|
My physical copy of Battlecry! is still making its way to me and I haven't yet pulled the trigger on a subscription yet, so I'm working from second and third-hand information at best, but apparently it mentions an upcoming "Lost Omens: Hellfire Dispatches" book as a source for more in-depth story details about the Inner Sea War.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
sorta bummed that there isn't going to be an 'evil' AP in this meta-plotline. Alas.
I'm pretty sure that Paizo doesn't want to do another "evil" AP again, as in "we're not interested in telling a story where PCs work to make the world a worse place." Even in Blood Lords you're working to make the world not-worse in a specific way. Not to mention, there's no such thing as alignment anymore.
There are certainly APs where you can be a big ol' jerk who is mean to people for no reason (this is somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 APs) but the PCs should never be villains, IMO.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
sorta bummed that there isn't going to be an 'evil' AP in this meta-plotline. Alas.I'm pretty sure that Paizo doesn't want to do another "evil" AP again, as in "we're not interested in telling a story where PCs work to make the world a worse place." Even in Blood Lords you're working to make the world not-worse in a specific way. Not to mention, there's no such thing as alignment anymore.
There are certainly APs where you can be a big ol' jerk who is mean to people for no reason (this is somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 APs) but the PCs should never be villains, IMO.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
I’d prefer a world where things are less black & white.
Playing APs where the PCs are always “good” or at least on the side against “evil” feels like the writer of the AP is trying to force their worldview on us.
Sure, playing the paladin in WotR was fun, but ALWAYS being the Paladin/Champion can be boring after a while.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
It just seems that if war doesn't have at least one right side, you don't really want that to be a story where the PCs are doing stuff, and you definitely don't want them coming in on the side which is clearly "the wrong side."
Like there's lots of things for PCs to do in any given month on Golarion, and also a lot of things happening that PCs won't be doing anything for or against. This is basically a game about telling a heroic story for fun with your friends, and a lot of "war is hell" sorts of stories aren't what anybody would call "fun" so we just don't pick those ones for fun times.
|
I guess Paizo got burnt with Agents of Edgewatch so that now they need APs where PCs are very clearly on the side of good, especially when the themes come close to RL.
This gives us an utterly unrealistic vision of war, which will be closer to movies like Indiana Jones, with utterly evil and incompetent enemies, and nothing too close to the realities of war such as innocent civilian victims of the "good" side, exactions from the soldiers of said "good" side, politics, compromise ...
Zero morally grey, which sadly ends up in a glorification of war, where the "good" guys are clearly in the moral right and can do no wrong.
It might even end up as decried as AoE was.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **It just seems that if war doesn't have at least one right side, you don't really want that to be a story where the PCs are doing stuff, and you definitely don't want them coming in on the side which is clearly "the wrong side."
Like there's lots of things for PCs to do in any given month on Golarion, and also a lot of things happening that PCs won't be doing anything for or against. This is basically a game about telling a heroic story for fun with your friends, and a lot of "war is hell" sorts of stories aren't what anybody would call "fun" so we just don't pick those ones for fun times.
I do not really see how "War is good when you're on the good side" stories are that much fun either.
Maybe they should have avoided War altogether.
I do not really see how "War is good when you're on the good side" stories are that much fun either.
Maybe they should have avoided War altogether.
I mean, how many times have they done "war stories" before? It's not all that common, and people generally liked Ironfang Invasion (a War story where you're absolutely on the good side.)
|
|
Ironfang Invasion (a War story where you're absolutely on the good side.)
Well that's certainly a claim one can throw out there and not bother backing up. Paizo might disagree, considering 1) it had the Ironfang Legion win substantially all of its aims, to wit, an independent national existence for hobgoblins in the Inner Sea Region; and 2) those aims are not illegitimate, considering that the previous such attempt (the Goblinblood Wars) was put down with genocidal violence by all relevant powers.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **I’d prefer a world where things are less black & white.
Playing APs where the PCs are always “good” or at least on the side against “evil” feels like the writer of the AP is trying to force their worldview on us.
Sure, playing the paladin in WotR was fun, but ALWAYS being the Paladin/Champion can be boring after a while.
