|
I would be so on the dole for that.This is not a charity or government sponsored gamer support program.That would be one boondoggle which I wouldn't mind so much. ;) (Still mind it - just not as much.)
Vote 4 me for the Senate! They'll be an adventure for every gamer and a sourcebook in every pot!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...If someone were to get accepted as being a mature player, and decides to run a chaotic evil warpriest of Rovagug under brand new GMs and sits back and watches as the monster kills the rest of the party, how many sessions would you let that player play that character before pulling the plug?
Once you have them set that PC aside, how many more evil characters would you let them run?
If a gal sat at your table with her neutral evil poisoner of Norgorber and set about killing the townsfolk around the cave entrance of the dungeon for her Day Job, and you only later found out that she wasn't really a mature player, what would you do?
If you had children who were sitting at your table when the crazy member of the Old Cults ritually flayed [redacted], what would you say to their mothers?
...
Do you think you could shove some more straw in this post? First, I think you are imputing malice where there is none. Second, the players you are describing are the exact same problem players who play "detect evil murder paladins" that spend the session berating the rogue PC; it's not the alignment, it's the player.
That's fine. We already have those players in this campaign, BO, and a licence for evil will bring in even more. You're imagining some characters who are "evil, but honorable" like Scorpius or Ra's Al Ghul or Magneto or something. No, we already have those kinds of characters in the campaign. What we will get, with "evil PC" is "really evil PCs."
It's not a strawman at all.
|
Absolutely no. There are already enuff players that play there pc on the borderline of evil which needs some aditional rules to curb that.
There would be too much conflict and scenarios would get derailed instantly.
Choosing and picking who would be allowed to play an evil character would cause more of an uproar and destroy the campaign.
Is this really a serious thread?
|
We would have to have a lot more scenarios based in Cheliax or Ustalav or Nidal if they ever allowed evil PCs (which they won't do nor should they.)
But with that said, an evil version of Pathfinder could be fun, just think, we could have factions like Hellknights, Old Cults, the Night Heralds, Whispering Way, Razmiran, and Anaphexia, among others. Course some of the faction missions might not be that different from some of the older missions...
|
|
I want to play an evil character, I don't care how.
From another thread:
By playing an evil character I can get into the nitty gritty of what truly makes a hero. If bandits attack a village and I refuse to stop those bandits because my lawful good alignment keeps me standing against the direct orders of my king, am I still a hero? Lawful Good characters slaughter hundreds of people per game because according to a stat on a sheet, a paladin is good and a bandit is bad. But those bandits might just be hungry and desperate and afraid. But If I am a Neutral Evil villain who murders the bandits and saves the lives of two hundred people because someone paid me money, am I still a villain? If a Chaotic Evil person saves a man from a burning building because that man owes him money, is he a hero?
Alternatively, If I am Evil, can I love? Maybe I am evil because I care for someone so deeply that I will do anything, ANYTHING, to keep them alive. Maybe I have turned to necromancy and Uragathoa worship because I am desperate to be reunited with my dead wife and I don't give a damn about your laws or your morals because they are keeping me from reuniting with the woman I love.
When you say to me "Evil", I think "Wow, great Roleplaying potential."
|
|
We would have to have a lot more scenarios based in Cheliax or Ustalav or Nidal if they ever allowed evil PCs (which they won't do nor should they.)
But with that said, an evil version of Pathfinder could be fun, just think, we could have factions like Hellknights, Old Cults, the Night Heralds, Whispering Way, Razmiran, and Anaphexia, among others. Course some of the faction missions might not be that different from some of the older missions...
Also from another thread:
They would run an "Apsis Consortium" as a kind of offshoot Player Organization for PFS players 21 and over or some other arbitrary age limit. It would be for advanced Roleplayers and in this "side" organization, all of the same ranks, boons, and benefits carry over from PFS, you even keep the same player id number. All characters would be restricted to LN-CE, no good alignments of any kind, and you would run scenarios as members of the Consortium with Consortium NPCs. There would be factions, same as our factions, but they would be evil and they would be called "Divisions" or some sort of ominous corporate speak. So instead of Silver Crusade, some kind of Anti-Paladin Lodge. Instead of the Exchange, some sort of "Apsis Corporate Trade Authority" where you make lots of money by stabbing (more) people. There would be a Cthulhu/Lamashtu style division, an evil Sovereign Court, and their own Dark Archive, ironically run by the same NPC (because Paracountess be cray-cray).
