|
As the title says. I've wanted to -try- PFS for a while now, but have run into the snag. I play almost exclusively evil characters, and PFS bans evil. Now, here is the thing, I am willing to negotiate on most -evil- qualities my typical characters possess, but one thing I cannot negotiate on is a generally low view on commoners and disregard for the plight of the poor. I like to play decadent, corrupt noble types more often then not, and while I can bring myself to play them without the decadence and outright corruption, the part I want kept in tact is a view of commoners as lesser and a mindset that lets them be 100% ok with the fact large numbers of people live in abject poverty while a select few live in luxury due purely to the luck of what family they where born into.
So, my question becomes, can you have a character with this kind of outlook on commoners/the poor and poverty and have them maintain a non-evil(Note I didn't say good...I doubt this kind of character could ever be -good- so I'm ideally shooting for neutral here, if that's even possible) alignment? If so, I'd appreciate advice on how such a feat could be achieved. So if any of you have ideas on this, I'd be grateful if you shared them here.
A Taldan nobleman who believes the poor are poor because they are lazy can be good (he's just also rather stupid and/or misinformed). You don't have to be Mother Theresa to write Good on your character sheet.
Good and being altruistic aren't one and the same. A relatively Good person might not worry much about the plight of poor people, especially poor people who are relatively low in the grand scheme of things.
Take, for instance, angels. If Good absolutely had to mourn the plight of the poor, then why wouldn't the legions of Heaven swoop down into the world en mass and try to help all of them and improve their lot in life without question, because clearly they don't. The grim answer is that one family suffering from poverty just isn't very grand in the cosmic scale, especially not when compared with the horrors of the Abyss.
Likewise, disregarding the poor doesn't necessarily make you Evil, either. Its only when that disregard takes an Evil outlet, such as violence, where you might have to reconsider your alignment.
Not caring about the poor is more Neutral. Trying to help them would be good. Trying to hurt them would be evil.
I play almost exclusively evil characters, and PFS bans evil. Now, here is the thing, I am willing to negotiate on most -evil- qualities my typical characters possess, but one thing I cannot negotiate on is a generally low view on commoners and disregard for the plight of the poor. I like to play decadent, corrupt noble types more often then not, and while I can bring myself to play them without the decadence and outright corruption, the part I want kept in tact is a view of commoners as lesser and a mindset that lets them be 100% ok with the fact large numbers of people live in abject poverty while a select few live in luxury due purely to the luck of what family they where born into.
This raises an interesting point that has little to do with the answer you want.
Do you know why you play characters like this?Are you like that at all? My guess is no.
Its an interest of mine. A lot of role players tend tend to play one sort of character over and again. Sometimes this is just the real person transferred to the game world, and this is not particularly interesting.
But other instances seem to have nothing to do with the real personality.
My nephew likes to play manipulative total bastards.
One friend plays very noble and good characters.
Another friend plays mercantile geniuses who want to accumulate all the money in the world.
And none of these have anything at all to do with their real life personalities. Intriguing...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the character believe that helping the poor creates dependence?
A character of a Objectivist persuasion (See Ayn Rand) that believes in Good might say the below.
"You'll keep society from reaching it's ideal structure. By helping the poor, you are creating dependence. By helping the poor, you are making society less efficient by rewarding those who lack merit/skill/experience."
"The best way for society to help the poor is to provide employment in public/private sector so they can earn an honest wage and build themselves up."
Someone who has read economic history of Earth or Golarion will know of examples where misguided attempts generosity and altruistic goals cause economic damage by collapsing industries or causing inflation.
"Redistribution of money and goods without a complete overhaul of the economy will cause more problems than help economically. This is a complex problem that cannot simply be solved by throwing money at the problem. Otherwise, the Gnomish money catapult would have been the best invention."
Are all Lawful Good characters activists? Heck no! You might believe that it's sad that people suffer in poverty... but you don't have to lose sleep over it either.
"Someone else will take care of that, there are bigger fish to fry for a hero like me (Demon/Dragons/Cthulhu/Tucker's Kobolds)! My actions enable those do gooders to not die from Wormy spellcasters and Efreet warlords! They would be nothing without me! Remember that! I follow the laws. I open doors for old people. It's counter-productive for me to use my time & energy to handle a social problem that I have no background or knowledge in, and that no other hero, monster or deity has solved thus far. NOT. MY. PROBLEM. Please just let me drink my grog and get hammered. I'm on break!"
