A questionable call.


Advice

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

To lay out the basis of this problem I'm having with my Dm...

Were playing the rise of the runelords adventure path, and Ive started to play as a inquisitioner. Now my god Milani has set me a mission to go undercover to investigate the Mob. Ive you've played the path you know the name of the mob but i cant spell it or think of it at the moment. Now I'm considered an underboss and this investigation has been going on for some years now, back story plot blah blah blah.

Now the problem start to arise when another of the Pc's starts to get a bit...antsy about the whole things, me being a Holy man and in the mob with a slave trade going on, and begins to... well basically go after the mob and everyone in it, i.e me and a few of the fellow party members. At this point I go and talk to the DM.

1) hes using Meta in a obtrusive manner
2) putting my character in a... difficult position.

You see he not really trying to go after the mob but trying to expose me and the rest of the party. Now this ,in story of course, would put our heads on the line. So I tell the DM If he causes a problem in the game for me, I wont hesitate to kill him. I am an inquisitioner. I have the duty to protect my cover and to fulfill my objective of sniffing out the buyers of slaves.
To which he replied 'That's an alinement check. Its selfish of you to kill him.'

Now what you don't see and what I cant really show/type out for you is my DM is a good guy, and is just trying to make people happy. Which is admirable, but he is technically forcing us into certain roles to make one party member happy. I'm trying to play my character and react the way he would but I cant or loose my God and his identity.

What I'm asking is who is right?

For him to bogart us into either excepting a 'half cocked' cleric/paladin into whats supposed to be a delicate operation.
Or
Us who are just trying to play our game.

Although this does sound one sided and I'm presetting only what helps me but this is honestly how its going down.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the PC is working against the party then he shouldn't be a PC. No reason to play with a toxic player.

If the GM is telling you how to roleplay alignment then he or she doesn't understand the alignment system or why PCs are in his game in the first place.

I would probably kill the toxic PC once he crossed a line, and if the GM then decides I should fall for it or demands I stop roleplaying my character then I would walk from the table.

Regardless, the GM is always right from a rules perspective. The GM's words are the rules, but that doesn't mean you have to play at their table. You should probably let the GM know that you and most of the party do not appreciate this player's toxic behavior. If the GM decides to favor that player over the rest of you, then he can enjoy GMing for that player.


If staying alive and out of jail are selfish then I don't want to be right. I would boot him out of the party, instead of kill him though, and it is poor RP to anger specially trained murder hobos. There is also no reason someone would keep a known saboteur in the party. At the point he is out of the party he is no longer a party member. If he chooses to follow you around then the party can get a private room, and then discuss setting him up*. At least if he is in jail or dead he cant snitch on anyone.

*You specifically do not have to kill him. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Based on the information I have your more than in the right to cut him down. He is impeding your duty to your god.

Now I try to discourage pvp at my tables but don't straight ban it. This may be a situation where you don't have a choice in taking him down. Try and find a Non pvp option first, but it sounds like you have and it may not be possible.

As far as being selfish I strongly disagree with your gm. What is selfish is to let years of work infiltrating an organization to bring it down from the inside go to waste over one individual. Sometimes sacraficing one is worth the greater good, especially if your an inquisitor.

I agree with Marvus, do what needs to be done even though it may mean leaving the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Talk to the player and the GM out of game. Explain that this subplot is something you plan to play through. Let the player know that you and the other PC's involved will deal with him as hostile if he proves to be so IC. Tell the GM that if he screws over the table for this one player by using alignment as a weapon or by allowing the one player to run ramshod, you and the rest will find another table to play at.

My guess is that if these guys care about playing they'll use a bit of common sense.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Now I try to discourage pvp at my tables but don't straight ban it. This may be a situation where you don't have a choice in taking him down. Try and find a Non pvp option first, but it sounds like you have and it may not be possible.

Yeah, the unwritten rule of a no-pvp game is to not do things to other players that, logically speaking, should result in pvp. Really, calling games "No PvP" is a bit of a misnomer in my experience. Usually, it's not so much that the GM is fine with anything up to actual attack rolls against other PCs, what he really means is "No major inter-party conflict or drama."

In that light, trying to expose undercover members of the party and ruin their operations is every bit as much of a hostile act as actually swinging a sword at another PC.


I'd like to hear the Gms view before giving an opinion. However I will point out the alignment scale is. . ..

Good vs Evil
Law vs Chaos

Nothing in there about selfishness I don't know enough as I said to judge the specific situation but the fact your character tried to find a way around this (you spoke to the gm) would imply they didn't selfishly kill him but rather regretfully ended the life of someone who was endangering multiple lives and a year long investigation. Still if you want an alternative I assume your inquisitor works for an order of something get a superior to arrest/exile the guy on trumped up charges if need be. He can always be clearer later.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you don't even know the name of the group you're infiltrating, are you really that invested in the storyline? I'm guessing you're talking about the Sczarni.

I'd be curious to know your character's alignment. As a follower of Milani, I'll assume he is good. That being said, doing unsavory things in the name of some personally held belief about the "greater good" is one of the things Inquisitors are known for. If I were the DM, I'd give you some latitude. In my campaign, Inquisitors vary greatly depending on which god they follow. We have an Inquisitor of Cayden Cailean who is nothing like the stereotypical, ruthless, dogmatic killer. He’s a true follower of the Drunken Hero and he embraces life (and the ladies) and enjoys a good drink. He fights evil and would love to stamp out slavery, but he also holds himself to certain standards of morality. In fact, in my campaign, Cailean’s church doesn’t even call them “Inquisitors” (it sounds too dark). Instead, they call them “Agents” or “Operatives” and they have a decent network of covert operations devoted to opposing slavery and other forms of oppression. So even though they have more flexibility than the rank and file clergy, they hold themselves to certain standards simply because of their own beliefs.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Why not use your holy orders to conscript him in the fight, and induct him into the long-game infiltration plan? You can then point out that as a holy conscript, he is bound by church law not to interfere with the infiltration, but to aid it in any way possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Regardless, the GM is always right from a rules perspective. The GM's words are the rules...

Incorrect. The GM is "the final arbiter when it comes to rules". That does not, in any way, form, or shape, translate to "he is always right" or "his words are the rules". His job in the game is to arbitrate. He is, in effect, President or Prime Minister of the game; he runs it, he doesn't own it. It belongs to the entire play group and he is only one individual among several in that group; maybe an individual with a very particular job, but an individual none the less. The GM is not your King, your Emperor, nor your God. He is another player in the game who has a specific job in the game. Period.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

You know that expression "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail" ?

This whole issue in your party is a source of dramatic tension. This could be an incredible game in progress.

Try to step back out of the character's perspective for a moment and ask what the story needs, rather than what you want.

The dramatic tension between your investigation and another PC's actions is great for the story! Embrace it.

But just because your character sheet is a long list of killing powers does not mean that killing or even violence is the solution.

Interact with this conflict. Take action, but don't finalize it. Try to stop or work around the other PC, don't just draw steel and stab him.

But, as far as I can see, this isn't a "questionable call" on the GM's part -- this could be a great game happening right before your eyes. All you need is a little shift in perspective.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KamisLastStand wrote:
What I'm asking is who is right?

None of you are "right."

The other player is wrong because actively working to undermine other PCs leads to a toxic roleplaying environment and runs a serious risk of fracturing the group. If you guys are going to commit to playing a cooperative, social RPG, you should at least all commit to playing characters that can work together.

You're wrong for this reason: "So I tell the DM If he causes a problem in the game for me, I wont hesitate to kill him. I am an inquisitioner. I have the duty to..." That very excuse ("That's what my character would do! I'm just playing my character!") has been used for over 30 years to self-justify all types of dickish behaviors by players. Those kinds of phrases are red flags. Intra-party strife (conflicts between PCs) can quickly and directly lead to intra-group strife (conflicts between players) and are not for the enjoyment and well-being of everyone involved.

You GM is wrong because he's allowing you guys to play characters with cross purposes and for allowing it to continue to the point where one PC is ready to PVP another PC. That usually ends with a bunch of butthurt players at the table.

It's fine for a PC to have an ulterior motive the rest of the players don't know about. When that ulterior motive becomes "actively work against other party members" is when the real problems start.

I'm sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.

-Skeld


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:
You're wrong for this reason: "So I tell the DM If he causes a problem in the game for me, I wont hesitate to kill him. I am an inquisitioner. I have the duty to..." That very excuse ("That's what my character would do! I'm just playing my character!") has been used for over 30 years to self-justify all types of dickish behaviors by players. Those kinds of phrases are red flags.

That is a generalization fallacy. Just because that has been used to justify "dickish" behavior by some doesn't mean that it always means that. This is an example of a vocal and obvious minority giving a bad name to the otherwise respectable majority. In other words, 10% of (lawyers, police, telemarketers, etc.) give the other 90% a bad name. His position makes perfect sense; he's not just going to kill him "preemptively" for the sake of avoiding the possibility of a problem and he's certainly not going to enjoy it, but if this PC actually does pose a significant problem to the investigation, his character will act 'in character' and "resolve" the matter. It's distasteful, but that's the Inquisitor's entire job description; doing those distasteful things for the benefit of his divine order. Now a Paladin doing the same thing would be a clear violation of his oaths; he'd be obligated to both preserve the investigation and keep this innocent interloper from harm because that is the Paladin's job description. So he isn't exactly "wrong", per say. In a way, none of them are wrong. One player plays his character as his character would behave because this character seemingly doesn't know he's interfering with an investigation; he can't very well "meta" that knowledge to his character. The GM may provide plot hooks that will lead said character to discover the investigation but other than that, he can't very well step in and command either player to "play their character differently". And our Inquisitior player can't very well compromise the investigation for every upstart interloper who comes along. Thus, they aren't "wrong" but simply at an impasse where in-character knowledge is at odds with OOC knowledge.

I think the best way to handle the situation is for the GM to handle things not from outside the game but from within the game; maybe allow the cleric to overhear some chat about suspicious members of this mob who suspect there is an infiltrator but doesn't know who it is (tip off the cleric that there is an innocent among them and, as a Paladin, he cannot risk killing him). Or our Inquisitor can communicate back to his order the presence of the Cleric who is causing trouble and get some cross-order communication going. Use plot hooks to resolve the situation rather than GM overruling players on how to play their characters. But he should also be aware that "killing out of need for the greater good to protect an investigation" is very different from, "killing because I can't be bothered to preserve his life".


