|
Having read the whole of this thread, I am just thankful that we don't have these issues where I play. People get along, help each other with their missions as long as it doesn't directly harm their faction, and don't get crazy based on alignment. If my character is a cleric of Abbadar and works as a traveling judge, then it makes perfect sense for him to pronounce and carry out the sentence. If an evil character commited an evil act, then yes, a PC is entirely justified in excecuting them without it being an evil act. If that is the case, I'll play at your table and have an NPC use a free action at the end of every round to "surrender". But, as he is an evil character, he lied and attacks you again on his next round, and lies again. At what point can the PC kill him? Finally, if you meant to harm someone, not kill him, that is still murder. Alignment falls straight under the GM's discretion.
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.
We'll have to agree to disagree then, which of course doesn't solve the problem of how this gets worked out at a convention table. I see no way any reasonable person can argue that Good as defined in the rules is not sufficient basis for a player of a Good character to oppose a faction mission requiring assassination, killing of a helpless target, etc.
Again I'll say to anyone my unanswered challenge..show me the vagueness in the "Respect for life, and dignity of sentient beings" statement that allows a paladin to either either kill a helpless target or not be justified in preventing another character from doing so. Do that and you'll win the Internet, of course, considering that alignment debates have been raging as long as I've been playing (probably longer than some folks reading this have been alive). So long as faction missions dabble in the Evil arena, this will be a problem that PFS needs to address.
Having read the whole of this thread, I am just thankful that we don't have these issues where I play. People get along, help each other with their missions as long as it doesn't directly harm their faction, and don't get crazy based on alignment. If my character is a cleric of Abbadar and works as a traveling judge, then it makes perfect sense for him to pronounce and carry out the sentence. If an evil character commited an evil act, then yes, a PC is entirely justified in excecuting them without it being an evil act. If that is the case, I'll play at your table and have an NPC use a free action at the end of every round to "surrender". But, as he is an evil character, he lied and attacks you again on his next round, and lies again. At what point can the PC kill him? Finally, if you meant to harm someone, not kill him, that is still murder. Alignment falls straight under the GM's discretion.
Luckily for me, our group all has the same understanding of alignment as well, so we don't have to worry about anyone randomly killing/torturing NPCs.
So, one character committing an Evil act justifies another character executing him? That means, of course, that a character can then execute a party member for performing a faction mission that is clearly Evil (as has been noted the case for various factions). Except for the PvP rules get in the way. Again, this has a simple solution. Consider the rules of the game as sufficient definition of Good, Evil, and Neutral and realize that introducing gray into that requires some character conflict. Give the Good faction members Good and Neutral missions and don't consider it PvP when a Good character opposes an Evil faction mission.
I have been drug down into the depths of alignment squabble now, no escaping it.
Respect for all life and dignity for sentient beings or whatever this oft quoted verse is says NOTHING about ending life. Where does it say that a good character is prohibited from ending a life? Don't quote the respect for life at me, because I've heard it, and I get it.
I personally have respect for life, but having spent more than a few weeks living on a farm, I learned very quickly that life, as sacred as it may be, is transient, and that I would have to end a life or two while I was there. They weren't sentient by most standards, but they were lives. There was nothing even remotely evil about it, and in the case of the mauled rabbit that the cats were torturing, I think it was good.
Obviously, killing a dying rabbit is different than killing a murderer, but its still ending a life that can't defend itself.
Respect for all life means respect, it means carrying with you the weight of the action, and trying to protect life if reasonable to do so. In the specific case of the Andoran missions, the Andorans have done their research and concluded that the target is a horrible blight upon the people of a land. Killing that target is the most reasonable way to create a greater good, and trying to save the monsters life, or redeem them carries too much of a risk to the people who have already suffered enough under such a monster.
Consider that an Andoran kill quest is indicative not of less good in the Andoran leadership, but that it is a sign of just how terrible the target is, that the good guys would decide that killing him was needed.
Are you happy now? Even I followed this thread off the rails and into the ravine.
|
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 the mission takes place in Andora.
Andora can not deputize your PC to enact Andorran justice in Cheliax (for example). They may want someone dead, but you have no legal standing to kill that person in Cheliax.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Again I'll say to anyone my unanswered challenge..show me the vagueness in the "Respect for life, and dignity of sentient beings" statement that allows a paladin to either either kill a helpless target or not be justified in preventing another character from doing so. Do that and you'll win the Internet, of course, considering that alignment debates have been raging as long as I've been playing (probably longer than some folks reading this have been alive). So long as faction missions dabble in the Evil arena, this will be a problem that PFS needs to address.
Alright, by that declaration, does that mean that paladins have to stop all executions everywhere? I mean, if a person kills a dozen innocents, then is taken to the gallows (I mean, he is a helpless target that is being killed), does that "respect for life, and dignity of sentient beings" mean that the paladin must leap up and declare that he stand by while he lets this happen.
Or does that not apply in this case and the paladin is only allowed to stop executions if the executioner doesn't have the correct paperwork? Where is that line in that statement you keep quoting where killing a helpless person goes from absolutely evil to tolerable?
One still can say that executions are evil and should not be tolerated (and that is a fair opinion), but making everyone at the table follow what the paladin wants to do is probably the worst idea. To me, that character would be among the most distributive characters in the society and I just wouldn't invite her to my tables. Characters have to accept that other characters will have different ideas and want to do different things.
|
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:
Again I point out that there is no rule that specifies your claim. Find it! Quote it! You simply can not. Therefore your position is groundless and I will discount it. Alignment is not clarified in the way you claim.
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!"
First of all I am using the rules of the game, you just choose to ignore it. The rules allow for my position, just as they allow for yours. But they exclude neither. You are trying to say the opposite. So far as a better argument for your specific scenario, how about this. The evil bad guy is Evil. No really its in his job description. He has been committing evil acts all over the place, that is why the good PC's were sent to stop him. If we let him live he will likely do everything in his power to continue to do evil. His little ploy of surrender is too dangerous to accept. Just look how that turned out for Numenor when Sauron surrendered. So if we do not kill him, then many innocent lives will be in danger. But no we have to act like gullible shills because the bad guy put down his sword and said, "Hey I was just kidding". No his dignity went out the window when he wiped out that village and made them his undead servants.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Speaking of which, did they end up not getting the prestige, and if so what did they do to manage to not gain it?
The party in question chose not to kill the NPC in cold blood, both because they were uncomfortable with it morally, and because they believed that killing a fellow Pathfinder would be grounds for their dismissal from the Society.
