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.
Hey Dragnmoon,
Now that Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Balance are out, is poison use not allowed by each individual LG, LN and NG deity?
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.
I don't see this "deputization" referenced anywhere (if there's a citation somewhere, I'd love to see it...). It blatantly goes against the standing regulations of the Pathfinder Society and the sovereignty of other nations--which would get the Pathfinders targeted as seditious/unlawful and thus get Pathfinders kicked out of the nation. Ironically, this is exactly the thing the Andoran missions cites as justification for the killing. It's illogical on all fronts...
And again, this would simply make the action Lawful, not Good. It's a faction mission that forces Good characters to do things outside their alignment when other Good options are available. A Good organization shouldn't be asking Good characters to kill a target by any means necessary. That is not Good. "Bring him in alive, although lethal force is authorized if necessary" is a far cry from "Do everything you can to ensure this person dies, even if he's captured and brought to legal authorities/temple sanctuary/etc." I'm not asking for anything crazy here, at least from what I can tell based on the rules of the game--simply have Good organizations offer Good characters Good/Neutral missions and never ask them to do Evil (and of course, for the thread focus, also don't ask any character to do Evil acts while also forbidding Evil characters--either stop the first or allow the second).
And here's the huge irony--the Andoran mission is the only mission in the scenario that leans so far toward Evil! Their hated rivals in Evil Cheliax, those nefarious foes, look like saints compared to the "Good" Andorans that are encouraged to fake an accident if necessary in order to kill their target.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
On the faction missions, I agree this one was a bit too much.
As opposed to the many faction missions which essentially require characters to kill someone? This is what I find really curious, outright murder is ok but this is over the line?
Or do you find the many many "You must ensure XXX dies" missions over the top also?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
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.
So what you're saying is that as a GM, you invited your table to engage in PvP, despite it being expressly forbidden in PFS?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+2 Draino this is a great topic, thanks for posting it.
Good and Evil are highly subjective. I personally think the Sczarni, Chelish and Shadow Lodge are all clearly meant for evil characters (and historically, the Shadow Lodge in particular has a large number of evil pathfinders as members of it) but I have seen over the 90 tables I have run all kinds of great reasons why good and neutral characters are members of those factions.
I have seen players justify the coup-de-grace using many reasons, not the least of which is simply that they were ordered to do it by their faction and feared repercussion. I have had players make knowledge (local) checks to have the knowledge that the person they are killing is a truly bad individual, a criminal scumbag, etc. It is a simple matter to role-play out a character with a conundrum about committing a potentially evil act. You can seek penance with a cleric within the group or the town you're in, etc. It really is something that can be unbalancing in the moment, but with a little forethought a GM should be able to help you through such an act. I have seen several tables degenerate into quite a bit of role-playing over it.
It really does fall to the GM to help you find a way to justify why your character might carry out an act deemed evil by someone outside your faction. In reading through and prepping a scenario a GM should pay particular attention to those missions where a player may be asked to do something that could be construed as evil by the other players.
As a GM the question I like to apply to a scenario that I am prepping is simple. If there were 4 paladins in the scenario, each with a different faction, how would they handle the scenarios, would a paladin, the epitome of goodness, have a problem following through on his faction's mission/s and how would he interpret what he witnesses as the other paladins commit to successful completion of their missions?
If I portend problems may ensue I have to put some extra thought into how to help players find a way to justify completing a mission and continuing to cooperate with one another. It can be a difficult and precarious balancing act, but I have not found a single scenario that I couldn't find a solution to, although there are some that even with all the justifications we came up with, as a group, at the table, in the moment, the player/s did feel like their character/s would not commit to the successful accomplishment of the mission. In which case they did sacrifice their PA for that part of their faction mission.
Again thanks for such a great topic.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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.
Glad to hear you enjoyed it.
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.
|
Hey Dragnmoon,
Now that Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Balance are out, is poison use not allowed by each individual LG, LN and NG deity?
If you are talking about the paladin codes in those books then yes poison use is still not allowed. The paladin codes in those books are additional strictures not replacements of the paladin code.
Paladins of all faiths have strict moral codes by which they must abide or risk losing their powers: they must protect the innocent, be truthful, respect lawful and just authority, and live with honor at all times. However, paladins of individual faiths live by additional strictures, and draw on specific codes to seal their bonds with their gods— those who violate the codes of their faiths must atone for their deeds or lose their powers.
As opposed to the many faction missions which essentially require characters to kill someone? This is what I find really curious, outright murder is ok but this is over the line?
Or do you find the many many "You must ensure XXX dies" missions over the top also?
Probably obvious from my posts, but I most definitely consider these over the top for the Good factions (i.e. those noted as favoring Good characters and led by Good people, so Andoran and Cheliax). For those that lean more toward Evil (Cheliax obviously, and now the Sczarni) it's far more reasonable as a mission from such leaders and I'm okay with Good characters in said factions having to struggle with the morality. However, even here it should not be a blatantly Evil "kill this person at all costs, even if he surrenders" or else PFS needs to allow Evil characters. For the rest of the factions, I would expect killing a target to be a rare request (considering the moral implications as well as the "real world" impacts to Pathfinder standing in a nation if found out) and one that has options other than straight up killing.
|
|
On the faction missions, I agree this one was a bit too much.As opposed to the many faction missions which essentially require characters to kill someone? This is what I find really curious, outright murder is ok but this is over the line?
