Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm working on a few sanctioning and scenario projects, and I'm seeing a few really fun opportunities on the horizon to include evil-themed boons; these are boons that reference a PC accepting some reward from an evil or otherwise suspicious source, often accompanied by a drawback. I've included at least one of these one a Chronicle sheet before, and I know of a few others that preceded my employment at Paizo.
Thanks for your feedback. Please take care not to spoil the adventures for others, so use the spoiler tag function (see the "How to format your text" button below the text box) when discussing any specifics.
|
-Yeah, I really enjoy seeing these types of boons come up.
-I've had multiple characters take up the assorted boons.
-I think the drawback should be roughly equivalent to the boon. I think that most of the evil boons do that pretty well, with the exception of that cookie from season four that I think probably should have had a bigger drawback, and possibly the rock also from season four.
|
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
Also, if one of your PCs accepted such a boon, I'm interested in hearing why. Has the character always skirted the border between neutrality and evil, and this was a way to express it? Does your character worship an evil deity? Was the boon just mechanically too good to pass up? Was it an accident—whether you didn't intend to earn the reward or miscalculated the ramifications? Something else?
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From a distance, yeah, I like them. But in practice, it'll depend a LOT on which character I'm playing.
I wasn't going to do it anyway, but it turned out nobody was particularly inclined to pledge to a runelord in return for some uncertain reward.
I'm cautiously in favour of the principle that sometimes, good people get nicer things than less-shiny people, and that sometimes it's the reverse. But this is thin ice; a lot of early scenarios get a bad rap because to get full gold, you have to steal from innocent civilians whose shop you happen to be in when stuff goes down. Then it starts to look like good guys are chumps.
The root of that I think is that many of us have a completionist itch. We don't like the idea that we didn't get a perfect score on the scenario because we weren't murderhoboing our way through it. It's very subjective but also important for our experience of the scenario.
With regards to evil boons (as shown in my spoiler), it can be important to show the following before a player signs on the dotted line:
1) That there will be consequences; if you abstain, you can feel smug reassured that your purity is also rewarded in some way.
2) That the consequences are still bounded; you're dirtying your soul, not giving it all away at once. Doing it "just this once" won't be the end of you. Yet. Dramatically speaking, there's nothing wrong with a view of a slippery slope.
|
I felt while playing the scenarios they didn't always feel as evil as they were made out to be. I suppose if it was too evil maybe there be issues with it not quite representing the society as envisioned. I like this sort of thing as reminder that the society is a neutral organization representing many people who have different values and goals.
I wouldn't mind seeing greater drawbacks on the boons.
I don't like the real life time limit to use one of the boons.
I wouldn't mind seeing alternate outcomes (maybe a boon of some kind) for turning down the option when presented so you don't feel as left out.
I like how the season finale tried to make the boons into a drawback but I think the ability to actually have it become one was poorly executed (standard action?)
It be interesting if a boon could be so evil as to not allow the character to 'fix' everything with an atonement.
Edit: Hopefully the boon is designed so the GM actually gets it (I realize it was an accident before). I'm looking at you
|
Q1. Yes - they make choices in game matter, which is always interesting and memorable.
Q2. Yes, but they didn't know what they were in for... that kind of diminished the choice a little. The other scenarios signposted the choice well (Cultists Kiss)
Q3. Right now, the power level on this evil boons are very, very high. The balancing 'drawback' factor hasn't been in play as much as it should be.
Q4. If you introduce powerful 'evil' boons, you really, really, really need to do your homework on the 'drawback' part of the deal. In a certain Varisian season, the drawback was not strong enough. PCs could effectively collect all the powerful boons, then ignore the scenario where the drawback kicks in. If boons function, the drawbacks should function.
We also need to be careful to not introduce drawbacks that will kill other people's PCs, rather than the choicemaker's PC. For example, making a powerful evil boon character get confused and kill other people's PCs will create bad blood at the table (Bonekeep 2).
|
|
Yes, I like them. I've had a character pass on one he's good aligned and didn't like the ramifications or symbol (he also won't accept infernal healing cause he doesn't like the taste.). I've taken one it was a tattoo on my tattooed sorcerer. At this point I figure 90% of the Gnome's body is covered in tattoos and he's always willing to get more. Though for that character it's just the symbol of another thing he's done and part of the story his skin expresses. Some would depend on the character.
|
|
On one occasion in Season 4, the character was Neutral, might do worse things to gain magical might and due to events of the session, was inducted into the cult for a time. Several others I've refused.
