|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
With respect, folks, ...
The "dead horse" comments aren't helpful. They boil down to "I think this thread is played out, and I want to mock those people who still wish to carry on a conversation."
There seems to be a clear interest in the topic, and people have unresolved issues. Fresh comments are still being introduced.
If you, yourself, have grown tired of the thread, might I recommend that you begin a fresher one, on a topic that interests you more strongly, rather than cast scorn on the people who are involved here?
People have been offering several rebuttals to this:
"I have placed myself in servitude to the Society."
"I am beholden to the Society as my new masters, to discharge a debt my old owner owed."
"I am secretly working to advance some other cause. My master sent me into the Society as a deep mole."
"My owner is an agent for the Society. I go on missions with him."
"My 'Day Job' is a servant of that temple over there. They let me adventure with you guys on off-hours."
So, an enslaved PC is a viable character concept, even under the additional burden that a slave's master has total control over the slave's activities. You have something against it, that's fine. But please come up with a better objection than "It's impossible." Because it isn't.
How would a sending like that come about? Would another PC be casting the spell? Or are you suggesting the the GM would create an NPC (the master) and decide that NPC sends a message just to throw the PC off-mission, without any justification in the scenario?
[Incidentally, "enslaved to the Consortium, spying on the Pathfinders as a deep-cover mole" is a fantastic character background, but I don't know how it would ever be addressed in the scope of the game.]
Lots and lots of PCs have backstories with ties and commitments on the character. To name just one example, clerics are part of an organized hierarchy that might be at odds with the Society or the particular mission goal. Every single character who's part of a faction other than Grand Lodge might be tasked to do something off-mission.
If you're requiring characters to be free from all outside commitments, then you're holding PCs to an impossibly high standard.
captain yesterday wrote:
See? This is what I mean by "conflating Golarion slavery with historical American slavery." We are well on our way to getting heated with one another. Then the moderators have to step in, and then badness ensues.
Any plan where you lose your hat is a bad plan.
1) The Grand Lodge Scriptorium uses slave labor to pen the Pathfinder Chronicles. (Indeed, we remove the tongues of the people we purchase on the slave blocks and then we place them under a life-long gaes to copy any printed material set before them.) So long as your PC is a Pathfinder, and he hasn't freed the Society's own slaves back there, you shouldn't get your knickers in too much of a twist.
2) This topic never, ever ends well. People create characters who push limits. Other people conflate slavery on Golarion for slavery in American history. People decide to push each other's buttons on the forum. Chris and Liz delete posts and warn people, and eventually lock the thread.
I've been reading this thread without comment, but I think I have something potentially worth-while to add.
Once we get into a situation where characters are working against each other's goals, we need to step back and check with the players. They may be cool with that.
Example: I'm running a play-by-post PFS adventure right now, and two Dark Archive / Cheliax-through-and-through characters have just done something that the Liberty's Edge and Silver Crusade characters find appalling. It could be very tense.
But the players are noting that it's their characters who are squabbling, and they're all good with role-playing how the conflict will resolve itself. If that's the case with the paladin versus the other players, then cool.
My Favorite Mission Briefing as a player:
came in "Fury of the Fiend" when the VC explained that we were going to impersonate Hellknights to gain access to an archaeological site. My paladin/Hellknight listened to the entire spiel and then commented, "Surely you are kidding, Captain." If the attitude at the table were that I was just expected to play along and 'not be a jerk', then I'm not sure what the point of being a Paladin would be.
If the players are getting tense at each other, I think it's a mistake to try to find an in-world GM ruling that addresses the situation. My recommendation is to pause the game and get people to talk to one another out-of-character and get some perspective. it may be something that requires the GM to intervene -- "I know you're new to the campaign, but I wanted to make sure you understood that just trying to stir up trouble isn't what this is all about."
rknop, I can see that, thank you. But is there a combat in PFS where DR/alignment comes into play, where somebody who doesn't normally do weapon damage could be an effective threat with "Trusty Buddy"? The creatures I'm thinking of that have DR/good are pretty fricking dangerous, and 1d6 + middling Strength damage isn't going to do much, even if it's getting through.
That's my question: is there a situation in PFS where it would really matter?
Thanks for the correction, BBT.
That's ridiculous. Everything you've said here is incorrect.
I distinguish between a player asking for advantageous loot, versus a home-campaign GM looking for good Chronicles to present to one of his frequent players.
