Lawful Evil for PFS 2.0


Pathfinder Society Playtest

51 to 100 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages 3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Ward Davis wrote:
GM PDK wrote:

Pfft! you're 'Neutral' warpriest of Norgorber will not even see his god when he dies! i.e. he is a lukewarm version of himself who has not yet discovered his true inner-Norgorberite! :P

PS: but yeah I totally know what you mean... it's good to say 'sorry, no evil allowed bud' when you encounter a dumbass player. :P

Yes, it is a struggle. Every time I ask myself, can I Explore, Report, and Cooperate here AND murder everyone? and every time the answer is no...

Funny thing is, 70% of the time those players come back with a different concept and become great additions to the game.

"Murder Everyone!" is a really limited view of evil, that's in the same category of misrepresenting the alignment as the lawful-stupid paladin.

As people have said: Jerks will be jerks, regardless of alignment. And regardless of how evil a PC is, they are still a pathfinder and their selfish interests would make them want to be good at their job.

Yes, Jerks will be Jerks. But that doesn't mean we should give them more tools that make it easier to be a Jerk.

Then everyone must be N in 2.0, law and chaos make for jerks just as much as evil.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Angel Hunter D wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Ward Davis wrote:
GM PDK wrote:

Pfft! you're 'Neutral' warpriest of Norgorber will not even see his god when he dies! i.e. he is a lukewarm version of himself who has not yet discovered his true inner-Norgorberite! :P

PS: but yeah I totally know what you mean... it's good to say 'sorry, no evil allowed bud' when you encounter a dumbass player. :P

Yes, it is a struggle. Every time I ask myself, can I Explore, Report, and Cooperate here AND murder everyone? and every time the answer is no...

Funny thing is, 70% of the time those players come back with a different concept and become great additions to the game.

"Murder Everyone!" is a really limited view of evil, that's in the same category of misrepresenting the alignment as the lawful-stupid paladin.

As people have said: Jerks will be jerks, regardless of alignment. And regardless of how evil a PC is, they are still a pathfinder and their selfish interests would make them want to be good at their job.

Yes, Jerks will be Jerks. But that doesn't mean we should give them more tools that make it easier to be a Jerk.
Then everyone must be N in 2.0, law and chaos make for jerks just as much as evil.

That's simply not true and you know it.

3/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Livgin wrote:


Easy blame-free way to moderate the lodge is accurate. I am fallible and inexperienced. I don't want to do things the hard way, and I'm hugely biased, I don't want to be kicking players on my judgment alone. I want an easy set of guidelines that has been built by those with far more experience building communities than I.

In a home game that was mine alone, I'm happy to accept those challenges. In a public game that belongs to everyone present, I want a better way.

The PFS rules have been great litmus test for new players, can they accept and operate under limitations for the good of the community? If they can, great! If they can't, it is better that they see the unyielding line in the sand (no evil characters, or no chained summoners, or Cooperate) and go play elsewhere. This has made an pseudo-opt-in environment where players can conform to the campaign, or leave. I feel my lodge and the lodges I've played in are healthier for this.

Disclaimer: I don't mind evil characters or evil campaigns, I just think Society is better for their absence. And I fully believe evil can be done well. I'm enjoying my 'Neutral' warpriest of Norborgor in a pfs pbp right now.

I was writing a post, but really, Ward said everything I wanted to say, but better!

I think evil alignments can be really fun in a home campaign (I GMed the first book and a half of Hell’s Vengeance), but I think a public campaign is a very different situation.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Keirine, Human Rogue wrote:
Nils Janson wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
The Society works with Zarta, Sinuhotep and Torch.
What evil acts have you seen them perform?
I have witnessed Torch murder a helpless prisoner, that is pretty evil in my book.

Sinuhotep is undead and we have witnessed at least two heinous acts he has performed, both of which iirc involve his apprentices.

Zarta has a listed alignment of Lawful Evil and has, back when faction missions were a thing, on at least one occasion ordered you to procure an item to make one of her playthings a bit more pliable.

