Lawful Evil for PFS 2.0

[Muser]

I don't want more evil in the campaign, but I do want more grey.

Moar questionable moralities, moar shady types, moar ethical dilemmas, moar picking the lesser evil. I don't want the Society to be a force of good in the world. In-setting, it pretty definitely isn't.

Moar evil would just boil over into the real world and I'm not interested in that.

[MrBear]

It's a common meme that Lawful Evil is the alignment that gets things done. In home games I've found the alignment to be less disruptive than LG, CN and sometimes CG. I understand wanting to keep any of the E out of society but I don't feel like it being disruptive is the right argument against LE.

I think the strongest argument against it is advertising. Parents uncomfortable or unfamiliar with these games may have an issue with the alignment. They may object to letting little Timmy play a bad guy. The focus of society is that they're good guys, opposed by the evil consortium. It can definitely muddy the water.

But disruptions? Paladins and Chaotic Stupid is much worse.

[Sin of Asmodeus]

So apologies, but on my mobile, so can't spoiler some things.

There are certain items that culminate with evil acts, and thus necessitate an alignment fix at the end of the mod.

Having these further culminate into bad things happening later down the road. That roadmap and season I think showed the absolute best of what the Society was about. Using whatever means possible to confront the seasons villian, even if it meant staining your soul a dark color, that basically signifies your willingness to complete the mission.

LE should be allowed in, because it gives the grit and maturity of the Society. They have no issues working with any, but I don't want to raise a dead horse and flog it again.

It just seems like PFS wants to move from a mature setting to a more of setting, that's fine if that's your thing, but if pfs 2.0 rolls around and the staff decides to remove the ability to have characters dedicated to gods like Asmodeous because they are LE, that campaign will lose player base.

How could this even be Society, that's based around a blurb of dark necromancers working in tandium with Sarenrae worshipers when once the village is done burning down evil deities, they will want to burn down necromancers, or as one put it, no evil descriptor spells.

If you decide to wrap your campaign in bubble wrap, to safeguard it, than don't be surprised if it doesn't go the way you expect it.

[Z...D...]

Alright, I have read enough, and thought I would finally add my two cents for what it is worth.

I have only played/GM'd for a little over 4 years now. So I am not the expert at all by any means.

I am also in the boat saying that I have had more disruption from Chaotic Nuetral players and Lawful good Paladins then any other alignment....

I would like to point out that this is a playtest...why don't we test the waters of lawful evil PC's in society? If it does not work out, then cut it from Society.

[TriOmegaZero]

Sin of Asmodeus wrote:

If you decide to wrap your campaign in bubble wrap, to safeguard it, than don't be surprised if it doesn't go the way you expect it.

You're certainly doing everything you can to not convince me.

[pjrogers]

This may be just wishful thinking, but I'm hoping for more Pathfinder Society conflict with Asmodeus and his Chelish puppets in the not too distant future.

1) As I understand it, the efforts of the Glorious Reclamation and the heroes of Hell's Rebels have been at least partly successful in establishing a beachhead for anti-Thrune forces in Cheliax.

2) With the closing of the Worldwound, Iomedae and her church are now able to turn their full attention towards Cheliax.

Spoiler:

3) The last attempt at Chelish-Society collaboration went badly with the Society having to organize a raid on a Hellknight Prison, and at the same time, we discovered that Zarta Dralneen has a legitimate claim to the throne of Cheliax.

4) The new leader of Liberty's Edge, Tamrin Credence, is very likely to be hostile to Thrune regime and to support any aggressive Society initiatives against Cheliax.

I think these all argue for more conflict with Asmodeus and his tools rather than any sort of policy of naive appeasement.

[Scott Mcgroarty]

Quote:

What PFS-appropriate character concepts do you want to play and can’t?

Assassin (Red Mantis and normal), Serial Killer vigilante (named Molson Caldris), Antipaladin, Exalted of Norgerber come to mind. I would also be fine with removing the alignment restriction, especially on assassin.

[RealAlchemy]

The Frog wrote:

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.

Seriously? I don't see banning a class from the core rulebook which has been part of D&D, AD&D, and Pathfinder since the 70s.

[Neriathale]

Sin of Asmodeus wrote:

LE should be allowed in, because it gives the grit and maturity of the Society. They have no issues working with any, but I don't want to raise a dead horse and flog it again.

