Happy birthday, Andrew.
Thanks Chris!
Again, let's say a player takes ranks in Profession (sacrificing children for the glory of Moloch).I think you can agree there is a HUGE difference between Profession (assassin) and Profession (sacrificing children).
Here's how I'd approach it as a GM:
GM: Do you have a day job?
Player: Yup, my guy's an assassin.
GM: Ok, make your roll.
Player: 5gp
GM: So you offed the poor drunken sailor with the skimpy life-time of tips of the knocked up bar-maid who was bitter that he wouldn't marry her.
- and -
GM: Do you have a day job?
Player: Yup, my guy sacrifices children
GM: <eyeroll> Grow up.
Player: What?
GM: Seriously?
Player: Ok, fine, He's a janitor.
GM: Roll your dice.
Player: 20gp
GM: you did a great job sweeping up the theatre district last night.
(Talking to Chris Mortika)
I think this kind of logic also applies to profession(rape).I DO NOT see profession(assassin) being equivalent to profession(rape); if you have a moral problem with assassination that is your choice, but is not something that you should bring into the game, as it is unfair to the player. The reason I say this is because pretty much everyone here disagrees with you.
I think most people here would agree that raping and sacrificing children are not equivalent to assassination... Is it impossible to commit rape or the murder of children and take the high ground, no matter what situation it is; they are just completely morally unjustifiable. We have named several justifiable means under which assassination can fall. The argument that all these jobs are equal seems, in my personal opinion, to completely derail your entire argument, and pushes me firmly into the "allow assassination" camp.
To be clear: I would never want to play with or GM for someone who wanted to have profession(rape). I would ask that player to leave immediately because if he didn't, I would. I DO NOT want to play with someone who thinks rape is ok in any situation, including role playing. Can you imagine playing with someone who would roleplay a rape scenario? NO THANKS!...
I once played with a player who would give NPCs (especially women) cavity searches after we had defeated them and they were unconscious. He thought this was hilarious, and it completely ruined the game for the other players(or for me, at least, and one other person). I do not want to ever play with that player again. I honestly think that in a real world situation, rape would happen. So would child murdering, genocide, and the like. But we are not playing in a real world medieval setting; we are playing in Golarion, where a woman being a fighter is ok; so is being gay, and other socialital issues are too. Those things would not be accepted in a realistic world. And as a player, I do not accept rape. Period.
Also, I completely respect you and your position, I just don't share you views, so I hope this doesn't come off as rude or demeaning.
Assassins can use the service of lookouts, characters who run interference, characters who help an assassin lay low after a hit, do surveylance, gather info, etc... These characters may all be affiliated with the guild wether they commit the actual murders or not. The guild pays for these services and these individuals could be considered employees/ members. Where profession: assassin may be evil, profession: assassin guild affiliate may very well not be.
That's my 2cp.
|
I think this kind of logic also applies to profession(rape).
I DO NOT see profession(assassin) being equivalent to profession(rape); if you have a moral problem with assassination that is your choice, but is not something that you should bring into the game, as it is unfair to the player. The reason I say this is because pretty much everyone here disagrees with you.
I think most people here would agree that raping and sacrificing children are not equivalent to assassination... Is it impossible to commit rape or the murder of children and take the high ground, no matter what situation it is; they are just completely morally unjustifiable. We have named several justifiable means under which assassination can fall. The argument that all these jobs are equal seems, in my personal opinion, to completely derail your entire argument, and pushes me firmly into the "allow assassination" camp.
So your logic then is that since assasination isn't the same thing as rape, that makes the fact that it's murder for hire, morally acceptable?
So your logic then is that since assasination isn't the same thing as rape, that makes the fact that it's murder for hire, morally acceptable?I think this kind of logic also applies to profession(rape).
I DO NOT see profession(assassin) being equivalent to profession(rape); if you have a moral problem with assassination that is your choice, but is not something that you should bring into the game, as it is unfair to the player. The reason I say this is because pretty much everyone here disagrees with you.
