|
Sounds like a roleplaying opportunity.
As for there being nothing you can do...
We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game together with the single purpose of having a wonderful time. Do not push other players around just because your character can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated. A little fun banter between PCs can be great roleplaying, but when you find yourself doing everything in your power to make another character look like an idiot or to undo everything that character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and may be asked to leave the table. Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior. GMs should work with their event coordinators to resolve any out-of-game conflicts. If you are both the GM and the coordinator, use your own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table.
|
This can be a very touchy subject. I'll leave the details out of this one, but I had a similar situation at one point that lead to a bit of a blow-up in the gaming group as killing surrendered prisoners was deemed to not be an evil act by the GM (since the prisoners were evil).
Seeing as how this is PFSOP, that could translate into some difficult terrain for your paladin, however I think it could open up a marvelous roleplaying opportunity, depending on the GM and players.
Your paladin could put themself in between the wizard and the prisoners and demand they stop, or you could take non-damaging actions to try to stop them. The other thing is that the character should be made aware that killing surrendered opponents may be considered on the edge of being an evil act if done with no provocation beyond the fact that they're evil.
An Andoran killing slavers might be permissible as not being something evil, but without a good stinkin' explanation, I'd be loathe to let them get away with it as a paladin if that's your schtick. If you're a holy, smite-all-evil-indiscriminately, sort it may be perfectly within your code to be cool with.
|
|
Sounds like a roleplaying opportunity.
As for there being nothing you can do...
We’re all friends here, and we’re all playing a game together with the single purpose of having a wonderful time. Do not push other players around just because your character can. Extreme forms of dysfunctional play will not be tolerated. A little fun banter between PCs can be great roleplaying, but when you find yourself doing everything in your power to make another character look like an idiot or to undo everything that character is trying to accomplish, you’ve probably lost sight of the purpose of Pathfinder Society Organized Play and may be asked to leave the table. Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior. GMs should work with their event coordinators to resolve any out-of-game conflicts. If you are both the GM and the coordinator, use your own discretion. Extreme or repetitive cases should be resolved by asking the offender to leave the table.
Also, if the prisoners they're killing happen to be people's faction missions, that's seriously not cool.
|
Really, you just have to accept that you can't stop anyone. I decided my very first character was going to be a total "that's the law" kinda guy, but quickly realized there was absolutely nothing I could do when my party members were being miscreants. It didn't matter what they were doing; breaking religious idols, stealing everything that wasn't nailed down, even coup-de-gras-ing the guy I tied up to take back to the authorities. If a sternly worded warning didn't suffice, there was nothing I could do that wasn't PVP and therefore strictly not allowed.
I don't like this particular way it affects the game but "No PVP" is a big rule (that I generally like) and pretty much means unless the GM stops something, it's gonna happen.
|
|
'No PVP' doesn't mean you can't try non-lethal approaches, unless that's been clarified somewhere on the forums.
For example, if someone were doing something like killing the prisoners we'd taken when I needed to talk to one of them, only the GM can decide if my Slumber Hex would be considered PVP. It deals no damage, and if we're not being threatened at the moment it'll do nothing but knock out my teammate long enough for me to do what I need to do.
No PVP means you can't harm your companions intentionally. If they're using that to bully other players saying they can't be retaliated against, they're abusing that rule and need to be talked to about it.
|
If I was running a table and the group did something like kill bound/surrendered enemies (without clear evidence that said enemies were lying about surrendering and were still scheming to try and kill the PCs or innocents), and there was a Paladin present, I'd have *no* problem with him leaving the group. If that meant the rest of the group couldn't handle the scenario, well, I'd write on their chronicle sheet to remember that all actions have consequences, and doing something that drives a party member to leave the quest is a good way to fail or get killed.
Playing true to your character is, IMHO, important for a "true" roleplaying experience. If players treat NPCs like cardboard cutouts or the game world like a Grand Theft Auto sandbox at my table, they may find out differently (within the rules and bounds of the scenario, of course - but if they want to Gather Information from people who know that the PCs kill people who have surrendered, they may find that other NPCs start off more unfriendly, etc.).
|
This is very Simple. The GM says NO. Pathfinder Society characters cannot be evil. Therefore acting in an evil way such as "finishing them off" should not be allowed. Out of play the GM turns to said player and says "Sorry but I cannot allow you to do that . Your character would not think of doing that. He is a Pathfinder."
|
|
Also, if the prisoners they're killing happen to be people's faction missions, that's seriously not cool.