Or do you find the many many "You must ensure XXX dies" missions over the top also?
I never said that, I think many of those are a bit too much as well.
|
|
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.So what you're saying is that as a GM, you invited your table to engage in PvP, despite it being expressly forbidden in PFS?
Since no PVP happened, I would say no I did not, in fact PVP was prevented, so I don't know where you are getting this idea from.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.I don't see this "deputization" referenced anywhere (if there's a citation somewhere, I'd love to see it...). It blatantly goes against the standing regulations of the Pathfinder Society and the sovereignty of other nations--which would get the Pathfinders targeted as seditious/unlawful and thus get Pathfinders kicked out of the nation. Ironically, this is exactly the thing the Andoran missions cites as justification for the killing. It's illogical on all fronts...
And again, this would simply make the action Lawful, not Good. It's a faction mission that forces Good characters to do things outside their alignment when other Good options are available. A Good organization shouldn't be asking Good characters to kill a target by any means necessary. That is not Good. "Bring him in alive, although lethal force is authorized if necessary" is a far cry from "Do everything you can to ensure this person dies, even if he's captured and brought to legal authorities/temple sanctuary/etc." I'm not asking for anything crazy here, at least from what I can tell based on the rules of the game--simply have Good organizations offer Good characters Good/Neutral missions and never ask them to do Evil (and of course, for the thread focus, also don't ask any character to do Evil acts while also forbidding Evil characters--either stop the first or allow the second).
And here's the huge irony--the Andoran mission is the only mission in the scenario that leans so far toward Evil! Their hated rivals in Evil Cheliax, those nefarious foes, look like saints compared to the "Good" Andorans that are encouraged to fake an accident if necessary in order to kill their target.
** spoiler omitted **...
What I find odd is that you keep trying to force your ideals of what good is on the Andoran faction. Andorans are not lawful, therefore they are not overly concerned with accomplishing their goals through the proper channels (i.e. turning over enemiess of the PFS or Andoran more specially to the proper authorities).
You feel that "good guys" should never kill anyone, but myself and several others disagree with you. In my opinion you keep describing good as being synonymous with lawful good, while at the same time continuing to claim it has nothing to do with lawful. Robin Hood was chaotic good (IMO), do you think he wouldn't have killed someone that was threatening townsfolk. Is he suddenly evil if kills someone for the betterment of the community. I don't think so but you clearly do, and it seems quite obvious to me that the Andoran higher-ups don't see this as evil. It's not that they are asking their members to perform evil acts, it's that they are assigning missions that you personally feel are evil. So you can skip those missions, but if you do it's because you're playing your character as extremely lawful good, not merely good.
What I find odd is that you keep trying to force your ideals of what good is on the Andoran faction. Andorans are not lawful, therefore they are not overly concerned with accomplishing their goals through the proper channels (i.e. turning over enemiess of the PFS or Andoran more specially to the proper authorities).
You feel that "good guys" should never kill anyone, but myself and several others disagree with you. In my opinion you keep describing good as being synonymous with lawful good, while at the same time continuing to claim it has nothing to do with lawful. Robin Hood was chaotic good (IMO), do you think he wouldn't have killed someone that was threatening townsfolk. Is he suddenly evil if kills someone for the betterment of the community. I don't think so but you clearly do, and it seems quite obvious to me that the Andoran higher-ups don't see this as evil. It's not that they are asking their members to perform evil acts, it's that they are assigning missions that you personally feel are evil. So you can skip those missions, but if you do it's because you're playing your character as extremely lawful good, not merely good.
No, that's actually not what I've said. I clearly stated earlier that, for instance, a target might die in the heat of battle. Can you quote a reference where I say all killing is Evil? Because that's not what I've said...
And find me a story where Robin Hood overcomes the dastardly villains, and then ruthlessly slaughters them after surrender or capture. Robin Hood uses lethal force to protect the innocent. He does not use lethal force to kill prisoners and helpless combatants. This warped concept of "Good" being able to kill willy nilly to ensure "future good" is not a concept that finds much traction either in the real world stories or in the game (see below).
My definition of Good in Pathfinder is not a personal preference, it's actually written into the game in the Additional Rules section and specifically includes respect for life. I quoted it earlier for reference. This is not open for interpretation. If you want a character to be okay with killing anyone, for any reason, any time then you are playing Evil. If you want a character that will kill when necessary but not take any pleasure in such, that's likely Neutral. If you want to use lethal force as a last resort and try to respect life, that is Good.
To be clear, I'm okay with Evil faction missions, if PFS will then actually allow Evil characters.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Since no PVP happened, I would say no I did not, in fact PVP was prevented, so I don't know where you are getting this idea from.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.So what you're saying is that as a GM, you invited your table to engage in PvP, despite it being expressly forbidden in PFS?
Perhaps I misunderstood your post; it sounded like you said you allowed "the group" (presumably the other players, yes?) to decide whether or not to allow one PC to accomplish a given task. Unless something's being lost in translation, that sounds like you invited the other PCs to take action to interfere with that PC's activities. If so, that's PvP.
