I don't like Pathfinder, because I'm the Bad Guy

[Calenor]

It seems that the main problem is not PFS, but your GM.

Spoiler:

I.e. Among the Living(among the Dead has no innocent NPC), there is no reason not to protect innocent people, the problem seems to be that the GM wanted to push you to 'the main objective', and to avoid that the group splits.

And Merchants Wake,... You show up at the location for biz reasons, but the PC are the heroes of the day, slaying all the Undead and try to save at least 1 NPC. Basic survival would be hiding in a room, defending it and checking if u can reach the stables for a fast get away.

[graywulfe]

Koujow wrote:

Stolen Heir Spoilers

** spoiler omitted **

This might be kind of pushing it, but I don't think that adventures like "Among the Dead" and "The Merchant's Wake" as you being a heroic good guy. ** spoiler omitted **...

Stolen Heir Spoilers:

The scenario does not make it clear that siding with the girl will destabilize the area. One NPC, who would benefit if you side against the girl claims that siding with the girl would destabilize the area. The scenario tells the GM nothing of the long term results of either decision on the area.

[Laif]

Aaron Motta wrote:

Laif wrote:

Logged just to say, Great Paladin, not Stupid Legal, there is hope in the PFS if there are some of these around.

And I'd say the exact opposite. "The ends justify the means" is exactly the opposite of what a paladin should believe.

A paladin would sacrifice himself for the greater good, he understands that sometimes someone else must be sacrificed for the greater good and he/she must bear that with great honor.

[thejeff]

Laif wrote:

Aaron Motta wrote:

Laif wrote:

Logged just to say, Great Paladin, not Stupid Legal, there is hope in the PFS if there are some of these around.

And I'd say the exact opposite. "The ends justify the means" is exactly the opposite of what a paladin should believe.

A paladin would sacrifice himself for the greater good, he understands that sometimes someone else must be sacrificed for the greater good and he/she must bear that with great honor.

Of course that requires being sure that doing what this neutralish Society orders actually is the greater good.

The "sacrificing people for the greater good" argument could also be used to justify almost anything, including things clearly banned to Paladins.

[Laif]

Yes, it really depends on where is your North in your morale and how your god will accept that kind of facts. If your god is a L/N Fighting deity, maybe it will say: Hey dude, Good job, they fought bravely and gained the rest of you enough time to defend the city, you keep your powers another day. If you worship a L/G Life-loving it can say: Oh my! What are you doing, you must free her or there won't be more smity smity for ya'.

Every paladin is a world as each paladin is a diferent person.
The choices are good?, bad?, who decides it? We can use our morale standars IRL for it, but are they the best for that fantasy world?
Let the player decide it and the GM be reasonable enough to warn the player if he is doing something questionable.

[claudekennilol]

Blackbot wrote:

Actually, the scenario is not that simple, claudekennilol.

Spoiler for The Stolen Heir
** spoiler omitted **

How it was presented to us was that simple, the daughter never told us that line of dialog.

Spoiler:

We never had a chance to address the consul. We confronted the apothecary, decided against letting the daughter be locked away, and the scenario immediately ended and we were awarded 1 prestige. It is that simple if the troops were still funded--it shouldn't matter where they came from especially when we were told to root out corruption.

> Also, the scenario makes it clear that supporting the daughter will destabilize the area. Even though (having read the actual scenario), I know that it will not. This scenario actually does have an interesting moral choice.

It totally didn't. In fact, everything presented to us showed that the current guy in charge was already destabilizing the area.

(edit: to be clear the "it totally didn't" was in reference to the scenario making it clear, I totally agree that it had an interesting moral choice, I was just disheartened that we were already told which choice to make when we were briefed and told to root out corruption--and that the mission briefing specifically goes against the second prestige goal)

[Tuna Slaad]

Calenor wrote:

It seems that the main problem is not PFS, but your GM

Ding ding ding ding

Have a cigar! You got it right.

You are not forced to do everything to get every secondary condition.

[Koujow]

I apologize. What I meant was the alchemist makes that claim. I misspoke when I said the entire scenario. You guys are right.