Kazaan wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Regardless, the GM is always right from a rules perspective. The GM's words are the rules...
Incorrect. The GM is "the final arbiter when it comes to rules". That does not, in any way, form, or shape, translate to "he is always right" or "his words are the rules". His job in the game is to arbitrate. He is, in effect, President or Prime Minister of the game; he runs it, he doesn't own it. It belongs to the entire play group and he is only one individual among several in that group; maybe an individual with a very particular job, but an individual none the less. The GM is not your King, your Emperor, nor your God. He is another player in the game who has a specific job in the game. Period.

I would say that being a GM is not a job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I usually hate people with absolute views on morality. As if murder is inherently evil. I hate your GM, OP.
Sorry for not being useful.

Edit: And those damned hypocrites and people who try to allow for exceptions but still maintain that it's an absolute rule on morality

Sovereign Court

Barathos wrote:

I usually hate people with absolute views on morality. As if murder is inherently evil. I hate your GM, OP.

Sorry for not being useful.

Edit: And those damned hypocrites and people who try to allow for exceptions but still maintain that it's an absolute rule on morality

Murder is inherently evil.

Killing isn't.

By definition - murder is unjustified killing.

Not all killing is murder.

(admittedly - many use the two interchangably - they're wrong)

Scarab Sages

Law enforcement goes through the same thing. One unit has a long term investigation, while another unit wants to take them down now for something else.

There is no reason the two parties involved can't find a non pvp solution. Skeld is correct, for the one player to want to jeopardize some of the group (you said you and several players) is going to cause the PLAYERS problems. For your first reaction to be if he doesn't stop I'll kill him causes PLAYERS problems.

You are both "wrong"

Think about this: would an undercover detective (P1) tell the other detective (P2) that he will kill the 2nd? Even if P1 was some black ops or CIA operative? No, of course not. P1 (undercover) would find every way to avoid such a situation with P2. Perhaps ramp up the investigation, perhaps use chaos caused by P2 to increase his own power in the organization in order to get closer.

If ordered to kill, he'd tell the other person to disappear. Since they'd just hire someone else. but he wouldn't kill him just to finish an investigation.

Same goes if the organization orders you to kill anyone else. That is most likely an evil act, because you don't HAVE to kill, you can kidnap, make them disappear, flip them to give information (which is how a lot of people get flipped, once their bosses try to kill them. Suddenly they're not so loyal).


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Barathos wrote:

I usually hate people with absolute views on morality. As if murder is inherently evil. I hate your GM, OP.

Sorry for not being useful.

Edit: And those damned hypocrites and people who try to allow for exceptions but still maintain that it's an absolute rule on morality

Murder is inherently evil.

Killing isn't.

By definition - murder is unjustified killing.

Not all killing is murder.

(admittedly - many use the two interchangably - they're wrong)

According to my good friend, Google, murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.". Unlawful does not mean unjustifiable, it just means it's illegal.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Regardless, the GM is always right from a rules perspective. The GM's words are the rules...
Incorrect. The GM is "the final arbiter when it comes to rules". That does not, in any way, form, or shape, translate to "he is always right" or "his words are the rules". His job in the game is to arbitrate. He is, in effect, President or Prime Minister of the game; he runs it, he doesn't own it. It belongs to the entire play group and he is only one individual among several in that group; maybe an individual with a very particular job, but an individual none the less. The GM is not your King, your Emperor, nor your God. He is another player in the game who has a specific job in the game. Period.
I would say that being a GM is not a job.

Substitute "responsibility", if you like. That is a thing the GM most definitely has.


blahpers wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Regardless, the GM is always right from a rules perspective. The GM's words are the rules...
Incorrect. The GM is "the final arbiter when it comes to rules". That does not, in any way, form, or shape, translate to "he is always right" or "his words are the rules". His job in the game is to arbitrate. He is, in effect, President or Prime Minister of the game; he runs it, he doesn't own it. It belongs to the entire play group and he is only one individual among several in that group; maybe an individual with a very particular job, but an individual none the less. The GM is not your King, your Emperor, nor your God. He is another player in the game who has a specific job in the game. Period.
I would say that being a GM is not a job.
Substitute "responsibility", if you like. That is a thing the GM most definitely has.

I would say that GMing is not an obligation either.

He or she is the Game Master, not the game referee.


TBH killing a good character is not evil by itself, hence the reason there are soldiers and guards who are lawful good when cutting down a chaotic good mob. Threatening someone who will get you killed through their actions is self-defense. In fact, selfishly making a decision that can get others killed is selfish and a willfully evil action, I.E. that paladin may be close to falling either way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Catch is according to the OP its an out of character objection to the inquisitor doing this causing the problem that is he's using out of character meta knowledge to try and force the inquisitor in character to play his way as I understand it. Again I'd like to hear the other side of this but from the post it does seem the fault lies on behalf of the other player but that's normally the case isn't it?

