| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Storyteller is a system fundamentally based around politics. So those internal conflicts are something the system expects and is built to manage.
PF is built more around a group adventuring against a threat, which means it's less designed to manage that kind of thing.
That said I question the premise of your thread. If everyone is on board with playing backstabbing monsters, there's no reason you couldn't do that in PF.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is going to be a hot-take based solely on my own experiences with Storyteller games:
These games are fundamentally Player VS Player in literally every actual instance I've experienced, seen run, or heard tell of people I know who played the game. It always boils down to conflicts between either the Players characters or with the Players characters and a Plot-Armor NPC that the Storyteller uses to force a particular outcome with little to no actual player agency being involved. It's political and it pushes all of the wrong buttons for me when it comes to seeking a fun game to share in a social setting with friends and peers alike.
Obviously this isn't representative of every actual game that has been or continues to be played but I can tell you that personally knowing a good number of the WoD players who run events at conventions has, if anything, pushed me further away from these types of games. Nothing against the people who enjoy these at all, they're lovely folks but...I don't like it, not at all. Not my cup of tea, no thank you -sorry not sorry.
|
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not all Storyteller games have 'evil, backstabbing characters' by any means, and I say this as someone who's played more of them than I have Pathfinder games.
Of those that do, they are primarily focused on inter-PC conflict rather than PC vs. enemy conflict. Inter-PC conflict games work absolutely fine as LARPs, and can even work well in tabletop games with the right group, but they don't work at all well when you try and combine them with PC vs. enemy games, especially those that have anything resembling combat balance.
Pathfinder, in all editions, is designed as a cooperative game with fairly tight combat balance, which means that if one player switches sides or refuses to help, the most likely outcomes involve multiple PC deaths and thus, often, the end of the game. This is certainly the assumption used by basically all published adventures.
Now, you could certainly do a game using the Pathfinder system that is primarily about inter-PC conflict, but it would need to be structurally fundamentally different than a normal Pathfinder game, likely involving little to no dungeon exploration, having a heavy focus on social mechanics for recruiting NPC allies, and just generally winding up as a very different game. That sort of game would work, what doesn't is when players decide to start doing a bunch of inter-PC conflict in the middle of a more traditional Pathfinder game.
And a game with inter-PC conflict is actually quite different from an Evil game. I've played in Evil games of Pathfinder that worked fine, we were just all very unified in our Evil, doing things like performing acts of torture and using genocidal plagues on our enemies, but remaining loyal to each other and working together to accomplish our goals.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the morality systems in storyteller games are aspirational, rather than descriptive. As a vampire a PC wants to retain their humanity, a mage PC wants to avoid paradox, a changeling PC wants to maintain clarity, etc. In these games there's a built in mechanic to punish people for "morality" infractions so anybody who's willing to live with that can go right ahead.
In D&D games you just write down what you think you are, and if you don't act in accordance to that at worst you write down something different in the box.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
in world of darkness, morality is gray, that's the whole point. The game is about struggling with ambiguous moral decisions, or at least, the writers intend that to be an aspect of the game. In D&D and inherited by Pathfinder, morality is black and white. You play the good guys who murder the bad guys and it's all ok cause you are good and they are bad. Or, again, that's the intent by the writers and is written in to the rules of the game. You can look at someone with your magic sight and know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are "evil."
Now Pathfinder inherited this mess, and it sort of tries to step away from it at times and claim that their world has shades of gray, but it clings to the absolutes of alignment definition. As long as alignment exists in the game, having a mix of good and bad people doesn't function, because you've already defined these people as right and wrong in the rules.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Short answer, evil characters give problem players a "defense" for being a dick by saying "It's what my character would do".
Well, you're the one that designed the character, so if the character is being a dick its because of you.
For a more serious response, I agree strongly with DeadManWalking's analysis.
Evil is fine, if everyone's on board. It's intraparty conflict which causes issues, if everyone wasn't on board. Which is usually the case with Pathfinder/D&D since it's based around the whole party being a team seeking the same general goals.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is the difference in why that Vampire etc can have a bunch of backstabbing monsters for PCs, and the game works, but D&D games can’t?
Experiences with Vampire vary, but in at least one edition of the game, morality was enforced by a Humanity mechanic that was *FAR* more toothsome than a D&D/PF style alignment mechanic. Do enough nasty stuff, and you get to roll to lose some Humanity, possible gain some Derangements, and your prize at the end is the character is removed from game and becomes an NPC ravening monster. If your NG Ranger becomes N, and then NE, exactly bupkiss happens, mechanically, other than you being affected differently by some spells.
