Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know that there are those of us who play Lawful Good characters and we're getting really, really tired of this Lawful Stupid nonsense phrase.I’ve played lawful good and lawful stupid characters. Both can be fun in the right type of game.With the notable problem that not many scenarios are designed to allow the paladins to express themselves. Also the "fanaticism" of a minority of the players piloting them gives a poor view of the class as a whole, and it's not possible to get past nor it's useful like I said before to grumble. Players piloting paladins should be prepared for players making their ingame life difficult even if not being disruptive in that way.
I might myself insist that the paladin follows the agenda of the group before his/her own, provided they don't do something egregiously evil.
Unfortunately, players aren't the only problem. I have seen, and been subject to, GMs who insist players play their Paladins in a fanatical disruptive manner.
|
|
I had a GM that threatened me with an alignment infraction for not specifically and directly stating all the truth of a given mission to the enemy that we as Society agents were trying to prevent from knowing said information.
I probably acted immaturely, but the only way to resolve that sort of situation is to simply close one's mouth and say nothing, and if they persist, kick it up at the resolution phase.
|
|
No.
EDIT:
If the rules of EBIL are codified, then the EdgeLords will camp there, and do 'just' enough to not get EBIL-smacked and scream and holler if they get even looked at if they aren't doing exactly the EBIL things
PFS has several paragraphs on 'be cool to one another'.
GMs should review that, players should review that, and take their notions about morality and ethics from RL to the side while running, respecting their fellow gamers.
|
good and evil are certifiably inherent properties of the setting, just like law and chaos. they are also separate from being a prick, and real world ethics - given that evil is a quantifiable metaphysical property of the setting, some hollering seems entirely appropriate if you get mislabeled. i'd even go so far as to say leaving it ambiguous opens it up to more abuse.
codified alignment guidelines seem entirely appropriate and a gap in the published material to boot. other than affecting spell casting what does a good/evil/neutral plane even really mean?
as for edgelords, just don't play with them or let them know they aren't welcome. they are not a system/rules problem.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just too many possibilities to codify evil. Even a loose guideline would be pages.
I think the current guide has a suitable guideline for alignment shifts and evil acts. It's short and lists a few really egregious acts. For GMs that choose to being real life, 21st century morality into this game, where that is not the kind of morality that exists in Golarion, I have a couple options. I can choose not to play with that GM. If I really enjoy them otherwise, I can just choose a different character at their tables.
But the 30+ years of angst in alignment arguments would see any kind 9f codification as to the exact nature 9f what's evil, shouted down. It would be a terrible idea to start codifying it now.
|
For GMs that choose to being real life, 21st century morality into this game, where that is not the kind of morality that exists in Golarion,
That is the morality that exists in Golarion though. Golarion isn't Medieval or the Dark Ages or any other time period on Earth, never was, and has never attempted to be.
It's a fantasy setting made by people in the 21st century.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For GMs that choose to being real life, 21st century morality into this game, where that is not the kind of morality that exists in Golarion,That is the morality that exists in Golarion though. Golarion isn't Medieval or the Dark Ages or any other time period on Earth, never was, and has never attempted to be.
It's a fantasy setting made by people in the 21st century.
Who are emulating a more early renaissance style sensibility. Claiming that all sapient creatures, even deep in the wild, must go through an impartial jury trial and be assumed innocent before prove guilty is what I'm talking about here.
That might only really exist in the major cities of Andoran.
The point being, people keep bringing up that it's evil to kill a helpless creature. Without exception. And in Golarion, fantasy world with monsters and holy Paladins that are often akin to Texas Rangers or US Marshals of the wild west (with jurisdiction everywhere), sensibilities, these types of concepts just cannot apply wholesale.
|
|
For GMs that choose to being real life, 21st century morality into this game, where that is not the kind of morality that exists in Golarion,That is the morality that exists in Golarion though. Golarion isn't Medieval or the Dark Ages or any other time period on Earth, never was, and has never attempted to be.
It's a fantasy setting made by people in the 21st century.
Who are emulating a more early renaissance style sensibility. Claiming that all sapient creatures, even deep in the wild, must go through an impartial jury trial and be assumed innocent before prove guilty is what I'm talking about here.
That might only really exist in the major cities of Andoran.
The point being, people keep bringing up that it's evil to kill a helpless creature. Without exception. And in Golarion, fantasy world with monsters and holy Paladins that are often akin to Texas Rangers or US Marshals of the wild west (with jurisdiction everywhere), sensibilities, these types of concepts just cannot apply wholesale.
Not really? And I didn't make that claim.
