If you're not immediately kicked out of the game, then you can in fact just continue role-playing your character and their alignment may simply gradually shift back. Atonement is just a short-cut. If you want to role play your character more Good, you can do so. Only Paladins and SOME Good Clerics/Inquisitors who were already 1 step from their Deity (and moving towards Neutral in Good/Evil axis doesn't move them closer to Deity's Alignment) really have more urgency than that.
Regardless, there has been so much "counter" information shared and demonstrated, that I just can't take this concern seriously anymore. If there is any sort of bias remaining, it is just marginal in the grand scheme of things. Hope you've found my posts constructive.
|
OK, taking Holy Smight/Blight out, that leaves the expanded mechanical options of Good (Classes, Domains, Feats, other options).
Classes...well, class really...okay I get that.
Feats...off the top of my head I can only think of one feat that is essentially "good" only though I have not doubt there are several others.Domains...this one I am at a bit of a loss on. Maybe I am missing something but I don't see anything restricting the Good domain to good aligned characters. For example, I don't see why a neutral cleric of Sarenrae can't have the good domain.
|
I'm still failing to grasp why people apparently think good characters should receive preferential treatment from Paizo. Good is supposed to be harder than neutral to maintain. It is also supposed to get you into trouble at times, be easily lost through the commission of evil acts, and otherwise carry the very, VERY limited number of drawbacks it actually has. The society is neutral; the decemvirate doesn't give a damn if Thwak McBashington (Paladin 11) finds his mission to assist a group of blatantly evil outsiders (a devil for argument's sake) in achieving their own goals in return for a service to the society to be unconscionable. Likewise, I suspect they probably also don't care if a paladin loses their paladinhood due to an alignment shift while on a mission--the faction heads sure never did.
Mechanically speaking I find it just as absurd to expect them to reward good characters for being good. As it stands everyone receives the same rewards regardless of alignment.
Domains...this one I am at a bit of a loss on. Maybe I am missing something but I don't see anything restricting the Good domain to good aligned characters. For example, I don't see why a neutral cleric of Sarenrae can't have the good domain.
Re: Good Domain, I think you're just not familiar with the Alignment Domain rules... Here, easy quote:
A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if her alignment matches that domain.
Thus, it doesn't just depend on the Deity's Domains and that Deity being within 1 step in order to be a valid deity for your Alignment.
Neutral Clerics are likewise excluded from Evil, Chaos and Law Domains. (thus PFS PC's are excluded from Evil Domain)BTW, AFAIK the rules are silent for what happens re: Alignment Domain if your Alignment changes but is still 1-step to the Deity.
The Domain has already been "selected" legally, so can you keep it and continue using it? If not, should you select a new one?
(that mechanism seems to open to the door to Neutral PFS PCs with the Evil Domain, they can select the Domain outside of ever beginning PFS play, and say they changed alignment before their first mission... pretty much equivalent to turning Evil and then buying an Atonement)
|
Neutrals can cast BOTH versions, while either version also works vs. Neutrals. This is part of why I proposed NOT changing the status of Neutral to count as both Good and Evil in general, and my proposed weaker Neutral Protection spell was in fact weaker. By your original proposal, you are DOUBLING the utility of Protection from Evil/Good spells for Evil/Good Casters (also applying vs. Neutrals, i.e. now it applies against practically any encounter in an AP, rather than just 80% of them). Neutrals could cast both versions and be Immune to mind-control and Aligned Summons from ANY SOURCE/Alignment. That's a significant advantage for Neutrals.
While true, to a point, you must remember that Neutral Divine classes can't cast them at all, and while Arcane ones can, it is more expensive. In my experience, neutral enemies are just as common as evil ones, if not slightly more so, and so I will agree that that could be an issue.
The problem is that as the rules work now, Neutral characters basically ignore most of the more powerful alignment affecting abilities, which is, in theory balanced by the fact that they are affected by all of them. In practice though, most enemies will only utilize the evil versions of those abilities against them, (and occasionally you might see specific groups use one alignment appropriate, such as a Hellknight using Lawful version, but even then it's kind of 50/50 if they use the lawful or the Evil version). So in play the Neutrally Aligned characters just get free half damage (if not outright immunity) to abilities that the Good characters are extra weak against, and just happen to also be the main version that the party will be targeted by most often. Even if the party has a Cleric or Oracle dropping the Good versions around, more likely than not they are going to avoid their allies, and if not it's probably going to be much better than if the Wizard had done a Fireball or whatever instead. Add in that if you are not aligned, you can ignore things like Protection from ______ completely, but still use almost all of the toys, its a pretty broken idea, and has been since 3E came out. But I do think in retrospect, it might be better to instead change individual spells and affects rather than the broad simplified rule, as some things like Protection from _______ just may not fit in so well.