I'm not for evil PCs in the game, but we can't pretend that everyone that works with the society are rose-colored paragons of virtue.

Nor do we, but my point was that their evilness is an informed attribute. There is very little evidence in actual play to back it up. Torch's murder of another NPC is honestly the only example we have.

Compared to the evil of PCs, they are just amateurs.

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TwilightKnight wrote:

I vote no to evil alignments of any kind. I also agree with Tallow I would rather a shift in the other direction, banning evil deities, even as far as banning evil spells (if those even still exist in 2E). It was not feasible in PFS1 since so much of it already existed, but relaunching PFS2 would give us a chance to correct (IMO) some of those problems. It could be incorporated into a shift in the Society itself. Maybe they recognize that they swung too far into the "ends justify the means" using evil agents and such and have made an effort to "clean up" the society. I dunno, its just my opinion and I'm sure there will be plenty of people to disagree.

The next year and a half is our time to express our opinions and let Paizo sort out the results so I encourage everyone to do so. I'm not speaking on behalf of my community. This is simply my preference as a player and GM.

I have to agree with Bob, no evil characters and preferably no evil deities.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Tallow wrote:


We need to get over this, "killing a helpless prisoner is always evil" crap. Context matters.

I agree that context matters. But NONE of that applies in the scenario where Torch kills a helpless prisoner.

Spoiler:

Torch is very explicitly not only acting on his own behalf in this scenario he is also very explicitly working AGAINST his orders and AGAINST the legal autority

2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

NO, NO, NO, NO!

Lawful evil individuals are not somehow "better" or "less bad" than neutral or chaotic evil. They are just more organized in their evil. Horrible, awful things happen with official sanction in Asmodeus's puppet state of Cheliax, and many seem to turn a blind eye to them because they're done according to the "law." To my mind, this essentially the same as the old "just following orders" defense.

At the same time, chaotic neutral is not intrinsically "worse" than lawful neutral. Once again, I think some folks mistake "order" with virtue. Lawful neutral individuals are no more or less good or evil than chaotic neutral ones, they just pursue different routes to their desired ends.

Silver Crusade 4/5 Venture-Agent, Ohio—Cincinnati

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’m firmly in the “no” camp on this one. To be fair, I agree with the idea upthread that PF2 would do well to jettison the alignment system entirely. But, if the system remains, “no evil” is a very, very useful shorthand way of setting expectations for players in the campaign, specifically that while they need not be shining beacons of virtue, active villainy is unacceptable.

To those who are advocating allowing evil alignments, other than writing “E” on your character sheet, what is it you want to do that is currently prohibited? Are those behaviors really out of scope for an “N,” and, if so, are they still appropriate for a public game with strangers? I’m honestly curious, here.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My personal experience in other organized play settings is that Lawful Evil =/= 'Best Evil'.

More often than not, the folks playing it were ALSO the ones that would attempt to make the angels dance on a head of a pin and would present boilerplate of all previous campaign rulings to justify why they had 'X' or 'Y'.

Strongly, strongly recommend it not be allowed, and PVP put under even stricter constraints -- seen that drive a couple of campaigns into the turf, too.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously, we don't need any rules to curb jerkish behavior, we just need to call out the jerks and do something if they persist.

Silver Crusade 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Jerks will be so and play so regardless of alignment

I don't agree.

Oh, there ARE jerks who will be so regardless of alignment.

But there are ALSO lots of players who are TRYING to "play their character" or, at the very least, see that as a socially acceptable excuse to play a jerk.

If alignment is taken off the table as an excuse then the number of characters being played as jerks WILL be reduced. Not to zero but it WILL go down.

And reducing the number of jerk characters is a good thing :-)

Scarab Sages 3/5

Paul Jackson wrote:
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Jerks will be so and play so regardless of alignment

I don't agree.

Oh, there ARE jerks who will be so regardless of alignment.

But there are ALSO lots of players who are TRYING to "play their character" or, at the very least, see that as a socially acceptable excuse to play a jerk.

If alignment is taken off the table as an excuse then the number of characters being played as jerks WILL be reduced. Not to zero but it WILL go down.

