How tolerant are players supposed to be of each other's characters


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 5/5

I understand that Pathfinders are expected to explore, report and cooperate:

“The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races creeds and motivations. At any given time a pathfinder lodge might house a fiend summoning Chelaxian, an Andren Freedom fighter, and Antiquites- obsessed, necromancer, and a friendly halfing reconteur.”

Page three Seeker of secrets.

How tolerant and respectful are pathfinders expected to be of each other’s creeds etc?

How does this extend to he PFS gaming table. If you get a Chexian fiend summoning sorcerer (LN), and an Andoran Paladin of Iomadae( LG) , and a Qadiran Cleric of Sarenrae (NG), a Taldan Rogue (CN), and a Osirion Necormancer (N) in the same table?

How tolerant are they expected to be of each other?

Is the Paladin expected to keep quiet about the sorcerer summoning fiends? Is the sorcerer expected to keep quiet about the Paladin smiting a devil and killing it?

If the party is attacked with a pack of zombies, Is the cleric of Sarenrae, while channeling positive energy to harm undead, expected to “leave” the Necromancer’s pet zombies alone?

What about the necromancer? Is he expected to refrain from excavating “fresh materiel” from a grave, ( Ie digging up the bones) while around the cleric of sarenrae?

What are your thoughts?


The cleric and the paladin would only tolerate the necromancer and fiend summoner if they are working together to defeat a greater evil.The rogue probably is good around anyone,though he might be frowned upon a bit by the cleric and paladin.

5/5

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

I understand that Pathfinders are expected to explore, report and cooperate:

“The Society places no moral obligations upon its members, so agents span all races creeds and motivations. At any given time a pathfinder lodge might house a fiend summoning Chelaxian, an Andren Freedom fighter, and Antiquites- obsessed, necromancer, and a friendly halfing reconteur.”

Page three Seeker of secrets.

...

What are your thoughts?

Players are always expexted to follow the don't be a jerk rule - always.

It is ok to have in game rivalry and banter, but players are supposed to cooperate and make sure all can have fun.
The breadth of character options in PFS also means players can not play zealots/fanatics of any sort. The Pathfinder Society is not a horde of ruthless grave robbers or a holy crusade; it is something in between.

To adress your examples above:

ElyasRavenwood wrote:
Is the Paladin expected to keep quiet about the sorcerer summoning fiends?

No. The paladin can preach and scold the summoner; however the paladin should not directly interfere with the summoner or his summoned minions unless these directly violate the PFS's rules or directly target innocents.

ElyasRavenwood wrote:
Is the sorcerer expected to keep quiet about the Paladin smiting a devil and killing it?

No. The sorcerer can preach and scold the paladin; but if they are not the summoners minions the paladin can do as s/he sees fit.

ElyasRavenwood wrote:
If the party is attacked with a pack of zombies, Is the cleric of Sarenrae, while channeling positive energy to harm undead, expected to “leave” the Necromancer’s pet zombies alone?

Yes, unless the necromancer has given the paladin axpress concent to include the pet zombie. However, if harming another players minion is absolutely necesary in order to save PC lives, so be it.

ElyasRavenwood wrote:
What about the necromancer? Is he expected to refrain from excavating “fresh materiel” from a grave, ( Ie digging up the bones) while around the cleric of sarenrae?

No.

IMHO

Dark Archive 3/5 **

From an in character perspective, I think you summed it up: Pathfinders are expected to tolerate each others methods for the sake of the mission, which is often for a greater good. This doesn't mean there won't be bumps and arguments, of course.

Thing is, I've often found this issue in PFS play to become one of two (or more) characters that are diametrically opposed on an issue in concept sitting down at a table together and deciding that the other PC needs to clean up their act/loosen up or leave the table. That is, it's just as much an out-of-character issue.

I generally find it all works best if each party suspends their disbelief as necessary so we can all have fun. No player wants to sit down and have another player tell them their character can't be played the way they want to play it. As long as one PC isn't doing things to blatantly antagonize the one they are opposed to, everyone should be fine. This may mean you can't go digging up graves to animate your dead and might have to stick to non-sentient/humanoid creatures.

Plus, I think the best part about PFS play is having PCs at a table who have very different viewpoints. Listening to Andorans and Chelaxians make snide comments to each other throughout a module is always fun role play =D.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Thank you for your posts.

I have had allot of fun playing both Andoran characters and my Cheliax characters. I find the banter between factions is all in good fun. For example, if I am playing an Andoran character, and I am asked about Cheliax, I would cheerfully comment, that the Cheliaxian government can be summed up in two words: Medieval Nazis. Or if I am playing my Chelaxian character, I will happily toss in comments like “rebel scum” when referring to Andoran’s or “ we don’t have to do anything about your quaint “experiment in Democracy”. All we have to do is wait until Andoran collapses into the chaos that is Galt.

One of my more memorable moments while playing Lyrics of Extinction, came from a an encounter where one of the other party members, a “living Monolith” who worshiped Zon Kuthon, had to explain his faith to an NPC in order to gain admittance to a ruin we needed to get to. I was playing a NG Mystic Theurge Pharasma, and one of my friends at the table was playing a NG cleric of Sarenrae. We both decided the time was ripe for a little “converting” and we tried to convince the other players character, that worshiping another god besides Zon Kuthon, might give his character the peace he was looking for. I think we might of suggested Desna, Sheylin Sarenrae, Pharasma, it was a fun moment.