This ACS would run games sparingly, usually reserved as a novelty for a few conventions or at the request of a local Ventrue-Captain, and instead a half dozen new scenarios released every season, the ACS would only get one or two higher tiered scenarios every few months and a small selection of "adapted" PFS scenarios for lower tier play. Basically, older experienced roleplayers would get an evil character as a reward for their long years of play while younger players would have something to aspire to.
It would occasionally give older players the "flavor" they want, while keeping the coasts at a minimum, while still keeping Evil at the upper shelf, away from the kitties.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely no. There are already enuff players that play there pc on the borderline of evil which needs some aditional rules to curb that.
There would be too much conflict and scenarios would get derailed instantly.
Choosing and picking who would be allowed to play an evil character would cause more of an uproar and destroy the campaign.
Is this really a serious thread?
I think this started as a serious thread, but it has turned into the most damning indictment I have ever seen against PFS.
I will admit, I am a PFS newbie (only a few games at GenCon) so I don't know fully what the landscape looks like. However, given the fact that a majority of the responses (including from a developer) here is, essentially, "these people can barely function with a tight reign, if you let them play evil they will break everything", I'm honestly not sure why I would want to try to join the greater community if it's this dysfunctional.
|
To answer the original question, I think the ONLY way is a separate campaign, similar to the Core campaign.
That way it can be marketed as allowing evil PCs so the issues of children, people with triggers, etc is at least reduced sufficiently that it may be manageable.
And it means that people who want to can avoid it. That list almost certainly includes me.
And right there is the reason I think it the only way. Doing it any other way would lose too many players.
For a moment I thought that allowing "alignment free" games might work. Similar to hard mode. EVERYBODY at the table must agree.
But then I realized that would likely just yield an immense number of "evil in all but name" characters constantly pushing the boundaries. And that would lose the other players
|
|
I'm honestly not sure why I would want to try to join the greater community if it's this dysfunctional.
Its not disfunctional
But the nature of organized play is that a table has to accommodate a far wider range of play styles than a home game usually does, and without it being practical to have long discussions so people can accommodate each other. Which means rules are in place to smoothe out some of those differences
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
We already have to arguments when the LN necromancer "convinces" some recently slain enemies to see your point of view by using animate death and the paladin pretty much draws the line there.
Once full fledged evil enters the mix, certain petty situations will happen even more often:
GM: The monster hits the [evil bastard of choice] and drops to the ground, either dying or already dead. What do you do?
Paladin: I am going to charge the monster.
[Evil bastard's player]: Why, you are standing right next to me, heal me!
Paladin: My character decided, that attacking the other evil thing, and saving the lives of my other party members is more important, that potentially wasting an action, to learn that the evil guy on the ground is dead.
-------
Obviously, in some situations more than 1 character will be dying and people have to make a choice. Do I save my fellow Silver Crusade member , or evil guy....
-------
What I am trying to say, is that the Pathfinder Society is already a huge plot device, to find a reason for 4-5 people to go and experience adventures. So usually the Society sends out a group like this : Indiana Jones (regular Pathfinder), Conan the Barbarian, Bruce Willis, Sweeney Tod and Morgan Freeman, and while this can be a lot of fun, it isn't very ...sane.
Once you add evil characters to the mix, things become even weirder. Indiana Jones, Darth Vader, Adolf Hitler, Superman and Martin Luther (either one of them).
|
|
However, given the fact that a majority of the responses (including from a developer) here is, essentially, "these people can barely function with a tight reign, if you let them play evil they will break everything", I'm honestly not sure why I would want to try to join the greater community if it's this dysfunctional.
Meh. In my experience, actual PFS is very different than how it seems to read if you are only basing it on what occurs on the boards.
Not saying that this thread makes PFS look good, but it's one of the weird examples of things that will get folks really riled up as everyone's experiences seem to be vastly different (and often mutually exclusive in outlook).-TimD
|
|
If I am a Neutral Evil villain who murders the bandits and saves the lives of two hundred people because someone paid me money, am I still a villain? If a Chaotic Evil person saves a man from a burning building because that man owes him money, is he a hero?
I would say those are both the actions of a Neutral person. And not even an Evil-side-of-Neutral person.
What are some evil acts you'd like to commit with a PFS character?
Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm honestly not sure why I would want to try to join the greater community if it's this dysfunctional.Its not disfunctional
But the nature of organized play is that a table has to accommodate a far wider range of play styles than a home game usually does, and without it being practical to have long discussions so people can accommodate each other. Which means rules are in place to smoothe out some of those differences
I agree with pauljathome.
