|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So at my table today half my players tried to argue that executing their wounded, bound, surrendered prisoner after it told them everything it knew about its boss was not an evil act. Their rationale was that because it had tricked and attacked them earlier they now had carte blanche to kill it after accepting its surrender. -_- One even tried to compromise saying that he could untie it and toss it a weapon then kill it even if it didn't fight back because then it wouldn't be helpless.
Not caring to debate about it I told them that, GM fiat, it was an evil act whether they agreed or not, but in the interest of moving things along it was not quite evil enough to change the CN inquisitor of Lamashtu's alignment.
In a home campaign it would be easy enough to monitor the character over time and, if such acts continued, declare the character's alignment changed. In PFS obviously that is not an option. So now I finally get to the point of this post: what is a PFS GM to do in situations where a character callously commits an evil act? With a paladin or good cleric it is obvious, but how about the neutral character who, if they turn evil, are no longer a playable character?
Please note that I am not interested in debating whether or not the act was evil; as far as I am concerned there is no doubt, cut and dry. I would very much like to hear what you would do if a character committed an act at your table that you similarly felt was outright evil.
Thank you for taking the time to read this, and Happy Gaming!
|
As a GM, it's one of the harder calls to make.
Having run at a few tables where folks were attempting to head into this territory, I kept it in 'Schroedinger's Prisoner' territory.
ie, they have prisoners, they have been dealt with appropriately fade to black the action is now moving on.
That way, the folks who are Good can feel good about how the prisoners that were handled, and so can the Edgy McEdgy Murder McHobos.
Once a player tries to go into *how* they brutally murdered a defenseless captive, the caution is raised, and if they persist, that's Evil.
The only time I avoid Schroedinger's Prisoner is if there's a reason for the ultimate fate of said prisoner to be pertinent, at which point the caution about murdering out of hand is raised to be fair to the players.
If they action at that point, after they've been warned about the possible ramifications... well, that's what having agency is about.
If there are players at the table that are against that, I'll not punish them for trying to do the right thing when things are resolved unless they feel it's appropriate to be punished.
There CAN be extenuating circumstances.
The very first scenario I played in PFS, due to a colossal number of biffed Knowledge/Sense Motive checks and perception of party capability in dealing with prisoners due to said biffed checks we felt compelled to execute prisoners for the safety of the party and our mission.
The GM pointed out that the only reason we got that pass was A. We strongly believed that the NPCs were a greater threat to us alive and B. We had no means to stop them from the threats they were presenting us with should even one of them break loose.
That was fair, imo.
|
|
1) You have to warn the player BEFORE they do it "i deem this act to be evil, are you SURE you wish to proceed Yes/no ?"
2) Looking over the guide, if its
1) a one time in the scenario thing and
2) Not burning down the orphanage level of evil and
3) The character isn't making any pretenses of being good
there don't seem to be any consequences.
I thought there was something about making a note on the chronicle sheet for Future DMs to see but I'm not seeing it now.
If the act is bad enough to get an alignment change to evil, the character has to pay for an atonement. A paladin or a cleric of a good god obviously have a much higher standard than an inquisitor of lamashtu, and you could shut off their powers booping them over to neutral for a much less egrefious act (but again, must issue a warning)
If the act is burn down the orphanage while fiddling level evil, you can declare them do not pass go do not collect 200 GP evil and mark the character dead. Then you have to bump the decision up the IRL venture critter chain of command.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the subject of prisoners specifically, I'm like GM Wageslave - I think the adventure shouldn't get held up too much because the players have prisoners that need dealing with somehow. I generally allow them to just knock them out and leave them in a broom closet, or offload them onto some authorities or something like that. I'm not going to make them worry that they have to kill them.
|
To AsmodeusUltima: You have given them a warning. If they still carry on their evil intend, use the Pathfinder Society Guide and give them a point of infamy.
Infamy and Alignment Infractions
Players are responsible for their characters’ actions. A player’s perception of what their character would do in a particular situation is never more important than the experience of other players at the table.Alignment infractions—evil acts committed by PCs in Organized Play—are a touchy subject. Killing an innocent, wanton destruction, and other acts that can be construed as evil might be considered alignment infractions. Ultimately, you are the final authority at the table, but you must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and you must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences. You can issue a warning to the player through a “feeling” he receives from his deity, a vision he is given, his conscience talking to him, or some other similar roleplaying event.
