RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, the players in my home campaign liked the idea of a competitor organization, but hated the name "Aspis Consortium." They thought the name, well, sounded like loose bowels. I don't know any nicer way to put it. I still kept those scenarios in play, but we just called them "The Consortium".
Me, I remember the old ant-folk, yes. And I'm wondering if, at the top of the Consortium, we find out that the bosses are indeed formic.
Sorry. Just an aside there. Back to evil.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
As an aside, the players in my home campaign liked the idea of a competitor organization, but hated the name "Aspis Consortium." They thought the name, well, sounded like loose bowels.
True, but we seem to have a penchant for naming evil organizations after serpents and all the cool serpent names like Hydra, Cobra and even Ouroborus were already taken.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
...let the table-flipping commenceI really would not bet on that one, seems like something like that would depend on which players use more cheese, and how lenient the GMs are when it comes to builds, that are on the very edge of legality.competitive faction-based organized play
let the table-flipping commence
Can't we reserve things like that for truly terrible things, like playing Monopoly with my godchild and her cheating mother? Or 8 player MTG commander multiplayer ? Or league of legends? ^^
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an aside, the players in my home campaign liked the idea of a competitor organization, but hated the name "Aspis Consortium." They thought the name, well, sounded like loose bowels.True, but we seem to have a penchant for naming evil organizations after serpents and all the cool serpent names like Hydra, Cobra and even Ouroborus were already taken.
The Garter Group found that few took them seriously, and more mistook them for an entirely different type of operation. They folded after 6 months. No one noticed.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
As an aside, the players in my home campaign liked the idea of a competitor organization, but hated the name "Aspis Consortium." They thought the name, well, sounded like loose bowels. I don't know any nicer way to put it. I still kept those scenarios in play, but we just called them "The Consortium".
Me, I remember the old ant-folk, yes. And I'm wondering if, at the top of the Consortium, we find out that the bosses are indeed formic.
Sorry. Just an aside there. Back to evil.
Why? Why did you do that to me, now I won't be able to read the name as anything other than (well, just a two "s" in strategic places).
I might never forgive you.
And well captain america did it, so it would not be impossible for the "snake themed enterprise" to infiltrate the society.
... Damn you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know there are allot of opinions about letting evil characters into PFS.
In all my years of GMing (is it decades now?) and playing, I have only seen one campaign work where the characters were evil.
They were all brothers sisters cousins of the same noble house, where their grandfather held the title and was the lord of the house. I ran the family like it was a mafia organization. It worked....the players cooperated when they had to, and under cut each other as well, What can I say, they behaved like Lannisters.
Every single other time the player with an "evil" character screwed the party over, and this led to a PVP fight, which ultimately led to somebody leaving the gaming group.
So, in my opinion, allowing PCs to play an evil alignment in PFS is a bad idea. period. I think some others said it much better then I.
NO!
And I'm pretty sure, if evil alignments are allowed, I'll just play home games, and drop PFS like a hot potato.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
Not a one time event, actually, but you're right that it's not a general opening to be evil in other sessions.That's a one time event. Not a general opening of the campaign to evil characters.I think Paizo is already working on this. The newly announced special where you can play Aspis agents.
Its like goblins. You start with one, and before you can blink there are twenty of them, gnawing on your ankles.
(I am meaning to say: Its a start. Paizo is a company, and it will ultimately do whatever makes them money. If this special turns out to be wildly successfull, you can bet there will be more. People came back for more bonekeep, afterall)
|
I haven't been posting on the thread because I am done with it, I want nothing to do with it and would perfer it to be closed, because of people like quadstriker and seth, there was not to be a thread to post doubts, this was a thread to discuss the possiblity. I might ask lamberts to close it actually.
|
|
Paizo threads are not routinely locked by request.
Despite the disagreements here, it's far more civil than some discussions that force thread-locks.
If you would prefer not to see the discussion anymore, there's always the option to hide the thread.
-TimD
This is actually pretty civil for an alignment discussion in general. I've seen things end in quite a clusterf**k for the simplest of alignment talks.
|
|
So for the most part, I'm in agreement with the majority here that doesn't want evil alignments allowed in regular organised play.