But I think Diego Winterbog you have summed it up- don’t be a jerk.

I agree with your assessment about the Paladin and the Devil Binder. They can both have a lively discussion, but the paladin shouldn’t attack one of the Devil Binder’s summoned devils, unless the summoned devil decides to “molest” a nearby merchant or commoner who is not directly engaged in combat with the party.

I also agree with your assessment about the necromancer and the cleric of sarenrae has to choose between saving lives and the undead, well that would be an easy choice for the cleric.

Concerning the Necromancer and fresh materiel from a grave (I.e. digging up a corps) around a Cleric of Sarenrae, I happen to disagree with you. I think actions of the Necromancer would fall into the category of being a jerk here. He is doing something that is directly provocative of the other character.

If I were playing my cleric of Sarenrae, my mystic theurge of Pharasma or a paladin, I would first try to diffuse the situation verbally. I would first ask the other player to have his character stop messing with the grave, to put the body back. I would let him know before hand, if he was going to exhume a corpse and animate it, I would then try to destroy it.

The tolerance and respect goes both ways in my opinion. Just as a paladin of Iomedae and a Chelaxian Devil binder, are supposed to find a way to work together, and while some banter is fun, the paladin shouldn’t smite the bound devil, just because he is there, and the devil binder, shouldn’t have his bound devil go on a rampage in front of the paladin. I think the same could be said for a necromancer and a cleric of sarenrae. While the necromancer might be Osirion, and talk about “death” only being the beginning, and there might be some fun banter between players, I don’t think the cleric should just destroy the necromancer’s zombies, just because they are there. If said zombies begin muttering “brains” and start dining upon some nearby school children, unfortunalty that zombie will quickly be toasted.

On the same token the necromancer, shouldn’t in my opinion, animate the dead in front of other characters like paladins or clerics of gods like pharasma or sarenrae that would be disrespectful of well the dead for starters, and the beliefs of the cleric of sarenrae, and the paladin. I think the respect and tolerance needs to go both ways.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

This is definitely are hard one to adjudicate. Most of us are used to the traditional roles/attitudes of various classes (paladin, good clerics, etc). They are, to varying degrees, zealots, and act as their conscious directs. Of course their actions are "pushed" by the tenets of their faith in which they believe. The character would not try to find a loophole because the player wants to maintain a suspension of disbelief.

However, that said, the Pathfinder Society is a voluntary organization. And to join, you have to swear to observe their tenets. Included in that, is COOPERATE. You know going in that you are not to interfere with the actions and business dealings of other members. Realistically, if your character is a hard-core, bible-thumping, paladin of Iomedae, the player has to come to grips with the fact that, at times, their character will be working alongside others with questionable intentions.

Without getting into the argument of what is/is not the appropriate way to play a LG/NG character, especially a pally, players need to keep this in mind when they design zealot characters. It can create a lot of tension and poor experiences at the gaming table if you try to force your opinion of morality on another. Especially if that includes destroying their "resources" even if that includes an undead minion.

OTOH, extremely "immoral" characters can do the same thing. So it needs to be a balancing act. Raising a slain, evil mercenary as a zombie might get by, but raising a dead child from "Black Waters" or a slain party member is not good form.

As I said, the main thing to remember is that your character had/has a choice, and knowing the membership of the society, still chose to join their ranks. Ask yourself, if another character does something that is an affront to your beliefs, and you confront them, even forcing them to do as you say or destroying their "property," isn't that also a violation of your beliefs? After all, you willingly swore allegiance to the society and its tenets. Aren't you violating that oath? Oooh, what a slippery slope we have. :-)

YMMV

Liberty's Edge

Bob Jonquet wrote:


OTOH, extremely "immoral" characters can do the same thing. So it needs to be a balancing act. Raising a slain, evil mercenary as a zombie might get by, but raising a dead child from "Black Waters" or a slain party member is not good form.

For now I am only reading on Society play so I can be missing something, but "raising a slain party member as a zombie" wouldn't be more than bad form?

After you have animated a creature as an undead bringing him back to life is harder, Raise dead will no more suffice and you need Resurrection, so a larger expenditure of resources.

Silver Crusade 2/5

This is always a sore subject for some people. I myself play my character's as my characters. If I am playing my paladin and there is some demon summoner I will for the sake of the mission not smite him or do direct harm unto him as my characters oaths to the pathfinder society prevent that.

But, he is a demon summoner and my Character will not be his friend or help him in any fashion more then he is required to. For example say the summoner is hurt and comes to my paladin asking for some healing or such. My character will ask him to swear that he will change his ways and no longer deal with such creatures. The character will of course lie and my paladin will heal him...that time. The next time he summons a demon or something evil like that, my paladin with inform him that he had broken his oath. And the next time that character comes looking for healing my Paladin will simply inform him in some way or another to go ask his demon for healing. And he will not heal him ever again.

