Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
However, there ARE GMs out there that *would*, and that's where the concern is coming from. Because 'expect table variation' shouldn't be a thing for playing two core classes (Paladin and Necromancy School of Wizardy or Death Domain for Clerics...)It sounds a bit like a fix for a problem that doesn't occur very much in practice, but gets people really riled up in theory.
That said, as a GM I would just waive the "association" part, because it's incompatible with the PFS meta where you can't tell other people not to play their character.
It's fine if people want to RP about their characters disagreeing (but not ad nauseam) but I'm just not going to punish the paladin player because someone else decided to play a necromancer.
Don't the rules for alignment infractions prevent mean GMs from being mean? GMs have to warn players that what they are doing is evil and result in an infraction. You can't surprise a player with atonement, and should always outline an alternative (alternatives don't have to be easy or attractive, though).
I have never noticed that "...the rules..." "...prevent mean GMs from being mean?". Mostly, if a GM wants to do something, they do. That's where the phrase "Not at MY table..." comes from.
Given that this is a PFS thread, I assume that we are talking about PFS GMs, who have a lot less leeway than GMs in home games.
I believe he is referencing the fact that even on the PFS forums we see that bandied a lot even in reference to perfectly legal options.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
"Not at MY table" is a way GMs can be jerks, but is ultimately a person choosing whether or not they wish to play. It is a personal decision that has consequences for the whole table.
In contrast, alignment infractions are entirely about the player character's actions. The rules are very clear that players must be given an opportunity to avoid alignment infractions. Surprise atonement can be reversed by VOs.
This warning must be clear, and you must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences.
GMs have a lot of leeway, but they also have a duty to be fair to the players. Alignment is a tricky issue. Luckily, there is a process in place for dealing with it delicately.
Players are responsible for their characters’ actions.
“That’s just what my character would do” is not a defense
for behaving like a jerk.Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Killing
an innocent, wanton destruction, and other acts that
can be construed as evil might be considered alignment
infractions. Ultimately, you are he final authority at the
table, but you must warn any player whose character is
deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning
must be clear, and you must make sure that the player
understands the warning and the actions that initiated
the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to
correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences.
We believe a deity would forgive a one-time bad choice as
long as the action wasn’t too egregious (such as burning
down an orphanage full of children, killing a peasant
for no good reason but sport, etc.). Hence, you can issue
a warning to the player through a “feeling” he receives
from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking
to him, or some other similar roleplaying event.If infractions continue in the course of the scenario
or sanctioned module or Adventure Path, an alignment
change might be in order. If you deem these continued
actions warrant an alignment change, you should note
it on the character’s Chronicle sheet at the end of the
session in the notes section The character can remove
this gained condition through an atonement spell. If
the condition is removed, you should also note it on the
Chronicle sheet.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There used to be a rule that a Paladin would not fall from completing a faction mission, regardless of what that faction mission required. Some required things like murder. That rule went away when faction missions went away. It would be very helpful if there were a more explicit rule stating the that a Paladin will not require an atonement or fall simply for participating in a scenario, regardless of who the other pathfinder agents are. I believe that the "Cooperate" rule that BNW quoted early in this thread does already cover that, but that it's not direct enough for everyone. Much like a direct statement about Paladins was needed for faction missions, I think one would be helpful here. I'm asking for a meta rule that basically says "This is organized play, and no one should be punished for playing a legal character just because someone else brings a legal character to the table that might conflict with the Paladin's code."
|
|
That's where the phrase "Not at MY table..." comes from.
I agree with everything you've said up to this line.
"Not at MY table..." can have some very aggressive and negative connotations. And is often seen as acrimonious. However, the origination of the line was more along the lines of a player suggesting they play something in a very gray area that is questionable on whether its legal or not, and a GM saying that they would not allow it because they feel it is across the gray line.
Not every, "Not at MY table" is mean.
|
|
There used to be a rule that a Paladin would not fall from completing a faction mission, regardless of what that faction mission required. Some required things like murder. That rule went away when faction missions went away.
I don't know if that was ever a rule, but it went away well before the faction missions did.