Ngrundir Skagerrak, as people have written, chakrams haven't appeared on any Chronicle sheets, so you have encountered bad luck today. In the future, if you look for something else, you should post your question in the GM sub-forum, and you should continue to make clear that you are not the player.
I thank you for taking your time to help your sister-in-law enjoy Pathfinder Society.
Not a single thing here is true. As you say, you're a troll.
When this topic comes up, I'll just note for the record:
If you have advance knowledge of elements of the adventure, you're required to let me know. ("I know there's a ghost touch +1 kama in this adventure.")
I'll ask you how you know.
If you say "Because I prepped the scenario to GM it back home last month," or "I've already played this scenario in CORE mode," I'll ask you to keep surprise-y things to yourself and let the other players figure stuff out.
If you say "Because I consulted a database of boons," I consider that cheating. I'll give you a 0 XP Chronicle sheet with the boons crossed off and ask you to leave my table.
Not intended to be a loaded question, Joshua. You're announcing a change from the printed rules. I'd still like a citation. If you're going by the instructions of a Venture Captain, can you remember which one?
Maybe there's something on the Venture Officer boards about this, that I don't know about. But in general, we don't tie GM rewards to the players' level of success, because that can bias GM rulings. (If I say you all succeed, then I'll get an extra prestige point.)
The Fox wrote:
At least at my table, that's the expectation as well. I'll hand my players the Chronicle with the new values earned. They then show me (a) the character's most recent previous Chronicle, and (b) this Chronicle with the totals filled in. If the character had bought anything between last time and this session, I'll want to see the ITS, too. I then sign the Chronicle.
I let my players know this at the beginning of the session. That way, if they don't have the Chronicles, they can go run grab a pre-gen. If they have them, but haven't filled them in for several sessions, they can get that work done during the next four hours. (A tip of the hat to Kyle Baird for this system.)
If your attitude is dismissive, you'll walk away without a signed Chronicle.
But yes, I fill in as much information as possible before the session starts and during the character introductions. That's also when I have PCs make their Day Job checks. It starts the session off with a small success that everybody can cheer about, and gets that out of the way when everybody's trying to clean up and leave.
jtaylor73003, I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't want to speak about particular individuals. I don't want them here, defending themselves. (Indeed, I'm not presuming that the incidents that the OP describes are the result of a single player.)
Rather, I would like to speak of classes of actions, taken as a whole. "I have a problem when people do this kind of thing... how should I handle it the next time it comes around?" rather than "I had a problem when this one person did this thing ... what should I do about that situation now?"
Do you see the difference?
I'm a teacher. I've run role-playing games for my students, sometimes as an after-school organization, and sometimes through the local community center.
I would assert that implementing Codanous' idea would raise awareness of psychedelia psychics. All it would take is one supervisor walking past and imagining that we were conducting a role-playing game in which characters took drugs. That would make it tremendously more likely that PFS would be banned from most of the places I've hosted games.
I agree with Jeff (you can voluntarily subject your PC to a sightless condition at the beginning of each game, but the rules don't allow such a condition to carry over from one adventure to the next) and with Imbicatus (make sure the rest of your party is cool with the idea).
I think andreww has a good idea.
Because that's the person who would like the privilege of using non-Core materials at the table.
I suspect you really don't want to go down the "legal receipt" road. Right now, if you want to use a spell out of Ultimate Magic at a convention, and you don't own the book, you can borrow my copy for the convention. You can use a book you received as a gift. You can borrow a copy from the local library, for that matter. Players don't have to have "paid good money" and don't have to have a receipt. Think twice before you suggest that the campaign switch to requiring that.
The proof of ownership Paizo is requiring is above and beyond that required by law, thus the burden of responsibility falls on Paizo, not the customer. As I stated earlier, as loyal customers, we are willing to shoulder some of this burden as long as it is reasonable. But we should not be required to as it is not our responsibility. It is Paizo's.
Which law are you referring to? I mean, really: which law? Intellectual property law? (Irrelevant; nobody's disputing Paizo's copyright.) Local municipality and state laws regarding theft? Do you seriously think that thee's a law somewhere on the books governing what a game company has to allow in its organized play campaign?
To every one of your arguments, I keep coming back to the simple answer: play Core. Period. No books. No worries about pdfs. Just come with a character sheet, Chronicles, ITS, dice, and a miniature. People have a good time; sit down and join them. Play in a Core Mode scenario, or just play a Core PC in a Standard Mode scenario.
