Sorry, but it's what my character would do.


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
4/5

Jason Wu wrote:

I am once again reminded of my party barely managing to talk an enraged dragon out of just outright eating us, only to have the one PC who'd been keeping silent up til then open up and insult the dragon's lineage.

We pretty much let the dragon eat him.

Yup. Just because I can't attack a fellow PC, doesn't mean I have to protect him from his own jerkishness/idiocy.

Dark Archive 1/5

Jason Wu wrote:

I am once again reminded of my party barely managing to talk an enraged dragon out of just outright eating us, only to have the one PC who'd been keeping silent up til then open up and insult the dragon's lineage.

We pretty much let the dragon eat him.

-k

That made me chuckle, in an evil way :)

5/5 5/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Wu wrote:

I am once again reminded of my party barely managing to talk an enraged dragon out of just outright eating us, only to have the one PC who'd been keeping silent up til then open up and insult the dragon's lineage.

We pretty much let the dragon eat him.

-k

"Insulting the dragon is what my character would do!... why are you pouring BBQ sauce on me?

"Its what OUR characters would do

*grinds pepper mill* "Red or black sir?"

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Amanda Plageman wrote:
Count Countula wrote:

The mods need to be written better where one murder hobo in the group isn't costing everyone lost prestige and half the party a faction mission.

I have two scenarios in a row where I have lost out on faction missions because one PC just has to murder hobo. Even when asked over and over by 4 out of 6 players - "please don't do that."

And if I can't PVP to stop it then the scenario needs to call out only the murder hobo gets the negative boon/curse what have you.

Edit: to make it pertinent the "it's what my character would do" was thrown around quite a bit.

And this kind of thing is where GMs need to step in. I'm always surprised by how limited a lot of people think the 'no PvP' rule is.

The No PVP rule was a focal part of what I sat and talked with Mike about when we were updating the guide.

You are looking for a bullying-enabling hammer in the guide which we do not have and do not want to give. There is no subtext in the No PVP rule that needs to be inferred. Really.

4/5

TetsujinOni wrote:
You are looking for a bullying-enabling hammer in the guide which we do not have and do not want to give. There is no subtext in the No PVP rule that needs to be inferred. Really.

I'm not looking for any kind of bully-enabling, hammer or otherwise. But 'there is no subtext' = Table Variation. Table Variation is something we usually try to keep to a minimum.

At any table I GM, I consider acts undertaken by PCs which directly contribute to the party's being unable to complete their determined course of action, without an especially good reason, to be PvP. Because it entertains 1 player while reducing the enjoyment of most if not all of the other players and doesn't contribute to the overall goal: enjoyment of the game session.

("It's what my character would do", "Because it's funny", and "Because Chaotic Neutral" are rarely good enough reasons.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Amanda Plageman wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:
You are looking for a bullying-enabling hammer in the guide which we do not have and do not want to give. There is no subtext in the No PVP rule that needs to be inferred. Really.

I'm not looking for any kind of bully-enabling, hammer or otherwise. But 'there is no subtext' = Table Variation. Table Variation is something we usually try to keep to a minimum.

At any table I GM, I consider acts undertaken by PCs which directly contribute to the party's being unable to complete their determined course of action, without an especially good reason, to be PvP. Because it entertains 1 player while reducing the enjoyment of most if not all of the other players and doesn't contribute to the overall goal: enjoyment of the game session.

("It's what my character would do", "Because it's funny", and "Because Chaotic Neutral" are rarely good enough reasons.)

What about "Because Lawful Good" or "My oath forbids I stand by and watch this travesty"

5/5 5/55/55/5

Amanda Plageman wrote:


I'm not looking for any kind of bully-enabling, hammer or otherwise. But 'there is no subtext' = Table Variation. Table Variation is something we usually try to keep to a minimum.

If there is no subtext then you can (and I've seen it argued) physically beat on your fellow pathfinders and drop them to - almost their con hit points and watch them bleed out, or trip them in front of a hungry monster so it kills them...table variation has to be a step up from that.

4/5

Talonhawke wrote:
What about "Because Lawful Good" or "My oath forbids I stand by and watch this travesty"

As has been covered earlier in this thread and in countless other threads, there are always ways around that issue.

"Because Lawful Good"? You're both Lawful and Good, but the two don't always go hand-in-hand. Maybe, just this once, you could be a little more Good than Lawful. You're still Lawful Good, but now you're less likely to cause problems at the table. There are plenty of other occasions for you to be more Lawful than Good. But, yeah. Ultimately, "Because Lawful Good" is just as bad a reason as "Because Chaotic Neutral". "Because Alignment" is generally not a good enough reason to behave like a jerk.

Because My oath forbids I stand by and watch this travesty"? Nothing requires you to. You can walk away. Unless you're in direct combat, you can choose to exit the conversation/encounter/building. You can choose to argue against the action and refuse to participate. You can vote with your feet. None of those options are (usually) PvP.

Or, you could choose to make PCs that realize that not everyone adheres to your oaths and morality, and accept that fact. Or you could make characters who aren't afraid to, when given the VC's mission briefing, say, "No, I'm sorry, this mission isn't for me", and either bow out or switch characters.

