|
You can thank GW for conflating chaos with evil. In my anecdotal experience, CN is pretty much a train wreck. GMs allow torture, bullying, and murder of NPCs under the auspices of CN.Wait. Using the Intimidate skill is an evil act?
I meant physically bullying, not intimidate skill. But I agree that's different than torture or murder.
|
You can thank GW for conflating chaos with evil. In my anecdotal experience, CN is pretty much a train wreck. GMs allow torture, bullying, and murder of NPCs under the auspices of CN.
Actually my first experience with role playing was the Dungeons and Dragons basic red box. In Basic, there were three alignments: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. That's pretty much where chaotic=evil came from for me, and it took a long time to get over that.
|
|
I meant physically bullying, not intimidate skill. But I agree that's different than torture or murder.You can thank GW for conflating chaos with evil. In my anecdotal experience, CN is pretty much a train wreck. GMs allow torture, bullying, and murder of NPCs under the auspices of CN.Wait. Using the Intimidate skill is an evil act?
So is attacking someone with intent to kill evil?
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Babylon 5 didn't really help any either as the Shadows were supposed to be the champions of Chaos but usually came off more as Evil. Ironically, the Vorlons who were the champions of Law could come off as being either Good or Evil depending on which Kosh you are talking about.
|
|
Babylon 5 didn't really help any either as the Shadows were supposed to be the champions of Chaos but usually came off more as Evil. Ironically, the Vorlons who were the champions of Law could come off as being either Good or Evil depending on which Kosh you are talking about.
The Vorlons started blowing up planets first. Just sayin'.
|
|
So is attacking someone with intent to kill evil?I meant physically bullying, not intimidate skill. But I agree that's different than torture or murder.You can thank GW for conflating chaos with evil. In my anecdotal experience, CN is pretty much a train wreck. GMs allow torture, bullying, and murder of NPCs under the auspices of CN.Wait. Using the Intimidate skill is an evil act?
No, but killing helpless NPCs often is.
|
You can thank GW for conflating chaos with evil. In my anecdotal experience, CN is pretty much a train wreck. GMs allow torture, bullying, and murder of NPCs under the auspices of CN.Actually my first experience with role playing was the Dungeons and Dragons basic red box. In Basic, there were three alignments: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. That's pretty much where chaotic=evil came from for me, and it took a long time to get over that.
Not to mention anyone who has played Warhammer Fantasy or 40k. The Chaos gods are all sorts of evil. (Not that there are really many 'good' guys in either universe. More of 'less evil'.)
|
|
I don't think Games Workshop predates Michael Moorcock's writing.
I'm not claiming that, but GW certainly popularized Chaos = Evil amongst many wargamers.
|
|
I'll repeat, I've been A GM since the late 70's and over that time I've tried allowing evil PC's many times due to the insistence of players who claimed they could RP them without causing problems. They were without exception wrong.An appeal to authority if I haven't ever seen one.
+1 to this. [Redacted additional response as one appeal to authority to combat another is still just a moronic wank-fest. I'll just say that my gaming experiences lead me to disagree with Jessex. Vehemently.]
That said, and while I'm a huge proponent of gaming as part of Team Evil™, LE characters likely wouldn't work well in current PFS because PFS is gaming in Wal-Mart mode when it comes to alignments and morality.
-TimD
|
Personally, I have felt for the longest time that if a person has atleast three stars as a GM for the society, he should be allowed to build an evil character, five star GMs should be allowed to play antipaladins and such.
These people have shown immense skill at roleplaying and resolving each alginment, I am more than certain they could handle an evil character and keep it in good taste.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I have felt for the longest time that if a person has atleast three stars as a GM for the society, he should be allowed to build an evil character, five star GMs should be allowed to play antipaladins and such.
These people have shown immense skill at roleplaying and resolving each alginment, I am more than certain they could handle an evil character and keep it in good taste.
I've played with GMs that have multiple stars and are unable to handle the basics of role playing. Just because you've been Doing something for a while doesn't mean you are inherently good at it. Stars are indicative of experience, but that is not always the case.
