Pathfinder Society Campaign (Open Game)

This is for all questions, discussions, issues and what not that is not directly related to a campaign. Technical issues are to be posted in here as well. Finally, any important Administrator announcements will be made here as well.

Moderators: DM Sirine, DM Guildmaster, PMiller

Postby Striker X » Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:52 am

hector wrote:Hmm. I'm trying to work out how a non-evil character from Cheliax might work without said character being a Drizzt-esque rebel


Just wondering if somebody from Cheliax could be played more as the Roman form of "enslave everyone". That being, bringing everybody under your rule to make their lives better by bringing education, sanitation etc to them ["What have the Romans ever done for us?"]. This to me seems like a much more neutral approach.

By the way I'm working on a character, Qadiran sorcerer. Somebody mentioned a sorceere before but they don't seem to be playing.
User avatar
Striker X
Villager
Villager
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:25 am

Postby hector » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:54 pm

It's a stretch, Striker. I mean, all the Romans wanted to do was introduce everyone to the benefits of civilisation. Cheliax, on the other hand, is very much an evil empire, what with its populace being very literal devil worshippers. Surely actively working towards fulfilling the goals of evil people counts as evil, regardless of any other considerations.
hector
Villager
Villager
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:36 pm

Postby Elwick Airchylde » Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:07 pm

*Striker here*
Aahh, sorry I was conjecturing from a standpoint of mostly ignorance when it comes to the setting. I was just going on the whole enslaving the populace of everywhere thing.
User avatar
Elwick Airchylde
Villager
Villager
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:43 pm

Postby Drama » Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:33 pm

I agree with your statement Striker. First off Im new to Pathfinder so people may differ with my opinion, but I fealt after reading the Campaign Setting on Cheliax, that they could argueably be Romaneque style. I may have confused the word enslaving everyone by maybe people literally taking that phrase and literally reading it word for word. They are devil worshippers who have turned to Asmodeous for power to control and dominate most of Golorion and the city states around them. On one hand they have tried to enslave most people around them. On the other it could be viewed as like the Romans did when they were in power. The Roman viewpoint is easier to understand as with the campaign setting documention on Cheliax. Romans were viewed as evil by most as so was the Cheliax. The Andorean who are view as wanting freedom for all may literally view that Chelixians are trying to enslave one another as with most races on Golorion. It seems that enslave tends to be very dominating to a race that has lost most of its power across Golorion especially within their controlled city states and countries they have invaded and dominated for so long. Does anybody else have any feedback to lend itself to this discussion that may point out where I went wrong in this reply?
User avatar
Drama
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:21 pm
Location: Erie, Pennsylvania

Postby Khelshak » Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:45 pm

The problem here is that we're dealing with objective morality rather than subjective morality; there is right and wrong, and which is which doesn't differ between cultures. Unlike the Romans, who conquered half the world for the good of the people conquered (as they saw it) and were really quite benevolent overlords, Cheliax is listed as evil. They're deliberately furthering the goals of the lord of all devils. How is this not evil, and how can one further those goals without being evil himself? Were it not for such things as alignments and the like, there wouldn't be a problem, but we're dealing with a setting where people have auras that show whether they're good or evil.
"Of course I came by this jewellery legally officer."

Character Sheet
User avatar
Khelshak
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:07 pm

Postby Drama » Tue Aug 04, 2009 5:59 pm

Which could be strictly opinionated by you or someone else as they view what is good and what is evil. What my evil is too you might be not as as evil. The setting does have alignments but does not take into consideration opinion on how I view myself and others.

Benevolent Overlords? They raped, mamed and killed their subjects who were not pure romans. Why do you think the Germanic tribes of central europe revolted so much. They didnt want the Roman ruling factions to dicate or enslave them, which they would have to give up their woman, land and time and energy. No the Romans were as ruthless as Cheliaxians. When I think of evil I think of the Germans of the 40s.
User avatar
Drama
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:21 pm
Location: Erie, Pennsylvania

Postby Khelshak » Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:16 pm

And again, benevolence is subjective. They certainly saw themselves that way. While we would consider such deeds evil, however, not everyone back then would have. It's not as though the Germanic tribes of the time were any better. When you introduce alignments and magic spells which affect those alignments, however, you introduce an objective morality. Evil actions are no longer evil because you or I or even a god considers them to be evil, but because good and evil are very real forces.

To put it another way, when morality is subjective, one's perspective determines whether one's actions are good or evil. When morality is objective, one's perspective makes no difference. The fact that magic can specifically target people who are good or evil (and automatically fail to work against people who are the wrong alignment for the spell) makes morality objective. If you have the same morality as an objectively evil person, then while you may be subjectively good (from your own perspective and that of your fellows), you are objectively evil. It doesn't mean that you have to go ahead and start raping puppies, just that if you get into a fight with a paladin you're royally screwed.
"Of course I came by this jewellery legally officer."

Character Sheet
User avatar
Khelshak
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:07 pm

Postby Drama » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:31 am

Ok, Point taken. I can see from both prespectives which you describe. "Subjective and Objective." I would like to state for the record that I was describing the Nazi movemento of the 40's not every German of that time.
User avatar
Drama
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:21 pm
Location: Erie, Pennsylvania

Postby Khelshak » Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:47 pm

Oh, of course. I'd never thought otherwise. And, as it turns out, people do tend to follow orders, regardless of how nasty, from those they consider to be legitimate authority figures; especially if said person offers to take full responsibility for those orders. Interestingly enough, when Stanley Milgram did his experiment he was actually trying to prove that there's no basis at all for "I was just following orders". On the other hand, there's a difference between following orders when the person who gave those orders is looking over your shoulder and when they're hundreds of miles away and may never actually see you again.
"Of course I came by this jewellery legally officer."

Character Sheet
User avatar
Khelshak
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:07 pm

Postby Elwick Airchylde » Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:43 pm

Really? Milgram was trying to disprove it at the time? Now that's an interesting fact I've never heard before.
User avatar
Elwick Airchylde
Villager
Villager
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:43 pm

Postby Elwick Airchylde » Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:42 am

I'm guessing I missed an announcement or something. The Pathfinder game is gone?
User avatar
Elwick Airchylde
Villager
Villager
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:43 pm

Postby DM Apolinari » Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:54 pm

never mind the above comment, can see the game in the dead game section now
Shadowrun: Striker
Battlestar Galactica: Dr. Malakai Tovar
Pathfinder: Elwick Airchylde
DM Apolinari
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:37 am
Location: UK

Postby Drama » Sun Aug 16, 2009 6:24 pm

Well I wanted to talk to everyone about the game. I think Khelshak has left the game for good without having to talk to him. You dissappeared for a couple days so I assumed that people were not interested. I really want to continue the game, with who we have now, I just need to know if your willing to continue. I know Lord was looking for the game, so I will go back to trying to find more players. Also DM Nothing mentioned that he was willing to throw Keff Darkwatch into the mix, except that Keff is a Paladin and Ekab is a Sorcerer who has a diabolist heritage. If the both of them could chime in and resolve their differences, we would be standing at three players + the Cleric NPC. Well enough for this game. The aspect of lock picking and searching might be difficult but atleast we could continue to game.
User avatar
Drama
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 2575
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:21 pm
Location: Erie, Pennsylvania

Postby DM Apolinari » Mon Aug 17, 2009 1:01 am

ok. Well I was enjoying myself. I'll poke triky to look back on the forum.
Shadowrun: Striker
Battlestar Galactica: Dr. Malakai Tovar
Pathfinder: Elwick Airchylde
DM Apolinari
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 5:37 am
Location: UK

Previous

Return to Out-of-game Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron