|
PFS was founded on a more neutral (with good tendencies) basis more concerned with mostly archeological, sometimes questionable methods of recovering lost lore and items of power. While we have gotten a bit more political in the last couple seasons, it is still primarily a neutral organization. This far into the campaign it may not serve the community to make paradigm changes that could impact a large portion of the player-characters
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My senior paladin got this feat in the early part of season five. It is extremely useful when the circumstance fits.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it would be nice to feature more cases where being good instead of neutral is an advantage. Far too often neutral is the "hassle-free" alignment. Which in itself is fine, it's just that taking a stand for something (good, evil, chaos) should occasionally reward you for it.
That, and I really dig the shock value of Smite Good; it always makes players squirm. So we should entice them to be good first so there'll still be someone to smite :P
|
|
I do think it would be nice to feature more cases where being good instead of neutral is an advantage. Far too often neutral is the "hassle-free" alignment. Which in itself is fine, it's just that taking a stand for something (good, evil, chaos) should occasionally reward you for it.
That, and I really dig the shock value of Smite Good; it always makes players squirm. So we should entice them to be good first so there'll still be someone to smite :P
+1. The rare handful of times where an antipaladin or fiendish creature shows up have thus far been uneventful thanks to a table full of neutral characters at tables I've been at.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. Most (2/3ish or more) of my PFS characters are good. Because that's what I generally like to play. I've seen a lot of good characters who aren't clerics of divine deities.
It may be a regional/cultural thing. If people are viewing the game as more of a mechanical challenge, then, yeah, they'll choose the optimum alignment. (I also believe that most people I've seen choosing neutral alignments aren't doing so for mechanical reasons, but because that's the character they want to play. (Some choose "Chaotic Neutral" because they want to be evil but aren't allowed to....))
However, I would propose that there is a lot of benefit in viewing the game as a roleplaying game first, and a mechanical challenge second. Yes, your character has to be competent, but for the most part your character doesn't have to be perfectly optimized. Look at the calls for "Hard Mode". Look at how many scenarios get ROFLstomped by parties of character if there are just one or two hyper-optimized characters present.
Relax a little bit on worrying about choosing options that seem to be at a disadvantage in the scenario. As long as you don't choose really horrible ones (like a ranged character with no ranged feats), or if you don't choose too many at once, you'll almost certainly be fine. Pick things that fit who your character is rather than what's going to work best in combat.
At the end of all of which I mean to say: I don't think the scenarios need to change anything in terms of favoring good characters. That would only raise the hackles of those who don't want to be forced into being purely good. (Look at all the calls to allow evil characters, for instance-- which I oppose.) Be good because your character is good, not because you're going to get a bonus for it. Accept the burden that comes with being good. Have fun.
|
^Smite Impudence!
I've played every alignment. Most of my chars seem to be Neutral or Chaotic Neutral. It's those alignments I've found the most variable in their approach from situation to situation. Neutral is almost the "N/A" choice, a non-alignment, if you will. Druids are an exception though, since they approach neutrality dogmatically instead of uh, being wishywashy.
|
|
Just out of curiosity (LG 3, LN 1, NG 0, N 4, CG 3, CN 2). I'm about 50% good aligned with my characters. And there are at least a couple of mechanical situations throughout PFS play that I can think of where being good is advantageous (though generally fewer than being neutral).
That said Pathfinder Society is a True Nuetral organization, who often goes against evil organizations like the Aspis Consortium, so it makes sense that the opposing abilities most often are set to combat Good opponents.
(Not saying I necessarily disagree with the OPs premise though)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, having an alignment extreme *is* a handicap that's built into the system. There's nothing PFS can do to fix that, short of creating new content. But that's okay. Having strong moral/ethical leanings should be difficult, your character should be tested, they should endure some pain as a result of their choices, because it'll make their final reward all the sweeter.
This is a request to 'Buff' the advantages to play 'Good' aligned characters.
PFS just seems to encourage Neutral characters. Between the dealing of 'questionable' deeds and the amount of bad guys using 'Nuke the Good' abilities. It doesn't really pay to play a 'Good' aligned character.
As a example, take a look at how many scenario's have Smite Good and Protection from Good abilities. Then take a look at the alignments of the players sitting down to play at a table. Usually the only good aligned players are Divine Casters for a good deity.
If you think things are bad right now, you weren't here for the original crop of Andoran players. The supposedly "Good" "American" faction. In truth, there wasn't a greater horde of murderous thugs.
And quite frankly, the things you're referencing exist to make playing Good a challenge, as it should be.
|
|
I'd like it if more missions were good aligned. But I like the neutral or even slightly evil aligned missions as well (Race for the Runecarved Key), they all have their place.
But in all the PFS I've played, I haven't seen many cases where being good is punished. Being a Paladin can be tough in infiltration missions (as expected). But good? No.
I have a number of good characters, so I should know.
|
|
I prefer to play "good" aligned characters personally, but in the group I play with it is also the predominate alignment.
I also GM a lot of our scenarios and haven't seen an alignment biased slant to the game. In fact It seems that there are a fair number of "neutral" bad guys that don't care what your alignment is.
I wouldn't think there would be any need for any kind of "good" Buff.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral is almost the "N/A" choice, a non-alignment, if you will. Druids are an exception though, since they approach neutrality dogmatically instead of uh, being wishywashy.
It's sort of interesting how D&D has approached this over the years.
Sometimes you can see Neutral as a dogmatic "must be balanced!" sort of thing. The description of the petitioners on the Outlands (aka the plane of "Concordant Opposition") in Planescape was like this.
But, in D&D/4e, where the alignment system was made 1d instead of 2d, "Neutral" was replaced with "Nonaligned", making it very clear that it wasn't an aggro "YOU MUST BALANCE" but more of a "meh".
There's something to be said for both. Which, of course, points out that a 2d matrix for describing one's ethical convictions is insufficient. But, oh well. It just means that one shouldn't overinterpret a character's alignment. (AD&D/1e way overinterpreted a character's alignment, with full-on alignment languages, and a level and xp penalty for switching alignment-- for everybody, not just for vow-making zealots like Paladins or Monks.)
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
BBEG: Unholy Blight!
Henchman: That hardly phased them, sir.
BBEG: Oh, no, Pathfinders! Bar the door!
Henchman: Barring, sir.
*slams & bars door*
*they gather up their valuables*
BBEG: Don't forget to drop a clue and equivalent compensation.
Henchman: ???
BBEG: Never mind.
*kills henchman, puts 'coded' note on body*
*exits*