Personally, I have trouble playing at a table where there is PC conduct. This would only be compounded at a table of PFS, where I have all of 4 hours to get to explore the depth of y players characters.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I have felt for the longest time that if a person has atleast three stars as a GM for the society, he should be allowed to build an evil character, five star GMs should be allowed to play antipaladins and such.
These people have shown immense skill at roleplaying and resolving each alginment, I am more than certain they could handle an evil character and keep it in good taste.
quantity is not quality. Trust me...:]
I'm confused by all this.
People keeping saying 'it isn't fair how other alignments restrict your actions more than CN'.
Alignments on their own never restrict your actions. You can be LG and burn down an orphanage for fun - the alignment gives way (to LN), not the character. CN is no more restrictive or unrestrictive than any other alignment because you just modify the alignment until it suits the character. A DM saying 'you can't do X action because your alginment is X' is one of those big newbie mistakes like DMPCs and such. PCs can do any action they are capable of: but if they do enough actions of a certain type, eventually you ask them to change their alignment to something more suitable - say, CE if that is how they are acting.
Obviously some classes do restrict actions through alignment. That's a separate issue.
Allowing CN as 'evil-lite' is irrelevant in any game. You shouldn't be giving fewer evil alignment warnings to a CN player than a LG player because 'that's what the character would do, he's CN!': if they have done something distruptive, you give them the warning, and eventually their alignment shifts. If they aren't being disruptive...... what's the problem, exactly?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
You can be LG and burn down an orphanage for fun - the alignment gives way (to LN)
I think you mean it gives way to an evil alignment, not a neutral one.
This burning down an orphanage" example comes up quite a bit in these alignment threads, doesn't it?
Instance 1
Instance 2
Instance 3
Instance 4 (existing PFS thread)
In fact, even the freaking Core Rulebook references this as an example of a truly evil action.
When a character performs an action that is out of character for his listed alignment, the GM decides whether the action is enough to shift the character's alignment on the appropriate alignment track, and if so by how much. Executing a captured orc combatant so the PCs don't have to haul it to a distant prison may only be 1 step toward evil; torturing a hostage for information may be 2 steps. For minor infractions, the GM can just issue a warning that further actions will cause a shift on the alignment track. Extreme, deliberate acts, such as burning down an orphanage full of children just for the fun of it, should push the character fully into that alignment, regardless of the character's original position on the alignment track.
So if your PFS character chooses to burn down an orphanage, regardless of alignment, their alignment immediately shifts to evil, as dictated by the Alignment section of the Core Rulebook. If they want to continue to be legal PFS characters, as a GM I would require them to get a casting of atonement, as dictated by previous scenarios that might result in PFS PCs obtaining evil alignments. I would also be sure to remind them of this often-forgot clause in the spell: "The creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds."
If the PC was not truly repentant of the actions that caused the alignment shift, they likely are not suited for play in a campaign where PCs are not allowed to possess evil alignments, as clearly they are playing an evil character.
|
|
I don't think Games Workshop predates Michael Moorcock's writing.
I would probably have cited Corum instead of Elric.
|
|
You can be LG and burn down an orphanage for fun - the alignment gives way (to LN)I think you mean it gives way to an evil alignment, not a neutral one.
This burning down an orphanage" example comes up quite a bit in these alignment threads, doesn't it?
So if your PFS character chooses to burn down an orphanage, regardless of alignment, their alignment immediately shifts to evil, as dictated by the Alignment section of the Core Rulebook.
Well - Blackmane didn't actually say that the orphanage still had children in it. Maybe he got them to leave first. ;)
Though if we're getting into theoretical examples - I can think of a few where burning down an orphanage would be a good act such as if it was haunted/daemonically infested etc. (Though all would involve getting all of the children out first.)
In fact - this makes me want to write an adventure where the heroes are able to burn down an orphanage as the easy / good way to solve a problem, but the orphanage headmistress is telling them how bad that would be. (She may or may not turn out to be a doppleganger etc.)
The LN was a slip - meant LE. You would probably end up a step towards chaotic if it was 'just for fun' too, honestly.