My response was to your's which read (to me) about morality, not a judicial system.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For GMs that choose to being real life, 21st century morality into this game, where that is not the kind of morality that exists in Golarion,That is the morality that exists in Golarion though. Golarion isn't Medieval or the Dark Ages or any other time period on Earth, never was, and has never attempted to be.
It's a fantasy setting made by people in the 21st century.
Who are emulating a more early renaissance style sensibility. Claiming that all sapient creatures, even deep in the wild, must go through an impartial jury trial and be assumed innocent before prove guilty is what I'm talking about here.
That might only really exist in the major cities of Andoran.
The point being, people keep bringing up that it's evil to kill a helpless creature. Without exception. And in Golarion, fantasy world with monsters and holy Paladins that are often akin to Texas Rangers or US Marshals of the wild west (with jurisdiction everywhere), sensibilities, these types of concepts just cannot apply wholesale.
Not really? And I didn't make that claim.
My response was to your's which read (to me) about morality, not a judicial system.
Understood. Not saying you have made the claims. But many of the arguments are conflating morality with our current judicial system.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Understood. Not saying you have made the claims. But many of the arguments are conflating morality with our current judicial system.For GMs that choose to being real life, 21st century morality into this game, where that is not the kind of morality that exists in Golarion,That is the morality that exists in Golarion though. Golarion isn't Medieval or the Dark Ages or any other time period on Earth, never was, and has never attempted to be.
It's a fantasy setting made by people in the 21st century.
Who are emulating a more early renaissance style sensibility. Claiming that all sapient creatures, even deep in the wild, must go through an impartial jury trial and be assumed innocent before prove guilty is what I'm talking about here.
That might only really exist in the major cities of Andoran.
The point being, people keep bringing up that it's evil to kill a helpless creature. Without exception. And in Golarion, fantasy world with monsters and holy Paladins that are often akin to Texas Rangers or US Marshals of the wild west (with jurisdiction everywhere), sensibilities, these types of concepts just cannot apply wholesale.
Not really? And I didn't make that claim.
My response was to your's which read (to me) about morality, not a judicial system.
*vigorously nods*
That I can get behind ya on.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
For GMs that choose to being real life, 21st century morality into this game, where that is not the kind of morality that exists in Golarion,That is the morality that exists in Golarion though. Golarion isn't Medieval or the Dark Ages or any other time period on Earth, never was, and has never attempted to be.
It's a fantasy setting made by people in the 21st century.
Who are emulating a more early renaissance style sensibility. Claiming that all sapient creatures, even deep in the wild, must go through an impartial jury trial and be assumed innocent before prove guilty is what I'm talking about here.
That might only really exist in the major cities of Andoran.
The point being, people keep bringing up that it's evil to kill a helpless creature. Without exception. And in Golarion, fantasy world with monsters and holy Paladins that are often akin to Texas Rangers or US Marshals of the wild west (with jurisdiction everywhere), sensibilities, these types of concepts just cannot apply wholesale.
You know why it doesn't work. You know why people are pushing back. Its because your argument is,"What if the rationals used to commit mass genocide and murder in our history were true?"
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Then realworld genocides are lawful evil acts. That's not terribly complicated and seems a leap from what was being said.
Ahhhh........... No which might also explain why you can't figure out why Tallow analogy gets really dubious. They're ignoring the fact that a lot of mechanics used to justify genocide and racism in that time period actually work in Golarion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then realworld genocides are lawful evil acts. That's not terribly complicated and seems a leap from what was being said.Ahhhh........... No which might also explain why you can't figure out why Tallow analogy gets really dubious. They're ignoring the fact that a lot of mechanics used to justify genocide and racism in that time period actually work in Golarion.
All it proves is that you can't equate anything in Golarion, not really, to the real world. All you can do is make loose associations for the purpose of making a point. Is Golarion just like the Wild West or the Early Renaissance? No. But two time periods are much closer than say 2018 United States Constitutional rights.
And that's my entire point. Stop laying current, modern day judicial system rights over Golarion and conflate that with the morality of the alignment system.
|
|
Then realworld genocides are lawful evil acts. That's not terribly complicated and seems a leap from what was being said.Ahhhh........... No which might also explain why you can't figure out why Tallow analogy gets really dubious. They're ignoring the fact that a lot of mechanics used to justify genocide and racism in that time period actually work in Golarion.
Something as targeted and disciplined as a genocide screams lawful to me.
on one aspect at least Tallow and I seem to agree - Golarion is a separate entity from the real, modern, world. As for modern judiciary, that way lies Lawful Stupid - where paladins round up runaway slaves because escape is illegal; Stupid Good are the guys that run out of smites before breakfast just walking down your average Chelish street.
|
An organized and executed genocide, such as an occupation that wittles down a population, would probably best fall under Lawful Evil ("likely to carefully plot vengeance", "that revenge will take years to happen", and "ordered society has its enemies, and to a lawful evil character only the destruction of those enemies can bring fulfillment").
