|
If we are going to talk about booting players for being evil there needs to be some sort of standards for how far down the path of evil an individual act will take a character. Otherwise we'll have some GMs booting players for killing a single prisonoer, while others will require a far more rigorous test (for example firebombing multiple orphanages). In the interest of fairness and standardization I propose we use this thread to establish an evil-meter or evilometer, which can be used to measure how bad character's are. When a character reaches 100 evil points he is irrevocably evil and must be booted from the game.
Points - Act
50 - Burning down an orphanage (You get two!)
25 - Nailing the door shut first
20 - Murder (attacking and killing an NPC without clear provocation)
10 - Killing a prisoner in cold blood
10 - Mugging/ assault and robbery (Beating up NPCs to steal their stuff. Note, if you kill them it's murder and taking their stuff is free)
10 - Not accepting a surrender or attacking a fleeing enemy
7 - Torturing a prisoner for no reason
7 - Kicking a Puppy
5 - Torturing a prisoner for information
5 - Killing an NPC in combat who isn't a threat to you (Watch out for lethal damage in bar fights)
2 - Slitting the throats of downed enemies
1 points per spell level^2 - Casting spells or using magic items to cast spells with the evil descriptor
Graces - These acts subtract from your total evil score. It is possible (but unlikely for a pathfinder) to have a negative evil score.
50 - Burying a dead ally with proper rites
25 - Atonement (the spell)
5 - Healing an NPC without compensation
1 point/ 1000gp - Spending resources to assist NPCs
.5 point per spell level - Casting spells or using magic items to cast spells with the good descriptor
This is obviously unofficial, but I suggest (if people insist on keeping score) we all subscribe to the same standards so players know what to expect going into the game.
.
This scoring system is genius!!
I'm going to use it.
.
|
Stuff
I'd like to add the following to the evil acts points chart:
75 Forwarding a chain letter.
20 Tying Penelope to the train tracks.
5 Kicking puppies.
.5 Taking candy from a baby.
.25 Taunting children because you have ice cream and they don't, 'cause they can't afford it, 'cause they're on the welfware, and 'cause their daddy is an alchoholic.
.25 Pulling the wings off flies (not dire flies, that's combat).
.125 Arguing with your GM about whether your chosen path constitutes an evil act.
Graces
100 Rubbing her feat without being asked.
10 Helping the little old lady across the busy street.
.01 Per copper piece donated to the charity of your choice.
(God, I hope Ogre meant this as a humorous thread.)
EDIT: Added a couple more evil acts.
Interesting.
For the Graces, I would say that you could also just generalize and grant points based on the CR of challenges overcome voluntarily and un-necessarily (from a personal point of view) which were undertaken with good motives (i.e. for benefit of others, not in self-interest, or narrow in-group-interest). EDIT: Not raw CR, but the +X vs. the APL of the group you are in.
For Atonement, wouldn´t anybody EXCEPT a Cleric/Paladin (Class whose functioning is tied to Good/Evil Alignment scale) not really even have an actual in-character reason to pursue getting an Atonement spell cast on them? I mean, in the case of somebody who went to far down the Evil path, but ´sees the light´ and wants to change their ways... Well, they can just change their ways, and their Alignment will shift back to Neutral/Good as they continue to act that way and gain Neutral/Good points. Alignment is just a measurement, so why would they care about shifting that measurement, when they can shift their own actions which Aligment measures? If anything, pursuing an Atonement Alignment change (when it doesn´t impact their own powers, i.e. their powers to do Good presumably), just reflects an interest in how they appear to others (Detect Evil, etc) rather than a focus on actually being Good.
Where does selling surrendered foes into slavery fit on the scale? Are there bonus points for doing so in a land where slavery is illegal?
There should also be a bonus for murdering an NPC if you sneak into his room and kill him in his sleep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No Evil Points for kicking puppies? This entire thing is broken and needs to be reworked.
If we are going to talk about booting players for being evil there needs to be some sort of standards for how far down the path of evil an individual act will take a character. Otherwise we'll have some GMs booting players for killing a single prisonoer, while others will require a far more rigorous test (for example firebombing multiple orphanages). In the interest of fairness and standardization I propose we use this thread to establish an evil-meter or evilometer, which can be used to measure how bad character's are. When a character reaches 100 evil points he is irrevocably evil and must be booted from the game.