As a result, a certain level of 'bad behavior' was tolerated, even encouraged and embraced, but there is stuff that a D&D/PF character can get away with, like rampantly killing a ton of people, that a Vampire the Masquerade vampire will get quickly un-PC'd for. So, generally, if the player *likes* the character, and wants to keep playing them, one chooses carefully what amount of evil stuff one gets up to, and saves the egregious stuff for when it's *really* worth it, kind of a big climactic end-of-a-story-chapter betrayal or whatnot. Blow all your Humanity on petty crap, and when a breathtaking opportunity to push someone off a cliff and take all the marbles comes along, the character won't be able to profit from it... :)
The game could often be designed in such a way as to encourage cooperative bad-guy-ness, as well. Often, the PCs would start out as newbie vampires, in a town full of older more experienced and more powerful vampires, who already had most of the 'good stuff' sewn up, leaving them scrounging for resources and territories and whatnot. Fighting each other for the tiny scraps of nothing that they controlled was worse than pointless, but would just be an amusement for the older folk, who were sitting on much juicier resources, while cooperating with each other as a coterie/party made it much easier to advance to the higher positions and levels of influence and success.
It is true that you'd occasionally run into some yob who did not play well with others, and they'd want to backstab and betray and PVP at every opportunity, even if it was short-sighted and counter-productive, but those show up in D&D games as well, usually playing thieves who steal from their own party or paladins who attack other party members, while hiding behind the 'I was just role-playing my character!' defense. I will assume that I lucked out during Vampire, since my groups were generally more cooperative (and yet sometimes competitive as well), but not combative.
I could say honestly that I've run into more inter-group PVP in D&D games than Vampire, but that's very likely because I've played a ton more 'pickup group' D&D game with people I didn't know very well at cons and gaming shops, and was much choosier about my Vampire groups (as it's generally a more 'mature' game, it can also, in my experience, attract some pretty sketchy folk whose definition of 'mature' seems to be 'anything that would titillate a 12 year old, and turn off / revolt an actual *adult*').
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your table is mature enough to roll with it there is no reason not to use evil characters. My team does it (quite literally) all the time and we always have a nice to amazing experience. Clearly some APs do not work with them but with some work they can be easily adapted. Kingmaker, CoTCT, RoTRL, RfH, carrion crown, all played with evil-neutral parties and a funload of modules and one shots. It becomes a problem when there is a problem player at the table but that is a problem by itself
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is D&D and D&D is mostly light-to-medium hearted heroic fantasy. Among its playerbase, for every one person interested in DarkDarkEvil game of backstabbing and torching orphanages, there are 5 folks who are after a Touched by an Angel game of LG/NG heroes fighting evil and doing good deeds. A CN shades of gray whatever it takes mercenary is borderline unacceptable at many D&D/PF1 tables, let alone an Evil character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll throw my 2 cents in here.
Evil is every bit as doable as good in regards to D&D or PF games. The primary points to remember is that the story of the game is ultimately only limited by the imagination of the GM and the party. Also, as with any campaign, it is usually a good idea for the group to sit down before the game begins and work together when building characters and motivations to make sure you will have good party cohesiveness. IE, not having a NE Necromancer in the same party as a LG Paladin.
Anything is possible if the group is willing to work together to have an experience that everyone is on the same page about.
I have played in, and run many dark or evil aligned campaigns. I learned long ago that the difference maker in these campaigns is understand dark or evil motivations from their perspective, and avoiding what we jokingly call "power ranger evil" or evil that is "I do all the bad things and worse because I am evil and that's what I do".
Evil characters, whether that is the NPC villain in your game, or the PC's themselves don't usually think of themselves as evil. They are justified in their actions. You need to understand why they are justified from their perspectives. Vampires don't necessarily kill just to kill (although some may, but some humans do that too). Vampires kill to feed, my survival is more important to me that yours is. That is natural in all life forms. They kill to protect themselves and what they care about. They kill to gain wealth or power. They kill for vengeance.
Understanding what any character values, and what they are willing to do to gain, or keep that is how you determine the motivations and decision making process of any character.
A lich could easily wipe out a small farming community, but what would be the reason/advantage in doing so. They would expose themselves for minimal gain. However if that village was settled on top of a long lost graveyard, which was the burial location of an ancient mage that had an item of particular interest to the lich, that may be reason enough to destroy the settlement, or perhaps they would use fear and other machinations to drive the people away.
