Gaming Enjoyment


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
2/5

I was wondering how people deal with situations at the table.
In a game recently, my character of good alignment had to deal with another player wanting to hit an NPC in an encounter after we had seemingly determined that the combat that had occured up till then was due to a misunderstanding. He seemed to justify his action by, well I have been hit and hurt so I should be allowed to hit back. To my character (and me) this seemed callous and unneccesary. He just wanted to hit because it is a game and hitting is a mechanic.
Of course, I like to play to role-play my character and my good-aligned character was not comfortable with his actions. In fact my character felt that they were borderline evil-actions. The NPC was by no means innocent, but the combat was really over at this stage, so hitting him was just gratuitous.
I am likely to play another game with the same player in a week (with the same characters). Obviously player (internal) conflicts occur, but if my good character continues to accept this and adventure with characters who act callously (maybe almost evilly) then I'm really not role-playing anymore. I think I will accept most things at the table, but if I role-play a character who beleives life has value and others around just slaughter without concern then I may as well just have a list of statistics in front of me and join the slaughter without characterisation.
I'm really just sharing experiences here, but I wondered what others have to say.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

Deluge

Sorry to hear your problems at the table. What I lile so far about PFS (here in the UK) is the grown up and mature way most players act and that most enjoy the roleplay aspect.
I'm not saying that acts like the one you describe never happens - but they are rather rare. I remember a recent game where three Andoran followers had 'solved' their PA but for roleplay reasons all three of us refused to take the PA as we interpreted the act to get the PA as evil (Paladin, Monk and LG Wizard).
This is a community and I think a lot works by example and peer presssure. Taking the time to role play - acting noble yourself, getting the buyin from others at the table - hopefully all of that will stop or at least limit behaviour that spoils it for others because they regard it as evil.
I remember when my wife tried in one of her very first games to get a PA and lacking Golarion Lore did try an pretty 'evil' act by cutting parts of the beard of a dwarf. This wasn't malicious - it was just thoughtless and thought through human eyes.
It was the group at the table that showed that this was unacceptable. At the same time - once she stopped (no - this wasn't immidiate) - the group also took the time to help her in a different way to achieve her goal.

Important in such cases is that the table unites and is backed by the GM. And off course - you need the time. But hopefully if small incidents are dealt with early, then time spend once is an investment in future table time for role playing.

Thod

The Exchange 5/5

Deluge,
It is one of the core assumption of the Society that your character WILL be placed with people of different views/attitudes.

I would recommend you do the following: Use that dislike.

Use it.

Nothing is said that you have to like the character. Talk to that character, in-game, telling him that you will not tolerate this behavior. When he does (because people who think/act along the "you attack me, you die"), don't help him. You may even "bad mouth" him.

One of my character is an Oracle of Rovagug... She badmouths every other clerics, promotes evil acts (but she does little herself (I mean she does little period)), and there is a large number of players who *HATE* her. This hate is a reason people like to play with her.

As I always say... use this to make YOUR character better, more interesting. Maybe you begin every adventure by setting down the "RULES". This will make your character unique.

Whatever you do, take this opportunity to allow your character to evolve.

JP

Grand Lodge 4/5

This is difficult. In our PFS group we have someone who is learning the ropes and his actions and choices are having effects and have lead to multiple characters dying due to his actions or inaction. He has constantly been on the receiving end of guff from a lot of the players. Including one who has stated to his face he won't sit at a table with him. A few of us took him aside and explained the problems to him and tried to be constructive about it. After the discussion the next session we played he seemed to be more helpful and easier to play with, but this was with the conversation fresh on his mind. Hopefully the talk will sink in.

My advice is to talk to the player and express that you have a problem with it. Explain to the person that it bothers you, but try to be constructive about it. If to him he feels like he's being singled out and yelled at it'll only reinforce his playing. But also be mindful that his playstyle may be more of the kick in the door and kill it method.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Always keep in mind, that this fellow may have a vision for his character’s personality as well. He may be roleplaying his character a particular way that sits wrong with your character’s viewpoint.

You could even go so far as to have your character stand between the target and his character.

Or have your character chastise his character for being uncouth and uncivilized. Try to teach his character the more couth ways of your character’s teachers’.

I remember the first table I sat at for PFS I was playing a NG half-orc from Realm of the Mammoth Lords. Two to my left sat a gnome of unspecified alignment or class (actually I forget, but he was certainly uncouth). This gnome was a cannibal. My half-orc found this highly offensive (ironic I know) and has determined should he ever go on a mission with this guy again, he’s going to try and convert the gnome into a better way of eating.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
This gnome was a cannibal.

Note, my Gnome has not, nor will ever eat another Gnome, thus he cannot be described as a cannibal. He also never actually ate any human/elf/dwarf/halfling opponents. Also note that he doesn't "eat" his foes, he merely "tastes a little", nor did he ever openly eat a foe.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Ryan Bolduan wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
This gnome was a cannibal.

Note, my Gnome has not, nor will ever eat another Gnome, thus he cannot be described as a cannibal. He also never actually ate any human/elf/dwarf/halfling opponents. Also note that he doesn't "eat" his foes, he merely "tastes a little", nor did he ever openly eat a foe.

hehe... still, Bbauzh is going to have fun as a deaf Oracle trying to get your gnome to stop "eating" people. Even if he does have a misunderstanding of your gnome's "habits". I think the one scene just had Bbauzh notice that you were hacking into a dead body of an opponent with your cleaver, and later that the body was missing an arm. Still, assumptions of cannibalism can be worse than the actual act, maybe...

2/5 *

Deluge wrote:
Stuff

More alignment questions, whohooo!

Edit: This is PFOS, so it changes my answer.

I don't have a good answer, sorry! I struggle with "playing my character" at PFOS tables already, since what I want to do invariably conflicts with either my faction, the PF society, or the PA of other characters (which isn't fair).

In particular, I find the Andoran and Cheliax factions so at odds with each other, I can't play Andoran the way I envision them being played. The other factions are more "neutral", which is the only way factions can really work without PVP conflict.

I'd handle it in-game if possible, telling him that's unacceptable. Taking sucker punches is slightly evil since it's inflicting pain for no reason, but doesn't make someone evil per se, on it's own. In PFOS you aren't allowed to be evil, so maybe the DM could note something on the offending player's chronicle. But you'd probably have to say something to the DM since most DMs would not do this unless nudged a little.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Jason S wrote:
Deluge wrote:
Stuff

More alignment questions, whohooo! Time to get b$##@y with each other!