It just seems like PFS wants to move from a mature setting to a more of setting, that's fine if that's your thing, but if pfs 2.0 rolls around and the staff decides to remove the ability to have characters dedicated to gods like Asmodeous because they are LE, that campaign will lose player base.

I don't want to feel accutely uncomfortable because there is a guy on my table talking about how his dark lord Zon Kuthon allows him to revel in torturing children whilst there is a mother trying out her kids' hobby for the first time sitting next to him.

I don't want to spend four hours biting my lip and not telling the kid who thinks being evil is 'kewel' and killing NPCs is fun that the only reason he is still alive is because the rest of the party are obeying the strictest possible interpretation of the no PVP rules.

I don't want to turn up at a convention and listen to a complete stranger justify rape because "if they're mind controlled it's consent".

All of which are cases of evil behaviour I have seen in other games.

Yes, evil is fine in a home game, in a setting where you are all signed up to it in advance, but not, repeat NOT in an open campaign where you don't know who the other players are, and it is entirely possible that there will be minors at the table.

[Scott Mcgroarty]

@Neriathale

Unbaning evil alignments does not necessitate unbanning grossly evil actions.

[Upaynao]

Scott Mcgroarty wrote:

@Neriathale

Unbaning evil alignments does not necessitate unbanning grossly evil actions.

Very true. But who makes the decision of where we draw the line? Is hurting an NPC who is evil and an obstacle to the PC's progress, without being an enemy combatant, grossly evil? Does Mr or Mrs Commoner 5 who doesn't want to tell you where the McGuffin is deserve to be beaten up? I would argue it is? You might think otherwise. Do you really want to spend half an hour debating me, a random guy at a table you are at for the sake of "expanded roleplaying opportunities", or could we think that Evil alignments are just not worth it?

[Scott Mcgroarty]

I don't see why LE and NE couldn't be allowed with the current rule about evil acts (excluding spells with the evil descriptor if that currently counts, I can't remember)

[Upaynao]

In my humble opinion, it would be because at that point we neuter the alignment's meaning. We complain enough about how Lawful Good Paladins aren't behaving in a very goodly fashion.

Furthermore, if we keep the complete restriction on evil acts that we have, how do we tell someone that they are retired? How do we tell them they need an atonement? Right now the limit is "if you shift to an evil alignment, you atone or you are done". How does that even begin to work with evil alignments allowed?

That isn't to even mention that all my earlier objections still hold true, with people still being given a license to behave like jerks.

And finally, if we keep the same restrictions, how is that "roleplaying freedom" that was pushed as the main reason behind allowing LE going to even work? You want to roleplay evil but you aren't allowed to roleplay evil because of the restrictions. At that point, one would just be a gelded, edgier version of LN.

[Scott Mcgroarty]

Quote:

Furthermore, if we keep the complete restriction on evil acts that we have, how do we tell someone that they are retired? How do we tell them they need an atonement? Right now the limit is "if you shift to an evil alignment, you atone or you are done". How does that even begin to work with evil alignments allowed?

"The Decimverate would like a word with you" and they're never seen again. I hate the atone or die rule, you're either bad enough that you need to be removed or your just another agent.

Quote:

people still being given a license to behave like jerks.

People are going to be jerks without an E on their character sheet, this argument does nothing for me, and the "just playing my character" argument could apply to every alignment other then maybe NG

My phone is about to die, but I will respond to the last point later.

[Scott Mcgroarty]

Quote:

And finally, if we keep the same restrictions, how is that "roleplaying freedom" that was pushed as the main reason behind allowing LE going to even work? You want to roleplay evil but you aren't allowed to roleplay evil because of the restrictions. At that point, one would just be a gelded, edgier version of LN.

A) I'm more interested in the character options locked by alignment personally.

B) I can and do roleplay borderline evil characters, they just know that they have to behave themselves to some degree because Zarta or Gureil, or Torch told them to.

[Upaynao]

So you would just remove the option for people to understand that they are doing things that don't fit in with the campaign? Because other than expending resources that you could have used to better your character, that's what atonements are: opportunities for a player to understand what kind of campaign is being run and how they can fit in it. And it still doesn't give anyone a visible line not to cross. Reminders are important, and you don't address that, at least in a manner I find satisfactory.