I'm not saying that uptight, inflexible PCs shouldn't be played in PFS. I'm saying that if you make an uptight, inflexible PC, that shouldn't be your only PC. Because there are a lot of scenarios where 'uptight, inflexible PC' = failed mission.

Ideally, the GM should be able to warn a player that, "Hey, a paladin isn't a good fit for this scenario, maybe you should play something else", but they don't always think to do so, or maybe some of the nuances of the scenario aren't clear to them, or maybe any kind of warning would be a huge spoiler. And even if they can warn a player, they usually can't/won't forbid the player from playing a wildly inappropriate PC. That's on the player.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

re-title the thread
should I have fun along with people or at the expense of people

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth, I am eager to play my paladin in scenarios where he might not be a good fit. If I only send him on paladin-enabling adventures ("What? This scenario has a dragon, a demon, and some undead, all to boot? Why, yes, please.") what kind of fun role-playing career would that be?

4/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
For what it's worth, I am eager to play my paladin in scenarios where he might not be a good fit. If I only send him on paladin-enabling adventures ("What? This scenario has a dragon, a demon, and some undead, all to boot? Why, yes, please.") what kind of fun role-playing career would that be?

That's cool, Chris. I fully support that attitude. But do you expect that all the other PCs will adhere to your Paladin's Code, no matter what? When the group chooses to do something your PC doesn't like or doesn't agree with, do you move beyond arguing against the action and refusing to engage in the unwanted act to actively sabotaging the party in some way 'because it's what your character would do'? Or do you find a creative way to resolve your PC's internal conflict, or accept the fact that you might need atonement at the end of the scenario (and maybe ask the party to go in on the cost of the atonement, since you were a good sport about accepting their choices during the scenario)?

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jason Wu wrote:

I am once again reminded of my party barely managing to talk an enraged dragon out of just outright eating us, only to have the one PC who'd been keeping silent up til then open up and insult the dragon's lineage.

We pretty much let the dragon eat him.

-k

"Here, we'll even give you some barbecue sauce and a bib. Just... don't do it when we're around, okay?"

Grand Lodge 3/5

"Pff, I wanna watch! His fault for losin' ta an' insultin' this fire lizard!"

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Amanda, maybe it's the (real-world) Catholic upbringing in me, but I don't expect my non-Catholic friends to abstain from meat during Fridays in Lent, and likewise my paladin Gennadi doesn't expect his allies to keep his Paladin Code. Or to worship Torag. Or to be a member of his faction.

And I guess I've been lucky; I've never played with people who want to do evil things or wreck a scenario. Could you suggest a scenario where he would naturally have trouble*?

But Gennadi wouldn't see "deliberately violate my oath now, planning to read an atonement scroll later" to be the right way to serve his deity. If he were to fall, it would be due to honest error or maybe emotional distress. Falling and needing to atone are shameful things, and I can't imagine him either being "good-natured" about it, nor ever asking other people to chip in. The cost of the spell is part of the penance.

* I have heard GMs say that there are some scenarios, such as Sewer Dragons of Absalom, which require any PC paladin to fail, immediately. I respectfully disagree.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

Amanda, maybe it's the (real-world) Catholic upbringing in me, but I don't expect my non-Catholic friends to abstain from meat during Fridays in Lent, and likewise my paladin Gennadi doesn't expect his allies to keep his Paladin Code. Or to worship Torag. Or to be a member of his faction.

And I guess I've been lucky; I've never played with people who want to do evil things or wreck a scenario. Could you suggest a scenario where he would naturally have trouble*?

But Gennadi wouldn't see "deliberately violate my oath now, planning to read an atonement scroll later" to be the right way to serve his deity. If he were to fall, it would be due to honest error or maybe emotional distress. Falling and needing to atone are shameful things, and I can't imagine him either being "good-natured" about it, nor ever asking other people to chip in. The cost of the spell is part of the penance.

* I have heard GMs say that there are some scenarios, such as Sewer Dragons of Absalom, which require any PC paladin to fail, immediately. I respectfully disagree.

I'd imagine "You Only Die Twice" could provide some difficulty. I can see a Paladin agreeing to go along with it. But not without a bunch of questions, some second guessing, and deep thoughtful sighs.

4/5 ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I looked over the chronicle sheets of a paladin of mine
After playing the following 2 scenarios I paid for an atonement.

Scenarios here:

You Only Die Twice
Race for the Runecarved Key

Neither of the atonements were required by the GM, and in neither case had had my paladin fell. In each case he felt truly remorseful of his actions and sought penance. (Note had he actually fallen, the atonements would have been significantly more expensive)

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sewer dragons is tricky because you're supposed to respect proper authorities and the entire mission is about evading the will of said authorities over a matter of cash.

With that said, given the nature of the campaign I think you just need to handwaive the actions like that that would add up to a paladin falling over time, due to the episodic nature of the campaign and the fact that bob is here bob has a character in this range and Jim is running that scenario tonight.

For paladins I generally try to get them to do the illegal missions in the least illegal way possible.... try....