The community is not dysfunctional; organized play simply requires some basic ground rules regarding in-game mechanics and player behavior to provide as positive a gaming experience as possible on as consistent a basis as possible. You're also (as a recent post by TimD notes) reading a thread that deals with a very controversial subject. On the internet. I fear that casts many of us in a more dysfunctional/opinionated light than would be the case in person.
It is very possible to play a deep, engaging, and cooperative evil character, yet the option to play an evil character in an organized play format would spawn at least as many disruptively evil PCs/players as it would narratively inspiring PCs/players. For many participants I have spoken with, a negative experience is more powerful than a positive experience in determining whether or not to continue a campaign, and introducing evil PCs—at least in any way that I have seen discussed so far (with credit to Snickersimba, there may yet be an approach out there that would work)—would invite that kind of negative experience.
|
Thank you john, I had half a mind to close the thread after the first few responses, I mostly was trying to see if we could all help come up with an idea and agree on something, but people turned the thread into a debate thread. That wasn't supposed to happen.
A few doubts are alright, but literally posting nothing BUT the doubts is not what this thread was about, at all. Might as well close it and reopen it because of the people derailing it.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Thank you john, I had half a mind to close the thread after the first few responses, I mostly was trying to see if we could all help come up with an idea and agree on something, but people turned the thread into a debate thread. That wasn't supposed to happen.
A few doubts are alright, but literally posting nothing BUT the doubts is not what this thread was about, at all. Might as well close it and reopen it because of the people derailing it.
With all due respect, your OP included the phrase:
I personally think allowing people who have shown the ability to be mature and respectful in the society should be allowed to play evil characters.
How would we determine this?
... on the internet.
I can pretty much guarantee, that a pretty large number of people in this threat are well above 28, some might have children, are responsible for the safety of hundreds of people and can be trusted with a moderate allowance.
And you ask about maturity in the context of one of the most controversial aspects of our hobby. The sun will burn out and entropy will destroy everything we can currently perceive, and those discussions will never end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
And frankly, the people with the doubts, are the ones any arguments you might find, actually have to convince. If they don't want to play with evil characters, bad things are going to happen (quite likely resulting in fewer people playing).
|
Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you john, I had half a mind to close the thread after the first few responses, I mostly was trying to see if we could all help come up with an idea and agree on something, but people turned the thread into a debate thread. That wasn't supposed to happen.
A few doubts are alright, but literally posting nothing BUT the doubts is not what this thread was about, at all. Might as well close it and reopen it because of the people derailing it.
Since this is a controversial subject, any discussion has a strong chance of turning into a debate. At that point it's hard to brainstorm because you first need to convince those who are not interested that your proposal is a good one—before you have even had a chance to brainstorm the proposal.
My recommendation when creating threads like these is to frame your proposal even more strongly in a hypothetical light, for it invites people to approach it more as a lighthearted "what-if" and less as an "I want to make this happen."
For example:
I know playing evil PCs is not part of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign, and there are definitely big hurdles to overcome before implementing such an option. Rather than propose a change in the alignments allowed, I am interested in brainstorming what would need to happen before evil alignments were even allowed in the first place.
This is a thought experiment. Perhaps we might come up with some neat ideas that are convincing enough to turn into a policy change, but in the meantime I'm just aiming for a fun discussion.
Thanks!
I think there's still a lot of room to have that discussion in this thread, Snickersimba—especially now that we've gotten the obligatory "no thank you's" out of the way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the single biggest thing that would need to happen is for the campaign to have a more clearly defined exit for characters that no longer fit into the Pathfinder Society. "Irrevocably Evil" no longer applies when Evil alignments are allowed, but characters that "do not exemplify the values of the Pathfinder Society" are somewhat difficult to define currently. I would like legal Evil alignments, but I also don't want tables to devolve into "that's what my character would do" slaughterfests or a constant refrain of "campaign death" exits for those types of characters.
That said, what may make more sense is for a separate campaign to evolve, but I can't expect campaign management to want that headache. Frankly, we do have a couple in-world organizations that would fit the bill (Shadow Lodge, Aspis Consortium, etc.). The problem is creating content relative to these organizations without reducing the content for PFS itself. It's hard to do that without hiring additional staff and that is hard to justify for this endeavor.
