good characters to never kill people then it should be written in that a Good character must always attempt to inflict nonlethal damage to any living creature that they attack (which would be ludicrous but follows with the logic several of you seem to purpose).
Also the statement by a couple of people that an evil act (or two) should push your alignment immediately towards evil is rather frightening and makes me very concerned to venture outside of my local gaming group for fear that I play at one of these people's tables. Are you noting every time that character completes a good act, such as saves a slave boy or completes the PFS mission that saves an entire village, you likely are not, therefore not appropriately weighing his good acts versus his evil ones. Mainly this worries me with regards to playing Neutral characters. Neutral characters WILL commit evil acts, but they will also commit just as many if not more (hopefully more) good acts. Very few major gameplay decisions have a "neutral" option lying in the gray area between good and evil. A neutral character is free to decide what action is appropriate based on the situation, if doing the "good" option brings greater reward to the character or his companions that he cares for then he follows the path of good. However, if killing an enemy that seems to have surrendered is more appropriate, then he has that option, because he's neutral not lawful good (notice I even made sure to include the lawful part there). And again, if the throat he slashes is that of a pirate raping and pillaging the shores of andor, then I'd sure as hell consider that a good deed.
Just my two cents on the topic.
Rabble, Rabble
They might have tried him, found him guilty of violating the rules of the city, and punished/imprisoned him. They might have used their resources to ship him back to Andoran for said judgment. In any case, the leader of the organization is himself Neutral Good and so would handle the target in a manner appropriate to Good-aligned PCs.stuffI don't recognise the mod specifically. What would organization X have done with him? How would they have stoped him from continuing to be a problem?
If punishment includes execution then I don't see how the result is any different to the characters killing him themselves. If killing is evil and they turned him over to an organsation that killed him, then that's being just as evil.
If there was any question about his innocence or guilt then a good character would definitely want to establish the truth first though, such as via a trial in a reputable nation. That's the only reason I can think of to hand him over.
But the characters were deputized as Judge, Jury, and Executioner. It was within their lawful rights to kill said bad guy regardless of the circumstances of said death.
And deputized as executioner, it would not have been an evil act to act as such.
No, I don't see anywhere in the PFS Guide or the faction mission where the characters are granted such broad rights. You may see it that way, but it is not written as such anywhere that I have found. Seeker of Secrets is pretty clear that the Decemvirate discourages members from killing one another and I don't see anywhere an exception is given based on faction affiliation. If this were the case, then the Cheliax and Andoran factions would be killing each other left and right...
And to be clear, Lawful is not the problem here (though I disagree they have the Lawful right either in most cases--in the city in question "Lawful" is a matter of territorial affiliation and an outsider would have no legal right to do anything other than turn the target over to one of the local groups).
The issue is Good. One can be Lawful Evil, after all, and so could rightly order the random execution of a target and expect your henchmen to carry out said execution. A Good faction should not be instructing its members to kill targets with no option for mercy, reconciliation, or redemption. An Evil faction like Cheliax? Sure, although then we get back to why we can't have Evil characters but for some reason can accept Evil missions.
If punishment includes execution then I don't see how the result is any different to the characters killing him themselves. If killing is evil and they turned him over to an organsation that killed him, then that's being just as evil.
If there was any question about his innocence or guilt then a good character would definitely want to establish the truth first though, such as via a trial in a reputable nation. That's the only reason I can think of to hand him over.
Which is why I note that the organization is led by a NG person. A Good character can be assured that the leader of the org will handle the target appropriately, assuming said leader acts in accordance with the definition of Good as found in the game.
Thank you all for insight and opinions on this one, especially the arguments about what is and isn't okay to do. My own personal opinion on the matter is that there is absolutely no reference to evil or even any alignment at all on page 197 of the Core Rulebook. And handing someone over to be killed by someone else without any real chance for survival is no more good aligned than doing the deed yourself, though perhaps more lawful. But my opinion or any single person in this thread's opinion isn't going to be good enough to settle arguments about alignment in PFS.
The Sczarni mission that I am referring to is an evil act, no question at all. And this thread makes it rather clear to me that completing such a mission can be divisive for the players at the table. If characters don't want to be okay with it, that's roleplaying opportunity, but if players don't, that's just bad blood.
I loved playing a Sczarni thug, it was a lot of fun. I enjoyed every game I played in, and Sewer Dragons was either my favorite or second favorite game I got into. The game that I enjoyed least of all, was the one where I got lectured about how I couldn't do evil things or I'd lose my other character, the guy from team Andoran.
