What happens when a paladin is ordered (by a legitimate authority) to execute a prisoner?
In PFS play, the paladin can question why the "legitimate authority" is issuing such an order and thus whether said organization is compatible with his Good alignment and paladin's code. The Silver Crusade, for instance, should not be issuing a "kill by any means necessary" order, nor should Andoran, if both are to be portrayed as Good organizations. And the paladin has the moral obligation to refuse an order that is in violation of his alignment and code. As with my previous stance, this is a reasonable position for PFS paladins to take, as they are most definitely not called to blindly follow a legal authority when said authority issues questionable orders. This could, as such, result in the paladin prohibiting others from completing said faction mission.
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.)
Did they in fact offer quarter, as in "Surrender, and you shall be well treated?" or did they simply roll an intimidate, and everything else was implied?
Intimidate can run the gamut from "Surrender, or I shall make your death excruciating and I will drag it out until you beg for the release of death." to "Surrender and hand over your weapons, and you shall be well treated. Fight and you shall die."
If they offered quarter, and then reneged on that promise, then I would say that their actions were unlawful (chaotic), even dishonorable, but not necessarily evil. Tricking evil into losing a fight is not an evil act - it's simply a less "honorable" means to achieve a good end. If you offer quarter to a lich, and then in fact kill the lich, you have not done evil. You've lied (acted unlawfully) to achieve a good end.
|
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.
First sentence I would agree on, but only if you strike out "per the mechanics of the game." I also disagree on your conclusion. I don't think a paladin or good character is required to outright block others from completing any of the offending faction mission else lose their alignment or faction mission.
Honestly, I would understand if a player had their character commit themselves to such an action, but I would remind them of the ramifications of such. If they went through with it, they would almost certainly keep their paladin powers and good alignment, but I would see kicking that character out of the Pathfinder Society as an option.
If the other player was being an evil jerk, well, I would remind them of the same and expel them if necessary.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a good character can easily exist in a party that completes all their faction missions without losing their alignment or other class based powers. They may not be able to complete every faction mission themselves, but they don't have to stop others from completing their own.
Yes. It is completely outlandish that a faction mission actually ask you to kill a member of the Pathfinder Society. Thankfully though the mission target isn't really a Pathfinder, if he were a Pathfinder though, it would be chaos for the Society for the assassination attempt to go through.
Okay, so long as we agree a paladin or Good character (note, not every paladin or Good character--I'm not dictating how every player must play his character) has this right. Also note that I've never said anything about a character losing paladinhood or alignment, only that a Good character in PFS can reasonably justify opposing an action perceived as Evil. That's the point here--potential for conflict exists in PFS games because a Good character has the right to oppose another character's actions. This would not get the Good character kicked out for PvP (which, by a strict reading of the Guide, actually only involves physical combat) and any morally gray characters need to be ready to deal with this at a PFS table. I'd personally disagree that a Good character can "look the other way" for Evil actions and be fine, but that's not something I'm forcing on other players/GMs. As a GM at a table, however, I absolutely wouldn't let a paladin do so without repercussions if the action is obviously Evil and I communicate such to the player.
There is now another thread focused on what a GM might actually do to sanction a player for an Evil action by a character, so I responded there as well.
|
|
Okay, so long as we agree a paladin or Good character (note, not every paladin or Good character--I'm not dictating how every player must play his character) has this right. Also note that I've never said anything about a character losing paladinhood or alignment, only that a Good character in PFS can reasonably justify opposing an action perceived as Evil. That's the point here--potential for conflict exists in PFS games because a Good character has the right to oppose another character's actions. This would not get the Good character kicked out for PvP (which, by a strict reading of the Guide, actually only involves physical combat) and any morally gray characters need to be ready to deal with this at a PFS table. I'd personally disagree that a Good character can "look the other way" for Evil actions and be fine, but that's not something I'm forcing on other players/GMs. As a GM at a table, however, I absolutely wouldn't let a paladin do so without repercussions if the action is obviously Evil and I communicate such to the player.
There is now another thread focused on what a GM might actually do to sanction a player for an Evil action by a character, so I responded there as well.
You are correct, they wouldn't be kicked our for PvP.
They would be kicked out (of the table or Society play) for breaking the "Do Not Bully Other Players" rule.
The problem seems to be that you and I seem to have different opinions on what is obviously evil. I can't tell from this point if you think that is obviously evil to let a prisoner be executed at all (therefore I have to stop all lawful executions everywhere I go or lose my paladin powers). From your comments, it really does feel like as a GM you are forcing the two opposing characters into a bullying/PvP situation. If both characters are acting within the rules, neither should be punished for the others presence.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all -
To be clear, there are two Pathfinder Societies. There is the Pathfinder Society based out of Absalom and there is the Pathfinder Society based out of Washington. The Society in Washington doesn't condone murder, theft or driving on the wrong side of the road.
The general idea of games/RPG's (D&D any edition, WoW, Modern Warfare) is to defeat the perceived bad guys. That usually entails injuring, maiming or killing them.
The Society to which our characters belong is not good. The mission statement is to go find relics and put them in a vault. In so doing, you may have to fight people, kill them and take their stuff. In year 2, the Shadow Lodge an internal faction of the Pathfinder Society. They are still members of the society, they believe in getting the stuff and instead of putting it in a vault, they feel the items should be used. The Apsis Consortium is not too much different than us - but in the end, they want to sell the stuff to the highest bidder.
In year 3 the Shadow Lodge's goals are a bit different. They still endorse the idea of going forth and getting the stuff the Society wants, but they feel that those that go forth and get that stuff should be better protected should they fail.
In general, the Pathfinders are going out and taking what belongs to someone else. There is a reason they aren't liked in Ustalav. They are not archeologists studying the past. They study the past and take what belonged to those dead guys.
In no way should the Society be defined as a good organization in general. Factions aside, the Society isn't good. Individuals within the Society may be, but the mission statement of the Society doesn't say that they are going forth to get these items to do good - if that was the case at the conclusion of a mission the item would be sent off to the crusades to defeat the World Wound. But then you also have to determine what is good and what is bad and who gets to make that choice.
A player character may do whatever it is that they want, with the Washington based Society declaring that they cannot attack another player's character. Part of what I call the Trump Rule (do what's best for the Washington based Society). As such, if I wish to kill a guy and take off his head, you can attempt to stop me because you are a LG Paladin and you determine that to be evil. If that is the case, you're LG Paladin should be reminded to read the books describing the Pathfinders (Seekers of Secrets, Field Guide and the Chronicles). As such there is much murder and maiming going on. Maiming does seem to be on the evil side of the morality issue - however, morality is a deeply personal thing and what one believes is OK or good another might determine to be the most vile act ever.
In a module that was played a lot this weekend, there is a tribe that has an item that the Shadow Lodge (year 2) wanted. The PFS is sent to go get that item as well, so that the Shadow Lodge doesn't get it. Ignore the fact that the tribe has had that item for many hundreds of years and has done a most excellent job of keeping it safe from the rest of the world. So in either way, the Society will get that item. So fighting the tribe in any way and taking the item seems to be wrong. I cannot see how a Lawful person would see that as anything but theft. Let's say that the Shadow Lodge gets the item - and the players end up stopping the Shadow Lodge - the item should be returned. But your boss at HQ in Absalom did ask you to bring it back. What do you do? Who's laws of the land do you follow? What about going to Whitethrone? Monsters in Issrien are citizens while humans are not. Geb, humans and the like are chattell while undead are the masters. If a lawful character goes into those areas and kills a goblin or a troll or a zombie - he has committed murder in the eyes of the law. In the eyes of general society he has just killed a monster.
I love the grey morality that the Society offers. If a GM were to ever say that maiming a person (faction mission or not) and I was lawful and that I was going to turn evil and therefore I could lose my character, I would ask for an exact list of exactly every law of the land in which I was currently located and what the laws of the land from which I hail and those from where the society was located. If the GM could not produce all these - I would state that I am just following the laws. Maiming and murder is OK. If I were Chaotic or Neutral, the same could apply. If I were lawful good - I would state that for the good of the world, this person needs to be maimed so that they learn a lesson, are able to turn their life around and hopefully become a force in the world that does at least one good turn. Losing an arm seems better than losing ones life.