The players were happy with earning one PP.
I have been drug down into the depths of alignment squabble now, no escaping it.
Respect for all life and dignity for sentient beings or whatever this oft quoted verse is says NOTHING about ending life. Where does it say that a good character is prohibited from ending a life? Don't quote the respect for life at me, because I've heard it, and I get it.
I personally have respect for life, but having spent more than a few weeks living on a farm, I learned very quickly that life, as sacred as it may be, is transient, and that I would have to end a life or two while I was there. They weren't sentient by most standards, but they were lives. There was nothing even remotely evil about it, and in the case of the mauled rabbit that the cats were torturing, I think it was good.
Obviously, killing a dying rabbit is different than killing a murderer, but its still ending a life that can't defend itself.
Respect for all life means respect, it means carrying with you the weight of the action, and trying to protect life if reasonable to do so. In the specific case of the Andoran missions, the Andorans have done their research and concluded that the target is a horrible blight upon the people of a land. Killing that target is the most reasonable way to create a greater good, and trying to save the monsters life, or redeem them carries too much of a risk to the people who have already suffered enough under such a monster.
Consider that an Andoran kill quest is indicative not of less good in the Andoran leadership, but that it is a sign of just how terrible the target is, that the good guys would decide that killing him was needed.
Are you happy now? Even I followed this thread off the rails and into the ravine.
When have I said all killing is wrong per the rules of the game? People keep throwing that up like it's some sort of truth, when in fact it's never been said by those on "my side" of this debate. For your real-world example, I lived on a farm most of my life before going to college. I eat meat. Killing is not Evil in all cases. And I've said this before. This trying to come to a "well, I killed a rabbit and ate it, so it's okay for me to kill this guy we captured" is illogical to and bears no weight in any meaningful argument. I do not take my ethics regarding the killing and consumption of animals and somehow determine that it's okay for me to kill humans. That's crazy by any stretch of the imagination.
Consider that the author himself states this quest was specifically supposed to shock Andoran faction members. This mission is questionable by the author's own stated intent! And we're really going to continue arguing otherwise? Really? So the author himself was wrong about the kill order being something that should trouble Andorans? Arguing "greater good" has nothing to do with whether the act itself is Evil. Indeed, invoking "greater good" almost always means the decision in some way involves a choice that is Evil or at least not Good. Otherwise there's no reason to invoke said logical justification for the action.
Alright, by that declaration, does that mean that paladins have to stop all executions everywhere? I mean, if a person kills a dozen innocents, then is taken to the gallows (I mean, he is a helpless target that is being killed), does that "respect for life, and dignity of sentient beings" mean that the paladin must leap up and declare that he stand by while he lets this happen.
Or does that not apply in this case and the paladin is only allowed to stop executions if the executioner doesn't have the correct paperwork? Where is that line in that statement you keep quoting where killing a helpless person goes from absolutely evil to tolerable?
One still can say that executions are evil and should not be tolerated (and that is a fair opinion), but making everyone at the table follow what the paladin wants to do is probably the worst idea. To me, that character would be among the most distributive characters in the society and I just wouldn't invite her to my tables. Characters have to accept that other characters will have different ideas and want to do different things.
So to be clear, you choose not to answer my challenge, correct?
;^) Adding a wink and removing snark as best I can...
In any case, the argument is again counter to what I've stated multiple times--show me where I've said all killing is Evil and must be stopped.
Until that time, we'll get back to the situation at hand. A paladin has every right in character to stop another party member from killing a captured foe. Said character also has every right to question a "kill order" from what is supposed to be a Good organization. This is a reasonable position based on the rules of the game. Disprove it if you can, but don't argue around it. Until that time, the problem remains an issue for PFS to address.
Again I point out that there is no rule that specifies your claim. Find it! Quote it! You simply can not. Therefore your position is groundless and I will discount it. Alignment is not clarified in the way you claim.
.
.
.
First of all I am using the rules of the game, you just choose to ignore it. The rules allow for my position, just as they allow for yours. But they exclude neither. You are trying to say the opposite. So far as a better argument for your specific scenario, how about this. The evil bad guy is Evil. No really its in his job description. He has been committing evil acts all over the place, that is why the good PC's were sent to stop him. If we let him live he will likely do everything in his power to continue to do evil. His little ploy of surrender is too dangerous to accept. Just look how that turned out for Numenor when Sauron surrendered. So if we do not kill him, then many innocent lives will be in danger. But no we have to act like gullible shills because the bad guy put down his sword and said, "Hey I was just kidding". No his dignity went out the window when he wiped out that village and made them his undead servants.
Quote it? Okay, I've already done so numerous times but here you go...
Right there in Additional Rules, under Alignment and Good Versus Evil:
"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."
That's black and white, printed in the rules. If you can make an argument that a reasonable person couldn't read that and conclude that a Good character will prevent another character from executing a prisoner, then do so. That is, after all, my position and apparently the one you wish to refute. If the rules allow for your position--assuming said position is that no, a Good character indeed cannot reasonably prevent the execution in question based on the alignment rules--then that position must exclude mine. Show me, by the rules, how your position is valid. Or otherwise restate your position so it makes sense.
And your "counter argument" unfortunately has no bearing on the question I asked and is simply a red herring. There is a specific issue related to PFS play, specifically whether a Good character can prevent another character from performing an act reasonably deemed Evil by the rules of the game (and tangentially whether a Good faction would indeed ever issue such an order). That is the issue. Address it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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.
This really touches on a bigger question though, do organizations like the Sczarni and Cheliax even belong associated with PFS?
If the option to work for some bad people exists shouldn't you be asked to do bad things on occasion? If you are doing the same sort of things the Andoran PCs are doing what is the point of being in the Sczarni Faction?
I'm not suggesting every scenario, but some of the time.
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.This really touches on a bigger question though, do organizations like the Sczarni and Cheliax even belong associated with PFS?
If the option to work for some bad people exists shouldn't you be asked to do bad things on occasion? If you are doing the same sort of things the Andoran PCs are doing what is the point of being in the Sczarni Faction?
I'm not suggesting every scenario, but some of the time.