TLDR: What replaces "irrevocably Evil"? Is it smarter to just have a separate campaign? If so, who manages that?
|
|
I don't see a separate campaign happening for some reason. I'm not sure Paizo would see it as worth it, after all as they would have to devote resources into both normal PFS as well as a new one. After all, Paizo is a company and a company has to look after its own best interests. Admittedly if one were ever instituted (which it probably won't) I would play to see how it works out, but again, unless an overwhelming mass of paizo customers clamor for it and start like a petition, they are unlikely to even entertain the idea, and even if that WERE to happen, they still might not happen.
I explain it largely by understanding the difference between needs and wants.
Moot point for two reasons:
1) Despite how much we may pretend otherwise, no one needs to play Pathfinder.
2) PFS is a marketing agency for Paizo. People don't buy what they need, they buy what they want. Arguing that PFS is somehow geared towards only those that need it is to fail to understand PFS. This is not a charity or government sponsored gamer support program.
You're not looking at it from the right angle. Namely, Paizo's.
While no one needs to play Pathfinder, Paizo needs people to play it (and pay for it). And most people who are not already familiar with Pathfinder need to be introduced to it before they'll invest the time and money into the hobby, while people who are already familiar with it don't.
So, from Paizo's point of view, newbies without an established group need a structure like PFS to help bring them into the hobby, but established gamers already know how to find such groups. PFS for them is a convenience.
|
|
I never was good with words, Im just not even going to try to follow this thread, its pointless as all of you have just said no.
Believe me, it is not that we are trying to shoot you down without reason. The only way things could change one way or the other is through discussion and debate as to what would work.
I think John Compton's response was a reasonable one: One must first figure out what barriers must be removed or overcome before a proposal could even be made. That being said, if evil characters were to be allowed, a separate campaign would DEFINITELY have to be made. To be honest... running around as Aspis Agents/Razmiran 'Inquisitors', Hellknights, and Shadow Lodge members (again) would be amazingly fun.
And what is this I hear about the new special letting me play an Aspis Agent? You mean my Exchange character claiming he was one already isn't enough? :3
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I never was good with words, Im just not even going to try to follow this thread, its pointless as all of you have just said no.
Well a number of us have had experiences with evil player characters in non PFS games, that naturally influences the discussion.
My advise would be to actually talk to people in the real world (maybe at your next PFS event) about this.
To be constructive, I think you really need a second campaign/mode, otherwise you just put evil characters in straightjackets. Obviously the players should not kill everyone in the Dissapeared, but the rules would have to be strict enough for GMs and other players, to say that this is wrong.
|
|
I never was good with words, Im just not even going to try to follow this thread, its pointless as all of you have just said no.Well a number of us have had experiences with evil player characters in non PFS games, that naturally influences the discussion.
My advise would be to actually talk to people in the real world (maybe at your next PFS event) about this.
To be constructive, I think you really need a second campaign/mode, otherwise you just put evil characters in straightjackets. Obviously the players should not kill everyone in the Dissapeared, but the rules would have to be strict enough for GMs and other players, to say that this is wrong.
Right. Lots of people forget that evil does not NECESSARILY equal murderous psychopaths. If a second campaign mode were to be instituted, it would be a fun experiment to see how many characters could make it through a social scenario.
|
|
A boon wouldn't work for various reasons, the main one being that good roleplay is subejectove. Furthermore, just because someone can do a neutral or good alignment well doesn't mean that they would handle lawful evil well at all. There is certainly is a fine balance between well done and unacceptable. The problem is finding those who know the line which is next to impossible in standard PFS play.
EDIT: At least with a separate campaign, people know what they are getting into when they do run into the REAL murderhobos. There would still have to be guidelines against certain actions to keep a sembelence of order in place, but I feel like with playtesting, the kinks could work out... well at least that is my idealism showing.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I think there's still a lot of room...
I do to.
So let's consider this:
A Lawful Evil Boon given out as a convention reward for roleplay. We do Boons for exotic races, many of which are considered to be antagonistic or full on evil, why not do it for alignments?
Sorry if this sounds immature, but some people (me kinda included) could read your post as giving people a great excuse. Allowing it with plenty of caveats is one thing, but giving people a literal piece of paper could create a pretty dismal sense of entitlement (being allowed to act like jerk.. cause the boon says so).
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Right. Lots of people forget that evil does not NECESSARILY equal murderous psychopaths. If a second campaign mode were to be instituted, it would be a fun experiment to see how many characters could make it through a social scenario.I never was good with words, Im just not even going to try to follow this thread, its pointless as all of you have just said no.Well a number of us have had experiences with evil player characters in non PFS games, that naturally influences the discussion.
My advise would be to actually talk to people in the real world (maybe at your next PFS event) about this.