Nope. Paladins are bound by a higher authority than a faction mission. They will still need to decide whether completing the faction mission is worth an atonement. Linky
but that it's not direct enough for everyone.
Nor are t squared drawn lines with giant arrows....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ahh, ok. I was confusing it with the alignment infraction rule. I still think, for an organized play campaign, a rule that says your character is not going to be penalized (EDIT: solely) for participating in a scenario with other legal characters is probably a good idea.
EDIT continued: Participating in a scenario with a necromancer and helping them animate dead, or participating in a scenario with a murderhobo and helping them murderhobo innocents are different situations. Requiring an atonement because someone listed "Wizard" on the signup and you get to the mission briefing and find out they're a necromancer, or even more likely, you get into the middle of the scenario without any idea and they animate dead, just doesn't seem like a good policy for an organized play game.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Ahh, ok. I was confusing it with the alignment infraction rule. I still think, for an organized play campaign, a rule that says your character is not going to be penalized (EDIT: solely) for participating in a scenario with other legal characters is probably a good idea.
EDIT continued: Participating in a scenario with a necromancer and helping them animate dead, or participating in a scenario with a murderhobo and helping them murderhobo innocents are different situations. Requiring an atonement because someone listed "Wizard" on the signup and you get to the mission briefing and find out they're a necromancer, or even more likely, you get into the middle of the scenario without any idea and they animate dead, just doesn't seem like a good policy for an organized play game.
I see no evidence that such a policy exists. What evidence I do see suggests that a paladin be allowed to justify the necessity of partying with a necromancer. Details and conditions can be worked out at the table as necessary.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I should have said situation, not policy, in that last sentence. I didn't mean to imply that something like that was what PFS intends. I read the current "Cooperate" rule as meaning that part of PFS is adventuring with varied groups. Being in the society and being sent on a mission with this other character is the justification in game for the rule I'm suggesting.
Yes, the players should or could also work out something between them, but as a meta game rule, the player of a Paladin should not be charged an atonement tax because the player happened to sit down at a table that a necromancer is at. Nor should either player be forced to change characters. If either of the players decides, on their own, that they would rather their paladin or necromancer not adventure with the other character, that's fine, too.
What the OP has suggested is a situation where a Paladin must get an atonement for going through a scenario with a necromancer. That hardly seems fair in a situation where you don't choose who is at the table with you, and taking up limited game time to hash it out between the characters feels unnecessary as well. ALL PFS agents have agreed to cooperate, which really should be enough to justify working together for 1 session without the GM feeling they need to impose an atonement on the player of the Paladin. But clearly that perception is out there (thought potentially in a small way), so a simple statement along the lines of what I'm suggesting would help avoid that particular argument at the table, between the player and the GM who feels it necessary to impose an atonement.
|
EDIT: I think that having this codified would help with making sure that GM's aren't causing paladins undue issues due to sheer dumb luck of who else is at the table, and also give the paladin players a RP reason why either they don't need said atonement or how they cover their possible need for constant aura cleansing.
Organized play rules forbid Evil PCs, meaning no other PC will force a paladin to atone without the paladin having a chance to remove themselves from the offending characters presence.
|
|
Organized play rules forbid Evil PCs, meaning no other PC will force a paladin to atone without the paladin having a chance to remove themselves from the offending characters presence.
So the only PC checkbox for 'needing atonement for association' is alignment?
In the hypothetical situation of a Pharasmin devotee and a necromancer, the background is irrelevant because the rules have in their most fundamental form stated as such?
|
|
The Pharasmin paladin (is there such a thing?) would only have to worry if they are working with 'evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code.' Since most characters need half a session to 'consistently offend' others, the paladin does not need to atone unless returning for a second mission with that offensive character.
Voluntary atonements are always available as the paladin sees fit.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South
|
Organized play rules forbid Evil PCs, meaning no other PC will force a paladin to atone without the paladin having a chance to remove themselves from the offending characters presence.
There is actually a (quite common) boon that allows the usage of an evil character for one scenario.