Infamy: When a character expresses the intent to perform a wantonly evil or callously criminal action and you inform them that their action would be considered an evil action, if the character still persists in performing the action, apply a point of Infamy to the character. Up to a certain limit, gaining Infamy does not mandate a change in the character’s alignment, but rather, represents a step towards becoming evil.
Beyond GM intervention, some scenarios and written products may present evil solutions to situations. These actions will be called out within the adventure text as causes to give a character partaking in them a point of Infamy. Still, the GM is the final arbiter on what constitutes an alignment infraction and when Infamy is gained by a character at the table.
Every point of Infamy represents the PC’s reputation for performing evil actions. A character can have a maximum of 3 Infamy before that character must be retired; it is assumed characters with 3 points of Infamy become irrevocably evil and are no longer welcome to join standard Pathfinder Society operations.
Removing Infamy: A player can reduce their character’s Infamy by spending 12 Fame per point or through the Untarnished Reputation faction boon
Effects of Infamy: A character can have an Infamy score between 0 and 3. The following summarizes the effects of Infamy based on the number of points accrued:
0: No effect. The character is considered in excellent moral standing with the Pathfinder Society.
1: The character has earned a reputation for performing unseemly deeds. The maximum item level of equipment the character can purchase decreases by 1 (to a minimum of level 1 equipment). This typically means that the PC can purchase equipment with an item level equal to their level – 1 and can purchase equipment listed on a Chronicle sheet only if its level is at most 1 higher than their level.
2: The character is infamous for her evil exploits in the name of the Pathfinder Society. The maximum item level of equipment the character can purchase decreases by 2 (to a minimum of level 1 equipment). This typically means the PCs can purchase equipment with an item level equal to her level – 2. A PC with this level of Infamy can purchase equipment listed on her Chronicle sheets only if its level is equal to or less than her level.
3: The character has earned such a reputation that they are barred from participating in Pathfinder Society, unless they reduce their Infamy score to 2 or lower at the end of the adventure. If the character don’t reduce their Infamy score, the character is permanently retired from play.
Major Infractions: Characters who become wantonly evil by performing vile actions are retired from the campaign when they reach 3 Infamy and cannot reduce the value by spending Fame. This measure is a last resort; players should endeavor to play their characters in ways that are within the constraints of acceptable alignments, even if their characters have gained some Infamy.
If a character is retired as defined above, you should escalate the report to the event coordinator, or the local Venture-Captain or Regional Venture-Coordinator. If that Venture-Officer agrees with you, then the character is deemed wantonly evil and considered removed from the campaign. Again, these measures should be taken as a very last resort.
In the event of a wantonly evil character, record the character as “dead,” and the person who enters the tracking sheet should check that box as well. If the event coordinator, Venture-Captain, or Regional Venture-Coordinator decides the character fits the criteria for being wantonly evil, she will then e-mail the Organized Play manager to advise her of the situation, including the player’s name, organized play number, and e-mail address. A player must be advised of these actions and be provided with a chance to contact their Regional Venture-Coordinator to present their side of the case.
|
|
1) You have to warn the player BEFORE they do it "i deem this act to be evil, are you SURE you wish to proceed Yes/no ?"
2) Looking over the guide, if its
1) a one time in the scenario thing and
2) Not burning down the orphanage level of evil and
3) The character isn't making any pretenses of being goodthere don't seem to be any consequences.
I thought there was something about making a note on the chronicle sheet for Future DMs to see but I'm not seeing it now.
If the act is bad enough to get an alignment change to evil, the character has to pay for an atonement. A paladin or a cleric of a good god obviously have a much higher standard than an inquisitor of lamashtu, and you could shut off their powers booping them over to neutral for a much less egrefious act (but again, must issue a warning)
If the act is burn down the orphanage while fiddling level evil, you can declare them do not pass go do not collect 200 GP evil and mark the character dead. Then you have to bump the decision up the IRL venture critter chain of command.
I think your examples are still from 1e. The infamy allows a much better way for a GM to deal with evil acts in 2e as you are not automatically retired and you can spend fame to redeem yourself.