That said, from the first time I looked at the campaign, I thought it would be cool to do sort of a splinter campaign where we played Aspis agents or something along those lines. It was really on my mind because I was trying to think of ways to get the people who I regularly game with interested too and I had doubts if they would buy in to the idea of organised play and no evil characters and all that comes along with PFS. I never ended up doing more than think about it, but I still think the idea has merit.
I still have doubts that evil chracters are a good idea for organised play, but if they were kept in their own campaign then I don't think it would really hurt to give it a try. It might still be better off left as something for a home game instead.
Really, I run into enough "neutral" characters as it is who are always pushing to see where the line is and run as close to it as they can without paying for atonement spells, I have no doubt in my mind that they would be causing even more problems in games if they were allowed to write evil on their character sheet.
I haven't been posting on the thread because I am done with it, [...] there was not to be a thread to post doubts, this was a thread to discuss the possiblity.
Hey, everyone, I want to make a thread to discuss the idea that the capital of France is actually Moscow and that kangaroos are a type of fish. But this isn't a thread to post doubts; this is just a thread to discuss the possibility.
Sorry, that's not the way the Internetz work.
|
Global Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting read thus far.
Back in late 2011, I formed an exploratory committee of VCs to discuss the creation of a second campaign, "The Consortium." I still have the summation report on my desktop. I've always wanted to do something that would allow the player base to see the story from both sides. I thought that would be a really cool idea.
I have played in a two year long succesful evil campaign, in the Planescape universe. I also have a conversion to run Carrion Crown as an evil campaign one day. I do have some ideas how it could and would work. I have the ground rules already written up. An "evil campaign" could work if done correctly.
Unfortunately, to do it right, it takes a tremendous amount of resources. It takes so much resources dedicated to doing it the right way, that it just isn't feasabile, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.
|
|
Interesting read thus far.
Back in late 2011, I formed an exploratory committee of VCs to discuss the creation of a second campaign, "The Consortium." I still have the summation report on my desktop. I've always wanted to do something that would allow the player base to see the story from both sides. I thought that would be a really cool idea.
I have played in a two year long successful evil campaign, in the Planescape universe. I also have a conversion to run Carrion Crown as an evil campaign one day. I do have some ideas how it could and would work. I have the ground rules already written up. An "evil campaign" could work if done correctly.
Unfortunately, to do it right, it takes a tremendous amount of resources. It takes so much resources dedicated to doing it the right way, that it just isn't feasible, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.
I for one, just tried throwing money at my computer screen to no avail.
Starting a petition to see who would be interested in such a campaign would be intriguing (as I along with many others absolutely love the Consortium and the role they play in the story)... A strong rules framework would definitely be required to even propose such a thing. Even if we were to have neutral/evil members of the Consortium (they are a NE organization after all) that does not mean that there shouldn't be limits as to what they should do.
|
|
There are a lot of people who are enthralled with the true anti-hero archetype (by anti-hero, I mean Satan in Paradise Lost, Darth Vader, Magneto, etc.), and that is a very compelling narrative choice in fiction: can I have a character be actually evil and still be admirable?I agree - except that none of those characters are anti-heroes. Anti-heroes are characters such as Blade, Wolverine, The Punisher, and Sam Spade. Characters who are doing the right things - but not necessarily in the right ways - and they're tempted to go further. (Comic books are big fans of anti-heroes - hence them being several of my examples.)
What you're describing are simply interesting & well thought out villains. Other than possibly Magneto - I don't think any of them even qualify as anti-villains. (Not an official term - but one I like. I think of the archetype anti-villain as Light from Death Note. The character which you ALMOST want to agree with - but is still definitely the villain. It's done well rather more rarely than anti-heroes.)
(Disclaimer: I've been out of the comics/fiction/literature game for 15 years, so all of these definitions may have changed.)
Originally, the anti-hero was the main character or protagonist who is not the hero: you sympathize with him, you even admire him, but you don't want him to succeed because his success means terrible tragedy for people, possibly even the end of the world. Satan from Paradise Lost was considered the original anti-hero in all my Lit classes. (One of my professors described the anti-hero this way: "If a bad guy shows up as a good guy in the sequel, you've got a decent anti-hero." He was referring to Darth Vader, but by that measure, some of the most famous anti-heroes are Godzilla and the Terminator, which can spawn a fascinating exploration.)
