|
I'm sure this is already decided, but I would just like to throw out a few thoughts on the coming r/evolution of factions.
tl;dr: The Sczarni and Cheliax factions are evil and self-serving entities that violate the fundamental team basis of the campaign, and should be removed as legal player options.
(Expecting a bunch of flames from members of those factions, of course. All I ask is that you read my arguments and think about them from a campaign perspective before writing.)
Let me first declare my allegiance to the Society above any political allegiance (even the Grand Lodge, which is after all dedicated to a political organization - the Decemvirate). I lobbied for the minimization of faction missions as soon as I realized Paizo actually listened to its audience. So overall, I have been very happy with the turn of events so far. But, over the past year I have had several issues related to factions, despite their less-dominant role in the rewards earned by characters. These issues revolve around two specific factions which will surprise very few:
On the Sczarni: Why are they a legal player choice when an evil alignment is not? The Sczarni faction are a group of people who basically are telling us, "I'm just here to make money, screw you guys." This is the textbook definition of a neutral evil outlook. I understand why they want to be in the Society, and even why (in-game) the Society allows them in (because of their vast intelligence network). I fail to see why they are a legal player option, though, given the group nature of the PFS play experience. They were accomplices in the biggest betrayal of the Society we've seen in five season of play. Their older faction missions are about stealing from the Society, extorting people while on duty as a Pathfinder, and lying and cheating their Society comrades at the table. Now, many factions have secrets, and many occasionally ask their agents to do questionable things, but the Sczarni routinely top the list in terms of "un-Pathfinder-like behaviour".
On the Paracountess and Cheliax: First, fanboi out of the way: one of my favorite NPC's ever! BUT - her stated goals for Season Five should get her executed for crimes against Golarion, and any agents that actually help her advance them should be thrown in irons as traitors to the Crusade and the Society. I don't really see how any non-evil PC can willingly be a member of her faction anymore. (I know John and Mike must see this, too, so I can't wait to find out what they've got in store for us... )
...
While both of these are great in-game story lines, I suggest that by their nature the Cheliax and Sczarni factions pose a major problem for Organized Play. As PFS grows and new players join without knowing the setting or the campaign background, they see these legal player options and are totally misled about the nature of the campaign. The Guide tells us "..when you find yourself doing everything in your power (...) to undo everything [another] character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of Pathfinder Society Organized Play". Both the Sczarni and the Cheliax faction missions in past years, as well as the Paracountess' goals for Season Five, do exactly this, and tell their followers to do it, too.
This is not just theoretical: Of the four new-ish players I've had to talk to about alignment, PvP, and team-play recently, both FtF and online, three have been Sczarni and one has been a Cheliax faction member. I've had Sczarni players argue that since "no PvP" specifically defines itself as "don't kill another PC", that it is legal for them to intimidate, punch, or knock out other PCs, so they can do some Sczarni stuff without being caught. I've had Sczarni (and one Chelaxian) argue about the exact line where things become "evil", and use faction goals as evidence about what "must be legal" since it's a faction goal. I've had members of both factions withhold healing from anyone who disagrees with their Neutral Evil-style actions. I've had to invoke "don't be a jerk" several times on these characters.
I contend that, no matter how much "fun" they are to the members of these two factions, the in-game goals and outlooks of the Cheliax and Sczarni factions are at odds with the stated campaign goals of no evil PCs and no player-versus-player combat. We are setting up new players to run afoul of the campaign rules by giving them in-game permission to be evil (usually spelled "chaotic neutral" on the character sheet). To work in the PFS OP campaign, both factions need to be completely revamped or removed.
I hope that some of these issue can be resolved before Season Six. I'd love to find a way for both factions to become more in keeping with a group-based game, but given the Paracountess' recent actions I can't see any way for her to live except as a fugitive.
I'd love for someone to change my mind with additional evidence or show me what I'm missing in my thought process here!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just here to make money is a very neutral, not evil, outlook.
Lying,smuggling, cheating,smuggling, extorting,... sounds like VERY pathfindery behavior to me.
The paracountesses goals for season 5 are to Step 1) Defeat the demons and step 2) Be the one standing when the smoke clears. While its a little cutthroat to use a demonic invasion as an opportunity to expand power, don't think that that Taldors grand glorious foreign legion won't do the exact same thing given half a chance.