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


With that said, given the nature of the campaign I think you just need to handwaive the actions like that that would add up to a paladin falling over time, due to the episodic nature of the campaign and the fact that bob is here bob has a character in this range and Jim is running that scenario tonight.

Which DOES bring up an interesting point.

By campaign rules, if a player has a character that is the level of the scenario, they are supposed to play that character and not a pregen.

If the player knows that the character will be disruptive to the game, what is the player's recourse?

If everyone knows that Frank has a L7 Uptight Paladin(for the sake of example), and the event being run is something 7-11 at the lower subtier, does Frank HAVE to sit out because he can't play his L7 without potentially treading into the 'don't be a jerk' range, and can't play a pregen because he has a character in that range?

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Amanda, maybe it's the (real-world) Catholic upbringing in me, but I don't expect my non-Catholic friends to abstain from meat during Fridays in Lent, and likewise my paladin Gennadi doesn't expect his allies to keep his Paladin Code. Or to worship Torag. Or to be a member of his faction.

Then I would say that you aren't the That Guy that everyone cautions problem players not to be. I'd say that your paladin's presence is unlikely to result in jerk behavior. :-)

Chris Mortika wrote:
And I guess I've been lucky; I've never played with people who want to do evil things or wreck a scenario. Could you suggest a scenario where he would naturally have trouble*?

I'm not sure that any scenario is absolutely impossible to complete with an inflexible PC in the party, but there are some where inflexibility makes failure much more likely than success. Andrew's observation about You Only Die Twice is a good example, though oddly enough, I think it would be harder to justify the Paladin's agreeing to go on the adventure in the first place, rather running into trouble during the adventure itself. Other than that, the scenarios where the PCs are expected to impersonate other, disreputable groups (and act accordingly) would be other examples of scenarios where inflexible PCs can make the scenario much more difficult that was probably intended. Also, scenarios taking place in nasty, lawless places where the PCs must maintain a low profile and not rock the boat are problematic when someone decides their paladin code requires direct action Right Now.

PCs pretend to be bad guys or act like bad guys:

*Severing Ties (PCs pretend to be Aspis folks, and deliberately set out on a mission of sabotage and wanton destruction.)

*Out of Anarchy (PCs have a a series of equally unpalatable choices about who to ally with, and selling out an NPC Pathfinder is a valid option.)

*You Only Die Twice (PCs are temporarily undead for all practical purposes, and are expected to torment humans- though this can be avoided.)

*Hall of the Flesh Eaters (PCs can either fight the undead BBEG or negotiate with him, but it's pretty clear that negotiating is the more... lucrative option.)

PCs need to not make waves:

*Anything set in Bloodcove, or that otherwise has an 'Awareness Points' mechanic. Those places are also most likely to have nasty things going on that inflexible PCs are unwilling to overlook.

*The Cyphermage Dilemma (PCs need to not draw attention to themselves, which often means allowing bad things to happen to NPCs.)

*Out of Anarchy (PCs need to not be outed as Pathfinders, while also combating anti-Pathfinder propaganda.)

*Scars of the Third Crusade (The PCs are basically told to avoid creating an Incident above all else, when being placed in situations where most of the viable means of avoiding said Incident are sneaky at best and subversive (and against most Paladin Codes) at worst.)

*Any scenario with slavery as an overt theme- this is an issue not only for many Paladins, but also is a default issue for the Liberty's Edge/Andoran faction.

Chris Mortika wrote:
But Gennadi wouldn't see "deliberately violate my oath now, planning to read an atonement scroll later" to be the right way to serve his deity.

Ah, I've mis-communicated, and for that I apologize. I didn't mean that the PC would go into a situation intending to fall and Atone. I meant that you, as a player, are willing to acknowledge that sometimes a scenario develops in such a way that your PC may end up taking actions, even if innocently, that can result in a fall. No, of course a paladin should never plan to fall. (Since you mentioned your OOC Catholic background, that would seem like buying an indulgence- technically legal at some points in history, but not popularly considered to be ok.) So no, I meant that you as the player accept that your paladin may fall due to how the scenario and RP develops, not that your PC would ever entertain that as an acceptable outcome.

Chris Mortika wrote:
If he were to fall, it would be due to honest error or maybe emotional distress. Falling and needing to atone are shameful things, and I can't imagine him either being "good-natured" about it, nor ever asking other people to chip in. The cost of the spell is part of the penance.

Again, I mis-communicated. Allow me to clarify. This has, mostly, been a thread about players using their PCs to engage in behaviors that disrupt the enjoyment of the other players. In other words, violating a purely OOC social contract. In the same way that players can choose to chip in on another player's Raise Dead costs, especially if the death was due to the party's actions, players can (and should, in my opinion) at least offer to chip in for Atonement, especially if the PC's fall was the result of the party's actions. The other players are not obligated to offer, and the fallen PC's player is under no obligation to accept, but even making the offer can go a long way to mitigating otherwise jerk-ish behavior.

