For the paladin, I'm not clear on how handing a villain over to a Lawful Good authority is supposed to be unusual, and I've previously noted my primary concern with this faction mission being the weird emphasis on killing, with no explanation of why, versus offering other reasonable paths for Good characters. I've already said I'd be offering up alternate solutions. So again, we seem to be going round and round here and I'm not sure what the purpose is.
Find me a lawful good authority with the means to properly hold a trial and I will gladly have every character in that town who is even remotely non-chaotic turn over the villain to them.
LG power structures are rare. Most towns would be lucky to have centralized authorities that can handle prisoners on the scale of what PCs deal with. Combine these two unfortunate realities of a fantasy town, and suddenly its not so easy to just hand off the bad guys. If lawful good authorities existed everywhere, the Andorans would be happily unemployed.
I have heard of one specific group from City of Strangers that would gladly do Andoran dirty work, but what about everywhere else in Golarian?
Do these characters know which authorities will carry out the justice that the Andoran faction deems fit? What if the sheriff decides that he doesn't have the evidence to actually do anything? What if the local law is more anti-pathfinder than anything else, and lets the villains go because they are convinced that the pathfinders are just a bunch of trouble makers? What if the law tries to arrest the characters for their obvious involvement in a near-lethal conflict? How does the constable know that the PCs aren't just a bunch of bad guys who wanted to cover their tracks by setting up the actual good guys?
Offering the cheap and easy solution of "rightful authorities" is in blatant disregard for the hundreds of hours that went into building the setting.
For the by-laws you quote, for some particular reason they got thrown out the window when one faction ordered the Pathfinder to kill another Pathfinder.
Are you referring to a kill quest against a member of the shadow lodge in season 2? Because in less I'm mistaken, the shadow lodge was an insurrection against the pathfinders, and weren't considered a faction at the time nearly as much as spies and traitors.
For some reason, it's okay to break the clause for a faction mission, but not when a paladin sees another character trying to murder random people and tries to stop him. Really? That's your defense here? It's obvious to me that there is expectation of conflict between the factions. It's written into the scenarios and factions themselves (the Silver Crusade is noted as "oppos[ing] factions who would drag the Society’s reputation through the mud in search of glory, and striv[ing] constantly to raise the morals of their fellow Pathfinders." There is a faction specifically noted as opposing others and trying to impose higher morals. I'm not going to suspend that just for the party so some character can be sure his Evil plot gets executed successfully in full view of the paladin. The Faction Secrecy section specifically notes that the Society turns its view from things so long as open hostility doesn't break out. So, if you don't want opposition then abide by the secrecy requirement...
Thank you for pointing out to me that the Silver Crusade is specifically designed to be the faction most oriented toward Player v Player conflict. Its good to know that when enough people whine that they can't be goody-goody paladins and still reap all the rewards, a group antagonistic to the rest of the players is formed just for them. I will be sure not to play at tables with members of this faction if ever possible.
Find me a lawful good authority with the means to properly hold a trial and I will gladly have every character in that town who is even remotely non-chaotic turn over the villain to them.
LG power structures are rare. Most towns would be lucky to have centralized authorities that can handle prisoners on the scale of what PCs deal with. Combine these two unfortunate realities of a fantasy town, and suddenly its not so easy to just hand off the bad guys. If lawful good authorities existed everywhere, the Andorans would be happily unemployed.
I have heard of one specific group from City of Strangers that would gladly do Andoran dirty work, but what about everywhere else in Golarian?
Do these characters know which authorities will carry out the justice that the Andoran faction deems fit? What if the sheriff decides that he doesn't have the evidence to actually do anything? What if the local law is more anti-pathfinder than anything else, and lets the villains go because they are convinced that the pathfinders are just a bunch of trouble makers? What if the law tries to arrest the characters for their obvious involvement in a near-lethal conflict? How does the constable know that the PCs aren't just a bunch of bad guys who wanted to cover their tracks by setting up the actual good guys?
Offering the cheap and easy solution of "rightful authorities" is in blatant disregard for the hundreds of hours that went into building the setting.
Well, that's a pretty easy assignment for this scenario--the Lawful Good authority is the only one universally respected by all other organizations in the city...that's not disregarding the setting material, it's using it. In scenarios without a viable authority, the paladin gets to keep a prisoner until they get back to civilization. Recall again, I don't believe paladins get the easy way out.
If the table has enough time and the players enjoy it, I'll happily delve into the details of a trial. If not, I'll summarize the results and move on just like I would any number of other situations. That's what is required in organized play sometimes.
Are you referring to a kill quest against a member of the shadow lodge in season 2? Because in less I'm mistaken, the shadow lodge was an insurrection against the pathfinders, and weren't considered a faction at the time nearly as much as spies and traitors.
No, in the module the faction leader would have had no knowledge of the Shadowlodge (or else he sent his man into a potential deathtrap with no warning). He simply ordered the death of another known Pathfinder. That wasn't very cooperative.
Thank you for pointing out to me that the Silver Crusade is specifically designed to be the faction most oriented toward Player v Player conflict. Its good to know that when enough people whine that they can't be goody-goody paladins and still reap all the rewards, a group antagonistic to the rest of the players is formed just for them. I will be sure not to play at tables with members of this faction if ever possible.
I do agree this faction, especially in combination with Cheliax and the Sczarni, is a ripe situation for conflict. That specifically illustrates why I believe PFS needs to take care in crafting faction missions in order to minimize this. If they took out every kill/torture mission it wouldn't hurt the campaign in my opinion. Not if they are going to continue prohibiting Evil characters at least.
|
For the by-laws you quote, for some particular reason they got thrown out the window when one faction ordered the Pathfinder to kill another Pathfinder. For some reason, it's okay to break the clause for a faction mission, but not when a paladin sees another character trying to murder random people and tries to stop him. Really? That's your defense here? It's obvious to me that there is expectation of conflict between the factions. It's written into the scenarios and factions themselves. The Silver Crusade--added because people wanted to play even more good guys!--is noted as "oppos[ing] factions who would drag the Society’s reputation through the mud in search of glory, and striv[ing] constantly to raise the morals of their fellow Pathfinders." Let me repeat that....
First, there isn't a single faction mission that I've seen yet that requires you to kill a member of the Pathfinder Society. I believe that the faction missions that you are mentioning have you kill characters that have broken off from the Pathfinder Society and are no longer Pathfinders by the time you first see them.
Also, there is nothing in what you said in the Silver Crusade that says that they can break one of the most important rules that the Society holds. You completely making that up. They have no more ability to break the "cooperate" rule as do Taldor and Qadira faction members can for each other.
But if you can show me where it exactly says that the Silver Crusade is exempt from the cooperate rule because what you quoted is not it. That says that they oppose the other factions (of course, all the faction oppose one another) and that they are trying to raise the morals of fellow Pathfinders. It does not say, "you are given permission by the Pathfinder Society to ignore any rules that you want."
Once again, all you have to do is quote the rule saying that people can ignore the "cooperate" rule.
First, there isn't a single faction mission that I've seen yet that requires you to kill a member of the Pathfinder Society. I believe that the faction missions that you are mentioning have you kill characters that have broken off from the Pathfinder Society and are no longer Pathfinders by the time you first see them.
Also, there is nothing in what you said in the Silver Crusade that says that they can break one of the most important rules that the Society holds. You completely making that up. They have no more ability to break the "cooperate" rule as do Taldor and Qadira faction members can for each other.
But if you can show me where it exactly says that the Silver Crusade is exempt from the cooperate rule because what you quoted is not it. That says that they oppose the other factions (of course, all the faction oppose one another) and that they are trying to raise the morals of fellow Pathfinders. It does not say, "you are given permission by the Pathfinder Society to ignore any rules that you want."
Once again, all you have to do is quote the rule saying that people can ignore the "cooperate" rule.
Unfortunately the faction mission does just that. Here's the exact text with redaction:
The letter specifically acknowledges the target as a Pathfinder and then orders him killed. Heck, I'd never even thought of it this way but the characters should reject the mission based solely on being decent Pathfinders! He has no regard for the Cooperation by-law of the Society and he instructs his people in ignoring said rule. And again, if everyone is supposed to be nice and helpful, there wouldn't be a Faction Secrecy clause and ultimately everyone would just be in the same faction.
We can go round and round with tit-for-tat issues but it's not going to change the central issue--conflict will arise and the GM has the right to adjudicate that conflict. I'm still not really even clear on what your purpose is--is it to convince me the error of my ways? Mandate that all GMs have to allow all players to do anything they want for the good of cooperation (and if that's the case why ban Evil)? Can you state what it is exactly you hope to accomplish here?
|
|
Unfortunately the faction mission does just that. Here's the exact text with redaction:
** spoiler omitted **
The letter specifically acknowledges the target as a Pathfinder and then orders him killed. Heck, I'd never even thought of it this way but the characters should reject the mission based solely on being decent Pathfinders! He has no regard for the Cooperation by-law of the Society and he instructs his people in ignoring said rule. And again, if everyone is supposed to be nice and helpful, there wouldn't be a Faction Secrecy clause and ultimately everyone would just be in the same...