And for an example that really occurred, I was playing my Rogue Character during Shades of Ice 2. We where in a military run city and had been informed before that there are guards all over the place and they respond quickly to problems, and even quicker to problems involving other guards.
Our Characters where sneaking through the city to get to a location and guards found us, and demanded we surrender to them. Most of my party decided that it was a good idea to attack them. So we started fighting the guards who then blew whistles to summon more guards. My character fought the first group with his party, but after they died and we were informed more guards where just a few rounds away, and more would be coming after them. My party decided they where gonna start moving bodies and loading them up on horses and taking clothes..etc..all this crap. And my Rogue looked at all of them and was like..yeah..not our mission...so umm you all have a good time with the guards. And he used his rope of climbing, climbed up a building and ran away across the rope tops, telling the party he would be waiting until sunrise at the location they where supposed to be going to. Long story short, he just left the party cause he was not willing to fight city guards and possibly die because others actions. One of the party members ended up dieing because of this, cause more and more guards swarmed the group and he go ganged up on.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Bob Jonquet Twilight knight, Diego Rossi, and Edward Dengelis,

First thank you all for your thoughts and I appreciate your points of view,

Bob Jonquet, while I agree this is a hard one to adjudicate, and one could go around and around the mulberry bush concerning how paladins and clerics should act.

While I agree the Pathfinder Society is a voluntary organization, one thing I thing should be important to point out, is particularly in the case of divinely oriented characters, say inquisitors, clerics and paladins, is that their promises to the pathfinder society are secondary to whatever oaths the swear to the powers they serve. In the game, these are the only characters that risk loosing their “supernatural” miracles, abilities, spells etc, based on how they behave, and the choices that they make.

Now while I agree the default Archetype for some of these character classes is that of the zealots. I don’t thing what I am asking for is zealous in nature. I am simply saying that those players who have characters who animate the dead, or summon devils and demons show some consideration towards other players and characters at the table.

I disagree that a paladin or goodly aligned cleric, who is uncomfortable with characters that animate the dead, or summon devils and demons, is forcing his morality upon others. In the context of the Pathfinder game, I do not think these practices are “morally relative”. With the alignment system, evil and chaos are quantifiable and they exist, and can be objectively observed. Evil and chaos are part of the fabric of creatures from the outer planes, and part of the fabric of the game. The animation of the dead with negative energy is defined as an evil act, and the summoning of creatures that are lawful evil, and chaotic evil, from their outer realms into the prime materiel is at best a questionable act.

Now I am not advocating the turning over of a devil binder to an angry mob of peasants, so he can be hung, nor am I saying that my characters should withhold healing unless these characters “ change their ways”. Although I admit it’s tempting.

All I am suggesting, is that players who run such characters, have some consideration towards those who are playing other characters like goodly aligned clerics paladins etc…I suppose as someone who often plays goodly aligned characters, I am tired of having my characters making allowances for characters who are necromancers and devil binders, etc, and then not having any allowances made in return.

Diego Rossi, yes having your slain character’s corpse animated by an animate dead spell would be “bad form”. I am not quite sure how I would react to something like that.

Edward Deangelis I agree this is a sore point.

Luckily this is only a game, and well we don’t need to take it too seriously.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

ElyasRavenwood wrote:
All I am suggesting, is that players who run such characters, have some consideration towards those who are playing other characters like goodly aligned clerics paladins etc…I suppose as someone who often plays goodly aligned characters, I am tired of having my characters making allowances for characters who are necromancers and devil binders, etc, and then not having any allowances made in return.

Being someone who plays more good characters vs. "evil" ones, I sympathize. But I am wondering what kind of allowances are you looking for?

The very nature of playing a moral or "good" character often includes an increased level of hardship. If it was easy being a divinely inspired character, everyone would do it. IMO, the benefits are awesome.

The "life" is a constant challenge to resist the lure of sin and depravity that surrounds you. Sometimes, you need to evangelize and try to turn people from their "evil" ways. Other times, especially in terms of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" you may need to overlook (but not condone) a "lesser" evil in order to focus on defeating the "major" evil that is wreaking havoc. A priest may need the support of the people in order to "do good works" and if he turns the prostitutes over to the authorities ever time he sees one, he will become a pariah and unable to tend his flock. Perhaps, over time, he can stop their "evil ways." But in the meantime, he must tolerate (but not condone) their activities for a longer goal of saving their soul. Or something like that ;-)

I agree that in terms of IC, you can give the character the chance to repent their ways and if not, you do not have to provide them with direct assistance.

And sure the character has greater oaths taken towards their faith, deity, whatever, but the oaths to the society are still binding. Leaving the society wouldn't create the need for absolution or anything, but it was still a choice. If the "good" character is too zealous, it may not be appropriate for society play.

I think as GM/organizers, we need to watch what the players do and not be afraid to tell them, "what you are doing is an evil act too egregious for PFS. You run the risk of an alignment change which would prevent your character from being legal for play." That warning has served me well the couple of times I felt I needed to use it. Case...Doing non-lethal damage to capture an enemy for questioning, then executing them after said info is gained, is not the act of a good, or even neutral character.