I'll offer an example from a scenario I played with my own Paladin. For various reasons, the party decided to steal a boat. My paladin argued against it, saying that theft was wrong, that we could just as easily rent or buy the boat, that stealing the boat would attract attention when we were told to keep a low profile, etc. The party was determined to steal that boat. Turning them into the authorities may have been "what my character would do", but it would also be detrimental to the game, so I choose to take other action. I took a few moments, worked out who was most likely to own the boat that was about to be stolen, and went to buy the boat myself. (Or at least leave payment for the boat where the owner could find it, with a little extra to cover the unexpected 'sale'.) Ideal? No. Legal and therefore Lawful? Probably not. Better than outright theft? You bet. I chose to focus on the 'Good' part of 'Lawful Good' rather than the 'Lawful' part. Unfortunately, while I was engaging in this personal 'penance' for the party's thieving ways, they decided they needed a second boat. And stole it. <sigh>

The point is, by playing a paladin in PFS, I'm OOC-ly accepting that sometimes bad things happen to good paladins, and that it's no excuse for being a jerk in the name of "that's what my character would do". In this case, my paladin chose to buy the boat because she accepted that she couldn't change the party's thieving ways at that time, and made the best private peace with it that she could. She did it mostly because she felt it was the right thing to do, but also because most GMs are more lenient on paladins who actively try to mitigate their occasional wrongdoing with on-the-spot penance, and thus are less likely to declare the paladin fallen. If that wasn't enough, and the GM declared that my paladin had fallen, I would have accepted it, Atoned, and made the IC choice to never adventure with that particular group of PCs (not players, PCs) ever again. But at no point did I allow 'Lawful Good', or 'That's what my character would do' to ruin the fun of the rest of the table. In this case, my paladin didn't fall. But there is no doubt in my mind that if she had fallen, the players not only wouldn't have offered to help out, a couple of the players likely would have laughed, or made "that's what you get for playing a paladin" comments.

While I've rambled enough, I'll close with this thought:
I love the idea of an OOC social contract, explained really well by the Fear the Boot podcast, and really appreciate that there is a social contract (however loose) in play in PFS- the broadly stated clauses about not being a jerk, no PvP, and no bullying, etc.)

4/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
By campaign rules, if a player has a character that is the level of the scenario, they are supposed to play that character and not a pregen.

Not that I doubt you, but could you cite that exact source, please? Like, specific page and paragraph? I've looked for the text a few times, and either I'm blind, or it made a phenomenal Stealth roll....

Shadow Lodge 3/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
If the player knows that the character will be disruptive to the game, what is the player's recourse?

That's still the player choosing to be disruptive. The character doesn't have a will of their own; the player controls them. "It's what my character would do is not an excuse to be a jerk", says the PFS guide.

If a paladin has a code to meet, the party has to recognise the paladin is a paladin with a code, and the paladin has to recognise that the party wants to do something different.

So, like good Pathfinders, work it out and come up with a compromise. The paladin shouldn't fall for any reasonable solution under those circumstances.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Willis wrote:
Jesse Heinig wrote:
No, the problem is that role-playing games are a group activity and players who think that it's ok to ruin the fun for other people in the name of fidelity or "being true to the character" are being jerks. Doing what you think your character would legitimately do has no intrinsic value of its own. It is only valuable inasmuch as it helps to create a more enjoyable experience...

So no one should ever create an inquisitor of Pharasma (because others want to negotiate with an undead creature)?

No one should ever create a worshipper of Cayden Cailean (because others may want to use slaves as a trading commodity)?
No one should create a druid because the Abadarians want to build a city over your grove? Or is it the other way around?
No one should create an Order of the Cockatrice cavalier because that requires you to take credit for everything you can?

It sounds like you are saying that you shouldn't take any class, order, or deity that has a chance to have a negative impact on a group. Or just ignore that part of your character if it "ruins other people's fun."

If you read my whole post I do say that people who are doing things just to be disruptive are a problem. If there is something in Pathfinder lore that pushes your character to act in a certain way when confronted with a situation that's not being deliberately disruptive. It may be inconvenient but it's something you *should* be doing. It isn't great for the group but not doing it takes the role-playing out of the game.

The issue isn't that a character has certain morals and principles that may clash with someone else's; that can actually be quite fun. The issue is when people do randomly stupid, bizarre things that disrupt the game on purpose and use that weaksauce defense. Thing is, it's usually blindingly obvious when someone does things just to disrupt the game.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


If everyone knows that Frank has a L7 Uptight Paladin(for the sake of example), and the event being run is something 7-11 at the lower subtier, does Frank HAVE to sit out because he can't play his L7 without potentially treading into the 'don't be a jerk' range, and can't play a pregen because he has a character in that range?

I expect the party, frank, and the DM to deal with it somehow.

The party takes pains to murder the peas..."deliver the package" off screen and slip the paladin some prunes.

The paladin can go along with "examine the rustic peasant architecture"

And the DM can cut the paladin a litle extra slack than they might otherwise be inclined to because of the nature of the campaign, and assume that dealing with the society comes with SOME attonements as a cost of living expense.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Amanda Plageman wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
By campaign rules, if a player has a character that is the level of the scenario, they are supposed to play that character and not a pregen.
Not that I doubt you, but could you cite that exact source, please? Like, specific page and paragraph? I've looked for the text a few times, and either I'm blind, or it made a phenomenal Stealth roll....
Page 21, PFSRPGG wrote:

'After the Adventure' ...