And reducing the number of jerk characters is a good thing :-)

If someone is just trying to "play the character" then they just need to be reminded they are a PATHFINDER and that entails certain traits or at least behaviors. Getting that understood, I believe, will do a much better job than barring alignments.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:

If someone is just trying to "play the character" then they just need to be reminded they are a PATHFINDER and that entails certain traits or at least behaviors. Getting that understood, I believe, will do a much better job than barring alignments.

Maybe, but why choose? If seatbelts save more lives than speed limits, should we remove the speed limits? Or should we figure that both together will have an even better effect?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Angel Hunter D wrote:
Getting that understood, I believe, will do a much better job than barring alignments.

Barring alignments sets a community expectation that reduces the number of cases where that understanding needs to be communicated.

3/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Angel Hunter D, I think you may want to try a different tactic here. A lot of store organizers are saying that this change would make our jobs harder. Instead of trying to argue that it won’t make our jobs harder or that we should be willing to just deal with it, try to make the positive argument for the change. What would adding Lawful Evil PCs add to the campaign? What PFS-appropriate character concepts do you want to play and can’t? What new stories would be told?

I’m honestly not seeing anything so far to convince me that this is worth the increased headache, so start trying to make that case.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

3 people marked this as a favorite.

: Hmm sees the arguments and shrugs :

Although I would not personally mind expanding the campaign to allow lawful evil, I also understand why all evil is restricted currently. I’ll save lawful evil for home games and campaign mode.

I personally much prefer playing good characters, but I do find honorable villains interesting too.

Hmm


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've played in an open campaign with no alignment restrictions.

From that experience I vote NO in any game where:

1. You may not know the other players at the table well enough to know what is IC and what is OOC behaviour.
2. There is no option for the rest of the party to say 'go away, you aren't coming on ''tis adventure with us'

Because for every one brilliantly realised and complex evil character who is fun to play with, you get five who think evil = creepy/pervy disturb the other players, and ten who are evil because it allows them to murder NPCs in front of the paladin and watch him be unable to do anything about it.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Rhode Island—Lincoln aka Upaynao

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Your argument that it will allow for some more frank and honest use of all the alignments are quite frankly unconvincing.

As someone who has had to issue alignment warnings to players, let me tell you what happens, since you seem to be blessed with players who do not have issues like that.

I've had to tell a player playing a paladin on at least two seperate occasions that he was risking his alignment, and not acting in a manner I believed befits a Pathfinder. On both occasions, this thankfully only turned into a five minute discussion where the player ultimately relented, but each interaction left tension around the table.

Another player also had to be told that his actions merited an alignment warning, and those took twenty minutes of back and forth, of a debate about morality, why his actions made perfect sense and weren't going to totally wreck everyone's experience at the table. I do not care to enable further debates on morals during my game time, nor do I care to enable people who believe themselves to "just be playing the character" to do things that at best compromise the table's chances of success, and at worst devolve into some of the worst manure we sometimes read about on these forums; roleplayed sexual assault being the only one I can stomach mentioning at this time.

I do not care to have to explain how captain lawful evil is being a jerk specifically, especially since the entire evil alignment is predicated on being a jerk towards people who surround you. And let's not forget that the guide to the roleplaying guild, up to two guides ago, used to spell out "don't be a jerk". If that philosophy of gameplay holds, why the heck do we want to enable the jerk alignment? Do we not get enough stories of people leaving their tables, or quitting PFS of late, that we need to enable another avenue for that?

3/5

Neriathale wrote:
Because for every one brilliantly realised and complex evil character who is fun to play with, you get five who think evil = creepy/pervy disturb the other players, and ten who are evil because it allows them to murder NPCs in front of the paladin and watch him be unable to do anything about it.

I'd love to play that paladin and show you what he does to evildoers like that. :)

3/5

Gregory Rebelo wrote:
Another player also had to be told that his actions merited an alignment warning, and those took twenty minutes of back and forth, of a debate about morality, [..]