If your good character has a problem with another PCs action in-game, then handle it in-game. A good character would rarely take a sucker punch like that, but a neutral might be petty like that. Taking sucker punches is slightly evil since it's inflicting pain for no reason, but doesn't make someone evil per se, on it's own.

If it were me, I'd play my character even if it involved player vs player combat (unless it was PFOS). But first, I'd talk to the DM (and maybe the other player) to tell him what's going on, so you don't ruin the campaign and possibly your experience. It's possible one of you might have to make another character to fit into the group.

It's also possible that if the other player "tones it down" and the occurences become rare, your PC could overlook it on occasion. It's really up to you and how you want to play your character.

I am pretty sure this is in reference to organized play (PFS) and as such, there is no PvP.

Its hard to handle sometimes, if someone chooses to play a character that basically does things around paladins and what not, that would normally get him beat down.

But if a player keeps choosing to roleplay that type of character, and basically goes "neener neener, there's no PvP" then people won't want to invite them to game days anymore.

The Exchange 5/5

@Jason S: Remember that you are a Pathfinder FIRST, and a faction member SECOND.

JP

2/5 *

JP Chapleau wrote:
@Jason S: Remember that you are a Pathfinder FIRST, and a faction member SECOND.

I'm not sure what I said that would make you say that, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second, because what you're saying is true in terms of roleplay, but not in terms of mechanics.

Imo, some faction missions definitely conflict with what I would call "being a good Pathfinder".

I'm going to refer to the Andoran faction mission in "Voice in the Void".

Spoiler:
There is no way in hell, if I was playing my character properly, that I'd give the cylinder (that corrupted the end boss) to the Andoran faction at the end of the scenario. It's dangerous and my faction just couldn't handle something like that well. It SHOULD have gone to the PF Society for proper storage or disposal.

If I had done that however, not only would I have gotten less prestige but I also would have penalized the other 2 Andorans at the table. And that's not right (and it's actually against the PF society rules, interfering with someone's faction mission).

I know other faction missions have conflicted slightly with what I'd call "being a good Pathfinder", but it's open to interpretation.

From a purely mechanical point of view, who cares if I fail my PF mission? I get 1 XP if I complete 50% of the mission. What really matters is the faction mission. It's equates to extra gold.

As it stands now, whether you complete the PF mission or not, it's merely "fluff". If the PF mission mattered, it would be tracked and it would be a stat. I could have a character that fails each and every PF mission and still have the same XP and prestige as someone who completes every mission. It's tempting to create such a character!

We're getting a little derailed with this discussion, sorry about the thread jacking.


Jason S wrote:


From a purely mechanical point of view, who cares if I fail my PF mission? I get 1 XP if I complete 50% of the mission. What really matters is the faction mission. It's equates to extra gold.

As it stands now, whether you complete the PF mission or not, it's merely "fluff". If the PF mission mattered, it would be tracked and it would be a stat. I could have a character that fails each and every PF mission and still have the same XP and prestige as someone who completes every mission. It's tempting to create such a character!

We're getting a little derailed with this discussion, sorry about the thread jacking.

Just to continue your threadjack a bit more, you have to complete at least three of the encounters to earn the XP, which is 60% of the five encounters. But anyway, if you made a character that always failed the main mission, you would have to make the entire group fail the mission in every scenario you played. I would view that as PvP, or at the very least violating the "don't be a bully" rule.

2/5

Thanks for all your posts on this topic. Each one contains some insight.
Of course during a game my character will put up with what is around him. After the game though he would like to have a black list of PFS members who he won't adventure with because they are (in his book) evil, callous, cruel or whatever. the thing with this game is it was part 1 of 3 - Heresy of Man - so we'll no doubt adventure again.
I guess players love to flirt on the line of what is evil. I imagine there are more neutral characters out there than good. Generally myself I like to play good because more often than not it supports the ideals of playing in a heroic genre (like fantasy), but I have a range of characters now and some of mine (one in particular) is close to that line sometimes -
Human Rogue N Takdor Faction
Elf Ranger CG Andoran Faction
Human Inquisitor (of Asmodeus) LN Cheliax Faction
Human Summoner NG Qadiran Faction
Particularly the Inquisitor has sometimes felt in missions that he is required to kill someone and he won't hesitate because he feels it is lawful execution (usually) and his holy duty (sometimes). He is my most dubious character.
The difference in the recent game is that the behaviour seemed to me to be outside of the game and role-playing. It was (attempted) killing to utilise and ability because the mechanic was there. And that was my disappointment I guess. In character I felt that the character's action was borderline evil and unnecessary. He struck a human after it had been worked out that we could stop fighting. Another continued with non-lethal damage, but this character wanted to use sneak attack and his primary weapon, so he just attacked as normal. It turned out that he didn't kill the NPC, just took him to unconsciousness, but that was a quirk of the damage. He could have done enough damage to kill him. Was the action evil? If so, what are the consequences?
By the way he was playing a pregen to make up numbers in this game, so he had no close connection to the character.
We all know that there are plenty of computer based games out there, where killing is scoring and this action smelled to me of that behaviour. it was disappointing to see.
I must add that I have played PFS for a long time now and rarely seen this sort of behaviour. Most games have been great, but I guess this one pushed my buttons which is why I am mentioning it here.

2/5 *

Enevhar Aldarion wrote:
you would have to make the entire group fail the mission in every scenario you played. I would view that as PvP, or at the very least violating the "don't be a bully" rule.

I think you could creatively fail missions, not by sabotage, but by just creating poorly optimized characters. For example, a wizard with armor and martial weapon feats and poor spell selection. The party could easily fail the final encounter that way. Just make sure you have an Expedious Retreat ready to run away, lol.

I'm sure you could think of many creative ways to fail, if you really tried. It could become an art form. :)

3 characters can usually defeat 3 encounters before the useless 4th character would bring them down. :)

The Exchange 5/5

Jason S wrote:

Imo, some faction missions definitely conflict with what I would call "being a good Pathfinder".

(and it's actually against the PF society rules, interfering with someone's faction mission).

But nothing prevents you from talking to the others, and selling your points. You might be surprised how many other players may agree with you, knowing they do lose up on a PA. (After 16, its just waste anyway...)