While true, to a point, you must remember that Neutral Divine classes can't cast them at all, and while Arcane ones can, it is more expensive. In my experience, neutral enemies are just as common as evil ones, if not slightly more so, and so I will agree that that could be an issue.Well, by my reading of your proposed rule, they certainly COULD cast them, all of them:
Personally, I think that Neutral Characters should be treated as both alignments (along which ever scale(s) they are neutral on) for all Alignment effects, with the exception of Smite Evil/Good and Detect Good/Evil/Chaos/Law, rather than be treated as neither.
"Treated as Good+Evil+Law+Chaos" sure seems like it means they count as that Alignment for Casting Alignment Descriptor spells. That may well be an unintended consequence of your broad rule, but it looks like you agree that such a blanket rule messing with the Alignment system like that isn't a good idea.
|
|
I'm still failing to grasp why people apparently think good characters should receive preferential treatment from Paizo. Good is supposed to be harder than neutral to maintain. It is also supposed to get you into trouble at times, be easily lost through the commission of evil acts, and otherwise carry the very, VERY limited number of drawbacks it actually has. The society is neutral; the decemvirate doesn't give a damn if Thwak McBashington (Paladin 11) finds his mission to assist a group of blatantly evil outsiders (a devil for argument's sake) in achieving their own goals in return for a service to the society to be unconscionable. Likewise, I suspect they probably also don't care if a paladin loses their paladinhood due to an alignment shift while on a mission--the faction heads sure never did.
Mechanically speaking I find it just as absurd to expect them to reward good characters for being good. As it stands everyone receives the same rewards regardless of alignment.
I think you are confusing things a bit. It's not trying to reward Good for being Good, (or actually trying to reward anyone at all). It's about removing the mechanical benefit for not being Aligned. Lets also not forget that the Pathfinder Society is an extremely unrealistic and DM Fiated to the max organization that was supposed to serve only as an immediate "in" for players to avoid the whole idea of needing adventures to meet at the inn over and over. Setting aside that the church of Iomedae and Pharasma (not to mention how many others) would have eradicated the Society a long time ago if the writers didn't keep it around, but the Pathfinder Society is banned in many, many places, and has a horrible (and very well deserved) reputation pretty much Golarion-wide. You have things a little backwards, and it's the Decemvirate that want's all those Paladin and the like. Not even wants, they NEED them, if the organization is going to survive. Not only to start winning back have far they have let their little organization fall, but also because people trust those good champions and honest folk, and that means allies. It means access to a lot of things they probably wouldn't otherwise get. Now if that 11th Level Paladin falls, what the hell good are they to anyone? Might as well be another of the dime a dozen warriors and guards one can find at any city gate.
No, that Paladin brings an uncommon, if not rare something that can get a group past some demon or devil they otherwise would have gotten slaughter by. That holy priest can protect others from things others probably will not be prepped for and actually fight undead unlike those Pharasmites that keep talking about hating the undead. The honest warrior willing to take one for the team OR that innocent farmer over there. In fact, most of the time, it's the PFS that needs them a whole lot more than they actually need the PFS, which is kind of a step down for them.
|
Setting aside that the church of Iomedae and Pharasma (not to mention how many others) would have eradicated the Society a long time ago if the writers didn't keep it around, but the Pathfinder Society is banned in many, many places, and has a horrible (and very well deserved) reputation pretty much Golarion-wide.I think you really overestimate the power and influence of the Iomedan church. They have their hands full with the Worldwound and the Whispering Tyrant. They really don't have the muscle to spare to storm Kortos and launch another Crusade against an organisation that's not demonstrably evil. They've got a severe bone to pick against the Society, true, but they don't wish to lose the good that the Silver Crusade does.
As for Pharasma, what possible beef could they have with the Society? The Society isn't holding any major relics of THAT church AFAIK.
