From a storytelling perspective, challenging "good" characters with moral quandaries is inherently interesting: you force a character to act against his nature or face defeat, and all kinds of literary theory and psychological discussions ensue. There is no equivalent interest or struggle when amoral or "neutral" characters face the same situation.
Erm... Neutral characters can have plenty of challenges of character. Being neutral doesn't make you void of history, personality, or personal bias. Thinking without alignment, almost any character really should have the ability to face a decision like that. Is your nature to ally with or work against a particular organization or character? Do you have a goal in life(or at least in this particular moment)? Have you suffered a trauma that makes something difficult and gives you something to overcome? Just the same, circumstances determine a lot and what gains and losses you have. A lot of this is easier done in a home game where it can be tailored though, or just writing a book of your own.
|
I'm beginning to think you misunderstand exactly what tieflings/aasimar really are in Golarion. Or maybe it's me; perhaps I'll have another look at the relevant Blood of books later.
Nope, you're remembering correctly. Tieflings and aasimar are entirely free to choose their own path.
Heck, the Blood Of books themselves feature a tiefling cleric of Sarenae and aasimar servant of Zon-Kuthon in their artwork. :)
|
I'm beginning to think you misunderstand exactly what tieflings/aasimar really are in Golarion. Or maybe it's me; perhaps I'll have another look at the relevant Blood of books later.Nope, you're remembering correctly. Tieflings and aasimar are entirely free to choose their own path.
Heck, the Blood Of books themselves feature a tiefling cleric of Sarenae and aasimar servant of Zon-Kuthon in their artwork. :)
Excellent references.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Jiggy my point is there needs to be a clear defintition of this as an evil or not evil act, I was just giving some possible reasons for it not being one.
Oh! Okay, so the "racism makes it okay" was not your position, but rather a hypothetical excuse someone might make? That makes a bit more sense, then. I also recall a thread once where someone complained about their nagaji (I think?) paladin not being able to use their racial poison ability. Something like "If it's a natural ability of my race, it couldn't possibly be against the paladin's code!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the systematic persecution of an entire group of role-players
Some of your perceived disadvantages are self-imposed. And some of them equate lack of privileges / special treatment with being "punished" / "persecuted".
|
|
@Jiggy my point is there needs to be a clear defintition of this as an evil or not evil act, I was just giving some possible reasons for it not being one.Oh! Okay, so the "racism makes it okay" was not your position, but rather a hypothetical excuse someone might make? That makes a bit more sense, then. I also recall a thread once where someone complained about their nagaji (I think?) paladin not being able to use their racial poison ability. Something like "If it's a natural ability of my race, it couldn't possibly be against the paladin's code!"
So now any racial hatred should not be allowed and Rangers should not be allowed to use favored enemy abilities? This isn't the US and it's LAWS have nothing to do with the game. All I did was give some reasons to explain a Coupe De Gras action, that's all. Also "racism" is all over Golarion.
|
|
Favored Enemy isn't automatically racist. The motivations behind CdG and Favored Enemy can be racist, but do not have to be.
My paladin CdGing the derro was motivated by bringing justice to the slavers that had plagued the town.
My dwarven wizard having Favored Enemy (Human) was a representation of his study of the human lands in preparation for being a diplomatic envoy from the dwarven lands. His hatred was reserved for orcs and goblins.
|
the systematic persecution of an entire group of role-playersSome of your perceived disadvantages are self-imposed. And some of them equate lack of privileges / special treatment with being "punished" / "persecuted".
I give John a dollar but I don't give Fred a dollar. It doesn't matter whether I say "I have given John an advantage by giving him a dollar," or saying "I have given Fred an disadvantage by not giving him a dollar." The end result is the same.
I give John a dollar but I don't give Fred a dollar. It doesn't matter whether I say "I have given John an advantage by giving him a dollar," or saying "I have given Fred an disadvantage by not giving him a dollar."