Yes, people will behave like jerks no matter what the piece of paper says or what I might say, and people will still get banned for behavior that isn't acceptable in our society, but that doesn't mean I need to provide them with a vehicle for their shenanigans. I mean, I can still run over people drunk, but if I only have a bicycle, it becomes more difficult for me to do harm. And that's what I believe we are trying to accomplish, make it difficult for someone to engage in the behavior, or make the endeavor so blatant that we can nip it in the bud.

I can understand that you might be frustrated with the lack of character options this can lead to, but if PF2 ends up with the same spread of options as PF1, I think you have plenty of other options to make up for your loss.

With that said, I'm happy to read that you are capable of roleplaying characters who toe that line. But just because you can do it does not mean everyone else can, and you are looking to enable those options not just for you, but for people who may cause a lot of harm because they aren't capable of operating with that much freedom.

[The Shifty Mongoose]

Wow, why are there so many threads popping up about, "Get Rid of Alignment", "Get Rid of Paladins", "Let Evil In," and suchlike around here? A bunch of wannabe armigers, trying to make Evil sound reasonable? Nice try, Archdevils.

I am okay with PFS NPCs being Evil, because they can get a short leash and surveillance from the Ten that would make it un-fun for PCs.
While people who want to harass others but don't want others to harass them will look for other ways to do it until they're thrown out of the game store/PbP, why make it easier for them? Why not give them reasons to give up on it and just respect their fellow players & characters?
I also agree with the people who say Evil PCs are for home games. There, the GM and player can figure out character creation, and make up someone who won't steal from their allies or murder for no reason, or even figure out a tale of redemption. In PFS, where that isn't possible for every character of every player, rules have to be enforced, No Evil being one of them.

[Scott Mcgroarty]

Quote:

So you would just remove the option for people to understand that they are doing things that don't fit in with the campaign? Because other than expending resources that you could have used to better your character, that's what atonements are: opportunities for a player to understand what kind of campaign is being run and how they can fit in it. And it still doesn't give anyone a visible line not to cross. Reminders are important, and you don't address that, at least in a manner I find satisfactory.

I disagree with the idea that occasional mild evil act don't fit in the campaign. To clarify my stance, I don't think anything that currently is the level of alignment infraction that isn't enough to directly remove a character from the campaign is enough to warrant anything (unless the actions are excessive in number, have nothing to do with the adventure at hand, or are to provoke another player.) Also the atonement is at worst a minor inconvenience.

Quote:

Yes, people will behave like jerks no matter what the piece of paper says or what I might say, and people will still get banned for behavior that isn't acceptable in our society, but that doesn't mean I need to provide them with a vehicle for their shenanigans. I mean, I can still run over people drunk, but if I only have a bicycle, it becomes more difficult for me to do harm. And that's what I believe we are trying to accomplish, make it difficult for someone to engage in the behavior, or make the endeavor so blatant that we can nip it in the bud.

Like I said, by that logic you might as well ban all alignments other than NG. It's like saying that because someone might drive drunk we should ban all cars.

Quote:

I can understand that you might be frustrated with the lack of character options this can lead to, but if PF2 ends up with the same spread of options as PF1, I think you have plenty of other options to make up for your loss.

I realize I am by no mean short of character options (I have at least 20 ideas that I want to do, a quarter of which I might get to before PF2.)

Quote:

With that said, I'm happy to read that you are capable of roleplaying characters who toe that line. But just because you can do it does not mean everyone else can, and you are looking to enable those options not just for you, but for people who may cause a lot of harm because they aren't capable of operating with that much freedom.

This is why I think removing/loosing alignment restrictions is a good compromise.

