And any sane player would simply throw that chronicle in the garbage, where it belongs.Fozzy, can you show me where acdepting chronicle sheets is optional? I suppose I could throw away the sheet where my character died, too, if that were the way PFS ran.
What you're suggesting is called "cheating". And that will get you banned from PFS.
A GM who makes such notes of his own accord, without any support in the campaign rules, is himself cheating.
Point me to text in the campaign rules that allows you to unilaterally remove a character from the campaign. If you cannot, then doing so is in itself cheating. If you feel a character should be removed from the campaign, then you should do so through campaign staff.
|
An atonement spell is available to help Paladins regain their mantle, so to speak.
But remember that Atonement has a caveat...
"the creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds."If the player is merely doing it to appease the rules (and restore class abilities) or has a history of atonement, it would be within the right of the GM to rule the spell fails and the PC remains evil.
I think the issue keeps getting muddled. We're not talking about what causes a PC to become evil, that part is already resolved. Assume that the PC has performed an action determined (using whatever criteria) to be evil and cause am alignment shift.
The question is, what happens then? Is the PC restricted from playing until s/he obtains an Atonement? What if there isn't enough PP/fame or gp to pay for it? Is the player just screwed? And who makes that decision? The table GM? The event organizer? Mark?
And any sane player would simply throw that chronicle in the garbage, where it belongs.Fozzy, can you show me where acdepting chronicle sheets is optional? I suppose I could throw away the sheet where my character died, too, if that were the way PFS ran.
What you're suggesting is called "cheating". And that will get you banned from PFS.
A GM who makes such notes of his own accord, without any support in the campaign rules, is himself cheating.
Point me to text in the campaign rules that allows you to unilaterally remove a character from the campaign. If you cannot, then doing so is in itself cheating. If you feel a character should be removed from the campaign, then you should do so through campaign staff.
Just as you cannot unilaterally grant boons to characters, you also are not entitled by campaign rules to unilaterally ban them.
|
An atonement spell is available to help Paladins regain their mantle, so to speak.But remember that Atonement has a caveat...
"the creature seeking atonement must be truly repentant and desirous of setting right its misdeeds."If the player is merely doing it to appease the rules (and restore class abilities) or has a history of atonement, it would be within the right of the GM to rule the spell fails and the PC remains evil.
I think the issue keeps getting muddled. We're not talking about what causes a PC to become evil, that part is already resolved. Assume that the PC has performed an action determined (using whatever criteria) to be evil and cause am alignment shift.
The question is, what happens then? Is the PC restricted from playing until s/he obtains an Atonement? What if there isn't enough PP/fame or gp to pay for it? Is the player just screwed? And who makes that decision? The table GM? The event organizer? Mark?
I agree Bob.
Take a look at my suggestion and see what you think.
|
|
And any sane player would simply throw that chronicle in the garbage, where it belongs.Fozzy, can you show me where acdepting chronicle sheets is optional? I suppose I could throw away the sheet where my character died, too, if that were the way PFS ran.
What you're suggesting is called "cheating". And that will get you banned from PFS.
A GM who makes such notes of his own accord, without any support in the campaign rules, is himself cheating.
Point me to text in the campaign rules that allows you to unilaterally remove a character from the campaign. If you cannot, then doing so is in itself cheating. If you feel a character should be removed from the campaign, then you should do so through campaign staff.
GM's have always been allowed to leave notes on the chronicles. Every time you get diseased or loose a character level or any kind of condition it should be marked down by the GM. I would treat an evil act in the same way. Pathfinder rules are pretty straight forward on GM's and alignment. What is not so clear is what the heck happens once a GM declares a character evil within the context of the society.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Have you done this to people? Either warn or remove them? Any specific instances of this perhaps?2. How exactly do you, as a society table judge, remove a PC from the game other than by permanent death, which we will agree hasn't happened?
If I were the player that you said this to, I'd say back to you that you have no such authority, and I'll be playing my character. If you said 'he's removed from the campaign cause he's now evil cause you won't do as I say' I would reply.. No.
Simply put you don't have this call.