Yeah it does, because there is a difference between a disadvantage and lack of an advantage. Especially if (a)both John and Fred have other sources of dollars besides you and (b) a dollar doesn't buy that much to start with.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So now any racial hatred should not be allowed and Rangers should not be allowed to use favored enemy abilities? This isn't the US and it's LAWS have nothing to do with the game. All I did was give some reasons to explain a Coupe De Gras action, that's all. Also "racism" is all over Golarion.@Jiggy my point is there needs to be a clear defintition of this as an evil or not evil act, I was just giving some possible reasons for it not being one.Oh! Okay, so the "racism makes it okay" was not your position, but rather a hypothetical excuse someone might make? That makes a bit more sense, then. I also recall a thread once where someone complained about their nagaji (I think?) paladin not being able to use their racial poison ability. Something like "If it's a natural ability of my race, it couldn't possibly be against the paladin's code!"
Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. Did you hit "Reply" on the wrong post or something?
|
|
Yeah it does, because there is a difference between a disadvantage and lack of an advantage.
The difference is only in the semantics. The end result is the same ergo there is no real difference.
Especially if (a)both John and Fred have other sources of dollars besides you and (b) a dollar doesn't buy that much to start with.
Way to totally miss the point.
|
I have a PC who is 10th level (29 XP), and she has only ever done HP damage twice - both times to herself (Confusion effects have a "hit self, inflict 1d8 HP" result).
She regularly prevents combats, succeeding at missions by talking thru encounters (even some combat encounters).
And she's neutral (C/N actually - you know that borderline "evil" alignment).
AND I've had a judge tell me that if it were in his power to do so, he would mark her as "evil" - killing her out of the campaign. Because of her day job. You see, she's a courtisan, a "lady of the evening", a harlot, and thus clearly (in at least one judges opinion) an "evil" person.
PFS does not "...punish the good" - PFS just reflects the peoples attitude at each table, at the time they are playing the game. Different people, different attitudes, different times - and you get different "feels" of who is being "punished".
PFS does not "PFS punish the good" - PFS just reflects the peoples attitude at each table, at the time they are playing the game. Different people, different attitudes, different times - and you get different "feels" of who is being "punished".
Scenarios that have bias's are a little different than tables that have biases. Its a lot easier to control the first than the latter for instance. I think the OP was about the first more than the latter. Can't really control the latter.
How are harlots evil, anyway? Do I want to know?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
AND I've had a judge tell me that if it were in his power to do so, he would mark her as "evil" - killing her out of the campaign. Because of her day job. You see, she's a courtisan, a "lady of the evening", a harlot, and thus clearly (in at least one judges opinion) an "evil" person.
Oh wow.
The part of myself I'm not too proud of would love to play a LG paladin-courtesan of Lymnieris with that GM just to rub his nose in it and to be able to point at Chronicle of the Righteous to prove it's more true to the setting than his prostitute-hate.
there is a difference between a disadvantage and lack of an advantage.The difference is only in the semantics. The end result is the same ergo there is no real difference.
If I give you no advantage, you are no better off; if I give you a disadvantage, you are worse off than before I interceded. That's not semantics. I don't mean to belabor this point, but there it is.
Way to totally miss the point.
Well then please accept this as my invitation to explain your point more thoroughly.
|
|
PFS does not "PFS punish the good" - PFS just reflects the peoples attitude at each table, at the time they are playing the game. Different people, different attitudes, different times - and you get different "feels" of who is being "punished".Scenarios that have bias's are a little different than tables that have biases. Its a lot easier to control the first than the latter for instance. I think the OP was about the first more than the latter. Can't really control the latter.
How are harlots evil, anyway? Do I want to know?
often a story (and a scenario is at it's heart a story) can be spun in several different ways.
“And then Jack chopped down what was the world's last beanstalk, adding murder and ecological terrorism to the theft, enticement, and trespass charges already mentioned, and all the giant's children didn't have a daddy anymore. But he got away with it and lived happily ever after, without so much as a guilty twinge about what he had done...which proves that you can be excused for just about anything if you are a hero, because no one asks inconvenient questions.”
... everyone knows that story right?
(edited: sorry, forgot I was posting as Katisha, my "lady of negotiable virtue")
|
|
AND I've had a judge tell me that if it were in his power to do so, he would mark her as "evil" - killing her out of the campaign. Because of her day job. You see, she's a courtisan, a "lady of the evening", a harlot, and thus clearly (in at least one judges opinion) an "evil" person.Oh wow.
