|
(the character in question has a neutral alignment and negative channeling with the feat selective and was ordered by their faction to kill a specific npc in question, yet there were many patrons in the area who were too many for this person's selective to prevent, like in a bar for instance. This PC deceided to channel and killed other patrons aside from the person in question and it took at least a couple of channels to do it. Does this person warrant an alignment infraction?
because, they channeled more than once and continued to kill patrons, faction said kill that NPC and they considered it their most effective way to kill him/her, or didn't care whether patrons died or not.)
Taken from the PFS organized play rules P. 36
Alignment Infractions
Characters who commit potentially evil acts (casting spells
with the Evil descriptor, killing or maiming someone, etc.)
while following specific orders from their faction or the
Pathfinder Society, do not suffer alignment infractions.
These are cases where karma applies to those making
the orders, not their tools. However, “that’s just what my
character would do” is not a defense for behaving like a jerk.
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately,
the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn
any player whose character is deviating from his chosen
alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must
make sure that the player understands the warning and
the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be
given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it,
or face the consequences. We believe a deity would forgive
a one-time bad choice as long as the action wasn’t too
egregious (such as burning down an orphanage full of
children, killing a peasant for no good reason but sport,
etc.). Hence, the GM can issue a warning to the player
through a “feeling” he receives from his deity, a vision
he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other
similar roleplaying event.
(The person in question does this every round and is warned about it, then does it anyway, does the GM have the right to make the PC change their alignment one step closer to EVIL? otherwise they are considered evil and removed from play?)
If infractions continue in the course of the scenario
or sanctioned module, an alignment change may be in
order. If the GM deems these continued actions warrant
an alignment change, she should note it on the character’s
Chronicle sheet at the end of the session in the Conditions
Gained box. The character may remove this gained
condition through an atonement spell. If the condition is
removed, the GM should also note it on the Chronicle sheet.
Characters who become wantonly evil, whose actions are
deliberate and without motive or provocation, are retired
from the campaign. This measure is a last resort; there is
more than one way to play a given alignment.
If a character has become wantonly evil as defined
above, the GM should escalate the report to the convention
coordinator, or the local Venture-Captain or Venture-
Lieutenant. If they agree with the GM, then the character
is deemed wantonly evil and considered removed from the
campaign. Again, these measures should be taken as a very
last resort.
In the event of a wantonly evil character, record the
character as “Dead,” and the person who enters the tracking
sheet should check that box as well. If the convention
coordinator, Venture-Captain, or Venture-Lieutenant
decides the character fits the criteria for being wantonly
evil, she will then email the campaign coordinator to
advise him of the situation, including the player’s name,
Pathfinder Society Number, character name, and email
address. She will advise the player of these actions and offer
the player the campaign coordinator’s email address so the
player may present his case.
The Campaign Coordinator will present all facts to
the Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants at large
with all names (both player and character) removed. If the
majority of Venture-Captains and Venture-Lieutenants
feel that the act was wantonly evil and the character is
irrevocably evil, then character will remain removed from
the campaign. If the majority feel the character should be
able to atone for his actions, the campaign coordinator
will contact the player and advise him of such. The email
may be printed and taken to the next game session so the
GM may adjudicate the atonement and document it on the
Chronicle sheet of the that game.
Don't suppose you could have any more specifics in a spoiler? Regardless, using channel to kill a large number of (maybe) innocent people is usually a bad thing. In situations like that sometimes its best to give an alternative.
Could they not have rotated who they selectively did not hit with the channel to avoid killing off any one specific bar patron?
|
One channeling is a single act of evil.
Doing it multiple times is confirmation...but that's just how I see it.
I'm imagining someone walking into a diner and beating a mobster to death with a baseball bat. But it takes multiple blows to do it. And the bat weilder is also taking an equal amount of swings at some of the people that were sitting nearby.
Channeling negative energy isn't evil. Channeling negative energy and killing loads of innocent people to kill one person probably is. Just clarifying. So what details made this alignment question tricky?
One would guess that two points of PFS rules apply:
1. Committing evil acts while following specific orders from a faction does not trigger an infraction. So despite the act being evil, if the collateral damage was committed while following orders to kill the target, there should be no infraction.
2. Acts which would trigger infractions should first trigger warnings by the GM with the opportunity to do an alternate action. So if the warning wasn't given, the GM shouldn't figure out it was worth an infraction after the fact.
I lack knowledge of how this has been interpreted in PFS in the past, but based on the rules cited, this is how I'd argue.
Clear cut case of evil above and beyond the call of duty. Assassinations are one thing, but killing a tavern full of people as collateral damage is crystal clear evil, whether it's a suitcase bomb, a drone strike or channeling the power of anti-life.
|
|
Were I GMing this situation, I would have warned the player in advance of the first channel with an "are you sure?" before resolving the channel. The repeated part is what merits the alignment change, but the warning has to come prior for PFS.
Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning.
I am sort of confused.
Just killing a npc (faction assasination) is not bad.
But having the person next to him die is too evil to let happen?
not consistant.