Actually, you have no idea what the person knows. He may already know that the person is not a Pathfinder and is merely restricting that information in the letter to avoid his actual knowledge of his betrayal from possibly being leaked. There are other clear missions where the faction leader lies or withholds the truth for the good of the Pathfinder Society.
Since the last quote I made from the Guide, I'm not sure why there is any argument, it is clear that the party members are supposed to not interfere with each others affairs, and that the GM should support that (that doesn't mean that the GM can't sanction someone for going beyond the scope of the faction mission to commit definite evil, but that is a different issue). What I tend to accomplish right now is try to make it clear to as many GMs as possible that allowing characters to fight over faction missions is completely wrong. I have posted rules to support that. One may argue that those rules should change, but the rules as the stand that the party must cooperate with each other.
I actually thought you were doing well until the last few posts until I posted that quote, then you seemed to just lose any coherent logical argument using the rules and it became how you feel the rules should be instead. When you said, "Really? That's your defense here?" I thought it was just ridiculous. I have an actual quote from the guide about one of the core rules of the society, and then you dismissed it with a handwave and a far-fetched interpretation of the Silver Crusades goals.
The Pathfinder Society Organized Play isn't about party members fighting party members directly or indirectly and his never been. I'm not sure why you are trying to promote that to change right now.
First of all, let me say that my real issue here and the reason I continue arguing is that to me, you are clearly favoring good characters, and penalizing the neutral ones for not being as good.
Well, that's a pretty easy assignment for this scenario--the Lawful Good authority is the only one universally respected by all other organizations in the city...that's not disregarding the setting material, it's using it. In scenarios without a viable authority, the paladin gets to keep a prisoner until they get back to civilization. Recall again, I don't believe paladins get the easy way out.
If the table has enough time and the players enjoy it, I'll happily delve into the details of a trial. If not, I'll summarize the results and move on just like I would any number of other situations. That's what is required in organized play sometimes.
In this first section of quoted text you failed to name a single LG authority.
You then further announced that you would expect the character to do the 'right thing', but would hand waive the entire process if the players don't enjoy it.
I do agree this faction, especially in combination with Cheliax and the Sczarni, is a ripe situation for conflict. That specifically illustrates why I believe PFS needs to take care in crafting faction missions in order to minimize this. If they took out every kill/torture mission it wouldn't hurt the campaign in my opinion. Not if they are going to continue prohibiting Evil characters at least.
I would like to point out that when challenged with the argument that the Silver Crusade is prone to table conflict, you responded by basically saying that if other factions weren't naughty, then they wouldn't have to reprimand them. This is a clear example of shifting the blame from the perpetrator to the victim. You can easily say that in the game world, the Sczarni and Chelish agents are the bad ones, but at the play table, their players are the victims of Silver Crusade bullies.
And the second bold portion of the quote is simply ridiculous. It is your opinion, but it is still ridiculous. Did you support the editing of E.T. where they replaced all the guns with walkie-talkies? Because that is pretty comparable to your stance on removing the kill missions. I will cede that the torture missions can go, but if the Sczarnis, a known crime family stop having their dudes kill people, they would look more like care-bear villains than an actual crime family.
|
Heck, I'd never even thought of it this way but the characters should reject the mission based solely on being decent Pathfinders!
This may simply be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read on these forums. Decent Pathfinders? ROFL
Pathfinders are not the good guys. They manipulate governments, invade foreign lands, break into their tombs and vaults and steal their artifacts. If we played by with your view on alinments then really no good character would ever be a member of the organization.
If good people are obligated to throw themselves in front of every acts they witness that is not within strict adherence to their own definition of Good, then they will be very busy and likely get themselves killed very quickly.
If a GM/Player in a shared campaign can not recognize that people are going to have different opinions on alignments and have the RIGHT to have different views, then yes that person is being the jerk. It is the same as saying that "everyone has to agree with me and play my way or I will seek to punish you".
Actually, you have no idea what the person knows. He may already know that the person is not a Pathfinder and is merely restricting that information in the letter to avoid his actual knowledge of his betrayal from possibly being leaked. There are other clear missions where the faction leader lies or withholds the truth for the good of the Pathfinder Society.
The fact that the leader knows and lies, or doesn't know, is irrelevant to the fact that he clearly expects one Pathfinder to not cooperate with another, to the point of killing that Pathfinder. The character has now way of knowing either way and so is expected to work directly against that other Pathfinder solely on the word of the faction leader. Indeed, if the faction leader had wanted to give even some semblance of credibility to supporting cooperation and non-interference he could have claimed the target was an ex-Pathfinder. He did not. Until you can figure out some way that this mission in any way coincides with Pathfinder cooperation, it can't possibly help your cause.
Since the last quote I made from the Guide, I'm not sure why there is any argument, it is clear that the party members are supposed to not interfere with each others affairs, and that the GM should support that (that doesn't mean that the GM can't sanction someone for going beyond the scope of the faction mission to commit definite evil, but that is a different issue). What I tend to accomplish right now is try to make it clear to as many GMs as possible that allowing characters to fight over faction missions is completely wrong. I have posted rules to support that. One may argue that those rules should change, but the rules as the stand that the party must cooperate with each other.
Okay, so your position is that no character may interfere with another character, but only when said character is engaged in a faction mission. It's demonstrably true that certain characters--such as paladins losing their powers--can be directly punished by allowing certain actions. I've also clearly shown, from the rules, that faction missions are to be kept secret, that player's should use creativity to ensure they are completed, and that the actual prohibition is against open hostility (which is also covered under PvP) as stated in Faction Secrecy. So, until such time as the campaign management comes down and says to ignore all alignment rules while faction missions are underway, and further to inform all players when a faction mission is in order, I find your position untenable.
I actually thought you were doing well until the last few posts until I posted that quote, then you seemed to just lose any coherent logical argument using the rules and it became how you feel the rules should be instead. When you said, "Really? That's your defense here?" I thought it was just ridiculous. I have an actual quote from the guide about one of the core rules of the society, and then you dismissed it with a handwave and a far-fetched interpretation of the Silver Crusades goals.
The Pathfinder Society Organized Play isn't about party members fighting party members directly or indirectly and his never been. I'm not sure why you are trying to promote that to change right now.
Yes, I was getting tired last night and not fully supporting all of my positions. I'm back on my game today. The rules you cite note that
If Pathfinder Society games are to entirely ignore the alignment that needs to be clearly stated in the guide, and this clearly makes the "no Evil" alignment restriction meaningless. I will not that the PvP rules, which specifically only restrict killing another character (and I would reasonably expand that to using lethal force against another character). It specifically states that the player should find another means of expressing disagreement. So long, then, as the player does not chose a lethal action against a character he is free to do what seems appropriate for his own character.
I believe you and others in your camp need to come to some reasonable stance with regard to completing faction missions versus committing Evil acts. That is the problem in this thread after all. If your character is not committing an Evil act in the performance of his faction mission, after all, I've already stated there are no grounds for stopping the action from a GM perspective. And even this does not obviate the need for secrecy in faction missions. So, is your position that any Evil act is justified in completing a faction mission, and if so how do you align that with the alignment restrictions of the game? A page or two ago I specifically asked for all party members to make reasonable compromise--it sounds to me like you are of the opinion that those characters committing Evil acts have no need to compromise or hide said actions from the other characters.
First of all, let me say that my real issue here and the reason I continue arguing is that to me, you are clearly favoring good characters, and penalizing the neutral ones for not being as good.
No, I've actually clearly stated, multiple times, that I believe both Good and Neutral are perfectly acceptable states for PFS games and that I would support such actions (even telling paladins to stand down) so that the game can be enjoyed and we all move on. My specific opposition is to blatant Evil done in the sight of others with the expectation that this Evil be hand-waved with the excuse "But it's a faction mission!" Not being Good is a very different thing from being Evil. If a character wants to commit non-Evil acts that still cause problems (stealing, cheating, lying, etc.) I hold it is perfectly reasonable for the character to do so. However, if the character is bad at it he needs to be prepared to face the consequences of his failed actions from those around him.
So, no I am clearly not against Neutral actions. As above, if your position is that characters can perform Evil actions in view of everyone or with full knowledge thereof, you need to clearly state that and provide support for that position.
In this first section of quoted text you failed to name a single LG authority.
You then further announced that you would expect the character to do the 'right thing', but would hand waive the entire process if the players don't enjoy it.
Sorry, I assumed from your previous posts you are familiar with this setting material and so looked to avoid spoilers. Here is your named organization.