You've also completely missed the entire point of my post to focus on one utterly unimportant detail. Not sure why you did that.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
quantity is not quality. Trust me...:]Personally, I have felt for the longest time that if a person has atleast three stars as a GM for the society, he should be allowed to build an evil character, five star GMs should be allowed to play antipaladins and such.
These people have shown immense skill at roleplaying and resolving each alginment, I am more than certain they could handle an evil character and keep it in good taste.
No, but surely an GM with 3 or mores stars by then should have a good grasp of what it is to be eeeeeeeevil.
|
|
Look, I have no doubt in my mind that eventually Paizo will break down and allow Evil Alignments in some form, I can even imagine how they'd actually do it: "No Evil in PFS but here's this new thing we built for our hardcore fans."
They would run an "Apsis Consortium" as a kind of offshoot Player Organization for PFS players 21 and over or some other arbitrary age limit. It would be for advanced Roleplayers and in this "side" organization, all of the same ranks, boons, and benefits carry over from PFS, you even keep the same player id number. All characters would be restricted to LN-CE, no good alignments of any kind, and you would run scenarios as members of the Consortium with Consortium NPCs. There would be factions, same as our factions, but they would be evil and they would be called "Divisions" or some sort of ominous corporate speak. So instead of Silver Crusade, some kind of Anti-Paladin Lodge. Instead of the Exchange, some sort of "Apsis Corporate Trade Authority" where you make lots of money by stabbing (more) people. There would be a Cthulhu/Lamashtu style division, an evil Sovereign Court, and their own Dark Archive, ironically run by the same NPC (because Paracountess be cray-cray).
This ACS would run games sparingly, usually reserved as a novelty for a few conventions or at the request of a local Ventrue-Captain, and instead a half dozen new scenarios released every season, the ACS would only get one or two higher tiered scenarios every few months and a small selection of "adapted" PFS scenarios for lower tier play. Basically, older experienced roleplayers would get an evil character as a reward for their long years of play while younger players would have something to aspire to.
It would occasionally give older players the "flavor" they want, while keeping the coasts at a minimum, while still keeping Evil at the upper shelf, away from the kitties.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Look, I have no doubt in my mind that eventually Paizo will break down and allow Evil Alignments in some form, I can even imagine how they'd actually do it: "No Evil in PFS but here's this new thing we built for our hardcore fans."
They would run an "Apsis Consortium" as a kind of offshoot Player Organization for PFS players 21 and over or some other arbitrary age limit. It would be for advanced Roleplayers and in this "side" organization, all of the same ranks, boons, and benefits carry over from PFS, you even keep the same player id number. All characters would be restricted to LN-CE, no good alignments of any kind, and you would run scenarios as members of the Consortium with Consortium NPCs. There would be factions, same as our factions, but they would be evil and they would be called "Divisions" or some sort of ominous corporate speak. So instead of Silver Crusade, some kind of Anti-Paladin Lodge. Instead of the Exchange, some sort of "Apsis Corporate Trade Authority" where you make lots of money by stabbing (more) people. There would be a Cthulhu/Lamashtu style division, an evil Sovereign Court, and their own Dark Archive, ironically run by the same NPC (because Paracountess be cray-cray).
This ACS would run games sparingly, usually reserved as a novelty for a few conventions or at the request of a local Ventrue-Captain, and instead a half dozen new scenarios released every season, the ACS would only get one or two higher tiered scenarios every few months and a small selection of "adapted" PFS scenarios for lower tier play. Basically, older experienced roleplayers would get an evil character as a reward for their long years of play while younger players would have something to aspire to.
It would occasionally give older players the "flavor" they want, while keeping the coasts at a minimum, while still keeping Evil at the upper shelf, away from the kitties.
WOTC tried something like this with their Mark of Heroes Campaign which ran concurrently with Living Greyhawk and Legacy of the Green Regent. They eventually dropped the multiple campaign strategy as they realized all they were doing was spending unnecessary resources to compete with themselves since the majority of players were in the other campaigns, as well, i.e. they weren't getting new players out of it. Many of the people currently at Paizo were at WOTC at the time. So I can't see Paizo spending resources to compete with itself. Their newly released CORE Campaign only exists because it doesn't do this.