The OP did say the person was warned after the first channeling, but the person continued channeling anyway.
Having little-to-no knowledge of how PFS handles this sort of thing, I don't think I can be very helpful here. I would personally consider this an evil act, regardless of who ordered the PC to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without regard to specific rules of PFS, if this were a homegame it would certainly be an evil act at my table. You should have gotten a warning about the alignment infraction before anything happened, but after that he continued to act in a way that endangered others and eventually killed innocent bystanders. Thats evil.
As far as the PFS rules go, I think the provision about about following specific orders means that if you kill the specific person you ordered to that it is not counted as an evil act, but killing the entire bar full of people isn't covered by this provision.
In my mind the intent, circumstances and feeling towards the others involved is what makes it an evil act or not. Assuming the character felt this was their best/only chance to complete their mission and they took no joy in the death of others in the area then I think it fits within a neutral alignment.
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Even a good aligned character might decide that the greater good is served by the unfortunate death of uninvolved parties but obviously they would set the bar quite a bit higher than a neutral character. An evil character, on the other hand, would either think nothing of the extra deaths or take pleasure in it.
a good aligned character might decide that the greater good is served by the unfortunate death of uninvolved parties
That there is pretty much the definition of un-good.
Obviously he should've taken the route of lesser evil and just bludgeoned the guy in public. Would've avoided all sorts of trouble.
|
I'd liken it to the difference between a surgical hit on a (possibly?) deserving target and carpet bombing his neighborhood.
That's pretty clear to me, in general. However, let's stay specific to PFS missions. If the mission clearly states to assassinate the individual, the faction leader is taking the hit on his or her alignment (if any... murder is evil. Execution is not necessarily evil).
However, the mission didn't say cause as much collateral damage as possible (or anything like that). Thus, the onus for the evil of wanton death is on the character causing the death, not the person calling for the "surgical strike". He "didn't care whether patrons died or not", which to me seems like a totally evil outlook.
Finally, regardless, "The person in question does this every round and is warned about it, then does it anyway", the GM has warned the player. He (the GM) is completely within his rights to mark the PC as "evil". I don't know of too many people that could disagree with this statement.
Wanton disregard for the lives of innocent bystanders is definitely an evil act. Consider that campaign management has stated unequivocally that torture is an evil act. This is FAR WORSE than torture. In fact, it is pretty much a definitive act of evil.
In my eyes, the player doesn't have any ground to stand on.
|
|
I would definitely mark it as an alignment infraction on their chronicle sheet. I don't think I would just outright change their alignment to evil and make them buy atonement or be declared dead. One evil act shouldn't drop someone to evil. Consider the character's entire life; if they have lived for ~20-30 years as a neutral or good character, their actions on one day of that 20-30 years shouldn't instantly make them evil. I would review their chronicle sheets and see if any other GMs have recorded alignment infractions. If I can count three I would probably pull out the 'buy atonement or be declared dead'. Otherwise, I would mark the alignment infraction on conditions gained and inform the player that they can buy an atonement spell to remove it if they wish.
|
|
The "They" referred to seems to be the PC not caring. The Faction Mission specified kill <Person>, not <person> and it's OK if it splashes on his whole neighborhood, right?
Perhaps a spoiler tagged naming of the scenario and faction in question so we can be a little more informed on the faction head vs pc eating the consequences of the act, but no mission that I'm recalling would cover this blatant a scope increase in the evil youre asked to do.
in fact, it falls perfectly under the limits presented in ** spoiler omitted ** for when it does NOT cover your actions.... That one, you are to ensure the target's silence, and choosing a permanent solution to a temporary problem is an evil act that was not ordered by the faction head.
I'm guessing it's
|
|
No question. Killing the bystanders is an evil act. The faction mission passes the karma for killing the intended target on to the faction leader, but the person doing the deed is still responsible for the collateral damage.
Of course, that's assuming the bystanders are real people. I actually had a situation once in a PFS sanctioned module where we fought some bad guys, and there were "less than real" bystanders, and our negative channeling cleric went nuts.
|
I was in a similar situation a while back where a PC did virtually the same thing; save it was casting mass cause moderate wounds. Then he animated the bodies of the people he killed.
The GM did not call him on it.It effected the entire game, because when the Paladin tried to find a way to confront the pc without going PvP (by killing the Zombies), he started to yell. Afterwards, things became chilly between the two players.
I refer to it as pulling a Columbine (as in the High School) because, in game or out of game murdering masses of people is wrong. Whatever alignment you had before you started, it just became evil.
Needless to say is, a GM should warn them about it, and punish the person involved. And yes, I'd declare such a character dead in a heartbeat and yes, I feel, after that experince, very strongly about this.
|
True. There was a "I vas only obeyink orders" clause added to faction missions, for, reasons. I dunno, so people could avoid roleplaying their alignment and pick up any evil bonus points on offer in a given scenario...I am sort of confused.
Just killing a npc (faction assasination) is not bad.
But having the person next to him die is too evil to let happen?not consistant.