The Pharasmin paladin (is there such a thing?) would only have to worry if they are working with 'evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code.' Since most characters need half a session to 'consistently offend' others, the paladin does not need to atone unless returning for a second mission with that offensive character.
So If we are running a multi part at a con and my paladin finds out he is group with an offensive character I either have to pick a new character or pay for atonement?
|
This entire thread is about being injured/offended/upset by something that has never happened?
Has anyone (in PFS) ever been required by the table judge to have their PC pay for an Atonement for associating with someone (another PC) who 'consistently offends' their moral code? Has this EVER occurred? When? What was the final outcome?
I have played games with other players who 'consistently offend' my moral code. (Dice Cheats are a big issue - but other kinds of cheating bothers me too.) I avoid that player in later games. They can be a real downer...
I'd say it has yes. With this and the other thread I don't think I could play PFS, let alone a Paladin in it, if the stance is "People who create undead and summon demons are Evil and you should stop them... unless other player characters do it then it's not only okay but also apparently supersedes your deity and your beliefs".
It's too much suspension of disbelief, so I can see Paladin players thinking they need an atonement after the Society forces them to work with a Necromancer who creates undead or a Diabolist who summons devils.
|
|
So If we are running a multi part at a con and my paladin finds out he is group with an offensive character I either have to pick a new character or pay for atonement?
That will be up to the GM. If the mission is against a great enough evil, then as long as the relationship ends as soon as the evil is defeated, an atonement likely will not be needed. If the paladin knows someone who can handle the mission in their stead, that is another option.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it is certainly not impossible that a paladin may need to atone for the actions they take, as a GM I would grant leeway as to punishing them with a required atonement merely for associating with 'morally skewed' characters so long as they attempted to uphold their code as best they could. Flavor wise I could also see characters taking an Atonement if they feel it justified even if it may not be mandated: my Asmodean inquisitor Atoned after one particular scenario merely because he felt compromised by its basic premise
That said, cooperation goes both ways. It's the rare character who can only contribute through means directly opposed to another players wishes. I have a necromancer who is much better when he can summon undead, but always inquires if any Pharasmans or other 'rigidly-minded' party members are present and will (eye-rollingly) refrain from doing so if they balk due to ethical objections from their gods.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enchantment isn't in and of itself evil, but Paladins that follow beliefs of freedom and/or deities that do would probably have a problem with them.
Th PCs who that the Paladon should have a problem with, if its actually those crimes.
... you seriously think that Paladins should have more problems with characters that are Chaotic than Evil?? Really?
Read the Associates and Code section, it mentions Evil, no where does it talk about Chaotic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Enchantment isn't in and of itself evil, but Paladins that follow beliefs of freedom and/or deities that do would probably have a problem with them.
Th PCs who that the Paladon should have a problem with, if its actually those crimes.
... you seriously think that Paladins should have more problems with characters that are Chaotic than Evil?? Really?
Read the Associates and Code section, it mentions Evil, no where does it talk about Chaotic.
The Paladon. The Paladin archetype for those that want more mafia in their campaign.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
I'd say it has yes. With this and the other thread I don't think I could play PFS, let alone a Paladin in it, if the stance is "People who create undead and summon demons are Evil and you should stop them... unless other player characters do it then it's not only okay but also apparently supersedes your deity and your beliefs".
I'd appreciate if you didn't misrepresent the official stance. Paladins don't get away with a free pass, but they do have options. Travelling companions are a hazard, not an instant downfall and there are many roleplaying ways to avoid needing an atonement.
It's too much suspension of disbelief, so I can see Paladin players thinking they need an atonement after the Society forces them to work with a Necromancer who creates undead or a Diabolist who summons devils.
Paladin players are welcome to purchase as many atonements as they wish to enhance their roleplaying experience. GMs cannot force a paladin to atone for adventuring (circumstances that arise may still call for it).