While this is true there are also occasions where as odd as it sounds killing someone might be a faction mission. Aren't many of these but they do exist. Beyond that, yeah, this is one of the touchiest subjects in any game and I'm not going to get into that old argument.
|
|
Also, if the prisoners they're killing happen to be people's faction missions, that's seriously not cool.While this is true there are also occasions where as odd as it sounds killing someone might be a faction mission. Aren't many of these but they do exist. Beyond that, yeah, this is one of the touchiest subjects in any game and I'm not going to get into that old argument.
Oh, I'm well aware of those missions. I've had my fair share of assassination missions over the years, but killing all the prisoners to cover that you're killing your target is excessive. Also, if you're killing other peoples' faction mission NPC's, say ones they need to talk to or hand a note off to, that means you're forcing other PC's to fail their faction missions just because you feel like being an evil jerk.
This is very Simple. The GM says NO. Pathfinder Society characters cannot be evil. Therefore acting in an evil way such as "finishing them off" should not be allowed. Out of play the GM turns to said player and says "Sorry but I cannot allow you to do that . Your character would not think of doing that. He is a Pathfinder."
I disagree. Much though PC's shouldn't be acting evil, a GM doesn't have the right to tell them they aren't allowed to act that way anymore than a GM is allowed to tell the witch in the party they're not allowed to use their Slumber Hex because it's a save or suck ability.
What the GM can do, however, is note on that character's chronicle sheet that they're in danger of shifting toward the permanently unplayable Evil alignment and that if they do it again, their character becomes evil, therefore unplayable.
There are evil pathfinders, they just aren't a playable option in PFSOP.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Faced with such a situation, build yourself a second character. Make him opposite the paladin in every reasonable way, with notable social flaws. Don't deliberately make him useless, but make him less desirable company than the paladin would be. If needed, use GM credit to get him up to a level where he could travel with the other party members.
When your paladin sees the companions that have been chosen to adventure with him, have him storm out of the room. (Obviously, this has to be cleared with the GM beforehand: You can't switch PCs once the game has started!) Your second PC then comes slouching into the room, mumbling apologies for being late.
Recommended options:
+ Homicidal Int 7 half-orc barbarian ("What? I wasna supposed to kill dat guy?")
+ Health-conscious priest of Irori ("Why do you need endure elements? Years of SOFT LIVING have made you weak!")
+ Snooty Elven Wizard ("Once again, the Venture-Captains demand I travel with morons.")
|
|
As a GM, if someone uses the "No PvP, you can't stop me" reason, I tell them that isn't part of PFS. That is breaking Wheaton's Law, and I don't let players run amok. If they have a reason to off people beyond "because I want to", then sure.
And as a player, I've dropped from LG to LN for killing a fallen foe. If you are neutral, tread lightly with killing helpless creatures who have surrendered, because quite a few GM's will evil you out of the campaign for it.
|
The moment someone quotes "Wheaton's Law" I'm inclined to ignore them.
My suggestion is try to find a way to have fun with the conflict. If the party is a bunch of murderous mercenaries make it a point to not directly support them. Chastise them. Quote the good works of your deity.
The 'Cooperate' of the Pathfinder creed doesn't mean you have to like your team.
I have an inquisitor that refuses to kill people (he only slays monsters). One of the greatest moments I had was when one of the others PCs was dropped and on the brink of death. I had no choice but violate my ethos in order to save him. Getting to hold that over the moral-less cavalier was good times indeed.
This is very Simple. The GM says NO. Pathfinder Society characters cannot be evil. Therefore acting in an evil way such as "finishing them off" should not be allowed. Out of play the GM turns to said player and says "Sorry but I cannot allow you to do that . Your character would not think of doing that. He is a Pathfinder."
Finishing them off isn't evil, assuming they attacked the characters first. In many of the civilised countries in Golarion the punishment for attempted murder would be public execution or enslavement. Killing helpless prisoners may be the least worst option. What else are you going to do, let the murderers go? Amputate limbs? Giving them a clean death could be seen as an act of mercy.