Thinking about it more, perhaps you meant you let them vote on how you should rule something?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I never said that, I think many of those are a bit too much as well.On the faction missions, I agree this one was a bit too much.As opposed to the many faction missions which essentially require characters to kill someone? This is what I find really curious, outright murder is ok but this is over the line?
Or do you find the many many "You must ensure XXX dies" missions over the top also?
Fair enough.
Seemed to me it was clearly within the established norms for a mission, in fact significantly less harsh than the murder missions.
Would it be evil if the party went in and just killed the guy to achieve their goal? (Many parties will do exactly this) I suspect at some tables this faction will actually save the guys life.
Is this more evil than killing him to get access?
|
|
Perhaps I misunderstood your post; it sounded like you said you allowed "the group" (presumably the other players, yes?) to decide whether or not to allow one PC to accomplish a given task. Unless something's being lost in translation, that sounds like you invited the other PCs to take action to interfere with that PC's activities. If so, that's PvP.
Thinking about it more, perhaps you meant you let them vote on how you should rule something?
It was more of a mutual agreement between all the players involved (to include the OP) then a vote, I had little input into what they thought was best how to deal with that situation.
Thanks Dennis for clearing up the intent there. I guess my real issue with this particular mission is that you need to engage in a conflict that is much easier to avoid, and then furthermore have to do something that you can't let others see you do, which would be easy if I didn't have to tell the GM right in front of everyone else.
I'm not too worried about this particular case for my particular character because he lacked the skill to achieve the mission, but as my first experience with a Sczarni mission, it scares me a bit about the difficulty in achieving future mission.
------
PvP was exactly what we were trying to avoid. The rules call for no PvP, but there is huge cognitive dissonance when your good character is forced to watch someone execute a foe (or worse) because you aren't allowed to intervene as such would be PvP. So instead of having another ugly scene like I had in the morning, I talked to the other players about it and worked it out with them how we could resolve it without leaving a sour taste in anyone's mouth.
I personally don't see an issue with PC v PC, but I know that it can come dangerously close to Player v Player, so in any situation where I can see an obvious conflict of Character actions and the no PvP rule, I ask the table how they feel about the specific situations. When running through midnight mauler, a character hit Tyson with a poorly aimed bottle rocket. Tyson was pissed off. So I asked the table, "would you guys be okay with Tyson boxing his ears (dirty trick - deaf for 1 round) after this encounter has resolved, or would that be too close to pvp?" The other players said that he was okay with it as long as it wasn't meaningfully damaging, and the DM said it could be handled as narration, so Tyson boxed the dudes ears and we moved on. No PvP occurred.
/rant about the differences between characters and players fighting.
It wasn't a vote on ruling or on how I would achieve or not achieve my mission. It was a decision that I made with the rest of the table to ensure a fun play experience. No person ever told me that I could not try to complete my mission. I chose not to try because I didn't think my character could make the skill check without assistance. I did ask the other players for input, and chose based on the obvious upcoming conflict between characters, but it was my decision alone as the player to not have my character try the mission. If anything Dragonmoon tried to make the process easier for me to complete the mission, it just wouldn't have been easy enough given what the party had already done.
------
On the subject of this mission v killing and which is more evil:
Killing a foe who falls in battle without surrender or any sign of moral regret is VERY different than what this mission calls for.
Then again, maybe we as players need something like this to challenge our own senses of morality in gaming, and ask ourselves how it is meaningfully different to ensure a person death than to do this mission. But is a faction mission that starts with picking an unneeded fight the right place to challenge those preconceptions?
This will be a growing problem, I think, as we move into the future with the Silver Crusade. Having a "non-interference" clause for players but then having members from a Lawful Good organization that are likely also Lawful Good is going to cause problems when the paladin refuses to let the character from another faction execute a prisoner. The paladin is entirely within his right to do so according to the rules of the game, but is prevented from doing so by the PvP restrictions.
If PFS wants to keep morally gray faction missions in place, then these need to be (1) understood as entirely secret from the other characters and (2) subject to disruption by another character if this secrecy is broken, without ramification to the Good character for hindering the player/character.
It all boils down to a simple thing--make better faction missions that match the factions and that can be executed without compromising another character.
I never said that, I think many of those are a bit too much as well.On the faction missions, I agree this one was a bit too much.As opposed to the many faction missions which essentially require characters to kill someone? This is what I find really curious, outright murder is ok but this is over the line?
Or do you find the many many "You must ensure XXX dies" missions over the top also?
I agree with Dragnmoon. In fact, it sounds like this has two of my least favourite types of faction mission: the "semi-evil" mission and the "must be secret" mission. If it's also an "obscure skill" mission, then that's the trifecta! :-)
The Andoran faction is as much about being chaotic as good. They believe in udermining what they consider oppressive regimes and are willing to go to whatever lengths that seem feasible.
I agree with the first sentence and disagree with the second. The organization is led by a Good character. The faction itself is noted as having mostly Good members. Good acts in a specific way with regard to respect for life, as defined by the game (see my other posts). If they are willing to do anything to undermine authority (including murder and assassination), then they are indeed Chaotic Neutral or even Chaotic Evil, not Chaotic Good. If that's the desire for Andoran, then they should be changed as such and I'll be fine. They cannot be defined as Chaotic Good while also having no respect for life, per the rules of the game.