Jason S wrote:


From a purely mechanical point of view, who cares if I fail my PF mission? I get 1 XP if I complete 50% of the mission. What really matters is the faction mission. It's equates to extra gold.

As it stands now, whether you complete the PF mission or not, it's merely "fluff". If the PF mission mattered, it would be tracked and it would be a stat. I could have a character that fails each and every PF mission and still have the same XP and prestige as someone who completes every mission. It's tempting to create such a character!

Again, that falls to what your character considers most important. Some of my characters are "Pathfinders of opportunity" while others are dedicated and believe in the "cause".

If you just want to metagame it then you're 100% the Society is just Fluff, Factions are everything. Metagaming is not where I get my thing. I once spent 2PAs to get someone to decode a book for me so I could gain 1 PA.
That said, tracking the number of successful mission is... useless in the way adventures are currently written. BUT (notice the big but), that's something I think the campaign heads may want to look into. I *LOVE* the idea that you can fail a scenario and that auto-complete-80ssitcomstyle-success is not guaranteed. The Midnight Mauler is one such adventure (I strongly recommend it if you can find a VC or a 4-star GM near you).

JP

2/5 *

JP Chapleau wrote:
But nothing prevents you from talking to the others, and selling your points. You might be surprised how many other players may agree with you, knowing they do lose up on a PA. (After 16, its just waste anyway...)

I probably could have convinced them to lose PA, but it's not the smartest thing to do, especially at level 1-2. If it was just me losing, I might have done it, but not with 3 of us losing PA.

Also, I don't think having more than 16 PA is a waste. It's only really "game over" for your PC when you have no additional PA, until then you can still be rezzed. So there really isn't such a thing as "too much PA" imo.

Although current PA isn't important right now, from what I understand it will be important in this next PFOS season.

So my point is, losing PA because of roleplaying reasons is something that really has to be considered carefully. Maybe even more now than ever.

Is it a problem? It is for me, playing the Andoran or Cheliax factions. So the solution is not to play those factions. For me, to play those factions properly, I find them too antagonistic. It's my vision of the factions in any case.

Having said that, in most games, I wouldn't even know which factions people are playing, it's so bland.

JP Chapleau wrote:

If you just want to metagame it then you're 100% the Society is just Fluff, Factions are everything.

That said, tracking the number of successful mission is... useless in the way adventures are currently written. BUT (notice the big but), that's something I think the campaign heads may want to look into. The Midnight Mauler is one such adventure (I strongly recommend it if you can find a VC or a 4-star GM near you).

Yes, that was my point, the mechanics support factions being very important and the actual PF mission is not important at all. And it definitely feels strange to me, maybe they'll change things? That would be a large undertaking so I'm not sure it's going to happen.

I'm playing the Mignight Mauler soon-ish.

The Exchange 5/5

Jason S wrote:
So my point is, losing PA because of roleplaying reasons is something that really has to be considered carefully. Maybe even more now than ever.

I 100% disagree with that. Role-playing trumps metagaming every time. Otherwise, your character is just another PA-whore who has no personal convictions. Just because the campaign grants you a bonus should not go against your character.

Oppose others? No. Sell your point, yes. Let other players make a choice, it's up to them. If you get outvoted or shut down, play it up, pout, gripe, whine, finger-wag, Bible-thump, whatever it takes. That makes the game much more memorable! Level, Class, Alignment or skin color doesn't matter.

Some of the most memorable games I've played (PFS and non-PFS) feature PCs vs PCs "argument". Didn't matter what: one argument, dealt with me whining about getting the fighter to carry my bag, I've seen people get into it because a (Qadiran) PC had a slave and the Andoran was very unhappy. THAT is where the game lives! That's what you will remember 10 years from now, no "I got a PA".

If you character has such high morals that he cannot tolerate Cheliaxians near him because those characters flirt with evil. You present him as someone with high morals but you will do anything to get a PA. Hire assassins, have people murdered, do bad things... HEY! It's a PA that's all that matters! You cannot take the moral high ground on one hand and do underhand tricks on the other.

In the end, it's up to you to play how and what you want, doing something just for a PA is no justification.

JP

The Exchange 4/5

JP Chapleau wrote:


Some of the most memorable games I've played (PFS and non-PFS) feature PCs vs PCs "argument". Didn't matter what: one argument, dealt with me whining about getting the fighter to carry my bag, I've seen people get into it because a (Qadiran) PC had a slave and the Andoran was very unhappy. THAT is where the game lives! That's what you will remember 10 years from now, no "I got a PA".

Just as a point of contention, player arguments don't make the game more interesting for all playstyles. Personally, the games that I remember the most are the ones where we managed to pull victory from defeat by the skin of our teeth during epic combats. Often making that happen requires having the best equipment which requires PA to purchase.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, obviously. It's your opinion and play however you have fun playing, but not everyone will see it the same way. In my group of gamers interparty arguing just leads to real life arguing (yeah, we're not very good roleplayers). :)

2/5 *

JP Chapleau wrote:
Oppose others? No. Sell your point, yes. Let other players make a choice, it's up to them. If you get outvoted or shut down, play it up, pout, gripe, whine, finger-wag, Bible-thump, whatever it takes. That makes the game much more memorable! Level, Class, Alignment or skin color doesn't matter.

A little bit is ok, the problem is I could probably convince most people of most (reasonable) things, which makes me extremely uncomfortable when they're sacrificing their PA (and maybe their own character and enjoyment) just to make me happy.

JP Chapleau wrote:
I've seen people get into it because a (Qadiran) PC had a slave and the Andoran was very unhappy. THAT is where the game lives! That's what you will remember 10 years from now, no "I got a PA".

Well, that's a really good point. In 10 years, we're not going to remember whether we got 20 PA or 18 PA, we're going to remember sticking to our resolve, playing our character with conviction (regardless of PA or PF mission even), and doing what others would never do. I'll have to think on this more, thanks JP Capleau.

The Exchange 5/5

Demoyn wrote:
Just as a point of contention, player arguments don't make the game more interesting for all playstyles. Personally, the games that I remember the most are the ones where we managed to pull victory from defeat by the skin of our teeth during epic combats. Often making that happen requires having the best equipment which requires PA to purchase.

Pulling a big win from the jaws of death/defeat is memorable also. I'll disagree that you do so by having "the best" equipment.

