Rival Faction Missions and Sabotage

[William Griffiths]

I have a question: Given that there is a shadow war going on, and our characters know it, if we suspect another of attempting to complete a faction mission, is it within the purview of my PC to (sneakily) sabotage the attempt? Or is this automatically considered bullying another player?

I certainly do not want to be one of the problem players, but I seek clarification. My understanding of the faction guide is that we should be subtle with our missions, and sometimes you're just going to fail. (I have before, certainly.) Some missions are, let's face it, hard to accomplish without being obvious that you have another agenda. So, I assume if I catch something flagrant, and it does not involve PvP, a little rivalry is appropriate.

However, it has been brought to my attention that this may be incorrect, essentially that while one should be under no obligation to assist, sabotage of another player is wrong. How has this been handled in your games? I know some of you are sabotaging each other, but is it only with friends at home who know to expect it?

Thanks for any thoughts and rulings on this matter.

[Dragnmoon]

William Griffiths wrote:

I have a question: Given that there is a shadow war going on, and our characters know it, if we suspect another of attempting to complete a faction mission, is it within the purview of my PC to (sneakily) sabotage the attempt? Or is this automatically considered bullying another player?

I certainly do not want to be one of the problem players, but I seek clarification. My understanding of the faction guide is that we should be subtle with our missions, and sometimes you're just going to fail. (I have before, certainly.) Some missions are, let's face it, hard to accomplish without being obvious that you have another agenda. So, I assume if I catch something flagrant, and it does not involve PvP, a little rivalry is appropriate.

However, it has been brought to my attention that this may be incorrect, essentially that while one should be under no obligation to assist, sabotage of another player is wrong. How has this been handled in your games? I know some of you are sabotaging each other, but is it only with friends at home who know to expect it?

Thanks for any thoughts and rulings on this matter.

Every GM is different on this.

I for one would not let it happen at my table.

[William Griffiths]

Dragnmoon wrote:

William Griffiths wrote:

I have a question: Given that there is a shadow war going on, and our characters know it, if we suspect another of attempting to complete a faction mission, is it within the purview of my PC to (sneakily) sabotage the attempt? Or is this automatically considered bullying another player?

I certainly do not want to be one of the problem players, but I seek clarification. My understanding of the faction guide is that we should be subtle with our missions, and sometimes you're just going to fail. (I have before, certainly.) Some missions are, let's face it, hard to accomplish without being obvious that you have another agenda. So, I assume if I catch something flagrant, and it does not involve PvP, a little rivalry is appropriate.

However, it has been brought to my attention that this may be incorrect, essentially that while one should be under no obligation to assist, sabotage of another player is wrong. How has this been handled in your games? I know some of you are sabotaging each other, but is it only with friends at home who know to expect it?

Thanks for any thoughts and rulings on this matter.

Every GM is different on this.

I for one would not let it happen at my table.

From the guide, chapter 3, on factions, copied and pasted. (Check the parentheses.)

During the course of play, it’s entirely up to each
player whether or not he reveals his character’s faction
affiliation and missions. Though we advise you keep
faction missions to yourself (to prevent other factions
from actively or passively disrupting your character’s
mission and thus his PA), we’re unconcerned with
either being revealed at the gaming table or elsewhere.
We’ve also heard of tables with diametrically opposed
factions helping each other accomplish their goals.
Again, this isn’t anything we oppose, though we don’t
want to encourage total helpfulness between factions,
because it makes the idea of the faction system a little
less interesting.

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Interfering with and/or sabotaging another's Faction mission is seen by many as PvP and thus not allowed in Society play, or at least is frowned upon and can get people labeled as someone who breaks the "don't be a jerk" rule.

[TwilightKnight]

When considering this idea, remember the three core "values" of the Pathfinder Society...Explore, Report, Cooperate.
Per page 3 of Seekers of Secrets, "Pathfinder agents are expected to respect one another's claims and stay out of each other's affairs except to offer a helping hand. According to long-held tradition, Pathfinders must attempt to parley before potential conflict, regardless of potential enmity based on national affiliation, person allegiances, or other factors."
This seems to indicate that you should not directly or actively interfere with another member's activities, even if they belong to an "opposing" faction within the society. The overall goals of the organization are more important than the, often petty, activities of it's sub-groups. It would also seem to indicate that if you are aware that another member is in need of assistance than you can provide, it is expected that you will provide said assistance. Of course, you can expect appropriate compensation for any services rendered.