[TwilightKnight]

I think from an in game perspective, Asmodeus and other LE deities would love this type of discussion to occur and for us to relent and allow evil characters into the campaign. That is exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Corrupt the soul of good people and get them committing evil act and having evil thoughts and use some abstract logic to justify their actions as “not that bad” or “ just misunderstood.” The notion that playing evil characters is okay is ridiculous.
“Oh it’ll be okay. I know how to play an evil character. Trust me.” Sounds a hell of a lot like what Asmodeus, or Satan, or [enter devious LE deity here] would say or want. You can kid yourself all you want, but the reality is evil is only one thing, bad. There are no degrees of evil. No “we’ll that’s only kinda evil so it’s okay.” Evil is evil, period.
No one is going to comvinve me we should allow it more pervasively in the campaign. As I’ve said many times, if anything, I’d like us to close the door on some of the evil things we already allow (looking at you evil spells and the worship of evil deities by neutral PCs). Not only would it reduce some of the occurances of “that’s just what my character would do” bull s+$~ that we see, but it would also get rid of some of the rules inconsistencies that exist between PFS and the CRB.
In conversations I’ve had with authors, it seems the original theme for the Pathfinder Society is neutral with good tendencies, but time, slip in the occasional evil NPV or dark subject matter and suddenly the Society begins to take on a much more evil feel. I do not believe that is/was the intent and PFS2 gives us a change to correct our direction. That is not to say that everyone must play silver crusading paladins, but there certainly shouldn’t be any evil either. YMMV

[MadScientistWorking]

pjrogers wrote:

This may be just wishful thinking, but I'm hoping for more Pathfinder Society conflict with Asmodeus and his Chelish puppets in the not too distant future.

Massive massive massive massive massive massive spoilers but that isn't going to happen because

Spoiler:

Presumably one of the leader leaders of the Pathfinder Society is a Chelish person.

Quote:

In conversations I’ve had with authors, it seems the original theme for the Pathfinder Society is neutral with good tendencies, but time, slip in the occasional evil NPV or dark subject matter and suddenly the Society begins to take on a much more evil feel. I do not believe that is/was the intent and PFS2 gives us a change to correct our direction. That is not to say that everyone must play silver crusading paladins, but there certainly shouldn’t be any evil either. YMMV

What no? I'm calling some revisionist history on this line of thought. One of my characters more or less said at some point,"You know what. I completely agree with you. Everything I've seen here. We're definitely evil."

[Scott Mcgroarty]

I disagree with just about everything you just said Bob.

[TwilightKnight]

Scott Mcgroarty wrote:

I disagree with just about everything you just said Bob.

That’s okay, my intent was to merely express my opinion, not to convince anyone to join me. Everyone has different opinions of what they want out of the game. Mine happen to include less evil and less replay. More of either of those makes it more likely I will play less. I would assume that everyone has similar thoughts about aspects of the game. You like what you like and dislike what you don’t. At some point if the things you dislike become too prominent and eliminate the fun you have, it’s time to move on to something else. Life is too short to be unhappy.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Neriathale wrote:

Sin of Asmodeus wrote:

LE should be allowed in, because it gives the grit and maturity of the Society. They have no issues working with any, but I don't want to raise a dead horse and flog it again.

It just seems like PFS wants to move from a mature setting to a more of setting, that's fine if that's your thing, but if pfs 2.0 rolls around and the staff decides to remove the ability to have characters dedicated to gods like Asmodeous because they are LE, that campaign will lose player base.

I don't want to feel accutely uncomfortable because there is a guy on my table talking about how his dark lord Zon Kuthon allows him to revel in torturing children whilst there is a mother trying out her kids' hobby for the first time sitting next to him.

I don't want to spend four hours biting my lip and not telling the kid who thinks being evil is 'kewel' and killing NPCs is fun that the only reason he is still alive is because the rest of the party are obeying the strictest possible interpretation of the no PVP rules.

I don't want to turn up at a convention and listen to a complete stranger justify rape because "if they're mind controlled it's consent".

All of which are cases of evil behaviour I have seen in other games.

Yes, evil is fine in a home game, in a setting where you are all signed up to it in advance, but not, repeat NOT in an open campaign where you don't know who the other players are, and it is entirely possible that there will be minors at the table.

I am vey sorry that I could only favorite that post once.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Sin of Asmodeus wrote:

Are you someone who makes decisions on the direction the Campaign is going, that I must somehow prostrate myself before, for your approval?

Am just curious.

Somehow, I don’t believe that.

Is my approval required? Certainly not.

Do I make the decisions? For my state, yes.

Do I influence the decisions of those who make the decisions? Probably not that much, but we do have these discussions in private, and the VO Corp does make recommendations.

Is it likely that I have similar outlooks on the campaign as those who make the decisions? From my conversations with John and Tonya, I am confident in saying yes.