Demoyn wrote:
In my group of gamers interparty arguing just leads to real life arguing (yeah, we're not very good roleplayers). :)

Well... that is a valid point. You have to be "mature" about it and table angry must not be OOC angry. When that happens, I'm 100% with you!

JP

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Demoyn wrote:

Just as a point of contention, player arguments don't make the game more interesting for all playstyles. Personally, the games that I remember the most are the ones where we managed to pull victory from defeat by the skin of our teeth during epic combats. Often making that happen requires having the best equipment which requires PA to purchase.

I disagree sir. In order to have more of those 'by the skin of your teeth' episodes. Sub-optimal equipment is almost a requirement! If you have Optimal equipment, you won't see many of those as you will tear the baddies to shreds on a much higher basis.

:P

Scarab Sages

Deluge wrote:
The difference in the recent game is that the behaviour seemed to me to be outside of the game and role-playing. It was (attempted) killing to utilise and ability because the mechanic was there. And that was my disappointment I guess. In character I felt that the character's action was borderline evil and unnecessary. He struck a human after it had been worked out that we could stop fighting. Another continued with non-lethal damage, but this character wanted to use sneak attack and his primary weapon, so he just attacked as normal. It turned out that he didn't kill the NPC, just took him to unconsciousness, but that was a quirk of the damage. He could have done enough damage to kill him. Was the action evil? If so, what are the consequences?

Well, that clears things things up a bit.

I read the original post as the PC wanting to punch the guy, or slap him across the face. Going at someone with a deadly weapon is a whole different ball game.

Is it evil? Not necessarily, it's more like the player is a bit lazy, and not viewing the events in-character. The game doesn't have an official system for permanent scarring or maiming, so it's irrelevant by the RAW if he uses a lethal weapon to teach them a lesson.
Small child running from the town guard? Well, you could try to grapple him, but why take the AoO, and leave yourself with no Dex? Just whack him with an axe. What's he whining for? You didn't take him below -9hp. A quick cantrip and a night's rest, he'll be up and about, it won't even leave a bruise. Was he innocent or guilty? Who cares, if he was guilty, then he deserved what he got, if not, no harm done.

The Exchange 4/5

cblome59 wrote:
Demoyn wrote:

Just as a point of contention, player arguments don't make the game more interesting for all playstyles. Personally, the games that I remember the most are the ones where we managed to pull victory from defeat by the skin of our teeth during epic combats. Often making that happen requires having the best equipment which requires PA to purchase.

I disagree sir. In order to have more of those 'by the skin of your teeth' episodes. Sub-optimal equipment is almost a requirement! If you have Optimal equipment, you won't see many of those as you will tear the baddies to shreds on a much higher basis.

:P

I suppose you're right since we're on the PFS boards. They really need to up the challenge level to be on par with their APs.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Demoyn wrote:
cblome59 wrote:
Demoyn wrote:

Just as a point of contention, player arguments don't make the game more interesting for all playstyles. Personally, the games that I remember the most are the ones where we managed to pull victory from defeat by the skin of our teeth during epic combats. Often making that happen requires having the best equipment which requires PA to purchase.

I disagree sir. In order to have more of those 'by the skin of your teeth' episodes. Sub-optimal equipment is almost a requirement! If you have Optimal equipment, you won't see many of those as you will tear the baddies to shreds on a much higher basis.

:P

I suppose you're right since we're on the PFS boards. They really need to up the challenge level to be on par with their APs.

Some yes, others no. Some of the combats are just absurd and more difficult than they need to be.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Deluge wrote:
He struck a human after it had been worked out that we could stop fighting. Another continued with non-lethal damage, but this character wanted to use sneak attack and his primary weapon, so he just attacked as normal. It turned out that he didn't kill the NPC, just took him to unconsciousness, but that was a quirk of the damage. He could have done enough damage to kill him. Was the action evil? If so, what are the consequences?

How did you know you could stop fighting? I haven't played the mod, so no spoilers please, but the guy could have been bluffing his surrender whilst waiting for back-up. He might have figured his escape artist check after being imprisoned was better than defeating an entire party single handed. He could have been disguised and not the person you thought he was. He could have been a plant to pretend to fight, then surrender at the right moment and feed you bogus information.

Are you sure you weren't using OOC knowledge to stop the fight? The characters who kept on fighting may have been a little more suspect than you and were just making sure a threat had been removed. Were people making Sense Motive checks? If so and those two rolled lower than you (or higher depending on what was being sensed) then they might have been completely justified in taking him down.

I don't want answers to that, I'm just saying that pummeling someone unconscious is often a good bet if they've already attacked you. It's certainly not evil. As for doing real damage, well... better safe than sorry! Golarion is a brutal world.

2/5

Stormfriend wrote:
How did you know you could stop fighting? I haven't played the mod, so no spoilers please, but the guy could have been bluffing his surrender whilst waiting for back-up. He might have figured his escape artist check after being imprisoned was better than defeating an entire party single handed. He could have been disguised and not the person you thought he was. He could have been a plant to pretend to fight, then surrender at the right moment and feed you bogus information.

Stormfriend if you take the approach that someone might be bluffing so you can hit them for lethal damage with sneak attack, then you have a justification to kill anyone you meet. My feeling is that when you play the heroes, act like the heroes.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

There are many types of heroes, if they were all paladins of impeccable morality then the world would be a very dull place...

The Exchange 4/5

Stormfriend wrote:
There are many types of heroes, if they were all paladins of impeccable morality then the world would be a very dull place...

+1.

On top of that, not everyone in the society is a hero. Chaotic Neutral is an alignment choice, after all.

Paizo Employee 5/5 * Developer

Demoyn wrote:


+1.

On top of that, not everyone in the society is a hero. Chaotic Neutral is an alignment choice, after all.

I've got three characters who are heroes through and through, though one would likely get into agruments with another on what that entails.

I've also got one who is purely mercenary in disposition. Not good at all, though not also not evil, simply in it for cash.

I've also got one for whom mercy towards an enemy is an alien concept. She's not evil, and she doesn't simply go around killing people she doesn't like, but enemies in battle are to be dispatched. Why would we do otherwise?

These last 2 certainly aren't heroes, but I don't see a problem with that. Heroism can get boring.

If you want to talk the last one into sparing an enemy, you're welcome to, and she'd likely be recpetive to your request, as she's no murderer, but she's not going to let them live just because they surrendered. But don't assume that surrender means an enemy lives for every character. You've got to ask nicely sometimes.