I've seen more trouble for group cohesion out of the good alignments than the evil ones so far. (so either my scarzini are better behaved or my pathfinders are just more murderhoboey so they blend in better)
The society is not the harpers. They are not the shining crusade. They're grim, gritty, and morally ambiguous and I like them that way. A candle in the dark looks better than one in the sun.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This is a well-considered post; thanks.
I consider the in-world Pathfinder Society to be a distinctly Neutral force in Golarion. I imagine that to be one of the elements of contention when it forged an alliance with the Lantern Lodge / Way of the Ki-Rin, which seems to be more benign.
Why is the Society addressing the menace of the Worldwound? By accident; because we happened to be in Nerosyan just as the wardstones failed. Because there's treasure in the Worldwound that we want. If not for that, I'm not sure that the Ten themselves would be all that concerned.
The Paracountess's goals are certainly not Good-aligned, but neither are they opposed to the Crusade (seeking to stymie the good guys to the advantage of the demons). I think her goals for the current war are perfectly consistent with the idea of a faction that wants to further the influence of Law on Golarion, while still fostering a feeling of rebellion against the Good Guys.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree that the Pathfinder Society, as an in game entity, is decidedly not a "Good" organization. Neutral makes more sense for who they are and what they pull. Mass invasion of privacy via magical means, and hoarding of artifacts for an unknown purpose (it's never, "find out more about this one artifact we have that isn't the Tapestry," It's more like "Thanks for the artifact, throw it on the pile over there, and go get me more.") are only a few. Their security measures put the Pentagon to shame, and for what? A glorified explorer's club? No way, these guys are far more sinister than we are led to believe.
Developer
|
I think a lot of the issues you've brought up with regards to characters you've seen have to do more with the players, not the factions. If you removed these options, those players would still play, and now they'd be knocking other PCs out in the name of Andoran, or pointing to the Neutrality of the Grand Lodge and how their methods shouldn't matter. If you have to enforce the "don't be a jerk" rule, that goes beyond in-world concerns, to me. You may want to have a talk with these players.
Honestly, I don't see Qadira all that removed from Sczarni, they just go about their ultimate goal differently. Further, Cheliax isn't good, yes, but neither is it an ally of the demon forces. The fact the Paracountess wants to gain from the conflict doesn't change which side she's on.
The Society is not a particularly moral institution. The Cooperate rule actually reflects this: we don't care what you believe or how you do things, but Pathfinders don't hurt other Pathfinders. We don't have to like each other, we don't have to agree with each other, we just have to avoid coming to blows and not get in each other's way.
Honestly, faction interplay has added a lot to games I've played, where the players were mature enough to let the tension play out without it becoming actual conflict. One of my more enjoyable games involved myself and a friend as a pair of Andorans teamed up with a pair of Chelaxians. The roleplay, for me, ended up being one of the highlights of the game.
Badly behaved players will always be an issue in any organized play campaign, but removing factions isn't the answer, and won't really solve that problem. The factions add tension that can lead to memorable moments outside of the scenario text. This isn't the Best Friends Squad, and I don't really think it should ever become that. I should trust that my companions won't kill or hurt me, but I'm okay with not trusting them beyond that.
|
I'm generally agree with the posters above. I see the Pathfinder Society as a neutral organization that can (and should) ally itself with whoever it can to advance its own goals. For the sake of balance in the Society, if they ally with good groups, they should definitely make friends with some evil-leaning organizations as well. I would certainly be excited to play a season of PFS that revolved around dealings between the Society and some more nefarious groups in Golarion.
I generally think that the no-evil-characters rule has its place in PFS, in keeping in line some players who would use their character's evil alignment as an excuse to detract from the fun of others. But in the hypothetical situation that either that rule or the evil-leaning factions must go, I'd much rather allow evil characters in than drop those factions from the game.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, the Cheliax are evil but for a organization that is predominately neutral, that isn't a problem. The Cheliax seek power (and Order, and the whole Might Makes Right / Strong Ruling the Weak motto). That is their general goal and serves as a way to lure in players that would desire the same thing. But the Cheliax have other things of concern too.