I think most people here would agree that raping and sacrificing children are not equivalent to assassination... Is it impossible to commit rape or the murder of children and take the high ground, no matter what situation it is; they are just completely morally unjustifiable. We have named several justifiable means under which assassination can fall. The argument that all these jobs are equal seems, in my personal opinion, to completely derail your entire argument, and pushes me firmly into the "allow assassination" camp.
That's not what I meant. What I meant is that assassination COULD BE justified, Rape and child murdering could not. I did not say that assassination is always morally right or justifiable, just that it can be. I thought I made that pretty clear. Assassins can be fun to play, and are associated with popular culture, as long as you go about it in a moral way. I have never heard of a rapist of a child murderer that was ever part of popular culture or glorified in any way.
Maybe I'm missing something. For all intents and purposes, I thought day jobs were fluff rolls to get you extra money to put on your chronicle sheet and MAYBE get you some bonus in a scenario SOMETIMES.
I don't really see it mattering all that much what you put on the day job roll; all you're doing is borking the bonus you might have got if you did something like "Sailor".
I mean.. seriously.. "Day Job: Boring Professor" is probably as evil as it gets.
|
From the Pathfinder Society Field Guide:
"Assassins’ Guild (4 PP): A practical Pathf inder
recognizes the benefit of being on good terms with the
local assassins’ guild. While not necessarily an active
assassin, you belong to an established assassins’ guild,
and gain a +4 circumstance bonus on any single Bluff,
Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Sense Motive check when
dealing with other assassins of any guild, usable once per
game session."
So according to the field guide, you aren't an active assassin, just on good terms with them..
Also from the Pathfinder Society Field Guide:
"Hunting Lodge (2 PP): You are a master hunter and
have been recognized as such by being invited to join an
elite hunting lodge. As a member, you may take part in
special hunts for rare and exotic prey each year, both on
restricted hunting grounds and in the wild. You can use
Survival to make Day Job rolls"
Whereas here, you ARE a master hunter and active member, taking part in special hunts etc etc. I think the reason the two are worded so differently is because they don't want PFS characters committing murder for money. (Unless it's for the Decemvirate, of course).
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sorin, the Field Guide is not intended exclusively for PFS Organized Play. If you're using it for a home campaign, feel free to use that vanity to be a professional assassin.
I find it notable that not a single person has addressed the concerns I raised. The single example of something your PC can do on a faction mission, that will get his alignment shifted to evil, is assassinate someone. I don't see as how you can continue to assert that it's morally neutral.
So, yeah, I have "a moral problem with assassination". So does the game. Why do you think that your PC can't be a Lawful Neutral Assassin (prestige class)?
|
Sorin, the Field Guide is not intended exclusively for PFS Organized Play. If you're using it for a home campaign, feel free to use that vanity to be a professional assassin.
Neither were several class archatypes, feats, prcs, traits, magic items etc. That is why they have the additional resources page. Per this page, the vanity is allowed with no changes to the wording.
|
|
Sorin, the Field Guide is not intended exclusively for PFS Organized Play. If you're using it for a home campaign, feel free to use that vanity to be a professional assassin.
I find it notable that not a single person has addressed the concerns I raised. The single example of something your PC can do on a faction mission, that will get his alignment shifted to evil, is assassinate someone. I don't see as how you can continue to assert that it's morally neutral.
It actually has been addressed. There ARE going to be certain faction missions which you'd be well advised to decline. This generally happens if you take a faction that's Noted in the campaign guide as a problem faction for certain classes, i.e. Paladins are advised not to take Cheliax or Scarzoni, for instance. Don't hang your Faction's dirty laundry on the Decembervirate though, that's your own character's issue.
It's probably also one of the reasons that prestige is now split between Society and Faction instead of being all on Faction as it was before.
|
|
That's not what I meant. What I meant is that assassination COULD BE justified, Rape and child murdering could not. I did not say that assassination is always morally right or justifiable, just that it can be. I thought I made that pretty clear. Assassins can be fun to play, and are associated with popular culture, as long as you go about it in a moral way. I have never heard of a rapist of a child murderer that was ever part of popular culture or glorified in any way.