And no-one tells me what my character thinks. Being a Pathfinder just means I have loyalty to a Neutral organisation, what is this obsession people have with Pathfinders being the 'good' guys? I'm allowed to play a cleric of Rovagug if I feel like it; how is the GM going to turn to me and say I wouldn't kill someone? I can't be evil so I can't go around randomly killing innocent people, but that guy who just attacked me? He's not innocent, he just lost a fight and I owe him no duty of care. The paladin might disagree, and that's a role-playing opportunity.
Just occasionally the killing of a prisoner might be a diplomatic problem for the Society, and in those circumstances even my Neutral characters would let them live because we were instructed to do so (one mod in particular asks Pathfinders not to kill anyone), but in many other mods killing the enemy is unavoidable and my Good clerics have to suffer in anguish when we do so.
My take on it is:
Killing innocent people - Evil
Killing those who attacked us (helpless or not) - Neutral
Attempting to redeem those who attacked us - Good
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West
|
Sections were added to the new Guide to help situations like this. Alignment debates are touchy, and I'm not even going to touch the whole alignment thing with a 10-foot pole. To put it short, it's up to the GM to decide and warn said player how their actions might affect them or the others at their table.
Alignment infractions are a touchy subject. Ultimately, the GM is the final authority at the table, but she must warn any player whose character is deviating from his chosen alignment. This warning must be clear, and the GM must make sure that the player understands the warning and the actions that initiated the warning. The PC should be given the opportunity to correct the behavior, justify it, or face the consequences.
Sure, it can be used as a "roleplay opportunity" but said character may have known what challenges that would create for their paladin. Being a smart wizard, they probably could think of some better way to incapacitate without killing. Also in the guide is:
Playing your character is not an excuse for childish behavior.
The person playing the paladin has the right to ask the Wizard to not do so as well, and the Wizard can decide whether or not he still wants to go through with it. If there is a valid reason, then it will play out as normal, I guess.
|
|
This is very Simple. The GM says NO. Pathfinder Society characters cannot be evil. Therefore acting in an evil way such as "finishing them off" should not be allowed. Out of play the GM turns to said player and says "Sorry but I cannot allow you to do that . Your character would not think of doing that. He is a Pathfinder."Finishing them off isn't evil, assuming they attacked the characters first. In many of the civilised countries in Golarion the punishment for attempted murder would be public execution or enslavement. Killing helpless prisoners may be the least worst option. What else are you going to do, let the murderers go? Amputate limbs? Giving them a clean death could be seen as an act of mercy.
And no-one tells me what my character thinks. Being a Pathfinder just means I have loyalty to a Neutral organisation, what is this obsession people have with Pathfinders being the 'good' guys? I'm allowed to play a cleric of Rovagug if I feel like it; how is the GM going to turn to me and say I wouldn't kill someone? I can't be evil so I can't go around randomly killing innocent people, but that guy who just attacked me? He's not innocent, he just lost a fight and I owe him no duty of care. The paladin might disagree, and that's a role-playing opportunity.
Just occasionally the killing of a prisoner might be a diplomatic problem for the Society, and in those circumstances even my Neutral characters would let them live because we were instructed to do so (one mod in particular asks Pathfinders not to kill anyone), but in many other mods killing the enemy is unavoidable and my Good clerics have to suffer in anguish when we do so.
My take on it is:
Killing innocent people - Evil
Killing those who attacked us (helpless or not) - Neutral
Attempting to redeem those who attacked us - Good
Killing the guy who attacked you in combat? Sure, that is fine. Killing them once they surrender, and your party has accepted it? That crosses the line.
Killing the guy who attacked you in combat? Sure, that is fine. Killing them once they surrender, and your party has accepted it? That crosses the line.
So what would you do with them? The authorities will probably execute them or sell them into slavery. If you let them go they'll murder other people. If you take all their stuff they may come after you for revenge, or rob other people to re-equip themselves. How would you go about rehabilitating them? Medieval prisons are not exactly designed to provide inmates with 'life skills' and 'opportunities'. They're more likely to make the prisoner even more violent and desperate than when he went in, assuming he doesn't die in some cage. So what would you do with them?
|
|
Killing the guy who attacked you in combat? Sure, that is fine. Killing them once they surrender, and your party has accepted it? That crosses the line.So what would you do with them? The authorities will probably execute them or sell them into slavery. If you let them go they'll murder other people. If you take all their stuff they may come after you for revenge, or rob other people to re-equip themselves. How would you go about rehabilitating them? Medieval prisons are not exactly designed to provide inmates with 'life skills' and 'opportunities'. They're more likely to make the prisoner even more violent and desperate than when he went in, assuming he doesn't die in some cage. So what would you do with them?