Maiming might seem evil to many of us (Washington Society), but much of it can be rationalized in a world where Magic, Undead and Trolls walk the streets. We cannot put our personal morality (real world or not) onto another characters morality.
Theocrat Issak
OP here, reminding everyone that NIETHER of characters is lawful or good. And that none of the to be executed foes have EVER surrendered.
A halfling from the River Kingdoms, whose parents were taken by Chelish slavers and susequently died, was on a mission against the shadow lodge, wherein his Andoran backers wanted an agent of Cheliax villain taken down. Fighting right along side this mission target was a Chelish woman channeling negative energy.
My character chose to attempt a coup-de-grace to end the lives of these two UNREPENTANT foes that had fallen in battle. No member of the party made any mention of stabilizing either target.
So it is a good action to let a character bleed to death slowly and if they happen to somehow survive, then you can do more good and turn them over to an intermediary to execute them for you? They can have a sham of a trial, wherein all their failings are drug out into the light, and your intermediaries defame and humiliate them publicly before finally giving them the deathblow that you could have just as easily administered without degrading them first?
For actual info on this sort of thing
I am not arguing that Nico (my halfling) was doing a good deed. He was doing a selfish and vengeful thing, driven by fear and anger. He hated what that woman stood for, what she had done to him and his allies, and what she was trying to do to the Pathfinders. But he had more respect for her life and dignity by acting in her dying moments than everyone else at that table, who was more than happy to let her bleed to death slowly, or face a sham of a trial. Would Nico kill any Chelaxian he met? Absolutely not! But when an obvious foe of person, party, society and city has fallen unrepentant in battle, he would let his prejudices be the tipping point. Prejudices, which mind you, are well based according to setting material.
Lawful Good and especially Paladin-hood are not an excuse to leave your conviction at the door. In fact it is the Paladin's role to act with conviction and justice. Look at the names of his aura abilities, none of them are titled Aura of Imposing the Unpleasant Work of Taking a Life on the Poor Schmuck Who Thought Civil Service Was Better Than Adventuring (Su):. Paladins should not kill for convenience. But not killing because you lack the righteous conviction to do so is not only un-paladin-like, but just plain weak. If there were reasonable suspicion that the courts would let the unconscious man live, then taking his life then and there is blatantly in disregard for proper authority. But sending someone to a certain death sentence and not just killing him yourself is not good, its cowardice.
You are correct, they wouldn't be kicked our for PvP.
They would be kicked out (of the table or Society play) for breaking the "Do Not Bully Other Players" rule.
The problem seems to be that you and I seem to have different opinions on what is obviously evil. I can't tell from this point if you think that is obviously evil to let a prisoner be executed at all (therefore I have to stop all lawful executions everywhere I go or lose my paladin powers). From your comments, it really does feel like as a GM you are forcing the two opposing characters into a bullying/PvP situation. If both characters are acting within the rules, neither should be punished for the others presence.
"Do Not Bully" is not applicable if the paladin/Good character has a reasonable argument for opposing an action as Evil. The line where I define what is obviously Evil is irrelevant if we conclude that the given scenario is reasonably Evil. The action I've described has been acknowledge as reasonably Evil by the rules of the game as interpreted by some players. Or are we now going back on that conclusion? Bullying involves extreme dysfunctional forms of play. Good characters opposing the slaughter of prisoners is not dysfunctional play in my view, it's playing their alignment properly. The player intent on slaughtering the prison is, in my assessment, more at fault. The simple solution is for the player to find a non-Evil solution to the issue at hand. Forcing the Good character to compromise his understanding of morals is unreasonable in this case. If that results in players playing "less Evil" for fear of not knowing where I draw the line, I'm okay with that. Evil, after all, is not an acceptable alignment for PFS.
Lots of stuff
To be clear, I've consistently argued my position from the very rules of the game, with full acknowledgment that the fictional Pathfinder Society is not a Good organization. My argument is based entirely on whether a player with a Good character can reasonably determine some actions as Evil and thus oppose those actions in play. So far, I've not been convinced otherwise. There is clearly a distinction between the fictional group and PFS, and I know PFS has a goal of everyone overall having fun. I continue to hold that Good characters can reasonably oppose another character, even on a faction mission, if said character is committing acts reasonably defined as Evil. This position is, I believe, further validated by the inclusion of an actual Lawful Good, paladin-friendly faction in the Silver Crusade. There are thus clearly Good characters with the stated goal of using the Pathfinder Society for Good. It makes no logical sense to me, given both the rules of the game for alignment and the paladin's code, that we are to disregard these elements of the game for any character that joins the Pathfinder Society.
OP here, reminding everyone that NIETHER of characters is lawful or good. And that none of the to be executed foes have EVER surrendered.
A halfling from the River Kingdoms, whose parents were taken by Chelish slavers and susequently died, was on a mission against the shadow lodge, wherein his Andoran backers wanted an agent of Cheliax villain taken down. Fighting right along side this mission target was a Chelish woman channeling negative energy.
My character chose to attempt a coup-de-grace to end the lives of these two UNREPENTANT foes that had fallen in battle. No member of the party made any mention of stabilizing either target.
So it is a good action to let a character bleed to death slowly and if they happen to somehow survive, then you can do more good and turn them over to an intermediary to execute them for you? They can have a sham of a trial, wherein all their failings are drug out into the light, and your intermediaries defame and humiliate them publicly before finally giving them the deathblow that you could have just as easily administered without degrading them first?
For actual info on this sort of thing
I am not arguing that Nico (my halfling) was doing a good deed. He was doing a selfish and vengeful thing, driven by fear and anger. He hated what that woman stood for, what she had done to him and his allies, and what she was trying to do to the Pathfinders. But he had more respect for her life and dignity by acting in her dying moments than everyone else at that table, who was more than happy to let her bleed to death slowly, or face a sham of a trial. Would Nico kill any Chelaxian he met? Absolutely not! But when an obvious foe of person, party, society and city has fallen unrepentant in battle, he would let his prejudices be the tipping point. Prejudices, which mind you, are well based according to setting material.
Lawful Good and especially Paladin-hood are not an excuse to leave your conviction at the door. In fact it is the Paladin's role to act with conviction and justice. Look at the names of his aura abilities, none of them are titled Aura of Imposing the Unpleasant Work of Taking a Life on the Poor Schmuck Who Thought Civil Service Was Better Than Adventuring (Su):. Paladins should not kill for convenience. But not killing because you lack the righteous conviction to do so is not only un-paladin-like, but just plain weak. If there were reasonable suspicion that the courts would let the unconscious man live, then taking his life then and there is blatantly in disregard for proper authority. But sending someone to a certain death sentence and not just killing him yourself is not good, its cowardice.
If I follow everything you are saying here, I definitely agree. A paladin or Good character in this situation that just stands and watches while a helpless person bleeds to death is not acting in the image of paladins and Good as I see it. Yes, that's a judgment call I'd make as a GM, and I'd communicate that to the players.
I know the argument seems to continually drift away from your specific character's issue, but my goal remains confirming that the Good characters were indeed justified in seeking to prohibit what they saw as an Evil act.
Developer
|
First off, alignment is not a straightjacket.
Second off, alignment is not a straightjacket.
Third off, alignment is not a straightjacket.
Erian, while your view of good (please stop writing "Good", it makes it seem like you're preaching religion) does line up with what a good action is according to the core book, nowhere in that tome does it say good characters always take good actions. Nowhere does it say chaotic characters always oppose authority. Etc, etc.
These are ways of listing roleplaying tendency. The only times that these alignments matter is when there are codes of conduct. Sure, violating a code of conduct has reprocussions, but beyond that acting outside one's alignment need have no consequences.