Cheliax is a brutal dystopia in thrall to the literal Devil, where widespread censorship, racism, and torture go unchecked. What kind of 'worldview' from their perspective do you feel is owed?
More importantly: would enough groups have fun embodying it for months at a time for it to make financial sense to make? I doubt it.
the only two areas where I don't think it would be black and white is:
taldor v Qadira/Kelesh: This is more in grey v white or grey v grey or white v white. Neither nation is really an evil nation and in fact both have plenty of people who do not want to see a war happen.
Geb v Nex: this is more evil v evil as both lands are unethical evil wizard lands. Each seems to try and up one another in terms of evil unethical magical experiments.
Ironfang Invasion (a War story where you're absolutely on the good side.)Well that's certainly a claim one can throw out there and not bother backing up. Paizo might disagree, considering 1) it had the Ironfang Legion win substantially all of its aims, to wit, an independent national existence for hobgoblins in the Inner Sea Region; and 2) those aims are not illegitimate, considering that the previous such attempt (the Goblinblood Wars) was put down with genocidal violence by all relevant powers.
I mean, the dodge here is that the PCs are fighting on behalf of Nirmathas which is essentially an innocent victim here. The Ironfang Legion are the aggressors, and Molthune is ultimately the villain here, but the side the PCs are on didn't really do anything wrong and canonically it ended with the heroes convincing Azaersi to step back from the brink and work for peace.
It is a war story in which the PCs are basically in the right in their actions.
Trouble with playing evil PCs is that a lot of evil actions require punching down, navigating real world trauma, or harming good people that the players (hopefully) empathize with. Even by working for an evil organization, the PCs would be empowering that. That's all awkward for an immersive game. It's one thing to read about/watch American Psycho or Hannibal, but such roles are taxing on actors (and many in the audience). How many tables want to gamble that all of their players will be comfortable with whatever evil deeds the scenarios require? And that's not counting those (of which I've GMed a few) that see such license as excuse to indulge in atrocious behavior beyond the story's parameters. (There's a reason PFS had to remove Torture as a profession for one's day job.)
So yeah, we get evil vs. EVIL, where at least one's doing some good if only incidentally, and one's means might arguably be justified by the ends. Doesn't Prey for Death encourage playing an evil PC?
And I am talking Unholy Evil, not simply modern-morality evil which one can easily play within a typical AP. One can play a Dexter, Frank Castle, or John Wick in most APs, mass-murderers focusing their violence on violent enemies, but (kinda/kinda not) trying to be better people or socially acceptable...yet c'mon, all quite heinous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess Paizo got burnt with Agents of Edgewatch so that now they need APs where PCs are very clearly on the side of good, especially when the themes come close to RL.
This gives us an utterly unrealistic vision of war, which will be closer to movies like Indiana Jones, with utterly evil and incompetent enemies, and nothing too close to the realities of war such as innocent civilian victims of the "good" side, exactions from the soldiers of said "good" side, politics, compromise ...
Zero morally grey, which sadly ends up in a glorification of war, where the "good" guys are clearly in the moral right and can do no wrong.
It might even end up as decried as AoE was.
This feels really wild to say when we know Cheliax's armies have recently been swelled by legions of freedmen-turned-conscripts who got pushed into contracts they didn't fully understand. I don't think Lost Omens: Firebrands would've gone there if it wasn't going to be paid off when the writers have now sent that army off to war against the "good guys".
|
|
This feels really wild to say when we know Cheliax's armies have recently been swelled by legions of freedmen-turned-conscripts who got pushed into contracts they didn't fully understand. I don't think Lost Omens: Firebrands would've gone there if it wasn't going to be paid off when the writers have now sent that army off to war against the "good guys".
Firebrands was infamously rushed and off-kilter, so I wouldn't read much intent into it. And if Battlecry! is anything to go by, the payoff is far more likely to be "kill the taken-advantage of conscripts unquestioningly, you're on the right side of history" than, say, "fraternize with the enemy and conspire to turn your respective weapons on your respective generals."
I'd hope we'd see Chelaxians as the victims of Cheliax, which of course would include conscripts who essentially need to be rescued from their commanders. Given Ukraine, this would resemble real war, and there is a good side and bad side (reflected strongly by how well they treat soldiers they've captured and civilians in captured territory).