Send them to the church of Sarenrae for brainw...reeduc...redemption.
|
|
Killing the guy who attacked you in combat? Sure, that is fine. Killing them once they surrender, and your party has accepted it? That crosses the line.So what would you do with them? The authorities will probably execute them or sell them into slavery. If you let them go they'll murder other people. If you take all their stuff they may come after you for revenge, or rob other people to re-equip themselves. How would you go about rehabilitating them? Medieval prisons are not exactly designed to provide inmates with 'life skills' and 'opportunities'. They're more likely to make the prisoner even more violent and desperate than when he went in, assuming he doesn't die in some cage. So what would you do with them?
Turn them over to the authorities. If you accept their surrender, then turn around and kill them, that is evil. If they die in combat, its on them. If they surrender *and* you accept, then kill em? Evil. If you don't accept their surrender, that is more of a neutral thing to do.
|
Finally? Deadmen tell few tales but the living can be downright co-operative.
While I don't approve of killing prisoners (regardless of alignment) I couldn't help but chuckle when I read this and instantly want to remind everyone that there IS Speak With Dead.
Edit: Nevermind. "...few tales..." Misread initially. Still funny though.
Turn them over to the authorities.
Who then kill them instead of you? If you knowingly hand them over to be executed, how is that any different from killing them yourself? You're still complicit in the execution.
Handing them over to the authorities may be lawful, but it's not good.
Pathfinders are not the law. Handing over someone who has broken the law does not make you complicit if they are executed due to their law-breaking and certainly doesn't permit a Pathfinder to slit their throats.
At my table, offhandedly executing a bound prisoner would certainly put you in danger of an alignment shift depending on how your behaviour has been regarding your alignment throughout the rest of the game.
|
|
Pick up two of the surrendering guys: one in each hand. They're now objects under your control and attacking them is violating the no PVP rule.
I'm sorry, but even if that were true mechanically (which it isn't), it would still be a really lame way to handle the situation. Even a helpless person does not become an object just because you pick him up.
A better way to handle it would be to turn the rules around against him. Stand in front of the one he wants to kill, and say he can't have him because he'd have to kill you first. It's the cliche good thing to do, so he can't say you aren't acting in character, and he can't do anything because of the No PvP rule. Point out that he's the one initiating conflict, and he's the one that needs to chill.
But I still say exercise your right as a player to vote with your feet. No one is forcing you to play together.
|
I'm sorry, but even if that were true mechanically (which it isn't), it would still be a really lame way to handle the situation. Even a helpless person does not become an object just because you pick him up.
A better way to handle it would be to turn the rules around against him. Stand in front of the one he wants to kill, and say he can't have him because he'd have to kill you first. It's the cliche good thing to do, so he can't say you aren't acting in character, and he can't do anything because of the No PvP rule. Point out that he's the one initiating conflict, and he's the one that needs to chill.
But I still say exercise your right as a player to vote with your feet. No one is forcing you to play together.
Couldn't the offending character just step around you and kill the target?
|
|
If they say they know but they want to do it anyway? Thats a sure sign they are derailing... otherwise its slim but possible they may not know.
Which is why the first time around I'd ask for a time out and give them a run down of my 'problem', after that they are derailing, which means a second time out and me asking them point blank why they are being ****heads.
Real life solutions to in game problems, totally legit.
|
|
I'm sorry, but even if that were true mechanically (which it isn't)
It is. The NPC is no different than a held weapon, chest, or piece of treasure and as such can't be attacked without violating the no PVP rule.
it would still be a really lame way to handle the situation. Even a helpless person does not become an object just because you pick him up.
If you're going to rag on my answer that badly you should propose a better one. Yours does nothing since the wizard can simply 5 foot step to your left and coup de grace
But I still say exercise your right as a player to vote with your feet. No one is forcing you to play together.
You're assuming a larger player pool than the poster may have available.
|
|
Medieval prisons are not exactly designed to provide inmates with 'life skills' and 'opportunities'.Medieval prisons don't matter when we're talking about Golarion.
The description of the gray whale prison-ship in Absalom makes it sound like there's not much difference between the two.