Moreover you don't have the judgment. As the scenarios aren't saying that these are 'clearly evil acts and their fulfillment makes the PC evil..' it simply doesn't. The campaign administration feels that PCs can complete these missions without being removed from the campaign, so you don't get to unilaterally veto them. Moreover they have set up no procedure for doing what you claim you can.. so again you don't get to do it.
You don't get to do that anymore than you can say 'gunpowder doesn't work because this is a fantasy campaign' as much as you would like to or feel that you should.
-James
Not to answer for Chris, but for me, yes, I have warned players that their described action would be interpreted as an evil act and could have ramifications with their listed alignment. The most common occurrence is capturing an enemy, restraining him, questioning him, sometimes using physical torture, and then killing him afterwards. EDIT--please do not debate me on your opinion if this constitutes an evil act. It is my position and you will not sway me, nor will I sway your position. :-)
To date, the player has always acquiesced and I did not need to leave a note on their chronicle.
As a GM, if I determined that the player performed evil act/s to warrant an alignment shift, I would note the chronicle as such, and notify the OP leadership. If they determine the PC is no longer playable, they can freeze that PFS#.
Whether or not the player agrees with my decision is not going to change my course of action. Of course, IMO, this is an extreme response and should not be performed without clear provocation.
Personally, I do not want a specific rule to tell me how to adjudicate my player's actions. It is a collaboration, although, in the end, the GM has the final say as to what happens at their table.
|
|
[
Not to answer for Chris, but for me, yes, I have warned players that their described action would be interpreted as an evil act and could have ramifications with their listed alignment. The most common occurrence is capturing an enemy, restraining him, questioning him, sometimes using physical torture, and then killing him afterwards.To date, the player has always acquiesced and I did not need to leave a note on their chronicle.
As a GM, if I determined that the player performed evil act/s to warrant an alignment shift, I would note the chronicle as such, and notify the OP leadership. If they determine the PC is no longer playable, they can freeze that PFS#.
Whether or not the player agrees with my decision is not going to change my course of action. Of course, IMO, this is an extreme response and should not be performed without clear...
Out of curiosity, Bob - out of the warnings you have given, roughly how many of those have been about the ramifications of the players actions when said actions were a part of their faction mission? Many? Few? All? None?
For clarification I'm talking about the more dubious missions, where, say, murdering a guy is the point and end goal, rather than (for example) players choosing to use torture on an NPC when their mission is 'get this information from him'.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For clarification I'm talking about the more dubious missions, where, say, murdering a guy is the point and end goal, rather than (for example) players choosing to use torture on an NPC when their mission is 'get this information from him'.
Reiterated for the edification of the entire thread.
The key question is "Can completing a faction mission as written be grounds for evilification [like my word?] and subsequent banning of a character?"
Replies along the lines of "Problem players need to be reigned in" are, though correct, not in any way an answer to that question.
|
|
Out of curiosity, Bob - out of the warnings you have given, roughly how many of those have been about the ramifications of the players actions when said actions were a part of their faction mission? Many? Few? All? None?
For clarification I'm talking about the more dubious missions, where, say, murdering a guy is the point and end goal, rather than players choosing to use torture on an NPC when their mission is 'get this information from him'.
A few. To me it doesn't matter if the originating idea comes from the player or the faction head. An evil act is an evil act. I don't want to see an SS running around claiming they were just following orders. I think we all agree that is not a defense.
Yes, that means your PC might miss out on some Fame/PP, but I also leave it open for creative ways to reach the intended goal without following the strict instructions of the faction head. Ii ask myself, "self, what is the faction head trying to accomplish." If the player can get there without performing the act, great. Essentially its the concept that i don't care how you get there, just get the job done.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yes, that means your PC might miss out on some Fame/PP, but I also leave it open for creative ways to reach the intended goal without following the strict instructions of the faction head. Ii ask myself, "self, what is the faction head trying to accomplish." If the player can get there without performing the act, great. Essentially its the concept that i don't care how you get there, just get the job done.
To be clear then, when you decide that you'll accept action X instead of the written action as grounds for receiving prestige, do you inform the player of that ahead of time? I.e., handing the player their faction mission paper and then saying "Now, it says you have to kill [person], but since that's an evil act and would push your character toward being illegal, I'll give you the prestige if you can do X instead."
|
|
To be clear then, when you decide that you'll accept action X instead of the written action as grounds for receiving prestige, do you inform the player of that ahead of time? I.e., handing the player their faction mission paper and then saying "Now, it says you have to kill [person], but since that's an evil act and would push your character toward being illegal, I'll give you the prestige if you can do X instead."