I don't know how PCs will discern which enemies are reluctant and which are violently indulgent without extraordinary intel or fate/Paizo orchestrating such revelations. Maybe it'll resemble Skull & Shackles where the AP addressed how gray vs. grim piracy may lead to different results or even need different win goals & reflavoring.
Trouble with playing evil PCs is that a lot of evil actions require punching down, navigating real world trauma, or harming good people that the players (hopefully) empathize with. Even by working for an evil organization, the PCs would be empowering that. That's all awkward for an immersive game. It's one thing to read about/watch American Psycho or Hannibal, but such roles are taxing on actors (and many in the audience). How many tables want to gamble that all of their players will be comfortable with whatever evil deeds the scenarios require? And that's not counting those (of which I've GMed a few) that see such license as excuse to indulge in atrocious behavior beyond the story's parameters. (There's a reason PFS had to remove Torture as a profession for one's day job.)
Problem with Evil PCs would be that they are unbothered by moral choices.
Now, the issues with the players of Evil PCs on the other hand.
Trouble with playing evil PCs is that a lot of evil actions require punching down, navigating real world trauma, or harming good people that the players (hopefully) empathize with. Even by working for an evil organization, the PCs would be empowering that. That's all awkward for an immersive game. It's one thing to read about/watch American Psycho or Hannibal, but such roles are taxing on actors (and many in the audience). How many tables want to gamble that all of their players will be comfortable with whatever evil deeds the scenarios require? And that's not counting those (of which I've GMed a few) that see such license as excuse to indulge in atrocious behavior beyond the story's parameters. (There's a reason PFS had to remove Torture as a profession for one's day job.)Problem with Evil PCs would be that they are unbothered by moral choices.
Now, the issues with the players of Evil PCs on the other hand.
That's a succinct way to sum up how difficult it can be to write for evil PCs; if there's no moral compass, what's guiding them? Any "free to be evil" AP might actually be more limiting because the party would need a different overriding reason to risk their lives or even bond together (and with such dubious folk at that!). If they're all greedy, power-hungry backstabbers or in a literally cutthroat community, that's self-destructive.
In designing a Drow campaign (which still lies fallow), one of the first events was weeding out the weak (a.k.a. NPCs) with the overhanging threat that a PC might be next if they cause failure. (And later opportunities to break away from the house if desired, which would require banding together for survival). But that's rather limiting in breadth of PCs, isn't it? At least for publication.
This feels really wild to say when we know Cheliax's armies have recently been swelled by legions of freedmen-turned-conscripts who got pushed into contracts they didn't fully understand. I don't think Lost Omens: Firebrands would've gone there if it wasn't going to be paid off when the writers have now sent that army off to war against the "good guys".Firebrands was infamously rushed and off-kilter, so I wouldn't read much intent into it. And if Battlecry! is anything to go by, the payoff is far more likely to be "kill the taken-advantage of conscripts unquestioningly, you're on the right side of history" than, say, "fraternize with the enemy and conspire to turn your respective weapons on your respective generals."
Back to claiming that the lore in 2e books can't be trusted again?
My experience is usually the PCs will take care of turning things into an evil campaign, you don't need published material to directly cater to it.
Also I recommend reading Battlecry first instead of playing this weird game of telephone with its contents.
|
|
Cheliax is a brutal dystopia in thrall to the literal Devil, where widespread censorship, racism, and torture go unchecked. What kind of 'worldview' from their perspective do you feel is owed?
Thankfully, the racism that was a definite part of Cheliax seems to being going away (no more enslaving halflings or tieflings). That was an unnecessary part of a devil-affiliated country.
Leaving the devil-worshiping piece in place IS necessary for an antagonist like Abrogail II. Without it, all you have left is yet another despot-led, but soon to fall kingdom/queendom.
There's got to be a place in Golarion for an evil-led country. Otherwise, Golarion is just like any other fantasy world.
|
|
Problem with Evil PCs would be that they are unbothered by moral choices.
No.
You're describing Chaotic/Neutral Evil to put it in a D&D/PF1E perspective.
Lawful Evil definitely is not that way. They have rules. Sticking to the rules IS a moral choice for them.