I'm happy to hear that the DC was lower due to the solo nature of that mission, but there was still too much room, in my opinion, for out of character conflict over the evil nature of the mission. I am not asking for the Sczarni stop being a mob family, if they weren't mobsters, I'd not be playing as a member with this character. What I am asking is that their missions be less antagonistic the the gaming groups good will. If its a challenge at some tables to complete some kill quests without upsetting players and starting a conflict, I really don't see room in the game for more missions like the Sewer Dragons of Absalom one.
|
|
Later that day, I got a chance to play Sewer Dragons of Absalom as Tyson. I don't know if I am allowed to tell the faction missions even with spoiler tags, so I won't, but needless to say it was a pretty terrible thing to do.---Snip---
I get it that the Sczarni are pretty nasty folk, but this mission was just bad for table dynamics. In the future, can we please get faction missions that don't have such a high risk of tearing a table apart?
I also had to pass on the mission (though my character isn't particularly good), mostly because there was a lot of role playing choices going on and that the goal could be accomplished without combat. And after the goal was achieved the judge and a couple of players pushed us past the opportunity before I could accomplish the mission. It was a tough one.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This thread got me curious enough to double-check the Scarni mission for "Sewer Dragons".
Oh, man, but that has potential for ramifications. Dennis, this guy needs to show up in another adventure. Perhaps a fighter / summoner who lets his eidolon do his talking for him, and who had a real chip on his shoulder against the Pathfinder Society.
|
|
But the characters were deputized as Judge, Jury, and Executioner. It was within their lawful rights to kill said bad guy regardless of the circumstances of said death.
And deputized as executioner, it would not have been an evil act to act as such.
No, I don't see anywhere in the PFS Guide or the faction mission where the characters are granted such broad rights. You may see it that way, but it is not written as such anywhere that I have found. Seeker of Secrets is pretty clear that the Decemvirate discourages members from killing one another and I don't see anywhere an exception is given based on faction affiliation. If this were the case, then the Cheliax and Andoran factions would be killing each other left and right...
And to be clear, Lawful is not the problem here (though I disagree they have the Lawful right either in most cases--in the city in question "Lawful" is a matter of territorial affiliation and an outsider would have no legal right to do anything other than turn the target over to one of the local groups).
The issue is Good. One can be Lawful Evil, after all, and so could rightly order the random execution of a target and expect your henchmen to carry out said execution. A Good faction should not be instructing its members to kill targets with no option for mercy, reconciliation, or redemption. An Evil faction like Cheliax? Sure, although then we get back to why we can't have Evil characters but for some reason can accept Evil missions.
Which is...If punishment includes execution then I don't see how the result is any different to the characters killing him themselves. If killing is evil and they turned him over to an organsation that killed him, then that's being just as evil.
If there was any question about his innocence or guilt then a good character would definitely want to establish the truth first though, such as via a trial in a reputable nation. That's the only reason I can think of to hand him over.
The faction mission itself granted them those rights. An entire powerful country basically deputized them. If the faction mission doesn't ask them to kill, then they are not deputized as such and should take the consequences of out of scope or off the reservation actions.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There are very few activities that can't be spun in some way, shape, or form, as "good." What if, by using that poison (previously mentioned) the paladin is able to discourage others from following in the villain's footsteps and thus saves ten, twenty, or even a hundred lives. Are you going to say that an act that potentially saves a hundred or more lives at the cost of a known, cold blooded, murderer is an evil act?
I'm referring to a particular Season 0 scenario. The faction mission involves killing a merchant with a poison designed to be intensely painful, as retribution. The only cold-blooded murderer involved would be the PC.
And this isn't an issue of good and evil. Take a look at the Paladin's code of conduct. If you don't have any problems with a paladin willfully poisoning a guy, then why bother having conduct restrictions on the class at all?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit I'm not crazy about the idea that a single evil-ish action can instantly turn you evil for life (PFS or no PFS).
I don`t think anybody has suggested that a single evil act turns you evil `for life`, since the corollary to this is that a single strongly good act could turn you from neutral to good. The problem with PFS is just that once you are evil, you are illegal and can`t play anymore, but if you are shifted to neutral from good after doing an evil act, you can/should look out to act as heroically good as possible so that one more evil act doesn`t make you illegal. Very meta, I know.
AFAIK, Poison use is no longer considered evil per se in PRPG, or in conflict with Paladins... Though Poisons that specifically killed with maximum pain and torture would still be Evil IMHO, a CON drain Poison applied to your sword would just be speeding up combat (a mundane Energy Drain, if you will).
For execution after combat ends via attempted surrender, it feels more like a lawful issue than good, though there is still some element of good/evil in play. Some missions like `painfully murder somebody who isn`t killing innocents and is only a threat to our interests` are pure Evil, of course. I would say this basically means that Sczarni are going to be skirting the edge of being illegal (Evil) if they follow thru with these missions, so they must be looking out to do especially good acts in other adventures (very meta, again, but justifiable as an over-all Neutral character who can`t avoid doing Evil acts but still has a `soft side` that wants to do good).
If people committing Evil acts doesn`t shift their alignment towards Evil SOMEHOW (GMs can and should be precise in saying +1/4 towards next alignment closer to Evil, +1 full step only in stronger situations), then the prohibition on Evil alignment in PFS seems like a joke, since it just means you can`t write Evil on your character sheet from the start, but are free to act as Evil as you want (just no PvP). Since I assume Paizo intends their rules (vs. Evil) to be followed thru on, I can`t see why they don`t expect repurcussions for Evil acts. Since there definitely is a hell of alot of gray area about judging aligment, I think it`s good practice for any GM shifting aligment (if only partially) to write down a consise, but informative reason of exactly why the alignment deserved to shift (or partially shift), so that other GMs can see that reasoning down the line.
I DO think that Paizo should address this issue head-on by exactly describing how this works, and how characters who act evil on ocassion (shifting them to Neutral) need to balance that with Good acts if they are to remain PFS-legal... along with guidelines for GMs to indicate Alignment shifts (and partial shifts) on character sheets, since that is a pretty important part of this. Examples/guidelines for what constitutes a full alignment shift, vs. 1/2 or 1/4 for example, would probably be pretty useful as well. Making it clear that certain classes of acts AREN`T going to shift your alignment one full step all on their own would make playing Sczarni more viable since they wouldn`t be 1 act away from being illegal if they were already Neutral, and likewise they wouldn`t have to actually reach being `overall Good` as much as reaching Neutral or maybe a little bit toward Good.
If you don't have any problems with a paladin willfully poisoning a guy, then why bother having conduct restrictions on the class at all?
I think the difference between using poison and a blunt object over the head is one of chivalry, rather than goodness - its a very specific view of what a paladin is. I think the restriction makes more sense for a cavalier than a paladin to be honest.
I'd quite like to play a Grey Guard who believes that the ends do justify the means and will do anything to get the job done. They're usually paladin archetypes.
|
|
AFAIK, Poison use is no longer considered evil per se in PRPG, or in conflict with Paladins... Though Poisons that specifically killed with maximum pain and torture would still be Evil IMHO, a CON drain Poison applied to your sword would just be speeding up combat (a mundane Energy Drain, if you will).
You are correct, using poison is not an evil act anymore, but read the Paladin Code again, it is against their code as an unhonarable act, and would cause them to be in conflict with their code of conduct.
Additionally, a paladin's code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If people committing Evil acts doesn`t shift their alignment towards Evil SOMEHOW (GMs can and should be precise in saying +1/4 towards next alignment closer to Evil, +1 full step only in stronger situations), then the prohibition on Evil alignment in PFS seems like a joke, since it just means you can`t write Evil on your character sheet from the start, but are free to act as Evil as you want (just no PvP). Since I assume Paizo intends their rules (vs. Evil) to be followed thru on, I can`t see why they don`t expect repercussions for Evil acts. Since there definitely is a hell of alot of gray area about judging aligment, I think it`s good practice for any GM shifting alignment (if only partially) to write down a consise, but informative reason of exactly why the alignment deserved to shift (or partially shift), so that other GMs can see that reasoning down the line.
I DO think that Paizo should address this issue head-on by exactly describing how this works, and how characters who act evil on ocassion (shifting them to Neutral) need to balance that with Good acts if they are to remain PFS-legal... along with guidelines for GMs to indicate Alignment shifts (and partial shifts) on character sheets, since that is a pretty important part of this. Examples/guidelines for what constitutes a full alignment shift, vs. 1/2 or 1/4 for example, would probably be pretty useful as well.
While I think this is a fine idea under most circumstances, it begins to fall apart when you look at factions and faction missions. According to such a ruling, Sczarni would be harder to play than Silver Crusade. You would either have to skip out on Faction awards consistently, or you would have to run around saving orphans with every spare second you had to keep your character from being removed from play by level 5.
Just because Silver Crusade are the good guys, and Andoran were the most good guys previously does not mean that it should be easier to play them. If anything, it should be harder to be good than to be neutral. Creating a rule set that penalizes people for not being good (which is exactly what you described) does the exact opposite of that and establishes tiers of playability among the factions, with Silver Crusade as easiest, since their faction missions are least likely to give you black marks of evil that can eventually make your character unplayable.
And yes, Dragonmoon, I had a headache too, but it had nothing to do with the module.
|
I'm referring to a particular Season 0 scenario. The faction mission involves killing a merchant with a poison designed to be intensely painful, as retribution. The only cold-blooded murderer involved would be the PC.And this isn't an issue of good and evil. Take a look at the Paladin's code of conduct. If you don't have any problems with a paladin willfully poisoning a guy, then why bother having conduct restrictions on the class at all?
I've played a Season 2 adventure where the Andoran faction mission involved hiring an assassin to kill an NPC the characters would never meet. I'm not sure if that's better or worse.