I observed an interesting situation where a paladin did not actively try to interfere with an undead-creating companion. But when the local guard routinely stopped them and asked, "Who are you? What's your business in town" he proceeded to introduce all the party members in turn. He describing said character as "Bob, master of death and creator of undead." Needless to say, the guard where very interested in that character. :-)

Sovereign Court 2/5

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

One could also ask why a PC so strongly attached to his/her faith/creed/order/alignment has joined the Pathfinder Society in the first place. We're all at least partly treasure hunters and scallywags. In a sense, I almost see the self-serving Neutral-cause-she-can't-be-Evil fitting in better than a righteous LG paladin. In the end, in a paladin or character committed to some other cause has joined the PFS, it's because he or she (or his or her superiors) have decided it benefits a greater cause, in which case they will put up with almost anything, no matter how distasteful they find it.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

I think the overall message here is that, rather than appeal to "I'm just playing my character" rationales, make a character that DOES get along with others despite conflicts based upon religious affiliation, alignment, etc. Then, you can play your character AND get along. :)

Silver Crusade 5/5

All good points Twilight knight

I suppose the sort of consideration I am looking for may be un-realistic.

For example last Wednesday I played in The Darkest Vengeance

Spoiler:
with my LN Cleric of Asmodues (negative energy channeler). I was very careful with my Neg energy channeling, to make sure I never harmed my other party members with the burst. I could count out 5 people, with selective channeling (myself with a 18 cha and +4 cha modifier)

We had a prisoner dilemma. During the fight my character had stabilized the unconscious thieves because he realized, if they were dead they couldn’t talk. (he was 4th level) We fought them into unconsciousness, and then tied them up. Oh there was one conscious one who was leading us around.

We went over the various options: letting them go, killing them while they were bound, or turning them over to the authorities. Both the Paladin and my character were against letting the thieves go, and the Paladin didn’t want to kill the prisoners in cold blood. I suggested we turn them over to the authorities after we had completed our mission. This was something both the Paladin and My character could agree with. I think my character was the one to knock out the conscious one.


There was of course some friendly banter between us “ see the cleric of asmodesus and the paladin are agreeing. See Paladin that wasn’t so hard” and stuff like that.

In that situation, rather then think oh my god we have a paladin, how can we make him walk around the block while we kill the prisoners and try to fool him into thinking they fell on their swords, we worked with the paladin to find a solution that everyone was comfortable with. Now I realize this may not always be possible to find a solution everyone can be comfortable with, but I would at least like some attempt in good faith to be made.

Spoiler:

Later on when faced with a Dark Stalker, and his deeper darkness, being 4th level we had no access to a daylight spell. Initially I was going to summon some small fire elementals with summon monster 2 to try and light things up, but the DM suggested I summon a pair of Lemurs. I did so, and their dark vision was able to help us pin point the Dark Creeper.

I suppose what I would have liked to have said to the paladin was “ paladin I am planning to summon some Lemurs, I know this may be unsettling to you, but I think our battle might hinge on their ability to see in this magical darkness”.


In terms of consideration, I would like something like that. Perhaps its too much to ask.

I am tired of the paladin or good aligned cleric as being seen as either the “kill joy” or one we have to fool if we want to get away with something.

I hope that makes sense.

I agree being a moral or good character is more difficult and that “life is a constant challenge” I don’t have any problem helping out the waif, the prostitute etc. But the “Gadriam Lamm” behind the pick-pocketing ring is another matter.

In terms of a character being too zealous, there is usually a middle ground

Spoiler:

While playing in to scale the dragon, the main quest objective was to exhume a corps, and drag the bag of bones back to Absalom so a speak with dead spell could be cast on it. Personally I felt this was a) poorly written because the minimum level was 5th where PCs have access to raise dead. B) It made me feel personally uncomfortable. And C) I didn’t think my Inquisitor of Iomedae would be ok with this either.

Before the game I talked to the GM to express my misgivings, (I had run the game for him almost nine months before hand) a friend of mine, Omega Man, I think is his avatar on the Paizo boards, just before the game, and he came up with a good compromise…. my character wouldn’t need to take part in the exhumation or the transport of the bones, but the venture captain asked if he would be willing to act as guide, scout, and sentry for the group. It worked.


Your story about the undead creator and the paladin and the city guard is an amusing one. I may keep that idea for myself.

Thanks.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Elyas:

Spoiler:
Deeper Darkness blocks darkvision :)

Silver Crusade 5/5

K Neil Shackleton,

Spoiler:

thank you, The GM suggested I summoned the Lemurs for their Dark Vision. I think the GM, was trying to find a way to help us deal with the Dark Stalker, and he was trying to avoid a Total Party kill, because none of us were 5th level, and we simply didn't have anything that could deal with the Dark Stalker and his deeper darkness at will. As it was, we barely put him down and most of us were dropped into unconsciousness

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Elyas/Neil,

Spoiler:
Actually, the lemure summoning was a good suggestion since it has the "see in darkness" ability and works in any level of darkness.

Silver Crusade 5/5

thank you

Grand Lodge 3/5

Ah, cool! Thanks Bob.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:


Being someone who plays more good characters vs. "evil" ones, I sympathize. But I am wondering what kind of allowances are you looking for?