To be constructive, I think you really need a second campaign/mode, otherwise you just put evil characters in straightjackets. Obviously the players should not kill everyone in the Dissapeared, but the rules would have to be strict enough for GMs and other players, to say that this is wrong.
Well today we sometimes equate "evil" with certain mental disorders, so consider the following characters:
- Dexter (from the comics and the TV show) would have no real problems in PFS, since his deed are supposed to happen of screen.
- Sherlock Holmes (from the TV series with Smaug) - tough character, and seems to have a lack of empathy (I think he describes himself as a high functioning sociopath - don't quote me on that)
- Kain (from the legacy of Kain series of video games) Clearly an evil character, even if he does not lack noble intentions.
- Frank Underwood (from the TV series House of Cards, or alternatively Francis Urkward (sp?) the original character in the British version) without spoiling anything. That character would work in PFS.... but he might manage to take over... better try not to make promises.
- Alucard (Hellsing manga and animes) yeah that one need a leash.
There are plenty of other examples, but fiction writers have givens us enough complex characters, that would be described as evil.
I am still not sure how to formulate a rule set to keep them in line, but I think it requires crystal clear rules (nothing as vague and difficult to enforce as the current PVP and jerk rules).
|
|
Sorry if this sounds immature, but some people (me kinda included) could read your post as giving people a great excuse. Allowing it with plenty of caveats is one thing, but giving people a literal piece of paper could create a pretty dismal sense of entitlement (being allowed to act like jerk.. cause the boon says so).
Look, I understand this objection but now I have no choice but to say: "Oscar Meyer".
The number one objection to the evil players throughout this thread and all others continues to be "Oh think of what all these psychos will do". I am truly sorry but I don't buy it and after seeing seven pages of this objection, of one form or another, in this thread and the other, I just can't accept it anymore.
We have disruptive players now and when they act truly disruptive, we politely ask them to leave. The whole point of running PFS with a DM is to keep things fair and in line to begin with. There are strict rules against player vs player combat and if you seriously believe that a DM is going to allow you to roll against another player because your alignment says it's cool you're crazy and even if they did, that's why we have Ventrue Captains and Lieutenants to complain to. If one guy gets everybody killed because he says his alignment told him to, that scene can be appealed and I guarantee that the people at that table will be behind you.
Handing someone a piece of paper that says "You can make one fictional character kick puppies" is not going to turn someone into a disruptive psycho. Most of the people I know who earn these boons are already pretty mature, experienced people anyway. They are a reward for contributing the PFS and for playing above and beyond. If we trust them enough to give them any boons, why not trust them enough to give them THIS boon.
What I really hear when people tell me "Evil Alignments make people bad players" is "I don't trust my community or this organization or the people who run it to keep the peace." And frankly, as another poster pointed out, this entire line of thinking is the greatest argument I have ever heard against even participating in PFS events since apparently everyone is secretly some kind of evil psycho just desperate to live out sick fantasies if given half the chance. If that's true we shouldn't worry about what alignments are playable, we should contact the police and have them start arresting our players because they are probably all serial killers.
I know that everyone has valid concerns and I'm not trying to be dismissive, but it's the SAME valid concern over and over and it's frankly, in my mind, unwarranted.
I trust and respect the people in this hobby and know that even the people who disagree with me are probably the nicest folks in the world but again, I think this is all or nothing. Either you trust the guy behind the DM screen and your fellow players or you don't and on this matter, I have total faith in them.
|
|
A boon wouldn't work for various reasons, the main one being that good roleplay is subejectove. Furthermore, just because someone can do a neutral or good alignment well doesn't mean that they would handle lawful evil well at all. There is certainly is a fine balance between well done and unacceptable. The problem is finding those who know the line which is next to impossible in standard PFS play.
True, a good player may not be a good "evil player" but since the OP is asking for people to come up with a good way to test who is a mature, honest player, a reward boon given selectively by your local Captain or even by a Paizo rep is, while subjective, better than nothing.
And quality is less subjective than you might think. If at a convention, a group of DMs sit down and nominate folks who roleplayed well for a reward that is no less subjective than boons that get handed out now. Hell, it doesn't have to be Roleplay either. If someone earns that mythical goblin boon I keep hearing about, why not let them earn this as well? Aside from the boons you get for con attendance, our boon system is already our rather subjective, might as well embrace it.
EDIT: At least with a separate campaign, people know what they are getting into when they do run into the REAL murderhobos. There would still have to be guidelines against certain actions to keep a sembelence of order in place, but I feel like with playtesting, the kinks could work out... well at least that is my idealism showing.