Another example: Captain Hammer from Dr Horrible's Sing Along blog. He is Neutral (at best) and only "cares" about the poor as much as it takes to seduce Penny.
I used to live in China. Interesting place, very different culture. In everyday Chinese communitarian philosophy, altruism is not a common virtue (this does not describe all Chinese nationals, but it does describe many individuals in Mainland China). I encourage you to learn more if this unusual to you). There is a Chinese word and cultural concept called guanxi (connection/relationship). Think of a ring of concentric circles, with yourself at the center. You share your center circle with your family and closest friends. The next circle might be your co-workers, schoolmates and neighbors. The circle outside that may be more tenuous in linkage to yourself, but still somehow important to your daily life. As for everyone completely outside If a person is outside your guanxi circles, you don't owe them anything. For an adventurer, your closest circle can be your family, your party, and the next circle includes your friends (but not ones you might be willing to risk yourself for), and that could be it for your character.
"It's not my role to try to change society. I just want to live a happy, successful life for those who I care about and myself, and not bother anyone unless they bother me."
This could cover pretty much any alignment, although it leans more towards law than chaos.
Samsarans - They reincarnate. It's their schtick. Perhaps your character believes that the poor will reincarnate into the poor, and the rich will reincarnate into the rich, or perhaps that Good (or simply better people if you are a d**k noble) reincarnates into wealthy while inferiors are justly reincarnated into poverty.
Self-centeredness is not an evil trait. Greed can be good, "My accumulation of wealth and spending it stimulates the economy. I am a job creator."
PS. I'm sure someone disagrees. Violently. It's an alignment thread. Gods help us all.
EDIT: Formatting
This reminds me of the episode from Scrubs (the season that no one liked) where JD leaves Lucy to take her exam without him and he monologues "sometimes the best way to be there for someone is to not be there at all."
Trying to help the poor could be seen as evil in that regard since you are creating their poverty by giving them no incentive to strive.
Believing that the poor has the potential to help itself and not preventing them from finding their own strength could actually be something seen as a good philosophy.
PS. I'm sure someone disagrees. Violently. It's an alignment thread. Gods help us all.Well, I do have to admit seeing Ayn Rand and Good in the same sentence does make my teeth grind.
I'm with Francis on that matter.
That gave me a laugh. I do not personally think highly of objectivism. Alignment is is pretty loose and open to interpretation, else the section on alignment would be its tome.
Francis?
PS. I'm sure someone disagrees. Violently. It's an alignment thread. Gods help us all.Well, I do have to admit seeing Ayn Rand and Good in the same sentence does make my teeth grind.
I'm with Francis on that matter.
Rand's philosophy was pretty garbage but I wouldn't call her evil (coming from the perspective of only having read Atlus Shrugged).
Now, her 21st century proponents, on the other hand...
Stuff about guanxi.
I prefer the colloquial term. "Monkeysphere".
As long as you're not Neutral Good, you're probably okay.
Lawful Good - Poverty of the divine plan. Most poor people deserve it. The truly worthy can work hard and pray for a better life.
Chaotic Good - It's a shame about the poor so-and-sos. Sure, you'd pull them out of a ditch, maybe slow a local ogre for them, but you're going to waste a lot of time, you know, talking to them or anything.
Lawful Neutral - The poor always complain. Well, I'm off to hunt pheasant.
Lawful Evil - Well, I'm off to hunt peasant.
Neutral - Sometimes you eat the rich, sometimes the rich eat you.
Neutral Evil - If someone is losing money, someone else is always making it. So, that somebody making money is going to be me.
Chaotic Evil - You should have seen his face when I executed his whole family in front of him. I was really doing him a favor.
Most people don't have concern for the poor.
I'd say that L/N/C Good goes above and beyond, and most people are (L/N/C)Neutral, but there are examples (see everything rabbiteconomist said) of people who think they're Good and don't do anything about the poor or other people's problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Totally possible - in fact, clerics and paladins of Abadar are expressly forbidden from giving people handouts, instead being encouraged to lend at reasonable rates. From Abadar's paladin code:
I make opportunities, and teach others to recognize them. When I aid others, I open the way for them, but will not carry them—they must take responsibility.
If a paladin (by definition good) can refuse to be charitable, then you should be absolutely fine playing a neutral character with no concern for the poor. As long as you aren't kicking every beggar asking for a copper in the face, you're ok.