I'd never thought that we'd have a television series glorifing a sadistic serial killer either. But murder is hardly the taboo subject sex is. And actually there is an example of a novel hero who's a rapist, and the victim was considerably young... Thomas Covenant.
|
|
Hmmm. I would have to say I would be okay with Profession: Assassin so long as the player doesn't ever go into specifics as to how he earns his money. Just because their profession is Assassin doesn't mean they are killing people, maybe they are the Information Gathering Specialist in their Assassin Cell, a maximum 150g seems really low to kill anyone. Same goes for any profession not overwhelmingly evil.
Then their Profession is "Spy" or "Clerk", or "Guild Tool". If you're not killing people for pay then your profession is not "Assassin". The Pathfinder Society doesn't generally hire you to kill people. They simply tend to send you on missions in which you wind up being required to defend yourselves in a lethal fashion.
|
|
I think the biggest issue with this is that we keep applying real-world morals to the game when in fact the game itself has its own set of morals and defines evil differently.
Here are some examples of in-game morality:
1. If a CG ranger kills a tribe of goblins that was traveling in the woods is that an evil act?
2. If a N rogue steathly comes upon an Orc camp in a dungeon and kills the Orc lookout with a sneak attack before anything else occured is that an evil act?
3. If a LN Twilight Talon of Andoran in disguise kills a nobleman suspected of disloyalty at the behest of his nation did he commit an evil act?
4. If a LN Lion's Blade of Taldor is sent to kill a Hidden Priest of Sarenrae for prosletyzing in Oppara is that an evil act?
5. If a N Ninja finds a gold dragon's lair while exploring a dungeon and kills it in its sleep to get its treasure was that an evil act?
6. If a N Ninja finds a black dragon's lair while exploring a dungeon and kills it in its sleep to get its treasure was that an evil act?
Here are some examples of out of game morailty:
1. In ancient times during war conquering armies would pillage the towns they occupied, would rape the woman, and kill all combat-age males was this an evil act at that time? Would it be considered an evil act now?
2. Stoning to death is still viewed in some parts of the world as an acceptable method of punishment for prostitutes and adulteres is this act evil in that area? Is it viewed as an evil act in western civilization?
3. Agent Smith of the CIA Black Ops division is ordered to perform a hit on a Russian Businessman while under Non-Offical Cover in Bulgaria, he's not given the reason why, just the information that would help him accomplish the mission. He kills the Businessman and report it to higher. is this an evil act in Bulgaria? Is it one in the US?
|
|
t?
Here are some examples of out of game morailty:
1. In ancient times during war conquering armies would pillage the towns they occupied, would rape the woman, and kill all combat-age males was this an evil act at that time? Would it be considered an evil act now?
2. Stoning to death is still viewed in some parts of the world as an acceptable method of punishment for prostitutes and adulteres is this act evil in that area? Is it viewed as an evil act in western civilization?
3. Agent Smith of the CIA Black Ops division is ordered to perform a hit on a Russian Businessman while under Non-Offical Cover in Bulgaria, he's not given the reason why, just the information that would help him accomplish the mission. He kills the Businessman and report it to higher. is this an evil act in Bulgaria? Is it one in the US?
I don't see where any of that is relevant. But to answer those questions, yes, 1-3 are all evil acts, but in ancient times no one gave a damm. That's why we consider those times barbaric.
1. is an act of power. 2. is an act of misogyny as the punishments are generally applied only towards women for the most part. and 3. is another day in the office for the CIA which has never been considered to be "good", or for the most part, truly existing in the official sense.... that's why they are called "Black Ops".
|
|
I don't see where any of that is relevant. But to answer those questions, yes, 1-3 are all evil acts, but in ancient times no one gave a damm. That's why we consider those times barbaric.
1. is an act of power. 2. is an act of misogyny as the punishments are generally applied only towards women for the most part. and 3. is another day in the office for the CIA which has never been considered to be "good", or for the most part, truly existing in the official sense.... that's why they are called "Black Ops".
You missed the point.