The characters in comic books who usually get labeled as anti-heroes are really just flawed, dark heroes: you want them to win, but you don't necessarily admire them. Most characters who are labeled "anti-heroes" these days are just protagonists who are jerks or otherwise "edgy".
Watchmen did an excellent job of completely blurring the lines between hero, anti-hero, and villain. Unfortunately, what a lot of comic book authors took away from that series was "a@#%&!% heroes are awesome"! (Alan Moore once remarked that if he'd known that would be the result, he'd never have written Watchmen.)
|
|
I can't pretend that I'm going to respond to every thought that's come before me in this thread. I may even end up repeating some things, but here's a couple of experiences I've had with evil characters and evil campaigns.
So, based on my experience, I am extremely skeptical of a successful integration of evil characters into Pathfinder Society. It can be fun in one shot games (the upcoming Aspis Consortium game sounds cool) or if you can get a consistent group to buy into the idea. Just letting random people roll up to the table with evil characters - the risks outweigh the rewards in my eyes.
|
I suppose I should start with some full disclosure: my primary PFS character - currently halfway through Eyes of the Ten - lives on the edge of Lawful Neutral. She is a minor Chelish noble, a Hellknight Signifer in the Order of the Gate, a devout and unabashed follower of Asmodeus, and, perhaps most damning, a fifth-level Diabolist. There is no redemption for her - eventually, she will fall and gladly embrace a Lawful Evil alignment (though I intend this to be a purely "post-retirement" affair).
At the same time, I play her as an exceedingly pleasant and helpful individual - a little snobby, to be sure, but no worse than some Taldans I've met. :P It probably helps that I'm often the main healer-type for our group, but I strive to be a team player and keep everyone - even the paladins that keep glaring at my imp - hale and hearty. I have rescued (and informally adopted) a pair of orphans. I helped to subdue a haunted monastery without any casualties amongst the monks trying to kill us. I brokered a deal with a bound angel for safe passage, dismissed (rather than kill) him when he was turned against us, then opted to abide by my end of the deal anyway.
In truth, it is largely her associations that pull her towards "evil" - the majority of her in-game actions would probably be in line with a follower of Sarenrae, or any number of other traditionally "good" character-types. The closest I have ever come to disrupting the game was a joking reference to wanting to dismiss another player's quasit familiar, something that, while in character (she styles herself as a Demon Hunter), was beyond my capabilities at the time and has deliberately never been repeated since. And I have only once been forced to pay for an atonement to avoid an alignment shift, with the scenario in question being Season 4's
Many of my character concepts have at least a mildly twisted aspect to them. I blame a long-neglected desire to try my hand at GMing and far too many half-formed nefarious plots drifting about inside my head. Consequently, if evil characters were allowed in some fashion, I expect I would be more than happy to try my hand at it, especially if some (though by no means all) of the "evil options" from the various books were made legal for such PCs.
That said, I also recognize the potential problems in allowing evil alignments, both in the terms of "disruptive players" (who I agree would likely be just as disruptive without an evil alignment, but there is something to be said for not giving them the excuse) and in terms of "accessibility" (i.e. "driving away new/young players and/or those uncomfortable with evil party-members"). While I believe evil can be played well and in a manner that adds to the game rather than detracts from it, these are not issues that can be ignored or dismissed, nor are they ones that I pretend to have a solution for... While I would love the chance to play an evil character, I am okay with the status quo at present. Any option allowing players into the deep end of the alignment pool needs to be very carefully considered before ever being implemented, and I am perfectly okay with keeping things the way they are if no suitable system can be decided upon.
Ideally, a separate campaign mode, where everyone knew ahead of time what they were getting into, would probably be the best bet, but as that would likely involve a hefty amount of time, effort, and money on Paizo's part to set up (and could all too easily do so at the expense of PFS proper), I imagine that is the less likely route. As a result, the idea of the "evil boon" seems more feasible, with certain ground rules in place.