I'm unclear on what your second statement means. If I have provided the players with options, they have their characters select an option in lie with their character concept, and then for the interests of a constrained time frame (for instance at a con) I summarize the results and we move on that's a bad thing? As noted earlier, I'm not at the table to teach players my own moral code. I'm there to enforce the rules of the game and ensure everyone has as much fun as possible.
I would like to point out that when challenged with the argument that the Silver Crusade is prone to table conflict, you responded by basically saying that if other factions weren't naughty, then they wouldn't have to reprimand them. This is a clear example of shifting the blame from the perpetrator to the victim. You can easily say that in the game world, the Sczarni and Chelish agents are the bad ones, but at the play table, their players are the victims of Silver Crusade bullies.
And the second bold portion of the quote is simply ridiculous. It is your opinion, but it is still ridiculous. Did you support the editing of E.T. where they replaced all the guns with walkie-talkies? Because that is pretty comparable to your stance on removing the kill missions. I will cede that the torture missions can go, but if the Sczarnis, a known crime family stop having their dudes kill people, they would look more like care-bear villains than an actual crime family.
Let's keep this in context of the thread topic--Evil acts. As I've stated support for Good and Neutral actions, Evil is clearly the issue. That's not "naughty" and I clearly stated earlier I would not allow a paladin, for instance, to claim Evil on a character for lying, stealing, or cheating. My stance is clearly "if you commit an Evil act, other players and the GM have a right to oppose you." So again, be specific. If you are implying I won't let players play morally gray characters that is a very different position from not allowing Evil characters thinly veiled as Neutral.
For the second part...you read the rest of my sentence, and my numerous calls throughout this thread, for allowing Evil characters right? My position is not "let's make the PFS a happy-happy-rainbow-land" but rather "let's allow characters as they'd actually be" in order to make it as realistically playable as possible. If we're going to allow devil worshipers and mobster hit men, then remove the restriction on playing Evil! I'm not saying that to be dramatic, I truly believe that would be the best thing for making the campaign a fully realized world with less mechanics-driven conflict. Otherwise allowing a paladin organization and a devil worshiping organization, but then telling the devil worshipers they can't be Evil, and then assigning missions that are Evil...well, that leads to conflict.
So, a summary of this thread--yep, I was too tired to post last night and secondly, if your position is that characters can commit Evil acts when they want, or in completing a faction mission, or whatever then clearly state that. Don't give me lines about me opposing Neutral characters just trying to be who they are. Neutral characters don't go around murdering people on a regular basis. That's what Evil characters do.
This may simply be the most ridiculous statement I have ever read on these forums. Decent Pathfinders? ROFL
Pathfinders are not the good guys. They manipulate governments, invade foreign lands, break into their tombs and vaults and steal their artifacts. If we played by with your view on alinments then really no good character would ever be a member of the organization.
If good people are obligated to throw themselves in front of every acts they witness that is not within strict adherence to their own definition of Good, then they will be very busy and likely get themselves killed very quickly.
If a GM/Player in a shared campaign can not recognize that people are going to have different opinions on alignments and have the RIGHT to have different views, then yes that person is being the jerk. It is the same as saying that "everyone has to agree with me and play my way or I will seek to punish you".
I wasn't as explicit in things last night as noted. I'm not saying Pathfinders are the good guys. The argument had been laid that Pathfinders always have to cooperate. I showed a documented example of a faction leader telling one Pathfinder to kill another. That is not cooperation. I'm not saying anything about the morality of the action, I'm specifically noting the blatant disregard for cooperation.
I notice you failed to respond to my earlier post on reasonable compromise? That gets specifically to your last statement. I've been pretty clear that I support others having a right to their own views and interpretations of Evil. I've also been pretty clear that I believe the GM is the final arbiter of any issue in dispute at the table and players need to accept a judgment and move on. So, I'd really like to hear your response on why it is that Good characters hold all the responsibility for compromise while Neutral characters can perform all the Evil acts they want. If that is not the position you are taking, please clearly state your position.
The problem is still the same - different people disagree on what constitutes murder.
I don't have any problems with killing a prisoner taken on the field of battle, but some people think its evil. IMHO a good character gives the prisoner a chance to explain himself and will consider his case on its merits; may even give him the benefit of the doubt. An evil character won't bother.
If there were no mitigating circumstances and the prisoner just attacked us because he felt like it then I see nothing wrong with executing him there and then as he's a threat to others. Even my good characters would do that, because I don't consider it to be evil (either as a player or as GM).
Its the same with faction missions, except we're trusting our faction heads to make that judgement for us, ahead of time. I do agree with being creative when 'morally upstanding citizens' are hanging around, but it doesn't mean the act of assassination is evil. Killing innocent people is evil, so if the Sczarni missions ever require characters to do that then I'd flag it up. I've not seen any of their missions yet though.
In fact if I was playing an evil character I might even let the unrepetentant evil-doer go free, as it would be funny... Just so long as he didn't come after me.
The problem is still the same - different people disagree on what constitutes murder.
I don't have any problems with killing a prisoner taken on the field of battle, but some people think its evil. IMHO a good character gives the prisoner a chance to explain himself and will consider his case on its merits; may even give him the benefit of the doubt. An evil character won't bother.
If there were no mitigating circumstances and the prisoner just attacked us because he felt like it then I see nothing wrong with executing him there and then as he's a threat to others. Even my good characters would do that, because I don't consider it to be evil (either as a player or as GM).
Its the same with faction missions, except we're trusting our faction heads to make that judgement for us, ahead of time. I do agree with being creative when 'morally upstanding citizens' are hanging around, but it doesn't mean the act of assassination is evil. Killing innocent people is evil, so if the Sczarni missions ever require characters to do that then I'd flag it up. I've not seen any of their missions yet though.
And so long as players and GMs come into the game expecting reasonable compromise I think we're good to go. The measure of compromise, however, should be toward Neutral rather than Good or Evil. What I've continued to hear in this thread is that Evil is justified so long as it supports a faction mission and likewise that Good characters have no right to oppose these Evil acts because Pathfinders have to "cooperate"--for some reason, this cooperation is supposed to be entirely toward the side of supporting Evil and not toward Good. I do not support that position at all, and indeed given the campaign restrictions on Evil characters the support for Evil is even further diminished. Now, for Blazej, +2 Draino, et. al. if that's not your position then please state that clearly. Don't use vague language or for some reason state I'm opposing Neutral characters.
I also want to make sure people realize I've specifically said I'm not looking to mark a sheet for Evil actions (that discussion is on the other thread--I've stated I'll do whatever the campaign staff specify--but I keep getting labeled with that intent), prevent a player from having a character do Evil acts, etc. I will tell the player I deem the action Evil. I will support other players having characters oppose the action if it is performed in view of others (thus the need for secrecy sometimes) as I do not think any player can reasonably expect cooperation with Evil given the alignment restrictions in PFS. Basically, if you are going to do Evil, do it in secret!
The simple solution now to all the faction Mission problems is..
PLAY SLOW TRACK ALL THE TIME!!!!!
That way you never have to worry about completing your faction mission as long as the main mission is accomplished.
I'm not sure what you mean -- if you're using the slow track, you only get a prestige point if you accomplish both missions (faction + main mission). Otherwise you get nothin'.
"To maintain balance between characters on both advancement tracks, those PCs utilizing the slow advancement track may only earn 1 Prestige Point per scenario. This point is dependent on completing both the overall scenario objective and the character’s faction mission."
But having another evil cultist or bandit running around means the do-gooders have other things to deal with than me. It's not about gratitude, its about distraction...
If I thought Mr Evildoer would still come after me then he'd get the sharp end of a pointy stick.
And so long as players and GMs come into the game expecting reasonable compromise I think we're good to go. The measure of compromise, however, should be toward Neutral rather than Good or Evil.
But we still haven't determined what is evil, and I think that's the fundamental argument here (massively paraphrasing obviously). You only need to hide your evil actions or compromise if they're evil. If they're not evil then why hide them?
The problem comes from a disagreement over whether something is so evil it borders on getting your character kicked out of the campaign, as opposed to it being perfectly acceptable and normal. Killing a helpless prisoner appears to fall into both those camps depending entirely on opinion. Certain faction missions likewise.
But we still haven't determined what is evil, and I think that's the fundamental argument here (massively paraphrasing obviously). You only need to hide your evil actions or compromise if they're evil. If they're not evil then why hide them?
The problem comes from a disagreement over whether something is so evil it borders on getting your character kicked out of the campaign, as opposed to it being perfectly acceptable and normal. Killing a helpless prisoner appears to fall into both those camps depending entirely on opinion. Certain faction missions likewise.