A large part of many faction missions read "while making sure none of the other factions observe what you're doing." In other words you've got the extra challenge of being subtle. My spouse's cleric once fulfilled a mission by killing a person while on the pretense of trying to heal him. And since no one was the wiser, everything remained copacetic party wise.
The Andorans are not "good" they're freedom fighters, and they have relatively few compunctions about the means they use.
For the first part, I agree. But said player cannot then be upset if the secrecy is blown and a Lawful Good paladin prevents the killing. This is not PvP and the paladin should be allowed to act in character.
For the last part, that's actually not consistent with the way the Andoran faction is presented--it's a Good organization led by a Good NPC. If Paizo wants it otherwise, they can definitely change it, but as it stands the presentation of the Andorans does not match a "kill anyone that gets in our way" mentality (even if some faction missions poorly present them as such).
|
|
The test I always have players give themselves is the following: Can a character be good, and believe that the ends justify the means? If you can say that your character truly believes that he can commit a heinous act in order to justify the end result of achieving good; then go to part two of the exercise; which is: what would other good aligned characters witnessing your character commit the act think? Would they agree with your character? If not, as a player, it becomes your responsibility to figure out how you would convince them that what you did or are about to do is in the name of the greater good. Let them role-play it out.
In the PFS there is no P v P allowed or evil alignments, so this requires some good role-playing and more willingness to compromise as players as to what your characters are willing to tolerate or not tolerate. A solitary evil act does not make a character evil, it must be taken in context.
Although there is no P v P there is not a rule that says you can't stand by and watch a character get killed, can players allow a character to die by purposely acting with bad tactics in a combat or by directly withholding healing from a character? I would argue, yes they can and therefore it is imperative that GM's pay close attention and come up with good solutions to scenario faction missions that might be construed as being truly evil as opposed to just a single bad act.
|
|
Perhaps I misunderstood your post; it sounded like you said you allowed "the group" (presumably the other players, yes?) to decide whether or not to allow one PC to accomplish a given task. Unless something's being lost in translation, that sounds like you invited the other PCs to take action to interfere with that PC's activities. If so, that's PvP
PvP has been banned in every organized play campaign that I have seen. Yet, I have seen PvP in Living City, Living Greyhawk, Living Arcanis and Pathfinder Society (among the major ones).
If you want someone dead, then make sure to kill him during combat, because once he surrenders, virtually all of my characters will object to killing him.
Factions have no legal authority in PFS. So the fact that your faction wants someone dead doesn't give you authority to kill that person if it is contradictory to the opinions of the other players.
|
|
erian_7,
First off, I apologize if that last post came off as some sort of personal attack on you or your opinion, I'm simply at work and don't have time to beat around the bush, so to speak, in order to get my opinion out there.
I went back and re-read the citation that you gave about good characters and wanted to point out the it says that they seek to protect innocent life. In all cases where I imagine one of my good characters having to kill someone, that someone is far from innocent. And suggesting that I believe good characters should kill "wily nily" is inaccurate, that makes it sound like he'd stab every ruffin that got liquored up and started a bar fight. For a good character killing should certainly not be the first option in most cases, but there are occasionally individuals that I believe a good character can justify killing.
erian_7,
First off, I apologize if that last post came off as some sort of personal attack on you or your opinion, I'm simply at work and don't have time to beat around the bush, so to speak, in order to get my opinion out there.
I went back and re-read the citation that you gave about good characters and wanted to point out the it says that they seek to protect innocent life. In all cases where I imagine one of my good characters having to kill someone, that someone is far from innocent. And suggesting that I believe good characters should kill "wily nily" is inaccurate, that makes it sound like he'd stab every ruffin that got liquored up and started a bar fight. For a good character killing should certainly not be the first option in most cases, but there are occasionally individuals that I believe a good character can justify killing.
No problem--I've had a lot of free time to focus on this particular issue! It's very important to me as I teach my 7-year old son about the joys of RPGs...
For the definition of Good, be sure to take in the entire entry, specifically, "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others." This is a very important aspect of what it means to be Good, especially in contrast to Neutral. I can't think of a single example where a player could justify killing a captured/helpless target and call that Good as it shows no respect for life. If the target is also sentient, it's even worse. When a "Good" character decides he's got the right to kill such a target, the character is indeed violating his alignment because he's decided this particular sentient being has no dignity and his life has no value. As such, a Good faction should never have its mission simply be "kill this target without question" and offer no other options. Even a Neutral faction would rarely do so, really only when the target is a major direct threat. Otherwise the faction is Evil as it will have "no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" or "killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
Counter to what some have said about Good being easier, I believe Good should be the hardest to play properly. It's not always easy to make the Good choice, because it's not convenient and/or might require personal sacrifice for someone not "worthy" of such sacrifice. I don't believe Good people do Good just to other Good (or even Neutral) people. Good people do Good even to Evil people when possible. That's why they are Good...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Thanks Dennis for clearing up the intent there. I guess my real issue with this particular mission is that you need to engage in a conflict that is much easier to avoid, and then furthermore have to do something that you can't let others see you do, which would be easy if I didn't have to tell the GM right in front of everyone else.
I'm not too worried about this particular case for my particular character because he lacked the skill to achieve the mission, but as my first experience with a Sczarni mission, it scares me a bit about the difficulty in achieving future mission.