No. I reward inventive play, so it is not my responsibility to tell the player what to do. Essentially a player has three choices when considering a faction mission...
(1) Do what it says exactly(2) Refuse to do anything at all
(3) Invent a way to get the job done without performing acts that would be a moral problem for the PC
I will tell the player if their actions will pose a problem in my estimation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To be clear then, when you decide that you'll accept action X instead of the written action as grounds for receiving prestige, do you inform the player of that ahead of time? I.e., handing the player their faction mission paper and then saying "Now, it says you have to kill [person], but since that's an evil act and would push your character toward being illegal, I'll give you the prestige if you can do X instead."No. I reward inventive play, so it is not my responsibility to tell the player what to do. Essentially a player has three choices when considering a faction mission...
(1) Do what it says exactly
(2) Refuse to do anything at all
(3) Invent a way to get the job done without performing acts that would be a moral problem for the PCI will tell the player if their actions will pose a problem in my estimation.
Okay, next question for you:
When you begin a session, do you inform the table as a whole that faction missions may prescribe evil acts, and that committing said acts may have official ramifications for the character?
|
This is in my opinion an area where people need to also think "OCC".
The staff at Paizo are not creating scenarios that will get "PC"s banned. Period. Let me emphasize that again. Period.
The appropriate response for a questionable faction mission would be to game on and report this problem mission to the peeps in charge. This is reinforced by preceding directions from above and the spirit in which they are given.
Deciding your alignment views outweigh the intent of the organization in charge of our happy games of make believe is incredulous at best. At best.
Paizo has made it resoundingly clear that things are not cut and dry, right and wrong, or black and white in their, THEIR, campaign world.
Paizo is reaching out to all of the gamers and gaming styles they want to, that is for them to decide. I believe you have distinctly overstepped boundaries when you are dropping the evil hammer for completing missions given by those who run the game.
FWIW I do understand the need for the ability to decide things are getting out of hand, non mission related.
Nobody wants the player at their table who brings LongJohn, the wookie porn director with his droid UNI 69, to a game of epic star wars happiness anymore than the one who wants to bring balance to the force by recreating the slaughter at the jedi temple.
Paizo has a broad audience and they like to appeal to them. People have a different level of disconnect when it comes to gaming. Very few people would be comfortable with real life bloodsport but an in game deathmatch arena, sounds cool.
For example, if I create a gladiatorial event for a gaming group I am likely to get a different response from each player.
Player 1: Sweetness!! Makes random quotes from every Russel Crowe movie.
Player 2: This is horrible, I will fight this evil at every turn.
Player 3: Can I bet on myself,if so how much? Can I use Ultimate Combat?
Player 4: Gladiatorial combat = sanctioned PVP.... OOOOOOHHHH YEAH!!!!!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Bob,
Don't mean to pile on you (and thank you for answering james' questions) but I'm curious about a couple other scenarios.
Do you note on a character sheet when a Neutral character performs an exceptional Good action?
Do you note when a Barbarian performs a Lawful action, or a monk a Chaotic one?
If not, why not?
While such actions will not 'kill' a character, because they have an impact on the character should they not be tracked as thoroughly as Evil actions?
|
|
Okay, next question for you:
When you begin a session, do you inform the table as a whole that faction missions may prescribe evil acts, and that committing said acts may have official ramifications for the character?
No, because the player has not performed any actions or indicated as such. I do ask very clearly at the start of every game if they have any questions regarding their factions missions.
During the game I evaluate actions, and declared actions, and notify the player if I feel it is inappropriate. It is then up to them to continue or to adjust.
And just to be clear, anyone who has played at my table should be able to confirm that I am not a "hard-core" GM, so my use of this tactic is held for really egregious actions.
|
|
Bob,
Don't mean to pile on you (and thank you for answering james' questions) but I'm curious about a couple other scenarios.
Do you note on a character sheet when a Neutral character performs an exceptional Good action?
Do you note when a Barbarian performs a Lawful action, or a monk a Chaotic one?
If not, why not?