Points - Act
50 - Burning down an orphanage (You get two!)
25 - Nailing the door shut first
20 - Murder (attacking and killing an NPC without clear provocation)
10 - Killing a prisoner in cold blood
10 - Mugging/ assault and robbery (Beating up NPCs to steal their stuff. Note, if you kill them it's murder and taking their stuff is free)
10 - Not accepting a surrender or attacking a fleeing enemy
7 - Torturing a prisoner for no reason
5 - Torturing a prisoner for information
5 - Killing an NPC in combat who isn't a threat to you (Watch out for lethal damage in bar fights)
2 - Slitting the throats of downed enemies
1 points/ level^2 - Casting spells or using magic items to cast spells with the evil descriptorGraces - These acts subtract from your total evil score. It is possible (but unlikely for a pathfinder) to have a negative evil score.
25 - Atonement (the spell)
5 - Healing an NPC without compensation
1 point/ 10gp - Spending resources to assist NPCs
.5 point/ level - Casting spells or using magic items to cast spells with the good descriptorThis is obviously unofficial, but I suggest (if people insist on keeping score) we all subscribe to the same standards so players know what to expect going into the game.
So a not accepting the surrender of a group of 10 enemies makes your character irrevocably evil???
Only four ways to move the evil score back down? And each of them is more difficult than a corresponding step towards evil?
How do Good aligned versus Neutral aligned characters figure into this scale? If I have a good score higher than a certain number, am I forced to change alignment?
Why is it cheaper to simply spend 1000gp to help some PC's and move 100 points along your scale than it is to spend 2500gp on an atonement to only move 25 points?
What if I simply declare that I'll cast a bunch of 1st level [good] spells on my down time, thus always resetting my scale to +1000000 [good] each adventure??
Sorry, but bad list is bad.
There is no way to track every action of a PC to determine whether they are good or evil. Any system that you (or anyone) can come up with will be as chock full of flaws as there this one is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
StuffI'd like to add the following to the evil acts points chart:
75 Forwarding a chain letter.
.5 Taking candy from a baby.
.25 Taunting children because you have ice cream and they don't, 'cause they can't afford it, 'cause they're on the welfware, and 'cause their daddy is an alchoholic.
.25 Pulling the wings off flies (not dire flies, that's combat).
.125 Arguing with your GM about whether your chosen path constitutes an evil act.Graces
100 Rubbing her feat without being asked.
10 Helping the little old lady across the busy street.
.01 Per copper piece donated to the charity of your choice.(God, I hope Ogre meant this as a humorous thread.)
And the ultimate evil act:
10000 Putting up stupid lists of "evil" acts!
Sorry, but bad list is bad.
There is no way to track every action of a PC to determine whether they are good or evil. Any system that you (or anyone) can come up with will be as chock full of flaws as there this one is.
But is it more flawed than how Ogre or any random GM would rule without writing this list down?
But is it more flawed than how Ogre or any random GM would rule without writing this list down?Sorry, but bad list is bad.
There is no way to track every action of a PC to determine whether they are good or evil. Any system that you (or anyone) can come up with will be as chock full of flaws as there this one is.
Actually, it simply points out how impossible it is to objectively quantify whether or not a PC is evil, neutral, or good. In fact, without the underlying motivation, any of the named action could conceivably be done as [good] acts.
This is why the Core Rules leave that decision to the Player, not the GM to define their character.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting.
For the Graces, I would say that you could also just generalize and grant points based on the CR of challenges overcome voluntarily and un-necessarily (from a personal point of view) which were undertaken with good motives (i.e. for benefit of others, not in self-interest, or narrow in-group-interest). EDIT: Not raw CR, but the +X vs. the APL of the group you are in.
For Atonement, wouldn´t anybody EXCEPT a Cleric/Paladin (Class whose functioning is tied to Good/Evil Alignment scale) not really even have an actual in-character reason to pursue getting an Atonement spell cast on them? I mean, in the case of somebody who went to far down the Evil path, but ´sees the light´ and wants to change their ways... Well, they can just change their ways, and their Alignment will shift back to Neutral/Good as they continue to act that way and gain Neutral/Good points. Alignment is just a measurement, so why would they care about shifting that measurement, when they can shift their own actions which Aligment measures?
This adds value to the atonement spell and gives people who have an urgent need a quick way to get their alignment back in line. You might want to keep a scroll in your kit just in case you need to murder three people and burn down an orphanage.
|
|
Sorry, but bad list is bad.
All I'm suggesting is if GMs are going to talk about measuring evil and booting players from play they should all be on the same page so players know what to expect. You should know how many orphanages you can burn down.
Why is it cheaper to simply spend 1000gp to help some PC's and move 100 points along your scale than it is to spend 2500gp on an atonement to only move 25 points?
This is a great point though... it should be far more expensive to spend your way out of being evil!
Edit: Increased the cost of spending your way to goodness by a factor of 100.
Sorry, but bad list is bad.All I'm suggesting is if GMs are going to talk about measuring evil and booting players from play they should all be on the same page so players know what to expect. You should know how many orphanages you can burn down.
"Having built a brand new orphanage, and having determined that the old orphanage is in such disrepair that there is no safe way to demolish the old building, we have elected to burn it down. As I now set the fire..."
"Excuse me sir, you will have to come with me."
"What??"
"We've determined that your action in burning down the orphanage has placed you in the category of irrevocably evil, and we must now remove you from decent non-player-characters. This way please."
"Huh?"
|
Points - Act
50 - Burning down an orphanage (You get two!)
Hey! I almost did this once in PFS and did it in a AP. PFS:
AP(CotCT)
Does it count that same if the orphanage is empty?
20 - Murder (attacking and killing an NPC without clear provocation)
This should include kobolds/goblins/derro/mites/fey/ect as well, so no taking out guards from stealth.
*so wants to send a outline of an adventure where you must murder kobolds in a orphanage, and then nail the door shut and burn it down to prevent something from escaping. And the kobolds surrender, but if you accept it the mission says the PFS sends your last retired character to kill you - thus putting them on the scale (now only to figure out a way to force them to do everything else on the list)*
For Atonement, wouldn´t anybody EXCEPT a Cleric/Paladin (Class whose functioning is tied to Good/Evil Alignment scale) not really even have an actual in-character reason to pursue getting an Atonement spell cast on them? I mean, in the case of somebody who went to far down the Evil path, but ´sees the light´ and wants to change their ways... Well, they can just change their ways, and their Alignment will shift back to Neutral/Good as they continue to act that way and gain Neutral/Good points. Alignment is just a measurement, so why would they care about shifting that measurement, when they can shift their own actions which Aligment measures?This adds value to the atonement spell and gives people who have an urgent need a quick way to get their alignment back in line. You might want to keep a scroll in your kit just in case you need to murder three people and burn down an orphanage.
What I¨m saying is isn´t that a wholly out-of-character / meta-gaming benefit? Why would Joe-the-Fighter-who-has-been-Evil-but-wants-to-change actually need to get an Atonement spell, unless he´s worried about what people-who-can-Cast-Detect-Evil will think about him? I mean, people CAN be worried-about-what-other-people-think AND still be Good (I think), but if that doesn´t happen to be an imediate concern of a given character (say, they don´t believe they are being Detected Evil on a regular basis), I don´t see the motivation for an Atonement.
This is why the Core Rules leave that decision to the Player, not the GM to define their character.
As far as I can tell, the Core Rules go out of their way to emphasize that Alignment is something that the GM tracks, unlike things left in the hands of players to choose. It also goes to explain good ways for the GM to communicate about this with the player, and different options for dealing with it (bringing it to the player´s attention so they can play the character more in-line with the purported alignment, OR alignment shifting), but it seems to clearly be described as a measurement solely in the hands of the GM¨s idiosyncratic judgement of how actions affect aligment. The only exception is during character creation, the player is directed to choose an alignment, but nothing indicates they have ongoing control over this aspect of the character.
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character. In some cases, changing alignments can impact a character's abilities—see the class write-ups in Classes for details. An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality.
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.
As far as I can tell, the Core Rules go out of their way to emphasize that Alignment is something that the GM tracks, unlike things left in the hands of players to choose. It also goes to explain good ways for the GM to communicate about this with the player, and different options for dealing with it (bringing it to the player´s attention so they can play the character more in-line with the purported alignment, OR alignment shifting), but it seems to clearly be described as a measurement solely in the hands of the GM¨s idiosyncratic judgement of how actions affect aligment.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
It's best to let players play their characters as they want. If a player is roleplaying in a way that you, as the GM, think doesn't fit his alignment, let him know that he's acting out of alignment and tell him why—but do so in a friendly manner. If a character wants to change his alignment, let him—in most cases, this should amount to little more than a change of personality, or in some cases, no change at all if the alignment change was more of an adjustment to more accurately summarize how a player, in your opinion, is portraying his character. In some cases, changing alignments can impact a character's abilities—see the class write-ups in Classes for details. An atonement spell may be necessary to repair damage done by alignment changes arising from involuntary sources or momentary lapses in personality.
As a GM, you can rule that certain actions of a PC are out of their alignment, and that class abilities dependent on alignment may suffer for it, but you do not actually get to change a character's alignment. That is for the character to do. I can define my character is Lawful Good, but burn down orphanages. You can tell me that I am not acting in Lawful-Good ways, but unless I am dependent on the alignment for my abilities, this should have no affect on my character. (Yes, as Paladin's powers will turn off. A cleric of a Lawful-Good deity might deny power to the character, but a Rogue who defines himself as Lawful-Good but burns down orphanages will still get to sneak attack. You might think the rogue is deluding himself to describe himself so, but that's the player's right to choose.)
PFS rules say that a player cannot create a character of Evil Alignment. This means that I cannot declare my character to be in the service of the cause of evil. It does not mean that my character cannot make poor choices. You as a GM can decide that I am disruptive to the table, and remove me. You can decide that my characters out-of-alignment actions mean that divine and other alignment dependent powers do not work until I atone, but you cannot declare my alignment to be other than I say it is because you do not no what motivates my character.
And in black and white, we have ¨alignment is solely a label the GM controls¨,
and ¨In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment¨.
The ´be nice to players´ section DOESN´T say ´if players don´t agree, their alignment can´t change´, i.e. something that would actually be sufficient to change the general rule about GM´s tracking alignment.
And in black and white, we have ¨alignment is solely a label the GM controls¨,
and ¨In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment¨.The ´be nice to players´ section DOESN´T say ´if players don´t agree, their alignment can´t change´, i.e. something that would actually be sufficient to change the general rule about GM´s tracking alignment.
The small fragment you seem to cling to is of course in the context of the GM starting a discussion, the outcome of which can be a change to a more appropriate aligment, or the character behavior shifting to be more appropriate with the purported alignment.
That section of text is saying that the GM can say that "Burning down the orphanage is an evil act." "Saving the orphans is a good act". "Eating your vegetables each day is a Lawful act." "Burping loudly in church is a Chaotic act." Defining these actions is solely a GM's call. Whether or not to perform these actions is solely a Player's call.
A player-character choosing to perform those actions will then know what they are doing is of the indicated alignment. It does not mean that it will change the character _to_ the indicated alignment.
When the rules say ¨unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.¨ I read that as Character Alignment being talked about, not ´the alignment repurcussion of an action´, since actions don´t have hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class. THis besides that the entire passage question is under the heading ´Changing Aligment´ - Characters change their Alignment, not Actions - and the entire Section ´Alignment´ is devoted to Character Alignment, with examples of aligned actions existing to show events which re-enforce / shift a Character´s Aligment.
Why should the GM even care what alignments certain actions would be classed as, if they have no actual role in tracking/controlling character aligments?
When the rules say ¨unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.¨ I read that as Character Alignment being talked about, not ´the alignment repurcussion of an action´, since actions don´t have hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class. THis besides that the entire passage question is under the heading ´Changing Aligment´ - Characters change their Alignment, not Actions - and the entire Section ´Alignment´ is devoted to Character Alignment, with examples of aligned actions existing to show events which re-enforce / shift a Character´s Aligment.
Why should the GM even care what alignments certain actions would be classed as, if they have no actual role in determining character aligments?
It's interesting that you quote the last sentence of the paragraph, but have ignored the rest of it.