Please try to understand the roleplaying perspective that allows the Cooperate tenet to work well and stop making your personal hangups out to be universal issues.
|
|
I'd say it has yes. With this and the other thread I don't think I could play PFS, let alone a Paladin in it, if the stance is "People who create undead and summon demons are Evil and you should stop them... unless other player characters do it then it's not only okay but also apparently supersedes your deity and your beliefs".I'd appreciate if you didn't misrepresent the official stance. Paladins don't get away with a free pass, but they do have options. Travelling companions are a hazard, not an instant downfall and there are many roleplaying ways to avoid needing an atonement.
It's too much suspension of disbelief, so I can see Paladin players thinking they need an atonement after the Society forces them to work with a Necromancer who creates undead or a Diabolist who summons devils.Paladin players are welcome to purchase as many atonements as they wish to enhance their roleplaying experience. GMs cannot force a paladin to atone for adventuring (circumstances that arise may still call for it).
Please try to understand the roleplaying perspective that allows the Cooperate tenet to work well and stop making your personal hangups out to be universal issues.
My apologies, but I don't think that I was misrepresenting the stance. If you're a Paladin or follower of Pharasma you're supposed to be perfectly fine with someone creating undead in PFS.
And I'm trying to see the roleplaying perspective that others have brought up that backs this up but I'm just not.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are the only characters who have to worry about their traveling companions.
But rules won't protect paladins from poor GMing.
You have no some idea how hard i have to work to keep pathfinders from destryoing the diverse and wonderful flora and fauna of golarion
|
|
Enchantment isn't in and of itself evil, but Paladins that follow beliefs of freedom and/or deities that do would probably have a problem with them.
Th PCs who that the Paladon should have a problem with, if its actually those crimes.
... you seriously think that Paladins should have more problems with characters that are Chaotic than Evil?? Really?
Read the Associates and Code section, it mentions Evil, no where does it talk about Chaotic.
You failed to get that Nosig was mentioning the frequency of traveling with plenty of people that should violate the Associates clause who are neither necromancers or devil summoners.
Honestly Rysky, you have made this a personal crusade in both threads and are championing something you personally believe in that is not shared by the majority. Just because you do not like necromancers, does not mean they do not belong in PFS, or in The Society as a whole. There is plenty of examples of role playing/story evidence that indicate the Pathfinder Society would employ unsavory and evil types. If that is not a game system you can be part of, then that is your choice and there are plenty of other options.
|
|
Enchantment isn't in and of itself evil, but Paladins that follow beliefs of freedom and/or deities that do would probably have a problem with them.
Th PCs who that the Paladon should have a problem with, if its actually those crimes.
... you seriously think that Paladins should have more problems with characters that are Chaotic than Evil?? Really?
Read the Associates and Code section, it mentions Evil, no where does it talk about Chaotic.
You failed to get that Nosig was mentioning the frequency of traveling with plenty of people that should violate the Associates clause who are neither necromancers or devil summoners.
Honestly Rysky, you have made this a personal crusade in both threads and are championing something you personally believe in that is not shared by the majority. Just because you do not like necromancers, does not mean they do not belong in PFS, or in The Society as a whole. There is plenty of examples of role playing/story evidence that indicate the Pathfinder Society would employ unsavory and evil types. If that is not a game system you can be part of, then that is your choice and there are plenty of other options.
And people who legitamtely break the law would probably not work well with a Paladin, but they undercut their argument by saing that somehow Chaotic people are worse than Diabolists.
And I actually don't have a problem with necromancers, I have a problem when you're supposed to turn off who your character is just because of what someone else is playing, and that seems to more often apply to Paladins than others.
But you're right, PFS is just something I shouldn't get involved in.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Obligatory alignment thread comments (I should have these in copy paste.)
Any one who plays a paladin or any other character with a binding external code *needs* to have a reason in their characters back story about why this character is willing to work within an organization that periodically, or even frequently, violates their code.
For example, my shield Marshall of arkenstar, despite his obligation to do so, does not insist that his comrades prove that they did not buy their firearms from smugglers, and while he *tells* everyone that he is with the PFS to track down an aspis gun smuggling ring, the fact is that he is attempting to find out where all these pathfinders are getting their guns and training...