If you play a 1st-level pregenerated character, you
can apply the credit to a newly created character of
your very own. If you play a non-1st-level pregenerated
character, you choose one of your characters to assign
the chronicle to at the end of adventure, and then apply
the credit to your character as soon as she reaches the
level of the pregenerated character played. You may not
assign a Chronicle sheet earned with a pregenerated
character to a character that was already at the level
of the pregenerated character or higher.

...

1/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:


I expect the party, frank, and the DM to deal with it somehow.

The party takes pains to murder the peas..."deliver the package" off screen and slip the paladin some prunes.

Would slipping the paladin some prunes count as PvP action, though?

TheBigNorseWolf wrote:

The paladin can go along with "examine the rustic peasant architecture"

And the DM can cut the paladin a litle extra slack than they might otherwise be inclined to because of the nature of the campaign, and assume that dealing with the society comes with SOME attonements as a cost of living expense.

Case Study from Horn of Aroden, read at own risk:
First module I sat and played at, we had a ranged paladin in the party. Even with their tromping along, they had the best stealth roll in the party, and there came a point where some NPCs that were defeated were being rather defiant for Reasons.

We sent the paladin up ahead because they were, by roll, the very best at stealth in the party. (Better than the rogue by 10!) Player protested we were just sending them off so we could murder the NPCs for Reasons.

We pointed out the fact that they were the stealthiest in the party, and we needed to know what we were getting into. Paladin begrudgingly goes off scouting.

And then the entire remaining party blows the Knowledge, Sense Motive, Bluff, and every other roll the party could think of to try and determine if the still defiant NPCs were full of it or not. Given logistical resources and constraints related to Reasons... they were given clean quick deaths.

And then the paladin came back after we were done disposing of the bodies in a respectful if hasty fashion.

THAT was a very uncomfortable table for everyone after that. Great rp, though.

4/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Amanda Plageman wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
By campaign rules, if a player has a character that is the level of the scenario, they are supposed to play that character and not a pregen.
Not that I doubt you, but could you cite that exact source, please? Like, specific page and paragraph? I've looked for the text a few times, and either I'm blind, or it made a phenomenal Stealth roll....
Page 21, PFSRPGG wrote:

'After the Adventure' ...

If you play a 1st-level pregenerated character, you
can apply the credit to a newly created character of
your very own. If you play a non-1st-level pregenerated
character, you choose one of your characters to assign
the chronicle to at the end of adventure, and then apply
the credit to your character as soon as she reaches the
level of the pregenerated character played. You may not
assign a Chronicle sheet earned with a pregenerated
character to a character that was already at the level
of the pregenerated character or higher.

...

Thank you. Apparently I am blind. /facepalm

5/5 5/55/55/5

Re horn: That ones doubly complicated because no one actually set out to lie or anything. Still, they could have waited for the pally to come back or that thing they were worried about happening to happen first.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Re horn: That ones doubly complicated because no one actually set out to lie or anything. Still, they could have waited for the pally to come back or that thing they were worried about happening to happen first.

Norse, have you played it? If so, I'll drop you a PM with more detail.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
By campaign rules, if a player has a character that is the level of the scenario, they are supposed to play that character and not a pregen.

Incorrect.

I'm not going to re-hash the arguments here, but basically this is a mis-interpretation (albeit, unfortunately, one that some GMs do try to enforce). The actual rule is that you can not apply credit for a pregen to a character of equal or higher level than the pregen. That's all. So if I've got a 4th-level character I can still play a 4th-level pregen in a scenario - I just can't apply the chronicle to my 4th-level character.

Silver Crusade 5/5

John Francis wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
By campaign rules, if a player has a character that is the level of the scenario, they are supposed to play that character and not a pregen.

Incorrect.

I'm not going to re-hash the arguments here, but basically this is a mis-interpretation (albeit, unfortunately, one that some GMs do try to enforce). The actual rule is that you can not apply credit for a pregen to a character of equal or higher level than the pregen. That's all. So if I've got a 4th-level character I can still play a 4th-level pregen in a scenario - I just can't apply the chronicle to my 4th-level character.

This is correct. The rules Wei Ji referenced is saying that if you play a pregen, you can't apply it to a character that could have legally played the scenario. So, I can play a pregen instead of playing a character that would be inappropriate for the mission, but if I play a pregen, I have to apply the chronicle to someone else.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
UndeadMitch wrote:


This is correct. The rules Wei Ji referenced is saying that if you play a pregen, you can't apply it to a character that could have legally played the scenario. So, I can play a pregen instead of playing a character that would be inappropriate for the mission, but if I play a pregen, I have to apply the chronicle to someone else.

Which is the concern I was asking about. In the example (and it can't be that much of a niche, because the idea of pregens at L7 exist) I was going with...

Frank shows up.

Frank realizes his L7 Uptight Paladin will be horribly disruptive, even if he tries to 'tone it down' for the table.