Right, and I don't think we can ever realistically define all possible Evil actions. It has to be a GM decision at some point. The GM is (1) beholden to let a player know when an action is Evil and (2) give the character time to react accordingly. If the Evil action would have been in view, the player has a chance to either obfuscate the action or change the action. If the action is already secret, the player can just go forward with the action.
Note again, I'm not getting into the "kick you out" argument. That's a campaign staff issue and I'll abide by whatever they say. If a faction mission requires what I deem to be an Evil act (the Sczarni example of torturing someone seems to fall into that arena; I can't verify as I have not seen that scenario) I'm not punishing a player for completing that action. I am requiring it to be done in a reasonable way, i.e. secret from anyone that would likely oppose the action. I do not deem this hindering the faction missions as I do not see "it's a faction mission" as acceptable justification for allowing all Evil actions related to completing said mission to go unopposed.
|
But we still haven't determined what is evil, and I think that's the fundamental argument here (massively paraphrasing obviously). You only need to hide your evil actions or compromise if they're evil. If they're not evil then why hide them?
The problem comes from a disagreement over whether something is so evil it borders on getting your character kicked out of the campaign, as opposed to it being perfectly acceptable and normal. Killing a helpless prisoner appears to fall into both those camps depending entirely on opinion. Certain faction missions likewise.
Right, and I don't think we can ever realistically define all possible Evil actions. It has to be a GM decision at some point. The GM is (1) beholden to let a player know when an action is Evil and (2) give the character time to react accordingly. If the Evil action would have been in view, the player has a chance to either obfuscate the action or change the action. If the action is already secret, the player can just go forward with the action.
Note again, I'm not getting into the "kick you out" argument. That's a campaign staff issue and I'll abide by whatever they say. If a faction mission requires what I deem to be an Evil act (the Sczarni example of torturing someone seems to fall into that arena; I can't verify as I have not seen that scenario) I'm not punishing a player for completing that action. I am requiring it to be done in a reasonable way, i.e. secret from anyone that would likely oppose the action. I do not deem this hindering the faction missions as I do not see "it's a faction mission" as acceptable justification for allowing all Evil actions related to completing said mission to go unopposed.
Several hundred posts ago, I was strongly disagreeing with you as we were still talking about what constitutes good and evil actions. I appreciate that you have your own opinions on what are evil, but refrain from permanently punishing a player who may disagree with you on what constitutes an evil point (i.e. marking it down on their chronicle sheet that they are closer to evil). As you said that's up to the coordinators.
I agree that if a character is attempting to do something shady, such as poison an NPC or whatnot, they should be intelligent enough to do so away from the prying eyes of the "do-gooders" in the party. I think having this expectation as a GM is not unreasonably. I don't know how many times I've discretely slid a note to the DM, because I was performing an action that I did not want the rest of the party to know about, but I bet it's been at least 2/3 of the scenarios I've played. If you've never DM'd for this particular group before, make sure that they know that they can pass you messages when they wish to do something without the rest of the party being aware of it. Part of the fun of playing the more morally-flexible factions is attempting to get away with it, that's the biggest part of being in a criminal organization. I think if we're downplaying the need to be discrete to the point where the other characters always know what mine is doing and have no recourse, that takes a lot of the fun out of the game.
Several hundred posts ago, I was strongly disagreeing with you as we were still talking about what constitutes good and evil actions. I appreciate that you have your own opinions on what are evil, but refrain from permanently punishing a player who may disagree with you on what constitutes an evil point (i.e. marking it down on their chronicle sheet that they are closer to evil). As you said that's up to the coordinators.
I agree that if a character is attempting to do something shady, such as poison an NPC or whatnot, they should be intelligent enough to do so away from the prying eyes of the "do-gooders" in the party. I think having this expectation as a GM is not unreasonably. I don't know how many times I've discretely slid a note to the DM, because I was performing an action that I did not want the rest of the party to know about, but I bet it's been at least 2/3 of the scenarios I've played. If you've never DM'd for this particular group before, make sure that they know that they can pass you messages when they wish to do something without the rest of the party being aware of it. Part of the fun of playing the more morally-flexible factions is attempting to get away with it, that's the biggest part of being in a criminal organization. I think if we're downplaying the need to be discrete to the point where the other characters always know what mine is doing and have no recourse, that takes a lot of the fun out of the game.
I completely agree with everything you've said here and it's exactly what I'm asking for from the "we can do Evil" camp. Be reasonable in attempting this sort of thing and realize that the definition of Evil can vary by GM. Taking a firm stance that Evil actions simply have to be ignored when used to complete a faction missions is, in my assessment, an unreasonable request from a player.
I'll go further on the passing notes recommendation, though. At times players ask or tell the GM things openly. So long as the player is not specifically describing an action the character is taking in full view of other characters there is no reasonable basis for another player to have his character oppose an action based on out-of-character knowledge. For instance, suppose the player of the Sczarni rogue openly says, "Hey, is that the guy I'm supposed to kill?" to the GM. So long as it's clear his character isn't for some odd reason actually blurting out that statement, other players have no basis to suddenly start tailing the character in question if that character has given no other reason for suspicion. Enforcing this is just good GMing.
|
|
Okay, so your position is that no character may interfere with another character, but only when said character is engaged in a faction mission. It's demonstrably true that certain characters--such as paladins losing their powers--can be directly punished by allowing certain actions. I've also clearly shown, from the rules, that faction missions are to be kept secret, that player's should use creativity to ensure they are completed, and that the actual prohibition is against open hostility (which is also covered under PvP) as stated in Faction Secrecy. So, until such time as the campaign management comes down and says to ignore all alignment rules while faction missions are underway, and further to inform all players when a faction mission is in order, I find your position untenable.
...
It is not demonstrably true that certain character can be directly punished by allowing other players to complete their faction missions. If there is such an action that does affect other characters, I think that it is clear that the GM can tell the player to stop being a jerk, but I have not seen any faction mission ever that makes a character jump up and do everything in their power to stop it from occurring when it has little do with them.
It is not my position that any Evil act is justified in completing a faction mission, but it is not the other place to declare that they are going to block you forever from completing it. They can express disagreement, note their disfavor, but the rules of the Pathfinder Society say not to interfere.
I'm personally fine with compromise, but from your reaction to the The Bloodcove Disguise faction mission that compromises are only necessary for the non-bullying Pathfinders. But, but the rules of the Society, if you are not involved with the business another Pathfinder is undertaking, you can offer opinions how it should be done, but you are not allow to flat out stop it. If it really beyond the scope of what one looks for in PFS play, the GM should be the one to step in and force that compromise (because if it is that bad, the other player may be acting the part of a jerk).
I find it laughable that you say that you find my position untenable.
I have a clear rule that says that you don't mess with the business of other Pathfinders. I've given you the chance to respond with any rule saying that various party members can ignore this and you have come up with none. The best things you got is a single faction mission that sort of seems to break it when you first read it and some good characters can not tolerate super-evil actions occurring.
For the first, it doesn't force you to kill a member of the Pathfinder Society and, even if it did break the rules, one bad faction mission doesn't let you ignore the rules of the Pathfinder Society forever.
For the second, I've already answered that. I believe it is the GMs role to direct players away from jerkish over the top actions.
Your position is the untenable one. Again, I had asked you before for one rule that says you can ignore the rules of the Pathfinder Society and you came up with zero. I feel my position is the strongest it has ever been and yours seems to have no logical basis.
|
|
What I've continued to hear in this thread is that Evil is justified so long as it supports a faction mission and likewise that Good characters have no right to oppose these Evil acts because Pathfinders have to "cooperate"--for some reason, this cooperation is supposed to be entirely toward the side of supporting Evil and not toward Good. I do not support that position at all, and indeed given the campaign restrictions on Evil characters the support for Evil is even further diminished. Now, for Blazej, +2 Draino, et. al. if that's not your position then please state that clearly. Don't use vague language or for some reason state I'm opposing Neutral characters.
"Evil is justified so long as it supports a faction 'mission'": No, that is not my claim. There are damned evil ways to go about completing a faction mission, but those are not acceptable as they make tables horribly bad. The GM clearly has the role of peacemaker and can apply "Don't be jerk" to the player who may be just trying to press peoples buttons.
"Likewise that Good characters have no right to oppose these Evil acts because Pathfinders have to 'cooperate'": Since I've established that truly evil actions aren't allowed to happen, yes this is my position. If a character is committing a swift not-overly cruel execution, the party should stays out of it. If the GM still thinks it is over the top, they should be the one to tell the player to stop and possibly what the more appropriate action would be for completing the mission.
"This cooperation is supposed to be entirely toward the side of supporting Evil and not toward Good.": Flat out lie. Seriously. Everything I've said about cooperation applies just as much to characters not messing with Good faction missions. I'm not even sure where this came from.
There you go. No vague language or statement that you are opposing Neutral characters.
