|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, a neutral can use holy word if their deity is also neutral. It's still a good act, so you become good aligned through slaughter.
As usual, the contrived situation needed to justify certain positions requires a level of discontinuity only possible in the hands of a player deliberately playing the alignment opposite of what he wrote on his sheet.And an actually-neutral-not-just-neutral-on-paper-but-actually-evil PC doesn't actually do that in the first place. Hence, contrived. That's not helpful to any intelligent discussion about the campaign.
I have an actually neutral tiefling oracle of battle that spams prot evil and infernal healing, lies like there is no tomorrow, has a large sense of duty, and follows whatever oath he makes. He is absolutely ruthless against his foes and protects innocents.
He would be true neutral in any form of Fallout style alignment system. When I have explained this to GMs, they tend to just glare at me. I've had GMs tell me I was acting CE because I lie and cast infernal healing, but they were going to let it slide due to it being PFS. It's like nothing else my character did even mattered to them.
It's annoying to put it mildly.
|
Yesterday's PFS session was the ultimate baby-sitting mission. My level 4 LN Magus/Monk, a level 3 Paladin, another level 3 who left after 3 encounters, and 4 level 1's in their third RPG game ever. The GM was relatively inexperienced, and incorrectly had us playing the 4-5 tier.
The paladin went through 20 charges in his CLW wand. I went through 15 charges of Infernal Healing. You know it's bad when the Paladin is requesting the use of Infernal Healing (not on himself, on the newbies). Everyone lived, and we even (somehow) succeeded in our mission.
I'd really have hated to have turned evil and been taken out of play for spamming an [Evil] spell like that. The thing is, I'd have done it anyway, because that's what it means to be Shadow Lodge Silver Crusade. Save the party, even if it means sacrificing yourself.
|
|
Well, banning evil spells completely breaks my Necro.
If there is a ban on PvP and we are required to do non-evil things for the most part to complete mission than why does anyone care about evil spells.
Seems to me like people want to force others to play the game as they see fit. Any diversion from their vision of how the game must be played, well that's just heresy and requires an immediate rage fit.
Are you and I reading the same thread?
First, "banning evil spells"? Although a couple of people have suggested it, it's always been in the form of "because it would be easier than X", not because they'd actually prefer to get rid of them. (Unless there's a post I missed?)
The majority of the discussion of aligned spells has been about whether to treat them the same way we treat other aligned actions, not about banning evil spells.
Also, this thread has for the most part been incredibly civil, and with most discussion centering around logistical concerns, handling alignment in general, etc. If you're reading posts in this thread and thinking "heresy" and "rage fit", you might need to take a step back to cool off and then re-join the discussion later.
I never implied that anyone was not being civil. Nor am I angry, I was making an observation about the forums in general, not this specific thread necessarily.
As you said, people have suggested it. This is what I was talking about. My point was.. right or wrong.. my PERSONAL opinion is that every-time I read a post on here someone wants to ban something.
I apologize if my colorful language insulted you and made you angry.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have an actually neutral tiefling oracle of battle that spams prot evil and infernal healing
Okay, so some good and some evil...
lies like there is no tomorrow,
Chaotic, according to the CRB. ("Lawful characters tell the truth...")
has a large sense of duty, and follows whatever oath he makes.
Both entirely lawful.
He is absolutely ruthless against his foes
Not tied to alignment, as far as I can tell.
and protects innocents.
Either neutral or good, depending on whether (or how much) he's willing to make personal sacrifices to do so.
Sounds more schizophrenic than anything. ;)
Is it not possible to have a complaint of people casting opposed-alignment spells while thinking they're acting within their alignment? Are you saying that it doesn't happen? Or maybe that I'm not supposed to complain about it? Or just that phrasing it the same way you phrased your own thought somehow invalidates it? What specifically about my comment "doesn't work"?Reversing what I said doesn't really work.Another one of the larger complaints is that I can cast spells with a different alignment than my own and still think that I'm acting within my alignment, and confirmation bias is human nature and happens without thinking about it.A character can't cherry-pick mechanical benefits they like by choosing an alignment and not acting within it.One of the larger complaints about aligned spells is that I can act within my alignment and still be changed to another one by GM's whim, and confirmation bias is human nature and happens without thinking about it.
