Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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...
You fail to see the distinction between the irredeemable diabolist bent on world destruction, and your ally in the mission to stop said diabolist who happens to employ some highly questionable methods?
It may be metagame, but it's not bad metagame to respect your fellow players. That you find it restricting says more about you as a player.
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.
Patience?
Gods, you put up with the evildoing neutral character and try to change them from their ways before they fall into becoming evil. You don't have to be okay with undead. You can be very not-okay with undead. Your response to being not-okay with undead can't be to kill your party-member.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. You know when you sign up to work with the Society that you might be working with some unsavory people for short periods of time.
If your character concept doesn't work with that, don't play them in society. It's really not that difficult of an idea to grasp.
Also, this doesn't preclude all paladins as you seem to keep asserting. Paladins could easily see their time adventuring with these unsavory types as an opportunity to try and redeem them.
|
How is a paladin adventuring with the necromancer any worse than adventuring with the Chelaxian Devil Summoner? Or a Demon summoning wizard?
Guess we better ban those too while we're at it then......
It's not.
And I didn't suggest banning any of those, if I had to pick something to ban it would be the Paladin.
|
|
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.
I don't see how someone who creates Undead or summons Fiends has moral superiority over a Paladin based on those actions.
|
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?
Yes. As quoted on the first page of this thread.
Cooperate: The Society places no moral obligations
upon its members, so agents span all races, creeds, and
motivations. At any given time, a Pathfnder lodge might
house a fiend-summoning Chelaxian, a Silver Crusade
paladin, an antiquities-obsessed Osirian necromancer, and
a friendly Taldan raconteur. Pathfnder agents, no matter
which of the eight factions they belong to, are expected to
respect one another’s claims and stay out of each other’s
affairs unless offering a helping hand.
You, the player, know going in that you might sit down at a table with any other legal character.
Your character, the Paladin, knows that he might be sent on a mission with any other legal character.
If you do not/your Paladin does not want to Cooperate as described in the guide, then either don't bring that character to PFS, or ask before the start of the scenario about the things that would trigger a reaction from your Paladin, and don't bring the character on those scenarios.
|
|
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...You fail to see the distinction between the irredeemable diabolist bent on world destruction, and your ally in the mission to stop said diabolist who happens to employ some highly questionable methods?
It may be metagame, but it's not bad metagame to respect your fellow players. That you find it restricting says more about you as a player.
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.
Patience?
Gods, you put up with the evildoing neutral character and try to change them from their ways before they fall into becoming evil. You don't have to be okay with undead. You can be very not-okay with undead. Your response to being not-okay with undead can't be to kill your party-member.
I'm okay with Greater Good scenarios, but when do those come up in Scenarios, are they that often?
A problem with the redemption angle is the meta that they aren't going to be redeemed or stop since the player wanted to play that character.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A problem with the redemption angle is the meta that they aren't going to be redeemed or stop since the player wanted to play that character.
You don't know that. Your character doesn't know that. So don't base your roleplaying on that assumption.
|
|
I don't see how someone who creates Undead or summons Fiends has moral superiority over a Paladin based on those actions.
Because you're conflating the player and the character.
Who gets to play their character is about the PLAYER. You're talking about the character doing something morally reprehensible and trying to tie that to their character. And no, that doesn't work.
In game, the society doesn't care as long as you come back with the artifact, so the one in the wrong is the one that won't cooporate.
|
|
A problem with the redemption angle is the meta that they aren't going to be redeemed or stop since the player wanted to play that character.You don't know that. Your character doesn't know that. So don't base your roleplaying on that assumption.
Fair enough.
I'm just having a hard time keeping which meta's out and which in at this point...
|
|
Your character doesn't know the meta. That's the point of meta. So you don't base any of your characters actions on the meta.
You do however make a character that works within the society in the first place. Ad it doesn't make sense that a Paladin who believes all necromancers/devil summoners can't be redeemed would join the society in the first place.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
The paladin as you seem to play them? Yeah.I don't want to ban any options. I guess this whole thing is me trying to figure out how to justify playing in PFS, let alone justify playing a Paladin in PFS.
I'd start by practicing how to separate the player from the character. You can have a lot of fun with other players when your characters are barely not killing each other if you want to.
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A problem with the redemption angle is the meta that they aren't going to be redeemed or stop since the player wanted to play that character.You don't know that. Your character doesn't know that. So don't base your roleplaying on that assumption.Fair enough.
I'm just having a hard time keeping which meta's out and which in at this point...
You don't need metagame to not kill the necromancer. You can (and should) use totally in-world justification.
|
|
I don't see how someone who creates Undead or summons Fiends has moral superiority over a Paladin based on those actions.Because you're conflating the player and the character.
Who gets to play their character is about the PLAYER. You're talking about the character doing something morally reprehensible and trying to tie that to their character. And no, that doesn't work.
In game, the society doesn't care as long as you come back with the artifact, so the one in the wrong is the one that won't cooporate.
???