The problem seems to be that not only do people play CN as evil lite.
But they also believe that LE IS evil lite just by virtue of following the rules. It's easier to 'predict' so it's better. If an LE guy is less prone to backstabbing the good and chaotic party members than a CN guy something is seriously wrong. Backstabbing is supposed to be LEs bread and butter. Within limits sure, but just openly submitting to a paladin or whatever with no intention to put yourself back on top because serves the 'greater purpose' of their Lawful Evil organization is and excuse my language--a b+~+&ass move. LEs are there to dominate or at least make sure whoever they serve does.
And for that CN gets a lot of undeserved hate. So in the end, with this sentiment, we don't end up with more alignments to choose from, but less.
And this is coming from a guy who likes those alignments to bits.
Soon there will be people proudly claiming on this board that they only allow LG because Chaos is bad and Neutral is too close to evil.
The other problem, as you display here, is that lots of people have assumptions about how an aligned character should behave - as if they're all cookie cutters of each other or the alignment acts like a straightjacket. But a LE character no more needs to dominate or seek dominion than a CG character needs to save puppies.
|
|
WOTC tried something like this with their Mark of Heroes Campaign which ran concurrently with Living...Look, I have no doubt in my mind that eventually Paizo will break down and allow Evil Alignments in some form, I can even imagine how they'd actually do it: "No Evil in PFS but here's this new thing we built for our hardcore fans."
They would run an "Apsis Consortium" as a kind of offshoot Player Organization for PFS players 21 and over or some other arbitrary age limit. It would be for advanced Roleplayers and in this "side" organization, all of the same ranks, boons, and benefits carry over from PFS, you even keep the same player id number. All characters would be restricted to LN-CE, no good alignments of any kind, and you would run scenarios as members of the Consortium with Consortium NPCs. There would be factions, same as our factions, but they would be evil and they would be called "Divisions" or some sort of ominous corporate speak. So instead of Silver Crusade, some kind of Anti-Paladin Lodge. Instead of the Exchange, some sort of "Apsis Corporate Trade Authority" where you make lots of money by stabbing (more) people. There would be a Cthulhu/Lamashtu style division, an evil Sovereign Court, and their own Dark Archive, ironically run by the same NPC (because Paracountess be cray-cray).
This ACS would run games sparingly, usually reserved as a novelty for a few conventions or at the request of a local Ventrue-Captain, and instead a half dozen new scenarios released every season, the ACS would only get one or two higher tiered scenarios every few months and a small selection of "adapted" PFS scenarios for lower tier play. Basically, older experienced roleplayers would get an evil character as a reward for their long years of play while younger players would have something to aspire to.
It would occasionally give older players the "flavor" they want, while keeping the coasts at a minimum, while still keeping Evil at the upper shelf, away from the kitties.
Who's competing? I'm not talking a full on separate organization, just a reskin of the organization we already have or even more basic than that, playing a PFS scenario and saying you're evil and claiming you're an Apsis consortium member.
|
|
Look, I have no doubt in my mind that eventually Paizo will break down and allow Evil Alignments in some form, I can even imagine how they'd actually do it: "No Evil in PFS but here's this new thing we built for our hardcore fans."
Veilokovsky ehad no doubt in his mind that his theory that Venus started out as a comet, disgorged by Jupiter and raced all around the solar system before settling down as Earth's closest planetary neighbor would be proven true as well.
So "I have no doubt" attached to a statement with no support whatsoever doesn't drive your truck very far.
Paizo is only supporting one campaign set of modules, one campaign background for the exact same reason they're only publishing one setting. They've watched what happens in the past when you start slicing at your own feet.
I am not discussing the movements of the spheres or the lofty goals of scientific studies as hubris moves into our souls. This isn't an assumption supported by a lack of evidence as an astronomer's hypothesis is dis-proven by a personal computer and a space probe. This is a matter of preference as it collides with a business practice and that leaves little room for doubt of any kind. All things are possible and indeed probable when someone can make money off it.