I saw what you did, thar, Sergeant Shultz Badger! XD
|
|
@Keirney, you do bring up a good point, albeit not directly.
The cleric (who channels negative) could have spontaneously cast Inflict XXX Wounds (probably several times), or perhaps even Harm. This would have only targeted the single victim. This would have been forgivable, unlike the bombing that went on.
|
We were not there to witness the entire incident, so any comments are largely speculative, but, assuming that the GM did warn the player, as I would have, you can impress upon the player that their ongoing actions are blatantly evil.
-Player announces the original action, the GM should warn them that their action is evil
-Player continues with said action anyway. GM can say that the player is getting feelings of malignancy and/or malevolence. If this is the end of the action, a notation on the chronicle describing an evil act is in order
-Player announces intent to perform said action again. GM makes 2nd warning
-Player continues with said action. GM makes it clear that the actions are exceedingly evil and character is at risk. If this is the end of the action, a notation on the chronicle describing an evil act is in order
-Player announces intent to perform said action again. GM makes it clear that the exceedingly evil and repetitive act will result in an alignment shift
-If player continues with said action, their character immediately shifts to evil and is removed from play. Note, the player has the option to seek out an atonement for the evil actions. This must be completed by the end of the game session so the GM can notate the chronicle appropriately. Otherwise, the character is reported dead and a notification should be forwarded to the local Venture-Officers as well as Mike Brock.
-Player announces
|
|
If he was aware that his channel would hit others it is obviously evil. I guess if there were hidden people that he could not see and he channeled and killed them then that is more debatable. In the US killing mroe than 4 people would be considered mass murder. I feel the rules warrent the DM to warn the PC first. Now if the DM did not warn the player than they can not be punished. The DM is forced to be someones little angel on their shoulder warning them. I am quick to warn PCs that their actions are evil. I have a guy that wants kill any NPC that does cater to his whims, and I have warned him 5 times now that the actions he planned to take were evil, and then he renigs them.
Venture Captain Jonquet said exactly what i was going to say. PFS, while having fairly strict rules on alot of things, is still more about players having fun doing what they want to do, and playing how they want to play. i would say that a warning that the initial act is evil, and a further warning that repeating said act will result in an alignment change and require atonement is sufficient warning. were it up to me i would say that (assuming the scenario was at least 2/3rds completed) the PC would be removed from play and receive no gold, prestige, or experience until the atonement was paid for.
|
|
Personally I've found the best yard stick to gauge alignment against is how much empathy the act involves. If you are empathetic towards someone hurting them feels bad, and you don't think you should do it. As this diminishes, more hurtful actions seem alright if they get you what you want. De-humanizing groups of people, based on arbitrary traits such as Nationality, religion, or just that they shot first, are ways of hardening yourself to the cold realities of your existence.
True paragons of goodness (Paladins, lol) do their best to minimalize this, taking steps to fight fair, and all that, but these are rare. Most people fall into varying shades of grey. Often still possessing some empathy that keeps them from doing truly terrible things.
Evil is what you call it when all that empathy is gone. When you don't care how many people you hurt to get what you want.
TL;DR:
When stop caring, they're evil.
|
|
I have a guy that wants kill any NPC that does cater to his whims, and I have warned him 5 times now that the actions he planned to take were evil, and then he renigs them.Sincerest condolences. I think we've all met variations of that player at some point, unfortunately.
Yeah that guy is a nightmare player. I know he is the direct reason many other people do not attend events. He cheats, he harrasses, and bullies other players. Sometimes he is ok, but others he is a nightmare. If I owned the store I would have banned him.
Yeah that guy is a nightmare player. I know he is the direct reason many other people do not attend events. He cheats, he harrasses, and bullies other players. Sometimes he is ok, but others he is a nightmare. If I owned the store I would have banned him.I have a guy that wants kill any NPC that does cater to his whims, and I have warned him 5 times now that the actions he planned to take were evil, and then he renigs them.Sincerest condolences. I think we've all met variations of that player at some point, unfortunately.
There are steps you can take to handle this right? In particular with whoever is coordinating the events? Sounds like he needs a long talk. Probably a little off topic though.
My CN sometimes doesn't care. Doesn't mean he's kicking beggars or blowing up bars with negative energy... Seems excessive to me, but I don't know the situation. As I said earlier, public execution might've been much less problematic, though awkward. I think the last time we had this situation the player ended up getting the npc drunk and outside the bar. It can be awkward for the player too, he wore a really awful face while he was doing it because he didn't really want to assassinate anyone for a faction mission.
|
|
There is a huge difference between being indifferent then commiting the act. Just about any CN character would not care as long as it did not involve him.
I honestly think the "Kill that person" faction missions are poorly presented. The finality of killing someone does not allow for creative solutions for PCs. I think each faction mission should be able to have creative answers to them then the direct you have to do X to get your PP.
MrSin that information has been passed many times. I am not a VC or VL so I only do what I do at my tables I run. Although he is on his last warning to ever play at a table I DM.