The part where you miss that I'm actually talking about how even the best GMs can be overly strict without thinking about it. Confirmation bias also works well in my context but looks like a weird thing at the tail end on yours. It also tries to twist it so one player doesn't care, instead of something that's actually a very neutral concern.
The questioning is also misleading into making people believe I don't care about what they say or I'm trying to invalidate someone. That's just not true.
lies like there is no tomorrow,Chaotic, according to the CRB. ("Lawful characters tell the truth...")
Does that mean my chaotic character who told the truth all scenario needs it docked against him? Looks like I need to lie more often then. "I'd like to soup!" then he whispers to himself "but I really wanted the French toast... Bwahaha! Chaotic again."
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The part where you miss that I'm actually talking about how even the best GMs can be overly strict without thinking about it.
What makes you think I missed that? Heck, I agree with it, and I'm sure there are several people here who can vouch that I'll call people out for it, too. ;)
Confirmation bias also works well in my context but looks like a weird thing at the tail end on yours.
I agree it applies to yours, but it also applies to mine (and I checked your link just to be sure). If someone wants to believe they're acting within their PC's alignment, they'll very easily remember the (for example) good acts they performed while glossing right over the evil magic they were spewing out of their wand all day. How is that not confirmation bias?
It also tries to twist it so one player doesn't care, instead of something that's actually a very neutral concern.
You lost me. I have no idea what you're saying with this sentence. Maybe replace your pronouns with their associated nouns and I'll get it?
The questioning is also misleading into making people believe I don't care about what they say or I'm trying to invalidate someone. That's just not true.
You lost me again. How does my complaint about people spamming an evil spell while they think they're roleplaying "good" have anything to do with you caring about what people say or trying to invalidate someone? I have no idea what you're talking about.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sounds more schizophrenic than anything. ;)Which the rules actually say should peg him as CN. *shrugs*
Which game's rules? I've heard of that from 3.5, but Pathfinder seems to go out of its way to NOT be that:
A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.
(Bolding mine.)
|
|
We have GMs. Most of them are pretty good. Let them do their job.I wish my job allowed me to say something when a NG magus who claims his dervish dancing is in honor of Sarenrae whips out his infernal healing wand as casually as a refreshing juice box. Currently it doesn't.
Jiggy, you and I are of accord. Also, are there really that many Dawnflower Dervish / Magus multiclassed characters who use infernal healing? I saw more than one (!) that caused me to make a separate thread about deity infractions last year or so, and the official response was that the GM can note a deity infraction even if there isn't an alignment infraction. And having just read the Sarenrae article carefully so I could write this column for our Lodge website, I now have learned that Sarenrae would be even angrier with infernal healing than I thought before.
|
|
Which game's rules?Sounds more schizophrenic than anything. ;)Which the rules actually say should peg him as CN. *shrugs*
I'll have to do a little more digging, but I may be misremembering this line.
Players who frequently have their characters change alignment should in all likelihood be playing chaotic neutral characters.
Funny story: "Skeleton Crew," from Pirates of the Inner Sea, does not have the "Evil" descriptor. So it's not okay to make one skeleton to defend some villagers from invading goblins. But it's okay to make a whole bunch to have them crew a boat.
My favorite example is Boneshatter. Doesn't have the pain or evil descriptor.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Mark: Generally, I've found that deity-tied PCs (of good-aligned deities) have stuck to CLW for their out of combat healing. But it seems like everyone else who can activate an IH wand takes that instead. Sometimes it feels like my NG sorceress is the only good-aligned caster in Minnesota who would turn down "dark magic" without having to be coerced by the threat of power removal from a deity.
|
|
@Mark: Generally, I've found that deity-tied PCs (of good-aligned deities) have stuck to CLW for their out of combat healing. But it seems like everyone else who can activate an IH wand takes that instead. Sometimes it feels like my NG sorceress is the only good-aligned caster in Minnesota who would turn down "dark magic" without having to be coerced by the threat of power removal from a deity.