A Merciless Meritocracy definitely makes moral choices even if it's mostly at the expense of chaos.
Now, the issues with the players of Evil PCs on the other hand.
That could be a problem.
|
|
Back to claiming that the lore in 2e books can't be trusted again?This feels really wild to say when we know Cheliax's armies have recently been swelled by legions of freedmen-turned-conscripts who got pushed into contracts they didn't fully understand. I don't think Lost Omens: Firebrands would've gone there if it wasn't going to be paid off when the writers have now sent that army off to war against the "good guys".Firebrands was infamously rushed and off-kilter, so I wouldn't read much intent into it. And if Battlecry! is anything to go by, the payoff is far more likely to be "kill the taken-advantage of conscripts unquestioningly, you're on the right side of history" than, say, "fraternize with the enemy and conspire to turn your respective weapons on your respective generals."
More recent books supersede older books. And books with production problems are less trustworthy than books with smooth production cycles, because there are more chances for errors to slip through. Which has happened in lore books too many times to count, from Paladins of Asmodeus erroneously being said to exist in the early Pathfinder Campaign Setting on down.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thankfully, the racism that was a definite part of Cheliax seems to being going away (no more enslaving halflings or tieflings). That was an unnecessary part of a devil-affiliated country.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on. Cheliax is as institutionally and socially racist as ever—disproportionate enlistment of halflings and tieflings into the Army alone goes to show that.
There's got to be a place in Golarion for an evil-led country. Otherwise, Golarion is just like any other fantasy world.
What tabletop settings (that lean into good and evil being meaningful things) do not have at least one evil-led country? Why do New Edasseril, the Whispering Tyrant's realm, Mzali, Geb, Nidal, and a half-dozen other examples not count as evil-led countries? What's so special and worth preserving about House Throne specifically as a setting element?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What tabletop settings (that lean into good and evil being meaningful things) do not have at least one evil-led country? Why do New Edasseril, the Whispering Tyrant's realm, Mzali, Geb, Nidal, and a half-dozen other examples not count as evil-led countries? What's so special and worth preserving about House Throne specifically as a setting element?
It seems like the big difference between Cheliax and those places is that Cheliax is basically set up to be one of these "evil empires" that fall due to the actions of a bunch of heroic PCs, since Cheliax has been like this for less than a century and Abrogail Thrune is someone a 20th level party could wipe the floor with. "Fixing" Nidal or Mzali requires going against actual Gods. Geb, Nex, and the Whispering Tyrant are three of the most powerful mages in the Universe and aren't going to go down like chumps. The sort of evil that a place like Molthune is (where it's evil for the sake of expediency, rather than for the cause of evil) is pretty common and not something we regularly fix in APs etc.
So since Cheliax was always set up to fall, that's why people are so against it happening. However, it's not like "Thrune falls" is going to actually turn Cheliax into a utopia where everybody is issued a free puppy. More likely Cheliax's imperial aims will die for the near-term and the state will effectively be balkanized into enclaves that are varying degrees of diabolist vs. decadent. Instead of one big evil nation, you're going to end up with 8 or so different Ravounels, some of which are ill-intentioned.
|
|
What tabletop settings (that lean into good and evil being meaningful things) do not have at least one evil-led country? Why do New Edasseril, the Whispering Tyrant's realm, Mzali, Geb, Nidal, and a half-dozen other examples not count as evil-led countries? What's so special and worth preserving about House Throne specifically as a setting element?
Their patron.
Asmodeus is, by far, more powerful than any other evil country's patron.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What tabletop settings (that lean into good and evil being meaningful things) do not have at least one evil-led country? Why do New Edasseril, the Whispering Tyrant's realm, Mzali, Geb, Nidal, and a half-dozen other examples not count as evil-led countries? What's so special and worth preserving about House Throne specifically as a setting element?It seems like the big difference between Cheliax and those places is that Cheliax is basically set up to be one of these "evil empires" that fall due to the actions of a bunch of heroic PCs, since Cheliax has been like this for less than a century and Abrogail Thrune is someone a 20th level party could wipe the floor with. "Fixing" Nidal or Mzali requires going against actual Gods. Geb, Nex, and the Whispering Tyrant are three of the most powerful mages in the Universe and aren't going to go down like chumps. The sort of evil that a place like Molthune is (where it's evil for the sake of expediency, rather than for the cause of evil) is pretty common and not something we regularly fix in APs etc.