A random and opportune genocide, such as a barbarian warlord who stumbles upon a peaceful city, would probably best fall under Chaotic Evil ("thoughtless in her actions and acts on whims", "inherent nature to be unpredictable", and "like a spreading fire, a coming storm, an untested sword blade").
|
|
Nefreet, unless my grasp of english is not as good as I think an opportune and random attack like that would be a massacre as the targeting doesn't really matter - unless the warlord decides to round up only Varisians but that speaks more to the organization and lawful side because who does that on a whim when you could kill the whole town?
|
|
It is easier to control a population of disparate origins if they are given one opponent to focus on.
I could see it being Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil.
Either way, it's just bad, and I'd hope that the PFS would step in and do something about it, instead of just trying to profit from it, like their competitors attempt to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nefreet, unless my grasp of english is not as good as I think an opportune and random attack like that would be a massacre as the targeting doesn't really matter - unless the warlord decides to round up only Varisians but that speaks more to the organization and lawful side because who does that on a whim when you could kill the whole town?
I think the distinction Nefreet makes is that a warlord wandering into a new region and slaughtering them all is genocide. But it isn't really organized genocide. One could argue that the stuff that went on in Rwanda was non organized genocide, and thus CE.
Keep in mind, eastern Europe seems to have a different ethnic group for each small region based on ancient tribal divisions. So massacreing a town could be genocide of that ethnicity.
|
|
I think a new rule that works pretty well for PFS standards would be.
If the GM thinks a player is committing an evil act he can ask all other players at the table and if they all agree then the act would be evil, if any don't agree then the act isn't evil enough.
This keeps things mostly as they are now things that are clearly evil will be flagged as evil, but helps balance for the GMs that think a Paladin killing anything is evil.
idk, but I think that something like this would help. Like trusting that all people will be good humans and make the right call and not be overly punishing to Paladins is just asking for trouble.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...and this goes completely out of the window if some people are playing characters who feel that it is 'too evil' just to screw over a character of a given class/race/alignment.
In addition, it turns from an inclusive environment to an exclusive environment, as peer pressure and tyranny of the majority ruins play.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM thinks a player is committing an evil act he can ask all other players at the table and if they all agree then the act would be evil, if any don't agree then the act isn't evil enough.
I can't stress how much I totally and utterly disagree with this idea.
GMing is NOT a job to be done by committee. One person HAS to have the responsibility and power at the table. In the context of PFS they should exercise that power with great restraint and care being very aware that reasonable people can and do disagree on questions of morality.
Later appeals to authority to get a decision overruled are fine. But the GM makes the call at the table.
I can't imagine it ever coming up in practice but if this idea was implemented then the first time I ruled an act as illegal and got voted down by the table would be the last time I'd GM for PFS.
|
|
If the GM thinks a player is committing an evil act he can ask all other players at the table and if they all agree then the act would be evil, if any don't agree then the act isn't evil enough.I can't stress how much I totally and utterly disagree with this idea.
GMing is NOT a job to be done by committee. One person HAS to have the responsibility and power at the table. In the context of PFS they should exercise that power with great restraint and care being very aware that reasonable people can and do disagree on questions of morality.
Later appeals to authority to get a decision overruled are fine. But the GM makes the call at the table.
I can't imagine it ever coming up in practice but if this idea was implemented then the first time I ruled an act as illegal and got voted down by the table would be the last time I'd GM for PFS.
To be fair, if you are ruling against the table then the table probably wouldn't mind that much if you don't GM for them again.
The issue is that saying that GMs "will be reasonable and act with great restraint" is a wish with no form and leads to people being oppressive because you can't call them out on it at the moment.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, if you are ruling against the table then the table probably wouldn't mind that much if you don't GM for them again.
Note, I said I wouldn't ever GM for PFS again, not just for those players :-). Whether or not I'm a reasonable or decent GM I'll leave to my players (obviously I think that I am but its not inconceivable that I'm slightly biased on the subject :-)) but I am, indisputably, one of the primary GMs in my area in terms of frequency and, for that alone, I think my players WOULD, in fact, mind if I quit.
The issue is that saying that GMs "will be reasonable and act with great restraint" is a wish with no form and leads to people being oppressive because you can't call them out on it at the moment.
Obviously not all GMs are reasonable nor do all act with great restraint. The vast majority, however, are at least mostly reasonable and act with considerable restraint.
But in my opinion the problems that would arise from making GM decisions overrideable by the table far, far, far outweigh the gains that would arise from allowing a table to override the GM. The latter would potentially create an absolute toxic environment.