They do not want to see the demons succeed, but they also know this: If/When the Worldwound is closed and the demons vanquished, the next largest source of fiendish corruption is Cheliax and that is where all those meddling do-gooders will look towards next.
Now that isn't how it will happen in PFS, but that is just a little flavor they added in this season for Cheliax. "Yeah Yeah we gotta go help the society with their little demon problem, but while your at it keep an eye out on the Crusaders (just in case they decide to come knocking closer to home next year)."
With the factions moving away from the national agendas towards serving/promoting ideas/goals/values that we all very much have, it merely serves as a way to enhance the role playing experience. Gives us each something to identify with when the mood is right.
|
|
I can see both sides here. It is beneficial for PFS in Golarion to be Neutral. It is much more questionable for PFS to be Neutral in the real world. And this juxtaposition has always bothered me. Real world PFS wants everyone to play nice. Golarion PFS doesn't care. How do you reconcile the two?
I have no doubt that players who want to be jerks are going to gravitate towards factions like Scarni or Cheliax. I have serious doubts removing those factions will stop those same players from being jerks.
|
|
First paragraph you had me in your camp. Second you only half had me. I have found (the small percentage) jerk players in most factions - not just in two. In fact, the worst offenders I have encountered were Andoran faction... but I think they would have been like that no matter what faction they had been in.I can see both sides here. It is beneficial for PFS in Golarion to be Neutral. It is much more questionable for PFS to be Neutral in the real world. And this juxtaposition has always bothered me. Real world PFS wants everyone to play nice. Golarion PFS doesn't care. How do you reconcile the two?
I have no doubt that players who want to be jerks are going to gravitate towards factions like Scarni or Cheliax. I have serious doubts removing those factions will stop those same players from being jerks.
Ah, Andoran. My favorite love/hate faction. Now I realized that the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist can often simply depend on what side of the conflict you are looking at things from, but I swear more than a few Andoran faction missions looked more to my characters as terrorist acts that freedom fighter ones. In that regard, I guess I can see why jerks might be drawn to that faction also.
|
|
I agree that the "in-game" Pathfinder Society can and should have groups like this within it - there are evil Pathfinders after all, and the society started as Neutral in outlook (although arguably it has been moving towards NG in most of its on-screen actions). I also agree that some of the issues are with players, not with characters or factions. My point is that by allowing evil factions as legal player choices, we tell new players that being evil is OK for the campaign. And there is little doubt that both of these factions have evil agendas.
For those defending Cheliax, check out this post which outlines exactly what the Paracountess is asking you to do in Season Five - find information on the weak points in the Crusaders' defenses, so she can prolong the war for her own advantage. Since prolonging the war will cause the deaths of hundreds or thousands of Crusaders and Pathfinders in the process, I can't see how aiding this agenda can be construed as anything but evil.
The Sczarni are more complicated in some ways - their Season Five goals have actually made them less disruptive (but only because it is in their leader's self-interest to be that way, for now). Like any debate involving alignment, things will get messy, but let's compare two statements from the rules (with emphasis mine throughout):
Sczarni
The ports and tradeways of Varisia are not enough for the Sczarni, a loose association of crime families that has turned its shrewd attention to Absalom and the riches of the Inner Sea region. The Sczarni and their allies see the Pathfinder Society as a tool for control of Absalom and a source of near-limitless wealth. They count among their numbers smugglers and swindlers, murderers, thugs, and thieves.
Goal: Personal Gain
Pathfinder agents affiliated with the Sczarni are the most likely to exploit their Society missions and contacts for their own personal profit. Money isn’t everything, however, and smart Sczarni Pathfinders know that information can be more valuable to their brotherhood than gold.