Vampire (WOD) can easily be transplanted into PF with homebrewing. The challenge is more about creating and understanding the politics, and intricacies of each characters aspirations, and how they play off each other.
In the end, if a group is willing, anything is possible, but it will only ever be as good as you make it, together.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if "I don't think of myself as evil" is workable in a setting where we can just point a Paladin at someone and they can say "yup, evil" or where "evil" is a tangible, real force in the outer planes which are generally much, much less pleasant than the ones which are not evil. These things are objectively testable- a cleric of Shelyn can go around casting "Divine Lance" willy nilly and the only people they can hurt are evil people.
People who follow Urgathoa, or Asmodeus, Lamashtu, or Norgorber, might have justifications for the correctness of their choices but they should know that they're evil.
That morality is kind of not subjective in Pathfinder is kind of the big, big, big problem for doing something like the Storyteller games (where morality is absolutely subjective, and the games are about what concessions you're willing to make with your nominal morality system and the consequences that follow from that.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if "I don't think of myself as evil" is workable in a setting where we can just point a Paladin at someone and they can say "yup, evil" or where "evil" is a tangible, real force in the outer planes which are generally much, much less pleasant than the ones which are not evil.
Sort of, but I think it's workable in the sense that someone who believes Asmodeus is correct might be Cosmically Evil, but still believe that their actions are morally justifiable.
All we've really done is reframe the discussion and created a disconnect between objective morality and a person's subjective perceptions of that morality.
That morality is kind of not subjective in Pathfinder is kind of the big, big, big problem for doing something like the Storyteller games (where morality is absolutely subjective, and the games are about what concessions you're willing to make with your nominal morality system and the consequences that follow from that.)
See, ironically I guess I actually find morality more comfortable to do in a setting like D&D. Storyteller encourages players to toe the line, but it can also be hamfisted at times in how some of its morality systems aggressively punish characters for behaving incorrectly.
To an extent, a system like that encourages gaming it because of those tangible metagame consequences to your actions. The fact that you can be rewarded or punished (up to and including outright losing your character) offers a perverse incentive for players to sometimes take actions that might run contrary to how that character would otherwise act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always figured that evil people (above a certain level) in Pathfinder should be aware that they are evil, but double down on that because they believe something like "evil means are necessary to preserve order" or "might makes right is the only true law of existence".
Being aware that they may be an "Evil" person when referring to mortals of the material plane does not necessarily mean they don't feel their choices are without reasonable cause. When referring to creatures of other planes, I think it is much more strict in sense of alignment, and awareness of that.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
'Evil' is an arbitrary word ascribed to a specific set of traits that show up to certain magic.
An Evil character in the Pathfinder universe (who knows they show up as Evil on such spells...they need to be 6th level or divinely powered for that to be true, people less powerful than that can delude themselves) might well use a different word.
I'd expect a lot of Evil people would list their Alignment as 'Practical' while they referred to Good Alignments as 'Naive'. So he's not Lawful Evil, he's Lawful Practical and those misguided Desna worshipers over there are Chaotic Naive.
Which is to say, they know a Paladin would call them Evil, but whether they think that what they are doing is wrong is another matter entirely.
The weird thing about PF/D&D's lack of a sliding scale of morality is that there does not seem like a way for an evil person to look at what evil thing that another evil character is doing and say "whoa, whoa... too far bud."
Like an Urgathoan who's in it for the gluttony and the cannibalism doesn't really have grounds to say "no, don't murder those orphans- that would be wrong."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The weird thing about PF/D&D's lack of a sliding scale of morality is that there does not seem like a way for an evil person to look at what evil thing that another evil character is doing and say "whoa, whoa... too far bud."
Like an Urgathoan who's in it for the gluttony and the cannibalism doesn't really have grounds to say "no, don't murder those orphans- that would be wrong."
Why don't they? Either they do have some glimmers of a concious left, or they know that getting rid of the orphans will get the guards off their butts and hire some adventurers to deal with their little club.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, alignment in Pathfinder really doesn't differentiate between "I lie, cheat, and steal and will betray anyone for money" and "I can't get enough murder and I like to eat people while they're still alive".
Like there should be a difference of between "I'm willing to do things other people wouldn't to get the job done" and "I'm actively invested in doing the most depraved things I can think of" but there really isn't mechanically, which is why I consider the evil end of the spectrum to be deeply uninteresting in Pathfinder & similar games.
'Evil' is an arbitrary word ascribed to a specific set of traits that show up to certain magic.
An Evil character in the Pathfinder universe (who knows they show up as Evil on such spells...they need to be 6th level or divinely powered for that to be true, people less powerful than that can delude themselves) might well use a different word.
I'd expect a lot of Evil people would list their Alignment as 'Practical' while they referred to Good Alignments as 'Naive'. So he's not Lawful Evil, he's Lawful Practical and those misguided Desna worshipers over there are Chaotic Naive.
Which is to say, they know a Paladin would call them Evil, but whether they think that what they are doing is wrong is another matter entirely.
Planescape: Torment had a similar usage of "practical" for the evil choices. And it uses some actually tempting rationalizations to try to coerce you/your PC. Easy road indeed.
We, as players, might see the objective meta of "good vs. evil", yet internally that might simply be a convention of normal folk (or even just Good folk) while Evil folk might laugh at the label.
Whether jaded, emotionless, hyper-rationalizing, or whatnot, nearly everybody thinks their actions are warranted by context and "the way the world works". Heck, Demons now get wounded when subject to their moral vulnerability. How could they possibly see something so damaging as a good thing? It's a matter of survival to spread the opposite!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The weird thing about PF/D&D's lack of a sliding scale of morality is that there does not seem like a way for an evil person to look at what evil thing that another evil character is doing and say "whoa, whoa... too far bud."
Like an Urgathoan who's in it for the gluttony and the cannibalism doesn't really have grounds to say "no, don't murder those orphans- that would be wrong."
Sure they can. Alignment is a very blunt instrument, but it's not the sum total of a creature's morality. Specific moral strictures or unwillingness to do specific things will vary by creature and aren't mechanically enforced...but then Alignment itself is barely mechanically enforced aside from a few spell effects and those with divine powers needing to be sympatico with their deity.
Every Evil character I've ever seen played had their own specific lines on what was and was not appropriate, if only in their own head, and most of them stuck to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since it seems relevant to the discussion, Pathfinder 2e has variant alignment rules if you want more granular mechanics for alignment. Includes more granular alignment and alignment based on specific moral intentions rather than broader good and evil. Found here they aren't super robust but they are serviceable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, alignment in Pathfinder really doesn't differentiate between "I lie, cheat, and steal and will betray anyone for money" and "I can't get enough murder and I like to eat people while they're still alive".
Like there should be a difference of between "I'm willing to do things other people wouldn't to get the job done" and "I'm actively invested in doing the most depraved things I can think of" but there really isn't mechanically, which is why I consider the evil end of the spectrum to be deeply uninteresting in Pathfinder & similar games.
If you keep in mind that the character defines alignment, and the alignment does not define the character, a lot of these issues go away.
All except for maybe one game I've played in had a mix of good and evil characters in the party, and it tended to work out fine. That's probably group dependent though.
Torture is anathema to Rovagug who wants you to destroy quickly.
Well that's interesting, I feel like that makes Rovagug a lot more crazy and somehow less evil.
Like he's not enjoying killing you in sadistic ways. He just wants you dead, because the universe demands your death.
Honestly we know very little of what Rovagug actually "thinks" about things. I've always felt that perhaps his crazy cultist make him out to be more depraved than he actually is.
Like he wants to destroy everything, and that's evil, but he doesn't go Hannibal Lector route and make you eat pieces of yourself.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like he [rovagug] wants to destroy everything, and that's evil, but he doesn't go Hannibal Lector route and make you eat pieces of yourself.In Golarion as written by Paizo, sure, because Paizo gave it an evil alignment. However, destroying the universe so it can be recreated in the next (maybe improved) cycle is a common enough trope for entities focused on attaining perfection or maintaining balance.
Yeah, but trope is more Groetus's bag than Rovagug (and Groetus is CN). Rovagug wants to destroy everything so that there isn't anything any more. He wants to end all cycles and eat your soul.
He's just not a sadist about it.
Zon Kuthon is the sadist, who wants to make things suffer. (Always found it strange that his anathema might prevent you from healing under a certain reading, even thou healing means more suffering).
Torturers carrying healing items is a long tradition. As part of a larger program, relief can make suffering all the worse, not just extend the suffering.
I believe there's a fiend that tortures that has decent healing abilities, though I might be recalling PF1 (though it'd be the same setting).And of course an evil PC could carry healing, then glare at any ally that actually needs it. "These weren't for you! They were to capture living slaves!" (or bargain/coerce/whatnot)