We're pathfinders, and the society is actually pretty loose morally. We will work with people we disagree with. It's almost unavoidable. Play it out. It can be fun.

2/5

I don't want to weigh into this, but now I'll talk alignment. When I mentioned heroes earlier, I didn't mention alignment, just heroes. You guys seem to be responding as though I had said you have to play good alignment.
Alignment can be a murky topic, but PFS says that you can be LG,NG,CG,LN,N,CN. I have found in other organised play campaigns over the years that CN is the new evil. Some players who really just want to act evil choose CN instead and define their evil as just being chaotic. One organised play campaign went so far as to restrict players from CN alignment.
I play characters of all alignments, but in PFS I try to stay away from having my characters act in an evil manner. Page 166 of the PF Core Rulebook lays it down pretty clearly in the section on Good vs Evil. Particularly look at the section about people who are neutral with respect to good and evil.
"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."
If you know a person is innocent and you kill him anyway (even if you rationalise it by saying that you think he is a secret hidden ninja), you are acting in an evil way. Generally I would say that if you feel the need to rationalise your character's killing behaviour then you might well be stepping over the line. I would reckon that killing innocents for cash as a mercenary is evil behaviour too (according to the Core rulebook).
When I use the word hero, I don't mean much (and maybe it is the wrong word), but I mean not the evil guys in the story.

Paizo Employee 5/5 * Developer

And I don't think all Pathfinders are heroes. They are treasure hunters. Also a surrendered opponent is helpless, but hardly innocent. A slight bait and switch there, but invalid all the same.

There are characters who will kill opponents, and for whom the default is surrender is irrelevant. There are characters whose faction missions demand they kill an NPC. Those characters, unless they are paladins, probably will.

I play 3 heroes. I play 2 characters who are not heroes, but are pathfinders all the same. Those two may do some evil things, but doing the occasional evil doesn't make them any more evil than doing the occasional good makes them good. Heck, even 1 of my heroic characters killed a character after surrender. She had her reasons, one being her faction mission, the other tying into the scenario.

Evil actions are not banned. I know a character who creates undead, but can work with a party.

Your character will run into pathfinders who do not share your morality, and do not see themselves as shining beacons of light seeking to aid the world. If everyone was like that, organized play would get pretty dull.

Again, assuming that someone else's character will let an NPC live without discussing it in character is not any way to go about things. If your character talks about how strongly you feel, things might change.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Alorha wrote:

And I don't think all Pathfinders are heroes. They are treasure hunters. Also a surrendered opponent is helpless, but hardly innocent. A slight bait and switch there, but invalid all the same.

There are characters who will kill opponents, and for whom the default is surrender is irrelevant. There are characters whose faction missions demand they kill an NPC. Those characters, unless they are paladins, probably will.

I play 3 heroes. I play 2 characters who are not heroes, but are pathfinders all the same. Those two may do some evil things, but doing the occasional evil doesn't make them any more evil than doing the occasional good makes them good. Heck, even 1 of my heroic characters killed a character after surrender. She had her reasons, one being her faction mission, the other tying into the scenario.

Evil actions are not banned. I know a character who creates undead, but can work with a party.

Your character will run into pathfinders who do not share your morality, and do not see themselves as shining beacons of light seeking to aid the world. If everyone was like that, organized play would get pretty dull.

Again, assuming that someone else's character will let an NPC live without discussing it in character is not any way to go about things. If your character talks about how strongly you feel, things might change.

And if you go around willy-nilly killing people who surrender, expect characters (like all of mine) to walk from the mission. Even my CN charcters would have none of that.

And if I'm the judge, expect the logical repercussions. Murder is still murder in Golarion.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

We're not talking about characters running around killing innocent peasants who happen to be in the way - that would be evil. We're talking about killing someone who was trying to kill them a few seconds ago. Just because he's not swinging his sword right now doesn't make him suddenly 'innocent'.

The same goes for people targetted in faction missions. Just because they're not attacking someone right now doesn't mean they're little innocent angels. Sometimes the law can execute these people, sometimes it can't reach them but the punishment would be the same. Sometimes the law protects them but there are groups who feel they should be punished anyway. Morality is a grey area and there's a high chance that other people at your table won't agree with yours. That's just the way it goes in a game like this. Any complaints or objections should be dealt with in-character as that's roleplaying.

You can't ask someone to defend their decision to kill and then accuse them of stepping over the line because they defended their decision! They rationalised it because you asked them to.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

cblome59 wrote:


And if you go around willy-nilly killing people who surrender, expect characters (like all of mine) to walk from the mission. Even my CN charcters would have none of that.

And if I'm the judge, expect the logical repercussions. Murder is still murder in Golarion.

Almost all my characters kill people who surrender unless they're given a very good reason not to. The one exception is my LG lawyer who will let them live if they agree to pay her legal fees, and then she will defend them when they're taken for trial. She can usually find some loophole in the way her compatriots acted to get them off the charges so she's worth the money.

If you walk away from the mission because my characters are doing that then I'll just wave goodbye and carry on without you. You're a Pathfinder, and you will be travelling with people who have different views to you whether you like it or not. That's part of what being a Pathfinder is about.

What if a player sits down with a cleric of Asmodeus, Lamashtu, Urgathoa or Norgorber? Will you expect them to share your morality? What if they threaten to leave the table because you keep wanting to let surrendered enemies live? Does that sound reasonable to you?

Paizo Employee 5/5 * Developer

cblome59 wrote:


And if you go around willy-nilly killing people who surrender, expect characters (like all of mine) to walk from the mission. Even my CN charcters would have none of that.

And if I'm the judge, expect the logical repercussions. Murder is still murder in Golarion.

Of course there are repercussions. There should be. I've never said my characters, or any others should act without consequence, and I explicitly said that I don't run around killings townsfolk who've done nothing.

This is a fallacious argument: either a character is running around murdering everyone, or they respect the Aspis who tortured them in the past because he threw his sword down. This is not what happens. There is a middle ground of characters who can walk around Absolom without killing bakers and passing children, but who show no mercy to an enemy who engages them in combat.

Characters are more complex that two letters in an alignment field on a sheet. They should be. They have different pasts that lead to different motivations and reactions. They can have tempers, and they can have poor judgment. That doesn't somehow make them any worse to play than a heroic character, so long as they work with said character to further the mission.