The characters you discuss would be one-dimensional and boring. Good characters would always object to killing, evil would always try to kill, chaos would always refuse orders, etc. This is boring. Alignment is a guideline for roleplaying, a sort of template for how a character might see the world.
It is nothing more than that.
Really, though, an evil character can do good things and act altruistically. Perhaps the villain was an orphan, and will always save a child in danger, even at great risk to himself. He also slaughters anyone whom he perceives as opposing him or posing a risk to his power, but not before torturing them. A good character might have witnessed a crimelord murder his sister. He's done nothing but good until he faces the murderer. Surrender doesn't matter, he'll kill the bastard no matter what. Complex characters make for better gameplay. Your appeal to the rules is unconvincing, especially as non-committal as the rules are on characters who occasionally act outside their alignments. Saying a character always acts in [x] manner makes for a boring character, and that makes for a boring game. I dislike boring games. That's why Andoran missions might not always be good. Even if the leader is, even if most people in the faction are, sometimes they'll do underhanded things to further what they see as the cause of freedom.
Honestly the alignment section in the book uses very deeply flawed definitions of good and evil. I ignore them. Good is acting in the interests of others at cost to yourself, evil is acting in your own interests at the cost of others. Any other definition leads to contradictions and difficulty in line-drawing. You'll point out the core books say otherwise, and to that I reply it doesn't matter. The alignment section is just a roleplaying tool.
Besides, the only reason no evil isn't allowed is so that no one would play stupid-evil and just go around slaughtering townspeople. It's basically a GM tool to keep that sort of thing in check.
There are certainly evil NPCs in the society, and outside of organized play an evil character would be welcome in the society, so long as he kept to the three tenants.
Also, just because I saw someone mention it earlier, Shadow Lodge isn't evil. They strike me as more CG than Andoran.
Honestly the alignment section in the book uses very deeply flawed definitions of good and evil. I ignore them. Good is acting in the interests of others at cost to yourself, evil is acting in your own interests at the cost of others. Any other definition leads to contradictions and difficulty in line-drawing. You'll point out the core books say otherwise, and to that I reply it doesn't matter. The alignment section is just a roleplaying tool.
Besides, the only reason no evil isn't allowed is so that no one would play stupid-evil and just go around slaughtering townspeople. It's basically a GM tool to keep that sort of thing in check.
There are certainly evil NPCs in the society, and outside of organized play an evil character would be welcome in the society, so long as he kept to the three tenants.
Also, just because I saw someone mention it earlier, Shadow Lodge isn't evil. They strike me as more CG than Andoran.
I didn't copy the first part of the post because, from what I can tell, it has nothing to do with what I've said. At no time have I described how all players must act. Indeed, I have continually acknowledge that the application of alignment in the game is a difficult thing. I've been playing this game for likely longer than a lot of folks on this thread have been alive (yes, I'm invoking the old codger stance as a swift action)--I've played every alignment in the book and am generally regarded as an excellent roleplayer. If you can find a place where I say all characters must act a certain way and thus use alignment as a straight jacket, please do so. Otherwise, I don't see any particular relevance in these deleted statements.
What I have done is laid out a specific example of a valid character that could reasonably oppose another character in PFS according to the rules of the game. I invite you to, in some way, refute that position if possible. I write Good, and will continue to do so, when referring specifically to the alignment as it is a defined characteristic of the game. And this comes to what I find as the more interesting part of your statement, quoted above. You can ignore that section all you want. It's still in the rules, still valid for guidance in PFS, and thus still valid as support for my argument. See my earlier position regarding the "it's just a tool" statement--i.e. it's a tool for the game, that doesn't give you the right to throw away that tool and use whatever you like in PFS. If you come to a PFS game, you can most definitely expect GMs to use the alignment rules as valid for guiding decisions in PFS play. You know what I do if I don't want to be constrained by the definitions of Good in the game? I don't play a Good character. It's that easy. My character can still think of himself as "good" all he wants, but per the mechanics of the game, he is not.
I've consistently stated that Pathfinders are not inherently Good, and have even voiced support for Evil characters if Evil factions are to be realistically allowed. I've even noted the nuances of playing various alignments. My end goal is a consistent application of the rules of the game such that any reasonable person can come to the game and enjoy playing based on a clear understanding of the alignment rules in PFS. I'm not sure why you think otherwise, that I'm on some crusade to make all characters boring, but perhaps you can provide more insight into this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Do Not Bully" is not applicable if the paladin/Good character has a reasonable argument for opposing an action as Evil. The line where I define what is obviously Evil is irrelevant if we conclude that the given scenario is reasonably Evil. The action I've described has been acknowledge as reasonably Evil by the rules of the game as interpreted by some players. Or are we now going back on that conclusion? Bullying involves extreme dysfunctional forms of play. Good characters opposing the slaughter of prisoners is not dysfunctional play in my view, it's playing their alignment properly. The player intent on slaughtering the prison is, in my assessment, more at fault. The simple solution is for the player to find a non-Evil solution to the issue at hand. Forcing the Good character to compromise his understanding of morals is unreasonable in this case. If that results in players playing "less Evil" for fear of not knowing where I draw the line, I'm okay with that. Evil, after all, is not an acceptable alignment for PFS.
I disagree, "Do Not Bully" applies even if their reason for bullying other players is because it fits their alignment. In that case, I feel that is pretty much admitted that they made a disfunctional character for a game where they have to work with a group of random people. If they are stopping another character from any avenue of completing their faction mission, there is no question in my mind that they are breaking that rule.
No, I'm not going back on my agreement of the conclusion. But it seems that you are leaving out the addendum that I added for this circumstance. The characters can force their moral judgments on any other party members, but they have to accept that may mean they will be kicked out of the group or the Pathfinder Society as a whole.
There is a problem with your definition of "where you draw the line." I feel that you have revealed it in this thread. No one else is certain where you draw that line. Using the same logic you have used in this thread, I can see another GM declaring an entire group of characters evil and barred from Society play for not stopping the execution of a helpless condemned person who was tried and sentenced by a judge and jury.
Here is something I wrote down somewhere else (paraphrased) that may explain my position more:
"I played in a game at PaizoCon with my good character. During the game there was an option given to the party, either free a devil to his own devices to grant us a large amount of aid or work harder and possibly lose the chance for for any aid in the massive battle against demons.
A significant number of party members were all for using the devil as a weapon pointed at a larger threat. My character was less convinced and didn't really want to free the devil unless he knew that no other souls would be harmed by it. I plead my case to them unsuccessfully and they still wanted to run with their plan.
As a player, I had a mental breakdown and I didn't want to continue to drag things out with an argument (or sabotagoe the whole thing) that would just make me more miserable as a player.
And I can easily see a GM declaring my character evil for doing so."
That is what I see with declaring that completing faction missions may make you evil. Or that being present in a party that completes faction missions may make you lose good cleric or paladin powers. I see it as an abuse of power the GM holds and don't respect it.
|
|
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.
I hear all these people talking about evil acts, but almost none of them are talking about "Good" acts that can counter balance the evil.
And "good" characters have a fine line to walk. I see some of the "Penalizing GMS" applying that same line to NEUTRAL characters. Who have a much broader line they can walk.
And the "Don't be a jerk." rule applies to GMs as well as players.
I disagree, "Do Not Bully" applies even if their reason for bullying other players is because it fits their alignment. In that case, I feel that is pretty much admitted that they made a disfunctional character for a game where they have to work with a group of random people. If they are stopping another character from any avenue of completing their faction mission, there is no question in my mind that they are breaking that rule.
No, I'm not going back on my agreement of the conclusion. But it seems that you are leaving out the addendum that I added for this circumstance. The characters can force their moral judgments on any other party members, but they have to accept that may mean they will be kicked out of the group or the Pathfinder Society as a whole.
There is a problem with your definition of "where you draw the line." I feel that you have revealed it in this thread. No one else is certain where you draw that line. Using the same logic you have used in this thread, I can see another GM declaring an entire group of characters evil and barred from Society play for not stopping the execution of a helpless condemned person who was tried and sentenced by a judge and jury.