It is not demonstrably true that certain character can be directly punished by allowing other players to complete their faction missions. If there is such an action that does affect other characters, I think that it is clear that the GM can tell the player to stop being a jerk, but I have not seen any faction mission ever that makes a character jump up and do everything in their power to stop it from occurring when it has little do with them.
It is not my position that any Evil act is justified in completing a faction mission, but it is not the other place to declare that they are going to block you forever from completing it. They can express disagreement, note their disfavor, but the rules of the Pathfinder Society say not to interfere.I'm personally fine with compromise, but from your reaction to the The Bloodcove Disguise faction mission that compromises are only necessary for the non-bullying Pathfinders. But, but the rules of the Society, if you are not involved with the business another Pathfinder is undertaking, you can offer opinions how it should be done, but you are not allow to flat out stop it. If it really beyond the scope of what one looks for in PFS play, the GM should be the one to step in and force that compromise (because if it is that bad, the other player may be acting the part of a jerk).
I find it laughable that you say that you find my position untenable.
I have a clear rule that says that you don't mess with the business of other Pathfinders. I've given you the chance to respond with any rule saying that various party members can ignore this and you have come up with none. The best things you got is a single faction mission that sort of seems to break it when you first read it and some good characters can not tolerate super-evil actions occurring.
For the first, it doesn't force you to kill a member of the Pathfinder Society and, even if it did break the rules, one bad faction mission doesn't let you ignore the rules of the Pathfinder Society forever.
For the second, I've already answered that. I believe it is the GMs role to direct players away from jerkish over the top actions.
Your position is the untenable one. Again, I had asked you before for one rule that says you can ignore the rules of the Pathfinder Society and you came up with zero. I feel my position is the strongest it has ever been and yours seems to have no logical basis.
A paladin is held to a specific code and alignment. Failure to uphold that is grounds for stripping the paladin of his powers. If a character decides to commit an Evil act in completing his faction mission, in plain view of the paladin, that is demonstrably true as a direct punishment to the paladin since he loses his powers. I am specifically stating that the paladin has a right to prohibit that Evil act. Until you find me documentation that PFS paladins may ignore their code and alignment so another character can perform an Evil act, whether on a faction mission or not, I definitely have a case for my position that "cooperation" is not inviolable in PFS. You even say above that "it is clear that the GM can tell the player to stop being a jerk" so you are agreeing with my position. I've been consistently stating that position. I'm not really certain why you continue arguing against me, when you actually agree with my position? Your position is untenable, because you actually agree with me, but then for some reason say I'm wrong.
You keep referencing a vague mission with no specifics, and I'm unclear if that's just so I can't make any real judgment call. If you really want to keep using that as an example or basis for your argument, then provide more information.
I've already quoted the rules multiple times throughout this thread, but here you go again--PFS does not allow Evil characters and does allow paladins. Until such time as you can show me where PFS tells a paladin to ignore his alignment and code so your character can perform his random acts of Evil in public, your cry for "cooperation" is meaningless. You can parrot that all you want. Cooperation does not mean every Good character in the game now has to kow-tow to your Evil plans. Faction Secrecy requires you to perform that mission in secrecy if you expect any modicum of success. Show me one place in the PFS Guide where, for some reason, every character has to support Evil actions.
I'm not even sure how you come to the conclusion that the faction mission I reference doesn't require one Pathfinder to kill another. That's what the faction mission actually says in the text of the mission, then throughout the scenario. Can you explain how you possibly expect a character to complete the mission as written without killing a Pathfinder?
As I noted last night, we can continue to go round and round on this. Until you can prove "cooperation" overrules all alignment requirements, I consider your position invalid with specific reference to mine (that a GM (the final arbiter on determining if a questionable in-game action is Evil) may allow a paladin to prohibit an Evil action, even when performed by another character performing a faction mission). I'm not even sure what your position is, since you agree with me and then disagree with me in the same post, but it looks pretty clear you aren't willing to accept any call for reasonable compromise that prevents your Evil plans so we're likely at an impasse. I'll restate my position one more time. tell me plainly if you agree with it or not:
A GM (the final arbiter on determining if a questionable in-game action is Evil) may allow a paladin to prohibit an Evil action, even when performed by another character performing a faction mission.
Do you believe this position is true, or false?
Real-world example
Real-world comparisons are not valid for determining morality in PFS, only the stated rules for alignment in the Additional Rules Section. Or are you asking for application of the alignment rules to this example as a means of determining something? If that is the case, it's likely better in another thread. We've already established that determining actions as Evil varies from one GM to the next. And of course, if this is working from the assumption that the United States and the Seals are in some way a Lawful Good, or even Lawful Neutral, organization that is going to draw much disagreement from numerous parties. There is ready evidence that the United States and it's military have at times engaged in acts both Chaotic and Evil (again, specifically using the Pathfinder alignment rules). Definitely material for another thread.
"Evil is justified so long as it supports a faction 'mission'": No, that is not my claim. There are damned evil ways to go about completing a faction mission, but those are not acceptable as they make tables horribly bad. The GM clearly has the role of peacemaker and can apply "Don't be jerk" to the player who may be just trying to press peoples buttons.
"Likewise that Good characters have no right to oppose these Evil acts because Pathfinders have to 'cooperate'": Since I've established that truly evil actions aren't allowed to happen, yes this is my position. If a character is committing a swift not-overly cruel execution, the party should stays out of it. If the GM still thinks it is over the top, they should be the one to tell the player to stop and possibly what the more appropriate action would be for completing the mission."This cooperation is supposed to be entirely toward the side of supporting Evil and not toward Good.": Flat out lie. Seriously. Everything I've said about cooperation applies just as much to characters not messing with Good faction missions. I'm not even sure where this came from.
There you go. No vague language or statement that you are opposing Neutral characters.
Okay, so wait. Your position is that the GM goes beyond even allowing characters to oppose one another and that the GM can actually stop a character from committing an Evil act?!? Wow, that's not my position at all, and goes way beyond it into the GM controlling other characters. If I can simply stop all Evil actions there will pretty much never be any conflict of the nature I'm discussing, so now I'm not even sure why you were disagreeing with me in the first place.
As noted earlier, I actually do not support this position. Neutral (and even Good) characters can perform Evil actions and it is not the role of the GM to tell a player how to play his character. The GM informs the player of a determination that an act is Evil (and as I've noted before can use the Creative Solutions rules as necessary for other solutions) but ultimately if the player wants to continue with the act I do not think the GM has the authority to stop that action. What, if anything, is done to the character for that action (marking a sheet or whatever) is up to the campaign staff beyond any rules that are already in force (such as paladin's falling).
Can you possibly explain where exactly you disagree with me in my stated example, with this being the case? Because now I'm really confused.
|
|
Snorter, if you have problems with that sort of thing you have my sympathy. I have seen some player do ridiculous things like that but in my experience it's pretty rare.
I'm not speaking personally; my PFSoc experiences have been positive.
I'm commenting on the threads that have sprung up recently, which seem to suggest that a lot of GMs are applying their own modern-day, real-life standards to the PCs in their games, no matter how irrelevant.
It may seem a bigger problem than it really is, due to the nature of forums. People tend to post more often about the problem games than the ones that went smoothly.
Nevertheless, it's a trend I'm not keen on.
|
Snorter, if you have problems with that sort of thing you have my sympathy. I have seen some player do ridiculous things like that but in my experience it's pretty rare.I'm not speaking personally; my PFSoc experiences have been positive.
I'm commenting on the threads that have sprung up recently, which seem to suggest that a lot of GMs are applying their own modern-day, real-life standards to the PCs in their games, no matter how irrelevant.
It may seem a bigger problem than it really is, due to the nature of forums. People tend to post more often about the problem games than the ones that went smoothly.
Nevertheless, it's a trend I'm not keen on.
I actually think the 600+ posts across 3 threads is largely a game of "what if" at this point, and that most of the hyperbole hasn't actually happened, and probably won't.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm enjoying this conversation. But a note:
Until you find me documentation that PFS paladins may ignore their code and alignment so another character can perform an Evil act, whether on a faction mission or not, I definitely have a case for my position that "cooperation" is not inviolable in PFS.
This is substantially less a problem under the Pathfinder ruleset than D&D 3.5, which didn't allow paladins to associate with Evil characters. Under the Pathfinder rules, paladins can associate with Evil being in the service of Good.
To cite one example, the iconic team for "Council of Thieves" includes both a paladin and a lawful evil worshipper of Asmodeus, working together to keep a rival major devil from gaining influence in Cheliax.
|
|
A paladin is held to a specific code and alignment. Failure to uphold that is grounds for stripping the paladin of his powers. If a character decides to commit an Evil act in completing his faction mission, in plain view of the paladin, that is demonstrably true as a direct punishment to the paladin since he loses his powers. I am specifically stating that the paladin has a right to prohibit that Evil act. Until you find me documentation that PFS paladins may ignore their code and alignment so another character can perform an Evil act, whether on a faction mission or not, I definitely have a case for my position that "cooperation" is not inviolable in PFS. You even say above that "it is clear that the GM can tell the player to stop being a jerk" so you are agreeing with my position. I've been consistently stating that position. I'm not really certain why you continue arguing against me, when you actually agree with my position? Your position is untenable, ...