[Blackbot]

Did not want to start a paladin discussion. If you must, please start another thread for this.
I am aware that his actions were questionable. But then again, the situation at hand really did not have a perfect answer.
Stolen Heir Spoiler:

Spoiler:

It was a paladin of Schelyn, if that does matter. You could argue that he aimed to prevent a conflict before it blossomed. But again - I realize that this is a very tough choice and you could argue both ways whether he was doing a good or a bad thing. I think that letting the daughter live in custody for a few years to save the lifes of hundreds of people is the right thing to do in that situation, but I understand everybody who does not share this view. Hell, my country's constitution probably disagrees with this!
But that guy is a paladin of Shelyn, not of Germany.

Again, if somebody wants to create a thread discussing this specific dilemma, I'd be delighted to take part in it. It really IS a very, very difficult decision.

[ElterAgo]

I distinctly remember a few early faction missions that my character simply refused to do because it just seemed too evil.

There have been several that fulfilling the PFS desires while staying on (what felt to me like) the side of good was difficult but still possible. I actually don't have a problem with that. Sometimes being the good guy is tough.

Sometimes our skills were not up to the task of doing the 'good' thing.

There are also some players/PC's that won't even bother trying to do things the good way and just pick the most expedient route.

[pauljathome]

Aaron Motta wrote:

Whenever I'm trying to figure out what (I believe) is the right course of action for a paladin, I just ask WWSD (what would Superman do)?

To imprison an innocent - in a gilded cage or otherwise - is wrong. Even when it is done in the name of the greater good. You know that road to hell? The one that is paved with good intentions? This is it. The ends do not justify the means. A paladin would reject the "railroad track dilemma" as a false dichotomy, and find another way -- or die trying.

Which is a funny argument for me to be making, because I'm often accused of being a moral relativist. :P

Its far too simplistic for my tastes to say The Ends Never Justify The Means.

Any paladin who believes that really should NOT join the Pathfinder Society. He'll come into an unresolvable conflict.

When creating a good character for PFS the responsibility is on the player to determine WHY he would become and remain a Pathfinder. Not all character concepts are viable Pathfinders.

Paladins are quite viable Pathfinders. Inflexible characters aren't.

[thejeff]

pauljathome wrote:

Aaron Motta wrote:

Whenever I'm trying to figure out what (I believe) is the right course of action for a paladin, I just ask WWSD (what would Superman do)?

To imprison an innocent - in a gilded cage or otherwise - is wrong. Even when it is done in the name of the greater good. You know that road to hell? The one that is paved with good intentions? This is it. The ends do not justify the means. A paladin would reject the "railroad track dilemma" as a false dichotomy, and find another way -- or die trying.

Which is a funny argument for me to be making, because I'm often accused of being a moral relativist. :P

Its far too simplistic for my tastes to say The Ends Never Justify The Means.

Any paladin who believes that really should NOT join the Pathfinder Society. He'll come into an unresolvable conflict.

When creating a good character for PFS the responsibility is on the player to determine WHY he would become and remain a Pathfinder. Not all character concepts are viable Pathfinders.

Paladins are quite viable Pathfinders. Inflexible characters aren't.

For a Paladin, the ends do not justify evil means. A paladin who willfully commits an evil act falls.

They can "ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil", but even then they need to atone. No such exception is made for committing evil acts yourself.

[GM Tyrant Princess]

peeks head in

Ooh... paladin thread!

sits down to watch

[Kalindlara]

More seriously, in PFS, does the table GM have total power to decide if your paladin falls? Can one contest this with the regional Venture-Captain if they think it was an unfair call?

[graywulfe]

Koujow wrote:

I apologize. What I meant was the alchemist makes that claim. I misspoke when I said the entire scenario. You guys are right.

I'm not sure if you are accepting that the scenario does not require you to make the "evil" choice. If you are convinced RE this scenario then don't bother reading the spoiler.

continuing argument:

So the Alchemist, who is on the other side of what you think is right, gives an argument for why her way is better, and you just accepted it? How is that the scenarios fault?