Tons o' grave robbin' though.
|
|
If paladins are rare then my name is George Bush. In any case, I think you might have misunderstood one key thing. There hasn't been any indication that the decemvirate cares at all whether or not a paladin or cleric might fall from grace while in their service. Missions clearly indicate a neutral dominated environment. Now from a mechanical standpoint I can see that neutrality carries some benefits, but one could also argue that many of those are not benefits at all. Why? Sure, you only take half damage from that unholy blight, but you'll also take half damage from its polar opposite. Neutral characters also tend to be handed alignment infractions left and right (normally undeserved) due to a good number of GMs, for whatever reason, feeling it necessary to penalize them for acting neutral; not acting evil, acting neutral.
As for the church... well, those two churches you mentioned already have their plates full several times over. Neither of them could even hope to strike down the society with their current numbers and activities. Neither of'em would try, for that matter, either.
|
|
As for Pharasma, what possible beef could they have with the Society? The Society isn't holding any major relics of THAT church AFAIK.
They take and steal knowledge from the world, and lock it away so no one else can see it. I think someone forgot that Pharasma was also the patron deity of Knowledge (or well pretty much anything written about her faith like no grave robbing or messing with crypts, not killing when it's not someone's time, etc. . . for that matter), when they suggested her faith would work well with the Society. They are kind of natural enemies, nd would probably hate the PFS more than the PFS hates the Aspis Consortium and vice versa. :)
|
|
@Quandary
Ah, the statement you quoted was intended to have "for abilities that affect them" at the end. I had edited it to expand a little bit, and broke then next line off into a separate sentence.
As far as being able to cast, I personally am of the opinion that it would actually be more balanced for Divine Casters to get them all, and restrict Arcane casters, but I can't think of a believable reason for that.
|
|
I don't think that's particurlarly high on Pharasmas's list of concerns, her priority is the soul, not the decayed meat that used to contain it. Nor the possessions of said meat.Tons o' grave robbin' though.Setting aside that the church of Iomedae and Pharasma (not to mention how many others) would have eradicated the Society a long time ago if the writers didn't keep it around, but the Pathfinder Society is banned in many, many places, and has a horrible (and very well deserved) reputation pretty much Golarion-wide.I think you really overestimate the power and influence of the Iomedan church. They have their hands full with the Worldwound and the Whispering Tyrant. They really don't have the muscle to spare to storm Kortos and launch another Crusade against an organisation that's not demonstrably evil. They've got a severe bone to pick against the Society, true, but they don't wish to lose the good that the Silver Crusade does.
As for Pharasma, what possible beef could they have with the Society? The Society isn't holding any major relics of THAT church AFAIK.
Oh, the Pathfinder Society's pooched that screw too at least once.
And that's not even touching on the Soul Drinker* trait...
*Probably the number one glaring issue that needs to be looked at before anything else gets hit with the "not allowed because it's evil" bat, to be honest. Seriously, emulating the most hated beings in the multiverse to commit the foulest of all sins isn't something that should just be glossed over.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, you only take half damage from that unholy blight, but you'll also take half damage from its polar opposite.
Which most likely will never ever come up. At most it might be a one time thing from within the party, and probably going to avoid <targeting> the <other> characters anyway.
Neutral characters also tend to be handed alignment infractions left and right (normally undeserved) due to a good number of GMs, for whatever reason, feeling it necessary to penalize them for acting neutral; not acting evil, acting neutral.
??? I honestly have no idea how you figure that. Either in comparison to Good characters, or heck just Paladins alone, but giving benefit of the doubt, I'm willing to wager it's less that the DM has a lack of understanding about what Neutral really is as much as has a different one that your view of it. Doesn't mean they or you are wrong, sort of but the DM kind of wins.
As for the church... well, those two churches you mentioned already have their plates full several times over. Neither of them could even hope to strike down the society with their current numbers and activities. Neither of'em would try, for that matter, either.
That might work if there where not so many of them in the dang Society, (assuming we are reverting back to players). :)
Not really arguing, just pointing out just how much Fiat is involved to even make such an organization hold water at all, and how little sense it actually makes.
Sure, you only take half damage from that unholy blight, but you'll also take half damage from its polar opposite.Which most likely will never ever come up. At mot it might be a one time thing from within the party, and probably going to avoid the character anyway.