Allowances for the fact that PFS Campaign Rule Guidelines specifically prohibit player vs. player combat. In a home campaign a Paladin could (and would be expected to) take appropriate action if an evil member of her party pushed her buttons too far. PFS Society play forbids that on a player level, not character level. It essentially falls under the "Don't be a jerk rule" that all campaign players are expected to abide by, including players of such necromancers.

Also the necromancer must keep in mind that evil characters are not allowed to players AT ALL. So not only is it allowance to players of Paladins it's recognition that PFS has a different sandbox boundary than that a home campaign might set.

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Just a note, 'cause it's drivin' me crazy.

Lemure: The least of devils, resembling a roiling puddle of flesh.

Lemur: an order of googly-eyed arboreal primates native to Madagascar.

Although both names come from the Roman word for spirit.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

LazarX wrote:
It essentially falls under the "Don't be a jerk rule" that all campaign players are expected to abide by, including players of such necromancers.

And players of such paladins.

As PFS doesn't allow evil characters but does allow summoning undead and using negative energy then it seems fair to assume that neither of those is evil, even if they may be considered distasteful. The paladin is perfectly entitled to object in-character, but the only thing the necromancer should be prevented from doing is the sort of thing that wouldn't be allowed in PFS anyway. In other words, so long as everyone is cooperating and abiding by the rules of the game, I don't see any OOC conflict unless the player of the paladin is being a jerk.

I still can't figure out why a religious fanatic devoted to certain ideals would join a neutral organisation run by masked individuals who's ultimate objectives are unknown though. Nor why the society would let them in if they were likely to turn over fellow members to the authorities for breaking a few laws. Surely they had to give an oath to serve the society when they joined?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Stormfriend wrote:


I still can't figure out why a religious fanatic devoted to certain ideals would join a neutral organisation run by masked individuals who's ultimate objectives are unknown though. Nor why the society would let them in if they were likely to turn over fellow members to the authorities for breaking a few laws. Surely they had to give an oath to serve the society when they joined?

Because like many, you misunderstand about what makes a Paladin. It's not being a religous fanatic because you can have those of any alignment, any creed, any belief. Fanatics by thier nature, seldom fit themselves into the role of Paladins.

Quite simply, being a Paladin means following a specific subset of the heroic ideal. Religion at most is only part of it.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic

Chris Mortika wrote:

Just a note, 'cause it's drivin' me crazy.

Lemure: The least of devils, resembling a roiling puddle of flesh.

Lemur: an order of googly-eyed arboreal primates native to Madagascar.

Although both names come from the Roman word for spirit.

Although some of the pictures seem to be broken this is still a nice article about the Lemur(e).

Silver Crusade 3/5

Hmmm...

Chelaxian Wizard with a Lemur familiar? (Just to confuse people)

"No not a Lemure, a Lemur!"

Silver Crusade 5/5

Lazer X

Well said. when i think of a paladin, one of the things i think of in addition to the "questing knight" like sir Galahad etc, is a Jedi knight like Obiwan Kenobi, or Luke Sky walker.

One could also say the character Arron Hotchner of criminal minds could be a paladin,

But i digress.

How tolerant are our characters supposed to be of each other?

this will be an interesting question as the new factions are introduced.

The Scarnzi from my limited understanding, seem to me to be like a mafia.

There is also the shadow lodge. Should our characters be dragging shadow lodge members back

Absolom in chains?

I guess it was summed up earler: Don't be a jerk.

heh a Lemur familiar that is priceless :D

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ElyasRavenwood wrote:

How tolerant are our characters supposed to be of each other?

Tolerant to the point where you don't seek to interfere with faction missions. And that you work together to fulfill whatever mission your friendly Venture-Captain sends you on. (that's a campaign requirement) Because no matter what else you might be, you have one thing in common... you are Pathfinders.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

LazarX wrote:
ElyasRavenwood wrote:

How tolerant are our characters supposed to be of each other?

Tolerant to the point where you don't seek to interfere with faction missions. And that you work together to fulfill whatever mission your friendly Venture-Captain sends you on. (that's a campaign requirement) Because no matter what else you might be, you have one thing in common... you are Pathfinders.

THIS! IS! SKYREACH!

The Exchange 4/5

LazarX wrote:
Tolerant to the point where you don't seek to interfere with faction missions. And that you work together to fulfill whatever mission your friendly Venture-Captain sends you on. (that's a campaign requirement) Because no matter what else you might be, you have one thing in common... you are Pathfinders.

What organized campaign are YOU playing? The times I meet a friendly VC are few and far between (most of them are written to act like complete jerks). The times I meet a competent VC are even fewer (I'm looking at you VC Brackett, you incompetent #%&!).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

LazarX wrote:

Because like many, you misunderstand about what makes a Paladin. It's not being a religous fanatic because you can have those of any alignment, any creed, any belief. Fanatics by thier nature, seldom fit themselves into the role of Paladins.

Quite simply, being a Paladin means following a specific subset of the heroic ideal. Religion at most is only part of it.

Fanatics are people who refuse to compromise. If there's one class that specialises in refusing to compromise it's the paladin. Not all paladins to be sure, but its the class most likely to swing that way.

I could play a Holy Liberator who believes that all laws are designed to bind folks into slavery and refuses to play with any Lawful characters at the table unless they reign in their lawful tendencies. For example I could ask the GM to restrict any lawful spells, bar other characters from handing prisoners over to the authorities, and insist that no-one be held to their word.