Here is something I wrote down somewhere else (paraphrased) that may explain my position more:
"I played in a game at PaizoCon with my good character. During the game there was an option given to the party, either free a devil to his own devices to grant us a large amount of aid or work harder and possibly lose the chance for for any aid in the massive battle against demons.
A significant number of party members were all for using the devil as a weapon pointed at a larger threat. My character was less convinced and didn't really want to free the devil unless he knew that no other souls would be harmed by it. I plead my case to them unsuccessfully and they still wanted to run with their plan.
As a player, I had a mental breakdown and I didn't want to continue to drag things out with an argument (or sabotagoe the whole thing) that would just make me more miserable as a player.
And I can easily see a GM declaring my character evil for doing so."
That is what I see with declaring that completing faction missions may make you evil. Or that being present in a party that completes faction missions may make you lose good cleric or paladin powers. I see it as an abuse of power the GM holds and don't respect it.
I don't see how it can reasonably be argued that a player making a Good character using the definition provided in the game (and now especially if said player joins the Silver Crusade) can be considered bullying for playing that alignment. If that player believes an action is Evil and the GM supports that position, the character committing the act is beholden to abide by the rules of PFS for not playing Evil. A player that insists on being as Evil or close to it as possibly, rather, is the one building a dysfunctional character. I see no rule in PFS or in the Pathfinder source material that a character prohibiting another Pathfinder from committing an Evil act will be kicked out of the society. Can you cite this anywhere?
I don't focus on where I draw the line for Evil for two reasons. The first is that it's not relevant to the point of whether a player or GM can use the rules of the game to reasonably judge if something is Evil. We are agreed that this is a true statement so declaring where the line is serves no specific purpose. The second reason I don't say where I draw the line is because it's not relevant in the overall context of PFS and gets to the issue of this thread--numerous GMs and characters will draw the line at different places. You and I don't have to agree on where the line is drawn to see this. It's the crux of the problem and you and I agreeing won't resolve that this will be an ongoing variance with other players and GMs. This is why we need consistent, communicated application of the alignment rules so everyone can set reasonable expectations for how PFS games will function.
For your PaizoCon experience, I'm sad to see that's how it went. From my perspective you played the character properly, and indeed I'd likely declare releasing a devil an Evil act (I'd have to know more about the specifics to say for certain). You would not have been Evil--the rest of the party would as they are taking the convenient path over the hard path with no regard to the moral ramifications. They are using the "ends justify the means, greater good" argument that I've previously discussed.
Also, if I understand the last sentence properly, you keep adding something in that I'm not saying--specifically that simply completing a faction mission can be declared Evil. I have never stated that. I have stated that committing Evil acts to complete a faction mission is subject to challenge by both players and GMs. I've also stated that one helpful thing PFS authors could do is provide options for missions that allow completion without Evil (such as turning a kill target over to another appropriate organization--the referenced module did this, but in a very unclear way and failing to use a more appropriate group for the Andoran faction). Can you show me where I have stated that simply completing a faction mission in and of itself is Evil?
If a Cheliax or Sczarni member gets a faction mission requiring questionable actions, said character needs to take care in guarding these actions from discovery, especially if there are known paladins and other strongly Good characters in the party. If the character fails to keep the actions a secret, he should expect opposition that may lead to faction mission failure. And if he uses actions/tactics that can be reasonably judged as Evil based on the alignment rules, he needs to be prepared for some GMs to sanction the character as such. This is one of the primary reasons I say if we're going to allow Evil factions, we should simply allow Evil characters as well.
I hear all these people talking about evil acts, but almost none of them are talking about "Good" acts that can counter balance the evil.
And "good" characters have a fine line to walk. I see some of the "Penalizing GMS" applying that same line to NEUTRAL characters. Who have a much broader line they can walk.
And the "Don't be a jerk." rule applies to GMs as well as players.
I actually specifically addressed the concept of Good acts balancing out Evil acts earlier--in summary, it is not a valid tactic under the current alignment rules from everything I see. If this is incorrect, please provide actual documented support.
I've also specifically stated that playing Good (and Lawful) should definitely be harder than playing other alignments based on the current definitions.
For the "Don't Be a Jerk" I agree it applies to all parties. The issue is that applying a reasonable interpretation of the alignment rules does not, in my view, constitute being a jerk. It's simply following the rules of the game.
|
|
I actually specifically addressed the concept of Good acts balancing out Evil acts earlier--in summary, it is not a valid tactic under the current alignment rules from everything I see. If this is incorrect, please provide actual documented support.
So to you alignment is a trap and everyone will turn evil. Thanks for not letting people enjoy the game.
I've also specifically stated that playing Good (and Lawful) should definitely be harder than playing other alignments based on the current definitions.
but you are applying the EXACT same standard to neutral characters as you would apply to good. And you don't apply the same penalties/rewards to Chaotic or Evil. So you are being arbitrary and a jerk.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I would like to compliment erian_7 for being patient and articulate. I don't necessarily agree with your position in its entirety, but you are consistently making your points clear in a polite and respectful way.
I don't have much more to say, because, really, your position is very close to mine.
So to you alignment is a trap and everyone will turn evil. Thanks for not letting people enjoy the game.
No, alignment is a documented concept that players can use to reliably build the characters they want to play. If you don't want to bother with the hard decisions, play a Neutral character. I've already covered this previously in the thread, so perhaps you haven't read the entire discussion? Can you confirm if this is the case? If so, I'd advise reading the entire thread as you'll see I clearly support players with characters of all alignments (even Evil) being able to enjoy the game. I also clearly state that the goal is to maximize player enjoyment by ensuring everyone has a consistent understanding of how alignment can be applied in the game. Taking a stance that I have to, for some reason, ignore the alignment rules so you can play your character any way you want is an unreasonable position that does not utilize the published rules of the game. Perhaps that's not what you are saying?
but you are applying the EXACT same standard to neutral characters as you would apply to good. And you don't apply the same penalties/rewards to Chaotic or Evil. So you are being arbitrary and a jerk.
That is because the alignment of an action is not the same as the alignment of a character (also something covered earlier). Consistent application of the alignment rules to all actions results in players and GMs alike having a common expectation for the game. The same standard should apply with regard to actions, it simply has different results based on the alignment of the character. I'm not sure where you see that I would not apply the same rules to Chaotic/Evil, can you clarify that statement? Really I'm unclear on the whole stance you are taking (or believe I take) so perhaps further information (and reference to my statements) would help.
I would like to compliment erian_7 for being patient and articulate. I don't necessarily agree with your position in its entirety, but you are consistently making your points clear in a polite and respectful way.
I don't have much more to say, because, really, your position is very close to mine.
Thanks Chris! I actually feel like I got too snarky yesterday in the discussions and want to ensure I'm coming at this from a logical, rather than emotional, perspective.
|
You are correct, they wouldn't be kicked our for PvP.
They would be kicked out (of the table or Society play) for breaking the "Do Not Bully Other Players" rule.
Someone might get kicked out for being a bully, but it's not necessarily going to be the one who is disagreeing with you. There are six players and a DM at a typical table and each one wants to have fun. If your interpretation is causing the module to grind to a halt and animosity among the players, then if you continue to press an argument against the wishes of the other players and DM, then it is you who are acting like a bully.
|
Developer
|
Erian, I apologize. After reading through this entire thread, I may have misremembered some of your posts, or attributed arguments by others to you, and that is not fair. The feeling that I had was that you were saying that a good character would not kill a helpless character. The way I see it is that a good character would not usually kill a helpless character.
The reason why my post was rude (and it was, I apologize. It should not have been, you'd been nothing but reasonable in yours) was that, having read the thread and seeing numerous instances of people claiming not just how a player might act, but how they should and would, I was somewhat alarmed, especially since there seemed to be a sentiment that there was some magic number of evil or even non-good acts that could cause an alignment change. This actually made me mad. I felt this view could weaken many tables and ruin others. There is no such alignment change number hardwired into the rules, especially not in org play.