Some of this is reaction to players who do indeed act as if there are no in-world consequences for drawing a blade against a Venture Captain, or killing a random NPC just to do it. I also think that's bad player behavior, and consequences should be enforced by the GM. That isn't the same as executing a combatant. It isn't. I'm sorry.

I'm not going to play Batman from the 60's TV show, though. That character is one-dimensional and therefore boring. I will play characters with complex motivations and drives, some of whom might kill an opponent after surrender. These are characters, though, and you can talk to them and argue why a prisoner should live. Try it.

It is a roleplaying game, after all.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Stormfriend wrote:
If you walk away from the mission because my characters are doing that then I'll just wave goodbye and carry on without you. You're a Pathfinder, and you will be travelling with people who have different views to you whether you like it or not. That's part of what being a Pathfinder is about.

That is completely your option, and I respect that choice. Just respect mine for walking away. We get to choose where our lines are. And we are going to play with people of different moral levels. My line is murder.

Alorha wrote:
This is a fallacious argument: either a character is running around murdering everyone, or they respect the Aspis who tortured them in the past because he threw his sword down. This is not what happens. There is a middle ground of characters who can walk around Absolom without killing bakers and passing children, but who show no mercy to an enemy who engages them in combat.

Even the military (save for an evil aligned one) does not murder the armies that surrender to it. The argument of they hurt me so they must die, doesn't sit well with me. Murder still falls into that evil range.

Characters are more complex than alignment letters, no doubt, but using a neutral stance to condone murder is simply trying to hide that E under an N

People who surrender to you are now just as helpless as those peasant townsfolk. Heck, half the time they were either forced or paid to come at you and wished you no true ill will. To outright kill them for being silly enough to surrender to you is simply petty (Faction orders aside)

Paizo Employee 5/5 * Developer

cblome59 wrote:


Characters are more complex than alignment letters, no doubt, but using a neutral stance to condone murder is simply trying to hide that E under an N

I would argue a non paladin good character could do it. Not just argue, I could see it happen.

[Edit] I could even see a Paladin doing this, though he'd need an atonement.

Say these foes killed one of my friends, one who I had been adventuring alongside for some time. One who I liked quite a bit. Now that foe realizes he's outclassed and throws his sword down. I move in for the kill, full of rage. Talk me down in character if you want, but do not tell me I'm not being NG as a player.

Characters are not outsiders. They are not shining beacons of those two alignment letters. Rage can cloud judgment, as can prejudice (he's just another orc), or numerous other factors.

cblome59 wrote:


People who surrender to you are now just as helpless as those peasant townsfolk. Heck, half the time they were either forced or paid to come at you and wished you no true ill will. To outright kill them for being silly enough to surrender to you is simply petty (Faction orders aside)

People can be petty. We are neither as good as the best thing we've ever done, nor as low as the worst. If you don't want certain prisoners executed play it out.

I'm not sure why you're arguing against roleplay. Your interpretation of a hero is not a straightjacket binding my playstyle. Every turn my suggestion has been talk to my character, cool her head, and explain to her why she's wrong.

Your answer is to take your things and go.

The coup de grace is not yet swung. She may move in for a kill, but words can stop her. She's actually not a murderer, her upbringing just made her especially suspicious of mercy for certain foes.

That's another thing. The loaded term "murder." I would argue execution is not murder, and you may have to convince some characters that execution is not warranted depending on the foe.

Again, play it out in character before you pick up your dice and say you won't play.

[Edit]
I actually have a paladin/fighter with a merciful weapon. Before that he'd simply take the -4 on almost every swing. People would look at me oddly, but this character was all about mercy.

That's the thing, though, people seemed put off that I would try to let everything that wasn't an evil outsider or undead live. It complicated things. He would be strongly opposed to anyone killing a foe he has downed, and he would politely, but firmly explain why. He'd attempt to show that redemption is possible, and argue in favor of it.

I as a player would never demand behavior from another, though. That's my problem with this whole discussion. We're taking ideas of fantasy characters and alignment, both of which differ wildly across players, and attempting to bind the playstyle of others eschewing in-game solutions.

Why not in-game? That's my main issue here. Why can characters not talk it out?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Alorha wrote:
cblome59 wrote:


Characters are more complex than alignment letters, no doubt, but using a neutral stance to condone murder is simply trying to hide that E under an N

I would argue a non paladin good character could do it. Not just argue, I could see it happen.

Say these foes killed one of my friends, one who I had been adventuring alongside for some time. One who I liked quite a bit. Now that foe realizes he's outclassed and throws his sword down. I move in for the kill, full of rage. Talk me down in character if you want, but do not tell me I'm not being NG as a player.

Characters are not outsiders. They are not shining beacons of those two alignment letters. Rage can cloud judgment, as can prejudice (he's just another orc), or numerous other factors.

cblome59 wrote:


People who surrender to you are now just as helpless as those peasant townsfolk. Heck, half the time they were either forced or paid to come at you and wished you no true ill will. To outright kill them for being silly enough to surrender to you is simply petty (Faction orders aside)

People can be petty. We are neither as good as the best thing we've ever done, nor as low as the worst. If you don't want certain prisoners executed play it out.

I'm not sure why you're arguing against roleplay. Your interpretation of a hero is not a straightjacket binding my playstyle. Every turn my suggestion has been talk to my character, cool her head, and explain to her why she's wrong.

Your answer is to take your things and go.

The coup de grace is not yet swung. She may move in for a kill, but words can stop her. She's actually not a murderer, her upbringing just made her especially suspicious of mercy for certain foes.

That's another thing. The loaded term "murder." I would argue execution is not murder, and you may have to convince some characters that execution is not warranted depending on the foe.

Again, play it out in character before you pick up your dice and say you won't play.

Alorha, we've been arguing about after the deed is done. If you give an RP chance to talk you down (Ive seen many players who won't) then we're still in the game.

I'm saying that you RP choice to kill a helpless person who has surrendered could very well lead to my RP choice to leave the goup. How is yours RP and mine is not?

Execution is not murder, but we're talking vengeance here, which, to my mind, is.

Charcters who slay those who surrender would very quickly gain a reputation for that. That would lead to noone surrendering to you regardless of the case. How much intel do you then lose.

Each situation is different and should be judged by each of us on a case by case basis. There are some who say they always kill those who surrender to them. Theyve made a choice there that has little to do with RP.