And quit waving "U.S. law" around. You look ridiculous.
BNW, they can have both, but as you say, different GMs will rule differently on whether they can use both in combat.
At my table, a player picks one other critter to be in the initiative order and to act in combat. (Summoned critters are a spell effect; they don't count.) I'm willing to have 6 players with 12 initiative rolls at my table. But not 18.
(And yes, it's not hard to build up a familiar to be survivable in combat, and still have an animal companion. I play in a home campaign with an arcanist PC that has both. And yes, it can really slow things down.)
I'm going to raise a hand in favor of MotFF. It does a good job of introducing the Pathfinder RPG, the island of Kortos and the city of Absalom, and the Pathfinder Society. It also casts the PCs as heroes (rescuers!) rather than errand children. UndeadMitch is spot-on about it being a dungeon crawl, and since "To Delve the Dungeons Deep" was retired, thee are damn few of them left.
For PFS I start by asserting that the PCs are not Pathfinders yet. They're all hopeful applicants at the gates of the Grand Lodge, having come from Desna knows where. And they all get turned away. (I play this out: "Tell us who you are, and where you come from, and why you want to be a Pathfinder agent." "All right. And you (pointing to another player) explain why he gets rejected." All around the table.)
So, they're sitting in a bar in the Coins district, trying to figure out where they should go from here. (The Aspis Consortium might be hiring ....) Suddenly, there's a tremor. Five minutes later, a fellow in a hap-hazard guards uniform comes in, asking if anybody's seen guard captain Antaroth. Seems that one of the formerly-sealed siege towers has partially collapsed, and the guard needs to secure it by morning.
And the PCs always take the bait and light out, hoping to prove themselves to the Society by exploring the tower.
So, when they rescue the bard at the end, and return to Absalom, their admission into the Society is the resolution of an arc.
I think both sides of the issue present reasonable viewpoints. I don't think there's a slam-dunk here for either side. So I am going to play it safe. I won't allow any 2nd-level characters play it at my table, but I'll treat it as a legal Chronicle sheet on 2nd-level PCs I audit.
I admit, that doesn't make much sense, but I'll ask John to consider: if MotFF is designated Tier 1, that we grandfather in any characters who have played it at 2nd level, even if that ruling is considered a clarification.
Talonhawke, the answer is yes, PCs "get to" let one another die on missions.
I ran a table once where the gnome cleric used up all her channel positive energy uses out of combat before the first encounter, just to be silly. That led to two PC deaths when combat got hairy. She was allowed to do that.
Taja the Barbarian wrote:
"Can" is the right question. Due the fact if I can't do it, and I do it then invalidate the session. This is along the lines of a player buying equipment they can't have invalidating their character till they fix it. This is not a "May I" question at all.
Sorry, we've misunderstood.
The answer is unambiguously yes. Of course he can.
pH unbalanced wrote:
With respect, if the inquisitor is required to keep the necromancer alive, then this stern talking-to falls on deaf ears.
"I'll save you ... this time. Next time, I'll leave you to ---"
"No, you'll save me every time. It's required. If you don't, it would be player-versus-player, and that's not allowed in this campaign."
You believe that changing the location of the final encounter is a significant change. What makes it significant?
Here are some things that might change: moving an encounter from a large room to a small room might interfere with some charge lanes. If the party includes a mounted PC who wants to charge, it's significant.
Moving an encounter from a room with no furniture to a room with a priceless and fragile tapestry might make area-effect fire spells more difficult. If the party includes a fire sorcerer, that might be significant.
Moving an encounter from an area with high winds and rain to an indoor room might make it easier for archers. If the paty has any archery characters, that might be significant.
Moving the encounter from one big room to another big room is probably not significant. Moving an encounter from a hillside to a forest clearing is probably not significant. Moving an encounter from the center of an arena to one end of the same arena is probably not significant.
I don't understand why that's hard. As a player, you have certain responsibilities and duties. As the GM, you have others. One of the jobs of a GM is to give the players a fun time.
Some GMs use their discretion to change inconsequential details to give players a better time. Others don't. Either is correct.
GMs get into trouble when the changes aren't inconsequential.
There are a whole host of Tier 1 and Tier 1-2 scenarios, quests and modules. There seem to be a web of old board posts and piecemeal rulings that sort of address each as a special case.