Certain character classes in Classes list repercussions for those who don't adhere to a specific alignment, and some spells and magic items have different effects on targets depending on alignment, but beyond that it's generally not necessary to worry too much about whether someone is behaving differently from his stated alignment. In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment, based on the descriptions given previously and his own opinion and interpretation—the only thing the GM needs to strive for is to be consistent as to what constitutes the difference between alignments like chaotic neutral and chaotic evil. There's no hard and fast mechanic by which you can measure alignment—unlike hit points or skill ranks or Armor Class, alignment is solely a label the GM controls.
This says nothing at all about declaring a player to have a certain alignment. It says that you can declare a player to be out of accordance with his indicated alignment.
|
|
What I¨m saying is isn´t that a wholly out-of-character / meta-gaming benefit?
The whole concept of tracking alignment is rather meta-gamey. As far as I'm concerned discussions about alignment should be handled with informal conversations between the GM and the player (and possibly the site coordinator).
That said... some people seem dead set on the idea of tracking alignment, up to and including using it to inflict the ultimate punishment on a character, irrevocably booting them from play. Don't you think the player should be aware of what it takes to make that happen? The whole value of having organized play and standardized game rules is establishing a predictable framework from location to location. If people insist it is valid to track and follow alignment, shouldn't it only be done under predictable circumstances?
As far as I'm concerned there are two equitable ways to go about it. Deal with it on a mature, conversational level (my preference) or lay out specific rules so players know what they are getting into.
This says nothing at all about declaring a player to have a certain alignment. It says that you can declare a player to be out of accordance with his indicated alignment.So if you declare that they are not Good or Neutral....
You can declare that "Your pc has acted in an evil manner."
This is not banned in PFS play. There is no PFS ban on evil actions. Many faction missions are themselves requests for the player to perform evil actions. "Steal this". "Kill this person." "Help us raise the market value of our slaves."
You cannot declare "Your character is Neutral-Evil".
There is no rule that allows a GM to force an alignment change on a character. (Outside of "Helm of Opposite Alignment".) Even if there were, it is within a Player's rights to simply change their alignment whenever they wish.
"You are now Neutral-Evil"
"Okay, I declare my alignment from this point forward to be Chaotic-Good".
"ruh?"
"Yep, core rules says 'If a character wants to change his alignment, let him'. I change my alignment to Chaotic-Good. From this point forward, I will espouse and practice the virtues of chaos and good."
What I¨m saying is isn´t that a wholly out-of-character / meta-gaming benefit?The whole concept of tracking alignment is rather meta-gamey.
Well, sure, but stuff like Detect (Alignment) spells kind of suck if you don´t track Alignment.
¨Who is the secret killer? Let´s Detect Evil on the Guards!¨ (Detect Evil) ¨Hmm... THey all seem Good or Neutral.¨(too bad Detect Alignment doesn´t tell you anything about people who started out Good but slowly became ´out of accordance with Neutral or Good alignments´)
Alignment is as real a thing in D&D as your weight or height, it is a meta-physical measurement, and it is as justified to be tracked (for all purposes, e.g. Detect Alignment effects) as is physical location on a combat grid.
Non-divine characters having an in-character reason for pursuing an Atonement doesn´t seem to be justified in many cases... Not saying that there is NEVER a reason, just that in many cases there wouldn´t be AFAIK.
That said... some people seem dead set on the idea of tracking alignment, up to and including using it to inflict the ultimate punishment on a character, irrevocably booting them from play.
Well, that is a consequence of Paizo´s no-Evil rule...
I´ve previously stated that given that Evil doesn´t need to be cartoonish murdering babies evil, but could be completely non-disruptive to play, a policy empowering SPECIFIC GMs/venues to ban/restrict Evil PCs to specific tables (´to protect the children´), while not banning Evil PCs from ALL PFS games, might be a better approach. Especially given they are already putting Evil NPCs into PFS as NPCs you will cooperate with, etc.Don't you think the player should be aware of what it takes to make that happen?
Sure, the rules seem pretty clear that nothing should be surprise, and open communication should keep players aware of what is going on, preferably before an actual alignment shift is necesitated.
The whole value of having organized play and standardized game rules is establishing a predictable framework from location to location. If people insist it is valid to track and follow alignment, shouldn't it only be done under predictable circumstances?
