|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So in a regular campaign when a player acts too unreasonably ruthless to be good or too predictable to be chaotic neutral I'd shift their alignment. How does that work here? When say a LG character decides, meh, I can't be forced to change factions so I'm just going to murder these bound and gagged evildoers, for no reason other than one spit on my boots. Would say the andoran faction cease relations with a known evil character or would cheliax disown a known devil-slayer?
Is there a way for me to deal with these things within the confines of the rules?
|
This is a hotly debated concept and there aren't really any clear rules on how to deal with it. However, if you feel the player is being overly disruptive or is acting blatantly/overtly evil, you can ask them to leave the table. And if you feel it is necessary, report them to your organizer or to Mark.
There are differing opinions on where or not you can go much further than that.
|
|
So in a regular campaign when a player acts too unreasonably ruthless to be good or too predictable to be chaotic neutral I'd shift their alignment.
This is why I have a problem with individual GMs (subjectively) determining a PCs alignment.
CN doesn't mean "acting crazy, random and unpredictable". (That definition is why some players hate the CN alignment, or find it annoying.) I'd explain what it means (but it's in the Core Rulebook), how you could be a team player 95% of the time and still be CN, but I see no point in having another alignment debate.
Alot of the problems come from GMs using 1E and 2E definitions of alignment, combined with the fact that they think "PCs must ALWAYS play within their alignment". This is why I dislike alignment and the 1-dimensional cliché characters they create. In some groups, it's like a straight jacket that handcuffs every aspect of roleplaying. *yawn*
I think everyone can see the endless alignment debate threads that go on for 10+ pages and no one changes anyone's mind. I think they also illustrate why GMs shouldn't be in charge of changing anyone's alignment in PFS, except in extreme cases. (In which case several GMs should be consulted before anything is done). If you nudged some players regarding alignment, they'd probably change it on their own.
Developer
|
Also, Andoran doesn't care if someone is an evildoer, so long as they further Andoran interests. I've seen some missions that have them
Cheliax doesn't mind devil slayers. One requirement (waived in PFS) to join the Hellknights is to kill a devil. Devils are tools for Cheliax. It's like someone throwing a hammer in the trash - you'd shake your head from the waste, but you wouldn't treat them like a social pariah.
Factions employ all types. These types need not be exemplars or patriots, just people willing to do their dirty work and further their interests. Some of the faction leaders may even think little or less of some members, but recognize their usefulness.
I would say that the CN alignment example was a bit poorly worded, but I understand what you mean. Something drastically evil, while playing a LG alignment, could shift that alignment downward, sure. Maybe not all the way to Evil right away, depending on how they've acted. I liked the suggestion earlier about consulting with other GMs on it. Work with your player, figure out where their character is going, why they're acting so OOC (or why they really might be acting completely in-character).
As for what to do... Powerful NPCs are there for a reason. To put it another way, how would you feel if you, a LG Paladin, sent someone out to buy a quart of milk, and on the way home he beat someone to death? It's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point that you are not dealing with a flat world, defenseless against the rampages of PCs. Make sure you don't overreact and stomp them into the ground for not acting the way you think they should act, but make sure the NPCs do react in believable ways. Would a paladin already in the world perhaps seek them out, asking their justification for their behavior? He may refuse to fight them, but through asking, he may provoke them to kill him as well. That opens up a whole new can of worms. Ultimately, evil characters tend not to live very long. Murder is frowned upon in most societies. The authorities of your game should not be rolling over and pretending it didn't happen.
|
Developer
|
I would say that the CN alignment example was a bit poorly worded, but I understand what you mean. Something drastically evil, while playing a LG alignment, could shift that alignment downward, sure. Maybe not all the way to Evil right away, depending on how they've acted. I liked the suggestion earlier about consulting with other GMs on it. Work with your player, figure out where their character is going, why they're acting so OOC (or why they really might be acting completely in-character).
As for what to do... Powerful NPCs are there for a reason. To put it another way, how would you feel if you, a LG Paladin, sent someone out to buy a quart of milk, and on the way home he beat someone to death? It's an extreme example, but it illustrates the point that you are not dealing with a flat world, defenseless against the rampages of PCs. Make sure you don't overreact and stomp them into the ground for not acting the way you think they should act, but make sure the NPCs do react in believable ways. Would a paladin already in the world perhaps seek them out, asking their justification for their behavior? He may refuse to fight them, but through asking, he may provoke them to kill him as well. That opens up a whole new can of worms. Ultimately, evil characters tend not to live very long. Murder is frowned upon in most societies. The authorities of your game should not be rolling over and pretending it didn't happen.
Well, stupidly evil characters don't. There are plenty of evil characters who do just fine. Stupid evil actions should be discouraged because they are foolish and generally only serve to get the player attention or antagonize.
Evil actions aren't illegal the way evil characters are, but players should try not to choose the evil option so often that they basically are evil. GMs, as it stands do not have official backing on alignment changes. You can report disruptive players, though, and ask them to leave your table.
Alignment is tricky, and GMs should step lightly. Even in these forums, the issues are contentious. The changing players alignment has been discussed elsewhere.
It should be noted that a paladin who does evil is essentially a warrior. No more divine powers. You can enforce that as a GM, no question.
Well, stupidly evil characters don't. There are plenty of evil characters who do just fine. Stupid evil actions should be discouraged because they are foolish and generally only serve to get the player attention or antagonize.
Evil actions aren't illegal the way evil characters are, but players should try not to choose the evil option so often that they basically are evil. GMs, as it stands do not have official backing on alignment changes. You can report disruptive players, though, and ask them to leave your table.
Alignment is tricky, and GMs should step...
That's an excellent point: stupid evil characters don't live very long. Most players who would pick a Good alignment and then start randomly slaughtering people for fun would probably fall under this category, but not all. If they're at least being discrete, you don't have to worry about it quite as much... but it still can be frustrating to deal with, I know.
Alorha, that was an excellent point: Paladins lose their powers upon doing that. I hadn't even considered that, but it is right there in the class description. If they aren't playing a paladin, there are plenty of other things to do.
I would still recommend sitting the player down outside of the game and asking them point-blank why they are doing it. If it's not being super disruptive to you, then it may not be such an issue. It sounded more like you were concerned about Alignment effects, and honestly, that's a pretty tough topic. Again, talk to the player. Maybe they don't understand their own alignment at all. Maybe they chose poorly, or they are getting bored. I know that I have one player who will make LG characters, but if he gets bored, switches to LE without warning.
|
Developer
|
I would still recommend sitting the player down outside of the game and asking them point-blank why they are doing it. If it's not being super disruptive to you, then it may not be such an issue. It sounded more like you were concerned about Alignment effects, and honestly, that's a pretty tough topic. Again, talk to the player. Maybe they don't understand their own alignment at all. Maybe they chose poorly, or they are getting bored. I know that I have one player who will make LG characters, but if he gets bored, switches to LE without warning.
This is an excellent point. Talking to players is always the best option.
This is an excellent point. Talking to players is always the best option.
I would still recommend sitting the player down outside of the game and asking them point-blank why they are doing it. If it's not being super disruptive to you, then it may not be such an issue. It sounded more like you were concerned about Alignment effects, and honestly, that's a pretty tough topic. Again, talk to the player. Maybe they don't understand their own alignment at all. Maybe they chose poorly, or they are getting bored. I know that I have one player who will make LG characters, but if he gets bored, switches to LE without warning.
Once in a while, you get the player who is simply too immature and selfish to handle honest criticism and discussion. At that point, there is no reason to keep them at your table. Better to have an upset person complaining about you twenty miles away, than sitting at your table making everyone miserable.
|
|
First of all I'd like to thank everyone for responding so quickly, thanks for the advice and many of you have made excellent points.
This is why I have a problem with individual GMs (subjectively) determining a PCs alignment.