While such actions will not 'kill' a character, because they have an impact on the character should they not be tracked as thoroughly as Evil actions?
Not Bob, but Im answering anyway.
Chaotic actions from a monk or paladin should perhaps be tracked, but the range of what qualifies as chaotic is far wider and therefore harder to accurately judge than evil actions are.
Also, PFS does not specifically ban characters of Good, Neutral, Chaotic, or Lawful alignments. So, no, they are as important to track.
Edit: Whoever it was that suggested several steps a page back where 3 different GMs would have to have made notes about the evil acts, I like your steps aside from that. What if a player regularly tries evil acts, but never plays under anyone other than one single GM. The GM would then not be able to do anything about it other than kindly ask them to stop.
Personally, I think it ought to be something like:
1) Warn the player before they complete the action.
2) If they complete it, note it on the chronicle.
3) If a player recives enough notes stating they have done something evil (2 per alignment step), their alignment moves closert to 'evil' along the Good-Neutral-Evil track.
4) If the character has received enough notes stating they have performed an evil act to move them to 'evil', the GM should give them a chronicle and inform the player that they will be discussing with Mark/*Paizo employee X* about the possible banning of the character.
|
|
Okay, next question for you:
When you begin a session, do you inform the table as a whole that faction missions may prescribe evil acts, and that committing said acts may have official ramifications for the character?
Post monster ate my post :-(
No I don't. At the start of every game, I ask if there are any questions regarding their faction missions. If during the game, I determine an action, or declared action, to be evil, I will notify the player. It is their decision to continue or to adjust.
Keep in mind I am not a "hard-core" GM as can be confirmed by any of my players. Or at least I hope so :-). So this should only occur very infrequently. To date, I have never had to actually notate a chronicle so I believe that the player and I have come to an equitable decision and moved on.
|
|
Bob,
Don't mean to pile on you (and thank you for answering james' questions) but I'm curious about a couple other scenarios.
Do you note on a character sheet when a Neutral character performs an exceptional Good action?
Do you note when a Barbarian performs a Lawful action, or a monk a Chaotic one?
If not, why not?
While such actions will not 'kill' a character, because they have an impact on the character should they not be tracked as thoroughly as Evil actions?
I have, on occasion, mentioned to a player that their declared action does not match their character's theme or alignment. But no, I have never noted it on their chronicle. But to be fair, I have never noted an evil act either.
Perhaps I am a "softie" and should start doing it more ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have, on occasion, mentioned to a player that their declared action does not match their character's theme or alignment. But no, I have never noted it on their chronicle. But to be fair, I have never noted an evil act either.
Perhaps I am a "softie" and should start doing it more ;-)
Nah, you're consistent in an inconsistent world. That's all I'd ask, and I respect you for it. ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Post monster ate my post :-(
Ugh, tell me about it.
No I don't. At the start of every game, I ask if there are any questions regarding their faction missions. If during the game, I determine an action, or declared action, to be evil, I will notify the player. It is their decision to continue or to adjust.
I'm glad you at least give them some kind of "out". But isn't it a bit entrapping to expect the player guess - on their own initiative - that you've changed the rules for what it takes to acquire their prestige point?
I mean, you say you start by asking if there are any questions. But most players, if handed a piece of paper by their GM that says "do X if you want your point", are going to equate receiving that paper to being told by the GM to do X. It's not going to occur to anyone who isn't familiar with your personal practices to question whether or not it's safe to do what the GM told them to do.
Thankfully you at least have the last-minute caution, but even then it's a nasty "gotcha" moment that's likely to leave a sour taste in someone's mouth. Doesn't that kind of undermine the whole "the GM's job is fun" idea?
Also: in the event of a faction mission that asks for an evil act, you've made it clear that (1) you're willing to change the rules for what's required to "complete" the mission, and that (2) you're NOT willing to change the rules for what happens when a character commits an evil act. My next question, then, is this: how did you decide that it's okay to change the rules in (1) but not in (2)? More generally, how do you determine which rules should be changed and which ones should be held fast?
|
|
I suspect this is not really happening alot or at all, I guess I am really just a little alarmed at the prospect of GMs deciding that faction missions is an area for lose or lose decision making.
Bob, I am confident you are an awesome GM I just disagree with you here.