Neutral Evil: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Looks pretty similar to me. Certainly closer than:
Neutral: A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos (and thus neutral is sometimes called “true neutral”). Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character probably thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she's not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Chris - the Society also has a treaty with Mendev, which states that in return for getting the Starrise Spire as our Lodge in Nerosyan, we are also bound to help defend Mendev in time of war. You're right, I doubt the Ten would care otherwise. But here we are, with 1/4 of the Society's factions actively working against us from the inside.
|
|
I don't know, my two main characters, a Qadiran and a Scarzni are True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral respectively, and for society I've always put the mission first and if there is time to set up illicit trades routes/smuggling or to steal a particular item or
For what it counts though, I feel like all the factions toe the line between good and evil and sometimes they gleefully dance across that line. I think its an abuse of the neutral system but in the end, if they get the job done without having to fight other pathfinders, I doubt the decimivirate really cares what goes on, on the side, during missions.
|
|
Eric: my point is, by giving 1/4 of the faction choices an evil slant, we are encouraging new players to think it is OK for those faction members to push the boundaries, even if the player wouldn't otherwise. These four were not career "jerks", necessarily, but they were using the faction to push the boundary of what they could get away with, because the rules told them that's what being in those factions meant.
As a new player who joins the Cheliax faction, I know the game says, "no evil PCs". I then read my faction goals for the season and find out it is to be evil. What should I do?
|
GM Lamplighter: I do sorta agree more and more with the version of the society that is appearing and what you are saying rings true.
I take it from a different view however.
What I think we are seeing more and more is characters that are built due a power factor or cool factor or concept factor... but characters that have no reason to BE in the society or have any close tie to any faction. The faction is shoehorned onto the character (or vice versa) to make it playable in society but never truly fits. Im guilty of this in the past too.
It also links up in a way to parties now of CN characters, and that alignment picked solely so they can either play up the 'oh my character is just like that, he gets p$%#32d off easily and is irritable'. The best example is when a baddie slaps down a spell that targets good aligned and lawful aligned characters and nobody takes full or even half damage.
|
|
What I think we are seeing more and more is characters that are built due a power factor or cool factor or concept factor... but characters that have no reason to BE in the society or have any close tie to any faction. The faction is shoehorned onto the character (or vice versa) to make it playable in society but never truly fits. Im guilty of this in the past too.
I like the factions as ways to tie more character concepts to the society. You can have a paladin in the silver crusade or a scarzini "purveyor of goods" without much further explanation. More character background variety is good.
|
|
Interesting points, everyone. I'm not trying to make everyone play "my" game (at least, I don't *think* that's what I'm doing...) but I am trying to reconcile the rules and the game world.
I only have one "good guy" PC myself, so shades of grey are fine by me. Many PCs are moving into shades grey so dark that it's hard to distinguish them from shades of black, though. The Cheliax goal for Season 5 is to work against the Society and the Crusaders - no grey about it.
Maybe I have been too hard on the Sczarni - I've just been rereading a lot of Season 3 and 4 stuff, and they are evolving away from the "doesn't play well with others" stereotype. Still never seen a Sczarni paladin, though - interesting concept!
|
|
Victor: In the example I gave, there were plenty of ways for the player to accomplish their mission - they just chose the one that fit "that's what my character would do", again using the faction description as inspiration.
I'll point out that the title of the section is "No player-versus-player COMBAT". If someone at the table attacks my character while I'm sleeping, the fact that he doesn't actually kill me is little consolation - that is a fundamental change to the game, and not one that works well for organized play global campaigns. It costs healing resources, leaves me vulnerable to the next encounter, and gives me no in-game reason not to attack the other character or leave the mission. This isn't Paranoia.
On reflection, though - there may be other ways to solve the issue that I'm seeing. We try to help new players make their characters, and usually start them as Grand Lodge faction if they're uncertain about what faction they'd like, since they can change for free after the game and it lets them focus on learning the basics first. Perhaps a re-write of the faction descriptions and a more active communication of faction goals could help as well. When I GM, try to bring the Faction Forum letters, as many new players don't come here (yet) and have no idea what their goals are beyond the description in the Guide.
Thanks for the perspectives - one of the reasons I come here is to get opinions that don't match mine.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On reflection, though - there may be other ways to solve the issue that I'm seeing...
Also, remember that keeping or axing may not be the only options for factions. Maybe a faction gets a new faction head instead, that starts to shift a faction away from their current goal and mindset. Maybe we get someone more liberal as head of Cheliax. I mean, I didnt dig Taldor before Lady Gloriana as much as I do now.
|
Developer
|
I think a lot of the problem with players who go into PVP with "that's what my character would do" is the core question: why did you make a character who would do that?