EDIT
To put it another way this isn't one investigator accidently getting too close to anothers undercover work its an investigator who KNOWS that undercover work is going on, doesn't approve of a cop being involved with that kind of business even for those purposes and is deliberately trying to expose the undercover operatives so they have to abandon what they're doing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
I would say that being a GM is not a job.

That comes from a fundamental attitude that arbitrarily divides "work" from "play". Work is an expenditure of effort for a result. Play is a type of work. Play is not effortless; it requires effort which can be mental, physical, or some combination of the two. It generates a result; this can be enjoyment, challenge, personal development, any combination of these and many other factors. Being GM is a job. Being a player is a job. Being a pitcher is a job. You may do these jobs professionally and get paid for them or you may do them just for yourself, but that doesn't mean it isn't a job. Play is merely a type of Work. Enjoyable work, mind you, but work none the less.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You seem to want someone to tell you that you are right and on the side of angels in this disagreement. I submit that it doesn't really matter if you are right or not.

The question isn't who is right, but what do you want and how do you get it. I'll presume you want to have an enjoyable gaming experience and remain friends with all involved, if that is not the case, then you probably don't need any advice to accomplish your goals anyway.

The first thing I would do is try to figure out what is motivating the player (and to a lesser extent his character) into causing this issue. Perhaps your sub-plot is taking so much game time that he is just freaking board and acting out. Perhaps he genuinely thinks his character needs to act directly. Whatever reason, understanding why is probably the first step to figuring out a successful resolution. This quite likely includes asking him (in a non-hostile way.)

Second, once you understand his motivations, you need to try and find a way to satisfy them. If the player is bored, perhaps you can find a way to include him more in the subplot. If he thinks his character would be opposed, perhaps an in character discussion between your two characters might find a way to convince him to work with you. Basically, in the end, you need to get him on the team.

Yes, ideally the other player and the GM should be part of this process too, and hopefully they will be, but you can only control what you do, and rather than posting on boards to get validation of your righteousness, I suggest actually trying to create a situation where you all will have fun.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
That is a generalization fallacy. Just because that has been used to justify "dickish" behavior by some doesn't mean that it always means that.

We have generalizations for a reason. Whether or not that's a fallacy is ultimately unimportant. When a player says something like "That's what my character would do! I'm just playing my character!" to justify attacking another character, they're attempting to push responsibility for the action from the player to the character, ie "I'm not the jerk! It's the character that's the jerk!" It may not always be the case, but it's certainly indicative of disruptive behavior.

-Skeld


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I'm with Evil Lincoln - this could be fantastic role-play opportunity.

If you really can't embrace it, I suggest you accept it. Let your investigation be found out, the Sczarni will capture and perhaps execute you (or try to), and rush the slaves out of town. Should the worst happen, it will be on your exposer's head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As far as the GM is concerned, the questionable decision is at the start. I would very actively discourage someone from playing a paladin in a group that is trying to do an infiltration of an illegal operation. The way most people seem to play paladins just invites trouble in this sort of situation.

Other than that. Killing the other PC may or may not be an alignment infraction. If the GM is going to try and impose things like that for a divine caster, the 2 of you should define the limits of what your deity/religion/order/church/cabal/cult dictate for behavior.

Some GM's will say PvP is an alignment shift just to discourage PvP. If that is what is happening, I would say that the other guy exposing our operation is the start of the PvP situation.
.
.

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

You know that expression "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail" ?

This whole issue in your party is a source of dramatic tension. This could be an incredible game in progress.

Try to step back out of the character's perspective for a moment and ask what the story needs, rather than what you want.

The dramatic tension between your investigation and another PC's actions is great for the story! Embrace it.

But just because your character sheet is a long list of killing powers does not mean that killing or even violence is the solution.

Interact with this conflict. Take action, but don't finalize it. Try to stop or work around the other PC, don't just draw steel and stab him.

But, as far as I can see, this isn't a "questionable call" on the GM's part -- this could be a great game happening right before your eyes. All you need is a little shift in perspective.

I like your take on this. It could really add to the campaign.

But it only works if everyone is willing. If one guy is just being a jerk and you try to make it part of the story, he wins. So he will almost certainly escalate the jerk-ish behavior.

I haven't been at this particular table, so I can't say in this case. I think it is pretty obvious that the OP thinks the person is being a jerk.

I guess I would suggest to have an out-of-game discussion with the guy about how the 2 of you can make it a part of the campaign without ruining the campaign.

If that doesn't work? Honestly, I'd just find a new game. A person that is trying to be a jack-hole will always succeed. I have too little leisure time to waste it dealing with something like that.
.
.

Kazaan wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Regardless, the GM is always right from a rules perspective. The GM's words are the rules...
Incorrect. The GM is "the final arbiter when it comes to rules". That does not, in any way, form, or shape, translate to "he is always right" or "his words are the rules". His job in the game is to arbitrate. He is, in effect, President or Prime Minister of the game; he runs it, he doesn't own it. It belongs to the entire play group and he is only one individual among several in that group; maybe an individual with a very particular job, but an individual none the less. The GM is not your King, your Emperor, nor your God. He is another player in the game who has a specific job in the game. Period.