So if you want me to make positive recommendations to the people that make the decisions AND be more likely to succeed in influencing their decision over Evil PCs, it might be prudent to take my advice that your approach needs improvement.

I really have to agree with Steven, it's usually possible to influence people and make them see your point of view... but yeah that approach needs work, and even then we are shaped by our experiences so it will be next to impossible to convince some people that allowing Evil characters is a good thing.

[GM_Starson]

Just tossing my two cents in, but I think a modified version of the starfinder system with infamy might be a nice compromise.

I know I'd love to have a few LE characters for roleplaying purposes, but I also am more than aware of how much of a PITA some players can be with "EBIL!" characters. So, no evil, but make it so that instead of just saying "No doing evil ever!" you can rack up infamy for some interactions... which may benefit you in say, cheliax, but might cause problems in andora. That way, someone can play a edgier character, but realize there is a built in line that will get their character booted from the society if they go to far.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

...and when a table sits with someone who has Infamy -2 and can't accomplish any scenario goals because the character in question is unrepentant about their actions?

...hardly seems like it'd build community, and only encourage *more* borderline behaviour?

EDIT: Example: Because people won't talk to the characters due to affiliating with an Infamous sort of person, now the characters have to resort to even more extreme means to accomplish their goals, which will more than likely fail to bring about the desired result.

Now they have to keep pushing that envelope, going darker, grittier, heavier, until they're dropping mana-bombs on Aspis locations Yes, Aspis are people too, but not only that, they're CONNECTED people! in some vain hope that maybe, just maybe they might get their Prestige/Reputation for accomplishing 'something' when the full mission was "Infiltrate this community and sway people against the Aspis without using their methods."

[Saint Bernard]

I am against adding LE as a playable alignment.

[UndeadMitch]

Seeing as how the Society has continued to shift closer and closer towards the good side of the alignment spectrum over the past few years, I don’t think allowing LE would be a very good idea. I would also be inclined to agree with people that would like to see the worship of evil deities removed from OP. While I have partied with people that have been able to RP a worshipper of an evil deity in a reasonable, party-friendly fashion I have seen more people use it as an excuse to act in the most antisocial and disruptive way they could justify.

[Diego Valdez]

Removed some posts and replies to them. We can have this discussion without making personal attacks or going off the rails to argue about other unrelated topics.

[MadScientistWorking]

Gregory Rebelo wrote:

So you would just remove the option for people to understand that they are doing things that don't fit in with the campaign? Because other than expending resources that you could have used to better your character, that's what atonements are: opportunities for a player to understand what kind of campaign is being run and how they can fit in it. And it still doesn't give anyone a visible line not to cross. Reminders are important, and you don't address that, at least in a manner I find satisfactory.

Yes, people will behave like jerks no matter what the piece of paper says or what I might say, and people will still get banned for behavior that isn't acceptable in our society, but that doesn't mean I need to provide them with a vehicle for their shenanigans. I mean, I can still run over people drunk, but if I only have a bicycle, it becomes more difficult for me to do harm. And that's what I believe we are trying to accomplish, make it difficult for someone to engage in the behavior, or make the endeavor so blatant that we can nip it in the bud.

Technically the vehicle all ready exists though. I'm surprised that I haven't seen more people complain about the technicality as its kind of glaring.

[JulianW]

For the folks who want to be allowed to 'just roleplay my LE character' , are you cool with me being allowed to 'just roleplay my goodly character's reaction to what they do or say'?

[pjrogers]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

This may be just wishful thinking, but I'm hoping for more Pathfinder Society conflict with Asmodeus and his Chelish puppets in the not too distant future.

Massive massive massive massive massive massive spoilers but that isn't going to happen because

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

Just because someone is Chelish by birth does not mean they're a supporter of Asmodeus and his Thrune puppets. In fact, most of the armed opposition to the Thrune regime comes from other Chelish people.

I'm not sure which leader you're referring to. If it's one of the Decemvirate, I've not yet played Eyes of the Ten, though I hope to in the near future. If one of the Decemvirate is a Chelish stooge for Asmodeus, my Paladin of Calistria, Candi Payne, looks forward to meeting him or her.

[MadScientistWorking]

pjrogers wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

This may be just wishful thinking, but I'm hoping for more Pathfinder Society conflict with Asmodeus and his Chelish puppets in the not too distant future.