My cleric of Desna accepted an Infernal Healing last night, but only because it was his first scenario (so he didn't have a wand), he was out of spells, and he didn't want to risk the party's resources by using one of his last few channels just for himself. He felt really uncomfortable with it and resolved to not do it again.
On the other hand, my LN Chelish evoker doesn't care at all, because as far as he's concerned it's just another spell, and it's not like Asmodeus disapproves.
I'm all on board with people playing to their deities, because that's explicitly defined. (You should see the way I torture the Chelish summoner in my home game--he's still torn between Asmodeus and Abadar, so they're both on his case.) But that's not the same thing as playing to alignment--alignment (read: morality) is a lot more personal.
Yes, good and evil are verifiable things in Golarion, but the way people with free will choose to interact with them is what defines their character. To argue that using the wrong spells might make a character unplayable in Organized Play ... it doesn't work for me.
You know, someone earlier said they'd like to see the requirements change. Instead of banning evil alignments, ban "failing to represent the Society in a proper way." Which is to say, your character can want to burn down orphanages all he or she desires, but actually doing so will get you kicked out of the Society--not necessarily on moral grounds (although maybe), but because you did it as a Pathfinder agent, and that's bad for everybody. I think I could really get behind that change. It would be a lot more realistic, and it would relieve a lot of the real pressure behind the alignment issue--to wit, if someone decides my character has become evil, he reports my character as dead. Instead, we can put the pressure on people who serve deities (Clerics, Inquisitors) and people who have oaths and codes (Paladins, Monks with vows, etc), which is really what the big problem is anyway, at least mechanically.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You know, someone earlier said they'd like to see the requirements change. Instead of banning evil alignments, ban "failing to represent the Society in a proper way."
Oh please no. One of my pet peeves is when the evil alignment becomes nothing more than a pair of tight leather pants worn by people who are actually neutral- or even good-aligned but want to feel edgier than or otherwise separate from the "good" label. I get enough of that immersion-shattering from clerics who act good, are labeled as neutral, and worship evil.
Yes, I fully admit that's just a personal pet peeve of mine. I just couldn't not say something at the mention of the idea.
|
|
@Mark: Generally, I've found that deity-tied PCs (of good-aligned deities) have stuck to CLW for their out of combat healing. But it seems like everyone else who can activate an IH wand takes that instead. Sometimes it feels like my NG sorceress is the only good-aligned caster in Minnesota who would turn down "dark magic" without having to be coerced by the threat of power removal from a deity.
If I'm ever in Minnesota, most of my good-aligned characters would outright refuse. The others all strongly prefer it not to be used but would resort to it if the situation was dire and somehow they lost access to the CLW wand they had brought along (though usually CLW is better in dire situations anyway).
|
|
What do you do with the good character who has 12 con, at -11 and bleeding out when a party member hits him with the IH wand to save his life?
Is receiving the healing so evil or is more the person casting it?
In strict observance of this goodness everyone is speaking about should the now saved Cleric or Paladin pay to get an atonement?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What do you do with the good character who has 12 con, at -11 and bleeding out when a party member hits him with the IH wand to save his life?
Is receiving the healing so evil or is more the person casting it?
In strict observance of this goodness everyone is speaking about should the now saved Cleric or Paladin pay to get an atonement?
In case I wasn't clear, I was talking about casting it, not receiving it. That's always what the alignment descriptors are for: the caster, not the target. For IH in particular, it even says right in the spell description that the recipient suffers no effects on their alignment.
|
|
What do you do with the good character who has 12 con, at -11 and bleeding out when a party member hits him with the IH wand to save his life?
Is receiving the healing so evil or is more the person casting it?
In strict observance of this goodness everyone is speaking about should the now saved Cleric or Paladin pay to get an atonement?
I would be sad that the dying character is now dead because infernal healing has a 1 round casting time. If this happened at a table with me, I would remind the player of the 1 round casting time and suggest trying a Heal check and hoping for a good number, maybe using a reroll on it if it fails. If it's me, my 5-Star rerolls are actually pretty good for making that DC 15 check, even for a low-Wis character. Also, if there is enough time to cast infernal healing (like if they are 2 hp from death), there is also time to feed a potion, and I standardly carry a potion of CLW if I can't use or UMD a wand of CLW.
EDIT: And agreed with Jiggy that the casting is the issue, not the receiving if unconscious. The character receiving had no choice if they were unconscious. Consciously choosing to receive is another matter.
|
@Keht:
Well if it were me, first I'd prefer not to be down and bleeding in the first place; that's scary! But if it happened... Well, I'd feel pretty icky about it afterwards, but they did just save my life. I don't like the idea of being saved by that spell instead of normal cures, but it sure beats dying!
As for using it on someone else, that's why I learned to use a wand of cure light wounds! Sure, it took some work to master it, but to me it's worth it. And if that ran out and I someone was bleeding out with nothing around to save them with but their own wand of icky healing, well... I guess I'd probably do it. But I'd try really really hard not to get into that situation, though!
|
|
@Keht:
As the recipient, I'd rather die.
As the caster, I am fortunately not in the position of ever having to rely on such a spell. Even if I run out of charges on my own cure wand, AND run out of channels, AND run out of spells that I can convert to cures, there's still stabilize, which I prepare every day. Then I can take care of business and find a way to acquire the necessary resources to get people back on their feet. And anything that would prevent me from using stabilize would also prevent me from using infernal healing. So for me it's a non-issue.
|
|
I think PFS should leave the exception as it is for a few reasons.
PFS is not a home campaign where the GM can consistently apply rules to the players. It’s not realistic to track minor alignment infractions (due to spell casting) and it would be time consuming and unfun.
PFS is not a home campaign and we often don’t have balanced tables. A lot of groups that have arcane casters only rely on Infernal Healing to keep the table going forward. If Infernal Healing was banned, we might as well walk away from the table if we’re missing a divine caster. This is just a reality. If you’re OK with forcing each table to have a divine caster, then this is a huge change to PFS culture.
Lastly, the Paizo employees tweaking the rules got it wrong in this case, spells should not affect your alignment. If they wanted to tweak they should say "if your alignment opposes the spell’s alignment, you cannot cast the spell".
In addition, many spells are not accurately labeled; many spells that are labeled good or evil are neither.
They’ve also summoned demons (to interrogate or trap them), that doesn’t make them evil. They’ve also summoned angels, that also doesn’t make them good. Their actions make them good.
In Pathfinder, these spells shouldn’t make you good or evil either, that’s just silly.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think PFS should leave the exception as it is for a few reasons.
PFS is not a home campaign where the GM can consistently apply rules to the players. It’s not realistic to track minor alignment infractions (due to spell casting) and it would be time consuming and unfun.
PFS is not a home campaign and we often don’t have balanced tables. A lot of groups that have arcane casters only rely on Infernal Healing to keep the table going forward. If Infernal Healing was banned, we might as well walk away from the table if we’re missing a divine caster because of the current scenario challenge level. This is just a reality. If you’re OK with forcing each table to have a divine caster, then this is a huge change to the current PFS rules.
What if instead of either of these things (banning evil spells or tracking alignment infractions from scenario to scenario) we just brought aligned spells in line with the rest of PFS's alignment rules?
|
|
So, to the overall alignment issue….
While I am certainly not head over heals* about the suggestion I am about to make I would be willing to endure it if it would alleviate concerns people have.
What about some sort of Alignment Infraction Sheet (like an ITS but with a different purpose, yeah I know.. More paperwork!)? The campaign staff could designate certain actions and perhaps certain spells that would have specific severity of infractions. Of course you GM should still have the power to shift alignment when the barbarian kills the random villager and eats their brains because the villager called her fat.
I would be open to having to pay for a atonement after say 10 uses of raise dead.. That said, I would think that IH and raise dead are two different levels of evilness.. I would argue that there are many spells that would have different degrees of evilness. So you can not make some arbitrary number associated with casting spells.