So since Cheliax was always set up to fall, that's why people are so against it happening. However, it's not like "Thrune falls" is going to actually turn Cheliax into a utopia where everybody is issued a free puppy. More likely Cheliax's imperial aims will die for the near-term and the state will effectively be balkanized into enclaves that are varying degrees of diabolist vs. decadent. Instead of one big evil nation, you're going to end up with 8 or so different Ravounels, some of which are ill-intentioned.
Ah yes, no point in resisting the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire - nothing we can't get from it that we can't get just as well from the fractious, squabbling city-states of medieval Italy once they've had a few centuries to get their act together, and maybe we can even have a Renaissance a thousand years or so down the road. Just throw off the togas already and bow to your new Gothic overlords.
I happen to like Cheliax as it is - I find it interesting and compelling in a way that basically none of the other "We have [Evil Nation] at Home" options do. Particularly since undead have never held much interest for me, which tosses out a significant portion of the list.
Cheliax collapsing would destroy one of the parts of the setting I enjoy most and essentially expect me to be happy with the knowledge that there might be a handful of pieces of what I like left somewhere amongst the rubble.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cheliax is a brutal dystopia in thrall to the literal Devil, where widespread censorship, racism, and torture go unchecked. What kind of 'worldview' from their perspective do you feel is owed?
Thankfully, the racism that was a definite part of Cheliax seems to being going away (no more enslaving halflings or tieflings). That was an unnecessary part of a devil-affiliated country.
Leaving the devil-worshiping piece in place IS necessary for an antagonist like Abrogail II. Without it, all you have left is yet another despot-led, but soon to fall kingdom/queendom.
There's got to be a place in Golarion for an evil-led country. Otherwise, Golarion is just like any other fantasy world.
Necessary as antagonists, sure. Necessary as a playable option catered to with multiple AP volumes of writing, editing, art, and layout? That's what I was looking to see justified, because I don't see it.
Also: the idea that having an evil empire is a trait unique to Golarion among fantasy worlds is... well, absurd!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What tabletop settings (that lean into good and evil being meaningful things) do not have at least one evil-led country? Why do New Edasseril, the Whispering Tyrant's realm, Mzali, Geb, Nidal, and a half-dozen other examples not count as evil-led countries? What's so special and worth preserving about House Throne specifically as a setting element?Their patron.
Asmodeus is, by far, more powerful than any other evil country's patron.
There are plenty of evil theocracies with real deities behind them in fantasy fiction, I assure you! Hell, Nidal is right next door and has been tighter with their patron Core 20 god for thousands of years longer than Cheliax has existed, but nobody's demanding that we're owed a pro-Nidal AP where we go flay innocents. Zon-Kuthon lords over an entire plane of existence and an entire breed of fiend, and was also part of Rovagug's binding, so I'm not sure that I buy the idea Asmodeus blows him out of the water.
The 4e Forgotten Realms had a Cheliax-like deal linking Thay to the conquering god Bane, who was a similar-but-more-militant Lawful Evil-style deity. Warhammer 40,000 is all about galaxy-spanning feuds between mortal proxies of hyper-powerful divinities. This feels a bit like demanding to hear out both sides between the Hobbits and the Nazgul, y'know?
Like what really changes about Cheliax in terms of its role in the setting if it falls back into civil war where one of the competing factions is explicitly diabolist? There's a story to tell inside of Cheliax about how the Nobility has not done well under Thrune, and neither has the middle class, and both would probably like this to change. I mean, Hell is certainly not popular with everybody in Cheliax, and perhaps not even with the majority.
|
|
Like what really changes about Cheliax in terms of its role in the setting if it falls back into civil war where one of the competing factions is explicitly diabolist? There's a story to tell inside of Cheliax about how the Nobility has not done well under Thrune, and neither has the middle class, and both would probably like this to change. I mean, Hell is certainly not popular with everybody in Cheliax, and perhaps not even with the majority.