Make no mistake, I would prefer this but it would be expensive on Paizo's part and thus unlikely.
Again, I posted it earlier in this thread and the other as a once every six month thing where they open a table to play as an Apsis Agent, Alignment restricted to Lawful Neutral thru Chaotic Evil. You're sent on missions to spread chaos, steal money, and overthrow governments. You murder, kill, and steal for plunder, profit, and for the glory of your beloved Apsis Prophet. You can join Factions that are dark mirrors of our own (God I already have names for them: The Librarians= Dark Archive, Prophet's Favored= Grand Lodge, The Black Hand= The Exchange, The Hellknights= The Silver Crusade, The Purple Order= The Sovereign Court, and then perhaps some kind of monstrously evil Lodge dedicated to Lamashtu) and then when the scenario ends your Apsis agent auto levels up, the PP you earned gets applied to your PFS lodge and to a PFS character of your choice. It's just a fun, alternate way of playing differently.
But as it as been pointed out to me, Paizo is less likely to do this and I want to restrict myself to brainstorming more likely possibilities.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Sorry if this sounds immature, but some people (me kinda included) could read your post as giving people a great excuse. Allowing it with plenty of caveats is one thing, but giving people a literal piece of paper could create a pretty dismal sense of entitlement (being allowed to act like jerk.. cause the boon says so).Look, I understand this objection but now I have no choice but to say: "Oscar Meyer".
The number one objection to the evil players throughout this thread and all others continues to be "Oh think of what all these psychos will do". I am truly sorry but I don't buy it and after seeing seven pages of this objection, of one form or another, in this thread and the other, I just can't accept it anymore.
We have disruptive players now and when they act truly disruptive, we politely ask them to leave. The whole point of running PFS with a DM is to keep things fair and in line to begin with. There are strict rules against player vs player combat and if you seriously believe that a DM is going to allow you to roll against another player because your alignment says it's cool you're crazy and even if they did, that's why we have Ventrue Captains and Lieutenants to complain to. If one guy gets everybody killed because he says his alignment told him to, that scene can be appealed and I guarantee that the people at that table will be behind you.
Handing someone a piece of paper that says "You can make one fictional character kick puppies" is not going to turn someone into a disruptive psycho. Most of the people I know who earn these boons are already pretty mature, experienced people anyway. They are a reward for contributing the PFS and for playing above and beyond. If we trust them enough to give them any boons, why not trust them enough to give them THIS boon.
What I really hear when people tell me "Evil Alignments make people bad players" is "I don't trust my community or this organization or the people who run it to keep the peace." And frankly, as...
Your argument is compelling, I have played with characters who worship Charon and a number of other very evil entities. That perfectly fine since, the players seem to know what they do, and where the fine line is draw.
And they are not evil, that point is rather important for some reason.Even if every player is mature enough to earn such a boon (and frankly I have played pen and paper RPGs for decades now, and don't own a convention boon) it will affect others.
Some people already have a problem with a number of subject matters, and things like violence (including sexual violence), undead, infestations, mind control, demons, possession, demon worship (even by players) can be triggers for some people.
However I think that killing a homeless fictional dog on the street is somehow worse, and other pet owners might agree. It doesn't really enter into most discussions, but some things are evil but would not affect the scenario too much. Giving a pregnant woman poison to kill the unborn baby is similar in nature, but not something I expect to see in scenario any time soon (but I could be wrong, once I argued that Paizo would never print something involving involuntary pregnancies.. but Bestiary 4 proved me wrong).
Some people will have no problem when an evil character tortures an NPCs (even when the "real" media can't seem to stop talking about torture and horrific killings in the middle east) after all you see it on TV all the time (just look at 24 or Game of Thrones), but since this is an RPG, and a lot of people are very invested in their character ... well it can become uncomfortable, and I doubt that people will always speak up. They might just not come to PFS events any more.
..........
At the end of the day, we are all players in the same campaign, and there are rules involved. Some of those rules are published in the guide, or FAQs, but there are a number of unwritten rules you will tend to find at every table (the whole issue of toilet visits and female characters bodily functions, usually get ignored and that is a good thing).
Once you add the potential for evil characters, the rules and circumstances change. Some players will try to avoid groups with evil characters (obviously that depends on what level of evil they would be subjected too, and how well the player is doing her job).
I am not saying this can't work, but considering how often my characters have been audited, and how often my the GM has taken the time to check my sources.... PFS is a campaign that is build on a foundation of trust.