All things are morally ambiguous - good and evil are subject to perspective. When looked at from the a person's/nation/region perspective the ambiguity takes shape as that group sees it. What may be viewed as evil by one person can be viewed as acceptable an morally just in another.
In our game there is a set moral code (i.e the alignment system) and that guides both players and GM's into adjudicating what actions are deemed as evil or good.
Having Profession: Assasin is not inof itself necessarily an evil act in the game. Being of the Assasin prestige class is.
Venture-Lieutenant, Virginia—Alexandria
|
like Wanted (terrible movie by the way, I don't recommend it).
Read the original comic. So much was changed and missed in that movie.
It is much more a "super villian" comic than what the result from Hollywood was. Angelina Jolie's character was obviously Halle Berry, and was also obviously an analogy to Catwoman.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Virginia—Alexandria
|
Oh, and about the whole assassins being evil thing...
"All Hashashins were trained in both the art of combat as in the study of religion, believing that they were on a jihad and were religious warriors. Some consider them the Templars of Islam and, as such, also formed an order with varying degrees of initiation."
True assassins were religious zealots, so to them and their god, their actions were not evil but good. The same holds true of assassins utilized by governments and other religious institutions. If an inquisitor of Callistria assassinates a character, my opinion holds that would not be an evil act, simply a divine act. Further, this is not outside the realm of possibility within the framework of Golarion.
The prestige class is a beast unto itself, with a prerequisite of being evil that then bestows powers. Being an assassin in an active guild that grants you a day job roll does not grant powers nor does it have prerequisites outside of the PP cost to be part of the assassins guild.
To penalize a player for spending PP on a character enhancement is being a jerk and by definition of PFS, not allowed.
|
|
I don't see where any of that is relevant. But to answer those questions, yes, 1-3 are all evil acts, but in ancient times no one gave a damm. That's why we consider those times barbaric.
1. is an act of power. 2. is an act of misogyny as the punishments are generally applied only towards women for the most part. and 3. is another day in the office for the CIA which has never been considered to be "good", or for the most part, truly existing in the official sense.... that's why they are called "Black Ops".
You missed the point.
All things are morally ambiguous - good and evil are subject to perspective. When looked at from the a person's/nation/region perspective the ambiguity takes shape as that group sees it. What may be viewed as evil by one person can be viewed as acceptable an morally just in another.
You miss my point... not everyone buys into Moral Relativism. The universe isn't symmetric. There are things that lead to a better world, and things that contribute to entropy, the latter are things that should be contested and stamped out when possible and practical. That's why we need to protest things such as "Honor Killings" in Asia, or slavery in South America. Because we're not isolated city states separated by oceans of desert any more. The setting afire of holy books in a city in the American South can cause riots in Saudi Arabia.
Despite cultural differences, there ARE things we universally respond to for good and ill, and it's those simmilarities which throw the Moral Relativism argument down the ashcan in which it belongs. What we need to do is look past the surface differences and see the commonalities beneath.
|
I don't see where any of that is relevant. But to answer those questions, yes, 1-3 are all evil acts, but in ancient times no one gave a damm. That's why we consider those times barbaric.
1. is an act of power. 2. is an act of misogyny as the punishments are generally applied only towards women for the most part. and 3. is another day in the office for the CIA which has never been considered to be "good", or for the most part, truly existing in the official sense.... that's why they are called "Black Ops".
You missed the point.
All things are morally ambiguous - good and evil are subject to perspective. When looked at from the a person's/nation/region perspective the ambiguity takes shape as that group sees it. What may be viewed as evil by one person can be viewed as acceptable an morally just in another.
You miss my point... not everyone buys into Moral Relativism. The universe isn't symmetric. There are things that lead to a better world, and things that contribute to entropy, the latter are things that should be contested and stamped out when possible and practical. That's why we need to protest things such as "Honor Killings" in Asia, or slavery in South America. Because we're not isolated city states separated by oceans of desert any more. The setting afire of holy books in a city in the American South can cause riots in Saudi Arabia.