[Kortz]

It's okay to sabotage Cheliax.

[William Griffiths]

Sounds like there's a variety of opinions on this subject. I shall play the role of the jerk, and defend the ability to "prevent other actions actively or passively" as expressed in the guide to organized play.

PvP is defined in the guide as combat. I certainly would NEVER advocate the ability to harm another PC. As for the core value of "Cooperate": In this scenario, the PCs would fully cooperate on the Pathfinder mission, regardless of allegiances. This is how we explain devil worshippers and paladins working together. I believe no one expects me to provide assistance for your faction mission. In fact, that is specifically not encouraged in the guide.

I am also not suggesting that one player dominate the session by trying to stop every other PA from being awarded. Some missions are not suspicious, but some are highly obvious.

Just my 2 cents. (I must be up to a dime by now...)

[Dragnmoon]

Kortz wrote:

It's okay to sabotage Cheliax.

It is Ok to Sabotage mission trying to be completed by Hal-Orc druids with Ape Animal Companions..

That said,

You should be working together to solve a mission, with also your own individual missions. You should not be "sabotaging" other missions, it is considered uncouth and will get you zero friends very quickly, especially in a convention setting.

If a player had to look into the guide to show me He was allowed to be a Jerk in his interpretation, I will still say no, and I would encourage all GMs to do the same.

Edit: edited to be more PC

[William Griffiths]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Kortz wrote:

It's okay to sabotage Cheliax.

It is Ok to Sabotage mission trying to be completed by Hal-Orc druids with Ape Animal Companions..

That said,

I am sure this comment was in jest. But let us drop the 'jerk' talk to keep this discussion above board. We all agree that players should not be bullied by other players, neither to prevent nor achieve faction missions. Nor does anyone expect this to give allowance for bad behaviour.

I have played most of the mods at the house, but am considering playing at local game days and conventions again. Before venturing out, I wonder if I am in a minority of folks who are doing this. If everyone is cooperating, and missing a PA point crushes people's enjoyment, then that information will be helpful as well. I do confess a preference towards at least the threat of sabotage encouraging secrecy. Demanding all the slave nations sit idle while the Andorans accomplish the abolishment of slavery for PA is an (admittedly extreme) example of another kind of bullying, as is any GM overriding players acting potentially in accordance with the guide, and within reason.

[The Grandfather]

From conversing with Josha Frost and based on what has been posted in a number of threads already I would say; no it is not OK to sabotage other players even their faction missions.

The concept of faction missions is a dimension added to the game to give it a new level of deths and to make every encounter more interesting for players. It was not meant to encourage rivalry.

All players should be strongly encouraged to keep their faction missions secret. If they want others to help them they should strive to manipulate them into helping them, not just tell them outright what they want them to do.

While some missions are very secret and a PC may get away with completing it unnoticed others are extremely obvious:
If a character wants to spare the bad guys minions and put them free. No one is in doubt that this is a faction mission (or the faction the player belongs to).
If someone wants to take an otherwise inconsequential NPC prisoner, that to will instantly be recognized as a faction mission.
In both cases another PC could easily kill them "in the heat of battle", that however is an obvious example of sabotage, even if that PC has never taken prisoners/let opponents live before.

I think friendly tension between factions is interesting and fun and hinting at secret agendas and sabotage can be so too - but actual sabotageing others will rapidly take you into PvP territory.

Having a mission ruined by another player is not fun especially considering that for some characters getting PA is a real challenge. PA is an integral part of the ballance in OP - e.g. PA determines the quality of equipment a character can buy.

So while it is fun and OK to play on faction rivalry, you should stay out of other players business and not interfere with their faction missions. Conversely those players should try being at least a bit secretive about them too.

[DigitalMage]

TBH I am not sure I like faction missions, they can seem a distraction to the main scenario and thus eat up scenario time that could be spent on a more complex plot.

But equally in game, it may seem that some characters' prsuit of a faction goal could be a distraction to the official group mission.

Would it be sabotage to argue against another PC exploring a side room that out of game we all know they are probably searching only to complete a faction mission, but that in game could be considered a distraction to the main mission?