Alright, first I already posted the documentation that PFS paladins must not interfere with the affairs of other Pathfinders (even if it goes against their moral standing) but I will do so again because you asked.
Cooperate: The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and motivations. At any given time, a Pathfinder lodge might house a fiend-summoning Chelaxian, an Andoren freedom fighter, an antiquities-obsessed Osirian necromancer, and a friendly Taldan raconteur.
Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering a helping hand.
The Pathfinder Society Field Guide and Seekers of Secrets both contain a wealth of additional information on the history, goals, and methods of the Pathfinder Society, including campaign-legal rules options to help you immerse your character into the campaign’s primary organization.
From what you written, it seems that you believe that paladins and other characters of exceptional moral standing are given permission to ignore this rule (without any actual rules to support this statement). The other conclusion is that paladins can't participate in Pathfinder Society play because they can't promise to follow the rules. Your rule clearly doesn't override the one I produced.
My belief is that there shouldn't be such an action at any table that a paladin's alignment is at risk for knowing the action is going forward when it likely will mean their expulsion from the PFS. Which is to say, the action is really not that bad or it is covered under "Do Not Bully Other Players" (For example, I do think that torching an orphanage would likely be a disfunctional form of play that is primarily done to irritate other players who can't by the rules stop them).
Show me one place in the PFS Guide where, for some reason, every character has to support Evil actions.
I don't really feel I need to. I'm not saying every character has to support actions that they believe may be unwarranted or even evil from their perspective, I'm just saying that they have been ordered not to interfere. Not interfering is not equal to supporting.
I'm not even sure how you come to the conclusion that the faction mission I reference doesn't require one Pathfinder to kill another. That's what the faction mission actually says in the text of the mission, then throughout the scenario. Can you explain how you possibly expect a character to complete the mission as written without killing a Pathfinder?
Incredibly easy. It is right there clearly in the scenario.
A GM (the final arbiter on determining if a questionable in-game action is Evil) may allow a paladin to prohibit an Evil action, even when performed by another character performing a faction mission.
Do you believe this position is true, or false?
False.
Again, I've already pulled the relevant quote from the guide. If the GM believes intervention is necessary, they should do it themselves and not use party members to do it for them.
A GM (the final arbiter on determining if a questionable in-game action is Evil) may themselves prohibit an Evil action when it is a dysfunctional form of play to push other players around.
Okay, so wait. Your position is that the GM goes beyond even allowing characters to oppose one another and that the GM can actually stop a character from committing an Evil act?!? Wow, that's not my position at all, and goes way beyond it into the GM controlling other characters. If I can simply stop all Evil actions there will pretty much never be any conflict of the nature I'm discussing, so now I'm not even sure why you were disagreeing with me in the first place.
Yes. That is my position.
My disagreement is that your way leads players to believe that they are allowed to ignore the rules of the Pathfinder Society and promotes party in-fighting.
My way (I would hope) would minimize party in-fighting and let the GM have the sole role of final arbitrator of evil actions.
GMs have the right to tell a player that they are pushing something to far and that they can either stop it or go to another table. Players can say that, but they can't force a player out of table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I will leave with this final statement of intent and vision:
The murder of innocents is almost always evil, but the purpose for doing so will greatly influence the severity of this action. Killing an innocent because a superior told you to is meaningfully less evil than doing so for the lulz, as some have implied characters are doing. Killing an innocent on orders is still evil, but its a different caliber of evil entirely, and the argument against evil seems to ignore this completely. Not to mention the fact that these evil missions to not target innocent people at all. They targets may not have committed any crimes directly against the PCs, or at all, but they are not wonderful and wholesome people in the least. I am greatly bothered that these specific cases of 'bad guy says to be evil to other jerk' is somehow being misconstrued as torture an innocent man.
Furthermore, I believe that the cry against this evil is actually a cry against non-good. Though I will cede that the poison example is clearly evil, and likewise the Sewer Dragons mission for Sczarni, I will stand by my claim the typical kill quest is not evil.
I have never made argument that a character should be permitted to wantonly commit evil actions, certainly not in front of the good characters, without repercussions. The specifically horrible missions in question are specifically ones that are designed for subtlety for a reason. As Dennis Baker said, the DC for the task that sparked this debate was intentionally lower so that the character was more able to perform it alone and quietly.
I have however made the argument that the paladin contingent seems intent on holding neutral characters to a lawful good standard. I am not saying that they have no place to oppose evil, but I am saying that for a multitude of valid reasons, they have no place to oppose neutral.
This concern of mine, coupled with the immediate turn around, which instead of addressing the disruptive nature of one group, blames the victims of said disruption, sickens me. Because Cheliax is listed as evil and Sczarni are a crime family, the conclusion seems to be that any mission either of these factions sends a player on is intrinsically more evil than the exact same mission for another faction. Furthermore, it becomes acceptable for a paladin to scrutinize one of these faction members and disrupt play.
My genuine concern is that responses of GMs have indicated that not only would they be happy to ban characters for completing too many faction missions as written, but that they would allow blame to fall on a player of a Sczarni character for the disruption caused by a paladin in the party.
It further infuriates me that there seems as well to be a complete hand-wave to the consequences of mercy. Mercy and justice are great and wonderful things. But the reason that they are supposed to be rare in a fantasy setting is because they aren't easy. If mercy was easy, there would be no neutral characters. Good should be the hardest alignment to play. Then and only then can it be the most rewarding. By allowing characters to ignore the consequences of actually being just and merciful, it shifts the entire tone of the game into a good/not good dynamic, cheapening the entire alignment system, and leaving people who wanted to play neutral characters feeling like they have been morally lectured every time there character does something that is well within the lower end of his alignment.
----
On the subject of this hyperbole:
I have had problems at a game table, and when I came to the forums to have my concerns alleviated, instead I got lectured on not playing an evil character, and heard from GMs that they would make effort to have my characters removed from play if I completed faction missions.
The only thing about this thread that keeps me from quitting PFS OP right now is that I know who the GMs are that I will stand up and leave table to get away from.
And with that, I am done with this entire line of discussion.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Snorter, if you have problems with that sort of thing you have my sympathy. I have seen some player do ridiculous things like that but in my experience it's pretty rare.I'm not speaking personally; my PFSoc experiences have been positive.
I'm commenting on the threads that have sprung up recently, which seem to suggest that a lot of GMs are applying their own modern-day, real-life standards to the PCs in their games, no matter how irrelevant.
It may seem a bigger problem than it really is, due to the nature of forums. People tend to post more often about the problem games than the ones that went smoothly.
Nevertheless, it's a trend I'm not keen on.
As Andrew says, much of what is being banged around is purely hypothetical. The conversation has long since drifted far from the original posters concerns into more esoteric stuff. From the earliest days of the game, anytime alignment issues get brought up things tend to get murky and people get excited. In spite of this I see very little in-game problems with it.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
...
Furthermore, I believe that the cry against this evil is actually a cry against non-good. Though I will cede that the poison example is clearly evil, and likewise the Sewer Dragons mission for Sczarni, I will stand by my claim the typical kill quest is not evil.
...
Hehehe, and I am far more inclined to call nearly any kill mission more 'evil' than the mission I put in Sewer Dragons. Not saying this to argue the point, just pointing out I don't think there will ever be a real consensus on these sort of issues.
|
|
City of Strangers:By the time the party has gotten to him, the the target has already directed the assassination of a Venture-Captain's contact. When the party is getting into the city, the target has an associate send an group of goblins to murder the party and possibly a number of Duskwardens and random merchants. Most of all however, they themselves do not consider themselves a member of the Pathfinder Society anymore. He is at least three times a Pathfinder no longer.
As a player of that scenario, for the Andoran faction, that was my interpretation, too.
Any misgivings I may or may not have had, when initially given the mission, had been overtaken by events.|
|
Furthermore, I believe that the cry against this evil is actually a cry against non-good. Though I will cede that the poison example is clearly evil, and likewise the Sewer Dragons mission for Sczarni, I will stand by my claim the typical kill quest is not evil.
Well, of course it's not evil, if it's the Andoran faction ordering it. The target must obviously deserve it!
Any victim of the dirty Chelaxians must be a heroic martyr.
I did that bastard in, but even though he totally deserved it, I still made sure to do it in secret. Anyone who's too stupid to cover their tracks deserves booting out of the Society, not for their morals, but for incompetence.
|
|
But to be serious; yes I agree with you.
