Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Sorry, but it's what my character would do."
So similar to,
"Sorry, not sorry!"
A phrase that should only be used in Mario Kart.
A new paizo product perhaps... pathfinder kart or pathfinder party? pathfinder smash? :)
Super Smash Hobos?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Other people do not get to determine if you get to play your character, but you do get to determine if the other guy plays at all? Interesting.
Not remotely what was said.
The hell it is. Replace the player (if he leaves in protest). Or just ignore them (if they keep whining)
The only way the game doesn't happen is if he leaves (his choice) or gets thrown out (probably the DMs choice) AND you were down to 3 people to start with.
I don't understand why someone putting a lid on their own crazy or tolerate something they don't like is treated as such an impossibility. If someone goes into a mouth foaming range at the presence of other classes and playstyles PFS is not for them. If you are allergic to cashews, avoid bags of mixed nuts.
|
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.
Sums up my opinion.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to roleplay a sociopathic serialkiller you could probably kill enough to sate your characters desire for blood or whatever. But on some level you should trying to hide the "distasteful" nature of your characters inner self. Think of Dexter in a pathfinder society.
You called?
Certainly I enjoy killing, which is why I serve Father Skinsaw, but I still recognize the value of controlling my urge, and directing it to productive ends. I'm sure many paladins are driven by the same lust for blood, but are simply less willing to embrace it. I would never be so cruel as to taunt someone less spiritually developed than myself, especially when it leads them to keep such a juicy secret and thereby please my patron.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attacking each other is pvp and is forbidden i get that. But...
1- Is it pvp to ues bluffs and diplomacy's to talk each other out of actions?
2- How about spells, spell like abilities, distracting performances or hexes etc.etc.If it is interpereted that going "against" the party in combat by aiding the other side is pvp.
1- Isn't going "against" the party in conflict resolution by screaming out an insult or just opening fire basically the same thing?
Bear in mind that the core tenets of the Pathfinder Society are Explore, Report, Cooperate. If you're creating a PC designed to rub other players/PCs up the wrong way, it may be best to try a different character concept.
|
3 - No evil PCs in PFS. Flat out banned.
This is a vital point. Samaranthae I don't know if you were talking in general terms or PFS terms but evil aligned characters are right out in PFS. And it's to prevent situations exactly like what you are describing.
If your home group enjoys pummeling each other, switching sides, and the "sudden yet inevitable betrayal" of each other's PCs that's great! Do what makes it fun for your group! But it's exactly what we don't want to see happening in PFS. Because it is a shared campaign you may have someone who is absolutely turned off by such behavior at your table.
To make it as enjoyable for as many people as possible, the key is to cooperate. That means (barring magical control by an NPC) no fighting each other, no evil deeds, and no deliberately hindering other PCs.
|
|
Derek Dalton, these are the PFS forums. (Don't know if you saw that.) I don't want to derail this thread but that's not the way we want to approach things in PFS. It might be fine for a home game but it is too adversarial for PFS. If you did mean to post here, there are several other threads regarding "what to do with problem players."
|
|
Had a bit of personal disappointment in a a scenario I ran recently as my paladin, There was a certain undead final boss fight that was about to occur my paladin was first into the room spotted the enemy and used detect evil.
Yup it was evil so I wanted to kill it, except party wanted to attempt to use diplomacy instead of violence, I was disappointed and hopeful that the attempts would fail but they didn't.
part of me really wanted to just charge it thinking I should destroy this evil thing but didn't to not piss off the other people at the table.