I don’t know the proper number to assign to specific action. It's probably all relative anyways. IMHO alignments are not as static as some like to play them off and I am sure someone could make a rational argument as to why a priest of sarenrae slaughters a entire town. May be a difficult rationalization but I am sure it could be argued and you would have some who would agree and some who would not.
|
We already have more than enough to keep track of, don't we? I say this both as an active GM and as a player. Adding in even more junk to oversee is only going to start cutting into the fun. The game already requires that you keep track of every last detail of a character, alignment aside. Do we really want to add that on as well? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to avoid that sort of "solution" if it is at all possible.
|
We have GMs. Most of them are pretty good. Let them do their job.I wish my job allowed me to say something when a NG magus who claims his dervish dancing is in honor of Sarenrae whips out his infernal healing wand as casually as a refreshing juice box. Currently it doesn't.
Have saranrae give them a John Boener tan or drop dead doves on his head.
|
|
I don't like the idea of trying to quantify or "hard-code" alignment infractions like that, and I don't think you'll find many others interested in that either.
Speaking only for myself, I just want aligned spells to be brought in line with existing PFS alignment rules.
I probably missed post with the specific alignment rules your are referring to, would you be so kind as to link that?
|
|
We already have more than enough to keep track of, don't we? I say this both as an active GM and as a player. Adding in even more junk to oversee is only going to start cutting into the fun. The game already requires that you keep track of every last detail of a character, alignment aside. Do we really want to add that on as well? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to avoid that sort of "solution" if it is at all possible.
I don't disagree, just looking for a happy medium somewhere.
|
|
We have GMs. Most of them are pretty good. Let them do their job.I wish my job allowed me to say something when a NG magus who claims his dervish dancing is in honor of Sarenrae whips out his infernal healing wand as casually as a refreshing juice box. Currently it doesn't.
Have saranrae give them a John Boener tan or drop dead doves on his head.
It's possible for a non-divine class to worship a deity without following all of its precepts, isn't it? A character of that nature is under no compunction to obey every last tenet. Maybe they're just not all that devout? Now, there are traits tied to some specific deities, and we are supposed to lose the benefits of those traits if a change of religion occurs.
However, I would be rather curious at a good aligned character willingly casting infernal healing, even knowing it won't change their alignment. It is still a spell of the evil descriptor.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I probably missed post with the specific alignment rules your are referring to, would you be so kind as to link that?I don't like the idea of trying to quantify or "hard-code" alignment infractions like that, and I don't think you'll find many others interested in that either.
Speaking only for myself, I just want aligned spells to be brought in line with existing PFS alignment rules.
It's actually in the Guide, but if you like I'll link a post from earlier where someone quoted it.
Basically, if a PC is about to commit an alignment infraction (not just evil, but anything deviating from their chosen alignment), the GM warns them first and asks if they want to do it. If, over the course of a scenario, a PC commits enough alignment infractions in that one scenario, the GM can enforce an alignment shift and note it on the chronicle sheet.
Currently, there's an inconsistency in that aligned spells are exempted from that. I'd personally like that exemption removed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh please no. One of my pet peeves is when the evil alignment becomes nothing more than a pair of tight leather pants worn by people who are actually neutral- or even good-aligned but want to feel edgier than or otherwise separate from the "good" label. I get enough of that immersion-shattering from clerics who act good, are labeled as neutral, and worship evil.
You must really hate Osprey, then.
Look, PFS scenarios have a lot of moral ambiguity in them. Let's consider some examples.
So why on earth are we trying to claim that the people who go out and do these things (1) can't be evil, (2) can be rigidly good, and (3) should worry a lot about their alignment?
Alignment is from the days when fantasy was bright and shiny. Fantasy is not bright and shiny anymore. That ship has sailed, and you can see that plainly in the content of the organized play campaign. Insisting that we keep a close eye on the thin line of morality doesn't make sense to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
However, I would be rather curious at a good aligned character willingly casting infernal healing, even knowing it won't change their alignment. It is still a spell of the evil descriptor.