Thanks again, I really appreciate the feedback. I wouldn't worry too much about Sczarni faction missions being worse than others overall.
|
|
Intentionally killing a person who is fighting back is not less evil than killing someone who is helpless. The Evil is in the act not the other persons ability to defend themselves.
So an adventurer could never kill a sentient being without being evil.
That is why we do not insert real world morality into a game such as this. It makes the game quickly unplayable.
Why is my Lawful Good Paladin from Andoran OK with an outright murderous faction mission? Because the target was Evil. That is all he needs to know. Thanks for playing and happy gaming.
Actually, I can see killing a black widow spider... esp. one I find in my basement. Or a rattlesnake in the basement (which I have done), and I didn't view it as an evil act.
Well, I don't want to mix real world and game world too much, as the game rules, obviously, don't specifically apply to real world situations. However using this as an example both actions would be classified as Neutral at best and possibly Evil if the creatures could have been saved...
;^)
In the real world, I capture and release all creatures, even poisonous ones, at my house and teach my children how to properly protect themselves from accidental encounters. We've got spiders (black widows and brown recluses), scorpions, centipedes, and snakes (copperheads, cottonmouths (the only venomous aquatic snake native to North America), rattlesnakes, and coral snakes) around here. Having lived much of my life in rural environments, I've had encounters with all of these and have never had to kill one...
Now, if I'm in a situation where a snake, for instance, is an imminent danger to my children, I'll kill it given no other option. I won't be happy about having to do so, but I'll protect my kids over an animal. My kids are, however, generally safer around such animals because they know not to panic and thus react in a way that provokes the animal to attack...
Intentionally killing a person who is fighting back is not less evil than killing someone who is helpless. The Evil is in the act not the other persons ability to defend themselves.
So an adventurer could never kill a sentient being without being evil.
That is why we do not insert real world morality into a game such as this. It makes the game quickly unplayable.
Why is my Lawful Good Paladin from Andoran OK with an outright murderous faction mission? Because the target was Evil. That is all he needs to know. Thanks for playing and happy gaming.
No, a Good adventurer cannot kill a target when other options are readily available. This is not real world morality. It's written into the rules of the game (again, see above...). Your LG paladin from Andoran should not be okay with killing a helpless/captured target because that is clearly in violation of the defined rules for Good. He can fight, and kill, in battle. Thinking otherwise is what makes the game unplayable. But he cannot kill a target that surrenders just because his detect evil pings. That goes down the "Lawful Stupid" mentality that drives so many people crazy with paladins. Paladins are paragons of Good--Good respects life and the dignity of sentient creatures and so the paladin will not randomly kill every Evil target in sight. If he truly believes he can kill anyone just because the target is Evil, then he's not a paladin. He's at best a Lawful Neutral cavalier.
In our PFS sessions, my group has only killed a single sentient being so far, and that was because a critical hit killed the target in battle. All other sentient beings were subdued/captured after combat and turned into authorities. It's most certainly possible to play this game without killing every opponent...
|
|
To me, the Andoran assassination missions were only evil if the GM (or a player) decided to push them in that direction. If one player wants to ensure that no sentient being is ever killed by the party, I would say that they are the troublemaker in the group, just as much as a player who decides to make sure that that ever fought him with the intent to kill ends the scenario dead.
You can even complete the Andoran faction missions by handing them over to the authorities of the city! In my mind, to actually avoid these guys being killed, they have to escape with or without your help.
Both Andoran targets were evil people who had committed vastly evil actions to deserve their death sentence in the Andoran eyes. As an Andoran character playing through these scenarios, I did wonder if these people really were as bad as the missive had described, but they completely confirmed them with their actions. Other missions may be evil, but I don't buy that these missions are evil unless the GM is specifically deciding to make them so.
To me, the Andoran assassination missions were only evil if the GM (or a player) decided to push them in that direction. If one player wants to ensure that no sentient being is ever killed by the party, I would say that they are the troublemaker in the group, just as much as a player who decides to make sure that that ever fought him with the intent to kill ends the scenario dead.
** spoiler omitted **
See, there's a vast difference between ensuring no sentient being is ever killed (which implies death in battle is not acceptable, a topic I've already covered) and ensuring that targets that surrender/are rendered helpless are not then killed. It is entirely possible for the scenario to set up the target as "fights to the death" but in reality it's very easy/common to defeat targets without killing them, especially given the Pathfinder rule for death being tagged to Constitution score. If the target is not killed in combat (I know some GMs hand-wave this with "it fell below 0 hp and so is dead), then it's perfectly reasonable for a paladin or similar character to stabilize the target and seek a LG solution to disposition of the enemy.
erian_7, I asked the author of that scenario about that faction mission. It was intended to be a clue about the deportment of that particular faction leader, and it was supposed to be shocking to the players.
The deportment of the faction leader that ordered the mission? Because that would make sense as to why the Andorans would say "Okay, you've lost it as a leader and you're out." It should also thus be noted in the scenario in some way, with direction that this could be a mission the PCs might readily turn down due to it's nature. Of course, this is also telling the players, "hey, here's some RP insight into the overall PFS story-line, sorry if it borks you out of prestige." I can see this from an RP perspective, but it's not something I'm sure would be popular with Andoran-focused players.