Frank is now forced to play L7 pregen or go home.

Now Frank can't get L7 credit on his Uptight Paladin despite the fact he was trying to not be a jerk. Better luck next time?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:


This is correct. The rules Wei Ji referenced is saying that if you play a pregen, you can't apply it to a character that could have legally played the scenario. So, I can play a pregen instead of playing a character that would be inappropriate for the mission, but if I play a pregen, I have to apply the chronicle to someone else.

Which is the concern I was asking about. In the example (and it can't be that much of a niche, because the idea of pregens at L7 exist) I was going with...

Frank shows up.

Frank realizes his L7 Uptight Paladin will be horribly disruptive, even if he tries to 'tone it down' for the table.

Frank is now forced to play L7 pregen or go home.

Now Frank can't get L7 credit on his Uptight Paladin despite the fact he was trying to not be a jerk. Better luck next time?

Meaning no offense, I feel this is the wrong approach.

RPGs are shared activities. That means it's everyone's job to make sure that everyone at the table is having a good time.

First off, if Frank is playing an L7 Uptight Paladin, he's already been in plenty of tables where he knows this character is extremely disruptive, and he should consider that if he insists on playing such a character knowing this, that is... somewhat rude, let's say. If you know your character is going to cause problems, you should speak up about that to your players, instead of waiting to blindside them and then feeling like you're being put upon when the other players are upset by the surprise revelation of your character's problems.

Secondly, Frank has a much better alternative than to decide that his character will be disruptive and say "Well shucks I guess I just go home." Frank can open a dialog with the other players. He can be Frank, pun intended, and say "Hey, I have this character I really wanna play, I've played him before many times, he's this Uptight Paladin. But sometimes this causes friction in the party. What kind of boundaries can we lay out in advance in order to make sure we all have a good game together?"

When we sit down at the table to have a good time, we are all in it together. If you want to engage in good faith, then it's up to everyone involved to figure out the best route to making that good time happen -- whether it means that Frank figures out how his paladin can mesh with the group dynamic, or if the other players figure out what buttons not to push, or even if Frank and some of the other players decide that they will knowingly and by consent engage in a little non-combative party rivalry and banter about the propriety of their actions. But in such a case it's in everyone's best interests to sort that hash before the game, rather than waiting for the table to come to a screeching halt two hours in and then sending everyone home unhappy due to a wrecked adventure.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:


This is correct. The rules Wei Ji referenced is saying that if you play a pregen, you can't apply it to a character that could have legally played the scenario. So, I can play a pregen instead of playing a character that would be inappropriate for the mission, but if I play a pregen, I have to apply the chronicle to someone else.

Which is the concern I was asking about. In the example (and it can't be that much of a niche, because the idea of pregens at L7 exist) I was going with...

Frank shows up.

Frank realizes his L7 Uptight Paladin will be horribly disruptive, even if he tries to 'tone it down' for the table.

Frank is now forced to play L7 pregen or go home.

Now Frank can't get L7 credit on his Uptight Paladin despite the fact he was trying to not be a jerk. Better luck next time?

If he is going to try and use a pregen to avoid a possible atonement, then yeah, better luck next time. Not every character is appropriate for every mission. But at no point is Frank forced to play a pregen.

A better alternative is outlined by Jesse up above, Frank should speak candidly with his party and they could instead work together to turn a troubling scenario for a great opportunity for RP and character development.


Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
UndeadMitch wrote:


This is correct. The rules Wei Ji referenced is saying that if you play a pregen, you can't apply it to a character that could have legally played the scenario. So, I can play a pregen instead of playing a character that would be inappropriate for the mission, but if I play a pregen, I have to apply the chronicle to someone else.

Which is the concern I was asking about. In the example (and it can't be that much of a niche, because the idea of pregens at L7 exist) I was going with...

Frank shows up.

Frank realizes his L7 Uptight Paladin will be horribly disruptive, even if he tries to 'tone it down' for the table.

Frank is now forced to play L7 pregen or go home.

Now Frank can't get L7 credit on his Uptight Paladin despite the fact he was trying to not be a jerk. Better luck next time?

He can't get that credit on his Uptight Paladin, but he can use it for another character of lower level. It's not quite "better luck next time".

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jesse Heinig wrote:


Meaning no offense, I feel this is the wrong approach.

RPGs are shared activities. That means it's everyone's job to make sure that everyone at the table is having a good time.

First off, if Frank is playing an L7 Uptight Paladin, he's already been in plenty of tables where he knows this character is extremely disruptive, and he should consider that if he insists on playing such a character knowing this, that is... somewhat rude, let's say. If you know your character is going to cause problems, you should speak up about that to your players, instead of waiting to blindside them and then feeling like you're being put upon when the other players are upset by the surprise revelation of your character's problems.

Secondly, Frank has a much better alternative than to decide that his character will be disruptive and say "Well shucks I guess I just go home." Frank can open a dialog with the other players. He can be Frank, pun intended, and say "Hey, I have this character I really wanna play, I've played him before many times, he's this Uptight Paladin. But sometimes this causes friction in the party. What kind of...