Second, keep in mind that if your character is tricked or forced into committing an infraction, then it is only 300gp for the atonement.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say it has yes. With this and the other thread I don't think I could play PFS, let alone a Paladin in it, if the stance is "People who create undead and summon demons are Evil and you should stop them... unless other player characters do it then it's not only okay but also apparently supersedes your deity and your beliefs".I'd appreciate if you didn't misrepresent the official stance. Paladins don't get away with a free pass, but they do have options. Travelling companions are a hazard, not an instant downfall and there are many roleplaying ways to avoid needing an atonement.
It's too much suspension of disbelief, so I can see Paladin players thinking they need an atonement after the Society forces them to work with a Necromancer who creates undead or a Diabolist who summons devils.Paladin players are welcome to purchase as many atonements as they wish to enhance their roleplaying experience. GMs cannot force a paladin to atone for adventuring (circumstances that arise may still call for it).
Please try to understand the roleplaying perspective that allows the Cooperate tenet to work well and stop making your personal hangups out to be universal issues.
My apologies, but I don't think that I was misrepresenting the stance. If you're a Paladin or follower of Pharasma you're supposed to be perfectly fine with someone creating undead in PFS.
And I'm trying to see the roleplaying perspective that others have brought up that backs this up but I'm just not.
You're not supposed to be perfectly fine with someone creating undead. You can be all sorts of not-okay with undead. You are supposed to find a way for your character to be not-okay with undead that also allows for other people to play their characters.
It's like the libertarian ideal: The rights to play your character how you want stop only at the feet of mine.
|
|
And I actually don't have a problem with necromancers, I have a problem when you're supposed to turn off who your character is just because of what someone else is playing, and that seems to more often apply to Paladins than others.
How do you settle that for competing values of "you" and "your character?""
|
|
I'd say it has yes. With this and the other thread I don't think I could play PFS, let alone a Paladin in it, if the stance is "People who create undead and summon demons are Evil and you should stop them... unless other player characters do it then it's not only okay but also apparently supersedes your deity and your beliefs".I'd appreciate if you didn't misrepresent the official stance. Paladins don't get away with a free pass, but they do have options. Travelling companions are a hazard, not an instant downfall and there are many roleplaying ways to avoid needing an atonement.
It's too much suspension of disbelief, so I can see Paladin players thinking they need an atonement after the Society forces them to work with a Necromancer who creates undead or a Diabolist who summons devils.Paladin players are welcome to purchase as many atonements as they wish to enhance their roleplaying experience. GMs cannot force a paladin to atone for adventuring (circumstances that arise may still call for it).
Please try to understand the roleplaying perspective that allows the Cooperate tenet to work well and stop making your personal hangups out to be universal issues.
My apologies, but I don't think that I was misrepresenting the stance. If you're a Paladin or follower of Pharasma you're supposed to be perfectly fine with someone creating undead in PFS.
And I'm trying to see the roleplaying perspective that others have brought up that backs this up but I'm just not.
You're not supposed to be perfectly fine with someone creating undead. You can be all sorts of not-okay with undead. You are supposed to find a way for your character to be not-okay with undead that also allows for other people to play their characters.
It's like the libertarian ideal: The rights to play your character how you want stop only at the feet of mine.
I would liek to know how, since all of the examples given to me this don't feel right.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And people who legitamtely break the law would probably not work well with a Paladin, but they undercut their argument by saying that somehow Chaotic people are worse than Diabolists.
And I actually don't have a problem with necromancers, I have a problem when you're supposed to turn off who your character is just because of what someone else is playing, and that seems to more often apply to Paladins than others.
It's a character background/personality thing. Making a character that is zealously intollerant of certain types of other Pathfinders is not okay for PFS. It violates the concept of being cooperative.
That said, you also shouldn't be turning anything off. You just need to make characters that can temporaily tollerate *misguided* fellow pathfinders for a given mission (they don't need to be friends or stay in touch after the mission, but they need to able to cooperate during the mission).
For a Pharasma Devotee, just justify it as a delayed judgement. After the scenario ends, you'll destroy all their undead (and maybe hire an assassin to "take care" of the necromancer). Don't need to tell the other player this, just have that be your justification. You're not allowing undead, you're just waiting until a more oppertune time to destroy them. The mission comes first.
Remember, for PFS, an indeterminent amount of time happens "off camera" in between sessions. This gives you plenty of time to destroy undead, go to church, secretly prank other pathfinders, steal, loot, and so forth. A player could even be a necromancer that only creates undead in between sessions (as a background thing, no in-game effect), or you could be a pharasma devotee that is cataloging evidence on necromatic pathfinders to have them kicked out formally (so you can execute without breaking your pathfinder oaths). Or you could raise a family. Doesn't matter, it's "off camera."
|
|
How do you settle that for competing values of "you" and "your character?""
And I actually don't have a problem with necromancers, I have a problem when you're supposed to turn off who your character is just because of what someone else is playing, and that seems to more often apply to Paladins than others.
What do you mean?
|
|
Can you outline those examples and why you don't find them appropriate?
The best way is for every paladin to remember that all their companions can be redeemed. Your companions may take evil actions, and you should oppose those, but they can always be redeemed.
Those are the examples given, saying you're trying to redeem the Necromancer* and being more or less okay with creating undead so long as you can say you destroyed them after the scenario ended. You're cleaning up the mess but you're not really doing anything, and can't do anything about the cause.
*since it was pointed out, I don't have a problem with Necromancers, they're just the stock character that keeps popping up in these scenarios.
|
|
What do you mean?
How do you settle that for competing values of "you" and "your character?""
Player A cites "it's what my character would do" for not having character A adventure with Character B, or attempting to kill character B
Player B sites "it's what my character wold do" for having character B not adventure with character A or attempting to kill character A.
Which is right?
|
|
And people who legitamtely break the law would probably not work well with a Paladin, but they undercut their argument by saying that somehow Chaotic people are worse than Diabolists.
And I actually don't have a problem with necromancers, I have a problem when you're supposed to turn off who your character is just because of what someone else is playing, and that seems to more often apply to Paladins than others.
It's a character background/personality thing. Making a character that is zealously intollerant of certain types of other Pathfinders is not okay for PFS. It violates the concept of being cooperative.
That said, you also shouldn't be turning anything off. You just need to make characters that can temporaily tollerate *misguided* fellow pathfinders for a given mission (they don't need to be friends or stay in touch after the mission, but they need to able to cooperate during the mission).
For a Pharasma Devotee, just justify it as a delayed judgement. After the scenario ends, you'll destroy all their undead (and maybe hire an assassin to "take care" of the necromancer). Don't need to tell the other player this, just have that be your justification. You're not allowing undead, you're just waiting until a more oppertune time to destroy them. The mission comes first.
Remember, for PFS, an indeterminent amount of time happens "off camera" in between sessions. This gives you plenty of time to destroy undead, go to church, secretly prank other pathfinders, steal, loot, and so forth. A player could even be a necromancer that only creates undead in between sessions (as a background thing, no in-game effect), or you could be a pharasma devotee that is cataloging evidence on necromatic pathfinders to have them kicked out formally (so you can execute without breaking your pathfinder oaths). Or you could raise a family. Doesn't matter, it's "off camera."
That kinda prevents people from playing Paladins and followers of Pharasma and Sarenrae since they are vehemently opposed to those characters, PC or NPC.
And the "just say you destroy the Undead after the scenario wnds when they don't exist anymore" just doesn't cut it since you haven't done anything to stop the cause.
... I'm pretty sure attempting to or just stating you're hiring an Assassin on another PC would be a very resounding no, PFS or otherwise.
|
|
What do you mean?
How do you settle that for competing values of "you" and "your character?""
Player A cites "it's what my character would do" for not having character A adventure with Character B, or attempting to kill character B
Player B sites "it's what my character wold do" for having character B not adventure with character A or attempting to kill character A.
Which is right?
The one who points at the book/flavor/Lore and says "well by all accounts our two characters should be trying to murder each other now.
If you play an Inquisitor of Pharasma you hunt down Undead and those who create them. That's not you coming up with a reason for your character, that is explicitly what your character/Class/deity is all about.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Can you outline those examples and why you don't find them appropriate?