For example, if a player in character made the following speech, would you consider it sabotage?

"For Sarenrae's sake Grorth, we're already wounded, low on resources and with a wizard with only a few incantations left prepared. We all agree that the idol of MacGuffin is most likely located in the far chamber and protected by some sort of guardians. Its going to be a fight that would test us in the best of health.

"So why in the nine hells do you want to go waste time exploring and searching through that physician's room, possibly encountering dangers or foes that will weaken our position further, when Pilasha has already suggested simply barricading it from this side so any lurking danger can't get out and catch us from behind?"

[eldaryth]

I think it is important to ask why the factions were introduced. The most likely explanation is that they add an individual challenge (both roleplaying and 'physical')for the players (and DM!) to play with. The intent is to make the game more fun and exciting to play.

If it is not achieving this goal, the DM must act to neutralise any 'bad' or distressing actions by the players and make the playing atmosphere happy again.

As with all 'tricky' situations it should be left up to the DM in concert with his players to decide how to interpret the factions.

Personally, I was persuaded to play Cheliax against my better judgement. But I have found, in particular, the missions given to Cheliax are amongst the more entertaining (and sometimes down right dangerous). The way the faction mission are written are also extremely funny.

The main idea of playing is to have fun; most people remember mistakes fondly; INDULGE them!!!

[MisterSlanky]

I think you're seeing remnants of the original intent of PFS, to have an ongoing "faction feud" with each faction getting a special "reward" at the end of each season. As that intent has changed, the guide hasn't, resulting in some confusion over the rule. I feel that while the intent originally may have been to allow some minor bickering over PA, at this point in the life-cycle of PFS, I'd say it's outright against the rules.

As a GM I find players who find "playing the roll of a jerk" to be frustrating at best, and outright disruptive at worst. As a player, if I have another player actively sabotaging my PA reward, you can bet I'll never sit down a table with you again. Being harassed in an open setting like PFS is not fun. Players who hide behind a rules nuance to play the jerk and bully other players are just being jerks and bullies themselves, which really rubs against the whole "don't ruin other player's fun" rule.

In the end though, I think it all boils down to new players. PFS is about getting more people into Pathfinder. Letting a brand new player sit down and find themselves constantly stymied by another player at the table more often than not will not lead to good feelings about the session. As a GM, I sure has hell won't allow it.

I think the "don't be a jerk" rule trumps any claims that it's not PvP. In the words of the guide "Player vs. player conflict only sours a session."

[Michael Brock]

If you are intentionally attempting to sabotage another character's faction mission just for your own enjoyment, then I will remove you from my table. As a DM, I reserve that right, and luckily, I have only had to do it once. Being a jerk because you think it is "roleplaying" is beyond the scope of PFS. Afterall, why would you pick pocket a fellow player to steal the vial they had just acquired to finish their faction mission? Everyone is playing the game to have fun.

This also leads into other problems. If you sabotage another character's faction mission, then it creates a snowball effect. If the character who has been sabotaged is the cleric, that character may in turn decide not to heal the rest of the scenario and very well may be the only character left standing. If the sabotaged character is the "tank," he may take on the monster, withdraw back to the spellcaster, and then make a full withdraw the next turn so the monster can eat the spellcaster. The above two could be roleplayed as "eliminating a threat so I can complete my faction mission without further interference."

Plain and simple rule here folks -- Don't be a jerk and limit someone else's fun because you want to prevent them from getting their extra PA. You certainly don't have to aid them but don't go out of your way to stop them either. It is only fun for the jerk at that point.

[eldaryth]

MisterSlanky wrote:

I think the "don't be a jerk" rule trumps any claims that it's not PvP. In the words of the guide "Player vs. player conflict only sours a session."

I heartily agree with this. The idea is to have fun with this and make the scenario more interesting. If players reactions to the missions threaten to disrupt play or distress other players in some way, the DM needs to step in and rectify.

As usual, this relies on the DM (and occasionally other players), applying their wisdom and experience to steer the players back to a more enjoyable experience. If a PvP situation due to faction missions ever developed I would consider that a failure on all involved.