As written, there is no mention of this in the module and it simply implies that Andoran's kill anyone they don't like. It's definitely not presented as shocking so much as "this is what Andorans do" especially considering the Mission Note (which is not read to the players) to arrange an unfortunate accident if necessary to ensure death. If something is going to be used as foreshadowing/external plot development, the author really needs to give the GM a heads up for that...
If you mean the deportment of the target, and he was in some way a faction leader, then that's no where even close to anything I would have considered, much less something I could communicate in any meaningful way to the players. If this is the intention, I'd have to say it fails miserably.
Now, I do want to qualify all this by saying I very much like the scenario as it departs nicely from dungeon crawls and is set in Kaer Maga (one of my favorite Golarion sites). Really this faction mission is the one glaring "error" in the whole thing.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
Sometimes, I would say that the LG solution to disposition of the enemy is execution. I can not say that they slaying of these fictional characters counts anywhere near evil. It is excessive in comparison to other tasks, but that doesn't make it an evil action.
Deciding that all sentient beings must meet your determination for justice is just troublesome and really I see as troublesome as other bullying character concepts.
|
|
[No, a Good adventurer cannot kill a target when other options are readily available. This is not real world morality. It's written into the rules of the game (again, see above...). Your LG paladin from Andoran should not be okay with killing a helpless/captured target because that is clearly in violation of the defined rules for Good. He can fight, and kill, in battle. Thinking otherwise is what makes the game unplayable. But he cannot kill a target that surrenders just because his detect evil pings. That goes down the "Lawful Stupid" mentality that drives so many people crazy with paladins. Paladins are paragons of Good--Good respects life and the dignity of sentient creatures and so the paladin will not randomly kill every Evil target in sight. If he truly believes he can kill anyone just because the target is Evil, then he's not a paladin. He's at best a Lawful Neutral cavalier.
What a bunch bunch of hogwash. The rules do not say that anywhere. You are interpreting them and whitewashing them with your own ideals. No where in the book does it say anything similar to "a Good adventurer cannot kill a target when other options are readily available" Then when could they kill? They could just always run away. Or give up their chosen profession and be a farmer. Heck all Evil creatures have to do when the good guys show up is just say "I surrender" and go home to be Evil another day. Sure a character CAN be played the way you described, but the rules are not that specific and do not require it.
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity - it is not a straightjacket for restricting your character." (Core rulebook p.166)
And yes my Paladin can kill because his detect evil pings. No I do not play him as Lawful Stoopid (even though his INT is kinda low) who always does just that. But if he decides to attack, he needs no other justification.
** spoiler omitted **Sometimes, I would say that the LG solution to disposition of the enemy is execution. I can not say that they slaying of these fictional characters counts anywhere near evil. It is excessive in comparison to other tasks, but that doesn't make it an evil action.
Deciding that all sentient beings must meet your determination for justice is just troublesome and really I see as troublesome as other bullying character concepts.
** spoiler omitted **
Again, it's not my determination. There is no moral relativism here. The standard for Good is clearly indicated in the rules. The fact that some people don't want to play it that way so they can be "Good" and commit acts clearly in violation to the rules of the game does not make those actions good. You don't have to say that slaying such creatures constitutes an act of Evil since it's already made clear. I've seen no argument that convincingly shows killing a captured/helpless target is not a violation of the rules of the game. Everyone keeps coming out to "you can't impose your own morals, etc. etc." without addressing the simple fact that Good has a real definition in the game. I'm not being troublesome. That nasty little definition of Good as respecting life and the dignity of sentient creatures is being troublesome.
There is, of course, an easy way for players to avoid that by not playing a Good character. And the scenario authors can avoid the conflict by making it clear that Good characters can stop others from committing Evil acts if discovered, or else not write Evil acts into faction missions. If there's a question about a faction mission potentially being Evil, then don't assign that to a Good faction.
I'm not making this argument as an "armchair author" by the way. I've written numerous organized play modules (for the Yeomanry in the LG days, then for the Green Regent and Mark living campaigns). It's a difficult task coming up with challenging scenarios that accommodate various play options/styles while coming to meaningful conclusion in 4 hours. I definitely recognize that. But from this experience I also know that something as basic as portraying Good as defined in the game mechanics is possible given some attention. And if it comes down to the action being "not Good" then the author can shift the NPC involved into a Neutral or even Evil alignment.
What a bunch bunch of hogwash. The rules do not say that anywhere. You are interpreting them and whitewashing them with your own ideals. No where in the book does it say anything similar to "a Good adventurer cannot kill a target when other options are readily available" Then when could they kill? They could just always run away. Or give up their chosen profession and be a farmer. Heck all Evil creatures have to do when the good guys show up is just say "I surrender" and go home to be Evil another day. Sure a character CAN be played the way you described, but the rules are not that specific and do not require it.
"Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity - it is not a straightjacket for restricting your character." (Core rulebook p.166)
And yes my Paladin can kill because his detect evil pings. No I do not play him as Lawful Stoopid (even though his INT is kinda low) who always does just that. But if he decides to attack, he needs no other justification.