I disagree to a certain extent. I definitely disagree with your exaggeration. Nobody claimed he was King, Emperor, or God except you. With only slight hyperbole, I might not have problem with saying he is the President of the campaign. Whether some people want to admit it or not, the President is not an autocrat and his/her powers are severely limited. And if too many bad things happen under his/her watch, he/she won't be President too much longer.

Generally speaking the GM has significantly more time, money, responsibility, and effort invested in a campaign than all of the players combined. I have no problem saying it is his campaign and world. I think most good GM's get a lot of input from their players on what will happen, goals, house rules, etc... but it is their decision.

I would also use the word 'task' rather than 'job' unless of course you are planning to pay him/her. Most people associate 'job' with paid employment.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

You know that expression "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail" ?

This whole issue in your party is a source of dramatic tension. This could be an incredible game in progress.

Try to step back out of the character's perspective for a moment and ask what the story needs, rather than what you want.

The dramatic tension between your investigation and another PC's actions is great for the story! Embrace it.

But just because your character sheet is a long list of killing powers does not mean that killing or even violence is the solution.

Interact with this conflict. Take action, but don't finalize it. Try to stop or work around the other PC, don't just draw steel and stab him.

But, as far as I can see, this isn't a "questionable call" on the GM's part -- this could be a great game happening right before your eyes. All you need is a little shift in perspective.

I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. This is what we tried to do, but he more or less perused his goal of outing us because he disagreed with it.

But all in all, you are 100% right on how it should be handled.


Kelvar Silvermace wrote:

If you don't even know the name of the group you're infiltrating, are you really that invested in the storyline? I'm guessing you're talking about the Sczarni.

I'd be curious to know your character's alignment. As a follower of Milani, I'll assume he is good. That being said, doing unsavory things in the name of some personally held belief about the "greater good" is one of the things Inquisitors are known for. If I were the DM, I'd give you some latitude. In my campaign, Inquisitors vary greatly depending on which god they follow. We have an Inquisitor of Cayden Cailean who is nothing like the stereotypical, ruthless, dogmatic killer. He’s a true follower of the Drunken Hero and he embraces life (and the ladies) and enjoys a good drink. He fights evil and would love to stamp out slavery, but he also holds himself to certain standards of morality. In fact, in my campaign, Cailean’s church doesn’t even call them “Inquisitors” (it sounds too dark). Instead, they call them “Agents” or “Operatives” and they have a decent network of covert operations devoted to opposing slavery and other forms of oppression. So even though they have more flexibility than the rank and file clergy, they hold themselves to certain standards simply because of their own beliefs.

I've never actually seen the spelling for the name. He said is once in the beginning for my 'hook' then they were referred to as the mob, so please excuse me for not know the name.

And I am neutral good. And I do try and be flexible with him. Even talked to them DM about bringing into the order [which other characters objected to, hes to gunho about things like this.]

I do uphold the right beliefs even when I deal with slavery and the finding of the big fish. I'm even thought as a character who prefers to use his words before his axe. The tennets of milani are upheld almost to a T, unless of course I need someone to talk.


You have an intra-group communication problem. You seem to be under the impression that your group is a co-operative team where no PC-vs-PC action or intrigue should be going on. At least one other player seems to be under the impression that political PC-vs-PC actions are okay (well, either that or you've completely misunderstood the situation, which is possible). This is a group communication problem, because as a group there should be no doubt about where the group stand on this issue.

So discuss it.

But try to do so in a constructive fashion. That means, not deciding where blame lies before you start the conversation, and not using threats. This type of conversation can be quite hard at the best of times, and if you lead with "This thing you're doing is causing trouble." (placing the blame on them) and follow up with "I'm going to have to do {X undesirable thing}" then it's going to seem like a threat. And people don't generally respond well to blaming and threats, especially if they're completely unaware of a potential issue.

So I advise you to approach this like what it most likely is - a communication problem. And bear in mind that communication problems are the fault of everyone involved, including yourself. If this isn't supposed to be a pvp game, then, well you could have helped clear that up when it started. The part where you didn't [i]could[i] be taken as a tacit consent. It shouldn't be, but interpreting silence on an issue as being uncaring is pretty common.

Also, try to be really clear about the distinction between you and what you want, versus your character and their aims. Refer to your character in the third person, as in "My character's objectives are..." and so on. It'll help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KamisLastStand wrote:


To which he replied 'That's an alinement check. Its selfish of you to kill him.'

What the F is an 'alignment check'?


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

I disagree to a certain extent. I definitely disagree with your exaggeration. Nobody claimed he was King, Emperor, or God except you. With only slight hyperbole, I might not have problem with saying he is the President of the campaign. Whether some people want to admit it or not, the President is not an autocrat and his/her powers are severely limited. And if too many bad things happen under his/her watch, he/she won't be President too much longer.

Generally speaking the GM has significantly more time, money, responsibility, and effort invested in a campaign than all of the players combined. I have no problem saying it is his campaign and world. I think most good GM's get a lot of input from their players on what will happen, goals, house rules, etc... but it is their decision.

I would also use the word 'task' rather than 'job' unless of course you are planning to pay him/her. Most people associate 'job' with paid employment.