I actually hold the same position--i.e. if Evil organizations are going to be allowed (Cheliax being clearly Evil, and now the Sczarni being nearly so in most things) then allow Evil characters. Otherwise the character and factions have to function in a weird pseudo-not-Evil but close fashion. And this of course conflicts with the allowed Good factions and characters, but we cannot allow character conflict or hindering faction missions? If the Evil factions aren't going to be allowed to be actually Evil, then I question their inclusion in the campaign (and for those that have been around long enough, you'll recall I raised this very concern as Season 0 was in its birthing). Options are allowing everyone to play everything, allowing character versus character conflict (but not bloodshed as the Decemvirate disapproves), requiring everyone to just hand-wave the cognitive dissonance from the conflict, or else put limits on the campaign and scenarios (i.e. make the missions Good and Neutral only) to address the very issue that prompted this thread. It's a tough nut to crack...
|
|
I'm Taldane..In a recent Mission I was asked to find a way to ensure the smuggling of Poisons could be made more efficient..as I am NG this went against the grain..and I refused to even contemplate the mission as set.
However a less scrupulous member of my faction managed to complete it for me..so I go the benefits even though I avoided any active participation..still left a nasty taste in my mouth and that is why I'm moving faction this season.
|
|
Erian, I have a question for you. In what case, to you, is an excecution justified? If the person has commited multiple henious acts, has been proven guilty in a court of law, and the sentence for said acts is death, then is that excecution a non-evil act? I do no argue that killing in Pathfinder is a *good* act, it is usually a neutral action. Most of my PC's do not attempt to kill those they run across. The only time my PC has *ever* used a coup-de-gras on a foe was when they were a band of ne'er-do-wells intent on wiping out civilization. If excecuting a band of mass murderers intent on killing thousands is evil in your book, well, then I guess we see alignment and morality itself in entirely different lights and further discussion becomes irrelevant.
|
|
Speaking of which, did they end up not getting the prestige, and if so what did they do to manage to not gain it?The party in question chose not to kill the NPC in cold blood, both because they were uncomfortable with it morally, and because they believed that killing a fellow Pathfinder would be grounds for their dismissal from the Society.
The players were happy with earning one PP.
Then did they just let him go free or did they take him out of the city with them? Just because giving him to the city authorities means that he dies and the PP is gained (unless I missed an exception).
|
|
I'm not a big fan of the "evil" missions either, and I feel that the one referred to would definitely meet my definition of an evil act. Probably enough so that I would remove powers from a paladin or cleric of good who performed it (though I would wonder why they were part of that faction to begin with). Maybe even question those who did not at least protest.
That said, we are approaching 80 scenarios now. That's over 600 faction missions. They cannot all appeal to every player or character, especially the more devout roleplayers, and epecially those who have a rigid code. While I'm not fond of a "Prestige tax" on roleplayers, it's not really worse than those who cannot earn Prestige because of some mechanical reason (like lacking a Skill).
And I support Chris M's policy of tracking questionable alignment moves. A GM is well within their rights to remove a character for being evil, or to remove a paladinhood for evil/dishonourable acts (tho the player should be given some prior indication that it is possible, and usually not for a 1st offense). A player can certainly appeal to a co-ordinator. Either way, notations on Chronicles, or lack thereof, would speak to the history of the character.
|
|
So to be clear, you choose not to answer my challenge, correct?
;^) Adding a wink and removing snark as best I can...In any case, the argument is again counter to what I've stated multiple times--show me where I've said all killing is Evil and must be stopped.
Until that time, we'll get back to the situation at hand. A paladin has every right in character to stop another party member from killing a captured foe. Said character also has every right to question a "kill order" from what is supposed to be a Good organization. This is a reasonable position based on the rules of the game. Disprove it if you can, but don't argue around it. Until that time, the problem remains an issue for PFS to address.
I feel that I have met your challenge and won without much effort. As in "show me the vagueness in the "Respect for life, and dignity of sentient beings" statement that allows a paladin to either either kill a helpless target or not be justified in preventing another character from doing so." I feel that showing that that there are obvious times where a common paladin would find that acceptable easily meets the goal you have set.
I have not addressed the situation you present here because it is different from what you asked to be shown.
But, as for the situation at hand, yes I say that a paladin has every right in character to stop another party member from killing a captured foe just like any other character can if they object to the actions of another party member. I would just note that completely ignoring the party members opinions in favor of what he wants to is not the sign of a good pathfinder. If you want people to only perform actions that you agree with, then joining with random groups of people is not going to work in my opinion.
To be honest, reversing the situation, a character killing an escaping character that the paladin helped escape seems equally viable in motive and reasoning. There are Andoran missions that involve freeing evil monstrous slaves, just hoping that they don't cause more havoc, death, and destruction once they get out of line-of-sight. If a paladin let them free, I can easily agree with another character's right to step in (like in your example) and stop the paladin from setting loose a band of evil creatures.
Being lawful good doesn't make it so that people have to accept your actions any more than you accept theirs.
To restate this again to avoid you claiming I dodged your situation again, yes, I think it is within the right of a character to object to the actions of another character. However this should be carefully considered because competing and blocking other Pathfinders personal goals makes it seem more like you shouldn't be a member of the Pathfinder Society. You are supposed to explore, report, and cooperate.
|
|
"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."Simply does not equal "Good characters may only end life in the heat of battle/combat."
You are taking a general statement and rewriting it to fit your interpretation. Where does this statement reference combat? Or death?
Does the kaishakunin in a Seppuku ritual not respect his friend or have concern for his dignity? Just the opposite in fact. Yet he is ending his life outside of combat.
Are lawful executions by people who underwent a fair trial have to be stopped by good characters?
And with that I am out. If all you have is one vague and non-specific sentence to cling on to, then that's all you have.
Happy Gaming.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
If I might just poke my head over the parapet... All the points made here have substance. Though I can't say that I have fully read and digested every post!
In an organised play environment there should be clarity as to what to expect, how to deal with conflicts either between actual faction goals or between those goals and the alignments of those directly and those indirectly involved.
IMHO some faction missions would in 'the normal course of a D&D/ PFS game' mean dire consequences if (for example) a paladin carried them out or by an act of omission allowed to happen but the fact that they are presented as a reward bearing game goal muddies the water. If these missions are intended as traps then this should be universally understood and applied, which is clearly not the status quo.
W
|
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 the mission takes place in Andora.
Andora can not deputize your PC to enact Andorran justice in Cheliax (for example). They may want someone dead, but you have no legal standing to kill that person in Cheliax.
Sure they can. Just the same as the USA can deputize an FBI agent to arrest someone in Bosnia.
Bosnia may not be happy about it, but in the eyes of the powerful USA, it is perfectly legal and ok.
|
|
I'm not a big fan of the "evil" missions either, and I feel that the one referred to would definitely meet my definition of an evil act. Probably enough so that I would remove powers from a paladin or cleric of good who performed it (though I would wonder why they were part of that faction to begin with). Maybe even question those who did not at least protest.