[Grandmaster of the Shadow Lodge]

Getting away from Paladins, lest the thread de-rail, how can ANY good character justify some of what goes on with the Pathfinder Society, particularly orders handed down exclusively from the Decemvirate? The orders can only be vaguely construed as being even remotely moral (Retrieve this item AT ANY COST seems like it would be a warning sign to PCs that these people are at the very low end of neutral at best, unless there is some reason to expect that the items in question are horrendously powerful and highly dangerous!), and even then you have to work hard to formulate a reason to MAKE the situation even slightly moral. I'm not saying all missions work out that way, but enough do that it seems very much like any person with scruples would say 'shove it Decemvirate'. I'm surprised that only two major splinters have arisen in the Society, those being the Silver Crusade and the in-hiding Shadow Lodge.

[Draco Bahamut]

The Silver Crusade is a good exemple of how good should behave in the Pathfinder Society. They know that the Pathfinder Society is a loose sword, but it can be guided to do good deeds, so they try to make the best to all missions. What a paladin would do in the army in the present day ? He would fall day one ? He would try to fight the system ? Or he would fight each day knowing that the world is not perfect (and never would be), but he would try to do his part ?

[Ross Byers]

Laif wrote:

Aaron Motta wrote:

Laif wrote:

Logged just to say, Great Paladin, not Stupid Legal, there is hope in the PFS if there are some of these around.

And I'd say the exact opposite. "The ends justify the means" is exactly the opposite of what a paladin should believe.

A paladin would sacrifice himself for the greater good, he understands that sometimes someone else must be sacrificed for the greater good and he/she must bear that with great honor.

That's almost the defining difference between Good and Evil.

Good sacrifices self.
Evil 'sacrifices' others.

Asking someone to take one for the team isn't Good, but it's asking them to be Good.

Telling someone 'Well, someone needed to take one for the team. The team decided that was you' is not Good.

Good is Hard.

[TriOmegaZero]

I don't really see the problem that the OP has in my games. There have been some very questionable missions, but it is never the Society as a whole that is endorsing them, just specific members. For every Zarta Dralneen we have, there is an Ollystra Zadrian. That's why the Pathfinder Society is Neutral. If you undertake Evil actions, that isn't representative of the Society, it is a representation of your character.

[Laif]

Ross Byers wrote:

Laif wrote:

Aaron Motta wrote:

Laif wrote:

Logged just to say, Great Paladin, not Stupid Legal, there is hope in the PFS if there are some of these around.

And I'd say the exact opposite. "The ends justify the means" is exactly the opposite of what a paladin should believe.

A paladin would sacrifice himself for the greater good, he understands that sometimes someone else must be sacrificed for the greater good and he/she must bear that with great honor.

That's almost the defining difference between Good and Evil.

Good sacrifices self.
Evil 'sacrifices' others.

Asking someone to take one for the team isn't Good, but it's asking them to be Good.

Telling someone 'Well, someone needed to take one for the team. The team decided that was you' is not Good.

Good is Hard.

Meh, it's the eternal dilemma of the weight of Life aaaaaand I'm not entering there.

Cya.

[thejeff]

Ross Byers wrote:

Laif wrote:

Aaron Motta wrote:

Laif wrote:

Logged just to say, Great Paladin, not Stupid Legal, there is hope in the PFS if there are some of these around.

And I'd say the exact opposite. "The ends justify the means" is exactly the opposite of what a paladin should believe.

A paladin would sacrifice himself for the greater good, he understands that sometimes someone else must be sacrificed for the greater good and he/she must bear that with great honor.

That's almost the defining difference between Good and Evil.

Good sacrifices self.
Evil 'sacrifices' others.

Asking someone to take one for the team isn't Good, but it's asking them to be Good.

Telling someone 'Well, someone needed to take one for the team. The team decided that was you' is not Good.

Good is Hard.

Good shouldn't be Hard in the game, if you want to encourage PCs to be Good. If you want Heroism, make heroics work. If you want Good, make Good work.

If you want amoral, sociopathically practical bastards, go for "Evil wins because Good is dumb".

[Mikaze]

thejeff wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Laif wrote:

Aaron Motta wrote:

Laif wrote:

Logged just to say, Great Paladin, not Stupid Legal, there is hope in the PFS if there are some of these around.

And I'd say the exact opposite. "The ends justify the means" is exactly the opposite of what a paladin should believe.