Disagree all you want; it doesn't change the inherent logic of my position. Additionally, did you notice the negator "not" in my statement? "The GM is not your King, your Emperor, nor your God." That quite literally is the opposite of the claim you attribute to me. And I don't mean literally 'figuratively'. You even repeated my very sentiments in saying that'd you'd be willing to compare the GM to a President/PM which is precisely what I put forth, "he runs the game, he doesn't own it." So I don't really see why you claim to disagree when you attribute a claim to me that I never made (moreover, I made the precise opposite claim) and then parrot my own claims back at me. The only place where you fall flat is in persisting in the claim that the GM "owns" the campaign (which, btw, goes right back to placing him in a position not unlike that of a "king") just because he puts, "more time, money, effort, and responsibility into it." Well, a Politician puts lots of time, money, effort, and responsibility into the running of a country; does that mean he "owns" the country? Many may think that they do, but that is incorrect. The game belongs to all players involved. It is incredibly lop-sided to claim that the time, money, effort, and responsibility that the non-GM players put into their characters is somehow "less important". Without these players, the GM is just a single player sitting alone in the dark and his time, money, effort, and responsibility be damned. The GM is an arbitrator of the rules. That quite literally means he is a referee contrary to what Marcus wrote earlier; his tasks in the game are to play the NPCs, narrate the parts of the story that need to be parceled out to the players based on the results of their checks, and referee the game. That's it. It may very well be a demanding job; I never said it wasn't. What I objected to was the attitude that the GM is "always right" and that the increased responsibility entitles the GM to "own" the game. The entire play group "owns" the game; the GM is just exercising stewardship over it. He puts forth that time, money, effort, and responsibility for the benefit of the group as a whole, including himself. If the GM wanted to tell a story in which the characters act completely in accordance with his own views, he should not be a GM; he should just write a book.

PS: Some people may associate 'job' only with paid employment, but there are other definitions for which pay doesn't enter the equation or is an irrelevant distinction. To GM a game is most certainly a job. It may or may not be a paid job, but that distinction is inconsequential to my position.


Zhayne wrote:
KamisLastStand wrote:


To which he replied 'That's an alinement check. Its selfish of you to kill him.'
What the F is an 'alignment check'?

It sounds like an implied threat to me. Do as I want or your character may have X consequence occur. In this case it sounds like forced alignment change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kazaan wrote:
... Disagree all you want; it doesn't change the inherent logic of my position. ...

I said nothing about changing your logic. I mostly disagreed with the exaggeration.

Kazaan wrote:
... Additionally, did you notice the negator "not" in my statement? "The GM is not your King, your Emperor, nor your God." That quite literally is the opposite of the claim you attribute to me. And I don't mean literally 'figuratively'... So I don't really see why you claim to disagree when you attribute a claim to me that I never made (moreover, I made the precise opposite claim) and then parrot my own claims back at me. ...

Ok... I will be a little more precise. When you make very exaggerated claims stating very emphatically that it is not X, you are implying that someone else made that claim that it is X. No one else made that claim. You are, in effect, attributing a claim to them that they did not make. So that claim came from you.

Kazaan wrote:
... You even repeated my very sentiments in saying that'd you'd be willing to compare the GM to a President/PM which is precisely what I put forth, ...

Yes, now you are also upset where I agree with you. ...

Kazaan wrote:
... The only place where you fall flat is in persisting in the claim that the GM "owns" the campaign (which, btw, goes right back to placing him in a position not unlike that of a "king") ... The game belongs to all players involved. ...

Uhmm... No... Owning something has virtually nothing to do with being a King. My wife and I own our house. That does not make us royalty over anyone else that may live in the house with us or that stops by for a visit. But yes, we are reasonably in charge of what happens at our house. If others don't like the way we run our house, we may be in it all by ourselves. which sometimes seems like it would be a nice thing. {sigh} ;) The closest example might be a party. If I throw a party at my house. It is my party. Even if a bunch of others help me. And even if it would be nothing without all the people that attend. Guess what? It is still my party. Doesn't mean I should be a jerk about it.

Kazaan wrote:
... just because he puts, "more time, money, effort, and responsibility into it." Well, a Politician puts lots of time, money, effort, and responsibility into the running of a country; does that mean he "owns" the country? Many may think that they do, but that is incorrect. ...

Well if we are going to be picky... I would say a politician puts a lot of other people's money, huge amounts of other people's effort, a fair bit of their own effort, and the impression of responsibility into getting and keeping the job of running a country. I have seen very little evidence of significant money, effort, or responsibility into actually running the country.

No a politician does not own the country. A metaphor only goes so far. Also a politician does not create and provide the country. I guess you are correct. The President/Prime Minister/politician metaphor is not very applicable.

Kazaan wrote:
... It is incredibly lop-sided to claim that the time, money, effort, and responsibility that the non-GM players put into their characters is somehow "less important". ...

Again you are implying a claim I did not make. I never said anything remotely similar to "less important" in my post. So again, that claim came from you.

Importance has nothing to do with ownership. I think the guy that made the smoke detector in my house has a vitally important job. That does not make him a joint owner of my house. The family that currently owns the company I used to work at does nothing important for the company. They meet twice a year to say either "you are doing a good job" or "make me more money." I don't think many people would call that important. But they sure as heck own the company.