That's cool and thanks, I am...just kidding :-)
I see your point, but I don't like the idea of suspending a PC's alignment expectations just because your faction head says its okay. Of course this is a much bigger issue for paladins/clerics, but it impacts all PC's at some level.
My preference would be to have faction missions that do not require you to perform an action that is overtly evil. If the faction leader wants someone "taken out" it should be written ambiguously enough that the player has some role-playing room to get the intended result without having to skirt a moral or legal issue.
But perhaps OP leadership wants there to be that level of internal conflict. For my part, I like having to make "tough" choices for my pally. Makes him more interesting. I get amusement out of the other players trying to figure out how to avoid the inevitable comment from the pally, "no, i'm not going to allow you to do that. it would be wrong"
|
|
Bob,
This is the attitude I’d like to see every GM take. But not all are like you. Some like to be “hard-core” or not knowing better, determine that the faction missions MUST be solved as written, or they don’t get the PP. This stance is actually somewhat supported by the campaign coordinators as they seem quite ok with non-tiered DC’s for faction missions. As such, that alignment is just another way to not get a PP.
The guidelines I posted above are more for the “hard-core” GM’s or the GM’s who don’t know better, to give them a better set of guidelines to either allow for alternative actions or not overly penalize a player for just doing what the module wants them to do.
|
|
Stuff
WOW...Chris you're welcome for taking the bullseye and putting in on my back...just kidding
I look at the two issue independently. The faction mission is a request by the head of a sub-organization of the society for you to perform an, often times, secret act. Because the faction leader is not aware until after the VC assigns the mission who will go, they likely cannot control if the PC will have any issues with it (or the skills to complete it). Not to mention that the faction leader assumes the character knows what it was getting him/herself into when s/he swore an oath to them. As far as the alignment issues, it is its own challenge and far more reaching than just the faction mission.
I do not feel I am changing the rules. Actually, I believe I am trying to give the player a chance to complete their mission instead of just shredding it 30 seconds into the game.
|
|
Bob,
This is the attitude I’d like to see every GM take. But not all are like you. Some like to be “hard-core” or not knowing better, determine that the faction missions MUST be solved as written, or they don’t get the PP. This stance is actually somewhat supported by the campaign coordinators as they seem quite ok with non-tiered DC’s for faction missions. As such, that alignment is just another way to not get a PP.
The guidelines I posted above are more for the “hard-core” GM’s or the GM’s who don’t know better, to give them a better set of guidelines to either allow for alternative actions or not overly penalize a player for just doing what the module wants them to do.
Gotcha. And sorry if this thread has been derailed to be a Q&A with me. That was not my intention. It's just that if we want OP to play anywhere near to the level of immersion or ,IMHO, fun, we need to temper following the rules with GM caveat. And note be too judgmental against the players or the GM.
|
|
I disagree with you, Bob. My NG Bard wouldn't hesitate to kill someone that the head of his faction ordered killed. To him, that target is a threat to the Ruby Prince and to Osirion, therefore the mission is valid. He doesn't ask why, he assumes that the Sapphire Sage has his reasons and that he knows more than my character. So to him, it's not an evil act. Other than that, he prefers to stay out of combat as much as possible.
What you are doing, is overruling the writers and coordinators. And if you put down that my bard did an evil act by fulfilling his faction mission, I'd rip it up and have you write me another one. And I'd continue to do so until you left off the evil act. Fulfilling a faction mission, no matter how we feel as DMs, is NOT an evil act. But if in the course of my actions, I tortured others, burnt down orphanges, wore an Edgar Suit, etc..., then THOSE actions would be evil. That would warrant a talking to and a notation on the chronicle.
What you describe is being lawful (to the Ruby Prince) not Good. Big difference.
Also, you wouldnt get a replacement chronicle from me.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
StuffWOW...Chris you're welcome for taking the bullseye and putting in on my back...just kidding
Just so you know, the only reason I'm zeroing in on you is because you seem to be more capable of rational discourse than some others in this thread. I was actually going to say as much in my last post, but backed out because I thought it might be perceived as flaming. (It wouldn't be the first time I made a general comment and someone jumped up and said "how dare you call me that!") :P
I look at the two issue independently. The faction mission is a request by the head of a sub-organization of the society for you to perform an, often times, secret act. Because the faction leader is not aware until after the VC assigns the mission who will go, they likely cannot control if the PC will have any issues with it (or the skills to complete it). Not to mention that the faction leader assumes the character knows what it was getting him/herself into when s/he swore an oath to them. As far as the alignment issues, it is its own challenge and far more reaching than just the faction mission.