That said, we are approaching 80 scenarios now. That's over 600 faction missions. They cannot all appeal to every player or character, especially the more devout roleplayers, and epecially those who have a rigid code. While I'm not fond of a "Prestige tax" on roleplayers, it's not really worse than those who cannot earn Prestige because of some mechanical reason (like lacking a Skill).
And I support Chris M's policy of tracking questionable alignment moves. A GM is well within their rights to remove a character for being evil, or to remove a paladinhood for evil/dishonourable acts (tho the player should be given some prior indication that it is possible, and usually not for a 1st offense). A player can certainly appeal to a co-ordinator. Either way, notations on Chronicles, or lack thereof, would speak to the history of the character.
Removing Paladinhood for doing something evil is perfectly fine. The player still gets to play the character.
Removing a character from play for something that could very well be subjective is not. How many evil acts does it take? One GM may think one or two, while another may think 20. While table variance is to be expected, and is quite ok, there should not be any variance in when a character is removed from play.
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.This really touches on a bigger question though, do organizations like the Sczarni and Cheliax even belong associated with PFS?
Good question; I'm not sure evil(ish) organizations are 100% compatible with a "no evil PCs" campaign.
Erian, I have a question for you. In what case, to you, is an excecution justified? If the person has commited multiple henious acts, has been proven guilty in a court of law, and the sentence for said acts is death, then is that excecution a non-evil act? I do no argue that killing in Pathfinder is a *good* act, it is usually a neutral action. Most of my PC's do not attempt to kill those they run across. The only time my PC has *ever* used a coup-de-gras on a foe was when they were a band of ne'er-do-wells intent on wiping out civilization. If excecuting a band of mass murderers intent on killing thousands is evil in your book, well, then I guess we see alignment and morality itself in entirely different lights and further discussion becomes irrelevant.
Executing that band based on nothing other than a single encounter with said creatures and/or something someone else told the character is Evil when they are captured or otherwise rendered helpless and no longer present a threat. It can be logically explained as "for the greater good" or "the only thing we can do and keep on adventuring in time" but that does not change the nature of the act. Evil is not situational in that regard. Keeping to the example at hand and assuming the paladin, he would be best off rounding up the villains and taking them to the nearest Good or Lawful authority for adjudication. Said Lawful authority has the legal right to try villains, said Good authority has the morality to execute justice that is compassionate (compassion being an important noted aspect of Good). He should not, both because of alignment and code, chop their heads off simply because that's the most convenient thing to do (see the Evil entry and its reference to killing for convenience). Yes, this is absolutely a difficult thing for the character to do and interrupts his adventuresome ways. That's the price of being a paladin, or really any Lawful Good character.
I feel that I have met your challenge and won without much effort. As in "show me the vagueness in the "Respect for life, and dignity of sentient beings" statement that allows a paladin to either either kill a helpless target or not be justified in preventing another character from doing so." I feel that showing that that there are obvious times where a common paladin would find that acceptable easily meets the goal you have set.
I have not addressed the situation you present here because it is different from what you asked to be shown.
But, as for the situation at hand, yes I say that a paladin has every right in character to stop another party member from killing a captured foe just like any other character can if they object to the actions of another party member. I would just note that completely ignoring the party members opinions in favor of what he wants to is not the sign of a good pathfinder. If you want people to only perform actions that you agree with, then joining with random groups of people is not going to work in my opinion.
To restate this again to avoid you claiming I dodged your situation again, yes, I think it is within the right of a character to object to the actions of another character. However this should be carefully considered because competing and blocking other Pathfinders personal goals makes it seem more like you shouldn't be a member of the Pathfinder Society. You are supposed to explore, report, and cooperate.
Okay, so we've established that the paladin has the right, per the mechanics of the game, to oppose executing a helpless target. I agree that Pathfinders are to cooperate, but that does not obviate a paladin's actual duty to alignment and code. The paladin is the most obvious issue, but this can equally apply to any Good character that is in a scenario. As such, unless PFS chooses to restrict the game to only Neutral characters then the issue remains.
Also, note that per the Decemvirate a "good Pathfinder" isn't supposed to go around executing other Pathfinders. That's what happened in this scenario, and it's obviously not "cooperation" with the Pathfinder that is killed. The characters, for some reason, can ignore the PvP (Pathfinder vs. Pathfinder) when the target is an NPC but cannot engage in PvP against a character in the party, even when the opposition is more minor in nature. This creates a fairly obvious hole in the logic of PvP rules. If this is to be the guiding force for any PFS decision, then no faction mission should ever target a Pathfinder, regardless of faction.
Simply does not equal "Good characters may only end life in the heat of battle/combat."
You are taking a general statement and rewriting it to fit your interpretation. Where does this statement reference combat? Or death?
Does the kaishakunin in a Seppuku ritual not respect his friend or have concern for his dignity? Just the opposite in fact. Yet he is ending his life outside of combat.
Are lawful executions by people who underwent a fair trial have to be stopped by good characters?
And with that I am out. If all you have is one vague and non-specific sentence to cling on to, then that's all you have.
Happy Gaming.
Which again ignores that fact that I've stated multiple times all killing is not Evil. The statement doesn't have to reference combat or death. It simply has to establish reasonable grounds for a Good character to oppose what can be reasonably defined as an Evil act per the rules of the game. Getting down to what I consider Evil is not specifically relevant to the fact that--so long as it's reasonable for a Good character to oppose the type of actions referenced in these faction missions, then we have a problem in PFS and table conflict will continue. I've established this point, and thus far no one has countered it by the rules of the game.
Folks keep referencing real-world situations and ethics, which have no bearing on the rules of the game.
Sorry the debate has driven you away...
Good Gaming to you as well!
Sure they can. Just the same as the USA can deputize an FBI agent to arrest someone in Bosnia.
Bosnia may not be happy about it, but in the eyes of the powerful USA, it is perfectly legal and ok.
Well, this isn't actually true from a real-world perspective...But assuming you simply mean again that Andoran has the legal authority to deputize an agent acting in another country, again this would only make an action legal (within bounds of certain countries--it would be illegal in the bounds of other countries). It does not make the action Good.
Absolutely. What makes you think that the Pathfinder Society is Good? the Ten are the only true Illuminati of Golarion, manipulating the manipulators for as yet unseen ends.This really touches on a bigger question though, do organizations like the Sczarni and Cheliax even belong associated with PFS?