"You're talking about the character doing something morally reprehensible and trying to tie that to their character." um, yes? If the character did something morally reprehensible then... they did something morally reprehensible.
In the eyes of the society, which supercedes deities and codes.
|
|
Your character doesn't know the meta. That's the point of meta. So you don't base any of your characters actions on the meta.
You do however make a character that works within the society in the first place. Ad it doesn't make sense that a Paladin who believes all necromancers/devil summoners can't be redeemed would join the society in the first place.
So that relegates the choices then to Redemption focused Paladins, I guess?
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
So that relegates the choices then to Redemption focused Paladins, I guess?Your character doesn't know the meta. That's the point of meta. So you don't base any of your characters actions on the meta.
You do however make a character that works within the society in the first place. Ad it doesn't make sense that a Paladin who believes all necromancers/devil summoners can't be redeemed would join the society in the first place.
Only with a limited imagination.
The only restriction is that the paladin be able to prioritize.
|
|
The Society doesn't supercede Deitys and codes. It's a neutral organization and only people who can work with that would join in the first place.
That's why I was asking if the Society was upfront when they tell people (or the GM telling anew player) hey you're going to have to work with people you would normally try to kill. And not dance around with the term "unsavory" but straight up tell the Pharasmin they're going to have to work with Undead creating Necromancers occasionally.
|
|
[
"You're talking about the character doing something morally reprehensible and trying to tie that to their character." um, yes?
No. You are trying to punish Bob (the guy who wants to play skelator) by booting him off the table
In the eyes of the society, which supercedes deities and codes.
It does not. Having a slightly different, more tolerant take on the deity or code is not breaking it entirely. Selecting those with more tolerant takes is matching the in and out of game goals.
|
|
Doesn't have to be their focus. You just have to believe that redemption is possible so that you're notime refusing to work with the devil summoner.
Or maybe you believe that the good you can accomplish within the society greatly outweighs having to temporarily work with a necromancer.
Or you play a Paladin who won't work with necromancers and don't go on any missions where one shows up
|
Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha
|
The Society doesn't supercede Deitys and codes. It's a neutral organization and only people who can work with that would join in the first place.That's why I was asking if the Society was upfront when they tell people (or the GM telling anew player) hey you're going to have to work with people you would normally try to kill. And not dance around with the term "unsavory" but straight up tell the Pharasmin they're going to have to work with Undead creating Necromancers occasionally.
Diabolists are specifically called out in the Guide referenced on page 1.
|
|
So that relegates the choices then to Redemption focused Paladins, I guess?Your character doesn't know the meta. That's the point of meta. So you don't base any of your characters actions on the meta.
You do however make a character that works within the society in the first place. Ad it doesn't make sense that a Paladin who believes all necromancers/devil summoners can't be redeemed would join the society in the first place.
Only with a limited imagination.
The only restriction is that the paladin be able to prioritize.
I guess my imagination is limited then. Since I'm not seeing it outside of Greater Good style things. Those have been brought up before, but how often do Scenarios do that and not "go get us this thing cause we want it"?
|
|
[
"You're talking about the character doing something morally reprehensible and trying to tie that to their character." um, yes?
No. You are trying to punish Bob (the guy who wants to play skelator) by booting him off the table
In the eyes of the society, which supercedes deities and codes.It does not. Having a slightly different, more tolerant take on the deity or code is not breaking it entirely. Selecting those with more tolerant takes is matching the in and out of game goals.
1) ... huh?
2) I guess yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are responsible for your own justifications. Don't look for reasons against it, look for reasons for it.I'm trying (and failing).
Then perhaps you shouldn't play a paladin, because you seem to be the one with a problem with it.
|
|
That kinda prevents people from playing Paladins and followers of Pharasma and Sarenrae...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."
Darn site cuts the quote too short. Anyway, you know what I'm quoting which is what matters, Rysky.
I think there's a disconnect with your characters between roleplaying the deity and the mortal follower. Pharasma and many paladin Deities are Vehemetly opposed to undead, but the mortal doesn't have to be as zealous about it. Yeah, they shouldn't be welcoming undead as buddies, and probably don't like undead, but they don't need to constantly prioritize their deity's will over that of the character.
The cleric/paladin isn't possessed by their deity, they retain their free will and can choose the approach that works best in a given situation. "'Cause my deity commands me," is not a valid excuse to act out, regardless of your class selection. This isn't unique to PFS. You are roleplaying a person, not their deity, act like it.
In the case of PFS, the best approach is not to zealously destroy the allied necromancer's minions when they show up. You don't need to like them, but you can't behave in counter productive way towards to goals of the team. The mission comes first. Once completed, all bets are off and you can go beat up that necromancer "off camera." Until then, play nice.
And regarding compromise, I've roleplayed neutral clerics of evil deities in PFS, which is legal. Sure, the deity would love me to be evil, but PFS prevents me from being evil, even if said evil could be used in a cooperative manner. So this isn't just something paladins and pharama worshippers must endure, many followers of deities are unable to role play the more zealous versions of their faith because it isn't compatible with PFS play. Just how it is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't really want to respond but okay, Then at what point between fervor and lip service does the Deity supplying your powers cut you off because you veered too much to the latter?