I may have misattributed that view to you, as many of your posts were uncompromising in tone as to what good and evil are. I think what I read into your posts was that a good character must choose the good action when presented. I apologize for the misunderstanding.
What I feel is that, in this thread overall, good characters are being confused with good actions. Good characters will not always do the right thing, but they may remain good. The problem in org play is that a GM may only see a given character once in that character's whole career. To associate repercussions out of game to actions within it, quite honestly unfair to all players at the table.
First, not all GMs track aligned behavior, so a GM has no idea what the history might be. Second, it seems that not all aligned behavior is tracked. If you track evil, you better track good. Finally, there's no guideline for degree that a given action is aligned. This is not a videogame where coup de grace is worth 5 evil points, but saving the archeologist is worth 4 good points. Without an objective measure on which to place a character, the scale has no meaning.
The no evil requirement is just an extension of the no jerk rule. It is unfortunate, but there are many, who if allowed to play evil, would slaughter townsfolk to see them bleed. This preempts that. If it were anything else, we'd have been given a scale to measure alignment.
On the interference question, while a player can RP character reaction, in-game active opposition to a faction mission violates PvP. A good character can't oppose an evil faction mission any more than a chaotic character could intentionally sabotage a lawful faction mission. Some RP options must be sacrificed for org play. RP disdain, have your character spit on the other, tell him the society will hear of his cruelty, etc. Do not roll a grapple check to restrain him. Players should never be punished for choosing factions that have fewer moral qualms (excepting violated codes of conduct... that's an entirely different beast, and those should be enforced, even on faction missions).
Someone might get kicked out for being a bully, but it's not necessarily going to be the one who is disagreeing with you. There are six players and a DM at a typical table and each one wants to have fun. If your interpretation is causing the module to grind to a halt and animosity among the players, then if you continue to press an argument against the wishes of the other players and DM, then it is you who are acting like a bully.You are correct, they wouldn't be kicked our for PvP.
They would be kicked out (of the table or Society play) for breaking the "Do Not Bully Other Players" rule.
Agreed, and something I didn't emphasize enough previously I think. The key in this situation is GM consideration. If the GM agrees an action is Evil, the player needs to relent. A GM might seek opinion from the players, but ultimately holds the responsibility to make the call.
|
|
Alignments have no place in PFS in my opinion.
GMs should never penalize players for completing faction missions.
Those are my two beliefs about PFS.
I see absolutely no benefit to enforcing alignments. None. Forcing alignment change is the equivalent to a GM telling players what they think or telling them what they do. It is a violation and the player has no recourse. If I know the GM I might have some inkling as to their belief system, perhaps alignments have some place in home games, but if I join a PFS game with a GM I've never met before I shouldn't have to worry that something I perceive as a neutral act would be perceived by him as an evil act and thus force an alignment change.
Supposing we captured a CE bad guy and we made him give us information, should I worry that the DM is going to view this as torture? Supposing we executed him for his crimes (as well as for his unprovoked attack on us) should I worry that this is an evil act as well? Suddenly the two acts which I think are very grey but the DM calls evil force an alignment change? This is not something I want to debate at the table or on the message-boards later. I know there are people who will agree or disagree with me. I don't want to waste time on the debate.
As for penalizing players for completing faction mission: I can't even believe that someone would do such a thing. It blows the mind. Invite someone into your home, tell them the rules to monopoly, and then fine them for passing Go because you feel that there needs to be taxes. Later wonder why they don't want to play monopoly any more. With any luck the player just won't want to play monopoly with you, but in all likelihood the bad experience could turn them off the game completely.
I do agree that the writers need to be careful when designing faction missions, assassination missions should be given sparingly (and then only when the target is truly evil) but it's not up to the GM to punish players for poor game design. You want to be a proactive GM? ...
I do not think I could possibly agree more with this post!
+1000|
|
After getting a chance to catch up on the thread, a few thoughts/clarifications.
A lot of people are discussing executions. The faction mission in the OP is not an execution.
In my earlier post, I did not suggest that I would declare a character unplayable for performing one evil faction mission (tho I did say that I may strip a paladinhood). I do believe that such acts should be tracked, however, and that a consistent pattern of inappropriate behaviour should be dealt with. I certainly do not believe that a character should be declared unplayable without any prior warning by a GM.
In answer to Matthew M (and others), yes, I believe that this also applies to other characters with alignment restrictions. One of my biggest PFS regrets was not having a serious alignment discussion with the player of a monk after one of my sessions. However, I do not believe that Good acts need to be tracked - they do not offset a consistent pattern of evil acts, and the only character which would mechanically suffer from being "too Good" is a cleric of an evil deity (and they tend not to err too far on the side of Good).
For the overwhelming majority of players, this is not even an issue. Most players are far harder on themselves, alignment-wise, than a typical GM is. However, when you run a large number of PFS sessions, you will come across 1 or 2 who push things beyond reason.
If a player is given multiple warnings, yet continues to fudge dice rolls, or use illegal feats, or lie about their character's stats, I don't think that anyone would begrudge a GM for booting/banning the player. Why is it different if they are given multiple warnings, yet continue to ignore the rule against evil characters?
|
|
Agreed, and something I didn't emphasize enough previously I think. The key in this situation is GM consideration. If the GM agrees an action is Evil, the player needs to relent. A GM might seek opinion from the players, but ultimately holds the responsibility to make the call.Someone might get kicked out for being a bully, but it's not necessarily going to be the one who is disagreeing with you. There are six players and a DM at a typical table and each one wants to have fun. If your interpretation is causing the module to grind to a halt and animosity among the players, then if you continue to press an argument against the wishes of the other players and DM, then it is you who are acting like a bully.You are correct, they wouldn't be kicked our for PvP.
They would be kicked out (of the table or Society play) for breaking the "Do Not Bully Other Players" rule.
I feel that it depends on the situation.
Example 1: A player decides that their character deals with every adversary by torturing them for information and crippling them so they are never a threat to them again. The other players really are at issues with and their characters really can't tolerate this going on within their group, they aren't going to allow it. The GM agrees that this is stepping over the line within the society and that player will have to act differently if they wish to continue playing. If they don't correct their actions, they are excused from the table.
Example 2: A PC has gotten a message from his captain telling him that this target is a dire threat to his kingdom and that the PC must use all his means that he does not live to continue to cause more suffering. There is a paladin in the group that has taken a personal oath to never let an enemy be killed. The paladin ensures that the target doesn't die in battle by dealing non-lethal damage and when the first PC starts listing the crimes before administering the decreed judgment, the paladin steps in and refuses to let the other party member commit that action. The GM agrees with the paladin and says that completing the mission is an evil action that the paladin is completely within his rights to stop and if the PC actually completes their task, their alignment will possibly drop to evil and a black mark will be noted on all the characters who didn't interfere.
I agree with you the first example (the one you both referred to) the one player is being a bully.
But that isn't the example I have been dealing with for the duration of the thread. That is example 2, where it is the paladin who is being a bully followed by the GM supporting that bully's actions. There may be evil ways to complete a faction mission, but if you as a GM have to create scenarios where a faction mission isn't evil, I think you are just interpreting the faction mission incorrectly.
If you think that a faction mission by it's nature is evil, you should ignore any inclination to punish players for completing it because faction missions are for society play and are meant to be completed (or at least attempted) by almost all members of that faction.
Punishing players for working for one of the evil factions feels like wrong decision.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If completing faction missions hurts the character (for example by becoming evil and thus unplayable) or if you blackmail the players in not completing the faction mission and thus deprive their characters of associated rewards, then players will stop choosing this faction. And then you might as well stop writing missions for this faction.
If the rules (both explicit and implicit) of the game end up creating bad blood between players, it is the rules that need to be changed, not the players.