Exactly. But it's been my (admittedly limited) experience that if there's not a mechanical consequence to something, then people won't roleplay it (unless it's something of their own invention, like a personality quirk). Seems like if you want a PC to act like they actually would in the setting (like a good person having any preference at all against using evil magic) then there apparently has to be a mechanic in place that the player will react to.
|
|
I probably missed post with the specific alignment rules your are referring to, would you be so kind as to link that?I don't like the idea of trying to quantify or "hard-code" alignment infractions like that, and I don't think you'll find many others interested in that either.
Speaking only for myself, I just want aligned spells to be brought in line with existing PFS alignment rules.
It's actually in the Guide, but if you like I'll link a post from earlier where someone quoted it.
Basically, if a PC is about to commit an alignment infraction (not just evil, but anything deviating from their chosen alignment), the GM warns them first and asks if they want to do it. If, over the course of a scenario, a PC commits enough alignment infractions in that one scenario, the GM can enforce an alignment shift and note it on the chronicle sheet.
Currently, there's an inconsistency in that aligned spells are exempted from that. I'd personally like that exemption removed.
right, and this is what I thought you were talking about but figured id ask before sticking my foot in my mouth..
So this would effectively be a ban would it not? If you are not evil you shouldn't be casting evil spells. PFS doesn't allow evil alignments so anyone trying to cast an evil spell would be in jeopardy of a alignment shift. This would force people to stop using the spells and breaking character concepts because to continue would mean character retirement or huge sums of gold each session just to play the main feature of their build. This would be like saying I am not going to ban soda from my store but I am going to ban any drink with carbonation.
Or perhaps I am totally misunderstanding, which I am sure will lead to my swift correction. I can take it, I apologize in advance if I am being ignorant on something here.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Patrick Harris: What are you talking about? When did I say I didn't like moral ambiguity or that I wish people would all play good characters? Did you even read my post that you quoted? I enjoy moral quandaries; heck, I was even a little bit let down by the low level of moral tension faced by my LG cleric in Rahadoum when I played Port Godless.
Please re-read my post, as I'm not saying anything remotely similar to what you seem to think I'm saying.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So this would effectively be a ban would it not?
Not unless GMs counted castings of aligned spells as pretty "big" aligned acts (which admittedly is a risk that would need to be addressed, and might be worth not doing as I suggest).
What I'm thinking it would accomplish is to make character decisions more realistic:
• Good characters might more consistently think twice about dabbling in evil magic, or would work harder to do good things (to "keep clean"), resulting in better roleplay of good alignments.
• Neutral clerics of evil deities get vast new roleplaying opportunities, as they face the tension between needing to do enough good to stay non-evil to stay in the Society, but not wanting to be good enough to draw the ire of their evil god. Now THAT is good morally-ambiguous roleplaying fuel!
• Druids have to actually pay attention for once (I would mention monks and barbarians, but we're talking spells here).
• Non-divine neutral characters who dabble in evil magic but want to stay neutral have to "keep clean" by taking other measures to "counteract" the effects of their dabbling. You know, kind of like how people who work with hazardous materials for a living need to keep a sharp eye on their health; their line of work carries risks that they accepted when they took up their career. Again, great roleplay opportunity, especially given how many times I hear "But my necromancer's really just an innocent researcher/doctor!" Wash your hands, take your antibiotics—both physical and moral.
On the other hand, maybe that's all just wishful thinking to think any of that would result. :/
|
|
I'm just going to toss up a small list of consequences, in the event of the exemption being removed, that various people have brought up throughout the thread. Those are:
A.) Many people's characters will need either retirement or a complete rebuild. This is due to having been built near exclusively around utilizing these handful of "evil" spells, the necromancer and diabolist sorts being two prime examples.
B.) It will strip away access to at least one prestige class (and probably a few others that I haven't caught yet).
C.) There is at least one tiefling variant (one of the better ones, at that) that would become unplayable in the event of a decision such as that.
D.) The list of available summons is already somewhat lackluster in a lot of ways. The evil outsiders you can call upon are probably the most useful ones, with some of the celestial types being a close second.