The ability to project power outward against literally any of its neighbors and pose even a semblance of a unified front against anything that might threaten it, up to an including foreign influences that want to tip the scales in favor of one faction or another?
Its status as a major regional power within the Inner Sea, much less whatever might remain of its colonial ambitions?
|
|
There's a story to tell inside of Cheliax about how the Nobility has not done well under Thrune, and neither has the middle class, and both would probably like this to change.
Neither was capable of seeing the 4716–17 revolution through. Nor was any other social force within Cheliax. Absent a reversal of these classes' fortunes since then which has not been in evidence, or the rise of other classes which likewise has not been in evidence, post-Thrune Cheliax looks to be the playground of the various Hellknight orders taking control of their citadels' nearby cities, and Great Master cults everywhere else.
Its status as a major regional power within the Inner Sea, much less whatever might remain of its colonial ambitions?
Meh. There was no point during either the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, or the Lost Omens Campaign Setting so far, when Cheliax was not a paper tiger.
|
|
Neither was capable of seeing the 4716–17 revolution through. Nor was any other social force within Cheliax. Absent a reversal of these classes' fortunes since then which has not been in evidence, or the rise of other classes which likewise has not been in evidence, post-Thrune Cheliax looks to be the playground of the various Hellknight orders taking control of their citadels' nearby cities, and Great Master cults everywhere else.
I know of one fairly new Hellknight order (PC-run after the Hell's Vengeance AP) that would LOVE to take complete control of Westcrown.
I guess Paizo got burnt with Agents of Edgewatch so that now they need APs where PCs are very clearly on the side of good, especially when the themes come close to RL.
This gives us an utterly unrealistic vision of war, which will be closer to movies like Indiana Jones, with utterly evil and incompetent enemies, and nothing too close to the realities of war such as innocent civilian victims of the "good" side, exactions from the soldiers of said "good" side, politics, compromise ...
Zero morally grey, which sadly ends up in a glorification of war, where the "good" guys are clearly in the moral right and can do no wrong.
It might even end up as decried as AoE was.
I mean, AoE's problem was that it tried to have its cake and eat it, too - trying to both be a Good-aligned cop story where the heroes never ever kill while also doing things like volume 1's "get paid under the table to drag mistreated workers off to be executed for striking."
I can definitely imagine an AP where you're Andoren or Isgeri commandos who occasionally have to make hard choices. The AoE-like thing to do would spend the entire Player's Guide emphatically explaining that your commandos should be squeaky-clean morally, with mechanics to enforce it... and then having you fill a mass grave with Chelish civilians in the second chapter of play. That's not a mistake I see Paizo making again.
tl;dr the issue wasn't trying to present nuanced morality, it was a close to the opposite - a massive premise/execution mismatch that presented deeply corrupt institutions as an objectively uncomplicated Good.
Like what really changes about Cheliax in terms of its role in the setting if it falls back into civil war where one of the competing factions is explicitly diabolist? There's a story to tell inside of Cheliax about how the Nobility has not done well under Thrune, and neither has the middle class, and both would probably like this to change. I mean, Hell is certainly not popular with everybody in Cheliax, and perhaps not even with the majority.The ability to project power outward against literally any of its neighbors and pose even a semblance of a unified front against anything that might threaten it, up to an including foreign influences that want to tip the scales in favor of one faction or another?
Its status as a major regional power within the Inner Sea, much less whatever might remain of its colonial ambitions?
Cheliax spent 1e doing things like losing much of its navy to fighting with Shackles pirates, losing a whole province (Ravounel) to secession and revolution, and barely keeping a lid on another revolt within the empire's remaining borders. They possess one small colony in Arcadia, one severely limited in power by the Segada Protocol enforced upon it by the indigenous Mahwek; their other Arcadian colony was overrun by undead and failed. Nidal has always been presented as something of an aloof ally, certain they will outlast their 'partners' eventually, and we're about to get an AP about Isger's struggle for freedom from the Chelish yoke. At least one 2e book has said that they've lost the city of Khari to Rahadoum, which would deprive Cheliax of their toehold in Garund.
