|
The Guide to Organized Play spells out how alignment infractions are to be handled for PFS. It also specifically covers what happens when a character becomes evil, as that is the only alignment change which can remove a character from play.
I have seen several GMs threaten alignment changes for Evil acts here on the forums. I have, on occasion, seen GMs warn players of potentially Evil acts in play.
I have never seen, on the boards, or in person, a GM warn that a player was making a Lawful, Chaotic, Neutral, or Good action and that they would be jeopardizing their alignment.
It seems like characters are on a constant slope towards Evil, and the only way to get return to Neutral or Good is through an atonement.
Is this intended? Should Barbarians be on guard against following too many rules? Is a Monk sneaking into someone else's house risking the ability to take further levels? If a Druid is too Good, will she lose her spells and animal companion?
|
|
Like many aspects of PFS play, this falls into "the GM is too busy to track this stuff" category.
Is it fair that Paladins are scrutinized in ways that no other alignment-specific class is? No. Does that mean that GMs have time in a four hour slot to run a scenario and keep an eye on Paladins, Clerics, Barbarians, Druids, Monks, and so on, watching for alignment violations? No.
Good and neutral, lawful and neutral, even neutral and chaotic--there's a lot of grey area. Evil is easy to spot. If players feel their characters are being too "good" and want to change their alignment, they are free to do so, and should alter their class powers accordingly. But evil is something we can see coming and warn people away from.
It's one of those "realities of organized play" things. Which sucks, but there's not a lot to be done.
|
It seems to me that due to the fact that shifting to the evil alignment is the only one that has consequences, it seems to be the only alignment change that is enforced. I have yet too see a Barbarian or Monk warned that their actions would shift them in the law/chaos scale.
I have in fact mentioned to a LN cleric of Asmodeus and his hellknight partner that they were doing quite a lot of Chaotic Good acts in the scenario (donating large sums of money to orphans in the street in order to gain more information, refusing a reward from an NPC, etc...). they were more than happy go oblige afterwards to be more... Asmodian :)
|
As Patrick said, there just isn't time to keep track of that stuff. When I GM, I usually don't even know the alignments of most of the PCs.
As for my own characters, my barbarian started out CN, but I shifted him to N when I realized I was playing him as more of a team player than I had originally intended.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have a fighter/monk who is LN. My idea with him is that he embodies the trope of a talented student who studies under an old master, but gets arrogant and impatient, decides he's "surpassed" his master and goes off on his own. So I figured I'd start roleplaying out some "alignment infractions" and head him down the road toward CN.
But honestly, I'm not sure that'll work, since GMs don't seem to be watching that kind of thing. Maybe I'll just change what alignment's written on his sheet after I think I've become thoroughly chaotic...?
|
|
Just last week I talked to a player for an 'alignment and background issue'.
Asking about a stange trait I hadn't heard about I was told this was a religious trait for worshippers of Gorum.
So far so good - but the player was playing a monk Zen Archer. I explained to him what the Lord of Iron is standing for.
Barbarians, Heavy Armour, Chaotic Neutral, Melee and getting close.
No - I didn't ask for atonement - but I did explain and told the player to look it up and to look not only into the mechanical benefit when doing a choice.
Alignment warnings do happen - but I admit - they are rare.
|
Because we expect that people are going to play honorably, and play the alignment they have written on their character, especially if a specific class requires it.
It is hard to do actually, in many cases, because every single one of us can argue differently about different alignments. Heck, look how vehemently we argue about what just one axis (evil) is, and what actually constitutes an evil act?
How crazy would it get if I denied a Monk their abilities because I felt they were being too neutral rather than Lawful? What the heck would that even be, or mean?
|
|
Is it fair that Paladins are scrutinized in ways that no other alignment-specific class is?
I guess I'm wondering why it's so important that the Paladins are scrutinized in the first place. Why is it more important that a Paladin lose his powers than a Cleric, Druid, etc.?
It seems like a lot of GMs are imposing their own morality, and since most of us (I like to think) are good people, it means that Good acts are considered the norm, with everything else moving you in some degree towards Evil. Whereas in Pathfinder, Neutral should be the baseline, with especially Good or Evil acts moving you towards either end of the axis.
|
|
Asking about a stange trait I hadn't heard about I was told this was a religious trait for worshippers of Gorum.