A position with which I agree. The Pathfinders are specifically stated as not being a Good organization. However, for PFS specifically it creates an issue of making the Evil not play (or at least write on their character sheets) Evil which is another facet of the core issue for the thread.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And I support Chris M's policy of tracking questionable alignment moves. A GM is well within their rights to remove a character for being evil, or to remove a paladinhood for evil/dishonourable acts (tho the player should be given some prior indication that it is possible, and usually not for a 1st offense). A player can certainly appeal to a co-ordinator. Either way, notations on Chronicles, or lack thereof, would speak to the history of the character.
Neil,
I've not played in the society (yet) but I have to ask, if you're tracking 'evil' actions, are you tracking 'good' actions?
If the Neutral Good Taldoran above were to get an 'evil' tic for expediting the shipping of poison, then does he get a 'good' tic for rescuing puppies from a burning building?
If I'm going to play a LN Chelaxian (for example) should I proactively have DM's note when I do something good? As 'protection' when my faction mission is unseemly? "Yes, I completed the faction mission and slit his throat after we captured him, but see! I've got noted that I have given gold to 2 orphans, rescued 2 slaves, and saved 5 kittens from a burning building! I'm fine!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neil,
I've not played in the society (yet) but I have to ask, if you're tracking 'evil' actions, are you tracking 'good' actions?
If the Neutral Good Taldoran above were to get an 'evil' tic for expediting the shipping of poison, then does he get a 'good' tic for rescuing puppies from a burning building?
If I'm going to play a LN Chelaxian (for example) should I proactively have DM's note when I do something good? As 'protection' when my faction mission is unseemly? "Yes, I completed the faction mission and slit his throat after we captured him, but see! I've got noted that I have given gold to 2 orphans, rescued 2 slaves, and saved 5 kittens from a burning building! I'm fine!"
I want to note again that committing Good acts does not balance out Evil acts so that a character stays Neutral. Such a position is not supported in the alignment rules and is actually counter to the descriptions of Neutral in some cases. A character that regularly commits Evil acts, then tries to balance those acts out with Good is, in fact, most likely insane if he truly believes this is a valid approach to morality and life. If not insane, then the character is some flavor of Evil, depending on how he interacts in the Law/Chaos spectrum.
If anyone can provide support that this is actually a valid position to hold for Neutral, I'd love to see it. Otherwise I basically consider it a player excuse to actually play Evil without writing such on the character sheet. In the relevant example for this thread, if a character kills simply for "profit, sport, or convenience" that character is Evil. It doesn't matter if killing the opponent is the fastest thing to do for completing the adventure, or "profits" the character by increasing standing in a faction.
|
|
That would definitely be a problem as the FBI is not allowed to work abroad.
Sure they can. Just the same as the USA can deputize an FBI agent to arrest someone in Bosnia.Bosnia may not be happy about it, but in the eyes of the powerful USA, it is perfectly legal and ok.
Sure they are. And they do, quite often.
Sure they are. And they do, quite often.That would definitely be a problem as the FBI is not allowed to work abroad.
Sure they can. Just the same as the USA can deputize an FBI agent to arrest someone in Bosnia.Bosnia may not be happy about it, but in the eyes of the powerful USA, it is perfectly legal and ok.
A side-trek from the purpose of the thread, but to be clear the FBI has no "legal authority to carry out extraterritorial law enforcement activities that contravene customary international law" per the Department of Justice. While they do hold positions in foreign countries, they do so as guests of the country and serve as a liaison to the local law enforcement.
The FBI does not go into a sovereign nation, arrest someone without cooperation of that nation, and then call their action justified. The times where the FBI have acted outside their liaison role have been political and legal mine fields for the USA.
I disagree, one can respect life and still take it when that is an appropriate action. It may be solemn, and it may way on their conscious, but it would still be a good aligned act. I would argue that letting someone who has shown a complete and disregard for the sanctity of life is less respectful of life than killing said foe so that he may do no more harm, even if he has "surrendered."
Aaaand again, when have I said all killing is Evil? See above for previous requests to point this out...
In any case, it couldn't be a "good aligned act" if it weighs on your conscience. It might, at best, be a Neutral act but if it were truly a Good act then you'd have no reason for concern. Be sure not to confuse the alignment of the character with the nature of the action. Good characters can do Neutral and Evil things. Logically justifying an action doesn't make it Good (it might make it "legal" to some people/organizations). You invoke the "greater good" justification above, which is also discussed previously. This justification is only required when the morality of the action is obviously in question. Something might be readily agreed to as "the greater good" but as with the Good doing Evil above, such justification does not change the nature of the act itself. Indeed, killing for convenience is specifically noted as a characteristic of Neutral Evil in the rules. "I've got to kill this guy here because we can't haul him around on the adventure and I don't want to bother getting back to the proper authorities right now." That essentially seems like what's happening here, and that's killing for convenience.
It's fine to disagree, but that does not obviate the right of a Good character to object to, and prevent, an action reasonably viewed as Evil by the rules of the game. That is the core issue here. We're not going to get down to single, agreed-upon definition of how Good and killing interact for all situations in the game. We can, however, establish a baseline for reasonable assumptions about any given scenario, character, and session for what actions are allowed by the rules of the game. That baseline can then set expectations for players, GMs, and authors alike.
And as I give this more thought for the future, the Andoran missions in particular are going to be problematic when used as the Silver Crusade substitute missions for previously published scenarios. It would be good to have some guidance/leniency to alter missions that are obviously outside what the Silver Crusade would reasonably assign. If I can, for instance, restate the mission objective in question as "Capture the target and turn him over to Organization X as they are known to be good and lawful." This accomplishes the exact same thing as the mission but does so in a way consistent with the Silver Crusade.
Neil,
I've not played in the society (yet) but I have to ask, if you're tracking 'evil' actions, are you tracking 'good' actions?
Similarly, if I were playing a neutral barbarian or a neutral good druid, would you track 'lawful' actions (potentially stripping me of barbarian rage or druid abilities)?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I want to note again that committing Good acts does not balance out Evil acts so that a character stays Neutral.
erian,
I know that Neutral doesn't keep a 'score card'. On the other hand here, the idea is that the GMs are keeping a score card of evil actions, and that X evil actions tic the character over to evil.
I'm asking if they're doing that, then are they keeping a record of good actions and if doing Y good actions will tic my (hypothetical) character over to Lawful Good? And if not, why not?
If the argument is X evil actions make him evil, then Y Good actions should make him good. Heck for a (non-Paladin) Good character, he should be able to point to all the times he's been good if the DM decides he's hit X = evil.