Kazaan wrote:
... Without these players, the GM is just a single player sitting alone in the dark and his time, money, effort, and responsibility be damned. ... He puts forth that time, money, effort, and responsibility for the benefit of the group as a whole, including himself. If the GM wanted to tell a story in which the characters act completely in accordance with his own views, he should not be a GM; he should just write a book. ...

Agreed. That is why it would be a poor strategy to be a jack-hole about it.

Has nothing to do with ownership.

Kazaan wrote:
... The GM is an arbitrator of the rules. That quite literally means he is a referee contrary to what Marcus wrote earlier; his tasks in the game are to play the NPCs, narrate the parts of the story that need to be parceled out to the players based on the results of their checks, and referee the game. That's it. It may very well be a demanding job; I never said it wasn't. What I objected to was the attitude that the GM is "always right" and that the increased responsibility entitles the GM to "own" the game. The entire play group "owns" the game; the GM is just exercising stewardship over it. ...

Disagree. Ownership vs. responsibility/investment have a very nearly one to one correlation in standard usage of the terms. I believe it is very nearly exact in legal usage of the terms. I can think of very few instances where they are not very closely related.

However, there is also some lesser responsibility and investment on the part of the players. If you really want to get obsessive about 'ownership' of the event (which I wouldn't normally bother). I would put it approximately like this:
GM owns the game, world, and campaign (which includes the rule set).
Players own their PC's.
GM and players have joint ownership of the story produced in the playing of the campaign. But I would still say the GM is the highest percentage owner. Maybe in the ball park of GM at 40% and the rest split among the players.

Kazaan wrote:
... PS: Some people may associate 'job' only with paid employment, but there are other definitions for which pay doesn't enter the equation or is an irrelevant distinction. To GM a game is most certainly a job. It may or may not be a paid job, but that distinction is inconsequential to my position.

I just looked it up to be sure. Of the 7 basic definitions. The first 3 are directly related to paid employment. One is not applicable to this conversation. Two imply paid employment. Only the 7th is not related to paid employment.

So yes, you are technically correct that the word 'job' can be used in this context. However, it is always advisable for an author to consider how their creation will be received as opposed to how it was intended. I would posit that it is not unreasonable for the average person, without a dictionary open right in front of them, to assume the standard use of the word to indicate paid employment.

But you don't need to get so defensive about it. It was a very minor quibble about what I would do.

Because I am one of those people that associate the word 'job' with paid employment which I also consider to be very nearly a necessary evil. I would not put those negative connotations on the GM.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm gonna answer something that nobody really touched: Alignment doesn't work that way. A character's alignment is defined by the regularly occurring actions that character performs. It's why you can have characters with flaws and such; the ways in which they don't follow their alignment aren't representative of your alignment as a whole.

Now, should you kill another player's character? No. Never. If you ever reach a point where you think it's a good idea for ANY reason, just stop, because you're wrong. This is a cooperative game, and that's what it's meant to be. It doesn't matter whose fault it was that there is conflict in-game. Your goal is to resolve that conflict whilst keeping the party intact. As we don't have specifics regarding the lives of the people you game with, or the ability to know exactly what your game is like, you need to figure out how to make this happen. The truth is, for all the advice that we give, we can't tell you how to solve this problem. The only thing I can say, is that if you decided to kill him, you would regret it, because nothing sours a group quite like "alignment-justified" murder.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
Regardless, the GM is always right from a rules perspective. The GM's words are the rules...
Incorrect. The GM is "the final arbiter when it comes to rules". That does not, in any way, form, or shape, translate to "he is always right" or "his words are the rules". His job in the game is to arbitrate. He is, in effect, President or Prime Minister of the game; he runs it, he doesn't own it. It belongs to the entire play group and he is only one individual among several in that group; maybe an individual with a very particular job, but an individual none the less. The GM is not your King, your Emperor, nor your God. He is another player in the game who has a specific job in the game. Period.
I would say that being a GM is not a job.

really? your gonna go grammar police on this one?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You say your playing RotRL? Are you familiar with the path? Because - unless it radically changed from my original issues, or your DMs done a lot of work to it - by vol.3 you won't be anywhere near the mob you've infiltrated, or doing anything related.....

So maybe you should lay off the idea of killing the other party memember. In fact it might actually be helpful to have your investigation blown. That way you can get on with the AP & not be all upset that your back story isn't being fullfilled.

Grand Lodge

Mob?


My solution:

You and your friends attack your party-member. Tell your 'allies' that you're going to keep him alive once he is unconscious to see if he can get any information out of him, and that you will dispose of him later.

Take him to an abandonned, and tie him up. Go all Misery on him. Keep him injured, but alive and tied up out of the way. Takes the character out of the equation. It sidelines him for a while, but it gives him an opportunity to come back later, or stop being a jerk.

Think of it as a Time-Out you might apply to a child.

Skeld wrote:
Kazaan wrote:
That is a generalization fallacy. Just because that has been used to justify "dickish" behavior by some doesn't mean that it always means that.