As recent events in the UK show, the vast majority of the public hold a much more hardline view on crime and punishment than the chattering classes, wringing their hands over the poor, poor disadvantaged souls, crying out for social reform, safe in their ivory towers.
I could switch on the TV right now and give myself good odds that I'll hear the people who have to live in the area say that death is too good for them. There's a petition right now, to force a debate on bringing back the death penalty, and another to starve them.
And this article mentions how a clip of one looter got taken down, after thousands commented he needed to be hurt more (and gave suggestions how they could do it).
So, yes, 'stabbing a scumbag' (surrendered or not) is not considered an evil act where I come from.
As long as the missions make clear that is what is being asked, and not 'attack an innocent bystander', then there shouldn't be a problem.
Scenario writers and Venture Captains should make sure to remind GMs that such acts are not, in and of themselves, to be punished with alignment drift, except in cases where the player goes into graphic detail or rubs it in other players faces.
I'm enjoying this conversation. But a note:
Until you find me documentation that PFS paladins may ignore their code and alignment so another character can perform an Evil act, whether on a faction mission or not, I definitely have a case for my position that "cooperation" is not inviolable in PFS.This is substantially less a problem under the Pathfinder ruleset than D&D 3.5, which didn't allow paladins to associate with Evil characters. Under the Pathfinder rules, paladins can associate with Evil being in the service of Good.
To cite one example, the iconic team for "Council of Thieves" includes both a paladin and a lawful evil worshipper of Asmodeus, working together to keep a rival major devil from gaining influence in Cheliax.
Agreed (and one of the reasons I favor allowing Evil characters if we're going to allow Evil factions). I'm not arguing association with Evil at all, as that's clearly covered in the paladin's code. It will not, however, obviate the need for that paladin to stop the Evil character from performing an Evil act if witnessed.
Stuff
Blazej, suffice it to say that at this point there's really no way you and I can have a meaningful conversation on this. If you feel a GM can actually prohibit a PFS player from committing an Evil act, and indeed must do so, then your position is vastly different from mine. I will not, at my table, prevent a player from having his character perform an Evil act (so long as doing so does not disrupt play). That's a blatant violation of the GMs role in my opinion. The GM can suggest alternate courses of action, as I've already noted, but you have no right to take over a character and force an action contrary to the player's wish if said action is not disrupting the table. You basically force this concept of cooperation you have in mind by actually prohibiting characters from acting in ways the player feels appropriate. I cannot support that at all.
More things
As with Blazej, it sounds then like we are actually in agreement. I've never supported paladins or other Good characters doing anything other than opposing an Evil act committed (verified as such by the GM) in their view. The calls for marking sheets, kicking out characters, etc. have never been a part of my posts, and I've noted for that topic I simply accept whatever the campaign staff says is proper.
And for the rest, I do agree this has drifted into the hypothetical. My goal has been to ensure my position is valid and, perhaps, also help others understand the role of a GM in adjudicating Evil in a scenario. I haven't been as coherent at times as I'd like (and learning such, I'll be going to bed soon) but I think I've come through still on solid ground with my position.
So, thanks all for the debate. I'm sure alignment shall continue to be the bane of all for the foreseeable life of our favored rule system...
It's rather nice reading my The One Ring copy where alignment doesn't exist...
|
|
Blazej, suffice it to say that at this point there's really no way you and I can have a meaningful conversation on this. If you feel a GM can actually prohibit a PFS player from committing an Evil act, and indeed must do so, then your position is vastly different from mine. I will not, at my table, prevent a player from having his character perform an Evil act (so long as doing so does not disrupt play). That's a blatant violation of the GMs role in my opinion. The GM can suggest alternate courses of action, as I've already noted, but you have no right to take over a character and force an action contrary to the player's wish if said action is not disrupting the table. You basically force this concept of cooperation you have in mind by actually prohibiting characters from acting in ways the player feels appropriate. I cannot support that at all.
Possibly, but I should note that the evil acts I'm talking about are the ones that disrupt play. The ones that reasonable good characters can stand up and say are things that they must interfere with (a.k.a. blowing up orphanages. Not executions or most other punishments.)
I'm just clarifying as our definitions of what counts as evil (or Evil) seem to be different.
I force the idea of cooperation because that is probably the only rule of the Pathfinder Society that you can break during an adventure. Every character knows that they are not permitting to knowingly mess with other characters business and other characters know that acting like an evil maniac will mean that they the Pathfinder Society won't be sending them out with teams anymore.
Reminding characters of that and emphasizing the importance of that is paramount in this group game.
If a situation has occurred forcing you to let a paladin stop another players faction mission, that is already a disruption of the table. So your concern that I will stop evil (or Evil) actions that aren't disrupting the table are invalid.
Telling players that their characters can step in and stop other character's faction missions. Telling them that you will ignore that they are breaking one of the core rules (again, cooperation) of the Pathfinder Society. Playing two or more players against each other in a game about working together and cooperation. That to me is a blatant violation of the GMs role and I cannot support that at all.
Well, it's obvious you and I have very different approaches to the situation. Suffice it to say for me the approach I use has worked favorably for over a decade (after all, dealing with Evil has been a GM issue for far longer than PFS). The fact that we vary on our application of Evil is secondary to the GM philosophy we have in running games. If you are not stopping characters completing Evil actions that don't disrupt play, I see that as a slightly better stance. On the other hand, I trust the players to be capable enough in making these decisions themselves.
Forcing characters to cooperate is, from my perspective, simply a reflavoring of the approach some other GMs take in preventing characters from ever taking actions they consider Evil. I see the cooperation by-law as a potential for RP and fun, and it has proven to be the case so far as the interplay between characters disagreeing with one another and the creative ways they come up with to sneak around each other is fun. If players know they simply must cooperate or be booted from the game, I see that leading to a loss of this aspect of the game. Until such time as the campaign staff tell me I must enforce an approach like this, either with cooperation or stopping Evil actions, I won't go that route.
I removed a real world example. I understand the point being made, but this isn't the place to invite a political argument.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
pathfinders are adventurers not heroes.
that said I understand people have different GMing styles, but if if yours is significantly different, for instance "I will change your alignment for one evil act" then you should warn your players before the game starts and give them the chance to leave.
I know I will
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Added to the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, 6 pages and I just started reading this thread now.
Regarding morally grey and dubious faction missions. I like them. End of story. It what makes the PFS neutral campaign interesting. If the organizers want to change this, that's fine, but for now it's a neutral campaign and sometimes we're going to walk a morally grey line.
Regarding the Sczarni. For me, they're a welcome addition and I wouldn't be surprised if my home game switches to them. So far, I find they're actually very similar to Qadira, after all Qadira has done many dubious things to make some coin (however, mostly non-violent). I guess the Sczarni are a more violent version of Qadira. And I think that appeals to some people. Are their missions "worse" than Cheliax / Andoran / Taldor missions? Not from what I can tell.
If a GM removed my character from play for completing a faction mission then I'd be asking Paizo to remove the GM from the campaign, never mind appealing. That's the most absurd thing I've ever seen on these boards, which is saying something!
+1
Regarding completing a faction mission and a GM writing "evil act" on your character sheet. Sure, go ahead, I'll have words with the campaign coordinator, have it reversed, and will never sit at your table again. Players have the power, just don't sit at that GMs table again. And give him a bad name. I'd even go so far as to ask for his removal from the campaign. I think we need some OFFICIAL word from Mark about this, because it's a volatile issue.
I can see that some GMs have problems with players that play neutral characters and they're basically telling players how to play their PC. That's a lot worse than another player telling you how to play your character, especially since they have the power to remove your PC from the campaign. I would also argue their actions are harmful to a neutral campaign.
As his DM for his character Tyson, I allowed the group to decide as a group if their characters would help him or even allow it to happen...
A PC doesn't have to get the group's permission to do something, lol, it's the opposite, no one can do anything to stop him from doing what he wants. What part of "Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s affairs unless offering a helping hand" don't you understand?
Also, maybe it's just obvious to me, but Paladins play by special rules and shouldn't even be used in any alignment arguments because of their special nature. Yes, of course the Paladin can't poison the merchant. Duh. Of course they cannot maim people. Duh. Paladins should stick with the Silver Crusade if they don't wish to lose prestige from time to time (or their powers).
As for some Andoran missions being evil, sometimes in war, to kill the bad guys, it's not always fair. In modern warfare, most of the people who are killed are not killed fairly. It's done with bombs. So is your armed forces evil? I'd like to ask you that. How are bombs or a snipers different than poison? The enemy never had a fair chance. Your armed forces don't "respect the life of their enemy" (who aren't evil, sometimes just like them). Is everyone in the military evil? I want to know because according to many of you, they are. Being good is about not harming innocents. Your enemy is fair game. Andoran is fighting a war and their enemies are fair game, whether they're killed fairly or not.
PCs with dubious faction missions... don't tell the other players about it and certainly don't ask the Paladin for help. lol. Also in general, it's a lot easier asking for forgiveness than asking for permission. They can't stop you, so do what you have to do (but it always helps to be discreet).
I hate alignment debates because no one is going to change anyone's minds, so I wish it was never brought up. Having said that, this is a neutral campaign, and some dubious things will occur, so get used to it.
Just to repeat, I'd like it if Mark Moreland could comment on how some GMs think that completing a faction mission should be grounds for making a character evil and removing him from the campaign. Are these GMs right or wrong?
I don't see any reason for us to debate this (it's pointless), I just want to hear from Mark, because that's all that matters. Hopefully we can get an answer and stop this pointless debate.
|
|
Maybe this has been mentioned before, but I thought I should add it to this rather large discussion (which I have no read everything of)
What I would like to see if some sort of enforcement of the "No Evil" rule, since at the moment it is more of a mechanic.
This should CERTAINLY not be a 1 evil thing puts you as evil. But maybe if the GM thinks you acted evilly then you get an "Evil point" on your chronicle at the end. 5 of these moves you one step closer to evil, i.e. Good>Neutral>Evil. These can be negated by a GM thinking that you acted in a good way during a scenario, thus ensuring that neutral characters actually are neutral.
It would be an additional thing for GMs to do at the end of the scenario, but it would be nice to see some kind of mechanical disadvantage to just acting evilly.
On I side note, I care a lot less about killing PCs who act IMO "evilly"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have been looking through this discussion and have to wonder, Why would a faction mission be included that is not able to be completed without flagging your character as evil. This seems extremely irresponsible of the writers and those that approve it. It has me wondering why no Paizo staff have chimed in.
Developer
|
Maybe this has been mentioned before, but I thought I should add it to this rather large discussion (which I have no read everything of)
What I would like to see if some sort of enforcement of the "No Evil" rule, since at the moment it is more of a mechanic.
This should CERTAINLY not be a 1 evil thing puts you as evil. But maybe if the GM thinks you acted evilly then you get an "Evil point" on your chronicle at the end. 5 of these moves you one step closer to evil, i.e. Good>Neutral>Evil. These can be negated by a GM thinking that you acted in a good way during a scenario, thus ensuring that neutral characters actually are neutral.
It would be an additional thing for GMs to do at the end of the scenario, but it would be nice to see some kind of mechanical disadvantage to just acting evilly.
On I side note, I care a lot less about killing PCs who act IMO "evilly"
Let's not start that fight again here.
There's a much better thread focused on this here
My position is summed up in there.
As far as I can tell, there is no official rule allowing GMs to shift alignment or punish players for evil actions, beyond those that are disruptive to the table itself, and only then because they are disruptive.
As for whether there should be... that thread above is where that discussion lies.
For the most part this thread is about how other characters react to evil-ish faction missions, though some of the removal stuff got mixed in.
Also, no one gets removed for completing their faction missions. Paladins might lose powers, though, but that's the risk they take for their class.
|
I have been looking through this discussion and have to wonder, Why would a faction mission be included that is not able to be completed without flagging your character as evil. This seems extremely irresponsible of the writers and those that approve it. It has me wondering why no Paizo staff have chimed in.
They haven't chimed in because the idea of doing what you are supposed to do in the course of a module would get your character kicked from the campaign is simply insane. To do so would be to lose active players, and thus revenue, and begin a wave of bad word of mouth about the campaign (and thusly Pathfinder itself). I let people do borderline evil things, perhaps even dipping into evil when its needed, but when its straight evil for the sake of pushing the boundaries I say "Find another way to do it."
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have been looking through this discussion and have to wonder, Why would a faction mission be included that is not able to be completed without flagging your character as evil. This seems extremely irresponsible of the writers and those that approve it. It has me wondering why no Paizo staff have chimed in.
This exact sentiment has been echoed many times; on the other side of it, some GMs see no issue with faction missions being unable to complete without "committing evil" and see the risk of having such a mission to be a legitimate part of choosing a shady faction - an aspect that they presume Paizo included on purpose. In essence, two different types of people (those who think Paizo wouldn't "corner" a PC into choosing between PP and alignment, and those who think that's a good and interesting part of gameplay) are each assuming that the Powers That Be think the same way and that the other side is being weird.
And then of course there's the meta-discussion going on at the same time, where statements like "the PC shouldn't be cornered into having to either forego their PP or become evil" get heard as "PCs should be able to do whatever they want and there's nothing the GM can do about it"; and responses like "the GM has the authority to rein in problem players" get heard as "the GM can do whatever they want to their players and the players can either deal with it or GTFO"; and the loop of defensiveness-inspired nonsense just keeps spinning.
And last I checked, none of the Powers That Be have stepped in to communicate their actual intent in regard to faction missions and alignment.
EDIT: M-m-m-multi-ninja'd!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I have been looking through this discussion and have to wonder, Why would a faction mission be included that is not able to be completed without flagging your character as evil. This seems extremely irresponsible of the writers and those that approve it. It has me wondering why no Paizo staff have chimed in.
I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as 'flagging a character as evil' in PFS. Nor is there anywhere in the PFS guide that says characters cannot commit evil acts. It says they cannot be evil aligned.
What exactly does that mean? There isn't a whole lot of consensus in the gaming community and there isn't a real solid guideline. For example, casting animate dead is an evil act... do character sheets get flagged for that? What about using summon monster to summon a fiendish creature?
I wrote the faction mission because I felt in the context of previous faction missions somewhere in the middle of the nastiness scale.
After days of searching I finally found the relevant posts by a head of the PFS regarding characters shifting to evil. And since this thread about evil is the one most recently posted in, I am going to put it here.
First, this is the original thread and this is the relevant quote from Mark:
Committing a single evil act doesn't warrant an alignment change (unless one is a paladin, in which case the rules are more strict), but if, as was originally stated, a PC went around murdering every NPC in the Puddles District, that would be grounds for removing the PC from play. Ultimately, a GM can make whatever call they want, because they're the GM. Hopefully we don't have many people abusing that power. The way I see it, a power-mad GM can already fudge a dice roll and "crit" a PC, then "roll" max damage if they want them to die, not that this is considered fair play, of course, but it can happen. With an alignment issue, at least a player has some say in whether their PC stays around or not.
I am also necroing that thread to ask Mark about something else he posted there.
|
|
With the above statement, combined with the DM of the OP scenario, That is very close to that line of abuse. So if a player did 3 scenarios where the faction mission was questionable in alignment and completed them all. The DM then decides to mark that characters alignment as shifted and invalidates their character. That is over zealous and abusive. The fact that we have venture captains that agreeing with and condoning that behavior is especially concerning. This isn't your home game. This is an entire community of players. When something is as broad as alignment, you don't make radical decisions that will drive players away. I can tell you, if I was new and some DM invalidated my new character after a few sessions just by following the faction missions listed, I would seriously reconsider the community play.
|
|
I let people do borderline evil things, perhaps even dipping into evil when its needed, but when its straight evil for the sake of pushing the boundaries I say "Find another way to do it."
This is, I believe, well within the spirit of the society 'no evil PCs' rules.
There's a big difference between arranging for an 'accident', and running around like a kill-crazy loon.
|
|
I understand where the GMs who are in favor of alignment change are coming from.
1) Talked about his horse's c__k all night (and how the other PCs were looking at it or jealous).
2) Took off his armor and danced naked through diseased flowers for no reason. (I'm guessing to get the pox on his p).
3) After doing that, telling a player to "sod off" when asked to pick up a few diseased flower for him (since he was already affected).
4) Made rude advances towards an elderly herbalist (talking about his c__k again, but at least it made more sense now since it was infected. Sigh.).
5) He wanted to bring his horse everywhere, including into small shops.
6) He killed a prisoner we captured and were in the middle of questioning (I'm guessing because he was bored).
Had cheated chronicles. His 1st level character "played up" to subtier 6-7, earned more than 4000g, and owned a mithril breastplate.
Is he a disruptive player? Yes. (But it's the GMs call to make).
Would I love to do a character audit? OMFG yes, I wish I could. At Gen Con, I wish there was a dedicated auditor who could be called if a GM wants a PC at his table to be audited. In my experience, most players either make major mistakes, misunderstand the rules, or cheat. Their home games aren't doing it, I think it would be good for people.
Is his PC "Good"? After killing an unarmed prisoner (in the middle of town) for no reason, I doubt it, but one action isn't going to change his alignment.
Is his PC "Lawful"? HELL NO! He has no respect for his teammates, he doesn't wish to fit into the norms of society, has no respect for the law or due process, and he's "crazy". I don't think so.
So while I technically disagree with the GMs who want alignment change, I also deeply sympathize. lol.