So far so good - but the player was playing a monk Zen Archer. I explained to him what the Lord of Iron is standing for.
Actually, isn't this straight-up illegal? In PFS if you have a deity, you have to be within one step of it. Since a Monk has to be Lawful, he can't worship a Chaotic deity. If he doesn't worship Gorum, he doesn't get the Gorum feat.
|
|
Actually, isn't this straight-up illegal? In PFS if you have a deity, you have to be within one step of it. Since a Monk has to be Lawful, he can't worship a Chaotic deity. If he doesn't worship Gorum, he doesn't get the Gorum feat.Asking about a stange trait I hadn't heard about I was told this was a religious trait for worshippers of Gorum.
So far so good - but the player was playing a monk Zen Archer. I explained to him what the Lord of Iron is standing for.
AFAIK, the only way it's legal is if he took the Trait through the Extra Traits Feat, and then switched his alignment to something appropriate for Gorum. And then he can't take any more Monk levels.
|
|
I'm not particularly concerned with fairness of it, to be honest. It should be harder to be Good, especially in considering what the Society asks of its members.
It's a bigger concern for the Neutral characters, who are constantly under the threat of one act pushing them towards Evil. But the GMs are only tallying Evil acts, so it's really an inevitability, unless they play their characters as this guy.
|
|
Actually, isn't this straight-up illegal? In PFS if you have a deity, you have to be within one step of it. Since a Monk has to be Lawful, he can't worship a Chaotic deity. If he doesn't worship Gorum, he doesn't get the Gorum feat.Asking about a stange trait I hadn't heard about I was told this was a religious trait for worshippers of Gorum.
So far so good - but the player was playing a monk Zen Archer. I explained to him what the Lord of Iron is standing for.
I think that's only for divine spell casters. I've never heard that being applied to random worshippers.
The alignment section only says "A cleric's alignment must be within one step of the alignment of her deity."
The Religion Traits section says
"Religion traits indicate that your character has an established faith in a specific deity; you need not be a member of a class that can wield divine magic to pick a religion trait, but you do have to have a patron deity and have some amount of religion in your background to justify this trait. Unlike the other categories of traits, religion traits can go away if you abandon your religion, as detailed below under Restrictions on Trait Selection."
There's nothing about "one step from your patron" in there. So it's not illegal, but I do agree that there's something odd about a monk archer worshipping a great sword wielding barbarian god, and I would question a player about that, too. At the very least, there should be some interesting back story there!
|
|
I think that's only for divine spell casters. I've never heard that being applied to random worshippers.
Characters may elect to worship an evil god, but must always be within one alignment step of their chosen deity. For clerics, this is an especially important choice
I am actually tempted to assume that restriction only applies to followers of evil gods, but I doubt that was the intention.
|
It's well established that to be an official worshiper of a deity, to the point of getting any mechanical benefit from your religion, you must be within one alignment step of the deity. So for a monk to have that trait is clearly illegal.
A specific variant of aasimar could get away with being a Gorum-worshiping monk I believe.
|
|
It's well established that to be an official worshiper of a deity, to the point of getting any mechanical benefit from your religion, you must be within one alignment step of the deity. So for a monk to have that trait is clearly illegal.
I thought this also and made a character change based on it, but if someone has official clarification it would be nice.
I have a Qadiran diplomancer character with a caravan that if I were to pick a god for him, Abadar would probably be the logical pick. I came across the Eyes and Ears of the City trait and thought "I would be willing to claim this god for this. Judging by Abadar's value of pragmatism and appreciation for those driven to personal profits, I don't even think he would begrudge me for my reason for joining." The issue was that I was a CN character and Abadar is a LN god. I really can't say that my character has been played more CN than TN anyway, so I just pushed my alignment when I took Extra Traits.
Long story...not quite as long. Aesthetically, I like the label CN better than TN. If it is true that I could call Abadar daddy and pick up this trait as a CN, I would like to. Is there anything RAW saying one step from gods for faith traits or is this an extrapolation?
|
|
No clarification is needed.
To get any faith based traits, feats, spells, or anything else, you need to worship that deity.
To be considered a worshiper of a deity, your alignment needs to be no more than 1 step away from the deity's alignment.