We all have a responsibility to provide entertainment to other players, even as players; as this is an inclusive game for the enjoyment of all. If people are being irresponsible, show them a better way first (carrot), before applying a stick.

People are naturally competitive and one of the true tests of a DM is to provide what each player needs (and themself) in an entertaining way; within time limits etc etc. The load on DMs is high, but having experienced players willing to share some of the load has large benefits; allowing the DM to concentrate on other sections.

I realise that a fair amount of this 'speech' is very nebulous, but most of the decision making relies on the DM's judgement; unfortunately this has to be learnt the hard way. Some people come to it naturally (not me) but most people have to put the hours in.

[DigitalMage]

Playing Devil's Advocate a bit, the "don't be a jerk" and "don't spoil someone else's fun" rules go both ways.

If the real world clock is ticking and in order to complete the actual main scenario (rather than have it "called") the party need to proceed straight away, having one or two players refusing to do so because they need to go off on a tangent to complete their faction mission could really piss off the rest of the party.

[Chaosthecold]

Michael Brock wrote:

If you are intentionally attempting to sabotage another character's faction mission just for your own enjoyment, then I will remove you from my table. As a DM, I reserve that right, and luckily, I have only had to do it once. Being a jerk because you think it is "roleplaying" is beyond the scope of PFS. Afterall, why would you pick pocket a fellow player to steal the vial they had just acquired to finish their faction mission? Everyone is playing the game to have fun.

This also leads into other problems. If you sabotage another character's faction mission, then it creates a snowball effect. If the character who has been sabotaged is the cleric, that character may in turn decide not to heal the rest of the scenario and very well may be the only character left standing. If the sabotaged character is the "tank," he may take on the monster, withdraw back to the spellcaster, and then make a full withdraw the next turn so the monster can eat the spellcaster. The above two could be roleplayed as "eliminating a threat so I can complete my faction mission without further interference."

Plain and simple rule here folks -- Don't be a jerk and limit someone else's fun because you want to prevent them from getting their extra PA. You certainly don't have to aid them but don't go out of your way to stop them either. It is only fun for the jerk at that point.

What do you do in a situation where someone's faction mission is to take the stuff for your pathfinder mission and bring it to someone outside the organization. From a PC standpoint when would I be ok with that? Who is this third party? A rival to the org? Who knows?

[TwilightKnight]

Chaosthecold wrote:

What do you do in a situation where someone's faction mission is to take the stuff for your pathfinder mission and bring it to someone outside the organization. From a PC standpoint when would I be ok with that? Who is this third party? A rival to the org? Who knows?

The fact that your "handlers" are asking you to do it should make it okay. Unless, of course, you don't trust your faction leadership, which is a completely different conversation. Until they prove otherwise, I trust my faction leaders and if they ask me to do something I might think is "strange," I trust they know what they're doing. If not, perhaps I belong to the wrong faction.

[teribithia9]

Michael Brock wrote:

If you are intentionally attempting to sabotage another character's faction mission just for your own enjoyment, then I will remove you from my table. As a DM, I reserve that right, and luckily, I have only had to do it once. Being a jerk because you think it is "roleplaying" is beyond the scope of PFS. Afterall, why would you pick pocket a fellow player to steal the vial they had just acquired to finish their faction mission? Everyone is playing the game to have fun.

This also leads into other problems. If you sabotage another character's faction mission, then it creates a snowball effect. If the character who has been sabotaged is the cleric, that character may in turn decide not to heal the rest of the scenario and very well may be the only character left standing. If the sabotaged character is the "tank," he may take on the monster, withdraw back to the spellcaster, and then make a full withdraw the next turn so the monster can eat the spellcaster. The above two could be roleplayed as "eliminating a threat so I can complete my faction mission without further interference."

Plain and simple rule here folks -- Don't be a jerk and limit someone else's fun because you want to prevent them from getting their extra PA. You certainly don't have to aid them but don't go out of your way to stop them either. It is only fun for the jerk at that point.

+1

You may also want to consider that people may no longer wish to play with you if you take this tack. I know that if I'd played with you previously and you'd actively worked to make me lose my PA, I wouldn't want to play with you again.