Despite cultural differences, there ARE things we universally respond to for good and ill, and it's those simmilarities which throw the Moral Relativism argument down the ashcan in which it belongs. What we need to do is look past the surface differences and see the commonalities beneath.
If you want to go with that argument, all killing is immoral and thus evil. Therefore every character in the Pathfinder Society Organized Play Campaign is inherently evil, because they kill things./sarcasm
Honestly, the amount of money you make on a Day Job roll seems kinda tiny for a job like assassin.
:)
-j
|
|
Honestly, the amount of money you make on a Day Job roll seems kinda tiny for a job like assassin.
:)
-j
I think its about right. People have paid like $5,000 for assassinations of spouses and the like in the real-world. Which is about 3-5 months of pay for your lower income bracket.
That would be like 5gp for a farmer to assassinate his rival with better crops. lol
I'd never thought that we'd have a television series glorifing a sadistic serial killer either. But murder is hardly the taboo subject sex is. And actually there is an example of a novel hero who's a rapist, and the victim was considerably young... Thomas Covenant.
Well, I've never heard of that book, and I think that goes to show, because I HAVE heard Dexter, James bond, Inglorious basterds, etc etc etc.(Admins: That is actually not a bad word, because in the movie title, they purposely spelled it wrong, as I did here. Please don't erase this post because of that.) The reason I'm in the "allow assassination" camp is because assassination is ok, or "cool" as it were, in American culture. Pathfinder is culturally American; common is English, there are extensive civil rights for everyone except in "evil" countries, there are characters of all skin and culture types... The list goes on. But of course assassination isn't moral. Your taking a human life. But this game is indicative of our culture, and if Pathfinders killing intelligent creatures just because they are "evil" or "savage" is ok, I don't see why assassination isn't. Chris, you seem to keep saying that in order to be an assassin you have to kill indiscriminately, and we keep telling you, no, you don't. I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over. Continuing to cite the Assassin class just seems like a cop out to me, because that class DOES have to kill indiscriminately. That doesn't mean all assassins do. Show me where it says in the game rules that you can't have assassin as a day job, then I will shut up right now, but if you can't, then I guess we will argue forever.
Plus there's this:
Note that it said not necessarily an active assassin... not "you aren't an active assassin"
And besides, it's just a day job. We need to stop looking at the black and white analysis of whether assassination is moral in the real world and bring it back into the game. Assassins kill evil people in games, including this one, all the time. Therefore I would allow it.
|
|
Pathfinders aren't assassins?
Your mission to the Lands of the Linnorm Kings is fortuitous, as we have two tasks we need accomplished in that land of enslaved barbarians. First of all, a brutal Chelish agent named Gyuri, a twisted monk from Varisia, is said to be in the employ of dark forces in the north. I ordered his execution a year ago and thought it complete, but it seems he evaded us. Gyuri is a slaver, a murderer, and assassin for Cheliax—you must find him and ensure he dies.
So, overall, I wouldn't consider Profession: Assassin all that far out of line, really.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Kinevon,
We've been assured that faction missions can get as evil as they please, and that does not reflect on the PCs. In Pathfinder Society, "I was only following orders" is indeed a legitimate defense. Saying that Major Maldriss sends his minions out to kill people, and that therefore it's okay, is explicitly not true. Faction missions get a pass. Freely-chosen day jobs don't.
And, there was recently the case of a scenario in which the PCs following a faction mission could receive an "evil cookie" pulling them one step towards an evil alignment unless they received an atonement. What was this terrible act, so much worse than any other faction assignment? Blasphemy? Sacrificing innocent souls? Cutting out someone's tongue? No, Kinevon: it was assassination.
Contributor
|
oh my god
who cares
it's just a day job roll
^ +1
This whole thread falls under "Table Variation" - if you were at my table and had Profession: Assassin, I'd ask your character's alignment, but I wouldn't force you to pay for an atonement. Chris Mortika would. That's really it - Table Variation, YMMV.