This is the way the rule works.
While I thought this true, the only quotes in this thread suggest otherwise. If you have a link or quote that says this, I would appreciate it.
|
|
Religion: Characters can elect to worship any deity listed in a table of gods in the Core Rulebook, The Inner Sea World Guide, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Gods and Magic, or any other source listed as an official Additional Resource. Characters may elect to worship an evil god, but must always be within one alignment step of their chosen deity. For clerics, this is an especially important choice, since the deity’s alignment determines whether the cleric channels positive or negative energy, a decision with significant tactical implications for the cleric and her allies. Clerics, inquisitors, paladins, cavaliers of the order of the star, and samurai of the order of the star must choose a deity as all classes in Golarion that receive spells and abilities from a specific divine source receive their powers from a deity. Druids, oracles, and rangers are the exception to this rule. The list is not exhaustive, and divine spellcasters of any future classes whose sources are added as additional resources to the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign will be required to choose a deity unless otherwise specified. Otherwise, characters who do not receive powers from a divine source may choose to be atheists or to have no deity at all.
And it doesn't need to be in the guide as to how faith traits, feats and spells work. That's how they work, its part of those traits, feats and spells.
|
|
Religion: Characters can elect to worship any deity listed in a table of gods in the Core Rulebook, The Inner Sea World Guide, Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Gods and Magic, or any other source listed as an official Additional Resource. Characters may elect to worship an evil god, but must always be within one alignment step of their chosen deity. For clerics, this is an especially important choice, since the deity’s alignment determines whether the cleric channels positive or negative energy, a decision with significant tactical implications for the cleric and her allies. Clerics, inquisitors, paladins, cavaliers of the order of the star, and samurai of the order of the star must choose a deity as all classes in Golarion that receive spells and abilities from a specific divine source receive their powers from a deity. Druids, oracles, and rangers are the exception to this rule. The list is not exhaustive, and divine spellcasters of any future classes whose sources are added as additional resources to the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign will be required to choose a deity unless otherwise specified. Otherwise, characters who do not receive powers from a divine source may choose to be atheists or to have no deity at all.And it doesn't need to be in the guide as to how faith traits, feats and spells work. That's how they work, its part of those traits, feats and spells.
It appears that it isn't in the other sections because it is a PFS specific rule.
When Patrick quoted your bolded line earlier, the evil god part seemed very important to the sentence. Looking at the sentence in the context of the whole paragraph it is pretty clear that the evil god detail is meant for clarification not stipulation.
Thank you for the link, I have been looking for this rule in the general books and hadn't had any luck.
|
|
When Patrick quoted your bolded line earlier, the evil god part seemed very important to the sentence. Looking at the sentence in the context of the whole paragraph it is pretty clear that the evil god detail is meant for clarification not stipulation.
Yeah, I don't love the way it's structured, but as I said, the intent seems pretty clear.
|
|
When Patrick quoted your bolded line earlier, the evil god part seemed very important to the sentence. Looking at the sentence in the context of the whole paragraph it is pretty clear that the evil god detail is meant for clarification not stipulation.Yeah, I don't love the way it's structured, but as I said, the intent seems pretty clear.
Is this a PFS-specific rule? In the general rules, where the concept of "alignment steps" is introduced and defined, it only references clerics. (Of course, now I'm not finding a basic intro to religions and deities, so it's probable I've just missed it.)
As for why paladins get so much scrutiny, it's probably because they are restricted to a single alignment, which is much, much easier to police than "any lawful" or "any good".
|
|
When Patrick quoted your bolded line earlier, the evil god part seemed very important to the sentence. Looking at the sentence in the context of the whole paragraph it is pretty clear that the evil god detail is meant for clarification not stipulation.Yeah, I don't love the way it's structured, but as I said, the intent seems pretty clear.Is this a PFS-specific rule? In the general rules, where the concept of "alignment steps" is introduced and defined, it only references clerics. (Of course, now I'm not finding a basic intro to religions and deities, so it's probable I've just missed it.)
As for why paladins get so much scrutiny, it's probably because they are restricted to a single alignment, which is much, much easier to police than "any lawful" or "any good".
Upthread I linked the entire paragraph on religions from the PFS Guide to Organized Play, v4.3, Page 10.