I agree with you, but I've been at conventions and some voice over Internet play where a given character was an issue at the table, but because they'd been playing that character in the group, the general consensus was to 'grit teeth and bear it' because they filled a desperately needed party role.

We even attempted to sit this sort of individual (in the case of the voice over Internet) down at one point to try and work out how to get them to stop being so... and it didn't go very far.

If there was any bright point, the (VOIP) group collapsed due to several significant RL concerns, so it didn't explode in a horrific supernova of drama.

So is it being a jerk to suggest to a player that their character play style is being a jerk and needs to be changed? Is it the Godwinization of antisocial behavior in a passive-aggressive method?

*peers at above, that escalated quickly... apologizes!*

Silver Crusade 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wei Ji, I don't think it is a jerk move to call a player out if their character play style is consistently and repeatedly being a jerk. I believe that people should be able to police themselves, but if/when they can't the group should step in to let them know that their choices are negatively impacting the other players at the table.

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have been making my Will save to resist posting to this thread... but it looks like I finally rolled a "1". And my re-roll was another "1"... even with 4 stars, a "1" still fails so...

Often the conflict inside the group ISN'T the "fault" of the PC - the classic line "...it's what my character would do..." has the unspoken "...the way I play her..." attached to it someplace.

Old story time.
Back in LG days the following occurred at a gaming table I was sitting at.
5 players start the adventure.
4 are average players and one is a "socially challenged player" (SCP) that plays PCs with ... issues.

The game has hardly started and there is heard the statement "because that's what my character would do". 4 players grit their teeth and game on ("we can get thru this if we just ignore him").

Then the story plot takes a strange twist. The players are instructed to pass their PCs to the player to the player to their left, who would now play that PC during the adventure. "Due to some 'wierd magical effect' you are controlling a different PC for this game..."

the result?:

We'd all like to think the SCP would magically become a fun player. After all, he was playing with a "fun" PC now - one that had not had any issues up to this point (or in any of the games before this).

No, the player was STILL a (SCP), but he got to be that way with someone else's PC.

He (the SCP) was such a problem that the actual owner of the PC he was running threatened to kill the PC. (He asked the judge if it would be suicide if he killed his own PC).

It is worth noting that the SCPs PC, run in the hands of a different player, was a lot of fun to have at the table.

Often the problem is not the PC. Often it's the player...

Let's all try not to be THAT player...

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

1 person marked this as a favorite.
UndeadMitch wrote:
John Francis wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
By campaign rules, if a player has a character that is the level of the scenario, they are supposed to play that character and not a pregen.

Incorrect.

I'm not going to re-hash the arguments here, but basically this is a mis-interpretation (albeit, unfortunately, one that some GMs do try to enforce). The actual rule is that you can not apply credit for a pregen to a character of equal or higher level than the pregen. That's all. So if I've got a 4th-level character I can still play a 4th-level pregen in a scenario - I just can't apply the chronicle to my 4th-level character.

This is correct. The rules Wei Ji referenced is saying that if you play a pregen, you can't apply it to a character that could have legally played the scenario. So, I can play a pregen instead of playing a character that would be inappropriate for the mission, but if I play a pregen, I have to apply the chronicle to someone else.

If this is a rule, then please give a reference to where it can be found.

I am aware that many people believe there is such a rule, but to the best of my knowledge this is incorrect - I've certainly never seen it.

I can, for example, play a L4 pregen, and apply the credit to an L3 character, even though the L3 character could have legally played the scenario.

2/5 *

Amanda Plageman wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Amanda Plageman wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
By campaign rules, if a player has a character that is the level of the scenario, they are supposed to play that character and not a pregen.
Not that I doubt you, but could you cite that exact source, please? Like, specific page and paragraph? I've looked for the text a few times, and either I'm blind, or it made a phenomenal Stealth roll....
Page 21, PFSRPGG wrote:

'After the Adventure' ...

If you play a 1st-level pregenerated character, you
can apply the credit to a newly created character of
your very own. If you play a non-1st-level pregenerated
character, you choose one of your characters to assign
the chronicle to at the end of adventure, and then apply
the credit to your character as soon as she reaches the
level of the pregenerated character played. You may not
assign a Chronicle sheet earned with a pregenerated
character to a character that was already at the level
of the pregenerated character or higher.

...

Thank you. Apparently I am blind. /facepalm

Here it is again.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

Gamerskum wrote:
Amanda Plageman wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Amanda Plageman wrote:
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
By campaign rules, if a player has a character that is the level of the scenario, they are supposed to play that character and not a pregen.
Not that I doubt you, but could you cite that exact source, please? Like, specific page and paragraph? I've looked for the text a few times, and either I'm blind, or it made a phenomenal Stealth roll....
Page 21, PFSRPGG wrote:

'After the Adventure' ...

If you play a 1st-level pregenerated character, you
can apply the credit to a newly created character of
your very own. If you play a non-1st-level pregenerated
character, you choose one of your characters to assign
the chronicle to at the end of adventure, and then apply
the credit to your character as soon as she reaches the
level of the pregenerated character played. You may not
assign a Chronicle sheet earned with a pregenerated
character to a character that was already at the level
of the pregenerated character or higher.