Or I could play a pacifist who objected to all forms of violence and ask the GM to put a ban on weapons for that game, because I wasn't happy travelling with characters who used them. That's no more absurd than a paladin who refuses to work with necromancers because they summon undead or cast evil spells. I'd just be following a different heroic ideal and expecting everyone else to fall into line.

I don't mind in-character objections at all, although if the paladin destroyed another character's undead minion as a matter of principle then that would be no different to the pacifist continually disarming the paladin in mid-combat, or stealing his sword and hiding it.

My point is people should be entitled to play whatever they want to play so long as they're not breaking the rules of PFS. When a character joins the society they need to suck it up and travel with whoever they're told to travel with. If that doesn't meet their lofty standards then maybe they shouldn't be in the society?

I should probably mention that I've never seen anyone object to another character at the table, I've only seen it mentioned in threads here, but then the opportunities to summon undead just got a lot bigger in UM... :-)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Joseph Caubo wrote:
What organized campaign are YOU playing? The times I meet a friendly VC are few and far between (most of them are written to act like complete jerks).

You're mistaking their 'motivational' speeches for dislike. They love us really...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Stormfriend wrote:
** stuff ***

IF the greater options for undead summoning is what started this latest version of the question remember one thing.

Summoning undead in public areas is liable to give you bigger things to worry about than what the paladin in the party is going to say about it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

LazarX wrote:
Stormfriend wrote:
** stuff ***

IF the greater options for undead summoning is what started this latest version of the question remember one thing.

Summoning undead in public areas is liable to give you bigger things to worry about than what the paladin in the party is going to say about it.

I don't know if undead were referenced specifically in this thread, it just came up a lot in all the other 'tolerance' threads. Or perhaps that should be 'intolerance' threads...

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

I hope every paladin remembers one important thing...you CHOSE to join the society. They didn't draft you. You know what you're in for and the kinds of companions you will be traveling with. If that upsets your delicate sensibilities, then you need to rescind your membership and go smite evil somewhere else. I would say the same thing to any character who wants/needs to force their sense of morality onto others.

As players we have a responsibility to create and role-play cooperative characters. If your PC is going to be divisive towards other PC's...DON'T DO THAT! If you want to be that way towards NPC's for effect, fine. Just don't be stoopid towards player-characters.

The Exchange 4/5

Thankfully a Paladin was not around to watch me animate the corpse of a noblewoman in Almas.

/I think Necromancers get a bad wrap.
//I'm just giving people another shot at life.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Joseph Caubo wrote:

Thankfully a Paladin was not around to watch me animate the corpse of a noblewoman in Almas.

/I think Necromancers get a bad wrap.
//I'm just giving people another shot at life.

Reminds me of a table

Necromancer: I don't get why the villagers don't like me.

Table: You raised Grandma

Necromancer: And used her to save the town, I'm a hero.

Table: YOU RAISED GRANDMA!

Silver Crusade 5/5

I’m going to push this discussion another way. Instead of discussing the paladin, cleric of Pharasma, and the cleric of Sarenrae disliking undead, demons Devils etc. How about Torture?

A while ago I was GMing the Pallid Plague.

Spoiler:
There came a point after a ruckus with a wagon load full of poisonous flowers,
the party had on their hands the prisoner dilemma.

One of the players had a character who was a cleric of Zon Kuthon. He described his healings as grinding salt into people’s wounds.

They needed information from the prisoner. Now admittedly it has probably been a little over a year since this game, and my memory may be a little fuzzy.

The player who had the cleric of Zon Kuthon said cheerfully, “ Ok I’m going to begin carving him up” I think he may have said he was cutting something off as well, a hand a foot, I admit I don’t remember. He said this before any suggestions of threats, or intimidation by laying out the implements of torture, or even a query like “ tell me where your mistress is or you loose a thumb”. He just wanted to have his PC carve the NPC up.

The other players at the table were very uncomfortable and a little shocked. They managed to persuade him not to have his character act with such callous cruelty.
I chimed in “ besides such an action would constitute an evil act, and if your character continues to do such things, that would shift your character’s alignment to evil. Since Evilly aligned characters are not allowed in PFS games, you would then be unable to play your character. “ Surprised the player said all right he would not do that.

I had him make an intimidation check to see if he could get the cultist to spill the beans, which he made. (I gave him a healthy bonus, because his character while laying out the knives and sharp and pointy implements was actually intending to use them).

So what do you all think? Should the other players have not interfered and let the guy with the cleric of Zon Kuthon carve up their tied up prisoner?

Or should they have persuaded this player’s character to desist from amputations?

What do you think?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

In character they're perfectly entitled to object, and most characters probably would I suspect (although they might keep quiet initially so as not to spoil the intimidation, only stepping in at the last minute if they thought he was actually going ahead). I was talking about OOC objections to people playing certain classes or using certain class abilities earlier.