We have generalizations for a reason. Whether or not that's a fallacy is ultimately unimportant. When a player says something like "That's what my character would do! I'm just playing my character!" to justify attacking another character, they're attempting to push responsibility for the action from the player to the character, ie "I'm not the jerk! It's the character that's the jerk!" It may not always be the case, but it's certainly indicative of disruptive behavior.

-Skeld

Generalizations are often wrong. You can predict that 100 people will generally walk 100 yards and be 90% right as most will not turn into the shops or alleyways. HOwever... for the one person that did turn into a store, you are 100% wrong. People don't like to be generalized because of this reason.

Anyways... Does it really matter WHO is to blame whether it be character or player? The player may treat a piece of paper to be less valuable than a human life... but then again they live in a world where they will likely kill 100 living creatures in thier time, and where a person can die at the drop of a hat. Anyways - my question is... why does it matter that they are trying to shift blame to the character? Maybe that character WOULD actually kill the other? Why is that so hard to believe? I have a bloodrager that wields axes, but I think my preferred weapon would be a gun... or ya know... if I had to use a melee weapon, a Claymore. I am not my character.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
TheJayde wrote:
Generalizations are often wrong.

O_o


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
TheJayde wrote:
Generalizations are often wrong.
O_o

-_-


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
TheJayde wrote:
Generalizations are often wrong.
O_o

I didn't say mostly wrong... just that they are often wrong.


I prefer the phrase, "Sweeping generalizations are wrong." It's humorous, it makes the point, and immediately brings to light the people who really shouldn't be participating in the discussion in the first place.


TheJayde wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
TheJayde wrote:
Generalizations are often wrong.
O_o
I didn't say mostly wrong... just that they are often wrong.

Generally

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
TheJayde wrote:
Generalizations are often wrong.
O_o

In general, generalizations are often wrong.

This is why we can't have nice things.

-Skeld

Scarab Sages

KamisLastStand wrote:


I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. This is what we tried to do, but he more or less perused his goal of outing us because he disagreed with it.

But all in all, you are 100% right on how it should be handled.

That is too bad. how have things worked out?


Skeld wrote:
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
TheJayde wrote:
Generalizations are often wrong.
O_o

In general, generalizations are often wrong.

This is why we can't have nice things.

-Skeld

Whatever the case... The questions remains... What if this is not the case of being indicative of disruption and actually playing out a character the way the character should be played?

Skeld wrote:


You're wrong for this reason: "So I tell the DM If he causes a problem in the game for me, I wont hesitate to kill him. I am an inquisitioner. I have the duty to..." That very excuse ("That's what my character would do! I'm just playing my character!") has been used for over 30 years to self-justify all types of dickish behaviors by players. Those kinds of phrases are red flags. Intra-party strife (conflicts between PCs) can quickly and directly lead to intra-group strife (conflicts between players) and are not for the enjoyment and well-being of everyone involved.

You saying he is wrong based on the assumptions we are talking about. You didn't even give an option for variance. Not generally wrong. Probably wrong. Maybe wrong. Then, you use a generalization to validate your statement, but still may not apply. Things like that tend to bring up this sort of conversation. Which is why you can't have nice things. I know I don't like being mislabeled, and when I mislabel people because I use generalizations... I expect there may be some pushback.

Also I find inter-party strife to be something that can help get less active players more active in the environment, and help develop characters further. Even if it does go to the lengths of killing another player, it develops people. Shows what lengths a person will go to. I can definately see this being the case more when there are strong beliefs like those that would be involved in Religion.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TheJayde wrote:

...

Also I find inter-party strife to be something that can help get less active players more active in the environment, and help develop characters further. ...

I have usually found exactly the opposite. Two characters (or players)start arguing/fighting and everyone else gets quiet and uncomfortable. People shut down and don't roleplay anything at all because apparently, that just leads to arguments. If it happens very much, the group and maybe the friendships break up.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
TheJayde wrote:

...

Also I find inter-party strife to be something that can help get less active players more active in the environment, and help develop characters further. ...
I have usually found exactly the opposite. Two characters (or players)start arguing/fighting and everyone else gets quiet and uncomfortable. People shut down and don't roleplay anything at all because apparently, that just leads to arguments. If it happens very much, the group and maybe the friendships break up.

Well yeah, I've had that too. Though that is two players that need to hash something out, not two characters. I'm talking about character conflict. This works better with players who are better at separating themselves from thier in game selves.


The role of the GM is different at different tables. Trying to say the GM can do x or can't do x ignores this fact.

I'm doing x because "that's what my character would do" is a perfectly acceptable answer. The other PCs can also choose not to take your character with them, because "that's what their characters would do." Its a two-way street.

To me, table-top games have always been about being able to do whatever you want. That's one of their biggest draws. If you want to play typical good guy with his typical good buddies takes on typical bad guy/organization, there are hundreds of others games/mediums out there.

As such, if the OP truly feels like killing the other PC is what he has to do, then chat with the GM and see his/her thoughts on it. It may end up being the way to go.

Keep in mind that most players have an incredibly hard time separating the anger they will have from their character being killed from their new character. This usually leads to constant PC on PC as each new PC coming on line tries to get revenge for his past PC.

As such, its best to be avoided if at all possible.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / A questionable call. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.