A paladin would sacrifice himself for the greater good, he understands that sometimes someone else must be sacrificed for the greater good and he/she must bear that with great honor.

That's almost the defining difference between Good and Evil.

Good sacrifices self.
Evil 'sacrifices' others.

Asking someone to take one for the team isn't Good, but it's asking them to be Good.

Telling someone 'Well, someone needed to take one for the team. The team decided that was you' is not Good.

Good is Hard.

Good shouldn't be Hard in the game, if you want to encourage PCs to be Good. If you want Heroism, make heroics work. If you want Good, make Good work.

If you want amoral, sociopathically practical bastards, go for "Evil wins because Good is dumb".

I actually agree with both this and Ross' statement taken together. I want Good to require work. But I also want it to work rather than getting hung out to dry most of the time.

It would not break my heart one bit to see the sliding scale of idealism vs cynicism in the gaming/fantasy community swing hard towards idealism. It would beat the hell out of the bleak "good is dumb/ineffectual" and "good in name only" portrayals we get bombarded with. But sociopathy is in and empathy is out in so many corners these days.

[TriOmegaZero]

Indeed. My games involve being good as a difficult road, with commensurate benefits.

[Fomsie]

Mikaze wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

That's almost the defining difference between Good and Evil.

Good sacrifices self.
Evil 'sacrifices' others.

Asking someone to take one for the team isn't Good, but it's asking them to be Good.

Telling someone 'Well, someone needed to take one for the team. The team decided that was you' is not Good.

Good is Hard.

Good shouldn't be Hard in the game, if you want to encourage PCs to be Good. If you want Heroism, make heroics work. If you want Good, make Good work.

If you want amoral, sociopathically practical bastards, go for "Evil wins because Good is dumb".

I actually agree with both this and Ross' statement taken together. I want Good to require work. But I also want it to work rather than getting hung out to dry most of the time.

It would not break my heart one bit to see the sliding scale of idealism vs cynicism in the gaming/fantasy community swing hard towards idealism. It would beat the hell out of the bleak "good is dumb/ineffectual" and "good in name only" portrayals we get bombarded with. But sociopathy is in and empathy is out in so many corners these days.

I agree and it is saddening at times... of course making the marginalized, antisocial outcast "cool" and able to thumb their nose at the established society often holds a certain appeal to those who consider themselves marginalized, anti social outcasts, especially in today's often distrusting, cynical society. It is a kind of empowerment fantasy.

[LazarX]

thejeff wrote:

Good shouldn't be Hard in the game, if you want to encourage PCs to be Good. If you want Heroism, make heroics work. If you want Good, make Good work.

If you want amoral, sociopathically practical bastards, go for "Evil wins because Good is dumb".

You're one of the last people I expect to put forward the choice as between only two extremes.

Having GMed enough scenarios to earn three stars, I can say that in many cases it's a matter of PC's not considering any other way to do their missions save the murderhobo approach.

Case in point "neutral good" Andoran Druid whose mission is to liberate the slave held by a water merchant. Did said PC consider diplomacy? Did he consider simply buying the slave? No... he simply snuck up behind and murdered him in cold blood, especially since the lattter had just saved his life by leading him out of a desert which he would not have found the way himself. Only time I've ever changed a PC's alignment on the spot.

There are usually a variety of ways to accomplish a goal written into the scenario. and some possible that are not written in. It's not the scenario authors' fault when players don't even consider other options besides the MurderHobo approach.

[Mattastrophic]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Indeed. My games involve being good as a difficult road, with commensurate benefits.

Problem is... the Pathfinder Society campaign makes being good unsatisfying and un-beneficial. And then there's the problem of needing the whole party to be willing to go down that road with you.

-Matt

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Good shouldn't be Hard in the game, if you want to encourage PCs to be Good. If you want Heroism, make heroics work. If you want Good, make Good work.

If you want amoral, sociopathically practical bastards, go for "Evil wins because Good is dumb".

You're one of the last people I expect to put forward the choice as between only two extremes.

Having GMed enough scenarios to earn three stars, I can say that in many cases it's a matter of PC's not considering any other way to do their missions save the murderhobo approach.