You have to make your expectations known at the beginning of the campaign. Tell your players there's no discussion about it. I use the 'three strikes you're out' system. Two warning about alignment change, then on the third strike, alignment change. This is a game: sometimes we have to treat it as such. I'm thinking about issuing yellow cards and red cards that would be stapled to the players' character sheet... :)

Silver Crusade 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM PDK wrote:
Neriathale wrote:
Because for every one brilliantly realised and complex evil character who is fun to play with, you get five who think evil = creepy/pervy disturb the other players, and ten who are evil because it allows them to murder NPCs in front of the paladin and watch him be unable to do anything about it.
I'd love to play that paladin and show you what he does to evildoers like that. :)

There is absolutely nothing the paladin CAN do except to use harsh language or to quit the session. That is a huge part of the problem with evil characters in the campaign as it is currently constituted.

Sanctioning PC vs PC violence would be a still greater disaster.

The current situation isn't perfect but allowing MORE evil into the campaign would be far worse.

I'm also of the opinion that characters worshipping evil Gods should not be allowed EXCEPT perhaps for characters worshipping Lawful Evil Gods.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Rhode Island—Lincoln aka Upaynao

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM PDK wrote:
Gregory Rebelo wrote:
Another player also had to be told that his actions merited an alignment warning, and those took twenty minutes of back and forth, of a debate about morality, [..]
You have to make your expectations known at the beginning of the campaign. Tell your players there's no discussion about it. I use the 'three strikes you're out' system. Two warning about alignment change, then on the third strike, alignment change. This is a game: sometimes we have to treat it as such. I'm thinking about issuing yellow cards and red cards that would be stapled to the players' character sheet... :)

The expectations are well known! This is Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and we all know what the status quo is; the expectations have been lain out in every single guide to organized play in very plain language!

If the expectations we hold under PFSOP are still unclear in a system that allows only for a minimum of moral ambiguity from the players, what happens when someone says "Evil is cool"?

Do we end up with situations where a character is left behind? "I didn't harm him/her, he/she just missed the boat, I'm not their minder" right mister lawful evil? Except there is at least one scenario where you get penalized for missing your extraction time. Enjoy paying gold and PP! Guess it sucks to be a goody two shoes working with Evil Mc Lawfulstein, Esquire where your philosophies clashed on the field.

This is just one example, and I don't care to think of all the devious ways in which someone could mess with another character in the 200+ scenarios we hqve available. And of course, we're just "playing our character, that's how he acts, I didn't do anything evil". The debates, the irritation and the drama aren't worth it IMO.

3/5

Look, I think there's no need to get this excited about this. Those who have played or GMed Hell's Vengeance here will know what I mean. If the adventure is tailored for evil parties it will work. I'm not advocating inserting evil characters in good parties. I'm for evil-only PFS scenarios. If necessary, make it completely separate i.e. PFS Classic, PFS Core and PFS Evil. However I think much coolness could arise if we get evil-only modules as part of PFS Classic and PFS Core (namely, those with LN, TN and CN characters could surf in and out of regular or evil scenarios... :) :) :) )

4/5 Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

5 people marked this as a favorite.

As a VA, I like that no evil alignments are allowed. It does make my job easier, especially when talking to a parent who is trying to decide if their child can join in.

Paizo Employee 5/5 Organized Play Lead Developer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
GM PDK wrote:
Look, I think there's no need to get this excited about this. Those who have played or GMed Hell's Vengeance here will know what I mean. If the adventure is tailored for evil parties it will work. I'm not advocating inserting evil characters in good parties. I'm for evil-only PFS scenarios. If necessary, make it completely separate i.e. PFS Classic, PFS Core and PFS Evil. However I think much coolness could arise if we get evil-only modules as part of PFS Classic and PFS Core (namely, those with LN, TN and CN characters could surf in and out of regular or evil scenarios... :) :) :) )

Evil characters in organized play aside, let me just step in and nix one idea right now. We are not interested in splitting the second edition of Pathfinder Society into two separate versions that need specially created scenarios in order to serve dedicated evil play. My experience is that there is already enough demand for new scenarios that we would not be served well by splitting our resources between two styles of campaign (at least under the umbrella of Pathfinder Society 2). Should we be at a point where we are creating three Pathfinder Society scenarios a month--hang on, I think I just made our editing staff choke--I would rather they all be playable by all PCs within the associated level ranges.