I agree, that´s why I responded to Fozzy´s criticism of your list with my view that it doesn´t seem particular worse of a measure than what any GM might rule off-the-cuff. I think any guideline like this should be explictly called out as a guideline, leaving the ultimate decision to GMs. But ´2 orphanages before you´re damned´ could be a rough guideline.
How many points would killing a little old lady be?
Well, that is a consequence of Paizo´s no-Evil rule...
Just so we're clear on what the "no-Evil rule" is:
No evil alignments are allowed in Pathfinder Society
Organized Play. You may select any other alignment
for your character, keeping in mind the alignment
restrictions of the various classes.
Also be aware of:
Characters may elect
to worship an evil god, but must always be within one
alignment step of their chosen deity.
Given that characters may worship evil deities, it should be expected that they will perform evil actions in service to those deities. (Though if they are of neutral alignment, they would probably expect to perform good actions in balance to those evil actions.)
Evil actions are not prohibited.
Evil alignments are not available as a character creation choice.
|
|
What I¨m saying is isn´t that a wholly out-of-character / meta-gaming benefit?The whole concept of tracking alignment is rather meta-gamey.Well, sure, but stuff like Detect (Alignment) spells kind of suck if you don´t track Alignment.
¨Who is the secret killer? Let´s Detect Evil on the Guards!¨ (Detect Evil) ¨Hmm... THey all seem Good or Neutral.¨
(too bad Detect Alignment doesn´t tell you anything about people who started out Good but slowly became ´out of accordance with Neutral or Good alignments´)Alignment is as real a thing in D&D as your weight or height, it is a meta-physical measurement, and it is as justified to be tracked (for all purposes, e.g. Detect Alignment effects) as is physical location on a combat grid.
Non-divine characters having an in-character reason for pursuing an Atonement doesn´t seem to be justified in many cases... Not saying that there is NEVER a reason, just that in many cases there wouldn´t be AFAIK.
*shrug* Atonement is more or less a distraction. It definitely affects alignment in some ways but exactly how for non-divine characters isn't really clear...
That said... some people seem dead set on the idea of tracking alignment, up to and including using it to inflict the ultimate punishment on a character, irrevocably booting them from play.Well, that is a consequence of Paizo´s no-Evil rule...
I´ve previously stated that given that Evil doesn´t need to be cartoonish murdering babies evil, but could be completely non-disruptive to play, a policy empowering SPECIFIC GMs/venues to ban/restrict Evil PCs to specific tables (´to protect the children´), while not banning Evil PCs from ALL PFS games, might be a better approach. Especially given they are already putting Evil NPCs into PFS as NPCs you will cooperate with, etc.
Nothing in the rules suggests there needs to be a 'formal' tracking mechanism or that alignment tracking needs to be or should be recorded. There is no reason it can't just be something a GM and a player deal with on an informal level. While PFS says 'no evil', there are no guidelines for enforcing it. My assumption is it's something which they feel a mature GM can hash out with a player.
How many points would killing a little old lady be?
Is she cranky?
How many points would killing a little old lady be?Is she cranky?
Yup... AND keeps at least 50 smelly, sick cats just alive enough to throw up on you. ;-P
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yup... AND keeps at least 50 smelly, sick cats just alive enough to throw up on you. ;-PHow many points would killing a little old lady be?Is she cranky?
Well cranky old ladies have one foot in the grave so there is a 10% discount... I'm not sure cranky quite qualifies as evil so probably no discount for 'doing a greater good'.
|
What I¨m saying is isn´t that a wholly out-of-character / meta-gaming benefit?The whole concept of tracking alignment is rather meta-gamey. As far as I'm concerned discussions about alignment should be handled with informal conversations between the GM and the player (and possibly the site coordinator).
That said... some people seem dead set on the idea of tracking alignment, up to and including using it to inflict the ultimate punishment on a character, irrevocably booting them from play. Don't you think the player should be aware of what it takes to make that happen? The whole value of having organized play and standardized game rules is establishing a predictable framework from location to location. If people insist it is valid to track and follow alignment, shouldn't it only be done under predictable circumstances?
As far as I'm concerned there are two equitable ways to go about it. Deal with it on a mature, conversational level (my preference) or lay out specific rules so players know what they are getting into.
Ogre this is pure genius! I think i will implement your alignment tracking system right away in my PFS game.