Case in point "neutral good" Andoran Druid whose mission is to liberate the slave held by a water merchant. Did said PC consider diplomacy? Did he consider simply buying the slave? No... he simply snuck up behind and murdered him in cold blood, especially since the lattter had just saved his life by leading him out of a desert which he would not have found the way himself. Only time I've ever changed a PC's alignment on the spot.

There are usually a variety of ways to accomplish a goal written into the scenario. and some possible that are not written in. It's not the scenario authors' fault when players don't even consider other options besides the MurderHobo approach.

Certainly true. You always can play Good, no matter how hard the game makes it. It might be short lived, but you can do it.

Some will always want to be murderhobos, even when the game makes good easy and punishes crimes.

But how the game is set up can encourage or discourage either.

[TriOmegaZero]

Mattastrophic wrote:

Problem is... the Pathfinder Society campaign makes being good unsatisfying and un-beneficial. And then there's the problem of needing the whole party to be willing to go down that road with you.

-Matt

I guess I've just been lucky to be able to play my Good and my not-Good characters without a problem.

[Netopalis]

Personally, I have played a lot of good aligned characters and have never had a huge problem in the campaign. I did voluntarily fail two faction missions, however. Do I feel that I'm worse off for it? Hardly. Those were great opportunities for my character to shine in roleplaying.

Society play presents moral quandaries indeed, but without exploring those quandaries, characters remain two-dimensional. A good GM is open to alternative solutions to try to get around these problems. Remember - run as written only applies to what's written - it is wholly within the purview of the PFS GM to react to novel approaches by players.

Edit to add: One of the biggest alignment hurdles I've ever had in a scenario was actually with an uber-lawful, yet neutral Chelaxian character that I later ditched. The scenario was The Penumbral Accords. Spoiler below:

The Penumbral Accords:

So, the scenario involves breaking a contract between the Blakros family and a group of shadow plane entities that they contracted with. These entities required the Blakroses to hand over their firstborn daughter every generation. My LN, borderline evil character saw absolutely no problem with this and was rather shocked that the Society wanted him to actually break a contact.

[Calenor]

Mattastrophic wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Indeed. My games involve being good as a difficult road, with commensurate benefits.

Problem is... the Pathfinder Society campaign makes being good unsatisfying and un-beneficial. And then there's the problem of needing the whole party to be willing to go down that road with you.

-Matt

You gain extra Prestige if you hail from Libertys Edge or Silver Crusade and do the 'good' stuff (Most of the time).

You also get boons, if you do it right. (i.e. Wardstone Patrol + Slave Masters Mirror), so you get a reward beeing the good one, a different than Dark Archives People for beeing the strange. :))

the only problem i can see, is when the rest of the party gets the murder hobo approach, this can spoil the good chars work, without an chance to stop them (physical).

[Alexander Augunas]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

The Pathfinder Society has Evil competition: the Aspis Consortium.

The Pathfinder Society needs Good competition. Anyone want to start the Andoren Geographic Society?

I think that the problem with this would be that most Good Pathfinders would end up wondering to themselves, "Why I am I playing for the morally ambiguous side? Why can't I just join up with the Andoren Geographic Society instead?"

[ElterAgo]

Andrew Shumate wrote:

...

Edit to add: One of the biggest alignment hurdles I've ever had in a scenario was actually with an uber-lawful, yet neutral Chelaxian character that I later ditched. The scenario was The Penumbral Accords. Spoiler below:

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

Yeah that one gave a lot of our table a weird vibe. We kinda wanted to say, "What the heck, you're the nasty people that made a deal with the devil. Why should we help you back out on your part after you've taken advantage of it for years?" But all of us eventually decided that the 'sacrificial victims' didn't make the deal so didn't have any say in it.

.
.

Mattastrophic wrote:

... And then there's the problem of needing the whole party to be willing to go down that road with you. ...

Won't say it never happens, but I have rarely had a situation where the group won't let me try the 'good guy' approach. Even if it is not their preferred or the first thing they think of, they will almost always let me give it a try.

