Exactly. Poor excuse, and a "Richard' move.The first commandment of the "Evil PC Campaign": Thou Shalt Not PvP.
Seriously. Don't.
There is always a point where you can decide to attack or betray another PC because, "That's what my character would do!" It's a lame excuse. Don't use it. Don't do it.
Your DM has done a lot of work to create adversaries for you. Your fellow players have not.
I still say that the GM was at fault. I don't know whose bright idea it was to have the new character try to assassinate a party member, but the GM should have known better. It is the GM who is ultimately responsible for introducing a new character to the party.
If the method of introduction was the plan of the player, the GM should have vetoed it. If it was the GM who came up with the idea, I don't know what to say.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, I had a GM set up a character of mine to fail once. The OP's story is an even worse introduction of a new party member.
Sure, there's blame on both sides. But these guys may just be kids.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Pathfinder include creatures called aeons? Messing with the timeline throws off a lot more than just a handful of events. As such it may result in one or more types of these nasties appearing, and there's really not a lot anyone can do once they show up. Perhaps this is something you could suggest the GM include. It would provide a reason to keep from sending more back in time, mostly because an aeon would show up and trigger a borderline apocalyptic event right on top of the ones sending these things back in time. In fact, an aeon might even also appear in the "past" to take down whatever entities were sent from the future. Time dickery carries a stiff penalty.
Protip: Get ready to reroll again if a Pleroma ever shows up.
Sure, there's blame on both sides. But these guys may just be kids.Exactly. Poor excuse, and a "Richard' move.The first commandment of the "Evil PC Campaign": Thou Shalt Not PvP.
Seriously. Don't.
There is always a point where you can decide to attack or betray another PC because, "That's what my character would do!" It's a lame excuse. Don't use it. Don't do it.
Your DM has done a lot of work to create adversaries for you. Your fellow players have not.
I still say that the GM was at fault. I don't know whose bright idea it was to have the new character try to assassinate a party member, but the GM should have known better. It is the GM who is ultimately responsible for introducing a new character to the party.
If the method of introduction was the plan of the player, the GM should have vetoed it. If it was the GM who came up with the idea, I don't know what to say.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, I had a GM set up a character of mine to fail once. The OP's story is an even worse introduction of a new party member.
By all means, explain how the OP should have handled the situation.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The assassin got what he was asking for. No use crying over spilled lubricant.
One time in a game of mine, the LE rogue told the CG ranger that if the ranger got in face he'd kill the ranger's girlfriend while making him watch before he killed the ranger. The rogue then failed a sleight of hand roll vs the ranger's perception while trying to apply poison to his dagger. On seeing that, the ranger killed the rogue. The rogue's player then whined about how PvP shouldn't happen. You're playing characters who usually respond to threats by stabbing the threat. I don't want PvP in my games, but if you really want to avoid it, don't do things that beg for it. Don't start nothin', won't be nothin'.
I love happy endings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Evil Party
2) Evil party that STARTS with PVP in backstory....
3) Ninja Androids...
SOoooooo many warning flags here I don't even know where to start...
PERSONALLY... I would have 'meta gamed' more and held off the killing blow. I know how much time and energy my friends put into their characters... I don't have the heart to kill them outright.
But then they introduced themselves as killer robots out to kill me first...
As a RULE... I would say if your GOING to play an EVIL party... don't be upset when the people in the group do EVIL things... That MAY include killing you if it suits their purposes.
As a secondary rule... I would say NEVER play EVIL groups ;)
The GM should have played it out via a cut scene where the just tells you what happens, or given the android some ability that made him not be able to die. Never leave situations like this up to the die.
Maybe the ability does not allow him to die but it only works once and the damage messes with the programming so the PC is no longer a threat once he is taken down.
I love that idea, like maybe he should reform from nanite surge... but it's permanently weaker from that point on eh?
I love that idea, like maybe he should reform from nanite surge... but it's permanently weaker from that point on eh?
That would have worked, but once the PC was a part of the group it could be revealed that the nanites were somehow turned off.
Maybe a mistake was made when they were applied to the android and nobody noticed it.
In the old days in sandbox games I would have let the player come up with his "I am here to kill one of you" character, let the rest of the party beat him to a pulp, and then ask him if he wants to make a more sensible character. This I call "learning through experience."
Of course, in those days I had a lot more time to kill than I do now. Games like that can get bogged down pretty easily. Nowadays I would take more of a coaching approach to having my players create characters.
But I agree with many posters here that if the GM allowed a character to be designed with the concept that he wants to kill one of the other characters, then that's a GM green light for PvP at least in this circumstance. You might want to check with your GM how he feels about it in the future. If he is opposed to it then you might suggest he speak to the guy who designed the android character about the design of his next character.
If one character seriously threatens to kill another character, PvP has already begun. If the characters are trying to create dramatic tension then that's fine but they should work it out before hand. That's pretty rare though, and normally when threats start being made the GM should be intervening if he doesn't want PvP in his game.
Vampire: the Masquerade had a really handy rule about character generation. At the start of a game the characters must collaborate on a story about how they as a group became friends. This means that all the characters HAVE to be friends at the start and they have to figure out their own reasons why. This is a rule I have often used in other games such as Pathfinder, and it works well.
Peet