What's more, there is enough on our organizers' plates when considering whether to offer Pathfinder Society or Starfinder Society for me to want to complicate things yet further by introducing Evil Pathfinder Society as a separate campaign that would compete for space. For smaller communities in particular, that's just not a wise move.

Never say never? Perhaps when Paizo's organized play programs grow such that there is demand and capacity for multiple campaigns in communities beyond our large urban areas, we might examine further expansions. In the meantime, let us look to how we can make our second edition Pathfinder Society campaign (singular, not plural) the best it can be.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Aww. I was really hoping that all the new goblin PCs in PFS2 would have to play their own scenarios, kept carefully apart from those intended for more socially functional Pathfinder agents.

(This is only somewhat tongue-in-cheek, to be honest.)

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Paul Jackson wrote:
I'm also of the opinion that characters worshipping evil Gods should not be allowed EXCEPT perhaps for characters worshipping Lawful Evil Gods.

Why on earth would you want an exception for evil gods? Is a lawful neutral cleric of Asmodeus less bad or supporting a deity/system that is less evil than a chaotic neutral cleric worshiping a demon lord?

Lawful EVIL is EVIL.

It's just better organized evil, and thus is in many ways, a bigger danger than other forms of evil. To my mind, lawful evil has an extra danger. It seems more "acceptable." "Oh, he's lawful evil, we can work with him." Thinking this way, accepting lawful evil in this manner is furthering evil in the world.

This is why when I think of Golarion, I've always thought that Cheliax is a bigger danger to the world than the Worldwound. Some folks, who I would regard as deluded, think it's fine to work or ally with Asmodeus's puppet state, while really no one, outside of a few nuts, thought it was OK to work/ally with the demons of the Worldwound. In this way, lawful evil is more seductive and able to spread its horrors more easily and WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE VERY CREATURES IT HOPES TO DESTROY/ENSLAVE (sorry for the ALL CAPS there, but I felt that I really, really had to emphasize this point).

Liberty's Edge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Candi Payne spits a large hunk of half-chewed cigar on the ground...

The only good cleric of Asmodeus is a dead cleric of Asmodeus.

Sovereign Court 2/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Tallow wrote:

No. I absolutely do not want to see any more tip of a hat to evil play. I'd like to remove the ability to worship evil deities to be honest.

My experience is that the average gamer is not capable of playing evil responsibly or maturely.

I endorse this post. I have seen far too many characters using an evil alignment (or a chaotic neutral one) as an excuse for being an absolute jerk.

I was disappointed when PFS1 decided to allow the deific obediences that require a clear Evil Act every day (like torture and murder and such) so I would be happy to see worship of evil deities dropped from PFS as well. It's fine in a home campaign where you know all the players beforehand, it's just not fine in a society game where you constantly meet new players.

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Candi Payne wrote:

Candi Payne spits a large hunk of half-chewed cigar on the ground...

The only good cleric of Asmodeus is a dead cleric of Asmodeus.

You know what... I thought, that statement was a bit on the strong side, but then I crunched some numbers.. and as it turns out you are correct ^^

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kurald Galain wrote:


I endorse this post. I have seen far too many characters using an evil alignment (or a chaotic neutral one) as an excuse for being an absolute jerk.

I was disappointed when PFS1 decided to allow the deific obediences that require a clear Evil Act every day (like torture and murder and such) so I would be happy to see worship of evil deities dropped from PFS as well. It's fine in a home campaign where you know all the players beforehand, it's just not fine in a society game where you constantly meet new players.

That is why sometimes there are two obediences, if memory serves? An outright EVIL one and one that's just 'enh, that's kinda disgusting, but workable'?

Silver Crusade 5/5

pjrogers wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
I'm also of the opinion that characters worshipping evil Gods should not be allowed EXCEPT perhaps for characters worshipping Lawful Evil Gods.