[William Griffiths]

Michael Brock wrote:

If you are intentionally attempting to sabotage another character's faction mission just for your own enjoyment, then I will remove you from my table. As a DM, I reserve that right, and luckily, I have only had to do it once. Being a jerk because you think it is "roleplaying" is beyond the scope of PFS. Afterall, why would you pick pocket a fellow player to steal the vial they had just acquired to finish their faction mission? Everyone is playing the game to have fun.

This also leads into other problems. If you sabotage another character's faction mission, then it creates a snowball effect. If the character who has been sabotaged is the cleric, that character may in turn decide not to heal the rest of the scenario and very well may be the only character left standing. If the sabotaged character is the "tank," he may take on the monster, withdraw back to the spellcaster, and then make a full withdraw the next turn so the monster can eat the spellcaster. The above two could be roleplayed as "eliminating a threat so I can complete my faction mission without further interference."

Plain and simple rule here folks -- Don't be a jerk and limit someone else's fun because you want to prevent them from getting their extra PA. You certainly don't have to aid them but don't go out of your way to stop them either. It is only fun for the jerk at that point.

If I don't receive a PA, I will not cooperate on the Pathfinder mission that we have, which is also explicitly against the rules? If you have a player like this, there are much deeper problems than PA and faction missions, and they are the 'jerks.' Why will this 'jerk' thing not die? Let's assume the person playing this character is not a jerk, has potentially misunderstood the purpose of the campaign mechanic, was looking for a bit of politics from these missions instead of irrelevant side notes that give time to individual players, and has therefore brought the issue forward for the improvement of all.

Now, back to the academic discussion:

Cooperating on combats is in the rules, and so is the right to potentially affect other factions, which negates most of the preceeding comments. Also, the guide explicitly allowing interference in faction missions has not been addressed by any post yet save one, which I shall concentrate on:

If this is indeed an artifact of the past version of the campaign, then that would be an actual answer to my question that neither insults nor threatens anyone. Is this the case? Has it been overruled somewhere, as I have not been able to find such a thing.

[teribithia9]

The answer to your question is that it's considered PVP. PVP isn't always just combat. There's a thread in the archives called "why the demphasis on faction competition?" where Mark Moreland, who's now one of the two people in charge of PFS, states that he considers this action to be PVP and it shouldn't be allowed. I think that's fairly straightforward. I'm going to try to post the link below, but please bear with me if I get it wrong. Not familiar with BBC tags and it's the first time I've tried it...

Go to Why The Deemphasis On Faction Competition

EDIT:oh, well, it didn't work, but that is the url to the page.

Admin Edit: Fixed the link for you.

[Michael Brock]

If you want a bit of politics in game, go for it and replay it. However, asking for opposed bluff and sense motive checks between characters, and then when you beat their roll, you intentionally set out to sabotage their faction mission is the very definition of ruining someone else'a fun.

[Tarrintino]

DigitalMage wrote:

Playing Devil's Advocate a bit, the "don't be a jerk" and "don't spoil someone else's fun" rules go both ways.

If the real world clock is ticking and in order to complete the actual main scenario (rather than have it "called") the party need to proceed straight away, having one or two players refusing to do so because they need to go off on a tangent to complete their faction mission could really piss off the rest of the party.

The question being brought up here is not "the players are taking too much time doing their faction mission". Rather, the problem here is, does the storyline regarding the Secret War for Absalom justify a player, who's own faction mission has nothing to with any other player's faction mission, interfering with other players completing their Faction Mission.

I've already spoken with at least on Venture Captain regarding this issue, and have been told that the "Don't Bully Other Players" rule applies to this sort of gaming situation. I've informed him of this Message Thread and has told me in turn that he, several of the Venture Captains, and perhaps some of the game designers will be commenting here shortly.

[hogarth]

William Griffiths wrote:

Sounds like there's a variety of opinions on this subject. I shall play the role of the jerk, and defend the ability to "prevent other actions actively or passively" as expressed in the guide to organized play.

If you intend to sabotage other players' faction missions, I would at the very least hope for fair warning from you, the player, up front. The vast majority of games I've played in have featured cooperation between PCs, and I'd prefer to know in advance if that wasn't going to be the case.

MisterSlanky wrote:

As a GM I find players who find "playing the rol[e] of a jerk" to be frustrating at best, and outright disruptive at worst.

Amen.