But if you're concerned about my turn of phrase then allow me to amend my previous statement: "I have a strong suspicion, that is approaching doubtless, that sooner or later, someone in charge of PFS will just get sick of people asking and then throw out a boon that says "You can be evil" and then at that point they'll start a season where being evil is possible for a short time and then finally there will be so many evil characters that they'll just say "Eff it" and then we can be evil."
Better?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who's competing? I'm not talking a full on separate organization, just a reskin of the organization we already have or even more basic than that, playing a PFS scenario and saying you're evil and claiming you're an Apsis consortium member.
and instead a half dozen new scenarios released every season, the ACS would only get one or two higher tiered scenarios every few months and a small selection of "adapted" PFS scenarios for lower tier play.
Paizo can spend recourses to adapt current adventures and to come out with a few higher tier scenarios for a campaign whose participants are almost exclusively a limited subset of people currently playing PFS or they can spend those recourses on coming out with more stuff for their current campaign that is not restricted to a limited subset. Which makes more sense to you?
|
|
Who's competing? I'm not talking a full on separate organization, just a reskin of the organization we already have or even more basic than that, playing a PFS scenario and saying you're evil and claiming you're an Apsis consortium member.and instead a half dozen new scenarios released every season, the ACS would only get one or two higher tiered scenarios every few months and a small selection of "adapted" PFS scenarios for lower tier play.Paizo can spend recourses to adapt current adventures and to come out with a few higher tier scenarios for a campaign whose participants are almost exclusively a limited subset of people currently playing PFS or they can spend those recourses on coming out with more stuff for their current campaign that is not restricted to a limited subset. Which makes more sense to you?
Okay, it was just an idea no need to harsh a buzz.
You know what makes the most sense? Just let me play an evil character.
|
|
Yes it's considerably better. But no less wrong. Your assumption is predicated on the mistaken premise that a few oddballs on a messageboard constitute a...Look, I have no doubt in my mind that eventually Paizo will break down and allow Evil Alignments in some form, I can even imagine how they'd actually do it: "No Evil in PFS but here's this new thing we built for our hardcore fans."
Veilokovsky ehad no doubt in his mind that his theory that Venus started out as a comet, disgorged by Jupiter and raced all around the solar system before settling down as Earth's closest planetary neighbor would be proven true as well.
So "I have no doubt" attached to a statement with no support whatsoever doesn't drive your truck very far.
Paizo is only supporting one campaign set of modules, one campaign background for the exact same reason they're only publishing one setting. They've watched what happens in the past when you start slicing at your own feet.
I am not discussing the movements of the spheres or the lofty goals of scientific studies as hubris moves into our souls. This isn't an assumption supported by a lack of evidence as an astronomer's hypothesis is dis-proven by a personal computer and a space probe. This is a matter of preference as it collides with a business practice and that leaves little room for doubt of any kind. All things are possible and indeed probable when someone can make money off it.
But if you're concerned about my turn of phrase then allow me to amend my previous statement: "I have a strong suspicion, that is approaching doubtless, that sooner or later, someone in charge of PFS will just get sick of people asking and then throw out a boon that says "You can be evil" and then at that point they'll start a season where being evil is possible for a short time and then finally there will be so many evil characters that they'll just say "Eff it" and then we can be evil."
Better?
No less of an assumption that such a player of this type is "odd" or even "few".
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Just allow certain players to prove they can handle the maturity of being evil. I don't care if its a test involving a panel of judges or having to burn one quarter of your pathfinder collection, just allow responsible players to have the right to play evil characters.
If you can come up with a test that is both fair and practical, then they might buy that.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thats what im saying, have the COMMUNITY make a test.
Is that COMMUNITY pre or post Chevy Chase? They both had D&D episodes. They are kind of biased, anyway, since they already allow Changotic Evil characters in their group.
Not one person, a group concensus of people choose if the person is mature enough to play a LE character.
A good evil character shouldn't run about screaming I AM EVIL, he should be hiding that information away.
Seriously, though, if you really want it then hammer out the details and present a proposal. Don't expect them to do all the work for you for just because you want it. Explain how this community test is supposed to work. What is the procedure?