Why on earth would you want an exception for evil gods? Is a lawful neutral cleric of Asmodeus less bad or supporting a deity/system that is less evil than a chaotic neutral cleric worshiping a demon lord?

2 reasons.

1) Lawful Evil Gods and their LN followers tend strongly to play nice with their allies, certainly much nicer than CN followers of a CE God. They're all about the long term, individual PFS scenarios are about the short term.
2) Given that Cheliax is a MAJOR power in the Inner Sea it makes sense, in world, that followers of LE Gods would be at least tolerated. But it has NEVER made any sense at all to me (in world) that worshippers of other evil gods have ever been tolerated. What vaguely sane organization wants a follower of Urgathoa or Rovagug or a Demon Lord associated with it? An organization that spends a fair bit of time and effort on its public perception would NOT want to be, in any way, associated with Gods like that. You're preaching a holy war against the Worldwound while you have Gods who WORSHIP the Demon Gods? Yeah, that would go over well.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Paul Jackson wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:
I'm also of the opinion that characters worshipping evil Gods should not be allowed EXCEPT perhaps for characters worshipping Lawful Evil Gods.

Why on earth would you want an exception for evil gods? Is a lawful neutral cleric of Asmodeus less bad or supporting a deity/system that is less evil than a chaotic neutral cleric worshiping a demon lord?

2 reasons.

1) Lawful Evil Gods and their LN followers tend strongly to play nice with their allies, certainly much nicer than CN followers of a CE God. They're all about the long term, individual PFS scenarios are about the short term.

Followers of LE gods “play nice” with others because it is in their interest to do so. By cooperating with a cleric of Asmodeus, you are advancing the interest of Asmodeus. Any short term benefit gained by by the Pathfinder Society by such collaboration would be outweighed by the long-term costs of collaboration with the largest and most powerful evil threat in the Inner Sea.


I really do not see the incentive for a LE character to participate in the Pathfinder Society. At a meta level treasure and advancement is based on participation and not individual superiority. LE characters will typically want the biggest slice of the pie that they can legally get away with and PFS will not allow one player to benefit at the expense of another player.

5/5

Alexander Lenz wrote:
Also agree that this would be a good opportunity to ban evil deities alltogether.

I wouldn't see a reason to ban all evil deities but ones like Groetus (yes I know he is CN but he makes no sense), Rovagug and Lamashtu make very little sense.

3/5

andreww wrote:
Alexander Lenz wrote:
Also agree that this would be a good opportunity to ban evil deities alltogether.
I wouldn't see a reason to ban all evil deities but ones like Groetus (yes I know he is CN but he makes no sense), Rovagug and Lamashtu make very little sense.

Yes. A balanced, setting-centered approach would be best. I could see followers of Norgorber at every level of the Society as they deal in information. Asmodeus clergy would be very diplomatic barristers and liaison for unexplored sites in Cheliax. Anything that wishes to promote undeath, destruction, disease and other non-creative forces that are hard to deal with in an organized archaeological warehousing mass-project would have no place in the Society. Anything relevant to money or artifacts would fit well though.

Silver Crusade 5/5

pjrogers wrote:


Any short term benefit gained by by the Pathfinder Society by such collaboration would be outweighed by the long-term costs of collaboration with the largest and most powerful evil threat in the Inner Sea.

I'm not saying that the Society is WISE to play nice with Asmodeus, I'm just saying that it is plausible that it does.

Real world history is kind of full of cases where people/groups/nations ignore long term problems in favour of the short term. Its arguably the defining flaw of our species :-(

I'd have no problem if worshipping ANY evil god was banned. I just think that the case for LE Gods being banned is much weaker than for NE or (especially) CE ones.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually think they should ban Lawful Good and paladins from PFS. Too many of the scenarios involve breaking into places and stealing stuff. I don't see how everything is so Good aligned about the society unless its the Silver Crusade fighting off demons in the World Wound or something similar. Most of the society are treasure hunters that aren't much different than the Aspis Consortium.

51 to 100 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Playtest / Lawful Evil for PFS 2.0 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.