[William Griffiths]

Michael Brock wrote:

If you want a bit of politics in game, go for it and replay it. However, asking for opposed bluff and sense motive checks between characters, and then when you beat their roll, you intentionally set out to sabotage their faction mission is the very definition of ruining someone else'a fun.

No one has done this. I agree that asking for such checks and being that obsessed with faction missions is unhealthy for all.

[William Griffiths]

Tarrintino wrote:

DigitalMage wrote:

Playing Devil's Advocate a bit, the "don't be a jerk" and "don't spoil someone else's fun" rules go both ways.

If the real world clock is ticking and in order to complete the actual main scenario (rather than have it "called") the party need to proceed straight away, having one or two players refusing to do so because they need to go off on a tangent to complete their faction mission could really piss off the rest of the party.

The question being brought up here is not "the players are taking too much time doing their faction mission". Rather, the problem here is, does the storyline regarding the Secret War for Absalom justify a player, who's own faction mission has nothing to with any other player's faction mission, interfering with other players completing their Faction Mission.

Yes, this is exactly the question, thank you.

I've already spoken with at least on Venture Captain regarding this issue, and have been told that the "Don't Bully Other Players" rule applies to this sort of gaming situation. I've informed him of this Message Thread and has told me in turn that he, several of the Venture Captains, and perhaps some of the game designers will be commenting here shortly.

There is a Don't Bully Other Players rule in the guide. In addition, there is the rule in the guide linked above, which explicitly allows this. So it is not so clear as "So and so is being a bully."

Now I need to check the URL given above. Thanks!

[Tarrintino]

In regards to this matter, I'm going to simply wait for an official, published ruling by the Game Developers and Venture Captains. We clearly have several people stating several opinions, but no one willing to come to a united agreement or understanding on this issue.

To any and all members of the Paizo staff who manage the Pathfinder Society Organized Play, please post on this messageboard or update the PFS Guide with a clear and concise statement detailing if this sort of behavior is acceptable or not.

[William Griffiths]

teribithia9 wrote:

The answer to your question is that it's considered PVP. PVP isn't always just combat. There's a thread in the archives called "why the demphasis on faction competition?" where Mark Moreland, who's now one of the two people in charge of PFS, states that he considers this action to be PVP and it shouldn't be allowed. I think that's fairly straightforward. I'm going to try to post the link below, but please bear with me if I get it wrong. Not familiar with BBC tags and it's the first time I've tried it...

Go to[url=http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderSociety/general/whyTheDeemphasisOnFactionCompetition[/url]

EDIT:oh, well, it didn't work, but that is the url to the page.

I wish I had read this before posting. This COMPLETELY answers my question, including confirmation by Mr. Frost of a well worded discussion. Thanks to Teribithia for providing this!

OK, all, game on, and see you at game days and conventions.

For posterity, I had only played Season 0s to this point, all of the faction missions I have seen have been very confrontational, i.e. steal the handout and mark out all reference to such and such. Things are apparently different now, and I will modify appropriately.

[Matthew Morris]

Ok, along those lines. Should a DM work to 'fix' an accidental sabotage?

Spoilers for Silent Tide

Spoiler:

The Osiron faction mission is to get a vial of Gut Wither. Quadria's faction mission is to cover up traces of their ancient involvement.

When I ran Silent Tide, the Taldor player took all the vials of Gut Wither "for safe keeping." (He had the old poisoner feat) The Osiron player couldn't think of a way of saying, "By the way, can I have a vial of that dangerous poison for myself?" It wasn't the Taldor player's intent to sabotage the Osiron mission, but it was the result.

Now admittedly that was the first scenario, but it still sticks in my mind.

[Brother Elias]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Ok, along those lines. Should a DM work to 'fix' an accidental sabotage?

Spoilers for Silent Tide
** spoiler omitted **

Now admittedly that was the first scenario, but it still sticks in my mind.

Having had more than one mission requiring the procurement of one poison or another, I've generally fallen back on the line "so that my associates might research an antidote to this poison". Seems to usually work, even if there might be some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink - say no more." about it.

[Hyrum Savage]

In general, intentionally sabotaging the faction mission of another player is being a jerk, and the #1 Rule of PFS is "Don't Be A Jerk". Now, it might come up where your actions might stop another player from completing their mission (like the example from Silent Tide above), but that's different than intentionally looking for ways to stop other players from getting things done.