An example of implicit rules in PFS is that other PCs will help you complete your faction mission. At that time, there is a clear divide opening between the story and the characters on one part and the mission on the other part. It is this divide which allows for good characters of the Andoran faction to make sure that their target dies without them turning evil.
BTW, to the OP : next time, just make sure that no one goes out of his way to heal the target. As we all know, NPCs who went down in combat always die if only because even Good PCs just let them bleed to death without qualms (and without the slightest blemish on their alignment).
|
|
Why is it different if they are given multiple warnings, yet continue to ignore the rule against evil characters?In a world where 'good heroes' are more along the lines of serial killer vigilantes, good and evil are very fuzzy concepts.
I think that they are a little less fuzzy than many make them out to be, however.
BTW, Dennis, I really liked the scenario as a whole.
Please drop me an email at the address on my profile so we can discuss it in a spoiler-free environment.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
An example of implicit rules in PFS is that other PCs will help you complete your faction mission. At that time, there is a clear divide opening between the story and the characters on one part and the mission on the other part. It is this divide which allows for good characters of the Andoran faction to make sure that their target dies without them turning evil.
There is definitely a social contract for characters to assist each other when it makes sense. This shouldn't mean you assist another player when it goes against their character's alignment or even against your faction (or even your character concept). Maybe your Chelaxian character doesn't want to have anything to do with freeing legally obtained slaves.
Having scenario authors write missions with the assumption that characters will always have cooperation seriously limits the sort of things you can do in faction missions. The more constraints you put on authors the less opportunity there is for interesting, creative faction missions. People make choices about their characters and they should mean something.
My impression is Drano's complaints had less to do with the details of the mission or the fact that it was a solo mission and more to do with the fact that it the entire parties options for overcoming the problem.
Also, I know it's largely ignored but the guide (still) encourages players to keep faction missions secret.
|
|
I don't see how it can reasonably be argued that a player making a Good character using the definition provided in the game (and now especially if said player joins the Silver Crusade) can be considered bullying for playing that alignment. If that player believes an action is Evil and the GM supports that position, the character committing the act is beholden to abide by the rules of PFS for not playing Evil. A player that insists on being as Evil or close to it as possibly, rather, is the one building a dysfunctional character. I see no rule in PFS or in the Pathfinder source material that a character prohibiting another Pathfinder from committing an Evil act will be kicked out of the society. Can you cite this anywhere?
...
One of the most common forms of bullying I've seen has been, "I'm just playing my alignment." Just because you are lawful good, it doesn't mean that you get to determine what characters may or may not do. And we aren't talking about committing an evil act here, in this case it is something that the "good" player considers an evil action. There is a difference as they might equally think that sneak attack is an evil cowardly tactic and does his best to ensure that no allies can use sneak attack in the scenario he is in.
The character (in this situation) is not being kicked out for stopping another character for committing an evil act, but for deciding that what another player was committing an evil action and therefore doing everything in his power to ruin his faction mission. I believe there is a definite difference between these two.
My focus on where your line is because I feel that it is important, because with such a broad range, I have no idea if you or another GM will seemingly arbitrarily declare my character evil for having too much PP in the Cheliax faction. A lot of the declarations of what faction missions were evil have felt that arbitrary to me. I was honestly fine with GMs responding to evil actions in PFS until I saw this thread with yours and Chris Mortika comments because prior to that, I didn't think a GM would possibly kick my character out of the society for completing a faction mission that he didn't like.
While I am thankful for your sympathy of the game, the point of me relaying that story was to show my concern some GMs using some of your arguments are perfectly capable of abusing their powers and may have declared my character more evil for being in that party.
The faction missions is really what I think are most important. I'm replying so I can't really dig through the thread for what was said, so maybe I'm off here but I felt like it was being said that the City of Strangers mission was, by default, evil. That finishing him off after he had fallen would be an evil action. * I do feel that there was the implication that letting the target City of Strangers be killed (whether by party or by any other group in the city) may be considered to be an evil action. To me, it doesn't seem to be a evil action to administer justice (within the context of a fantasy setting) to the defeated enemy. I don't think that the action is good, but I don't believe that it becomes better by handing him off to some other authority to commit the same action. If other player(s) are pushing it so that they are refusing any avenue to complete that mission, I really do think it is just as reasonable for me to stop them from completing any of their faction missions (as in, I don't think it is reasonable).
The problem I have with saying that Good characters are allowed to interfere with questionable Cheliax or Sczarni missions is because those missions are for the Cheliax or Sczarni. With no doubt in my mind I can say that completing any Cheliax faction mission is something that helps an evil organization. This does not mean good characters get to deny any and all faction missions that any suspected Cheliax faction member attempts to commit any more than anyone else. If characters could mess with someone else's faction mission just because they didn't like the outcome, then I would say that it would result in the destruction of the peace the factions currently have.
*
And as for the Freemen, while it would make sense for Andoran to want to work with them eventually, it really does feel this is each of the factions first significant interactions with the people of Kaer Maga. Most of the messages sent to groups in the city feel like introductions and there is only one person that really seems to serve as a consistent contact for various factions and three of the factions use him (to different degrees of effectiveness). I wouldn't be surprised if Andoran had no official contact with the Freemen prior to this point, so I can't really see them them telling a character to drop any prisoners they have with during their first contact with the group.
I would like to compliment erian_7 for being patient and articulate. I don't necessarily agree with your position in its entirety, but you are consistently making your points clear in a polite and respectful way.
While I do still disagree with him, he has been doing pretty well in the last day and I'm thankful for that. Prior to that though, I wasn't really feeling the polite and respectful over the snark. I do feel that he has been better though and I hope that my posts may be cooling down now as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
In answer to Matthew M (and others), yes, I believe that this also applies to other characters with alignment restrictions. One of my biggest PFS regrets was not having a serious alignment discussion with the player of a monk after one of my sessions. However, I do not believe that Good acts need to be tracked - they do not offset a consistent pattern of evil acts, and the only character which would mechanically suffer from being "too Good" is a cleric of an evil deity (and they tend not to err too far on the side of Good).
Thank you Neil (do I call you Neil or K?)
The thing is for me, Law, Chaos, Good, Evil, all are equally powerful concepts in Pathfinder. And they are defined concepts, in the sense that spells work on them. Chaos Hammer/Holy Smite/Unholy Blight/Order's Wrath are all pretty much the same.
I'm just concerned that the attitude might develop of 'tracking the bad stuff only' So my hypothetical Lawful Neutral character would always have to worry about sliding to evil, and not sliding to good.
And yeah, it's a conflict of real world vs game world. In the real world, being evil (defining it as cruel, selfish, vindictive, etc) is easier than being good. Following the law is harder than being a 'free spirit'. In the game world, though, they are equal and opposite concepts. If killing helpless prisoners, torture, and tearing the tags off of matresses can drive you to evil, then feeding orphans, rescuing kittens from burning buildings and helping old ladies across the street should drive you to good.
For the Neutral characters then, it's not so much maintaining a score card as it is living your life in a balance, and accepting you're (likely) going to choose a side eventually.
|
In my earlier post, I did not suggest that I would declare a character unplayable for performing one evil faction missionNo, you said that a table GM would be perfectly within his rights to remove a character from the campaign for his character's actions.
Where does this GM get that right? I haven't found it in the campaign guide, and I've asked here on several occasions without anyone responding.
Likewise my question is: If the faction mission is 'evil' then why doesn't the scenario address it? If the campaign coordinators feel that a player completing this faction mission should 'get an evil point' then the scenario would detail that, wouldn't it?
I think that people are overstepping their bounds here, and frankly abusing the trust that the campaign coordinators put in the table GMs. There are calls that the coordinators make for the campaign that in a home campaign the DM would. A table judge, while they are entrusted with a lot of those DM roles, are not given those calls.
When I judge a PFS session I don't say 'here are the house rules that we'll be using' or say 'sure go ahead and rebuild your character or swap that item out cause it's been changed' rather those calls are left to the campaign administration.