The best way is for every paladin to remember that all their companions can be redeemed. Your companions may take evil actions, and you should oppose those, but they can always be redeemed.
Those are the examples given, saying you're trying to redeem the Necromancer* and being more or less okay with creating undead so long as you can say you destroyed them after the scenario ended. You're cleaning up the mess but you're not really doing anything, and can't do anything about the cause.
What do you mean by do anything? Are you upset you can't kill your fellow players' characters?
You don't have to wait until the end of the scenario to kill the undead. If you arrange with the other player and GM, your paladin can smite those undead immediately after the undead help you kill the minions of the diabolist you were sent to stop. You do have to discuss such things with your table, first.
Planting a seed of redemption in the heart of the necromancer only counts for nothing in the most close-minded of worldviews. Expand your horizons and resolve not to play Lawful Stupid.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one who points at the book/flavor/Lore and says "well by all accounts our two characters should be trying to murder each other now.
If you play an Inquisitor of Pharasma you hunt down Undead and those who create them. That's not you coming up with a reason for your character, that is explicitly what your character/Class/deity is all about.
Then the GM pulls out the book/flavor/lore and says "In Golarion, the Pathfinder Society is a cooperative endeavor." That is explicitly what your character/the game is all about, and all characters should adhere to that in-world lore. A general principle of organized play is that your personal character story can't supersede the shared campaign setting.
Really, this whole discussion comes down to this, Rysky. You are using the published religious lore to try and supersede the equally-valid lore of the organization in favor of your personal roleplaying preferences.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enchantment isn't in and of itself evil, but Paladins that follow beliefs of freedom and/or deities that do would probably have a problem with them.
Th PCs who that the Paladon should have a problem with, if its actually those crimes.
... you seriously think that Paladins should have more problems with characters that are Chaotic than Evil?? Really?
Read the Associates and Code section, it mentions Evil, no where does it talk about Chaotic.
#1 I didn't say Enchantment spells were evil. I said "I personally find these kinds of persons to 'consistently offend' my paladins beliefs much more than a necromancer...".
#2 I did not understand this line in your post. "Th PCs who that the Paladon should have a problem with, if its actually those crimes." What were you trying to say?
#3 I did not say "... you seriously think that Paladins should have more problems with characters that are Chaotic than Evil?? Really?". I said that a Paladin should be offended by a PC that is dedicated to Chaos and a PC who is "a Diabolist who summons devils.". In PFS, "a Diabolist who summons devils" would (most likely) be a Neutral Lawful or perhaps True Neutral aligned PC. So... Yeah. A Paladin would have less in common a Cleric of the Drunken Hero, (or Calistria) than he has with a Neutral Lawful PC who summons Devils.
#4 - I have Read the Associates and Code section, but thank you for assuming I didn't. Yes, it mentions Evil, something I did not. Ever. I talked about PCs - which CAN'T be Evil... In fact, it could be said (not truthfully IMHO) that in PFS you can't run an Evil PC because one of your companions could be running a Paladin. PFS allows Paladins, so we have to restrict everyone from playing an Evil alignment PC.
and finally...
#5 "...no where does it talk about Chaotic." Well... not...
1) And i in effect agreed with you, I know enchantment is morally rephrensible to a lot of people.
2) those were vague throwouts, are the characters stealing or reaquiring something that was stolen in the first place?
3) That is an opinion of yours that I heavily disagree with. Paladins do not put Law above Good.
4) Yes you can't be Evil in PFS, but that's rather pointless since they've made everything Evil not Evil. So it's not you can't be Evil as Evil just doesn't exist even if you do Evil stuff.
5) to me "morals" have always been Good and Evil, not Chaos and Law.
|
|
The one who points at the book/flavor/Lore and says "well by all accounts our two characters should be trying to murder each other now.
If you play an Inquisitor of Pharasma you hunt down Undead and those who create them. That's not you coming up with a reason for your character, that is explicitly what your character/Class/deity is all about.