I do not feel I am changing the rules. Actually, I believe I am trying to give the player a chance to complete their mission instead of just shredding it 30 seconds into the game.
Hm... First, I definitely agree with your goal making room for a PC to *not* get evil-banned, and I applaud your success in doing so. I still have reservations regarding your method, though. I guess I keep picturing a (probably new-ish) player just sort of assuming that whatever he's handed on paper is what he's "supposed to do" and believing (not unreasonably, in my opinion) that since the GM handed it to him on paper, it's okay to do. I then picture him announcing his action, probably happy to know that he's about to secure his prestige point, and then having the GM caution him about the potential ramifications of evil acts such as what he's about to do. Now suddenly he's not on the verge of an accomplishment (negative feeling) and has to do extra work to get around it (possibly work that would have been much easier to do if he'd known at the beginning of the module, which would create frustration). Additionally, a player might (again, reasonably, in my opinion) be offended/affronted at the notion that - perhaps despite being unequivocally good for the entire session - this one act is going to give him "bad marks". I think especially of my wife: she's a very gentle soul, and probably would balk at being asked to kill an NPC. But if she's not explicitly offered an alternative, she'd probably assume she had to and just try to get it overwith. To then be interrupted by the statement that to carry out her action would be her character's first step toward becoming evil would probably be very upsetting.
Surely it's not too far-fetched to see a situation like that happening within your (admittedly, typically successful) method, is it?
Now, I don't say all this without an alternative to offer: in my eyes, alignment ramifications of actions explicitly called for could be hand-waved just as easily as the nature of loot and the banning of item crafting feats. If we're willing to step away from the realistic in regard to wealth, is it really that big of a deal to step away from the realistic in regard to faction missions?
*crosses fingers that this actually gets posted*
|
|
Stuff
I don't expect everyone to agree with my interpretation of the game, but stop to ask yourself a question. Don't you think that many of the people working for Stalin, or Hitler, etc. said similar things?
Just because your faction head, decemvirent, or even your king/emperor tells you to do something does not make it okay. Perhaps the target just slighted the king by not accepting a dinner invitation. And perhaps that is an executable offense in his country. I would call that an evil act to execute the offender. But that's the great thing about RPG, YMMV. :-)
Actually, in your example, I would say you are acting more LN than NG, but that is just my opinion.
There are waaay too many things to consider in these cases to make a blanket judgement. That is why I like GM caveat.
Tearing up your chronicle and acting in such a fashion is not going to earn you points with me and might make you look like an ass to the other players. I would advise a better course of action if you disagree with the GM's decisions. Speaking only for myself, I try to be open to comments from the player/s and have been 99.9% successful in reaching an acceptable resolution we were all happy with.
|
|
Just so you know, the only reason I'm zeroing in on you is because you seem to be more capable of rational discourse than some others in this thread.
Thanks, I try.
other stuff
My comments assume we are dealing with, at least somewhat, experienced players. N00bs need to be dealt with completely differently. The GM has a responsibility to help teach them the game and that means giving them ideas how or what to do. I would never punish a n00b for not understanding the ramifications of their actions, but it shouldn't get to that point if the GM is doing their job.
EDIT--
Oh, and I stay away from the "one act" concept. It seems to inevitably lead to the one evil vs. a lifetime of good argument that is lame and IMHO ridiculous.
|
|
Gotcha. And sorry if this thread has been derailed to be a Q&A with me. That was not my intention. It's just that if we want OP to play anywhere near to the level of immersion or ,IMHO, fun, we need to temper following the rules with GM caveat. And note be too judgmental against the players or the GM.Bob,
This is the attitude I’d like to see every GM take. But not all are like you. Some like to be “hard-core” or not knowing better, determine that the faction missions MUST be solved as written, or they don’t get the PP. This stance is actually somewhat supported by the campaign coordinators as they seem quite ok with non-tiered DC’s for faction missions. As such, that alignment is just another way to not get a PP.