The part of myself I'm not too proud of would love to play a LG paladin-courtesan of Lymnieris with that GM just to rub his nose in it and to be able to point at Chronicle of the Righteous to prove it's more true to the setting than his prostitute-hate.
Why? I surely wouldn't, as this would be no fun for me, and clearly no fun for him... and gaming is all about having fun right?
just vote with your feet. Thank him for the game, note his name, walk away and never play for him again.
PFS does not "...punish the good" - PFS just reflects the peoples attitude at each table, at the time they are playing the game. Different people, different attitudes, different times - and you get different "feels" of who is being "punished".
Well said. Good characters are situationally disadvantaged - like every other alignment, class, race, archetype, etc etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Why? I surely wouldn't, as this would be no fun for me, and clearly no fun for him... and gaming is all about having fun right?
No, gaming is actually a poorly-regulated correctional institution in which each participant believes him- or herself to be the facilitator and everyone else to be the subject.
|
|
AND I've had a judge tell me that if it were in his power to do so, he would mark her as "evil" - killing her out of the campaign. Because of her day job. You see, she's a courtisan, a "lady of the evening", a harlot, and thus clearly (in at least one judges opinion) an "evil" person.Oh wow.
The part of myself I'm not too proud of would love to play a LG paladin-courtesan of Lymnieris with that GM just to rub his nose in it and to be able to point at Chronicle of the Righteous to prove it's more true to the setting than his prostitute-hate.
Why? I surely wouldn't, as this would be no fun for me, and clearly no fun for him... and gaming is all about having fun right?
just vote with your feet. Thank him for the game, note his name, walk away and never play for him again.
Note that that's the part of myself I'm not too proud of. There are other parts keeping that in check. :)
... everyone knows that story right?
You forgot the part about how he stole their golden goose that had been keeping their family alive for generations and they were all doomed without it. Nice guy, that jack.
Also scenarios are pre written. You can't change facts like the giant's want to grind you down for bread or whatever giant's do. Similarly, you can't change the fact your supposed to extort a shop keeper or village for money or you get no reward, or the bosses hp, or the fact the magical tattoo that you consider stylish turns you evil. Would be a much different game if you could.
Mind you, you can change what the protagonist does to get his things. You can play jack who kindly ask the giant for his goose and does all non lethal damage and knocks him out before stealing his stuff instead of murdering him. The downside is being who you are doesn't always pay, but I'm not sure if its a good lesson to teach kids that getting tattoos and extorting shop keepers is the best way to live life.
|
|
If I give you no advantage, you are no better off; if I give you a disadvantage, you are worse off than before I interceded. That's not semantics. I don't mean to belabor this point, but there it is.there is a difference between a disadvantage and lack of an advantage.The difference is only in the semantics. The end result is the same ergo there is no real difference.
A black man and a white man both apply for a job with me. I am a racist SOB so I hire the white man. The black man is no worse of that before, i.e. he is still unemployed, so the only thing I have done is give advantage to a white man. That makes it okay, right?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were they just born with hearts full of neutrality? I hate these filthy neutrals. With enemies, you know where you stand, but with neutrals? Who knows!? It sickens me."--Captain Zapp Branigan
You know who doesn't get sickened? Those filthy neutrals! Because they don't get the affect riders on unholy blight et al!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A black man and a white man both apply for a job with me. I am a racist SOB so I hire the white man. The black man is no worse of that before, i.e. he is still unemployed, so the only thing I have done is give advantage to a white man. That makes it okay, right?If I give you no advantage, you are no better off; if I give you a disadvantage, you are worse off than before I interceded. That's not semantics. I don't mean to belabor this point, but there it is.there is a difference between a disadvantage and lack of an advantage.The difference is only in the semantics. The end result is the same ergo there is no real difference.
I don't see where bringing race into it does anything except to obfuscate and add irrelevant, politically and emotionally-charged dimensions to the discussion.
You do not disadvantage a person by not hiring them; by that logic you are disadvantaging everybody in the world that you could employ, but do not.