Once completed, all bets are off and you can go beat up that necromancer "off camera."
... you really need to stop advocating this.
|
Just something for us to think about...
Faction Traits- Scarab Sages- Attuned to the Ancestors
Source PFS Guide to Organized Play 6.0 pg. 16
You were raised to believe that undead are nothing to fear—they are simply the unliving remnants of your honored ancestors. Once per day, you can surround yourself with an aura of unlife. Unintelligent undead ignore you unless you take action against them, per hide from undead. The protection lasts 1 round for every two character levels you possess (with a minimum of 1 round). If you take any offensive action against any undead, this effect immediately ends. This is a supernatural ability.
|
|
Doesn't have to be their focus. You just have to believe that redemption is possible so that you're notime refusing to work with the devil summoner.
Or maybe you believe that the good you can accomplish within the society greatly outweighs having to temporarily work with a necromancer.
Or you play a Paladin who won't work with necromancers and don't go on any missions where one shows up
The issue is that the paladin says working with them should probably have some atonements while being with them. So if you get hired and it takes a few weeks or month to travel via boat you've been with an Evil Imp familiar of someone for a long time. These are the things that per the book the paladin should receive an atonement for, even if it's for the greater good.
|
|
Is there any value in continuing this thread?
Rysky, since much of this centers around your specific concerns of playing a Paladin in PFS (or at this point playing in PFS at all), do you feel there is more to be gained from this continued talking in circles?
I was kinda done but then someone else responded so it started up again...
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So that relegates the choices then to Redemption focused Paladins, I guess?Your character doesn't know the meta. That's the point of meta. So you don't base any of your characters actions on the meta.
You do however make a character that works within the society in the first place. Ad it doesn't make sense that a Paladin who believes all necromancers/devil summoners can't be redeemed would join the society in the first place.
As an example, my only PFS Paladin is a Paladin/Ninja of Kelinahat, the LG Empyreal Lord of spies. Her "Greater Good" is gathering information on possible threats to the well-being of Golarion, and she is willing to go on trust-building missions with sketchy associates because she is playing the long game. And in the process, she is reducing the amount of evil her associates might otherwise commit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I joined the Society to help out and be a team player, not necessarily to stab bad men. Fortunately, I've never been sent out with anyone playing with devils or raising the dead.
If I were... I'unno. No aid another for them, I guess. It's not like there's nobody else here who might be glad for Shelyn's favor.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As an example, my only PFS Paladin is a Paladin/Ninja of Kelinahat, the LG Empyreal Lord of spies. Her "Greater Good" is gathering information on possible threats to the well-being of Golarion, and she is willing to go on trust-building missions with sketchy associates because she is playing the long game. And in the process, she is reducing the amount of evil her associates might otherwise commit.
That multiclassing seems too... synergistic. Have you considered dipping wizard?
|
|
Didn't really want to respond but okay, Then at what point between fervor and lip service does the Deity supplying your powers cut you off because you veered too much to the latter?
Once completed, all bets are off and you can go beat up that necromancer "off camera."... you really need to stop advocating this.
I'm just saying that your PFS character can be more than just what is presented in the sessions, because the sessions only represent part of your character's life and only the part during mission.
And you don't need to tell anyone, especially if you think it would create strife between characters/players.
For example, got a player role playing a pathfinder that is one gender in another gender's body (don't recall the term for this). Apparently there's some PFS legal potion of gender change they are saving up for, and are just crossdressing in the meantime. Doesn't really matter, though, since this has really only come up when talking to the player after the session is over. It's a background motivation for the character, but it has nothing to do with the mission, so it doesn't come up. Just "Off Camera" stuff.
As for the line between worshiping a deity and being possessed by one, it's vague, but often players forget that their divine character isn't their deity. The deity is their ideal, sure, but part of worship requires understanding that you cannot be as perfect as the one you worship. You are not God, just someone that is trying to follow God's example, despite knowing full well that such things are impossible because, again, you are not God.
So for roleplaying, unless the GM specifically suggests doing something in the deity's name, I'd try to balance mortal concerns evenly with divine concerns. In this case, mortal concerns means being a member of the Pathfinder Society (as well as any other PFS rules, like no PVP). So you should role play the best divine path possible, but it has to be a path that allows you to maintain your mortal needs too. Often this will have you acting less than perfect, but perfection is not something that a worshipper should be obtaining, since perfection is the domain of the divine you worship.
Roleplaying wise, a good example is a Cleric of Urgathoa. Being alive and a worshipper of Urgathoa is kinda a conflict of interest...but she does have many living worshippers. This is because they are maintaining their mortal (or immortal) needs while seeking their divine path. Yeah, many eventually end up undead, but they don't do it right away despite their faith idealizing the idea that everyone should be undead....