The guidelines I posted above are more for the “hard-core” GM’s or the GM’s who don’t know better, to give them a better set of guidelines to either allow for alternative actions or not overly penalize a player for just doing what the module wants them to do.
No problem Bob. I just was seeing some posters going all hard core about removing players from the game for being evil and such, and that there were some faction missions that they were determining were evil. I also recall in past threads where GM’s were hard core about how a faction mission was to be solved. I think, while no GM wants to be told how to run their table, it is a good idea to have a very general set of guidelines to handle such hot topics such as removing a character from play.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My comments assume we are dealing with, at least somewhat, experienced players. N00bs need to be dealt with completely differently. The GM has a responsibility to help teach them the game and that means giving them ideas how or what to do. I would never punish a n00b for not understanding the ramifications of their actions, but it shouldn't get to that point if the GM is doing their job.
Ah, well, that makes your practices substantially more palettable to me. :) Although I hope that what you decide to accept in lieu of an evil act for completing a faction mission doesn't severely alter the overall difficulty (up or down) of getting that PP, as that wouldn't really seem fair.
EDIT--
Oh, and I stay away from the "one act" concept. It seems to inevitably lead to the one evil vs. a lifetime of good argument that is lame and IMHO ridiculous.
To be clear, I didn't think you'd make a character evil after one act. But, as in my story (I think I said this, actually), just being told that the act would bring them one step closer could be upsetting.
|
|
In that case, I'd remove my character from the report sheet and play it again.
As the GM, I would report your PC anyway. If you play the scenario, you played it. Under the OP guidelines, you would not qualify for replay for credit.
Let me clarify my position: if it is a faction mission, it is NOT an evil act to carry it out and get your character removed from the campaign. And in most cases, should not be put on chronicle sheets.
I can appreciate your position, but just because YOU declare an action good/evil, does not mean that anyone else must agree. Until/unless the OP leadership states that faction missions are an exception to the alignment expectations (something I do not expect), everyone will continue to do what they are already doing.
Just a reminder, IMO, the topic of what constitutes an evil act is very separate from how to record said act and whether or not that results in a character from being banned.
|
|
I was asked how to make the system objective. I said I'd come up with something comprehensive on Thursday. Well I came up with something just now so I will post it just now.
1) There is no way to make what is evil completely objective. What is evil to one person is not evil to another.
2) There is a way to make sure that the player in question can get a fair shake and not be hammered by one hard core GM with questionable subjective ideals.
So here goes:
- If you notice a player about to do what you deem evil, warn them.
- If they continue and do that thing, then mark it on a chronicle.
- To remove a character from play for being evil, there must already be 3 such notes on chronicles from 3 separate GM's. This will help to ensure that a wider range of ideals will be viewed before character removal.
- If the PC is a paladin, the gloves come off for losing paladinhood, these rules only apply to removing a character from play.The next two options should both be available:
- If the faction mission is deemed evil, then as GM you should allow for creative solutions that don't involve the evil act.
- or -
- If the faction mission is deemed as evil, then ignore the evil act.
That's what I got. Simple and fair I feel, and it allows hard core GM's to state their opinion and old softies to be old softies.
It allows for subjective opinion, but won't penalize the player overly much and gives an objective bench mark for removal.
EDIT: The 3 separate notes from 3 GM's doesn't mean 3 GM's each have to have given 3 notes. Just that there has to be 3 separate instance of evil done, and that a total of 3 separate GM's should have given such a note.
Keep in mind, if you are the only GM that player will ever have for PFS, and you think they are too evil for your table, you have a right to tell that player they cannot play that character at your table. But to tell them they can't play that character ever again needs more criteria than just one GM's judgement, in my opinion.
Hey Andrew,
Just wanted to say that I think this is not hugely different from what the folks like me (who got people so upset in the first place) were talking about.The only part that is significantly different is the stuff about Faction Missions. And I still don't think that they should be ignored as part of a larger pattern of behaviour.
That said, a player who I would be having difficulty with is likely to be turning other faction missions into evil acts as well. EX: There would be a difference between obtaining an item from a non-villain NPC by diplomacy/reward (Good), theft/intimidate (Neutral), or torture/murder (Evil). And I have seen that happen ("I can't make the Diplomacy check? Fine, I jump him and beat him to death to take the item.")
|
|
Hey Andrew,
Just wanted to say that I think this is not hugely different from what the folks like me (who got people so upset in the first place) were talking about.