It's just the celestial order. The gods decided to make them peasants and me a noble. It is not upon me to question that and elevate the peasants above their place.
If they work as they should, pray frequently and live a productive life they will have enough to eat. If they starve it's the punishment for being lazy or offending the gods.
Stuff about guanxi.I prefer the colloquial term. "Monkeysphere".
Monkeysphere is an interesting concept. I first read about it in cracked.com. I wouldnt equate the two personally because the moneysphere concept involves a semi-fixed of "brain size:relationships limit", unlike guanxi which I find to be more flexible, particularly in a fantasy world. Dunbar's number (the limit of relationships) could vary between races in a fantasy setting if that it's taken as an underlying assumption.
Edit: italics and props to cracked
Hasn't to be chaotic. My reasoning above would be best fitting for a LN guy.
Most of the people you have ever met IRL are True Neutral.
On the Good/Evil axis, being Neutral means you take care of your own group (your friends, your family, etc), and let everyone else take care of their own group. You don't spend every weekend volunteering at soup kitchens, you don't donate half your paycheck to charity every month, but you don't go scamming old people out of their life's savings either.
On the Law/Chaos axis, being Neutral means you follow the rules as best as you reasonably can, and just don't worry about it beyond that. You don't see rules and structure as being the epitome of a successful life, you aren't totally lost whenever there isn't someone explicitly telling you what to do, but you aren't out there flaunting broken laws or intentionally going out of your way to break them either.
Neutral means you don't go to extremes on either side. You are neither sinner nor saint, you are just normal. You downloading an MP3 of your favorite song might be illegal, but it isn't Evil or Chaotic. A group like Anonymous is Chaotic.
For me, a character only gets pushed to Good/Evil or Lawful/Chaotic if they have a very good reason to go above and beyond what a normal person would do.
To the OP:
Easy. Be rich.
Because everyone knows rich people aren't evil. They just do evil things.
|
Caothic-Neutral is your alignement.
Or as i like to call them ... do whatever the f*ck you want - alignement.
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day... do not teach the man to fish and feed yourself he is a grown man and fishing is not that hard"
Ron Swanson.
I heard it this way:
"Let a man sleep next to your fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life."
|
My advice for going into Pathfinder Society play is allow for some flexibility. The tasks assigned to agents are varied. One adventure is all about dungeon crawling lost civilizations, another one you're rubbing shoulders with the elite, suddenly you've got to investigate corruption in order to save the poor children, and then you've got to break into a business and commit petty acts of thuggery.
I've seen a lot of role play focused players balk at adventure premises and argue with the GM playing Venture Captain at the start of scenarios. They're trying to justify why their character should bother playing but missing the real reason is because they and the people around them want to have fun and this is the scenario they happen to be playing. Be flexible during character creation. Yes, your character is going to insult the poor people you've been sent to help and is going to make it very clear that he's in it for the money, but he's in it for the money and will make sure the task gets done. Or whatever you choose to justify. I think figuring out why your character would break the key components of his personality actually builds a stronger character over all.
I am fascinated that the "plight of the poor" ever comes up in a game, other than the PCs I have known that took a vow of poverty or some other vow requiring that they give away some amount of material wealth.
@ OP
How do you imagine that this would ever be an issue?
I dont know about pfs, but in home games i've played this comes up quite a bit. Lets face it, poor neighborhoods tend to be where most of the dangerous adventury stuff happens in urban campaigns. Many dms will add poor people as npcs to add to the flavor of the location. It could be as simple as the begger shouting prophetic doom on the street corner, or as complicated as a poor family that is interwoven into the plot in dire peril because they owe money to some evil gang leader.
In my groups its rare that anyone will be outright evil (though not unheard of) and we usually have at least one genuinely good character, so often these people are helped in some fashion. Not to mention the fact that like a years living expenses for a typical poor person is literally trivial to a high level character, so being generous is often not a costly choice.
Sometimes it can even become a very interesting hook, like once when a local street kid that was just a throwaway encounter with a pickpocket turned into a longtime npc and eventually a loyal ally for the party's rogue.
|
Caothic-Neutral is your alignement.
Or as i like to call them ... do whatever the f*ck you want - alignement.
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day... do not teach the man to fish and feed yourself he is a grown man and fishing is not that hard"
Ron Swanson.
I heard it this way:
"Let a man sleep next to your fire and he will be warm for one night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life."
Hahaha. CE for the win.
"Ok we need to kill the vampire inside of that house-building ... lets burn that house-building".