If you choose to avoid playing Neutral characters with Good Clerics who would use such spells, then EVERYBODY is worse off because an otherwise optimal tactic is being avoided (either thru party composition, or player choice not to use a spell, or use it sub-optimally by missing an enemy so as not to hit a Neutral ally). So I don't see how Neutral PCs are being 'favored' by that dynamic. Groups that exclude Neutral players can gain disproportionate benefits.
But really, I don't think there's ANY significant # of players who avoid playing with Good characters, which even if they did would be hurting the game experience for players of Neutral characters just as much, if not more, for players of Good characters.
Not saying I don't understand why the OP felt the way he did about the situation, but there are other balancing factors, and certainly with the apparent change in Faction missions I just don't think there's any problem that requires any further policy change.
|
|
If you choose to avoid playing Neutral characters with Good Clerics who would use such spells, then EVERYBODY is worse off because an otherwise optimal tactic is being avoided (either thru party composition, or player choice not to use a spell, or use it sub-optimally by missing an enemy so as not to hit a Neutral ally). So I don't see how Neutral PCs are being 'favored' by that dynamic. Groups that exclude Neutral players can gain disproportionate benefits.Sure, you only take half damage from that unholy blight, but you'll also take half damage from its polar opposite.Which most likely will never ever come up. At most it might be a one time thing from within the party, and probably going to avoid the character anyway.
Huh? We are talking about being hit by alignment spells. As in on the rare occasion that a Holy Smite might come up, it's probably cast by the party's own Cleric, and will probably avoid hitting their own party with it.
Not avoiding playing or playing with Neutral characters.
|
|
I don't think that's particurlarly high on Pharasmas's list of concerns, her priority is the soul, not the decayed meat that used to contain it. Nor the possessions of said meat.Tons o' grave robbin' though.Setting aside that the church of Iomedae and Pharasma (not to mention how many others) would have eradicated the Society a long time ago if the writers didn't keep it around, but the Pathfinder Society is banned in many, many places, and has a horrible (and very well deserved) reputation pretty much Golarion-wide.I think you really overestimate the power and influence of the Iomedan church. They have their hands full with the Worldwound and the Whispering Tyrant. They really don't have the muscle to spare to storm Kortos and launch another Crusade against an organisation that's not demonstrably evil. They've got a severe bone to pick against the Society, true, but they don't wish to lose the good that the Silver Crusade does.
As for Pharasma, what possible beef could they have with the Society? The Society isn't holding any major relics of THAT church AFAIK.
Oh, the Pathfinder Society's pooched that screw too at least once.
And that's not even touching on the Soul Drinker* trait...
*Probably the number one glaring issue that needs to be looked at before anything else gets hit with the "not allowed because it's evil" bat, to be honest. Seriously, emulating the most hated beings in the multiverse to commit the foulest of all sins isn't something that should just be glossed over.
Oi!
Huh? We are talking about being hit by alignment spells. As in on the rare occasion that a Holy Smite might come up, it's probably cast by the party's own Cleric, and will probably avoid hitting their own party with it.
Not avoiding playing or playing with Neutral characters.
Ah. Didn't quite get that from what you wrote.
"Avoid a person" usually means "stay away from a person". "Avoid hitting a person" means that, but is a different sentence.I think the point remains about implications for otherwise optimal tactics, even if it's not a huge factor all the time.
The OP's issues after all don't apply to every single scenario, just some of them, i.e. issues of disproportionality.
|
|
Sure, you only take half damage from that unholy blight, but you'll also take half damage from its polar opposite.Which most likely will never ever come up. At most it might be a one time thing from within the party, and probably going to avoid <targeting> the <other> characters anyway.
Neutral characters also tend to be handed alignment infractions left and right (normally undeserved) due to a good number of GMs, for whatever reason, feeling it necessary to penalize them for acting neutral; not acting evil, acting neutral.??? I honestly have no idea how you figure that. Either in comparison to Good characters, or heck just Paladins alone, but giving benefit of the doubt, I'm willing to wager it's less that the DM has a lack of understanding about what Neutral really is as much as has a different one that your view of it. Doesn't mean they or you are wrong, sort of but the DM kind of wins.