You disadvantage a person by firing them, or otherwise costing them a job they already have.
|
|
I have a PC who is 10th level (29 XP), and she has only ever done HP damage twice - both times to herself (Confusion effects have a "hit self, inflict 1d8 HP" result).
She regularly prevents combats, succeeding at missions by talking thru encounters (even some combat encounters).
And she's neutral (C/N actually - you know that borderline "evil" alignment).
AND I've had a judge tell me that if it were in his power to do so, he would mark her as "evil" - killing her out of the campaign. Because of her day job. You see, she's a courtisan, a "lady of the evening", a harlot, and thus clearly (in at least one judges opinion) an "evil" person.
PFS does not "...punish the good" - PFS just reflects the peoples attitude at each table, at the time they are playing the game. Different people, different attitudes, different times - and you get different "feels" of who is being "punished".
That is hilarious(I aslo have a Sczarni Gnome sorceress who has that as her day job, I call it the publiuc relations bureau of Sczarni), which is why as a GM never impose personal vendettas/opinions on PC's. Just use the rules as written, if something is unclear ask other veteran GM's.
the point I was making with the Jack story was that the judge can spin the scenario several ways, without changing the story line or even the protagonists or anything. He has a lot of control over what is "good" and what is "evil"... and can judge your actions either way ...
And the point I was making was that doesn't always work. The tattoo will turn you evil. Extorting the shopkeeper is how you get the gold. There isn't an option to change either of those. Can't only spin so much.
|
|
I don't see where bringing race into it does anything except to obfuscate and add irrelevant, politically and emotionally-charged dimensions to the discussion.A black man and a white man both apply for a job with me. I am a racist SOB so I hire the white man. The black man is no worse of that before, i.e. he is still unemployed, so the only thing I have done is give advantage to a white man. That makes it okay, right?If I give you no advantage, you are no better off; if I give you a disadvantage, you are worse off than before I interceded. That's not semantics. I don't mean to belabor this point, but there it is.there is a difference between a disadvantage and lack of an advantage.The difference is only in the semantics. The end result is the same ergo there is no real difference.
Please explain why the analogy is irrelevant. It is a comparison of advantage versus disadvantage. Albeit, I will admit it is politically and emotionally charged, but that in itself does not make it irrelevant.
You do not disadvantage a person by not hiring them; by that logic you are disadvantaging everybody in the world that you could employ, but do not.
You disadvantage a person by firing them, or otherwise costing them a job they already have.
So then you are saying it is okay for me to not hire the black man based on the fact I only like white people?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
I have a PC who is 10th level (29 XP), and she has only ever done HP damage twice - both times to herself (Confusion effects have a "hit self, inflict 1d8 HP" result).
She regularly prevents combats, succeeding at missions by talking thru encounters (even some combat encounters).
And she's neutral (C/N actually - you know that borderline "evil" alignment).
AND I've had a judge tell me that if it were in his power to do so, he would mark her as "evil" - killing her out of the campaign. Because of her day job. You see, she's a courtisan, a "lady of the evening", a harlot,...
Is she a part of the Seamstress' Guilde... "Hem hem hem"? ?? ?
Please explain why the analogy is irrelevant. It is a comparison of advantage versus disadvantage. Albeit, I will admit it is politically and emotionally charged, but that in itself does not make it irrelevant.
So then you are saying it is okay for me to not hire the black man based on the fact I only like white people?
Your analogy of employment based discrimination against a person based on (a)circumstances of their birth which are (b)irrelevant to job performance is not the least bit relevant to your accusations that you are being disadvantaged due to (a)your choice of alignment in (b)a character you create for a (c)fictional game that you are (d)playing of your own volition.
My opinion on the ethical or moral dimensions of whom you should hire and for what reason is not relevant, nor is it remotely related to the topic of this thread.
You also can disadvantage people (such as in the case of racial discrimination IRL) by starting them out from a position of disadvantage in society in general, from birth, but I don't see that as being analogous to your situation in PFS.
If people were looking at your character and saying "Oh, I see you're Good, so we'll dock you a couple points off your abilities and eliminate some of your starting gold", I could see that as being the case. But it isn't so I don't.
Bringing in politically and emotionally charged examples instead of bland-but-relevant ones is, in my experience, not generally a sign that you are engaging in discussion in good faith.
|
|
Is she a part of the Seamstress' Guilde... "Hem hem hem"? ?? ?I have a PC who is 10th level (29 XP), and she has only ever done HP damage twice - both times to herself (Confusion effects have a "hit self, inflict 1d8 HP" result).
She regularly prevents combats, succeeding at missions by talking thru encounters (even some combat encounters).
And she's neutral (C/N actually - you know that borderline "evil" alignment).
AND I've had a judge tell me that if it were in his power to do so, he would mark her as "evil" - killing her out of the campaign. Because of her day job. You see, she's a courtisan, a "lady of the evening", a harlot,...
actually, I have a number of prostitute licenses, I try to gather them in each country the Society sends me to. (paid for on chronicles and noted by the judge) I have 5 or 6 so far... in fact the time I encounterd the judge with the issue with harlots, I was trying to get one for someplace in Varisia I think... or maybe it was the elf city of Celwynvian? I don't remember. So, yes, if I had been to Aukn-Morpork I would clearly buy a license to the Seamstress's Guilde...
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Just a reminder.
The word "race" in Pathfinder means something quite different than what we think about in the real world.
In real world terms, the races in Pathfinder would probably be called subspecies. There's a lot of disagreement about the use of the term 'race' in biology, both because of it's connotations and because of how you'd define it. An easy way to consider a biological race is define it as subtype of a species that are similar enough taxinomically that they can still reproduce (among other things). While a subspecies is a subtype of a species that are taxinomically different enough that they generally cannot reproduce. So with the exception of humans, elves, and orcs (which can lead to half-elves and half-orcs in PFS)--the other races in pathfinder are technically subspecies.
So when we start slinging words like "racist" in a Pathfinder context, we'd probably be better off labeling those characters as "subspeciesist" or something similar.
Or, we could refrain from bringing up the topic unless we try to discuss it in a civil manner, as it's something that people have quite a history with. Using real world examples should be avoided as well, imo. I don't think the question "Why does PFS punish the good," isn't answered by introducing the subject of racism.
Or, we could refrain from bringing up the topic unless we try to discuss it in a civil manner, as it's something that people have quite a history with. Using real world examples should be avoided as well, imo. I don't think the question "Why does PFS punish the good," isn't answered by introducing the subject of racism.
You just don't understand logic, Walter Sheppard. If I can be coaxed into revealing that I am, IRL, the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, then my opinions about elfgames are invalidated.
QED
|
|
Please explain why the analogy is irrelevant. It is a comparison of advantage versus disadvantage. Albeit, I will admit it is politically and emotionally charged, but that in itself does not make it irrelevant.
So then you are saying it is okay for me to not hire the black man based on the fact I only like white people?
Your analogy of employment based discrimination against a person based on (a)circumstances of their birth which are (b)irrelevant to job performance is not the least bit relevant to your accusations that you are being disadvantaged due to (a)your choice of alignment in (b)a character you create for a (c)fictional game that you are (d)playing of your own volition.
My opinion on the ethical or moral dimensions of whom you should hire and for what reason is not relevant, nor is it remotely related to the topic of this thread.
You also can disadvantage people (such as in the case of racial discrimination IRL) by starting them out from a position of disadvantage in society in general, from birth, but I don't see that as being analogous to your situation in PFS.
If people were looking at your character and saying "Oh, I see you're Good, so we'll dock you a couple points off your abilities and eliminate some of your starting gold", I could see that as being the case. But it isn't so I don't.
Bringing in politically and emotionally charged examples instead of bland-but-relevant ones is, in my experience, not generally a sign that you are engaging in discussion in good faith.