Massive massive massive massive massive massive spoilers but that isn't going to happen because

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

I mean it goes beyond that. You've got slavery, mass genocide, murder, and god only knows how many other issues crop up that the society is a part of. I hope they resolve most of that stuff because I look at most of that stuff and think someone was deluding themselves that the group is neutral good.

EDIT:
And the slavery part really irked and annoyed the hell out of me because those two scenarios were the worst thinly veiled excuse to act evil.

[pauljathome]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

I mean it goes beyond that. You've got slavery, mass genocide, murder, and god only knows how many other issues crop up that the society is a part of. I hope they resolve most of that stuff because I look at most of that stuff and think someone was deluding themselves that the group is neutral good.
EDIT:
And the slavery part really irked and annoyed the hell out of me because those two scenarios were the worst thinly veiled excuse to act evil.

What 2 scenarios are you talking about? Please PM me if you don't want to mention them publicly

[wolaberry]

As someone who has run Way of the Wicked twice, I'm not a fan of evil PCs for PFS. I'm sure there are players who could do it without disrupting play. Everyone I've played with so far can be civil even if their characters have reasons to disagree. We're there to have fun not beat each other up. A character's alignment is no excuse to be a jerk at the table.

IF the organized play team is going to let evil in, during a playtest could work. If too many tables report a problem you revert to the No Evil rule.

[MadScientistWorking]

Paul Jackson wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

I mean it goes beyond that. You've got slavery, mass genocide, murder, and god only knows how many other issues crop up that the society is a part of. I hope they resolve most of that stuff because I look at most of that stuff and think someone was deluding themselves that the group is neutral good.
EDIT:
And the slavery part really irked and annoyed the hell out of me because those two scenarios were the worst thinly veiled excuse to act evil.

What 2 scenarios are you talking about? Please PM me if you don't want to mention them publicly

Its the fire plane exchange scenarios where in one you set up a mafia protection racket and the second one while in theory is doable without enslaving anyone its easier just to enslave people.

[pauljathome]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Its the fire plane exchange scenarios where in one you set up a mafia protection racket and the second one while in theory is doable without enslaving anyone its easier just to enslave people.

I had little ethical problems with these. Even played them both with my paladin.

In the first you're helping to forment trouble in an evil city within an evil plane. The more that evil is bickering with itself the better things are in general.

In the second we freed all the slaves and got them united with the other freed slaves.

In both scenarios, we used as little violence as possible and only then we used it against thoroughly evil people.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

First scenario in Question:

Personally, the problem with the above mentioned scenarios is that they are too constrictive for what goals are being accomplished -- as is my particular talent, I failed the Exchange mission on the first scenario in question because I did one of Column A, one of Column B, and one of Column C.

It was good an in keeping with the themes of the Exchange, but because they didn't *in specific* address one side or the other in Column C, I didn't get it.

The second part was a lot easier, in comparison. And no, we didn't go Ebil in it.

EDIT: Side-Tangent: I would prefer that the players always be fighting slavery -- they might be required to 'go along' to get part of the way through the scenario like

Spoiler:

The Slave Master's Mirror

but at the end whatever the situation is should be addressed in some way

Spoiler:

Slave Pits of Absalom

.

In fact, due to

Spoiler:

Assault on Absalom

there's a very, very strong argument for slavery being outlawed and/or remarkably diminished on the island where the main headquarters for the Pathfinder Society is at.

If such a disgusting thing is removed, and in light of the idea of the Organized Play guidelines, would LawEv be as attractive, I wonder?

[MadScientistWorking]

Paul Jackson wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Its the fire plane exchange scenarios where in one you set up a mafia protection racket and the second one while in theory is doable without enslaving anyone its easier just to enslave people.

I had little ethical problems with these. Even played them both with my paladin.

In the first you're helping to forment trouble in an evil city within an evil plane. The more that evil is bickering with itself the better things are in general.

In the second we freed all the slaves and got them united with the other freed slaves.

In both scenarios, we used as little violence as possible and only then we used it against thoroughly evil people.

I'm assuming your Paladin wasn't exchange nor was anyone else exchange because otherwise it starts delving into evil with a capitol E territory.

Quote:

The second part was a lot easier, in comparison. And no, we didn't go Ebil in it.