I don't see the strong, sturdy Cheliax you want on the page very often.
i think there should be evil APs just because its fun to be the villains. making the world better or worse is just part of the fun of exploring consequences.
|
sorta bummed that there isn't going to be an 'evil' AP in this meta-plotline. Alas.I'm pretty sure that Paizo doesn't want to do another "evil" AP again, as in "we're not interested in telling a story where PCs work to make the world a worse place." Even in Blood Lords you're working to make the world not-worse in a specific way. Not to mention, there's no such thing as alignment anymore.
There are certainly APs where you can be a big ol' jerk who is mean to people for no reason (this is somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 APs) but the PCs should never be villains, IMO.
Blood Lords is NOT an Evil AP. It's basically Parks and Recreation in Nightmare Before Christmas.
i get why Paizo doesn't want to make an evil AP, but I'll just say that my party would probably go bonkers for an evil 2E AP.
That's a succinct way to sum up how difficult it can be to write for evil PCs; if there's no moral compass, what's guiding them? Any "free to be evil" AP might actually be more limiting because the party would need a different overriding reason to risk their lives or even bond together (and with such dubious folk at that!). If they're all greedy, power-hungry backstabbers or in a literally cutthroat community, that's self-destructive.Problem with Evil PCs would be that they are unbothered by moral choices.
Now, the issues with the players of Evil PCs on the other hand.
Freedom of choices isn't freedom of consequences from said choices, and Evil doesn't need to be self-destructive either.
Problem with Evil PCs would be that they are unbothered by moral choices.
No.
You're describing Chaotic/Neutral Evil to put it in a D&D/PF1E perspective.
Lawful Evil definitely is not that way. They have rules. Sticking to the rules IS a moral choice for them.
A Merciless Meritocracy definitely makes moral choices even if it's mostly at the expense of chaos.
Ethic vs Moral.
LG, LN and LE also worry about another definition of Moral.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
tl;dr the issue wasn't trying to present nuanced morality, it was a close to the opposite - a massive premise/execution mismatch that presented deeply corrupt institutions as an objectively uncomplicated Good.
The reverse—problematizing institutions which have hitherto been presented as objectively uncomplicated Good—is better. Andoran in particular is ripe for this, having even been problematized previously as a rising imperialist power (complete with a cartelized economy and an economistic trade union movement) and the aggressor. And its filling mass graves with conscripted or debt-enslaved Chelish soldiers is not that much better than filling mass graves with civilians; if Chelish society has any hope of regeneration, it lies in those conscripts and their class, and every battalion slain is one less battalion to fill the ranks of the revolution. Until there are insufficient numbers left and we're resigned to Hellknight-controlled islands in a Great Master-controlled sea.
(Agents of Edgewatch's encouraging of PC strikebreaking was not unique, but was of a piece with Curse of the Crimson Throne and Serpent's Skull doing the same or worse.)
What kind of evil things do you want your PCs to do? (or get away with)
And why can't your PCs do those in the morally gray APs?
Not that I think an evil AP has enough market value, and may even lose Paizo more subscribers than it gains. And to be Evil-Evil Paizo would have to break its PG-13 standards which I don't foresee given how much they have to finesse hard topics already.
A hard-R module might be more reasonable, or optional path/alliance w/ evil faction within an AP w/ sidebars guiding GMs. They've done that in PF1 APs & PFS1 one-shots.
What kind of evil things do you want your PCs to do? (or get away with)
And why can't your PCs do those in the morally gray APs?Not that I think an evil AP has enough market value, and may even lose Paizo more subscribers than it gains. And to be Evil-Evil Paizo would have to break its PG-13 standards which I don't foresee given how much they have to finesse hard topics already.
A hard-R module might be more reasonable, or optional path/alliance w/ evil faction within an AP w/ sidebars guiding GMs. They've done that in PF1 APs & PFS1 one-shots.
Potential example: in Ironfang Invasion, convert the other refugees to cannibalism, wittingly or not, it's evil but can still increase the chances of survival.
And why couldn't you have? (Especially unwittingly.)
What would (expected) cannibalism add to an AP?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like I just don't understand what's fun about "let's go do some war crimes and commit various atrocities" in a game we play with our friends for fun. If individual groups specifically want this for whatever reason, this seems like something that GMs can implement on a table level and shouldn't really be something Paizo is interested in selling.