I used race because the answer was obvious. And the point is still valid. It doesn't matter whether we give a white man an advantage or a black man a disadvantage, both are considered unfair because the end result is the same.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Failing to hire someone is not a disadvantage. You have in no way hurt their station in life by refusing to do so; this applies to alignment as well. Every alignment brings its own specific set of advantages, disadvantages, and all sorts of useless fluff that people tend to insist in packaging when, by RAW, it ain't there. Has someone ever slapped several thousand gold out of your character due to being good aligned? Now, all that being said, circumstances do change a little bit when we run across things that can read your alignment--or in the case of a paladin/cleric, read your aura (far easier than just reading alignment). At that point you are more likely to be their target, probably more vulnerable to their attacks if it's some kind of evil outsider, or maybe just extra tasty if they're an undead out for a tasty flesh morsel upon which to dine. Protip: That is just the price you pay for being good aligned. The neutral guys, on the other hand, wind up being partially blasted by both spells that target good and spells that target evil rather than vulnerability to one and immunity to the other.
Would you prefer it if they just put in a bunch of knights with smite neutral and let them auto-crit all the neutral people on each hit or something? Then comes the subject of moral quandaries. Tell me, why shouldn't good characters be held to a higher moral standard? For that matter, why shouldn't they encounter conflicts of interest in PFS at times? The society is a fully neutral organization; in fact, I dare say it seems to lean a little closer to the evil side of neutral quite often. If evil is outright banned, then do explain to me how it's "unfair" that good should encounter their fair share of problems in a campaign setting that is decidedly not good?
the point I was making with the Jack story was that the judge can spin the scenario several ways, without changing the story line or even the protagonists or anything. He has a lot of control over what is "good" and what is "evil"... and can judge your actions either way ...And the point I was making was that doesn't always work. The tattoo will turn you evil. Extorting the shopkeeper is how you get the gold. There isn't an option to change either of those. Can't only spin so much.My PC (my harlot in fact) got the tattoo, and at the time I did not know the effects of it. When I found it would shift my alignment, I asked for, and recieved from my faction, an atonement spell. It could just as easily have killed me right? Hazard of the job looks like to me. Hay! and it gave me a great boost to some of my Bluff checks!
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
So are you actually allowed to change 'extort to shopkeeper' to 'legally take taxes from him and keep for yourself'? I always thought you couldn't in PFS. Similarly, I thought you had to warn someone when they take an action that would make an alignment shift, or at least an infraction.
|
|
Failing to hire someone is not a disadvantage. You have in no way hurt their station in life by refusing to do so; this applies to alignment as well.
How does being unemployed not hurt someone's station in life? Regardless, let's try a different analogy.
Fred & George are told to fight a dual. Both enter the arena with nothing but swords. I take George's sword away from him. Now Fred has an advantage over George. Same scenario only neither combatant enters the arena with a sword. I give Fred a sword but do not give one to Fred. Again, Fred now has an advantage over George. The end result is the same even though in one scenario I gave someone an advantage and in the other scenario I gave someone a disadvantage. Either way poor George doesn't have a sword.
Every alignment brings its own specific set of advantages, disadvantages, and all sorts of useless fluff that people tend to insist in packaging when, by RAW, it ain't there.
Well, that's the problem. I am not seeing much in the way of advantages for the good.
So far the biggest advantage anyone has brought up is the rather paradoxical point that, because good is hard it is more challenging and thus bestows a greater sense of accomplishment and pride. Obviously the value of that is going to vary from person to person.
I do not consider the fact that a good person has farther to slip than a neutral person that much of an advantage because in most cases people are going to pay for the Atonement to keep their original alignment regardless.
The neutral guys, on the other hand, wind up being partially blasted by both spells that target good and spells that target evil rather than vulnerability to one and immunity to the other.
How many times has your PFS character been hit with Holy Smite compared to Unholy Blight?
Would you prefer it if they just put in a bunch of knights with smite neutral and let them auto-crit all the neutral people on each hit or something?
I have already said what I would prefer. I would prefer to either see some adventures that reward players for role-playing their good characters properly like there are already for neutral ones, or I would like to see adventures that gave different rewards based on moral choices.
The society is a fully neutral organization; in fact, I dare say it seems to lean a little closer to the evil side of neutral quite often.
Well, that does go back to my original question of whether or not the intent was to promote neutrality.
If evil is outright banned, then do explain to me how it's "unfair" that good should encounter their fair share of problems in a campaign setting that is decidedly not good?
My comparisons were strictly limited to the allowed PFS alignments. If you want to start a thread up discussing how unfairly evil is treated in PFS, be my guest.