As loath as I am to use Real Life(tm) examples, a recovering alcoholic breaking down and having a single drink doesn't automatically make him a full blown bum on the street begging for wine level alcoholic. If Jared (of Subway fame) gains a pound, he's not suddenly really really fat!
This isn't Star Wars after all, where the hero goes 'I helped kill Mace Windu, guess I'm evil now so slaughtering children shouldn't cause me any moral issues!'
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Similarly, if I were playing a neutral barbarian or a neutral good druid, would you track 'lawful' actions (potentially stripping me of barbarian rage or druid abilities)?Neil,
I've not played in the society (yet) but I have to ask, if you're tracking 'evil' actions, are you tracking 'good' actions?
Hmm, This is a good point. What about Monks. do they get a chaotic track? If that Priest of Asmodaeus saves one too many kittens (or Andorans or other fuzzy little animals) does the GM tally his 'good' points and he has to look for work?
I know that Neutral doesn't keep a 'score card'. On the other hand here, the idea is that the GMs are keeping a score card of evil actions, and that X evil actions tic the character over to evil.
I'm asking if they're doing that, then are they keeping a record of good actions and if doing Y good actions will tic my (hypothetical) character over to Lawful Good? And if not, why not?
If the argument is X evil actions make him evil, then Y Good actions should make him good. Heck for a (non-Paladin) Good character, he should be able to point to all the times he's been good if the DM decides he's hit X = evil.
As loath as I am to use Real Life(tm) examples, a recovering alcoholic breaking down and having a single drink doesn't automatically make him a full blown bum on the street begging for wine level alcoholic. If Jared (of Subway fame) gains a pound, he's not suddenly really really fat!
This isn't Star Wars after all, where the hero goes 'I helped kill Mace Windu, guess I'm evil now so slaughtering children shouldn't cause me any moral issues!'
What I'm saying is no amount of Good will remove an Evil act. The alignment system simply doesn't work that way. So, I don't think a "tic" system or some such is either viable or in keeping with the rules of the game. If a paladin commits Evil acts, he falls and can only be restored through atonement. For non-paladins, no amount of Good "tics" will save them if they get enough Evil "tics" to warrant removal from the game under such a system. The same goes for tracking Chaotic actions. I think the argument of tracking this for any class without an alignment restriction is mechanically irrelevant, although it obviously has RP implications and said player should reasonably take continued GM recommendations in mind. For the classes that can "fall" based on alignment restrictions, the truly difficult ones are the Good and Lawful classes. Obeying some laws at times and ignoring them at other times is not going to change a Chaotic or Neutral person to Lawful (they do not exhibit consistent Lawful behavior--that's not Lawful). The same goes for Neutral characters that sometimes do Good--in fact, the Neutral alignment description specifically notes that most Neutral characters favor Good over Evil.
My recommendation is for people to actually play their characters appropriately. Don't abuse the alignment system to get paladin powers while playing a murderous maniac. Listen to the advice of players and GMs telling you you're playing out-of-character for a given alignment and be willing to shift if appropriate. And if you are going to risk playing a character with alignment restrictions, be doubly sure to play appropriate to that alignment (for Neutral especially, understand this is not a "I do some Evil and some Good so I'm Neutral" scenario--this position is not supported by the rules of the game) and also willing to accept the repercussions when a GM determines you have violated the requirements. If that's not something you want to deal with, play a class without alignment restrictions.
This is obviously a far more difficult question then the issue I'm more focused on regarding reasonable expectations for Good characters/organizations.
Similarly, if I were playing a neutral barbarian or a neutral good druid, would you track 'lawful' actions (potentially stripping me of barbarian rage or druid abilities)?Hmm, This is a good point.
Particularly if you consider that every time you obey your superiors and complete a faction mission, that's arguably a lawful act...
And I support Chris M's policy of tracking questionable alignment moves. A GM is well within their rights to remove a character for being evil, or to remove a paladinhood for evil/dishonourable acts (tho the player should be given some prior indication that it is possible, and usually not for a 1st offense). A player can certainly appeal to a co-ordinator. Either way, notations on Chronicles, or lack thereof, would speak to the history of the character.Neil,
I've not played in the society (yet) but I have to ask, if you're tracking 'evil' actions, are you tracking 'good' actions?
If the Neutral Good Taldoran above were to get an 'evil' tic for expediting the shipping of poison, then does he get a 'good' tic for rescuing puppies from a burning building?
If I'm going to play a LN Chelaxian (for example) should I proactively have DM's note when I do something good? As 'protection' when my faction mission is unseemly? "Yes, I completed the faction mission and slit his throat after we captured him, but see! I've got noted that I have given gold to 2 orphans, rescued 2 slaves, and saved 5 kittens from a burning building! I'm fine!"
This seems more than a fair point, but the problem is that (generally speaking) the same GM's who want to declare you evil for morally questionable acts that are part of your mission will also argue that it's a slippery slope that can't be climbed out of. That no matter how many good acts you do, it's the evil ones that will determine your alignment. Thus you could save a million orphans and breed unicorns to save their dying species, but if you kill one evil prisoner, you would forever be tainted as evil.
I've always taken the view that Neutral alignments are somewhat constrained to perform evil acts once in a while, otherwise they are not actually neutral.
|
|
I’m not saying it’s a “Good” act. I’m saying that the act is not evil.
You cannot apply today’s morals and international laws on a world that is largely unpopulated and wild west-esque. It doesn’t work that way. Would a strictly Andoran agent in Cheliax probably get arrested if carrying out Andoran missions? Most likely if they got caught.
But in a world that is largely unpopulated and organizations and countries can operate across borders, often without being noticed, you can’t apply current laws and morals. It doesn’t apply and doesn’t work.
An execution is in most cases probably not a good act. But just because it is not good, does not make it evil. Is it a gray area? Certainly. If you investigate the target and they are a heinous murderer, the gray area becomes increasingly white. If you investigate the target and they are innocent or you are duped into believing they are innocent, then the gray area becomes increasingly black.
In the module in question, the bad guy who surrendered was obviously evil, nasty, and would harm innocents if he/she could. While executing the man would not be an overtly good act, neither would killing him in combat have been overtly good. Killing is not overtly good. But it also would not have been overtly evil in this situation. Especially with the Andoran backing.
Summary Judgment and Execution, especially to a surrendered foe, may be too much for a Paladinhood, Cavalier Order (depending on order), or a good priest of Iomedae (Justice) or Sarenrae (Redemption). But perhaps if a priest determines that it would be justice, or the man irredeemable, it wouldn’t be against those either.