-James
Perhaps a GM doesn't have the right to remove a character from the campaign, but they are well within their rights to remove a player from a table for not following the rules of the campaign. The same as Don't be a Jerk, if a player is violating one of the tenants of the campaign, they can be removed.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a GM doesn't have the right to remove a character from the campaign, but they are well within their rights to remove a player from a table for not following the rules of the campaign. The same as Don't be a Jerk, if a player is violating one of the tenants of the campaign, they can be removed.
The Don't Be a Jerk rule applies to the GM as well!!
If a player is a disruption he should be removed from the table.
If a GM over steps his authority, tweaks the enemies, fudges the dice consistantly in the enemies favor, attempts to mark an 'evil act' on a cert ect..
What is the recourse for the player?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The Don't Be a Jerk rule applies to the GM as well!!
+1
There are lots of great GMs out there with their players' best interests in mind, and some of them are on the boards. Then there is a segment of megalomaniacs who GM just so they can power trip on some too-easily-granted authority and punish any player who doesn't cater to their gaming preferences. And that group is extremely vocal on Paizo's messageboards.
Hopefully new players like nosig can learn to tell them apart and not be scared off.
|
|
The Don't Be a Jerk rule applies to the GM as well!!+1
There are lots of great GMs out there with their players' best interests in mind, and some of them are on the boards. Then there is a segment of megalomaniacs who GM just so they can power trip on some too-easily-granted authority and punish any player who doesn't cater to their gaming preferences. And that group is extremely vocal on Paizo's messageboards.
Hopefully new players like nosig can learn to tell them apart and not be scared off.
I don't know that I'd go that far. I've met some of these GM's you refer to, and I don't feel that any of them are megalomaniacal jerks that just want to screw with players.
They have a very clear idea of what should and should not be considered evil, and a very clear idea of what they should and should not do about it.
I disagree with their ideas. But I wouldn't go so far as to call them jerks. I think they may be going over the top in their adjudication on some things though.
Perhaps a GM doesn't have the right to remove a character from the campaign, but they are well within their rights to remove a player from a table for not following the rules of the campaign. The same as Don't be a Jerk, if a player is violating one of the tenants of the campaign, they can be removed.The Don't Be a Jerk rule applies to the GM as well!!
If a player is a disruption he should be removed from the table.
If a GM over steps his authority, tweaks the enemies, fudges the dice consistantly in the enemies favor, attempts to mark an 'evil act' on a cert ect..
What is the recourse for the player?
Ultimately, walk away from the table. Refuse the chronicle. Don't game with that GM again.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The Don't Be a Jerk rule applies to the GM as well!!+1
There are lots of great GMs out there with their players' best interests in mind, and some of them are on the boards. Then there is a segment of megalomaniacs who GM just so they can power trip on some too-easily-granted authority and punish any player who doesn't cater to their gaming preferences. And that group is extremely vocal on Paizo's messageboards.
Hopefully new players like nosig can learn to tell them apart and not be scared off.
I don't know that I'd go that far. I've met some of these GM's you refer to, and I don't feel that any of them are megalomaniacal jerks that just want to screw with players.
They have a very clear idea of what should and should not be considered evil, and a very clear idea of what they should and should not do about it.
I disagree with their ideas. But I wouldn't go so far as to call them jerks. I think they may be going over the top in their adjudication on some things though.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh. Re-reading my wording, I did get a bit heavy. The segment I described exists, but I think I may have overstated their presence a bit. I can get nasty when I see an innocent player getting crucified just because of some people's... okay, I can feel it coming back again, so I'd better stop.
Anyway, my apologies to anyone I offended with that post. I have a rather protective nature, and nosig's experiences at GenCon and in this thread kind of push a berserk button on me. Probably spilling into my posts on other threads today and yesterday too. Blech. :(
EDIT: And holy crap this isn't even the thread about nosig's bad experience with a GM at GenCon! Blaaarrrgh!
|
And this isn't an issue of good and evil. Take a look at the Paladin's code of conduct. If you don't have any problems with a paladin willfully poisoning a guy, then why bother having conduct restrictions on the class at all?
What if he tricks a devil or vampire into drinking holy water?
(John Constantine-style)To those creatures, holy water is poison.
<takes cat>
<throws among the pigeons>
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What if he tricks a devil or vampire into drinking holy water? (John Constantine-style) To those creatures, holy water is poison.
Hey there, Snorter. Everything I say in this post is my opinion and little more.
I wouldn't list holy water as a poison. It's more like acid or alchemist's fire. It does hit point damage rather than attribute damage, for example.
In any case, look at the paladin's code. Do you think the character is behaving deceitfully? (I wouldn't, unless the paladin flat-out lies about the vial.) Do you think that tricking a devil constitutes honorable combat? If you think the maneuver violates the paladins code, then there you go.
It's not just to be employed when convenient, or when it describes what a paladin would probably do anyway. It's a pledge of behavior standards.
|
|
One of the most common forms of bullying I've seen has been, "I'm just playing my alignment." Just because you are lawful good, it doesn't mean that you get to determine what characters may or may not do.
Well, actually, yes it does.
If you are a police officer, you have a moral, ethical, and legal authority, and duty, to intercede if you witness a crime being committed.
Some actions require a warrant, but some can rely on the discretion of the officer in the field.
I'd put a paladin or cleric of a LG deity on a similar standing as a law officer. You can't just sit back, and watch evil activities taking place, remarking on how it's 'diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks'.
|
|
I wouldn't list holy water as a poison. It's more like acid or alchemist's fire. It does hit point damage rather than attribute damage, for example.
That's OK, I was just being silly.
I consider holy water as being something that can be used indiscriminately, since its effects are tailored to select only deserving targets. IMO, you could carpet-bomb the battlefield with it, and it'd be a case of 'kill'em all, let the gods sort'em out.'.
A better example would be, what is the difference between, say Con-damage poison, or a sneak Con-bleed effect?
A LG Rogue could dish out the latter all day long, but be slid toward being on Mephistopholes' Christmas Card List from one application of the former. What's the theological justification?
|
|
The problem I have with saying that Good characters are allowed to interfere with questionable Cheliax or Sczarni missions is because those missions are for the Cheliax or Sczarni. With no doubt in my mind I can say that completing any Cheliax faction mission is something that helps an evil organization. This does not mean good characters get to deny any and all faction missions that any suspected Cheliax faction member attempts to commit any more than anyone else. If characters could mess with someone else's faction mission just because they didn't like the outcome, then I would say that it would result in the destruction of the peace the factions currently have.
Maybe I'm just being dense why this thread even exists, but how are the members of these other factions constantly getting the opportunity to mess with the Cheliax/Sczarni missions?
It would seem to me, that if you have a mission that calls for some blatantly criminal act (or that could be construed as such by an observer), then the obvious conclusion to be drawn is to make sure you carry it out secretly. (Dennis' comments bear this out, when he confirms the DC was set deliberately low, to allow for the fact that one PC may be acting solo.)
You can't complain that you were just about to walk up to a bound prisoner, and slit his throat, and get pissy because someone stops you.
What do you expect?
As a GM, I'd be ticking off the evilometer for those PCs if they didn't punch your lights out.
You can't go running to the Venture Captain, because a paladin stopped you fireballing an orphanage, or a cleric healed the beggar whose legs you broke.
Maybe it's a problem that too many GMs aren't allowing solo time, and assuming that all PCs get whisked around the scenario, joined at the hip?
|
|
Well, actually, yes it does.
If you are a police officer, you have a moral, ethical, and legal authority, and duty, to intercede if you witness a crime being committed.
Except that preventing another player from completeing a mission is prohibitted.
Do the Paladins and other self-rightous characters want my CN Sorc to start objecting to thier missions to save others and do good around the world.
If you want to Be LG then maybe a Neutral Organization isn't the place for you.
Lawful Good Does not mean always right
A break for work (plus playing some Wizard 101 with my son last night.)...
Too many responses in general to quote them all, so I figured simply summarizing my position and recommendations would be good since this has gone on for so many posts.