...

Thank you. Apparently I am blind. /facepalm
Here it is again.

If that's supposed to be an answer to my post, then I suggest you read the quoted rule again; it doesn't say what you apparently believe it says.

It says absolutely nothing about whether the character receiving credit would have been able to play the scenario; it just says that character must be of lower level than the pregen.

2/5 *

I guess if you don't want to play your own characters whatever *shrugs* I think most people can see the intention is to encourage you to play your own character or else they wouldn't have put any restrictions on playing a pregen but its not really worth arguing about with people I'll never play with or meet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gamerskum wrote:
I guess if you don't want to play your own characters whatever *shrugs* I think most people can see the intention is to encourage you to play your own character or else they wouldn't have put any restrictions on playing a pregen but its not really worth arguing about with people I'll never play with or meet.

As far as I can tell, there aren't any restrictions on playing a pregen. Just on how you can apply the Chronicles from a pregen to your own characters.

You could apparently play PFS for years just playing pregens and never bothering with actually making characters of your own.

4/5 ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have a friend who only plays PFS a few times a year at conventions.

He always plays Kyra and has no interest in making a character of his own.

By now he's got a fairly sizable stack of chronicle sheets, all assigned to -1. He doesn't bring them with him, but that's fine because he always plays a pregen.

He's been doing this since season 0.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Robert Hetherington wrote:

I have a friend who only plays PFS a few times a year at conventions.

He always plays Kyra and has no interest in making a character of his own.

By now he's got a fairly sizable stack of chronicle sheets, all assigned to -1. He doesn't bring them with him, but that's fine because he always plays a pregen.

He's been doing this since season 0.

Um. Would that be someone around 20th level, if that were even possible?

4/5 ****

I think he plays less than 5 slots a year, so maybe ~30xp, not even level 12 yet.


Robert Hetherington wrote:

I think he plays less than 5 slots a year, so maybe ~30xp, not even level 12 yet.

Can you actually apply it all to the same character?

If I read the rules right, you can only apply one 1st level pregen credit to a new character. But you can apply any number of non-1st level pregen credits as long as he was below the level of the pregen when it was played.
So 1st level credit, then you'd need to get him to 4th some other way, at which point you could apply all the 4th level credits. If that gets him to 7th, you can apply those, etc.
Purely as a theoretical exercise, of course.

Grand Lodge 4/5

And it looks like a change that was made to the language either got removed, or accidentally got bypassed.

The language was changed for Season 6 to remove the "newly created" part of the line.

1/5

In with Nosig on this one. I tried to avoid it but then I had a thought regarding how I would want to respond to a murderhobo party member with my Paladin.

Could the Paladin testify and be witness to said murder and thus have the players murderhobo character arrested / jailed?

We already know that GMs are allowed to arrest player character if they go off the rail. However, usually the GM doesn't do said action if it was not public. This gives the GM an in game mechanic to correct bad actions. The mechanics for resolving it are already laid out. Body recovery cost and an alignment infraction note for borderline evil things or reporting the character dead for really evil things. It also doesn't have the players going to combat or trying to restrain each other. It's all handled at the end in the wrap up.

Scarab Sages 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem here is that many people either forget, do not understand or do not care about the concept of dynamic party characteristics. In Society play it is almost guaranteed that whatever your characters beliefs and personality you will at some point encounter another character that rubs them the wrong way. Everyone should play the game with the mindset that at some point you will have to make character concessions in order to help the game be fun. Never make an uncompromising character! It is fine to have characters that do not like each other. So here is a radical idea, use that as a chance to be creative with your role-playing. We have a local player who played a Taldan (retired character now) that was well known to constantly insult everyone around him and was universally lauded as one of the most fun characters at the table. He would say things such as…

“Your plan is terrible. Something I would expect from such low breeding. Even the servants in Taldor could come up with a better plan. I shall go along just to see you fail.” And when the plan succeeds. “Well of course we succeeded. I was along to save your miserable lives. Were it not for me, you would have died the terrible deaths you likely deserve. You should thank me and offer me your shares of the treasure!”

Now at no time would he ever actively work against the party or hinder any player. He just simply insulted them more. “Though I should leave you to die in pox infested torture, I have healed you so that you may always remember the day you have been touched by greatness!”

In the extreme cases, there is nothing wrong with addressing the party out of character and working out a solution. “Hey guys I don’t want to be a pain, but I just don’t see a way my Paladin can go along with this. Does anyone have any ideas hoe we can make this work?” While I am of the opinion that there are far too many judges who think that Paladins have to be Lawful Stupid or the fall immediately, but I digress……I have come across very few situations that could not be worked through rather easily.

Bottom line. You character being a jerk in not an excuse for you to be a jerk.


Trying to diplomacy our way out of fighting some troglodytes when the fighter realizes he speaks draconic as well, he proceeds to tell them f*** you and your boss in draconic. Combat starts. Thank you for wasting that investment of skill points my character has. I was displeased to say the least.

101 to 150 of 270 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Sorry, but it's what my character would do. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.