I would request that somewhere, the campaign leadership posts a collection of such products and explains
I admit, if I took a look over a PC's Chronicle sheets and saw a collection of different Beginning Tier adventures, it would take me a while to disentangle them, and I'm not sure I'd do it correctly.
Detailed discussion of in-character analogies will not help solve an out-of-character issue.
We don't know how the agreement to steer clear of "raise dead" was handled.
We don't know the tenor of the interaction when the necromancer raised the dead guy. We don't know if it was the rogue. Did the necromancer's player talk to the inquisitor's player out-of-character and seek compromise?
So, let me turn this around and ask: if you were playing the inquisitor, how could you have chosen to defuse the situation?
If you were playing the necromancer, how would you have defused the situation?
If you were the GM, or another player at the table (the dwarf, maybe) what could you have done, to help get everybody a Chronicle and get them to leave the table as friends?
Sin of Asmodeus wrote:
If I was in that group and I did everything I could to save that necromancer, I honestly would have full out wrecked that pharasma inquisitor and then turned my character over to the gm. Least the necromancer wouldn't have been the only person having to cough up prestige and gold to come back.
This is also, literally, impossible in this campaign.
Hey, folks, could we back up a little bit and take a breath? Sin is talking about GMs declaring characters dead and daring Venture Officers to overrule that decision... and other people are calling out one player or another for evil actions, or player-versus-player. People are advocating rewriting the campaign rules so that characters must cast healing spells when other people demand it ...
Let's back up.
There was a conflict. It was at least an in-character conflict. The way the OP describes things, it was an out-of-character conflict, as well.
(One doesn't have to follow from the other. I've had rollicking good times with friends when our characters were getting all sorts of angry with each other. We all knew that it was only in-character.)
Pirate Rob's advice is sound: deal with the out-of-character issues. Don't amke rules about one character having to heal another, or declaring characters dead, or anything else in-character.
I have no idea who these players were, so I'm going to name them Inky (playing the Inquisitor) and Nethro (playing the Necromancer). Nethro's PC is dead, and that's a problem. Inky was ready to walk away from the table some time earlier than that. That's a problem, too. Neither player probably felt happy about the game.
What can people do about that?
I agree that Inky set himself up for problems by building an Inquisitor of Pharasma in a game environment where there will eventually be conflicting PCs, without an escape clause. (My friend plays a nagaji Paladin who is very strict on his Paladin Code, but he cuts the rest of the party a break. "Mammals," he sighs. "Ever hot-blooded. Ever mercurial. Can't even keep their mind on lunch for more than five minutes." ) So, if you build a PC with that kind of strict moral code in PFS< you, too, should have some way to get the other PCs out, in case they offend your character.
I agree with people who say that Nethro takes a good amount of the blame upon himself, by first agreeing not to raise the dead, and then doing so. If your character's schtick is raising the dead, then don't agree to any limits on that. If you do, and if you need to raise dead later on, negotiate that change in the agreement. "Hey, Inky. It looks like I'm going to need to raise this skeleton. I know your character has some problems with that. Can we figure out a compromise?"
When Inky wanted to walk away from the table, that was probably a good idea. The GM should have let him, or perhaps stopped the game and sought to resolve the conflict.
Don't look for blame. Look for solutions.
By the way, the word is "tenet".
LazarX, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. If anything, Pathfinder agents are expected to put the good of the Society above their personal interests, but certainly not the team. If it comes down to a choice between rescuing a team-mate or recovering a doobis, I know which one earns prestige.
If the Venture Captains were all that gung-ho about making sure your team got home, there would never have been any need for the Shadow Lodge.
If we're getting all rules-lawyery on this subject, please note that the Additional Resources page requires that a player bring "a name-watermarked Paizo PDF of it". It doesn't say anything about a requirement for the PDF to be viewable.
This thread makes me sad, and comments like this make me even sadder. If this is the attitude of people who can't be bothered to print out a PDF of the pages their character uses, then I am really not interested in discussing the matter further.
Bring a book. Bring a watermarked PDF. Play Core. Those are your options.
Hmmm. Involving the civil authorities might indeed ruin someone's life with criminal (indeed, felony) charges, because the charges would stick. Not because they made you upset for a bit. Because. They stole. Your car.
106. Grabbing a small piercing weapon and attempting to kill the GM with it.