While I agree with most of what you were saying I was trying to use general examples, with the by the book descriptions of alignments. While I agree that alignments shouldn't yo-yo back and fourth between the different spectrums I think that it's only natural that under certain circumstances, with either a slow change in behavior or a single life changing event that an alignment can and will change. Alignments shouldn't change every other session but if the GM doesn't adjudicate the time and place when an alignment change is appropriate who will?
Once again, the examples above were just that, black and white examples from a black and white world. Not everything is perfect and while yes, I agree that a single minor evil deed or a minor act of charity will not change an allignment, an unnecessary act of evil or a random act of kindness can be steps in either direction. A CN character can go out and kill a man for no reason other than he spit on his shoes, sure. But if he goes around butchering innocents well that sounds more evil to me.
(I'm not trying to get into an alignment debate either, I'm not trying to draw where the lines start and where they end regarding alignments. I'm just trying to say that they're there and a GM should be able to respond when that line is crossed)
Once in a while, you get the player who is simply too immature and selfish to handle honest criticism and discussion.
Ain't that the truth.
I will add here, if you talk to a paladin player, and they still blatantly violate alignment and their paladin code multiple times, I have no problem with the DM stripping their paladinhood and then requiring an atonement through PPs. Just make sure it gets recorded on the Chronicle Sheet.
That is very good to know.
|
Developer
|
Alignments shouldn't change every other session but if the GM doesn't adjudicate the time and place when an alignment change is appropriate who will?
Perhaps the player herself. GMs don't currently have this authority in organized play. I've explained elsewhere why I feel this is a good thing.
I come on a bit strong, there, but tone aside I do feel that my reasoning there is sound.
I've explained elsewhere why I feel this is a good thing.
I come on a bit strong, there, but tone aside I do feel that my reasoning there is sound.
I read your post and I have to say, I fully, 100% agree... for organized play. You are absolutely and totally correct in everything that you said. In particular, one thing I noticed that you left out, but would have made your point even more, is that organized play allows for multiple GMs. A person may play their LG character in 40 consecutive games with one GM and perform nothing but cliche good actions, but play one game with a different GM where the character has a moral struggle and chooses a less moral action, and be automatically dropped to LN or CN.
(I, personally, would not list as evil the killing of a prisoner who presents a real threat to people if the prisoner should go free. That action could be fully justified as LG, in that the character believes s/he is serving Law by eliminating someone who has proven they cannot stop disrupting society, and Good by mercifully "putting down" a person not in control of their own evil actions, saving them and other people from the killer.)
That example, in particular, is why a GM does not have the power to control alignment. And, furthermore, I have far more experience in the World of Darkness system than I do in Pathfinder. In WoD, there is no alignment system, it is a Morality scale. The Morality scale does not dictate what your character has to do, it only shows WHERE ON THE SCALE YOUR CHARACTER CURRENTLY RESIDES. I have never, and will never, tell a person that they cannot perform an action because it is not in line with their Morality. This should be the same way with alignment. A LG person can reach a panic-stricken breaking point, and make poor decisions. Are they now an evil person?
Alignment is not a stat, it is not a class, or a race, or a skill check. Alignment does not dictate character action, character action dictates alignment. Flip the scale of causality over, and the alignment problem goes away. Players can and should be encouraged to take charge of their own alignment because, really, keeping track of where you stand morally, and thinking in-depth about the choices your character makes, is the reason we are playing a ROLE PLAYING GAME. Without the players having these choices and elements in their own hands, this game becomes nothing more than narrated chess.
Now, in homebrew games, that have nothing to do with Society at all... have I told a player to change their alignment? Yes, and let me explain why.
Mature players who understand that alignment follows from character action, and does not dictate it, are in charge of their own alignment. Players who are new to the system may need help. And, in particular, players who have no respect for morality at all need to be observed differently, for one reason. Good alignment has a certain connotation to it. In my own example of me, as a GM, changing alignment in a homebrew game, a player was Good. In the first few sessions, he went around saying nasty things to surrendering prisoners right before kicking them to their deaths off of high places. This happened repeatedly. At one point, he tortured the person first. The player still had Good alignment written on his sheet, but had never performed a Good action. Therefore, I asked him to please drop his alignment to Neutral, which he agreed with.