I still don't buy that the Sczarni or Chelaxians are more likely than Andorans to get pushy and violent. Nor do I feel that their stated goals are anti-society.
I see what you're saying, but Cheliax isn't about being evil, it's about bringing order, and they feel that harsher paths are the best route. Too few people catch that distinction. Considering what happened in the Fortress of the Nail, Dralneen feels that her new path is the best way to achieve order, and put herself at the top. She would not risk the Crusade failing though. The Abyss would have none of the order she seeks.
The Sczarni are oppurtunists, through and through, but Guaril needs the Society. They got him where he is and are crucial to his keeping that standing. He's ruthless, cunning, and not at all that nice, but he would not risk destroying his relationship with the Pathfinders. The price would be too high.
There is nothing in those factions explicitly telling people not to cooperate, and a good deal of the flavor (especially Sczarni) indicates otherwise. Work with your players to design Pathfinders first. Figure out why they joined the Society, then figure out where their politics lie once they're there. Not vice-versa. PCs need to be Pathfinders first. That means explore, report, cooperate. They should not make characters who cannot keep to those tenants, be the Sczarni or Silver Crusade.
Hell, paladins have a tougher time keeping to that code than the shiftiest rogue.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a PC that regularly hands the following to the low CHA types at her table. She calls them a "Chaliaxian agreement:"
Contract offer:
During the course of our upcoming mission, if at any time
you find yourself in need of my special talents used in a discrete
fashion, you may feel free to request that I fulfill some task for
you. No questions asked. I am quite good with influencing
people, and I do have many other skills that would be at your
disposal. And I am always discrete.
In return, I would like to think I could call on you at some
point to assist me with a small task, something that I feel I am
unable to do on my own. And I am sure I could also rely on
you to be discrete in these matters also.
I would assure you that I would never ask you to do
anything which you would find overtly distasteful. Nothing
to violate any personal code or vows you have.
Signed: Katisha Lee
Sign here:_____________________________________
Though she calls them a Cheliaxian Agreement, until resently she was not that faction (she changed factions to Shadow Lodge in season 3, then back to Cheliax after Shadow Lodge went away). I've also started something like it with several of my other characters... but not as formal (her's is a double business card that I actually hand to the PCs & a copy to the Judge).
I consider it just my little way of RPing "Cooperation" with other Pathfinders.
The amazing thing to me, is that I have had several players reject the offer out of hand, because she is Cheliaxian - and they figured she was that faction (a lot of other players reject the offer for RP reasons - or because they fear "a deal with the devil" is involved, but several have rejected it because of her "race"). Kind of like rejecting an offer of cooperation from someone Chinese, because you didn't like the policies of the People's Republic of China... (only they are from California). I've even had one player actively working to foil my faction mission (back when we still had them)... But then I think he was Silver Crusade, so that was ok?
The actions of PCs are more under the control of the Players than of the factions.
|
|
Kane and Able are some of the nicest ifrits Zarta has working for her.
I should highlight this by mentioning the time Kane went into a mission with some 1st level characters. Being higher level and a legalistic oracle of flame, he swore to the Andoran that he would bring everyone back alive. He even respected the Silver Crusade PCs wish to not be healed via infernal healing. (Kind of went out the window when said PC went negative.) I'm just glad he didn't fail any of them, as being permanently sickened would have sucked.
|
|
Figure out why they joined the Society, then figure out where their politics lie once they're there. Not vice-versa. PCs need to be Pathfinders first. That means explore, report, cooperate. They should not make characters who cannot keep to those tenants, be the Sczarni or Silver Crusade.Hell, paladins have a tougher time keeping to that code than the shiftiest rogue.
Most of my characters aren't particularly loyal to the society OR their faction. They have a variety of reasons for joining the society but most boil down to the fact that the society is a very fast and comparatively safe way of achieving their goals (some combination of power, money, experience, knowledge) and being part of a faction is essential to success.
Don't get me wrong. They're all very good at being pathfinders. They cooperate well and have very good track records at achieving both society and faction goals. But they have little to no emotional investment in faction or society. The ones created in season 5 barely know what faction they're in :-)
Ironically, both of my Lantern Lodge characters and one of my Shadow Lodge characters were exceptions to that general rule.