Firstly, I would say to take a page from the "We Be Goblins!" modules and set up a re-playable, roleplay-heavy scenario where the players choose from an array of pregenerated evil characters. Limit the people who can GM it (at least at first) to Paizo staff, and probably go no lower than Venture-Captains in the long run, and have them judge each player on their ability to play evil constructively as part of a team. I have no idea how to go about codifying this - it is largely a judgment call and inherently subjective - but those who manage to do so to the GM's satisfaction get the boon while those who do not are free to try again at a later date.
Secondly, I think there should be a general understanding that playing an evil character is a privilege, not a right. The table should be made aware of what you intend on bringing as early as possible and, if anyone (player or GM) is uncomfortable playing with an evil character for any reason, it should be the responsibility of the player with the boon to accommodate by either playing a different character, playing a pregen, or bowing out. It's seems a bit harsh, but given the nature of this boon, I feel it is of particular importance that the player have reason to be respectful of others' concerns. And as a corollary: Paladins have right of way. If someone's bringing a paladin, play something else.
Thirdly, all the standard pro-teamwork, anti-backstabbing measures should very much be in full effect. If you are being disruptive, the GM can and should instruct you to stop and, if ignored, can and should drop you from the game.
Most, if not all, of these ideas have been brought up by others and there are plenty of concerns that would need to be addressed, but as I'm up far too late as it is and I've got work in the morning, I need to leave my 2cp here and try to get to bed... -_-
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I haven't been posting on the thread because I am done with it, I want nothing to do with it and would perfer it to be closed, because of people like quadstriker and seth, there was not to be a thread to post doubts, this was a thread to discuss the possiblity. I might ask lamberts to close it actually.
I would advice against doing so and stating you intent of forums like this. People tend to read it as "I didn't get the response I wanted to, so no I am taking my ball and going home".
And as others have mentioned, this is actually way more productive than most threads on this subject.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Not allowing one-third of the alignments is just restricting character options for no reason. More choices always makes for a better game."
That's why I stopped playing chess. Those tournament organizers got so flustered when I stabbed my oponent for taking my queen. They just wanted to limit my choices! (And I had warned him.)
|
|
Interesting read thus far.
Back in late 2011, I formed an exploratory committee of VCs to discuss the creation of a second campaign, "The Consortium." I still have the summation report on my desktop. I've always wanted to do something that would allow the player base to see the story from both sides. I thought that would be a really cool idea.
I have played in a two year long succesful evil campaign, in the Planescape universe. I also have a conversion to run Carrion Crown as an evil campaign one day. I do have some ideas how it could and would work. I have the ground rules already written up. An "evil campaign" could work if done correctly.
Unfortunately, to do it right, it takes a tremendous amount of resources. It takes so much resources dedicated to doing it the right way, that it just isn't feasabile, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.
That was my fear, right there. Thanks for chiming in on the discussion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would absolutely love to play a Kuthonite priest, complete with enough S&M goodness to make Zarta blush, but I know that's not going to be appropriate for PFS. that's what home games are for.
"mature" is entirely too subjective. I'm a four star GM. I've been a store coordinator for over a year. I'm 37 years old. and I still giggle at poop jokes.
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
Interesting read thus far.
Back in late 2011, I formed an exploratory committee of VCs to discuss the creation of a second campaign, "The Consortium." I still have the summation report on my desktop. I've always wanted to do something that would allow the player base to see the story from both sides. I thought that would be a really cool idea.
I have played in a two year long successful evil campaign, in the Planescape universe. I also have a conversion to run Carrion Crown as an evil campaign one day. I do have some ideas how it could and would work. I have the ground rules already written up. An "evil campaign" could work if done correctly.
Unfortunately, to do it right, it takes a tremendous amount of resources. It takes so much resources dedicated to doing it the right way, that it just isn't feasible, at least not anytime in the foreseeable future.
I for one, just tried throwing money at my computer screen to no avail.
Same for me. I threw money at my screen but nothing happened.
|
|
Same for me. I threw money at my screen but nothing happened.
I for one, just tried throwing money at my computer screen to no avail.
Didn't work for me either.
Snicker, bro, don't make me regret defending you. Either hide the thread or participate, telling us you want to lock the thing is, frankly, bad sportsmanship.