Paizo Employee 5/5 * Developer

cblome59 wrote:

Alorha, we've been arguing about after the deed is done. If you give an RP chance to talk you down (Ive seen many players who won't) then we're still in the game.

I'm saying that you RP choice to kill a helpless person who has surrendered could very well lead to my RP choice to leave the goup. How is yours RP and mine is not?

Execution is not murder, but we're talking vengeance here, which, to my mind, is.

Charcters who slay those who surrender would very quickly gain a reputation for that. That would lead to noone surrendering to you regardless of the case. How much intel do you then lose.

Each situation is different and should be judged by each of us on a case by case basis. There are some who say they always kill those who surrender to them. Theyve made a choice there that has little to do with RP.

Of course once the blow is swung that's different. Nor do I think it's realistic to execute every single NPC who surrenders ever. And if a character does without remorse, you would be within your rights to steer clear of them. My paladin would try to redeem them (though that's me, and sometimes the players of such characters have no real RP desires).

My issue was that the OP seemed distraught that someone killed a prisoner, but never mentioned trying to talk it out, or explaining to the other character why this is wrong.

I can see reasons why a player would do this other than being a prick is all. Granted it's possible he/she was doing it just to do it.

I just prefer that in-game solutions are tried first. Even if the coup de grace is swung you can express disgust in character. You can explain why this is an action you find repugnant. Maybe you can convince a character not to swing next time. Maybe not.

It's fair to not want to work with someone if they show an unrepentant pattern, but the society might still fling you together. As long as the player isn't trying to ruin your fun, play it out. Two people who have to work together but hate it.

If you notice a player is just in it to ruin people's fun, you are well within your rights (and should) avoid tables he's playing.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Alorha wrote:
cblome59 wrote:

Alorha, we've been arguing about after the deed is done. If you give an RP chance to talk you down (Ive seen many players who won't) then we're still in the game.

I'm saying that you RP choice to kill a helpless person who has surrendered could very well lead to my RP choice to leave the goup. How is yours RP and mine is not?

Execution is not murder, but we're talking vengeance here, which, to my mind, is.

Charcters who slay those who surrender would very quickly gain a reputation for that. That would lead to noone surrendering to you regardless of the case. How much intel do you then lose.

Each situation is different and should be judged by each of us on a case by case basis. There are some who say they always kill those who surrender to them. Theyve made a choice there that has little to do with RP.

Of course once the blow is swung that's different. Nor do I think it's realistic to execute every single NPC who surrenders ever. And if a character does without remorse, you would be within your rights to steer clear of them. My paladin would try to redeem them (though that's me, and sometimes the players of such characters have no real RP desires).

My issue was that the OP seemed distraught that someone killed a prisoner, but never mentioned trying to talk it out, or explaining to the other character why this is wrong.

I can see reasons why a player would do this other than being a prick is all. Granted it's possible he/she was doing it just to do it.

I just prefer that in-game solutions are tried first. Even if the coup de grace is swung you can express disgust in character. You can explain why this is an action you find repugnant. Maybe you can convince a character not to swing next time. Maybe not.

It's fair to not want to work with someone if they show an unrepentant pattern, but the society might still fling you together. As long as the player isn't trying to ruin your fun, play it out. Two people who have to work together but hate it.

If you...

Agreed

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

cblome59 wrote:


That is completely your option, and I respect that choice. Just respect mine for walking away. We get to choose where our lines are. And we are going to play with people of different moral levels. My line is murder.

So long as you're not expecting the player who brought a cleric of an evil god to follow the same morality you do then I respect your choice, I just thinking you'll be walking away from a lot of tables! :-)

As a DM the consequences should be relevant and proportionate, not just a kick back because they didn't like it personally. If my character kills a prisoner in the middle of the Osirion desert I expect the paladin to report back to the Pathfinders in detail and I will defend myself to them. If the paladin reports me to the local authorities in Osirion I consider that to be PvP and being a jerk. In part, that's because I'm unable to stop the paladin from doing so by the PvP rules, which is unfair. Should I be allowed to notify the temple of Norgorber, or my faction head if it was a faction mission, and get the paladin assassinated before he says anything?

If the authorities happened to catch me for sensible in-game reasons ("where did that body come from?"), then it's a fair cop and I have no issue with that. My character will of course (initiative!), but as a player I'd be fine.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Stormfriend wrote:
cblome59 wrote:


That is completely your option, and I respect that choice. Just respect mine for walking away. We get to choose where our lines are. And we are going to play with people of different moral levels. My line is murder.

So long as you're not expecting the player who brought a cleric of an evil god to follow the same morality you do then I respect your choice, I just thinking you'll be walking away from a lot of tables! :-)

As a DM the consequences should be relevant and proportionate, not just a kick back because they didn't like it personally. If my character kills a prisoner in the middle of the Osirion desert I expect the paladin to report back to the Pathfinders in detail and I will defend myself to them. If the paladin reports me to the local authorities in Osirion I consider that to be PvP and being a jerk. In part, that's because I'm unable to stop the paladin from doing so by the PvP rules, which is unfair. Should I be allowed to notify the temple of Norgorber, or my faction head if it was a faction mission, and get the paladin assassinated before he says anything?

If the authorities happened to catch me for sensible in-game reasons ("where did that body come from?"), then it's a fair cop and I have no issue with that. My character will of course (initiative!), but as a player I'd be fine.

I agree with most of what you say here save for the reporting to the authorities. As always, the situaion matters, but as long as it doesn't interfere with the PFS mission (which in many cases it would) I would have no issue with it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

When I say I normally kill surrendered prisoners its because they represent a threat, both immediately on release and if they find me later. I allow them to surrender to give them a chance to explain. If they've been coerced then I'll let them go, but it had better be a damed good reason given they started the fight in the first place.

I'm also more than happy to let another character talk me down, but the reason needs to be just as good (I'm a bit lenient on that if I suspect they're under orders to spare his life). Even my good characters take the view that if the enemy attacked us, what's to stop them attacking someone else? Sometimes executing a prisoner is just the best thing to do, it has nothing to do with vengeance. Do you really think a life in prison in Golarion would produce a reformed individual? Maybe in very rare cases, but it's just as likely to turn them into more heinous criminals.

Execution of clearly guilty enemies (they attacked us) is efficient and effective. We won't get a reputation as they're dead; how are they going to tell anyone? Yes, I know, speak with dead - but how often does that happen? If anything it's the ones we let go that will spread the reputation, which will be for mercy. History is written by the winners - or at least those that live long enough to write it.