Seriously i agree alignment should be dealt with on a mature level, discussing it with the player in question, the other GMs present, and the Venture Captain and Coordinator.
Perhaps if the player is warned, he might change his characters behavior, Perhaps If he doesn't and there is a pattern, other GMS will have noticed it in the past as well.
If it is a game store PFS situation with "regulars" then such a pattern of "evil" behavior will emerge over time and it can be dealt with.
If it is at a convention, Maybe the GMs if they get together will talk about any "problem players" and they can figure out what needs to be done.
Because Alignment isn't objectively defined in the Core Rule book, I don't think you can have an objective meter of what is "evil".
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck well its probably evil. But claims to be CN....its probably CE in disguise.
In summation I agree alignment should be dealt with on a mature level, discussing it with the player in question, the other GMs present, and the Venture Captain and Coordinator.
|
Well, sure, but stuff like Detect (Alignment) spells kind of suck if you don´t track Alignment.
¨Who is the secret killer? Let´s Detect Evil on the Guards!¨ (Detect Evil) ¨Hmm... THey all seem Good or Neutral.¨
(too bad Detect Alignment doesn´t tell you anything about people who started out Good but slowly became ´out of accordance with Neutral or Good alignments´)Alignment is as real a thing in D&D as your weight or height, it is a meta-physical measurement, and it is as justified to be tracked (for all purposes, e.g. Detect Alignment effects) as is physical location on a combat grid.
Non-divine characters having an in-character reason for pursuing an Atonement doesn´t seem to be justified in many cases... Not saying that there is NEVER a reason, just that in many cases there wouldn´t be AFAIK.
A couple of points:
Unless those guards are really exceptional, they won't detect as good, evil or neutral.
And detect alignment doesn't really detect your true alignment, but what alignment you radiate. And having your deity turn off your cleric or paladin powers doesn't mean that you don't still radiate the same alignemnt, just that you can't use your powers.
And the only semi-good use I have seen for an Atonement for a non-Divine PC was during the wrap-up of certain LG mods, where the mod was designed to have a good chance of turning a PC evil, and gave strict guidelines for the whole thing. "Welcome to Iuz!" or literally making deals with a Devil.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps it would just be easier to eliminate alignment from PFS and just use the current rules to adjudicate issues. Regardless of your alignment, if you perform actions that are considered to be disruptive you can be asked to leave a table.
In the case of paladins/clerics/inquisitors, they must act according to the tenets of their faith or risk loosing their divinely granted powers. No mention of alignment.
|
|
Perhaps it would just be easier to eliminate alignment from PFS and just use the current rules to adjudicate issues. Regardless of your alignment, if you perform actions that are considered to be disruptive you can be asked to leave a table.
In the case of paladins/clerics/inquisitors, they must act according to the tenets of their faith or risk loosing their divinely granted powers. No mention of alignment.
+1
|
|
Perhaps it would just be easier to eliminate alignment from PFS and just use the current rules to adjudicate issues. Regardless of your alignment, if you perform actions that are considered to be disruptive you can be asked to leave a table.
.
Then we will have mega-post threads on "what constitutes being disruptive" ;)
|
Perhaps it would just be easier to eliminate alignment from PFS and just use the current rules to adjudicate issues. Regardless of your alignment, if you perform actions that are considered to be disruptive you can be asked to leave a table.
In the case of paladins/clerics/inquisitors, they must act according to the tenets of their faith or risk loosing their divinely granted powers. No mention of alignment.
The removal of the alignment system would be something great for Pathfinder 2.0. I have never like it.
Then we will have mega-post threads on "what constitutes being disruptive" ;)Perhaps it would just be easier to eliminate alignment from PFS and just use the current rules to adjudicate issues. Regardless of your alignment, if you perform actions that are considered to be disruptive you can be asked to leave a table.
.
Not at all. A GM _ALWAYS_ has the option to remove a disruptive player from his table at his discretion.
A GM has absolute control over his table. A GM does not have control beyond the table.
|
|
Then we will have mega-post threads on "what constitutes being disruptive" ;)
But at least that would be a discussion left in the hands of the GM to decide without fear of being "wrong" with respect to the rules.
If the GM determines that a player is being disruptive, then s/he can just ask the player to leave period. Feel free to discuss if the GM made a harsh decision or not, but at least it would not be against the rules.