I think the balance point is right when a minority of players at a typical table might want the boon - it has visible drawbacks, but is not so icky or harmful that almost everyone will reject it out of hand.
Cultist's Kiss: Brand of Endurance
Emerald Spire: Boon of Abraxas
Refuge of Time: Ioun stone
Feast of Sigils: Sigil wafer
Wardens of the Reborn Forge: Transformation of Haagenti
|
|
My rogue ate the cookie to get a better understanding of the enemies of the Society from that period of time, also because the cookie is just too good mechanically to pass up.. This rogue also took the boon from GM'ing Wardens, despite the drawbacks, mainly because she felt sympathetic towards a particular NPC. If I get the chance to keep playing her, she'll try to keep doing good in spite of being drawn to the dark.
My paladin turned down getting branded, but took the stone to keep it from falling into the wrong hands. He no longer uses it after some OOC discussion locally about whether an Attonement would be sufficient if he decided to keep the stone. I was tired of listening to it and by that time Berric was almost retired, so it didn't really matter.
|
|
I've GMed a scenario that I specifically offered to run to get a character the boon. +2 Profane bonus to a stat of my choice for the next RL year and all I have to do is pay for an atonement? Yes Please. (I didn't actually HAVE to pay for the atonement as my character was Chaotic Good and could have just accepted the shift to Neutral Good.) I'd say ones like that could be considered a bit too powerful.
|
|
I've GMed a scenario that I specifically offered to run to get a character the boon. +2 Profane bonus to a stat of my choice for the next RL year and all I have to do is pay for an atonement? Yes Please. (I didn't actually HAVE to pay for the atonement as my character was Chaotic Good and could have just accepted the shift to Neutral Good.) I'd say ones like that could be considered a bit too powerful.The shift would be to chaotic neutral, not neutral good.
I'm a bit tired, I meant Chaotic Neutral. Anyway it goes, it wouldn't have been to an Evil alignment thus no atonement "needed"
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you are going down this route then it would be nice not to include gotcha type effects in subsequent scenarios.
** spoiler omitted **
Actually, I thought that was nice writing. I think if you accept an evil boon, you should always feel a bit uneasy, wondering when it's gonna catch up to you.
Actually in that scenario I liked the
much more than
the holy word that can actually hurt a paladin's mount because even a paladin's AC isn't Good by nature
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think these boons are awesome, but too one sided. I trhink you could perfect these boons to give the people that refuse them a slight bonus as well.
You dink the roleplay function of good players by giving the morally flexible characters a mechanical advantage. While those that stick to their guns have nothing to show for their characters other than bragging rights.
|
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great feedback, folks—keep it coming!
I definitely recognize a difference between how Season 4's evil boons were handled and how I've presented others since (good call on pointing out the Emerald Spire boons).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
John,
It really depends on what you mean by Evil.
Sometimes, "evil" is just a team name. For example, one of the tempting baubles from Season 4 is only evil because the GM says so. (You don't even need detect evil. You just know it's evil.) So, in that case, it's more like "do you accept this cursed item?" Much the same way as the seven mcguffins from a series of AP volumes.
Sometimes, evil is blatantly against the tenets of decent folk. Another of the Season 4 baubles is clearly something that ought to give good-aligned characters qualms. Some characters wouldn't mind it, others would. Some might argue against their colleagues taking such actions.
Two confirmations: the evil cookie that creates problems in a different scenario is a mechanic that works better in a home campaign than one in which players can give the cookies to xxxxxx-01 and have xxxxxx-03 play through the scenario where the hammer comes down.
And I agree: if having a bauble / committing an act shifts a character's alignment towards evil, I don't think it's fair to allow a Good-aligned character to pay for an atonement and go back to Good alignment, while still keeping the bauble. Neutral characters should be able to atone their way back from Evil to Neutral. But as long as a character makes the decision every morning to retain the benefits of an Evil bauble, I don't think they should consider themselves Good.
|
|
I did like the flavor of the season 4 boons but not the execution the magnitude of power offered by the boons was great and had almost zero ramifications. In fact a lot of the people took them just because of the power factor.
While I would like to see "evil" boons more I think that they should be undoubtedly evil in both the way you acquire them and the penalties (such as having to spend the resurrection price if you die with the symbol of evil dude x on your forehead).
to answer the question.
1)at first yes but upon realizing that they were taken just for the power factor no.
2) yes mainly because I thought it would help with the mission now its just a really good boon.
3)see rant above.
4).... blalbaljragjajra
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think these boons are awesome, but too one sided. I think you could perfect these boons to give the people that refuse them a slight bonus as well.