Now, this was a homebrew game, with a group of friends I have known for years, and I had seen every action his character performed. And, this character was acting in an extreme example. Society play would have trumped this, as I could have simply laid out the rules and asked him to stop the disruptive behavior, since it was being disruptive. Also, I would not have had an issue with this, had he been Neutral to start with.
Looking back on it with Alorha's perspective, I can see how I may have handled it differently, and that makes sense. However, I would never, never have told him that his character could not perform the action because of his alignment, or that it didn't make sense. He did what he did, and he changed his alignment accordingly when asked. We worked together and came up with the appropriate change to reflect it. Would I have forced it, had he disagreed? Probably not, because really... alignment is just two letters written down on a sheet. It has no real impact on the way the game is played, and it is far more important that the players have fun and enjoy themselves, which everyone did.
We can argue about alignment, and who controls it and how much and when, endlessly, but ultimately, it comes down to this: Alignment is not the most important part of the game. It is two letters marked down on a sheet to describe where the character's fluctuating morals currently stand. Teach your player to be more aware of their morality and alignment, and let them handle it. It really makes for better RP in the end, anyway.
|
|
I think that my opinion is likely to be unpopular, but it is mine just the same.
I disagree that the GM does not have the right to change a PC's alignment based on his/her actions, but this is an interpretive argument and neither side will swing the other, so I am not going to try.
I do agree, however, that a GM does not have the power to remove a PC from play. IMO, only the OP Director can do that. I reserve my GM right to refuse to allow a player to sit at my table based on his/her actions, but that is no different than a player choosing to leave the table. And BTW, I have never "kicked" a player, nor forced an alignment change, or even pull a paladin's powers.
I also do not think that good vs. evil is a stats race. That you can do a good deed to offset an evil one. I resolve this in my mind by saying that even if you live a saintly life, commit one murder and you are evil. Period. Can you be redeemed, probably. But a good person would never do that. And I am not talking about justifiable stuff like self defense. Of course, this is an extreme example, and not typical. Again, I have never shifted a PC's alignment in any PFS game, nor do I expect to.
You may disagree with my opinion. That's fine. It's good to have people with different styles and interpretations of the rules.
To me this comes down to my not so recent epiphany..."Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."
|
Developer
|
You may disagree with my opinion. That's fine. It's good to have people with different styles and interpretations of the rules.
I do, but respect the tone with which it was given. Mine was a bit confrontational, and I regret it slightly, though removal from play and the like is a very contentious subject.
To me this comes down to my not so recent epiphany..."Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."
On this we can both agree.
I think that my opinion is likely to be unpopular, but it is mine just the same.
I disagree that the GM does not have the right to change a PC's alignment based on his/her actions, but this is an interpretive argument and neither side will swing the other, so I am not going to try.
I do agree, however, that a GM does not have the power to remove a PC from play. IMO, only the OP Director can do that. I reserve my GM right to refuse to allow a player to sit at my table based on his/her actions, but that is no different than a player choosing to leave the table. And BTW, I have never "kicked" a player, nor forced an alignment change, or even pull a paladin's powers.
I also do not think that good vs. evil is a stats race. That you can do a good deed to offset an evil one. I resolve this in my mind by saying that even if you live a saintly life, commit one murder and you are evil. Period. Can you be redeemed, probably. But a good person would never do that. And I am not talking about justifiable stuff like self defense. Of course, this is an extreme example, and not typical. Again, I have never shifted a PC's alignment in any PFS game, nor do I expect to.
You may disagree with my opinion. That's fine. It's good to have people with different styles and interpretations of the rules.
To me this comes down to my not so recent epiphany..."Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should."
I have also reached a recent epiphany..."Just because you cannot do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't try."
And no. I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about -
"There's no way we can beat them."
"That cliff is unclimbable."
"That chasm is about five feet wider than your best jump."
"Even a natural 20 on the skill check won't be enough."
"He is dead set in his opinion. You will never change it."
"You'll never find the secret to that puzzle box."
"You will never get a date with that bar wench."
"You can't possibly save both groups."