Can we get off this discussion already?
|
|
Kinevon,
We've been assured that faction missions can get as evil as they please, and that does not reflect on the PCs. In Pathfinder Society, "I was only following orders" is indeed a legitimate defense. Saying that Major Maldriss sends his minions out to kill people, and that therefore it's okay, is explicitly not true. Faction missions get a pass. Freely-chosen day jobs don't.
And, there was recently the case of a scenario in which the PCs following a faction mission could receive an "evil cookie" pulling them one step towards an evil alignment unless they received an atonement. What was this terrible act, so much worse than any other faction assignment? Blasphemy? Sacrificing innocent souls? Cutting out someone's tongue? No, Kinevon: it was assassination.
Sorry, Chris, no cookie for you.
Note the name of the scenario, and then remember when the no alignment effect from faction missions came in.
Scenario: Season 2
Faction mission effect: Season 3
So sorry, you need to rethink your argument on this one.
Also, by definition, per the campaign rules, you cannot receive an evil cookie for following your faction's orders. If a recent scenario does that, then someone wasn't paying attention to the campaign rules, and that restriction must have slid past the editors.
Again, from before the faction missions don't cause alignment changes time period.
|
Contributor
|
Also, by definition, per the campaign rules, you cannot receive an evil cookie for following your faction's orders. If a recent scenario does that, then someone wasn't paying attention to the campaign rules, and that restriction must have slid past the editors.
Note that I do not agree with Chris on this issue as a whole, and still urge that this whole thread be concluded by saying "YMMV", but on the specific above item, it's something that Mark has said is being looked at to possibly change, with a recent scenario,
as a sort of test-case.
As with items on chronicle sheets > standard "legal purchases" lists, mechanics in scenarios > standard "campaign rules".
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
kinevon, the "faction mission effect" has been in place since Season 0, on a piecemeal basis. It was only codified into a general principle recently. If you remember somewhere around September, 2010, there was a series of threads, some of them not terribly polite, about some GMs who had been ruling that if you followed your faction mission in, say, "Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch" or even "Silent Tide", you would be committing an evil act and your character would be reported as dead.
Their position was that the defense "I am only following orders" isn't an excuse. On the other hand, people were uncomfortable with 'trap missions' that players had to decline. On a case by case basis, Josh Front or Hyram was reassuring people that yes, this or that mission was pretty nasty, but it wouldn't result in an alignment shift.
Mike's general ruling came out of that discussion: causing mayhem and mass killing inside a busy street market, or killing a shopkeeper with slow, excruciating poison, or even working to find new ways for Asmeodeus to claim innocent souls, are indeed evil acts, but the PCs won't ever suffer the alignment penalties because of that. (Other penalties, maybe. A paladin's code might come into play, and don't let the authorities catch you doing something illegal.)
The ruling came after the faction mission you reference, but it came about as a solution to that dilemma, not independently or coincidentally. People had recognized that some faction missions, like assassinations, were morally repugnant. (Even before Shades of Ice, there as City of Strangers. At least a couple GMs at Gen Con reported that they were forcing paladins who followed one of those faction missions to atone.)
And no, the current faction mission evil cookie is deliberate and, according to Mark, an experiment for a possible campaign shift. The action that's called out as more evil than other faction missions is assassination.
It is up to the PC on how, but many are likely to interpret this as a kill order. If they do kill the target they suffer an alignment shift unless they get an atonement.
I, for one, have always been tempted to use Profession: Badass on a character.
-j
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Hmm.
In Pathfinder Society, "I was only following orders" is indeed a legitimate defense.
If that's a legitimate excuse for evil action, provided it was while you were following orders, than can't you use it to excuse any wrongdoing associated with your profession?
"I was only following orders," after all.
|
|
Pathfinders aren't assassins?
** spoiler omitted **
So, overall, I wouldn't consider Profession: Assassin all that far out of line, really.
That example is not what I'd consider a contract killing. It's putting down a monster that deserves to die from a "Good" perspective. If it was killing for no other reason than an order, then it'd be questionable. And there are missions that I've refused for alignment or character reasons.
|
|
kinevon, the "faction mission effect" has been in place since Season 0, on a piecemeal basis. It was only codified into a general principle recently. If you remember somewhere around September, 2010, there was a series of threads, some of them not terribly polite, about some GMs who had been ruling that if you followed your faction mission in, say, "Many Fortunes of Grandmaster Torch" or even "Silent Tide", you would be committing an evil act and your character would be reported as dead.
Their position was that the defense "I am only following orders" isn't an excuse. On the other hand, people were uncomfortable with 'trap missions' that players had to decline. On a case by case basis, Josh Front or Hyram was reassuring people that yes, this or that mission was pretty nasty, but it wouldn't result in an alignment shift.
Mike's general ruling came out of that discussion: causing mayhem and mass killing inside a busy street market, or killing a shopkeeper with slow, excruciating poison, or even working to find new ways for Asmeodeus to claim innocent souls, are indeed evil acts, but the PCs won't ever suffer the alignment penalties because of that. (Other penalties, maybe. A paladin's code might come into play, and don't let the authorities catch you doing something illegal.)
The ruling came after the faction mission you reference, but it came about as a solution to that dilemma, not independently or coincidentally. People had recognized that some faction missions, like assassinations, were morally repugnant. (Even before Shades of Ice, there as City of Strangers. At least a couple GMs at Gen Con reported that they were forcing paladins who followed one of those faction missions to atone.)
And no, the current faction mission evil cookie is deliberate and, according to Mark, an experiment for a possible campaign shift. The action that's called out as more evil than other faction missions is assassination.
Chris,
Assassination as the most evil faction mission? Hardly. Note that early season Osirion mission I referenced about a slow, painful poisoning.
Also note that the campaign ruling came about, not because of the Andoran faction mission I quoted, but because of an early Season 3 Szcarni faction mission, which caused an immense thread and a lot of waves.
And, again, assassination is far frmo the most evil things PCs have been requested to do in the name of faction missions. I seem to recall one faction mission, Chelaxian, IIRC, that basically had the Cheliax faction PCs buying slaves in order to sell them as slaves.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
edit: If I am running a cleric of Asmodaus, can I put down as my day job: Profession: Orphanage Day Care Worker? (working for the Cheliaxian goverment in their outreach program) or am I going to have some judge revoke my cleric status for doing "Good Deeds" if I get a "35" on my day job?
Best. Quote. Ever.
I agree. You can't really apply real world ethics to Pathfinder. Real world ethics have a lot of grey area and Golorian ethics are rigid and defined.
|
|
Well I'll just put in my 2cp my Elven ranger has ranked Profession: Bounty Hunter now most of the time he just brings them back dead (had a rather large disdain for humanity and human arcane spell casters in particular. True the way I played him was very much skirting the boundary on being made Evil (al: TN).
In just about every way you would consider him an assassin due to his methods (and the trophies he made by dipping raven feathers in their blood and attaching them to his cloak) but this was never a major problem on any tables, yes the trophies did disgust some people but it was never made an issue.
|
|
edit: If I am running a cleric of Asmodaus, can I put down as my day job: Profession: Orphanage Day Care Worker? (working for the Cheliaxian goverment in their outreach program) or am I going to have some judge revoke my cleric status for doing "Good Deeds" if I get a "35" on my day job?
This is very creative Nosig and really got me thinking. I love this day job and don't think it would be good aligned at all just like profession (assassin) isn't necessarily evil. This is a great way of putting it. But to the point:
You put an image in my mind of a cleric, in his or her free time visiting orphanages and doing his or her part to indoctrinate the orphans in the ways of the chosen of Asmodeus and the rewritten history of Cheliax penned by house Thrune. I love this! Care and comfort is not necessarily a good act just like killing for money is not necessarily an evil one, there are plenty of assassin's in literature described as being more neutral then evil so I am perfectly ok with this concept and day job.
There is the argument that because 2 prestige classes with the word assassin in their name have to be evil then all assassins and assassinations are evil; I disagree with this line of thinking. The requirement that the two prestige classes must be evil only proves that characters that get levels in those prestige classes must be evil not that all characters that engage in mercenary killing must be evil.