The only part that is significantly different is the stuff about Faction Missions. And I still don't think that they should be ignored as part of a larger pattern of behaviour.
That said, a player who I would be having difficulty with is likely to be turning other faction missions into evil acts as well. EX: There would be a difference between obtaining an item from a non-villain NPC by diplomacy/reward (Good), theft/intimidate (Neutral), or torture/murder (Evil). And I have seen that happen ("I can't make the Diplomacy check? Fine, I jump him and beat him to death to take the item.")
Well if you turn every mission into craziness, then that’s just abusive to the GM and the other players. Creative solutions to solve faction missions you are having trouble with shouldn’t necessarily include overtly evil acts. This is a whole different issue altogether.
But if performing the Sczarni mission (of which I’m not even sure what it actually is) is seemingly overtly evil, then how do we as GM’s deal with that? I don’t believe we should require players to be creative just to not do an evil act when its written in as a mission. Especially since some GM’s won’t let you get creative with missions.
|
|
Stuff
You may be thinking too literally. A single act of evil, in most cases, an alignment change does not it make. And I would have given you plenty of warning regarding your actions. After that, it becomes the players choice to continue or not.
Often I see the player proceed just because they want to create conflict with the GM. Kind of the "I don't care what you say, I'm going to do it anyway" action. Like we did to our parents when we were children.
To those types of players I say, "act like a child and I will treat you like one" :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm all for talking afterwards and trying to reach a solution. But if at the end of the mod, you write "Did evil act" for fulfilling my faction mission, I'm going to have issues with that.
Is that what you think Bob is advocating? Surprising you after it's all over, with no prior warning? If you read some of his replies to me, you'll see that he'll caution you ahead of time and give you room to find some other way of completing your mission without endangering your alignment. I still feel slightly leery of the idea, but it's a far cry from what you're talking about.
|
|
But if performing the Sczarni mission (of which I’m not even sure what it actually is) is seemingly overtly evil, then how do we as GM’s deal with that? I don’t believe we should require players to be creative just to not do an evil act when its written in as a mission. Especially since some GM’s won’t let you get creative with missions.
I really don't see this as any different than a character, without the appropriate skill ranks, to "invent" a creative way to complete the mission. Although, in that case, the ramifications of failure is not as harsh and those for completing a mission that opposes your alignment.
|
|
In that case, I'd remove my character from the report sheet and play it again.
Let me clarify my position: if it is a faction mission, it is NOT an evil act to carry it out and get your character removed from the campaign. And in most cases, should not be put on chronicle sheets.
I understand your point, but it is not your call how the GM rules; it is theirs. You have two options. You can accept the GMs decision, or leave the table. If you end up leaving early enough, I wouldnt credit the scenario to you anyway (so you dont miss out on the exp, gold, etc), but if you play through til the end, you accept what is given.
Removing your name from the sheet (if you even have access to it again) will only help so much. If you are a regular player at a venue, theyll have reported your number before, and it doesnt do you any good to remove it, as they can still report it. If you go to a con, chances are the cons organizer is going to have a record of who registered for what, and again, theyll look you up based off of other events played.
I dont think the GM should have lone discresionary powers to pick who is or isnt eligible for play, but they should be able to report repeat offenders (including faction missions, though those ought not count as much) to the OP heads to see if the character should be banned.
|
|
I'm sorry I don't see any mechanism for any of this in the guide. Could you perhaps reference me to it?And if it's not there at all, then isn't it just as out of line for a judge to be writing such as if they wrote 'down -12hps' and tell the player that their PC starts the next scenario that way...
-James
Of course there isn't a specific rule governing the alignment issue, but I view it the same as a condition. It is a temporary (hopefully) thing like a disease that imposes a penalty on the character. There are clear methods to cure it and return to the "normal" condition enjoyed prior to said condition. It could become permanent if left untreated. Fail to cure a disease, you'll die (raising a dead PC can be construed as part of the cure). Fail to reverse an alignment shift, you're out of the campaign. Either way, the character is no longer playable.