Edit: I just realized that most of my Silver Crusade characters are also exceptions. They WANT the Crusade to succeed in getting the Society to do more good in the world
|
Developer
|
Most of my characters aren't particularly loyal to the society OR their faction. They have a variety of reasons for joining the society but most boil down to the fact that the society is a very fast and comparatively safe way of achieving their goals (some combination of power, money, experience, knowledge) and being part of a faction is essential to success.
Don't get me wrong. They're all very good at being pathfinders. They cooperate well and have very good track records at achieving both society and faction goals. But they have little to no emotional investment in faction or society. The ones created in season 5 barely know what faction they're in :-)
Ironically, both of my Lantern Lodge characters and one of my Shadow Lodge characters were exceptions to that general rule.
I've got a few of those, too. I might have stated things too strongly, but you named the key thing - they're good at being Pathfinders. They don't have to love the organization (it sure as heck doesn't love them), but they know that, in some way, continued affiliation is crucial for them to accomplish something they want, and starting fights with fellow agents is therefore a hindrance to personal goals. Even if they despise the fellow agents in question.
That's what I meant by Pathfinders first. They need a reason to be there, even if it's training and gaining power to take revenge on some far-flung noble who wronged your family, getting kicked out cuts your access to that power and the resources the society possesses.
All someone needs is a reason to listen to Venture Captains and work with other agents, whom they may never have met.
But, at least in my view, if that reason is developed first, before factions are even considered, then the conflicts GM Lamplighter has seen will be far fewer, or at least the ones "justified" by "that's what my character would do"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting points, everyone. I'm not trying to make everyone play "my" game
No, you are. You have a personal dislike of two popular factions, and you want them removed from a game where many players enjoy them. While your motivations are pretty well-aligned with the Silver Crusade (stated goal: turn the Society into a force for good), that's just one sliver of the Society. I love that they're a Neutral organization, and I love that less-than-moral acts are an option (and even a preferred method) for a few factions.
My sadistic necromancer with a few scruples has every bit the same right to be in the Pathfinder Society (in-character and out-of-character) as your righteous, self-sacrificing paladin does - and both of them deserve factions which fit their overall outlook and personality.
|
|
Morphling - well, I don't have a righteous, self-serving paladin, but I see your point. I am willing to concede that maybe the Szcarni aren't as bad as I had thought, despite the issues I've experienced. I am also personally fine with unlawful actions and shades of grey, as I stated a few times. But there are shades of grey of "let's just break in", and then shades of grey of "I'm going to stab my friends in their sleep". I guess I've seen too many players want to try the later when playing Sczarni.
I still can't see how to reconcile the Cheliax goal, though, with a non-evil PC. The few defenses I've heard include, "she hasn't betrayed the Mendevians yet..." but we know that is her plan; she tells us that directly.
nosig: Yeah, I put the tl;dr stuff in at the last moment since the post was getting long, and probably should have made it more inviting than inflammatory. Sometimes you roll a 1 on your Diplomacy.
So, how do people who disagree with my original post reconcile their faction goals, their membership in the Society, and the "no evil" meta-rules of the campaign? What can I suggest to future Szcarni/Cheliax players who go down the same road, rather than just telling them "no"?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and many of my Good PCs (and all my Lawful ones) are Cheliax. So I felt kind of attacked with this entire thread...This is a genuine question. It is NOT bad wrong fun or the like. I'm just curious.
Why did you choose to have good PCs join the Cheliax faction? It seems an odd fit.
(reply posted under my Chel-Paladin PC)
Good people live in Cheliax too right? In fact, it is often said that the lower ranks of Hellknights often have Paladins in them. So, when I went to build a Halfling Paladin, I picked a "country boy from Arkansas" type of build - and figured that made him Cheliax. What other country has at it's base the fighting of Chaos (and demons)? True, the high nobles often go a bit overboard... but...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
actually I figured you were just rolling your Diplomacy normally, but suffering a circumstance penality because you view Cheliax as "Evil with a captial E". I on the other hand view the faction as "Lawful with a captial L". Hellknights fight Demons. Wanna fight demons in the WorldWound? get a couple Hellknight Paladins.