But you don't write your rules like that, rules like the item tracking sheet are intended to deal with a rather minuscule number of players.
The don't be a jerk rule and the objections against evil characters voiced in here, are pretty much the same. We don't say that this BS is going to happen all the time, but rules like this are intended to prevent those isolated cases, since a bad PFS experience can cost us (and I mean Paizo, GMs and players) a player. Our hobby is not in a situation where we can afford to scare away new players.
This might sound a bit tangential, and you might think that I am not posting this as a proper response to you post, but this is where I (and I assume others) are coming from.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
A boon wouldn't work for various reasons, the main one being that good roleplay is subejectove. Furthermore, just because someone can do a neutral or good alignment well doesn't mean that they would handle lawful evil well at all. There is certainly is a fine balance between well done and unacceptable. The problem is finding those who know the line which is next to impossible in standard PFS play.True, a good player may not be a good "evil player" but since the OP is asking for people to come up with a good way to test who is a mature, honest player, a reward boon given selectively by your local Captain or even by a Paizo rep is, while subjective, better than nothing.
And quality is less subjective than you might think. If at a convention, a group of DMs sit down and nominate folks who roleplayed well for a reward that is no less subjective than boons that get handed out now. Hell, it doesn't have to be Roleplay either. If someone earns that mythical goblin boon I keep hearing about, why not let them earn this as well? Aside from the boons you get for con attendance, our boon system is already our rather subjective, might as well embrace it.
EDIT: At least with a separate campaign, people know what they are getting into when they do run into the REAL murderhobos. There would still have to be guidelines against certain actions to keep a sembelence of order in place, but I feel like with playtesting, the kinks could work out... well at least that is my idealism showing.Make no mistake, I would prefer this but it would be expensive on Paizo's part and thus unlikely. Again, I posted it earlier in this thread and the other as a once every six month thing where they open a table to play as an Apsis Agent, Alignment restricted to Lawful Neutral thru Chaotic Evil. You're sent on missions to spread chaos, steal money, and overthrow governments. You murder, kill, and steal for the profit and for the glory of your beloved Apsis Prophet. You can join...
Considering the knee jerk reactions following the announcement of the core campaign, I don't see a separate campaign any time soon.
However a scenario, or even a special mode within a "normal" scenario, where the characters are allowed to play evil characters (maybe pregens) could work.Of course, you would have to find something that is evil... since in my time playing pathfinder, I have killed things, set fire to things, messed with ships, helped prisoners escape from prisons, infiltrated an embassy...
|
|
Sebastian, man, I know where you're coming from, I do, and I am not intentionally being dismissive. But I still believe that this is an issue of player choice and strict boundaries. Evil play is doable and while I hear your objections, I can't believe that allowing good players who have legitimate desires to play something new and to push boundaries should be held hostage by a small group of "hypothetical" bad players. I can play an evil character, I can play him so well that your paladin will loathe but respect me.
And I must also disagree. We do not make rules for the bad actors in our communities because then we have society where everyone drives 25 miles an hour all the time on every road and the police follow us looking for even one small sin. I do not want to live in that kind of society and neither do you. Instead, we make rules to establish fairness and to create safety but at a certain point we trust people to make the right decisions and to travel safely at a speed under a certain limit. I can drive 60 on the highway because the state trusts me not to drive over 75 and every time I get behind the wheel of my car and follow the rules, I earn that trust. When I violate that trust, I am penalized by those I have voted into office, and their agents, to enforce the rules and when I violate enough times and with enough disrespect, my privileges are taken from me and I must earn them back.
Evil play in PFS is no different than driving that car. It is a matter of trust and privilege, both are earned and if given the chance, I can earn it. Others, not all, can as well. I simply ask for the chance to do so.
|
|
Sadly, yes, a separate campaign is a damned pipe dream. Hence my favoring a boon. Ooo, hey, that's not a bad idea either, A pregen encounter or two. Or three. Or six.
I mean why not start with a version of "We Be Goblins" for PFS? Then "Orc Raid" and "Henchmen to the Lich", etc.
Of course, you would have to find something that is evil... since in my time playing pathfinder, I have killed things, set fire to things, messed with ships, helped prisoners escape from prisons, infiltrated an embassy...
Yes, but imagine how much MORE evil and murderhoboish you can be when you're actually TRYING to be evil and murderhoboish. LOL
|
|
I wouldn't be in favor, but that is experience in college with "Evil University". And the player of the CE PC who never stayed with the party.
How do you define "mature"?