Then the GM pulls out the book/flavor/lore and says "In Golarion, the Pathfinder Society is a cooperative endeavor." That is explicitly what your character/the game is all about, and all characters should adhere to that in-world lore. A general principle of organized play is that your personal character story can't supersede the shared campaign setting.
Really, this whole discussion comes down to this, Rysky. You are using the published religious lore to try and supersede the equally-valid lore of the organization in favor of your personal roleplaying preferences.
Does whatever you sign when you join the Pathfinders state that you would have to routinely work with people who offend your beliefs?
Why does the organization's Lore though invalidate the religious Lore though? Why is it more important? I just want a character's beliefs to actually mean something.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Does whatever you sign when you join the Pathfinders state that you would have to routinely work with people who offend your beliefs?
You might be assigned with anyone. Whether or not it becomes 'routine' is up to the gods.
Why does the organization's Lore though invalidate the religious Lore though? Why is it more important? I just want a character's beliefs to actually mean something.
It doesn't. They are equally valid. But when two equally valid ideas conflict, the method to determine which prevails falls into the meta-space. What solution is least disruptive for the players involved? That is a discussion that needs to happen table by table.
Your characters beliefs mean as much as you make them mean. Find a way to play them out without resorting to violence. Like, you know, a paladin should.
|
|
Can you outline those examples and why you don't find them appropriate?
The best way is for every paladin to remember that all their companions can be redeemed. Your companions may take evil actions, and you should oppose those, but they can always be redeemed.
Those are the examples given, saying you're trying to redeem the Necromancer* and being more or less okay with creating undead so long as you can say you destroyed them after the scenario ended. You're cleaning up the mess but you're not really doing anything, and can't do anything about the cause.
What do you mean by do anything? Are you upset you can't kill your fellow players' characters?
You don't have to wait until the end of the scenario to kill the undead. If you arrange with the other player and GM, your paladin can smite those undead immediately after the undead help you kill the minions of the diabolist you were sent to stop. You do have to discuss such things with your table, first.
Planting a seed of redemption in the heart of the necromancer only counts for nothing in the most close-minded of worldviews. Expand your horizons and resolve not to play Lawful Stupid.
Not exactly, it's just too much of a disconnect. I have to kill that person over there for summoning demons but I can't kill this one doing the same thing because metagame constraints even though by all means I should be trying to. When an NPC does it it's bad, but when a PC does it it's fine...
Okay, but that's still okaying Undead. A Paladin shouldn't get to say as long I get to destroy all the Undead it's fine, no worries.
I'm not trying to be Lawful stupid im just trying to figure out how you're supposed to reunite that you're supposed to be okay with someone repeatedly doing by all means are Evil things.
|
|
The one who points at the book/flavor/Lore and says "well by all accounts our two characters should be trying to murder each other now.
So it's a race to claim moral superiority and the one that does it first is right?
That isn't workable for A table, much less an organized play campaign with thousands of tables.
It's also not the only available solution.
The solution is you're not allowed to play character A or character B.
You think that includes all paladins, but it doesn't. It just includes a subset of paladins that don't justify working towards the greater good, or think that redeeming someone might be worth more than whacking them with a sword, or ones that are willing to let the society run around without adult supervision because they thought it was more important to perforate some minor villian with delusions of big time evil.
|
|
Does whatever you sign when you join the Pathfinders state that you would have to routinely work with people who offend your beliefs?You might be assigned with anyone. Whether or not it becomes 'routine' is up to the gods.
Why does the organization's Lore though invalidate the religious Lore though? Why is it more important? I just want a character's beliefs to actually mean something.It doesn't. They are equally valid. But when two equally valid ideas conflict, the method to determine which prevails falls into the meta-space. What solution is least disruptive for the players involved? That is a discussion that needs to happen table by table.
Your characters beliefs mean as much as you make them mean. Find a way to play them out without resorting to violence. Like, you know, a paladin should.
But does it state that you would have to work with people that are diametrically opposed to your character? The Society has a lot of bad press but that might be dissuaded as baseless rumors, do they tell Paladins and the like that they have to work with people who create Undead and summon Fiends?
And that meta causes too much disconnect, and I cant figure out anything to fix it. I wish I could.