The second part I had issue with because it tried to justify slavery as a good thing. I'll reread the scenario but I remember the safest thing to happen to the slaves was the society to enslave them which was just a really dumb plot contrivance.

[pjrogers]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Its the fire plane exchange scenarios where in one you set up a mafia protection racket and the second one while in theory is doable without enslaving anyone its easier just to enslave people.

I don't think it's all that hard to do the right thing in those two scenarios.

Spoiler:

I played the first of these with a Silver Crusade cleric of Iomedae, and while getting what we needed from Qalkami, we also managed to cooperate with the authorities. Qalkami was pissed, but there is not much she can really do.

I've played the second Forged in Flame twice, once with the aforementioned cleric and the second time with my Liberty's Edge paladin of Calistria. Both times, we fully and totally freed the Azer slaves.

[Guy Martelle]

In my opinion, definitely do not allow evil into society play. As a player of two classes with more evil potential than almost any other, the Assassin and the Red Mantis Assassin (both PFS legal via Gencon auction boons)I have had this discussion many, many times in the past years. I frequently ask other players how they would play these classes and usually shudder at the responses and am glad these classes are not in open play. I stopped being surprised long ago when the most lawful, respectful, honor-bound character at the table is the Assassin. Also, I do not believe evil deities should be allowed either. Through my observations GMing over 400 tables, Usually the followers of evil deities, especially Asmodeus, act frequently more evil than merely lawful, chaotic or neutral and justify their actions with the corresponding 'that is what my character would do - don't blame me'. My personal observation is that anything open to abuse......will be abused.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

Paul Jackson wrote:

MadScientistWorking wrote:

I mean it goes beyond that. You've got slavery, mass genocide, murder, and god only knows how many other issues crop up that the society is a part of. I hope they resolve most of that stuff because I look at most of that stuff and think someone was deluding themselves that the group is neutral good.
EDIT:
And the slavery part really irked and annoyed the hell out of me because those two scenarios were the worst thinly veiled excuse to act evil.

What 2 scenarios are you talking about? Please PM me if you don't want to mention them publicly

Its the fire plane exchange scenarios where in one you set up a mafia protection racket and the second one while in theory is doable without enslaving anyone its easier just to enslave people.

I am not a fan of the NPC who suggested the protection racket on that plane, frankly, my character found the idea totally insane.. even more so on that plane, though frequent vocalization of my opinion "I wish an usually large zebra would fall on him" did not create the proper response..

Regarding number two, I have see players arguing for the "strict work contract version" but that didn't end up happening and everyone was freed. I don't have a single character who would accept slavery, this might just be a plane, where a very strict work contract might be better than free without adequate protection from further enslavement.

That said, at least the second one was a fitting topic for that particular location, even if I would have prefered an even stronger anti-slavery option.

[pauljathome]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

[

I'm assuming your Paladin wasn't exchange

Most definitely not. Having a paladin be part of the Exchange would be quite the recipe for disaster :-(. He is actually Liberty's Edge which might be one reason that I found the whole "Freeeeeddddddoooooommmm" thing attractive :-)

Spoiler:

Just read those Exchange missions. Yeah, one is pretty darn evil. The other, not so much. Surely the whole point is making the character decide which path to embrace.

Only really going to be an issue if there are TWO exchange characters with very different views.

[Wei Ji the Learner]

Paul Jackson wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:

Or if you have a character that is trying to be the *full* Exchange and hit a broad base of options vs. 'picking Daddy or Uncle'

[Mage of the Wyrmkin]

There really is no need for Evil characters in PFS. That being said all these Good characters need to be kept in check. They really get in the way of my characters animating dead armies and such.

[pauljathome]

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Spoiler:

Or if you have a character that is trying to be the *full* Exchange and hit a broad base of options vs. 'picking Daddy or Uncle'

Spoiler:

While I can definitely understand and sympathize with your frustration in this case it actually does make perfect sense. The two are clearly in some kind of power struggle and you're being asked to pick a side. Trying to straddle that leads to what you can pretty much anticipate with neither side being very happy with you.

Makes perfect sense to me. Its all just office politics.

Mind you, I can also understand when petty office politics stuff coming up in a roleplaying game isn't a lot of fun.

[Evil Horse]

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!