On the other hand, along with the new Special coming up, there are two modules sanctioned for PFS where not only do you get the opportunity to play Evil characters, but you are required to play Chaotic Evil PCs.
|
|
Is there a way to mark this thread so it doesn't appear in my list of unread threads?
Yes, one of the options is to hide a thread.
At the far right side, next to the latest poster's name, there is a slashed circle icon, which shows "Hide this thread" as the popup text for it. It will grey out the thread initially, and it will complete the disappearing act when you next refresh the list of threads.
|
|
Is there a way to mark this thread so it doesn't appear in my list of unread threads?Yes, one of the options is to hide a thread.
At the far right side, next to the latest poster's name, there is a slashed circle icon, which shows "Hide this thread" as the popup text for it. It will grey out the thread initially, and it will complete the disappearing act when you next refresh the list of threads.
Thanks so much! This way I can leave those who can tolerate this discussion in peace.
|
|
My concern is that giving even more license to these sorts of people to be disruptive will simply drive off the players I'd rather have at the table and leave nothing but the people I don't want to game with.
A valid concern, but also a little unfair. One, disruptive people are disruptive, we are not giving them an extra tool for disruptiveness (is that even a word?) if they are already being disruptive. Those people you're complaining about, who aren't following the rules to begin with, are going be a pain no matter the alignment. Two, what is disruptive? If you mean being a little annoying, that's a sliding scale and also a matter of personal preference. If you mean breaking rules then we have redress for that already and Ventrue Captains and Lieutenants will ask them to leave.
Those same players you hate, I and others may desperately like having around. To legislate any organization by who we want gone and who we want to stay is at best either unfair or at worst slightly fascist. No system will ever be perfect but pretending that imperfectness must constantly be accounted for, legislated, stamped, and watched like a hawk is more than a little unreasonable. At the end of the day, this is a system where you may end up playing with smelly, socially awkward strangers and if you're worried those people are going to show up to game and be disruptive, there is nothing to prevent that anyway, no matter what alignment they play.
For the record, I smell great and my Anti-Paladin of Asmodeus would be the best damn character at the table.
|
|
I'm still curious as to what kind actions people want to take with their characters that they can't take now. Torture? Murder? Theft? Software piracy?
Is it access to mechanical options that are locked behind evil alignments?
Or is it just not being able to use the label that bothers you?
If you want an evil character, he's going to have to do evil things in order to keep his alignment.
What are some examples of mature and respectfully handled evil actions that a character might take? (I know that might sound snarky, but I'm genuinely asking).
|
|
(TheCursor, I don't believe that Asmodeus has anti-paladins. Anti-paladins are all CE, and Asmodeus's worshippers need to be one step away from Lawful Evil.)
Carry on.
Ah, good point. Warpriest? Yeah. Warpriest. Or, wait, Paladin of Pazuzu.
I must meditate with my evil nature to consider what god I would lend my blade to.
If any.
Screw it. Antipaladin of nothing.
Of course, you would have to find something that is evil... since in my time playing pathfinder, I have killed things, set fire to things, messed with ships, helped prisoners escape from prisons, infiltrated an embassy...
What amuses me is that the typical "good" Pathfinder character of decent level has killed more intelligent creatures than the worst of real life serial killers many times over. But its still good because they were evil.
I know RPGs are not seminars in moral philosophy, but Jesus!
|
|
No, they won't actually. The VO's are bound by the fact that we are holding games at a store just as much as I am. If someone breaks the rules of PFS the worst that happens is they get their character marked as unplayable. To get banned from the store requires them to do something disruptive enough to get the store staff involved.So yes, allowing evil characters would be giving them an extra way to be disruptive since it would take away one thing that right now can cost them a character.
Again, in what way does a dot on a sheet or no dot prevent them from being disruptive? As for if they break the rules, then they break the rules and they are asked to leave the table. There aren't that many things that can get you ejected to begin with but the ones that do result in total ejection have little to do with in game role play. But having an evil alignment is not in and of itself not disruptive, nor is not letting them have it a way to prevent it.
If someone is deliberately causing a problem, their alignment doesn't matter, that situation probably would already happen under CN. Putting the word "Evil" on their sheet doesn't give them extra ammo and if they're being completely dysfunctional, You can complain to the GM and tell the organizers and deal with it from there. As far as "I can't make them leave the store." So? In what way is that affected by alignment anyway? You can have them leave the table and any truly disruptive behavior ends in a visit from the police, per the store owner.
None of these things are affected by, nor given leave by, alignment.