You dink the roleplay function of good players by giving the morally flexible characters a mechanical advantage. While those that stick to their guns have nothing to show for their characters other than bragging rights.
I cannot favorite this comment enough. I saw how popular those Season 4 7-11 scenarios were, just from a mechanical perspective, and it bugged me that the good characters who refused the evil boons got nothing for it.
Hmm
|
|
I dont like them personally, but they have their place in the campaign.
What I REALLY dont like about the boons that shifted alignment towards evil was that they let you just get an atonement and carry them around. A paladin shouldnt be able to just take one, get an atonement, and keep using it (which I've seen someone do). It goes against the writing of atonement in my reading of it, and it makes it so there's really no penalty for taking them. It's hard enough to be good in Pathfinder Society without having to feel like I'm being punished for it.
I personally prefer the way that the faction boons in many of the season 7 scenarios work, giving you different boons depending on how you handle things.
|
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Forgive me father for i have sinned, I have used an artifact POWERED BY THE HEART OF A FORSAKEN CHILD
"It is good you have realized the error of your ways my child. First we must lay this thing to rest and...
"Whoa whoa whoa no way! Thats plus twelve to knowledge history checks! Thats my dayjob roll! Here, take the gold.
Sigh... in light of the orphans that need to eat, you are forgiven.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like evil boons because:
1) They are too powerful.
2) They are more like a powergamer indicator than anything else, since all PCs will take them, regardless of character alignment. I guess everyone roleplays character alignment until the prize becomes something that is too good to refuse?
For example, the Krune boons. When I played one scenario, my barely non-evil CN half-orc was the only one that refused the evil boon, the rest of the party was "good" and took the boon immediately. How messed up is that?
3) Players cry (or cheat and avoid) if they suffer any repercussions for taking these boons. In the example above the other players already knew everything about the boon and whether there would be any drawbacks, and told me it was OK to take it.
I'd prefer that you don't include evil boons, but it really depends on how flavorful it is, how powerful, and how badly people will cheat to get it or avoid the consequences behind it.
Also, it needs to explicitly say that it cannot be taken by good characters. Conversely at some point you need a boon that says it can only be taken by good characters. Fair is fair. In this case you don't need to have any drawbacks behind the evil boon, besides flavor.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think they are fun and flavorful.
But as many before me have said, the drawback needs to be real, constant, tangible, and felt. In RPG Superstar, SKR was very fond of saying when giving advice, "A drawback that isn't a drawback isn't a drawback."
Paladins and other, even neutrally aligned characters, that would lose their spellcasting and/or class abilities because of a shift toward evil, should not be able to atone and retain the use of the boon. Either that, or the boon needs to explicitly state what happens in these cases, so there is no argument about it.
So if you can ensure that the flavor/fun remains, the drawbacks are real, and for characters where an alignment shift matters atoning won't allow them to keep the bonus, then I'm all for more of the same.
I also like the suggestion that by roleplaying your alignment you specifically choose to not take the boon, should get some sort of reward for doing so.
Stat bumps and feats should probably not be given out anymore.
|
|
I am a fan of boons that force you to make choices. I am a fan of boons that give you a unique quality to your character
However I was not a fan of the way the Season 4 boons were implemented. Many people took a "who cares, I can just get an atonement. I'm not giving up something that powerful." There was a lot of "chronicle fishing" going on. I know of two- or three- star GMs burning all their replays on those scenarios. To this day I still see people wanting those scenarios scheduled because they know what the rewards are (and obviously not because they had heard anything about the content of the scenario).
I'd be fine with an evil boon, but I'd like to see good, lawful, and chaotic boons to go with it. There has to be a permanent downside as well. It doesn't have to be major but it should be something that makes you think twice before automatically taking it. I think the Wardens boon downside was a bit too harsh to use in lower level scenarios, though it was OK at that level.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A "Good" Boon would be awesome. Some clairvoyant Outsider watches the party throughout the scenario, and depending on individual's actions (tallied by the GM) gives those PCs the option to become good-aligned (if not already) and receive some Boon for it (so long as they maintain being good).
Gives those worshipers of dark deities a second thought about their choices.
|
|
While I didn't take the evil boons for my own characters, I *loved* that there were consequences for choices. (Was a point of pride that I didn't drink the Kool-aid, in fact.) Others have noted the lessons learned from the Season 4 boons, so I won't repeat that. I do think that there needs to be a line or three in the Guide, though, which covers the "rules" on boons which have lasting effects or drawbacks - specifically, that they must be disclosed to the GM at the start of every session. Otherwise, it's easy to miss the effects.