In this fantasy world, it isn’t up to governments or gods to determine these things. It is up to individuals. This isn’t America folks. This is Golarion. This isn’t Christianity or Buddhism or Islam or Judaism or any other of our real world religions or moral systems. This is Golarion and the moral code is a lot more akin to medieval, renaissance or wild west time frames.
It's a good thing I'm not trying to argue from real-world morals/legal code then...
It looks like we actually agree on the key points of concern for me--that a paladin or other Lawful Good character has reasonable justification to stop a faction mission deemed as an Evil act, and furthermore that executing a surrendered foe can be so judged as Evil and/or unacceptable to someone like a paladin. So long as that's true, then there is a conflict in PFS between the PvP rules and the rules for playing a paladin or similarly aligned character.
Are we agreed on that point?
For the last part, that's actually arguably not true on many places on Golarion. Kaer Maga, for instance, has a loose legal system but the agreed-upon "right way" is to take a person to the local ruling group for judgment. Andoran, on the other hand, has a very developed legal and moral system. As written they are much closer to 19th century than to Renaissance and in addition are not described as a "Wild West" type of nation. They are noted as promoting democracy and the right of every individual (note, not just Good individuals) to speak his piece. As I hadn't reviewed it in a while, I wanted to double-check on the Andoran source material to see what support there is for this "we Chaotically support our cause at all costs." In fact, there is little to no support for such a position. Every major noted settlement in Andoran is listed as Neutral Good. The text speaks a lot to their favor for the rule of law and supporting Good. It seems some people have a warped view of Andoran that, in truth, aligns more with a nation like Galt with regard to national support of a Chaotic outlook.
So, I don't accept the last part as truth in regard to Golarion as a whole, or indeed to many nations therein as described in the source material. Nations have agreed-upon laws and moral codes that are enforceable by said nation. The "frontier law" concept is viable in some places (the River Kingdoms comes to mind), but applying the concept in a broad sweep to all of Golarion is categorically false.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
My recommendation is for people to actually play their characters appropriately. Don't abuse the alignment system to get paladin powers while playing a murderous maniac. Listen to the advice of players and GMs telling you you're playing out-of-character for a given alignment and be willing to shift if appropriate. And if you are going to risk playing a character with alignment restrictions, be doubly sure to play appropriate to that alignment and also willing to accept the repercussions when a GM determines you have violated the requirements. If that's not something you want to deal with, play a class without alignment restrictions.
Ok, I just wanted to hit this point.
If a Lawful Neutral character follows his Lawfully given orders from a superior (i.e. faction leader) to kill the helpless prisoner, it's an evil act. It also shouldn't affect his alignment, because he's neutral, the good or evil of the act doesn't matter, he's following the law. Same thing if his boss tells him to save the box of kittens from the burning building. That's playing his alignment, isn't it?
Or are you applying a different standard to good/evil than you do to Law/Chaos?
Obeying some laws at times and ignoring them at other times is not going to change a Chaotic or Neutral person to Lawful (they do not exhibit consistent Lawful behavior--that's not Lawful).
So doing some evil, and doing some non-evil at times is not going to change a good or neutral person to evil.
Plus, as you've said. most neutral people favor Good over Evil. Most does not equal All.
I’m not saying it’s a “Good” act. I’m saying that the act is not evil.
You cannot apply today’s morals and international laws on a world that is largely unpopulated and wild west-esque. It doesn’t work that way. Would a strictly Andoran agent in Cheliax probably get arrested if carrying out Andoran missions? Most likely if they got caught.
But in a world that is largely unpopulated and organizations and countries can operate across borders, often without being noticed, you can’t apply current laws and morals. It doesn’t apply and doesn’t work.
An execution is in most cases probably not a good act. But just because it is not good, does not make it evil. Is it a gray area? Certainly. If you investigate the target and they are a heinous murderer, the gray area becomes increasingly white. If you investigate the target and they are innocent or you are duped into believing they are innocent, then the gray area becomes increasingly black.
In the module in question, the bad guy who surrendered was obviously evil, nasty, and would harm innocents if he/she could. While executing the man would not be an overtly good act, neither would killing him in combat have been overtly good. Killing is not overtly good. But it also would not have been overtly evil in this situation. Especially with the Andoran backing.
Summary Judgment and Execution, especially to a surrendered foe, may be too much for a Paladinhood, Cavalier Order (depending on order), or a good priest of Iomedae (Justice) or Sarenrae (Redemption). But perhaps if a priest determines that it would be justice, or the man irredeemable, it wouldn’t be against those either.
In this fantasy world, it isn’t up to governments or gods to determine these things. It is up to individuals. This isn’t America folks. This is Golarion. This isn’t Christianity or Buddhism or Islam or Judaism or any other of our real world religions or moral systems. This is Golarion and the moral code is a lot more akin to medieval, renaissance or wild west time...
There's a good literature (/tv) example of this recently.
In The Game of Thrones (Song of Ice and Fire), the character Eddard Stark is arguably lawful good. He does the "right thing", even though it means that he's going to die doing it.
Early on, his men capture a deserter from the Night's Watch. Eddard executes the man where he is found. He performs the act himself, making the point that if you are going to condemn a man to his death, it is only right that you kill him yourself.
There is no intimation at all that this act is evil. It is certainly lawful, as the law of the land is that the penalty for desertion of the Night's Watch is death. Everyone from the Eddard down to the deserter himself know this, and accept it.
Adventurers in the wilds face similar choices in most fantasy games. What to do with an evil enemy that surrenders. This is why the concept of "quarter" or "no quarter" exists. It literally means that if you surrender, you either will or will not be given quarters to live in until you have served your sentence or been ransomed back to your family. The declaration of no quarter means that a fight is to the death, and surrender is not an option. (Often because the side declaring "no quarter" does not have the resources to keep you secure and fed. Generally speaking, a side which declares "no quarter" has no right to expect any better treatment themselves.
So what do adventurers do when faced with a surrendering enemy.
1) take him prisoner. How do you keep him safe, while ensuring that he doesn't escape or try to kill you later?
2) Take him to the nearest village, which might be days away, or might be on his side, or might not have the means to deal with him?
3) Let him go on his honor (parole) to not do evil again? But what if he has no honor? What if he tells his captain of your location, strength, plans, etc?
4) I've often argued that taking his thumbs is a somewhat middle-of-the-road option. This prevents him from fighting you again. It keeps him from being able to do too much evil, while marking him as someone who has been punished but bears watching. If he works for evil, he will gain no sympathy and would have little reason to return to his employer who will now have no use for him.