Some of us even fight the forces of Hell. Some would have us break our bargain with the Dark Lord and return to the freedom of civil war, famine and the tyranny of chaos. However many of us recognise the benefits which the alliances made by the House of Thune have brought to war ravaged Cheliax. We see the stability, freedom and order which our alliance has brought, but we also recognise the risks and by all the Gods some of us ensure those bargains are policed most stringently.
|
|
I think the real problem here is that Paizo is sending a mixed message. They want us to cooperate at the table and not engage in disruptive behavior that can destroy other people's fun. Ostensibly, they don't allow us to have evil characters for this very reason. But then they make us members of a factionalized group that includes factions that have a definite evil slant and in some cases ask us to do outright evil acts, such as cutting the tongue out of a living person to teach him a lesson.
|
|
The reason you can not be evil is because the PFS organizers know people will use that as an excuse to be a jerk.
In everything I looked at I never saw anything in the Pathfinder society as anti-evil in the game history. Now the game disallows it for other reasons.
I think the pathfinder society being a neutral organization I think it silly to remove a useful tool because it is evil, anyhow the society as a whole could care less.
I honestly feel your arguement uses game rules to infect the game story incorrectly
|
|
(reply posted under my Chel-Paladin PC)
Good people live in Cheliax too right? In fact, it is often said that the lower ranks of Hellknights often have Paladins in them. So, when I went to build a Halfling Paladin, I picked a "country boy from Arkansas" type of build - and figured that made him Cheliax. What other country has at it's base the fighting of Chaos (and demons)? True, the high nobles often go a bit overboard... but...
Thank you
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still can't see how to reconcile the Cheliax goal, though, with a non-evil PC. The few defenses I've heard include, "she hasn't betrayed the Mendevians yet..." but we know that is her plan; she tells us that directly.
Until the Paracountess truly betrays our GLORIOUS SOCIETY I shall continue to honor her requests, as information cannot harm until it is put to use. Should she then turn against us, so shall I and my brother turn against her.
|
|
My views are that the society is ultimately a neutral, wealth and magic collecting organization. I don't see good / evil or a law / chaos aspect even though the internal people spin it. They're actually pretty "thug-ish" in the manner that they forcefully collect stuff and interfer in... well anything.
Just because the real world campaign has chosen to disallow evil aligned characters does not make the society in the game "good". I think that's where you may be displaced. The society is neutral, although coming in on the side of good as the forces of evil are uually all or nothing when it comes to total domination. The society works for and has both good and evil representatives (the paracountess is an excellent example as she is LE).
I think if the campain published the number of cheliax prestige points awarded, you'd be very surpirsed.
I was personally drawn into PFS due to the conflicting nature of the PCs and competing for those early prestige successes and opposing goals. I was disappointed when they were removed.
Edit: As far as betraying Mendevians - they are not part of the society. Betray away and we will help them to do it if it provides more access to wealth and unusual stuff. Internal politics of the various contries do not dictate the goals of the society.
IMHO, the society should only have Lawful Neutral characters working for it as presented...EVERY other alignment should find some moral conflict with it.
|
|
even the OP figured it would get negative posts... he said:
"(Expecting a bunch of flames from members of those factions, of course. All I ask is that you read my arguments and think about them from a campaign perspective before writing.)"
I'm kind of surprised that it went so long before someone responded in kind.
Vehement disagreement is not the same as flaming. Assuming you're referring to my post (since none was quoted, I can't be sure), I am surprised anyone took issue with it.
Morphling - well, I don't have a righteous, self-serving paladin, but I see your point.
I don't have a necromancer either, it was an example.
But there are shades of grey of "let's just break in", and then shades of grey of "I'm going to stab my friends in their sleep". I guess I've seen too many players want to try the later when playing Sczarni.
See, we have a rule for these players. It's the "don't be evil" rule (or the no PVP rule, take your pick). How many Sczarni faction missions give players prestige points for killing their allies? Is it really the Sczarni faction that's to blame? That's akin to saying "One of the people in this house is misbehaving - destroy the house."