[Bill Dunn]

Pathfinders aren't as different from Indiana Jones as some people seem to think. Indiana Jones may take the line "It belongs in a museum," but that's still grave robbing. And the latest morality on that is "it does not belong in a museum," it belongs back in the grave. Or at least it belongs to the culture or bloodline/family of closest relation to the grave from which the artifact was stolen.

The main difference between Jones and the mercenary archaeologists he opposes is the accessibility of the artifact after it has been stolen. Is he stealing it for a private collection with private access or for a private collection with public access?

[GeoffA]

I actually enjoyed Stolen Heir for the interesting moral dilemma it presented. I played it at a con, where there were 2-3 different tables of the same mod over the course of the weekend and we had some great conversations on the theme, "oh, your table did it THAT way?"

My Experience in Stolen Heir:

I played this mod with a character who is chaotic good, and very devoted to Calistria. He is very big on helping the underdog and getting revenge for those who can't do it for themselves. Rescuing a girl who was sneakily kidnapped by her own father was right in his wheelhouse for role-playing. I was pleasantly surprised when I said "This is an important religious point for my character, and I don't think we should let this guy go unpunished just because he is influential" the rest of the table was pretty willing to go along with me.

Here's another story about having trouble doing good . . .

My Experience in Masks of the Living God:

I had the misfortune to play this mod with my paladin. He was the right level, and he had played through Crypt of the Everflame, but he was a terrible, terrible choice to sneak into an evil cultist gang. There were multiple opportunities where I had to choose between making non-Paladin choices or really derailing the whole game for the rest of the table. I went for the "don't be a jerk" option, and voluntarily paid for an atonement afterwards, though the GM said I didn't have to. He was just being nice because I didn't disrupt his table too much . . .

[claudekennilol]

Blackbot wrote:

Did not want to start a paladin discussion. If you must, please start another thread for this.

I am aware that his actions were questionable. But then again, the situation at hand really did not have a perfect answer.
Stolen Heir Spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **

Again, if somebody wants to create a thread discussing this specific dilemma, I'd be delighted to take part in it. It really IS a very, very difficult decision.

The way the scenario was presented to us..

Spoiler:

By saving the daughter and not letting her be shipped away, we still got the funding for the soldiers. So not only did we complete the goal of getting funding, but we also saved the town from a corrupt official who was letting the town waste away--and completed the goal we were given by rooting out corruption. That's my problem, we did everything that the briefing told us to do, but the secondary success condition was in direct opposition of the briefing (and was a more evil act, imo).

[Warwick Cailean]

Stolen Heir:

I enjoyed the dilemma in this one, but I had a moral dilemma of a different kind. As the table contemplated it, all of the Andorans looked to my Bard, who had been the party face, and asked "What should we do?" My response: "I think when the fate of Andoran is at stake, you probably shouldn't ask the Taldan."

For the record, we sided with the girl and got military support from the Eagle Knight.

[graywulfe]

claudekennilol wrote:

Blackbot wrote:

Did not want to start a paladin discussion. If you must, please start another thread for this.

I am aware that his actions were questionable. But then again, the situation at hand really did not have a perfect answer.
Stolen Heir Spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **

Again, if somebody wants to create a thread discussing this specific dilemma, I'd be delighted to take part in it. It really IS a very, very difficult decision.

The way the scenario was presented to us..

Spoiler:

By saving the daughter and not letting her be shipped away, we still got the funding for the soldiers. So not only did we complete the goal of getting funding, but we also saved the town from a corrupt official who was letting the town waste away--and completed the goal we were given by rooting out corruption. That's my problem, we did everything that the briefing told us to do, but the secondary success condition was in direct opposition of the briefing (and was a more evil act, imo).

Okay I will say this again more plainly. The secondary success conditions did not require that.

Actual Secondary Success conditions:

The PCs successfully complete their secondary mission if
they secure military aid for the Pathfinder Society. The PCs
accomplish this either by accepting Koriana’s deal or by
independently convincing Consul Sander Bryton it’s in his
best interests to send the Eagle Knights north to Mendev.

I can't say this any more clearly. There it is in black and white.

[claudekennilol]

graywulfe wrote:

claudekennilol wrote:

Blackbot wrote:

Did not want to start a paladin discussion. If you must, please start another thread for this.