A case in point. You are discounting my position with no basis in the rules. Alignment is indeed a tool for developing characters. That doesn't mean you entirely throw away the tool and make stuff up to suit your own view. That is what you are effectively doing as far as I can tell. Stop making specious claims and deal with this specific case:
Your paladin and party are involved in a fight. The Evil bad guy surrenders. Drops his weapons. Is in no way a threat to your party. You are arguing--at least by continuing to say I'm wrong--that your paladin can detect evil and then kill the guy. That is a blatant disrespect for life and the dignity of sentient creatures. There is no way around this by the rules of the game. If you think there is, show me.
I'm not arguing that you can't kill in battle--that's been clearly stated multiple times and that's not the problem involved in these PFS scenarios.
If you've got a better argument, then make it using the rules of the game. Right now you're effectively just saying, "Nuh uh, it doesn't work that way because I don't want it to!"
And yes my Paladin can kill because his detect evil pings. No I do not play him as Lawful Stoopid (even though his INT is kinda low) who always does just that. But if he decides to attack, he needs no other justification.
Maybe, but he could not just randomly attack folk as "they are evil"
|
|
Intentionally killing a person who is fighting back is not less evil than killing someone who is helpless. The Evil is in the act not the other persons ability to defend themselves.
As long as they are fighting back, it is self-defense and anyone can kill an opponent in self-defense. Once you accept their surrender, then you have a certain obligation not to kill them out of hand. Please note, you do not have to accept an enemy's surrender.
I added a spoiler tag to the first post.
On the one hand, I was really hoping for this thread to be about the faction missions for the particularly immoral factions, and finding a way to prevent arguments like this thread from occurring at the table when those factions are completed by neutral characters.
As much as I love to hear banter back and forth about whether or not a good character or a paladin can kill an unconscious foe, neither of the characters I played at GenCon were good
I was not playing a paladin, I was not playing a cavalier, I was not playing a good cleric. I played a neutral rogue and a neutral fighter. According to the chart in detect evil any attempt to discern their alignment would have registered as neutral, no matter what alignment they were.
I don't care (for the purpose of this thread) if a good character can coup-de-grace a fallen foe, paladin or not.
On the other hand, I feel that this argument I stirred up is rather indicative of what happened at my first mentioned table, where my halfling tried to coup-de-grace the unrepentant foes we had knocked out. Maybe we can use this thread as a reference point for the conflict that I am trying to avoid.
(Now, if someone wants to point me to a thread, in which the topic is good alignment and the sanctity of life, I would love to post my opinions on the matter there)
Sorry if it seems like a derail, OP. My goal is to get to the foundational issue--in a group of mixed alignment, what right does a Good character have to oppose another character committing what is perceived as an Evil act. For this, I believe it needs to be established that the game does indeed define what constitutes Good and Evil, and further that a player is perfectly within rights to use those definitions in playing his character. I think this is very reasonably established, but obviously there is disagreement.
So long as there is such contention, the only "safe" thing to do is for all faction missions to be undeniably Good or Neutral in execution. I know this is not an acceptable goal, as many want to play the "morally gray" characters flirting on the edge of Evil. So long as that is the situation, PFS needs good definition on how to handle the times when party "conflict" would naturally arise over faction missions versus character alignment. If the answer is simply to let all faction missions proceed without interruption, I dare say that's an unsatisfying answer and one that will meet with even more problems as the Silver Crusade faction takes shape.
I personally believe the best route is to state up front that for some faction missions other characters might oppose the goal and this is acceptable. While it does go down the path of PvP, I see it as the only viable option that retains character integrity. Of course, I also believe PFS should simply allow Evil characters if the Cheliax and Sczarni factions are to be believably portrayed. That would, unfortunately, open a can of worms that would likely destroy the living campaign, based on past examples. It's not an easy situation, but it is one that I think deserves some attention in order to find an optimal solution.
|
|
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...
I agree with this.
|
|
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.I don't see this "deputization" referenced anywhere (if there's a citation somewhere, I'd love to see it...).
It isn't specifically referenced anywhere.
But Major Maldriss was given a promotion by the Eagle Knights of Andoran because of how he ran the Andoran interests within Absalom and the Pathfinder Society. Therefore Andoran directly approves of the missions that the previously Captain now Major Maldriss gave to Andoran faction pathfinders. As such, Andoran has basically deputized the characters.
It doesn't have to be referenced or written anywhere. Its common sense extrapolation. You got an entire country backing you up and giving you missions. If that isn't deputization, then there is no such thing.
If people committing Evil acts doesn`t shift their alignment towards Evil SOMEHOW... , 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.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.
OK, but Paizo´s had the no-evil rule since day 1, and that is really the rule that is at issue....
I would be unsurprised if a specifically evil-inclined faction DIDN´T run into issue with that rule.Again, it seems implausible for that rule to exist specifically for PFS, but Paizo (secretly) intends that Evil actions don´t affect your alignment like they do in normal gameplay (outside of PFS).
I do think that not EVERY Sczarni mission is going to be out-and-out evil (many/most could be merely neutral, and some could allow Good acts: why not?, good for the Family´s rep), and if Alignment is being tracked in more detailed amounts, it´s not really THAT much a problem: SOME-times your faction will want you to commit out-and-out Evil, alot of the time they will want mostly-Neutral tasks completed, and in all your free time you can act as good as you want to, which if you truly aren´t Evil, should be happening anyways... Again, if ´micro-Alignment shifts´ are tracked, it´s much easier to pick up Good points from LITTLE things.