But first...
Erian, I apologize. After reading through this entire thread, I may have misremembered some of your posts, or attributed arguments by others to you, and that is not fair. The feeling that I had was that you were saying that a good character would not kill a helpless character. The way I see it is that a good character would not usually kill a helpless character.
Thanks! I appreciate the consideration and acknowledge I myself was getting frustrated (and it showed in some posts) with people continuing to attribute things to me I had not said or otherwise assume broad generalizations about my GM/play style.
Now, for the summary I want to first go to the OP's original situation and request. After playing in scenarios involving Good characters and questionable faction missions, a request was made to "please get faction missions that don't have such a high risk of tearing a table apart" and the scenario also brought up (at least for me) the question of whether a Good character has the right to interfere in a faction mission. Also, please note that I am not addressing whether a player can be sanctioned for Evil actions--that discussion is occurring in another thread. My focus is specifically on the tension between Good characters and Evil actions, and further whether characters can interfere with faction missions. There is a side result of this in questioning whether the fact that an action is part of a faction mission can be used to obviate considering it Evil.
Some relevant PFS material for consideration in the topic:
Alignment (Relevant section being "No evil alignments are allowed in Pathfinder Society Organized Play." This is the the only major statement about Evil in the guide, with a secondary note that "Characters may elect to worship an evil god, but must always be within one alignment step of their chosen deity.)
Faction Secrecy (Relevant section being "While players are encouraged to use creativity to successfully complete faction missions, open hostility against characters of other factions is absolutely forbidden.")
No Player-versus-Player Combat (Summarized as "never voluntarily use your character to kill another character—ever" and so dealing mainly with actual lethal combat. Also implies restricting lesser conflict with the statement "Player-versus-player conflict only sours a session." but it's important to note that this primarily deals with actual combat.)
Do Not Bully Other Players (Summarized as "Do not push other players around just because your character can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated." This rule specifically addresses "doing everything in your power to make another character look like an idiot or to undo everything that character is trying to accomplish" and authorizes GMs/coordinators to remove the player from the table.)
Now, given these items, consider a scenario where one player has a paladin, obviously legal for play in PFS and with a moral code that adheres specifically to the definitions of Good and Evil found in the core rules:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
This covers the actual rules that define alignment in the game, and so the player can consider this a reasonable baseline/expectation for playing his paladin. The player sits down with another player using a Cheliax character that is Chaotic Neutral. For ease of consideration (there are complications to the scenario discussed earlier, such as the paladin's faction handing out a mission that seems to require Evil actions to complete), the Cheliax character decides to perform what the player of the paladin considers an Evil act using the rules above. The action is being taken in order to ensure success on the Cheliax faction mission.
And the big question from the scenario:
Does the paladin have a right to oppose the action of the other character on grounds that the action is perceived as Evil?
I say yes, given that the GM also agrees that the action can reasonably be judged as Evil under the rules of the game. While this seems to conflict with the Faction Secrecy requirement and perhaps PvP, the Cheliax player needs to understand that Evil is not an allowed alignment in the game and so should find another way to complete the faction mission. The Pathfinder Society is not a Good organization, and does indeed have Evil elements, but PFS specifically restricts Evil more than any other alignment. I believe PFS gives more credence to Good characters upholding their beliefs (both by the inclusion of Good alignments and especially paladins as well as the recent addition of the Silver Crusade) than to other players choosing to commit Evil acts (as supported by the Alignment restriction). If the GM determines an act is Evil, the player needs to find another action to complete the faction mission. Invoking a stance that "faction missions are always allowed/allow any actions" is not enough to warrant disregarding alignment or requiring other characters to compromise when a GM supports the opposition.
There are other issues that arise from this basic scenario, but this is my basic stance. All players, GMs, and authors need to utilize the alignment rules as reasonable guidelines for defining actions as Good or Evil. Players that want to engage often in morally gray actions need to understand that such actions may, at times, be judged as Evil by a GM and so must be prepared to accommodate other views. In like manner, some GMs may determine that a paladin (or other Good character) is incorrect in labeling an action as Evil. The GM has the final say, and all players need to respect that and move on in order to ensure maximum enjoyment for all.
Side issues arising from this include:
Should factions such as Cheliax and the Sczarni even be allowed? (I say if we're going to allow them, we should allow Evil characters so the factions can be realistically portrayed. Yes, I know that introduces huge complications for running PFS, but I see it as the "best" option with regard to making the factions fully realized. If we're not going to allow Evil characters in a faction headed by devils, well, that's just asking for trouble in the Good characters vs. these folks.)
Should faction missions include acts that can reasonably be judged as Evil? (I say no, as this provides too much potential for player/GM conflict given the broad spectrum of opinions on alignment. As above, if PFS wants to allow "hurting, oppressing, and killing others [with] no compassion [or] "out of duty to some evil deity or master" then PFS should also allow Evil alignments as that is the by-the-book definition of Evil in Pathfinder. If a faction mission involves torture, provoking someone to fight and then killing that person, inciting violence that can kill bystanders, etc. it's just too easy for many players and GMs to see this as Evil. If questionable missions are included, the author and PFS should ensure details are provided on how a GM can handle situations that can arise from alignment disputes. Yes, this requires more word count.)
Can a GM utilize the Reward Creative Solutions clause to modify faction missions such that a Good character can realistically accomplish the goal, for instance when an older Andoran mission is converted to use for the Silver Crusade but requires actions a paladin would never commit? (I say yes as this ensures maximum fun/playability for those at the table. A better solution is for faction missions to not be as one-dimensional as generally presented. Give open-ended options that can be interpreted as necessary by players to foster better gaming without the need for conflict. If a faction mission is actually supposed to foster characters having moral conflict with completion specifically note this in the scenario with notice that many players may refuse!)
I'm sure there are others, but that's the basics I've come to over the last three days...
|
|
Maybe it's a problem that too many GMs aren't allowing solo time, and assuming that all PCs get whisked around the scenario, joined at the hip?
I think you hit the nail on the head here. Oftentimes slots are run so close to when they need to be done (whether at a con, or limited time at a store or home) that there doesn’t become a ton of time to accomplish the solo missions. So rather than roleplaying it and trying to come up with some creative way to solve the problem, it boils down to a roll. Oh, you failed, ok, no PA.
|
|
Ok a word on bullying and alignment.
The short: Bullying should never happen and using your alignment as an excuse should NEVER happen in a game let alone an organized campaign such as PFS.
The not so short: It is a game. Be creative and develop rich in depth characters. Not one dimensional card board cut outs. Face the fact the your good character may have to stand back and witness an evil act every now and then. No one says they have to like it or be happy about it. They make even have to commit questionable acts. Sometimes they are left with nothing but bad options. Again they do not have to be happy about it or like it. Heck my Paladin has twice sought Atonement voluntarily. not because of a GM ruling, but because afterwards he questioned his actions and was ashamed and saddened.
Also if you are going to pick an option that has some built in role playing pitfalls then you should have a plan for dealing with it. For example, a Paladin in PFS is going to regularly be apart of or near questionable activities. The PFS is not a Good organization as a whole. So to avoid the "Don't be a Jerk" rule, consider how to handle them before you sit down to play. Personally I went with the low INT and no ranks in sense motive, so people can just lie to him a lot. There has been more than a little humor at the table over things characters have been able to convince him of. ("He over powered me and shot himself in the face with my crossbow. I think it is a local custom in order to redeem themselves to their god for having sinned. Weird huh??")
There is also nothing wrong with just explaining yourself and then giving in. Tell the Gm and the other players that your character would NOT be OK with the situation, but you do not want to hold up the game or make a big fuss. As much as we all dislike being railroaded, we all have to ride along just a little bit. This is true more so in a shared campaign like PFS. I would rather finish a game having compromised my vision for my character with some alignment issues then create a problem at a table.
And all this goes double for a GM. They must realize the compromises must be made. Fun is more important than alignment lines in the sand. (Not an Osirion joke btw)