It would also eliminate the question as to alignment vs. faction missions, etc.
As long as the extremely "good" characters are "claused" to have to follow the tenets set by their deity (or loose their powers), then we should be fine. It wouldn't kick them from OP, but they would need to seek an atonement to correct their behavior.
I really don't see anyone arguing that a paladin should be able to torture/murder someone with impunity. It's the "standard" PC that wants the ability to perform "fringe" activities without fear of being banned from OP.
|
|
I hear the talk of not having alignment in PFS, but I actually have grown to like alignment. Most people don't use it as a straightjacket, but it can aid to define where your character stands on matters. And for most (non-paladin etc) characters if you aren't happy where you are then you can change without consequence.
D&D has always had alignment and at first I questioned it and felt it made things difficult, but over time I've changed my mind. Alignment helps me to characterise who my character is. It is just one tool regarding characterisation, but a useful one.
As for table disruption and removal, that is another issue. But let's not talk of removing alignment because some people should be asked to leave a table because they are disruptive.
Also I like the moral quandary about my faction sometimes. I like my character having an inner conflict regarding alignment and faction mission sometimes (not all the time). Again I find that it aids me in understanding and characterising my character. He has joined a group (faction) because they share some of his beliefs, but sometimes they ask him to act against his beliefs.
These challenges make PFS a better organised play campaign. I know it's hard in organised play, but I'd like to see more of this. When I GM though I have definitely dealt with some disruptive players, and truthfully I am just not always sure what is the best course of action. Why can't we all just have fun together?
The evilometer is fun. (and by the way kicking cats is evil, and cats are vengeful)
|
|
50 - Burying a dead ally with proper ritesI think this needs to be clarified. Looting the body beforehand is not part of proper rites.
Umm. My Cleric says that a 6' deep hole, naked body, with the head cut off, is proper rites.
At least while adventuring, especially if Undead have been encountered.
And kicking cats is not evil, just foolish. Since all cats are evil, you cannot be made evil just from kicking them. Just scarred for life.
|
|
Ogre
Thanks for all the efforts and to get a discussion going. Unfortunately I think a point based system never will work. Actions are depending on circumstances.
Let's illustrates what I mean
10 - Not accepting a surrender or attacking a fleeing enemy.
Surely - this is a clearly evil act with a 10 points towards evil.
Now have a look at Faith and Purity - they have two pages of Palading codes.
Paladin code of Torag - last entry
Against my people's enemy I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, exept to extract information. I will defeat them, and I will scatter their families. Yet even in the struggle against our enemies, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.
I don't think that Paizo has written the Paladin code in a way that paladin players of Torag are asked to do evil deeds. I also think a lot of thought went into your list.
The underlying issue is - what is evil in a certain culture or circumstance might be non evil in a different setup. As such a point based system will either have to be a tome describing 1000 different ways of surrender and the point value associated with it - or it is simplistic and will be okay 80% of times (your value probably isn't that bad) - but it will fail miserably in certain circumstances related to chatacters.
I'm glad that PFS is not a computer game. We have a game master to be able to deal with circumstances. It isn't perfect - but any list you come up with will become a straightjacket disallowing valid options of play while offering loopholes for the disruptive player who will point to his score telling the GM - sorry - that wasn't evil. I'm still 5 points off according to RAW.
It would be great if a list would work - but I feel that this is utopian.
Thod
"Wanna come burn down an orphanage for kicks?"
"Nah, I am in the hole for evil points. Can't."
"But you're a cleric!"
"So?"
"So, we'll be passing people on the street, right? So I stab people, you heal them, and get rid of your evil points."
"Yeah, but you'll get evil then!"
"Nah, so long as nobody dies, I'll be golden. Once you have gotten to 49 evil points, we can then burn the orphanage."
"YAYYYY!"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"Wanna come burn down an orphanage for kicks?"
"Nah, I am in the hole for evil points. Can't."
"But you're a cleric!"
"So?"
"So, we'll be passing people on the street, right? So I stab people, you heal them, and get rid of your evil points."
"Yeah, but you'll get evil then!"
"Nah, so long as nobody dies, I'll be golden. Once you have gotten to 49 evil points, we can then burn the orphanage."
"YAYYYY!"