I'd draw the distinction between something that is expressly allowed in PFS even if it's 'technically' evil - such as a spell with the evil descriptor (animate dead); and an evil act, which I would think includes torture or murdering innocent people. Having said that, I can't find anything in 3.0.2 that bans evil acts. It specifies characters can't have an evil alignment, but nowhere does it seem to object to torturing or killing innocent people. If a character does it enough to change their alignment then they'd be barred of course, but then we're into the whole 'doing enough good to balance the bad' argument. How many grannies do you have to help across the road before Asmodeus strips you of your clerical abilities? What if they're undead grannies? I really don't want to get into that. :-)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

My opinion is that an overtly, willful, act of evil causes an immediate shift and loss of the character.

Something like capturing a hired mercenary (non-evil alignment), torturing him to get information and then murdering him while still restrained. Especially if you have indicated he would be set free if he talked.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bob Jonquet wrote:

My opinion is that an overtly, willful, act of evil causes an immediate shift and loss of the character.

Something like capturing a hired mercenary (non-evil alignment), torturing him to get information and then murdering him while still restrained. Especially if you have indicated he would be set free if he talked.

What if you have no way to determine whether the bad guy is evil or not? Killing prisoners seems perfectly acceptable to me if they can't prove they're not a threat any more, and no suitable alternative exists. A clean kill is probably less evil then handing them over to the authorities anyway, who'll just torture them and sell them into slavery. We're talking about attempted murderers here, in a world where theft will likely get you hung.

Dark Archive 4/5

Stormfriend wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:

My opinion is that an overtly, willful, act of evil causes an immediate shift and loss of the character.

Something like capturing a hired mercenary (non-evil alignment), torturing him to get information and then murdering him while still restrained. Especially if you have indicated he would be set free if he talked.

What if you have no way to determine whether the bad guy is evil or not? Killing prisoners seems perfectly acceptable to me if they can't prove they're not a threat any more, and no suitable alternative exists. A clean kill is probably less evil then handing them over to the authorities anyway, who'll just torture them and sell them into slavery. We're talking about attempted murderers here, in a world where theft will likely get you hung.

I dont see why in this context; that torturing, then killing someone is evil, if you suspect that the authorities of an area will do the exact same thing?

By that logic, after you got done with the bad guy, some people in this thread would have to go kill the sheriff and his deputies. Morality is itself questionable. Everyone has a unique compass that directs their own sense of whats good and evil.

I'm still new to Pathfinder, but as Cheliax has its own monarchy / system of justice handed down by Asmodeus then people who come from Cheliax, would then believe more evil things to be justifiable, and more good acts to be the negative in a sense yes?

Its a great thread about morality, and what justifies and defines it, but this is a game, and people have often just forgot to say. "I'm not comfortable with this, sorry." Bet that would solve a lot of issues. YMMV.
-SW

Dark Archive

for the question/issue follow the: Just be cool/don't rain on some one else parade/you may need to stand back from time to time.

I and some friends of my play for Cheliax, I run a positive channeling cleric, another friend plays a negative channeling cleric(Asmodeus), very different builds which makes it fun. We are all LN. We are not good. Law men/authorities would be lawful (as long as they follow their laws) it doesn't mean they are good.

"robin hood"(CG) works against law but is "good". Lawful doesn't go hand in hand with good.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Thank you all for your thoughts....i would like to write a longer post, but don't have the time to at the moment.

I find these are interesting questions to chew over.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Morality/alignment and how it manifests in a game is something that will always polarize players. I do not expect anyone to agree with or adopt my views on good vs. evil and law vs. chaos. I only try to relay my concepts to players at my table and they can decide if it's a world they can play in. And I find that sometimes I have to adjust, albeit slightly, for their sake so as to not derail a campaign.

In most instances, I expect that the paladin will have different views than most other character classes. Usually, no other character is as restrictive nor imposing on his/her fellow characters.

I still feel that in an OP environment (especially PFS), the players have a responsibility to create non-confrontational characters. Whether that be necro-voking death priests or holy zealot paladins. If your character is derisive (for good or evil), keep it for your home campaign. In these here parts we expect cooperation. It's in our creed for gawd's sake. :-)

Scarab Sages 3/5

I see this argument pop up from time to time and here is my viewpoint.

No one in the Pathfinder Society made anyone join the Pathfinder Society (although you might make an argument that Cheliax might have twisted someone's arm, blackmailed or any number of threats.) The fact of the matter is that once you walk in the doors and begin training, you know what you are in for. You will be told on no uncertain terms that that not everyone you will be working with is a "good guy". Those that can't work with this are weeded out and I assume that more than a few paladins and clerics have been shown the door before becoming Pathfinders, just as many other types have been for their intolerances.

The factions assume that you can avoid entanglements with other pathfinders to get you missions accomplished.

So when a Paladin has a problem with what another person does, the need to understand that they server a higher goal and need to focus beyond the here and now and work on the big picture, as unclear as that may be.

Sovereign Court

I try to keep it simple.

As long as player actions stay within a PG13 rating then it's fine.

It should also be noted that it has to be equivalent to the protagonists in a PG13 movie. The bad guys can get away with more in movies because they are bad, but you're not going to see the protagonists carving people up. They might rough up a witness, but not go too far.