Good boons would be cool, too... there are some scenarios that have only one fight, which can also be RP'd through, and I always thought a boon for completing the mission without a fight was worth noting.
|
|
I had a LN cleric of Asmodeus who played through the season 4 scenarios. In one scenario, I believe Refuge in time,
I enjoyed playing a character who would seek out these evil boons and make use of them.
I enjoyed the evil boons. I also think it is very important to have a significant drawback for taking these evil boons...not a Oh no my wizard has lost two points of Str....but oh that sucks...my wizard lost points to his wisdom score...and it's going to get worse whenever I use this evil thing or better yet a penalty to his main spell casting trait.
|
|
The only exposure to the evil boons so far as been
Several of my other characters would never have accepted it, primarily the neutral ones, surprisingly. Given the extreme power bump that particular boon offered, it would've been a hard choice to sacrifice it for RP purposes.
As far as boons in the future go, I'm certainly interested in seeing them. However..I feel that Lawful Good and especially paladins already have a hard time with many Society missions. Anything with Torch for instance; my Paladin flat out refuses to play any more games with him, after a previous game involved bluffing me into ignorance. I'd like to see some incentives on the other end of the scale, for those who play and like LG.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
I think that requiring a worshipper of a good deity to give up an evil boon in order to get back class abilities is reasonable, but I think that should be made clear by the scenario in which the boon is acquired. When I learned of the discussion about whether an attonement would be sufficient for a paladin/good aligned cleric, I went ahead and actually read the spell for the first time and decided that yeah, someone getting an attonement shouldn't keep the boon, whatever it was. So, that led to my paladin dropping his bad rock (that he had just used to get an extra mercy, he liked the idea of using the rock to heal others and bring comfort) in a deep dark hole and filling it in.
I really like the idea of boons tailored for other specific alignments, and not just evil.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like it if Evil boons are pretty shiny, but now and then you also run across something Good and you can't have both.
In fact, I'd like to be reminded that "Neutral isn't by definition the best alignment" more often. Quite often, being Neutral allows you more options and avoids hate spells against specific alignments. I like it when now and then you also get rewarded for actually taking a stand; whether Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic.
|
|
This is only tangentially related to the question at hand, but I'd love to see a boon to permit a Necromancer to not suffer alignment feedback every time they animate something. I think creation of undead shouldn't be considered evil unless you're doing it to a thinking creature's corpse - basically, if we're allowed to eat it (after the rulings on cannibalism), we should be allowed to animate it.
....and then, I need an Aasimar boon and someone to legalize / make a boon for Undead Lord, because I have a rebellious teenager with a divine dad concept I've wanted to play for at least two years now, and a good chance never comes up in my home games.
It isn't considered evil for the purposes of alignment infractions in this campaign. Boons for everyone!
|
|
Do you enjoy seeing these boons on Chronicle sheets?
Has one of your PCs ever taken one?
Where do you feel the right balance is between power and drawbacks when handling these evil boons (e.g. benefits should be stronger, drawbacks should be stronger, the two should be roughly equal, or any variation on these)?
Do you have any other thoughts on the matter? Thanks for your feedback. Please take care not to spoil the adventures for others, so use the spoiler tag function (see the "How to format your text" button below the text box) when discussing any specifics.
|
Yeah, I really love them.
Sure, Vasco got the brand and the ioun stone.(and hit Seekerdom just before Waking Rune)
I think the Refuge boon should have had some kind of cost but everything else was pretty schway. Cultist's Kiss in particular. It felt so wrong too!
I dunno. Maybe tie some upcoming boons to something else than a high level season ender. Perhaps a "if any of your characters has the Shax's House in the Middle of Our Street or Hats off to Hats boons, cross out the the following boons from this chronicle" solution where you get some benefits at first but miss out on others a bit later. I know, yeah, making it character number tied kicks versimillitude to the curb but it deftly avoids the whole leveling out of the scenario's tier dilemma.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South
|
I liked the boons very much but i think the drawback is not realy balanced.
The only "right balanced" ones are the Spire ones.
I dunno. Maybe tie some upcoming boons to something else than a high level season ender. Perhaps a "if any of your characters has the Shax's House in the Middle of Our Street or Hats off to Hats boons, cross out the the following boons from this chronicle" solution where you get some benefits at first but miss out on others a bit later. I know, yeah, making it character number tied kicks versimillitude to the curb but it deftly avoids the whole leveling out of the scenario's tier dilemma.
I hope this is not te approach taken with the boons because this will cause Problems with GMs who can have 2 Chronicles from the scenario and might want to take it wiht on character but are punished with another.