I am aware that his actions were questionable. But then again, the situation at hand really did not have a perfect answer.
Stolen Heir Spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **

Again, if somebody wants to create a thread discussing this specific dilemma, I'd be delighted to take part in it. It really IS a very, very difficult decision.

The way the scenario was presented to us..

** spoiler omitted **

Okay I will say this again more plainly. The secondary success conditions did not require that.

** spoiler omitted **

I can't say this any more clearly. There it is in black and white.

Ah, that's not what we were told.

Spoiler:

We were told that the we must get the funds directly from the mayor

The GM ended our scenario as soon as we "saved the girl".

[TriOmegaZero]

My play through ended much the same way, as we were at the end of the convention slot by the time the fight in the shop was over. We didn't have time to pursue the other lead, or much inclination.

[graywulfe]

claudekennilol wrote:

graywulfe wrote:

claudekennilol wrote:

Blackbot wrote:

Did not want to start a paladin discussion. If you must, please start another thread for this.

I am aware that his actions were questionable. But then again, the situation at hand really did not have a perfect answer.
Stolen Heir Spoiler:
** spoiler omitted **

Again, if somebody wants to create a thread discussing this specific dilemma, I'd be delighted to take part in it. It really IS a very, very difficult decision.

The way the scenario was presented to us..

** spoiler omitted **

Okay I will say this again more plainly. The secondary success conditions did not require that.

** spoiler omitted **

I can't say this any more clearly. There it is in black and white.

Ah, that's not what we were told.

** spoiler omitted **

The GM ended our scenario as soon as we "saved the girl".

Then I am sorry, but your GM ran it wrong.

[UnArcaneElection]

Alexander Augunas wrote:

UnArcaneElection wrote:

The Pathfinder Society has Evil competition: the Aspis Consortium.

The Pathfinder Society needs Good competition. Anyone want to start the Andoren Geographic Society?

I think that the problem with this would be that most Good Pathfinders would end up wondering to themselves, "Why I am I playing for the morally ambiguous side? Why can't I just join up with the Andoren Geographic Society instead?"

Yes -- and how is this supposed to be a problem for anyone other than the Pathfinder Society itself?

[BigNorseWolf]

Because when you're a doctor you go to the sick.

When you're a philanthropist you go to the poor.

When you're a redeemer you go to the pathfinders!

[thejeff]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Alexander Augunas wrote:

UnArcaneElection wrote:

The Pathfinder Society has Evil competition: the Aspis Consortium.

The Pathfinder Society needs Good competition. Anyone want to start the Andoren Geographic Society?

I think that the problem with this would be that most Good Pathfinders would end up wondering to themselves, "Why I am I playing for the morally ambiguous side? Why can't I just join up with the Andoren Geographic Society instead?"

Yes -- and how is this supposed to be a problem for anyone other than the Pathfinder Society itself?

In the game world, it's not.

It would be a problem for players since joining the AGS instead of PFS means they can't play PFS.

[DarkPhoenixx]

Koujow wrote:

This thread may contain minor spoilers. I am going to be generally vague about my spoilers and not mention any specific scenarios, but others might.

When I first started playing PFS, the guy who introduced me to the game described the Pathfinders as "A Guild of Indiana Joneses". That sounds pretty cool! I like Indiana Jones! Punching Nazis in the face, finding ancient treasures and rescuing villages from evil cults? Sign me up! But after a year and a half of Pathfinering, I feel like if Indiana Jones was in Golarion, we would be the nameless henchmen that he fights. I think the Pathfinder Society are the bad guys of this story.

This isn't "well, it is a matter of perspective" or "The Pathfinders are morally ambiguous". This isn't even me being/playing a Lawful Stupid person. I have a variety of characters that have seen, partaken in or been told about straight up villainous activities. In my PFS career, I have been an accomplice to or at least been told about:

-Kidnapping nobility (on several occasions)
-Selling children into slavery (The players were pretending to be Aspis Consortium agents for the scenario, but it does not change what they did. I was not a part of this scenario, so who knows, maybe they were 'evil' children...)
-Protecting a necromancer
-Broke the Laws of Man...
-...then killed the guards sent to arrest us.
-Breaking and Entering into a dead man's home...
-...and then stealing the guys stuff
-Desecrated tombs (Not loot on an archeological dig, but desecrated)
-Extortion (on several occasions)
-Assassination
-Cut out a guys freaking tongue

I feel like if I go through my chronicle sheets, I could find a dozen more horrible, terrible things that we have done that I am opposed to.