There are actually times in PFS where the party can expect to eat a holy smite or two. Now, regarding the subject of alignment, we're not talking things that could be iffy. The best example I can think of was this CN barbarian I was playing with. The party cleric refused them healing on the grounds that the deities the worshipped were fundamentally incompatible. The barbarian, in turn, chose not to rescue the cleric from certain death. He continued to slug it out with the boss of that scenario (saving the three party members it had grappled and was dealing massive amounts of stat damage to in the process) instead of breaking off to save said cleric. The cleric was subsequently killed. ... The GM gave the barbarian an alignment infraction, forcing them to invest in an atonement purely because of a decision that you'd need a case of dain bramage to mistake for evil.
I am certain part of the barbarian's decision stemmed from the fact that they had earlier been spurned by that very same cleric; I'd wager it's just as likely the prospect of saving three team members instead of one also played a role.
|
|
Showing Neutrality? Most nations are neutral, so being a fairly normal Taldoran, Osirion, or Qadiran would all be showing neutrality.
Thats not the same. You can have a Lawful Good Taldan Noble that takes noblesse obligee to heart, a chaotic neutral Osirion tomb raider that doesn't look for traps so much as enjoy running over them or a nit picking contracts obssessed LN Qadiran. Most nations have some qualities at least that can be slanted a few different ways.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also have you ever had a player hold another player accountable for killing soemone? For example a cleric de-selecting a PC for channeling due their action or worship of an opposing deity?
I've had the opposite - a Cleric of Asmodeus that would not heal the party unless they signed a contract for Asmodeus to get their soul.
|
|
I'm still failing to grasp why people apparently think good characters should receive preferential treatment from Paizo.
I am not sure where you are getting that from. My original point is that Neutral is getting preferential treatment and I would like to see a little love thrown the way of good since they already have it rough to begin with.
The society is neutral; the decemvirate doesn't give a damn if Thwak McBashington (Paladin 11) finds his mission to assist a group of blatantly evil outsiders (a devil for argument's sake) in achieving their own goals in return for a service to the society to be unconscionable. Likewise, I suspect they probably also don't care if a paladin loses their paladinhood due to an alignment shift while on a mission--the faction heads sure never did.
But is the view of the Society the same as the view of Paizo?
Mechanically speaking I find it just as absurd to expect them to reward good characters for being good. As it stands everyone receives the same rewards regardless of alignment.
Not when accepting those rewards requires a good player to role-play his character poorly. Prior to Year 4 I don't recall seeing a free magic item, free feat or free stat bump outside of any adventure except for the one that was meant to retire your character. In Year 4 there are 3 such boons, all of which require the character to do things most good characters would never do. In a way, this is promoting bad role-playing because it is tempting the player to play against his character's morality. Sure, they will have to pay for an Atonement, but that's pretty cheap compared to the benefit.
It would be nice if there were some mods out there that gave comparable rewards for refusing to compromise your character's morality.
And, again, I would like to point out that holding a character to that character's moral standards is not the same thing as holding the player to that character's moral standards. When my Paladin refused to commit a morally questionable act in one of the afore mentioned Year 4 adventures his only concern was whether or not this was going to endanger the mission and in so doing cause harm to innocents. He had no qualms about not receiving a free permanent mechanical benefit. So that is how I role-played him. I, as a player, on the other hand, felt slightly cheated when I discovered that I had given up a free mechanical benefit in order to role-play my character properly. Had I ended up playing the other 2 adventures that gave such boons with the same character, that feeling would have ended up being more than just slight.
|
|
The cleric was subsequently killed. ... The GM gave the barbarian an alignment infraction, forcing them to invest in an atonement purely because of a decision that you'd need a case of dain bramage to mistake for evil.That isn't a rules problem, I think the GM was flat out wrong.
I have to agree. The barbarian refusing to help the cleric because the cleric refused to help the barbarian is an inherently neutral act. Correspondingly, the barbarian refusing to help the cleric despite the cleric helping the barbarian would be inherently evil, and the barbarian helping the cleric, despite the cleric refusing to help the barbarian would be inherently good. The GM did not punish the barbarian for committing an evil act, he punished him for not committing a good one.
|
|
Thats not the same. You can have a Lawful Good Taldan Noble that takes noblesse obligee to heart, a chaotic neutral Osirion tomb raider that doesn't look for traps so much as enjoy running over them or a nit picking contracts obssessed LN Qadiran. Most nations have some qualities at least that can be slanted a few different ways.
Showing Neutrality? Most nations are neutral, so being a fairly normal Taldoran, Osirion, or Qadiran would all be showing neutrality.