And yes the Shadow War is going on, but remember that A. you're Society members first and B. follow Rule #1.

Hyrum.

[Auke Teeninga]

Hyrum Savage wrote:

And yes the Shadow War is going on

The Shadow War is yet another reason to let the tension between faction cool down and concentrate on defeating the Shadowlodge.

And out of character: When you deny other players their PA they'll be worse equipped than they could be. So next time you adventure together you might die because of this.

[MisterSlanky]

Hyrum Savage wrote:

In general, intentionally sabotaging the faction mission of another player is being a jerk, and the #1 Rule of PFS is "Don't Be A Jerk". Now, it might come up where your actions might stop another player from completing their mission (like the example from Silent Tide above), but that's different than intentionally looking for ways to stop other players from getting things done.

And yes the Shadow War is going on, but remember that A. you're Society members first and B. follow Rule #1.

Hyrum.

Hyrum,

I am not asking when it will happen, but I am wondering if the next version of the Guide will contain verbiage that eliminates the confusion and clearly sates this.

[Kortz]

Members of the Cheliax Faction are breaking Rule #1 just by existing!

[Dragnmoon]

Kortz wrote:

Members of the Cheliax Faction are breaking Rule #1 just by existing!

Oddly I feel the same about Druids with Ape Animal Companions..

And this must be a Love Hate situation!!

Hawjak

;)

[Kortz]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Kortz wrote:

Members of the Cheliax Faction are breaking Rule #1 just by existing!

Oddly I feel the same about Druids with Ape Animal Companions..

And this must be a Love Hate situation!!

Hawjak

;)

I picture Hawjak as kind of a despicable little Halfling, so I made him Chelaxian.

I have Chelaxian PFS characters made, but haven't played them yet because I am a good person.

[Dragnmoon]

Kortz wrote:

because I am a good person.

*falls down to the ground laughing*

[Hyrum Savage]

MisterSlanky wrote:

Hyrum,

I am not asking when it will happen, but I am wondering if the next version of the Guide will contain verbiage that eliminates the confusion and clearly sates this.

I'll make sure it's clear and unambiguous. :)

Hyrum.

[DigitalMage]

Tarrintino wrote:

The question being brought up here is not "the players are taking too much time doing their faction mission". Rather, the problem here is, does the storyline regarding the Secret War for Absalom justify a player, who's own faction mission has nothing to with any other player's faction mission, interfering with other players completing their Faction Mission.

I wasn't suggesting that my comment was the same question, but rather another variation on the issue and thus another question.

Bascially, if a player is doing his damndest to dissuade another player from having his character go off on a tangent because it would mean splitting the party and potentially failing the overall mission or simply running out of real world time to complete the main mission, then he should not be considered to be intentionally trying to sabotage that player's faction mission.

I.e. putting the society mission above faction missions in character, and out of game putting getting the scenario completed in the time slot above everyone completing faction missions, should not be construed as intentional sabotage of those faction missions.

[William Griffiths]

Hyrum Savage wrote:

MisterSlanky wrote:

Hyrum,

I am not asking when it will happen, but I am wondering if the next version of the Guide will contain verbiage that eliminates the confusion and clearly sates this.

I'll make sure it's clear and unambiguous. :)

Hyrum.

Here here, and thanks on the future version of the guide. I do have a suggestion, though: As the originator of this thread, and a player seeking information, I recommend that you not put this under the jerk rule.

In reading the past posts on this forum, it seems clear that in season 0, at least as far as many of us were concerned, we were participating in a zero-sum game, as pointed out previously. Hence we simply misunderstood the campaign. It is possible, for many, to interfere peacably with one another. Now, the focus of the campaign shifted long ago, but there might be other players, like me, who are still in that season 0 frame of mind. (And even some players who liked competing over their faction missions.)

And, in summary, for me anyway, it is more amiable, and certainly less insulting, to say that this is now considered PVP (since, when it used to be LEGAL it caused problems), instead of saying that we are being jerks. All we need is a rules clarification, not many individuals bandying about the terms 'bully', 'jerk', and this talk about being thrown off tables and folks refusing to play. (Although I have been told that, since I posted in a forum, I got what I deserved. :) Joke!)