The pathfinders know different of course as they get a collection of reports, but they've never complained...

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Stormfriend wrote:

When I say I normally kill surrendered prisoners its because they represent a threat, both immediately on release and if they find me later. I allow them to surrender to give them a chance to explain. If they've been coerced then I'll let them go, but it had better be a damed good reason given they started the fight in the first place.

I'm also more than happy to let another character talk me down, but the reason needs to be just as good (I'm a bit lenient on that if I suspect they're under orders to spare his life). Even my good characters take the view that if the enemy attacked us, what's to stop them attacking someone else? Sometimes executing a prisoner is just the best thing to do, it has nothing to do with vengeance. Do you really think a life in prison in Golarion would produce a reformed individual? Maybe in very rare cases, but it's just as likely to turn them into more heinous criminals.

Execution of clearly guilty enemies (they attacked us) is efficient and effective. We won't get a reputation as they're dead; how are they going to tell anyone? Yes, I know, speak with dead - but how often does that happen? If anything it's the ones we let go that will spread the reputation, which will be for mercy. History is written by the winners - or at least those that live long enough to write it.

The pathfinders know different of course as they get a collection of reports, but they've never complained...

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that you shouldn't be surprised if characters (and players) take offense to said actions and decide to do something about it. In PFS their options are limited, and often the best way to deal with it is to walk away. If i'm the one with the issue, I'll go.

Doing something like this is going to strike a lot of people as wrong. It's going to strike a lot of people as just fine. It nudges that border between right and wrong for many of us a little to closely. The RP of it will help either diffuse the situation or call for a more drastic choice. For us RPers out there, these kinds of moments can make or break the game. I would love to RP this situation out with any of you, but, depending on the situation, things may turn dark very quickly. *shrug* To each their own.

BTW, it's been a pleasure debating this topic.

5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson

One of my Living Greyhawk characters was a very lawful cleric who threatened to strike another party member to stop him from looting a good-aligned temple. It was in character, but the other player and I agreed that the two characters would probably refuse to adventure together in the future. I generated a different PC for games with that guy.

Similarly, if your character is "extreme" in some way, it's best to develop a second character who isn't so hard to deal with. Not every party wants to adventure with a priest of Rovagug, a suspected cannibal, a narrow-minded inquisitor, a lunatic, or a bloodthirsty berserker.

We can see how the Society might keep such folks around ("He's good with his hands..."), but some Pathfinders just aren't compatible on a team together.

5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson

Stormfriend wrote:
We're not talking about characters running around killing innocent peasants who happen to be in the way - that would be evil. We're talking about killing someone who was trying to kill them a few seconds ago.

I've had characters who angrily refused to accept a foe's surrender, ordering him to "pick your sword back up and fight me, you murderous dog."

Stormfriend wrote:
The same goes for people targetted in faction missions. Just because they're not attacking someone right now doesn't mean they're little innocent angels. Sometimes the law can execute these people, sometimes it can't reach them but the punishment would be the same. Sometimes the law protects them but there are groups who feel they should be punished anyway.

Pathfinders should use sound judgment when carrying out faction missions. Their faction's leaders could have been misinformed or may not know the current situation. The PCs would be wise to bring honor to their nation and its ideals, not just mindlessly curry favor with their immediate superiors. Sometimes delivering a villain to face harsh justice is as good as landing the killing blow yourself.

GMs should use discretion when considering the factions' reaction to the PCs decisions. Someone might fail to literally fulfil their mission, but accomplish their faction's goals another way. As an example, suppose that a murderous traitor was supposed to be killed, but was instead turned over to authorities with proof of his crimes. When he faces the hangman's noose, the faction's goal has been accomplished.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Sir_Wulf wrote:


Pathfinders should use sound judgment when carrying out faction missions. Their faction's leaders could have been misinformed or may not know the current situation. The PCs would be wise to bring honor to their nation and its ideals, not just mindlessly curry favor with their immediate superiors.

Only characters who care about honour should follow this line. I have a Taldan wizard who does favours for access to magic stuff and is completely amoral. I have another Taldan character who is being blackmailed by her faction into completing missions, so she does them literally wherever possible and if it gets the Taldans into trouble then she's quite happy with that.

My Andoran lawyer will always aim to uphold the honour of Andoran exactly as you mention, but that's because she's an honourable character, as far as lawyers go.

As a DM if the faction requires you to do something then I won't be handing out points if you don't do it. There may be a very good reason the faction want a target silenced and not given an opportunity to spread his secrets to the authorities. if it says jump, then you jump, or you fail in your mission. The faction leader may well have been misinformed, but it's foolish in the extreme to assume he told the character everything, and all the reasons for making his decision.

4/5

JP Chapleau wrote:

@Jason S: Remember that you are a Pathfinder FIRST, and a faction member SECOND.

JP

Only 1 of my 5 characters would share that opinion.


uncleden wrote:
JP Chapleau wrote:

@Jason S: Remember that you are a Pathfinder FIRST, and a faction member SECOND.

JP

Only 1 of my 5 characters would share that opinion.

This is being debated on another thread on whether you need a faction

its not an opinion its written down somewhere

1 of my PFS characters loves her faction, the other tolerates it, and the other wishes the 5 factions would just back off

have played at quite a few tables where, if you hadnt all just paid for the 4 hour slot, youd say.....actually my character would no longer continue to adventure with that PC

they should ban CN so people stop using it as a shield...its been the new evil ever since ive played D&D and thats many decades

2/5 *

thenovalord wrote:
its not an opinion its written down somewhere

You need a faction, but the guy before you was saying that his characters are faction driven first, Pathfinders second. Which is the opposite of JP.

thenovalord wrote:
they should ban CN so people stop using it as a shield...its been the new evil ever since ive played D&D and thats many decades

I have a CN character (my highest level character actually) and I don't play him "evil". I think the problem is with the people in your area controlling characters.

Doesn't matter anyway, you can call yourself whatever you want, you still can't be evil in PFOS.

There is probably some official way to handle evil characters, the problem is everyone has a different version of what's evil. Some people on this board have some ridiculous ideas as to what is good and evil. Using their definition of evil, every sniper or rogue is evil.

1 to 50 of 53 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Gaming Enjoyment All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.