Of course, you could also have Nagaji paladins from these factions, but it doesn't change the fact that fairly normal people following these factions would tend toward neutrality on the Good versus Evil axis. I don't mean true neutral, but N, CN, or LN.
Noblesse oblige is a post-revolutionary French concept, and would probably be considered non-lawful in such a traditional and feudal state as Taldor. It sounds like a NG or even CG concept to me, for Taldor at least. If you made this coming from religious devotion then I could see the LG.
But then again, these factions are diverse. Sarenrae is a NG god that forbids slavery, and Qadira is a N faction that enslaves heavily.
With that said, I've seen many neutral Qadiran/Osirion/Taldoran characters being threatened by GMs at one time or another with being evil for acting in accordance with their laws....or even pointing out what the laws of the country actually are. Amusingly, these disputes tend to be resolved through executing humanoid prisoners or handing them over to lawful authorities who then execute or enslave them. Once though, I did once have to violate VC orders and let enemy guards recapture a landmark in the tapestry to keep from being hit with the evil label by a GM. I don't think we killed anyone during combat in that scenario, so we literally beat them up and then went home, leaving them with the landmark. But we kept from being evil, so I guess that was a win for the Society!
I actually think it's harder to play neutral in society, as many people see neutral as a lack of good and evil, not a mixture of the two.
|
|
CN or CE also fit really well, considering that they almost always seek to send out agents to do things clearly outside of the areas laws and system of order, hide their identity or affiliation, and the like. Their own ranking system is little more than a guideline, with VCs not having any actual authority, but generally being retired pathfinders with connections to make things happen and the unknown Decemvirate not really removing them.
There is also the issue that while the organization itself might be Neutral, that says very little about anything. The church of Abadar, for example, is LN, but also one of the stronger sources of paladins in the setting.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well Chaotic might be a bit much, they do have their own workflow, and have in the past, used diplomacy to legally access things.
I look at Warehouse 13, where they do things outside of the law, and hide their identity and affiliation and the like. Not good, but more neutral. (The warehouse also seems to be Pathfinder like in holding artifacts that are both good and evil. The Teslas don't seem to have downsides, and Claudia has built mini-Teslas, Tesla grenades and her own Farnsworth, but the US doesn't seem to be interested in mass producing them)
One difference is the Warehouse seems to take the long view, like with the episode where Claudia and Mrs. Fredrick saw the creation of an artifact and she said they wouldn't go after it until the creator/bearer died. Another big difference seems to be the Warehouse works with the host nation's government in a way the Society wouldn't ever want to.
|
|
Sure, they sometimes try diplomacy first. To me that's more common sense than any indication of alignment. If there is the possibility for an easy way and a hard way, particularly where the easy way does not involve the likely outcome of burning a bridge, it's probably the wiser choice regardless of alignment.
The thing is, regardless of their intentions, their actual modus operandi tends heavily to be, "they said no, and we are going to send you in anyway" and not "they said no, so until we can do the right thing and get them to change their mind, don't do anything". Obviously the later wouldn't be as fun, but that is not really something that matters for alignment.
|
|
Well Chaotic might be a bit much, they do have their own workflow, and have in the past, used diplomacy to legally access things.
I look at Warehouse 13, where they do things outside of the law, and hide their identity and affiliation and the like. Not good, but more neutral. (The warehouse also seems to be Pathfinder like in holding artifacts that are both good and evil. The Teslas don't seem to have downsides, and Claudia has built mini-Teslas, Tesla grenades and her own Farnsworth, but the US doesn't seem to be interested in mass producing them)
One difference is the Warehouse seems to take the long view, like with the episode where Claudia and Mrs. Fredrick saw the creation of an artifact and she said they wouldn't go after it until the creator/bearer died. Another big difference seems to be the Warehouse works with the host nation's government in a way the Society wouldn't ever want to.
Warehouse is CG. They don't kill, if they can prevent it at all. They flaunt laws, but they do what they do to protect people from harm.
Pathfinders do what they do for reasons that aren't entirely clear, but at least some of it is desire for power.
|
Sure, you only take half damage from that unholy blight, but you'll also take half damage from its polar opposite.Which most likely will never ever come up. At most it might be a one time thing from within the party, and probably going to avoid <targeting> the <other> characters anyway.