3/5

it seems to me that it comes down to playing in character. If a necromancer knows its ilegal or at least frowned upon by local laws to summon zombies and such he should be careful in the first place and not do it infront of others. At least not in front of a paladin. Raising dead or summoning a zombie just beacause you can and without regard for what the local law enforcement will do to you seems out of character to me.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The problem lies with classes like the Undead Master where animating one of their key class features takes an eight hour ritual. In many scenarios you won't have time to do that during the adventure, unless you brought it already animated to the table, like a Druids animal companion. Whilst it might be illegal to have an undead companion the alternative would be to tell the player he can't use the most interesting part of his class for a scenario, or even for a level or more, leaving him as a domain-less cleric. The undeath subdomain is truly rubbish.

Whilst the skeleton won't get invited into any dinner parties and should probably be covered up in a cloak when in town I'd just ignore it as a DM otherwise. It's no fun to the player to do otherwise in a short mod that provides no time for preparation.

I seem to remember LG had certain towns where pole arms were banned, so a similar example would be a pole arm master who's not allowed to use pole arms for an entire adventure series. Or magic might be illegal, so spell casters are banned from casting any spells for one or more scenarios. If you're playing a mod set in a dead magic zone at least you'd know what to expect. Maybe scenarios should have warnings on them about which classes aren't viable options?

Sadly, potential table variation on rulings for the undead master means I can't really play one at conventions without always having a back up character available of around the same level to swap in. That's just too annoying to bother with.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/5

Michael Griffin-Wade wrote:

I see this argument pop up from time to time and here is my viewpoint.

No one in the Pathfinder Society made anyone join the Pathfinder Society (although you might make an argument that Cheliax might have twisted someone's arm, blackmailed or any number of threats.) The fact of the matter is that once you walk in the doors and begin training, you know what you are in for. You will be told on no uncertain terms that that not everyone you will be working with is a "good guy". Those that can't work with this are weeded out and I assume that more than a few paladins and clerics have been shown the door before becoming Pathfinders, just as many other types have been for their intolerances.

The factions assume that you can avoid entanglements with other pathfinders to get you missions accomplished.

So when a Paladin has a problem with what another person does, the need to understand that they server a higher goal and need to focus beyond the here and now and work on the big picture, as unclear as that may be.

At the same time, there are lines that players/characters can cross that make the game no longer enjoyable. If things can't be worked out on the table IC or OOC, then each player is in their right to walk from that table.

If others make the game no fun for you, then it is up to you to change your situation.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Stormfriend wrote:
stuff

Since time between scenarios is inconsequential, there is no reason to require the 8 hours to occur during gameplay. This is the same concept as a druid spending days/weeks training her companion. If there is a check to be made, it is attempted at the beginning of the scenario to determine success/failure. The Undead Lord does not require a check nor the expenditure of resources for the ceremony, so the undead should be available at the start of every scenario. As the creation/summoning of undead is legal in OP, there is no reason to nerf the class's main schtick.

In general, the character, and therefore the player, would not know going into a mod if their powers will be diminished. So I do not believe that it would be good form to tell the player, prior, that they will be nerfed in the mod. However, most GM's I have observed, will reveal obvious or well-known environmental effects. For instance, if you go to Rahadoum, it is common knowledge that divine magic is illegal and punishable up to death, depending on the severity of the offense. A character would know this even if the player doesn't. The GM should provide the player that information. However, if a particular BBEG has created a new anti-magic field within his stronghold, there is no reason why the character would know that before entering. It should be revealed during the scenario.

As to the circumstances of individual scenarios, it should be "player beware." If your character uses some fringe power or does things that the player knows will be frowned upon by certain religions, governments, or organizations, you are setting yourself up for potential problems. While I applaud and support your choice to play something a bit more interesting than the typical PC, I also don't have any sympathy if you are nerfed in a certain scenario. You have to take the good with the bad. It's really no different than a fighter in a non-combat, role-play heavy scenario.

I'm not sure what "table variation on rulings" you are referring to that would require you to have an alternate PC. Perhaps, I'm missing something. The only real issue I see occurs if you have a holy zealot (paladin, priest, etc) in your group who is offended by your use of "undead" magic. And I think that topic is covered in earlier posts. In a nutshell, "don't be a jerk."

Silver Crusade 5/5

Thank you all for your posts. Because of the holiday weekend, I haven't had the time to actually post a well thought out reply.

"I still feel that in an OP environment (especially PFS), the players have a responsibility to create non-confrontational characters. Whether that be necro-voking death priests or holy zealot paladins. If your character is derisive (for good or evil), keep it for your home campaign. In these here parts we expect cooperation. It's in our creed for gawd's sake. :-)"

"In a nutshell, "don't be a jerk."

i think that Bob Jonquet has summed it up. If i am playing a paladin or a good good aligned cleric of Sarenrae, or a cleric of Pharasma, I will do my best to cooperate and make sure everyone has a good time.

But it hasto be a two way street. The other players need to do the same. If a player is running a demon summoning/ devil binding/ necromancer zombie aniating character, they also need to keep in mind the sensibilitiis of the other players and their characters at the table.

Bob Jonquet has summed it up, in his "don't be a jerk comment" and "non convrotational " idea.

Again thank you for your thoughts and posts.

This will be an interesting question as the new factions are revealed.

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / How tolerant are players supposed to be of each other's characters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.