With that said though, there's room in both the chaotic good and lawful good alignments for people that think that some people would be much improved by the loss of a head. The only difference is that the lawful good folks want to see it done by a duly appointed magistrate following the legal system and the chaotic good folks feel that since they're the ones who're on the ground SEEING whats going on that they're a better judge of what needs to be done than someone miles away hearing about it second hand.
|
|
I'm sorry, but even if that were true mechanically (which it isn't)It is. The NPC is no different than a held weapon, chest, or piece of treasure and as such can't be attacked without violating the no PVP rule.it would still be a really lame way to handle the situation. Even a helpless person does not become an object just because you pick him up.If you're going to rag on my answer that badly you should propose a better one. Yours does nothing since the wizard can simply 5 foot step to your left and coup de grace
I stand by my statement. Unless you can show me where in the rules a living (or dying, but not already dead) person is treated as an object when held, it just isn't true. Secondly, if you can show me where in the rules that is the case, I will continue to say it is a lame way to exploit the rules. No personal affront intended. And besides, I can work around your way, too. If the person is treated like an object, someone could just sunder him. If the wizard takes a 5 ft. step and coup de graces, I'll use my attack of opportunity to disarm him. Disarm can't possibly hurt the player, unless he's using an unarmed strike. :P
I proposed a delay tactic, and an OOC tactic of pointing out that the aggressor was the one really engaging in PvP. If you have a mechanically sound better idea, I'd love to hear it.
|
|
I'm sorry, but even if that were true mechanically (which it isn't)It is. The NPC is no different than a held weapon, chest, or piece of treasure and as such can't be attacked without violating the no PVP rule.it would still be a really lame way to handle the situation. Even a helpless person does not become an object just because you pick him up.If you're going to rag on my answer that badly you should propose a better one. Yours does nothing since the wizard can simply 5 foot step to your left and coup de graceI stand by my statement. Unless you can show me where in the rules a living (or dying, but not already dead) person is treated as an object when held, it just isn't true. Secondly, if you can show me where in the rules that is the case, I will continue to say it is a lame way to exploit the rules. No personal affront intended. And besides, I can work around your way, too. If the person is treated like an object, someone could just sunder him. :P
I proposed a delay tactic, and an OOC tactic of pointing out that the aggressor was the one really engaging in PvP. If you have a mechanically sound better idea, I'd love to hear it.
Throw yourself on top of the NPC. If the wizard wants to CDG them, they'll literately have to go through you. If he gets clever, ready a move action to break LOS if he attempts to CDG a fallen target.
Out of character, if he continues to do that and refuses to consider what other players want, the GM should pull the player aside and tell them to start learning to work with others. If it persists...the player can leave the table.
|
|
The way this thread is going makes it sound like PFS GMs need to toughen up when it comes to warning players about alignment infractions.
Even if you're writing a note about a borderline evil action on a chronicle sheet, it lets the players know that they can't get used to playing Jack Bauer in PFS.
|
|
I can think of plenty of legitimate role-playing reasons that a non-evil, or even good character would kill enemies.
If my cleric of Iomedae captured an evil outsider, or a Tiefling (he doesn't have ranks in knowledge(planes) so he can't tell the difference). Other particularly monstrous enemies, like alchemists with extra arms and He would probably try to kill them. If a paladin intervened, it would be a good role-playing opportunity but it would leave a bad taste in my mouth as a player.
Throw yourself on top of the NPC. If the wizard wants to CDG them, they'll literately have to go through you. If he gets clever, ready a move action to break LOS if he attempts to CDG a fallen target.Out of character, if he continues to do that and refuses to consider what other players want, the GM should pull the player aside and tell them to start learning to work with others. If it persists...the player can leave the table.
At pretty much every table I've played at it's the character trying to stop the execution that is refusing to work with the others. So if you're happy with the paladin being taken to one side and given a talking to, or else being told to leave the table, then that would be fine.
Faction missions are different, and we all understand there may be personal interests involved, so we'd keep someone alive at the specific request of a character, but those are exceptions.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way this thread is going makes it sound like PFS GMs need to toughen up when it comes to warning players about alignment infractions.
Even if you're writing a note about a borderline evil action on a chronicle sheet, it lets the players know that they can't get used to playing Jack Bauer in PFS.
The problem is many GMs don't see this as evil at all, not even slightly. Making notes like that may give the next GM a chuckle, but the random application of alignment infractions will just hurt the game. This needs to be FAQd for the Society.