Neutral characters also tend to be handed alignment infractions left and right (normally undeserved) due to a good number of GMs, for whatever reason, feeling it necessary to penalize them for acting neutral; not acting evil, acting neutral.??? I honestly have no idea how you figure that. Either in comparison to Good characters, or heck just Paladins alone, but giving benefit of the doubt, I'm willing to wager it's less that the DM has a lack of understanding about what Neutral really is as much as has a different one that your view of it. Doesn't mean they or you are wrong, sort of but the DM kind of wins.There are actually times in PFS where the party can expect to eat a holy smite or two. Now, regarding the subject of alignment, we're not talking things that could be iffy. The best example I can think of was this CN barbarian I was playing with. The party cleric refused them healing on the grounds that the deities the worshipped were fundamentally incompatible. The barbarian, in turn, chose not to rescue the cleric from certain death. He continued to slug it out with the boss of that scenario (saving the three party members it had grappled and was dealing massive amounts of stat damage to in the process) instead of breaking off to save said cleric. The cleric was subsequently killed. ... The GM gave the barbarian an alignment infraction, forcing them to invest in an atonement purely because of a decision that you'd need a case of dain bramage to mistake for evil.
I am certain part of the barbarian's decision stemmed from the fact that they had earlier been spurned by that very same cleric; I'd wager it's just as likely the...
This is a terrible decision by the GM and the player should have petitioned their local VO. Two major reasons for this is 1. the Barbarian was CN which is a legal Alignment, which alone makes this a poor decision. 2. Was the barbarian Raging? Probably, which can be a seriously mitigating/aggravating factor.
|
|
This is a terrible decision by the GM and the player should have petitioned their local VO. Two major reasons for this is 1. the Barbarian was CN which is a legal Alignment, which alone makes this a poor decision. 2. Was the barbarian Raging? Probably, which can be a seriously mitigating/aggravating factor.
I don't think I've ever see a barbarian choose not to rage in battle. In any case, that barbarian was indeed raging. I'd imagine in more ways than one after what that cleric had done to him in the previous encounter. The last enemy managed to crit the barbarian low enough that he was going to die if he stopped raging. Luckily, the party bard grabbed the barb's wand of cure light and drained the entire thing to get him back up to a health level where they could continue on. Note that these injuries were sustained by said barbarian willingly using itself as a shield between the cleric, wizard, and bard and the big nasty thing that wanted to eat them. The cleric made sure to note that he would, from that point on, also not be healing the bard on the grounds that Sarenrae would disapprove. So y'know what happened next combat? The wizard and bard actually followed their (then enlarged) barbarian ally into battle so he could better protect them from harm, (unknowingly) leaving the cleric alone to be ambushed in the back.
So anyway the party's ninja, its fighter and the lower level wizard get caught by the creature. Barbarian begins dumping all of its rage powers into this critter to get rid of it before his buddies die, right? He succeeds. It dies while the cleric has 2 HP left and has run out of channels (they'd been intentionally excluding the bard and barbarian from said channels intentionally for the whole combat). It's at this point the barbarian chooses to allow the bard to heal him instead of advancing back into combat; the other three that'd been grabbed by the monster were too beaten up to fight and wizard was out of spells. Suffice to say the cleric dug his own grave. Yeah, that barbarian would probably have one shot the remaining foe, but I can honestly say I agreed with their decision to let the cleric drop. Why would a CN character risk its own neck (barbarian was pretty fubar at that point) to save someone that would not extend the same courtesy? So to make a long story less long the GM proceeded to lecture the barbarian's player on ethics, proper teamwork, and the don't be a jerk rule; the only person at the table not glaring at this GM at that point was the cleric's player. The infraction came shortly thereafter. They then attempted to leave for home without recording an atonement that the barbarian's player clearly indicated he was willing to pay for. I believe the cleric actually ragequit PFS afterward. .... No real loss on that one.
|
|
The Pathfinder Society is a neutral organization.Hmm, I always saw the society as more Neutral Evil than Neutral... but that's probably just wishful thinking... Tomb robbing can probably be justified for the greater good.
Don't. Go. There. Seriously, we have a hard enough time dealing with a player base that are allowed CN behaviors, much less giving them any idea that a dip into evil is 'OK' because 'their bosses' have that type of viewpoint/agenda. IMO, evil PC's or even borderline-evil PC's should be kept to homegames, where the built-up trust between the GM and the players can allow such dynamics to occur without butthurt and other afflictions (and, tbh, I haven't been a part of or even heard of that many home games that allow evil PC's lasting for very long. Not saying there aren't exceptions, just that that those are what they probably are, exceptions).