5) You can scold him and let him go, saying "Go, and sin no more." Well, if he's truly contrite, that might work. Otherwise...?
Ok, I just wanted to hit this point.
If a Lawful Neutral character follows his Lawfully given orders from a superior (i.e. faction leader) to kill the helpless prisoner, it's an evil act. It also shouldn't affect his alignment, because he's neutral, the good or evil of the act doesn't matter, he's following the law. Same thing if his boss tells him to save the box of kittens from the burning building. That's playing his alignment, isn't it?
Or are you applying a different standard to good/evil than you do to Law/Chaos?
That is correct in general--as noted for Lawful Neutral, the character follows a set order, without being a zealot for Good or Evil. However, a Lawful character should likely also respect the laws of a given location (so long as those laws do not conflict with his). In the case of Kaer Maga, for example, a Lawful Neutral character would more likely turn a prisoner over to an appropriate local group for execution, because that is the Lawful thing to do...
So doing some evil, and doing some non-evil at times is not going to change a good or neutral person to evil.
Plus, as you've said. most neutral people favor Good over Evil. Most does not equal All.
Characters shouldn't be doing Evil randomly, whether occasional or not. For a Good character, committing an Evil act should be a soul-rending experience that leaves a permanent mark on the character. It should not be a "well, I'll do some Good later and be fine" decision. For Neutral characters (assuming we're not talking about the "philosophically Neutral" that "see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes...[and] advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.") they are also not going to randomly occasionally do Evil but will have little remorse about the action since they "exhibit a lack of conviction or bias." If it comes down to Evil being the "best" choice, the Neutral characters will take that route but that wouldn't change the act as Evil and something the character is more likely to do in the future.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Characters shouldn't be doing Evil randomly, whether occasional or not. For a Good character, committing an Evil act should be a soul-rending experience that leaves a permanent mark on the character. It should not be a "well, I'll do some Good later and be fine" decision. For Neutral characters (assuming we're not talking about the "philosophically Neutral" that "see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes...[and] advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.") they are also not going to randomly occasionally do Evil. If it comes down to Evil being the "best" choice, the Neutral characters will have little remorse about the action, but that wouldn't change the act as Evil and something the character is not more likely to do in the future.
So shouldn't a Lawful character breaking the law, or a chaotic character following a law be "A soul rending experience that leaves a permanent mark on the character"? Law and Chaos are equal forces to Good and Evil after all.
Edit, for that matter, shouldn't buying a sucker for a little girl be a 'soul rending experience that leaves a lermanent mark' on an evil character?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So what do adventurers do when faced with a surrendering enemy?
You can refuse the surrender. "Pick up your sword and defend yourself, blackguard, or die in a puddle of your own piss."
"Lay on, Macduff, and cursed be the one that first cries 'enough!'"
In the case at my table last Gen Con, when PCs A and B offered the nasty Pathfinder quarter with the power of a high Intimidate, and the nasty guy complied, the Andoran PCs C and D could have challenged that right there and then. But once the bad guy has surrendered, at the party's behest, killing him is murder. (Which the faction mission explicitly states is just fine.)
So shouldn't a Lawful character breaking the law, or a chaotic character following a law be "A soul rending experience that leaves a permanent mark on the character"? Law and Chaos are equal forces to Good and Evil after all.
I agree as such for a Lawful character--they are dedicated to "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability"--but not necessarily for a Chaotic character considering he believes in "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" and so has the option to follow a law when such action lines up with his personal goals/freedom. A Chaotic character, on the other hand, that willingly obeys laws restricting his goals/freedom on a regular basis is indeed no longer Chaotic.
As with being Evil, it's a heck of a lot easier in general to be Chaotic than Lawful...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
So shouldn't a Lawful character breaking the law, or a chaotic character following a law be "A soul rending experience that leaves a permanent mark on the character"? Law and Chaos are equal forces to Good and Evil after all.I agree as such for a Lawful character--they are dedicated to "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability"--but not necessarily for a Chaotic character considering he believes in "freedom, adaptability, and flexibility" and so has the option to follow a law when such action lines up with his personal goals/freedom. A Chaotic character, on the other hand, that willingly obeys laws restricting his goals/freedom on a regular basis is indeed no longer Chaotic.
As with being Evil, it's a heck of a lot easier in general to be Chaotic than Lawful...
So in non-society games, everyone should be Chaotic Evil and not worry about losing their alignments!
So in non-society games, everyone should be Chaotic Evil and not worry about losing their alignments!
In games where players want to do whatever they please, that is correct (and matches how I've seen some people play, regardless of the alignment written on the character sheet). If, on the other hand, the player wants a challenge with regard to controlling a character, then focusing more on Lawful and Good are options. And for those that really want a challenge they can go for a class with a Lawful and/or Good alignment restriction. Note that it's much easier to play a "cannot be Lawful/Good" restriction than it is to play a "must be Lawful/Good" restriction. Of course, in any such game the GM and players should be sitting down beforehand and discussing the goal of the game so that everyone has some assurance of having an enjoyable time. If one person wants to play Chaotic Evil and another is playing a paladin, that's a problem that needs to be addressed prior to the game starting, not in-game as a surprise to one or both parties.
Of course, this is irrelevant to PFS games as such pre-game preparation is generally not possible.
What happens when a paladin is ordered (by a legitimate authority) to execute a prisoner?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is an awful lot of posts about the nature of good and evil. I thought the main point in this thread was about whether or not to let the completion of a faction mission force a player to abandon their PFS character. Discussions of good and evil (real-world or otherwise) are kind of beside the point:
In the real world (or the game world), evil people exist. But in PFS, you can't play an evil character.
In the real/game world, you can manufacture objects. But in PFS, you can't.
In the real/game world, you can find an object and keep it. But in PFS, a found object disappears from your posession and suddenly becomes available for purchase (usually in unlimited quantities, even if you found only one of the item).
In the real/game world, if you find a consumable object and consume it, it is consumed. But in PFS, it will suddenly become un-consumed AND have an infinite number of clones appear on store shelves (but not in your backpack).
In the real/game world, you can be a charismatic leader and get people to follow you, even into combat. But in PFS, it's somehow impossible.
In the real/game world, you can slide into becoming an evil person by committing more and more evil actions. But in PFS...?
People seem completely willing to overlook the ability of objects to disappear from your possession and then self-replicate in a shop, yet feel compelled to enforce an alignment change that will make a character illegal?