Edit: I'm actually comparing 1e and 2e now and it seems there is a lot of copy&paste with an insertion of the infamy ruling that is new.
This replaces the leaving a note on the chronicle sheet and the need to atonement.
|
1) Warn the players that the act they are about to commit is quite dastardly (and will earn them an infamy point).
2) If they wish to proceed anyway, make sure all the players have a chance to argue for or against it.
3) Give an infamy point to the players that didn’t oppose the action.
(You have to do #2 and #3 to avoid the dreaded “you can’t stop me since that would be pvp!” possibility of someone deliberately making the rest of the table get an infamy point for an act they didn’t want to commit.)
In this particular case:
|
|
From the OP's mention of an inquisitor, who worships lamashtu (both of which i think are ban hammered in 2e) I figured it was a 1 e question.
I think your examples are still from 1e.
You are likely correct. I just looked at the thread after answering in a 2e scenario. Should have realized this forum is mixed.
A shame as I think that is surely an improvement in 2e how you handle evil acts as GM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A shame as I think that is surely an improvement in 2e how you handle evil acts as GM.
Starfinder does it the same way. I had a very similar situation to the DM, and having to justify it as "people REALLY don't like when you do that sort of thing, and the starfinders would really like it if people stopped shooting at them sooner and surrendered" was much easier to justify than an argument to universal morality.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shout out to GM Wageslave and Lau Bannenberg's comments, and to every PFS GM and writer that does this. Prisoners fading to black was one of the high points of the first PFS game I attended.
My first PFS scenario included raiding a bandits hideout. After a challenging fight the surviving members of the first wave of guards surrendered. I don't remember if we tied them up, or let them run, or what we did in game, but what I do remember is that they didn't become a a 'gotcha' and none of the other players at the table were worried about them becoming a 'gotcha'.
No bandits escaping their bounds to attack us from behind, no shouts were raised at an inopportune time, and no arguments were made about what to do with the prisoners. It immediately highlighted how much baggage I was carrying from bad games in my past, it was such a breath of fresh air that the game stayed about the mission and what to do about the prisoners wasn't its own challenge.
But on topic;
1) Do Not Narrate the Disruptiveness; Everything happens only with the GM consent, so do not narrate anything further regarding the prisoners; Tell them no, and just move straight into the next scene without discussion. This is a stalling tactic until you can resolve the situation in a better manner, it also reinforces that being disruptive does not get you extra attention.
2) Have the 'this isn't that type of campaign' discussion; Explain that this campaign doesn't really do ruthless nitty gritty, and that the a neutral character worshiping an evil god is going to struggle. It if a fun concept, but maybe best to shelf it until they are more familiar with the campaign themes. There is entire section here that I glossed over on why do they want to kill the prisoners, the answer to that will frame this who discussion?
3) Be ruthless; Give fair warning then deem their character evil, requiring atonement to continue playing. Not recommended as a first option, and speak with your Venture Agents ahead of time. But sometimes a player needs an ultimatum to halt their disruptive behaviour.
|
|
There is a danger in table variation and average WBL if a GM 'gotchas' players every time they run while another GM is much more rational about such things.
You HAVE to warn the player before they do it.
If people are still doing it anyway often enough to be a significant kick in your WBL either the DM is being too strict(we're indiana jones, not the harpers) and the players are rebelling or the players are going to be a bunch of murderhobos no matter what. The former needs an intervention from higher up anyway and the latter deserve the dip in WBL.
|
|
There is a danger in table variation and average WBL if a GM 'gotchas' players every time they run while another GM is much more rational about such things.You HAVE to warn the player before they do it.
If people are still doing it anyway often enough to be a significant kick in your WBL either the DM is being too strict(we're indiana jones, not the harpers) and the players are rebelling or the players are going to be a bunch of murderhobos no matter what. The former needs an intervention from higher up anyway and the latter deserve the dip in WBL.
I hope I didn't imply I would "gotcha' players. I would just straight up tell them if you go ahead with this course of action you will need an atonement. Obviously if they keep doing stuff that is evil it could be questioned, but forcing a tax for the occasionally dicey act seems fair to me.