TLDR: as players we aren't, as a group, mature enough to handle that, nor do we have enough trust built up between us to allow that to work.
|
|
The Pathfinder Society is a neutral organization.Hmm, I always saw the society as more Neutral Evil than Neutral... but that's probably just wishful thinking... Tomb robbing can probably be justified for the greater good.Don't. Go. There. Seriously, we have a hard enough time dealing with a player base that are allowed CN behaviors, much less giving them any idea that a dip into evil is 'OK' because 'their bosses' have that type of viewpoint/agenda. IMO, evil PC's or even borderline-evil PC's should be kept to homegames, where the built-up trust between the GM and the players can allow such dynamics to occur without butthurt and other afflictions (and, tbh, I haven't been a part of or even heard of that many home games that allow evil PC's lasting for very long. Not saying there aren't exceptions, just that that those are what they probably are, exceptions).
TLDR: as players we aren't, as a group, mature enough to handle that, nor do we have enough trust built up between us to allow that to work.
So how is CN behavior difficult to deal with? Looking out for one's own self-interest above all else is pretty normal.
|
|
So how is CN behavior difficult to deal with? Looking out for one's own self-interest above all else is pretty normal.
"Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder." i.e. There is no way to predict what this character will ever do. As scenario/adventure design and GMing is 100% based on trying to guess how players will react so that you can provide a satisfactory play experience, this alignment stands in direct opposition to an enjoyable group-based gaming experience, which is why this alignment is typically reserved for antagonists.
A player who make a CN character is essentially declaring that their play experience needs to be 100% focused on them, and the rest of the party doesn't matter. They're whole point in playing is to make it about them and de-rail anything that the GM or party is trying to make work. They are 100% selfish, and it shows.
A player who make a CN character is essentially declaring that their play experience needs to be 100% focused on them, and the rest of the party doesn't matter. They're whole point in playing is to make it about them and de-rail anything that the GM or party is trying to make work. They are 100% selfish, and it shows.
Sometimes. Depends a lot on the player. Gotta' add in a few things to say sometimes and maybe, or your making it look like everyone who plays CN is there to derail.
|
|
If you have a CN character that you cannot ever predict what they will do in a given situation, you don't actually have a CN character. What you have is an insane character.
"A subset of Chaotic Neutral is: 'strongly Chaotic Neutral'; describing a character who behaves chaotically to the point of appearing insane."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)#Chaotic_Neut ral|
|
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). 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.
|
|
...quoting a page that doesn't even once mention or pull from Pathfinder.
What is the source material for Pathfinder? D&D.
This page also offers a relevant reference to CN behaviours.
The alignment isn't the problem, problem players are. And they'd be a problem no matter what alignment they wrote down.
Agreed. The alignment just offers them an in-game excuse to behave that way.
And my comment has never been that the alignment is bad. It has been that players with characters of this alignment is bad. This alignment works very well for NPCs.
And yes, LG played to the extreme can be just as cumbersome to a group.
Overall, players need to be trusted to understand that they are part of a collection of people trying to enjoy a game. CN however is an exclusionary, highly individualist, alignment that tends not to encourage characters who are "team players". Ergo, this is why CN behavior can be difficult to deal with. This was what the original post was responding to (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qlgl&page=5?Why-does-PFS-punish-the-good# 242).
|
|
... giving them any idea that a dip into evil is 'OK' because 'their bosses' have that type of viewpoint/agenda.The Pathfinder Society is a neutral organization.Hmm, I always saw the society as more Neutral Evil than Neutral... but that's probably just wishful thinking... Tomb robbing can probably be justified for the greater good.
Give an idea? Some of their bosses are actually evil, not just acting that way...
I agree with you that the maturity is not there for evil play... But we shouldn't expect to put people in the endless hero box... I find it difficult if not impossible to play the hero so I default to the attitude of personal gain. I am not interested in theater class either and feel no need to think outside of my selfish box. I am happy playing my style, to each his own.
To the posts origins...
There is no conspiracy against good in PFS. But like life the right thing and good things are usually difficult with other considerations constantly dictating your actions. If you want to play good than do it; just realize it aint always going to be easy.