I still can't see how to reconcile the Cheliax goal, though, with a non-evil PC. The few defenses I've heard include, "she hasn't betrayed the Mendevians yet..." but we know that is her plan; she tells us that directly.
Cheliax is a nation. They have concrete reasons for wanting a military advantage over a giant, building army which has a stated goal of "destroy fiends."
Ever wondered why people don't leave a nation en masse the moment the government is discovered doing something unscrupulous? When the U.S. government was revealed to be spying on its citizens, did all of its (primarily good-and-neutral-aligned, we'll say) soldiers quit the military, its government employees abandon their jobs, and its governing bodies get overthrown by angry mobs?
People have loyalty to and trust in causes, ideals, countries, and organizations that run deeper than simple alignment. A long-term Cheliax faction member is likely going to trust the Paracountess. After all, she's never lead them astray before (or if she has, it has been forgiven - nobody's perfect). Cheliax is a wonderful example of a "darker" faction which doesn't require evil. Just because some people get squeamish or worry that it might do evil, doesn't mean you should call for the faction to be disbanded and its membership dissolved.
|
|
I'm noticing that people are interchanging a couple of terms in the discussion (Pathfinder has been even worse than previous editions in using the same terms for several different things). Cheliax the nation versus Cheliax the faction, and the (in-game organization) Pathfinder Society from the (real-life OP campaign) Pathfinder Society. I did state at the beginning that in-game, all of this makes sense - the only conflict I see comes from the "no evil PCs" meta-rule interfacing with the faction goals.
I've heard lots of reasons how someone can be from Cheliax the nation and not be evil. I agree with nosig, the nation of Cheliax is "Lawful with a capital L", and there are lots of good and neutral-aligned folks from there. That's not the same thing as the Chelaxian faction, though - it's not restricted to people born in Cheliax, and even if you're from Cheliax you can join another faction if you wish.
Morphling's point that long-time Chelaxians may be cutting the Paracountess some slack based on their long relationship is interesting - I hadn't considered that angle. That's the sort of stuff I was hoping for from this thread.
Cheliax is a wonderful example of a "darker" faction which doesn't require evil.
This is the question: whether this statement is in fact correct. Can a character actively support the Paracountess' plans to prolong the Fifth Crusade while not being evil? By doing so, you'd be complicit in the deaths of thousands, all to further an individual's personal power play, while at the same time betraying the Pathfinder Society, who has pledged its support to Mendev both by necessity and by legal treaty (something that should carry weight with the Lawful Chelaxian). Waiting and seeing what happens is one way, as several have suggested. Obviously lots of people are doing it, so I want to know what their story is - how do they reconcile the conflict?
|
|
I've heard lots of reasons how someone can be from Cheliax the nation and not be evil. I agree with nosig, the nation of Cheliax is "Lawful with a capital L", and there are lots of good and neutral-aligned folks from there. That's not the same thing as the Chelaxian faction, though - it's not restricted to people born in Cheliax, and even if you're from Cheliax you can join another faction if you wish.
I'm aware of this. It's also true that the faction of Cheliax is invested in the interests of the nation from which it takes its name.
Cheliax is a wonderful example of a "darker" faction which doesn't require evil.This is the question: whether this statement is in fact correct. Can a character actively support the Paracountess' plans to prolong the Fifth Crusade while not being evil? By doing so, you'd be complicit in the deaths of thousands, all to further an individual's personal power play, while at the same time betraying the Pathfinder Society, who has pledged its support to Mendev both by necessity and by legal treaty (something that should carry weight with the Lawful Chelaxian). Waiting and seeing what happens is one way, as several have suggested. Obviously lots of people are doing it, so I want to know what their story is - how do they reconcile the conflict?
I've never committed an evil act, and I'm still a Cheliax faction member in good standing. Evidently, it's possible. The Paracountess hasn't required any evil actions just yet - merely information gathering, for contingencies. I trust that the writers of the adventures won't force all Cheliax paladins to fall or quit the faction.
|
|
That doesn't even mention the idea that there are people in factions with....less than honorable intent. I know that there is a cleric of rovagug who is helping the silver crusade because it offers an excellent opportunity to understand how the "other half" lives. (okay, maybe this is my character). Should we burn down the silver crusade because they have rovagugites or razmirans in it?