"But Koujow, you could have chosen to not do those things or stopped the players who did!" You would think, if I wasn't being blocked by the players, if not the GM. Take the 'Protecting the Necromancer' scenario above. According to the GM, this Necromancer bought slaves, murdered...

Kinada why i do not play PFS anymore - if you truly play you character you gonna screw other people from their fame points. Its too "competitive" in that regard.

[pauljathome]

DarkPhoenixx wrote:

Kinada why i do not play PFS anymore - if you truly play you character you gonna screw other people from their fame points. Its too "competitive" in that regard.

It really isn't. You just have to create a character who has a built in reason to be a Pathfinder, a character for whom cooperation is quite important.

With that in place the issues are generally extremely minor,

But not all character concepts make good Pathfinders.

[ElterAgo]

pauljathome wrote:

DarkPhoenixx wrote:

Kinada why i do not play PFS anymore - if you truly play you character you gonna screw other people from their fame points. Its too "competitive" in that regard.

It really isn't. You just have to create a character who has a built in reason to be a Pathfinder, a character for whom cooperation is quite important.

With that in place the issues are generally extremely minor,

But not all character concepts make good Pathfinders.

Absolutely true. I have several concepts that I am just itching to play some day. But I am quite aware they make no sense as PFS agents.

One is actually pretty close to the Lawful Stupid paladin holy crusader. Waits for someone he trusts to tell him where the 'evil' is to begin smiting.

Another is trying to setup a 'civilized' hobgoblin nation.

The last is megalomaniacal caster who intends to rule the world and tell people what to do for their own good.

I think I can have fun with all three of these characters (without disrupting my team of players), but I am perfectly aware they make no sense for PFS. They are waiting in the wings for the correct home game situation.

I have plenty of other concepts that do work for PFS.

[claudekennilol]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

My play through ended much the same way, as we were at the end of the convention slot by the time the fight in the shop was over. We didn't have time to pursue the other lead, or much inclination.

For us the whole scenario only took about 2-3 hours. I don't remember as it was a few weekends ago, but yeah, it sounds like the GM cut it off early and inadvertently cheated us out of a chance to earn our second prestige point.

[AdAstraGames]

This is making me itch to make my LN Murder subdomain Inquisitor.
Or my LG Paladin of Abadar who uses his missionary zeal to sell people on tithing to the church as an insurance policy...

"It is a very nice business you have here. It would be most...unfortunate...if it were to fall outside of the aegis of the Prince of Trade. Are your tithes current?"

"We thank you for your contribution to Mutual of Abadar. Together, we grow strong communities."

[Sharra Tal]

Ey. I am not a bad guy.

I am just morally flexible. Misunderstood, as it were.

At the very least you can't prove anything.

-s

[Corragh Bearson]

This is part of why all my characters are Andoran/Liberty's edge - opposing the slave trade is a big enough good that questionable stuff I may need to do is almost always justifiable and I never have faction missions that ask me to compromise the character's core values because those valus are the same as the factions.

That said I HAVE had occasions where I wanted to kill someone involved in the slave trade, torture them for information, or skin them alive to use their skin as a regent for a spell that would have produced a highly useful map to our destination and I wasn't allowed to because the gm ruled such actions would be evil. F&*+ that IMO, my true neutral druid thinks skinning an animal is morally equivalent to skinning a human but he's not telling anyone they can't wear leather armor. And if the info would help him rescue people imprisoned by slavers than killing or torturing slavers to get the info is (from his frame of reference) completely justified. I see Liberty's Edge being less Indiana Jones and more like the Spanish CNT in '36 or John Brown or Spartacus's slave army that fought Rome. To people who value the status quo revolutionaries are villains. To a revolutionary, that's a compliment.

TLDR: Morality is largely relative and the pathfinder's being nuetral facilitates that. If you don't like the faction missions you're getting choose a different faction.