That being said, as this is now PVP, it won't happen again from my end. Suffice it to say, we used to do it in the home group, but I understand that, in a public venue, someone may lose a PA, and that could mean less fun for them.

[Lord Twitchiopolis]

I think while intentional sabotage should be severly discouraged, unintentional sabotage should be left be.

In one senserio we ran, the Andoran fighter cleaved a NPC the Cheliax rogue needed to talk to. The Andoran fighter didn't know that the rogue needed to talk to him for his PA, just that the NPC was a villian.

In a later senerio, same rogue located and read a ledger the same fighter needed to collect and explicitly needed to keep secreted from all other factions. Again, the rogue didn't know the fighter had the "DO NOT LET ANYONE ELSE SEE THIS LEDGER" clause in his mission, so he unintentionally ruined the fighter's PA.

Both senerios, it was compleately unintentional. I'd say this fall into "Guano happens" catagory.

I'd also agree that players should be semi secretive about their PA goals. However, that doesn't mean that they can't request help from others.

In our last mission, the Andorans needed to find a NPC that the Cheliax knew the location of. Cheliax knew that this must be PA related, but he didn't know what they would do. It became a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" senerio, in which the Andorans amde sure that he obtained a small trinket of seemingly no use to them, the object of his PA quest. The NPC was found and the actual PA mission, delivery of a letter, was made in secrecy, even to the majority of the Andoran members.

Conversely, an Osirion had a mission involving sending a message as well. He made the trade off directly in front of the entire party, to which the NPC looked at him with wide eyes and said "I can't decode that letter for you, try elsewhere." (The NPC DID take the letter when the Osirion returned alone, telling the PC to not be so dumb as to be so open about faction business.)

[Darius Silverbolt]

Dragnmoon wrote:

William Griffiths wrote:

I have a question: Given that there is a shadow war going on, and our characters know it, if we suspect another of attempting to complete a faction mission, is it within the purview of my PC to (sneakily) sabotage the attempt? Or is this automatically considered bullying another player?

I certainly do not want to be one of the problem players, but I seek clarification. My understanding of the faction guide is that we should be subtle with our missions, and sometimes you're just going to fail. (I have before, certainly.) Some missions are, let's face it, hard to accomplish without being obvious that you have another agenda. So, I assume if I catch something flagrant, and it does not involve PvP, a little rivalry is appropriate.

However, it has been brought to my attention that this may be incorrect, essentially that while one should be under no obligation to assist, sabotage of another player is wrong. How has this been handled in your games? I know some of you are sabotaging each other, but is it only with friends at home who know to expect it?

Thanks for any thoughts and rulings on this matter.

Every GM is different on this.

I for one would not let it happen at my table.

I think that faction PA being directly tied to allowable equipment forces many DM to our right ban players from stopping other faction missions.

The shadow faction war sounds really good on paper but it doesn't work to well to discourage "PVP".

This is why I would like to see something else used for advancing PC allowable wealth.

[K'EL]

There is role playing your characters and then there is just being a jerk. If you have no reason and by reason I mean one that you can justify then I would not allow it or like it. But for example in the one game that I played in I played a Rogue Cheliax faction. One of my missions was to make sure the one guy we rescued did not mention anything at all about him being sold by someone in our faction, where 3 of the others players, I forgot their faction wanted him to tell people, but that was not a mission of theirs, there mission was to rescue 5 slaves. Now I could argue that they where trying to jip me out of my mission, but I thought it made sense and I liked the tension is caused. We secretly rolled opposed checks to see who convinced him. Later when we entered another room there where slaves wandering around the room, when they went to help them 3 of the slaves turned into monsters, it was a polymorph spell. But my char would not know that all he saw was the slaves turning into monsters, so I had him charge forward while the group handled the other monsters and he started killing slaves. IN order to stop them from turning and in his mind possibly hurting him since the group might be overwhelmed. It made sense in the Rp and the GM loved it, but once most of the monsters where down the Sorcc in the group did detect magic, and after two rounds knew the people my char was attacking just had magic around them but where not polymorphed or changing, when he informed my char my char stopped what he was doing. Did I mess with their faction mission, yes but I did it within the story and in a proper way, as they did when they tried to stop mine.