E.) Neutral clerics of evil deities would probably need to be looked at again. If evil descriptor spells start making you evil, I'd imagine drawing your "divine" powers from an entity such as Asmodeus would also be putting you at serious risk. Well, I guess on could argue a slow corruption on that one, like being lured down the dark path bit by bit.
F.) It would fail to take into account variables. Yes, that person just cast hellfire ray. However, they saved innumerable lives by doing so. Their willingness to risk condemnation of their own soul in order to safeguard the masses, in the eyes of many, would be an /exceedingly/ good act. However, removal of the exemption turns this from a intriguing question of morality to a case of "too bad."
And finally, I personally feel as if this would be a big step towards removing PFS from its comfortable grey area. I won't claim to know what anyone else is thinking, but I know I have seen this happen in other situations. It always starts as a trickle, but eventually you wind up with a torrent obliterating the proverbial dam. People are likely to want more and more, each new concession leading to more opportunities for creativity and immersive story being swept away in the great deluge some call "progress."
|
|
@Patrick Harris: What are you talking about? When did I say I didn't like moral ambiguity or that I wish people would all play good characters? Did you even read my post that you quoted? I enjoy moral quandaries; heck, I was even a little bit let down by the low level of moral tension faced by my LG cleric in Rahadoum when I played Port Godless.
Please re-read my post, as I'm not saying anything remotely similar to what you seem to think I'm saying.
You said you don't want evil to become a legal choice. Your exact words: "Oh please no."
I'm explaining why I think it's silly that it isn't already. I thought the rhetorical question following all those examples made that clear, but apparently not.
|
|
So this would effectively be a ban would it not?Not unless GMs counted castings of aligned spells as pretty "big" aligned acts (which admittedly is a risk that would need to be addressed, and might be worth not doing as I suggest).
Right, and I think the fiat part here would be a major issue. This all comes down to balancing the "Living Campaign" aspect. While it's impossible to keep things the same at every table for various reason's I think this type of fiat would lead to big trouble. In fact, this is probably the reason Mike addressed it back in August 2012.
That said your role playing examples were dead on. Having a GM weigh good and evil actions for some total at the end of a session when they only have that session as a reference point would probably cause issues but you are right, these scenarios are role playing gold.
A few posts back you talked about mechanics needed to force player's role-playing. Your right, this is the truth of the matter. I would argue that the majority of players are not going to role play alignments 100% as written without some mechanical penalty to enforce it.
So the question boils down to how hard a stance to take and if its worth destroying character concepts to institute a new policy or affirm an existing one. I would say NO, it's not worth it but I understand this is just my opinion.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Patrick Harris: What are you talking about? When did I say I didn't like moral ambiguity or that I wish people would all play good characters? Did you even read my post that you quoted? I enjoy moral quandaries; heck, I was even a little bit let down by the low level of moral tension faced by my LG cleric in Rahadoum when I played Port Godless.
Please re-read my post, as I'm not saying anything remotely similar to what you seem to think I'm saying.
You said you don't want evil to become a legal choice. Your exact words: "Oh please no."
I'm explaining why I think it's silly that it isn't already. I thought the rhetorical question following all those examples made that clear, but apparently not.
You put some very specific reasons to my dislike of opening up evil PCs that are very far from what I stated.
|
|
You said you don't want evil to become a legal choice. Your exact words: "Oh please no."
I'm explaining why I think it's silly that it isn't already. I thought the rhetorical question following all those examples made that clear, but apparently not.
Look, let me put this another way.
You say, "we should track alignment a lot more closely than we do."
I say, "if we do that, a lot of characters will become unplayable, simply due to the nature of our missions."
I have also suggested a compromise solution--track alignment a lot closer but don't make "evil" equal "dead"--but you don't want that.
So I respond with reasons that tracking alignment, and booting evil characters, in this campaign, makes no sense. Your assertion--which if it isn't best distilled as "we should be tracking alignment more closely," I'll agree I'm very confused--would create legitimate problems for characters who are required to do evil, illegal things on a regular basis in order to advance.