I agree, all faction missions may not equally promote staying legal Alignment-wise, but I wasn´t aware there was a rule that all faction missions needed to be the same easiness, even if only regarding the Alignment rules. I hit FAQ on my above post, since I DO think that Paizo should put out some more guidance on this issue... Alignments changing based on actions is part of the Core Rules, and PFS hasn´t changed that, but if they expect Judges to be noting down Alignment info on an ongoing basis, that should be spelled out and probably codified/given examples.
I agree with this.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...
I meant to address this earlier and forgot...
This is actually a misrepresentation of Neutral, which again is thankfully defined in the game. A Neutral character is not as likely to do Evil is good, nor do they have some "balancing act" where the two cancel each other out. In fact, Neutral favors Good actions because these are the actions generally favorable to the person. No sane person is going to go around committing several Evil acts (killing, hurting, and oppressing others without compassion, for convenience, and/or for entertainment). Neutral people don't go around doing these things on a regular basis. If they do, they are actually Evil.
I see no basis in the game rules stating that a Neutral character will definitely commit Evil acts. Neutral people are not likely to help others due to altruism or benevolence, but they are also not likely to randomly kill sentient beings.
It isn't specifically referenced anywhere.
But Major Maldriss was given a promotion by the Eagle Knights of Andoran because of how he ran the Andoran interests within Absalom and the Pathfinder Society. Therefore Andoran directly approves of the missions that the previously Captain now Major Maldriss gave to Andoran faction pathfinders. As such, Andoran has basically deputized the characters.
It doesn't have to be referenced or written anywhere. Its common sense extrapolation. You got an entire country backing you up and giving you missions. If that isn't deputization, then there is no such thing.
Actually, based on Chris's report above of Josh's original intent (always a slippery thing to determine from a literary perspective), it appears this faction mission was potentially not acceptable and illustrated a problem with the faction leader. Now, I'm still waiting to confirm what Chris/Josh meant, but if this is the case it's a pretty damning statement for those that want to justify the killing as acceptable as Good for characters simply because it was authorized by a higher organization. Chris clearly states in any case that this mission was supposed to be shocking to Andoran characters. The fact that so many seem to want to simply justify it and move on speaks somewhat to a failure in that attempt--it simply shifts the Andoran faction away from Good apparently, or at least muddies what Good is in comparison to the rules of the game.
I'm sorry, but this extrapolation of "authority to kill for any reason" simply holds no weight in comparison to both the stated regulations expected by the Decemvirate and by the Paizo-published material regarding Andoran. Any country or organization authorizing such as blatantly not Good by the rules of the game. And, again, even if this argument holds this would only provide a legal basis for a character to claim actions are Lawful. It has no impact on the fact of the action being Evil
|
|
I'm not being troublesome. That nasty little definition of Good as respecting life and the dignity of sentient creatures is being troublesome.
I know the rules, I just think that you are interpreting them in a fashion different from me. I would say that respecting life and dignity of sentient creatures is not incompatible with executing an unrepentant evil person. I'm fine with having different interpretations on what this means but given the vagueness of certain questions of alignment, forcing your own interpretation on others is just troublesome when other people are bound to disagree with you.
[spoiler="The City of Strangers"] If either of the evil villains in those scenarios were to throw down their arms and surrender, that isn't a get out of jail pass for the crimes they have committed. I would still feel that it would be a not-evil response to administer their punishment.
If they objected to what they were charged of, or offered something to show that they wanted to mend their evil ways that would work in their favor, but in neither scenario does the person do anything of the sort. They both have done evil things and seem to have no remorse for it, if both were released they would just jump back into doing the same kind of evil that brought them there in the first place.
And, again, even if one did turn them over to the rightful authorities, you still complete the mission because their executions are certain. The only way they survive is for the party to ignore the local law and make sure that they escape the city. [/spoilers]
I see no basis in the rules for ´Good´ discerning between killing in the heat of battle, and executing a legitimate foe.
Concern for life doesn´t distinguish between those two, and there´s plenty of reason for seeing the difference between those two types of killing as fundamentally an issue of Lawfullness, not Good (as long as the target deserves to be killed at all per Good values).
I do think along with clarifying how Judges should track/indicate Alignment-shifts (or partial Alignment shifts), the Faction Missions (along with Core PFS missions) could be denoted with how they may shift Alignment (with room for variances if players find a unique way to solve the problem)
I know the rules, I just think that you are interpreting them in a fashion different from me. I would say that respecting life and dignity of sentient creatures is not incompatible with executing an unrepentant evil person. I'm fine with having different interpretations on what this means but given the vagueness of certain questions of alignment, forcing your own interpretation on others is just troublesome when other people are bound to disagree with you.
Right, and if executing a known Evil, will continue to be Evil, character isn´t comptable for the PCs to do when the villain is incapacitated, it isn´t comptable for ANYBODY to do, i.e. a normal court of Law can´t sentence somebody to death. Now, in the real-world, that´s fine and dandy to argue that death sentences are bad and evil, but I don´t really think that should be carried over to D&D, ESPECIALLY as ´the laws of the cosmos´ that no culture can deviate from (while being Good). Because the only difference between a court and the PCs is a matter of Law, NOT Good.
